Bill Keating Asks Witness About Commitments Made To Ukraine To Defend The Country From Aggression

Forbes Breaking News

During a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing last week, Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA) questioned Julianne Smith, former U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO in the U.S. Department of State, about commitments made to Ukraine.

Transcript

00:00Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:03Ambassador Smith, I was curious too, and I think this is worth mentioning, the U.S. commitment

00:09to Ukraine just isn't one with NATO.

00:15As we're dealing with continued nuclear threats, particularly in Iran, we know the danger of

00:22those threats.

00:23Well, decades ago there was a commitment made to Ukraine.

00:27Can you talk about the U.S. commitment to Ukraine before and why that commitment was so important?

00:32So there have been multiple – thank you, Ranking Member Keating – there have been

00:39multiple commitments to Ukraine over the years.

00:42First and foremost, the NATO alliance promised in 2008 that Ukraine would become a member

00:47of the alliance.

00:49But Ukraine has also gone through its own process of ridding itself of any sort of nuclear weapons

00:56program with the hope that the United States and other countries would come to its aid.

01:02And –

01:03How big an arsenal was that?

01:04I mean, there was the U.S., there was Russia – where was Ukraine back then?

01:08It was significant.

01:09Was it the third?

01:10It was the third scale of Russia.

01:12But this was an arsenal that would have, had it remained, served as a very effective deterrent

01:18to Russia's aggression that we saw unfold in February.

01:20So the U.S. commitment was before even this.

01:23Indeed.

01:24Well before.

01:25Well before.

01:26And that commitment said that the U.S. would defend aggression against Ukraine.

01:28Indeed.

01:29Here we are.

01:30And now we have NATO allies joining us.

01:32I'm curious.

01:33How many times has Article 5 been implemented by NATO?

01:36Only once, sir, and that was of course after 9-11 here in the United States when European

01:42allies came.

01:43So who benefited from that?

01:44We all benefited.

01:45But indeed, I was in Afghanistan and Iraq.

01:47I saw NATO soldiers.

01:50I saw them there defending, and many times unpopular in their own countries, the U.S. defense in

01:56that regard.

01:57I'm curious too, if Putin is successful in Ukraine, Admiral, what would that mean for U.S. investment?

02:06You know, we're talking a lot about money here.

02:09What about the cost of Putin being successful in Ukraine?

02:13What would NATO, what would the United States, do you believe, have to deploy in Eastern Europe?

02:19I mean, how expensive would that be?

02:21Well, if he's successful in Ukraine, and I don't think he will be, but if he was successful

02:25in Ukraine, it would put tremendous pressure on the Baltic states in Poland.

02:30The Suvlaki gap, the area that he would like to grab there, is very easy.

02:36So for us to counter that, it would take, we already have a brigade in Poland, it would

02:40take a division in Poland.

02:41We have battalions in the Baltic states, it would take brigades in the Baltic states.

02:45In other words, at a time when we are considering reducing our footprint in Europe, we would

02:50actually have to significantly increase at least those rotational forces.

02:54And wouldn't you say, in your experience, deployment of troops is far more expensive

02:59than assets?

03:00It is.

03:01Yes, sir.

03:02It would be a lot more expensive than the $32 or $34 billion worth of weaponry we provided.

03:08And we talked, too, about the need for our own country to do better in terms of procurement

03:14and dealing with our assets.

03:15But wasn't, in fact, we were in a period of modernization in our own country among armed

03:21services as well.

03:23And so we were modernizing our forces.

03:25And many of these outdated by our perspective assets were so useful to Ukraine.

03:31And wasn't, Ambassador Smith, wasn't the investment of U.S. dollars?

03:37Most of that money stayed here.

03:38Is that true?

03:39Most of it stayed here in jobs and to modernize our own.

03:42So we benefited by this investment, not just Ukraine.

03:45MS.

03:46Absolutely.

03:47In many cases, Europeans have been purchasing equipment in the United States from our defense

03:53industrial base to send to Ukraine.

03:56As well as they've purchased equipment for their own use after they've donated more dated

04:01equipment to Ukraine.

04:03So these contributions have come back to the United States.

04:07And America's own commitments, the money that's been dedicated to Ukraine, has gone into building

04:13out our own capabilities as we've donated others.

04:16And how important, from a diplomatic standpoint, is it to be consistent?

04:20You know, I look, I listen, as many people do, to the comments of Viktor Orban in Hungary and

04:27the things he's saying.

04:29How discordant is the comments by someone like Viktor Orban in Hungary in our effort?

04:35MS.

04:36Well, it is disturbing to hear comments from our friends in Hungary that they have very

04:41mixed views on supporting Ukraine.

04:44They have found some smaller ways to support Ukraine.

04:48But this has been a challenge across the alliance to maintain that unity.

04:52But the key to it has been U.S. leadership.

04:55And when the U.S. leads, it brings the allies together.

04:58Would you say a savior of NATO would say you're on your own or go it alone?

05:05Does that make sense?

05:06MS.

05:07No.

05:08No.

05:09Donald Trump said those.

05:10I yield back.

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended