hours. chair: i call the committee to order. good morning. the full committee hearing on national security challenges of u.s. military activities in europe, we are joined by dr. celeste wallander, with the department of defense and general ted wolters, u.s. air force commander for the u.s.-european command. welcome. tomorrow will be the last day of

work in this committee for paul archangeli, our staff director for 12 years. i want to thank paul for his service. he is a veteran of the u.s. army, did bomb disposal in the army before coming to work for the government. we are all going to miss him terribly, me more so than anyone. he has done a fantastic top of this committee, but mostly i am very happy for him. it is good move. it has been a slightly stressful job the past few years, so it is a terrific move. also, paul is recently married. big time for him, and very happy for him. i can't say enough about the job he has done for this committee. [applause]

we are constantly told in this committee about how we pass our bill every year, going on 61, 62, something like that and there are a lot of people who contribute to that process, but nobody more in the last 10 years then paul. he understands what this committee is about, the fact work in a bipartisan manner, the fact we are here to serve the people who serve our country. we do our job so they can do there's better. and he knows after fling people together. that is the thing i have been most impressed about. paul approaches his job, he knows it is about people and relationships anti-cares deeply

and personally about everybody involved in the process, makes us all feel in who did and all better at what we do. he has helped build a culture here that enables us to do our job better. i am sure i could have done this job without him, i don't think i could have done it well. when i got this job, i was in over my head. but paul was not dente took the time and patience to guide me -- educate me about that and also, to be a good friend and understand that it is not just the job, it is about what is going on in everybody's lightspeed you have to understand that to get the best of people. paul means a lot to me. he will be missed, but i want to emphasize again, this is not a sad day. we are very happy for him. he has served this country well. he is going onto other things in his life and do those every bit as well, i am sure. i don't want to thank him for everything he has done for this committee, this congress of this country. thank you, paul and good luck.

it is an incredibly important hearing that we have this morning, as you all know. there is a lot going on in the world that is of concern to this committee and u.s. defense policy, but europe is the central focus because of russia because of russia's brutal, unprovoked invasion of ukraine and the implications from that. i look forward to testimony from our witnesses about the situation, and a number of aspects. we want the update on what is happening in ukraine. the president and others have stated our policy clearly. we need to protect ukraine. there are three key pieces to it. when need to do everything we can to support ukraine in their fight against russian aggression. we need to make sure we don't stumble into a wider war with potentially catastrophic consequences for the entire globe. we do not want a war with russia

and have to be cautious about how we approach this to make sure we don't do that. lastly, we want to make sure this is a strategic failure for putin. a number of people are asking how this ends, the honest answer is, nobody knows. but how it should and is russia going back where they came from and ukraine being the sovereign micro see it is and wasn't should always be. that is how it should end. now, that is easier said than done, but i think that goal as our overall policy should be the central focus. we want to specifically know what we can be supportive. ukraine needs have fought incredibly bravely, better than anybody expected. we have to give them the help they need to continue. and there are broad implications beyond ukraine. what is our policy in europe? what are we going to do to shore up defenses in eastern europe?

nato is more important now than it has been for a very long time, in particular in eastern europe. i met yesterday with romanian members of the senates, they are very concerned and want our support. poland, the baltics, all countries in eastern europe and throughout europe are concerned. we need an adequate posture throughout europe to deter russia. we want to hear your plans for that. i want to thank our witnesses today for the leadership that has brought nato together to a greater extent than it has been for a long time. the whole world was surprised, the degree to which our alliance joined together in unity is funded to this russian invasion, and our support for ukraine and our support for economic sanctions. we have learned alliances matter , that america first isn't going to get you far if you don't have friends and allies and people who work with you in the world to meet challenges we face. i want to know how we build upon

that. lastly, the budget was released two days ago, i think. how does that affect what you are trying to do? what is the most important thing you need to provide adequate deterrence? what is the package that is going to be necessary? what is most important in the budget? how are we going to make that work? this is an incredibly important theater and a timely moment for this hearing. i yield to mr. rogers. representative: thank you, mr. chair, i concur with your observations at with your celebration of our staff member. i would note he has alabama roots, which makes him even cooler. he will be missed. i want to thank our witnesses and express appreciation for your service to our country under preparation for this hearing.

we are a month into putin's catastrophic invasion. the russian offenses appears to be stalled. if russian casualties don't exceed 10,000, they soon will. ukrainians are starting to retake ground. the time to double down is now. but i am concerned. this administration has been petrified of putin, and too often, common sense actions to support our partners are deemed escalatory. they were way too slow getting a two ukraine. we should have started in thanksgiving. instead, the white house wasted months but the first presidential drawdown package did not start flowing to ukraine until january. u.s. stingers did not make it to ukraine until a week after the invasion. poland's mig offer was embraced

by the state department come only to be turned down by the white house. there are still no coastal defense crews even though mariup ol is being flattened by the sea. these are a few examples, they are dozens more -- there are dozens more. we need to flip the script and make putin afraid of escalating with the west. i would like to hear from our witnesses that our policy in ukraine is to win, giving resources resources drive out every last russian. i would like to hear we identified a backfield for the slovak 300 that is on its way to brought slava -- bratslava. i would like to hear we are getting coastal crews missiles, stingers, javelins, command launch units. we need small tactical uis

systems like switchblade. i would like to hear we are going to reinforce our allies with permanent bases in poland, romania and the baltics. i have been pressing for more dispersed forces in europe for years. we owe our partners nothing less that our full forceful support. general, i know your time at ucomm is supposed to come to an end. it is my hope secretary austin sees fit to extend your time so you can see us through this crisis. i don't want to make your wife mad, but we need you. having a transition at ucomm now is not in the best interests of our country. ideal back. chair: thank you. dr. wallander?

asst. sec. wallander: thank you for the opportunity to testify in my capacity as assistant secretary of defense for international affairs. i would like to express appreciation for the continued support from congress and this committee and resourcing department of defense efforts in this region. it is another to appear alongside general wolters, an outstanding partner. this time last year, the focus was strategic competition and how that was shaping our world. today, we see that no longer a new theory of strategic petition. we see russia engaging in an illegal use of force against ukraine in the most violent act of aggression in europe since world war ii. the u.s. condemns russia's unprovoked attack against ukraine and deplores the tragic loss of life, human suffering and indiscriminate destruction caused by russia.

the russian invasion threatens not only ukraine, but a threat to euro atlantic security. we must assess our posture in europe to assess the strategic landscape while maintaining our alliance and shared interests in the region, and avoiding escalation with a nuclear power. the department has three priorities regarding the invasion. first, we aim to bolster ukraine's ability to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity, for which congress' assistance is vital. second, we seek to maintain unity with nato allies and partners pay finally, we will continue to deter russian aggression against, and defend every inch of come allied tory. we -- allied -- and defend every inch of, allied territory.

the united states has committed more than $4 billion to security assistance to ukraine since 2014, more than $2 billion inch august 2021 alone. i am proud to say that with a leading role from the u.s., the global response to russia's aggression has been remarkable. with unprecedented sanctions and a wide range of global military and security assistance flowing to ukraine. there have been reversals of restrictions to provide assistance to ukraine. russia's attempt to divide the united states from its allies and partners has failed miserably. after russia's invasion of crimea in 2014, the u.s. with the support congress embarked on substantial changes to our posture in europe, involving infrastructure improvements, building partner capacity, increased rotational presence,

more exercises and training with allies and enhanced, free positioned equipment. we focused on expanding access, basing and overflight permission in europe and increased security assistance funding, especially on nato's eastern flank. all these moves of come into play during this crisis, validating our investments in preparations. in two months, we swiftly repositioned forces in europe, extended specific rotational forces in theater, and floyd significant additional capabilities. these included placing the entire u.s. commitment to the nato response force on heightened readiness, repositioning forces to multiple eastern flank allies, extending maritime forces and deploying additional air, ground, space and cyberspace capabilities. with these recent limits on the

extensions, the u.s. that was approximately 100,000 military personnel either stationed in or deployed to europe and its waters. we are working with allies to ensure nato is prepared modern challenges unable to deter aggression from any adversary. allies deployed extensive forces in the eastern flank and across the nato area. for the first time, nato activated its defense plans and deployed the nato response force in a deterrence and defense role. the people's republic of china is also active in the ucomm alr and we know the prc and russia collaborate in arenas including joint military exercises. this strategic competition is monitored closely. this work is only possible with stable funding. congressional support for u.s.

forces deployed as well as funding for defense initiatives across europe and security assistance for ukraine will continue to be critical to achieving u.s. national security objectives. russia's actions brought to light the contrast between our, craddick values and rules-based values and russia's autocratic, violent vision. the department of the fence and other department send agencies, nato allies and close consultation with congress, we will continue to work for a stable europe. thank you. i appreciate your continued to support to soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and guardians and civilians at the department of defense who work in the service of the american people. chair: thank you. general wolters.

gen. wolters thank you. on behalf of the men, women and families who serve our nation, we extend next year's work. it remains a privileged serve alongside these patriots and our allies and partners. it is an honor to testify with assistant secretary of defense celeste wallander, h aventis -- a tremendous force multiplier for our entire team. also appearing with us is someone who leads from the front in treating people with dignity and respect. we are fully lined with department of defense priorities. everyday, we work to generate peace with allies and partners by strengthening the germans in defense of the euro atlantic. this is a pivotal moment in europe with generational implications. when testifying before this committee last year, russia was already on the path to

intimidate and threaten ukraine while testing the resolve of the transatlantic alliance. russia's premeditated and on provoked invasion of ukraine has galvanized our allies and partners. we admire the courage and tenacity of the ukrainian armed forces and citizens and we specked their sovereign democracy. in the euro atlantic area, nato remains the cornerstone of deterrence and defense as we face the largest conflict in europe in three generations. our transatlantic alliance has responded in all more fighting domains -- all war fighting domains. we have an architecture on the eastern flank that includes contributions from 11 allies. on land, allies continue deploying additional forces. our standing maritime forces are infused with maritime

capabilities to ensure freedom of navigation from the arctic to the south to the ag and see -- agean. we have inherently increased the nato air defense architecture. nato capabilities in space and cyberspace are more closely integrated then add any other time in the alliance's history. the sum of these capabilities underwrites the security of nato's article five guaranty. a protagonist to our commitment with nato begins with our efforts in the u.s. european command. our mission is to compete, deter and prepare to respond to aggression with the full weight of the nato alliance. our investments in military relationships, training and readiness build unity, resolve, and combat-credible deterrence.

u.s. ucomm has sparked the allies to enhance posture along the eastern flank, rapidly deploying three rick gates of combat forces, a carrier strike group and for that fifth generation fighters. this effort is america's efforts, with soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and, guardians a defense department civilians from all 50 states and territories, some based in europe, others rotating into europe from across the nation. this build is enabled by years of investment through the european reassurance and deterrence initiatives, commonly referred to as eri and edi. enhancements include facilities, pre-positioned equipment, deployment and all-domain exercises and have improved our

speed and utility. thanks to edi had eri, we deployed the entirety of an armored brigade combat team from georgia in the u.s. to germany in just one week. that level of speed is unmatched globally. on behalf of the men and women of the european command, we think congress and the american people for their contributions in this effort. capabilities the department brought to bear in response to this acute security environment required critical partnerships with trans com, cyber com, and the u.s. intelligence community. this is critical. we are witnessing a historic demonstration of unity and will and an unprecedented effort by allies to strengthen defense while simultaneously helping

those in need. just an example, but a critical 1 -- we have seen germany commit to meet the alliance's 2% benchmarking we expect other allies will redouble efforts to adequately invest in defense to generate peace. from turkey in the southeast to norway, sweden and finland in the north, on air -- in air, land, sea, space and cyber, our allies and partners are committing. thank you for this opportunity. i look forward to your questions. chair: general asst. sec. wallander: -- general wolters, one of the central questions is what we can provide for ukraine. part of it is the balance between giving ukraine help about spreading to a wider war. before the war began, the issue of what should give ukraine was

informed by deterrence versus provocation. i would say a concern about giving russia an excuse, and provoking them come is the reason some weapons did not -- were not provided. it is the same reason president trump did not provide those weapons either. we were trying to walk our way through that. but now that the war has begun, how do you balance that? do we take mr. rogers' approach and say we don't care what putin does? we should send troops and tanks and fight in ukraine? what is the proper way to strike that balance and are you concerned about how russia might respond to a given action and spread the war to poland, baltics, u.s. assets in the region? how do you balance that risk? asst. sec. wallander: as a military commander, my first answer is, constantly. conditions change second second

and i bear the responsibility to ensure we don't forget as military commanders the nations of the right to give whatever they would prefer from a unilateral, bilateral, multilateral perspective. secondly, i have to take into account military mission effectiveness coupled with strategic miscalculation. one day is different from the next. we have to adjust. chair: how do you specify the risk of russia escalating? i know it is something you think about. what is the risk and what might we do to provoke it? gen. wolters the risk we have to gauge is the risk russia first imposes on ukraine. we have to be smart about ukraine's military perspective bent take into account what

allies can contribute. we are concerned about the force disposition protection of ukrainian armed forces and citizens of populations on the periphery. chair: outside of ukraine, is there a risk that if we get more engaged, russia would spread the war? if so, how and where? gen. wolters: there is always a risk. as a military mission planner, i have to take into account all those branches and sequels and as a nato commander, i am most concerned about eastern europe as it connects to russia. chair: but we can in fact provide a lot of weapons to ukraine within that manageable risk, and i think we are doing that. what is most important to your mind in terms of weapons we need to get into ukraine right now? i agree the goal is to push the

russians out and win the fight. what of the most important weapons ukrainian need -- ukrainians need? gen. wolters: i can go deeper in a classified session, but i can say, those capabilities that are anti-armor, antitank, and surface to air very important. they have been effective and i suspected the near future, they will continue to be effective. chair: mr. rogers. representative: i would like to correct the record and say president zelenskyy never asked american troops to come and fight in fighting ukraine. nor have i. we will give them everything they asked for that they need to wade this work that is my position. -- two when -- that they need to win this war.

that is my position. -- is that accurate? asst. sec. wallander: i can take that question back to get you an answer. representative: it is safe to say we wouldn't be adjusting the budget to what is happening in eastern europe right now. you have heard me talk about the slovaka 300 that is desperately needed by ukraine. why is it taking two >> we are working with slovakia to identify the requirements for meeting their needs. i can speak in the greater detail during the classified session but we are working on this and meanwhile we have focused on getting countries that hold soviet legacy systems

including as 300 systems that have spare parts, missiles different parts of that 300 system who are willing to send that to ukraine. we have not been waiting for resolution of that offer, but have been working on getting the ukrainians what they need now. >> one is that going to be? >> that is ongoing and we can talk in greater detail in laid the classified session -- and lay classified session. >> you can keep the committee updated at least on a weekly basis. we have what -- talk to many times over the last couple of years about the need for redistribution of our troops in the european command and to establish permanent basing inlay poland, romanian -- in romaine -- in poland romania to help reassure nato will deter russia. >> congressman it has to change.

this is an opportunity as a result of this on behalf of russia to re-examine the permanent military architecture that exists, known only in eastern europe, but in our air policing activity, aviation, in our standing naval groups. we are in the process of establishing eight very coherent battalion groups in late europe that have all of the appropriate neighbors that are accompanied by all of the naval maritime group so that we can comprehensively defend in the east and do so in the north all the way to the atlantic ocean extending to the mediterranean. in so doing the nato nations that are committing that i alluded to in my opening comments are going to be part of the equation and they are willing to do so to change the presence from a rotational to a more permanent. it will continue to grow and we are working hard with the north atlantic council to do that.

>> that is an important point. i talked earlier about ukrainians not asking us to put troops there. they have not asked us to give them anything they are willing to pay for it they just want us to give it to them. in poland, the polish government has offered to pay for us to establish a permanent base there. everyone wants a base but that is the first time i heard of a country willing to pay for it. i hope we see that happen, the rotational troop presence. going back to the chairman's opening statement, the best way that we can solidify and enhance our relationship with our nato allies is to have that permanent base there to show we are committed to the relationship. lastly, on the switchblade, that is what i have examined and it seems to be something that would be effective. dr. wallander are you familiar with that system? >> yes. we have, like you have been focused on its capabilities and receive the message loud and clear from a ukrainian

colleagues that this is required. we have committed 100 switchblade tactical aerial systems to be delivered in the most recent package of presidential drawdown. we have taken, we have heard the ukrainians and have taken it seriously. >> we should remember we passed a $13.4 billion supplemental out of congress signed by the president specifically to deal with ukraine. >> thank you mr. chairman want to thank our witnesses for your testimony today. let me begin with the both of you. i have a question on cyber related. the russian federation is continuing to leverage of cyber attacks and disinformation campaigns against ukraine, europe and the u.s. we have not yet seen the level of cyber community we have anticipated, we still have to be ready for it. how are you preparing your cyber

defenses for a potential attack from the russian federation and i also want to know how your helping us bolster cyber defenses of our european partners and nato to the degree we can talk about in open session. >> congressman, first and foremost we went to the basics with respect to cyber employment. as you well know, a great cyber offense starts with the great cyber defense. i know the general and team were very aggressive with respect to assisting the ukrainian government and the ukrainian department of defense to improve their network hygiene and network defense. those efforts started in the november, december timeframe. the same considerations were given to the european nations in the periphery. we can talk in more detail but the good defense has been very helpful. it reveals some of the challenges russia has faced with their cyber offense against ukraine and european nations on

the periphery. >> thank you. dr. wallander, our national defense strategy calls for us to use the concept of integrative deterrence. it is part of our capabilities in coronation with other deterrence methods. this unclassified setting, agree with what you can, how are we working further with nato to utilize our cyber capabilities in the context of the european a deterrence initiative? >> congressman thank you for your question. integrative deterrence does include the cyber domain and the united states has worked closely with allies to improve their resilience to monitor networks to share information and that work is ongoing. the challenge of a russian activity and lay the cyber domain is persistent.

-- in the cyber domain is persistent. deterrence is not only about capabilities in the nato context it is about the multinational nature of the alliance and the commitment to defend one another and combined together the efforts of nato allies in cyber domain. it sends a strong credible message to russia that helps to the deterrent message. >> thank you. incredibly important to leverage those capabilities. it is possible to work with our allies to strengthen those capabilities. dr. wallander, i want to commend what president biden and the administration and department of defense and european partners and allies for supporting ukraine and stepping up to the challenge to this historic crisis caused by the russian federation. i agree with the chairman's comment, we need to make sure that russia is pushed back and ukraine stays free and independent. in your view, are there any

further ways that congress can help provide better support ukraine? we have talked about this already but, can you elaborate on more thoughts you have? are there any barriers that we can overcome to help you get through? what about when it comes to humanitarian assistance as well? >> thank you for that question. i want to reiterate our gratitude for not only the scale of the assistance of the congress in budget support but the speed with which congress has taken this as a priority so we are able to support ukraine. because of the courage and capability of the ukrainian military forces and citizens, this fight is going to extend and so looking forward, we do have in addition to the option of presidential and the ukrainian security system and what the next set of package

should contain within eye towards not just days and weeks but months of sustainment, perhaps longer for the ukrainian military and ukrainian people. i would defer to the department of treasury and commerce. clearly the ukrainian government in addition to security assistance needs humanitarian assistance and economic assistance now that it is clear that this fight is going to continue for some time into the future. we look forward to working with you on a broad multi agency support for ukraine. >> thank you. >> mr. wilson is recognized. >> thank you, thank both of you for being here today. what a time in history. many of us never anticipated a land war in the europe ever again. but that is where we are. to face it. putin did one thing totally unintentional, he has unified republicans and democrats. you will see that together we agree with president biden.

we are inlay a long-term conflict -- in a long-term conflict ruled by autocracy, or democracy ruled by law. we need to be together and that is why i am grateful that working together with myself with the congressman. the issue that has come up as the delay with providing the equipment to the people of ukraine. how brave they are, standing up to the russian military. has congresswoman -- as the congressman pointed out yesterday, there is body armor awaiting in a storage area inlay chicago -- ii -- in chicago for the u.s. to approve. we need both of you with positions that you have to act quickly and then particularly, i am grateful secretary wallander that you have been the president of the foundation so you have a

knowledge of russia. along with that, as ranking member and my advisors indicated, we should have, months ago, provided the military equipment to the people of ukraine. in fact, i appreciate that he has revealed in august in the kremlin website there was an essay by vladimir putin that in the tradition of mein kampf, adolf hitler, he says the historic unity of russians and ukrainians, that is not what he means. what he means is the unity means no existence of the country of ukraine. so hopefully, general for you, the intelligence provide and how to best protect the people of ukraine. with that in mind, for each of you what are the weaknesses you see in russian military and/or

their diplomatic efforts, what can we do to exploit those weaknesses and try to bring to the people of russia that they are being betrayed by putin? the young people of that country, he is putting them at risk of imminent death, only for oil, money, power. madam secretary? >> on the political military front and the weaknesses, the russian narrative, and you yourself have pointed to, how absurd and non-plausible russian claims as a pretext for the invasion of ukraine are to the international community, so the work of the united states closely with allies and partners to expose what the russians were preparing to do, the pretext in which, and absolutely without found out -- foundation pretext has galvanized the community more rapidly than any expected

in contrast to what the experience in 2014 when they invaded crimea. that is been a key element in weakness in a military sense that has enabled us to pull together the unity on sanctions on assistance ukraine and on diplomatic isolation of the russian leadership. >> thank you. i think it goes back to the point you just made at the beginning. as a military commander i want to do everything i can to strengthen our support to ukraine armed forces based on where they are in the midst of their campaign. from a government perspective with respect to what the nations do to u.s., everything we are doing in the information environment needs to continue and strengthen. >> secretary, indeed. it is impressive to see nato unified, 21 countries. as the cochair of the eu caucus, to see 21 countries of the

european union provide military assistance and we need your influence to. two country should be doing more. israel, which in a destabilized world, it already had three tax in the last week, murderous attacks. india, the world's largest democracy, instability in the world, will lead to catastrophe for the terrific people of india and the prime minister. and the wonderful government needs to understand they need to be standing with democracy and ukraine. >> mr. larson is recognized. >> dr. wallander i want to pull back a bit. it is going to be a lot of ukraine questions. this is more of a nato policy question. nato is looking to their tech accelerator. i just wanted to get your view

on the departments view on the accelerate of the north atlantic project. it is a mash-up, i call the darpa and diu and a few other things. can you update us on where the department is on that? >> congressman i do not have details on the status of the project. i would get back to you with details. what i do know is as nato allies have recognized not just the scale of the fact that russia poses to your -- european security but the multi-domain challenges that both russia and china pose to global security and to nato, the willingness to cooperate more in the area of technology going forward has deepened and has strengthened. this project is an opportunity to advance that. >> thanks. i wanted to make sure it is on record. this was the opportunity to ask that.

general wolters i want to follow up on something that representative wilson brought up. and it is to show how international affairs and local affairs in washington state, we have ukrainian americans, in terms of ukrainians in the country it is a surprise for people to hear that. we ask them -- ask them -- we asked people in the community what they wanted to ask about pay and protective equipment and the ability to deliver that to the population and ukraine. can you give us in detail how that is happening? >> congressman, we have two centers with approximately 100 individuals that continue to iterate in the military with ukrainian liaison officers that are working in the military dimension and the humanitarian

side. it is based off of supply and demand and extends with feelers into ukraine at the ministerial level to make sure that the right stuff goes in at the right time to deliver the appropriate affect. based off access to get in and access to get out. it is not perfect by any means but it continues to improve over time. we will continue to iterate and make sure that we continue to connect with those interlocutors at the cranial level to make sure they get the right gear as quickly as possible. >> is there an issue with moving it into poland or romania now? so it is there instead of in the u.s.? >> by with them through poland and it is by within through romania. i can talk a little bit more in a classified setting but there are challenges. at the end of the day we always communicate with the host nation to make sure we are doing the right thing. >> sure.

to go even more local, the mission is located in the island and there is news yesterday a couple of days ago, that they sent squadron to germany. i presume there is a squadron already in the aegean sea as well. this might be a classified answer to a question but can you give us some idea about either mission, maybe starting with the mission into germany? >> sure. i can elaborate in a separate setting. but when i kanas -- but what i can see is you are right they are coming. >> i look forward to that. what do i do with my last-minute? [laughter] i yielded back. thank you. >> i know some classified stuff has come up the plan is we are going to be here until 12:30 and

then we will start our classified brief at 1:00. we will have a brief break in their. mr. turner's recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. general i appreciate your statements about ukraine, specifically you said we want to strengthen our support for ukraine. i know that your efforts to do so are incredibly important. i want to talk to about the sharing of intelligence. there was a great deal of concern initially when the conflict began that the u.s. had actionable intelligence, that could assist the ukrainians and having the ability to defend their country. and that there were delays in getting that intelligence to ukraine. are you comfortable with the speed at which our ability is to share that information with ukraine and do you think of looking to strengthen ukraine are there gaps are there gaps or areas we need to address? >> congressman i am comfortable but i wanted to speed up.

i was -- i will always say that even if it occurs in one second i want tomorrow it will -- to be have a second. the dni's participation at the very start of this campaign were revolutionary. as what i needed most to do was get the data to the nations to get it to be convinced soonest to make the appropriate moves based off the disposition and periphery of ukraine. as good or bad, it is better than i have ever seen. we have achieved consensus from a native -- nato body than we have in the past. it was a result of the intelligence sharing but it needs to continue to get faster. >> that is a great point. i know everyone is frustrated with the speed of sharing because, there has to be some assessment whether or not the intelligent -- intelligence is important and whose hands and knees to get into. dealing with ukraine in an area where there is conflict. there -- are there restrictions

on geography and the ukraine? as we look at the donbass region, are you seeing instances where we are tying our own hands whether there are limitations geographically within their own country, where the united states is unwilling to share information with ukraine about what russia is doing in its own country? >> i have not seen that. it is just access to some of the far eastern cities. as you all know that is a challenge for humanitarian assistance as well as intelligence sharing. as we image our way through this campaign and we provide our best military advice to her ukraine counterparts, we continue to make them aware of this very issue. they are iterating in an attempt to prove -- improve. the teary any of time and distance overland -- the tyranny of time and distance overland. >> your ability to generate intelligence is not limited by

space. >> it is not by getting the data into the right receptor. >> got it. i want to thank you for -- on page 12 of your report that you included the issue of the balkans i did get that is an area where we have vulnerabilities where we ignore the issue of the republic and the ability to -- of russia to destabilize the area. a needs are increased attention. i appreciate that you continue in your european focus to look at that as an issue. the question for you about ukraine. we do here that the number of refugees and the individuals who have been displaced in ukraine and the number who have left ukraine we are hearing reports of individuals being taken against their will from russia -- from ukraine to russia. we are not hearing much from the white house about that.

what can you confirm about individuals being taken from ukraine against their wealth to russia? -- will to russia? >> i've seen the reports that you have referred to. they are very concerning. i do not have anything, any independent information that i can confirm here. i can get back to you on that. >> we have good news about germany returning to the f-35 where they had initially indicated they were not going to be part of the family. they have agreed to be part of the f-35 and now canada has made the announcement, great effects of russia's aggressiveness. tele strategically how you think -- tell us strategically how you think the nations committing the f-35 will affect the strategic capabilities of nato and our partners as they face russia? >> they will deliver a

tremendous improvement in our strategic ability command-and-control and mission command as already demonstrated by u.s. f-35 that are contributing in the mission at this time. we anticipate -- >> i apologize, mr. courtney's recognize for five minutes. >> thank you to both witnesses this morning and to general walters, again i went and reread your bio. you have been showing amazing leadership, not just in the invasion of ukraine but back to when you took the helm in 2019. again for a lot of us, we remember in 2020 there were efforts to cut u.s. troop levels and lay germany -- in germany and eliminate the rotation of marines in norway. your steadfast and here is to duty in terms of the value of nato has been valued over the last month or so. i want to publicly thank you for

your great service. you mentioned in your remarks about how the u.s. recognizes our allies great collaboration but also their own sovereign ability to gift resources. last saturday, the ukrainian foreign minister publicly stated that based on his conversations with officials in washington and poland he stated that the u.s. has no objections to the transfer of aircraft from poland to ukraine. he went on to say as far as we can conclude the ball is in the polish side. again this was saturday. this was a couple of days ago. there is a lot of high interest, certainly back home in my district with the large ukraine population. can you clarify for me, for a lot of us, what is the state of play in terms of the

decision-maker to get that critical platform to the ukrainian air force? >> sir, at the national level i would suspect it is the prime minister or the president that ultimately makes the decision, given the potential for strategic miscalculation. that is what i have seen in practice so far. in a different setting i can get in some of the more tactical level details that way into the decision. again it goes back to the military mission effectiveness weight against strategic miscalculation, to make sure you take into account the protection of the citizens of ukraine as well as the citizens on the periphery. all of those variables have to come into play. you just described accurately where i believe the situation currently sits. and nations continue to look at this issue and they will still continue to examine it and we will provide our best military advice and we will do so based off conditions in the

environment at the time. >> thank you, your answer was very -- in terms of getting clarity. i think the pilots have done magnificent work. if there are ways we can get them more jets, that would be much beneficial. we have heard some of the back-and-forth regarding the speed with which material is getting into ukraine. dr. wallander you and i spoke off-line a bit about how sometimes overlooked combatant commands which is trans-,. i wonder if you can give a general sense of the speed and efficiency in which the general and her team is proceeding to get material into nato and ultimately to ukraine. >> yes congressman it is extraordinary. especially since the u.s. has been able to focus on the option of drawdown to be able to pull

the kinds of capabilities the ukrainians have been reorganizing from u.s. stocks. and through ucomm. i will credit to general wolters and his team. to move from the moment of approval to actual delivery of the capabilities within days and within weeks. so it has been an extraordinary effort by the u.s. military. it is made a difference on the battlefield for ukrainian forces fighting russia. >> and general omar bradley said strategy is for amateurs. i think trans comm has risen to the task and has risen to the task. >> thank you mr. chairman. secretary wallander i have a question for you first, these questions are based on the limited information we have been given out, so far on the nuclear posture review. we have seen three paragraphs not a full review. even with that, there are some

serious concerns that i have based on the language. it seems that the clara tori -- clara tori -- the policy has been narrowed, only be to -- only to be deterred as nuclear tax, and no mention of deterring nonnuclear strategic attacks or to achieve any u.s. objectives. the more limit that we have on our range of action that gives more freedom of action to potential adversaries. is that a limitation for sure? if so, did you have any conversations with allies or partners about this narrowing of our policy? >> congressman, thank you. to your second question first, the u.s. has consulted with allies on the nuclear posture review, previewing some of the outcomes.

i was in the consultations personally myself, the reports i have were allies were satisfied and did not have concerns about the content of the nuclear posture review. the nuclear posture review language does not apply exclusively to nuclear attacks but it extends to extreme circumstances that would require the united states to defend allies and partners. i am misquoting the precise language but there is a provision that is continuity with previous posture review statements. >> on that we can continue our conversation after we see the full review. that would be very helpful when that comes out. general walt --general wolters i have a question for you based on the limited information we have on the npr. he has said that the nuclear launch missile can deny

potential adversaries any confidence that limited nuclear employment would provide an advantage over the u.s. on its allies and partners. if we are going to limit the or dual -- or do away with the funding for the -- to me that goes against what admiral richard has said about it. do you agree with what admiral richard said about it? >> i do. i know his words were attempting to drive home the fact that having multiple options exacerbates the challenge for the potential enemies against us. >> exactly. so, it would be your best military advice that we continue to development -- the development of that option? >> it would. i agree with admiral richards. >> thank you. a follow-up question general wolters. the proposed budget of the biden

administration would retire the b 83 gravity bomb. as you recall a decision was made a few years ago to keep it i affect -- in effect until other capabilities would supplement those capabilities. were you asked about your best military advice about maintaining it? >> i was not on that particular issue. i'm only familiar with it as a result of what is coming next. i know admiral richards is making sure there is no gap. that is as far as i can go without one. >> can you comment on your best military advice about using the b 83 currently to deter aggression in your ao are? -- aor? >> i would concur with the utilization of that to complicate the challenges of the enemy against us as long as there is not another system in place. i know that is part of the issue with the transition. >> that is all i have for now

mr. chairman i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. we might add to that question that you just raised. what is the cost of keeping all of this and what are the options that may have a higher priority? but that is not my question. we often hear the word multi-domain. one of the things we occasionally hear is that information is a powerful weapon. the question arises about information for the russian people about what is actually happening in ukraine. so my question to both of you is

what is the status of our information efforts to enlighten the russian people about what their leader is doing to their brothers and sisters in the ukraine? to start with general wolters. >> thank you congressman. information in the hands of the russian government has been a weapon. it has been a weapon that they have been less successful in deploying to the effect that they seek and that is precisely because the viewpoint of the u.s., allies and global community have come ourselves, utilized information which in our case is true information. facts not disinformation. to set the record straight and the impact of that information is made clear by the efforts of the russian government makes to try to prevent that information

getting to the russian people. they're not completely successful but it is an ongoing struggle to get that information. >> you completely missed my point. what is the department of defense doing and largely what is the u.s. government doing to bring information to the russian people? that is to get information passed the censorship that putin has employed in his country. specifically, what are you doing? >> we can talk in greater detail in the session this afternoon. we would defer to that setting. >> general wolters is the answer the same from you in this hearing? >> i can elaborate more in a closed session, but what i can say is in a military dimension we have a large program that targets that very issue. in ukraine and with the nations on the periphery.

>> i then will await the classified hearing. with that i yield back. >> thank you. mr. whitman is recognized for five minutes. >> i would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today. general wolters i want to expound upon the point that has been made about the timing of getting these munitions and supplies to the ukrainians. we know that is important as we are working to get those thousands of stinger missiles and javelins to the forces there. there is a lack of clarity about how that is being accomplished and what the urgency is with that. i wanted to get your assessment on of the demand signal from ukraine. where is that? is it being met? as the signal going to get greater? what about for my european allies that are helping send weapons there and what we are going to do to help back build

some of that? have you evaluated the potential operation availability of and looked at all of the different aspects there to help ukraine in many different ways? i argue that the tide is starting to turn and what the ukrainians are starting to do with the russians. the russians are limited in their maneuver, which is a big advantage for the ukrainians. the problem is, we are at one of those tipping points if we do not go all in to help them, than they will not have a chance to defeat the russians. i think defeating the russians which was not on the table 35 table -- days ago, is on the table now. give me the perspective on the demand signal and what we have going forward. >> congressman, we want to connect the dots for the demand signal and the input. with the import process, there are human beings involved in the

input process and protecting their livelihood is important. the mode of delivery, the diverse -- diversification of those modes of delivery, and the endgame is getting the right stuff to the right soldier at the right time. all of those variables have to come into the equation. with each passing day, we iterate with this with greater thinking, greater alliance involvement, and greater connective tissue with our counterparts inside of ukraine. that process has to continue and it has to be looked at every second of the day because as the campaign changes over time, what is good for yesterday my not be what is good for tomorrow. all of that is being taken into account. congressman it is not perfect. when you get a chance to visit us you'll get a chance to visit the troops involved in this process and they are targeting this issue. >> i look forward to the visit. dr. wallander, stingers are a

tremendously capable weapons platform. the challenge is they are a 1960's weapon platform. we are using them out and ask ordinary rate. the question becomes what we go -- what are we doing to replenish our short range defense systems? though short range tactical weapons are incredibly important but we are going to have a hole in our inventory. the question is, what can we do to replenish those stockpiles? is it smart to replenish them with the circa 1960's weapon? are we doing anything in the long term for short range defense systems? give us your perspective on what we're going to do with that. while helping ukraine today does greater challenge for us in the months and years to come. >> yes, congressman you have identified a challenge that we have -- are grappling with as a department of defense. also many of our allies have

generously made contributions to ukraine are asking questions about replenishing those stocks. the undersecretary for ans is leading an effort in the department to look at the defense industrial base, to look at our authorities and to look at funding in order to address challenge that is beginning. you will hear about this because it is something we have to address. >> very good. i mentioned stingers, but there are a lot of different parts as general wolters talked about about things that are going into theater, give me your perspective on where the future challenges are, not just with stingers but other parts of our inventory? are there lessons where learning about logistics in this whole effort to be able to supply our friends in ukraine and help our allies in europe get resupplied? as general eisenhower once said, tactics for amateurs, logistics are for professionals.

we want to make sure we understand the logistics chain on this. >> i will speak narrowly from a policy perspective. we do -- we are doing an assessment because we are hearing from individual allies and partners about their concerns. we want to bring a comprehensive assessment to congress and work with you exactly on sticking forward and not running after the problem. >> thanks chairman i yield back. >> ms. spears is recognized -- ms. speiers is recognized. mr. norcross is recognized. >> thank you chairman priebus -- thank you chairman. this is a fascinating discussion from our industrial base and the idea of the stingers, but we are using from our strategic reserves, what other nato countries are supplying.

incredibly important that we understand for every stinger that is leaving ours, it keeps us in a more precarious situation. the line is not hot now but it is going to take -- i agree with mr. whitman, do we want to re-create the old ones are moving to new ones? that is a discussion we are looking forward to. general wolters i wanted to talk to you about the invasion. all estimates that russia is not doing anything near what we expected them to do in ukraine. when we look at that, did russia overestimate their ability, then we look at their capabilities thinking they would do better -- did we look at their capabilities thinking they would do better or is that the ukrainian response? have we overestimated what

russia has outside of their nuclear stockpile, their conventional forces? >> congressman, we have fair agreement in the hardware software and human capacity. what we have to take into account is that it is a little bit of both. the will and determination of ukrainian citizens. there's 44 million ukrainians. every single one of them is contributing. then you take a look at the capability of the russian military. there is challenge, we know we all have plans and when the invasion starts what you thought was going to happen typically does not happen. and you have to go to alternative routes. that is a testimony to the strategic -- russia has been challenged in that area and that reflects in their overall performance. >> have we overestimated outside

of the ukrainian resistance what they are doing in the fight, how we overestimated their technical abilities, with their russian armor? >> we may have. once we get to the post-conflict phase, we need to go back to these areas and make sure we conduct a comprehensive all domain after action review and find out where our miscalculations were in our forecast. >> absolutely. i have to agree with that. what the implications will mean to our structure and what we are working on, certainly in the european theater. thank you for that insight. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. scott is now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for being here. i know we have had a lot of discussion about ukraine lately. i think the world owes president

zelenskyy and ukraine a great thank you. i fall into the category of vladimir putin had no intentions of stopping with ukraine, the russians have been across the border both in georgia and moldova for a number of years. georgia and moldova have applied to the european union for admission. could the two of you speak to that particular issue and what that means for european security and if you expect russia to be more aggressive towards those countries because of that application? >> thank you congressman for highlighting that while even as we are focused on ukraine there are other countries in the euro atlantic space that are vulnerable to russian coercion. moldova and georgia have long suffered unresolved conflict that russia uses to keep its own corrupt influence inside those countries and to try to prevent

their aspirations. it has not. the people of the countries continue to hold those aspirations and their leadership continues to work on democracy, rule of law, anticorruption. the russian invasion of ukraine just highlights the importance of sustaining -- the united states sustaining those efforts along with our european allies and partners. >> i think it is important to note, assuming ukraine wayans and they are able to force the russians out -- winds and they are able to force rush out, russia is bordering other countries and we need to restore those territorial boundaries as well before the world believes the russian aggression is over. i have mentioned this a couple of times, i do think we as the united needs and nato needs to

be developing a black c strategy -- black c -- black sea strategy. i do not mean to sound like a broken record but the raw materials for fertilizer in the amount of wheat and grain that comes out of that part of the world is very concerning to me. that the transit is shut down. while the -- well that guarantees freedom of passage for civilian or commercial vessels during peacetime, my understanding is that it shut down now, is that correct? civilian vessels and commercial vessels because of the conflict are not transiting in and out whether it be because of insurance costs or other reasons? >> congressman, to your first point i cannot agree more about comprehensive defense. with respect to all of the regions in the europe and what we do in the black sea and what

we do in the baltics, we cannot just get myopic and focus on what is taking place in ukraine and russia. we have to image to the next five or 10 years and we are doing that. with respect to the black sea there is still small travel back and forth for the appropriate reasons. turkey is the owner of the declaration and i would characterize what they are doing in this arena as very, very picky with who goes through. they are doing that for a justifiable purpose is to make sure they too can protect against strategic miscalculations. we need to get back into the black sea and he needs to occur sooner rather than later. >> countries like georgia cannot export or import without access to the black sea. i think we need to be paying attention to the other countries as well as ukraine. one thing i would mention, i

think what is happened in europe has reinforced this with the committee, every year the dod comes to us with a list of weapons they want to stand down. they have, for the last 10 years have come to us and said, we want to stand down a certain number of a tens. -- a10's. before we stand on a weapon system it should be offered to countries that share our interests and values. general, do you think the dod will take a stronger look at sharing those weapon systems with others who share interests and values as we push forward? >> i think they will, congressman. >> thank you, both. i yield. >> ms. speiers recognized for five minutes. >> i want to add my

congratulations to paul for his service to this committee. it has been a pleasure to work with him. to our two presenters today thank you for joining us. part of the conversation today has been -- has underscored that we have been the united on the republican and democratic side. there appears to be this interest in wanting to keep poking at the president. i just want to say once again, that the former wanted to remove 20,000 troops from germany. he was talking about america first as our whole policy. what we recognize now is that it is a united front and that nato's relationship is critical. we have seen them come together. general wolters you referenced yesterday that there was a gap in our intelligence gathering relative to russia's prowess.

do you have any more that you can share with us about that? when i think about the fact that they spend $69 billion on their military, we spend 74 -- $740 billion. it seems we should have recognized they are not up to the task when it comes to training and maintaining their weapon systems. >> congresswoman, there could be a gap. i think what we owe our citizens is once we get into a post-conflict environment is to go back and examine that very issue, to make sure if there is a gap, we rectify it. at this point, i agree with you. there was a degree of miscalculation. it is evidenced by the performance of the russian military up until this point. we need to be prepared to take a really good look at it. >> do you think the light

airstrikes they have actually undertaken have something to do with the fact that they are probably not maintaining their fleet? >> i think they are not maintaining their fleet of aircraft to the same level of excellence that we do in the u.s. >> dr. wallander, we met with ukrainian members of parliament yesterday. not only are they -- is russia taking busloads of people hostage to russia, they have taken 2000 children who have been orphaned as a result of this war that they engaged in. what are we doing to amplify that internationally, to call them into question and to recognize the parallels to what was going on in world war ii? >> congresswoman, we have seen these reports as well.

they are both shocking and very concerning. my understanding is the state department is tracking reports of these kinds of atrocities and violations of international law. and it is working with allies and partners globally to track those and to press russia to cease the activities and lay the groundwork to hold russia accountable to reverse what russia is doing but also to make sure that the world does not forget. >> i hope that we declassify information we have in this regard. we have to amplify the gross actions by russia. dr. wallander, we have seen evidence of russia using the so-called vacuum bomb in ukraine which is indiscriminately targeting nearby civilians by sucking the air out of their lungs. i am concerned that we draw

attention to that. that you are able to confirm that they are using that. i presume those would be crossing the line and akin to the use of michael and by a lot -- chemical and biological weapons. can you comment on that? >> we see a change in russian tactics to more aggressively targeting civilians infrastructure, human life, and indiscriminate use of weapons, artillery missiles, and i believe you are referring to that. >> i think we have a responsibility to amplify what we know they are doing that is so heinous. with that i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. general wolters, i am becoming increasingly concerned about what appears to be until

community failures over the past year. we were told that afghanistan nationals would hold for six months. we were told ukraine would fall in only a few days. i'm not sure we gained a scenario, the intel community did a good job in predicting the invasion, the amount of troops and tanks. but here we are on day 34, 35 and it was not gained beyond the additional 2-3 days. in congress we rely on these assessments to allocate resources and weapon systems. how concerned are you about what appears to be intel failures and what do we do to correct those moving forward, looming threats such as taiwan? >> just to be fair, i know you know this as a commander, the world of the 21st century intel officer is difficult. i ask are professionals what is so-and-so thinking? as we all know, a threat is defined as the ability and intent, part of the intent is

what one human being is thinking. given the structure of how russia operates, it is difficult to determine where president putin's head was the entire time. i think what we owe each other is once we get the facts about how this unfolds and what was said and what was accomplished, we need to go back and take a look at our soft areas and make sure we fix those. i agree with you, we've had some tremendous work conducted by the committee, this one has been baffling by russia's challenges and the spirit of the ukrainian citizens and their contributions were probably areas we need to examine one more time to make sure we are aware of their contributions to the outcomes of a campaign. >> i am grateful for the way nato has stepped up and in many ways led after this conflict transpired. three or four years ago president trump was accused of trying to destroy nato by asking them to meet their gdp

assessments. now in the face of the current conflict and thread, these countries are stepping up. you mentioned germany. it is good to see them do that after essentially free writing in the u.s. -- riding in the u.s. for -- u.s. in closing up to russia. how do we prevent a backslide if this turns out the way we want and how do we keep our nato allies on board? >> better communications from senior military leaders like myself to the north atlantic council to go back and go over again and described to them what their contributions when it comes to hardware and software and people are doing with respect to our ability to better defend our nato turf. the more we do it the more we maintain the positive campaign momentum in this area and the more we figure out how all of this contributes to keeping the citizens more safe. it will keep the countries interested and their level of involvement will continue to

increase. >> i have been disappointed in the president's schizophrenic messaging before and after this conflict. initially sanctions where the deterrent and now we have learned that sanctions were never meant to deter. he had mentioned recently that we were responding in kind to chemical weapons attacks. the mention of sending it has been mentioned several times today. apparently, it was too provocative. and bringing up a regime change was not too provocative. how is this mixed messaging from the president and the white house affecting your ability to conduct operations on the ground and what effect is it having a relationship with our allies? >> congressman, i will tell you the alliance unity and nato is powerful as i have ever seen it. my suspicion is that trend is going to continue. in that arena no effect. >> i have one more thing we can talk about in the classified

setting. i am pleased to hear about your support about the sea launch missile. i guess i would just ask, if russia did decide to use nuclear weapons is that your assessment they would most likely use the low yield a variety? -- low yield variety? what is the fallout from that? >> i would prefer to address that in a separate venue. what i can tell you as a military commander i have to be prepared for russia to exercise all options. and that is just one of them. >> i look forward to further discussion. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. wallander thank you for your testimony. i see you highlighted the initiative. this initiative provides target defense assistance to lithuania, our key baltic allies. it was one of my proudest

moments in congress and i am pleased 180 million was included in the spending package. you mention the department was dedicating funding to this initiative each year. would you share your perspective on the initiative and how you envision it owing forward? >> thank you. our baltic allies were among the first and clearest in understanding the challenge that russia poses not only to their security but to european security. they have led a lot of the thinking in nato about the requirements for effective deterrence and the early iterations of the european reassurance initiative and all that you mentioned how focused on creating that rotational presence that general wolters referred to in his opening remarks and making sure that those include not just forces but the enablers required to

make that deterrence effective. the baltic countries have done a great job of cooperating with one another through the baltic security initiative in order to make that credibility coherent and greater than the sum of its parts. they are interested in sustaining multi-allied contributions. the american ability to elevate the importance of nato allies continuing to support in a multinational basis signals to those countries and their citizens that this is an alliance effort. >> thank you. are there any particular areas where you would like to see deep cooperation with baltic states? do you think there is more we can and should be doing to support our allies? >> the focus on sharing and helping build resilience and lay cybersecurity -- in cybersecurity.

they were leading voices. but they are front line the russian government do target russian speaking in those countries. highlighting the importance of cyber resilience and their best practices in helping the rest of us learn would be something we need to focus on in the next stages as well. >> general wolters i want to you about the threat russia poses in the gray zone. we get lessons from the -- lessons from the ongoing war in ukraine, that is white irregular war for training is -- why irregular war for -- warfare is so important. are there additional steps we should >> congressman, you should exercise, train, and act in competition as closely mirrored

to how you anticipate acting in crisis and conflict. in estonia, latvia, lithuania focused on that issue and taking into account all domains you will improve your ability to gain in the deterrence arena in the competition phase and then if we end up in conflict or crisis we have muscle memory and to perform better. that is where we have been since 2016 in the baltics. in each operations center, over time has grown more aware of activity in the gray zone and more effective than what we can do in respect to all the main deterrence. >> and it is not just limited to the baltic regions. we have seen it can serve as a

deterrent and be great defense capability for our partners in europe. you said switch blades were approved. have they been sent to ukraine? >> they are in the package in process of being delivered. >> as in the actual package being delivered? >> we can talk in greater detail in the next session. >> thank you. mr. gallagher is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. long-range fire to counter russia, how would marines with those capabilities affect your

options as a combat commander? >> they dramatically enhance our options and we have exercised response ongoing as we speak and what we see is doing what you alluded to, a force that can shoot, move, communicate, and is priceless for 21st-century security. >> so some of the stuff we have heard about, second marine division potentially working in cooperation with six fleet to do asw operations, sensing operations, can you elaborate on that? >> it is ongoing in all domains in the guidance. it is an exercise proceeding as we speak as we get all of this to stretch the left and right buoys and you cannot succeed if you just operate one domain.

so the marines are doing a fantastic job of leading from the front and showing the rest of us how to do it right, especially in the groundwater environment. >> you come no longer has 24/7 active crisis response. if inventory supportive it would you benefit by tactical aviation and group five ua s capable of reconnaissance and counter reconnaissance on station 365 days a year? >> -- the month leading up to

february 24, the invasion of ukraine by russia, would you consider it part of your mission to deter a russian invasion of ukraine? >> yes. >> what were you doing to deter the russian invasion of ukraine? >> we had the nato -- in all domains, not just isolated but inside of ukraine. >> you are part of an interagency operation to deter vladimir from invading ukraine? >> that is correct. deter and dissuade. >> and then vladimir putin invaded ukraine? >> correct. >> he had infiltrated the donbas before that, but would it be fair to say that deterrence

failed in ukraine? >> i would say that nato's solidarity remained and -- i can't argue with your conclusion. >> so deterrence failed in ukraine, specifically integrated deterrence failed in ukraine. i don't bring that up to score a partisan point. it is worth understanding why that happened. particularly as we now have anonymous senior pentagon officials writing to the washington post about the success of integrated deterrence in ukraine. it may be true that right now nato is as unified as it has been in decades. i celebrate that fact and the fact that russia has not

expanded its war into nato territory is a good thing. but it is also a low bar for geopolitical success and the fact remains that you have just confirmed that we attempted to deter an invasion of ukraine largely using nonmilitary instruments of national power and that attempt failed. it may be true that nothing could have deterred putin from doing that. we will never know, but integrated deterrence as conceptualized by the pentagon and as implemented in the specific case of ukraine as a matter of fact, failed and i yield my second. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair. i voted in my -- i have gotten to know him over the years and he is a quality professional

individual, but i would like to congratulate him on his next phase in life. the war on ukraine is shaping the future of u.s.-russia relations. i am proud of the steps that the united states has taken hold in keeping russia accountable and keeping the oligarchs from the global economy. one of the areas of mutual interest had been the extension of the new start treaty to 2026. we will not forget about the potential for armed control agreement to lessen the threat of nuclear conflict. how will the ongoing crisis affect future arms control opportunities with russia and one step further, china? >> congressman, thank you for highlighting arms control as an instrument of security policy. arms control can concern

national security policy by enforcing restraints on dangerous weapons, especially in the nuclear enterprise. russia has shown no indication that it doesn't value that treaty and continues to comply with it. united states will continue to focus on making sure that russia complies and we continue to have a dialogue with russia on that treaty. i can't speak to chinese strategic on this, but the message to china is not only that the u.s. values arms control, but when russia has violated arms control treaties, the united states has called it out, so the importance of compliance is a clear message to russia and china. >> thank you. the department made it clear it did not support:'s proposal to transfer -- support poland's

proposal to transfer mig-29's to ukraine in case russia determines this as escalation. this is to protect civilians. we must do everything to get our power to not escalate the situation, which is why i have expressed my concern with calls for establishing a nato enforced no-fly zone over ukraine. however if the mig-29 transfer would be unviable due to the risk, what can the international community do to protect civilians? >> anti-air capabilities that

ukraine possesses has been deployed and which has been in major focus of u.s. and other country provision security systems has allowed the ukrainian forces to prevent russia from achieving air security, from holding back air operations which not only protects ukrainian military operations but also prevents attacks on civilians. it has played a role. >> thank you. general walters? >> congressman, just as he said, we have to continue to iterate as the campaign progresses and make sure that process wise, the supply and demand to the ukraine forces that they get what they need for campaign effectiveness. if we are not prepared to iterate and support that, we

won't be as effective as we can be to save lives upon ukrainian territory. that is a process that we continue to work on and we have to make sure that we maintain a strong dialogue but we also bear the responsibility. we cannot rest for one second. we need to make sure that the ukrainian armed forces are on the right gear at the right time based on where they are. >> thank you. >> dr. wallander, a redeemed change in russia is not the -- regime change in russia is not the goal of the united states, correct? >> correct. >> why does the president keep speaking out against u.s. policy? >> congressman, the president

has made clear that he has not changed u.s. policy and redeemed change -- regime change. that he is appalled by the words, i think we all are, of what russia is reading in ukraine. >> how can it not confuse our allies of what you just correctly defined as u.s. policy? >> my understanding from allies is that they value u.s. leadership and they are confident in nato commitment to the alliance and the president's words of the united states that we will defend every inch of nato territory. >> that is fascinating but it does not get to the question of speaking directly against our policies.

does the department assess that the president will speak against other policies in other matters? ms. wallander: i don't believe there is any such assessment. >> do we have a plan in place? it happened three times on highly consequential stuff like regina change -- regime change and i wonder whether or not we need to have contingency plans for a president who seems to be confused on those matters and you are saying there is no such contingency plan? ms. wallander: the department of defense leadership is focused on sustaining and advancing american national policy. reppo gaetz -- >> is the

department leadership frustrated? i am trying to ascertain how hard this job must be to get our information operations in line. when you have a president that is misaligned on these key questions. ms. wallander: i can only speak for myself. speaking for myself -- >> you ask a question and you have to at least give her five seconds to say something before you interrupt. ms. wallander: i feel honored to serve the american people and to serve this president in this administration. >> are you aware of any other officials that are frustrated by the president's misstatement of policies? ms. wallander: i am not. >> general walters, the

committee has had briefings about how behind our country is in hypersonic capabilities. how do you think about hypersonic's from what we have seen on the battlefield? gen. wolters: it is all about strategic speed and posture and every day i have got to find a way to adjust our feedback to economy -- feedback to accommodate our target and if we are not doing this in 2022, we are behind so the efforts are there. find out what the capabilities are, what their locations are and when we examine the different courses of action of where these systems can be organized, we fire off with our asr to make sure we have the best probability of capturing a potential strike. if we are not adjusting every single second of every day, it is a mistake. >> speaking of those

adjustments, will we see an adjustment in the president's potential budget to accommodate our updated thinking about hypersonics? gen. wolters: we will. >> very helpful. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i met yesterday with several members of ukraine's parliament who also emphasized the fact that they are mothers as well and these women were telling the story that soldiers, russian soldiers that had been captured or killed, had predicted -- protected the equipment on chemical warfare or biological weapons as well.

they were concerned given the fact that putin has lied about ukraine's having access biological or chemical weapons and that could be used as a false flag as well. can you comment to the best of your ability just to address that issue that they have brought up? ms. wallander: congressman, we have similarly noted efforts on the part of russian disinformation operations to lay the pretext for potential false flags about ukraine having biological and chemical weapons so we have been tracking it closely and share your concern. it would be beyond outrageous for russia to step over those bounds and we share your concerns and focus on those issues. >> they did not describe the particular equipment they had, but do you think their concern is justified? gen. wolters: congressman, the

issue of this area is get the truth out at speed so you can make a difference and we are dramatically improving our ability to respond quickest in the information domain to the false flags. i see a higher degree of effectiveness the -- in this campaign than i have seen before and that is because we have drawn on severe lists learned from previous engagements. >> we talked about strategic miscalculations but i am also concerned with public reports about the level of communication between the russians and our own chair of the joint chiefs. even in the worst times of war, these face the confliction and several kinds of miscalculations could occur. does that seem to be a concern? is it true about the

deteriorating level of communication at the highest level of the military which is always the safeguard? gen. wolters: i can comment about the responsibilities i have to communicate with my counterpart in russia. attempts have been made constantly over the last 90 days and at some point as we approach closer to the campaign they have, those conversations broke off. the chairman has done the same and he has been aggressive with respect of seeking that conversation with his counterpart for the purpose of safety and unfortunately those conversations can -- have not occurred. >> dr. wallander, we have talked about sanctions and nothing

compares to what they are doing, but these sanctions we are all giving, our european allies taking some of the pain and we are as well, but sanctions are doing more than just affecting the economy. they have a strategic effect on russia's military capabilities as well like some conductors and chips. can you talk to the effectiveness of the sanctions and what they are doing to russia's military capability? dr. wallander: you rightly point to the financial and restrictions on technology sanctions. those restrictions will have an effect over time. my understanding from the sanctions package that was chosen is that it was designed to have the effect over time and to target precisely russia's future capabilities so that its ability to launch these kinds of military operations against neighbors is severely impacted. >> thank you both for your

service. i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for both being here. general wolters who was recently retired, and senior praises, so thank you for what you are doing at nato. feedback to the administration since december and february, is that we were being told that russia has decided to attack and the emphasis on what we are going to do after the invasion. i think we should put more emphasis on the deterrence side of that. i was told that they would be provided those -- we are resisting that and we are saying that we need to do more

deterrence -- lung range defenses. -- long range defenses. we need to give ukrainians the ability to hit those 500 or so armored vehicles. 100 is not enough. would you agree that if they have got thousands of these vehicles, we have got to increase the ability to go after these tanks? that would be my question to darrell -- general wolters. gen. wolters: when we get the first set of switch blades then, there would be more request from the ukrainians for more, so no questions here. >> we give them these convoys and trucks 30, 40 miles back,

the javelins are the closest and i think they could have a particular point. my next question involves the m 35. how important is that delivery to the allies? gen. wolters: it is critical and i know you are familiar with a lot of this, but the u.s. m 35's , they have been effective at doing elegant isr activities and it reveals how much more capabilities we will have once we get the full fleet on board. this position of the nato nations with the ms 35 is growing and we have over 100 on the continent right now and we anticipate to growing to 150. that is a good fleet. >> concerning the budget, it has been reduced, and we have got to

provide these kind of capabilities. it is hard to compose all of that but there is a real cost. my third point is more a book comment. -- more of a comment. the number one request is -- i just also want to focus on the request of air request from the baltics and i want to put that on the record there. my final question deals with russian energy and its impact on our bases in europe. the new hospital relies on russian -- -- russian gas. that is not acceptable. how do we build this resilience into the u.s. bases so we don't have to depend on russian gas? gen. wolters: as you will now,

the central european pipeline goes to central european nations. europe itself gets 40% of their natural gas from russia. as you will know over the course of the next decade and a half has worked on stop reserve with respect to petrol and stop reserve with respect to generators. and critical infrastructures like the new hospital and the current hospital. those have to be available so we can sustain it and it is expensive, but we have to continue to look at ways to take the central european pipeline and get it to as many people as possible. >> i am concerned about what this will do for energy and it doesn't make sense. we have got to put a better resilience plan. with that, i yield back and i think you both for your leadership. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

in q2 the two of you for coming over here -- thank you to the two of you for coming over here. i want to point out my strong urgency to the administration to follow through on the priority list that the ukrainians are providing us in terms of what security defenses are there and for us to take the list including the long-range air defense systems and things of that nature. at this stage in the conflict, our own administration highlighting the war crimes that are happening to the ukrainian people, that we recognize that some of this equipment is defensive capabilities that are trying to address this invasion. it is not quite aeschylus or he is in that same way and we are thinking about this as a defensive effort.

i know you're getting lots of questions on that. what i also want to raise is that we have had so many conversations with our nato partners about this new era of nato and what this means going forward. i was with many of you at the security conference when we were talking about this just before the war started. as there is greater solidarity within nato, i want to ask, i will start with dr. wallander, the increased investments that countries are seeing that they are willing to make, what is that looking like in terms of the conversations? there is the security threat we face with russia right now and that is important. that is something we need to posture towards, but we also recognize that the next threat to nato may not come in the form of tanks rolling across eastern europe. we have a lot of concerns about cyber, hypersonic, and in this

room we talk a lot more about the greater threat when it comes to china and the chinese government going forward even more so than we had with russia. when we are having those conversations with our nato partners about this new mission, the new era of nato, how is that factoring into the broader effort? are we making sure we look at this comprehensively across the topography of threats we face? dr. wallander: thank you, and the answer is yes. the russian aggression has galvanized -- and china's failure to stand on the right side of history in calling russia out for its aggression and reports that china may be entertaining them and helping russia cope with some sanctions has galvanized european leadership to understand that china is a global challenge and threat not just in the asia-pacific region.

and that china, like russia, extends its maligned influence through corruption, through questionable commercial and economic means, and through cyber as well. where working with nato and the eu. it is possible now to elevate u.s.-european cooperation on a global challenge that china poses. those conversations are happening as we speak. >> and general, i would like your thoughts on this as well because we are talking about nato and there is a concern about nato's role when it comes to this european threat. we have also known that the transatlantic of mayans -- transatlantic alliance, there is a global role for lynn nato as well and that is something we consider when we look at the pacific area so i would like

your thoughts, building off of dr. wallander, your conversation with nato partners and whether they understand that gravity of not only thinking about deterring russia but more broadly as well. gen. wolters: nato is very engaged in that area. there was a summit in -- there will be a summit in spain in june and it touches on this very issue looking that we look at the responsibility on the european continent to grasp all of the issues that could impact security for europe. in the focus on china is part of that. the secretary has been very loud about that and i am pleased to report that the nato 2030 strategy will take that into account. >> thank you very much. i think it is important we think about this in a strategic way and not just about the challenge at our door but also thinking about what is down the road and

what might be coming next. thank you for your time. >> mr. banks is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. in layman's terms, can you explain what an escalation in strategy would actually mean? gen. wolters: do not enter into world war iii. >> what does that mean specifically? define it. how does it apply in this case? gen. wolters: every action has a reaction and if every action exit closer to world war iii, you need to readjust what your activity is. >> on march 25, the news reported that the president of latvia said that nato had reacted more strongly to the invasion of georgia and the annexation of crimea. moscow has now invaded ukraine.

additionally you said that the appeasement tactics are not fruitful. has a u.s. avoidance of escalation strategy prevented russian aggression in ukraine? gen. wolters: ensuring that you have nato unity ensures peace across the greater continent. with respect to your question on ukraine and russia, russia gets a vote on this and they are responsible for their invasion. >> why did putin decide to ukraine -- invaded ukraine right now? why not anytime between 2014 and 2022? gen. wolters: he felt like he had popular support from the citizens of russia. he was also taking advantage of fissures that appeared in nato as a result of the post afghanistan environment and i

think it also has to do with his efficacy. all of those put him in a petition -- position to do so, but i believe he has popular support with his citizens. >> this has heightened concerns about nato's abilities to defend nato states from a possible russian military attack. what is your assessment for nato member states' ability to respond to a potential attack on a nato member state? gen. wolters: we will continue to change our military posture throughout europe and that activities ongoing. the degree of cooperation from the nations is as strong as we have seen. >> president zelenskyy pleaded for the mig-29 transfer while

having bipartisan support, but the is citing assessments from senior military commanders in europe has said the additional aircraft would offer only minimal value ukraine given the contested nature of its airspace. do you still agree with that assessment? gen. wolters: i do. >> russia is bombarding ukrainian civilians. ukraine needed equipment for air defense. what equipment should the u.s. or nato provide ukraine to defend from russian air attacks? gen. wolters: i would like to address this more in a classified setting but it goes to your point of defining what the problem is in the battle space and targeting that problem. >> understood. i look forward to those answers in a classified setting. the trump administration was the first to provide ukraine with

javelins. why is the u.s. or its nato partners now providing more antiaircraft equipment than assistance to ukraine? gen. wolters: i can give you the contributions per nation in this area and it might clear the air of what is going to the ukrainians. >> [indiscernible] gen. wolters: nato is concerned about defending ukraine and ensuring that we manage escalation appropriately. >>. thank you. . i yield back. >> thank you to both of you for being here. i cannot think of two better people to talk to us about these issues right now, both of you. many of us are affected by this ukrainian parliamentary delegation that is in town that is sent to advocate.

i met with them this morning and their position is that in contrast to what the media is reporting about the negotiations between the ukrainians and russians that the russians are not being benevolent about pulling back from cities. these are areas where the ukrainians are taking them out. it is that a correct characterization? do we see anything of pull back from the russians in the name of peace? gen. wolters: some small maneuvering of forces i believe for the purpose of adjusting the campaign to go into a difficult -- different geographical region, and as a military commander, i cannot trust anything with the respect to a potential foe, so we remain vigilant in areas. this area will be readdressed by the russians in the near future. >> we were also told that a new

list of equipment request was transferred to the department of state and department of defense. who is in the department of defense is the senior most for metering out the new requests from the ukrainian government? dr. wallander: we have a request from the ministry of defense as recently as yesterday. i do not know if it was the same list as the one you were handed. the responsibility for security systems assessment is managed in the office of the secretary of defense of policy, including my chain of command, and it is something we work on every day. >> is there some emergency group that has been set up at the pentagon that is looking for the soviet era weapons that the ukrainians have asked us for, and if so, who is the head of that unit? dr. wallander: that would be led by my office in cooperation with other components of dod including that intelligence

community and -- >> is housed in your office? dr. wallander: that is correct. >> what is the official position of the department of defense on providing or helping to facilitate russian-made aircraft that the ukrainians ask for? dr. wallander: the official policy is that countries that wish to donate soviet era aircraft, that is their decision. we ask those countries to consider the potential escalation dynamics and the balancing of risks that general wolters explained so well, and we are listening to the ukrainians carefully on what they need and we are working to fulfill their requests as diligently as we are able. >> just a couple of additional

questions. you talked about watching the china-russia relationship and for a lot of us here, it is very interesting to think about what china is learning from all of this. we know there has been some military cooperation exercises, talks between the russians and the chinese. have you seen any evidence classified or otherwise that the chinese are working with the russians on nonconventional military means, cyberattack in particular? dr. wallander:. . no. >> have you seen any evidence that the chinese are aiding and abetting the russians other than the conversations they have been having and the basic supplies they have been providing, things like mrd's? dr. wallander: no. >> and lastly, there is interest in the future of nato, with

finland and sweden making noises about being interested, with other countries like north macedonia trying to get in. is there any plan to change the criteria to think differently about how fast nato membership goes, knowing that it is typically a slow process? dr. wallander: i am not aware of any assessment to change the timeline. the criteria remains the same and membership is driven by the desire and their requests of potential new allies. >> appreciated. north macedonia is the one that hope will be broken in soon. thank you very much for your time and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to build on the comments of some of my colleagues and i think we need to recognize that deterrence did fail. the fact that we have cities that are now leveled, it is notable that nato is now unified, that germany is

reversing its long-held decisions on energy or its defense spending, but we have 4 million refugees and cities that are leveled because deterrence failed. just to be clear, general wolters, does deterrence fail? gen. wolters: there is no argument. >> we need to apply these lessons and these failures and lessons learned on this. on top of the lack of response in 2018 and 2014, the russian top priority was nothing in return, the response to the colonial pipeline, the listing of sanctions on nord stream 2, not to mention the germans' and others' posture on the war.

there was the continual message that the weapons that the ukrainians were asking for would have been too escalatory, including the stingers. would it have made a difference if the ukrainians had stingers month is >> -- month ago and have the monday one? -- have them on day one? gen. wolters: it could have, and as we always do in the military, we have got to go back and cradled the grave and make sure every single soft spot, we look at where some of the flaws are and that may be one of the areas. i don't know. >> we were told that the united states couldn't give them stingers because we didn't have any -- only to find out eight weeks later it is three screws and a component that had to be taken off and i think we know

that -- we owe that to the ukrainians and ourselves. we talked about how sanctions are biting on the russian logistics system. would it have been effective as if we would have had those sanctions six months ago? gen. wolters: it could have been and we need to scrub that as well. >> just switching to the black sea which we talk about, we currently have any u.s. ships in the biloxi? -- black sea? gen. wolters: we do not. >> when did those sees move out? gen. wolters: january. >> that was the policy decision to move out of the black sea? gen. wolters: it was.

dr. wallander: i was not in office at the time and i will give you an answer of the assessment. >> but your assessment now, we are not putting in any force structure now. literally as russian ships are bombarding mariupol, and we did not give other equipment because those could have been escalatory. let's speak to the now. what i understood as a policy decision was that ships in the blackfeet would have been too escalatory and we did not want to provoke the russians. we are seeing a theme that we need to be very careful as we move forward and that a fear of escalation can actually invite escalation from the other side. in terms of the ships now, general, are we flying over the black sea now? gen. wolters: we are. >> directly over? gen. wolters: we are flying over

the black sea into the southern portion with manned systems. >> in terms of training the ukrainians outside of ukraine, are we conducting any training of the ukrainians outside of ukraine? gen. wolters: we are not. there is some advising taking place and we insured -- >> wire we not training them -- why are we not training them? dr. wallander: i am not aware of any requests of ukrainians outside of the country on training. i am not aware of any requests that iou a good answer on whether we have received such requests. >> we are breaking at 12:30 so if we do not get to your questions than the public session, we will have a private

session and we will prioritize people who are not able to ask questions here. we will get to as many questions as we can. with that, michelle is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you and the comments on paul arce, i am sad to see him go. with the establishment of a fire command in europe, will the army provide more ground-based services to the european theater, especially given that currently russian artillery out ranges ours? gen. wolters: that is a possibility and i harken back to post-conflict with what has taken place right now after we have a deep scrub. this will be one of the areas we address. the theater fires construct is exactly what we need and we are excited about going forward with that. >> do you expect these systems

will meet the needs of the theater fires command or are you going to look towards more ground based extended range, hypersonic projectiles? gen. wolters: we will look at as many domains as we can use those capabilities. we will be able to fine-tune our focus once we have a post-conflict scrub on this area. as do many -- as many domains as possible, the better when it comes to defense. >> can you speak more about the importance of having an all weather surface to surface, precision fires capability? gen. wolters: having those capabilities that will impact as many domains is possible that have the ability to range with precision complicates the test, so that dramatically improves the deterrence posture and that

is all positive. >> thank you. further regarding ongoing work in ukraine, we have seen multiple reports regarding the russian military's logistical challenges with stopped convoys and stranded forces all leading to combat power loss that is proving deadly to russian forces on the ground. although uconn is taking steps that would allow for the freedom of movement throughout the ar, what steps are we taking to ensure logistical efforts will be successful in a contested environment particularly with fuels or power sources? are we looking at new fuels or power sources to make sure that we maintain our logistics in the theater? gen. wolters: we are. it first starts with the independence we need to possess for the electricity and gas.

as you know we stock additional gas and generators for the purpose of having expeditionary services to go to in the effect that certain systems are shut down. we need to continue to advance that independence with all of the areas you allude to and that is part of future plans. >> thank you. with respect to our preparation and supporting the ukrainians, under the previous administration we know that president trump withheld javelins country to the expectations of this committee. are they javelins proving to be important to the fight now against the russians for the ukrainians? gen. wolters: yes, congresswoman. >> thank you. and as we look towards how we are going to be united with our nato partners, dr. wallander, have you seen this administration working hard with

our nato allies? dr. wallander: yes. >> and has that been part of the fight to make sure we are isolating the russians from the world community? dr. wallander: it has been vital to isolating russia, helping ukraine, and sending a vital message to russia. >> and as we look to support the ukrainians, have we done so with our nato allies and have we gotten the ukrainians much of what they need to be as successful in the fight against russia? dr. wallander: we have been communicating many of the requirements that the ukrainians conveyed to us so the allies have those capabilities and are able to provide them. >> thank you very much. i was meeting with president zelenskyy before the russian invasion, and many of the javelins and ammo on the ground,

i see we have provided them and it has been successful for the ukrainians in their fight against russia, so thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to follow-up on the questions, i am still confused on the messaging of what we are doing in poland. a week ago the national security adviser said we were doing no training, then president biden said we were, and then an official said that we were helping them unload weapons and giving them verbal instructions on how to use the weaponry do not lead the ukrainians through physical drills. it is confusing to all of us. does anyone at the white house ordinate those statements -- coordinate those statements? gen. wolters: no, congressman. >> specifically what we may or

night -- may or may not be doing , i will do for that to the private session, but what is -- on how we train ukrainians? gen. wolters: i am having a hard time grasping what the question is. >> should we be talking publicly on what we are doing specifically on the ground technically with our allies? gen. wolters: not publicly. >> thanks. general, i think we witnessed a change in defensive tactics during the invasion of ukraine. we have all seen decimated russian armored columns and the takedown of sophisticated fires by cheap and plentiful weapons. it already looks clear that the 20th century tactics of mass land warfare are not as effective today when they were last invaded in world war ii.

do you think the low cost high-volume weapons is a feasible strategy for future conflicts against competitive nations? gen. wolters: i am not familiar with the ukrainian strategy that one of the things that makes a huge difference is what is in the heart of the citizens and their support for the military activities. after this is all said and done, when we look at what transpired, that is one of the areas that has made a big difference. we still have a long ways to go. >> we have all been amazed at the tenacity of the ukrainian fighters and there is a lot to be said for the training we have conducted side-by-side with those allies. also the high impact of relatively low-cost things like drones, stingers, javelins. it doesn't matter how many tanks you have if they can be taken out with low tag weapons. do you think the investment of

long builds time systems should sift -- shift in the dod to more amenable systems? gen. wolters: that is one of the areas we need to take a look at and that mixed with capabilities that are less elegant need to be factored into the discussion and we need to be willing to listen closely to what we have learned and make adjustments. >> do you see the possibility of amending our current offensive and defensive strategies with what we have learned in ukraine and what might this look like? gen. wolters: i think we always have to be willing to adapt and change and listen to every possible input in every part of any conflict and this is one of the areas that no matter how insignificant an issue may be, we need to pay attention to it. if we are a good learning

organization, we will take that into account as we press forward. we have to learn from what unfolded from this particular conflict. >> thank you, general. i yelled back. >> thank you. when you are done, we will take our break at 12:30 and reconvene. >> thank you to both of you for coming in today. i want to start by addressing a comment that one of my colleagues made earlier, concerns about intelligence failures. general wolters, you are going to conduct an assessment on where you are soft, but i have to say we nailed it. starting back last fall, we started to determine what was happening, ringing the alarm bells, and engaging in unprecedented public and private engagement with our allies in the international community,

releasing declassified information, getting the ukrainians prepared to address this. this is one of our generation's finest intelligence successes and something i think we should talk more about. i just wanted to say that and hope you all agree because we can always improve and that is the military mindset that i appreciate, that is why we do ar's, but it is important to say that the intelligence community did an exceptional job and i want to point that out. starting with dr. wallander, i have been in regular communication with ukrainian leadership and they have provided me a document that details the urgent needs of the armed forces of ukraine and it lists 17 items and goes into extreme detail. are you familiar with this list? dr. wallander: yes.

gen. wolters: yes. >> the department of defense looking at this list of detailed requests? dr. wallander: yes. >> and as the department of defense ready to go on the record to provide this committee with an analysis of these requests and what we are able to comply with or what we are not, and the reasons why we are not? dr. wallander: yes. >> thank you. broadening out in terms of our security cooperation, there was this issue of providing migs through poland and general wolters, you made it clear that providing fighter jets would not be appropriate at this time. yet we continue to hear from ukraine that this would not be a game changer but an important element to ukraine's defense and allow them to protect power in

the south and east. where we cannot allow them to cut off supply lines, and they also told me that they are rebuilding their airfield. they have logistics systems support capabilities, pilots can fly, and it would not make a difference, and the ukrainians are not going to ask for something they cannot use because they are fighting for their survival. could you both tell me where are we on the fighter jet issue? is that something we are taking a fresh look at? and this issue of escalation, does the administration draw a line at aircraft and vehicles? >> i don't believe that the position of the department of

defense advice has changed on this assessment, although i deferred to general wolters. >> on the fighter jets? >> yes. on the issue of ruling out certain, kinds of vehicles,, i think it is capabilities driven rather than particular kinds of vehicles. but we can get into more detail in the next session. >> good departments allow commanders to provide the best military advice. the secretary expects me if i need so to provide the best military advice to change courses, and at this time, that is not my best advice with respect to the aircraft. i can elaborate more in a classified setting. >> i understand. so it is your best military advice that the united states or

its allies should not provide better just to ukraine this time -- fighter jets to ukraine at this time? >> it is that the u.s. doesn't. and that we allow nations to independently make their decision about what they would like to offer the ukrainians. >> we will take that up in a classified setting. >> we will continue in a half-hour with our classified portion. we are adjourned. [gavels] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

and now it's history in books explore our nation's past with american history tv and watch television for serious readers with book tv. today on the presidency our series that highlights the politics policies and legacies of the us presidents. we hear from hillary clinton on the role of the first lady in her time in the white house. that's just one of many programs. you'll see today on american history tv find a full schedule on your program guide or visit c-span.org/history. now it's time for lectures in history an opportunity for you to join students in college classrooms on topics ranging