tv Former Ambassador Calls Presidents Denial of Russian Interference... CSPAN June 30, 2017 10:40pm-1:20am EDT
>> to grow up on a farm where they had no money his mother was illiterate maybe could read there was a bible in the house because that was the only book and they worked hard every day from childhood:but because he got a scholarship at a little college in cambridge called harvard said he discovered books and read for ever he became the john adams that helped change the world
they have largely focused to date on the domestic impact of rushes activities but today's witnesses will highlight to the committee in the american people precious interference of the european elections to gain p additional understanding of russian efforts to undermine those democraticss institutions worldwide so they assessed in january with those lessons learned and aimed at the presidential election to further influence thoseti efforts and assess that russia has sought to influence elections across europe the director of national intelligence has recently as may testified before the senate with russia seeking to influence elections in europe including france france, germany, uniteds kingdom but that russian
messaging strategy with the over effort of the russian agencies and those paid social media users with an old government approach withgo democratic institutions to face down the activity is no longer just a bipartisan issue and to share our experience with moscow's intentions and also to enhance the security measures to thwart the campaign just as germany is learning from the recent events in france and montenegro we will leave on our allies for the 2018
elections we must advance more quickly with our adversaries will reduce sell so '02 welcome our distinguished guests today in over the practice of diplomacy and from the kennedy school of government that is a long title but we're delighted to have you. the director of communications center toll free and will get the names right the ambassador practice of diplomacy and international relations with the school of global studies
and also the inaugural senior fellow from the proteins institute from the t united states and europe thinks to be here to better understand russia's activities and the underlying intentions that russia may have. >> let me commend you on your brilliant introduction. today's hearing addresses those committee's efforts in that active interference in the denver pratique process in the 2016 election as wellas as those ongoing efforts to undermine the democratic institutions but at this point we have a better understanding of russia's
coal to put chaos into confusion and to undermine democracies wherever possible to cast doubt on the democratic process where every exist we all know the efforts of russia go back to the cold war but it's blatant interference was unprecedented in scale and scope that has been replicated across europe and they're actually getting braver. brescia has interfered we have seen those active measures including support
for the far right and the far left to oppose those successful european institutions with the western alliance for example, providing support right with a very blatant in the obvious way with those cyber attacks in several western countries they have also release stolen information and as we saw in the french elections to release that information germany's parliament is a cyberattack so most observers say this will be analyzed before these national elections in germany and russia aggressively uses trolls to
spread fake news and misinformation with weakening european institutions and driving a wedge between united states and europe these measures have been supported bye measur state-controlled rush of media. they have not been as successful in europe as they were in the united states so with that campaign in the french government are prepared to push back as a release that information and we have seen them take down a series of fake accounts to stop that effort so officials actually hand counted paper ballots to make sure there is no electronic interference across europe they push back
against the fake news such as a strategic communications division in the center of excellence to educate the public to correct brushup propaganda we could learn a finger to from allies in europe but months ago i would have assumed it would be a good opportunity for united states to the europeanat friends but to date as aod government that have not taken to heart those lessons and then to demonstrate little interest to determine how the russians did what they did in then to
repeatedly denied for the u.s. election interferenceour even in the face said unanimous agreement to be consistently questioning be intelligence professionalsur and all over the map to discuss the united states commitment to the trans-atlantic alliances and so in 2016 the russians targeted democrats and who is to say which party would be in the cross hairs next time that we know that vladimir putin is not a democrat or a republican and to undermine the united states in 2016 russia got
the money worth to get dissension in the heart of the american political process and my fear is that rate of return that russia will continue to return to those tactics saddam believe anyone believes russia will stop i believe those statewide elections we have to be alert now that is why last week even to share confidentially of those states that were attacked i have written and spoken with secretary kelly and we need to work to that process so that a state election officials have a security clearance in my fear is with
the top election official both states could not acknowledge as we also heard from a state of illinoisois testify openly they were attacked we yet were not informed until last week that those attacks originated. to learn lessons around the world to stop this very critical 21st century threat i live for to the testimony of viruses. >> you'll recognize numbers by seniority and i were also like so when we return from
next week's recess we will immediately consider that notion for the secretary of intelligence and analysis if members have additional questions they need to be handled quickly to be acted on and we intend to move that nomination as? as we can i will recognize from my left to my right. >> 84 this opportunity to testify i appreciate very much that bipartisan commitment shown to show that there is no doubt about russia is systematic campaign for the german
elections this year and russia seeking for the citizens of all these have been there democracy russia's actions show us existential threat to require a swift and serious response from europeans and americans you ask for our yes mmendations and i have three the united states and europe need to work much more closely to identifyre white negative and then to do something about it to respond in tandem you saw of a the campaign done very effectively been have messy that in other countries countries, poolsides of the atlantic we should make it clear we have our own
capabilities that can be injuries to moscow and we will use them if they do not cease or desist so with this in mind obama should have been more transparent about the nature of the russian threat to act more vigorously so was the unexpected threat than the contacts between secretary clinton and donald trump and did make the right call in the yen to impose sanctions but we have to learn from this experience to avoid that in the future.in the and those to weaken the elections we learned important lessons with the
obama and george to be bush administration after they align to gather i hope the house and that is a great mistake to veto such of bill so with that separation of powers if you think congress it is time for the congress about the president to lead the american response to the a cyberattacks on united states the president showed he is unwilling to act against russia that is why that provision in your build make sense so the administration cannot liftft the sanctions and tell the attack on the democratic
elections have ceased so third congress and the president must make resistance to russia's interference of the european internal -- election a national priority i serve both parties and i find it objectionable that rational launch day cyberattacks regardless of which party he launched it against an to be very systematic president trump has refused to launch an investigation of his own he has taken no steps that i am aware of with the congress to strengthen our voting systems there is no
indication to develop a plan for the united states and with his failure to act whens. as the ambassador to nato the have a political responsibility to protect one another from cyberattacks as well i have worked for both parties it is inconceivable that any of president trump predecessors would deny that gravity and don't believe any previous president would argue that your own hearing in the senate is a waste of time or a witch hunt.duty tha it is his duty to be
skeptical of russia to investigate and defend our country from the cyberoffensive because russia is the most dangerous adversary today that if he continues to refuse to act the dereliction of the basiche duty and russia will do this again to say that russia and will be backed our elections will be a risk and the sanctity will be compromised in the minds of our citizens thu russia is really testing the resolve of the west the americans and europeans in the democratic traditions and values with this in mind we need to be reflected in countering so i do want to commend you for setting that
bipartisan tone which is deeply appreciated we can do that by encouraging the president to racked and if we can achieve those three things we can go to the russian intelligence services. >> ambassador?. >> mr. chairman to the members of the committee thank you for giving me the opportunity on october october 162016 with those parliamentary elections preparing to go on to the parliament and waiting for
the election results so acting on a tip from the informant so recently 14 people were charged with those to russian agents with the russians of the russian military servants -- service to identify the ringleaders of the operation so was the assistant attache to give him persona non grata by the russian authorities can never replied but this is
the culmination of more than 18 months against montenegro with the aggressive media campaign to of those political parties and why russia has been consistent they have never specified there indications the for example, moscow commented that anti-wretched hysteria that is the right to take reciprocal measures. so with these organizations and media outlets so with the media campaign it is
described as a move to challenge moscow and then to be stronger than ever and that also used to promote christianity to be fundamentally different the russian government with that political coalition known for their pro russian affiliation with his supporters in russia began the opposition united around a political platform to prevent the formation in
montenegro. is seemingly it did say possibility on the air adriatic coast so those continuous the polls it existed in most of the state's but in that capacity of corruption of the military needs and regionalization -- margaret -- more regionalization so with those law enforcement agencies has protection from russia's influence. so it is a proactive approach and in the balkan states and they must remain
open and with european security and i am looking forward to your question. >> thank you mr. ambassador. >> they give mr. chairman and vice chairman we have been closely russia the operations it influence across europe producing 18 difference studies on the methodology called russia tries to affect the outcomes of our choices typically there are three venues but first to support the
candidate of their choice to get the support of the of the networks of a normal democratic presence. second, they tried to get the sensitive information on the of their candidates to undermine their credibility tryo to hack into the systems with that is not the only way they use very large segments of this information fae fake news is an inches to rent -- an instrument of choice but they also used
the fake news site to amplify the message what was the french response? and it was media cooperation with the very different sort of media to clarify what is a factual reality to be support by the online activist groups and internet companies like facebook and google to make sure over a digital space and then they were assuming there were hacked attacks and all of us
know you can only design a strong case response as possible so what the french idea has been to have that relative information to make that irrelevant as well that is how they traded that hack fit based on a the french law so secondly most of the media goes through the hack the way they tried to be manipulated that is the
into those systems that is a key element to respond effectively. next is cyberdefense so the technical pc and the human peas. and then to help with technology companies that is where it takes place and it is most successful to make sure that the facts are more preeminent so finally the reason why we have not paid attention using their old
tricks and a the marketing know-how so is about focusing on the problem and collectively to have that potential. >>. >> good morning to the distinguished members it iss an honor to be delighted to testify before you on the critical issue before this panel specifically on the federal elections with russian interference it is strategic and aimed at
destabilizing the european project if you weaken germany you weakened the e.u. because it has orchestrated against russia and is the main obstacle to persuade to -- to have the main interest but what has occurred for a long time but as for the election itself there is a general consensus that the only question is in what form so technical manipulation with a hardenedba computer infrastructure so the real target is they try to attack our political consciousness so they use
tools and propaganda to a more classical means so that intent this is one of the most difficult problems that even the russian authorities and interested are outsourced or delegated call patriotic hackers. so that kremlin is hit andd miss and often miss the meddling in the european elections for what is intended for the non populist government the populists have lost out almost everywhere and they are experiencing a renaissance in purpose at
the beginning of the year now looking quite different as the chancellor is holding a 14-point lead but that does not mean, and consider this that russia cannot do significant damage.damage a as for countermeasures it is racing to make up for lost time to harden defenses that is not to say there isn't more i much more to be done and to articulate the narrative so of course, it is a the first country. so that said we have a
reason to be complacent so with russian interference by mr. of the failures so in what form they take? if there was a major terrorist attack in that to be exploited by propaganda and with those attacks of those 16 gigabytes but that is just as likely but those attempts could backfire and interference could just as well test the vulnerabilities with a continuous slow drip of toxic information so germany will have to remain in a way
not to over dramatize to go into that mean psychological threat with a strong and vibrant democracy but however it is beyond any doubt to expose volatility and risk especially now more than ever me understand europe needs to do more of those transatlantic security relationships and avoid a taken many steps but the alliance as such of that intelligence partnership is crucial for preservation bin to feel ambiguous could be perceived by the kremlin as the ultimate encouragement.
there is only one recommendation actually is a request. and i look forward to your questions. >> thanks to all of the witnesses a reminder we recognized by seniority and the chair recognizes himself do you have any doubt that russian interference is driven by putin himself?. >> no doubt. >> the same answer. no doubt. >> nine. >> any question it has happened in u.s. european elections? to make it happen systematically it has
is time to construct those elaborate elections so that housing the networks they're not really efficient. >> with your testimony in were directed by russianan government and what they say or don't say about the candidates but just the fact that sputnik as a narrative that was different with the main street press with russia trying to influence the outcome?. >> i have no direct evidence
to save the particular narrative that we see during that election period with the from the of kremlin but there is the meeting between media and russia with those criminal officials and to coordinate the messaging. >> and to define in the united states?. >> if i've understood your testimony and there was a suggestion of the social media platforms they were part of a coordinated attackcooi did i hear you correctly?. >> the media platform have
said they said to uc ready information originates and with that french media to make sure within these platforms that these consortiums are factually correct. >> to have the ability to make it look like there's tremendous public support is that an accurate statement?. >> yes it is it is more than just the media themselves and we are about to publish a regular report that the systems are pushing a
narrative with those save networks on those dutch elections and also a the french election. >> what should the u.s. response the and should that response me to election integrity be coordinated with the european partners?. >> it should but i hope the administration can do this first to be linked up to understand the threat. second if laws are broken in europe and the united states to put them behind bars but
third so when you saw this brilliant response we could be matched up with the europeans we're in the same day alliance is a political and military alliance and finally to be on the right track with the sanctions bill is tough as cause of controversy that company should not have the vintages to sell into a the russian market and a the your bill makes that point. >> thanks again for your unanimous agreement on the nature of the of russian threats here in the united
states one of our witnesses testified that candidate trump used russian active measures against his opponents to cite those coordinations resaw candidate trump continue to use terms like the elections in those same types of terms used from the kremlin and the propaganda efforts so at least inadvertently candidate trump was of the dancing the goals of the russia of propaganda efforts . any comments?. >> i don't have any
independent knowledge of the trump campaign. >> i am not asking that just the comments of the elections being ripped it did for in litus seem that candidate trump was aligned with the russian propaganda is just important to say what he did to encourage the government that that was an irresponsible statement.ma >> anybody else?. >> to take that saved diplomatic effort i appreciate that. i would imagine i have this a response.
embassador the lack of interest shown to even the knowledge this threat toe urge his administration to take this threat seriously with the whole government approach i would argue that putin and his cronies had a good rate of return on those rules invested to take on the election system so one of the questions to commend you for your work on the robot trolling and how the russians are using technology tools to exponentially increase the
power of the fake news. 8% of twitter accounts our robot accounts not representing an actual person.al perso i was with facebook and they pointed out the fact in the french elections they took down 30,000 fake accounts right before the election because right after they had no responsibility but i think they moved into a more responsible position so what role do you feel these platform companies control so much information? and we will go down the of list. >> i had an opportunity to be a stanford last month five years i was impressedf peoe
of the number of people that try to filter hate speech and that is commendable. if that is the case there should be an ongoing dialogue between the government security agenciesesth to filter out russian propaganda but i was impressed by the testimony and was quite convincing tocinge be the integration of that technology company. >> above to hear the rest of your comments. >> so from silicon valley on these issues that growing market for robotics and social media but much of that is criminal activity.ty. . . and it will be a growing concern for those in the digital environment and with
those large numbers supported by artificial intelligence so to counter that those that have the platforms are one of the key players. i was heartened by the discussion that day take that seriously was to these companies are thinking how they could be an active supporter in not the lead instructor but also the technology research on this subject is a must that we work together and if we don't we will see not -- will not succeed.
>> german policymakers zaph traveled to silicon valley and i am told those initial conversations less iran cooperative there seems to be no inclination to self police and that has significantly changed in the use this with our allies to enforce those hate speech rules amateur and constitution lawyer and other critics of the law have mixed feelings about it.
i would quite like the political marketplace to regulate itself. if significant actors and very powerful actors that have control over algorithms who can shape the marketplace without citizens noticing that, if they refuse to sell please but i believe that becomes necessary. i think it has to become an ongoing conversation between business comes citizens, and the state to see where responsibility for regulation properly vice. >> investor, we are use to dealing on this committee with the kinds of things we hear and i want to talk to you about this that russia's most dangerous absurd we have. with all due respect if you sets on this committee and measure you would reach that conclusion. i think a lot of us who hear what's going on in north korea and our other adversaries that
russia certainly is a dangerous adversary, but when you have someone running a country like kim jong-un with what we know about what he is going to do if his administration is threatened, have to tell you that you might be slightly off the mark when he say russia'sht the most dangerous adversary that we face. don't take that as a criticism.t i think rush is not a dangerous adversary. i would just caution that a pulse in a group of countries and there are others that are more dangerous. >> yet, you are critical or are critical of president trump and what he is thinking right now. you would agree with me that the russians have taken no active measures in an election, while
donald trump has been president, is that a fair statement? >> thank you. magis in response to your first comment if you would allow. >> i agree with everything youou said about north korea, but russia can do greater damage from us that a nuclear weapons perspective and certainly tried to divide have a new dividing line europe. it's a respectful disagreement. >> do think it's more likely that, that assuming north korea have nuclear weapons that they could deliver come is a more likely it would come from russia or from north korea? >> the problem the threat from russia's multifaceted. it's not just from nuclear weapons. >> so i think they're both a problem. >> i just wanted to" general dunford when he was confirmed.me >> back to my last question, you would agree that the russians have taken no active measures in an american election while donald trump has been president
is that fair? >> i actually don't know. have we had elections crash mark. >> congressional election. >> and do think russia has taken active measures in those? >> i don't know. we do know they took active measures the loss presidential election. >> i think the intelligence committees are confirmed on the. >> i think were all in agreement on that. >> and who is president of the united states that occur? >> that was president obama. >> and you know he was aware that this was going on? >> yes. >> and did he said that he talked to mr. putin about that is that quick? >> you my testimony about president obama. great respect for president obama, this was a difficult decision. i think with hindsight he should acted more quickly to bee io transparent with american people. but he did take action what disturbs me about president trump is he has taken no action.
>> but i'm talk about somebody who could have done somethingg about this while it was going. you are aware that president obama talk to mr. putin about that. are you not in the summer 2016? >> that's what the news reports say. i know they briefed senior members of congress early on that there were public statements made by jay johnson. so they did take action.ct it's not as if they were just silent on this issue. >> indeed when president obama told mr. putin that we knew they were taken active measures, that was classified information, was it not? >> i think appear the president of the united states and trying to deliver us if diplomatic mission your wealth and your right to tell put what you think you might be doing. the subject of the conversation. >> and that's the purpose of classified information. it's no good if you collected don't use it.
fair statement. >> well, not always. sometimes you don't want that information to see the light of day. >> what osha president obama have done? >> this is a monday morning quarterbacking by me. i appreciate the fact that he did take action on sanctions.apg if you go back and look at it, the american people in my judgment deserve to know what was happening clearly after ringing the bell and we should of had a more immediate response that was painful to the russians. whether that was immediate sanctions or some type of offensive action we could've taken by covert means against that. i think there are a variety of options. i wasn't there so i don't want to micromanage. i think he could have done more. my testimony clearly shows that president trump has taken no action whatsoever. i think that is a responsible.ic
>> got that. but the description you would agree with me to the obama administration did not take significant, the significant action needed including informing the american people which would've gone a long ways to counter what the russians did. fair statement? >> i think the obama administration should have taken greater. but now the pertinent information is what the current president is not doing. >> to you is more pertinent. to me more pertinent what shouln of done at the commander-in-chief. >> at that time. >> many of said this is actually the crime of the century. if you think about it, it is. if you think about the fact that it is conducted by intelligence agencies, we know russian intelligence to be relentless and ruthless. and it all happens, and it
contributed toward the defeat of an american presidential candidate. who happened to be the first woman running for that office. well that's not you, but in a very serious way it is. they targeted 21 states. i have been sitting here to say to your colleagues, i have great respect for you, my own view is that if in fact this is a crime of the century, if in fact it is going to lead to other crimes being committed in the future, that we together have a responsibility to hit back. the question comes, our sanctions really be effective way to do it?
or do we do it in the cyber world? but, i don't think that we can sit here and see the amount of destruction that has been done, the defeat of a candidate, the intrusion into 21 state systems, the continuation even now with spearfishing, what is happening in europe and the iron bear is on the march. how do you stop that? and, we have had certain abilities of how to develop a hit back. it is hard for me to believe that sanctions make them angry, but sanctions don't really do anything. there is a downside to a cyber war. on the other hand, the united states of america cannot see the critical infrastructure of ande
american democratic election destroyed by russia. what, i would be very interested if anyone could be prepared to talk about what europe and america could do together to plan, to prepare, and to hit back? >> senator, i would say briefly that our sanctions have to be aligned, they'll be much stronger if we work together with the europeans to align what they do in sanctions with us. number two, it's my impression we can do much more the way of intelligence but also work together to respond verbally to
the propaganda. and i think you're right and i testify that we need to think of other means and we have capacity that if we want to use it week could. >> bear in mind these are not french people. these are at least two of the three intelligence services of russia. that's a big deal. the president of russia committed his intelligence to hit our election system, do we just say oh well, maybe we shut off this sanction or that sanction. maybe we think is going to just go away? they showed no signs of going away. i've been on the committee for a long time. i've never seen a time when with full confident, every single one of america's america intelligence agencies has come together and say they have full confidence that this was orchestrated by putin and he used his intelligence to do it.
>> if i may come i think first thing we have to do is cover our backs and that is building the resilience. that is what we all talked about. >> could you define resilience?f >> ability of the democratic process to withstand the attacks to influence the malicious intent from outside the societal choices in the election system and being able to the respective these,. >> what acts are?? we do stay in, there's no question about that. >> i could go through the things i recommended, society being aware, cyber defense, haven't
been able to operationalize the information battle space and many of these, secondly i wanted to say in fact if you look at russian documents, they believe we are attacking them. and i think they really believe that. so i think that's a paradox. what we have to really look for is that we are not attacked by russians, were attacked by kremlin. and what we can do is actually help so people within russia to recognize what his actual realities. i think that's most powerful weapon. the truth if kremlin is hiding away from their own citizens. o and that is a weapon we have. >> man a few words? >> i personally believed in the
country under sanctions. and i give my personal experience for being a citizen of a country and living a normal life under sanctions. for sanctions to start working and start being good you need time. it took like nine years for yugoslavia which is smaller than russia to see sanctions working. i cannot imagine that in the case of russia that we have to endure resources needed and to start doing a certain point. i don't think that we should stop or rethink this strategy. on top of it somebody mentioned importance of nato. nato is not only military organization.
nato is security a political organization. is formed in 1949. since u.s. has seen nato as -- in the countries who are members of nato are there because of it. it means that we have to keep ourselves together and strong to nato which includes number of measures, not only a deterrence taken place right now in europe, but also number one it is not only that europe is under attack, values are under attack. values of democracy, values a parliamentary democracy is under attack. russia is begging those groups in europe left us are writers, those who could challenge very core values of liberal
democracy. because those who challenge from within those democratic systems and would like to see the systems and values eroded. so like a hard-core measures you have to put emphasis also excel power. this is what russia uses against democratic systems. and democratic systems are much better off than russia a male for more than russia. >> madam senator, i would like to add one remark to what's beee said. and that is if i may say is an ally and a citizen of your ally, do no harm, do not question the alliance that is greatly in your strategic interest with europe,
but but it's also in our interest it is existential importance for us. an american government, a white house that questions the validity of that alliance that questions the validity of the aticle five does more to undermine our security and our safety than many things the kremlin does. we are all vibrant western democracies. that's not to say we don't have flaws and vulnerabilities but as western democracies can address them together.osth we can look at them together. i would add that sanctions do work. perhaps even more as a political statement of cohesion and will. as such they've had a tremendous impact on russia. they have left a deep impression on the kremlin, they've also done economic damage but abovese all they been an expression of europe's and america's will to stand together against the
threat towards ukraine on the threat against european project on american interests. so they do work. >> thank you for being here. my hope is this committee's work will produce the document that doesn't simply detail what happened, but how they did it so we can prevent and take preventive steps to address it in the future. i don't think it's going away anytime soon because it worked. a lot of people are focused on a particular outcome, the broadert design is to show instability, cassa division in a country that already had great political division. i don't think anybody can doubt that's the case. just the amount of time and energy spent by this committee, this congress, the press andhe everybody else on this issue of russia alone must be deeply gratifying to the people who authorized these measures and the way it has exacerbated our ability to get work done.
i really truly hope that as we do our work, we will are what are the best ways to confront it within the confines of the following. we have a first amendment. understand places like france are able to block out when stufo came out about mccone. a lot of that was not widely reported, i don't mean this and i'm not attacking the medium just saying one of the most powerful unwitting agents of russian influence was the mainstream media. when these e-mails were being leaked there is a lot of focus on what was in the gospel aspects of it and not so much the origins of what it was about. because we of the first amendment in this country. the people who did this understood that certain information would get widespread coverage. i'm not advocating censorship. that is what the use against us. i want to know, what has worked. has anyone successfully confronted this threat proven to us things you can do to
alleviate the sting of these efforts? a point to an article in the new york times by several authors on may 9, 2017 it talks about steps taken by the campaign creating phony documents to confuse the attackers. i'm curious about the efforts in montenegro. a small country and what russia media propaganda rum rapid they were able to dissuade the people from electing a pro- nato government? what works? has anyone figured it out's weca need to do it? >> first, what works is people don't like to be manipulated. and when they know someone's out for them to change their mind and get under their skin they become more cautious. that's the first thing we saw
the number of countries where public becomes aware it's much harder, like instantly to get what russians are trying to achieve. secondly, it is very important in these misinformation, the mccrone case you know it's going to happen, you do a contingency plan. i would say your contingency is not that they're not going to break in, there's always a way to the human faults you can get into the systems. they actually have a trap. that is other thing that has clearly works. that takes also the knowledge, preparation and acceptance that it is happening. thirdly, in the fake news cycle we have seen it is always set the fake news comes in first to create a motion.
if you are able to get into that cycle first you are limiting the effect of not taking it away as such. we've seen cases where they take stories about german soldiers raping a teenage girl. they're trying to circulate. the government and media make sure the first news ever somebody scene was there is fake news about this. those governments in the media work there part in that never brought attraction. there are a number of good and successful tactical and strategic examples one can look at. >> what was russia's goal in the region? it goes beyond not to montenegro. their goal is to prevent further
expansion of nato and the e.u. tells about other countries that are wavering. on either so. if montenegro is considered because there's a loss for russia others have not lost it yet. and russia is trying by making example in montenegro, trying to send a signal to others. what were willing to do or what we can do if you dare to go. from strategical point of view it comes to the bok of this for russia. but it comes to the media campaign without was carried out. also speaks that russia has anph approach that it's about this approach with montenegrin but also the region. montenegro first were not used to watching russian tv or
reading russian newspaper in russian. i like people in ukraine. you don't hear russian communities living in montenegro. so they have decided to open a number of office of russian media in the region. for broadcast news and all language. in the to use local networks to republish those. first fabricate news out of fake news, then they need to be re- published.hen and then a lot of media is not russian media. sometimes with russia today they become the most popular among the population. and finally because of cultural and historical between twose nao nations, they effectively use church and state, my society is
invisible, and people trust church. and since we are also with a population, so they use church to propagate why and to present to the people and citizens of my country that it's about advantage and cultural route. it's about dignity. and if christian and the if we joined nato or the e.u., at the end of the day you will lose that's about dignity. so, as speaks effectively how russia uses different channels and methods in order to reach people and send message which
will be -- turn the hearts ofope people. >> thank you. i think the four of you. this is been a valuable panel. hearing are in korea i focused on to call the follow the money issues. and concerns about moscow funding approval russia political parties group in europe is not new. two years ago the committee directed the national intelligence office to submit an intelligence assessment on this issue. what is different now is that were looking at this attack on european democracies to help us understand what has happened to our democracy. so director will start with you, you have studied moscow'sec financing pro- russian political figures. we see if we can go through a few questions.
have you been able to determine if vladimir putin employs particular strategies to develop relationships in favor with political figures in europe and if so, what with those strategies be? >> first, there are two there ae strategies to incite different political actors across europe into cooperating with russia. first is financial incentives. it can work those through the opening of the business opportunities with the kremlin -controlled companies. or, you can work also through a number of funds controlled by kremlin defendant further the money to different russia
controlled ngos. and then therefore further on disseminating the financial means to incite people into cooperating. the other is nonfinancial which is given the russia information power as the bank chop as to whe is ever message is trying to promote a political point of view they are trying to use for whatever the strategy. >> to president putin make the decision himself to support political figures in europe based on what you know? >> what we as a sense look explicitly at the open source. i would not be able on my well of information to make that
conclusion. >> does russian assistance to its allies in europe involve helping political parties, individual political figures, associates of individual or all of these approaches?f the ab >> all of the above. >> is there any information available on what mechanism prefers to provide financial assistance to political figures in europe? >> in an open space, there have been a number of reports for the european intelligence agencies. without great detail some of these practices, but of course there is much more which is not within the public state. >> and run lists one for you to
director, your statement referred to russian cyber attacks including the 25th teen hack. last week the u.k. parliament came under what british authorities called a sustained a determined attack on all parliamentary user accounts although the source of the account has not been identified. the reason i ask is that my understanding with respect to these issues is that every attack is going to be different. every attack is going to be different because once you have engaged in one particular strategy you have people prepared for that and they move on to the next. what's your advice to us based on your analysis for how we deal with this extraordinarily important issue of developing cyber attack strategy and preventing it? >> first, i think you give too much credit to the kremlin operation.n. in fact, what our research says
is much of it remains the same. there is a variation on there is next mentation, but it is not more than the 20% of the overall activity. the generic advice is that we have to think slightly differently about what the cybef attack is. we typically think of it as a venue to get into the infrastructure and get the date. what, i would argue that we have to think of two parameters. technical is very important, but at the end of the day the purpose of the attack to get into the minds and we have to actually when we have to employ her own strategy focus on technical and cognitive aspect of the defense. >> my time is up. i'm glad you think the russians are less clever than cyber
attackers elsewhere. i have reservations about them. i want to make one last point. ambassador, i'm a fan of yours. and i just heard one word that concern me.d abou i think you didn't really mean it you talked about integrating the companies and the government, i think what you are meaningless better communication between the government and the companies. i wanted to make that point. >> thank you. i met there should be communication. >> is good to see senator burns, thank you for joining this panel this morning i'm struck by listening to the testimony of all the witnesses that the approach that was used in montenegro, and france coming germany, has been much more
proactive, it's bolder, it exposes the falsehoods that are out there and it is a far moreme visible efforts and ambassador, you were somewhere critical of president obama and i would be even more critical of his response and i would call it behind the scenes ineffective and tardy. it wasn't really until after the election that sanctions were imposed and that the january 5, 2017 report on the extensiveness and the scope on russia interference in our election was released by the intelligence community. so, there seems to be a big difference in the approach
that's taken by her allies and the approach that was taken by president obama and as you pointed out rightly president trumps administration does not seem to have any strategy to deal with this going forward. at this point. but, then i hear about the efforts taken in france for example where there was a coordinated effort among governments, the media, the campaigns and even the technology company. there is one headline that said france newsrooms unite to fight election misinformation. i cannot even imagine the headline in the united states of america newsrooms unite to fight election misinformation. so our system is so different that while we can learn from our
allies much more successful active measures, is that even possible in our country even the different role of the media here? amba >> thank you. i think were learning lessons as we go along. i think director comey was right when the committee asked him about this. he thinks the next turn to in our country could be either party. i applaud the bipartisan effort to learn the lesson. the european learned lessons of what went wrong to in our elections. it seems to work in the mccrone campaign was speed and decisive action. and transparency. so actually all of the french people were made aware of the threat and they have a right to that information and that's the basis of my criticism. i have tremendous respect for president obama.
this is monday morning quarterback by somebody's not the government. but you're asked to testify and i think this is a lesson that we have to learn from the europeans how they've done. what is missing his formal integration of effort by the governments of canada, the united states and europe. that's a step the trump administration could decide to take which would be helpful in analysis and action. >> i completely agree that visibility and transparency are critical and that is an important lesson. ambassador, i want to ask you about montenegro because the state of maine has the special relationship with montenegro. i can see by your smile that you're aware of that. we are part of the state partner program in our national guard has members stationed in
montenegro to assist the military. we like to think that we are helpful in getting you ready for your nato -- which i strongly support. but montenegro is a really interesting example because russia was not able despite a tremendous effort to dissuade the people there from electing a pro- nato government last october. so my question to is this, why were the russian influence in efforts unsuccessful in montenegro which is a small country that has for closer historical and cultural religious ties to russia and where the russian state media and propaganda are prevalent even as their efforts appeared to be much more successful,
that's probably an overstatement. but to have some success in showing the speeds of doubt and discord in the 2016 election in our country. >> that's a very difficult to answer. in a couple of minutes. sometimes yes we are small country, rushes big. i would say that russia look down on us and what they can put an order easily. but it turned out not to be the case. sometimes we hear simply that when one of the computers are one of the people in the mission to nato was hacked by russia. simply another mission and i don't want to mention names
which had been under attack for the same they helped us register that was even before it started working and then a return to nato and that it helped and then it helped all computers plus the military a missile defense. and to know that it would not be affected. sometimes as i said, we have luck but in others say that russia didn't penetrate economically. though my niece eked out montenegro to see how montenegro with russia living there and with russia money reporting in for years.
but actually russia in montenegro was mostly in real estate. we are not dependent on energy. russians didn't invest in banking sector. there -- so they couldn't simply sway us easily. even when we for sanctions on they did not know how to react economically or not. so they turn to political measures in order to show their angry because of it. then, i would say that we were small, what we tried to do particularly when it comes to cyber attacks, which are not capable of hit back. but we tried to build a partnership with nato partners. and we seek help with them.
at the end of the day, when it comes to cyber attacks it's about human factor. in the we try to build up vigilance in their issuingg a wn warning signs to its agencies to be careful how to deal with information. >> thank you. >> you talked a lot about the sanctions bill.ct we passed in the senate.sage the speaker ryan in the house of representatives doesn't take up the russian sanctions bill, what kind of message do you think that would send to vladimir putin. >> i think a message of weakness because the senate by a huge margin has to the saw. it's the right thing to do to have a painful type of leverage against the russians. if it's diluted and if theyti encourage the house to do it than i think the russians willd received a mixed message.
>> do you think it will sends make it more or less likely to interfere in the 2018 elections. >> i read your transcript with director comey. he told you he thinks is going to continue until we have better defenses that have gone on the offense. i think president trump should consider that and go to putin directly as obama did. and just say, there's going to be consequences and spell them out, that's most effectiveffecte thing. >> should we take these kinds of cyber attack and election manipulation as seriously as we would take military action or economic threat to our country
obviously you have to respond within hours. i actually think what they've tried to do systematically to the french, the germans and the americans is discredit democracy in the eyes of the citizens. i use the words existential, don't think was hyperbole. i think was the right word to use. we need to meet the squarely and all of us have suggested a multitude of ways to do this. >> i think one of the challenges mentioned is that the current president has been unwilling to respond or even acknowledge the validity of the russian hostilee bu actions. i'm curious what that means is we as members of the senate cane or should do to advance the conversation with our european allies about sanctions. i like your opinion on the and
open it to the other members of the panel as well. >> that conversation has to be held in this situation the state department would be talking to the austrians about the senate bill. i don't know if that happen this time, but were in the phase, we talk about the separation of power is my own view that congress needs to play the leading role. i perceive congress to be tougher. >> to any of you want to add to that? >> of course, it's well-known but a general politician and the foreign minister have protested the sanctions bill on this is because not just german companies but others are am invested. i'm not a big fan of the projecy frankly. but i'm far more concerned about unilateral american sanctions that aren't discussed with europeans that are put out there and we have to deal with it.
the fact of the matter is that for years we have been asking america to allow the export to the market and that it had been congress that was resisting. so i think the lesson of this experience is for us as allies discuss what's in the interest of the alliance and where we can work together. i think that would be a significant importance of the deterrent.ven afte >> while i have you, whenn president trump questions the value of the relevance of nato and if we should keep it as a structure anything benefited from that? >> i verity said that was the kremlin and is not great. i don't thinks it's in america's self interest to question the and the alliance with us europeans help with the self-interest.
>> before my time runs out you talk a little of how we should try to speak the truth directly to the russian people because of the filter they receive so much of their information through. how can we cut out vladimir putin and speak directly to the russian people. >> i think it is clear and evident that that's the same environment which is the digital one and if one takes note of the recent progress in russia against the corruption it was very strikingly how young the crowd was. it's also very clear that these people don't anymore get their worldview from the tv. it's also about social -- >> that's the way you can get the truth back to them.y i'm sure kremlin will tried to
put up new elements to block us but that's an environment where we can get back to them. >> i want to thank you for your testimony today thank you chairman. let's try a yes no question in the interest of time. the russian economy is feeling, not nearly the country it could or should be, disputant benefit in russia for getting credit for interfering with elections in our countries. >> i think it does.. >> yes is part of his domestic policy to benefit for him. bene >> i think it's both in the bhe short term he benefits in the long term he loses in russia loses. >> but the short-term benefit. >> the short-term benefit is that he validates it that weret
as bad as russia. the reality is that a lot of kremlin interference have backfired and we have been learning from. it has taught us to review ouroi complacency and taught us to defend our democracy. that's a good thing. but were also up against a significant enemy. >> i was going to ask what we should do about these channels of miscommunication like in our countries put in an rt starting with you what if anything have you done to try to respond more immediately contradict information coming in? you are much closer to this than we are. snow hard to keep out here that it is there.
>> can i just say i arrived here in november 2014 to start working at perkins. i was stunned by the amount of rt i'm sorry posters and advertisements around washington. there is big expensive ones on the bus stops and then ones that were plastered all over constructions straight, it was amazing, haven't seen anything quite like that so there is no investment like that in germany? >> would you allow it if theyou wanted to do that? >> i tend to think that if they want to buy advertisement it's a free country. and these are countries. they can do it. i'm not a big fan of that to protect us from things we can perfectly well see through. i believe americans can see through this as well. where it becomes more insidious
is where they're doing stuff in there buying institutions. >> and you're saying it's more insidious than fake news? >> fake news is insidious of oue citizens are not media literate. >> and other countries what arey they doing about rt and other russian outlets? >> in the information space it's quite simple. if somebody doesn't have the credibility there's no effect from that. and i think there's an interesting example where they had scandinavian countries and then within a years time they had to close it. >> what about a montenegrin? >> there's no office in montenegro. i barely can remember any of those russian base media head
office is a montenegrin sell. but they have offices in neighboring and from there it penetrates montenegrin. they know that in the case government may arise at any moment. it's not a case because we speak more or less same language, they can do it easily. from there there being published. and what if anything should we do about these known medians that they use of miscommunication. >> i think one is always to attach an additive. while we talk about the russia propaganda station. so expose them for who they are. second, be careful if you ever go on it because they will destroy what you say. don't give them the platform. >> let me try to get warmer question two. i agree with your current
position on congressionally binding sanctions. i assume you're much more inclined to have a flexible position at the state department. >> that is true. i'm a creature of the executive branch. i was that it's better to preserve the presence, but in this particular case since the president is enacting i think congress has to take thatith th responsibility. >> senator king. >> starting with a few comments. i want to associate myself with senator rubio's question which is the key question of the searing, what can we do to defend ourselves? he very testified and talks about it to submit a written her very short, have page here are the five things that we can do to defend ourselves. i think be helpful. secondly, what were seen here seems to me the invention, expansion and implementation of
a new warfare. it's the kind that's particularly effective against democracies. valerie who is the chief of the general staff of russia calls it weapon icing information. she said in 2013 that he believes we are engaged inct informational conflict prunes defense budget is one eighth of arse. but he's playing a we can't very well. he has found a cheap way and when i say particularly effective against democracies, this is where public opinion matter. in other countries public opinion doesn't have that ando how policies is formed. any doubt that rt is going to harm the russian government? no doubt. everybody grades.erybody secondly, i heard a note different committee that the
russians were looking around buying commercial tv outlets in europe. have any of you heard of that. >> yes, there have been in baltic states cases where they tried but they have tried to block these possibilities. >> that certainly seems to me one of the things we have to watch. >> i think this is a yes or no question. was what was done in 2006 consistent with what the russians have been doing in europe for some years. >> essentially the same.. >> welcome it was but there were a number of new elements andnd some more risk-taking then we
have used to say. >> so they're getting more sophisticated?in is that accurate? >> i think you said something several times that's consistent with my understanding. some members of this committee were in eastern europe over a year ago in the spring of 2016 we are in ukraine and poland.tso what the first thing they wanted to tell us his watch out for the russians in our elections. we didn't understand that at the time. and we said how do you defend yourself and the answer was, exactly what you said. they said that if best defense is if the people know what's happening and they can say it's just the russians. and that you characterize a societal awareness. that's important role of this committee is to educate the american people that whatever we do or defenses we come up with this will keep happening. the best offenses for them to be
digitally literate and i can't recall the team, but were gonna understand that there can i do this and we need to shrug it off. >> i agree and i think that's a lesson to learn from what happened to the obama administration. they're caught unaware it was new and they didn't appreciate the extent and it was a lack of speed and transparency. >> there's been discussion here, they did release on october 9 a comprehensive memo that this was going on. it really listed all of the elements that were later listed in the january and in the heat of the campaign nobody paidea attention to it. i understand. i think the dilemma was, to go public in a big way and be accused of putting a thumb on the scale of the election and those kind of things. but i think a more aggressive response what about been appropriate in 2020 hindsight. one thing that hasn't been
mentioned too much is the use of compromise. is that not part of the russian strategy use of salacious material against candidates they don't like that happen in other countries. >> it is one of the question about the federal legislature whether they're looking not unfounded. they haven't posted anything yet but that's kind of the james bond version. they may have done this for the simple purpose of espionage. often you don't find out because you're not supposed to. >> exactly. >> this has been used very heavily, i think they have learned that having one is not always essential. you might make it up. >> i see you don't even have to
have the data you can just make something up, can kickstart every morning. then i'm denying it for the next three months. or much worse. >> i want to thank you again for your testimony. i hope you'll give us written responses about defenses. that's important role of this committee to prepare ourselves for what everyone has suggested is not a one-off in 2016. it will continue to happen and it will continue to happen on both sides of our politicall divide in this country.rtunis poon is not a republican. he's an opportunist. this could come in an opposite direction. >> thank you mr. chairman. i've learned several thingss today including senator king kickstart every money. i was completely unaware of that. >> let me us the panel a quick question. goes back to a question which is
the deterrence. what price should russia pay for this type of interference? it's one thing to say were informing her people, were trying to do it rapidly i've heard it say the speed of the information is sick important. finding cooperation between sites that they will help identify here's false years true, but what price should they pay when the russians were cheating and doping their athletes in a short time russia paid a big price for that forhe their athletes not going to the olympics. i know you train but you don't your athletes and were caught for that.sion within the past 24 hours there doping authority has allowed to start testing their athletes again. they been on suspension. they paid a price for that. what pressure they pay for this type of aggression?
>> this is a difficult question. the main reason why it's difficult this retribution.y even when they know how to attribute they might not want to make the public. that is the largest conundrum were dealing with. we might be looking at asymmetrical retaliation. political, economic and the biggest price that russia can and should pay this failure. failure to undermine us on our democracy and our alliances. that's something we can do and i think it's more important because it's a remaining vulnerability that is more important than the question of retaliation. and of course german and european officials have been doing this all of the time.
we need to make it clear that we know they're doing that we want them to stop on that we have ways of reacting. but the legality and viability of symmetrical reaction is a huge legal a military problem. >> one thing you mentioned this at the export of lng. something debated in congress in a large part of the conversation was the conversation became this is about american companies. >> profitable while the europeans were saying about geopolitical power. if you don't sell us lng then the russians can turn the valve on and often they control a large part of europe for geopolitical influence we need to do that. that became debated and it was determined that yes we are going to sell it now europe has another outlet and has competition on it. other ideas that anyone would share as far as the price russia
should pay? >> one of the things they expect us to talk soft about, that's kind of part of their plan. they will not be trek strong response. i thought when the chrome that hooted was not pleasant experience. so be in direct instead of -- would be that talk. secondly, the machinery there using against us is extremely important for kremlin can to control their own population. so if we are able to dismantle it, then as we said, we bring in more truth to the discussion.
>> i just say that it's a tough question for both president trump as it was president obama. can we find a pressure point that is important to food as integrity of our election and i think you're right, it's probably going to be asymmetric. >> may be to add a sentence that is mention that russia's goal is to drive all wedge between the un and the u.s. i think that's one of the things that the un, it must exist in unity between the e.u. u.s. must remain. >> they can mr. chairman. thank you mr. chairman and i thank you for being here. i was impressed and seen our nato allies what what you have done trying to thwart what russia has done the mulling in your affairs. sweden has lost a nationwide
school program and the lithuania hundred rank of digitally to identify what people plan social media to spread russia disinformation elves versus trolls. france and britain have pressured facebook to disable tens of thousands of automated fake accounts used to sway voters in his stubble to 6000 to remove it defamatory and hate filled posts. all of this is amazing that you have all been dealing with this. it says the lot be a, -- i think it goes back to what you just said. they had been controlling their people by misinforming them. i basically not giving them the facts are what they want to know.
when lot be a broke in 1991 you are able at that time to set your people free. with the truth. have you had any insurgency into russia, using their own weapons against the? >> well, none of the governments that i know of have made a decision to do that. >> in our society groups that try to do that and bring in the different tools that might be there. some and i would argue in front of this committee humor, as awkward as it might be is one of the best tools i would suggest to penetrate the control system. we in fact recently produced a report on humor is a form of
communication. in five hours we had a response and it went on for a month including presidents of chechnya. doing a video is a response to our research of humor. i think that tells you story. but there are many ways you can get in. >> this been reports, it's open source that putin was involved in giving direction in the united states election, our intelligence basically said he was directly involved. he gave the order to do what was done. to have the same verification in your countries and nato allies that putin was directly involved in have you identified him as being directly involved so people would know where it's coming from? >> it if i found out that information i would not be sitting here. there is a general assumption in
germany that the president's office is directly copiously involved in giving orders to russian interference. the actual it execution is delegated broadly. >> when it comes to montenegrin i can only report a quote what prosecutors mentioned. just a few weeks ago he said that because of these events from russian that certain russian authorities -- but at this moment we cannot make that conclusion that putin himself was giving order to what was going on there. >> if i can follow up, the rhetoric coming from the white house, has a cause nato allies to start moving towards contributing 2% to the defense spending?
or is it because of their concern of russia aggression? >> yes, the chancellor has said repeatedly that we will achieve the 2% by 2024 which is the date it's promised. were increasing our defense budget by 8%. were doing other things i think the approximate cost was russia. >> more so than white house rhetoric? >> i say that the policies and rhetoric of this administration has contributed to reinforcing a sense of urgency. >> i think 20 of 29 nato allies increased defense spending since the russian invasion of crimea and 14.
but i must say, president trump has been right teresa said she is all of our presidents have. he has had an impact on the internal debate. canada's the country they spent barely a 1% of their gdp and defense. i think he has gone about it in a way that's not effective. >> unconventional but he is right to raise it. >> thank you. >> other members of nato increased defense spending by around 2 billion u.s. dollars. >> thank you. this hearing has been informative on the specific question on active measures in the united states and europe. that's just one small part of russia's efforts to undermined western democracies and divider lines. i think we explored most of those points today. i want to respond more broadly to a few myths. mostly by my democratic colleagues and some of the week
and some of those are that somehow president trump is weaker in russia than was president obama and second that somehow nato is undermined by the united states rather than by your. >> so first, let's review what is happened in the first five months of this administration. president trump has looked at the military base in syria, his shutdown searing place, you shut down iranian drones showing that russia is unable to protect its to meet clients in the middle east. were on the verge of deploying more troops to afghanistan where russia's medley and we have proposed a budget that increases military spending, albeit not enough, it accelerates ballistic missile defense and our domestic agencies are doing what they can to promote more oil and gas production in the united states. by contrast, president obama push the reset button a few
weeks into his tenure, six months after russia invaded georgia. he mocked mitt romney for calling rush our number one geopolitical flow. he asked in a hot mike moment to wait until after the election to discuss missile defenses because he would have more flexibility despite bipartisan support in the congress here is used to send lethal weapons to ukraine and set by his russia returned it to the middle east for the first time and he stood at the bar as we hear today the 2016 election. her dispute the premise that somehow president obama was any tougher stronger in u.s. interest against russia. second, the myth that nato deterrence is at risk because of the united states, not europe. talk is cheap. deterrence is about the military
balance of power not magic words. national leaders can call article five any pretty word they want, but europe's collective failure to meet the 2% goal of defense spending has under invested in our common defense by something on the magnitude of 100 - $120 billion per year. vladimir putin can see the reality of what national leaders in europe think about the defense the matter what years they use. it is well-known that russia's is within the range of the treaty and european leaders continue to resist the efforts to bring russia into compliance with those treaties. doctor, as you noted the german foreign minister has protested that pass the senate 97 to two because germany does business
with russian communities. which they shouldn't be building in the first place if there that worried about russia want to determine deter them in your. and the 2% goal should make promises they can't keep. germany increased its budget by the percent, this year is increased by 4% to force the pole the majority of germans oppose such an increase. more alarmingly faster pains if russia got into a serious conflict with the neighboring country that is an ally to think our country should or should not use military force within the country? the dutch said 72% yes, 23% no. that's great for the dutch.
they're good allies. 62 - 26, american 62 to make 21. canada 56 - 31. france -- spain 46 - 46. not great. britts, 45 - 43. germans, 40 - 53 to defended nato ally. my time is a list expired what is the matter with germany? thank you for your questions and remarks. i've said that i'm not a fan of the project when i think the number of my expert friends agree with me. there's a debate within politics about the use of the project
politically. i can only reiterate what the chancellor has said to most likely win this again is that germany is on course to fulfill this promise by the time it is supposed to fulfill it. anybody who has ever looked at defense budgets and attempted to increase them know how many past dependencies and complications are in expanding forces. we would have to double our defense budget to do this. i assure you from conversations last week that we are racing to do this. only last week or two weeks ago i was on the stage together with the german chairman of the joint chief at the bidding of the defense ministry to explain to germany's bureaucracies why they
have to work faster, more flexibly more creatively to accomplish the promises we have made to nato. i assure you that this was a serious discussion. it will not have escaped to because we're are in an election and gabrielle is a member of the opposite party although in a coalition with the chancellor and he has to say these things. he has said other things. when he went to moscow he told the foreign minister that he did not believe in the post- western world they had spoken of. that this was wrong and we stand by the idea of a western and western alliances. and that this is a question of shared values and not geopolitical location. as for the people. i know many germans who are unhappy as well.
maybe that is also rooted in our cultural members of the cold war. all bold enough to remember the cold war where we knew that if the article five came to pass there be three weeks of conventional warfare, then it would look move to nuclear in my country would be in a heap of ashes. i think that's a memory that informs that judgment. i know german politicians of all parties have made it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt to moscow, the kremlin and mr. putin that any violation of article five will have a standing there as one, salads to defend an attack on nato territory. >> investor, can you tell me what you believe has been the impact of our reputation with our allies in europe in particular as a result of this administration's failure to acknowledge that russia hacked
and attempted to manipulate the president of the united states? if you believe there has been an impact in terms of our standing with their allies in europe, do you believe that it is going to have an impact on our ability to protect ourselves on guard against what should be a predictable attack in our 2018 election by russia? >> i think the basic problem is the europeans are custom to looking toward the united states to lead on any big issue. this is a big issue. the hearing is central because all of us are under attack. they don't see the united states leading. if you combine, this is in response to senator cotton's question, president trump has not been strong on the sanctions against ukraine. he's not been an advocate for the independents advocate of ukraine and he's been very ambivalence, even hostile to nato.
he seems to look at germany as a strategic economic competitor, not as an ally. you put that together and i think it's the first time since 1945 that europeans might likely see merkel as leader of the west, not president trump. i don't say that lightly but i think it's a true statement. we need to recover leadership role and you do that by actions. on the subject by aligning yourself with the europeans on the sanctions issue. that's why support with senator has done on a bipartisan basis. by trying to raise our defenses in a very effective way. >> can any of the other panelists offer that? i appreciate you have in this hearing and an open hearing on this issue. think the american people should have a better sense of how our reputation and standard in the global community has been impacted by her failure to acknowledge that russia attempted to manipulate the elections.
do any other panelists want to add? >> just a reminder that article five has been broke only once in history of nato. in the situation when the u.s. was under attack on september 11. it is all i allies from europe stood up and stand behind u.s. at the time. we have been in afghanistan for years now together alongside fighting the same cause. >> i just had one number to the. more than 800 europeans have died along european troops fighting in afghanistan for joint cause. >> thank you. you mentioned a couple of points about the french elections and i was curious about senator collins raised the point also. you talked about media and supporter of their cooperation with the french government that they were very active in
verifying the factual accuracy of misinformation. you also discussed the importance of assuming that a country will be hacked and then trapping hackers. arguably then at some point been able to prosecute them and get accountability. how would you propose that would be a fight of the united states? you know for example there are two cable networks that if you watch them at the same time on the same subject you'll hear two different versions of what's happening. so we have to acknowledge that we have a culture around the media as it relates to politics at least that may not be as coordinated as some of the median europe. how would you propose looking at the 2018 election is a goal for protecting ourselves, how would we work with the media to inoculate or prevent harm or be
resilient once we know we have been hacked? >> so the facts matter. fax matter. we don't build bridges on false facts. we want to set them straight. it's very hard to have functional democracy result fact as a basis for. we tend to go into different directions because of opinions and that's okay. that's what the democrat processes. the end of the day all we have to agree is that if we don't value the factual basis of our reality, democracy would not work. >> how did the french media expose the statement of fact to be without factual basis? how did they expose the fake news?
>> their host set of ways of how you verify what information is in front of the, this should be very good at it. actually the whole, the biggest point is actually value and understand the role it's also the power and the responsibility. understand that within the responsibility of the for media and a democratic society to have a functional is to value the functional basis. that's the understanding upon which the french media were able to come together to work together. i wouldn't classify there's a corporation between the media and the public. media cooperated respected of political viewpoints in the gym democratic system is based on fact. >> is the value of a free
independent press still allow them to do their job. >> ambassador, to believe the united states has a strategy that they have to respond to a cyber warfare that we are into today? >> i think, yes. could you tell me the strategy? >> that's a very difficult question. i would say that i can see the strategy to nato and. >> through nato? >> yes, because when it comes to a cyber attack you remember that as a result of the first cyber attack on a wide scale that happened years ago the center of excellence was established in
gastonia. >> that have anything to do with an american strategy? i was at the opening of it. >> yes, but i think in no case thanks to when we found out that it would be difficult as far as i know it is be difficult to look at the case and asked for help from the u.s. and u.k. agencies, i would like to believe the strategy exists, i cannot comment on it because i'm not in the loop. i didn't talk to people but but i can see that happened every day is through embassy in through diplomatic, they exist in nato.
>> that's a great answer. thank you. should we expect similar aggressive behaviors we saw the attempt to overthrow the government of montenegro another natives such as bosnia, macedonia and others? >> what i mentioned in my introductory, i'm sure this is just one case and i'm sure it to russia will continue to do something similar in the neighborhood. >> that's pretty exciting. they recruited people, they were willing to kill people. they were willing to some people in uniform to kill the prime minister. that reads out of a novel. >> that's why think the u.s. and
european partners must remain active in the region. any retreat from the region for democracy. >> it came awfully close to succeeding. if we hadn't had an informant from the inside they may have succeeded. >> videos her previously that in some cases -- i cannot say that we were able to fight back, one of them you mentioned. >> like an informant on the inside? >> yes, this was an informant who who was available for the portion and said it would happen if this action succeeded. and he showed up the police report. >> should we be concerned of
that level of violence that the g are you is willing to engage in in order to overthrow an elected government? >> it is concerning. we should be concerned. >> why do you think we haven't heard more about it? >> i'm quite surprised about that as well. i think that is a very telling story that we have to reflect upon. i have one hope that it will fail. russians like everybody else have lessons learned. so, i hope the lesson that they learned it's not really that effective. and in these cases they tend to lose what they like to have that is a plausible deniability. >> what is been the public reaction in montenegro about this failed coup?
>> i would say the reaction was mixed even including me at the beginning. is at the u.s. not working anymore for government. the first reaction was a mix of feelings. whether this was staged.. whether it was true or not. but time goes on. and we are more and more aware of the proportion of the reaction know what was behind the section and how the action was organized. then also as a result of the suspects decided to cooperate with the police on they disclosed how the action was planned, who financed it, who were the people for contact in serbia. the two agents i mentioned in the beginning. . .
>> >> thank you for your distinguished service to our country and for your wise counsel and thank you for perverting yes to the best hope for fixing the problem but to share your concern that the president for obvious reasons like commander in chief and chief diplomat the most recognized public figure but the common
thread that we face today the most significant are the russians actions but the most immediate game changer if they steal and next to the british prime minister i assume you have opinion on that? be backed. >> they have affirmed as a bedrock commitment so that had a devastating impact on american leadership. what we have not talked about today in addition to the intelligence and political measures you and chairman became the another committee to rebuild u.s. military i hope to pursue the station near poland
because we are in containment on multiple bubbles and this hearing expose is one of those levels. >> natalie that reaffirmation of article five but a positive statement about the common threads of cyberwe have missed one opportunity if they could stand with of leadership of nato and those other interested parties to make that declaration of his. >> because the immediate threat is this threat and the cyberattack on the electoral process he had the opportunity and will be in germany at a summit hosted by the german chancellor there are opportunities to get back into this leadership role but my sense
is they want us to go in that direction trying to play a bigger leadership role. >> we have had discussions of of of ability of the electoral system or social media as several people have suggested they are coming back. from your perspective working on the 16 campaign will pay to play more sophisticated cyberoperations? there have been some reports in great britain that there is an attack on the registration
systems. are they already there and we don't know that to use those tools?. >> one saying that we have registered as russians doing experimentation sometimes it is inconsequential and you dismiss that but if you look retrospective use the that is the test case. they do that right now not that they do it in ways they will deploy because we are in a very different place. so yes it would be more of taboret. i expect there will be more but those choices of how to
do that is within that contextual circumstances. >> are you actually dealing with the issue in germany with the upcoming election to help them in the united states or give them advice? and then to proactively dealing with this or is a paralysis in the united states?. >> so that nato is putting troops they are bombarded so dado is taking different strengths of capabilities
but we're not part of a military structure so we've respond to that so if we do give our advice or knowledge including the election we are to support them. >> my time has expired. >> hq to all members and each and every one of you. your expertise is invaluable and your testimony today is crucial as a shared before and the ability the italy to work to the current investigation but to create a road map both at home to
figure of how we change elections were to make it less vulnerable to work globally with our partners of the best practices that could be shared to be implemented. so a couple of comments i was challenged from the beginning air remain as a challenge to figure at exactly what we do to stop russian interference but as we complete this process we will have a clear picture also to think about those challenges that you have been your respective areas of expertise in a you feel is pertinent so ambassador
going back to something that you said the next time it is the other party. so when the whole effort started it was not targeted at one party or the other. you know that because because it was heavier fishing expedition hundreds if not individuals and nonprofit and organizations but it turned into a rich environment for russia to be involved in the election. maybe not in the same direct way but so at the heart is a cybersecurity issue and to figure out that silver bullet in the answer there is not that the second thing
that i'm glad you admitted your product of the state department so i cannot envision today to a foreign entity? because it is inherent that makes their job tougher but even though i don't think secretary tillers and is calling for russian sanctions and would expect any secretary to do that but there has to be leadership and i think that is what the world is crying for right now is for a leadership and i hope we do what we historically have done and fill that vacuum. not because we're better but
because says i travel the world the world is waiting for us to do it because we have the liability umbrella and our elections have certainty and most others don't have that length of time certainty that we do. there are those things that our unique with our partners around the world to leverage the u.s. election. in to vote with no interference just those that our intact as the committee looks investigation it is clear russia falls into the seam of domestic activity by a foreign power so the
intelligence community wasn't quite sure how to approach it so it might involve a pseudo government organizations in the political parties confused our government's approach colossally the intelligence committee diligently avoids political issues so that added to the additional complexity so here is where we are today. this committee has a charge from the leadership to thoroughly review russia's meddling in the 2016 election in the committee is committed to finish that investigation a matter how long it takes for the results i am not sure russia's involvement will change from the initial assessment that was produced by the obama administration but what this committee can
do is make sure every american and every person globally that cares about the integrity of the elections reviews what we find and embraces what is needed to ensure that the elections are fair with no interference in the future and that we collectively commit to carry that out. so that is vitally important to a difficult time in history that i am confident we can come out of this from a report this spells it out for the american people and our partners abroad in a way that could be understood in be received with confidence
most black americans use it in casual situations . >> if you get knocked down you know, why there you just get back up and continue and i think that is something we all need to be reminded of a dent the those example set by our own country. . >> i don't think anyone can comprehend fully unless they read both sides of the argument because of this to read the argument of the anti-federalist napier to
tilt of federal power than they do . >> we felt the unbelievably protected of them and people thought it was odd how protective we were but it is not we saw ourselves in them and their little souls with our grandpas and then the same when our dad became president to be a teenager with your dad is president is not that easy but incredibly rewarding . >> democratic states that can deliver to their own people don't invade their neighbors or traffic soldiers who are 10 or 11 years old or traffic in the