Mr. Chairman, thank you holding this timely and important hearing, and I join you in solidarity with our British allies.  Thanks also to General Scaparrotti for your nearly 40 years of distinguished military service and your leadership in Afghanistan, Korea, and now at U.S. European Command.  Also, please pass along this Committee’s gratitude for the outstanding service of all the men and women in uniform in the EUCOM theater. 

The transatlantic relationship is a cornerstone of U.S. national security and the international order established after the end of World War II.  Our European allies and partners have stood with us in maintaining the peace, including in coalition operations in Afghanistan and fighting terrorist extremists in Iraq and Syria.  The NATO alliance remains strong, and is grounded in a shared vision of an integrated and stable Europe rooted in respect for sovereignty and political and economic freedom. 

I am concerned, however, about the mixed signals that the current Administration seems to be sending regarding the U.S. commitment to NATO and the willingness to cut a deal with Russia.  Secretary Tillerson’s reported decision to skip a NATO Foreign Ministers meeting next month and take a trip to Moscow prior to a NATO Summit in May has raised concerns in some European capitals.  I urge Secretary Tillerson to reconsider his attendance at NATO next month and send a strong signal of our unwavering support for the alliance. 

The broad and growing challenges facing the EUCOM Commander mean that alliance unity is more important than ever.  The cohesion of NATO is being directly threatened by Russia.  President Putin has repeatedly shown he will use military force to assert a Russian sphere of influence over its neighbors and to undermine their further integration into Europe.  Nowhere is this more evident than in Ukraine, where Russia has used hybrid warfare tactics to seize Crimea and continues to support militarily and financially Russian-led separatists in eastern Ukraine, in violation of Russia’s commitments under the Minsk agreements.  As we heard at Tuesday’s panel of distinguished former government officials, it is critically important that we assist Ukraine in resisting Russian pressure and instituting democratic reforms.  A successful, reformed Ukraine would provide a powerful alternative to Putin’s autocratic rule. 

The United States has taken significant steps in recent years to rebuild its military presence in Europe and reassure our allies and partners threatened by renewed Russian aggression.  The European Deterrence Initiative, or EDI, and the NATO enhanced Forward Presence have increased the rotational presence of forces in Eastern Europe.  In addition, while many NATO members continue to fall short of the two-percent-of-GDP target for defense spending, defense budgets among NATO nations are increasing and a number of allies are making significant in-kind contributions as well.  Questions remain, however, whether we have the appropriate mix of forces in Europe, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and I hope you will address these questions this morning. 

Russia is deploying the full array of tools in the Kremlin playbook to challenge the West.  This includes aggressive actions in the nuclear realm.  I agree with the experts on Tuesday’s panel regarding the importance of responding strongly to Russia’s fielding of a missile system in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty.  In addition, Russia’s nuclear doctrine of “escalate to de-escalate” is not only deeply disturbing but potentially catastrophic.  

Also disconcerting is Russia’s increasing boldness in using non-military tools to target Western democracies and advance Putin’s strategic aims.  Russia is employing an array of covert and overt asymmetric weapons in the “grey zone” short of military conflict, including cyber hacking, disinformation, propaganda, economic leverage, corruption, and even political assassination.  To counter this insidious Russian interference, we must begin by recognizing it as a national security threat.  Further, the intelligence community has warned that the kinds of Kremlin-directed malign activities witnessed in last year’s U.S. presidential election are likely to re-occur in the future, including during elections in France, Germany, and elsewhere in Europe this year.  Responding to this national security threat will require a whole-of-government approach and a comprehensive strategy for pushing back against Russia broadly.                   

EUCOM faces a number of other challenges as well.  This includes increasing instability in the Balkans, where Russian influence operations are feeding Serbian resentments both in Serbia and among Bosnian Serbs.  In addition, in the Balkans, where traditionally a moderate form of Islam has been practiced, there are growing Islamic Salafist influences as a result of a mosque-building campaign funded by Saudi Arabia.  On its southeastern border, EUCOM must contend with the instability arising from Syria, and the transnational threats emanating from that conflict.  And to the south, the migration crisis in the Mediterranean continues to strain European resources for security.  General, I am interested in hearing how NATO is handling this myriad of problems, and how the United States can be helpful.  

Again, I want to thank General Scaparrotti for his service, and I look forward to this morning’s testimony.