DATE: 11:30 – 12:30 Tuesday 1st May 2018
VENUE: Committee Room 10, House of Commons
SPEAKER: Congressman Mike Gallagher
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
Member of the House Armed Services Committee
EVENT CHAIR: Bob Seely MP
Bob Seely MP:
I really like working with the Henry Jackson Society, (a) because they have really interesting speakers of which we’ve got one here, but also because they are hopefully going to be publishing my definition of what contemporary Russian warfare is, or contemporary Russian conflict to be more exact. We don’t have a definition. And one of the problems is unless you know what you’re dealing with you can’t deal with it. So if you’ve got an illness you’ve got to diagnose it. If you’ve got a threat you’ve got to diagnose it and you’ve got to understand it. And when we talk about contemporary Russian warfare or contemporary Russian conflict, we say “oh it’s a bit of warfare, a bit of proxy, a bit of info. Oh and there’s spying as well, oh and there’s assassination. Oh and there’s economic stuff. Oh and there’s cyber-attack”. And so it’s different things to different people all the time. And what we need to do is develop a concept of what it is, which I’ve done through the superb Dr Andrew Foxall who is a colleague of Alan’s [Mendoza]. So I’m hoping that’s going to be coming out in the next couple of weeks and hopefully there’ll be more debates about Russia in the coming weeks in parliament and we can actually do something useful. The six select committees are looking at Russian influence and activity in this country – foreign, home, treasury, culture, national security, and intelligence – and I’m the secretary to the steering group which is a very nebulous body or an individual myself that’s going to be guiding them into some of the suggestions about what they could be looking into, because effectively we’re trying to write chapters of a book.
Right, responding to Russia from the US. Congressman Mike Gallagher, Mike I actually was in the states last week, and one of the problems that I found when it comes to talking about Russia especially with the elections, the Presidential elections, is that the Republicans don’t want to talk about it, and the Democrats do. And so it is very difficult, and one of the things I learnt is that it is very difficult to get stuff done about things you want to get done. Like Russian interference, because after an election, the victor said that was in no way influenced by the Russians, when the losers have a vested interest in saying actually, that was very very interfered with by the Russians. So that is the slight problem that we have. The moral then of that story, is that we should be protecting our democracies and the transparency of our electoral system before elections happen so we can’t then complain. We have to accept the results. It’s very interesting what’s happening in the US with regards to Russia. I think they’re being much tougher, I like their sanctions policy, they’re being a bit more holistic. We’re not doing too badly in this country but frankly we need to catch up big time. The other reason why I like Mike is because he did counter-intelligence and intelligence for the US Marine Corps. I really like the US Marine Corps because I served with them in Camp, I always call it Leatherhead because that’s a place in Surrey, but actually it was Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan, and I have worked with them at various I think other places in the world as well, so that’s all very exciting.
So I’m going to nip in and out because I’m very tied up with making statements this afternoon to do with the money laundering bill, but I’m going to hand you straight over to Mike.
Mike Gallagher:
Well thank you Bob. It’s truly an honour to be here, I’m actually overwhelmed by the response, and, I can only assume given that we have such a good turnout, that when you heard a Wisconsin congressman was coming you thought it would be Paul Ryan. I am not Paul Ryan, I am not quite as old as Paul Ryan. And my district is about two and half hours north of Paul Ryan. My mom lives in Paul Ryan’s district, and as she says, Paul Ryan is her favourite member of Congress, even including me. Thank you for being here nonetheless, I appreciate it. What I thought I would do is just offer some unscripted thoughts about Russia as a jumping off point for a broader discussion about foreign policy, and the US-UK alliance and special relationship. And to the extent that I have a consistent argument throughout, it will be that I think the present moment, while very troubling and challenging, represents a huge opportunity to reinvigorate this alliance and reinvigorate the special relationship in a way that crosses and transcends party lines – crosses Republican and Democrat, Labour and Tory lines. And hopefully we can get into a back and forth discussion, because I would also be interested in your thoughts given that I have such a short period of time here.
The first thing to say, I was very, let me say proud, of the way we responded originally to the horrific attack that we saw in Salisbury which was the first offensive use of a military grade nerve agent in Europe since World War II. An attack so brazen that your Prime Minister called it an unlawful use of force, which is not the first time that an act, of what I would call terrorism, has been committed on UK soil. And despite, I would say some of the let’s say inconsistent rhetoric on Russia over the last year, I would argue that the US response to, and support of our ally in the UK was a strong one. We expelled 60 diplomats, we closed down a key intelligence gathering facility on the west coast. We almost simultaneously named, or called out Russia for their multiyear campaign, cyber campaign targeting our nuclear facilities and our critical facilities. That was followed by another round of sanctions of key Russian oligarchs and key Russian companies many of which were actually indicted by the special counsel Robert Muller which has been a source of great controversy. The Trump administration nonetheless sanctioned many of these individuals and we fired roughly 100 rockets in concert with some of our allies against Russia’s partner in Syria, Assad, and killed 200 Russian mercenaries, and I would commend Jim Mattis’ explanation of how that went down last week. He said he gave the order to annihilate them, and they were annihilated. And I think this was a moment where, to the extent that both of us, both of our countries are going through a difficult process of questioning our role in the world and questioning how much we want to pay to maintain our global presence, we still have that muscle memory there which says when our friend gets attacked we will stand by them – we will stand strongly by them. And I would say taking a broader look at our Russia policy over the last year, beneath the tweets, beneath the rhetoric, beneath the back and forth, and it is so very difficult to have a sane conversation about Russia in the present political environment. And to the extent I agree with your analysis of Democrats and Republicans I welcome my Democratic friends newfound Russia-hawkery, I just wish it was there during the last eight years. And so what I would like to do, as perhaps a provocative point of debate is contrast what I saw over the last eight years with what I’ve seen over the last year. And I would submit to you that we are headed in the right direction right now, and I say that as someone who has been more than willing to criticise my own party and the administration when they use certain rhetoric that I view as damaging, and when they sort of entertain notions that Putin can be a constructive partner or shares our interests in many ways which I believe he does not.
So the first thing to say is that our overall national security strategy and our national defence strategy, which H R McMaster I believe did a fantastic job with, is framed in terms of preparing for great power competition with Russia and China over the next few decades. That is an actual paradigm shift after 17 years of fighting the global war on terrorism. And while questions remain as to whether we are willing to adequately resource that strategy, and whether we can continue this defence build-up that we’ve started, I think this is absolutely the right lens through which the United States should view the world and organise our defence and our diplomacy and all the other instruments of national power. And obviously to the extent that Russia was mentioned in previous national security strategies in the last decade, it was in passing or as a potential partner on counter terrorism related issues, which I think is a fantasy. Putin has obviously made a lot of noise about so-called de-escalatory nuclear strikes, and in response the Pentagon is now exploring the development of low-yield nuclear weapons. And in the last administration certain programmes, like the TLAM-N (the nuclear cruise missile), were cancelled. The forthcoming Missile Defence Review will be a forceful argument for increasing our investment in missile defence, whereas in the previous administration our President was famously caught on a hot mike saying he would have more flexibility on missile defence after the election. And obviously had mocked a potential political competitor for suggesting that Russia presented the greatest geopolitical threat we face. Our deregulatory effort in the energy industry I believe, is unleashing new instruments of national power in America that will have the practical effect of undermining Putin’s only remaining economic weapon in the energy sector right now. Indeed if you’re interested in undermining Putin’s economic position that is a good thing. It is a good thing that US LNG is arriving in Europe right now, though in very small quantities.
Looking more broadly on the world stage, for the last four years we had been begging the previous administration to authorise lethal assistance to the Ukrainians, and finally, we have authorised lethal assistance to the Ukrainians. And going into the Middle East which is an area that I’ve spent most of my professional life, I believe the rise of the Russian-Iranian axis throughout the Middle East but particularly in Syria, has been the biggest development of the last decade. It was aided and abetted by a policy of passivity over the last six years in particular. There was this fantasy that was entertained that Putin could be a reliable counter terrorism partner, and that by getting the so-called moderates in Iran hooked on cash we could moderate their behaviour regionally. I would argue that subsequent events have proven that hypothesis to be false. And this new equilibrium that the previous administration talked about actually produced the exact opposite – further disequilibrium and genocide, and the greatest refugee crisis that we’ve seen since World War II. Now questions remain about the totality of our policy in Syria, and I do think there are some points that need to be clarified. There’s obviously a huge point of contention that will hopefully be clarified on May 12th regarding the Iran nuclear deal, but, I have to give the administration credit for being willing to strike twice in Syria now. To be willing to take action when our troops are threatened. To be willing to work to systematically eradicate ISIS on the ground in Iraq and key parts of Syria. And I do think, that that willingness to strike, and I say this as someone who’s first day on the senate foreign relations committee was right after Assad had gassed his own people in Eastern Ghouta and we had debated the authorisation for the use of military force, and no one remembers that the senate foreign relations committee actually passed out the authorisation for the use of military force, and then it never went anywhere in the Senate because the previous administration struck a deal with Vladimir Putin to remove chemical weapons from Syria. Obviously they were not fully removed and we got further chaos and bloodshed in Syria. I do think the simple willingness to act has had a positive impact on our diplomacy, not only in the Middle East, but all around the world. I have to believe that when the President was dining with General Secretary Xi in Mar-Al-Lago last year and excused himself for a few minutes and went and authorised the strike and then came back and went “well, we’ve just struck in Syria”, that had to force Xi to take notice. The recent strike has had to force Kim Jong-Un to take notice. And diplomacy, all of us want to see the crisis in North Korea resolved diplomatically, but diplomacy that is not backed by the credible threat of military force will just be an endless conversation to no end. There’s a great Wisconsinite and a man who was probably more influential on foreign policy than most others in the 20th century by the name of George Kennan, who once said that “you have no idea how much it contributes to the general politeness and pleasantness of diplomacy, to have a nice quiet little armed force in the background”.
And so these are all positive developments. I’m not here arguing that our Russia policy is perfect by any stretch, I just say empirically if you look at what’s happening on the ground it is heading in a much more positive direction than the news would have you believe. So this is a start, but I think it’s only that, just a start. And there are areas where our countries need to discuss how we can cooperate, how we can share best practices going forward, and let me offer up a few and then we can open it up for questions and debate.
I am very intrigued having had conversations over the last 24 hours and hopefully we will continue the conversation today, about the Russia coordination group and what is being done here to counter any Russian influence operations. Certainly we had a very contentious debate over the extent of Russian influence in our last election. I think it’s incontrovertible that Russia did interfere in our election, what I think is also true is that it didn’t actually materially change the outcome. Russia’s interference is not what caused Wisconsin to vote Republican for the first time since 1984 – there’s no evidence to suggest that. But nonetheless, we should be troubled when anyone tries to meddle in our election and causes our own citizens to perhaps question the sanctity of our democracy. And I know a lot of Republican colleagues who certainly feel that way, and we have legislation such as the Honest Ads Act which would require full disclosure for campaign advertisements for Facebook advertisements, online advertisements in the way that television and radio advertisements have to be fully disclosed. But I think there’s much more that can be done on that front, and I think we’re only starting to understand right now the extent and scope and the complexity of these influence operations. And I worry that while we should be concerned about Russian behaviour, Chinese behaviour is in many ways far more advanced on this front than the Russians, and that’s something we’re only beginning to wrap our heads around in the United States. And we have some legislation in the National Defence Authorisation Act to that effect. When it comes to economic pressure and economic sanctions, the House and the Senate in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion passed the CAATSA Act – the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act – which has given the administration authority to sanction the Russians which they have used on multiple occasions, but also mandated that the administration provide a comprehensive report of Russian oligarchs that support Vladimir Putin. I think it would be a good idea, provided we could scrub that report in a way that doesn’t compromise sources and methods, to publicise it as a way of undermining the sort of kleptocratic form of governance that Putin relies upon to be successful, and as a way to generate more pressure for economic sanctions. Where we need your help is in figuring out how do we strengthen, and perhaps make permanent subject to a vote removing them, EU sanctions against Russia. Now I recognise that Britain’s influence in the EU right now might not be at its apex, but that is nonetheless a discussion that we have to have in concert with our closest ally.
When it comes to defence, I think one area where we should be looking more closely is at the INF treaty. It is obvious to me and I think the considered view of most experts that have analysed the INF treaty that Russia is in material violation of the treaty. Last year, in the National Defence Authorisation Act, we asked – we actually mandated – the administration to study this issue and give us a report on how long and to what extent they have been in violation of this treaty, and this year I will be submitting an amendment which says that if Russia has been in violation for any three consecutive years including the last three, that we will not be bound by the terms of the INF treaty just as a provocative starting point of debate. Because here’s the issue; if we’re hamstringing ourselves while Russia is violating, it’s actually undermining our policy in the Pacific, because missiles that are governed under INF are those that have a range of 500 – 5500km. Which is precisely the type of missiles that China is investing in heavily right now which is precisely what can negate our entire military presence and our ability to project power in the Pacific. So at the same time we’re allowing China to advance because they’re obviously not bound by the terms of INF, we’re hamstringing ourselves, and we’re not even getting the Russian compliance which is the whole point of the exercise in the first place, and I think we need to take a harder look at that.
A third bucket of approach, there is now bi-cameral legislation – in the Senate it’s sponsored by Senator Cory Gardner, and in the House it’s sponsored by me – to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. I think the time has come to have that debate right now, and I would be interested in the reaction given your recent experience with Salisbury, and other attacks on UK soil, to that initiative. But going forward all of these things are just a starting point, as I mentioned before perhaps the most important thing that we as US legislators can do, to counter malign Russian influence or any actor out there that seeks to undermine the West and seeks to undermine the free world, is to continue the military rebuild that we have started just now with this last spending bill in the United States. I know $700 billion seems like a large sticker shock figure for most people around the world, but the fact is the United States is still spending far less than its average as a function of GDP post-World War II on defence, and other priorities particularly mandatory spending are crowding out defence and in a few short years we will be spending more to finance and service the interest on our debt than we will be spending on our own Department of Defence. To quote Secretary Mattis, “the Budget Control Act and corresponding defence sequester, has done more damage to our own military than any enemy in the field could have hoped to do”. And if you look at defence spending plotted over time it looks like a sine wave; there’s high peaks and very, very low valleys, because it seems that we constantly fail to heed the lessons of history. Obviously after the Cold War ended there was this thinking that we had a peace dividend, and we disinvested in our defence, and while we still remain the world leader in defence and our military I would put in partnership with the UK on par with anyone else, our adversaries are catching up particularly when it comes to their investment in asymmetric weapons. The head of army cyber command recently said “we are already outgunned by the Russians and the Chinese in cyberspace”, and we cannot continue down this path of defence sequester, to do so would be to ignore the clear lessons of history. Leanne and I were talking yesterday as I passed a monument to British sacrifices in World War I (I forget where that is exactly, I get lost in this city, although I love the underground it’s a big puzzle that I get to figure out), but this year we mark obviously the centennial of the end of the Great War, and I fear that we forget a lot about the Great War because its sequel in some ways had more cinematic characters and it figures more prominently into the American consciousness. My own home state of Wisconsin had a very interesting role in that war; in many ways we led the opposition to getting into the war. Socialist democrats and progressive republicans all of whom opposed the war were ascendant in Wisconsin politics. Our most famous politician then or since, a guy by the name of “Fighting Bob” La Follette, led the argument against the war. He led a filibuster against a bill that would have armed merchant vessels that Woodrow Wilson was adamantly in favour of, he thought that this would drag us into war, and he cried on the Senate floor as he was arguing against Wilson. There was a rumour that one of his colleagues who opposed him and called him a traitor had bought a gun to the Senate floor, so La Follette called his son to bring a knife to the Senate floor, so as bad as you think American politics is right now at least we’re not doing that. And he didn’t have kind things to say about our Ally in Britain, he said “if this is a war to make the world safe for democracy, then how come the British do not practice democracy in Ireland, in India, and in Egypt?” But to his credit, after he lost that vote, and every single member of the Wisconsin delegation except for two voted against the war, they all banded together and did their best to make sure that once in it, we would in concert with our allies win that war. We sent 130,000 Wisconsinites to the war, they formed the famous Red Arrow Brigade, Red Arrow Division, so-named because it was able to pierce every enemy line that it encountered, and Wisconsin despite being a heavy German-American populated state rallied together to support the war effort.
And sadly I think from that war emerged one enduring lie, and one enduring truth that we still must remember today. The enduring lie that still I think infects American politics and foreign policy more broadly, is that you can somehow end all war. That we can transcend human nature, and through global governance live in a world of pure peace. You can no sooner wean men off oxygen than make the world entirely safe. As Machiavelli once said, “you cannot avoid war, you can only delay it to someone else’s advantage”, and to an extent that thinking serves as an excuse as I think it has in recent years for inaction, for delaying, for not being forward engaged. I would argue to you that it is very dangerous, and from that flows an enduring truth. The only way, the best way to preserve peace in this world, I believe, is for our countries working in concert to be forward engaged, working together. I think we take for granted the special partnership, I think we take for granted the benefits that the free world has bought with it, and we tend to think that it self-reinforcing and that we don’t need to expend effort to ensure it endures. In the inter-war period there was someone who gave expression to this better than I ever could. In 1931 a physics professor on leave from the University of Berlin was visiting the United States, and he wrote something called Impressions of the USA. And he said something to the effect of America is the most powerful country in the world, but its people have thus far not shown any interest in the great problems of international politics, this must change if only in America’s interest – the part of passive spectator is unworthy of this country, and bound in the end to lead to disaster all around. That was written by Albert Einstein, who famously never returned to Berlin, Hitler came to power two years later and then in ’38 invaded the Sudetenland, setting harassment of ethnic Germans which sound familiar to anyone living in eastern Ukraine today. My hope is that in the present moment of profound uncertainty we can muster up the courage to head those lessons of history and avoid a similar fate. To me, as George Orwell once said, “to see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle”. And it is so obvious what is in front of us, the formula is still there for peace and stability and prosperity; free enterprise, strong defence, and strong allies. Those three things together can make sure that we pass on a safer and more prosperous world to the next generation. So thank you for having me here, thank you for listening to me ramble on for a few minutes, and thank you sir for everything you do to make sure this partnership, this special relationship, this alliance is as strong as it was when we inherited it. So I appreciate it thank you very much.
Bob Seely MP:
I’m going to hand it over to the floor, very quickly I just want to make a couple of points. That was a blazingly good talk, thank you that was really wonderful. I would like to know when you’re going to start running for the Senate because we will come and help.
Mike Gallagher:
The House of Lords? No. (Laughter)
Bob Seely MP:
Especially, because I only just realised the other day you have to run every two years don’t you? God that’s so painful, it’s bad enough every five years. Sorry I shouldn’t say that. (Laughter)
I want to say a couple of things, firstly I’m really interested in what you say about all the stuff that you’re doing. Because one of the things that I was talking about with I think Senator Whitehouse and other Senator teams as well, and I’ve been talking about with the Australians, is a need to across the Anglosphere, and France and Germany but let’s start with the English speaking world, is to get groups of people who are interested in this subject, between one and four Congressmen and Senators, one and four you know, representatives of Canada, in the UK, in Australia, in New Zealand, and actually just be able to share best practice. Because there is stuff that you are doing which is very useful. And what we need to do is for the Home or Foreign Affairs or Treasury Select Committees to call somebody with knowledge, and just say how are you fighting this malign Russian influence? For example the Counter Propaganda Bill. There is a Counter Propaganda Bill and Stefanik? Congressman Stefanik?
Mike Gallagher:
Yes.
Bob Seely MP:
A Democrat Congressman is going through Congress, and I don’t know if it’s going to get through. The Bill almost carries this sort of warning that we now find on the back of a packet of fags, you know this is, smoking is bad for you. And so you have flashed up on the screen maybe every so often a sign saying this TV channel doesn’t have an independent editorial line, and it is paid for and sponsored by an authoritarian state that sponsors terrorism, for example. Do we need something similar for Russia Today? Do we need an independent institution in this country, funded by government, that identifies Russian bots? That identifies fake news stories? The Ukrainian’s have something called fake news, or sorry “Stop Fake” which is anti-fake news organisation – it might well be that the FCO sponsors part of that – do we need the same? So I would like to talk to you about best practice, because we need to find allies that are willing to do this, and we need to protect our democracy. For me the big task of the next 20 years is how you stop authoritarian societies, or authoritarian governments and states, using free societies to undermine free societies. And I think that is very important. I’m delighted what you say asymmetric weapons because actually the theory of Russian warfare is, asymmetry is what they’re basing their warfare on. Either they get critical conventional kit like air defence, so the air defence 400, the S-400s that they’re trying to sell now to the Turks which is a huge deal and everyone is very angry about it on the Hill I understand. Or whether they’re using asymmetric in terms of agents of influence, money laundering, and other forms of corruption, and this old fashioned political war that we saw during the Cold War. So there’s lots to talk about.
I’ll stop talking now. So any questions please for Mike from the floor. Okay two rules; say who you are, and can we not have statements but brief questions, thank you.
[Question]:
My name is Amy, I’m American and British, and, I voted for Donald Trump. And I want to know why, I hope you can have an influence on the attitude in this government with regards to Donald Trump, because all I’m hearing is very, very rude, negative, don’t want to work with him, and it’s very upsetting to me and people who are not inside government. And Russia, we haven’t seen any evidence yet, the only evidence we’ve seen of Russia interfering in anything is working with the Democrats against Donald Trump’s campaign. That’s all the evidence that’s coming out so far is that the Democrats [inaudible] even the FBI, paid Christopher Steele for the dossier against Donald Trump which isn’t even, it’s a load of rubbish. Everything’s coming out, any investigation, Russia had nothing to do, did not interfere with the American election.
Bob Seely MP:
Okay, that’s the end of the question? Question not statement please. Okay Mike do you want to answer?
Mike Gallagher:
Oh sure.
[Questioner]:
Can you let me just finish? Let me just finish.
Bob Seely MP:
Okay.
[Questioner]:
Can you let me just finish?
Bob Seely MP:
A question please not a statement.
[Questioner]:
So I’d like to know.
[Audience Member]:
We can’t hear what you’re saying.
Bob Seely MP:
The lady is saying that Trump, the Russians helped the Democrats, and that there’s no evidence that the Russian’s helped Trump. And she’s just about to wind up her question I believe.
[Questioner]:
So I’d like to know I mean as an objective, objectively speaking I mean you’re in intelligence, what evidence has there been so far that Russia had any influence whatsoever on the American electorate and interfered in any way with the American election. I’m fed up with this propaganda rubbish that’s going on here and in America about Russia.
Mike Gallagher:
So it is the considered view of, based on declassified information, of the US intelligence community that Russia did interfere. But, simultaneously, even Dianne Feinstein has admitted that there is no evidence of so-called Russian collusion. So I think it’s important to make clear distinctions as to what we’re talking about. I think the Russians were actually trying not to help one side or the other, but rather to sow chaos…
[Questioner]:
They didn’t.
Mike Gallagher:
… and hit both sides.
[Questioner]:
They didn’t. It’s rubbish.
Mike Gallagher:
I would argue that the fact that the American political debate for the last year has been consumed with this question of collusion, and actually not talked about the things that I laid out in terms of what’s actually happening with Russia policy on the ground, which actually I think I agree with you in some sense of, if indeed there was an effort to collude with the Russians well then, it produced exactly the opposite of what the Russians would want, right? A friendly Russia policy did not emerge from this administration that was the point of my remarks. So to the extent that I can change any perception over here, and my mission here isn’t to add to what is tweeted and what isn’t tweeted out of the White House, it’s just to say that one, our relationship is bigger than any one person, right? It’s complex. There’s history. And I do think there’s room for us to deepen that relationship, particularly in terms of MP to member of Congress exchanges, and we were talking about that over the way here. But two, it is really important that we all try and see through the noise of the current moment and focus on what is actually happening on the ground. And when it comes to standing up against Russian aggression, I think that is an area that should be, that should have bi-partisan support, in the United States and here in the UK.
Bob Seely MP:
Thank you so much. Sir.
[Question]:
Thank you very much indeed, my name is Ewan Grant I’m senior fellow at the Institute of Statecraft, and I have on my bookshelf a copy of Tom Clancy’s non-fiction book Marine and I notice that he and General McMaster were very, very close.
Mike Gallagher:
He didn’t consult me for that book, I don’t know… (Laughter)
[Questioner]:
He would have done if he’d still been around (Laughter). I think his [inaudible] carried on still warrants close attention. My question is about what I’ve seen, based on the experience of working in ex-Soviet countries and what I would argue is strategic illiteracy of much of the European Union/European Commission policy, and a number of disturbing indications of hostility to the USA – not universal I might add. How do you see the European, major Western European countries reacting to the ethos of what you are saying, which I fully support. And indeed, is there enough attention being paid to influencing what is becoming a semi-hereditary, and rather entrenched Brussels/EU bureaucracy which is fundamentally socio-economic and partly pacifist.
Mike Gallagher:
So let me break that out into a few things if I would. I think most Americans don’t look at the EU holistically right now. Because I think our relationship with the various members varies wildly right now. Last week the President of France came to the United States and had what was, by all accounts, a very productive visit. And the so-called “bromance” between the two leaders seems to be genuine, and based on mutual affection and shared interests. And to the extent that Macron was making the argument for a forward leaning and aggressive posture in Syria, it is one that I welcome, but even then the relationship is nuanced because to the extent that he was making an argument for remaining in the Iran deal that is not something that I support. So even that single relationship is very complex, and I think all of us are trying to understand, where do our interests overlap, and where can we enhance cooperation with the various members of the EU. The relationship with Germany right now seems a bit more fraught, I haven’t really gotten a read out of how that visit went at the end of the week. But even then my understanding is that there is a debate underway right now in terms of how to enhance, whether the Germans will enhance their defence spending which is something we’ve been arguing for for a while. And we are going to need your help in terms of nudging the EU states towards a more aggressive posture when it comes to Russia. I wonder if the events since 2014 have had a galvanising effect. I wonder if the Salisbury effect is more than a passing thing here…
Bob Seely MP:
I think it probably is.
[Questioner]:
Still a long way to go in the continental European countries somewhat.
Mike Gallagher:
And as for the socio-economic hereditary cultural thing you were referencing, I think what will determine that more than anything the US does is how you navigate the next few months of Brexit. And I tend to think that the nation state while it’s come under a lot of criticism over the last couple decades, is actually still a fundamentally solid form of organisation, and we should deal with countries according to their interests and have respect for every country’s sovereignty within the EU, and seek to deepen our partnerships. And I was glad to see the administration has carved out a temporary exception on steel and aluminium tariffs as we work through this issue right now, because I do fear that our economic relationship could deteriorate very severely if we get into a trade war, and that the EU will retaliate by punishing farmers in my district who didn’t do anything to you guys. So leave ‘em alone please.
[Question]:
Hi I’m Maria also from the Institute of Statecraft. So the other day Jean-Claude Juncker of the EU mentioned in a Dutch paper that Putin is a friend of his and relations should be improved in degrees, what is you view on that?
Mike Gallagher:
I would welcome a more productive relationship with the Russian government. However, in order for that to happen the Russians would have to stop violating the territorial integrity of a sovereign state, and they would have to stop conducting unlawful attacks against our key allies such as Britain. They would have to stop abetting genocide in Syria, and explicitly trying to undermine the NATO alliance, and sabre rattling with nuclear weapons. So I think Russian behaviour suggests that it is not interested in a more productive relationship with the West, and I think Putin responds to strength. He abides by the [inaudible] of probe with bayonets; if you find mush you push, if you find steel you stop. And for too long we’ve just accommodated Putin, and he’s only grown more aggressive. And so I think by standing together we can actually improve the relationship over the long term.
Bob Seely MP:
Lady at the back.
[Question]:
If you name Russia a state sponsor of terror, how would that change our involvement in Syria?
Mike Gallagher:
I think deconfliction would still continue, so, if you actually read the transcript of how Mattis described the defensive act against Russian mercenaries, they called the Russians beforehand, they ensured that these weren’t actually card carrying members of the Russian military, although it’s always hard to tell, particularly when you have little green men running around the world. And the Russians confirmed that they weren’t, and so we gave the order to attack. So I think deconfliction would still be occurring in Syria, but all this would do is restrict certain access to weapons and things that we’re not even providing the Russians right now. So I think it would be more to send a message that this is unacceptable, and a way of undermining the Russian position more broadly rather than changing the relationship on the ground. Now that being said, I think we do need to think about, because right now the hole in our Syria policy is this: the administration says that its policy is to push back against Iranian influence across the region, a policy that I support very strongly. In Syria they say that we are only interested in destroying ISIS, and we have no intent to push back Hezbollah or other Iranian proxies on the ground. That is problematic, because over the last few years Hezbollah has built what I consider to be the largest military base in the world comprising all of Lebanon and key parts of Syria, and they have hidden over 250,000 advanced rockets, 80% of which are hidden under civilian areas. So, if the situation escalates with Israel, as it appears to have escalated in the last 24 hours, we could find ourselves in a situation where Israel is forced to respond, and that response will incur enormous civilian casualties which is precisely what Hezbollah is intending, taking a page out of the playbook of Hamas during Operation Protective Edge a few years ago, in order to get the world community to condemn Israel for defending itself. So I don’t know how to make sense of Syria and the Middle-East more broadly, unless we take an aggressive posture against Iran and its proxies. Because Iran is the long pole in the tent that unites all of our allies who often don’t cooperate with each other. The reason there’s a historic level of cooperation right now between Israel and the Sunni Arab Gulf States – the Jordanians, the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Egyptians – is because they are united in opposition to Iran. And that is a de facto alliance that emerged in opposition to our accommodationist policy with respect to Iran in recent years, but they welcome this new approach, but it can’t stop in Syria no matter how challenging Syria is, and if we get our allies to work together, that means we don’t have to do everything ourselves.
Bob Seely MP:
Can I just ask you on that, what specifically, and I’m just talking about for absolute clarity’s sake, what do you think President Trump should do with the Iran deal? Because the American, the Iran hawks want to scrap it, everyone else wants to keep it. What would you do?
Mike Gallagher:
So I would put out three demands, right now. That the Iranians agree to make it permanent, otherwise it will expire in 10-15 years, and Iran will emerge as an industrial scale nuclear power and any meaningful restrictions will disappear. Particularly in light of the revelations last night by Prime Minister Netanyahu I would demand full transparency and snap anytime anywhere inspections, and give the IAEA the baseline that it actually needs to determine whether Iran is abiding by the deal. And three I would address ballistic missiles as part of the deal. It seems illogical to me to divorce delivery systems from enrichment reprocessing, and I think we have to at least apply pressure on Iran for its advances in ballistic missile technology and close certain R&D loopholes that are built into the deal at the same time. And if Iran is unwilling to abide by those three terms then I would just enhance massively sanctions against the central bank of Iran, and you can do it for human rights and terrorism related reasons without actually violating the terms of the deal. President Obama famously said that non-nuclear sanctions were allowed under the Iran deal, well, Iran’s non-nuclear activity has increased in recent years: it provides the Assad government with a billion dollars a year; it’s abetting terrorism in Syria; it’s grown more aggressive in Yemen and across the Middle East. So I think we have more than adequate justification to enhance our sanctions on Iran without violating the deal, and to put the ball back in their court.
[Question]:
Thank you very much for organising the event and coming to speak to us today. Congressman, oh sorry, I’m James I’m a consultant. Congressman, you mentioned earlier that you were seeking UK government support in the European Union to lobby them to strengthen economic sanctions policy on Russia. What specifically if anything more do you want to see from the UK government in terms of support for US economic sanctions?
Mike Gallagher:
What makes sense to me is to flip it, so, you can make the sanctions that currently exist permanent unless they were specifically removed right? Which I think would have a positive effect. And then beyond that I would be interested in sharing lists of oligarchs and key Putin supporters and figuring out where we haven’t applied pressure that we could. But more than anything else I just would like to have that conversation with my colleagues in the UK, and really take a look at whether that economic pressure that we’ve applied so far has been sufficient, and where we could continue to apply economic pressure.
[Question]:
Sir, Lt Col Mike Skaggs, US military attaché to the US embassy in London, but more pertinent to my question, prior to that I was US military attaché in Ukraine in 2013 to 2016. So I had a front row seat to everything that happened, with revolution, and to Crimea, and to things going on in Donbas. So my question is obviously, well maybe not obviously, but I’m very much in favour of this policy to give the Ukrainians Javelins and the various [inaudible] in their war with Russia in Eastern Ukraine. But beyond that, what do you see as the way ahead in supporting Ukraine in their war with Russia.
Mike Gallagher:
You would know better than I, is the honest answer. My understanding is that the Russians have, well, listen, we sent a bunch of drones to Ukraine, and we sent them to the wrong group of guys. We had trained up a group of Ukrainians to operate them, and we sent it to the wrong unit actually. So one first step would be to actually deliver the support we’re providing in a more efficient manner.
[Questioner]:
Must have been after I left. (Laughter)
Mike Gallagher:
Yes that’s right, it was your fault. Leave it to the Marine Corps! “Ah, they’ll figure it out!” (Laughter)
Beyond Javelins I’m really concerned at the advances that the Russians have made with artillery and unmanned systems, and then jamming our unmanned systems. So, I’m not a technical expert to tell you precisely what you would need, but my sense is that for a, well at least what I’ve heard from people who have come back from the front lines, for a very small US investment in partnership with our allies we could actually have an enormous impact. So I think there’s an opportunity to play a little money ball in Ukraine right now, and we’ve sort of made the conceptual leap right now authorising lethal assistance. Now we just need to sort of fill out the equipment list and make sure that it’s delivered in an efficient fashion. But let’s compare notes afterwards.
[Question]:
Sarah Walker, I’m also British-American, I work in the energy industry and for several years have worked on deep water developments in Russia. And post-sanctions affected a number of the economic projects that we were looking at, and whether or not we could or could not, or even our employees could or could not engage in commercial activity. And I wonder if you’re putting together your plans now for the sanctions and the military angle, how are you engaging with the industries who are critical not only to Russia but to Europe and other countries?
Mike Gallagher:
Well allow me to, let me open up the wizard’s curtain here to illustrate what I think is a challenge we face in Congress when it comes to coordinating this activity. When it comes to anything at the intersection between sanctions and energy policy, responsibility is shared and divided among about five different committees in Congress, many of whom have different interests. So for me sitting on the armed services committee I attack this from a particular angle, and I am in constant contact with a lot of my colleagues and a lot of our peers in other countries who deal primarily with this through a defence lens. The foreign relations committee also has a role to play, the energy and commerce committee also has a role to play, and the ways and means committee also has a role to play. And I would be lying to you if I suggested that all of us are playing nicely in the sand box together right now. And all of those engage industry in different ways right now. I also think that because we’ve relied on sanctions as a primary instrument of expressing US power over the last few years, with drones perhaps being the only more salient instrument, we’ve taxed the department of the treasury’s ability to coordinate this effectively. So that’s a big non-answer to your question, to say that we need to improve the way we coordinate that, and improve the way we engage with industry. One of the things I work on in the homeland security committee is how do we foster that information sharing between industry and the government when it comes to cyber security. Because the paradigm shift that we’re all struggling with right now is that when it comes to cyber warfare, cyber security, the private sector is really the main effort and government is the supporting effort. And while government constantly demands that private industry share more information with them on a voluntary basis, the government has not been as forthcoming with the information they’re willing to declassify and share with the private sector in timely fashion at the same time. So that’s an area where we need to improve as well, and particularly given what we’ve seen with Russian’s targeting our energy infrastructure, our grid, and as well as Chinese intellectual property theft which cost us on the order of $300 billion a year. As the Blair Huntsman Commission called this is the largest transfer of wealth in human history, and we’re just starting to grapple with it. I worry that blunt, across the board tariffs are not the best targeted approach to something like this, so, that’s a variety of different things that we’re grappling with.
Bob Seely MP:
Gentleman at the end.
[Question]:
Waverly from another place. As a matter of academic interest, what would be your approach to the list that the Prosecutor General has put out about the need to extradite certain Russian oligarchs? In our case from the UK, and in your case presumably from the United States. What would be your approach to that?
Mike Gallagher:
I’m unfamiliar with the specific list you’re talking about, I apologise.
[Questioner]:
In the UK there is a list of oligarchs that Putin wishes, or the Kremlin, or the Prosecutor General to be exact, wishes to have extradited over to Russia. What would you be doing in the states if there was a list whereby Russian oligarchs resident in the United States were wished to be extradited by the Prosecutor General?
Bob Seely MP:
If they’re extradited we presume they’re not mates of Putin.
Mike Gallagher:
Yes.
Bob Seely MP:
Is that? That is correct.
[Questioner]:
It’s a list from the states that’s all I know, from the Prosecutor General’s office.
Mike Gallagher:
I apologise that I’m not familiar with the list you’re talking about, so I don’t want to pop off here and shoot from the hip, but yes if they’re asking for them to be extradited presumably they would meet a very uncertain fate when they return. So I think we should resist such a move in the immediate. But I would have to review, I apologise.
Bob Seely MP:
Very sensible. Sir.
[Question]:
[inaudible] I’m from Greece. You hint about Iran making nuclear weapons, but, there is Turkey that is now building a nuclear power plant next to, very close to Cyprus, that is also subsidised by Russia. You mentioned Machiavelli earlier, but Machiavelli also said that leaders should be strong like the lion, but also smart enough to avoid traps, as a fox. But do you think that the United States is, as the leading force of Western policy against Russia, do you believe, do you think that the United States should tackle potential partnerships like that of a military nature?
Bob Seely MP:
Specifically in relationship to Turkey?
[Questioner]:
Specifically in relationship to Turkey. So for example involving sanctions or, a more aggressive foreign policy, for potential partnerships Russia with big powers like Turkey.
Bob Seely MP:
Are you including the potential sale also of the, is it the S-400 air defence kit to Turkey as well?
Mike Gallagher:
Yes.
[Questioner]:
Yes.
Bob Seely MP:
Shall we throw that in as well?
Mike Gallagher:
To be completely honest where I think any analysis of Syria, or any analysis along the lines that I have laid out, which is to say to be the leader of a regional alliance bloc and have an aggressive posture in Syria which is geared towards a few things: one, deterring the use of chemical weapons; denying further advances by Russia and the Assad government; and three, degrading Hezbollah’s ability to threaten the state of Israel, as well as any of our other allies, encounters serious analytical flaws when it comes to Turkey at the present moment. Because our relationship with Tukey has deteriorated to an extent that has surprised me in recent years, but at the same time I do not know how to make sense of Syria, or put you on a path to stability in Syria, unless we have Turkey in the tent – there’s a scatological image about keeping people in the tent that I’m not going to reference right now – rather than having them outside the tent looking in. And the only thing worse than Turkey on its current course, which is a very troubling one, is Turkey that is a full-fledged partner with Russia. And the Russian-Iranian axis that I referred to earlier becomes a Russian-Iranian-Turkish one. We have to find a way, we’re not going to solve all of our problems with Turkey at present, but we have to find a way to make sure at the very least that we are mediating any negotiation between them and the Kurds, and preventing them from further falling in to the Russian orbit. Erdogan makes that difficult and at sometimes impossible right now given the course that he’s on, but unless we find a way to get the Turks to secure the northern border in Syria, I just don’t know how to make sense of that country.
Bob Seely MP:
I think probably this is the final question, so just in relation to our Greek friend’s question, are you worried that the Russians will try to supplant you as the protectors of the Syrian Kurds? Because it’s your guys, and a little bit us and the French, who are there effectively giving training to the SDF, and how does that complicate your relationship with Turkey?
Mike Gallagher:
Yes, I’m extremely worried, and Ii worry about it in the same sense that, you know, Assad very cleverly sort of positions himself as the defender of Syrian Christians in a way that resonates very widely with the Evangelical community and the Christian community in the United States. Now, it is true that there are many Christians that are sort of, under the protection of the Syrian regime, but it is also true that that regime in concert with sponsorship from Russia and Iran, is responsible for the death of half a million people. And so I worry about just the overall message it sends around the world, when Russia is willing to stand by its allies for a modest investment of resources, will the US is perceived to be a fickle partner. And I fear that has damaging effects, perhaps generational effects on our position in the region. And we’ve allowed Russia to get back into the Middle East for the first time since the mid-point of the Cold War. They had a naval base in the Mediterranean for the first time since the 18th century, I believe. We’re not going to dislodge them from that, but at the very least Ii think we need a business to prevent them from consolidating their gains and advancing further throughout the region. There was an argument that was always made in the previous administration that would drive me very wild, it was: Russia is playing a weak hand in Syria – Russia is playing a weak hand, their economy is weak, this is all a way of distracting from internal challenges they have. I understand the logic behind that right? I mean it’s right. The Russian economy is weak, and he does use nationalism and foreign policy adventures to detract from serious problems he has at home. If the Russians are playing a weak hand well, and winning, while we have a comparatively strong hand that we’re either refusing to play, or we’re playing very poorly, then shame on us. For a very modest investment of resources Russia has been able to shore up an ally, and send a signal that they will stand by their friends, and also enhance their presence and their ability to project power not just in the Middle East, but around the world. And I think we need to keep that in mind and too often we think in terms of a pull between, a choice between all out invasion on the one hand – a la Bush style nation-building, democratisation – and doing nothing on the other hand. And that ignores the multitude of options that lie in the middle. And as long as we are humble about what we can achieve, and clear about what our interests are, and we adequately resource that strategy, there ends up being a lot that we can do. Just look at what we’ve been able to do in the last two years, with an investment of our resources, working by, through, and with our allies on the ground in Iraq. Who endured some of the worst urban combat in Mosul since Huế City in 1968, and we’ve taken back 99% of the territory…
[Audience Member]:
Thanks to Trump.
Mike Gallagher:
…that was once controlled by ISIS…
[Audience Member]:
Thanks to Trump.
Mike Gallagher:
…decimated ISIS. But also by devolving authority to commanders on the ground, rather than micromanaging the military effort from the National Security Council, for which the administration deserves enormous credit.
Bob Seely MP:
Thank you very much. [To audience member] The ISIS campaign started under President Obama.
Thank you very much indeed for being here, and can we thank again our guest. Thank you.