I think that makes very, very clear the point of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), which was that the President had put nothing for peacekeeping in this defense bill. So the logical deduction was that any peacekeeping, absent a supplemental, had to come out of ammunition, had to come out of readiness; and that is something that would have disserved the country. I appreciate the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for explaining the President's recent statement.
Andrew P. Hunter: “I think that makes very, very clear the point of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), which was that the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of the President's budget on peacekeeping efforts during a defense bill debate.
Share
More from Andrew P. Hunter
I think what today's hearing and what this situation and NATO's eastern flank highlights is the fact that we don't have a tremendous amount of time to wait around for the next great Army to show up in 10 to 15 to 20 years.
It is my belief that, collectively, NATO is not yet at a maturity level sufficient to effectively incorporate cyber technologies that exploit critical Russian infrastructure.
You cannot throw money at the problem, and we do not need to be investing government dollars where the private sector is going to invest its own dollars.
I think the key is deterrence, because I think the truth is, whether it is the scenario that we looked at, the scenarios war games there, there is no certainty of victory if the Russians make a serious move against the Baltics, at least in…





