joint session of congress to outline his priorities for the country. watch live coverage beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern with our preview program followed by president biden's state of the union speech, republican response, and reaction by taking your phone call, text, and social media comments. watch the state of the union live for thursday, march 7 at eight a clock p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now are free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1970 nine c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and today we continue to take you to congress and other public-policy events in washington dc at around the country. c-span, powered by cable. >> coming up, the nato

secretary-general talks about ukraine's security and the death of russian opposition leader alexei navalny. he is joined by the prime minister of estonia and republican senator pete ricketts from the munich security conference in germany. it is about .5 hours.

dictators don't know the rules and that is why it is important we remember nato is here to protect collective security against dictators like vladimir putin. >> before i go to the prime minister, does it sharpen your intent to do more to support ukraine? president zelenskyy says, navalny one day and the rest the next day. >> i think president putin demonstrated his intentions. i don't think this changes our demonstration of vladimir -- our perception of vladimir putin. we knew he was a bad guy and this just demonstrates what we already knew. >> prime minister you have been

on the frontline needing to maintain deterrence. what is your reaction to the death of navalny? >> this shows that vladimir putin's playbook has not changed. this is the way he operates. this is the dictators handbook in real life. we all should be aware of this and like president zelenskyy said, let's not discuss to do something. we have to do everything to stop him. we have seen this already in 1930, the same thing. american isolation. on the one side, the nonstop aggressor when we had -- not stopping the aggressor when we had the chance to stop him, then seeing aggression spread all over the world. let's do the right thing and learn something from history. >> to frame it differently for you secretary-general, nato has

said and key defense ministers from the frontline country have said that you were concerned for the first time. it was not the case last year. that within 3-5 yearse vladimir putin to test the resolve of a nato country. >> we can never take peace for granted. i think it's important that the world has become more dangerous, but nato has become stronger. the purpose of nato is to prevent war, to ensure there is no room in moscow for any miscalculation, and to make sure that we convey this message to moscow that no ally will be attacked. so our defense remains credible.

>> our focus should not stray from helping ukraine militarily. we don't have to talk about any nato country if we stop putin in ukraine. that's why we should concentrate our efforts. >> what will it take? you have heard president zelenskyy lay out what he needs. in terms of anti-defense, artillery, longer-range, all the stuff they need. they don't have the wherewithal to control the skies or stop the bombers from russia. but senator, now this is dependent on the u.s.. when everybody said we would not pass this bill europe stepped up with $50 billion worth of other material to ukraine. when will the u.s. do what the u.s. pledged to do at the

beginning of this war, defend democracy, and make sure that here any and dictatorship does not win? >> i would respectfully disagree. europe still needs to do more. as of last summer only 11 nato allies were reaching 2% gdp spending. that needs to be done and it is on par with what germany is doing to get there hopefully this year, to get to 2%. with regards to the u.s., look, we are democracies. it takes time and process to get there. every country has their own thing. the europeans have not gotten to the 2% yet. but that is probably because of the internal politics of each of the different countries. it takes time to bring democracies along and the same will happen in the u.s.. we will get there with regards to making investments in art defense industrial base to supply weapons to ukraine but it will take time and there might

be different paths. i am reminded of the winston churchill quote. americans would be the right thing after exhausting all other possibilities. so i do think we will get there. >> two points i want to follow up on. is there enough time for this messy democratic process? then i would be interested to hear from the two europeans here what senator disdain told me the other day on my program that the u.s. is 15th in terms of defense spending for its gdp and other european countries are spending more, read -- relatively. i know you want them all to get to 2%, but a lot of them are there. i guess that is something to take into consideration too. to wonder whether the u.s. -- do you have an answer to the consequence of russia winning, vladimir winning? >> i have to believe, just as

the prime minister was saying, that if vladimir putin wins in ukraine he will not stop there. he is a dictator. dictators behave the same way. they tell you what they will do. he is talking about a greater russia, russians living outside russia. there is no doubt baltic states will be at risk, or poland, if we don't stop you -- stop him in ukraine. we have to remember the geography will not change. when he loses in ukraine he will still be a threat, a danger and we will have to continue to bolster our eastern flank. nato is doing that now. i think part of what we have to do is make sure we stop them in ukraine and part of what we do not just in the u.s. bitterroot -- in all our countries is make sure we are reminding the public, because we have seen decreasing support in the u.s. for ukraine, reminding them of how important it is to stop vladimir putin here, getting the message out, building support to get the weapons that ukraine

will need to continue to fight. >> can i ask you to pick up on the progress nato nations are making and what you are demanding for more defense spending? works in 2014 nato made the very important decision triggered by russia's illegal annexation of crimea. we have to increase defense spending. that was at a nato summit in wales. i remember i was there and i thought this was just another pledge but not what was going to happen. the reality is a lot has happened. all nato allies have increased defense spending. this year we expect 18 allies to meet 2% of gdp spending on defense up from three in 2014, a significant increase. this means also the total of the european allies 600 billion for

defense and the allies that are not yet at 2% have plans in place to be there very soon. so there is an enormous difference and the european allies have realized that because they have realized there is need to invest. nato has and limited to biggest reinforcement offense in generations with battle groups combating troops on the eastern border for the first time in history. with more forces. so i am not saying everything is fine. i agree we could do more. but we are on track for something demonstrating commitment. >> prime minister, you heard the senator say america will eventually do the right thing in this case. the cia director has said that for the u.s. to walk away from ukraine at this crucial point

would be of historic proportions. do you feel there is a worry about america continuing to lead the alliance, wanting that particularly if the administration changes after the election? is that a real anxiety or not? >> i want to correct one thing i hear everywhere, mentioning separately the baltic and poland. they are all equal nato members. when russia attacked nato it will attack all of us, not poland, not the politics. so let's not make that distinction. second, i think of course we are all democracies. democracies do not get to choose the leaders for our allies. we have to work with all allies.

we have to understand how to learn from the mistakes of history. one thing for europe, i was just in one of the central european countries. they had the attitude that the war is far from them. i took the exact geographic kilometers, the distances. you are much closer to the war than we are. we should all be worried. so, it is true that we have to ramp up our defense spending, not only with political pledges, but in real life. in estonia we are investing over 3% of our gdp to defense. we encourage everybody to do so. there is one thing i have thought about. that is, that when i came up with the proposal, the one round

, the one million round artillery initiative for ukraine , it turned out our defense industry is not capable, that we don't have enough. but we have, in estonia, a very vibrant technology sector. why don't we put those technology sectors and defense industries together to make really big progress, not producing what is therefore quote the 20th century, but what should be in the 21st century, so we can make advances by these technological parts, also, in the defense industry. there is so much we can do together. together with the big allies and small ones. everybody brings something to the table. that's what the alliance is all about. >> secretary-general, the prime minister talked about the one

million ammunition rounds. at the moment u.s. intelligence says while you cannot deliver even one million, north korea is delivering maybe .5 billion to russia now. is that correct? >> i think that is one million also. >> so, he is getting what he needs. can you, today, be certain that nato can defeat russia as it comes to that? we are hearing you have not ramped up enough. you don't have enough to do what you need to do in ukraine, much less if you were to confront russia. you have said that if he steps on your territory every single inch will be defended. >> the strongest military power in the world today with 60% roughly of the world's total military might. our military is stronger than

russia. at the same time i think that the war in ukraine has demonstrated that there are some serious gaps. for instance when it comes to sustaining advanced weapons systems. they need spare parts. they need ammunition. even through the war in ukraine, they are running right below. now we are focusing on how to ramp up production. we have good news. new factories have been set up. production has increased. but there is an urgent need to do more. so, yes, i think we have all learned serious lessons about warfare and also for data, from the war in ukraine. then of course speaking about burden sharing. it has more to do with the defense spending then when you look at the -- the support for ukraine.

european allies on camera have brought more support to ukraine in total than to the u.s.. of course the u.s. has done a lot when it comes to military support for ukraine. the problem now is the lack of positioning in the u.s. congress means that the total from the use has gone down and that has an impact from ukraine. so this is not only about making the right decisions. it's about making the right decisions early as quickly as possible because it is urgent. every week we wait there will be more people killed on the front line in ukraine. so i can see that there is urgency on the u.s. to decide for a path for ukraine because they need that support and we have burden sharing between the u.s., canada, and the united states and now it is up to them to deliver what was promised.

>> you took that message to washington last week. chancellor schulz just broke ground on a new ammunition factory. senator, you voted against the senate plan. i wonder whether anything you heard today might stiffen your resolve to go convince your colleagues, not just in the senate, but in the house, particularly with what president zelenskyy said that he would request all of these weapons systems if he could. you heard in answer to a question that he would even invite former president donald trump to the front lines so he could see the danger and what is going on. does anything you here today stiffen your resolve, change your mind? >> it goes back to democracies are messy and every country has its priorities. in the u.s. right now we have a pressing national security issue at our central border. over the last three years 8.5 million people have either entered our country illegally or attempted to.

put that in perspective and it is more than four times the population of my state and that is the number one consideration for people in my state and frankly, what is going on on on the southern border. so that is what my colleagues and i were attempting to do when we were trying to pass this bill, get a package that would secure the border and forth president biden to change his secure the border. we were not successful. that does not mean i don't support what we are doing to support ukraine, but every country has its own policies and priorities. since 2014 the floor west of us to be 2%. here we are last year in 2023, almost 10 years later now with either 11 last year or maybe 18 this year. countries have priorities to get there and democracy is messy. >> actually, the administration came to a very conservative and strict immigration proposal based on what congress wanted.

congress torpedoed it. the republican-led congress. i talked to ally hunter mayorkas the secretary of homeland security who said he had never seen anything from the democrats so strong. but question to you is, we know the american people by a considerable margin support nato. the bullish prime minister tweeted, ronald reagan hoped many of us win back our freedom and independence and must be turning in his grave today. he said, shame on you. i am wondering what you think about that and whether you are prepared to see a world in which america does not lead anymore, or one in which russia wins. >> what the administration came forward with on the board was not adequate. they set the emergency level at 5000 people per day entering our country and in the past that number was below 1000. the president of the border patrol council on the border there said 1000 is an emergency

and 5000 is a catastrophe. that's why the bill did not go anywhere. what the president was willing to do was not adequate. with regards, again, i understand people are anxious to get this done. it's a democracy and it does take time. we have other issues we have to deal with as well. so as you mentioned, we will get there. it will take time. democracy is a process. we just have to continue to work to get to the answer for how we will do -- invest in our defense industrial base and how we supply ukraine with weapons to do that but i am confident the u.s. will get there. >> but it is the time that is working in favor of vladimir putin now. of course, everyone is looking at the u.s.. also, to speed up the process.

i understand that democracy takes time. you have debates. at the same time there's a lot at stake, i think in the world. again, i turned back to history. three things we learned from the 1930's and the second world war were that first, everything spreads very fast in europe. secondly, that if america isolates itself, eventually, this will cost you more. and third, the aggression pays off somewhere and it serves as an imitation to use it elsewhere and that is a threat to global security. [applause]. >> thank you very much. now, we are opening this to the audience for questions. understand china and many other

issues are on your agenda this weekend. i saw you first. and questions, not speeches. >> dear senator, you said that democracy takes time. the problem is ukraine doesn't have time. we are dying every day. it is so important so please consider this. one more message. you asked president zelenskyy for message to send republicans. my message is very easy. first, do you really want to have afghanistan one more? that will be a consequence. second, who will be with americans in the trenches? ukrainians already. please, support us now. please, the council of europe is ready to help you with the border. but, do you really think that if ukraine fails it will help the

american border? thank you. [applause]. >> was there a rule against speeches purchased -- speeches versus questions? i understand your frustration coming from ukraine absolutely. you have 300,000 russian soldiers on your territory. put it in the perspective of the millions of people trying to come into the u.s. illegally. not quite the same thing, but it is a pressing issue for our country. it is a pressing issue for the people in the u.s.. talking about dealing with multiple issues you have to be able to manage them all. ukraine has its own political issues, for example, conscription going from 27 to 25. i understand that is a difficult political issue in ukraine right now. we all have to have a little grace. we are all democracies. we have to understand that getting our populations to where

we need to be is a matter of time and the process matters. this is what sets us apart from bad guys like vladimir putin. we can't just order people to do stuff. so, i certainly understand ukrainians saying we need assistance now. i get it. it takes time to work its way through a democracy and that is what we will do. we will get there, but it will take time. >> thank you. i am the former minister in the government. it is clear germany is a strong deterrent looking at ukraine and beyond. chancellor schulz wanted that out earlier this morning. do you think we can achieve this by conventional means only? or is it time to discuss? what our expectations across the atlantic? >> nato has established nuclear

deterrence. it has worked for decades. it is something the u.s. does together with european allies. we have agreed on the control. we have exercised this. we have doctrines and it is something we do together as nato. i think that any questioning of that deterrence is on the mind of nato in a time when we need credible deterrence. of course we have the u.s. nuclear power. we have france and the u.k.. but the idea of some sort of parallel deterrent among home nato allies, not for the u.s. or the u.k. either, that's not helpful. that would only undermine a nuclear tactic that has worked well for many many years. >> thank you. tobias elwood the united kingdom

parliament foreman -- former foreign minister. i understand this is the biggest allegation to the u.s. for generations to come to munich and that is really good to see. i hope that the message goes back that part of europe is on fire. the lines of the map are being redrawn and how this is being tied in to what is going on on the mexican border. my question is to do with the standardization of nato. if you take the helots or from the u.s. -- howlitzer from the u.s. and put it together with munitions from estonia it won't work. until we standardize the equipment, surely this must be a priority for nato. >> absolutely. the good news is we have learned a very serious lessons from the war in ukraine. it's not just munitions and the

u.s. that does not work together but we have a joint german per gate. we have two main examples where allies have made small changes to nato standards partly i guess to protect their own industry and it does not work. therefore, we have done a lot at nato to reinforce and implement standards. it will reduce cost. it will ensure weapons and ammunition's are exchangeable. >> true. >> this lady here. >> thank you very much. i am transitioning to a think >> we are going to leave this here to take you live to nasa's coverage of an attempted lunar landing. if successful, it would be the