General Philip M. Breedlove, Former Supreme Allied Commander, NATO
General Breedlove (Ret.) has been assigned to numerous operational, command and staff positions, and has completed eleven overseas tours, including two remote tours. He has commanded a fighter squadron, an operations group, three fighter wings, a numbered air force, a major combatant command and an alliance. He also served in several senior staff positions to include; Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force, Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force; and Vice Director for Strategic Plans and Policy on the Joint Staff.
The Cipher Brief: NATO leaders will be focusing on how the organization is positioned to handle security issues at a meeting to be held later this year in London. Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was just in London meeting with Prime Minister Theresa May a few weeks ago. How do you see Brexit impacting the UK’s role in NATO?
Breedlove: The Brexit discussion has only increased the U.K.’s contributions to NATO. Their intention is not only to remain engaged, but to increase their level of engagement in an effort to show that they're not falling out of their responsibility in the defense of Europe. However, if we end up in a situation where their ability to support their own military is impacted because of their economy or the pound loses value, then that could have a detrimental effect on their NATO contributions.
The Cipher Brief: One dominant security issue where the U.S. and the UK do not necessarily agree on strategy is over 5G and specifically, Huawei and their relationship to the Chinese government. You were one of six former military leaders, that included two former NATO Commanders, who signed a letter this past April noting your concerns over the U.S. military’s use of 5G for transmitting sensitive information.
Breedlove: The 5G enterprise, dominated by China and Chinese technologies, will be an absolute threat to our Western defensive capabilities. All of the existing backdoors that the Chinese would use to watch what we're doing and to monitor our data is a defense matter and it presents a threat to us.
All you have to do is look at current Chinese software and technology that is allowing them an intimate and complete view into the lives of their own citizens. They use that technology to find out what their citizens are doing, and they assign scores that help determine their future jobs and their standing in the community. That level of intrusiveness, achieved using their technology and software, is already demonstrated. We don't have to speculate. I do not support the West allowing this technology to be used here. This is something that's really important to me.
The Cipher Brief: In a world where there are two players vying for dominance, the U.S. and China, how do you see this playing out? Not all of the Five Eyes are onboard with a single Huawei strategy. The U.K. and France, for example, don’t agree with the U.S. approach of banning it entirely. How do you see this shaping up from a leadership policy perspective over the next five years?
Breedlove: We've got to get out there and lead. This is another one of those instances where people are calling into question the intelligence because they cannot stand the policy implication. These great nations know what China is doing. This is all about economics and Chinese money. What we need to do is get everybody on the same sheet of music about what we know the Chinese are doing now with their software and hardware, and then decide whether this is something we want.
The Cipher Brief: Let’s talk about Turkey. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is said to be considering a more extensive relationship with Russia, having recently said that Turkey will co-produce the S-500 missile system after a deal is completed in which Ankara will purchase the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missile system. The deal is concerning to NATO, particularly if Turkey also purchases the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) from the U.S. How should we be thinking about the impact of Turkey's decision on this?
Breedlove: I don't think any of this is settled yet. What's happening here is that you see a Russian information campaign aimed at influencing the United States. Russia is trying to show that it is embracing Turkey, and Turkey is embracing back, and that they're going to be future partners in everything. Remember that these are two countries that almost went to war over the shooting down of a Russian fighter jet not too long ago.
What we see at this point may or may not play out, that they buy the S-400 from Russia. I'm virtually positive that if they do that, we will not co-produce JSF with them. They will be out of the of the JSF Program. Their pilots will be out of the JSF Program. And any future Russian equipment that they buy will not be plugged into NATO. There are some pretty big hurdles to get past here. The public pronunciations, and these grand, sweeping statements at this point are as much an information campaign as they are actual intent.
If Turkey goes down the path of buying S-400, and then falls out of the JSF Program, then they will end up buying a lot of equipment that they will not be able to plug into NATO defense systems. That’s a huge problem.
Turkey is following a model adopted by several nations that are becoming more and more autocratic, led by one leader who wants to ensconce themselves forever as a leader and drive a country in a new, different direction. Erdogan is definitely trying to drive Turkey in a very different direction. We've survived these kinds of things in NATO before. And my hope and prayer is that we survive this one, because Turkey is very important to us. But we have to keep an eye on this very new autocratic direction that Turkey is taking.
The Cipher Brief: Speaking of new leaders, what about Ukraine’s new President Volodymyr Zelensky? What do you make if his election and the direction that might indicate for Ukraine?
Breedlove: We need to celebrate democracy in action. This appears to have been a fair, democratic election. It didn't go the way of the current leadership. I don't think it actually went the way of Russian leadership, either. I'm not going to pass judgment now, especially in a public forum, but I've been doing a lot of reading about what President Zelensky, and as importantly, what his wife, has been writing. Remember that she writes for the television show that he once starred in. She's a very talented and intelligent individual.
I’m almost scared to say this, but what I’ve read about them so far is fairly encouraging. There's some concern about their connection to the oligarch that owns the TV station where their program aired, but in general, the things that they are both saying sound pretty good. The Russians did everything they could to thwart former President Petro Poroshenko and his government in order to slow down reform.
Remember that the Maidan Revolution in 2014 was a revolution of dignity, and the people wanting change in their government. As Mr. Poroshenko and his government began to try to effect those changes, Russia invaded the country, twice, and continues to lead this insurrection in the east and hold this line of contact. Poroshenko’s government had been trying to fix that by spending lots of money on it, and wasn’t able to make the changes that the people of the Maidan Revolution demanded.
So, Russia has accomplished at least one goal, and that is to thwart the outcome of the revolution. . And By thwarting it, they have gotten the Poroshenko government removed. Now to Russia's disappointment, they probably didn't get the people that they wanted in office. It remains to be seen how much Russian influence will be in this new government. But the bottom line is, this new government will try to implement the changes that the revolutionaries wanted. But as long as Russia continues to press this war in the east, it's going to be hard for the government to do what it needs to do because money and effort will have to remain focused on the line of contact.
We could help President Zelensky by implementing a better political process than the Minsk accord. Minsk hasn't done anything. We in America, during the last administration, pitched this whole problem over the fence for France and Germany to handle and we basically backed out of the process.
Remember that some of the main characteristics of the Minsk accord included reestablishing the international border of Ukraine. Right now, Russia is maintaining this new line of contact, as opposed to implementing what Minsk demands. And so we need to help President Zelensky. Maybe that help is not even in the form of military aid this time, but it's in the form of political aid and political wherewithal; and in applying international pressure for the Russians to get out of the Donbass.
I'm encouraged that we have seen democracy in action. I'm encouraged that we didn't get an outwardly visible set of new Russian cronies running the country. And I think that the international community needs to fall in behind the new President and help him.
It would be a really nice turn of events to get a successful government that begins to affect all of the changes to root out corruption and to change the way that the government and the military interact, and the way that the government supports the people. All the things that were absolutely relevant and real in the Maidan are important for Ukraine. And as long as the Russians can thwart that progress, they can continue to hope to get another government that might be more Russian-pliable.
The Cipher Brief: Let’s shift to the Artic, where both the Russians and lately, the Chinese, have a notable presence. President Vladimir Putin announced in April that Russia was taking steps to boost freight traffic along its coast. A recent piece published in The Guardian, says the Artic “holds oil and gas reserves equivalent to 412 billion barrels of oil, about 22% of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas,” according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Are you concerned about the Russians and the Chinese having a stronger position there?
Breedlove: I'm more concerned about what the Russians have done along their northern borders to be able to sense and control those Arctic waters. But what is clear is that China is looking to be an Arctic nation, down to the point of buying a portion of Iceland in order to become a member of the Arctic Council. These are things that China really wants to do. Right now, I'm less worried about them. I'm more worried about the Russians up there.
The Cipher Brief: Does the U.S. have sufficient situational awareness of what's going on in the Arctic?
Breedlove: No. And even if we did, what could we do about it? The United States owns three icebreakers. Two of them are completely out of commission. So we're a one-icebreaker-nation. How much emphasis on the Arctic does that show? We're just not where we need to be.
The Cipher Brief: Let’s move a bit further out now. How confident are you that the U.S. is on the right track to maintain an edge in space dominance?
Breedlove: I'm not very confident. Here's what I am confident of: If we choose, we can be the preeminent space power. We still have the ability to surge in front of what's going on. But right now, other nations are much more dedicated, not so much to space advancement, but to military capability in space. They absolutely understand how much we rely on space for the things that we do when we fight. And they are absolutely determined to deny us that ability. They are getting way out in front of us, in a military sense, in space.
The Cipher Brief: Talking innovation for a moment, are you encouraged by some of what DoD is trying to do in terms of matching the speed of innovation, for example, with the Army Futures Command? Broadly speaking, there's a lot of attention focused on how quickly DoD can innovate. Understanding where it comes from, probably better than most people, are you encouraged at what you're seeing?
Breedlove: Some things are good. We have some bright minds out there who are really challenging the status quo. In general, the idea that we've got to change the way we think moving forward is absolutely right. They absolutely have that right.
The good news is that we are pressing pretty hard in DoD. Of course our budget for these things is rather limited, in comparison, because we are so focused right now on the crazy procurement holiday that we've had for nearly two decades, and the way we've allowed our military to decline over the last two decades. We're having to figure out how to climb out of that hole, right now.
But the bottom line is, that competes with our innovation and R&D capabilities in the military. We need to continue to press. We need to listen to some of these bright young minds. Some of them are relatively inexperienced when it comes to defense, but they are absolutely innovative when it comes to ideas for change and advancement. That's the kind of thinking we need.
The things we need to work on in government include developing better ways to incentivize the big defense corporations when they are investing in looking forward because they have a whole lot more money that they can put toward this, if we incentivize them to do it. Some of the ways that we address procurement do not incentivize a lot of risk. We need to get back to the time when our great labs, and our great research institutions, and our great defensive primes were all leaning forward. It’s critically important now because in a place like China, they just dictate it. They build a 50-year plan, and they're going to execute the 50-year plan. They're making great advancements. We need to not allow ourselves to become the second R&D enterprise in the world.
Read more from General Philip Breedlove (Ret.) in The Cipher Brief
