Transcription
A NATO summit in Anchora that took an unexpected turn.
"If there's one word that comes out of today, it's unification. I've never seen anything like it."
Deals to build American weapons in Europe and a US license for Keefe to build Patriot interceptors inside Ukraine.
"We're going to give a license to you to make Patriots. That's pretty cool, right?"
"This way you can't complain that we're not giving them enough. I say make them yourself."
The capricious US president threatened to skip the summit. He arrived demanding Greenland. He savaged Spain once again, but left Anchora, insisting the US commitment to the NATO alliance was solid.
But halfway through this two-day meeting, the president detonated his ceasefire with Iran.
"I think it's over. I don't want to deal with them anymore, but they're scum. You know what scum is?"
The alliance is rearming for one threat while its most powerful member squares up to another. We'll hear from one of NATO's top military commanders. Welcome to the Security Brief. Mikey, what a week we've had. Let's start with the the Patriot announcement. President Zalinski has been seeking permission for months to build Patriot missiles inside Ukraine. How big a deal do you think this is?
"I think it's I think it's huge. Um I think there will be a slight calmness from Zilinski, but they're not out of the woods. Um you only have to look at what happened Christian in July. 49 Russian ballistic missiles launched only four intercepted. Um the Patriot as well is the only system that Ukraine has that can actually stop Russian ballistic missiles and the interceptors are running out and that's a huge issue."
And I know covering the summit at the G7 just a few weeks ago, Zilinsky was appealing to his NATO allies for this permission. The problem has always been supply because it's the Americans that make them.
"Yeah, it is supply and it's it's a it's a supply problem based on um massive use by the Americans of PAC 3 interceptors um during Operation Epic Fury. Just to give you an example, we spoke about this the other day. Um there were 1,800 PAC 3 missile interceptors that were expended in the first two weeks of the Iran war. That's a huge issue because around 650 Pack 3es are made per year. So when you add that all up, that's a three-year supply line chain in order to replace 16 days worth of interceptors. So there's a chronic shortage. Um Germany, they already have a license for developing PAC 2 and PAC 3 Patriot missiles. And a little bit later, we'll go on to the difference between PAC 2 and PAC 3. Um, and Ukraine and President Zalinski has been saying for months, they've got the engineers, they've got the capability, just give us the the license and the ability to do it. And this week, apparently Trump relented."
Right. Go on then. Tell us how the the the Patriot missile system works and why there's some complexity around it.
"I think firstly, the caveat is that this is a license, right? Um, it's not a missile. It's permission to build a factory that doesn't exist yet. supply chains, facilities, you've got sensitive technology, and every one of those particular bits, whether they're made in the same location or whether it's disperate locations, they all will become a target if Russians for the Russians inside Ukraine. So, it does change Ukraine's future, but we're talking years. We're not talking months in the making, and that's obviously an issue as well. I just want to give the viewers an idea of of what Patriot is when we talk about Patriot. Let's just take a look at a uh a quick video here. Um, it's more than just a missile. Okay, we talk about it as a missile, but it's not. It's a battery. And what a battery includes is it includes a radar. So, the radar, for example, has the ability to look further than the PAC 3 can intercept. So, just because a radar can see possibly out to 100 miles, it doesn't mean that the effective use of the PAC 3 is at 100 miles. It's much closer in, but it can detect the threat earlier. You're talking about C2, commander control center. um you're talking about the launchers as well as the missile itself. So the PAC 3 which Zinsky said today is the best. The difference between the PAC 2 and the PAC 3 is the PAC two is the missile is specifically designed to take out aircraft and cruise missiles. It's the Pack Three bit that Zillinsky's after and that's the bit that goes after the ballistic missile threat."
One battery is about a billion dollars. Um so it's not chicken feed but I think what's interesting is we spoke to um supreme allied commander transformation uh Admiral Vier earlier on and um listen to what he's got to say about the patriot acquisition. So the context is the uh today the production of patriots is limited and so uh the US are struggling with the industry they have to uh procure all the customers they have would they be in the Persian Gulf would it be um in the Pacific or in Europe today having more production of that kind of weapon would it be written or would it be European made would it be Ukrainian made uh is the challenge today the Ukrainians are working hard of their own domestic ABM system. Uh, and I think the more we will have the better.
Maybe we should just list the deals that were made this week because they were significant. So, $40 billion for counter drone technology over 5 years and a pledge to train five times as many drone operations by the end of next year. That's at the end of 2027. We're already seeing that the Ukrainians have been training in Sweden on big exercises and the UK is developing drone tech with Ukraine Deep Strike. That's called Project Break Stop and one to look out for in the future as that evolves.
"Yeah. And and the other thing that obviously is a a gap I think NATO would confess to that would be eyes in the sky. Geospatial intelligence."
"Yeah. When you when you come to sort of the vulnerabilities as we say in the military, the critical vulnerabilities, intelligence is a huge one. Eyes in the sky obviously uh informs that intelligence. So there's a deal to buy up to five Triton. They're called MQ4C. I think we've got a picture here of the MQ4C."
"So it's a uh it's a"
"again not chicken feed."
"No, not absolutely. was 200 million. It's about 220 to 240 million a unit for one of these. Um, but it was it was procured by the US as a a long range maritime reconnaissance drone and and with that it's got massive endurance, but it's it's really expensive. Um and there's obviously there's obviously a plan to take that version the maritime capable version um and develop and adjust that capability um suited for the"
"and if you were building contingency plans for the end of the war in Ukraine and maintaining the peace that would be crucial."
"Yeah, I mean intellig eyes in the sky so we call it imagery intelligence and electronic intelligence and a lot of these drones have uh sensors that combine the both of those. Um, and then the other thing as well is that these drones do what's called P, pattern of life."
"And so pattern of life basically is looking at the behavioral activities around a target. So the longer that drone can stay airborne without having to come back, then obviously the pattern of life is going to be um is is is going to be more effective um for use by the targeteers inside the um inside the Ukrainian. And in in terms of airborne early warning systems, interestingly NATO turning to the Swedes and to SAR and away from Boeing."
"Yeah, I I don't think we should underestimate the the messaging of that if you like that reliance on Boeing to provide that capability and now NATO's decided to go with the Swedish company SA Globalizes the airborne early warning aircraft that they've chosen. The Swedish PM um was talking to us to us about that yesterday. That interview is actually for the viewers. That interview's on um the on YouTube on the security brief playlist. Um, and I think we've got a picture here of of the uh E3. It's the big aircraft with the ray dome on the back. And what it does is it it paints what's called an air picture for fighters to be able to go in and identify targets. But from that list, you can read the alliance's anxieties straight away. You can read it from the receipts, which is uh all you need to know. So, it can't see enough, doesn't have enough intelligence, and it can't shoot down mass-produced drone drones cheaply. And I think they're the big takeaways from the deals."
So, we we've talked a bit about defense there against the incoming threats as they would be perceived, but deterrence works both ways.
"Yeah, it does. And I keep coming back to this question. Why isn't NATO playing Russia at its own game? Moscow's low tech, cheap produce, mass-produced drone barrage um is the most effective conventional weapon um that I think Russia has outside of anything else it's got"
"beneath the nuclear threat."
"Beneath the exactly that and it's been used to great effect and Ukraine has stepped up to the plate to be able to counter that one-way attack drone fle threat. We're calling it um on this program a conventional um non-nuclear deterrent that sits below as you say the nuclear threshold. So it is the question that we put to Admiral Vanier. Um take a listen to what he said in terms of NATO's response."
"So NATO is working on a deep precision strike. That means that we will acquire in the next month, years a massive amount of ammo that will be able to strike and strike and strike. Uh it's a way to deter by denial. That means that uh a massive gathering of troops will just be under a massive strike umbrella. Uh and so it's what we need to achieve. Today we have some deep strike capabilities with exquisite, complex, expensive weapons. uh and we know that we are not able to massproduce these. So we will complement these weapons that are useful for highly defended targets with more massive cheap uh ammo that will able to just depress the pressure we we could have on on the front line. Outside of the drone threat, Admiral, the the other main challenge is the Russian ballistic and cruise missile threat. NATO's air defense umbrella is known as Eegis Ashure. Given the numbers that have been fired at Ukraine in recent months, do you still think that system is fit for purpose to defend Europe?"
"So, it depends what we fight. Um, in fact, the all ages ashore is well done and and it's sufficient is very efficient against um a specific ballistic missiles. Um, you have a lot of programs now in Europe, speaking for example of the steel dome in in Anara in in Turkey. uh you have the um the same kind of um program with Italy, with the French uh with MBDA. So all these companies are working on strengthening the ABM antib-bolistic missile systems. The numbers are in our favor because ballistic missile expensive and so the number of missiles that are able to hit them. I think the balance is pretty good. uh it's much more the numbers and the ramping up of this production and the strengthening of the systems is is ongoing today. Israel is doing well on that and so I'm confident on the fact that we we we can play this battle"
In general terms when we look back over the two days Mikey is it crisis over in NATO?
"Well, let me come back to you with a question. Would you put your house on that?"
"No. Well, I think that's all we need to know. So, look, one, you know, what people need to know is that the Pentagon is in the midst of a six-month review of its European presence. That's that's key. At the same time, troops have been cut again from Europe. Uh there are plans to cut jets uh from NATO, carriers withdrawn,"
"and I think"
"refueling jets."
"Yeah. Yeah. Tankers, intelligence,"
"strategic asset."
"Yeah. But I think, you know, the thing that underpins all of that is at the diplomatic level and and and it's that Trump blows hot and cold on this. So unpredictability hasn't gone away."
"Um and it's what NATO will still have to navigate. I think number two, let's go back to Greenland. Trump said this week he's quote very upset unquote. Prime Minister Ferguson, the um Prime Minister of Denmark, spoke in a language, I think that she made sure that Trump understands, saying that um you know, it's not for sale. Greenland is not for sale."
"Yeah."
"Um"
"well, it's very transactional. He probably does understand that language. And then three, there's Iran."
"Yeah. There is. I mean,"
"which blew up midsummit."
"It It did blew up midsummit. I think we probably predicted that when we were in Lucern covering the um covering theou each side blaming the other. Typical. Uh it's not something we haven't heard. Um what did the US do in response? They hit 80 plus targets overnight, including Car Island. Um for the viewers, I've done an explainer on that. We've covered it a lot on the security brief. It's effectively the IRG's lifeline when it comes to 90% of Iran's oil. It's exported in the IRGC obviously benefits from that. You've got all sanctions that are now back. There's more strikes threatened tonight. And here's the NATO problem. Trump has spent the entire summit complaining to allies that they were unwilling to help. He called it a test. And I don't think that's going to be rhetoric that goes away anytime soon."
"Yeah. And if that war does reignite, which at the moment, let's face it, it it looks like it might, then that pressure on NATO, comes back harder."
"Yeah, it's it's not as yet, it's not gone away, and certainly it does come back harder. Um because the longer this goes on, the more frustrated President Trump is going to get. Um and the more he's going to want to bring people into this problem. Um and I it goes back to the the big questions, the fundamental questions facing the alliance. Is it a defect is it a defensive pact against Moscow, the spread of communism that it was originally designed for? Article five attack on one is attack on all or"
"an offensive alliance?"
"Yeah, exactly. Is it is it an offensive alliance? And there's got to be some big questions asked within NATO to see if they're willing to sort of meet Trump halfway on that offensive component. Anchor, I think, has papered over that crack. Um, and the resumption of the war may test that crack. Just a final thought. I mean, we had on the set here just a few weeks ago, Secretary John Kerry, instrumental when it came to the negotiation in 2015 on the JCPOA, the former Iran nuclear deal. And he talked in that interview about the painstaking diplomacy, the choreography of every word, the the weight of what was discussed in those meetings. And then at this summit this week, President Trump labels the Iranians scum, vicious, violent people, a waste of time, he said. What do you think that shift in language tells us?"
"Certainly not statesmanlike. I think that's probably probably number one. But what it does do is it exposes the massive shift in the way that diplomacy is now being carried out. Secretary Kerry's view, his worldview was that words are instruments. You negotiate in private, you give the other side room to climb down. Um, I think we should play a clip from Secretary Kerry actually because it was quite a revealing interview. Um, let's take a look listen to what he said."
"President Trump uh really missed the the the greatest opportunity of all which was to uh open up the potential that without war you could actually reach an agreement. Where is the negotiation? Where is the the the trod path here of him putting proposals in front of Iran and saying, "Hey, I didn't like this in the JCPOA. But if you'll change that with me, then we can cut a deal that goes beyond where they were, and here are some other things we could do." I mean, there was none of that. That's diplomacy, and war is the failure of diplomacy."
Post Trump's supporters would say, "Well, yeah, but that strategy didn't work. The deal got torn out. Iran cheated around the edges anyway. You can't trust them."
"Sure. But there's a cost to that. And the cost is is that when you call out a nation's leadership or call them scum, you close the climb down route, not just for them, but for you. And then it goes back to the oldage, which I used to listen to quite a lot when I was in the military, is is that the only option then available is the blunt tool of foreign policy, which ultimately is the military."
Interesting stuff. That interview incidentally with Secretary John Kerry is there on the YouTube security playlist. Do take a look at that along with all the interviews we've done this week alongside the NATO summit. Uh that's it for this week. Mikey, thank you as ever. We'll see you for the next one. Thanks for watching.