“Our government is firmly in the camp of looking for an opportunity to have an arms control agreement that would include all the countries that have these intermediate ballistic missiles,” U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison said during a telephone conference, a day before the alliance’s defense ministers meet in Brussels. “Now America is going forward with the treaty protocol to give notice that we need to begin to develop a defense to the violating missiles that Russia has been developing.”

“We are very concerned about any kind of Russian missile defense in one of our alliance countries,” Hutchison said. “The whole alliance is concerned about this and we hope that Turkey will make the right decision and look for another system.”

Below is a full rush transcript of the press conference by Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO.

Ambassador Hutchison: I’m happy to be able to welcome Acting Secretary of Defense Shanahan to Brussels tomorrow. We are looking forward to a productive and very good Defense Ministerial. It will be his first, of course. We are really going to have a good schedule.

Certainly, first of all, we will welcome the accession protocol for North Macedonia. As many of you know, we have been looking forward to working with Macedonia and having them come into NATO. They have now started that process, working together with our ally Greece. They are now in the process of coming into NATO and each parliament of our member states will be asked to agree to this. I am very supportive, our country is very supportive of Macedonia becoming the 30th member of NATO when all of the ratifications have been completed.

We will be talking about the INF Treaty. As many of you also know, we have been working with Russia for over five years and have documented since 2007 that Russia has tried to withdraw from the treaty, wanted to, and America tried very hard to stay in the treaty, to make sure that both sides were complying. But unfortunately, we began to see the evidence that Russia was not complying, that they were in fact building a missile that violated the treaty starting in the mid-2000’s. Now America is going forward with the treaty protocols to give notice that we need to begin to develop a defense to the violating missiles that Russia has been developing.

We will be talking about defense investments. I think that the allies have made great strides in beginning to step up with more in burden sharing. We have what we call the three C’s — Cash, Capabilities and Contributions — to make for a strong alliance.

On the cash side we’re asking, and all of our allies have committed in the past to go toward two percent of their defense spending in their countries so that we do have capabilities that we must have to be a strong alliance.

The capability targets are 20 percent of the two percent, and that is the airplanes and the submarines and the ships that we all know that collectively we will need for a strong defense.

The contributions are the contributions to the mission of NATO. Our allies are stepping up in all three areas, and we’re very pleased to have a good report. We’re not where we want to be in the end, but we have made huge progress since 2016 and I think by the end of 2020 we expect to have an increase from all of our allies of $100 billion which has been verified by the data that we have received in the national plan. And by 2024 we expect the majority of allies to meet the full pledge and look for over $300 billion, more like $350 billion according to the national plans that have been submitted.

So this is a huge step in the right direction, and we are working towards the goal being reached as soon as possible for the strength of our alliance.

We will be talking about deterrence and defense and the capabilities that we are trying to achieve. We have a target of what we call the four 30s. That’s 30 battalions, 30 air squadrons, 30 ships in 30 days, wherever they are needed. That is a very bold goal, but one that we have established that we will have.

We will be meeting with our European allies, our EU allies along with the issues that we are working on together — certainly our military mobility — so that we can achieve the 30 days getting through the European countries if we are ever called to do so.

And we will be talking about telecommunication security. As we are going toward — all of us — a stronger network and the most current technology, we are looking at security efforts and assessing where we are and what we need to be doing there.

The last major part of our Defense Ministerial will be discussing Afghanistan. Ambassador Khalilzad, who is the U.S. Special Envoy into Afghanistan for the peace process, was here yesterday with our whole Resolute Support Mission group of 41 to talk about where we are in the peace process. I think that he is breaking new ground, but we certainly know that we are not where we need to be at this time, but we are going in the right direction.

That will be the basic schedule for our Defense Ministers. It will be a very information packed and conversation packed ministerial, and we are looking forward to welcoming all of the Defense Ministers to NATO.

Question: As you mentioned the protocol for Northern Macedonia joining NATO, could you give us some overview, when is the United States Senate going to ratify this document? And what are your expectations, how smoothly this process is going to go by your opinion in all 28 parliaments, having in mind that Greece has already ratified the protocol?

Ambassador Hutchison: I think that we will have a smooth transition. All of our governments have been consulted, and every one of us that is at NATO that signed the protocol did so with the support of all of our governments.

Of course the parliaments must act, and we believe that our parliaments will be in support. The time line has not yet been set. It has not been formally put on the schedule yet. But we would probably look towards the end of the year as the time line when all of the parliaments that have different schedules and different session times and different processes, we would hope that by the end of the year that this would be complete and we’re all very much looking forward to welcoming our 30th member.

Question: whether you think there is significant risk to NATO from anti-democratic governments within the alliance, particularly Hungary and increasingly Poland and Turkey. And if you do believe there is a risk, what should NATO do about it? Thank you.

Ambassador Hutchison: All of us are aware that there are certain parts of the democracies in our alliance that have been changed or amended or in a different position. NATO has never taken up an issue that is a direct intervention in any kind of way, but we are always encouraging a better democratic value. There are different issues in different countries. That probably will always be the case. But these are democracies, they do have elections, and the people speak. So we, the United States, certainly are counseling with allies when we see areas that are of concern. We do that on a bilateral basis, and I know other countries do that with each other as well.

There’s no formal process, but I will say that every one of our allies is a strong supporter of NATO. There has never been a question of that. And the significance of the alliance contributions both in missions as well as the cash and capabilities is the unity and the strength that we have. Everything is not perfect, but we are a strong and unified alliance that is very capable of providing this security umbrella that was the original mission for the alliance.

Question: I wanted to come back to the INF Treaty, and I just wanted to know if the U.S. are ready to negotiate a new treaty with Russia and to open up the treaty to other countries like China.

Ambassador Hutchison: The U.S. has said, in fact all along, that we would welcome a new treaty that includes all the countries that have the ballistic missiles that would be a violation of the treaty. Only Russia is the one that is a party to the treaty, but there are other countries that have missiles that would violate.

We are for nuclear disarmament, we’re for arms control, we are for nonproliferation, and our government is firmly in the camp of looking for an opportunity to have an arms control agreement that would include all of the countries that have these intermediate ballistic missiles.

With all of the new technology and defense capabilities that many countries have, arms control is very high on our agenda when all the parties are compliant.

Question: Russia accused Norway of pushing ahead with a military buildup, saying it requires some sort of Russian response. How do you see Russia’s reaction as Norway is a member of NATO?

Ambassador Hutchison: I’m not totally familiar with what exactly happened in that situation, but we do know there have been some hiccups in the past with overflying and those have been deconflicted in an appropriate way, and we would certainly work toward deconflicting any kind of transgression that would happen between those two countries.

Question: The policies regarding Venezuela, Iran or S-400s from Russia, Turkey is aligning itself with countries confronting the U.S. How does this affect the functioning of the alliance and defense cooperation? Are there any discussions about a possible NATO role in protecting Turkey ?

Ambassador Hutchison: To your last question, there is no role of NATO being discussed right now. However, I will say from the United States standpoint, we are very concerned about any kind of Russian missile defense in one of our alliance countries. We are urging Turkey not to go forward with that because it will affect the types of defenses that we can have in Turkey if they buy a Russian missile system that would in any way be capable of either disrupting our interoperability or in any way allowing for any of our alliance security or intelligence to be in any way violated.

So it is very troubling. The whole alliance is concerned about this and we hope that Turkey will make the right decision and look for another system, which we know Turkey wants to have its own sovereignty and security for internal needs, but we would ask that they go in with a neutral or allied country in that regard.

Question: Denmark has recently made additional defense commitments that would bring the Danish defense spending up from 1.3 to 1.5 percent of GDP in 2023. I’d like to know whether from an American point of view that is sufficient progress right now? Or is it too little?

Ambassador Hutchison: I think that we want Denmark to be a full contributing partner. I will say that Denmark does very much on the capability side and on the contributions to our missions, and we certainly acknowledge that. They are a strong partner in every respect, but we would hope that they would continue to go further toward the two percent commitment that was made previously. That is part of the strength of our alliance, that they would do so.

Question: What do you think about the European Intervention Initiative, and can it complement NATO?

Ambassador Hutchison: We certainly hope that it will be able to complement NATO. And we hope that it will not be duplicative of NATO.

The initiative for the European countries to be able to work together to strengthen their defenses is a good one, as long as it doesn’t in any way encroach on or duplicate what NATO is doing because we want all of our dollars to be used for efficiency as well as for assuring the strength of our collective defense.

Question: There is a crises let’s say in connection with Kosovo and the United States. General Timothy Orr has suspended his visit to Kosovo because of the tariffs on Serbian goods. Do you think this is exactly the right thing to do? And my second question is, there are many people saying that Kosovo in the future is going to be the very first member of NATO. Do you think this could be real, this could be happening?

Ambassador Hutchison: I don’t know about a tariff on the products. I can’t answer that question, I just don’t have the information.

On the area of Kosovo, however, we are working with Kosovo to try to assure that as they move forward that first of all they have a strong and normalized relationship with Serbia. That would be in both countries’ interest. And secondly, that there be in all respects with the new Kosovo Security Force that minority members and rights would be respected. Kosovo must continue to work toward reform, work toward inclusion with its minorities, and NATO is going to be helpful in every way possible as they are setting up this security force and as we hope that they are also instituting the reforms for a strong democracy and rule of law and human rights protection. Those are the things that are so important for any future NATO member and most certainly for the future of the strength of the governance and democracies and freedom of the people who live in those countries.

Question: U.S. military leaders in Germany confirmed that they are evaluating stationing more U.S. troops and materiel in Poland. Will this be at the expense of installations in Germany, especially Ramstein Air Base?

Ambassador Hutchison: We have a very large number of forces and bases in Germany that we don’t expect to change. And in fact NATO is setting up another secondary hub in Germany for our military mobility and logistics. That’s in our new command structure, that there would be a new division in Germany as well as another one in America for maritime.

So there’s nothing that will be less in Germany that we have heard of or have discussed.

On Poland, certainly Poland has made an offer that is being considered and it’s not clear exactly how that’s going to go forward. It’s under advisement now in the Department of Defense to see what could be helpful in Poland, but it would not be at the expense of Germany.

Ambassador Hutchison: I appreciate the questions and the interest. We are looking forward to a very good Defense Ministerial. And as I said earlier, we’re looking forward for our colleagues to meet the Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, who is very much looking forward to meeting all of his colleagues and getting to know them so that they can have open lines and a lot of communication.

So thank you very much for your interest, and I’ll look forward to maybe seeing some of you in the next few days.

Thank you.

The Pentagon will begin researching and developing intermediate range missiles after the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and will consult with allies on how the new weapons will be used, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Andrea Thompson told reporters on Wednesday.

“Now the Department of Defense [DoD] will be able to to conduct those research and development activities banned under INF [Intermediate Nuclear Forces] treaty,” Thompson said. “So DoD will start those steps on building those systems they couldn’t before.”

“The president will fund every system that we need to ensure that we have security and safety of the American people and our partners and allies”, Thompson told reporters during a video conference.

Allied and partner nations will be consulted before, during and after the process, Thompson added.

U.S. Undersecretary of State Andrea Thompson argued in Wednesday’s phone call with reporters that there is enough time to discuss the treaty’s extension.

“We have until 2021,” Thompson said. “It is a relatively simple treaty to extend, so we have time with that.”

The United States , Russia and France have test-launched nuclear-capable missiles within hours of one another as fears rise of a return to a Cold War-era arms race amid the abandonment of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

The French military announced Tuesday its air force conducted a rare test Monday of the nuclear-capable medium-range air-to-surface missile (ASMP). The US then followed with firing a nuclear-capable Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday night. Shortly after, Russian armed forces fired a nuclear-capable RS-24 Yars ICBM.

Tensions are high following President Donald Trump’s announcement to abandon the INF treaty with Russia.

The INF treaty has been suspended following accusations from the US that Moscow violated the deal with the new Novato 9M729 missile.

The purpose of the treaty was to avoid a potential nuclear war as it prohibited the US and Soviet Union from stationing short and intermediate-range land missiles in Europe.

The 1987 treaty eliminated the medium-range missile arsenals of the world’s two biggest nuclear powers, but leaves other countries free to produce and deploy them.

Below is a full rush transcript of the press conference by Andrea L. Thompson, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security.

Under Secretary Thompson: Wonderful. Again, an important announcement last week from Secretary Pompeo and from the President, and I am just back from Beijing where I met with my Russian counterpart, so I look forward to taking your questions.

Question: What are the U.S. future plans regarding the control of nuclear arms and the further relationship with Russia?

Under Secretary Thompson: For the control of nuclear arms, there is no change for the United States. We continue madridbet to uphold our obligations and the standards that we’ve set.

I mentioned previously, I just returned from the P5 in Beijing where we talked about the importance of nonproliferation and the standards for our nuclear weapons and our nuclear programs. I had those discussions with my Chinese counterpart, my Russian counterpart, Brit and French. So those standards remain unchanged. A steadfast commitment to upholding our obligations with that.

And our relationships with Russia. I mentioned the same thing to the Deputy Foreign Minister. I am a diplomat. Our job is never done. Dialogue remains an important piece, and diplomacy is key and essential to that.

Again, it’s the responsibility for Russia to get back into compliance, but we’ll continue to engage where appropriate.

Question: Is there a possibility for the U.S. to deploy missiles in Europe, which are forbidden under the INF Treaty now or after August 2nd?

Under Secretary Thompson: We’ve worked hand-in-hand with our partners and allies on next steps. We made mention as well to our counterparts that the conventional weapon systems, the R&D that we’ve talked about that we’ve been in compliance with the Treaty. The Department of Defense will now move out on that. Again, we’ve been following the rules since 1987 while Russia in the last six-plus years has violated that treaty.

The Department of Defense will start those R&D efforts, but there’s no plans to do that. The most important thing to remind folks is we’ve done this, we’re partners and allies. We engaged early and often as partners and allies. After I met with my Russian counterparts in Geneva January 15th, the next day we flew to Brussels to meet with the Secretary General and our NATO partners and allies to continue to have those discussions with partners and allies, so no change for that.

Question: Why did the U.S. not offer Russia access to its land-based Aegis system in Romania as a confidence-building measure? In return, the U.S. could demand access to Russia’s SSC-8 missile systems. It might be a way to save the INF Treaty.

Under Secretary Thompson: It’s important to remember the United States remains in compliance with the INF Treaty. Our systems are INF Treaty compliant. So there’s no reason to look at systems that are compliant.

I’d also add that with our partners and allies no one, and again I reiterate, no one other than Russia has come forward to way the U.S., these systems aren’t treaty compliant.

I’d also like to remind folks that the transparency, and I call that loosely, the transparency measures that were raised by Russia clearly were not transparency measures. Our static display of a system does not tell you how far that missile can fly. The static display of a system does not tell you what the fuel source is.

So Russia tried some propaganda, a last-ditch effort, bringing the system out, the SSC-8, the 90729 for the Russian system. Again, people called it what it was. It was a show. The people that came to watch it were not allowed to ask questions and it didn’t prove or disprove anything of the treaty violations.

We’ve shown Russia, handed them the list of things they need to do to get back into compliance multiple times, as have partners and allies, and they continue to disavow that violation.

Question: To what extent is Washington’s decision to withdraw from the treaty motivated by concerns over China’s nuclear arsenal, and the fact that it falls outside of the INF? And another question, would Washington support a multilateralized INF Mark II Treaty to rope in China, India, Israel and other countries with nuclear arsenals?

Under Secretary Thompson: The INF Treaty is about Russia. The decision on the INF Treaty is about Russia and Russia’s failure to abide by the tenets of the treaty.

Again, I remind folks that we’ve worked across two administrations, almost six years, 30-plus engagements with our Russian counterparts describing the importance of getting back into compliance. So this decision on the INF Treaty was clearly about Russia, continues to be about Russia. They have six months to get back into compliance.

I also recognize that China has quite an arsenal that isn’t INF Treaty compliant. Their systems would not meet the standards of the INF Treaty. So that’s discussions in the future, but as I remind folks, the INF Treaty today, for the next six months, is all about Russia.

Question: Did you receive any signals from China regarding their willingness to negotiate an arms control treaty that includes them?

Under Secretary Thompson: I’ve not. I just returned back from Beijing. I was there, again, for our P5 conference and China did not raise that. I don’t anticipate that they will raise that, again, because their systems wouldn’t meet the INF Treaty. They’ve already exceeded that. So the short answer is no. They didn’t raise that issue.

Question: How would the U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty affect the security of the Baltic states? Would you expect a stronger militarization in the Kaliningrad Oblast?

Under Secretary Thompson: I was in the Baltics last year. I’ve been in the Baltics twice now with this administration. Once with the Vice President, and once as Under Secretary. Important partners, they continue to be important partners.

And as I remind folks, the system that Russia has fielded, the SSC-8, again from the NATO nomenclature, this isn’t a prototype. This isn’t in a lab. This isn’t in a warehouse somewhere. These are fielded battalions, multiple battalions across Russia that can range our partners and allies now.

So the decision was made for us to withdraw from the INF Treaty, again, so we can build the systems that will defend Americans at home and abroad and work with our partners and allies. Again, as I remind folks, the Russian system is already fielded. It can range our European partners today.

Question: What was the U.S. reaction to the statements made by Russia that it will leave the INF Treaty as well, and is going to develop new missiles? Will you try to conduct any negotiations with Russia after that? Or is the U.S. planning to do something else?

Under Secretary Thompson: Russia left the INF Treaty years and year ago. Russia left the INF Treaty when it decided to design and deploy systems that violated the treaty. We’ve had engagement, we’ll continue to have engagement, but where the announcement of late with President Putin saying that he’s leaving the treaty, the truth of the matter is it’s more Russian propaganda. They left the treaty years ago when they decided to design and field the system.

Question: Given the situation around the INF Treaty, is the New START Treaty also in jeopardy?

Under Secretary Thompson: New START — again, the premise of arms control, and I like to remind folks of this as well when they talk about the INF Treaty and New START. Arms control only works if the parties adhere to the standards that they signed up for. And when you allow violations of those treaties to occur you undermine the principles of arms control.

So again, year after year Russia has violated the INF Treaty. We have an obligation to call them out, hold them responsible.

That said, we’ve both met our central limits for the New START Treaty February of last year. Both are in compliance.

The other point to raise with some folks that may not be familiar is the New START Treaty is in effect for two more years. We have until 2021. It is a relatively simple treaty to extend, so we have time with that.

The important piece here is to work the INF Treaty, to ensure that arms control continues to maintain those standards and where appropriate take action when they’re not.

Question: Is the U.S. considering extra deployments of non-INF compliant missiles in Europe? And if so, what, where and when?

Under Secretary Thompson: First, that’s an answer for our partners over at Department of Defense. As we mentioned with suspension and intent to withdraw, but now the Department of Defense will be able to conduct those research and development activities that they hadn’t because we’d been complying.

So DOD will start those steps on the systems that they couldn’t before.

The other important piece to mention is this is in connection with partners and allies before, during and after. So that dialogue will occur with Department of Defense and our partners.

Question: Russia’s Minister of Defense yesterday stated that they will create new land-based missiles within the next two years. Is the U.S. going to respond with similar steps?

Under Secretary Thompson: The U.S. doesn’t do things based on reactions for Russia. We take actions that will support and defend the security of the American people, whatever that takes. We’ll develop systems and we’ll continue to refine and innovate those systems that increase the security of the American people.

We have a wide range of adversaries, but at the end of the day it’s not important. Protecting American people, we’ll do what it takes to do so.

Question: What is your assessment of the threat from Russia’s Poseidon system which is designated by NATO as Kanyon, the nuclear-armed autonomous torpedo?

Under Secretary Thompson: Well, we have a full range of threats, Russian and others. Again, the important thing to remind folks is that we have the strongest military in the world. We have in the past, we have currently, and we’ll continue in the future. You heard it from President Trump last night in his State of the Union Address, he will continue to fund the systems necessary and we have the strongest military. And again, I don’t give much credence to the propaganda of Russia. I have utmost faith and confidence in the United States military.

Question: After Russia has suspended its participation in the INF Treaty, what immediate measures should be taken to ensure Euro Atlantic security? Do you see any international and multilateral format for new arms control treaties to keep nonproliferation under control?

Under Secretary Thompson: We currently have a strong arms control regime. Again, I just mentioned the P5 discussions. We have had meetings at my level, at the Secretary’s level, the technical experts. I’ve been at NATO multiple times at those levels.

So the relationship is there. I’m confident that will continue to be. There are multilateral organizations and we have strong bilateral relationships. You’ll see Defense Ministerials, you’ll see the 2+2 Dialogue with the Ministers of Defense and Foreign Affairs. So we’ll continue with that. It’s one of the strong suits of our relationship.

Question: President Trump said in the State of the Union that the U.S. wants to negotiate a new agreement to replace the INF, “adding China and others”. Have you decided on whom else to invite to join the negotiations? And how soon may you issue the invitations?

Under Secretary Thompson: Actually what he said was maybe we will, maybe we won’t negotiate a new deal. So it’s too soon to tell. Again, right now we’re in that six-month window engaging with Russia to get them back into compliance with the INF Treaty.

Question: What will the response to the announced improvement of the Caliber systems and hypersonics missiles be?

Under Secretary Thompson: Again, I go back to the discussions we had a little bit earlier with Department of Defense and the President. The President will fund every system that we need to ensure that we have the security and safety of the American people and partners and allies. You’ve seen it in his budget, you’ve seen it in his actions, and the Department of Defense will move out accordingly.

So with a wide range of worldwide threats, at the end of the day the United States is best postured to address those threats.

Question: What do you say to European countries that are worried about being caught in a new arms race between the United States and Russia?

Under Secretary Thompson: What I’d say to our European partners is first, Thank you for your partnership. We saw a strong NATO statement not only in December when Secretary Pompeo made the announcement about a suspension, and then the statement last week with the follow-up with a very strong NATO statement.

That’s a telling indicator of our relationship with our European partners and allies. They continue to call out Russia. Not one country has said, you know, you’re right. Maybe Russia isn’t in violation. So that’s another indicator of the strong relationship that we have.

I also tell folks that the systems that Russia has can range them today. So this isn’t a discussion of what if, what if they build a system? The system’s already there. So we need to continue with our partnership, continue with next steps, but remind folks, this is Russia’s violation and it’s up to Russia to destroy the systems that are a threat to the U.S. and our partners.

Question: What control mechanisms could be set in the future should other countries with missile capabilities be included?

Under Secretary Thompson: With the control systems, again, arms control writ large is working. We have standards. We uphold those standards. And it’s recognized worldwide. We have multiple forums where we discuss the importance of fulfilling our obligations. And as you’ve seen, the party that is destroying that reputation is Russia.

So we’ll continue to uphold those standards and we’ll continue to abide by our treaties. We’ll continue to remind folks, when you sign that piece of paper it’s much more than that. It is ensuring the safety and security and the standards of our arms control regimes.