Global Hot Spots and Geopolitical Risks with Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper

(SPEECH)
[MUSIC PLAYING] 

(DESCRIPTION)
Text, Wednesdays with Woodward (registered trademark) Webinar Series. The introduction slide appears on a laptop next to a red mug with the Travelers umbrella logo. Text, Joan Woodward. 

(SPEECH)
JOAN WOODWARD: Hi. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us. I'm Joan Woodward, and I'm honored to lead the Travelers Institute, which is the public policy division and educational arm of Travelers. Welcome to Wednesdays with Woodward, a webinar series where we convene leading experts for conversations about today's biggest challenges, both personal and professional. So we're glad you're here. 

(DESCRIPTION)
A disclaimer slide reads, About Travelers Institute (registered trademark) Webinars. The Wednesdays with Woodward (registered trademark) educational webinar series is presented by the Travelers Institute, the public policy division of Travelers. This program is offered for informational and educational purposes only. You should consult with your financial, legal, insurance or other advisors about any practices suggested by this program. Please note that this session is being recorded and may be used as Travelers deems appropriate. Travelers Institute (registered trademark). Travelers. 

(SPEECH)
Before we get started, I'd like to share our disclaimer about today's program. And I'd also like to thank our webinar partners today, the Master’s in FinTech Program at UConn, MetroHartford Alliance, the Risk and Uncertainty Management Center at the University of South Carolina's Darla Moore School of Business, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, and the Insurance Association of Connecticut. So thank you all for joining us. 

(DESCRIPTION)
A slide displays the partner logos, Travelers Institute (registered trademark), Travelers, University of South Carolina Darla Moore School of Business, CBIA, UConn School of Business MS in Financial Technology, MetroHartford Alliance, Insurance Association of Connecticut. Above, it reads, Wednesdays with Woodward (registered trademark) Webinar Series. Global Hot Spots and Geopolitical Risks with former U.S. Secretary of Defense Dr. Mark T. Esper. The next slide reads, Speakers. A picture of Joan Woodward, with a white blouse and necklace, sits above her name and title. Text, Joan Woodward, EVP, Public Policy; President, Travelers Institute, Travelers. A picture of Dr. Esper, wearing a suit and red tie in front of a U.S. flag, sits above his name and title. Text, Dr. Mark T. Esper, 27th U.S. Secretary of Defense. 

(SPEECH)
Today, I'm thrilled and honored to introduce the 27th United States Secretary of Defense, Dr. Mark T. Esper. Secretary Esper became the nation's 27th Secretary of Defense in July 2019. During his tenure, he led the department through conflict with Iran, an ongoing campaign in Afghanistan, and a once-in-a-century global pandemic. 

He implemented a new National Defense Strategy focused on China and Russia. He established the Space Force. We're going to talk about that in a minute. He proposed a future force structure for the United States Navy and launched novel war fighting and readiness concepts. And he led important initiatives to improve diversity and inclusion in the Defense Department.

Prior to becoming Secretary of Defense, Dr. Esper served as the 23rd Secretary of the Army, from November 2017 until June 2019. In this capacity, he was responsible for over 1.5 million active, Guard, and reserve soldiers and Army civilians and a $180 billion annual budget. During his tenure, Dr. Esper launched a renaissance in how the service was organized, manned, trained, and equipped the forces to shift focus towards a large-scale combat operation potentially against China and Russia.

Secretary Esper earned a Bachelor's of Science degree from West Point, an MPA from Harvard University and a Ph.D. in public policy from George Washington University. Wow. He served as infantry officer with a 101 Airborne Division during the 1990-1991 Gulf War and later commanded an airborne rifle company in Europe. 

Among his military awards, he earned a Legion of Merit, Bronze Star and the Combat Infantryman's Badge. Secretary Esper retired from the Army in 2007 after 10 years on active duty and 11 years in the National Guard and Army Reserves. After leaving active duty, he worked in national senior-- national security positions across Capitol Hill, as Deputy Assistant Secretary at Defense at the Pentagon, in a presidential campaign, and with prominent think tanks, commissions and business association. He later served as a senior executive at Raytheon. 

Dr. Esper currently works in venture capital and private equity, while also serving on the boards of the Atlantic Council and the McCain Institute for International Leadership. And if we can back up just a little bit on his resume, his very long resume and bio, I would add that Mark is a classmate of mine from Laurel Highlands Senior High School in Uniontown, Pennsylvania. So go Mustangs. Remember those days, Mark?

As Secretary of Defense and throughout his career, Secretary Esper's days have been filled with addressing national security, defense and foreign policy challenges. And right now, there's an interlocking of all of these. From the war in Ukraine to hostilities with Russia to tensions with China and Iran, there's no shortage of foreign policy and national security challenges.

So for the next hour, we're going to hear his perspective on some of these global hot spots and geopolitical risk and how they can impact our businesses back home. So welcome, Mr. Secretary. It is a huge honor for me to host you here.

MARK T. ESPER: Great. Thanks, Joan. It's a pleasure to be with you, and go Mustangs.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK. So Mark, let's talk about your time at the DOD. So you were Secretary of the Army, of course, for many years, and we could talk about that. But what an extraordinary time in history, all the challenges. And you wrote a book. You wrote a book. I just finished reading it, the incredible “A Sacred Oath,” everyone, chronicling your time leading the Pentagon as well as your career. 

So what was it like, Mark, during those tumultuous years being Secretary at that time? 

MARK T. ESPER: The job of Secretary of Defense is complex and challenging to begin with. And I think if you were to go back in time with all my predecessors, we would say that they had these exceptional circumstances, or world events would present something to them. But I had felt, and as I wrote in my book, that I had faced some extraordinary times.

I didn't just have the conflict in Afghanistan ongoing, but we had tensions with Russia and others in the Middle East. We were facing off against China in the South China Sea and in the East China Sea. And then on top of that, we have a once-in-a-century pandemic. Global pandemic hits. We have unrest in the streets of America that the nation hadn't seen since the '60s and '70s.

And so it was an accumulation of things happening all at the same time and at a pivotal moment when I was trying to change our National Defense Strategy to really focus on Russia and China, which was a big change as well after decades of, first, the Cold War and then this period of uneasy peace, and now we finally had identified really what our strategic adversaries were.

So quite a challenging time. I was blessed with a great team. Obviously, as I write in the book, wasn't helped by some chaos and other things coming out of the White House. But nonetheless, it was my privilege, once again, to serve our country.

JOAN WOODWARD: So what are you most proud of, Mark? Of all the things you've done in your military career, obviously, you reorganized the Army and Navy. And tell us what you're most proud of.

MARK T. ESPER: I think if I were to look at my three-plus years at the Pentagon, probably transforming the Army. It was a great time. I had a fantastic leadership team with Mark Milley as the Chief of Staff of the Army and then others. And we were able to really conduct a fundamental overhaul of the Army, something that hadn't happened since the '70s and '80s and to really change everything from how we manned the force, how we train it, how we equip it, just a number of things that are kind of moving along right now. And I'm very proud of that.

If I were to look at my time as Secretary of Defense, there are a number of things I would point out that I think will ripple throughout time going forward. Obviously, the establishment of Space Force and the Space Command. The implementation of the National Defense Strategy that identified China as our principal threat would be important. And then a number of other changes, and then, look, I like to believe that I stood up for not politicizing the United States military and making sure that I defended the institution. So I think those things will be important as well, and much of it will be studied and debated over time, also.

JOAN WOODWARD: Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for that, Mark. So tell our audience, what are you doing today? What does a former Secretary of Defense pivot to after a life of just overwhelming responsibilities?

MARK T. ESPER: Yeah, it's a great question and one I had to figure out on my own. Most of my predecessors, I think, left the job in their late 60s or 70s, and here I was at 58 leaving the job. So I wasn't ready to completely retire. So I found myself, as I looked around, really attracted to the venture space and private equity space. And so I'm now partner and board member on a startup called Red Cell Ventures with a focus on health care and national security with a heavy bias toward AI.

But I also sit on private equity boards, too. And so I find it a very interesting space, a place where you can really have an effect and positively influence a young startup or a private equity company and make a difference.

On top of that, I do consulting for a number of companies. I do public speaking as well. And I try to keep my hand in the public policy space through the media. So all those things are keeping me busy. Certainly not retired, but also not running the Pentagon hours of 16 hours a day, either.

JOAN WOODWARD: Great. Fantastic. That's fascinating. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. So I want to talk first about the state of the U.S. military because we're not living in the same world we did 40 or 50 years ago or even 25 years ago. How do you allocate resources in this changing world? How does the U.S. manage to be ready at any moment? 

MARK T. ESPER: Well, first of all, we still remain the most capable, the most preeminent military in the world, hands down. I have no doubt about that. But you're right. We're going through a period of change. As I said, we ended the Cold War, and when the Wall fell in 1991, we went through this period where we thought history, so-called history, had ended. We were trying to sort out what the future was. 9/11 happens 10 years later or so, and our focus becomes all about counterterrorism and insurgency.

And frankly, during that period of time, Russia and China went to school on us and really began modernizing their militaries and adapting our way of warfare. Now, obviously we've learned since then that Russia didn't quite go as far. But certainly, China now has the largest military in the world, the largest army, the largest navy, very capable in space, cyberspace, so forth and so on, which is why I think the National Defense Strategy that we established in 2018 at the Pentagon was really pivotal because it now said, look, we now face China and Russia in that order, as I define it, as our top strategic adversaries.

And we needed to plan against them as our pacing threat. So now we're going through this period of transition, and when I talked about my pride in terms of leading the Army during this period was we now had to move away from a focus on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency back to high-intensity conflict against a peer or near peer. And that means going back to heavy weapons systems, advanced platforms, tanks, aircraft, so forth and so on, electronic warfare, artillery, all those things you need to face off against an adversary like China or Russia.

And frankly, we, again, lost a period of time during the 2000s, the 2010s, where we were not building those systems and training in that manner. So we're getting back on that path now, and I think it will take some time. Modernization takes a whole lot of time. But I think we're on the right path. It's just a matter of getting the bureaucracy out of the way and moving as quickly as we can to fulfill our objectives.

JOAN WOODWARD: So are you confident, then, that we can do what needs to be done to deter China from doing what it might do while maintaining our current military presence and strength levels, effort levels in Europe? So you're confident potentially we could-- I don't want to say the words-- fight a two-theater war? But that is certainly something that looks, I don't want to say likely, but it certainly looks possible.

MARK T. ESPER: Yeah, I'm confident that the military is doing everything it can, although there are issues in our way. A report came out today from the Defense Innovation Board, I think, that spoke about the culture of obstruction in the bureaucracy at DOD that doesn't allow us to really quickly identify and adopt cutting-edge technologies.

I'm serving on a commission, co-chairing a commission with the Atlantic Council, where we're looking exactly at these things, is how do you accelerate DOD's ability to adopt innovation because the United States of America does not have an innovation problem, not whatsoever. This is the greatest place to come and be an entrepreneur or a founder and innovate.

The challenge is we don't adopt it quickly enough in the bureaucracy. So it leaves us at a disadvantage. Now, I want to park that for a moment because I think there are other things we could do to deter China. First, we need to continue to strengthen our network of allies around the world, build new partners, do things like that. We need to build greater foundations with that through international institutions, whether it's the U.N., whether it's regional groupings like ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or informal gatherings like the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue.

And then buttress that further with trade agreements. I think that's an area right now where we're lacking in the Pacific, where a comprehensive trade agreement with our allies and partners. So there are a number of things we can do to enhance deterrence. We're slowly moving in the right direction, but my view now is we need to accelerate all these things.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK. So a number of questions coming in from our audience. We love them. Throw them in the Q&A, folks, if you have a question for Dr. Esper. This one's come up a lot already in the questions. Have we depleted our military supplies by giving so much to Ukraine? And are we backfilling those supplies in time? Are you concerned about that at all?

MARK T. ESPER: Well, obviously, I don't have access to that information anymore like I used to. But I suspect, knowing the leadership at the Pentagon, that we are retaining enough of our reserves, our supplies needed to fight our wars or be prepared for a conflict, that we're not doing that. We're giving what I would say is expendable amounts to Ukraine through our own supply chain. So I'm not concerned about that.

But I am concerned about, again, our ability to quickly begin reproducing items such as 155 mm artillery, Javelin Stingers, those types of things that are in high demand-- not just from Ukraine but also from Taiwan and then our NATO allies and other allies around the world. So I think my concern right now is the ability of the Pentagon, the executive branch and Congress to quickly provide the monies, the direction, the authorities needed to contract with the defense industry to get those things moving because, this isn't World War II where you could produce munitions in a matter of days, weeks or months.

Now, we're talking months and years to produce a high-end missile or high-end platform like the HIMARS. So this takes time. And I want to make sure that we have enough in the pipeline to not just continue supplying the Ukrainians but to make sure that our allies have sufficient supplies and that we are prepared in case we get into some type of tussle with China.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK, in your book, I read about your time in the Secretary of the Army's office and how you really revamped recruiting because recruiting, obviously retention-- these are all challenges for all businesses of any size, our listeners on the phone, but I imagine at the Pentagon and at the Army, recruiting was a challenge, you reorganized that. And what have we learned from how we recruit our young people in your experience?

MARK T. ESPER: Well, I'll step back a little bit because I think there is-- and I've written about this-- there are larger social and demographic changes taking place in this country, so much so that when I was Secretary of the Army-- this is just five, six years ago-- we knew that 73% at the time, 73% of America's youth aged 17 to 24 did not qualify for military service because they were obese. They had other medical issues, physical fitness issues, academic issues, felonies, you name it. And that number in just five, six years has grown to 77% do not qualify to serve.

And so obviously, most private-sector companies don't have fitness requirements. But nonetheless, you do have to be concerned about the health of your workforce-- not just the physical health, but the mental health. And so I'm sure this is playing out. I saw some of it during my time at Raytheon years ago. But it speaks to the broader social and demographic issues happening out there, where America's youth is less fit, less prepared to join the military.

And then on top of that, you find that of what's left remaining from that pie, fewer than 10% of America's youth are both qualified to serve and interested in serving. So it's really tough. And I'm afraid it's going in the wrong direction, which at some point in time, years in the future, it's going to cause us to ask some really important questions. One, do we lower standards? Or two, do we move to some form of conscription, where we involuntarily draft people, if you will?

And I think that would-- both of those are not positive options, right? I think the all-volunteer force-- it's now at its 50th year-- has been very successful. So those are the things we need to deal with. And what we had done at the time was to put forward an initiative called the 21- 22-City Initiative, where we went out to cities across the United States, particularly those who were underrepresented in the United States military, the Army at the time.

So think of mostly Northeastern states and Northwestern states-- Cleveland, Pittsburgh-- I went to Pittsburgh, Joan-- Boston, other places like that to really recruit in those cities and reacquaint the American people, particularly its youth, with the military and kind of talk about the opportunities and options there to serve your country, to learn a skill, to learn good workplace habits, things like that that the private sector employees-- employers really value.

So look, it's ongoing. Last year, the Army missed its mark by 25%, 15,000 soldiers. They think they'll miss that number again this year. So it's really unsettling, particularly as this accumulates over time.

JOAN WOODWARD: Yeah, and I really enjoyed reading the part of the book where you talk about quality of life for soldiers and soldiers' families with the spouses, the children. I think-- if I got this wrong, please correct me-- but when you came into office, you didn't realize, but women could not go to the commissary or go to the gas station on the base in yoga pants or a workout outfit. They had to go back home and change into a more appropriate wardrobe to get into the commissary and the gas stations. And you changed that. Tell us that story because I was really fascinated as a woman who likes to be in my yoga pants.

MARK T. ESPER: Yeah, it's one anecdote. It really dealt with the Marines at the time and maybe to some extent the Navy. But I'd served 10 years on active duty. My wife, Leah, was a military spouse. So we knew the military inside and out. And so she became a great partner as we tried to unravel some of these policies and things that were happening out there.

I mean, the bottom line is military spouses, most of whom are women, are a very overqualified force out there and underemployed. And so we were looking at various ways to improve quality of life for them, help them with hiring, any number of things. And as we'd go along throughout my travels, she'd go with me. We'd learn these things, and my view was, again, unsung heroes who didn't necessarily sign up to serve in the military but nonetheless were bound by its rules and its frequent moves and things like that.

And when service members are trying to make a decision about whether to stay or go, clearly the family has a major say in this. So the anecdote you're referring to was a story that percolated up through her to me where a spouse coming home from yoga training or the gym couldn't stop at the commissary, the PX, right on base to pick up a gallon of milk or to put gas in the car because there were uniform standards, if you will, about what you had to wear.

And they were really supposed to be about the service member but were being posed on the families as well. And it was just ridiculous that either spouses or young kids would be asked to leave the PX or BX, the base exchange, because they weren't in the proper clothing. I thought it was just ridiculous, inconsistent with norms on the outside, if you will.

And it was just another thorn in the side of families when they were trying to make a decision about whether to stay or go. So I-- it shouldn't have come to it, but I had to, through my own signature, my own pen, had to do away with these types of policies.

JOAN WOODWARD: Well, thank you. I'm sure there's a lot of people out there very grateful for that. All right, let's get back into technology and defense and warfare. So what does the U.S. need to do to counter what's going on with artificial intelligence and the exploitation of technologies used against us? You just mentioned, I think you said you're involved in some AI companies in your current world, private equity and venture capital. But how is AI changing warfare?

MARK T. ESPER: Yeah, look, it's going to change the character of warfare in multiple ways. I've been talking about this for five, six years now. And DOD during my tenure was pursuing 12, 13 top-tier technologies, and I would always put AI at the top. And then when you take AI, and you combine it with robotics, you end up with autonomy, which is another very important tech we need to pursue.

But look, AI-- people tend to think about killer robots, terminators, things like that. And clearly, AI, when it comes to weapon systems, will improve accuracy, precision, decision-making, all those things that will help us be more effective on the battlefield and better use the weapons we have to us-- and arguably, more safely, too, right? We can limit civilian casualties.

But it's also going to be an important player in the back office, too, whether it's personnel management, logistics management, maintenance, particularly preventive maintenance as we understand-- as we accumulate large amounts of data about our various fleets, when should we perform maintenance? Let's do it before a system breaks down, not afterward, right?

So I think it's going to spread throughout the entire DOD ecosystem and really enable us in ways we hadn't even considered. So that's why I've always said whoever gets to AI first will dominate, and then they need to maintain that leading position well into the future because the Chinese are putting tremendous resources into this for very much the same reason. So in my view, we need to run faster and faster when it comes to AI.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK, great. What about drones? How is the use of drones changing warfare? Is there any new update in terms of what the unmanned aerial vehicles can do?

MARK T. ESPER: Well, the drones are doing exceptional things, have been since the late '90s, and I think they've proven their effectiveness on the battlefield-- their ability to loiter high above a battlefield for long periods of time to either do surveillance, targeting or actually direct action. I actually think we need to accelerate our work in the surface and subsurface realms when it comes to the Navy. There's no reason why-- and we've done experimentation with various vehicles over the years-- that we shouldn't have deployed now fleets of sub-sea and surface vehicles doing similar type of missions.

It could be simple logistic resupply, and that allows you to do things more economically. You can-- you don't have to put life support systems on ships. You don't have to man them, if you will, because as we talked earlier, recruiting is a big problem these days, not just for the Army but for all services.

And then I think during my tenure, we were looking at how can we accelerate autonomous combat vehicles on the battlefield, which is really, really challenging for a number of reasons. But in all these places, I think the sooner we can move, again, advance AI and move to autonomous systems, it'll make us a far more effective on the modern battlefield.

JOAN WOODWARD: Thank you for that. All right, we're going to get into global hot spots now. And there's many, as you know, Mark. First up, Russia and Ukraine-- NATO met last week in Vilnius and told Mr. Zelenskyy no, we cannot admit you yet. Was that a correct decision in your view? Do you think they should be included in NATO at this point or not ready?

MARK T. ESPER: Well, first of all, let me say I think it was a successful summit. We got word just on the eve of it that Sweden would become the 32nd member of NATO. Finland got in months earlier. So Putin has been the best thing to unify NATO in the last few decades. And so we're now up to 32 members. You see some allies spending more on defense, certainly unified behind Ukraine.

But I do think the disappointment in coming out of the summit was the fact that the Ukrainians didn't get a stronger signal about membership. We all agreed and understood that membership would not happen there. Nobody's going to do that during a hot war. But we were-- at least I was expecting more of a timeline-- concrete steps, if you will-- with regard to Ukraine's membership in NATO, and we didn't see that. And it was a big disappointment. And frankly, it was Washington that was putting the brakes on this more than anybody, and to a lesser extent, Germany.

But you had the Baltic states and Nordic states really pushing hard. I was in Lithuania just a couple of months ago talking about these things. So I was disappointed in that regard. I thought we could have done more for President Zelenskyy to signal more of a more immediate accession to NATO and send a stronger signal to Putin. But we are where we are. But overall, I think the summit was a big success.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK, good. Do you think the U.S. is doing enough in Ukraine currently? Should we do more? Can we do more?

MARK T. ESPER: I think the White House has done a good job keeping the allies unified in terms of both economic sanctions and financial sanctions but also continued military support for Ukraine. I think we've been way too slow and self-deterred when it comes to providing the Ukrainians with these high-end weapons systems that they were-- been asking for now for 18 months.

If you go back to the earliest days, Stingers, and then it was HIMARS and Patriots and Abrams tanks. The list goes on and on. And it was just in the past month or so that we agreed to F-16s. And now, in the last week or so, it was cluster munitions. So I think we've been way too late, and I've been saying this for months, and it's had an impact on the battlefield. It's unnecessarily drawn out the conflict and has impaired this counteroffensive that Ukraine has been working on for six weeks.

And I think as we look back at this point in time, we'll say that was a mistake to be so self-deterred to not provide the Ukrainians really what they needed when they asked for it.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK, thank you for that. Let's shift a little bit and go inside Russia. What is this recent mutiny in Russia led by Yevgeny Prigozhin and his Wagner Group of mercenaries? What does that tell you about Putin's control over the country and stability, frankly, of Russia?

MARK T. ESPER: Well, authoritarian regimes tend to be brittle, right? And, but that said, Putin has a lot of control over what's happening. Clearly, he's played his hand poorly when it comes to this invasion of Ukraine. It's been a strategic failure at multiple levels, some of which I've already discussed. But what is-- it's also been a big failure on the battlefield. It's exposed Russian weaknesses from their equipment to their generalship all the way down to their skill craft, their tactics, their privates and sergeants.

And so what we thought was a top-tier military really isn't. And what Prigozhin, as leader of the Wagner Group, who had these professional for-hire soldiers-- mercenaries, if you will-- his complaint, and they were arguably the only successful Russian unit on the battlefield, if you look at the battle of Bakhmut. But his complaints grew louder and louder over time that the Russian military was dysfunctional, that it was poorly led at the top with the defense minister and chief of the general staff.

And this culminated in the so-called armed rebellion a few weeks ago now. And look, the bottom line is Putin allowed this to go on. Prigozhin was right about what was happening. Prigozhin is a hero to many on the far right in Russia. So Putin had to handle these political dynamics, which I think is why at this point in time Prigozhin hasn't seen jail time. He hasn't been arrested. He hasn't fallen out of a hotel window or anything like that because he-- what he's saying is the truth, and it's exposing all these weaknesses in the Russian army.

So I think there's much more of this drama to play out. But it does show weakness in the Putin regime and some weakness by Putin himself in terms of his ability to control the information flow the Russian people are seeing and hearing and also control the internal dynamics that keeps him propped up.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK, thank you for that. So let's kind of zoom out a little bit, big picture on the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2015. I had another former Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, joined us last year on this webinar to talk about his experience when Putin invaded Crimea. So now that Putin's invaded Ukraine and kind of this languishing war going on, what are the military lessons or national security lessons that the U.S. should really learn from this?

MARK T. ESPER: Well, there are new lessons we've learned. For example, the effectiveness on cheap, readily available drones on the battlefield to do surveillance and targeting and direct action. I mean, I read something where the Ukrainians are putting up-- producing 10,000 drones a month, and they're innovating on the spot with these workshops in the basements of homes and hotels and whatnot.

And they're really innovating on the spot and using this drone technology to great effect. So that's one technology. And I think the tactics of dealing with a larger army where it was very disaggregated, the importance of pushing power and authority down to junior leaders is also important.

But it's also reinforced some things that, during my time as Secretary of the Army, that we knew that we had put-- made as our top priorities for the Army for high-intensity conflict in the future. So we had six modernization priorities. Three of them were the ability to have long-range precision fire. So think about artillery, cruise missile and drone strikes. That was a top priority for the Army. We've been building those systems for several years now, rebuilding those systems, number one.

Number two was air missile defense, and we've seen this be a very important part in terms of defending both the cities of Ukraine but also troops in the field. So that was another important initiative of the Army. And then we had other things that also reinforced this-- again, building advanced combat vehicles for the battlefield.

So we see the nature of warfare in some ways hasn't changed when it comes down to these heavy peer-on-peer battles. That's why you see the rush to really help supply the Ukrainians. But on the other hand, we're seeing the application of new technologies. And I think there are areas where the United States Army is getting back to that we haven't seen as much from Ukraine, such as electronic warfare. And that'll be very useful.

I might add, too, that the use of space, outer space, for communications and any number of other things is also proven pivotal on the battlefield for Ukraine. So I think these are all kind of new lessons and lessons that are being reinforced from the conflict there.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK. Thank you, Mark. Let's talk about something which gets a lot of people's attention. A central element, really, of Putin's strategy in invading Ukraine has been to exercise nuclear threats to preclude the Western and NATO intervention. So has Putin been successful in using nuclear coercion against NATO? Has he set any precedents for other countries to seek nuclear weapons?

MARK T. ESPER: He has in some ways. He used this early on. He rattled that nuclear saber. He talked about tactical nukes here and there. I always thought it was a serious message that we should be aware of and monitor closely but not be self-deterred. And I think-- again, this has been my one criticism of the Biden administration-- I think they've been too self-deterred by that type of saber rattling and by this concern that somehow this conflict is going to devolve into a fight between NATO and Russia. I see that as unlikely.

So I think he used it effectively. But then I think over time, as the United States and its allies eventually provided Ukraine with these weapon systems, we realized that it was more puffery than anything else coming from Vladimir Putin. So I think Putin's overuse of these threats has actually diminished their effectiveness. Fewer and fewer allies these days are deterred by what he says, and I think they're making more practical calculations about what we should be cognizant of going forward.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK. I want to get to what's on a lot of my listeners' minds is, how is this ongoing conflict going to impact the U.S. economy, U.S. businesses? But before I get to that question, I'm just teeing that one up. I want to ask you a question about rebuilding Ukraine. So eventually, this conflict will be over or somewhat over, hopefully very soon. But will there be a Marshall Plan to rebuild Ukraine? We went back in, I know, and helped Kuwait rebuild after the Gulf War. So tell me your thoughts on rebuilding Ukraine.

MARK T. ESPER: Yes. There will be some form of Marshall Plan. It's already been talked about. It's already being talked about. And Joan, I can't help but say the Marshall Plan, of course, was named after another Uniontown native, George C. Marshall, who grew up right downtown on Main Street, so just for your listeners' curiosity. But yeah, there will be another plan, and it's already underway and talk about rebuilding. But I think it's hard to rebuild when you're in hot war.

But it will take the world contributing. Zelenskyy has demanded that there be some type of reparations from Russia in the future. We'll see if we can pull that off. But we know how to do this, whether it was after World War II. Certainly, we helped Korea after the Korean War, South Korea rebuild. We know what this looks like. And I think this would be a chance for the democracies of the world to come together to help Ukraine build and become an integral part of Europe and the global society.

And I think the other thing that Ukraine is asking for is membership in the European Union because of what it can bring to the table. We've learned now over the past year that Ukraine is really one of the top breadbaskets of the world, too, which is something that's been in the news the last week or so.

JOAN WOODWARD: Yeah. Yeah. So let's get to the question-- how does this conflict impact the U.S.? We clearly had a very large spike in inflation after the invasion. We've had supply chain issues with oil and gas issues. Talk to us about what businesses should be worried about or be optimistic about when this conflict ends.

MARK T. ESPER: Well, you hit some of the key points. Obviously, Russia was a net energy producer and supplied most of Europe and to the United States, too, to some degree. So we've already been through those price spikes. I think the world has adjusted now, and everybody's kind of drawing energy from different sources. It's caused a rethink of complete energy policy in states like-- countries like Germany.

So I think that's number one. We've seen the other impacts. We talked about Ukraine and its ability to supply the world with certain grains and fertilizers and things like that. So I think my suspicion is we've largely been through the impacts of the financial and economic sanctions at this point.

Obviously, if the war expands somehow into other European countries, at this point, that would be touching on NATO. There'd be more economic adjustments out there. I think the biggest thing to keep an eye on is if China enters this directly in terms of providing lethal aid to Russia.

I think the Biden administration did a good job a few months ago. I suspect they picked up strategic intelligence that China was considering this, and they kind of put word out and warned China not to do so. I think that was important. I think it pushed back on Beijing because the downside would have been for Beijing, for everybody, for your listeners is I think that the United States and the Western democracies would have been forced to apply financial and economic sanctions on China as well.

And obviously, that would ripple through all the markets out there. And so I think that's the thing we have to watch out for is to somebody come in or who else comes in to help Russia at some point. My concern, again, remains China because I think it would be a game-changer strategically. But others might assist, also. Could it be India, for example? I doubt it, but could it be?

So I think what we have to look out for now is do other players step forward, assist Russia, and then does that prompt the West to apply economic and financial sanctions on those two that then affects commodities-- commodities markets, financial markets, you name it.

JOAN WOODWARD: Well, let's just stay on China for a minute because U.S.-China relations have deteriorated dramatically over the past few years. You have called China the greatest strategic threat we face this century. How should we be handling China?

MARK T. ESPER: Look, I think we need to be cognizant of what they said their ambitions are. And that has been clear that by 2049, which would be the 100th anniversary of the PRC, they want to dominate the global order, certainly supplant us in the Pacific as a regional power. And they want to do any number of things that puts them in that position. They want to define the global rules and norms by their own standards of behavior.

So think about international economy based on the RMB. Think about human rights, all those traditional liberties we know being pushed aside, where surveillance states become the norm, where China's allowed to dominate the South China Sea and control sea lanes of movement and lines of communication.

So that what we're trying to do on the other hand is preserve the international rules and norms that have served us so well now for the past 70, 80 years. So I think what we'd like to do is see China adopt the international system as it is and not try to change it to fit their own norms and interests. And I think that's why they-- now, this is really speaking to the Chinese Communist Party-- represent the greatest strategic threat we face this century.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK. So are we changing our force posture in the region? Are we moving troops around or opening new bases? I mean, obviously, we had a base in the Philippines-- Subic Bay got closed many decades ago. But what is the U.S. doing to kind of respond militarily? Not to provoke, of course, but to position.

MARK T. ESPER: Look, part of this is, again, building partners and allies in the region and then making sure that you have-- you can build upon that with agreements exercises, training and eventually bases if you need it. It was a core part of the National Defense Strategy that I was implementing in 2019-2020. I spent a lot of time going to these countries. I visited Mongolia, which is strategically geographically isolated between Russia and China.

But we need to do more. For example, I think there's a lot of opportunity in the Pacific island countries. Think about the Marshall Islands, Palau, where I visited to build relations there. You mentioned the Philippines. During my tenure, we began outreach to the Philippines, and now I'm glad to see this administration, this Pentagon is following through with new agreements with the Philippines when it comes to basing and training and warehousing and stuff like that.

But there's more we can do. Now, I traveled to Vietnam. I think my successor did as well. But there are more countries in that region all around, whether it's the-- we talked about the Philippines, the Pacific island countries, Australia, another critical strategic partner, Indonesia, others that are critical. And then there's the big players that we were improving relations with as well-- India, which shares a long contentious border with the Chinese; Japan, which has made major moves with regard to how-- its outlook on China and its defense spending.

So all that needs to continue, and I'm pleased to see that this administration and this Pentagon are continuing along in that same vein.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK. So does it surprise you that China may be building a base in Cuba? What should the U.S. be doing about that if they're really building a base in Cuba? Can we do anything?

MARK T. ESPER: I'm not surprised. This Belt and Road Initiative they've had for years is all about connecting bases, airports, seaports around the world, extending their logistical chain to support forward deployed operations. They've been in this hemisphere, the Western Hemisphere, for some time now in key countries where they-- through their Belt and Road Initiative, through debt diplomacy and economic aid, foreign assistance, trying to build relations.

So it comes as no surprise to me that they'd be reaching out to Cuba as well. Cuba is ripe for this because Cuba is poor in many ways, would need that type of Chinese assistance. And it's a key location for China. So it's up to us to put pressure on Cuba, on regional organizations like the OAS and others to kind of keep China at bay, keep them out, and not just in Cuba but other parts of our hemisphere.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK, just staying on China for one more topic, which is Taiwan-- when I worked on Capitol Hill many decades ago, Mark, I was a guest of the government, the Taiwanese government, who took us over and talked to us about the situation. We even went to the island of Quemoy. The island of Quemoy, I think, sits between the main island of Taiwan and China and guns literally pointing towards each other from both sides. How should the U.S. be supporting Taiwan in this moment?

MARK T. ESPER: Well, we've obviously seen an increase over the last several years, and particularly in the past year since Speaker Pelosi's visit to Taiwan last summer, of Chinese military activities in and around Taiwan, whether it's crossing the median line in the Taiwan Strait or naval exercises off the coast of Taiwan. And we've seen really bellicose statements and other type of behavior.

So look, I think we need to match that. I don't think we should step down. I think we should be looking at how do we increase our planning and training and exercises with the Taiwanese. We certainly need to accelerate and prioritize arms deliveries. And then there are a number of things that the Taiwanese need to do themselves.

Now, this is not about provoking Beijing, but this is about deterring them to show that we are willing to support the Taiwanese, consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act. And if push comes to shove, as President Biden has said, we would assist them in their defense. So all these things-- I know it sounds provocative, but actually I think push back on an authoritarian regime like that, which is led by Xi Jinping.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK. Thank you for that. Now, we're going to shift and go a little further around the world, which is India. So President Biden hosted Prime Minister Modi to the White House last month. What are your thoughts on the importance of the relationship of U.S. and India, especially vis-a-vis China?

MARK T. ESPER: Yeah, I've said this a lot of times. I've written about in my book, too, that if China represents the greatest strategic threat that we face in this century, then India represents the greatest strategic opportunity, partnership that we need to build because of so many important attributes it has.

It's now, obviously, the largest democracy in the world, but it's now the most populous country in the world as well, surpassing China this year. A very talented, high-tech base, advanced economy. So I think there's a lot of potential with India, and that's why, given again this historic animosity between China and India, there's an opportunity for us-- and I faced that during my time because they had a conflict on the border when I was Secretary of Defense-- to really help the Indians out and pull them along more into our orbit, the orbit of Western democracies, where they've, for decades, have tried to stay non-aligned.

But I think increasingly that's going to get challenging for the Indians. But I do think they're the most important partnership that we could build upon in the coming years and decades.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK, wonderful. So how should our U.S. businesses be handling investment in India? Is it easy to invest in India? I know there's kind of ownership rules that foreign entities can't own more than 49% of certain sectors and industries. So any advice there?

MARK T. ESPER: Well, years ago, when I worked for a trade association, I took delegations to India to talk, and so I may be dating myself. But I think some things remain true-- that it's a tough bureaucracy to deal with, long, drawn-out timelines. I think they have expectations with regard to co-production and licensing and that are sometimes unrealistic, but those are the demands they make of American businesses.

That said, it's still a very important market. And so I think it takes time and patience, and the Biden administration, I think, is on the right track. They are continuing a relationship with India that goes back at least to the administration of George W. Bush, when I was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and then continued through Obama and then Trump and then now Biden.

So I think those are important, but the role of the private sector, the U.S. business community, is also important as well. And I would tell my Indian counterparts when I would meet with them that yeah, sure, look, we want to do co-production. We want to do technology sharing and so forth and so on. But there are limits to how much we will share because of our concerns about tech security, and also private companies as well are going to be reluctant to share too much of their crown jewels, either.

So again, I think at times there are unrealistic expectations on the Indian side, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stick at it because it's such an important relationship and such a critical market.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK, we want to get to audience questions, but I have two more hot spots that I want to get your view on. One is Iran and what you think is going on in Iran. Is it changing? Should we be very concerned or just concerned? And then I want to talk about North Korea after that.

MARK T. ESPER: Look, obviously, Iran and the United States have had no formal relationship now for four-plus decades. It's a shame. It's a tragedy for the Iranian people that they've been living under this regime for that long period of time. But the regime continues to export their terrorism throughout the region, whether it's the Middle East, Africa, other parts of South Asia, and threaten our allies and partners.

We know that we have a lot of concern about their pursuit of a nuclear weapon, and there's a lot of resentment within-- among the Iranian people about the regime. It's fairly brittle itself, but it hasn't reached that point yet where they're willing to overturn the Ayatollah. Now, he also is pretty old. He's facing health challenges. There's been a reasonable expectation at some point in time, there's going to be a changeover here in the next year or years. We'll see what happens then and who comes to power. But it'd be nice to see a different regime or different behavior by that regime.

I used to say I wish they would just behave like a normal country because I think the Iranian people and the Iranian culture have a lot to offer. But the regime just continues to take them in the wrong direction.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK, North Korea. We'll end on North Korea before we go to questions.

MARK T. ESPER: Yeah, nothing like ending on a hot spot. Look, this relationship goes back-- this difficulty goes back to the end of the Korean War obviously but has ramped up in the past 20, 30 years given their pursuit of long-range ballistic missiles. And now we know they have nuclear weapons.

So this year, they've conducted more long-range missile tests than ever before. They've been threatening to test a nuclear missile. The suppression and oppression of the North Korean people is just horrific, if you've read about them. But I don't see any change in behavior from their leader Kim Jong Un. He’s-- it's all about keeping him and his family in power. It's a cult, a country of a cult worship. And the best thing we can do is continue to deter really bad, aggressive behavior by them. I don’t see--

The one country that could help China has never really shown a willingness to do so in terms of getting the North Koreans to the table to talk about denuclearization of the peninsula. So I think that's something we're going to have to continue to deal with and watch very carefully in conjunction with our partners in Seoul and then also Japan as well.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK, thank you for that. Just on a personal note, Mark, I want to ask you a question about serving in government. So you're obviously a West Point grad. You spent 10 years on active duty and 11 in the reserves. How did your experiences there kind of inform your decision to take on the role of Secretary of Defense? It's a huge, huge opportunity but also a huge burden to run such an enormous organization. How did actually being in the military help you while you were there?

MARK T. ESPER: Yeah, well, first of all public service was kind of always a calling for me and in my blood, if you will. And I left Uniontown at the age of 18 and began my military career then. And some of my most formative years, it goes back, all the way back there. But look, my experience at West Point and then, of course, the Army in these various capacities helped me immensely. I mean, obviously I knew the language. I understood the culture. People there understood me. I think I brought in a degree of credibility. There were things I knew that worked in the Army and in DOD and things I knew that didn't.

I also had a good sense of where I wanted to go. But what I—I kind of complemented all that with my experience in industry, the defense industry, on Capitol Hill, and other parts of the government where I could bring all these things together. And it really enabled my ability to do my job and really understand what was going on and drive change.

When you can speak with the credibility and authority of going all the way back and serving as I did—I served in the United States and abroad, I served in peacetime and war, had a lot of experience with spousal issues and with training and equipping the force and all these things, that I could really pick up the ball on day one and move forward.

And it also helped me, that grounding I had at West Point and later in the Army, about the ethics of the profession, what your duty is, what’s the meaning of the oath, obviously helped me as well dealing with the Trump White House, particularly in 2020 as some of these questions, these really substantive, really important questions about your duty, your oath, so forth and so on confronted me head on. So all those things really helped me get through that turbulent period.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK, great. Question coming in for you from our audience. How would Secretary Esper have handled the Chinese spy balloon? What-- first of all, I wanted to have a whole webinar on Chinese spy balloons, and someone said to me, no, no, that's too narrow, Joan. But I do want to ask you, and I want to spend a minute on this-- these have been going on for decades, right? Spy balloons over each other's countries, and why was this different just because some person saw it, and the government had to respond? What's the history here?

MARK T. ESPER: Well, we-- of course, balloons for spying have been used since the Civil War, if you actually want to get technical about it. But I think what we've learned since the balloon that traversed the United States earlier this year that the Chinese have had spy balloons for a few years now. So at least it goes back at least that four or five or six years or so.

Look, what I've done, I've said on various news shows that I would have shot it down. I would have never allowed a spy balloon to traverse the United States and not just the United States, but some of our most important nuclear strategic sites. So in my view, that was-- challenged our sovereignty and really was a poke at us in a way that was unnecessary but speaks to what the Chinese regime is up to and their willingness to kind of compel-- not compel but really test us, our resolve and our ability to defend ourselves.

So I don't think we should allow that type of behavior to happen. And I think that was a mistake by the Biden administration to allow that to happen. But eventually, they've adopted a policy about it or are adopting it, and I think they'll be ready next time, for sure.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK, thank you for that. This question comes in from Doug Rogers. He's asking, our bombers are in great demand around the globe. How concerned are you about allies not fielding bombers so that they're depending exclusively on us for that ability?

MARK T. ESPER: Yeah, I mean, it's a good point. Only a few countries actually have bomber fleets, and we have them, we have the B-2, the B-1, the B-52, and we're obviously building a new strategic bomber now. So they're very important assets. They provide you attributes that long-range missiles don't in some ways, but they also have their negatives, too. So I think it's important to have a bomber capacity. I'm not concerned that the allies do not. I'm more concerned right now that our allies are not spending enough on their own defense.

And when I say their own defense, by extension, that means collective security and how they would support us. And we're seeing deficits right now when it comes to the war in Ukraine. But I'd frankly like to see the allies spend more, other GDP on defense and more on systems that will be useful in a fight against a Russia or China. And I'm not seeing that from most of our allies right now.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK, good question. Thank you for that. OK, another question. This subject regarded to cybersecurity, which is something we talk a lot about on this program. What falls under the category of critical infrastructure in the United States? And how do we ensure that we have safeguards in place to protect against a cyber warfare attack on critical infrastructure? Good question.

MARK T. ESPER: Yeah, that's a great question, and it's not just a military one, I think, as your question was hinting at. Obviously, the DOD protects all of its critical sites. But in my view-- and there's a whole plan, an outline of this that's worked within the government. And I think it's run by the Department of Homeland Security about what the critical nodes are.

But you could think about energy systems, energy plants, water purification, electrical grids, pipelines, things like that that are critical that, if compromised, if allowed to be shut down or held for ransom-- and we've seen that in the past few years-- it could really have an impact on U.S. economic security and by extension our prosperity and can shake our confidence.

So this is one that demands a partnership between the government and the private sector when it comes to exchanging information about what's out there, the threats they're seeing. If you're a company out there, a big company in any of those industries I noted, you're getting attacked every single day. And some of it's high-end. Some of it's low-end, but you've got to be very careful. And the ability or at least enabling all of us to share details of that attack as soon as possible helps protect everyone.

So we're not there yet. There's a lot of conflicting views and reasons why. But that's where we need to get to because cyber is, first of all, non-attributable. It's easy to do. We know China and Russia have high-end capabilities, as does Iran and North Korea and others. So it's easy to do, and it is in some ways an Achilles’ heel for us. So we need to do a lot better when it comes to protecting that civilian infrastructure.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK, wonderful. Thank you. Next question is coming in from Kevin McCuster. Do you think the Space Force is a duplication of the U.S. Air Force? Tell us about the Space Force. We heard President Trump propose it. You implemented it. What is it? Or can you really say what it is if it's so highly secretive? But what should the average person know about a Space Force as the new branch of the military?

MARK T. ESPER: Look, I think the Space Force is very important. It was a critical initiative. It was supported by members of both parties when we established it. I had the privilege of standing it up. It's critical because why? So much of our security, our economic prosperity, our way of life is enabled by satellites in space and other things in space that allow us to use GPS or operate ATMs or email one another, use Twitter, you name it.

So it's important that we protect our space assets. And because of actions and behaviors by the Russians and Chinese, they've made it a domain of warfare. And so when you see these new domains of warfare emerge, you have to think what's the best way to ensure that we can protect it, secure it and make sure it remains available for everybody.

And so we did carve the Space Force out of the Air Force. And there was some resistance in the Pentagon at the time. But I think it was very important because-- and I use the analogy of pulling the Air Force out of the Army at the end of World War II. We had the Army Air Force before 1947. But what that meant during the time was that the Air Force was bound within the culture of the Army that was ground-based, where the priority was on ground equipment and training soldiers and things like that.

It really wasn't until the Air Force became a separate branch in the late '40s that they could really break out, develop their own culture, really perfect their tactics and strategies, develop their equipment the way they wanted to and pursue it that they really emerged and became the greatest Air Force ever. That's what is happening today with the Space Force.

Their mission is to man, train and equip our space warriors, if you will, about how to do their missions, whether it's monitoring activities, preparing service members-- they call them guardians-- to operate from the ground, in space, to monitor and protect the heavens above us so that we can continue to do what we do, both in the civilian realm and the military realm.

So I think it's very critical. And I think the growth of Space Force has been spectacular, and it'll be looked back upon-- it is now in many ways a singular achievement of the Trump administration.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK, good. Next question from John Churchwell. Is the U.S. behind China and Russia in hypersonic missile technology? If so, how concerning is that? Well, first of all, what is hypersonic missile technology? Are we behind?

MARK T. ESPER: Yeah, hypersonic-- yeah, hypersonic missiles are missiles that travel at more than five times the speed of sound and have some maneuverability as compared to ballistic missiles. So it's a great technology. It's not a silver bullet, but I think it's an important arrow to have in one's quiver.

The interesting story here is we, the United States, actually developed hypersonic technology years ago. And then for some reason, we took a knee and decided not to pursue it. And then the Chinese and Russians picked it up, and they now have fielded weapons when it comes to hypersonics.

We are a little bit behind when it comes to fielding them. I think our technology, though, is more advanced. And I wish we were further along than we were. I put billions of dollars into this technology when I was Secretary of Defense to make sure we could develop it. So I think we have some catching up to do here, but I'm convinced as we do, given the capabilities the attributes of our systems, I think they'll be far superior to what the Russians and Chinese have fielded or will field.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK, next question-- thank you-- coming in from Elena Antonetti. Elena asks, what is your view regarding Putin's ability to use nuclear arms and his willingness to do so given the Wagner situation?

MARK T. ESPER: Well, he certainly has the ability to use tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. He probably has the largest stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons in the world, and they can be quite destructive. I mean, they're anywhere from a few kilotons to 100 kilotons. And to put that in perspective, 0 to 100, I think the Hiroshima bombs were 15 kilotons. So you can see it can have quite the effect.

But I think if he were to do that, that would change the strategic calculus. I think we would rethink the West's role in this conflict. Clearly, if he's trying to claim this territory, it would be-- the damage done to Ukraine would be-- would take-- it would be years of damage. It would make it unlivable in many ways.

But then he has to face the challenge of the fallout and everything else, fallout moving across Russia. Russia's just due east of Ukraine. So I think there are a lot of reasons why he would not use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. I think there are reasons, though, why he would continue to threaten to do so if he feels it's effective in deterring us from doing other things.

JOAN WOODWARD: OK, thank you. Last question from Michael Hendrickson. How serious are threats from Iran, especially to shipping in the Straits of Hormuz and their attempts to capture oil shipping? Will we see any serious retaliatory efforts by U.S. or allies?

MARK T. ESPER: Well, the Iranians have been stopping ships and seizing them in the Gulf for years now. Certainly, during my tenure, they did it, and they've just seized a couple more in the last few weeks. So they're going to continue to do this because they want to assert their sovereignty of the region. In the region, in the Gulf. They want to continue to proclaim that the United States should be out of the Persian Gulf.

So I do think it presents a threat to shipping. The United States Navy does its part to protect U.S. shipping and U.S.-flagged shipping in that region and does a good job. But I think, look, it still is a vital artery, waterway for the export of energy supplies out of the Gulf. So this is, again, part of the Iranian bad behavior where they're trying to assert their own interests and then also undermine international rules and norms, just like the Chinese are doing in the South China Sea.

You have to have free flow of commerce, and we-- ships should not-- who are peacefully transiting should not be subject to this type of behavior, but yet we see it coming out of countries like Iran and China and elsewhere.

JOAN WOODWARD: Well, Mark, the hour has just flown by. I'm so grateful to you for joining us today. And I just appreciate your service to the country, to the military, your thoughtfulness. You've got just an incredible background, and we're just so grateful to hear your views and your ideas.

Again, folks, we try very hard to make these sessions not just bipartisan but nonpartisan. And that, again, hopefully we met that standard today for you all. So Mark, my friend, from my hometown, we're so proud. We're so hometown proud of you becoming Secretary of Defense, and I just want to, again, thank you sincerely as a professional.

MARK T. ESPER: Thank you. I enjoyed it, and I hope your audience did, too. So thank you very much.

JOAN WOODWARD: All right, and folks, that's a wrap for our summer programming. So for the month of August, we hope you enjoy some rest and relaxation with your friends and family and some downtime. Our team is really busy getting ready all the lineup for the fall for you. That's going to kick off on Wednesday, September 13. Watch your emails and LinkedIn. Again, have a wonderful rest of summer. And we'll see you all back on September 13. Thank you for joining us.

(DESCRIPTION)
Text, Wednesdays with Woodward (registered trademark) Webinar Series. Watch Replays: Travelers Institute dot org. LinkedIn, Connect: Joan Kois Woodward. Take Our Survey: Link in chat. #WednesdayswithWoodward. Travelers Institute (registered trademark). Travelers. Travelers Institute dot org.