BRUSSELS — On his ultimate day as NATO’s secretary common, after 10 years within the job, Jens Stoltenberg didn’t wish to look again. However in an interview with POLITICO Journal, he couldn’t assist however share one nice remorse: that the West didn’t extra forcefully intervene on Ukraine’s behalf after Russia first began biting into its territory in 2014.
“If we had delivered a fraction of the weapons we’ve delivered after 2022, we might have truly prevented the struggle,” he stated.
In any other case, Stoltenberg shared no grievances and prevented criticizing any members of the alliance, at the same time as he’s a agency believer that rather more may be finished to assist Ukraine.
It’s the form of strategy that made the 65-year-old Norwegian politician popular with (most) allies. He seldom steps out of line, which is essential for a navy alliance that’s run on the idea of consensus, not on open fights amongst opponents.
He’s additionally finished work to shore up his legacy because the second-longest-serving head in NATO’s historical past, taking a extra assertive function in his previous couple of months on a plan to ship extra support to Ukraine subsequent yr. He additionally made positive the U.S. would shift a part of the weapon switch mechanism for Ukraine to NATO management, making certain a level of stability so Donald Trump can’t cancel all the pieces by a tweet if he returns to the White Home.
However even on Trump, who has been fiercely skeptical of NATO, Stoltenberg declined to take a position. And within the interview, his ultimate one earlier than he stepped down final week, he urged European allies to not create “self-fulfilling prophecies.”
This dialog has been edited for size and readability.
In the present day’s your final day. How does it really feel?
It’s a wierd feeling. It’s time to depart, and NATO can be in secure and good fingers with the incoming secretary common, Mark Rutte. However on the identical time, I’ll miss NATO. It has been a privilege to serve. I’ve individuals right here that I’ll miss, however that’s a part of life.
And to be sincere, I’ve stepped down earlier than, and I had the identical type of feeling of getting into vacancy. As a result of I stepped down as [Norwegian] minister of finance in 1997 and I felt that was the top of my skilled profession, after which I had the identical feeling after I stepped down as prime minister. So I’ve truly finished it earlier than, and each time it’s a bit troublesome, however each time, one thing new and thrilling will occur sooner or later. [In fact, he was named the new chair of the Munich Security Conference on Tuesday.]
Earlier than the full-fledged struggle in Ukraine broke out, Russian President Vladimir Putin despatched you a letter in 2021, demanding no new NATO members be accepted and no NATO troops be primarily based within the japanese flank. Was it a shock to you?
Properly, it was not an enormous shock. The calls for within the letter had been consistent with what Russia formulated earlier in numerous conferences. In fact, it was not doable for NATO to say that we closed the NATO retailer — not just for Ukraine, but additionally for Finland and Sweden. They need us to cease any additional enlargement. To ensure no NATO navy presence within the japanese a part of the alliance can be to introduce some type of first- and second-class NATO membership.
Regardless of that, we had been truly keen to take a seat down and we had a gathering within the NATO-Russia Council in January 2022, as a result of we thought it was essential to do no matter we might to have a political, diplomatic course of to attempt to forestall the struggle.
And after I got here [into office] in 2014, considered one of my important duties was to attempt to strengthen the political dialogue with Russia. However in fact, what we noticed over time, and particularly within the fall of 2021 and starting of 2022, was that the room for political dialogue was extraordinarily small.
Europe and the U.S. cut up repeatedly throughout Russia’s struggle on Ukraine — over tanks, then missiles, then F16s, now the long-range assaults. Which dialogue was the toughest one for you?
Essentially the most troublesome dialogue was, in a method, earlier than the invasion. The struggle didn’t begin in 2022, it began in 2014, each with the unlawful annexation of Crimea, but additionally when Russia went into japanese Donbas in the summertime of 2014. And NATO allies supplied some assist to Ukraine. I keep in mind considered one of my first visits was truly to Yavoriv, a NATO coaching facility for Ukraine again in 2015. I labored onerous to attempt to persuade NATO allies to do extra, to supply extra navy assist, extra coaching. Some allies did, nevertheless it was comparatively restricted, and that was very troublesome for a few years as a result of the coverage in NATO was that NATO mustn’t present deadly assist to Ukraine.
It’s hindsight and hypothetical, so nobody can say with certainty, however I proceed to imagine that if we had armed Ukraine extra after 2014, we would have prevented Russia from invading — at the very least we’d have elevated the edge for a full-scale invasion. We had the dialogue concerning the Javelin anti-tank weapons that some allies thought was provocative. And once more, it’s not so very significant to debate what we might have finished. However, because you requested me, I feel truly we might have finished extra earlier than the full-scale invasion. If we had delivered a fraction of the weapons we’ve delivered after 2022, we might have truly prevented the struggle, as an alternative of supporting Ukraine’s effort to defend itself in a struggle.
So the crimson strains again then are much like the crimson strains we’ve proper now?
Properly, there are some parallels. Alternatively, I feel we have to acknowledge that NATO allies have supplied unprecedented assist, rather more assist than anybody believed again in 2022 or earlier than the invasion: HIMARS, cruise missiles, superior battle tanks, Leopard and Abrams and F16s — an unlimited quantity of ammunition and artillery. However in fact, there may be an ongoing dialogue now about restrictions on using NATO-delivered weapons, or weapons from NATO allies, on the territory of Russia.
My place is that it is a struggle of aggression by Russia in opposition to Ukraine. That’s a blatant violation of worldwide regulation. In accordance with worldwide regulation, Ukraine has the best to self-defense, and the best to self-defense consists of the best to strike official navy targets on the territory of the aggressor, Russia. I welcome that some allies haven’t any restrictions, besides it must be throughout the limits of worldwide regulation. And others have truly loosened their restrictions on using weapons.
U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump lately mocked Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy because the “biggest salesman in historical past.” You will have handled Trump earlier than — what do you suppose is his technique right here?
I can be very cautious speculating about that.
What I’ll say is that whoever is elected because the president of the US in November, it’s essential for European allies to have interaction with the US to make sure that they proceed to assist Ukraine, as a result of it’s within the safety curiosity of all of us that Ukraine prevails as a sovereign, impartial nation in Europe. I keep in mind we mentioned the Javelins, the anti-tank weapons, and it was truly then-President Trump who made the choice to supply Javelins [to Ukraine].
So what Trump says is totally different from what he does?
Once more, I cannot speculate. Let’s simply see. However crucial factor is that whoever is elected, it’s essential that European allies don’t create self-fulfilling prophecies, however truly we do no matter we are able to to make sure that the U.S. continues to assist Ukraine.
Trump says he’ll get Ukraine to barter inside 24 hours if he wins the election. That appears to undercut efforts to make sure Ukraine is in the very best place strategically and militarily earlier than getting into into negotiation.
To begin with, all of us need this struggle to finish, however we additionally know that the quickest approach of ending a struggle is by shedding a struggle. However that won’t convey peace. It is going to convey occupation of Ukraine.
Due to this fact the problem is to finish the struggle in a approach the place Ukraine continues as a sovereign, impartial nation, and the one approach to attain that’s by ensuring that Russia understands that they can not obtain their objectives on the battlefield.
I don’t imagine we are able to change Putin’s thoughts, however I imagine we are able to change his calculus, that he realizes that the price of persevering with the struggle is just too excessive. That is my message to the US, and that is additionally what we, all of us, ought to convey very clearly to the US after the election.
Many allies at the moment are reaching the NATO goal of spending 2 % of their GDP on protection. Is that adequate?
First, we have to acknowledge the big progress allies have made. In 2014, three allies spent 2 % of GDP or extra on protection. Now, 23 allies reached that concentrate on, and a few are considerably above 2 %, equivalent to Poland, the Baltic nations, the U.Ok., the US. In order that’s the excellent news.
The unhealthy information is that 2 % isn’t sufficient. That is additionally mirrored in what allies have agreed on the final summit, that 2 % is a minimal. And we additionally agreed on protection plans, the place we’ve particular capabilities, forces, readiness that allies ought to ship to make sure that we are able to truly execute these plans.
And if we take a look at these functionality targets, as we name them in NATO, it’s apparent that for many allies, will probably be not possible to ship these forces with out spending considerably extra. I’m not keen to place a particular quantity on that, as a result of it was very a lot on how they arrange their very own protection. For some allies, they’ve conscription, others haven’t. The associated fee stage varies. So there’s no approach we are able to have a particular quantity. However after we see the ambition we’ve agreed on for forces’ readiness primarily based on our protection plans, it’s apparent that it must be considerably greater than 2 %.
Germany and Baltic nations say a Russian assault might occur in simply 5 years. What’s your evaluation?
First, we don’t see any imminent navy menace in opposition to any NATO ally. Second, we see that for the Russian navy capability, virtually the entire land forces at the moment are dedicated to the struggle in Ukraine, and it’ll take time earlier than they’re capable of construct up that. Alternatively, they’ve turned their financial system right into a struggle financial system, so they’re producing numerous weapons and ammunition. When the struggle ends in Ukraine, this capability — manufacturing capability — will nonetheless be there.
I’m not keen to enter a dialogue about precisely what number of years earlier than Russia has the total energy once more. What I can say is that we must always not discuss as whether it is inevitable that Russia will assault. NATO’s there to forestall that from taking place. The aim of NATO is to not wage a struggle, however it’s to forestall the struggle. And we’ve been in a position to do this all through the Chilly Conflict, for 75 years, as a result of we’ve, day by day, 24/7, had credible deterrence.
So I’m afraid of among the rhetoric that signifies that inside a specific amount of years, Russia will assault. No, they won’t assault, so long as we’re sturdy and united. And that’s the aim of NATO.
What’s your greatest unfinished enterprise as you permit Brussels?
I don’t have an inventory of that type of factor, however in fact, the struggle in Ukraine continues, and it’s heartbreaking to see all of the struggling, all of the people who find themselves killed and all of the injury that the Russians triggered.
On the identical time, I’m assured that with the choices we took on the [July] NATO summit — we’ve arrange the constructions to supply extra predictable, long-term assist to Ukraine, with the monetary dedication for Ukraine from NATO allies — NATO will proceed to be Ukraine’s most essential supporter. Ninety-nine % of navy assist to Ukraine comes from NATO allies. So, in fact, it might have been nice to have seen an finish to the struggle. However on the identical time, I’m completely sure that we’ve the construction in place to proceed supporting it.
So Mark Rutte can be a greater Sec Gen than your self?
I’m completely sure that Mark Rutte has all of the {qualifications} to be an ideal and nice secretary common, and I feel it’s a energy of democratic nations and democratic establishments equivalent to NATO that we modify on the high. It’s a part of what makes NATO sturdy, that we modify the management.