“This is Russia’s war against any rules at all,” Zelenskyy said, to applause from the auditorium, adding:” If you do not manage to act now, Putin will make the next years catastrophic for other countries as well.”
Zelenskyy’s appearance in Munich is part on an ongoing campaign to strengthen Kyiv’s ties with its Western allies. Before coming to Munich, he was in Berlin and Paris to sign security agreements, adding to a similar pact with the United Kingdom.
Although Russia has more ammunition, the war is also causing problems, forcing it to plead for help from ramshackle dictatorships. “For the first time in Russian history, Russia bowed to Iran and North Korea for help,” said Zelenskyy.
Despite problems like ammunition shortages and retreats from cities like Avdiivka, Zelenskyy insisted that Ukraine can prevail in the war against Russia, especially if its allies give it more arms and ammunition.
“We can get our land back, and Putin can lose,” he said, adding: “We should not be afraid of Putin‘s defeat and the destruction of his regime. It is his fate to lose — not the fate of the rules-based order to vanish.”
The truth is, Europe only has itself to blame for the morass. Trump has been harping on about NATO’s laggards for years, but he hardly invented the genre. American presidents going back to Dwight D. Eisenhower have complained about European allies freeloading on American defense.
What Europeans don’t like to hear is that Trump has a point: They have been freeloading. What’s more, it was always unrealistic to expect the U.S. to pick pick up the tab for European security ad infinitum.
After Trump lost to Biden in 2020, its seemed like everything had gone back to normal, however. Biden, a lifelong transatlanticist, sought to repair the damage Trump did to NATO by letting the Europeans slide back into their comfort zone.
Even though overall defense spending has increased in recent years in Europe — as it should have, considering Russia’s war on Ukraine — it’s still nowhere near enough. Only 11 of NATO’s 31 members are expected to meet the spending target in 2023, for example, according to NATO’s own data. Germany, the main target of Trump’s ire, has yet to achieve the 2 percent mark. It’s likely to this year, however, if only because its economy is contracting.
The truth is, Europe was lulled back into a false sense of security by Biden’s warm embrace. Instead of going on a war footing by forcing industry to ramp up armament production and reinstating conscription in countries like Germany where it was phased out, Europe nestled itself in Americas skirts.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned Thursday that Russian President Vladimir Putin will wage war elsewhere if Russia defeats Ukraine.
“If Putin wins in Ukraine, there is real risk that his aggression will not end there,” Stoltenberg told reporters during a meeting with Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico. “Our support is not charity. It is an investment in our security.”
Fico, who won September’s election, is skeptical of aiding Ukraine and has ended military deliveries to Kyiv.
But Stoltenberg wants the alliance to hold firm against Russia.
“The only way to reach a just and lasting solution is to convince President Putin that they will not win on the battlefield.And the only way to ensure that President Putin realizes that he is not winning on the battlefield is to continue to support Ukraine,” the NATO chief said.
His comments came on the same day the Russian leader made clear he has no intention of backing down in his war against Ukraine.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned that the Western military alliance should be ready for bad news from the Ukrainian front as Kyiv continues to defend against Russia’s all-out invasion.
“Wars develop in phases,” Stoltenberg said in an interview Saturday with German broadcaster ARD. “We have to support Ukraine in both good and bad times,” he said.
“We should also be prepared for bad news,” Stoltenberg added, without being more specific.
His comments come as Western allies debate over ammunition and financial aid for Ukraine, and as Moscow boosts its troop levels. Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree on Friday to increase the number of soldiers by some 170,000 to a total of 1.3 million.
The front lines have moved little in recent months despite Kyiv’s counteroffensive during the summer. But the Ukrainians have used cruise missiles to push back the Russian fleet in the Black Sea and have caused damage deep in Russian territory
“These are big victories even though they haven’t been able to move the front line,” Stoltenberg said in the interview.
Stoltenberg called on NATO’s members to ramp up the production of ammunition, bemoaning the fragmented state of Europe’s defense industry.
“We’re not able to work as closely together as we should,” he said, urging governments to look beyond their national interests and see the big picture.
A victory for Putin would not only be a tragedy for Ukraine but it would also present a danger for the rest of the allies, Stoltenberg said. “The more we support the Ukraine, the faster the war will end.”
THE HAGUE — Dutch voters may be about to get someone very different from the outgoing veteran prime minister Mark Rutte.
A former refugee, Dilan Yeşilgöz, who succeeded Rutte as leader of the VVD party, is now leading the polls ahead of Wednesday’s vote and could become the first female prime minister in Dutch history.
The contest is on a knife-edge, with three parties vying to win the most seats, but her nearest rival, Pieter Omtzigt has signalled he may not want the top job for himself.
That makes it even likelier that Yeşilgöz, the country’s justice minister, will become premier at the head of the next government.
A self-confessed workaholic, Yeşilgöz is media savvy and does not talk much about being a woman in politics. She is invariably good humored and full of energy in public, despite what she says are “tough” demands of her current job. Her liberal-conservative People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy is now in joint first place with 18 points in POLITICO’s Poll of Polls, after she took over from Rutte as its leader.
Her platform has been a promise to crack down on migration, an issue that has long dogged Dutch politics.
But Yeşilgöz told POLITICO it is her own background as a refugee that has shaped her view on migration.
“There’s an influx of too many people, not only asylum seekers but also migrant workers and international students, which means that we don’t have the capacity to help real refugees,” Yeşilgöz said. She listed problems in the system, including poor quality reception facilities for asylum seekers and housing shortages as obstacles.
Yet Yeşilgöz has a mountain ahead of her to succeed in the election.
If the VVD wins, it would be exceptional. There are hardly any examples of governing parties that, during a change in leadership, still remain the largest.
Yet the latest POLITICO Poll of Polls shows that VVD is neck and neck with centrist outsider Omtzigt’s new party, New Social Contract. The green-left alliance of Frans Timmermans is also in with a chance, on 15 percent.
NETHERLANDS NATIONAL PARLIAMENT ELECTION POLL OF POLLS
As justice minister in the current caretaker government, she has been described as a tough negotiator and a strong communicator, who only does three things besides work: sleep, exercise and eating healthily.
But while Rutte has always been very private about his personal life, Yeşilgöz has been far more open, talking frankly about her marriage, her battles with an immune condition and her hesitation about having children.
Also unlike Rutte, who was often spotted cycling to appointments, Yeşilgöz is driven everywhere and has to be heavily protected by a personal security detail due to her position as a justice minister. “It is a big part of my life and that is very tough. But I choose to keep going, to not quit, because I will not be intimidated,” she said.
The increasingly violent and coarse nature of public discourse in the Netherlands is a growing issue in Dutch politics. Outgoing finance minister Sigrid Kaag announced earlier that she was leaving politics amid concerns over her safety.
Fair and strict
Brussels is also keeping a close eye on the upcoming election. The Netherlands has positioned itself under the leadership of Rutte as a reliable and dominant partner in the EU. But officials in embassies and institutions in Brussels now wonder if the next government will maintain such a positive role after the November 22 vote.
It’s a clear “yes” from Yeşilgöz, if she ends up as premier. “As a small country, we can play a big role. We have always done that, and it’s incredibly important that we will keep doing that,” she said.
Playing strict and and playing fair will be the main pillars that underpin her approach to the EU, said Yeşilgöz. That includes no tinkering with the criteria when new countries want to become an EU member — a debate that is already heating up in light of Ukraine’s application to join the 27-country bloc.
A man boards a tram next to a People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) campaign poster featuring a picture of party leader Dilan Yeşilgöz | Carl Court/Getty Images
Traditionally, the Dutch have been hawks-in-chief on EU fiscal policy, criticizing big spenders and demanding a reduction in debt levels. But in more recent times, the Dutch government has favored flexibility, within reason.
“Just being very strict and not looking at the context at all, I am exaggerating a bit, that’s not going to be our line,” Yeşilgöz said. “But being very flexible and actually making things less clear and more complex is not our line either. Europe must be a stable cooperation, and clear financial agreements are very important to this end.”
Post-Rutte
Although the VVD is leading in the polls, the race is far from done.
The main challenge for Yeşilgöz during the campaign has been to convince voters that she wants renewal despite her party being in power for more than a decade.
The past thirteen years a lot of things have been going well, she said, pointing to the fact that The Netherlands weathered the economic crisis and coronavirus pandemics relatively safely.
“At the same time, when you zoom in and see that many people with normal jobs and incomes lie awake at night because of their bills … so I can’t say that things are going well for everyone,” she said.
“On top of that there have been in the past years some blind spots,” she said. These included the poor handling of compensation claims in relation to earthquake damage in Groningen and a childcare benefits fiasco in which thousands of people, often dual-nationals, were incorrectly labeled fraudsters. “It is evident that we have learned from that and need to prevent new blind spots from appearing.”
And what of her former lader, Rutte? He was spotted in Brussels earlier this month on a visit to NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg, after hinting he would like to take over the position at the top of the military alliance himself.
Asked whether Rutte was gunning to lead NATO, Yeşilgöz laughed.“Wherever he ends up, that organization is very lucky to have him,” she said.
BRUSSELS — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will meet with NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg and U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and join a meeting of NATO defense ministers during a surprise visit to Brussels on Wednesday.
In comments to the press Wednesday morning, Zelenskyy, speaking alongside Stoltenberg, said his main message to NATO defense ministers would be on “priorities for Ukraine” for “how to survive during this next winter.”
“We need some support from the leaders. That’s why I’m here today,” Zelenskyy said. “It’s important there are long-distance missiles, or long-distance weapons … The problem: How to get it?”
Some NATO countries have reservations about providing Ukraine with long-range weapons, out of fears they could be used to attack Russian territory. But Zelenskyy reiterated that they are necessary to protect Ukraine’s “very concrete geographic points,” such as energy networks or transit lanes for grain exports.
Stoltenberg said Ukraine could expect more announcements to be made on Wednesday on NATO countries’ commitment to step up support for Kyiv.
“We need today to mobilize more support to Ukraine. And as President Zelenskyy just said, this is about air defense. It’s about artillery. It’s about ammunition,” Stoltenberg said. “And I expect more NATO allies to make further announcements today for more support to Ukraine, because we need to sustain and step up their support.”
That will help Ukraine “to produce, to trade, to function as a normal country,” Stoltenberg said, adding: “That will increase their ability to finance and to provide … ammunition themselves for the war.”
Zelenskyy, who will also meet Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo later on Wednesday, said he would focus on ways for Ukraine to use frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s efforts to rebuild after President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion. Belgium is estimated to hold almost two-thirds of the €300 billion worth of frozen Russian central bank reserves.
Zelenskyy said there’s no finalized detail yet on a meeting with European Council President Charles Michel, though communications were ongoing and Ukraine, he said, was ready to begin EU membership talks.
This will be Zelenskyy’s second visit to Brussels since the start of the invasion, after he attended a summit of EU leaders in February in a visit that made headlines — not least because news of the trip leaked several days before it took place.
Prior to the visit to Brussels, the Ukrainian president was in Bucharest on Tuesday, where he met with his Romanian counterpart Klaus Iohannis to discuss regional security and bilateral ties.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned that the war Russian President Vladimir Putin is waging on Ukraine won’t be over any time soon.
“Most wars last longer than expected when they first begin,” Stoltenberg in an interview with Germany’s Funke media group published Sunday. “Therefore we must prepare ourselves for a long war in Ukraine.”
“We all want a quick peace,” said Stoltenberg. “At the same time, we must recognize that if [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians stop fighting, their country will no longer exist. If President Putin and Russia stop fighting, we will have peace.”
The head of Ukraine’s Security Council Oleksiy Danilov, in an opinion piece published Saturday evening, said the only way to end the war is if Kyiv’s allies speed up deliveries of weapons. “Refusing or delaying the transfer of modern weapons to the Ukrainian armed forces is a direct encouragement to the kremlin to continue the war, not the other way around,” Danilov said.
The Ukrainian military meanwhile continued its counteroffensive, with drone attacks targeting Crimea and Moscow on Sunday, according to Russia’s defense ministry. The attacks disrupted air traffic and caused a fire at an oil depot.
In southwestern Russia, a Ukrainian drone damaged an oil depot early Sunday, sparking a fire at a fuel tank that was later extinguished, the regional governor said. Another drone was downed in Russia’s Voronezh region.
Sunday also saw Russian missiles hit an agriculture facility in Ukraine’s Odesa region, according to Ukraine’s military.
Meanwhile, two cargo ships arrived at a Ukrainian port after travelling through the Black Sea using a new route, Ukrainian port authorities said. They reached Chornomorsk over the weekend, and were due to load 20,000 tons of wheat bound for world markets, the BBC reported. Officials said it was the first time civilian ships had reached a Ukrainian port since the collapse of a grain deal with Russia ensuring the safety of vessels.
Separately, the International Court of Justice — the United Nations’ highest court — will on Monday hear Russia’s objections to a case brought by Ukraine, who argues Russia is abusing international law in claiming the invasion was justified to prevent alleged genocide. Reuters reports the hearings are set to run until September 27.
VILNIUS — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Monday agreed to drop his resistance to Sweden joining the NATO alliance and to submit the ratification to the Turkish parliament “as soon as possible,” the alliance’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters.
“Sweden will become a full member of the alliance,” Stoltenberg said ahead of a summit of NATO leaders starting Tuesday.
He said Erdoğan had given a “clear commitment” to move on Sweden’s accession.
The Turkish’s leader’s change of position came after a meeting with Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and Stoltenberg.
In a joint statement following the talks, Turkey, Sweden and NATO underlined that Stockholm had changed laws, expanded counter-terrorism cooperation against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and restarted arms exports to Turkey.
Ankara and Stockholm also agreed to create a “new bilateral Security Compact” and that Sweden will present a “roadmap as the basis of its continued fight against terrorism in all its forms,” the statement said.
As part of the deal, Stoltenberg has also agreed to create a new post of “Special Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism” at NATO.
The announcement comes after over a year of wrangling to get Turkey and Hungary to sign off on admitting Sweden and Finland into the alliance, with NATO leaders publicly and privately lobbying the Turkish leader to expand the alliance roster.
Sweden and Finland both ditched their traditional neutrality in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and asked to join the alliance in May 2022.
The accession of the two countries — which have long been close partners of the Western alliance — was easily approved by most NATO members, with Turkey holding out. Finland joined in April following approval by Turkey’s parliament in March.
But Sweden proved to be a thornier problem, with Erdoğan denouncing the presence of Kurdish groups in Sweden. Relations were also inflamed when protesters in Sweden burned copies of the Quran.
Earlier on Monday, Erdoğan linked a change of position on Sweden to a revival of his country’s moribund effort to join the European Union. The recently re-elected Turkish president also met with European Council President Charles Michel on Monday evening.
The Council leader described the session as a “good meeting,” tweeting that the two “explored opportunities ahead to bring” the EU’s cooperation with Turkey “back to the forefront & re-energise our relations.”
Sweden promised to “actively support efforts to reinvigorate” Turkey’s EU membership bid in a seven-point agreement with Ankara. Stockholm also agreed it will not support other Kurdish militant groups and to boost economic cooperation with Turkey.
The next step, according to the agreement, is that Turkey “will transmit the Accession Protocol for Sweden to the Grand National Assembly, and work closely with the Assembly to ensure ratification.”
In a statement after the announcement, U.S. PresidentJoe Biden welcomed the agreement and said: “I stand ready to work with President Erdoğan and Turkey on enhancing defense and deterrence in the Euro-Atlantic area.”
Although Hungary has also refused to back Sweden’s NATO bid, Stoltenberg noted that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán had promised that his country would not be the last holdout against Sweden’s membership.
Sweden has one of the most capable militaries in Europe and its entry into NATO together with Finland will solidify the alliance’s control of the Baltic Sea.
The agreement on the night before the summit’s official program starts removes a major headache for Stoltenberg and the alliance’s leaders, who are also dealing with Ukrainian demands that Kyiv be given a clear path to membership.
Opinions across NATO differ on how fast Ukraine could become a member. Those disagreements will likely be front and center on Wednesday when Biden holds one-on-one talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Jacopo Barigazzi, Jonathan Lemire, Paul McLeary and Alexander Ward contributed reporting.
A small group of Western allies are engaged in “advanced” and “frantic, last-minute” negotiations to finalize a security assurance declaration for Ukraine ahead of this week’s NATO summit in Lithuania, according to four officials familiar with the talks.
For weeks, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany have been discussing the issue with Kyiv, and have also reached out to other allies in NATO, the EU and the G7. The idea is to create an “umbrella” for all countries willing to provide Ukraine with ongoing military aid, even if the details vary from country to country.
The effort is part of broader negotiations at NATO and among several groups of nations over how Western allies should display long-term support for Ukraine.
Kyiv wants to join NATO as soon as possible, giving it access to the alliance’s vaunted Article 5 clause — an attack on one is an attack on all. But many allies within the alliance broadly agree Ukraine can only join after the war ends, at the earliest.
So the alliance’s biggest powers have been working to see what stop-gap security commitments they can each give Ukraine in the meantime. That view is not universal, however, with countries along NATO’s eastern flank pushing for Ukraine to get a quicker path to ascension, even as the fighting rages on.
The Western powers’ goal is to unveil their umbrella framework around NATO’s annual summit, according to officials in Berlin, Paris, London and Brussels, all of whom spoke under the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the discussions. The two-day event starts Tuesday in Vilnius.
“A discussion is under way; it’s quite advanced, in fact it’s very advanced, and we’re very hopeful that it can be concluded by the end of the summit,” a French official told reporters at a briefing.
A senior NATO diplomat agreed, telling reporters in a separate briefing there are “frantic last-minute negotiations” occurring at the moment “on what this should look like.”
Last-minute details
U.S. President Joe Biden is slated to meet with U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on Monday in London, where their two staffs will huddle to try and iron out last-minute details, according to a second NATO diplomat with knowledge of the plans. On the U.S. side, Pentagon policy chief Colin Kahl is tasked with getting the agreement to the finish line.
The initiative may ultimately amount to promises to continue much of the aid allies are already providing: arms, equipment, training, financing and intelligence. But the intent is to offer a more-permanent signal of unity for Ukraine, especially as Kyiv is unlikely to get the firm pledge on NATO membership it wants at this week’s summit.
“It is basically a guarantee towards Ukraine that we will, for a very long time to come, we will equip their armed forces, we will finance them, we will advise them, we will train them in order for them to have a deterrent force against any future aggression,” the senior NATO diplomat said.
Many specifics of this support would be left for later, however. The diplomat said it would be up to each interested country to bilaterally determine with Ukraine “what your commitment will be. And it could be anything, from air defense to tanks to whatever.”
Last week, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz issued an “appeal to all countries that want to support Ukraine,” saying they should “make decisions for themselves that enable them to continue to keep up that support for one, two, three, and, if need be, more years, because we do not know how long the military conflict will last.”
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz | Pool photo by Kai Pfaffenbach/AFP via Getty Images
Separate from the security assurance declaration that Western powers are finalizing, NATO is also drawing up new ways to aid Ukraine’s military for years to come.
At the summit, NATO will agree on plans to help modernize Ukraine’s defenses, alliance chief Jens Stoltenberg told reporters on Friday. The plan, he said, will involve “a multi-year program of assistance to ensure full interoperability between the Ukrainian armed forces and NATO.”
That multi-year effort will also focus on Ukrainian military modernization programs, and like the “umbrella” initiative, will depend on individual countries contributing what they see fit.
NATO aspirations
NATO leaders will also create a new NATO-Ukraine forum, giving the two sides a space to work on “practical joint activities,” Stoltenberg added.
The broader security assurance conversation has inevitably become intertwined with the debate around Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, which will be high on the agenda when leaders gather in Vilnius.
In the formal communiqué that will be issued during the summit, “we will be addressing Ukraine’s membership aspirations and that is something that NATO allies continue to work on,” U.S. Ambassador to NATO Julianne Smith told reporters on Friday.
Specifically, leaders are aiming to update the alliance’s vague 2008 promise that Ukraine “will become” a NATO member at some point. But they aren’t expected to offer Kyiv the “clear invitation” that Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy is seeking.
Scholz conceded as much last week.
“Certainly, we will also discuss the question of how to continue to deal with the perspective of the countries that look to NATO and want to join it,” Scholz said. Yet, he added, “it is also clear that no one can become a member of a defense alliance during a war.”
Stoltenberg nonetheless struck an upbeat tone on Friday.
“I’m confident that we’ll have a message which is clear,” he said. “We have to remember that Allies also agree already on a lot of important principles when it comes to Ukraine and membership.”
Jacopo Barigazzi contributed reporting.
Hans von der Burchard, Paul McLeary and Laura Kayali
BRUSSELS (AP) — NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg will stay in office for another year, the 31-nation military alliance decided on Tuesday.
Stoltenberg said in a tweet that he is “honoured by NATO Allies’ decision to extend my term as Secretary General until 1 October 2024.”
“The transatlantic bond between Europe and North America has ensured our freedom and security for nearly 75 years, and in a more dangerous world, our Alliance is more important than ever,” he said.
Stoltenberg, a former Norwegian prime minister, has been NATO’s top civilian official since 2014. His term had been due to expire last year but was extended then to keep a steady hand at the helm after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
U.S. President Joe Biden and his NATO counterparts had been due to name a successor when they meet in Vilnius, Lithuania, on July 11-12. But the world’s biggest security organization makes decisions by consensus, and no agreement could be found on a new candidate.
“With his steady leadership, experience, and judgement, Secretary General Stoltenberg has brought our Alliance through the most significant challenges in European security since World War II,” Biden said in a statement. “Today, our Alliance is stronger, more united and purposeful than it has ever been.”
Stoltenberg’s fellow countryman, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, welcomed the news, saying that it was “good, important and reassuring.”
“It is also important that this was now clarified before the summit in Vilnius next week,” Gahr Støre was quoted as saying by the Norwegian news agency NTB. He said that NATO’s unity “is particularly crucial in a troubled time of war in Europe.”
Most NATO countries had been keen to name a woman to the top post, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was thought to be a favorite after a meeting with Biden last month.
The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, ruled out her candidacy. Other possible names floated, but never publicly named as in the running, were Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and U.K. Defense Secretary Ben Wallace.
It’s the fourth time Stoltenberg has had his mandate extended. He’s the second-longest serving NATO secretary-general after former Dutch foreign minister Joseph Luns, who spent almost 13 years at the helm from 1971.
Quizzed repeatedly in recent weeks over whether he would agree to have his term renewed, Stoltenberg said that he was not seeking to stay and had no plans other than to continue to carry out his duties and wrap his time at the helm in September.
NATO secretaries-general are responsible for chairing meetings and guiding sometimes delicate consultations between the member countries to ensure that compromises are found so that an organization that operates on consensus can continue to function.
They also ensure that decisions are put into action and speak on behalf of all nations with one voice.
Stoltenberg has managed to tread a very fine line, refraining from criticizing members led by more go-it-alone presidents and prime ministers, like former U.S. President Donald Trump, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan or Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
With NATO’s historical adversary, Russia, locked in a war with Ukraine, the process of naming a new secretary-general has become highly politicized.
Poland opposes the next secretary-general coming from a Nordic state after Stoltenberg’s long tenure, and that of his predecessor, Anders Fogh Rasmussen from Denmark. Polish officials wanted someone from a Baltic state. Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas was a preferred candidate.
But other countries are wary of accepting a nominee from the Baltics or Poland, given what appears to be their unconditional support for Ukraine, including on NATO membership, which the U.S. and Germany, among others, insist should not happen before the war ends.
In naming Fogh Rasmussen, a former Danish premier, their 12th secretary general in 2009, NATO’s leaders signaled that they wanted a government leader or president at the head of their organization. This has made the path almost impossible for Wallace.
Associated Press writer Jan M. Olsen in Copenhagen contributed to this report.
NATO allies have agreed to extend Jens Stoltenberg’s term as secretary-general by a year.
“Honoured by NATO Allies’ decision to extend my term as Secretary General until 1 October 2024,” Stoltenberg tweeted. “The transatlantic bond between Europe & North America has ensured our freedom & security for nearly 75 years, and in a more dangerous world, our Alliance is more important than ever,” he added.
The decision, ahead of a summit of NATO leaders in Vilnius next week, is seen as a reflection of how politically sensitive the current moment is for the alliance, as well as how difficult it is for allies to find a high-profile candidate who is both available and acceptable to all alliance members.
The former Norwegian prime minister has served as the defensive alliance’s chief since 2014, earning widespread respect for his calm demeanor under pressure and ability to navigate the sensitivities of a large and diverse alliance.
In 2017, allies opted to extend the secretary-general’s term until the end of September 2020. In 2019, they moved that date to September 2022. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine prompted another extension, which was set to run through September 2023.
Over the past months, allies informally considered a variety of candidates, including Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, before opting yet again to extend the long-serving secretary-general’s term.
Clarification: This article has been updated to reflect the process for extending Jens Stoltenberg’s term.
Paul Ronzheimer is the deputy editor-in-chief of BILD and a senior journalist reporting for Axel Springer, the parent company of POLITICO.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba warned European allies that it would be “suicidal” not to accept Ukraine into NATO after the war with Russia is over.
Kuleba’s comments come ahead of a NATO summit in mid-July when Kyiv’s membership bid is set to be the most politically sensitive point of discussion. Ukraine is looking to get a commitment from the defense alliance on its NATO aspirations, but a number of allies say a serious discussion on Ukraine in NATO can happen only after Russian forces are no longer on its territory.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on June 22 that the NATO summit in Vilnius on July 11-12 should focus on strengthening Ukraine’s military power instead of opening a process for Kyiv to join the transatlantic alliance.
“After the war ends, it will be suicidal for Europe not to accept Ukraine into NATO because it will mean that the option of … war will remain open,” Kuleba told Axel Springer, POLITICO’s parent company, in an interview on Friday in Kyiv.
“The only way to shut the door for the Russian aggression against Europe and Euro Atlantic space as a whole is to take Ukraine in NATO, because Russia will not dare to repeat this experience again,” Kuleba said.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has a vision for Ukraine to join NATO, as well as the EU, once Kyiv has repelled Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion. Ukrainian Ambassador to NATO Natalia Galibarenko told POLITICO in late June that Kyiv is seeking “some kind of invitation — or at least commitment … to look at the timeframe and modalities of our membership” at the Vilnius summit.
Kuleba in the interview pushed back on Germany and others advocating against such a commitment, warning against an outcome similar to the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, when Berlin and Paris rejected NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia.
“Do not repeat the mistake Chancellor Merkel made in Bucharest in 2008 when she fiercely opposed any progress towards Ukraine’s NATO membership,” he said.
“This decision opened the door for Putin to invade Georgia and then to continue his destabilizing efforts in the region, and then eventually illegally annexing Crimea,” Kuleba said. “Because if Ukraine was accepted in NATO by 2014, there would not [have been] the illegal annexation of Crimea. It would not be war in Donbas, there would not be this large-scale invasion,” he said.
Kuleba rejected statements by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán that it will be “impossible” for Ukraine to win against Russia, saying he is “tired of countering all these meaningless arguments.”
It appears increasingly likely that the 31 NATO members will be unable to coalesce around a candidate to be the alliance’s next secretary general and Jens Stoltenberg will be asked to remain in the job for an additional year, multiple sources told CNN.
Although there are a number of prospective candidates, including Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace, sources said there is a growing chance that there will not be agreement between the members on who should take over during what is a critical period for the defensive alliance as the war in Ukraine continues.
While some inside the White House would have liked to see a female NATO chief elevated for the first time, officials acknowledge that finding consensus has proven difficult.
The United States traditionally does not put forward a candidate, but their backing has major sway, and President Joe Biden views Stoltenberg as “a remarkable leader,” in the words of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
The former Norwegian prime minister has already extended his tenure once and has served in the role since 2014.
Biden and Stoltenberg met in the Oval Office last week, where the topic of his succession was expected to arise. White House officials have declined to say whether the president asked Stoltenberg to remain in job.
Asked about the prospect, Stoltenberg has repeatedly said he has “no intention of seeking extension of (his) term.”
“My only plan is to be focused on my task as secretary general and do my job here until my tenure end this fall and I’ve really no other plans,” he said at a news conference on Monday.
At a news conference in London on Tuesday, Blinken said “we’re in very close consultation with our allies and partners to determine where we want to go with NATO and its leadership.”
“We’re not pushing, promoting any particular candidate,” the top US diplomat said.
“The current Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has been, in President Biden’s eyes, a remarkable leader,” Blinken said.
“There are also some rather extraordinary people now who people were talking about as the next secretary general. And that’s a decision that we will all make collectively as an alliance,” he added.
Hungary’s troubled relationship with neighboring Ukraine spiraled again Friday as Prime Minister Viktor Orbán dismissed the country’s NATO dreams with a one-word tweet.
“What?!” the prime minister exclaimed in a Twitter post responding to a POLITICO article on NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s declaration in Kyiv on Thursday that “Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO.”
Relations between Budapest and Kyiv are tense. Hungary spent years blocking high-level NATO sessions with Ukrainian officials, ostensibly over concerns about the rights of Hungarian speakers in western Ukraine.
And despite condemning Russia’s full-scale invasion, Hungary has refused to send weapons to aid its neighbor. Senior Hungarian officials, meanwhile, continue to regularly visit Moscow and maintain close ties to the Kremlin. At the same time, Hungary joining Turkey in blocking Sweden’s NATO bid has frustrated Western capitals.
NATO allies — including Hungary — decided back in 2008 that Ukraine will eventually join the alliance. But Kyiv’s path to NATO has stalled, and in September Ukraine’s leadership requested an “accelerated accession” to join.
But the issue is highly sensitive. Most NATO allies — including the U.S. — want to avoid any big moves on the accession process for Ukraine while the war is ongoing.
A group of eastern members is now pushing for NATO to give Kyiv a signal that it is moving closer to the alliance.
During his visit to Kyiv, Stoltenberg said he discussed a multi-year NATO initiative to help Ukraine transition away from Soviet-era military equipment to the alliance’s own standards.
But it remains unclear what kind of political signal NATO leaders will opt to give Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the alliance’s upcoming summit, scheduled for July.
Speaking in Germany on Friday morning, as Ukraine’s partners gathered at Ramstein Air Base to discuss further assistance to Kyiv, Stoltenberg reiterated that for now allies want to keep their eyes on the pressing challenge of helping Ukraine win.
“All NATO allies have agreed that Ukraine will become a NATO member,” he said. “But the main focus now is of course on how to ensure that Ukraine prevails.”
“What we do know is that our support helps Ukraine move toward the Euro-Atlantic integration,” he said, adding, “without a sovereign, independent Ukraine, there is no meaning in discussing membership.”
It’s the rumor inflating the Brussels bubble: The EU’s top executive, Ursula von der Leyen, could be crossing town to run NATO.
The rationale makes sense. She has a good working relationship with Washington. She is a former defense minister. And as European Commission president, she has experience working with most NATO heads of government. Plus, if chosen, she would become the alliance’s first-ever female leader.
The conversation has crested in recent weeks, as people eye current NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s pending exit at the end of September.
Yet according to those inside NATO and at the Commission, the murmurings are more wish-casting than hints of a pending job switch. There is no evidence von der Leyen is interested in the role, and those in Brussels don’t expect her to quit before her first presidential term ends in 2024.
The chatter is similar to the rumblings around Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, a long-serving leader who checks every box but insists he doesn’t want the job.
The speculation illustrates how much Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has changed NATO — and who can lead it. The war has put a new spotlight on the alliance, making the job more politically sensitive and high-profile than in the past. And allies are suddenly much more cautious about who they want on the podium speaking for them.
In short, the chatter seems to be people manifesting their ideal candidates and testing ideas rather than engaging in a real negotiation.
“The more names, the clearer there is no candidate,” said one senior European diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal alliance dynamics.
A second senior European diplomat agreed: “There is a lot of backroom gossip,” this person said, “but no clear field at this stage.”
The (very) short list
The next NATO chief, officials say, needs to be a European who can work closely with whoever is in the White House.
But that’s not all. The next NATO chief needs to be someone who backs Ukraine but is not so hawkish that it spooks countries worried about provoking Russia. And the person has to have stature — likely a former head of state or government — who can get unanimous support from 31 capitals and, most importantly, the U.S.
There are several obstacles to Usula von der Leyen’s candidacy | Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images
That’s not a long list.
Von der Leyen is on it, but there are several obstacles to her candidacy.
The first is simply timing. If Stoltenberg leaves office in the fall as scheduled, his replacement would come into the office a year before von der Leyen’s term at the Commission ends in late 2024. She may even seek another five-year term.
“I don’t think she will move anywhere before the end of her mandate,” said one senior Commission official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.
Speculation is rife that the current NATO chief may be asked to stay on, at least for a little while longer, to allow for a candidate such as von der Leyen to come in at a later stage.
“If Stoltenberg is prolonged until next summer, Ursula von der Leyen’s candidature would look logical,” said a third senior European diplomat.
But in an interview with POLITICO last week, Stoltenberg appeared keen to go home. The NATO chief has been in the job for over eight years, the second-longest tenure in the alliance’s seven-decade history.
Asked about gossip that he may stay on, the secretary-general shot back sarcastically: “First of all, there are many more questions in the world that are extremely more important than that.”
“My plan is to go back to Norway,” he added, “I have been here for now a long time.”
The alliance is divided on the matter. Some countries — particularly those outside the EU — would prefer a quick decision to avoid running into the EU’s own 2024 elections. The fear, a fourth European diplomat said, is that NATO becomes a “consolation prize in the broader European politics” as leaders haggle over who will run the EU’s main institutions.
Another challenge for von der Leyen would be Germany’s track record on defense spending — and her own record as Germany’s defense minister.
A decade ago, NATO countries pledged to move toward spending 2 percent of their economic output on defense by 2024. But Germany, despite being Europe’s largest economy, has consistently missed the mark, even after announcing a €100 billion fund last year to modernize its military.
From the German government’s perspective, keeping von der Leyen at the helm of the Commission might be a bigger priority than NATO | Kenzo Tribuillard/AFP via Getty Images
Additionally, some observers say von der Leyen bears some responsibility for the relatively poor state of Germany’s defenses.
From the German government’s perspective, keeping von der Leyen at the helm of the Commission might also be a bigger priority than NATO — even if she comes from the current center-right opposition. The EU executive is arguably more powerful than the NATO chief within Europe, pushing policies that affect nearly every corner of life.
Predictably, the Commission is officially dismissive of any speculation.
“The president is not a candidate for the job” of NATO secretary-general, a Commission spokesperson told POLITICO on Monday. “And she has no comment on the speculation.”
Who else can do it?
As with von der Leyen, it is unclear if some other names floated are actually available.
Dutch Prime Minister Rutte has dismissed speculation about a NATO role, telling reporters in January that he wanted to “leave politics altogether and do something completely different.”
A spokesperson for the prime minister reiterated this week that the his view has not changed.
Insiders, however, say the Dutch leader shouldn’t be counted out. In office since 2010, Rutte has significant experience working with leaders across the alliance and promotes a tight transatlantic bond.
The Netherlands is also relatively muscular on defense — it has been one of Europe’s largest donors to Ukraine — but not quite as hawkish as countries on the eastern flank.
“Rutte’s name keeps popping up,” said the second senior European diplomat, “but no movement on this beyond gossip.”
Others occasionally mentioned as possible candidates are Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, and to a lesser extent British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace, Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, Romanian President Klaus Iohannis and Slovak President Zuzana Čaputová.
But despite the gossip, officials acknowledge many of these names are not politically feasible at this stage.
Kallas, for instance, is perceived as too hawkish. And conversely, Canada and some southern European countries are viewed within the alliance as laggards on defense investment. Then there’s the fact that some capitals would oppose a non-EU candidate, complicating a Wallace candidacy.
As a result, a senior figure from a northern or western EU country appears the most likely profile for a successful candidate. Yet for now, who that person would be remains murky. Officials do have a deadline, though: the annual NATO summit in July.
“Either a new secretary general will be announced,” said a fifth senior European diplomat, “or the mandate of Jens Stoltenberg will be prolonged.”
Finland will formally become a full-fledged NATO ally on Tuesday, the alliance’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Monday.
“This is an historic week,” the NATO chief told reporters. “Tomorrow, we will welcome Finland as the 31st member of NATO, making Finland safer and our alliance stronger.”
A ceremony marking Finland’s accession is set to take place Tuesday afternoon.
“We will raise the Finnish flag for the first time here at the NATO headquarters,” Stoltenberg said, adding: “It will be a good day for Finland’s security, for Nordic security, and for NATO as a whole.”
The move comes after Hungary and Turkey ratified Finland’s membership bid last week, removing the last hurdles to Helsinki’s accession.
Sweden’s membership aspiration, however, remains in limbo as Budapest and Ankara continue to withhold support.
Speaking ahead of a meeting of NATO foreign ministers, Stoltenberg reiterated that he believes Stockholm is still on its way to ultimately joining the alliance as well.
“All allies,” he said, “agree that Sweden’s accession should be completed quickly.”
At their meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday, ministers will discuss the alliance’s defense spending goals and future relationship with Kyiv.
They will also attend a session of the NATO-Ukraine Commission together with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba and meet with partners from Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea.
In his press conference, the NATO chief also addressed multiple challenges facing the transatlantic alliance, including Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent announcement that Russia will deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus.
Putin’s announcement is “part of a pattern of dangerous, reckless nuclear rhetoric” and an effort to use nuclear weapons as “intimidation, coercion to stop NATO allies and partners from supporting Ukraine.”
“We will not be intimidated,” the NATO boss said.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg and Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin of Finland | Heikki Saukkomaa/Lehtikuva/AFP via Getty Images
The alliance “remains vigilant, we monitor very closely what Russia does,” he said. “But so far,” he added, “we haven’t seen any changes in their nuclear posture” that require any change in NATO’s nuclear stance.
In a statement Monday, the Finnish president’s office said that, “Finland will deposit its instrument of accession to the North Atlantic Treaty with the U.S. State Department in Brussels on Tuesday” before the start of NATO foreign ministers’ session.
Sanna Marin, the prime minister when Finland applied to join NATO, suffered defeat in a national election on Sunday. Her Social Democrats finished third, with the center-right National Coalition Party coming out on top.
Not even a war has succeeded in pushing Europe’s biggest powers to reach their defense spending targets.
The Continent’s largest economies all fell short of a common goal of spending 2 percent of economic output on defense, according to a NATO report published Tuesday.
And across the entire military alliance, only seven out of 30 members spent at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense last year.
And although that amounts to billions, officials and experts warn the organization’s members will need to spend much more to assure its security.
The figures, all NATO estimates for 2022, show that while allies have been pouring significantly more money into their militaries for years, many are still largely lagging behind an alliance spending target, set in 2014, to spend 2 percent on defense within a decade.
Of 30 members, only Greece, Poland, the Baltic states, the United Kingdom and the United States spent more than 2 percent of their economic output on defense last year, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s annual report shows.
Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, whose country reached 2.12 percent last year according to the report, said on Tuesday that she was “quite shocked” when looking at who is and is not fulfilling the target.
“Come on, it’s not possible — I think everybody should understand, knowing and seeing what is happening in Ukraine, that we don’t have that time,” she told POLITICO.
The report does underscore, however, how NATO allies have been continuously investing and are now spending significantly more than when the target was first agreed.
“European Allies and Canada have increased defence spending for the eighth consecutive year,” the report said. “In total, over the last eight years, this increase added USD 350 billion for defence,” it added.
Plans to boost investment
Nevertheless, America remains NATO’s moneybags.
While the U.S. represents 54 percent of the alliance’s economic output, it contributes 70 percent of defense expenditure, the report noted.
The next-biggest spender, the U.K., amounted to about 6 percent of the alliance’s total spending, while Germany stood at around 5 percent.
A senior European diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive alliance dynamics, said that what matters is the positive trajectory, and that many allies have plans in motion to boost investment.
“Some nations already announced at least 2.5 percent, several even higher … there are nations that have not met the ambition, but at least have a plan,” the diplomat said.
“The trend has been positive,” they said, although “we need to invest more.”
Indeed, there is an understanding within the alliance that promising to boost defense spending and actually doing it are not the same thing.
“Political proclamations about boosting defense capacities are welcome,” said a senior Central European defense official. Making pledges is easy, they added.
“But spending substantial extra money on defense is very difficult in practice,” the official said, pointing to numerous bottlenecks impacting European countries.
These include inefficient defense planning, a shortage of raw materials for production of weapons and ammunition, long procurement processes and limited production capacity that could take years to expand.
“Real defense spending will increase at some point, but it will take at least several years — provided the existing political will is sustained,” the official added.
Speaking on Tuesday, Stoltenberg praised allies for progress since 2014 — but told reporters that new pledges must now turn into real cash, contracts and equipment. The NATO chief also said that he will advocate for the alliance to agree on a more ambitious target that sets 2 percent as a minimum.
Multifaceted security challenges
Experts caution that percentages are far from the only measure that matters as the alliance grapples with developing security threats.
The debate over 2 percent “places greater focus on the inputs to the alliance’s collective security rather than the outputs,” said Seamus P. Daniels, a fellow focusing on defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank.
“NATO members need to invest the appropriate funding for defense,” he said, “but we should focus more on whether allies are providing modern capabilities and forces necessary for collective security efforts.”
Another European diplomat acknowledged hurdles on that front, such as Germany not yet having touched its new €100 billion military modernization fund. And some allies have been investing in costly equipment while lacking sufficient forces for possible operations.
But the diplomat also pointed out several factors pushing forward European investment in defense — including the economic benefits of spending money on defense and possible political shifts in the U.S.
And while officials and experts expect Washington to continue playing a leading role within NATO, there is a recognition that regardless of who is in the White House, America’s attention will be shifting ever more to Asia.
While the current U.S. administration has been highly supportive of NATO and is spending vast sums to help Ukraine, some voices — including Republican presidential contenders — have been questioning the outlay.
Russia’s war in Ukraine “has changed perceptions and everyone gets that [the] US has other priorities than Europe,” the second European diplomat noted.
There are “fears,” the diplomat said, linked to a possible “Republican comeback.”
BRUSSELS — Add NATO’s military planners to the list of those concerned about having enough shells.
In the comingmonths,the alliance will accelerate efforts to stockpile equipment along the alliance’s eastern edge and designate tens of thousands of forces that can rush to allies’ aid on short notice — a move meant to stop Russia from expanding its war beyond Ukraine.
To make that happen, though, NATO must convince individual countries to contribute various elements: Soldiers, training, better infrastructure — and, most notably, extensive amounts of pricey weapons, equipment and ammunition.
With countries already worried about their own munitions stockpiles and Ukraine in acute need of more shells and weapons from allies, there is a risk that not all NATO allies will live up to their promises to contribute to the alliance’s new plans.
“If there’s not somebody hosting the potluck and telling everybody what to bring, then everyone would bring potato chips because potato chips are cheap, easy to get,” said James J. Townsend Jr., a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy.
“Nations,” he added, “would rather bring potato chips.”
It’s a challenge NATO has faced in the past, and one that experts fear could become a persistent problem for the Western alliance as Russia’s war drags into a second year. While the U.S. and EU are making plans to source more weapons — fast — the restocking process will inevitably take time.
That could run into NATO’s aspirations. Military leaders this spring will submit updated regional defense plans intended to help redefine how the alliance protects its 1 billion citizens.
The numbers will be large, with officials floating the idea of up to 300,000 NATO forces needed to help make the new model work. That means lots of coordinating and cajoling.
“I think you need forces to counter a realistic Russia,” said one senior NATO military official, underscoring the need for significantly “more troops” and especially more forces at “readiness.”
A push for ‘readiness’
There are several tiers of “readiness.”
The first tier — which may consist of about 100,000 soldiers prepared to move within 10 days — could be drawn from Poland, Norway and the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), said Heinrich Brauß, a former NATO assistant secretary general for defense policy and force planning. It may also include multinational battlegroups the alliance has already set up in the eastern flank.
Ben Hodges, former commander of U.S. Army Europe in Orzysz, Poland | Wojtek Radwanski/AFP via Getty Images
A second tier of troops would then back up those soldiers, ready to deploy from countries like Germany in between 10 to 30 days.
But the process could get tricky. Why? Because moving so quickly, even given a month, requires lots of people, equipment and training — and lots of money.
Some militaries will have to up their recruitment efforts. Many allies will have to increase defense spending. And everyone will have to buy more weapons, ammunition and equipment.
Ben Hodges, former commander of U.S. Army Europe, said that “readiness” is “basically, do you have all the stuff you’re supposed to have to do the mission assigned to a unit of a particular size?”
“An artillery battalion needs to shoot X number of rounds per year for planning purposes in order to maintain its level of proficiency,” he said. A tank battalion needs to hit targets, react to different situations and “demonstrate proficiency on the move, day and night, hitting targets that are moving.”
“It’s all very challenging,” he said, pointing to the need for training ranges and ammunition, as well as maintaining proficiency as personnel changes over time. “This obviously takes time and it’s also expensive.”
And that’s if countries can even find companies to produce quality bullets quickly.
“We have tended to try to stockpile munitions on the cheap … it’s just grossly inadequate,” said Stacie Pettyjohn, director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security. “I think the problems that our allies have in NATO are even more acute because many of them often rely on the U.S. as sort of the backstop.”
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, meanwhile, has repeatedly said that allies have stepped up work on production in recent months — and that the alliance is working on new requirements for ammunition stockpiles.
But he has also acknowledged the problem.
“The current rate of consumption compared to the current rate of production of ammunition,” he said in early March, “is not sustainable.”
The big test
Once NATO’s military plans are done, capitals will be asked to weigh in — and eventually make available troops, planes, ships and tanks for different parts of the blueprints.
A test for NATO will come this summer when leaders of the alliance’s 30 member countries meet in Lithuania.
German soldiers give directions to M983 HEMTT mounted with a Patriot launcher in Zamosc, Poland | Omar Marques via Getty Images
“We are asking the nations — based on the findings we have out of our three regional plans — what we need to make these plans … executable,” said the senior NATO military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive planning.
“I think the most difficult thing,” the official added, “is the procurement.”
Some allies have already acknowledged that meeting NATO’s needs will take far more investment.
“More speed is needed, whether in terms of material, personnel or infrastructure,” German Colonel André Wüstner, head of the independent Armed Forces Association, told the newspaper Bild am Sonntag.
The German military, for instance, is carrying out its assigned missions, he said, “but that is nothing compared to what we will have to contribute to NATO in the future.”
And while Berlin now has a much-touted €100 billion modernization fund for upgrading Germany’s military, not a single cent of the money has been spent so far, German Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces Eva Högl said earlier this week.
Underpinning the readiness issue is a contentious debate over defense investments.
In 2014, NATO leaders pledged to aim to spend 2 percent of their economic output on defense within a decade. At the Vilnius summit in July, the leaders will have to decide on a new target.
“Two percent as floor” seems to be the “center of gravity” in the debate at the moment, said one senior NATO official, while cautioning that “2 percent would not be enough for everybody.”
A second issue is the contribution balance. Officials and experts expect the majority of high-readiness troops to come from European allies. But that means European capitals will need to step up as Washington contemplates how to address challenges from China.
The response will show whether NATO is serious about matching its ambitions.
“It’s hard to make sure you remain at the top of your military game during peace when there’s not a threat,” said Townsend, the former U.S. official. NATO, he said, is “in the middle” of a stress test.
“We’re all saying the right things,” he added. “But will we come through atthe end of the day and do the right thing? Or are we going to try to get away with bringing potato chips to the potluck? The jury’s out.”
Nearly six months on from the subsea gas pipeline explosions, which sent geopolitical shockwaves around the world in September, there is still no conclusive answer to the question of who blew up Nord Stream.
Some were quick to place the blame squarely at Russia’s door — citing its record of hybrid warfare and a possible motive of intimidation, in the midst of a bitter economic war with Europe over gas supply.
But half a year has passed without any firm evidence for this — or any other explanation — being produced by the ongoing investigations of authorities in three European countries.
Since the day of the attack, four states — Russia, the U.S., Ukraine and the U.K. — have been publicly blamed for the explosions, with varying degrees of evidence.
Still, some things are known for sure.
As was widely assumed within hours of the blast, the explosions were an act of deliberate sabotage. One of the three investigations, led by Sweden’s Prosecution Authority, confirmed in November that residues of explosives and several “foreign objects” were found at the “crime scene” on the seabed, around 100 meters below the surface of the Baltic Sea, close to the Danish Island of Bornholm.
Now two new media reports — one from the New York Times, the other a joint investigation by German public broadcasters ARD and SWR, plus newspaper Die Zeit — raised the possibility that a pro-Ukrainian group — though not necessarily state-backed — may have been responsible. On Wednesday, the German Prosecutor’s Office confirmed it had searched a ship in January suspected of transporting explosives used in the sabotage, but was still investigating the seized objects, the identities of the perpetrators and their possible motives.
In the information vacuum since September, various theories have surfaced as to the culprit and their motive:
Theory 1: Putin, the energy bully
In the days immediately after the attack, the working assumption of many analysts in the West was that this was a brazen act of intimidation on the part of Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin.
Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, spelt out the hypothesis via his Twitter feed on September 27 — the day after the explosions were first detected. He branded the incident “nothing more [than] a terrorist attack planned by Russia and act of aggression towards the EU” linked to Moscow’s determination to provoke “pre-winter panic” over gas supplies to Europe.
Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki also hinted at Russian involvement. Russia denied responsibility.
The Nord Stream pipes are part-owned by Russia’s Gazprom. The company had by the time of the explosions announced an “indefinite” shutdown of the Nord Stream 1 pipes, citing technical issues which the EU branded “fallacious pretences.” The new Nord Stream 2 pipes, meanwhile, had never been brought into the service. Within days of Gazprom announcing the shutdown in early September, Putin issued a veiled threat that Europe would “freeze” if it stuck to its plan of energy sanctions against Russia.
But why blow up the pipeline, if gas blackmail via shutdowns had already proved effective? Why end the possibility of gas ever flowing again?
Simone Tagliapietra, energy specialist and senior fellow at the Bruegel think tank, said it was possible that — if it was Russia — there may have been internal divisions about any such decision. “At that point, when Putin had basically decided to stop supplying [gas to] Germany, many in Russia may have been against that. This was a source of revenues.” It is possible, Tagliapietra said, that “hardliners” took the decision to end the debate by ending the pipelines.
Blowing up Nord Stream, in this reading of the situation, was a final declaration of Russia’s willingness to cut off Europe’s gas supply indefinitely, while also demonstrating its hybrid warfare capabilities. In October, Putin said that the attack had shown that “any critical infrastructure in transport, energy or communication infrastructure is under threat — regardless of what part of the world it is located” — words viewed by many in the West as a veiled threat of more to come.
Theory 2: The Brits did it
From the beginning, Russian leaders have insinuated that either Ukraine or its Western allies were behind the attack. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said two days after the explosions that accusations of Russian culpability were “quite predictable and predictably stupid.” He added that Moscow had no interest in blowing up Nord Stream. “We have lost a route for gas supplies to Europe.”
Then a month on from the blasts, the Russian defense ministry made the very specific allegation that “representatives of the U.K. Navy participated in planning, supporting and executing” the attack. No evidence was given. The same supposed British specialists were also involved in helping Ukraine coordinate a drone attack on Sevastopol in Crimea, Moscow said.
The U.K.’s Ministry of Defence said the “invented” allegations were intended to distract attention from Russia’s recent defeats on the battlefield. In any case, Moscow soon changed its tune.
Theory 3: U.S. black ops
In February, with formal investigations in Germany, Sweden and Denmark still yet to report, an article by the U.S. investigative journalist Seymour Hersh triggered a new wave of speculation. Hersh’s allegation: U.S. forces blew up Nord Stream on direct orders from Joe Biden.
The account — based on a single source said to have “direct knowledge of the operational planning” — alleged that an “obscure deep-diving group in Panama City” was secretly assigned to lay remotely-detonated mines on the pipelines. It suggested Biden’s rationale was to sever once and for all Russia’s gas link to Germany, ensuring that no amount of Kremlin blackmail could deter Berlin from steadfastly supporting Ukraine.
Hersh’s article also drew on Biden’s public remarks when, in February 2022, shortly before Russia’s full-scale invasion, he told reporters that should Russia invade “there will be no longer Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”
The White House described Hersh’s story as “utterly false and complete fiction.” The article certainly included some dubious claims, not least that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has “cooperated with the American intelligence community since the Vietnam War.” Stoltenberg, born in 1959, was 16 years old when the war ended.
Russian leaders, however, seized on the report, citing it as evidence at the U.N. Security Council later in February and calling for an U.N.-led inquiry into the attacks, prompting Germany, Denmark and Sweden to issue a joint statement saying their investigations were ongoing.
Theory 4: The mystery boatmen
The latest clues — following reports on Tuesday from the New York Times and German media — center on a boat, six people with forged passports and the tiny Danish island of Christiansø.
According to these reports, a boat that set sail from the German port of Rostock, later stopping at Christiansø, is at the center of the Nord Stream investigations.
Germany’s federal prosecutor confirmed on Wednesday that a ship suspected of transporting explosives had been searched in January — and some of the 100 or so residents of tiny Christiansø told Denmark’s TV2 that police had visited the island and made inquiries. Residents were invited to come forward with information via a post on the island’s Facebook page.
Both the New York Times and the German media reports suggested that intelligence is pointing to a link to a pro-Ukrainian group, although there is no evidence that any orders came from the Ukrainian government and the identities of the alleged perpetrators are also still unknown.
Podolyak, Zelenskyy’s adviser, tweeted he was enjoying “collecting amusing conspiracy theories” about what happened to Nord Stream, but that Ukraine had “nothing to do” with it and had “no information about pro-Ukraine sabotage groups.”
Meanwhile, Germany’s Defense Minister Boris Pistorius warned against “jumping to conclusions” about the latest reports, adding that it was possible that there may have been a “false flag” operation to blame Ukraine.
The Danish Security and Intelligence Service said only that their investigation was ongoing, while a spokesperson for Sweden’s Prosecution Authority said information would be shared when available — but there was “no timeline” for when the inquiries would be completed.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg says that the military alliance has seen “some signs” that China may be planning to support Russia in its war in Ukraine, and strongly urged Beijing to desist from what would be a violation of international law.
Stoltenberg also told The Associated Press in an interview that the alliance, while not a party to the war, will support Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” He spoke to The AP in Warsaw, following a meeting of NATO’s nine eastern flank members with U.S. President Joe Biden on the region’s security.
Asked whether NATO has any indication that China might be ready to provide arms or other support to Russia’s war, Stoltenberg said, “We have seen some signs that they may be planning for that, and of course NATO allies, the United States, have been warning against it because this is something that should not happen. China should not support Russia’s illegal war.”
Stoltenberg said potential Chinese assistance would amount to providing “(direct) support to a blatant violation of international law, and of course (as) a member of the U.N. security council China should not in any way support violation of the U.N. charter, or international law.”
On Saturday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told Blinken said in an interview with CBS News’ “Face the Nation” moderator Margaret Brennan that China is actively considering providing lethal support, including weapons and ammunition to aid Moscow in its war against Ukraine. But Blinken spoke only in general terms about the type of lethal aid the Chinese are considering.
“There’s a whole gamut of things that — that fit in that category, everything from ammunition to the weapons themselves,” he said.
Notably, China’s top foreign policy official, Wang Yi, told other leaders at the Munich Security Conference this week that China is working on a peace proposal to end the conflict. That public position runs contrary to what U.S. intelligence has indicated.
Blinken pointed out, “We have seen them provide non-lethal support to Russia for use in Ukraine.” He went on to say that “the concern that we have now is based on information we have that they’re considering providing lethal support, and we’ve made very clear to them that that would cause a serious problem for us and in our relationship.”
On Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted the Chinese Communist Party’s most senior foreign policy official — Wang Yi — raising concern in the West that Beijing might be ready to offer Moscow stronger support in the almost year-old war.
China has pointedly refused to criticize the invasion of Ukraine while echoing Moscow’s claim that the U.S. and NATO were to blame for provoking the Kremlin. China, Russia and South Africa are holding naval drills in the Indian Ocean this week.
But State Department Counselor Derek Chollet said the U.S. has assessed that China has not yet decided to provide lethal assistance to Russia.
“Our assessment is they have not yet made that decision up to this point,” Chollet told CBS News contributor Michael Morell on his podcast “Intelligence Matters” this week. “But there are just increasing indications that this is something on their minds. And that’s a concern to us.”
Stoltenberg stressed that while NATO “is no party” to the Ukraine conflict, its tasks are to “ensure that Ukraine prevails” and to “prevent this war from escalating beyond Ukraine and becoming a full-fledged war between Russia and NATO.”
He said the main message from the meeting in Warsaw was that “we will provide support to Ukraine for as long as it takes.”
It would be a “tragedy for the Ukrainians if President Putin wins in Ukraine,” Stoltenberg said, and also “dangerous for all of us” because it would “send the message to all authoritarian leaders that when they use military force, they get what they want.”
The Russian attack on Ukraine has prompted Sweden and neighboring Finland to abandon decades of nonalignment and apply to join the 30-nation alliance. But their bids — particularly Sweden’s — are being delayed by Turkey, which wants the two countries to crack down on mostly Kurdish groups Ankara regards as terrorists.
Stoltenberg told the AP that following talks with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan last week he could see Turkey “is moving closer to being ready to ratify and (to) welcome Finland into the alliance. But (Ankara continues) to have some challenges with Sweden.”
He said he welcomed the fact that he and Erdogan agreed to a meeting soon “of experts and officials in Brussels” from the three countries involved “to look into how we can make progress also on the ratification of Sweden as a full NATO ally.”
