"Hesitation makes Scholz a chancellor of perpetual war"
Former NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen believes that the Russian war against Ukraine will continue for the rest of 2024 at least. "Putin hopes that the presidential elections in the USA on November 5 will bring a change that will help him in some way," Rasmussen said in an interview with ntv.de. "Putin's Plan A, to conquer all of Ukraine in a few days, has failed. His Plan B is now a frozen conflict and the Russian occupation of Eastern Ukraine, in the hope that the West will waver and give in."
ntv.de: It is often said that we are in a new Cold War. Would you say that the situation today is comparable to the Cold War? Or is it even more dangerous?
Anders Fogh Rasmussen: There are many similarities between the current situation and the time of the Cold War, especially of course the confrontation between the West and Russia. But it is obvious that there are also differences. I think the lesson from the Cold War is: The best way to ensure peace is to be stronger than the autocrats, stronger than the adversaries.
Have the NATO members learned this lesson?
Not all of them. Let me give you an example of Germany. Many things have changed for the better. Today, Germany, after the USA, is the second largest supporter of Ukraine. I really appreciate that. But I believe that in Germany, important decisions on arms deliveries were delayed too much. We all remember the long discussions about the Leopard tanks. Currently, the Chancellor is refusing to deliver Taurus long-range rockets. I really don't understand why. This hesitation gives Putin only another incentive to continue the war. While we were discussing Leopard 2 tanks, he has strengthened the Russian defense installations in Eastern Ukraine. This has made it even harder and bloodier for the Ukrainians to regain lost territory. Hesitation does not lead to peace, but to an endless war. I have noticed that Olaf Scholz is seen as a peace chancellor. But I have to say, more hesitation will not make him a peace chancellor. On the contrary, it will make him a war chancellor.
Olaf Scholz would probably argue that he is closely aligned with what the USA is doing. Isn't that a good thing from a transatlantic perspective?
But the USA has decided to supply ATACMS long-range rockets. These have a range of 300 kilometers, and I had assumed that the German government would follow suit. Chancellor Scholz has not done so. This is all the more surprising, as the first F-16 fighter jets from Denmark and the Netherlands are now arriving in Ukraine - and a combination of F-16 fighter jets and long-range rockets would be a very powerful weapon. That's why I continue to urge Chancellor Scholz to approve the delivery of Taurus rockets as soon as possible. We must lift all restrictions on the delivery of weapons. Both in terms of the type of weapons we supply, and in terms of their use.
How comes it that Denmark is supporting Ukraine so strongly?
In absolute numbers, Denmark is the number four - the USA are the number one, Germany the number two, Great Britain the number three, then Denmark, although Denmark is a small country. I think the reason is a deeply rooted mindset in Denmark. We found it completely unacceptable that a large, nuclear-armed state like Russia wants to forcibly take land from a peaceful neighbor.
Let's look at Europe: Are European NATO members prepared for a second Trump presidency?
The short answer is: No. But we are better prepared than in 2016. In 2014, which was my last NATO summit as Secretary General, we decided that within the next decade all allies would reach the Two-Percent-Goal: that they would have to spend at least 2% of their Gross Domestic Product on defense. At that time, it was only three countries. Now, a decade later, 23 out of 32 allies meet the Two-Percent-Goal. We are therefore better prepared. Trump has called for larger European investments in our own defense. We have heard the message, Europe is on the move. But it was a very slow, too slow process. We need to speed up.
A brief look back: What do you think about Angela Merkel's policy towards Russia and Ukraine? Was it, for example, a mistake that she and France prevented Ukraine from joining NATO in 2008?
In my opinion, yes. In 2008, we made the wrong decision. It was not about Ukraine's membership, but about the adoption of an Action Plan for Ukraine and Georgia's membership. France and Germany were against it; the USA, the eastern allies, and I as Prime Minister of Denmark were for granting Ukraine such a Membership Action Plan. We could not reach a consensus. Instead, we decided that Ukraine would one day become a member of NATO. We parked Ukraine in a kind of waiting room, in a gray zone. That turned out to be a very dangerous place, as this gray zone was almost an invitation for Putin to attack Ukraine. He first attacked Georgia in 2008, then Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. Gray zones are danger zones. Finland and Sweden have realized this. They have applied for NATO membership and are today members of NATO. We should decide the same for Ukraine and bring it into NATO.
When do you think, in your opinion, Ukraine will join the Alliance?
Ukraine meets the necessary criteria today. But it is not easy to let a country at war join the NATO. My proposal would be to officially invite Ukraine to the upcoming NATO summit in Washington and then to start accession negotiations in the NATO-Ukraine Council. It will take some time to find out which specific conditions must be met before Ukraine can join NATO. They will not join overnight. But a process must be set in motion that leads to membership. Today, Ukraine may be the best prepared country in Europe for war. It could serve as a bulwark against an aggressive Russia. Ukraine's accession to NATO would create a new security architecture in Europe and pave the way for a longer and more sustainable peace on the European continent.
If Ukrainian membership were then possible, during the war?
I often hear this question and argument. But to say that we cannot extend an invitation to Ukraine as long as the war continues is a highly risky argument. In fact, it gives Putin an incentive to continue the war. We need to break this line of argumentation. That's why I propose extending an invitation. This does not mean that Ukraine will become a member overnight. But it will set a process in motion - we will then see when the conditions are met. It is indeed a challenge to take on a country that is at war. In my opinion, it is feasible. But the specific conditions should be discussed behind closed doors in the NATO-Ukraine Council, not in public.
To say that we in the West are "war-weary" is rather inappropriate, because we do not have to fight in this war and Russia does not fire drones and rockets at us - but in Western countries, a certain war-weariness seems to be spreading. Do you believe that the West has the strength to continue supporting Ukraine?
Yes. We have seen unprecedented unity not only within Europe, but also between Europe and the United States. But you are right. It is a war of attrition. Putin's calculation is: The longer the war lasts, the greater the likelihood that the Western population will grow tired of it. I often hear this argument: Let's make peace, let's return to more comfortable times. But if peace is achieved at the expense of the Ukrainians, if the Ukrainians are forced to give up territory, then Putin would come to the conclusion that his invasion was a success. He would be emboldened to demand more. Why not continue? The next in line would be Moldova, then Georgia, and he would put pressure on the Baltic states. What would stop him? My argument is that it is our weakness that motivates Putin and almost provokes him to continue. Moreover, it would be a very dangerous signal to autocrats around the world. Xi Jinping in China would come to the conclusion: If Putin gets away with invading Ukraine, then I can get away with taking Taiwan. That's why we cannot allow Putin to succeed in Ukraine. But it requires resolute political leadership to convey this message to European populations.
Would you dare to predict how or when this war will end?
It is difficult to make a time prediction. I fear that the war will still last for a long time. Putin's Plan A, to conquer all of Ukraine in a few days, has failed. His Plan B is now a frozen conflict and the Russian occupation of Eastern Ukraine, in the hope that the West will waver and give in. The war will last at least until the end of 2024, because Putin hopes that the US presidential elections on November 5 will bring about a change that will help him in some way. In my opinion, the next year will be decisive. If we give the Ukrainians everything they need, not just to survive, but to win the war, they have good chances of pushing the Russians back.
With Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Hubertus Volmer spoke
Anders Fogh Rasmussen strongly advocates for stronger NATO member support in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
He believes that Russia's President Vladimir Putin is hoping for a change in the USA's presidency on November 5 to aid his war efforts.
Rasmussen criticizes Germany's hesitation in arming Ukraine, stating that it only encourages Putin to continue the war.
He points out that the delay in delivering Taurus long-range rockets and Leopard tanks has made it more difficult for Ukraine to regain lost territory.
Rasmussen highlights Germany's significant support for Ukraine in terms of financial aid but emphasizes the need for decisive action on arms delivery.
He flatly opposes Olaf Scholz's position on arms delivery, stating that more hesitation would make Scholz appear as a 'war chancellor,' not a 'peace chancellor.'
Rasmussen highlights Denmark's strong support for Ukraine, positioning it as the fourth-largest supporter of Ukraine amid NATO members.
He attributes Denmark's strong stance to a deeply rooted belief in opposing Russian aggression against peaceful neighbors.
Regarding a potential second Trump presidency, Rasmussen expresses concern but notes that NATO members are better prepared than in 2016.
Criticizing Angela Merkel's policy toward Russia and Ukraine, Rasmussen regrets not granting Ukraine a Membership Action Plan in 2008.
He stresses that Ukraine meeting NATO membership criteria today necessitates inviting it to the upcoming NATO summit and initiating accession negotiations.
Rasmussen emphasizes the importance of maintaining firm political leadership to ensure Western nations continue supporting Ukraine amid growing 'war-weariness.'
In response to questions on when or how the war will end, Rasmussen predicts it will persist at least until 2024, hoping for US presidential election changes to aid Putin.
