Stoltenberg: Putin has achieved the opposite of his goal

Closed, out, over: If everything goes according to plan, Jens Stoltenberg will lead the last summit meeting of the heads of state and government of the 32 NATO countries in the coming week. However, there is still no sign of waning engagement from the 65-year-old Norwegian, who has been in office since 2014 as the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In an interview, Stoltenberg now expresses clear expectations - with regard to supporting Ukraine, but also the scenario of a victory for Donald Trump in the US presidential election.

Mr. Secretary General, it has been officially confirmed since June 26th. Your tenure at NATO will definitively end on October 1st. Are you relieved that the NATO states have finally found a successor for you? Or did you secretly hope that you would be asked to continue?

Jens Stoltenberg: No, I welcome the fact that the NATO partners have agreed on my successor. Mark Rutte will make an excellent Secretary General of NATO. He has the experience and knowledge required for the role. I have known him for many years. He has proven his ability to build consensus - and he will bring this into NATO. For me, it was a privilege to serve at NATO for ten years. When I arrived, I thought it would only last for a maximum of four to five years. I had been prime minister for ten years and had not thought that I would be secretary general for so long. But now it's time to go. It's good for NATO and for me.

Looking back, what was the most beautiful moment during your tenure?

It is always extremely difficult to rank different events and achievements in order. But certainly, the accession of Finland and Sweden holds a great value for me. This clearly showed Russian President Vladimir Putin that he failed to prevent the NATO from accepting new members. He wanted the NATO to guarantee that no new members would be admitted. What he got was the opposite. New members joined the alliance.

What was the bitterest moment? Was it the beginning of Russia's aggression against Ukraine? Or the forced withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan, which led to the return of the Taliban to power?

It's hard to compare. But naturally, the full-scale invasion of Ukraine represents the greatest security challenge for NATO since the end of the Cold War. It is the largest war in Europe since World War II and will likely remain the most dramatic and largest challenge that we have faced during my tenure.

The last major event of your tenure is likely to be the summit in Washington next week, where the 75th anniversary of the alliance will also be celebrated. Do you expect Russia to try to disrupt the celebrations?*

During my tenure before almost every summit, there were speculations. I recall the Warsaw Summit in 2016, where we decided for the first time to station troops in the eastern part of the alliance. There were speculations that Russia would try to intimidate us. We heard this before the summit in Madrid and especially before the one in Vilnius. I don't know to what extent Russia had actual larger plans to disrupt our summit, but they didn't succeed. However, a running campaign by Russia in Europe with sabotage actions, cyber attacks, and disinformation is ongoing. We must always be prepared for this to be intensified, whether in connection with the summit or not.

The theme at the summit will be a large support package for Ukraine. What's that about?

I expect the Allies to agree on a long-term commitment to demonstrate that Russian President Vladimir Putin cannot simply dismiss us. I also expect the Allies to approve a NATO command for Ukraine to create a stronger framework for support, with a headquarters in Wiesbaden.

A concrete pledge for military aid in the amount of at least 40 billion euros, contrary to their demands, the Allies will only give for a year. What expectations do they have that the economic power will significantly determine who contributes how much?

Since we must be prepared for this to last a long time, I believe that more transparency, predictability, and fair burden sharing will make the support more sustainable. It's easier to maintain it then. Of course, it's possible to give more than the minimum, but at least we should ensure that everyone contributes based on their Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Another point is: The stronger our support, the faster this war can end. That's the paradox. The more we commit long-term, the faster the war can end. Because Putin currently believes he can wait us out. We need to convince him that he cannot wait us out, and that can then create the conditions to end the war.

When they took office ten years ago, NATO had only 28 members - today there are four more with Montenegro, North Macedonia, Finland, and Sweden. Give a personal tip: How many members will the NATO have in 2034?

I hope very much that Ukraine will become an Ally, and I have worked for that during my tenure here at NATO. There are also other candidate countries, but I don't want to speculate about when these processes will be completed.

No countries like Switzerland, Austria, and Ireland have expressed interest so far. Can they imagine moving?

If they decide for membership, I am confident that NATO will welcome them. But we will never put pressure on a country to join. The NATO door is open, but NATO has never forced or pressured a country to join the alliance. That's their decision. For me, that was also very important before Finland and Sweden joined.

Your successor Mark Rutte could potentially deal with Donald Trump next year, who - cautiously put - is not considered an easy ally. You have managed to make things clear with him. Do you have a good tip for Mark Rutte?

First and foremost, I am absolutely confident that Mark Rutte can work with any president of the United States. I also know that Mark Rutte has worked with President Trump and met him when he was prime minister. I won't give him advice, but I expect the USA to remain a strong ally, regardless of the outcome of the US elections.

Why are they so optimistic?

There are several reasons for this. One reason is that it is in the interest of the USA to have a strong NATO. It makes the USA stronger and safer. Secondly, there is strong bipartisan support for NATO in the US Congress and in US public opinion. And thirdly, the criticism of former President Trump was not primarily directed against NATO itself, but against NATO allies who did not contribute enough. Today, 23 NATO allies contribute two percent of their Gross Domestic Product for defense - in comparison to three percent in the year 2014, when we agreed on the two percent target. This makes a big difference. This shows that the USA does not bear the burden alone. Therefore, I expect the United States to remain a reliable ally, regardless of the elections.

Jens Stoltenberg expressed his expectation for continued support towards Ukraine by NATO, as well as the Alliance's stance against any expansion of Russian influence, particularly in light of Vladimir Putin's actions towards Ukraine.
During the upcoming NATO summit, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg mentioned the possibility of increased disruption attempts by Russia, including cyber attacks and disinformation campaigns, but stressed the need for preparedness regardless of the summit's connection.
In the context of discussing the planned support package for Ukraine, Jens Stoltenberg highlighted the significance of fair burden sharing and long-term commitment among the NATO allies, which could potentially lead to a faster end to the conflict in Ukraine, challenging Russian President Vladimir Putin's belief in a waiting game.