Mircea Geoana: NATO’s ‘number two’: “Putin’s nuclear threat is an attempt at psychological intimidation rather than a real plan” | – Archyde

R. Putin made a series of strategic mistakes: he misjudged the resistance of the Ukrainian people and believed that NATO would return to its pre-1997 borders. We now have among our members two countries that had been neutral, in the case of Sweden for more than 200 years. . NATO now has an eastern flank that covers the North Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea. This is a huge strategic difficulty for Putin. He believed that the West would emerge weak and divided, but the opposite has been found.
Follow all the international information on Facebook y Xor our weekly newsletter.
Answer. We have seen nuclear threats from Russian leaders at least since the start of the war two years ago. It represents great irresponsibility for a nuclear superpower like Russia, which has the obligation to act with moderation. It is part of their arsenal of intimidation and psychological pressure.
R. We already saw strong statements from President Trump at the beginning of his term and then he worked with NATO. He then understood the need for this alliance and the interest of the United States in keeping it strong, changing points of view and expressing much more constructive approaches. I cannot prejudge what Americans are going to vote for. But polls show immense public support for NATO. In a recent YouGov poll, more than 60% of the population was willing to defend their allies. Both Republicans and Democrats understand very well the very complicated competition with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. The United States will need all its allies in Europe and the rest of the world. China will never have so many allies. That is why NATO is valuable for us in Europe, but also very important for America. Let us ensure that we do not erode confidence in the sanctity of NATO Article 5. We need each other more than ever. Staying together serves the interests of both sides of the Atlantic.
_
Ask. Putin spoke this Thursday of a nuclear attack that would destroy “the entire civilization.” How serious do you consider these words?

R. We fully respect our allies’ right to contribute new ideas. But at NATO we have no intention or plans to deploy troops to Ukraine. What we are determined to do is continue to support Ukraine and avoid escalation with Russia, something we have done satisfactorily well so far. This is especially important after Ukraine has started negotiations for its accession to the EU and to move closer to NATO. We cannot say when, but one day a sovereign Ukraine will be part of both NATO and the EU. This war is likely to continue for some time. So NATO will continue to ensure that we support Ukraine and avoid escalation with Russia.
R. It is a speech that delves into the logic of psychological intimidation more than real intentions. We see no imminent threat of Russia using these weapons. But these statements are in themselves very dangerous, because they erode trust. Russia knows the consequences that such a step would have. It is his grandiloquent way of attacking the West, such as when he describes the war he started in Ukraine as a war of civilizations or when he maintains that the West is trying to destroy Russia, which is totally absurd.
P. Donald Trump, who has encouraged Russia to do whatever it wants to any NATO country that doesn’t spend enough on defense, is virtually guaranteed the Republican nomination for the November election. Would a new Trump Administration pose a threat to the commitment on which the Alliance was created?
P. Should NATO thank Putin for the entry of new members like Finland and soon Sweden?

P. Germany refuses to send Taurus missiles to Ukraine. Before, the Leopard or the F-16 reactors were discussed, steps that were finally taken. Is this gradualist strategy of taking steps little by little responsible for Russia’s current advances?
P. Putin was responding to statements by the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, who did not rule out any option, including sending troops to Ukraine, something that European and United States leaders have rejected. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg himself said that no such plans existed. Is it an unforced error to talk about measures that are discarded after a few hours?
R. I have to respect the democratic decisions of each country. These are especially complicated steps in Germany, a country that after a long period of pacifism is, however, doing a lot: it dedicates 2% of GDP to defense and helps Ukraine with significant resources. Before, the F-16s were a kind of taboo. Now we are ready to train the first Ukrainian pilots. Let’s give democracies time to make decisions before rushing and criticizing. The same goes for the United States Congress.
P. How should allies prepare for a hypothetical return of Trump to the White House? Has the time come to accept that the US no longer guarantees European security?
P. Do you then interpret it more as a bluff than a real threat?
R. The EU is adjusting to a new reality since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. Then, countries began to invest more in defense. Last year, at the NATO summit in Madrid, we adopted the most important deterrence and defense plans since the end of the Cold War. The allies, including Spain, are doing a great job for this Alliance. They are contributing a lot.
R. This has been a recurring conversation for more than 20 years. In NATO, EU States only contribute 20% of total defense spending. I am a firm supporter of the European project, but that is counterproductive, it can become a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. America needs us. And we need the United States. We all need each other. The EU is relatively weak in defense due to a lack of investment for decades, but also due to the fragmentation of the defense market. NATO is the EU’s best partner to avoid its fragmentation.
R. We have to avoid the temptation to be too optimistic, as we were a few months before the counteroffensive, or too pessimistic, as we seem to be today. This war is very dynamic. If I look at the glass half full, I see Ukraine pushing the Russian fleet from the Black Sea, away from Crimea towards the Sea of ​​Azov. That’s a great success. With our help, Ukraine has managed to restore the grain export route to the Black Sea. I see some technical difficulties for Ukraine, but no strategic difficulties. Let’s have confidence. As Russia becomes a war economy and receives support from North Korea and Iran, we too are increasing our production to help Ukraine and meet our own security, defense and deterrence needs in Europe.
Mircea Geoana has lived the last four and a half years as deputy secretary general of NATO pending the growing threats from Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Shortly before the interview, held on Thursday, the head of the Kremlin issued the most explicit nuclear threat since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. This social democratic politician responds to Moscow calmly but firmly. He threads his speech around a strong idea: the allies of the Atlantic Alliance have done a lot to help the invaded country and should continue to do so. But above all, they should not fall into despair in the face of difficulties.
During a half-hour meeting at the Madrid headquarters of IE University, Geoana (Bucharest, 65 years old) summarizes the different challenges that Western societies face in a time that she defines as “renewed competition between powers.” In the face of Donald Trump’s attacks on NATO’s guiding principle—mutual protection among allies—she responds that the United States needs Europe as much as vice versa. Regarding China, she asks Europe not to fall into “naivety” and assume that the rise of the Asian power represents “a threat to security.” And given the catastrophic situation in Gaza—the worst the Middle East is experiencing since the Yom Kippur War of 1973—she calls for the need for a political solution.

P. The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has warned that “the threat of war is not impossible.” Are allies doing enough in the face of this danger?

P. Moscow has recently achieved military successes such as the capture of Avdiivka, US aid to Ukraine is paralyzed, the collapse of the Russian economy that many predicted has not occurred… Is Putin winning the war?