FLASH
Shkruar nga Luis Doncel
As NATO's deputy secretary general, Mircea Geoană has spent four and a half years overseeing the growing threats from Vladimir Putin's Russia. Just before we conducted this interview, the Kremlin chief made his clearest nuclear threat since the invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022.
The social democratic politician's response to Moscow's rhetoric is calm but firm. His arguments revolve around a settled idea: that the members of the North Atlantic Alliance have done much to help the occupied country and should continue to do so. But above all, they must not despair in the face of the difficulties of the moment. In response to Donald Trump's attacks on NATO's main principle - mutual defense between allies - he says the United States needs Europe as much as Europe needs it.
Putin recently spoke of a nuclear attack that would bring "the destruction of our civilization." How seriously do you take his words?
We have seen such use of nuclear threats by Russian leaders for at least the past 2 years, since the full-scale war in Ukraine began. And this from a nuclear superpower like Russia. This behavior is extremely irresponsible, since when you own such weapons, you also have the obligation to be restrained. But these threats are part of their arsenal of intimidation and psychological pressure.
Do you see him as more of a bluff than a real threat?
It is a speech that fits the logic of psychological pressure more than a real purpose. We do not see any imminent threat from the use of such weapons by Russia. But such statements are very dangerous, as they destroy trust in this respect. Russia knows very well what the consequences of such a scenario would be.
We know that this is primarily a way to scare and divide the West, and to portray the war he started in Ukraine as a war of civilizations. Or even when he claims that the West is trying to destroy Russia, which is total nonsense.
Putin was reacting to statements by French President Emmanuel Macron, who did not rule out any option, including sending troops to Ukraine, something that has been ruled out by other European and American leaders. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg himself said that there are no such plans. Is it wrong to talk about measures that will be rejected only a few hours later?
We fully respect the right of nations and leaders to come up with new ideas. But NATO has no intention and no plan to send troops to Ukraine. We are determined to continue to support Ukraine and avoid escalating the conflict with Russia, something we have done satisfactorily so far.
And this is very important, since Ukraine has started negotiations for EU membership and is getting closer to NATO. We cannot say an exact date, but one day independent sovereign Ukraine will be part of NATO and the EU. This war is likely to continue for some time. Therefore, the alliance will continue to provide Ukraine's support but also to avoid a direct war with Russia.
Recently, Russia has achieved some military successes such as the occupation of Avdiivka. US aid to Ukraine remains blocked, as the collapse of the Russian economy that was predicted by many officials and experts has not happened... Is Putin winning the war?
We must avoid the temptation to be too optimistic, as we were a few months before the Ukrainian counteroffensive, or too pessimistic as we feel today. This fight is very dynamic. If I see the glass as half full, then I appreciate the damage and retreat of the Russian fleet from the Black Sea and Crimea to the Sea of Azov. This is a great success.
With our help, Kiev has managed to restore the Black Sea export route for Ukrainian grain to Africa and the rest of the Middle East. On the other hand, I see some technical but not strategic difficulties for Ukraine.
So let's have faith that as Russia has moved into a war economy and is getting support from North Korea and Iran, we are also increasing our production, our industrial base, to help Ukraine, but also to replenish our needs. for security, protection and prevention in Europe.
Trump has encouraged Russia to do "whatever it wants" with any NATO country that does not spend enough on defense. Would a new administration of his pose a threat to the commitment on which the alliance was founded?
We have heard such statements from Trump even at the beginning of his first term, but then he worked with NATO. He understood the need for this alliance and America's interest in keeping it strong, changing his views and taking a much more constructive approach to NATO.
I cannot predict who the American people will elect. But polls show overwhelming support for NATO. In a recent YouGov poll, more than 60 percent of Americans say they are willing to defend allies. Republicans and Democrats understand very well the very complicated competition with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. The United States will need all of its allies in Europe and the rest of the world. China will never have so many allies. This is why NATO is precious to us in Europe, but also very important to America. Let's make sure we don't erode confidence in Article 5 of NATO. We need each other more than ever. Staying together serves the interests of both sides of the Atlantic.
Should allies prepare for a hypothetical Trump return to the White House? Is it time to accept that the US no longer guarantees Europe's security?
This is a conversation that has been going on for more than 20 years. In NATO, all 27 EU countries have only 20 percent of total defense spending. I am a strong supporter of the European Union project, but I believe it is counter-productive to make prophecies like Cassandra's about things that will not happen.
America needs us. And we need America. 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 its defense market. Therefore, NATO is the EU's best partner to avoid its fragmentation./ Pamphlet adapted from "El Pais"
Lini një Përgjigje