1709280958 Mircea Geoana NATO39s 39number two39 39Putin39s nuclear threat is more

Mircea Geoana: NATO's 'number two': 'Putin's nuclear threat is more of an attempt at psychological intimidation than a real plan' | International

Mircea Geoana has spent the last four and a half years as NATO's deputy secretary general, waiting for the growing threats from Vladimir Putin's Russia. Shortly before the interview this Thursday, the Kremlin chief expressed the clearest nuclear threat since the invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022. The Social Democratic politician reacted calmly but firmly to Moscow's speech. His speech revolves around a powerful idea: the allies of the Atlantic Alliance have done much to help the invaded country and must continue to do so. Above all, they should not despair in the face of difficulties.

During a half-hour meeting at the headquarters of the IE University in Madrid, Geoana (Bucharest, 65 years old) summarizes the various challenges facing Western societies in a period that she defines as “renewed competition between powers”. In response to Donald Trump's attacks on NATO's guiding principle – mutual protection among allies – he responds that the United States needs Europe as much as the other way around. Regarding China, he asks Europe not to fall into “naivety” and assume that the rise of the Asian power poses “a threat to security.” And given the catastrophic situation in Gaza – the worst the Middle East has seen since the Yom Kippur War in 1973 – he calls for the need for a political solution.

Questions. Putin spoke this Thursday of a nuclear attack that would destroy “the entire civilization.” How serious do you think these words are?

Answer. We have seen nuclear threats from Russian leaders at least since the war began two years ago. It represents great irresponsibility for a nuclear superpower like Russia, which has a duty to act with moderation. It's part of their arsenal of intimidation and psychological pressure.

Q Do you then interpret it as a bluff rather than a real threat?

R. It is a speech more concerned with the logic of psychological intimidation than with real intentions. We see no immediate threat from Russia's use of these weapons. But these statements are in themselves very dangerous because they undermine trust. Russia is aware of the consequences of such a step. It is his cocky way of attacking the West, such as when he calls the war he started in Ukraine a war of civilizations or when he claims that the West is trying to destroy Russia, which is completely absurd.

Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without restrictions.

Subscribe to

Q Putin was responding to comments from French President Emmanuel Macron who ruled out no option, including sending troops to Ukraine, something European and American leaders have ruled out. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg himself said there were no such plans. Is it an unnecessary mistake to talk about measures that are discarded after a few hours?

R. We fully respect our allies' right to propose new ideas. But at NATO we have no intention or plans to send troops to Ukraine. We are committed to continuing to support Ukraine and avoiding escalation with Russia, which we have achieved satisfactorily so far. This is particularly important now that Ukraine has started negotiations on its accession to the EU and its rapprochement with 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. Therefore, NATO will continue to ensure that we support Ukraine and avoid escalation with Russia.

Q 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 materialized… Is Putin winning the war?

R. We must resist the temptation to be too optimistic, as we were a few months before the counteroffensive, or to be too pessimistic, as we seem to be today. This war is very dynamic. When I look at the glass half full, I see Ukraine pushing the Russian Black Sea fleet away from Crimea toward the Sea of ​​Azov. This is a great success. With our help, Ukraine 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 faith. 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.

Geoana, during the interview, this Thursday in Madrid.Geoana, during the interview, this Thursday in Madrid.Samuel Sánchez

Q Trump, who has encouraged Russia to do whatever it wants with any NATO country if it doesn't spend enough on defense, is virtually guaranteed the Republican nomination in November's election. Would a new Trump administration pose a threat to the commitment on which the alliance was founded?

R. We already saw strong statements from President Trump early in his term, and then he worked with NATO. Then he understood the need for this alliance and the United States' interest in keeping it strong, changing positions and taking much more constructive approaches. I cannot predict in advance what Americans will vote for. But polls show enormous 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 of its allies in Europe and the rest of the world. China will never have so many allies. That's why NATO is valuable for us in Europe, but also very important for America. Let us ensure that we do not undermine confidence in the sanctity of NATO's Article 5. We need each other more than ever. Staying together serves the interests of both sides of the Atlantic.

Q How 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?

R. This has been a recurring conversation for more than 20 years. In NATO, the EU states only contribute 20% of total defense spending. I am a strong supporter of the European project, but this 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 the defense sector 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 prevent its fragmentation.

Q Germany refuses to send Taurus missiles to Ukraine. Previously there was discussion about the Leopard or the F-16 jets, steps that were eventually implemented. Is this gradual strategy of taking steps little by little responsible for Russia's current progress?

R. I must respect the democratic decisions of each country. These are particularly complicated steps in Germany, a country that is, however, doing a lot after a long period of pacifism: it spends 2% of GDP on defense and helps Ukraine with significant resources. Before, the F-16s were kind of taboo. Now we are ready to train the first Ukrainian pilots. Let's give democracies time to make decisions before we rush and criticize. The same goes for the United States Congress.

Q European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has warned that “the threat of war is not impossible.” Are allies doing enough in the face of this threat?

R. Since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, the EU has been adjusting to a new reality. At that time, 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 great work for this alliance. You make a big contribution.

Q Should NATO thank Putin for joining new members like Finland and soon Sweden?

R. Putin made a number of strategic errors: he misjudged the resistance of the Ukrainian people and believed that NATO would return to its pre-1997 borders. We now have two countries among our members that have been neutral, in the case of Sweden, for more than 30 years, 200 years. . NATO now has an eastern flank that includes the North Sea, the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea. This is a major strategic difficulty for Putin. He believed that the West would emerge weak and divided, but the opposite was found.

Mircea Geoana, at the IE University headquarters in Madrid. Mircea Geoana, at the IE University headquarters in Madrid. Samuel Sanchez

Follow all international information on Facebook and Xor in our weekly newsletter.

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

_