The most credible security guarantee for Ukraine is NATO's membership - Stoltenberg
On the penultimate day as NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg gave a short interview to the Interfax-Ukraine news agency. Already on Tuesday, October 1, the official ceremony of handing over the powers to Mark Rutte, who was previously the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, will be held as the Secretary General of the Alliance.
Text: Iryna Somer, Brussels.
- Coming back to your recent speech at the German Marshall Fund, you mentioned that the only guarantee for security and lasting peace in Europe is membership in NATO for Ukraine. So can you elaborate a little bit? Do you see a possibility that it will happen in conditions where part of Ukrainian territory is still occupied by Russians, but the biggest part of Ukraine is under the control of the Ukrainian government? What is your opinion on this?
- It's for NATO allies to decide exactly how membership should be applied or work for Ukraine, but we all are aware of that. Of course, if we say that the only way for Ukraine to become a member is that the war to ends and Ukraine is in full control over the whole Ukrainian territory, then we give President Putin all the incentives to just find a way to continue the war. But my main message is that NATO security guarantees is the way to ensure a lasting and just peace for Ukraine.
It's for Ukrainians to decide what are the conditions for negotiations and what are conditions for an acceptable solution. But if there is an agreement on a line, then, of course, we need to make sure that the war really stops there. Because Ukrainians know better than anyone else, the war didn't start in 2022, it started in 2014. Then Russia took Crimea and then they went into Eastern Donbass a bit later. We had Minsk 1, a ceasefire agreement. After a short while, Russia violated that and moved the front line further west. Then in 2015, got Minsk 2. Russia violated that too and waited for seven years and then launched a full-scale invasion.
So now we cannot have Minsk 3, a new line, which is not respected by Russia, but only gives them some pause to regroup and to relaunch new attacks. So therefore, this time we need to make sure that when we agree something, it has to be the end, it has to stop there.
Therefore, we need to arm the future Ukrainian forces so they can deter further Russian aggression. But also we need to provide security guarantees, which are credible. Of course, the most credible security guarantee will be NATO membership in our collective defence clause, Article 5. So I believe NATO membership can be a way to ensure lasting peace for Ukraine and that really the war stops here.
- But if you take a look at the back at history, at the German’s example, how Germany became a member of NATO by the part, can it apply also to Ukraine?
- Well, that's for NATO allies to decide. We have the possibility to decide if we so want. So again, I believe that this could be a way to ensure that when some kind of agreement is reached between Russia and Ukraine, and again it's for Ukraine to decide what is acceptable, then it can ensure that it stops there. And of course, that's for NATO allies to decide whether Article 5 guarantees can apply for parts of the Ukrainian territory.
- Of course, as you always said, it's for allies to decide. And it's also for allies to decide if lift or not to lift restrictions to use long-range weapons, which will allow Ukrainians to shoot deep inside Russia.
- Well, I may declare again that we need to remember what this is. This is a war of aggression. Russia has decided to invade another country, Ukraine, and that's a blatant violation of international law. According to international law, Ukraine has the right to self-defence. And we have the right to support Ukraine, to uphold the right of self-defence. And self-defence includes the right to strike legitimate military targets on the territory of the aggressor, Russia.
And therefore, I have advocated for lifting restrictions. And I welcome that some allies don't have restrictions. Other allies have some restrictions, but they have actually loosened them, not least after Russia launched its offensive in Kharkiv some months ago, where the borderline and the front line is more or less the same. It's not meaningful to say that you cannot attack behind the front lines, because that's Russian territory. So, I welcome the loosening of restrictions you have seen from allies.
- Recently, Putin announced review of the nuclear deterrence doctrine. He said that if attack on Russia by a non-nuclear country with support of a nuclear country would be considered as a joint attack against Russia. How do you read this move?
- Well, I read that as yet another example of a pattern we have seen from the Russian side, where Moscow and President Putin have tried again and again to threaten with the use of nuclear weapons and to threaten NATO allies and prevent from supporting Ukraine. And every time we have stepped up our support with a new, more advanced system, Russia has tried to say this is a red line, but we have not, we have not accepted that because we have the right to support Ukraine in upholding the right of self-defence.
Russia conducts an illegal war, we are conducting legitimate support to a legitimate war of self-defence, where Ukraine is defending itself. We also conveyed clearly to Moscow several times that a nuclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought. And we are closely monitoring what Russia is doing.