Former Secretary General of NATO and ex-Prime Minister of Denmark, Anders Fogh Rasmussen analyzes the situation in Ukraine after more than a month of war, and deciphers the strategy of Vladimir Putin, whom he rubbed shoulders with for a long time. Jens Stoltenberg’s predecessor also takes a critical look at Alliance strategy.
L’Express: After the announcement of the refocusing of the Russian army to the east, in the Donbass, how do you analyze the strategy of Vladimir Poutine ?
Anders Fogh Rasmussen: The Russian president was hoping for a quick victory and regime change in Kyiv. He failed. But with him, we must learn to believe what we see, not what we hear. However, the firing of missiles continued and no withdrawal of Russian forces took place, in reality. The West must therefore maintain maximum pressure on Moscow until all Russian troops have left Ukrainian soil.
How do you assess the situation militarily?
We underestimated the brutality of Vladimir Putin, but overestimated the strength of his troops. The Russian army is huge, but of very low quality. Ukrainian resistance was, moreover, fierce. The Russian invasion has stalled on several fronts.
You who know Putin well, what will he do if the situation gets bogged down?
Vladimir Putin has not achieved his primary goal. His plan B is to focus on the eastern Donbass region and prolong the war, as he did in Georgia by occupying Abkhazia and South Ossetia and destabilizing neighboring countries. His goal is the end of a democratic and independent Ukraine. He’s obsessed with restoring Russia’s greatness to the territory that once formed the Soviet Union, so he won’t stop there.
If we let him, after Ukraine, he will continue his war in Moldavia, then in Georgia, and then in the Baltic countries. He will try to create a direct link between the enclave of Kaliningrad and Russia through Lithuania. This would lead to a war between Russia and NATO. This is why it is crucial to stop Putin in Ukraine. If he succeeds, it will be the start of a long war in Europe. We must learn the lessons of history. Dictators always go as far as they are allowed. If we don’t show unity and determination in the defense of Ukraine, Putin will continue.
Are Westerners going far enough?
The economic sanctions put in place by the West are already having a huge effect on the Russian economy. But we still send hundreds of millions of euros every day to Russia, which funds Putin’s war machine. To end the war, Europe must immediately stop all purchases of Russian oil and gas.
But can she really do without it?
Yes, it is possible, we must obtain energy from other sources – Americans, Gulf States… This will have a very significant economic cost, but it is little compared to the suffering of the Ukrainian people and it tiny compared to the loss of freedom we will all face if we don’t act now. The price of energy will rise, but that is the price to pay to stop Putin.
Putin, who cannot claimno resounding victory in Ukraine, can he really resort to a weapon of mass destruction ?
May be. But I also think that NATO should stop excluding this or that action to be taken. We must do everything to avoid a war between Russia and NATO, but the latter has too quickly ruled out the possibility of taking certain measures, for fear of provoking Russia. This gave Vladimir Putin a tactical advantage, which allowed him to escalate the war enormously, while qualifying small increases in pressure from the West as major provocations. To regain the initiative, I think that NATO should find a certain strategic ambiguity on the red lines not to be crossed.
Joe Biden waves the threat of a NATO response in the event of the use of achemical weapon. What would it be?
When we talk about reaction to biological and chemical weapons, we cannot speak in too explicit terms, because Vladimir Putin would use this information. This statement by Joe Biden is in line with the line that I defend. He says: “We will act if this happens”, but he does not say how. In my opinion, this is the most effective deterrent to try to avoid the use of these weapons. Uncertainty must be maintained.
Is the Alliance really able to dissuade Putin from going further?
NATO has grown stronger, the allies and the West have shown impressive unity so far, and the weapons supplied to Ukraine have had a significant impact on the battlefield, especially anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft weapons and attack drones. We must maintain a constant supply of these weapons, so that Ukrainians can continue to defend their homeland. I think that’s all NATO can and should do at this point. But I’m not ruling anything out in the future.
Should NATO establish a “no-fly zone”, as Volodymyr asks?Zelensky?
I think this option should remain on the table. But we have to think about it very carefully, because a no fly zone could do more harm than good by extending the war beyond Ukraine’s borders.
Should the outcome of this war go through a partition of Ukraine, a status of neutrality and a renunciation of NATO membership?
Volodymyr Zelensky has shown remarkable leadership and courage, he is in the best position to decide on the position to adopt to end the conflict. If Kyiv renounces joining the Alliance and accepts a status of neutrality, the latter will have to be robust, solid and credible. I would understand that Ukraine is a candidate for the European Union (EU). It must also retain the ability to defend itself, with a strong army. It must secure the deployment of an international peacekeeping force.
Let’s not forget that in 1994, Russia guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine, while kyiv renounced its nuclear weapons. Eventually Vladimir Putin took Crimea in 2014 and broke that promise. For Ukraine, it is therefore crucial to receive credible and solid security guarantees. One document is not enough.
But the decisions belong to the Ukrainians alone, it is not for Russia to dictate them and the international community must respect them. The West, on the other hand, must exert maximum pressure on Vladimir Putin, to ensure that kyiv negotiates from a position of strength.
Europe has decided to create a rapid reaction force. Are there any risks of redundancy with NATO?
No, it is compatible. Developing an EU rapid reaction force is even necessary in order to give it the capacity to act. But Europe will always have to cooperate closely with the United States, because it does not have the necessary military capabilities. We must develop EU defense by strengthening this pillar within NATO which will continue to guarantee Europe’s security.
Doesn’t the unity displayed by Westerners mask disagreements on the attitude to adopt vis-à-vis Russia?
This is Europe’s weakness. The Russian invasion in Ukraine created a unique unit. But there is traditionally no consensus on the approach to Russia within Europe, and therefore within NATO. Germany is very open towards Russia, England very critical. Between the two, there is France. And around, we have smaller countries that this lack of consensus made nervous so far. They did not have confidence and wanted, for some, a guarantee of security from the United States.
Let’s go back to one of the sources of the conflict: in 2008, NATO approved the future accessions of Georgia and Ukraine. In retrospect, was that a mistake?
No, each sovereign country must have the capacity to decide its policy and its alliances. Putin cannot become NATO’s gatekeeper. I don’t understand the Russian analysis according to which NATO represented a danger. It’s ridiculous, because it’s a defensive alliance, it has never threatened Moscow. In 1997, on the contrary, we allowed Russia to establish a permanent representation within NATO headquarters. The Alliance has even succeeded, together with the EU, in stabilizing Eastern Europe. Russia’s goal for centuries has been to have borders and a stable neighborhood in the West. We created it through the enlargement of NATO and the EU.
When you led Denmark, you held the rotating presidency of the EU by contributing precisely to its enlargement to the countries of the East. But isn’t this one of Putin’s fears, the arrival of democratic showcases on his doorstep?
Vladimir Putin is afraid that democracies will become an example for the Russian people. He fears democracy, freedom and that is why he reacts like this. If we hadn’t enlarged NATO and the EU in 2004, Russia might have attacked the Baltic States and threatened Poland and Romania. It was a necessary decision.
What have you learned from your exchanges with Putin?
It has changed over the past twenty years. In 2002, he defended a strong relationship between Russia and NATO, we had established the Russian Council of NATO. In 2010 we decided to develop a strategic partnership, but in 2014 he attacked Ukraine! It wasn’t rational. During a meeting with him, he told me that we had to “abolish NATO”. This is Putin’s goal: to divide the countries of the West and destroy these two alliances, NATO and the EU, which he hates.
But he has become, in spite of himself, thebest promoter…
He got exactly the opposite of what he wanted! It has strengthened the West and provoked a debate in Finland and Sweden, where a majority of the population of the two countries is now in favor of joining NATO, seeing in the support of the most powerful military alliance of the world a guarantee of security. Personally, I believe that these two countries should recognize this new reality and join the Alliance without delay.