Jens Stoltenberg, secretary of NATO, in terms of outbursts – thank goodness only verbal ones – seems to speak more on his own behalf, on behalf of Washington and London, than on the Atlantic Alliance’s behalf. But he causes collateral damage and exposes the Alliance’s internal fragility. The latest, a few days ago, forced the political leaders of various nations to make clear denials, after the Secretary had uttered these words to the microphones of the Economist: “It is time for NATO member countries to consider the revocation of some of the restrictions on the use of weapons they donated to Ukraine; Denying Kiev the ability to use them against legitimate military targets on Russian territory makes it difficult for them to defend themselves especially now that there is a lot of fighting going on in the Kharkiv region, near the border, where the situation is difficult.” Stoltenberg would therefore like cruise missiles such as the US Atacms and Storm Shadow or the Scalp supplied by France, Great Britain and Italy, to be launched deep into the Russian nation, and he says this bypassing governments, parliaments and international assemblies. From a military point of view, demonstrating to Putin that he can be struck in depth would not accomplish anything and, on the contrary, would increase the desire of some of his generals to use tactical nuclear weapons. There are probably still those who want to delude themselves that the Russian population can withdraw its consent from the Tsar, or that Moscow may not be prepared for a long war. And we must not forget that Europe is undergoing elections and that Kiev’s victory was, and is, one of the flags of the (hopefully) outgoing Commission.
Even before war, even words, in this case from Stoltenberg, have a destructive effect on the unity of the Alliance, and it is no coincidence that on 24 May Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán declared: “Nato and the EU are moving towards a confrontation with Russia, we do not want to participate in financial support or armaments for Ukraine (…) we must redefine our position in the Alliance.” He is not the only one, a cautious attitude is maintained by Germany, which does not want to send the Taurus missiles, and by Slovakia, which has defined Stoltenberg’s attitude as “reckless”. But then there are the interventionist countries such as France, Poland and Finland, willing (in words) to send soldiers to Ukraine.
It is true, and it is perhaps the most sensible but also the most serious observation that Stoltenberg has made recently, that Ukraine’s European allies in March 2023 promised one million artillery ammunition which has not yet arrived. But if the gaffeur NATO spokesperson does not know – or does not want to understand – that at the time of the promise made in Kiev, European production of bombs was at historic lows, it is even more serious, because it means that in the Alliance, which should guarantee our defense, fairy tales are told.
Perhaps Jens, an economist and politician, must have been strongly influenced by his past: he grew up with a political father himself, the Labor Party Thorvald Stoltenberg, ambassador, Minister of Defense and Foreign Affairs of Norway, and a sister, Camilla, who when young was member of the Marxist-Leninist group Red Youth. But perhaps due to the real situation on the field, or the related media pressure, Stoltenberg must have forgotten that his position is the result of a nomination and not of a popular election. Because his outburst is the latest in a series. He has never lied, but certain news should remain confidential and not fed to the media. We remember, in fact, when in 2021 he said that the Atlantic alliance had said no to Moscow’s proposal to avoid war in Ukraine, that is, the idea of signing a treaty that would have provided for Kiev’s neutrality and the assurance that Ukraine she would never have joined the organization. And again, when he admitted that NATO had been training the Ukrainian military since 2014. Let’s look at it from the Kremlin’s side: after these exits, how is it possible to deny Putin the reasons for the intervention? We know that Stoltenberg’s role is strongly influenced by the USA and the United Kingdom, nations that have never made any secret about the opportunity to have NATO missiles used in Kiev in a less limited way; and it is certainly no mystery that NATO has masters who command it, also because they are the largest contributors. But overriding everyone else and expressing oneself as supreme commander is just not the case. In fact, Ukraine is already deeply striking Russia with Western weapons, therefore, an “assent” would be nothing other than a definitive admission of not working for peace as much as for the defeat of Vladimir Putin, which would then be the admission of be at war, ignoring that several NATO nations do not consider themselves, nor do they wish, to be in conflict with Russia. The call for greater caution from politicians came from many quarters but the words of our Defense Minister were the most precise: “There is no NATO secretary or one nation that decides the line for all the others; NATO will move towards the meeting we will have in Washington next July with projects and ideas. Single pushes are worth little.” Someone will remember the words of French President Emmanuel Macron who on 7 November 2019 said that NATO was in a state of “brain death”. Let’s hope we haven’t gone straight to madness.
