NATO

NATO keeps America safe, former chief says

In an interview with WELT, former Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg explains how he views the differences between the U.S. and Europe — and what might be the key to keeping Donald Trump on board.

By Lara Jäkel

NATO leaders meet in Ankara next week, and the alliance’s former Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has a message for them: Show Donald Trump that defense spending is rising, keep supporting Kyiv and hammer home to Russia’s Vladimir Putin that the war in Ukraine was a "strategic failure."

Although Trump regularly attacks NATO members, denouncing them for low defense spending and not helping in the war against Iran, Stoltenberg underlined that allies should make the argument that U.S. security depends on the alliance. 

"I hope that the summit will be a strong sign of unity in NATO. That despite the differences, we are able to stand together against the key threats and challenges we face," Stoltenberg, now Norway’s finance minister, told WELT — which, like POLITICO, belongs to the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network.

Stoltenberg served as secretary-general from 2014 to 2024, a period that covered Trump’s first presidency, Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. But the alliance during Trump’s second term is even more unstable.

Q: We’ve seen unprecedented disputes within NATO lately. Has this damaged the alliance irreparably?

It is, of course, a challenge for the alliance that we have more exposed disagreements than we have had for many years. But I continue to believe that NATO could remain a strong transatlantic alliance, because I believe that interests matter. And it is in the national security interest of the United States to have a strong NATO. The U.S. represents 25 percent of global GDP, but together with Canada and Europe we make up 50 percent of the world’s GDP and 50 percent of the world's military might. And this is not only about the resources, but also about geography. 

Q: Because of the proximity to Russia?

Yes. Norway has a land border with Russia. And just on the other side of that border, on the Kola Peninsula, there are some of the largest concentrations of nuclear weapons in the world: Russian nuclear submarines, strategic bombers, missiles. These weapons are not aimed at Norway or Oslo. They are aimed at Washington, New York, at the United States. But Norway helps to track the submarines when they leave their bases. We help to provide early warning for missiles and the launch of aircraft. And it is similar in Finland and many other European countries. This is crucial for the security of the United States — U.S. homeland defense starts at the European-Russian border.

Q: Despite this, the U.S. is withdrawing forces from Europe. What does this mean for deterrence? Do we need a European plan B if the deterrence provided by the U.S. fades?

I think it demonstrates that what we do in Europe now is of great importance: investing heavily in our own defense capabilities. For many years, the European allies hesitated and did not increase defense spending. After the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, this has fundamentally changed; more and more allies are now reaching NATO’s target of spending 3.5 percent of GDP on core defense tasks. Europe is taking much more responsibility for its own security, which increases the likelihood of the U.S. staying committed to NATO and the transatlantic bond. But if that's not the case in the future, it's even more important that we have invested in European defense capabilities. 

Is that the key to keeping Trump on board?

Of course, there are serious disagreements on trade, on climate and also on security issues between the U.S. and Europe, and I'm not underestimating those challenges. But I think that the most important thing Europe can do to maintain the transatlantic alliance and to maintain a commitment from the U.S., also with President Trump, is to invest more. And that's exactly what we're doing. Regardless of what we think about President Trump and his positions on many issues, the message from the U.S., which has been formulated by successive U.S. presidents, that Europe has to spend more, and that we need fair burden-sharing within the alliance, is valid. It was also my main message when I was secretary-general. The criticism from President Trump is not primarily against NATO. It's against NATO allies not investing enough in NATO. This is changing. And that's a way of reducing the risk of the U.S. leaving and at the same time being prepared for a future where we see potentially less U.S. commitment to European security.

Q: The NATO summit is coming up in a few days. Are you worried it might be yet another public display of differences within the alliance?

I hope it can be a strong manifestation of NATO unity. That despite the differences and disagreements, we are able to stand together in addressing the main threats and challenges we face, and also send a message of support to Ukraine.

Q: On Ukraine, there seemed to be some new hope after the G7 summit for continued U.S. support and progress toward a fair peace. Do you share the optimism?

What we do know is that the more support we provide to Ukraine, the sooner this war can end, and the more likely it is that it will end in a way where Ukraine prevails as an independent democratic nation in Europe. I think it's also crucial to recognize that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine has been a strategic failure by President Putin.

Q: During your time as secretary-general, you worked hard toward bringing Ukraine closer to NATO membership. That seems to be off the table at the moment.

Membership in the near future is, as far as I know, not on the agenda, because some of the big NATO allies are not supporting that. But Ukraine is closer to NATO than ever before. NATO allies equip, train and work with the Ukrainian army. I think we should now focus on mobilizing maximum support to Ukraine.