Denmark is currently hosting a summit of EU leaders on security and defense. As a former Danish Prime Minister and former NATO Secretary General, what message would you convey to this forum of leaders at a crucial time?
The first and most important message is that we must strengthen our support for Ukraine because it is about Europe's security. Obviously, the EU is not a military arm, but it can play an important role, especially in terms of finances. One of the issues that will require funding in the coming years, and in the immediate future, is the construction of an anti-drone wall.
We are talking about an anti-drone wall inspired by the Ukrainian...
Yes, but mainly inspired by the fact that we have seen Russian incursions in our airspace: in Poland, Romania, Estonia, Denmark. So, we really have to realize that this is a hybrid war by Russia, trying to partly distract our attention from Ukraine. It is about discussing our internal defense instead of discussing aid to Ukraine. It is also an attempt to bypass NATO's Article 5, as Article 5 is activated in case of a direct attack against one of our allies. But drones are incursions without an attack. So Russia is testing our determination. It is testing the red lines, the limits. For these reasons, we have to protect ourselves against this hybrid war.
Do you think Europe's response is heading in the right direction?
Europe is reacting too slowly to Russian provocations. We need to speed up the pace. We must change our mindset. We still have a peacetime mentality, but what we need is a wartime mentality. That is, eliminate all bureaucracy to shorten the lengthy procedures and make quick decisions.
And the United States? Can Europeans trust Washington and its commitment to Article 5?
Yes, I trust Article 5 and the U.S. commitment to Article 5. In fact, President Donald Trump has stated that the United States is willing to help defend every inch of NATO territory. But what the Americans ask for is greater European participation, and I totally agree. We cannot expect the Americans to come to our aid every time we need it. For too long, Europe has relied on an outdated and obsolete model that no longer works. A combination of cheap energy from Russia, cheap products from China, and cheap security from the United States. That model no longer works. We have to stand on our own, which includes investing much more in our defense and security.
Is the Trump Administration's stance therefore an opportunity for Europe?
Yes. And it comes after a double wake-up call: the first with Putin's intervention in Ukraine and the second with Trump's election.
Is the EU ready? Are there still many differences among us? For example, in how Northern and Southern countries view the war in Ukraine.
You are right. There are divisions. There are different views on this. And it is clear that the closer you are to Russia, the greater the commitment to stronger defense. For example, Poland has decided to reach a 4.8% Defense investment next year. And the Baltic countries are also close to 5%. So neighboring countries know that there is a lot at stake, so they are very committed. But I would caution against the idea that Southern European countries are protected against a possible Russian attack. We have seen how Russia can conduct a hybrid war by making incursions into our airspace. I would not rule out Russian attacks against Southern European countries by disrupting power grids or cybersecurity networks. Therefore, no one is safe from this threat. And, by the way, NATO is an alliance based on solidarity and collective defense. That is, we all have a responsibility to fulfill our obligations within NATO.
Spain has already announced and reiterated this week that it will not meet the 5% of GDP in Defense...
As a former NATO Secretary General, I have to emphasize the need to fulfill commitments within the Atlantic Alliance. So, this will be a topic that the Spanish Government, NATO, and the other allies will have to discuss.
Is Spain perceived as an unsupportive partner?
I greatly appreciate that Spain has closed a 10-year Defense agreement with Ukraine. Spain has provided weapons to Ukraine, Patriot missiles, anti-drone systems, Leopards, armored vehicles, and so on. We have also seen a significant increase in Spanish investments in Defense. But if commitments are not met within the Alliance, there is always a risk of falling behind other allies. Therefore, I reiterate once again: as a member of an alliance based on solidarity, commitments must be fulfilled.
Do you think Ukraine should join the Atlantic Alliance?
My opinion is clear: we should invite Ukraine to join NATO, to become a NATO member. That would be the most effective and least costly way to ensure Ukraine's security in the future. I often hear the argument that we cannot extend an invitation to Ukraine while the war is ongoing. But that is an extremely dangerous argument because it gives Putin an incentive to continue this war, to prevent Ukraine's accession to NATO. But well, we have to accept that President Trump will not accept discussions on Ukraine's accession to NATO, and there may also be resistance from other allies. So, the second-best solution would be to deploy a European deterrence force in Ukraine with the backing of the United States. That would tell Putin that we are willing to ensure Ukraine's security. What I am suggesting is not for European forces to confront Russia. Ukraine would still be the front line. But deploying European forces behind the Ukrainian front lines to protect major cities, critical infrastructure, etc., would send a clear message. I appreciate that there are discussions in a coalition of volunteers, but it seems more like a waiting coalition. There is no progress. And, once again, I hear the argument that we cannot deploy a European deterrence force until there is a peace agreement. But that is really a flawed logic. It is the other way around. Deploying a European deterrence force right now, before a peace agreement, can force Putin to negotiate.
How did you feel when you saw the red carpet in Alaska for Vladimir Putin?
I do not think Putin deserves such a reception. I do not understand that symbolism, but I have the feeling that Trump now realizes that Putin has deceived him. He has lost patience with him. I think it is now clear, even to many Americans, that Putin does not want peace, he wants to continue the killings. The only way to force Putin to sit at the negotiation table is to arm ourselves to the teeth so that he realizes he cannot win on the battlefield
If your term as Prime Minister of Denmark had coincided with Trump's and he had said 'I want Greenland', what would have been your first reaction?
Obviously, I would have replied 'no'. We cannot negotiate Greenland over the heads of the Greenlanders. Paradoxically, Trump's pressure has improved relations between Greenlanders and Danes.
And China? What role do you assign to it?
China is complicit in the way it aids the Russians. It tries to be discreet, but we know what it is doing. Beijing has a fundamental interest in prolonging the war, as it distracts the West from its provocations in Southeast Asia. China loves that this war continues.
Do you view the new world order with pessimism or do you force yourself to be optimistic?
I am realistic, which means that I believe we must find ways to counter the coercion of China and the United States. I still firmly believe in freedom and democracy. Therefore, what we must do is create a strong alliance of democracies. I call it D7, Democracy 7. It would be formed by the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea. It is 40% of the world economy. The idea of D7 is not against anyone, it is in favor of freedom and democracy. Right now, I see the beginning of a new world order that I do not like, where the law of the jungle prevails. That is why the world's democracies must unite and cooperate to promote the basic idea that freedom and democracy, free trade, peaceful cooperation, and building our alliances are the way forward.