Restructuring the Security Order of Europe: Rose Gottemoeller / Former Deputy Secretary General of NATO

Hello and welcome to DEEPER LOOK from New York.

I'm Del Irani, it's great to have your company.

This week, members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, will gather in Madrid for a summit, where they will deliberate on how to deal with Russia's ongoing aggressions against Ukraine.

In addition to the 30 NATO members - which includes the U.S, Canada, and 28 European nations...

Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea will also join the Summit to discuss broader issues concerning China and the Asia-Pacific region.

It's one of the most important and closely-watched NATO meetings in years...

and to discuss its significance and implications for future policy...

I'm joined now by the former Deputy Secretary General of NATO - Rose Gottemoeller.

Rose Gottemoeller served in NATO from 2016-2019.

Prior to that, she was the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security under the Obama administration.

She's currently a lecturer at Stanford University.

And she joins me once again, welcome back to the program Rose Gottemoeller.

Great to have you with us.

Thank you very much.

So, what is the significance of this year's NATO Summit in Madrid?

It has actually changed since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February of this year.

To begin with, it was supposed to be a sign that NATO's horizons were getting larger, that it was turning more attention to Asia, as the United States continued to turn its attention to the Indo-Pacific, and really pay a lot more attention to China.

Instead, what NATO has had to do is pivot back to Europe again, and I think we will see that need to defend itself in Europe well, well represented in the upcoming summit meeting.

As a former NATO Deputy Secretary General, what are some of the outcomes that you would be looking for or hoping for, from this year's summit?

There will be a lot about the presence of troops in Eastern Europe on the borders of Russia.

The Baltic States and Poland, I know, have been very keen to see increases in numbers of the troops deployed there.

We have, at the moment, battle groups which are meant to serve as a kind of tripwire.

They are there because they have units representing all of NATO.

So, if Russia decided that they wanted to invade, it would be sending a message that it was ready to engage all of NATO, and very clearly, then Article Five would be tripped.

This is the famous article in the NATO Treaty, the founding NATO Treaty, in which if one country of NATO is attacked, then all are attacked and they go to each other's aid.

So having the battle groups there, it was a clear sign that all countries were ready to go to the aid of the Baltics and Poland.

But now, these countries want to see more forces deployed forward and ready to defend immediately.

It is the same in the southeast of Europe in Romania and Bulgaria, where NATO would like to see more troops deployed forward.

During your time as the Deputy Secretary General of NATO, which was from 2016 to 2019, so, only just a few years ago.

How significant was the threat of Russian forces doing something like what we're seeing them doing right now, invading Ukraine?

I mean, was this something that was on your radar, or within the realm of possibility when you were serving NATO?

Always, and that is the meaning of the creation of these battle groups in the Baltic states and in Poland, as well as some additional reinforcements in the southeast of Europe, in Romania, and Bulgaria.

These changes came about after the Russians seized Crimea in 2014.

And so, there was a recognition in NATO that Russia was taking a much more obstreperous stance, a much more threatening stance toward NATO European countries.

And so, NATO had to be ready both to deter, and to defend itself against a possible Russian invasion.

I do want to stress though, that that was not NATO's desire.

In fact, NATO was working hard to have a good partnership, to have good cooperation with Russia.

And we were constantly, while I was NATO Deputy Secretary General, trying to meet in the NATO Russia Council, and to talk about some possible ways to reduce risks in the borders between Russia and NATO.

Is there anything that could have prevented this conflict from escalating the way it has?

I worked for President Clinton in the White House in the 1990s.

And I remember very, very well, the discussions the President himself, very keen to ensure that in fact, we do not turn Russia into a new enemy on the European continent, and looking for ways to cooperate with Russia and to have,

in some ways, a very wide-ranging partnership, not only between the United States and Russia, but also between Russia and NATO.

It was in 2002, at the Rome Summit that Vladimir Putin himself came, and signed the so-called Rome Declaration that launched a period of close cooperation between NATO and Russia.

Some very pragmatic projects on establishing common airspace, for example, fighting the heroin trafficking coming out of Afghanistan,

working together on, again, on Nuclear Risk Reduction and Non-Proliferation topics.

So, there was a period of close cooperation that then did start to, I would say go sour after the Bucharest Summit, when the United States working together with its NATO Allies decided to extend an invitation to Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO eventually.

Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed his discontent at NATO expansion and what he calls NATO expansion eastward.

To what extent do you think the current NATO Summit could flare up tensions with Russia, and potentially have implications for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine?

It is very interesting, because before the invasion of Ukraine in February, Putin said he wanted NATO to move back to its 1997 borders.

That would be leaving the former Warsaw Pact countries, essentially, outside of NATO.

So, this was a very interesting demand and it was one that at the time, simply untenable from a NATO perspective.

It still is untenable.

And in fact, what has happened is that Putin has gotten quite the opposite, because now two additional countries, Finland and Sweden, that have traditionally been neutral, have voiced their desire to join NATO.

But I think that it is going to be an important period to watch how Russia reacts.

It's very interesting that so far, the Kremlin has been rather cool in its response to Sweden and Finland joining NATO.

On May 9, Victory Day, when Putin spoke out on this matter, he said, well, it doesn't really make that much difference, as long as they don't build new NATO infrastructure in those two countries.

So, so far, the reaction of Russia has been, I would say, rather on the calm side.

So then how would you evaluate the way that NATO has been handling the current Russian aggression towards Ukraine?

Let me stress that NATO is a defensive alliance, and so sees its role as: defending its territory, the territory of its member states, and not attacking others, being the aggressor.

And that is what Russia is constantly accusing it of and talks now about this, this invasion of Ukraine as being a preemptive action to halt the aggression of the NATO alliance.

I just want to emphasize that is... it's total nonsense, because NATO is a defensive alliance and has no plans for offensive aggression against anyone, including the Russian Federation.

So the role that NATO is playing, in the current crisis in Ukraine, is trying to do everything they can to help the Ukrainians be successful in the fight.

But NATO was not embracing Ukraine as an ally, obviously.

And so, the same responsibilities to defend Ukraine do not come about in this case.

It's providing armaments, and providing humanitarian assistance.

The NATO Allies worked very closely with its partner Ukraine, in order to ensure that its armed forces were well trained and ready for a fight.

And I guess, I mean, the conflict has had an impact on NATO members, particularly, you know, a lot of European countries, including Germany that, you know, increased their defense spending.

What's the stance of Germany on how to handle Russia and this current invasion?

Germany has come an amazing distance.

I remember when I was NATO Deputy Secretary General, they were facing President Trump who was very, very insistent that they spend their 2% of gross domestic product

for this so-called Defense Investment Pledge that all NATO members have made.

But Angela Merkel, at that time, Chancellor, was saying, "No, we can't, we can't ramp up that quickly. We cannot spend that much money.

It will take us some time to ramp up."

So, the Germans were even facing down Donald Trump during a very, very difficult period.

But this invasion of Ukraine, it's Vladimir Putin, oddly, who has changed the German government around 180 degrees.

And they are now ready to spend 2% of their gross domestic product on defense.

So, the Germans have really made an enormous change since this invasion began.

At this year's summit, countries from Asia-Pacific, including Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea are likely to be attending.

A lot of these countries are concerned about China's influence in the Asia-Pacific region.

So, you know, how do you think NATO is going to address these systemic challenges, if not now, then certainly in the future?

First of all, I want to say that, Japan, ROK, Australia, and New Zealand are very close NATO partners working together for many years on NATO missions and operations.

And really, I would say cooperating very, very well.

I really always enjoyed working with the representatives of the four Asia-Pacific partners while I was at NATO.

So that will no doubt continue.

I think there will be an enhanced focus on how NATO perhaps can, working together with the European Union, can continue to bring some of the values that we really treasure to the Asia-Pacific, and the Indo-Pacific regions.

For example, NATO and China have actually worked together for some years in military-to-military channels to enhance peacekeeping capabilities, and China is now a more active international peacekeeper.

So, it is good that China's embracing NATO standards for peacekeeping because NATO is seen as the gold standard for international peacekeeping.

So, I think that there are some ways that NATO working together with the EU can try to promulgate the proper values that really ensure that we have a global system that works well, and works for the greater good of all.

So, we'll see. That's the ideal vision.

But I think also just to continue to be on top of what is happening with the emergence of China as a global power, I'm not going to yet say global superpower, but it's certainly a global power.

I think it's important for NATO to be attentive to that as well.

Now, every 10 years NATO reviews and regularly updates its Strategic Concept, which it is due to do at this coming summit.

What's the Strategic Concept likely to be this year, and how significant is it going to be in terms of the direction of the future NATO?

The Strategic Concept will not be as I would say, focused on China and on the Indo-Pacific as we thought it would be at the outset,

because of this invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, which has squarely focused attention on the defense requirements and the threats in Europe.

So, I do think we will see a restored attention to Europe that certainly I did not expect.

But I expected of course, that Europe would play a role in the Strategic Concept, but I did expect that kind of balanced a shift toward attention to China and the Indo-Pacific.

How do you see the role of NATO changing on the world stage?

I think frankly, what we will see is the fact that the United States will be more and more drawn to the Pacific, and more and more drawn to the deployment of its armed forces in the Pacific.

And so, NATO, the non-US NATO allies are going to have to take more and more responsibility for the defense of Europe going forward.

That is why it is so good, that, well, some cold comfort in this terrible crisis in Ukraine.

But, it is so good that NATO countries are now all stepping up to do the defense investments and to increase their defense spending.

I hope that that can remain the case.

And that momentum will continue to build, despite the fact we are also internationally facing severe economic crisis,

and governments are going to have other issues to address such as maintaining social welfare accounts as well.

So, there's going to have to be I would say some clear bound struct here.

But NATO countries in Europe and the Canadians as well, will have to, I think, be taking more responsibility for Europe's defense as the United States focuses more on Asia and the Pacific.

Rose Gottemoeller, thank you so much for your time, once again!

Thank you.

NATO was founded in 1949 to counter the Soviet Union threat to the West, but much has changed over the years.

China's rise has shifted the power dynamics globally...

And so, in the coming years, NATO will have to look beyond Europe and think about security more globally—

in order to rise to meet the challenges of the future.

I'm Del Irani, thanks for your company.

I'll see you next time!