Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
I'm delighted to be joined by Yet Stoltenberg, the former NATO Secretary General. Mister Stoltenberg, thank you for joining us. I mean, for the next six months, I think market security experts, world leaders will try and figure out what Trump two point zero means for world security, world peace, and of course the economy. You've dealt with him in the past, sometimes in a great manner. Sometimes I know it was front discussions. What do you think the best way to deal with mister Trump is?
I think the best way is to actually address the issues so that he raises innate that we made the decision in twenty sixteen to engage with them the incoming Trump administration. We did so for four years and I had a good working relationship with him. That doesn't mean that we agreed on all issues, but the main messach was that European allies had to spend more, and we addressed that. It was a message on China, the consequence
for our security and also on Russian gas. So we decided to engage to address the issues, and I think that's the best way also this time.
I mean sometimes he uses actually language that is very disparaging. Is that hurtful for relations or do you have to just look beyond that.
He has a different style.
But again I think we need to focus and that's what we did, and I did also focus on the substance. And again the main message was that it was unfair that the United States paid three or four percent the GDP on defense while many other European native allies in Canada spent one plus something. And this has been a message from many US presidents.
It was actually present to Bama.
That forced to the decision in twenty fourteen in Ato to increase defense spending to two percent of GDP. At that time, only three allies spent two percent of GDP on defense.
This twenty they.
Allies are spending three percent of GDP on defense. So this has really changed for many reasons, but also because so the clear message from President Johnthany was in office last.
Like how worried are you about Ukraine the fact that they may not get enough funds, they may not get enough weapons, but also that there is always a risk that Donald Trump sides with Russia.
So we all want this war to end.
At the same time, in know that the quickest way to end the war is to do the war. But that will not bring peace, That will bring occupation of Ukraine, and it will make the whole world more dangerous because the message then to present thirteen but most to all the altered hearing leaders, is that when they use force, when they invade another country, they get what they want. So it's in our security interest to ensure that the
Ukraine provails. So the challenge is to end the war in a way that doesn't need to occupation, but to end the war in a way where Ukraine prevails as a suffarate in the pendent nation. At some stage there has to be some kind of political negotiated solution. But you know, what happens around the negotiating table is so close a link.
To the strength on the battlefield.
So if you want a negotiated solution to the war where Ukraine prevails as a democratic state in Europe, then we need to provide military support to Ukraine.
So what does that look like that solution And is there a danger that the US actually you know, manages to cobble something together, some kind of agreement without the guarantee from the US side of Ukraine's sovereignty.
Well, it's for Ukrainians to decide what will be or would be an acceptable solution, but there has to be at least two elements. One is a line agreed. But second, when such a line is agreed, then we need to ensure that actually it stops there because we have agreed or the Ukrainians have agreed lines with Russia before. When the annexed cramea back in twenty fourty, we had something
called minsklone. There was a line, then Russia violated that and we bought Minsk to a line further west, and then the Russian waited for seven years and invade on the full scale Ukraine. So we cannot have what they called Minsk Tree yet another line which is not respected.
So when a line is agreed, we need some kind of guarantee that Russia doesn't continue after reorganizing their troops and there if we need either to arm the Ukrainian so they can deter future reggression themselves, and or some kind of security guarantees. A Natal membership is of course the ultimate security guarantee for Ukraine.
But mister Saltenburg, do you think we're closer to an agreement or are we closer to peace under President Trump or are we're further away from peace.
I'm certain that the President Termpany's administration would like to find a way to end this war, and of course my mess it will be that they had to find a way to end the war which respects US sovereignty
and the interest of Ukraine. That is also in our interest. Second, when I worked with President from last time, Middle's president and then I remember that actually he made and his adverstation made an important decision to start to deliver legal aid to Ukraine, weapons to Ukraine that was not the natal policy.
Up till then.
And in twenty seventeen or eighteen, the decision was taken to start a.
Deliver for instance, javelins, the anti tank weapons that proved so extremely important.
So the messages we need to strengthen Ukraine to enable a negotiated peaceful solution. I don't think we can change Putin's mind. His aim is to control Ukraine, but I think we can change his calculus that the pricey pace for controlling Ukraine is too high, so it has to accept something where Ukraine creates.
I mean, is there about ten thousand North Korean troops invited by Russia the Ukrainian border.
Make of that, it demonstrates that security is not longer regional security is global. As the Japanese form of Japanese Prime Minister Kashida said, what happens in Ukraine today can happen in Asia tomorrow. And we see how Iran and North Korea but also China are in different ways supporting Russia. Iran with missiles, drones, in North Korea with ammunition, enormous amounts of ammunition, but also solders. So it demonstrates that
we need to have a global perspective. Or what happens in Ukraine it matters for global security, and therefore it makes it even more important to support U BRAIN.
I mean, whether people like or don't like Donald Trump, he's certainly more unpredictable than certain other administration. Does that make the world safer because people without the rule of law will be more careful and challenging US. Or doesn't make it less safe?
I will be careful speculanking too much before we have seen actually what the new communization will do.
Again.
I think that NATO, allies, all the partners around the world have to sit down and engage with the new administration and actually address the issues they are concerned about it.
That's the way we work in NATO, have worked in many years.
And if you're concerned about climate, or trade or security, sit down, discuss those issues and sometimes I actually exist that we can solve together.
Mister Stettenberg, thank you so much for joining us.
I was yes.
Stottenberg, the former Native Secretary General, is very powerful words about how world leaders will actually actually deal with Donald Trump going forward.