Participation

Teri Schultz, DW 

Welcome, everyone. This is quite a setup. I think I've been introduced, my name is Teri Schultz, I'm a journalist, that no one who follows NATO has escaped in the last 16 years, including the Deputy Secretary General. I'm very pleased to be here. I'm honoured to be moderating this session, NATO at 75. I feel old, I've been here for so many of those 75 years. But this is why it's exciting for me to have the chance to be with the Deputy Secretary General, as we've spoken many times, but also with an audience who deeply cares about NATO, and all of us know that that's more important than ever to know about NATO and to care about NATO. And that's something both of us do. So we are going to get started on this discussion. And we will be joined shortly by Lord Robertson for another.

Deputy Secretary General 

We should listen to Neil Young, Forever Young.

Teri Schultz, DW 

Let’s do it. You know what, that would relax me a lot. Could we please? Yes. Okay. So, Mr. Deputy Secretary General, we are going to be taking a look, NATO at 75. So during those years, as you know, the focus of the Alliance has shifted from collective security, to expeditionary missions, back to collective security where we are today.

But tonight, we're going to take a look also, at what the Alliance has gotten right? And what has gotten wrong. Now, you're still in office. So I know that you can't perhaps be completely forthcoming about your personal views. But that's why I'm here. I will help you talk about such things if you need it. But using the lens of history, let's look now you've been in the office since 2019. Many very important things on the timeline, of course before that, but also many since, what would you say candidly, that NATO has gotten right in its 75 years, you can use, you can go all the way back to 1949. What is it gotten wrong? And what do you believe the most important tasks are for its future?

Deputy Secretary General 

No, first of all, happy to be at the Brussels forum. Heather, Ian, Ambassador Adler, so good to see you. I'm a huge fan of GMF. I remember bringing it to Romania. And as a relatively newcomer to this Alliance, my country celebrated 20 years since we joined, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, 25 years other countries more recently, and Sweden and Finland, most recently, the Western Balkans nations that are so important to us.

So the question is why, in 1949, there were 12 Allies as founding Allies, and why today we are 32. So what makes this Alliance so magnetic, to European nations? Why do these nations continue to knock on the open door of NATO, and I do hope and I know that one day, also Ukraine will become a member. And I hope that every free nation in Europe will choose their own path if they want to come. And if they qualify, and if we agree by consensus, then we'll be okay. 75 years is an impressive age for us.

But because I run innovation at NATO, I would say that NATO has other than our values and always the mission that we share, I think we have in our genes. I think there is a gene in our genetical code as an Alliance, a gene, a permanent adaptation to changing strategic environments, and also a gene of learning from our mistakes.

We also did mistakes, we had crisis in the Suez Canal, they will –not always, you know, beautiful and sunny, and perfect. No, we also did mistakes, but we always had the capacity to come back to the fundamentals, our values, our transatlantic unity, and our mission, which is the same to protect now 1 billion people live in the 32 NATO allies, more than 50% of global GDP, more than 50 something percent of global defence expenditure and this is growing because the burden sharing thing is important.

So I believe that this is an indispensable Alliance not because I work and I get paid for by this Alliance, I work but because I believe when we say we are the most successful Alliance in human history, this is for good reasons. Because we are here to stay. And I think 75 years is just, you know, the kindergarten part for our long history. We're here to stay for many long decades and hopefully, for the long run.

Teri Schultz, DW 

You're not getting off that easy, the Suez Canal is the example that the Secretary General always puts in his speeches because he thinks we're not going to talk about other issues. But let's talk about I mean, let's talk about things that some people do believe are mistakes. Let's talk about Afghanistan. I went there six times, five of them with NATO. And there were some very deep relationships there that were abruptly cut off. And the Alliance went through what they called a lesson learned procedure, which lasted, I don't know, a few weeks, maybe, and then the results were classified. So tell us what happened. And do you consider that the way that this mission, the longest in NATO's history was brought to a very abrupt end, of course, not by NATO's own doing, but the Taliban and –

Deputy Secretary General 

Listen Teri, I am not shying away from difficult questions, and that's the business we are in. First, I would say that the fact that we activated for the first and single time Article Five, in supporting our US Ally is something nothing short of historic, and that's something positive, I believe we did. And it's counterintuitive that the largest, the most influential Ally, needs or we call Article Five for the most powerful of our Allies. But we did that. And I think this was the right decision at that time. Now, the execution of 20 years or long campaign and a long engagement is always complicated. And nation building is always a very complicated issue. And I think previous great powers went there. And we discovered that this is a very difficult place, I still have colleagues that are still traumatized, by the huge, huge, huge trauma that we had to leave some of our guys behind. Afghans who have worked for us, women that we knew, that are really defending women's rights, people that sacrificed and took huge risks to be with us. So that's something that of course, we are exceptionally, exceptionally affected by. But in big strategic terms, in big political terms, we had to respond to this hideous attack against America. And by the way, terrorism is not going away. And also, history is not ending at all. So what is NATO doing now learning from the mistakes? And another –

Teri Schultz, DW 

What did we learn from mistakes there?

Deputy Secretary General 

First of all, I think we did learn that we have to make sure that we don't get into open ended issues without having a clear exit –and a clear strategy. That's something that we know, we also have to say, again, honestly, in the Middle East, and in Africa and the global South, there is sometimes a problem of reputation or perception of NATO, because of Libya. There is something there, we should not hide from this. We are not hiding from this. But I'm also saying that once there is something really dangerous for European security, the heinous attack by Russia against innocent and independent Ukraine. We were there to defend our people and to support Ukraine.

So I'm not saying that NATO is just, you know, a history book full of nice photographs, and only good moments, and everything is nice and fine. But I'm saying again, with war in Ukraine, with so much tension in the Middle East, with issues also across the Indo Pacific, that the role of NATO and the usefulness of NATO for our nations and for our 1 billion people, is nothing short of indispensable. I would say with all the arguments and learning from things that not have done that well.

Probably, us in Europe, probably less so the country's from the eastern flank, because we know Russia, and we have a sort of a collective memory of the past with this empire, but probably also in Western Europe, there was an illusion, that, after the fall of communism in Europe, there will be a long period of peace, that wars will never return. That great power competition was put to rest forever. We were wrong.

But the good news about NATO that once we decide and once we feel and we know that there is a real danger to our security, we are getting our house in order, the way in which we reacted to the Russian aggression, two years and something in terms of activating our defence and deterrence plans. Now nations investing in new generation, defence and deterrence, investing in our partnerships, investing in innovation, investing in cyber, investing in space, investing in countering disinformation and this and fake news, I would say is nothing short of remarkable. The speed in which a big organization was able to adjust to this new reality.

Teri Schultz, DW 

Depends on the year you start counting.

Deputy Secretary General 

We could have probably avoided or could have done better –

Teri Schultz, DW 

Wait, that’s my line –

Deputy Secretary General 

But the main mission of this is to defend our people and our nations and our freedom, and our democracy and the way, our way of life. And for that thing, there was not never a war on NATO soil for 75 years – to know a little bit of European history. This is nothing short of remarkable to keep this continent at peace, when it comes to NATO members for so, such a long period of time.

Teri Schultz, DW 

So to prepare for tonight, I actually watched some of the video of Brussels forum 2014. And we'll talk more with Lord Robertson about this. But at that time, we even had members of Russia, the Russian parliament, the Russian ambassador to NATO, at the time, Mr. Grushko, all of us who have been, who have covered NATO for a long time, remember him, the NATO officials will remember him, he was in the audience, and he was here exchanging views with people, it was, it's incredible to look back at that video, and see that he was here. He was called on, he raised his hand. You know, that is something that's, that is unbelievable now, but this was 2014. And of course, you know, and this may be boring for those of us who cover NATO, who talks about this quite often. But there is criticism about how quickly the response, how quickly the Alliance moved after 2014, and also after 2008 with Georgia. So if people had been more awake, and the Secretary General himself has said perhaps we didn't wake up quickly enough after 2014. If you had moved more quickly, then to do some of the things to make some of the changes that now truly have been made in spending, in unity, in innovation, in technology, would Ukraine, would we still be in the same position now in Ukraine. I won't go back all the way to the 2008 decision not to allow Ukraine and Georgia into the Alliance, although if you want to feel free, because that was, of course in your home country. But if there, could you have done anything in 2008? Or 2014, which would have prevented the situation we're in today? Where war is at NATO's doorstep? War is at Europe's doorstep? And truly, Allies are worried that it won't stay there?

Deputy Secretary General 

I would argue that this is always difficult to look into contra-factual history. What if and tactically, it's also, some of the Allies are telling other Allies, told you so, we knew better, we knew best because we know in Poland, Romania, or the Baltic countries, that, that's not such thing, as you know, the disappearance of an imperial instinct, you know, in the country where they –

Teri Schultz, DW 

Were they right?

Deputy Secretary General 

And they proved to be right. But at the same time, at the same time, all of us after the fall of communism, hoped and even investing ourselves in creating a new relationship with Russia. We –they will our partners, I believe, in 1997, in the NATO Russia founding act they recognise written black and white in paper in an official document with us, not only the OSCE, in the UN Charter, that they recognize the right of European nations to choose their own system of Alliances, is written with us. Of course, they were the summit, of course, the former ambassador, he was a lively guy, he was here. Yeah, probably the more fundamental mistake we all made.

And probably this is something that we could eventually, you know, have a sort of a moment of recollection about, that probably, we underestimated what I said earlier, that there is in a sort of an imperial instinct of grabbing territory.

And probably some people say, listen, this is like appeasement. In the beginning of the Second World War, you give an inch and they take you 1000 miles of your territory, but I believe that unfortunately, Russia has chosen a path of nationalism a sort of a –probably because they are in a difficult situation because for great powers managing abrupt decline is that they're very difficult exercise to do. So I think they are now –knows they are taking the Soviet propaganda manual. You know, taking the dust off. And now America is bad, the West is bad. And they are the ones defending, you know the values of whatever else.

Teri Schultz, DW 

We’re going to bring in Lord Robertson now.

Deputy Secretary General 

So we're going to probably –we're probably wrong. But I will say that trying to have a constructive, predictable relationship between the western Russia was, I think, a natural instinct from us to try to do. They didn't want to play ball is their problem, not ours.

Teri Schultz, DW 

Okay, we're going to bring in our very special guest. Lord Robertson, it's exciting to have him here thank you. So more look, looking back at history. I was really grilling him. So would you –but I mean, that's, that's why I'm here. You can also say good things. But Lord Robertson, the Deputy Secretary General brought up that, of course, formative moment in NATO's history and in 2001, Article Five. And I think everyone would be interested in hearing what it was like inside that room, because I actually wasn't here, then. And I have not heard exactly what it was like, as Allies decided that they were going to invoke the most sacred, sacred tenet of NATO for the very first time. And at the same time, I would like you to answer now with 32 Allies, some of them do openly express doubts that if they were attacked, if Russia were to step over, onto their territory, that Article Five would be as ironclad as it was on that day in 2001. So can you take us back to that moment, and also project ahead how it whether you feel there is a doubt that 32 Allies –31 Allies would respond if one Ally, asked for Article Five to be invoked.

Lord Robertson

There shouldn't actually be any doubt at all. And that day, we invoked it for the biggest member of NATO. And, you know, this wasn't an easy decision to make.

Teri Schulz, DW

Why not?

Lord Robertson

Because it is symbolically important, very difficult. And the other thing is, because most people don't know this, or realize this or have woken up to this yet: it has to be consensus. It is not automatic, you know, the idea that somebody invades Luxembourg and that automatically triggers Article Five is wrong. It goes to the North Atlantic Council, who then, at the head of government level, have got to make the decision about it.

So it was high risk to actually do it in the first place. But we thought it was the right thing to do. And we formulated the statement that was to go out and then went to the Council. People were a bit astonished. You know, this was, you know, a moment of history. At half past three in the afternoon, I told the Council that they had to come back at, I think it was eight o'clock, with their answer from all of the nations, the 19 nations at the time, and then I hit the phones to try and explain what we were doing.

Why we were doing it. It wasn't easy to do and if it had gone wrong, I doubt if I’d be sitting here today, because it would have been the opposite of a success. In the morning of course, everybody thought it was [inaudible] idea. And I was quite glad that that was the case, share the responsibility. So would we do it again? Well, that's where the Summit meeting in July is going to have to think about it, that everybody around that table in July, is going to have to face the fact that they're all signing up to the North Atlantic Treaty.

And that is an obligation that comes with being a member of NATO, and the shield that is there. You're a billion people, a billion people in the Euro Atlantic area sleep safely in their beds tonight, because Article Five and NATO is protecting them.

So it's hugely important. Anybody who might think it's not a good idea, or it's a bad idea, or why should we defend Luxembourg when it's being for example, I said quickly, for example being attacked? [They] have got to recognize that it's a collective security organization and we're all we're all in it together. So I don't have doubts.

And I'll tell you one thing as well. I'm the only person in history who has invoked Article Five, I think I might be the only person ever to invoke Article Five, because I don't think there will be another military power outside of NATO who would dare close the Article Five line.

That's not to say that he wouldn't use hybrid warfare or attack us in other ways, and –

Teri Schultz, DW

And now those can be considered also. Those also can be considered an Article Five offense we should put pit. It was much more limited in the days when you did declare it.

Lord Robertson

Well, yeah, but it might be more difficult and attribution will be much more difficult. So people shouldn't assume that just because there wouldn't be a military attack against this great Alliance, that we wouldn't be attacked in other different ways. And that's what we have to think about in terms of what Vladimir Putin is doing now in Ukraine.

Teri Schultz, DW

Okay, but to go back to you, Deputy Secretary General, because I know that you have meetings all the time, with Allies, with officials from Allies who if they tell me they surely tell you, that they are not so certain. And they actually say it publicly. If you're a Baltic state, they do say publicly that they are not sure.

And, you know, that was even before then President Trump laid all kinds of, you know, doubt on that, on that principle. So you hear this from people, I know that you do. So how can you tell them that in this hypothetical situation, Luxembourg is never one of those who goes into these meetings with any concerns? But what do you tell them? I mean, yes, of course, you've all signed up to it.

The other thing we should say about Article Five that other people may not understand is that each country decides how they will contribute. It's not that you declare that if Article Five is declared, but unanimity that everybody, you know, gathers all of their resources and goes to battle. I mean, this is another reason why perhaps some countries think they might not get enough if they did need it.

NATO Deputy Secretary General

Lord Robertson refers to the political decision making process in this Alliance as consensus based as political, that's a political Alliance. But I can tell you, and every single Ally does know that the strength… I mentioned the gene of permanent adaptation in NATO to a changing security environment.

And I have to say that what our leaders have decided in Vilnius at the Summit in Lithuania, and what will be reconfirmed in Washington, is the most significant transformation of deterrence and defence, military planning, force structure, battlegroups up to brigade level in the east, the two-percent, twenty nations, hopefully all of them will be investing a minimum of two percent.

So what I say, the underpinning of the political decision, which is political, we are democracies, is the fact that we are now doing, for the first time in generations, probably from the 80s, this Alliance has not undergone such a huge transformation of our deterrence and defence.

Teri Schultz, DW

And now you're talking about the regional plans that, I mean –

NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoana

I'm speaking about the regional plans, I'm speaking about declaring cyber and space as operational domains, adapting to conventional warfare, and to high end technologies. NATO has adopted AI strategy would principle us attached to it, biotech, new materials, space, autonomous, everything else.

And there is something else that I – and that's, of course, up to our leaders and our national parliaments to decide – but beneath that, there is every single day, the confirmation that each of us are doing their part. Of course, bigger nations, the more. Smaller nations do a lot. You mentioned Luxembourg, George.

Teri Schultz, DW

Something I rarely do. But go ahead.

NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoana

I mention Iceland, they don't even have an army, and they are contributing with transport and money for our friends in Ukraine.

And also, speaking of something that I do a lot, and we care a lot, is our partnerships. Of course, the one with European Union, which is self-evident. But we have now close to 40 nations around the world that are working with us.

Washington will be the third summit in a row where our Indo Pacific four partners at the top level, heads of state and government will be attending NATO Summits. I received this morning, I have to say, with great joy, the new defence minister of Argentina, that presented to us an official request to become our second partner in Latin America after Colombia.

And of course, we are looking very positively to this. Of course, there's always complex, but I'm just saying that this Alliance has again, a huge capacity to adjust to a changing strategic environment.

And the last issue, Lord Robertson mentioned very rightly, that it is not only traditional difference and defence and military, which is so important, but the very definition of security so much broadened in the last decades. We speak now and we do a lot on climate change and security on cybersecurity, on energy security, we speak of economic security, we speak of resilience, we speak of things of space, and competition in space. And this is something I believe, NATO is also doing a lot. It's not that visible, it is not in the headlines. If you want, a little bit more subtle, in a way. But in a way, we are putting a mosaic puzzle of pieces in the armor of this great nation. So for every single citizen goes to bed at night, knowing that there is something big, solid, credible, and meaning, to really protect our people.

So this is not talking points. This is, you know, me, a guy who lived half of my life in communism in my home country of Romania, and cherishing every single day of freedom, every single day without war, every single day when I go to work, or go to you know, to college, or to high school, or wherever, knowing that there is something important there for me. And this is NATO. And that's why we are and this is what we have been. And this will always continue to be.

Teri Schultz, DW

I want to definitely leave enough time to talk about some of the cool things in the future that NATO is going to do, because we have a lot of young people here. And we all want to look cooler than we actually are. But there are some things that we can do that with, but I wanted to go to a quote that I found that you said Lord Robertson, and you said, we can't ignore it. Obviously, we need to talk more about Ukraine. You said if Ukraine loses, our enemies will decide the world order. So that's a headline that you gave me not so long ago. So looking now, as you can without being responsible for decision making inside NATO, I mean, what would you say. Is there more incumbent upon NATO to make sure that Ukraine doesn't lose?

Lord Robertson

Absolutely. We need to give the Ukrainians the weaponry that they want, when they need it. We need to keep the unity of the West absolutely tight. We need to keep the unity between Europe and the United States. Because these are the signals that Vladimir Putin will be affected by.

You know, I dealt with Vladimir Putin from the very beginning. I got on well with him. We formed a NATO-Russia Council and all the working parties that came out after that. And he's now been transformed into a monster who, who is now trying to annihilate a nation that –

Teri Schultz, DW

He has transformed himself you mean. That shouldn't be a passive sentence, right?

Lord Robertson

No, no. Well, he transformed himself, in the maybe in the pandemic. He stood beside me as close as you are, at the press conference at the NATO Russia….

Teri Schultz, DW

I looked up those, the documents from when the NATO Russia council was founded, you had meetings every week, you cooperated. I mean, they're written like, like love notes to each other. Now, given our context, now. I mean, you had regular meetings multiple times a week, actually, with the Russians working on all kinds of things. It's inconceivable now, isn't it?

Lord Robertson

It is, because the man transformed and changed, became more authoritarian, more in control and, and transformed himself into this monster now who wants to annihilate the nation that he said was an independent nation state and had the right to make its own decisions about it.

You know I am one of the few people still alive today who can stand beside an open window and talk about Vladimir Putin sense of humor, which seems to completely disappear. And now, you know, he's involved in a brutal… The photographs outside this room tell a story that is much more than I can tell, of the sheer, naked brutality of the Russian invasion and [inaudible] Russia would do if they took over, if they took over Ukraine.

The stakes are enormously high to the people of Ukraine. But for the rest of the world as well. The stakes are simply enormous. They will, they, the Chinese, the North Koreans and the Iranians will write the rules of order in the world and the world will be a very uncomfortable place for the next generation to grow up in.

Teri Schultz, DW

So when you say we need to keep the unity of the Transatlantic Alliance, do you mean NATO? Do you mean NATO needs to do more?  The West needs to keep the unity?

Lord Robertson

The West. NATO is an organization that has got tentacles into the defences of the West. So we need to do more. Why is it that countries who have got anti-missile defences are keeping them at home just now, when they're not under threat? When the Ukrainians are under threat? You know, why are we not giving more from individual countries of what we've got at the moment? Why are we not replenishing?

Teri Schultz, DW

Let's ask the DSG.

Lord Robertson

Sorry to put you on the spot.

Deputy Secretary General 

Always been a friend.

Teri Schultz, DW

But you're in those negotiations. I mean, what excuses do countries come up with when Ukraine asks for, for air defences. There's a meeting at least once a month where these kinds of things are discussed.

Deputy Secretary General 

We had Dmytro Kuleba at our Foreign Ministers meeting just I think two or three weeks back. And I know, Dmytro well, we know President Zelenskyy well, we know Mr Umerov well. And of course, they always, were so convincing in saying we need more, because we need to resist this brutal, you know, barbaric invasion, by Russia.

Teri Schultz, DW 

It's not [inaudible]

Deputy Secretary General 

There are two things here. One is our own national politics, they do matter. They do matter. And if there is one bad news for the Brussels forum, that some of the US members of Congress [inaudible] –

Teri Schultz, DW

Take a vote.

Deputy Secretary General

That could be very good news for Ukraine. So I think they are excused for the right cause. So this is politics. And this is something that all of us have to be respectful of, because that's politics. And that's something that democracy…

Teri Schultz, DW

But can you say that, it is politics and these people….

Deputy Secretary General 

One second. At the same time. When Kuleba was with us, he made a very, very passionate and convincing plea for us to give them more air and missile defence.

And I have to say that we are doing this. Germany is taking the lead by giving one additional patriot. I was yesterday in in Rome, talking to our Italian Allies. Secretary General is…, George knows, how you pick up the phone and try to do this.

I'm convinced that we'll be able to give them more of what they need. I have to applaud what our Czech friends and Allies are doing in terms of 155 artillery rounds. It's an immensely successful operation of being creative in putting things together.

I also hope that at our summit in Washington, when NATO, we hope our US will approve, for us to take a much bigger coordination role will give a little bit more predictability to this kind of support.

And I also know that as we've been probably over optimistic a few months back, when Ukraine was ready to launch the counter offensive. Now the situation is not is not very positive. But we should also not be very overly pessimistic in saying this. I know that we understand that Ukraine's fight is not only their fight, it is also our fight. We also know that the symbol is strategic reverberations of a success of Ukraine, or God forbid, of a failure in Ukraine, we'll have global ramifications.

Our leaders know that. I think our public opinions know that. Now it's also a matter of really [inaudible]. And the last point is about our –

Teri Schultz, DW

I have to open it to public opinion.

Deputy Secretary General 

I have just one, we were in Europe mainly believing in this illusion that the world history has come to an end. So we stopped investing in defence industry. And our discovering was that when we need to ramp up production, we had difficulty. And our corporations say show me the money, show me the checkbook, we eventually saw the money but then we're not a war economy like in Russia, to switch in authoritarian country, I switched from a normal economy to war economy.

We are a capitalistic free society, so it takes a bit of time. But what we do also through NATO and, and the platform that NATO represents… I see the curve of Russian, let's say, ammunition and, and resources for the war moving up, but I also see even slower our curve, because we are twenty five larger in terms of economies than Russia's economy. And I think it's a matter of switching faster, not war economy, but to an economy that is also providing what Ukraine needs, and also what we do need for our own defence and security.

Teri Schultz, DW

Okay, I'm going to open the floor to questions. Heather, can I have more time?

Martin Zebrowski, GlobeSec

So I wanted to ask you gentleman, if you can imagine NATO prospering functioning without the United States is it at all possible – and before you say is not going to happen for the reason we just heard from Mike Pence for example – is it not a scenario that we should consider? And in case this scenario was to come through? Let's hope not.

Teri Schultz, DW

Okay, question. Go.

Deputy Secretary General

Listen, I know America well. I was a very young ambassador. We –I'm a political person, okay? I'm not only a NATO guy, I'm also a political guy. So I know one thing, that in the polls, in the US public opinion, NATO is at roughly 70% approval rate. That's huge. So the American people understand the value of America's Alliances.

Secondly, I know Republicans and Democrats very well. Irrespective of the nuances that might have on one topic or another, I know one thing that with the rise of China, and the ganging up between China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Belarus, and who else, I don't know, that there is an understanding in American strategic and political establishment, that the arch competition for global controlling of the commanding heights of the world with China and China's, let's say, partners, autocratic partners, mostly, America has a treasure in its Alliances, it is not a burden it is not something that you say, “Okay, we are caring because we start to invest more”.

So I believe that, as for Europe, America's involvement is indispensable and not substitutable for our Alliance. I think that also for America, having so many Allies in NATO, in Indo Pacific, in many other places, is a huge plus, that will probably be the decisive factor in overcoming this fierce competition from China, and the other bad guys.

Teri Schultz, DW

but Americans don't vote on foreign policy, and they're not going to vote about NATO. So if he gets elected, and if he wants to pull out of NATO, the question was, could NATO survive?

Deputy Secretary General

I'm absolutely convinced that Americans and politicians and public opinion and establishment and military understand the huge added value of America's Alliances in Europe and around the world. And I know that also us in Europe, will not fall prey to many people that are having a sort of a doomsday making an American election so decisive in terms of 75 years of American engagement in Europe and in the world.

So let's be more confident that in the end, on both sides of the Atlantic, we cherish and we praise what we have together.

Teri Schultz, DW

It’s a different America than when you were Secretary General. So what do you say?

Lord Robertson

I don't think America is going to pull out I heard what former Vice President Pence said this afternoon, there might be some glitches along the way. We are made up of democracies and people make decisions about it. But, you know, America is going to stay there. But the answer to the question is: we should prepare for a situation where there's a more equal relationship. You know, a former US Defence Secretary, Jim Mattis, summed it up when he said, “Why should America care more about the future of European children than they do?” You know, that sums it up.

You know, the Europeans have got the same GDP, same share of global GDP, as America has, the same population 340 million people inside a NATO Euro. So why are we not doing more in order to have the capability and the capacity defend ourselves? We know see where the danger is. We're seeing it visibly every day on our television screens, and the Ukrainians are suffering it every day. So we've got to invest more, we've got to believe more. We've got to create the capacity that at the moment we depend on the Americans to provide and then that equality of treatment will mean that exactly what Mircea says, the American people will believe that it is a better bargain that it looks at the present moment.

Teri Schultz, DW

Okay, I'm going to take a question from back here.

Miranda (unknown surname)

Thank you. I'm Miranda. I'm a Transatlantic Inclusion Leaders Network alumni of the German Marshall Fund. I come from Georgia, and my question is the following. In 2008, 14, and 22, we witnessed Russia's aggression and sometimes we do really underestimate their aggression. Georgia did not really get to choose its neighbour. And nowadays, with increased Iran's tension to be a player in the world politics. What would you say for Georgia in terms of NATO?

You mentioned that the door is open if the people are knocking [inaudible], you mentioned Ukraine, but you didn't mention anything about Georgia. So anything specific that you can send a message for Georgian people who are now striking in the streets against the Russian law, to stay in the European family, where do they really belong? So what is your message in terms of defence, increasing the Defence is part of your strategic consideration.

Deputy Secretary General

I am sorry, I should have mentioned your great nation. I should have mentioned the Republic of Moldova, not joining NATO, but joining the EU. I should have mentioned Bosnia Herzegovina and the Western Balkan nations that are members of NATO are not yet members of the EU, I should have mentioned all European nations that are determined to go west, and are ready to go west. And we'll be ready to welcome all of you. I'm not saying that this is easy. You have a very difficult situation. Russia has these booby traps. From Transnistria to South Ossetia. When I pass here, they're playing dirty, dirty tricks.

They're playing with many hybrid. Lord Robertson is right. It’s not easy. I know one thing. As Ukrainians are so determined to fight for the freedom and the freedom to choose their future. Either Georgia nation will stay the course – and you're the closest partners to NATO, we've done so many things together, and we are ready to do even more – So this is a message that coming from us, this open door thing that I believed Romania, my country, I was foreign minister, ambassador - I think I was –  and we were denied entry into NATO. I'm not comparing things. I'm not comparing your geography with Romania’s geography.

But then we continue to stay the course. We wanted, Romanians wanted it to be part of the West. If you want to be part of the West, and you stay the course, and do the reforms and stay the course I know that your place is with us and Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova in the EU.

And I think this is the other big strategic consequence of the war in Ukraine. Because if Ukraine stands, and they will stand, in means we create geostrategic conditions for all European nations that are willing to come our way for us to welcome them. And I say this with all clarity.

And if you want a sense of history, that I think, as our generation had, was to have a Europe whole and free. a Europe whole and free will not be completed until countries like Georgia and Ukraine are joining. If you want to be here with us, you should be here with us, just stay the course of reforms. Don't hedge, don't hesitate. There is a row towards the West. And this is something I believe will happen if you stay the course, we’ll stay the course.

Teri Schultz, DW

Do you want to say something on Georgia? I can take one more question. We get like three and a half more minutes.

Lord Robertson

Both at NATO, and out of NATO, wherever I go, whatever the audience, there's somebody from Georgia, who asks the question –

Teri Schultz, DW

Every press conference they get to ask.

Lord Robertson

The Deputy Secretary General has given a fairly comprehensive… they stay the course and become, you know, much more democratic than it looks at the present moment, then, you know, that's where they belong ultimately.

Deputy Secretary General

Let me also praise the European Union for the strategic boldness that they have basically demonstrated the last period of time in supporting Ukraine in opening negotiations, including for Georgia. So I believe that NATO and the EU are two sides of the same coin. So stay the course on both for NATO and for the EU.

Teri Schultz, DW

Okay, I've got one last question. It has to be really, really short.

Unknown journalist

[inaudible] I’m from Kyiv ICPS. What will Ukraine get at the next NATO summit, in addition to the usual language about NATO door open and so on? Will there be a shortcut direct invitation to Ukraine to NATO or not? And don't you think if there'll be no direct invitation, one day Ukrainians will ask “what is it all for?”

Because this war is not ethnical, it's not religious, it's a geopolitical war. Putin attacked us because of our willingness to be in NATO. If you will not invite us now to NATO, don't you think that a moment of disappointment will come to Ukraine? Thank you.

Deputy Secretary General

Now, thank you for your question. And I know there is a huge expectation in Ukrainian public opinion, within your political leadership, for you to move faster towards full membership into NATO. I'll be direct. I do not believe that there are conditions for the Washington summit to make an invitation for your country.

But… and I say this with all the respect for your sacrifice, for your bravery, and for the immense suffering of your nation. That the summit in Washington, as the Vilnius summit, was an important step, giving away the map, starting the NATO-Ukraine Council: President Zelenskyy called Secretary General Stoltenberg yesterday, he called him “I want to call for a NATO-Ukraine Council in defence ministers format”, tomorrow 3pm will be convening that. So the summit in Washington, I want you to see it as a bridge towards your membership.

And also giving the example that we just had from Sweden and Finland, because, you know, you ask for good reasons. Finland and Sweden came in relatively swiftly. The fact that you're moving every day closer to us, more interoperable, you're doing the reforms, and you basically are more interoperable with NATO that probably nobody would have thought, you're moving to post-Soviet equipment as we speak. The moment when the political decision by consensus would be met, the time for you to join after we take the political decision, will be very compressed. Because this bridge means that you're coming closer to us, and then the execution of the political decision will be relatively compressed in time ratification.

And then one day, I hope you will be presenting your instrument of ratification to the State Department like many other nations. So I know it's a little bit disappointing for you. But really do trust the fact that we are saying loud and clear is not a matter of “if” but a matter of “when” and this “when” I think will be sooner rather than later. And this will be good for Georgia. This will be good for Moldova, this will be good for Europe. And I think it'll be a strong signal around the world. Your place, my friend, is in the family of democracies. You earned it, and you will be part of the family.

Teri Schultz, DW

That's a good answer. Okay, I'm gonna get pulled off stage but Lord Robertson, easier for you to say you don't have to get this consensus. Would you like to see that sooner? Would you like to see it the Washington Summit?

Lord Robertson

It's already been said, it was set at the Bucharest Summit, that that is the ultimate objective. But the signal that Ukraine needs from the from the NATO summit in July is that the Allies are absolutely firm and will stay in place for them until they've expelled the invaders from their territory, and that they will get the equipment, and that they will get the ammunition, and they will get the support and the unity of the West. That's what they need. Not some sort of vague promise about membership, ultimately - which will eventually come in any event. In the meantime, they have to win the battle. And the battle can only be won if the man in the Kremlin is persuaded that we're going to be with them until they win.

Teri Schultz, DW

Okay, that's where we'll leave it. Thank you very much, Deputy Secretary General, Lord Robertson. We're going to have to hand it back now to Ian. Thank you very much, everyone