Remarks

Christiane Amanpour
For you Secretary General, NATO has said, and actually key Defence Ministers from the frontline countries, have said that you are concerned for the first time. This wasn’t the case last year, that within three to five years even, Putin could test the resolve of a NATO country.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg
We can never take peace for granted, but I think it is important to convey that we don't see any imminent threat against any NATO Ally. The world has become more dangerous, but NATO has become stronger. And the purpose of NATO is to prevent war, is to ensure that there is no room in Moscow for any miscalculation about NATO's readiness and resolve to protect all Allies. And to make it clear that an attack on one Ally will trigger the response from the whole Alliance. And as long as we convey that message, clearly to Moscow, no Ally will be attacked. So our deterrence remains credible and therefore we don't see any military threat against any NATO Ally.

Christiane Amanpour
Can I ask you to pick up on the progress that NATO nations are making in what you’re all demanding for more defence spending?

NATO Secretary General
In 2014, NATO made the very important decision, triggered by Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and also NATO Allies after years of reducing defence spending, we had to start to increase defence spending. And that was at the NATO Summit in Wales. I remember I was there. And I thought this was just another pledge by politicians and I made that international meeting and [thought] not so much was going to happen.

The reality is that a lot has happened because since then, all NATO Allies have increased defence spending. This year, we expect 18 Allies to meet the 2% guideline, spend 2% of GDP on defence. That's up from three [Allies] in 2014. That's a significant increase, meaning that in total European Allies and Canada have added 600 billion [dollars] extra for defence. And those Allies which are not yet at 2% have plans in place to be there very soon. So there is an enormous difference and the European Allies have really stepped up because they realise that there is need to invest in high-end capabilities, have more readiness of our forces. And NATO has implemented the biggest reinforcements on collective defence in generations with battlegroups, combat troops in the eastern part of the Alliance for the first time in our history, with high readiness, more forces, and now total new defence plans. So I’m not saying everything is fine. I agree that Europeans have to do even more, but they're really on track to something which is demonstrating a commitment of all Allies that need to stand together.

Christiane Amanpour
Can you today be certain that NATO can defeat Russia, if it comes to that? All we're hearing is that you're not ramped up enough. You don't have enough to do what you need to do in Ukraine, much less if you were to confront Russia, and you've said that if he steps on your territory, every single inch will be defended.

NATO Secretary General
NATO is the strongest military power in the world today. We represent 50% roughly of the world's total military might. And militarily, we are stronger than Russia.

But at the same time, I think the war in Ukraine has demonstrated that there are some serious gaps. For instance, when it comes to sustainment, it’s one thing to have all the advanced weapons systems, but they need spare parts, they need maintenance, and obviously they need ammunition. And in the beginning of the war in Ukraine, we depleted our stocks, but now they are running quite low. So now we are focusing extremely, on how to ramp up production. We have some good news. There are new factories being set up. Production has increased but there’s an urgent need to do more.

So yes, I think we all have learned some serious lessons about warfare and also for NATO from the war in Ukraine. Then of course, I was speaking about burden sharing.  Europeans have more to do when it comes to total defence spending. But actually, when you look at support for Ukraine, European Allies and Canada have provided more support to Ukraine in total than United States. Of course, the United States have done a lot, in particular in constant military support to Ukraine. But the problem now is of course, the lack of decision in the US Congress means that the flow from the US has gone down. And that has a direct impact on the frontline in Ukraine. So of course, it's not about making the right decision, but it's about making the right decision early as quickly as possible because it's urgent. Every week we wait means that there will be more people killed on the frontline in Ukraine. So it's not for me to give advice on how to pass legislation through the US Congress. But what I can say is the vital and urgent need for the US to decide on a package for Ukraine because they need that support. And we have a burden sharing between Europe, Canada and the United States. Now it's for the US to deliver what they promised.

Question
I’m [inaudible] Finland, Former Minister Sanna Marin’s government. It's clear that Europe needs a credible and strong deterrence looking at Ukraine and beyond. Chancellor Scholz pointed out earlier this morning. Do you think that we can achieve that by conventional means only? Or is it timely to discuss the European nuclear weapon as it is being discussed currently in Germany? What are the expectations especially across the Atlantic?

NATO Secretary General
NATO has a well-established nuclear deterrent. It has worked for decades. It's something the United States does together with European Allies. We have agreed command and control. We have exercises. We have doctrines and it’s actually something we do together as NATO. And I think that any questioning of that deterrent will only undermine NATO in a time when we really need credible deterrence. So of course we have US nuclear power. We have France and UK. But the idea of developing some kind of parallel joint nuclear deterrent among some NATO Allies, not including the United States and presumably not the UK either, that's not helpful and it will only undermine a nuclear deterrent that's worked well for many, many years.

Question
And thank you very much Tobias Ellwood, United Kingdom Parliament, former foreign minister. Senator [Ricketts] I understand this is the biggest delegation for the United States, for generations to come to Munich and that's really good to see. I hope the message goes back that part of Europe is on fire. The lines on the map are being redrawn. And we are absolutely baffled as to how this has been tied in with what's going on the Mexican border. My question, if I may, is to do a standardisation of NATO rounds. Because if you take a Howitzer from United States, and you put it with the munitions from Estonia, as Ukraine found, it won't work. And we need to be building more artillery pieces and shells as well. But until we standardise this equipment, it simply won't happen. Surely that must be a priority for NATO.

NATO Secretary General
Yes, absolutely. And the good news is that, again, we have learned some very serious lessons from the war in Ukraine. It's not only Estonian Howitzers or ammunition from USA doesn't work together. It's also, we have a joint Dutch-German brigade where they discovered exactly the same. So we have too many examples where Allies have made some small changes in NATO standards partly, I guess, to protect their own industry. And this doesn't work. So therefore, we have done a lot in NATO to actually reinforce and to implement the agreed NATO standards. This will reduce costs and it will ensure interoperability and also that weapons and ammunitions are interchangeable.

Christiane Amanpour
Question to both of you actually, because you've been using China more and more in your arguments to US lawmakers. And others have told us that they're watching. You know, Iran is watching, China's watching. Everybody's watching what happens on the battlefield of Ukraine. And others have suggested that there is actually a new axis of anti-American nations, Iran, North Korea, you know, Russia joining to really challenge the United States. I'd like to hear your view on that. And then your answer on that.

NATO Secretary General
I think we have to remember that just a few days before the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine back in 2022, President Putin went to Beijing and he signed an agreement with President Xi where they promised each other a partnership without any limits. And what we see is that China and Russia are coming closer and closer. So of course, if President Putin wins in Ukraine, it's not only challenging for the Ukrainians, but it sends a message not only to Putin, but also to Xi that when they use military force, they get what they want. So what happens in Ukraine today can happen in Taiwan tomorrow. And therefore, I strongly believe that it's a good deal for the United States to support Ukraine. It's not charity, it's an investment in their own security. Because it makes it less likely that Xi uses force for instance, against Taiwan, but also because by spending a fraction of the US defence budget together with European Allies, we have enabled the Ukrainians to destroy a substantial part of the Russian fighting power. So this is actually in our interest to ensure that Putin doesn't win. Not least because we are concerned about what China may learn if he wins in Ukraine. So therefore, it's urgent that the US makes a decision on continuing support to Ukraine.