Fireside Chat

NATO MULTIMEDIA ACCOUNT

Download NATO’s broadcast-quality video content free of charge

Log in

No account?

Create an account

Forgot your password?

Reset password

NATO MULTIMEDIA ACCOUNT

Access NATO’s broadcast-quality video content free of charge

Create an account

First name*

Family name*

Email address*

Password*

Repeat password*

Occupation

Nationality

I accept the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Nick Schifrin (Moderator)

Radmila Shekerinska, thanks very much. You are not only the Deputy Secretary General of NATO, but you're the former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence of North Macedonia, and that will come up.

And I am Nick Schifrin. I'm the foreign affairs and defence correspondent from PBS NewsHour. And while Aspen has a goal of creating unity and understanding, with that risk I may ask a few pointed questions about some of the administration's recent language on Europe. Because that is the elephant in the room these days. And let me start with the National Security Strategy of the Trump administration that's been released on Friday. And before I get to some of the rhetoric in that document, let's talk about the substance. The document suggests strongly, prioritises what it calls ‘strategic stability with Russia.’ Trump administration officials on background regularly talk about a desire long term to have economic ties to Russia. That is fundamentally different than how Europe assesses Russia as a long-term threat. So how can NATO plan for the future when the Trump administration considers Russia a future partner, and nearly every other NATO member sees Russia as a long-term adversary?

NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Shekerinska

Well, first, let me thank the Aspen Institute for organising this. It's great to be in DC. We have had a series of meetings, also with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. And the idea was that security does not belong only to governments, but very much also to our parliaments, to the representatives of our citizens. And we also had quite an interesting discussion with other think tanks and institutes. You have mentioned the National Security Strategy, and it is true that almost all NATO Allies come forward with strategic documents on their security policy. And we never comment on them. We don't comment on them, and we always refer questions regarding the content of the document to the administration that produces it.

What we focus in NATO is, of course, on doing our core mission, focusing on our core business, and this is to guarantee the collective security of 32 Allies. We have been very focused on our priorities, and we have been very clear-eyed about different threats that we have. And in The Hague Summit just few months ago, it was an important, historic, game-changing Summit, and the outcome was difficult to forecast. I remember many of these discussions happening in the two months before the Summit. And many people wondering whether there will be a conclusion, and we have made it. Because 32 Allies agreed that we need a stronger NATO, and we need also a NATO that clearly allows for more of a burden sharing. And this is what we focus on. So, on one side, the US commitment to NATO and Euro-Atlantic security was clear. But what was also clear was the expectation that European Allies and Canada will do more. We believe that it has been long overdue and that this is a fair call. So, our focus is on these two things together, with a strong support to Ukraine.

Nick Schifrin (Moderator)

But again, can NATO be stronger if Washington and the vast majority of every other country in NATO has a different assessment of what Russia is long term?

NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Shekerinska

I am extremely clear in all of the discussions that within the Alliance, including at The Hague Summit, we had a very, very short but very clear sentence that Russia remains to be the direct long-term threat -

Nick Schifrin (Moderator)

Although that was heavily negotiated before that sentence was agreed.

NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Shekerinska

You know, 32 Allies sitting around the table and agreeing on any sentence is sometimes difficult. This has been the case of the Alliance since we know it. And actually, if you go back to your organisations, your decision-making bodies, it is always the case. So, I don't believe that easy solutions are the best solutions. So, we have negotiated this statement. There were a number of difficult decisions, agreeing to do 5% of GDP on defence and defence related investments is not a breakthrough. It was a shock for many people who have believed that unity will be impossible on this issue. But we have delivered, because the threat is loud and clear.

Nick Schifrin (Moderator)

You're going to have the same answers to these questions, but I mentioned that I do have to ask about the rhetoric. The document includes this phrase, ‘the EU and other transnational bodies undermine political liberty and sovereignty.’ Do they?

NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Shekerinska

As I told you, if we start picking and choosing and commenting on every sentence in different documents, we will end up really being the talking club and not the doers club. But you know, 32 Allies have met not only in The Hague. They meet regularly. Our North Atlantic Council meets three to four times every week. And these decisions affect not only our security in terms of policy documents and agreed documents. But very much what happens in real life, how we are postured at the eastern flank, how we train, how we procure things, how we define our spending trajectory in the future, how we deal with defence industry. I see some faces reminding me of this. So, these are bread and butter issues for our security, and we like to focus on them because they bring substance to the table.

Nick Schifrin (Moderator)

I'll spare you asking it again, but what I will say is this, there's more language, right? We've all seen it. You know, Europe faces civilisational erasure. A US goal is cultivating resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European nations. The document questions whether NATO will remain reliable Allies. But the language has an impact. And just to have one example today, a Danish Defence Intelligence Service said, ‘uncertainty about the US’s role as a guarantor of Europe's security will increase Russia's willingness to intensify hybrid attacks against NATO.’ So, I know you don't want to talk about the language itself, but is there an impact of this language that you will get more Russian aggressiveness toward NATO?

NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Shekerinska

All our adversaries, and especially Russia, have been trying to undermine our unity on multiple fronts. And they have been more reckless, also with regards to behaviour in air space, incursions, drones, jets, everything. But this is what, in a way, we are used to. This is why NATO was envisaged to protect for collective security. And what we do very well is to try to approach it with action. Let me talk about generally this perception, ‘are we committed enough? Is every Ally committed enough?’ You mentioned my experience as a minister of defence of North Macedonia. I joined first ministerial meeting within NATO before my country joined the Alliance, because we were part of the coalition in Afghanistan.

So we had always Resolute Support meetings at the end of a normal NATO ministerial. And I was shocked, as a newcomer trying to convince everyone that they should support our entry into NATO, I was shocked that even though the discussion was on Afghanistan, it would always start with a US secretary raising the issue of burden sharing, and European Allies and Canada doing more in defence investment. And several European ministers saying, ‘we agree, but maybe next year.’ So, I can also understand that from a point of view of America, they also challenge are we in Europe committed enough? Because if you go back through history books, you will see that this has been tale as old as time, or as NATO. Eisenhower, everyone, every administration-

Nick Schifrin (Moderator)

And the Trump administration does deserve credit for, regardless of the style the substance is, there's now a 5% pledge.

NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Shekerinska

It is true that not only the 5% pledge, but this is the first year where we will have all Allies above or at 2%, which was not the case last year, which was not the case two years ago. And this is the first time that we have agreed not only capability targets, but actually 3.5% for the capability targets and an extra 1.5 on defence industry, readiness, military mobility, all the defence related issues. It's a big thing. And it is not an evidence of questioned commitment by anyone, but actually confirmation that we have committed more.

Nick Schifrin (Moderator)

So let me ask about Ukraine a little bit. I know you're going to not going to want to talk about the ins and outs of the negotiations that are happening. Zelenskyy said today, that Ukraine and the E3 were going to submit new language to the US. But let me just ask a broad question, given the language that I mentioned at the top about how the Trump administration considers Russia. Do you believe that the United States is negotiating peace in Ukraine overall with the correct priorities?

NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Shekerinska

NATO has been very direct since the beginning. Secretary General was very clear that we have supported and we commend US President Trump's efforts to bring an end to the war in Ukraine, to the war against Ukraine. And he was the only one who could bring Putin to the negotiating table, because rightfully so, we are questioning all whether Putin is really interested in peace. But it took this effort and this initiative to get Putin at the negotiating table. We have not discussed the elements of the negotiations because we are not party. We do trust not only our Ally, the US, but also our colleagues and friends and partners, Ukraine, they are the ones at the negotiating table, in the seat to make the difficult decisions.

Our goal was, instead of talking about what they should do, to try to help them be stronger at the battlefield, be stronger at the negotiating table and be stronger in the future. So, our focus very much at the NATO Summit, there was a very clear language on continued support to Ukraine. I know that many people had doubts, but also, this was an important moment for the Summit. And immediately, two weeks after the Summit was over, Secretary General came to DC to talk to US President Trump, and to initiate a new model of support to Ukraine. And this is the so-called PURL support, Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List, which is key military equipment from US stockpiles financed by European Allies and Canada and going directly to Ukraine.

I was in Ukraine two weeks ago. We had very open conversations with all of the stakeholders there, and they have all raised the issue of the importance of keeping this flow of essential military equipment coming. And we are committed to doing this.

Nick Schifrin (Moderator)

A European official tells me the NATO request for PURL for next year is as much as $14 billion. I think Zelensky said yesterday, $15 billion. But a US official tells me that they've capped it at $12 billion, can you confirm that? And what would be the impact of any cap imposed by the United States on PURL?

NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Shekerinska

We have not discussed caps. We have discussed really, a very, very open-ended process, which means that our focus for this year was to get this equipment in Ukraine as we speak. I think, after the first meeting between Secretary General and US President Trump, in two weeks first Allies came forward with support. And until now, we have managed to have the commitment of two-thirds of Allies to support PURL and the expectation is that by the end of this year, we will have 5 billion US dollars. And then we are planning for a more predictable process where we will not wait for several countries to agree on a package, but rather have a monthly flow.

And let me tell you, especially on the issue of air defence, this is really a lifeline. Most of the - Secretary General will share some details in the next few days - almost all of the air defences that protect civilians, that support energy infrastructure come from PURL, and this is why I have really appreciated some of our European countries and European Allies and Canada, really stepping up, coming up with several packages, and really showing what support to Ukraine means in real terms.

Nick Schifrin (Moderator)

So, you've not received any cap from the United States?

NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Shekerinska

There has always been a very, very open approach when discussing with our US counterparts. And very much we all see this in support to the peace negotiations, because we know that in order for negotiations to end in a lasting peace and durable peace, we need Ukraine to be strong. We need them to be strong in the future. And this is why it was very important that European Allies have not only stepped up in terms of defence spending - we didn't have time to discuss this - but are also stepping up in terms of supporting Ukraine, especially with the Coalition of the Willing. These are the security guarantees that we need for the long run.

Nick Schifrin (Moderator)

As I mentioned, you're the former defence minister of North Macedonia, and you were instrumental in getting North Macedonia to become the 30th member of NATO five years ago. President Trump has said this publicly, so it's not a surprise, but the National Security Strategy does state as a goal ‘ending the perception and preventing the reality of NATO as a perpetually expanding Alliance’. What is the impact if the open door of NATO's policy gets closed?

NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Shekerinska

I was someone who has profited very much as a citizen of North Macedonia to this policy, and I remember saying this to my colleagues and citizens, you know, we should use the open-door policy because, you know, you need everyone on board. But when we talk about the principle or the policy, there is the principle, and then there is the practicality of the principle, which means that for any decision with regards to enlarging, adding a new member, you need all 32 around the table. And I'm saying this as a former minister of a country that has paid a huge price in terms of an enormous delay because of a lack of a consensus. The practical side in the present discussion is that we did not have, we do not have 32 anonymity, full consensus on Ukraine's membership to NATO. And that is a fact.

Nick Schifrin (Moderator)

That's a fact, and that's the practicality. But is there an impact if the principle is changed?

NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Shekerinska

As long as you don't have the practical means, which means 32 on board, and we haven't had them for quite some time, actually, I think it's a waste of energy to talk about the policy when you have the vote, when you have the different positions by a number of countries. And this was not new, to be honest.

Nick Schifrin (Moderator)

Let's talk about the threat posed by Russia to NATO, and let's focus on something that you've been focused on, and NATO has been focused on, which is drones. And I'm going to split this into a couple of categories. So, one, it seems to me, is the pure military, meaning, are NATO troops ready to understand, confront the tactics that we see in eastern Ukraine when it comes to drones? So let me ask about that first. I talked to a Ukrainian Sergeant recently who ran a red team, who ran the opposition team up in Estonia in a NATO exercise, and he told me that he played a Russian drone unit, just four or five guys, and the NATO troops, you know, did not do well. That's how he put it. Is NATO ready for Ukraine-, Russia-style drone tactics? If the answer is no, how is it getting ready for those tactics?

NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Shekerinska

If you talk about NATO and you talk about military and you talk about capabilities, training is an essential element. If there is, you know, something that we always do, that's training, and we continue this focus. And what has happened, especially in the last year, was when we develop our partnership with Ukraine, many people tend to look at partnerships as a one-way street. So, it's NATO providing partners with some know-how, with some equipment, with political dialogue. No, this has always been a two-way street. And especially at the beginning of this year, we have created our first joint entity with a partner, with Ukraine. There is a big centre, JATEC, in Poland that basically focuses on lessons learned from the war in Ukraine. And this is what we take also into our planning, into our preparation and into our training.

But it is also true, and this has been mentioned by many of our military leaders, is that for our deterrence and our defence, we would also fight differently. And there are other areas in which our superiority would be harnessed. So, very mindful of the new technologies and the new developments, but also very strong on the, let's say, the basics and what NATO does well and continues to do well.

Nick Schifrin (Moderator)

Although NATO members historically have used a lot of exquisite systems, and being faced by $30,000 drones is a different threat, and that gets us to the second category, if you will, the eastern flank. So, it's called Eastern Sentry, the efforts that NATO are undertaking to defend the eastern flank, as highlighted by the incursion of Russian drones over the last few months, certainly, frankly, over the last three and a half years. And Eastern Sentry - I talked to a lot of people - there's no one answer. There's no one counter drone system. But is there a sustainable solution today, where that you could or NATO could face off, NATO could confront Russian drones that are again $30,000-40,000 each? Is there a sustainable way to do that, instead of firing million-dollar missiles? Is there a counter drone system that exists today?

NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Shekerinska

The advantage that NATO had and the advantage that we preserve is to be both strong and flexible, and this is the winning formula. So, when we talk about strength, we do talk about the defence investments. So, what we have seen, even before The Hague Summit, but especially afterwards, is a very strong commitment by a number of Allies to really invest in their defence systems, in their military, in their security, what we have seen in the Baltics, what we saw in Poland, what we saw in the Nordics, but very much, what remarkable change that we are seeing in Germany. They have committed to 3.5% of GDP by 2029 and I think yesterday, their defence minister actually said that he wants to see Germany as a pacemaker in doing this. So, this is the strength.

But we also talk a lot about our flexibility, and this is where Eastern Sentry comes as an example. But I will go back in time, just beginning of this year. We have had, in that time, different hybrid challenge. It was the Russian Shadow Fleet ships that have cut undersea infrastructure, endangering access to energy, endangering communication, and we saw this as a really strong vulnerability for our Allies. So, what we did was our military leader, SACEUR, initiated an activity which was called Baltic Sentry.

So, there is this sentry element moving forward. And it was not just that he moved a number of assets there, which is strength, right, but it's also that he used a more flexible approach. And then they added more naval drones, but also naval sensors for a better situational awareness. They have started testing, additionally, new technologies, together with defence industry, with armies. And you know, after Baltic Sentry became fully operational, we have never had an incident of that kind. And it shows that the flexibility matters, and this is what we are doing now at the eastern flank.

So, it's not just the assets that are there. We have always had strong assets. We have Forward Land Forces in all of the countries along the eastern flank, but we have moved some of them, and then we really experiment, test and use the new technologies and combine them with what we have there.

Nick Schifrin (Moderator)

But is there a sustainable solution today where you could shoot down $30,000 drones, not with million dollars -

NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Shekerinska

This is the focus, and this is where not only SACEUR, which is our Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, but also our Supreme Allied Commander on Transformation, Admiral Vandier, they are actually developing this together with defence industries, together with different armies. And the idea is actually to showcase the flexibility and to be able to provide this kind also of defence and deterrence.