“Appeasement with dictators does not lead to peace; it leads to war and conflict.”

When President Vladimir Putin sent his Russian troops to seize the Crimea and territories in eastern Ukraine in 2014, Anders Fogh Rasmussen was caught off guard. It was a hard lesson for the then-acting secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 

Rasmussen disputes that he or the alliance became complacent after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Dane admits, however, that the West “miscalculated Putin's brutality and ambitions.” The 69-year-old power broker tells Die Weltwoche, “My lesson learned from my encounters with Putin is that appeasement with dictators does not lead to peace; it leads to war and conflict.” 

During his tenure as Denmark’s prime minister and, then, at the head of civilian NATO leadership, Rasmussen became well acquainted with the Russian hardliner. Rasmussen believes that today’s Putin has “really changed.”

A teetotaler and amateur cyclist who follows a strict daily fitness regimen, Rasmussen is a model of sobriety and self control. As prime minister, he was a strident critic of the welfare state and imposed stringent limits on foreign immigration.

Now, as founder of the Alliance of Democracies Foundation, Rasmussen wields his influence to advance democracy and free markets around the globe. On the issue of Ukraine, he is adamant. Rasmussen categorically rejects “land for peace” with the Russian bear, as former American Secretary of State Henri Kissinger has advocated. He insists such a capitulation would be “dangerous,” “irresponsible,” and “send a bad signal to autocrats across the world.” 

We meet the former NATO secretary general in Zürich where he lays out his vision for peace and the conditions for a possible “neutral” status of Ukraine. But, he warns, the end of war is not in sight any time soon. Putin is capable of inflicting “a prolonged conflict where he can destabilize and weaken Ukraine sufficiently to serve the Russian interest.”

Weltwoche: Not too long ago, French President Emmanuel Macron declared NATO is “brain dead.” In the face of the Russian invasion into Ukraine, has NATO been sufficiently reanimated to fulfil its task to effectively defend the members’ territory? 

Anders Fogh Rasmussen: Absolutely. Yes. I think the ultimate proof is the wish by many countries to join NATO. Latest, of course, Finland and Sweden. Obviously, countries that want a security guarantee do not want to join an organization that is brain dead. It shows that the organization has always been and is still very much alive. Putin has, paradoxically, infused a lot of strengths and enthusiasm within NATO. He wanted less NATO. Now, he gets more NATO.

Weltwoche: As secretary general, you aggressively pushed NATO in new directions that extended far beyond the traditional roles of containing of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Putin repeatedly warned that Russia feels threatened by NATO’s expansion ever closer to Russia’s borders. Do you believe that NATO’s steady enlargement has provoked Putin’s invasion into Ukraine?

Rasmussen: Not at all. There's one person who is responsible for this attack on Ukraine. That is Putin. The accusations against NATO and the accusations that NATO poses a threat to Russia are ridiculous. 

NATO, by nature, is a defensive organization. We never, ever intended to attack Russia. NATO has not been enlarged because we have campaigned for getting more members. No, NATO has been enlarged because Russia's neighbors have applied for membership to get security guarantees. I think that instead of accusing NATO of something that is clearly ridiculous, the Kremlin should reflect a bit on the fact that all of Russia's neighbors desperately want a security guarantee through NATO's “Article 5.”

Weltwoche: In 2008, Putin was invited to a NATO summit in Bucharest. He warned, “NATO cannot guarantee its security at the expense of other countries’ security.” Are you confident that Russia’s security concerns were taken seriously enough? 

Rasmussen: We have done a lot to reach out to Russia, to tell Russia that those enlargements are not directed against Russia. The first enlargement took place in 1999 with Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary — two years before we had adopted the NATO Russia Founding Act. Among other steps, we accepted a permanent Russian representation in the NATO headquarters. They could, with their own eyes, follow our work and see it's not directed against Russia.

The next enlargement took place in 2004. That was a big bang enlargement with ten Eastern and Central European countries. Again, two years before, we established the NATO-Russia Council, something very special. When I took office as the secretary general of NATO in 2009, I made it one of my priorities to develop a strategic partnership with Russia. We have done a lot to reach out to Russia to tell them, “Well, your neighbors have requested membership of NATO, but it's not directed against you.”

We were both open and frank and outward looking towards Russia, but we have made a lot of mistakes.

Weltwoche: Such as?

Rasmussen: We miscalculated Putin's brutality and ambitions. A couple of days ago, I looked at my notes from a closed meeting between Putin and NATO at the Bucharest Summit in 2008. At that meeting, he made remarkable statements. He claimed that Ukraine was actually not an independent nation, but old Russian territory. He said Kyiv was the mother of all Russian cities. He said Crimea was illegally handed over to Ukraine way back in 1954 in a meeting in the Communist Party Central Committee. 

Looking at the brutality he later showed, those statements are remarkable. But we didn't take him seriously. Had we done that, I think we would have reacted differently when he attacked Georgia four months after these statements. He de facto occupied Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia. We would also have reacted differently when he took Crimea in 2014 and occupied parts of Donbas. 

Now, he has revealed his ambitions again. A few days ago in St. Petersburg, he compared himself to Peter the Great. He doesn't even try to disguise his true intention — that is to conquer what he considers old Russian territory.

Weltwoche: How was the chemistry when you were dealing with Russia? Did you feel you were dealing with a reliable partner who was acting in good faith?

Rasmussen: Putin has changed over the years from when I first met him as prime minister of Denmark and last spoke to him as secretary general of NATO. In 2002, Putin was actually very positive regarding links with the West. If you look at his public statements as Russia’s new president in 2000 and 2001, he even floated the idea of Russia joining NATO. Well, he never applied. So, we never had to take a decision on that. 

Weltwoche: Putin floated the idea on several occasions. To President Clinton, he said, “We would consider an option that Russia might join NATO.” And he asked former NATO Secretary General George Robertson: “When are you going to invite us to join NATO?” Putin claims Russia was rejected. 

Rasmussen: No, no, no. That's not true. George Robertson, with whom I spoke a couple of days ago, listened to Putin and told him about the procedure for applying to become a member. So, he didn't exclude anything. But Putin and Russia never, ever applied.

Weltwoche: When did Putin change?

Rasmussen: In 2002, I met him for the first time, and he argued enthusiastically in favor of strengthening links between Russia and the West. Then, he changed his mind in, I would say, 2006. It was after the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003 and the Ukrainian Orange Revolution in 2005. He thought that America, in general, and the CIA, in particular, were aiming at exactly the same kind of color revolution in Moscow to get rid of his regime.

Weltwoche: Do you think that was a totally absurd idea?

Rasmussen: Of course it was an absurd idea. Then, in 2007, he made his thinking public. He did that at the Munich Security Conference where he made the famous speech that the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the (last) century” was the collapse of the Soviet Union. From that time on, he took negative decisions regarding Russia’s relations with the West. He attacked Georgia in 2008, and he attacked Ukraine in 2014 and now 2022. He has really changed.

My lesson learned from my encounters with Putin is that appeasement with dictators does not lead to peace; it leads to war and conflict. 

When I first met him in Moscow as new secretary general of NATO in December 2009, he was the prime minister at that time, and Medvedev was the President. Very aggressively he was telling me, “Now you have become the leader of a relic of the Cold War, you should abolish NATO.” That was his opening statement.

Weltwoche: What did you tell him?

Rasmussen: I told him that I have become the leader of the most successful peace movement in history, and it was my intention to strengthen that movement.

Weltwoche: Indeed, the Cold War has been over for a long time. How can you justify the existence of this fossil of the Cold War? What is the raison d'être of the biggest military alliance in the world? 

Rasmussen: [laughs] Unfortunately, I think Putin's attack on Ukraine really underlines the raison d'être of NATO. A nuclear-armed state has attacked a peaceful neighbor. That's why Finland and Sweden decided to change a decade-long and, in the case of Sweden, 200 years of alliance-free status overnight. They have learned a lesson from the attack on Ukraine.

During my term as secretary general, we defined three core tasks of NATO. First, territorial defense: that was in the past. The raison d'être of NATO was to defend ourselves against the Soviet Union. Secondly, crisis management: that was to take action “out of area” in Afghanistan, Libya, to hunt pirates, et cetera. And, thirdly, corporative security: it was to build and develop partnerships across the globe with Australia, Japan, et cetera. 

I think, now, NATO will adopt a new Strategic Concept at the NATO Summit in Madrid. Now, territorial defense will be highlighted because that was and it is and will remain the raison d'être of NATO.

Weltwoche: Territorial defense, not out of area interventions?

Rasmussen: Yes, but sometimes out of area is necessary to protect your own territory.

Weltwoche: Such as in Afghanistan?

Rasmussen: The terrorists that attacked the United States were housed and protected in Afghanistan.

Weltwoche: Wasn't Afghanistan one of the biggest defeats in NATO’s history? The Taliban are back in power after twenty years of war. The cost in human lives and money was immense. 

Rasmussen: Yes. It would be a long discussion and, of course, many mistakes were made. I do not agree with the way we left Afghanistan. It was chaotic, and we left the impression that all our efforts had been in vain. I think we should have stayed in Afghanistan with a smaller group of international troops. 

Weltwoche: A major roadblock for Sweden and Finland to become members of NATO is Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The Economist calls Erdogan’s government the alliance’s “loose cannon.” Is Turkey more trouble to NATO than it is worth? 

Rasmussen: The membership of Finland and Sweden will be solved down the road. Sweden has already indicated that they are willing to lift the arms embargo against Turkey. That was one of Erdogan’s demands. When it comes to the point of who Turkey considers terrorists, it's a more complicated thing because in countries where the rule of law is the predominant principle you can't dictate to extradite people. Maybe you could have a dialogue between Turkey and Sweden and Finland on these issues. I consider it a given that both Finland and Sweden will enter NATO. 

Speaking about Turkey, obviously, I'm concerned about the development, the domestic political development, as well as Erdogan’s purchase of Russian military equipment. It's a problem. Nevertheless, my bottom line is we need Turkey. It has the second largest military within NATO, after the US. It's a bridge between the West and East. We need them, and I think we should engage in a critical dialogue with Turkey instead of kicking them out of NATO. Apart from the fact that we don't have a formal mechanism to kick out members, it would be a lengthy legal process.

Weltwoche: End of April, the United Kingdom’s foreign secretary, Liz Truss, said NATO should protect Taiwan. Responding to Truss’ comments, Taiwanese Foreign Minister Joseph Wu said there are increasing opportunities for exchanges between Taiwan and NATO. How would an involvement in Asia fit in the original idea of NATO which is focussed on defending the member states? 

Rasmussen: I don't think it's imminent. However, in the new Strategic Concept that will be adopted at the NATO summit, China will get a prominent place. China is not mentioned at all in the current Strategic Concept. While Russia and Ukraine, right now, overshadow everything, the long-term challenge will be China. No doubt.

Weltwoche: Do you see China being a challenge to NATO territory?

Rasmussen: Not territory. Their threat is more economic, and we have to deal with that. For instance, China invests in strategically important sectors in Europe. China competes with Western companies. Their companies get state subsidies, and they're out-competing many Western private enterprises. They don't give access to our companies and the Chinese market on the same terms as we allow Chinese companies. They have exercised economic coercion against Australia and Lithuania. In many ways, China is a bigger challenge because it's a huge economy. Russia is declining; China is increasing.

Weltwoche: Do you see a role for NATO in regard to China as a military defense alliance?

Rasmussen: No, I don't see a role for NATO, as such. But, of course, it will very much depend on the U.S. because Article 5 could be activated if a NATO member calls the NATO Council. The NATO Council will discuss it and, if there's an agreement, NATO will get engaged. It's not an automatic reaction. I don't think NATO would be the natural actor if China were to attack Taiwan, but I'm sure that NATO allies would act — the U.S., U.K., and France. France is also a Pacific nation.

Weltwoche: You mentioned the upcoming NATO summit in Madrid (June 28th through June 30th). What are the key points that need to be addressed and solved?

Rasmussen: First, of course, I would very much like the Finish and Swedish application to be solved. There is no guarantee that this will happen at the summit, but a decision should be made how to proceed. Secondly, I would like to see decisions on territory defense in the east (of Europe). Ideally, I think we should permanently station NATO troops as permanent bases in the states such as Poland, maybe also Romania. And thirdly, the new strategic concept should be decided upon. Those three issues are dominant, in my opinion.

Weltwoche: What about Ukraine? Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger suggested at the Davos Summit that Ukraine should cede territory to make peace with Russia. He said, “Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante,” apparently suggesting that Ukraine agree to give up much of the Donbas and Crimea. Isn’t this the way to go? 

Rasmussen: I really think Kissinger's statement, as well as Macron's statement, to avoid the “humiliation” of Putin are dangerous statements because that would be to reward a nuclear armed state that attacks a peaceful neighbor. To push Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to give up Ukrainian territory, in my opinion, is not a responsible behavior. It will send a bad signal to autocrats across the world. 

Anyway, the Ukrainian people will not surrender. As long as you have Russian troops on Ukrainian soil, there'll be conflict and war. I think it's only for Zelenskyy and his government to determine the conditions upon which they will accept a possible peace deal or ceasefire with Russia. 

Weltwoche: During peace talks in March, Ukrainian officials said their country was ready to declare itself permanently neutral, forsaking the prospect of joining NATO, which is a key Russian demand. For the sake of peace, wouldn’t it be wise to secure Ukraine as a neutral buffer state? 

Rasmussen: Regarding Ukraine's possible NATO membership, let me remind you that back in 2008, we decided that Ukraine will become a member of NATO. Now, it's written in the Ukrainian constitution. Zelenskyy has indicated that, under certain conditions, maybe Ukraine could give up this application for NATO membership and accept a status as a neutral country. But, and this is important, he added that they need alternative security guarantees to replace what they could have achieved through NATO membership.

Weltwoche: Which could be?

Rasmussen: Which could be many things. Actually, some days ago, he asked me to chair a group of international experts with a task to provide him and his government recommendations as to which security guarantees could replace a possible NATO membership. Of course, he hasn't indicated anything about future NATO membership because it's still in the Ukrainian constitution. 

Weltwoche: If we were to think in alternatives, what could that be? 

Rasmussen: Of course, it could be, firstly, to allow Ukraine to have a robust military themselves because, ultimately, that is their only security guarantee. Secondly, a number of guarantor states could, internationally, provide security guarantees to Ukraine. The U.S, U.K., France, Germany, and Turkey could be among them. We have started, now, to reflect on that. Soon, we will publish who will be the members of this group. It's really an important initiative.

Weltwoche: Could that include the stationing of allied heavy weapons on Ukrainian territory, something Russia says it fears most.

Rasmussen: There are many, many aspects to take into account here. Also, the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to, at least temporarily, monitor a peace deal and to prevent Russian invasion is an option. There are lots of ideas on the table. The purpose is to avoid a similar Russian attack on Ukraine in the future.

Weltwoche: How can this war be ended? Do you think it will it end soon?

Rasmussen: No. I think we are facing a prolonged conflict. Russia is an expert in prolonged conflicts. They have been in Transnistria, Moldova, for decades. They have been in Georgia since 2008. They have been in Crimea and Donbas since 2014. 

Actually, Putin's interest could be a prolonged conflict where he can destabilize and weaken Ukraine sufficiently to serve the Russian interest. I think this is the biggest risk, now. So, that's why we have to deliver all the weapons necessary for the Ukrainians to win this war and stop the financing of Putin's war machine through an oil and gas embargo.

Weltwoche: In the long run, do you think it might be possible to include Russia as a NATO member state? NATO could become a global security architecture, from Vancouver to Vladivostok, bearing in mind that Russia is stretched across 11 time zones. 

Rasmussen: I would say it's a theoretical question. Right now, of course, it is not possible. Not at all. We have seen the weaknesses of the Russian military in this war. Definitely, Russia does not in any respect live up to NATO standards.