Jens Stoltenberg

Reflections on a Challenging Decade: Final Address to the German Marshall Fund as NATO Secretary General

delivered 19 September 2024, Brussels, Belgium

Audio mp3 of Address      Audio AR-XE mp3 of Address

Thank you so much, Ian. Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:

It's great to be here tonight, great to be here at the German Marshall Fund. And as you said, Ian, 10 years ago, almost exactly 10 years ago, when I started my tenure as Secretary General of NATO, the first platform, the first speech was actually delivered here at the German Marshall Fund. So it's great to be back and to end my tenure giving a speech to the same institution. And thank you so much for the excellent cooperation we have had over these years.

Then, as some of you may know, early 2014 when I was first approached and asked whether I was open to become the Secretary General of NATO, I did, as I always do. I went to my father and asked for advice. And he said, not so much happens at NATO. So he was not very enthusiastic about the idea of me going down there and having some boring years.

And I listened very carefully to him, because he joined the Foreign Service in Norway in the 1950s. He was Minister of Defense and Minister of Foreign Affairs. And he attended more NATO meetings than almost any other Norwegian. And maybe he was right that NATO was traditionally quite static. But "static," quiet, is absolutely not the right way to describe the Alliance over the last decade.

Since I took up my post as Secretary General in 2014, the world around us has changed profoundly. We have seen Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, the rise of ISIS, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, growing competition with China, the COVID pandemic, more sophisticated cyber-attacks, and the increasing impact of climate change on our security. So, the list goes on.

During my time as Secretary General, the relevance of NATO has been questioned. The Alliance has been described as: "Divided." "Obsolete."  And "braindead." But the reality is that NATO is: Strong. United. And more important than ever.

We have, over these 10 years, undergone their biggest transformation in a generation. We have strengthened our defenses -- from having zero to tens of thousands of combat-ready NATO soldiers on our Eastern flank; from thousands to half a million troops on high readiness; and from three to twenty-three Allies spending at least two percent of GDP on defense.

We have strengthened NATO as an institution, doubling our common budget to ensure we can effectively deliver. And our family of Allies and partners has grown. Montenegro, North Macedonia, Finland and Sweden joined our Alliance. And Ukraine is closer to NATO than ever before. In 2014, we only provided marginal support to Ukraine. Now, our support is massive.

And NATO is coordinating the support through our new command in Germany. We also broadened our partnerships in the global south, deepened relations with countries in the Indo Pacific, and NATO-EU cooperation has reached unprecedented levels.

I am proud to have served as NATO Secretary General, and to have steered this Alliance through a decisive decade. As I look back at this incredible journey, let me reflect on five lessons that are key to NATO’s continued success in the future.

First, we have to be willing to pay the price for peace: the more money,
the stronger our defenses, the more effective our deterrence, the greater our security. Since 2014, spending across the Alliance has gone up substantially. All NATO Allies now invest at least 2% of GDP in defense or have plans to get there soon. And for the first time, total defense spending across Europe and Canada is above the 2% target. So the good news is that we have delivered on the pledge we made ten years ago.

But the bad news is that this is no longer enough. That is why NATO Allies have agreed to spend at least two percent of GDP on defense. And it is why we have agreed on robust defense plans, with specific capability targets that outline what each Ally needs to provide -- in terms of weapons, forces and readiness -- for our security. To meet these agreed targets, Allies will have to spend significantly more than two percent of GDP on defense in the years to come.

The second lesson is that freedom is more important than free trade. Not so long ago, many Allies believed that buying gas from Russia was purely a commercial matter. That was wrong. Russia used gas as a weapon to try to coerce us, and to prevent us from supporting Ukraine.

We must not make the same mistake with China. Depending on Chinese rare earth minerals, exporting advanced technologies, and allowing foreign control of critical infrastructure weakens our resilience and creates risks.
Of course, we will continue to engage with China. But we must not trade short-term economic interests for long-term security needs.

At the same time, and this is important, security cannot be an excuse to introduce protectionist measures against friends and Allies. On the contrary, the more we limit trade with potential adversaries, the more important it is to preserve open economic relations among Allies and ourselves. Barriers and tariffs between our countries will increase costs, reduce quality, and stifle innovation.

This will undermine our security. Because it will undermine the strength of our economies. NATO prevailed during the Cold War not least because we believed in open economies and competition between our countries. And remember that in Article Two of our founding treaty, the Washington Treaty, it is stated clearly that we should encourage each other to strengthen our economic collaboration between Allies. So let’s take this commitment seriously. Protectionism against Allies, does not protect our security.

The third lesson is that military strength is a prerequisite for dialogue. I know this from my time as Prime Minister of Norway. We have to speak to our neighbors. However difficult it might be. But dialogue only works when it is backed by strong defenses.

This is clearly demonstrated in Ukraine. We all want this war to end.
The quickest way to end the war is to lose it. But that will not bring peace. It will bring Russian occupation. Today, President Putin believes he can achieve his goals on the battlefield. And he believes that he can wait us out. That is why he continues to wage his brutal war. I do not believe that we can change Putin’s mind.

But I do believe that we can change his calculus. By giving Ukraine more weapons, we can make Putin realize he cannot get what he wants by force; and make it so costly that he will have to accept Ukraine has a sovereign, democratic right to persist as a sovereign, democratic country. The paradox is that the more weapons for Ukraine we are able to deliver, the more likely it is that we can reach a peace and end to the war. And the more credible our long-term military support, the sooner the war will end.

As President Zelenskyy has stated, Russia has to be part of future peace talks. The Minsk agreements after Russia’s first invasion in 2014 did not bring peace. Any future deal must be backed by strong military support to Ukraine and credible security guarantees to ensure lasting peace. There can be no sustained security in Europe, without a stable Ukraine --
and no lasting security for Ukraine, without NATO membership. NATO’s door is open. Ukraine will join.

Now, to my fourth lesson: military power has its limits. We saw this clearly in Afghanistan. Following the terrorist attacks on 9/11, it was right to go into Afghanistan. Our military intervention had a clear UN mandate. And received broad political support across the Alliance. We degraded al-Qaeda and prevented Afghanistan from being a safe haven for international terrorists. So our mission was not in vain. And I honor all those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

But the Afghanistan mission lasted too long. When I arrived at NATO in 2014, the plan was to end our military presence in a couple of years, and transition to a political partnership. But seven years later, we were still there with thousands of troops. What started as a focused counter-terrorism operation became a large-scale nation building mission. A democratic and united Afghanistan with equal rights for all was a worthy goal.

But it was too ambitious. We saw the cost of mission creep. After twenty years, we were still not winning the war. The Taliban were gaining ground. And there were no united Afghan authorities that could take responsibility when we left. The fact that the Afghan government and the security forces collapsed so quickly demonstrated why it was right to leave.

What should have been a stable and strong state structure was a house of cards. There was no reason to believe that staying another 20 years would have provided a different outcome. So the lesson learned is that the purpose of any future military operation outside NATO territory must be clearly defined and must be honest about what we can and cannot achieve.

So, to my fifth and final lesson -- and the most important one. We must never take the bond between Europe and North America for granted. NATO is not written in stone. It is the result of deliberate choices and political will. We have heard voices on both sides of the Atlantic calling for America and Europe to part ways. Focusing on short-sighted national interests over longer term cooperation will not serve us well.

Isolationism will not keep anyone safe. We live in an interconnected world. Security challenges are too big and competition is too fierce for any country to go it alone. Investing in the transatlantic relationship is the only winning way forward. Europeans must understand without NATO, there is no security in Europe. Eighty percent of NATO’s defense spending comes from non-EU allies.

And it is not only about resources. It is also about geography. Without Türkiye in the South, Norway in the North, and the U.S., Canada and the United Kingdom in the West, it is impossible to envisage the security of the European continent. The transatlantic Alliance has served Europe well, paving the way for closer European integration, the reunification of Germany, and the spread of democracy and freedom throughout Central and Eastern Europe. It is a lesson of history that the Europeans must remember.

The transatlantic Alliance has also served the U.S. well. America’s friends and allies make indispensable contributions to U.S. security and interests.
NATO Allies have stood side by side with the U.S. from Korea to Afghanistan -- and have paid a high price. It is simply not true that Europeans are free riders. No other major power has as many friends and allies as the United States. Any policy that seeks to undermine this is squandering one of America’s greatest assets.

Ladies and gentlemen,

When I took up this job a decade ago, I could not have imagined how much our Alliance would transform. Just as I cannot predict what lies ahead. But of this I am sure. While the challenges we face may change, the answer is the same: We are stronger and safer, Europe and North America, together in NATO.

Thank you.

Original Text, Audio, Video Source: NATO.int

Audio Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement

Video Note: Frame interpolated from 25fps to 50fps

Page Created: 9/19/24

U.S. Copyright Status: Text, Audio, Video = Used in compliance with NATO copyright terms