Follow us on social

Jens Stoltenberg

NATO Secretary General drops bomblets on way out​ the door

In an interview today, Jens Stoltenberg said the North American alliance really is 'global'

Analysis | QiOSK

In an interview with Foreign Policy on Monday, outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenburg doubled down on his hawkish outlook toward Russia.

Stoltenberg, who has been NATO chief since 2014 and will be replaced by former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte in October, indicated that Since North Korea, China, and Iran have been supporting Russia in its conflict with Ukraine, that NATO should work more closely with its allies in the Asia-Pacific region.

He added:

“North Korea is providing an enormous amount of, in particular, ammunition to Russia. And a lot of that is transported on railroad, railroad which is crossing the border from North Korea, the land border, into Russia, and then all the way to the frontlines, and that capacity is quite huge to transport by railroad, and that's also reason why it is important to continue to have severe sanctions on North Korea, and also reason why NATO has stepped up further the cooperation we have with our Asia Pacific partners, that includes South Korea, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.”

When interviewer Ravi Agrawal, Editor-in-Chief of Foreign Policy, mentioned the potential for NATO overextension and that sanctions have not historically worked, Stoltenberg replied, “so while NATO is a regional alliance, we need a global approach, and that includes also our approach to China. Because again, the war in Ukraine demonstrates that our security is not regional. Our security is global.”

He then added, “what happens in Asia matters for Europe. What happens in Europe matters for Asia. Or, as the Japanese Prime Minister said recently, that what happens in Ukraine can happen in Asia today can happen in Asia tomorrow.”

He also pushed the narrative that China and Russia were closer than ever "That's not because NATO has pushed them together," he charged, "It's because they align in standing of what they believe in a different world order.”

Because of this, Stoltenberg said he believes that increased sanctions are necessary.

This narrative should be challenged, said Mark Episkopos, Eurasia fellow at the Quincy Institute. “Stoltenberg’s comments reflect the catechistic view — one that stubbornly persists even in the lack of any corroborating evidence — that “Dragonbear,” or the Sino-Russian axis against the West, is the inevitable result of what he and others see as an global, predetermined conflict between the two incompatible poles of democracy and authoritarianism.”

“In fact, this convergence is the result of concrete choices made by Western policymakers since the end of the Cold War,” he added. “The Western maximum-pressure campaign against Russia after 2022 has failed in its basic purpose of compelling Moscow to relent its invasion of Ukraine, but it has successfully severed Russia from the Western economic and political sphere in a way that greatly increased its commercial and diplomatic dependence on China.”

Meanwhile, Stoltenberg said he strongly supports Ukraine using long range missiles to fire into Russian territory, stating that they were imperative if Ukraine was to take out Moscow’s artillery positions.

When questioned whether this could potentially push President Putin into using nuclear weapons, the NATO chief seemed to suggest that Putin would not act and therefore the West could keep pushing. “We are monitoring and tracking very closely what Russia is doing,” he said, however, “so far, we haven't seen any changes in their nuclear posture that require any changes from our side.”

The unfortunate reality is that when a party chooses to utilize nuclear arms, escalation is hard to manage.

What about Ukraine’s possible NATO membership? Stoltenberg said the process to join has been streamlined, with Ukraine no longer having to submit a Membership Action Plan, and is now awaiting a formal invitation. No timeline was given — but the outgoing NATO chief was quick to highlight how integrated the alliance and Ukraine were becoming.

He touted the fact that Ukrainian forces are being integrated into NATO standards, training command facilities are getting set up in Poland and Germany, and the establishment of the NATO Ukraine Council, which is, according to NATO “the joint body where Allies and Ukraine sit as equal participants to advance political dialogue, engagement, cooperation and Ukraine’s aspirations for membership in NATO. It provides for joint consultations, decision-making and activities. It also serves as a crisis consultation mechanism between NATO and Ukraine.”

He also reiterated that Ukraine’s path to NATO was “irreversible.”


NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (NATO/Flickr/Creative Commons)
Analysis | QiOSK
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.