By Anders Fogh Rasmussen

Barely had I been seated before Vladimir Putin told me that NATO—the organization that I then headed—no longer had any purpose and should be disbanded. “After the end of the Cold War, we dissolved the Warsaw Pact,” he said. “Similarly, you should dissolve NATO. That is a relic from the Cold War.”

During my visit to Moscow in December 2009, I sensed that President Putin was challenging the world order that the U.S. created so successfully after World War II. Beginning in 2014, he invaded Ukraine and launched a military action in Syria.

From my former positions as prime minister of Denmark and secretary-general of NATO, I know how important American leadership is. We desperately need a U.S. president who is able and willing to lead the free world and counter autocrats like President Putin. A president who will lead from the front, not from behind.

The world needs such a policeman if freedom and prosperity are to prevail against the forces of oppression, and the only capable, reliable and desirable candidate for the position is the United States. The presidential elections thus come at a pivotal point in history.

The Middle East is torn by war. In North Africa, Libya has collapsed and become a breeding ground for terrorists. In Eastern Europe, a resurgent Russia has brutally attacked and grabbed land by force from Ukraine. China is flexing its muscles against its neighbors—and the rogue state of North Korea is threatening a nuclear attack.

In this world of interconnections, it has become a cliché to talk about the “global village.“ But right now, the village is burning, and the neighbors are fighting in the light of the flames. Just as we need a policeman to restore order; we need a firefighter to put out the flames of conflict, and a kind of mayor, smart and sensible, to lead the rebuilding.

Only America can play all these roles, because of all world powers, America alone has the credibility to shape sustainable solutions to these challenges. Russia is obsessed with rebuilding the empire the Soviet Union lost. China is still primarily a regional actor. Europe is weak, divided and leaderless. The old powers of Britain and France are simply too small and exhausted to play the global role they once did.

This is not simply about means. It is also about morality. Just as only America has the material greatness to stop the slide into chaos, only America has the moral greatness to do it—not for the sake of power, but for the sake of peace.

Yet the U.S. will only be able to shape the solutions the world needs if its leaders act with conviction. When America retrenches and retreats—if the world even thinks that American restraint reflects a lack of willingness to engage in preventing and resolving conflicts—it leaves a vacuum that will be filled by crooked autocrats across the world.

The Obama administration’s reluctance to lead the world has had serious consequences, and none is graver than the behavior of Mr. Putin. While Europe and the U.S. slept, he launched a ruthless military operation in support of the Assad regime in Syria and tried to present Russia as a global power challenging the U.S. in importance. In Europe, he is trying to carve out a sphere of influence and establish Russia as a regional power capable of diminishing American influence.

These are only a few examples of what is now at stake as autocrats, terrorists and rogue states challenge America’s leadership of the international rules-based order—which was created after World War II and which secured for the world an unprecedented period of peace, progress and prosperity.

The next president must acknowledge this inheritance. American isolationism will not make the U.S. and other freedom-loving countries safer and more prosperous, it will make them less so and unleash a plague of dictators and other oppressors. Above all, American isolationism will threaten the future of the rules-based international world order that has brought freedom and prosperity to so many people.

Mr. Rasmussen, a former prime minister of Denmark and a former secretary-general of NATO, is the author of “The Will to Lead—America’s Indispensable Role in the Global Fight For Freedom,” out this month from HarperCollins/Broadside Books. 

Source: The Wall Street Journal

Rasmussen Global, the political advisory firm founded by former NATO Secretary General and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, is expanding its presence in Berlin, Brussels, and Copenhagen.

In Berlin, Nico Lange has joined as a Senior Advisor. Nico was previously Chief of Staff at the Federal Ministry of Defence of Germany from 2019 to 2022, under Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer. He brings vast experience from the top echelons of German politics, holding numerous senior positions in the German CDU party. Nico served as director of the Ukraine office of Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung in Kyiv from 2006-2012 and was awarded a Robert Bosch Fellowship in St. Petersburg, Russia from 2003-2006. He is a fluent Ukrainian and Russian speaker and adds to Rasmussen Global’s growing reputation as the go-to consultancy on all issues regarding Ukraine.

In Brussels, Helene Bille Albrechtsen has joined as a project manager focused on critical raw materials and energy. Having most recently served in the Cabinet of European Commission Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager, as well as having worked four years with trade in the Danish Ministry of Business, Helene is an expert on the European regulatory landscape and its strategic agenda. Meanwhile, Arthur de Liedekerke has been appointed as the new Director for European Affairs. Arthur will continue working on areas related to cyber, digital policy, and space, while also focusing on business development. Harry Nedelcu is the new Director for Geopolitics. Harry will focus on Rasmussen Global’s sovereign clients and the firm’s work on Ukraine.

In Copenhagen, Rasmus Grand Berthelsen has been promoted to become Director for the Nordics. Rasmus works closely on green energy policy and will also work on business development in the region. Rasmussen Global’s Copenhagen office has been strengthened with the appointment of Betzy Hänninen and Marie-Cæcilie Adamsen as Policy Advisors. Betzy joins Rasmussen Global from the Nordic Council of Ministers, having previously worked at the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and as a conscript soldier in the Royal Norwegian Air Force. Marie-Cæcilie joins Rasmussen Global from the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where she worked on development and security policy. She focused on the MENA region and Eastern Europe, most recently on the war in Ukraine.

Speaking on the recent expansion, Rasmussen Global CEO Fabrice Pothier said: “It is exciting to bring in and promote so many great talents at Rasmussen Global. We continue our journey to become the prime political consultancy firm in Europe on strategic affairs and geopolitics.”

Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty depend on its ability to defend itself. To ensure this, Ukraine needs a set of cast-iron security guarantees from its allies. This was the key message from Andriy Yermak and Anders Fogh Rasmussen when they presented their joint recommendations on security guarantees for Ukraine today in Kyiv.

In July, President Zelenskyy tasked the Head of his Presidential Office and the former NATO Secretary General to prepare recommendations on how to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty for the long-term. The recommendations were based on input from an expert group from across the democratic world. This included former Prime Ministers, Ministers, as well as senior officials and academics.

The recommendations call for the creation of a Kyiv Security Compact, a joint strategic partnership document bringing together the guarantor countries with Ukraine.

The recommendations envisage a multi-tiered approach to guarantees. A core group of allies will provide cast-iron commitments to support Ukraine’s armed forces and a broader group will provide non-military guarantees, built around sanctions.

Speaking at the launch of the recommendations, Andriy Yermak said:

“Today we are presenting the result of work that has no precedents in recent history, just as the act of full-scale aggression by a nuclear power and the UN Security Council member against a sovereign European state is unprecedented. With the help of allies, Ukraine is successfully resisting this invasion. However, it should be noted that decisions often had to be made ad hoc, and the development of mechanisms for this aid required a lot of time, which is always lacking in war, and which is bought with pain, blood, and lives,” said Andriy Yermak, speaking at the recommendations presentation.

The head of the Presidential Office stressed that the Ukrainians foiled the aggressor’s plans and defended their country, and the occupied lands will certainly be returned. Meanwhile, it is necessary to ensure that Ukraine is fully secured in the future.

“We must make sure that the slogan ‘We can do it again’ causes panic attacks and bad memories among Russians. That they say “Never again!” in reply. To this end, we need a military power strong enough to repel the Russians’ desire for revenge. And it must be capable of causing irreparable damage to the aggressor if this desire turns out to be irresistible. Security guarantees are aimed at helping us create such a power,” Andriy Yermak said.

At the same time, he emphasized that the agreement on security guarantees for Ukraine is not a substitute for joining NATO – it is a means of ensuring security until it happens.

Former NATO Secretary General and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen added:

“The immediate priority is that Ukraine wins this war. Right now, Ukraine is showing on the frontlines that with the necessary resources, they can defeat Russia on the battlefield. Ukrainians are showing the will to fight, the democratic world must continue to give them the means to fight.

Once this war is over, we must ensure that Russia can never invade again. The best way to do that is by Ukraine having a significant military force capable of withstanding any future Russian attack. Building and maintaining such a force requires a multi-decade commitment from Ukraine’s allies.

“Adopting these recommendations would send a strong signal to Vladimir Putin. It would show that our commitment to Ukraine will not falter, that his war is futile. It would also send a message to the Ukrainian people, that we are committed to Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty for as long as it takes.

“Getting this right means building a new cornerstone of European security. Failing to do so means a festering crisis on European soil.”

Key recommendations of the report

• The strongest security guarantee for Ukraine lies in its capacity to defend itself against an aggressor under the UN Charter’s article 51. To do so, Ukraine needs the resources to maintain a significant defensive force capable of withstanding the Russian Federation’s armed forces and paramilitaries.
• This requires a multi-decade effort of sustained investment in Ukraine’s defence industrial base, scalable weapons transfers and intelligence support from allies, intensive training missions and joint exercises under the European Union and NATO flags.
• The security guarantees should be affirmative and clearly formulated; they lay out a range of commitments made by a group of guarantors, together with Ukraine. They need to be legally and politically binding based on bilateral agreements but brought together under a joint strategic partnership document – called the Kyiv Security Compact.
• The package of guarantees includes preventive measures of a military, financial, infrastructural, technical, and information nature to prevent new aggression, as well as measures to be taken immediately in the event of a new encroachment on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. In addition, the structure of the Kyiv Security Compact includes a full-fledged sanctions package against the aggressor state, and may also include additional components, such as agreements on providing Ukraine with modern air defense/anti-missile systems, regional agreements on security in the Black Sea, and others.
• The Compact will bring a core group of allied countries together with Ukraine. This could include the US, UK, Canada, Poland, Italy, Germany, France, Australia, Turkey, and Nordic, Baltic, and Central European countries.

The security guarantees are not a replacement for Ukraine’s ambition to join NATO. This aspiration is safeguarded in the Ukrainian constitution and is a sovereign decision for Ukraine. Ukraine is also on the path to EU membership. As an EU member, Ukraine will benefit from the EU’s own mutual defence clause. Both NATO and EU membership will bolster Ukraine’s security in the long-term. The guarantees outlined today in no way undermine these aims but will ensure that Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself under any circumstance.

The first meeting of the high-level working group on security guarantees for Ukraine took place yesterday in Kyiv. The group is co-chaired by the Head of the Ukrainian President’s Office Andriy Yermark, and former Danish Prime Minister and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The co-chairs launched the meeting in person, while other members of the group joined online.

When this war ends, Ukraine will need reliable and effective security guarantees from allied countries. These must provide a strong and credible deterrence, to prevent further Russian aggression. The purpose of the international working group is to provide recommendations on what these guarantees could look like and how they can work in practice. These can then form the basis for international treaties between Ukraine and guarantor states.

The group’s work will be guided by four key principles. First, Ukraine’s independence relies on its ability to defend itself. Second, its defence capabilities depend on successful reconstruction. Third sanctions are fundamental in protecting Ukraine’s security. Lastly, Ukraine’s future is as a sovereign nation at the heart of Europe.

Speaking at the kick off meeting Co-Chair Andriy Yermark said:

“We need a comprehensive and reliable solution. We must stop Russia, fully restore the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, and deprive Russia of the possibility of continuing the game of historical reconstruction in the future. We need effective guarantees to deter aggression – military, political, diplomatic, institutional, financial.”

Co-Chair Anders Fogh Rasmussen said:

“I was in Irpin yesterday morning and saw first-hand the destruction and barbarism of Russia’s war. The visit reinforced two things I believe strongly. First, Ukraine must win this war. Second, this can never be allowed to happen again. This matters to all of us. There will be no stability in Europe until there is a lasting peace in Ukraine. That is the purpose of this group, to find a workable model that can guarantee Ukraine’s independence and security for the future.”

The composition of the working group is:

• Andriy Yermak, Ukraine, Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine (Co-Chair)
• Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark, Former Prime Minister and NATO Secretary General (Co-Chair)
• Kevin Rudd, Australia, Prime Minister (2007-2010; 2013), Foreign Minister (2010-2012), and President of the Asia Society
• Carl Bildt, Sweden, Prime Minister (1991-1994) and Foreign Minister (2006-2014)
• Lord William J. Hague of Richmond, UK, Foreign Secretary (2010-2014)
• Michèle A. Flournoy, USA, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (2009-2012)
• Norbert Röttgen, Germany, Chair of Bundestag Foreign Affairs Committee (2014-2021) and Environment Minister (2009-2012)
• Giampiero Massolo, Italy, President of the Italian Institute for International Political Studies
• Anna Fotyga, Poland, MEP (2014-present) and Foreign Affairs Minister of Poland (2006-2007)
• Adam Eberhardt, Poland, Director of the Centre for Eastern Studies (OSW)
• Marie Dumoulin, France, Director Wider Europe programme, European Council on Foreign Relations.
• Andrii Kostin, Ukraine, Member of the Parliament of Ukraine, Moderator of the Group
• Roxana Cristescu, Ukraine, Senior Advisor at the European Institute of Peace (EIP)

(Members are taking part in a personal capacity, not as representatives of their organisations).

Rasmussen Global CEO Fabrice Pothier joins Politico’s Jack Blanchard to discuss the war in Ukraine and how to avoid the conflict escalating into full-blown nuclear war.

https://www.politico.eu/podcast/how-to-avoid-a-nuclear-war/

Op Ed by Anders Fogh Rasmussen in The Daily Telegraph, 16th March 2018 — The outrage in Salisbury was not an isolated attack, but one piece in a much bigger puzzle of Vladimir Putin’s so-called hybrid war on the West.

This war involves many tactics, from conventional warfare to cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns, hacking, election interference and targeted political assassinations. It seeks to systematically weaponise the very basis of our open, democratic societies and the democratic world’s fightback is now long overdue. Following the response to Salisbury, Britain could lead that wider charge.

Hybrid tactics all have the same objective: to confuse, scare and anger; and to divide and weaken the Western transatlantic alliance that has sustained the peaceful post-Second World War order. Almost every member of our alliance has witnessed some form of attack, whether through Russian interference in US, French or Italian elections; information campaigns aimed at stirring up migration tensions in Central Europe; or cyber-attacks such as the one carried out on Denmark’s Defence Ministry.

Of course, in parts of Eastern Europe all of these tactics are deployed on a more regular basis. As a non-staff adviser to President Petro Poroshenko, I have seen how Russia continues to foment a war in Ukraine’s Donbass region – which has cost more than 10,000 lives since it began in 2014. This week marks the fourth anniversary of Russia illegally seizing Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula – the first forceful redrawing of European borders since the Second World War.

Moscow also carries out regular assassinations, including last summer of a former Russian MP on the streets of Ukraine’s capital – in broad daylight. It actively encourages extremists and launches cyber-attacks, including one in 2017 that closed down ministries, banks, the underground and even hospitals.

Conventional fighting and hybrid tactics are all the same side of the coin: a lull in fighting in Eastern Ukraine often precedes a cyber-attack or assassination in the capital. Ukraine is the front line in this hybrid war, but there are other states, such as Georgia or the Baltics, which regularly confront similar tactics from their neighbour.

The Western alliance therefore faces a common challenge. However, we have seen piecemeal and disjointed responses. There has been a woeful lack of urgency and resources devoted to targeting poisonous narratives and misinformation that seek to distort reality; and a worrying number of states still naively believe that Russia will change its behaviour through dialogue alone.

As someone who has dealt with Putin on many occasions, I am in no doubt that he understands only the language of power. Those states who fear that our actions could escalate the situation must ask themselves whether there is also a cost of inaction, and whether it is the West, or Putin, who is really escalating the situation.

Theresa May’s initial response to the Skripal attack was measured and resolute. However, as important (and perhaps more so) is how the wider transatlantic community responds. The initial signs are positive, but leaders’ statements of recent days must be converted into concrete measures such as extending sanctions against Putin’s acolytes.

While all eyes are on the immediate tactical response, the attack on British soil should also be seen by Britain and her allies as a wake-up call to confront Putin’s hybrid war against us. Britain should now pull together the coalition of freedom-loving allies to devote the resources and manpower needed to generate a joined-up transatlantic response. A response that defends our open societies and actively combats this concerted and cynical effort to undermine our democracy and security from within.

Whatever differences we face over issues such as Brexit – or with the US administration – should be overridden by this common endeavour.

Global Britain is looking for a clear example to show its commitment to maintaining the open, rules-based world order in light of Brexit. In taking on the hybrid warfare challenge, it might have just found its calling.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen was Secretary General of Nato 2009-2014 and Prime Minister of Denmark 2001-2009. He is CEO of consultancy Rasmussen Global

Leading friends of Ukraine Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Alexander Vershbow are urging the UN Security Council to agree a credible peacekeeping and stabilisation force to help restore Ukraine’s sovereignty.

President Putin this week reversed his long-standing opposition to a UN presence in eastern Ukraine, which was put forward already in 2015 by President Poroshenko.

However, Former NATO Secretary General and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and former NATO Deputy Secretary General and US Ambassador Alexander Vershbow believe the conditions in the Russian proposal* would hobble a potential UN peacekeeping mission from the outset.

Rasmussen and Vershbow fear the proposal could be a diversionary tactic by Putin to buy time and legitimise Russian and proxy troops in Ukraine by handing them a UN mandate. However, with the peace process (the Minsk process) stalled, the proposal could be the biggest opportunity since the signing of the Minsk agreements to halt the bloodshed and reach a political solution to the conflict.

The pair are proposing a three-stage deployment of peacekeepers: phase one close to the contact line; phase two deeper into occupied territories; and phase three covering the entirety of the occupied territories and a presence along the international border. The force could only be deployed once heavy weaponry is withdrawn, and it should have access to inspect all convoys – including humanitarian convoys – crossing the border. To be effective, the phased deployment would have to be synchronized with the implementation of the provisions of the Minsk agreement and not limited to a six months’ period as proposed by Russia.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who now advises Ukrainian President Poroshenko on foreign policy matters, said:

“The devil is definitely in the detail. However, with a peacekeeping force now on the table, the UN Security Council should seriously engage with the proposal.

“As it stands, Moscow’s proposal would merely lend UN credibility to Russian troops dug in on the wrong side of the Ukraine-Russia border. Given Moscow’s tactics in the past, we cannot be naïve about Putin’s proposal or his timing. After all, Ukraine has sought peacekeepers since 2015, and Russia repeatedly threatened a UN veto.

“However, if this move is a bluff by Putin then the other Security Council Members should call it. With the right mandate, this could be the biggest opportunity to halt the loss of life and to break the stalemate since Minsk II was signed in 2015. Moreover, UN Security Council members should not fall in the trap of linking a peace-keeping force with the lifting of sanctions on Russia. The Russia sanctions are linked to the full implementation of the Minsk agreement.”

Alexander Vershbow, who is a former US Ambassador to Russia, added:

“Russia’s proposal is inadequate to enforce a durable ceasefire. However, it opens a window for negotiation that could deliver the stability needed to move ahead with a political solution. For that the UN Security Council should agree on a resolution with clear conditions.

“The West cannot begin to consider adjusting its sanctions policy towards Russia until after satisfactory conclusion of the Minsk process. However, with the right scope and mandate, peace-keeping troops would be a forcing mechanism for Russia and Ukraine to implement Minsk.”

*Moscow insists that the ‘blue helmets’ would only protect the OSCE monitors already on the ground, and only for a mere six-month period. The mission could only operate along the current Line of Contact, instead of within the whole territory including the Ukraine-Russia territorial border where the OSCE is authorized to operate but faces constant separatist obstruction.