Germany’s Stefanie Babst is often called a “former NATO chief strategist.” Dr Stefanie Babst joined the International Staff of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization back in 1999 and, over the course of 22 years, held various positions within the Public Diplomacy Division. From 2006 to 2012, she served as NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary-General, making her the highest-ranking German woman in the International Secretariat. From 2012 to 2020, she led NATO’s Strategic Foresight Team – a civil-military unit advising the NATO Secretary-General and the Chairman of the Military Committee on strategic uncertainties and potential upcoming crisis situations of relevance to the Alliance. Before joining the NATO structures, Babst was a Professor of Russian and East European Studies at the German Armed Forces Command and Staff College in Hamburg.
Babst is an internationally renowned publisher and speaker on international security issues and board member of the German Council on Foreign Relations and the Danish Center for War Studies as well as a Senior Associate Fellow with the European Leadership Network.
She has been to Ukraine many times over the past 20 years and is a staunch supporter of Ukrainians in their struggle for freedom. Today, she loudly and forcefully expresses her position and is not afraid to criticize leading politicians.
Even before the conversation begins, Dr. Babst makes an opening statement that leaves no doubt about her assessment of the current situation: “I always stress this: Europe must be clear about one thing: whatever deal, ceasefire or even surrender Trump will try to impose on Ukraine and Europe with blackmail and brutal coercion, Russia will continue to pose a deadly security threat to us as long as the Putin regime remains in power. This has been true since the beginning of Russia’s reckless assault on Ukraine in 2014. And it still holds true today.
We cannot possibly coexist next to a massive security threat and nurture the hope it will not affect us. Alas, this gruesome truth has not been accepted by all European leaders. In Germany and other countries too many decision-makers promise to stand with Ukraine but actively work towards appeasing the terror regime in Moscow. This must stop.”
– The other day you remarked that you consider it reasonable to exclude the U.S. (at least partially) from NATO. Is that even possible?
– In the past few months I have been stressing that the European NATO allies + Canada needed to prepare for the “Unthinkable”: as concretely and quickly as possible. Now the transatlantic security partnership is unraveling in front of our eyes. U.S. President Trump has switched sides and openly support the Russian aggressor. He and his administration have already harmed NATO massively and they continue doing it every day: from imposing crazy tariffs on allies to halting cyber operations against Russia, from blocking intelligence sharing with and military aid for Ukraine and assaulting Denmark and Canada with territorial threats.
The U.S. violates with its actions numerous NATO-agreed policies and strategies, including the new Strategic Concept. Trump also violates the NATO Washington Treaty – the founding treaty – that clearly and commits all members to adhere to and promote UN Charta principles, including the territorial sovereignty and integrity of its members.
This is not a small disagreement between allies. I think the European allies + Canada should suspend the U.S. from NATO’s political bodies and decision-making. It’s crucial to send a strong signal to Washington. Europe and Canada will not bend to cleptocratic authoritarians: neither in Moscow nor in Washington.
Of course, Europe will need to make a huge effort to invest into its own security. But we are neither poor nor toothless: we are 450 million people in the European Union; we have two nuclear powers among us (France and the UK), we are economically strong and many EU countries have started to upgrade and modernize their armed forces: Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Norway and the Baltic countries are all clear-eyed about the Russian threat. Together with Ukraine, we are a strong group of countries. Of course, over time, we will be able to defend ourselves without the Americans. But to be able to do this, we need to believe in our own strength.
– President Trump has been criticizing the Alliance very strongly. But is he really ready to step away from it?
– Trump must not officially leave NATO because he has plenty of options to harm the Alliance’s credibility. He can halt US financial contributions to NATO’s common budget or he can withdraw military capabilities and forces from Europe. During his election campaign, he already made clear that he doesn’t care for NATO. I think the European allies should actively prepare for a NATO without him.
– Why, in your opinion, did Trump declare, even before the start of peace negotiations, that Ukraine should not be given the prospect of membership? This narrative clearly plays into the hands of dictator Putin and immediately weakens Kyiv’s negotiating position…
– Whatever his motives and reasons, Trump seeks a broader re-alignment between the US and Russia. Ukraine, for him, is primarily a problem that he seeks to solve as soon as possible. That’s it.
Trump could not care less about Ukrainians and what they have been going through. He is ready to leave Ukraine to Russia’s aggressive influence. A weak and politically instable, divided and demilitarized Ukraine is fine for both Trump and Putin.
Trump’s so-called peace deal is not about peace but Ukraine’s de facto surrender. That’s is why he tries to ramp his “deal” with brute force into Ukrainian and European throats.
But Trump will fail. Of this I am certain.
– Recently, a heated discussion broke out regarding the position of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, whose words to Bloomberg were perceived by many quite ambiguously. What is your perception of what he meant?
– Unfortunately, the NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte makes things even worse. Of course, you can try and cling to Donald Trump’s trouser leg. Charm him with submissive words and praise his’ leadership’. Seek carefully not to arouse his anger and avoid the slightest sign of contradiction. This is exactly what Rutte did during the meeting with his ‘good friend’ Donald.
While Trump repeated his insults on Denmark and his wild fantasies of bringing Greenland under U.S. control, Rutte neither opposed nor defended our Danish friends. He was also careful not to mention Trump’s political and economic assault on Canada. Let alone Trump’s/Vance’s brutal blackmailing of Ukraine.
Saying that NATO should normalize relations with Russia after the end of the war is even worse. Rutte’s job is to strengthen NATO’s military defense and deterrence against Russia. He should have strongly defended Canada and Denmark. And he should have insisted with Trump on the NATO Summit decision to proceed with Ukraine’s accession to NATO as soon as possible. He did the exact opposite.
Clearly, Mr. Rutte is not someone who is prepared to defend NATO’s values and principles against Trump. And I never believed his public talk about Ukraine for a second. He is neither a fighter nor someone with a vision.
– Do you think it is possible to deploy European (NATO) troops in Ukraine after the ceasefire? Russia will never accept that while some countries, Germany among them, say there must be consent from both parties…
Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, I have argued that the West needed to alter the strategic dynamic on the battlefield. Sadly, the NATO allies did not muster the courage to do so. We have lost three years and did not contain Russia in Ukraine and beyond as we should have done. A Coalition of the Willing, as I have argued already two years ago, is the only way forward because NATO as an organization is clearly unwilling to make this step.
Although I am not involved in the current talks about the Coalition, I know from my experience in NATO that planning such a complex military operation is highly demanding. The force must be strong and capable enough to deter Russia from further attacks against Ukraine. And it must be ready, if need be, to fight against Russia. Hence identifying the right mission statement for such an operation is the first important step. The second is to assign military capabilities and forces. But overall, I think it would be doable.
Of course, the Russians will protest, threaten us and scream. But this shouldn’t prevent us from proceeding along. After all, Ukraine will only be secure if a sufficiently robust Western deterrent signals to Moscow: Red light. You stop here.
– Last but not least: there are several months to go to the NATO Summit. What should be expected from this year’s Summit?
– Not sure there will be a summit at all.
Olha Tanasiychuk, Berlin
Photo credit: Olha Tanasiychuk, Facebook/DrStefanieBabst
Source: Stefanie Babst, former head of NATO's strategic planning staff
