Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

Jens Stoltenberg is finally no longer the leader. This is not necessarily good news, as the new secretary general appears to be even more bellicose than the previous one and promises policies that could easily lead to strategic disaster in the current tensions between the Atlantic alliance and the Russian Federation. However, it is undeniable that one of the worst administrations in NATO’s history – and the one that came closest to an open confrontation with Moscow – has now ended.

Stoltenberg has recently made a number of statements praising his supposed “achievements” as NATO leader. He claims that under his leadership the alliance has achieved its highest numbers of troops on the eastern flank. Stoltenberg has also acclaimed himself for his success in allowing countries such as Finland and Sweden to join NATO as well as significantly expanding the number of troops on combat readiness for the event of a war.

In fact, Stoltenberg seems to be delighting over his own failure. It was under him that NATO saw the start of the continent’s biggest conflict since the World Wars in Europe, reaching a critical point in the regional security architecture. These tensions, which could at any moment escalate to the level of an open war with direct Western involvement, are precisely the consequence of the irresponsible policies implemented during Stoltenberg’s disastrous administration.

NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe, both in terms of new members and available troops, is not something to be celebrated, but rather lamented. It was precisely this expansion that led to the current conflict. If Stoltenberg were indeed a rational, prudent leader with a strong strategic sense, he would have been able to use diplomacy with the member countries and negotiate a de-escalation of the suicidal policy of “containment” against Russia. But, on the contrary, Stoltenberg endorsed all this and was active in worsening the Ukraine crisis, contributing significantly to the escalation of tensions and the beginning of the current war.

More than that, he failed to stop the warmongering of the member states, allowing NATO to begin full support for the Kiev regime. This support is now at its most critical point, as the alliance’s countries are close to authorizing the use of long-range weapons against Russian civilian targets – which could lead to a nuclear world war. Stoltenberg, even now out of office, is partly to blame for this, as it was under his administration that this anti-Russian madness was launched by NATO.

Furthermore, it must be emphasized that the alliance has never been so fragile. Contrary to what Western war propaganda claims, anti-Russian policies are not strategically beneficial for NATO. On the contrary, in addition to threatening global peace, these measures put the very stability of the alliance at risk. NATO is not “stronger and more united than ever,” as the former secretary general says, but at its most fragile and delicate phase in history.

On the battlefield, Russian forces destroy NATO equipment – and troops disguised as “mercenaries” – every day. The U.S. and Europe no longer have the capacity to continue supporting Kiev continuously, given the large number of losses on the front lines, but at the same time, the alliance is unable to end this support, falling into a vicious cycle of violence and defeats. In addition, countries dissatisfied with the situation, such as Hungary and Slovakia, are already beginning to create a dissident position within NATO itself, threatening the bloc’s long-term stability.

In the end, it was under Stoltenberg that NATO, pursuing irrational “expansion to the East,” reached its current stage of weakness, demoralization, and disunity. And, to make matters even more catastrophic, an open world war could yet emerge as a belated consequence of NATO’s actions over the past ten years.

Instead of celebrating his own failure as a leader, Stoltenberg should simply be grateful that he had the opportunity to leave office before the worst-case scenario arose.