Now Speaking Out NATO Adviser – NRK Urix – Foreign News & Documentaries

NATO Leader Stian Jensen spoke on Tuesday at a panel discussion sponsored by the Atlantic Committee.

He and two researchers talked about possible alternatives to a complete Ukrainian victory.

– He said that what was talked about is, one way or another, that the Ukrainians must abandon their ambition for the West and accept a kind of neutrality and that there is a solution.

I actually think the most likely solution is for them to give up territory and then get NATO membership in return.

after VG The first to mention the issue yesterday, there have been reactions from many quarters. Especially from Ukraine, they were strong.

Russia also took note of Jensen’s comments.

Former President and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev wrote on messaging app Telegram that “The idea is interesting, but in this case Ukraine would have to give up the capital.

– In order to join the alliance, those in power in Kiev would have to give up Kiev itself, the capital of the historic Russian Empire.

Now Jensen has the magazine out of his mouth over the name and the ensuing controversy.

– An error came

– An error came. I wouldn’t say it that way. The point for me was that once this war is over, Ukraine should get some guarantees of its future security, he replies.

– We have seen a pattern of Russian aggression, and so that this does not happen again, we must have a framework that guarantees the security of Ukraine.

– Is this a solution that NATO is working towards outside of official bodies, and might there be talk of this kind of trade-off?

I don’t want to speculate too much about possible solutions to this conflict anyway. It will be up to the Ukrainian authorities to assess on what basis they want to enter into any negotiations and what they want to negotiate on.

Jensen says he has spoken to the NATO chief since yesterday, and that he was not surprised by the response that came.

– As for how this is presented, I am not surprised how Ukraine will react to it. There is no question of recognizing the Russian occupying power in any way.

– I intended to talk about the need for security guarantees for Ukraine, in the long term, when the conflict ends.

– Not just anyone

Senior researcher at the Norwegian Foreign Policy Institute (Nupi), Jacob M. Gudzimirsky, told NRK that “it’s not just anyone” who has come up with these statements.

It is also important to see it in a larger context. There is a man sitting very close to Stoltenberg.

Gudzimirsky is not surprised that the panellists discussed possible scenarios after the war ended.

– When you are sitting in a closed room, you can express yourself more freely. When that happens below Chatham House Rules Have a different kind of discussion.

– What is even more surprising is that this was done in a general way, and a person could be considered a kind of representative of the alliance.

The central problem is that Jensen’s statement can be interpreted by others at the negotiating table as an “acknowledgment that this solution is a possibility”.

– At the same time, he is just one of Jens Stoltenberg’s advisers. Stoltenberg delivered very clear messages about the need to preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity. So that is probably what gets the most attention.

Stian Jenssen might be a little more cautious about speaking out in Norwegian public life at the next opportunity.

already used as propaganda

Hanna Schelst heads the Insurance Studies Program at Prism, the Ukrainian Foreign Institute.

She told NRK that the comments Jensen made on Tuesday should be interpreted as his “personal opinion.”

– As per his official job, he is not entitled to run NATO policy or any of the negotiations.

– NATO emphasized the territorial integrity of Ukraine in all its recent statements at the Vilnius Summit. This is the unanimous position of NATO.

However, she believes that he should avoid holding such public office because of the work he does.

Schelest points out that Jenssen was almost immediately quoted by the propaganda machines there.

– We have already seen how satisfied the Russians are with the statement that the Ukrainian territory issue can be discussed, and that NATO does not have a firm position on it.

Shelest says she hasn’t heard this argument put forward by “those who make the decisions.”

– Among all there was a clear understanding that if we offer something to the Russian Federation, it will only open new doors for war.

– It’s not land, it’s people. They must understand that we are not talking about 500 meters of land, but we are talking about the people who live there.