Peter-Vincent Schuld

Former Secretary General of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, has given his view on NATO’s demarches towards Russia in an interview for the Dutch NOS program Nieuwsuur, in which De Hoop Scheffer puts his hand in his own bosom. No, de Hoop Scheffer does not lack self-criticism, on the contrary. De Hoop Scheffer’s courage to go directly against the prevailing political anti-Russian climate shows a good assessment of international geopolitical relations.

“NATO has made Putin more radical,” says De Hoop Scheffer. “NATO should not have promised membership to Ukraine and Georgia in 2008,” says De Hoop-Scheffer. At the time, it was the wish of the now American former president George W. Bush and very much against the will of Angela Merkel to bring the two countries to NATO. to join.

To this day, the West seems to understand little or nothing about Russia, including Putin’s policies.
After the fall of the communist era, Russians rediscovered their national pride, based on centuries of rich history.

Even the capture of Crimea fits in with this and is actually quite understandable, in fact; it’s defensible.
Crimea was originally Russian and in a “drunken mood” of former Soviet leader Khrushchev assigned to the then Soviet Republic of Ukraine.

Russia wants to be no more and no less than the boss in his own region and to be a voice on the international stage.
Maybe it’s a good thing the Russians are doing this. In contrast to the lack of any historical knowledge and lessons that can be drawn from it, the Russians do have that necessary knowledge and historical awareness and convert that knowledge plus the awareness into policy.

Russia is therefore entitled to “territorial breath” formed by buffer states located between the power blocs NATO and EU on the one hand and Russia on the other.

In addition, Ukraine and Georgia are both members of the “Partnership for Peace” (PfP) partner programme.

Both Russia and NATO face incalculable treaty problems should the two countries join NATO.
After all, it has given the two countries a license to provoke Russia in the knowledge that according to Article 5 of the NATO treaty, a military response against the two countries involved is considered an attack on all NATO member states.

Especially with the unpredictable political climates in Ukraine and Georgia, I think it would be wise not to take such irreversible decisions that absolutely threaten the stability of the world.

My advice to politicians, and certainly to the current Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, is this:
‘Stop provoking Russia’.

There are many areas in which it is possible to negotiate and talk with the Russians. In fact, it is extremely good and constructive to work with them. In fact, any military tension between the West and the Russians is very likely to end acutely the moment you Russia and show recognition and respect for its national pride. Certainly in certain political hawk nests in the US, sentiments are anti-Russian. These circles benefit politically from the preservation of the eternal image of the Russian enemy. Especially in Democratic circles people have a hand in this, but it must be said that Obama’s predecessor, Bush, also had a hand in it.

It might even be that the talks from the Trump camp with the Russians could have led to even more détente between the two countries if there had not been such a fuss about it. Putting salt on all the snails is also an art and not one of the most beautiful arts.

In addition; geopolitical reality shows, especially when it comes to countries such as Russia and former republics that once belonged to the Soviet Union, that business is done behind the scenes, out of sight of the cameras on a very informal level. Welcome to the other world where things simply run differently than the mores we are used to in the West.

Jaap de Hoop-Scheffer: During his time as a minister, I have already seen him a lot and accompanied him on foreign trips as a photojournalist. Together with a few other journalists, we always had a friendly nickname for Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, which was “Uncle Jaap”. Personally, I have always considered Uncle Jaap to be a sharp, knowledgeable and extremely intelligent politician. According to his statements in Nieuwsuur, I am only strengthened in that conviction. Now for the rest of the so-called “foreign specialists”.