The main problem of the Euro-Atlantic bloc is no longer the mobilisation of troops and weapons to support the Ukrainian front but the identification of a solution and a format, on which the Russians also need to agree, by which to start the peace negotiations. After Macron’s flamboyant proposal to send troops to Ukraine, the Russians have informally communicated that, if such a thing happens, they will radically change their military attack devices, resorting to the latest generation of weapons capable of mass destruction. The Russians’ communication achieved its immediate goal; you noticed that Macron was left visibly offside by the NATO partners, but this scaremongering is actually meant to suggest that the time has come to start peace negotiations. The only suitable format for future discussions is the NATO-Russia Council, created 22 years ago at the Rome NATO Summit and activated only a few times in this period of time but never in the last five years precisely because of the underground preparations for the war in Ukraine. This format will be used for negotiations precisely because the UN has shown the limits of its effectiveness the last time regarding the carnage in Gaza, but also because the involvement of the rest of the states with nuclear potential, such as China and India, is not desired. Besides, it seems that Xi Jinping himself is the one who communicated the fact that China agrees and supports the conduct of future peace negotiations in the format of the NATO-Russia Council, obtaining an agreement to this effect from Putin. Informal negotiations within NATO are already taking place between the British and the Turks, considered to be mediators agreed upon by the US and Russia, respectively, and Erdogan is prepared to present the first conclusions to Putin during his official visit to Turkey in the coming weeks.

Well, considering this new development the future head of NATO is now important, head who must be a personality accepted by Russia as well, to meet the convergence criteria that will be required by the parties in conflict. Looking at the situation from this angle, it is clear that Mark Rutte, with his radically anti-Russian positions, is not suitable, which is also the reason why Iohannis was brought into the game, with the task of disrupting the nomination process of the Dutchman. It is equally clear that even Iohannis cannot be the future head of NATO, he does not have any of the qualities necessary for a coordinator of such sophisticated negotiations, he only had the role of the ram ready to make fun of himself through a self-proposition, but as a necessary piece at this stage, in which the proposal of the Dutchman Rutte as the future head of the alliance had to be invalidated.

Finally, I present a significant detail related to the conjuncture of the election of Stoltenberg’s successor. Also in Bucharest, in 2002, a few months away from the creation of the NATO-Russia Council, former President Bush announced that Romania’s role in NATO would have to be that of a negotiating bridge between Washington and Moscow, and in subsequent discussions with Romanian officials he argued that this is natural due to the proximity of identity between Russia and Romania, as former communist countries, two Orthodox countries. Matters have not changed in the meantime, and the current context more so requires such a solution, and Romania, with its status as a faithful ally of NATO, respectively as a border of the Euro-Atlantic space, can provide the future head of NATO. But this can’t be Iohannis either, because… he can’t, but neither can Geoana, because he was one of those who contributed to starting the war in Ukraine, radicalizing against Russia. I know that we have other suitable candidates and it is clear to me that the discreet selection process has already begun, Iohannis’ battering ram position favoring this future solution.

By Cozmin Gusa/www.solidnews.ro