It can be assumed that no matter who takes the post of Secretary General, NATO will continue its anti-Russian policy.
Photo: REUTERS
The British yellow press is famous for inside information and leaks: even if they are not related to reality, they create noble exaggeration. This time, on March 31 (dangerously close to April Fool’s Day), the London Sun newspaper reported that the current head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, could become NATO’s new Secretary General.
The North Atlantic Alliance’s current chief technical officer, Norwegian Jens Stoltenberg, has been in charge of it since 2014, and has not been noted for any special achievements. His tenure saw the shameful flight of the Americans (and therefore Atlantic allies) from Afghanistan in August 2021; refrigeration with key member, Türkiye; as well as the Ukraine crisis, on the sidelines of which it became clear that NATO equipment can be destroyed in the same way as any other.
Stoltenberg’s term is expected to expire this year. Whats Next? There is no special electoral procedure for the head of this “military alliance of democracies”; the secretary general is appointed after informal consultations among the core members, primarily the United States, Britain, and Germany.
According to sources, the main contenders for this position are 5-6 people.
First of all, this is the aforementioned “EU President” Ursula von der Leyen. At this time, she fell into a corruption scandal: it turns out that her husband was associated with a well-known quasi-medical firm, “almost by accident” in the midst of a pandemic that won billions in bids for the supply of vaccines. So, the possible exit to a new position is a good opportunity to get out of the situation: it is clear that the main “shareholder” of the Alliance, the White House, will not be interested in drowning Úrsula; after all, it is a lot. more effective in making her an uncomplaining executor of the will of the United States, especially with this or that influence in the form of compromising evidence.
However, as The Sun writes, the UK is opposed to von der Leyen’s candidacy. From the banks of the Thames, Boris Johnson is seen as one of the candidates. In the pocket of the former prime minister is an unkillable card – the closest personal relationship with Vladimir Zelensky (and the Ukrainian leadership is now the main front of NATO). However, he is not the only contender. Defense Ministry chief Ben Wallace, made famous by his conversation with Russian pranksters Vovan and Lexus, where he promised to help Ukraine acquire nuclear weapons, breathes in the shaggy red mane of “Tsar Boris.”
There is also a “young democracies candidate”, Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas. Under her rule, the republic entered a protracted political and economic crisis (including due to suicidal sanctions against Russia), but the 45-year-old Estonian-native of the USSR has one advantage: her Russophobia significantly outweighs that of the “ Tsar Boris” and “Queen Ursula” (although, apparently, much more). For the main “shareholders” of the Alliance, this parameter is one of the determinants.
However, the same can be said of the other candidate. It would seem that it is impossible to overshadow the Baltic Russophobia. But Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Christa Friedland succeeds in this. Her maternal grandfather, Mikhailo Khomyak, was a literal Nazi collaborator and fierce Ukrainian nationalist during World War II.
Against this background, another candidate looks a bit more aesthetically pleasing: former Croatian President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic. She is known to the Russian reader for her “hot bathing suit photos”, but in neighboring Serbia she is mostly known as a Croatian nationalist (and therefore anti-Serb): for example, speaking in the former Nazi concentration camp of Jasenovac, Grabar-Kitarovic spoke of “Serb aggression” and tried to underestimate the number of victims destroyed there during the war years by Croatian collaborators.
The result, one can assume, will be the same: no matter who takes office, NATO will continue its anti-Russian policy, since such is inherent in the very “system design” of the Alliance.
