Romania was asked to remain silent: Valeriy Zaluzhnyi spoke about political sensitivity to Shahed attacks, the powerless role of NATO and the JEF (video)

During a speech in Lviv to the students of the Ukrainian Catholic University, the Ambassador of Ukraine to Great Britain and the former Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valery Zaluzhny shared a story about the role and trust in the North Atlantic Alliance, Romania’s silence on the situation with the “Shaheeds” who fell on its territory, as well as the prospect of Ukraine joining the JEF.

“NATO is the easiest way out of today’s situation. Unfortunately, NATO as a military institution has no power today, or if it has this power, it will run out within a month. I will give a small example: Ukraine receives somewhere on average, according to my calculations, 3,000 air targets weighing 100 kg or more – these are air targets that need to be engaged in anti-aircraft missile systems.

According to the NATO doctrine, which I absolutely respect, and which, besides me, a couple of other people in NATO know about – the former head of the US Joint Staff Committee did not know and was surprised that I knew. But, in order to shoot down 3,000 air targets, 10,500 anti-aircraft guided missiles are needed. The IRIS-T rocket costs 800,000 rubles. dollars, and PATRIOT – 10 million dollars. At such prices, first of all, if they exist, they will run out tomorrow, it is impossible to produce them, and any country will fall on its knees in a month and say: we give up because we spent all the money on it.

This is NATO. Unfortunately, it serves the interests of mainly political members of the alliance, built itself in conditions of absolute democracy, developed a doctrine that allows it to fight with rebel units in the Western Sahara, can hold some action in the Pacific Ocean, but away from the coast of Yemen, because they have shown how they can to fight They no longer fit there. And what is more characteristic for me – they pushed their military-industrial complex into insane corruption by our standards. They excluded contracts for the construction of aircraft carriers, for the construction of some mythical F-35, and so on, for 10 years ahead. That is, the states owe them money for air and they will never go that way to make themselves efficient, but they exist in the paradigm in which they exist.”

Zaluzhnyi recalled how, during one of the shellings of southern Ukraine, Russia launched Shahed attack drones, which, after changing course, fell on the territory of Romania, a NATO member state. However, instead of officially recording the fact of aggression and possibly raising the question of a collective response, a call came from Romania with a clear request: not to talk about it publicly.

“Romania generally understands everything, but is silent. Sometimes they call me and say: “Shut up”. Well, two “Shaheda” fell into the port near you, why are you silent, and they: “Shut up, I’m begging you.” Do you understand?

They tell me: “Why did you turn on your REBs, everything flew at us.” I answer them: “then shoot them down. You have 40 F-16s.” That is, NATO is both morally and physically obsolete, and will not give us anything except some kind of political protection.” – said Zaluzhnyi.

According to him, it is not only about Romania. He observed a similar attitude on the part of other NATO member states that border Ukraine and feel the consequences of a full-scale war. He gave the example of the Baltic countries and Poland, where either Ukrainian or Russian rockets periodically fly in — either by accident or due to a violation of the trajectory. However, as noted by Zaluzhnyi, the political reality is such that even with an obvious violation of territorial integrity, the principle of “do not provoke” applies. This approach, according to Zaluzhnyi, is explained by the fact that some states within the Alliance actually do not believe in the effectiveness of Article 5 of the NATO Charter. This article provides that an attack on one member of the Alliance is considered an attack on all.

“There is no fifth article there and there never will be. The Baltic countries understand that there is no fifth article of NATO and there never was. Poland understands this, where our missiles periodically fall, then Russian ones. Romania understands everything, but remains silent.” – emphasized Zaluzhnyi.

He added that sometimes there were even complaints from the Romanian side – allegedly Ukrainian electronic warfare equipment changes the trajectory of drones, and instead of hitting a target in Ukraine, they fall on the territory of Romania. Thus, the issue is not only the consequences of aggression, but also the political reluctance to raise uncomfortable topics in the context of the Alliance. In addition, Zaluzhnyi stated that, from his point of view, even Ukraine’s accession to NATO is not a guarantee of real security.

“NATO is both morally and physically outdated, and will not give us anything except some kind of political protection.” he concluded.

Valery Zaluzhnyi also spoke about the peacekeeping contingent. He stated:

“In my personal opinion, like NATO, the most illusory option is to send a contingent to Ukraine. I draw attention to the fact that the doctrine of peacekeepers was developed in the mid-1990s, when “cool guys” came to the country, videos were shot about them, broadcast on CNN. But the military told what kind of war there was. Only this video will be shown there to a NATO soldier, and he will lose not only the desire to serve, but and something else.That is, there are terrible things that they are not ready for today.

Therefore, it is most likely that the best security guarantees are laid in ourselves. The only thing that will be difficult for us to do is to enter the new architecture of European security, which still needs to be built. And here JEF is very useful in this regard. But it has two problems that prevent Ukraine from joining it. The problem is primarily Great Britain itself, because its additional problems are not needed, and also because Britain does not have an army. And it is not clear how much time they need to build this army. Plus, the army in Britain has submarines, which have a specific European task, from which they cannot depart within the framework of the NATO treaty – this is the number one problem.

We get the answer that Ukraine is not a Northwestern country, that is, they are united around the North Sea. And the second problem, oddly enough, lies in Poland, which is also not accepted by JEF. And she will do everything to first accept her, and then talk about Ukraine. I am trying to convince the British that the creation of a new European security architecture based on the JEF is the most realistic scenario, because there is already a management system that can be expanded. In addition, there is another huge plus – in the JEF there is Norway, which has excellent natural resources, which has its own fleet, which can become the basis of the maritime component, rich human capital. But again, today it is a problem, because they do not yet want to consider Europe, which has built its security on a new architecture.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aamRSUBg9s&ab_channel=%D0%90%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%84TV

For reference: The United Kingdom’s Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) is a multinational expeditionary force created in 2015 under the leadership of Great Britain. They include nine Northern European allies: Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway. If necessary, JEFs can deploy more than 10,000 troops to participate in humanitarian missions or high-intensity combat operations. JEFs can operate independently, independently of NATO, but can also support Alliance missions or work as part of UN peacekeeping initiatives. All ten JEF member countries are also NATO members, but these forces have their own command structure and decision-making flexibility.

It is worth recalling that on March 1, 2025, Romania officially confirmed that the wreckage of a drone found near the Ukrainian city of Reni belonged to a Russian drone. It fell in an uninhabited area near the border with Moldova. The warhead had to be neutralized on the spot. This was not the first case of Russian drones falling on the territory of a NATO member state, but each time the reaction of Bucharest remained as cautious as possible.

Zaluzhnyi’s story sheds light on the tension between political rhetoric about the “unity of the Alliance” and the actual behavior of its members in crisis situations. And at the same time, it raises an uncomfortable question — whether it is possible to rely on NATO’s protection, if even its states are not always ready to admit that they have become victims of aggression.