Javier Solana served as secretary general of NATO from 1995 to 1999 and then as the European Union's high representative for common foreign and security policy from 1999 to 2009. Deutsche Welle spoke to him during the annual Munich Security Conference.

DW: There is a lot of talk about a crisis of trust in the transatlantic relationship. Is this the worst crisis or problem the relationship has seen?

Javier Solana: No, it is not the worst by far. We've had other situations - think of the war in Iraq. Europe was split in two. Society was split in two. The UN Security Council was split. But no, this is a very important, and very interesting, problem because it is something new.

It's a question of trust, confidence, security, freedom. All of these things affect all the citizens of the European Union. If you have a state-to-state quarrel, or Europe versus the United States, it is a debate among elites. The debate today is much more about individuals-to-individuals or individuals-to-governments. The degree of citizen involvement is much greater than before. But because of that, the relationship will be stronger because you will convince people, and once you convince people you have the critical mass to rebuild trust, not only among the elites but also among the people.

We will never see an action taken by the Americans, and the Americans will not see an action take by us, that is going to clarify this spying. Espionage is something that has been with society since the beginning of time. How far do you go, how much do you break the rules of the game to guarantee security and go into the private lives of citizens is what is changing - because of the capabilities the new technologies offer to all of us.

What I like to say - and this may sound naive, but I think it's not - is that you don't have to use all the capabilities technology offers. You can limit yourself. We limit nuclear weapons, for instance.

It seems Europeans and Americans are not even talking about the same thing and have very different perspectives on this issue. Do you think Americans understand why Europeans, and especially Germans, are upset about the issue of surveillance?

I think the Americans after September 11 have a hypersensitivity about some of these issues, and they still haven't understood how it was able to happen, knowing they had so much deployment of intelligence. That has put a mentality in the authorities of the United States - a sentiment that they have to go beyond what they did before in order to prevent a repetition of September 11.

I think the citizens of Europe do not mind if inquiries are made about a person who is known to be about to commit a crime. But it is another thing if inquiries are made about the chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the Bundestag or even Chancellor Angela Merkel - that is very difficult to understand.

It is apparent here at the security conference that Germany still expects a clear signal from Washington. Do you think the US understands that and will Washington deliver something - and what could that be?

What's being asked for is something that does not repeat a situation in which the chancellor of Germany says she's been spied on. That's very offensive to the country and to the person. That has a solution - it must never happen again. Public recognition in written form will be more difficult, but in the end, whatever Ms. Merkel needs will be done.

What should the EU do together to come to terms with the US on the crucial issue of surveillance?

These matters are very sensitive and they can get entangled in political discussions and become difficult to resolve. But I am not pessimistic, and I think this will be resolved. I think it has been a good wake-up call that this is happening and we have to pay more attention.

We're only talking about this because of the NSA revelations by Edward Snowden. There is an ongoing discussion with some calling him a whistleblower and others calling him a traitor. What is your sense of that?

I think for the Americans he is a traitor - even if some people think (his revelations were) useful. For others, he is a whistleblower, there is no doubt about that.

But I think that this could have been done in a very different manner. If you want to denounce something you can denounce it without putting some of the relationships between countries at risk. At the end of the day, he has stolen the secrets of a country, you cannot forget that.

Switching to the crisis in Ukraine, how concerned are you about the situation there?

I am very worried. I have been trying to see if we can find a way by which negotiations can be put in place. I was engaged in the Orange Revolution negotiations in 2004 and we got what we wanted, a roundtable - the European Union, Russia, the government of Ukraine and the opposition of Ukraine. This would be more difficult today, but I think it should be tried.

It seems to me that the Russians would be interested. Nobody could be interested in having a mess in Ukraine. I think the situation is getting to the point where the differences between the east and west of Ukraine would be irreconcilable - and that would be a very bad outcome.

I think that we have to try to find a mechanism to get this problem settled, and take until the end of the year with a government of national unity, or something of that nature, because the presidential election could be brought forward from early 2015.

Do you think Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych can stay in power until new elections in a year's time?

I think that would be best if this comes from an agreement with sufficient credibility that is accepted by everybody - and they try to make a transition that is a little more orderly, where the dates can be organized. Without changing the rules of the game, I think the elections can be brought forward a little. But it would be very difficult to imagine a presidential election today or within a month. Some time is needed.