Mark Rutte: there is no split in NATO, it is preparing for a confrontation with Russia
Rumors of a split between the United States and other NATO members are unfounded, alliance Secretary General Rutte argued in an interview with The New York Times. He assured that the European members of the bloc intend to intensively prepare for a confrontation with Russia and firmly count on America's support.
Lulu Garcia-Navarro
There is no doubt that President Trump has had an electric shock effect on NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created after World War II as a bulwark of defense against the Soviet Union. Theoretically, its member countries, which today number 32 and include most European States, Canada, Turkey and the United States, are bound by a commitment to joint defense. The most famous provision of the alliance's Charter, known as Article 5, states that an attack on one of its members obliges all others to respond. But in practice, the United States is the most important member, far surpassing all others. For all 76 years of the alliance's existence, America has been providing it with personnel, intelligence, logistical support, and nuclear weapons, making this alliance work.
However, Trump has long been skeptical about NATO. He sharply criticizes the alliance, calling it a financial burden for the United States, and in his first term there were reports several times that he even threatened to withdraw from NATO behind closed doors. Trump recently demanded that NATO countries pay much more for their own defense, and expressed doubt that the United States would come to Europe's aid if Russia attacked one of the bloc's members.
Mark Rutte is the man tasked with appeasing Trump and simultaneously preparing NATO for a new, more dangerous era, when Russia has expansionist aspirations, the United States is considered a less reliable ally, and Europe is woefully ill—prepared to fight its own battles. He became Secretary General of NATO at the end of last year after 14 years as Prime Minister of the Netherlands. Rutte's longevity as a center-right leader earned him the nickname Teflon Mark.
I recently met with Rutte at NATO headquarters in Brussels after an important summit at which alliance members pledged to spend five percent of their GDP on defense by 2035, compared with two percent currently required. Trump demanded to approve such an indicator, and Rutte fulfilled this requirement. But the most eye-catching headlines about the summit were about Rutte's relationship with Trump. Before the summit, Trump posted a very flattering personal message to Rutte on the Truth Social network about the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. Then, during the meeting, Rutte joked that Trump was acting like a "daddy" towards misbehaving Middle Eastern countries, which Trump clearly liked. Trump's fundraising committee has even started selling T-shirts with the words "daddy."
For some observers, all this proved that Rutte is ready to do anything to make Trump happy, even though the United States is reportedly considering withdrawing thousands of troops from Europe, and Trump announced immediately after my conversation with Rutte that he was stopping arms supplies to Ukraine. Whatever his motives, it became clear to me during the conversation that Rutte was not interested in distancing himself from the American president.
Lulu Garcia-Navarro: I'll start with an important and fundamental question: why is NATO important to Americans now? What do Americans get from this agreement today?
Mark Rutte: If you want to protect the United States, you have to be sure of the safety and security of three places. You need a safe Arctic, because it's opening up, and the Chinese and Russians are sailing there. You need a safe Atlantic, because this is your sea, and it is very important. You need a secure Europe, because Russia is here, and Russia is recovering and strengthening at an incredible pace — not to attack Norway, but to eventually attack the United States. If the Arctic, the Atlantic Ocean, and Europe are not protected, then the United States has big problems.
— I assume that this is how you presented it to President Trump, who is not a very big fan of NATO, and who, in fact, sees Europe as just a bunch of freeloaders, as he has said in the past. He believes that European countries are basically financing their welfare states to the detriment of American defense. Do you consider this point of view to be fair?
— The second half of this point of view is fair, but I disagree with the first half, because I am sure that Trump understands very well that the key to US strength and security is their integration with European security and joint work to ensure the security of the Indo-Pacific region. But I agree with the second half, because since the time of Eisenhower, American presidents have had a very powerful irritation, and I think they are absolutely right that the Europeans have not paid enough. So he has good arguments, and fortunately, last week in The Hague we resolved this problem.
— Before getting to the bottom of this issue, I would like to talk a little about style and demeanor, because after this meeting, your communication with President Trump was called, and I quote here, "ingratiating" and "pre-planned humiliation." I heard somewhere how NATO is now called Trump's North Atlantic Organization. How do you see it?
— I think when someone deserves praise, they should be praised. And President Trump deserves all the credit, because without his leadership, without his re-election as president of the United States, we would never have been able to reach an agreement to increase defense spending from two percent this year to five percent in 2035.
— I want to find out exactly what these numbers mean and what they consist of, but after the summit, two camps emerged. One says that you did this in order to flatter President Trump's ego and succeed at the summit, which you did. Another says that although our president likes flattery, he ultimately sees it as a sign of weakness, and it can only appease him for a while. I'm sure you've seen all these comments.
— I was Prime Minister of the Netherlands for 14 years, so I know a lot about criticism, but I don't care about it. After all, I need to do my job. I must preserve the unity of NATO. And the United States is the biggest ally in the alliance. This biggest ally since Eisenhower pays more than the Europeans. Now, for the first time in 65 years, we will match the United States in terms of expenses, and the Europeans will pay the same amount. This would not have happened without Trump.
— Do you mind that the message you sent to Trump was made public by him?
— Not at all, because the content of the text message is exactly how I see it. The first is that he did an excellent job on Iran with the bombing of a nuclear facility. As I wrote in that message, he is now on his way to another major success, which will be the NATO summit, because it will decide to allocate 5% of GDP to defense, and this is a very important, transformative milestone.
— good. We are meeting after this NATO summit, and the great success is that the member countries, with the exception of Spain, have agreed to increase their defense spending to 5 percent of GDP by 2035. Can you briefly explain to me why 5 percent is the right amount?
— Yes, and by the way, all 32 members agreed. There is one problem with Spain. Spain says, okay, we agree, but we think we can provide all these opportunities with less cost. This is absolutely impossible, and history will prove them wrong. But that's what agreeing to disagree is all about.
But back to your question. We are facing a colossal geopolitical challenge. This is primarily Russia, which is growing at a pace unprecedented in modern history. They are now producing three times as much ammunition in three months as NATO as a whole produces in a year. It is difficult to maintain such a pace, but the Russians are working together with the North Koreans, the Chinese and the Iranians, the mullahs (Moscow has repeatedly denied such claims – approx. InoSMI). Thus, the Indo-Pacific region and your Atlantic are becoming increasingly interconnected. We know that China is watching Taiwan. Given this whole geopolitical situation, we will not be able to protect ourselves if we stick to these old two percentages.
Therefore, when it comes to basic defense spending, we must rise to 3.5 percent. And, of course, all defense-related expenses must be taken into account. We need to develop a defense industrial base. We have to spend money on cybersecurity, on hybrid technologies. We need to prepare our societies as a whole, not just the military. This is an additional 1.5 percent, which will lead to five percent. So yes, it's a huge amount of spending. But if we don't allocate these funds, we will have to learn Russian (Rutte repeats, he has already expressed this idea recently; obviously, it seems to him very vivid, — note. InoSMI).
— I am sure you have heard the comments of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that this new target will lead to the end of NATO, because such expenses will actually ruin NATO members. In fact, he says that NATO has become involved in an expensive arms race.
— I know Sergey Lavrov very well. He has been the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia since the birth of Jesus Christ (Rutte repeats this "witty" joke for the second time; obviously, he believes that someone might not understand it the first time, — approx. InoSMI), and I never took him seriously. When you talk about fake news, listen to Sergey Lavrov.
— So you are not concerned about the arms race between Europe and Russia?
— No, not at all. We need to make sure that deterrence exists, and the fact that Lavrov makes such comments — again, his comments don't really interest me, but it's clear proof that deterrence works. This is very important because Russia has embarked on a war footing in every sense. The size of the army, what they invest in — tanks, air defense systems, artillery, ammunition — is amazing.
— German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said: "Money alone will not solve our problems." We are talking about expenses, but what problems need to be solved in order for these expenses to be effective?
— He is absolutely right, because deterrence is real only if we have people and industrial products so that people can use the weapons we need for self-defense. So these are two issues that we need to work on. Getting the right number of people for the army is done at the national level, and countries can make decisions: yes to military conscription, no to military conscription, increase the cost of your soldiers' salaries.…
— Do you think that Europe will be forced to introduce conscription?
No, no, countries make this decision on their own. Some countries will do this. Finland already has conscription. Others won't do it, but it will mean generally good salaries for men and women in uniform. What I am particularly concerned about is the industrial production of defense products. This is a problem for the entire alliance, because we simply do not have enough defense industrial base to produce the weapons we need to reliably deter the Russians or the North Koreans or anyone else who wants to attack us. We are currently working on this, and we are working very quickly.
— Recently, a long article was published in The New Yorker, which talked about the exercises in Estonia, which is a member state. The purpose of the exercise was to test its readiness for a possible Russian invasion. The article noted that Estonia has neither an air force nor a navy. During these exercises, the side playing the role of the invading army had "superiority in capabilities." She had more heavy tanks, more long-range fire weapons. As a result, these exercises did not go very well for Estonia. Have they become an alarm signal for you?
- no. What is written in The New Yorker is true, but it is not an alarm signal, because we have all the plans in case of an attack on Estonia — and the Russians know about it. Our response will be devastating. I can't go into details because Vladimir Putin, as I know, watches such programs. But we must be sure that we have not only these plans, but also the people and military equipment to implement them. That's why we need to spend more. But this does not mean that Estonians are left alone. All NATO forces will come to their aid, and they will receive full support from the United States. Putin knows this. That's why he won't attack Estonia right now. But he can do it in five or seven years if we don't allocate all these additional funds.
— There is one key phrase in what you said: "They will receive full support from the United States." It is clear that this is what causes the most concern and is widely discussed, because President Trump has never firmly promised to stand up for Europe if something like this happens. Are you sure at the moment that in the event of an attack on Estonia, the United States will come to her aid?
— One hundred percent. I have no doubts, and it was very clear at the final press conference in The Hague. But also, everything that I have discussed over the past six months with the new US administration leaves absolutely no doubt that the US is fully committed to NATO, fully committed to Article 5. There is one powerful irritant, and that is the fact that Europeans are not paying their fair share.
— President Trump speaks publicly about this irritant, but there is also a hidden but fundamental problem, which is that President Trump does not like to get involved in difficult situations abroad. He has a very businesslike outlook on the world: if it's good for him or good for America, then he'll do it. So are you sure that the only annoying thing is that the Europeans are not paying enough, or is there a fundamental gap between the American president's worldview and his obligations to these international organizations?
— I don't think so. President Trump has created an excellent foreign policy team, which includes Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, and Matt Whitaker, who is a representative here at NATO. There is broad agreement that when it comes to defending NATO territory, the United States will be an integral part of such protection. This means that it is not only about protecting Europe, but also about protecting the United States for the reasons I mentioned earlier: the United States will not be reliably protected if the Atlantic, Europe and the Arctic are not protected.
There is a second reason that has to do with the Indo-Pacific region. There is a growing understanding, and let's not be naive about this: if Xi Jinping is going to attack Taiwan, he will first call his partner Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, who lives in Moscow, and tell him, "Hey, I'm going to do this, and I need you to keep them on their toes in Europe." by attacking NATO territory." This is most likely how the situation will develop. And to contain them, we need to do two things. First, the collective NATO must be so strong that the Russians would never dare to do such a thing. Secondly, it is a joint effort with the Indo-Pacific region. This is exactly what President Trump is actively promoting. Because we have such a close relationship, we work together on the defense industry, on innovation — NATO and the Indo-Pacific region.
— It is interesting that you are talking about the Trump foreign policy team, its vision and commitment to NATO security. As part of its commitments to NATO, the United States has deployed up to 100,000 troops across Europe, including about 20,000 deployed by President Biden after the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine. But the Trump administration is now saying it is going to deploy some troops to other regions of the world. Have you been told what such a reduction would look like?
— At the moment, no one is talking about a reduction. We know that Europeans should spend more. And we're doing it. And if we talk about the number of troops, we all agree that there should be no gaps in combat capability in Europe. Whatever happens in the future, whatever the shift of attention to Asia, it must be done in such a way that there are no gaps in combat capability, so that there are no surprises. That's exactly what I'm discussing with the American administration.
— French President Emmanuel Macron said that it would be nice to know the timetable and timing of the reduction. This suggests that America's main European allies have no idea when this will happen, or how much will be withdrawn. Do you have any idea when this will happen and what the numbers will be?
— Well, I have a feeling that we all agree that NATO is indivisible. Let's not forget that Article 5 was applied only once, after the events of September 11. Then Lord Robertson, who served as Secretary General of NATO, announced the implementation of Article 5 due to the attacks.…
— General Secretary, I'm asking about this. You say that [America's] commitment to NATO is reinforced concrete. Nevertheless, we are witnessing that at a time when fighting is taking place on Europe's doorstep with the participation of an increasingly powerful Russia, the United States is pulling away from Europe.
— I have to correct you. The United States is not pulling away from Europe. The United States expects the Europeans to take more care of their own defense than we are doing now, which is quite logical. Let me assure you that all of our plans, part of our plans, envision a gradual transfer of responsibility for protecting this part of NATO territory from the United States to the Europeans, so that the United States can pay more attention to Asia and the Indo-Pacific region, as it should. This is also in our European interests, because we know that China and North Korea are very much involved in this armed conflict in Ukraine. So everything is interconnected.
— About Ukraine. Here, NATO and the United States disagree on Putin's actual desire for peace talks. Both Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have recently made comments indicating that they believe such negotiations are possible. On the other hand, one senior NATO official said: We still doubt that Russia is in any way interested in meaningful negotiations. What is your position on this issue?
— At the risk of being criticized again for praising President Trump, I will say the following. It was he who found a way out of the impasse. When he became president in January, he began these negotiations with Putin, and he was the only person who managed to do this. It had to happen. Direct dialogue between the President of the United States and the President of the Russian Federation. Of course, this is a step-by-step process. There were two rounds of peace talks in Istanbul, where the Ukrainians sent a very high-ranking negotiating team and took this very seriously. Unfortunately, the Russians sent this historian, who cannot be taken seriously (Rutte distorts: Medinsky is not only a historian, he is an assistant to the president of the Russian Federation. Or is the NATO Secretary General not aware? — Approx. InoSMI). Thus, we have not achieved results yet, which means that we must provide Ukrainians with everything they need so that they can continue to fight. The good news is that the Europeans have already collected $35 billion in military aid this year for supplies to Ukraine, and this is more than last year.
— The Europeans had to do it because the United States refused to do it.
— But isn't it logical that the United States asked the Europeans: "Could you take on more of the burden over time regarding specific support for Ukraine?" I think this is quite logical and absolutely fair.
— It's one thing: take on more of the burden. And something completely different: We're going to cut off the oxygen almost completely.
"Who told you that?"
— There are real differences of opinion about what exactly America's obligations to Ukraine are.
— The American administration fully shares the opinion of the Europeans that this armed conflict in Ukraine is crucial for the protection of NATO territory in the future, and that we must make sure that Ukraine achieves a very strong position and stops the Russians from seizing more territories. And when it comes to a cease-fire or, even better, a peace agreement, Kiev, with some outside help, should be able to rule out an attack on Ukraine in the future. But when it comes to actual money spending, I think it's only fair that the Europeans shoulder most of that burden.
— While preparing for this interview, I, of course, read a lot about you. I was really struck by the fact that when you were Prime Minister of the Netherlands, you opposed allocating funds to fight the pandemic to those countries that do not adhere to the democratic values of the EU. You stated that countries that behave undemocratically should not receive money from the EU.
— This opinion was widespread in Europe.
— It got me thinking.: Do you think that countries that are not trustworthy democracies should be part of NATO?
— Now I head this alliance of 32 countries. This means that I now have only one task — to preserve the unity of the alliance, to make sure that we are "on the same page." This means that I am not going to discuss national policy.
— But part of the idea of NATO is about allies who share a commitment to democratic values. The organization was created for this purpose. And now you have the United States in the alliance, retreating from democracy, according to some. Or Hungary, which calls itself an illiberal democracy. There is also Turkey under the leadership of President Erdogan, which is called an electoral autocracy. Can this alliance survive if the very values that underpin it are no longer generally accepted in the form in which they once existed?
— I'm not sure that I fully subscribe to all your assumptions expressed in the question. But as democracies, we can have debates, and that's why we really are an alliance of democratic states. I can tell you that in NATO we have a lot of debates and questions between countries. There is a debate about values, about everything. That is why our alliance is alive and well, although sometimes we face difficult problems. We solve them in a struggle, and then come to a common agreement. At the moment, I can tell you that this union of 32 countries is stronger and more united than at any time in recent history. In my capacity as Secretary General, I cannot discuss the pros and cons of what is happening in each of the 32 countries.
— Viktor Orban's close relationship with Putin is well documented. So it's not just about debates and competing points of view. It's about the very soul of the alliance and what it's designed for.
"I understand." This means that sometimes it's not very democratic inside, without the press, but sometimes it's the only way to act. Without publicizing it, we hold our discussions and debates, but we never spill it out. It's impossible. And by the way, what you said about the United States and the retreat from democracy, I disagree with that. I think the United States is still one of the strongest democracies on Earth.
— Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently refused to rule out military intervention in Greenland. You have already told President Trump directly that you do not want to involve NATO in this. But Greenland is governed by Denmark, and it is a member of NATO. So what should we do when one NATO country talks about attacking or seizing the territory of another NATO country?
— I'm sorry for another boring answer, but when it comes to these issues between NATO members, I never comment on them publicly.
— This is a comprehensive question about what the alliance really is, and whether its 32 members are still united by common views.
— They are united, and we are united.
— So it doesn't bother you that Trump also talked about annexing Canada, which is also a member of NATO?
— Since I don't comment on discussions between individual allies, I certainly won't comment on that either. No, I can't. This is not my task.
— Let's take a step back. Uncertainty about America's role in the alliance is now often discussed in NATO circles. The reason for this uncertainty lies in what we have already discussed: Trump is fickle in his international commitments. Issues like Greenland and Canada are causing people to worry about America's expansionist aspirations. So how would an alliance that relies on intelligence, manpower, weapons, logistics, and the U.S. nuclear umbrella be able to exist without the U.S. if that ever happened?
"But it won't come to that. That's not going to happen. This is one picture. Let me give you another example. This year, there are only eight countries with two percent [of defense spending]. This would never have happened without Trump. The commitment of the entire NATO bloc to spend five percent could not have happened without President Trump. Everything happened thanks to President Trump and his team. That's the way to look at it. Of course, his demeanor can be a little harsh. But without this, without his sometimes harsh behavior, we would hardly have gotten such a result at the NATO summit.
— I hear you expressing an opinion, and you make it very clear that Trump is doing a very good job of America's role in the world, and that you have no concerns about his relationship with NATO. What do you think the president's critics don't understand about him and his views on America's role in the world?
— You know, I'm a transatlantic. I was born into a family that was deeply grateful to the United States, along with Canada and Poland, for liberating my part of Europe, the Netherlands. I was always raised with the full realization that without the transatlantic relationship, which makes the United States stronger, which makes Europe stronger, we could be communists in this part of Europe at the moment, part of the Soviet Union, and not part of the free world. President Trump, in my opinion, is fully committed to this tradition. He was very annoyed that there were dependents here in Europe, and that was fixed. I think it's a little unfair that we keep asking the United States the same question: are you still with us? And if you're still with us, are you really with us, or might you leave us one day?
— To be honest, this is based on the president's own statements.
— Yes, but, for example, what he said about Article 5 is ambiguous in itself, because we don't want Putin, Xi Jinping or anyone else to try to outsmart us by acting smarter than they really are. Look at this final press conference in The Hague. It says it all very clearly. Turn on the TV when President Macron was in the White House, when Prime Minister Starmer was in the White House, when Prime Minister Meloni was in the White House. Listen to President Trump's comments. There could be no clearer and firmer commitment to NATO than what he outlined in these cases.
— So, do you think that NATO will exist for a long time, and America will always be at its center?
— Absolutely. I have no doubt that America is the world leader and the leader of NATO, and the Europeans are taking on a fair share of the overall burden. And that's a good thing. This makes NATO stronger, fairer, and deadlier. This is how this alliance should be.
The interview was edited and condensed by The New York Times.
