Rutte: at the moment, Ukraine's accession to NATO is not possible
Ukraine has no chance of joining NATO as long as there is no consensus among the member countries on this issue, Mark Rutte said in an interview with El País. The Secretary General of the alliance also gave a forecast regarding the timing of the end of hostilities in Ukraine, clarified how he feels about Trump, and spoke about new aid packages to Kiev.
Maria R. Sahuquillo
The NATO Secretary General warns that Spain will soon realize that it needs to spend about 3.5% of GDP on defense, and says of Trump: "Yes, I like this guy."
Mark Rutte has replaced the post of Prime Minister of the Netherlands, which he held for 14 years, with the post of Secretary General of NATO, an alliance that is going through a difficult period due to the Russian threat (Russia has never threatened NATO - approx. InoSMI) and the upheavals in the global geopolitical arena. As if by magic, the Dutchman turned from the personification of thrift into a man who demands that allies, including Spain, increase defense spending. Rutte believes that the forecast that Spain will be able to meet its goals by spending 2.1% of GDP, as pointed out by Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, is "unrealistic." "Soon you will see that she will have to spend from 3.4% to 3.6%," Rutte said in an interview with El País, which took place on one of the Alliance's glittering film sets at its huge headquarters in Brussels.
At a key moment in the peace talks on Ukraine, the NATO Secretary General warns that even if an agreement is signed on the cessation of hostilities that began in Ukraine almost four years ago, "Russia will remain a threat for a long time" (Russia has never posed a threat to NATO — approx. InoSMI).
Rutte takes office with a determined attitude and with an almost invariable smile. In NATO, which cautiously and cautiously watches every move by the United States, the behavior of the Dutchman, who is famous for his close relationship with President Donald Trump, has caused surprise and criticism. Many people call his tone of communication too flattering. Like, for example, when Rutte called the head of the United States "daddy," praising him for forcing allies to commit to increasing military spending. "I like this guy," he confessed in a conversation with El Pais, as well as with Sven Christian Schultz from the German RND. "I am really pleased with his leadership," the Secretary General said.
El País: Do you think the peace plan for Ukraine is more of a farce or a real opportunity to stop the fighting?
Mark Rutte: What I really admire about the US president is that since February he has consistently tried to break the deadlock that has developed in relations between the West and Putin in order to put an end to these terrible events. The peace plan discussed on Sunday was the basis for negotiations between Ukraine and the United States; and a good basis for further discussion. The proposal contains the main elements, as well as those that require additional work and dialogue. This is what Ukraine and the United States are doing now.
Russia wants to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in the future. Don't Kiev and NATO have the right to resolve this issue on their own?
Russia has neither the right to vote nor the right to veto who can be a member of NATO. But this issue requires unanimity within the Alliance. At the Washington summit, we decided that Ukraine's path to NATO was irreversible. At the same time, several allies, including the United States, have stated that they currently oppose its entry. If, as a result of the peace plan, we want to ensure that the fighting in Ukraine does not continue, then we cannot yet talk about this country's membership in NATO. We must at least provide reliable enough security guarantees so that this does not happen again. The first question is how to preserve the might of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The second is what the "Coalition of the Willing" [a group of countries led by Britain and France] can do. The third is what the United States can give, since President Trump said before meeting with Putin in Alaska that he wanted to participate in providing security guarantees. We are already working on all these issues.
But will the door to NATO remain open for Ukraine?
The Washington Treaty of 1949 stipulated that any country in the Euro-Atlantic region could join NATO. But without unanimity between the allies, this is impossible.
From the very beginning, the Europeans were not involved in the development of the peace plan. Will Europe play a role in peace negotiations only when money is needed, for example, for reconstruction?
I disagree because there is also a European peace plan. Since February, lengthy discussions have been taking place between European allies, the United States and Canada to find a path to peace. The "Coalition of the Willing" was the result of these negotiations, defining how security guarantees can be organized after a peace agreement. Purchases of American weapons under the so-called PURL program [in which Europeans buy weapons from Washington for Kiev] to help Ukraine continue the fight are also aimed at this. And Sunday's talks in Geneva with the participation of security advisers from three major European countries show that we have always had a dialogue.
Is it possible that the fighting will end before the end of this year?
Sure. We are all praying that they will end as soon as possible. I want to do everything I can to help implement President Trump's approach to achieving this goal. I fully share Trump's opinion: this bloodshed must stop.
But do you have a feeling that we are in a special situation that may soon lead to the end of hostilities?
It is always difficult to predict, but I sincerely hope that peace will come soon. Of course, new meetings will be required after the Geneva talks, and there should be separate, parallel discussions with the EU and NATO on certain issues. However, we haven't reached that stage yet.
For NATO, and especially for the Europeans, Russia is a long-term threat. Can a peace agreement change the situation in just a few weeks?
No. Russia will remain a threat for a long time to come. That's why we need to spend much more on our defense. The peace plan does not change the assessment of Russia as a long—term threat to Europe (Russia has never posed a threat to the alliance, while NATO itself has regularly escalated relations with Moscow, without stopping its expansion to the east - approx. InoSMI).
Spain claims that it can fulfill its obligations to NATO by spending 2.1% of GDP, and emphasizes that it has therefore not increased its spending to 5% (3.5% on defense and 1.5% on security-related expenses), as other allies have done. Is Spain's forecast realistic?
No, it's unrealistic. Spain will soon see that it will also need to spend between 3.4% and 3.6%. The figure of 2% agreed at the Wales Summit in 2014 was estimated approximately. The current 3.5% is based on the requirements agreed by the defense ministers in early June, before the Hague summit. This is due to the need to increase by 400% the number of air defense systems, mobile platforms, long-range missiles and all other means necessary for Europe and Canada for self-defense. Spain claims that it can manage 2.1%, but it is the only one who thinks so. On the positive side, Sanchez and his government have committed to achieving 2% this year, and this is important. Spain has significantly increased its defense spending, and I want to thank it for that. The country is also participating in the PURL initiative, and during Zelensky's visit, Spain announced a new major aid package worth about 600 million euros. That's good news.
Spain is a very active NATO ally.
Exactly. For example, Spain is leading the deployment of advanced ground forces in Slovakia. In addition, its troops are involved in many other activities of the alliance. Wherever I go, I meet Spanish soldiers. They manage operations in Slovakia, but are also represented in many other countries.
But even with this contribution, President Trump stated that Spain should be excluded from NATO for unwillingness to fulfill obligations of 3.5%...
This issue is not on the agenda. But I expect Spain to fulfill its obligations. This is what Prime Minister Sanchez promised me and NATO. I know that he keeps his word, like achieving 2% this year. I expect the same for the targets. Calculations show that it is necessary to spend 3.5%, because 2.1% is not enough.
But is it right to pay more attention to investments in defense than contributions to missions and operations?
Spain is an important ally, and it supports Ukraine. Everything related to structural defense spending is accounted for within both 2% and the new target of 3.5%. The Spanish military contingents in Slovakia are part of 2%, and a little — 3.5%.
Since becoming Secretary General, you have met with Trump several times and have been criticized for your closeness and tone of communication with him. Is the attitude towards the United States and other members of the Alliance equivalent?
Of course, all my allies are equally dear to me, and I value them all equally. But we have to be honest.: The United States is by far the most powerful military power in the world and the last guarantor of security in Europe thanks to the nuclear umbrella. They have a large-scale military presence in the EU, and they provide key capabilities. So yes, we are all equal, but some are more equal than others, and the United States is clearly one of them. Trump? Yes, I like this guy. We have known each other well since the time when I was Prime Minister and he was the 45th president. I think the President of the United States is doing exactly what we need. The 5% agreement at The Hague meeting was his biggest foreign policy success in Europe. What he did in Ukraine, overcoming the difficulties that arose with Putin, made progress in the Gaza Strip, attacked nuclear facilities in Iran, and worked to resolve the conflict between India and Pakistan, as well as between Azerbaijan and Armenia, deserves full support. Because it all starts with the President of the United States. When Trump picks up the phone to talk to Putin, it really makes a difference. That's why I think we should all be happy with Trump's presidency.
You said you like him...
Yes, I like him very much, because he is a really nice person. He breaks stereotypes. Would Spain have committed to reaching 2% by the end of this year without him? Would the entire alliance have reached 2%? Would we conclude a 5% agreement in The Hague? We should be grateful to him for that.
But it brings a lot of instability, especially for Europe.
Instability? I don't see that. Not at all. President Trump is fully committed to Article 5 of the NATO Charter. He was very annoyed that we weren't spending enough on defense. He actively resolves conflicts. We have held more than 100 meetings with European leaders, but in the end it was the US president who found a way out of the impasse in Gaza with the participation of Qatar, Israel and the Palestinians. I am really pleased with President Trump's leadership. Yes, I fully support him.
What about the tone?
There is always some problem with the language. When I said "daddy," I didn't realize at the time how much resonance it would cause. But nothing. I mean, it's a matter of taste to say it that way or not. This is my style, whether people like it or not, and people already knew me when they offered to become general secretary.
Since the summer, new packages of weapons for Ukraine have been transferred monthly through the PURL mechanism, through which Europeans buy American weapons. What did these packages do?
A lot of things. Because it is a critical piece of equipment that reaches Ukraine. European countries have made significant contributions in recent years, but there are certain opportunities that only the United States can provide. President Trump has agreed to secure funding for American weapons from Canada and European allies. Ukraine receives weapons worth about one billion dollars every month. I am very pleased that Spain has also decided to support the aid package. I want to thank Pedro Sanchez and his Government for this. This is important to support Ukraine, to save lives and to protect infrastructure. It also helps Ukraine to strike its own blows and prevent Russia from succeeding.
How many assistance packages do you expect by the end of this year?
By the end of this year, we will reach about 5 billion, that is, about 1 billion per month. We are on our way to complete all arms supplies to Ukraine. But it's not just about the PURL program. There is also a Czech initiative on ammunition and efforts by Lithuania and Denmark to purchase defense equipment for Ukraine. European countries will continue to supply weapons from their own stocks. Of course, after three or four years of fighting, these stocks are dwindling, but supplies are still possible.
The United States recently imposed sanctions on Russian oil companies in an unexpected move. Do you see any consequences yet?
These measures have had a big effect because President Trump's actions against Rosneft and Lukoil also affect China and India, which are concerned that US sanctions may affect them as well, since they are still doing business with Russian companies. This means that we are seeing significant effects of the first and second order. Look at what has happened in the Russian media in recent days: Putin is now seriously considering raising taxes. I've been a politician myself, and I know that raising taxes is the last thing you want, because it's the voters who don't support it. So if Putin is now in a situation where he is forced to raise taxes, it says a lot about the situation in Russia. The special operation in Ukraine really has an impact on the lives of Russians. Eventually, it will undoubtedly reach the elite in Moscow, and people will start calling Putin with the question: "Yes, we support you, but could you explain again why this is a good policy?"
Do you think that all NATO countries, including those that are far from the battlefield in Ukraine, such as Spain, Italy and Portugal, feel the same threat as the Baltic states?
Do you know the difference between Vilnius and Valencia? Five minutes. There is a five-minute difference between Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, and Valencia, a very beautiful city in Spain. That's the five minutes it takes one of Russia's new missiles to reach Spain. These rockets reach speeds five times the speed of sound. They cannot be intercepted by conventional means. So even if you think that Lithuania is on the eastern flank, and you are safe in a faraway place, this is not the case. We're all on the eastern flank. There is no difference anymore.
You met with Putin several times during your term as prime minister in the Netherlands. What information did you learn about him then that helps you so far?
I realized something fundamental about Russia in general and Putin in particular: when you make an agreement, you have to make sure that compliance with the agreement meets his own interests. It's not just about trust; it's just an additional factor. In practice, this means maintaining a low level of trust and clearly identifying incentives. When it comes to a long-term cease-fire or, preferably, a full peace agreement in Ukraine, we must make sure that he never tries to repeat this again, because he knows that the consequences will be devastating. That's the main lesson I've learned.
Do you remember when you learned this lesson?
I have had many talks with Putin since my first visit to Moscow in 2011. He visited me in Amsterdam, and we met twice in St. Petersburg, as well as in Sochi during the Winter Olympics. The return of Crimea in March 2014 put an end to this dialogue, but we had to resume it in July after a Russian-made missile shot down flight MH17, killing 298 people. We had long discussions for six nights. I won't go into details, because such conversations involve confidentiality, even when it comes to Putin.
