Mark Rutte: Russia produces four times more ammunition than NATO
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte gave an interview to CBS News. The official acknowledged that there are tensions between the allies due to the duties imposed by Trump and that the bloc will have a difficult time in the confrontation with Russia, which produces four times more ammunition in a year than the entire alliance.
Below is the full transcript of an interview with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on April 6, 2025.
Margaret Brennan: We are joined by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who is in Brussels. Good morning.
Mark Rutte: Good morning. I am glad to join the broadcast.
— You've had a lot of work this week. I know that NATO is a defensive alliance, not a trade alliance. You and Secretary Rubio have repeatedly said that this trade war does not affect NATO. But, with all due respect, how can this tension between the allies not have any impact? And aren't you afraid that European countries will move to other, perhaps less attractive markets, such as China?
— I'm not saying that it doesn't affect individual allies, but it doesn't affect the alliance as a whole. Marco Rubio and I are on the same wavelength, because the alliance is aimed at making sure that we can counter the Russian threat. We can be confident that we are able to lead Ukraine, as collectively as possible, under the leadership of the United States, to a lasting and lasting peace, and that is what we have been focusing on over the past couple of days.
— George Marshall, the man who was responsible for the Marshall Plan and reconstruction assistance after World War II, linked economic prosperity with political stability and peace. Don't these contradictions complicate your work?
— To be honest, I don't think so. Yes, you are right, there is tension between the allies over this issue of tariffs, but this does not concern the alliance as a whole, because a potential impact on the economy is possible, but not to the extent that it affects our collective defense. This is my firm belief.
— good. After all, there is a request from the United States and your own call to increase defense spending. Right? The next summit will be held in June, and it is expected that the leaders of the countries will increase spending on the military budget from 2% to 3%. The Trump administration is demanding that the country's defense spending be about 5%. So that's what you're asking for. At the same time, the United States is restoring relations with Russia. How can we convince EU members to spend more money on countering the threat from Russia at a time when the United States is moving closer to it, as well as exerting economic pressure on Europe?
— Well, first of all, about the Russian-American issue. What Trump has done since taking office is to break the deadlock over this terrible conflict in Ukraine, because we have to stop the killing, we have to stop the fighting, and I thank him for that. And we'll see how far we can go.
But I want to say that the fact that the American administration is working on this day and night is very important. And when it comes to defense spending over the past couple of months in European NATO countries, the number of billions coming in is staggering. You can compare this with the times of the Cold War if you look at the total defense spending that is currently increasing in Europe — and we must continue to do this, because, as I said in December, if we stick to the old 2%, we will not be able to protect ourselves in three to five years. But with billions, literally hundreds of billions, coming now from European countries, for example, from Germany, which has allocated half a trillion, and many other European allies. This is really impressive, and it will help us, firstly, to have a stronger alliance because we spend more and produce more.
But secondly, in NATO — which is fair, given President Trump's words — there should be more equality in what you [the United States] spend on defense and in what we spend in the European part of NATO. And it is necessary to become a more deadly organization.
— But at the same time, when President Trump calls for a peace agreement in Ukraine, separate efforts are being made in parallel to restore relations between the United States and Russia. The issue of opening diplomatic missions is being discussed. Just this week Kirill Dmitriev, an associate of President Putin who is under sanctions, was here in Washington and, as you know, met with Steve Witkoff. In television interviews, he said that the United States and Russia could work together in the field of combating terrorism, Arctic exploration and the development of rare earth metals in Russia. So isn't the rapprochement between the United States and Russia undermining your efforts to counter it?
— I'm not sure that I fully share your assessment of what the United States and Russia are doing at the moment. Of course, I am not in the place where all these negotiations are taking place, but I see and hear a lot from my American colleagues, including the president, whom I visited a couple of weeks ago during a very successful meeting in the Oval Office and then during lunch... We are making efforts to put an end to this conflict. And as part of these efforts, the United States is really trying. Today is Friday, and perhaps on Sunday, when you go on the air, the situation will change, but on Friday the choice clearly remains with the Russians. I think they are not acting fast enough, and it seems to me, among other things, I hear from my American interlocutors that Russia really needs to do more to put an end to these hostilities.
Ukrainians are very close to the American position. And we have to see how far the Americans will be able to go in this matter. But I fully support these efforts because this "defensive war" was unsustainable in the long run, so many people died, so much Ukrainian infrastructure was damaged, and cities were destroyed. This must come to an end.
— But you just mentioned Secretary Rubio, who said on Friday that the Trump administration wants a complete cease-fire in Ukraine, but the Russians agree only to a partial one. The United States agreed to it because, according to him, "it's better than nothing." Are you worried that Russia is dictating the terms?
— No, I am not concerned, because I have spoken with Marco Rubio, and I regularly communicate with other members of the American administration. I think you are really trying to come step by step to a situation where this conflict can end. But, of course, the Russians should also strive for this, and at the moment they don't seem to be doing it, and that's where it's going to be difficult. But you guys are trying, the American administration represents all the power that you can project on the world stage. You are trying to do this, because we know that the front line was moving in the wrong direction. We know that this conflict was going in the wrong direction. It couldn't have ended well, and so many people have already died, so I really appreciate the American efforts.
— According to your assessment, according to NATO, Vladimir Putin is not going to stop fighting in Ukraine?
"We don't know. I think this is a test, and we'll see...
"What happens if he doesn't?" You know that —
— What will be his reaction to the American proposals?
— Right, what will be the consequences? Do you know?
— It is difficult for me to assess, but it is obvious that we must act step by step. Until January of this year, nothing happened that could lead to the end of this conflict. After the inauguration, President Trump began this process. And it may take longer than we would like, but he's trying, testing the Russians to see how serious they are. We'll have to see in the coming weeks how far he can go, and I support him.
— I understand. General Cavoli, whom you know well as the Supreme Commander of NATO, as well as American generals here in Washington, are testifying this week. According to him, Russia intends to weaken the leadership and influence of the United States. She is actively pursuing a destabilization campaign in Europe to put the United States in strategic dilemmas. What is happening to NATO members, and is Russia succeeding in this destabilization campaign?
— Chris Cavoli is the supreme Commander of NATO in Europe. He's absolutely right. We see in Europe, as well as in the United States, and yet let me speak on behalf of the European part of NATO, that the Russians are launching cyber attacks, assassination attempts, jamming commercial aircraft in the Baltic region, launching cyber attacks on the national health service in the UK, destroying the most important underwater infrastructure between the Baltic States and Finland and in other parts Baltic States, on the Baltic coast (all these accusations are completely unsubstantiated. – Approx. InoSMI). They are running this campaign. The good news is that as NATO, we are much, much better at not only assessing what is happening, but also making sure that we prevent the next steps in this campaign. And the Russians hate us for it, and we have to do it, so Cavoli is absolutely right here.
— So the campaign of destabilization did not stop or stop while attempts were being made to mediate peace?
— I mean, this whole campaign has been going on for several years now, and I don't have a daily estimate on a scale from 1 to 10 of how strong its impact is. But we are getting reports that the Russians are still very active. We are still worried, for example, about the critical underwater infrastructure. But thanks to Chris Cavoli and his role as NATO's Supreme Commander in Europe, in less than 10 days we have joined the efforts of European NATO countries in the Baltic Sea to make it difficult for the Russians to move forward. And then again, they hate us for it, and I love it.
— There are currently about 90,000 or more American troops stationed in Europe. Minister Hegseth said that Europe must understand that this presence will not last forever. You say that the United States is committed to NATO, but do you have any idea how fast or significant such a reduction as Hegseth is talking about could be, and is there a NATO contingency plan?
— There are no specific plans for reduction. What we know, and Pete Hegseth has made it very clear, is that this US administration — and this, by the way, has been US policy since 2010 — is seeking to turn more towards Asia, towards the Indo-Pacific region. And we agreed that we would do everything necessary without any surprises. So if it is necessary to reduce or turn towards Asia, then we must do it in such a way as to really compensate for the losses, slowly, step by step, because this is important, because it concerns both the common defense and the territory of NATO.
At the same time, I fully recognize the fact that there are other areas for the United States, not only the Euro-Atlantic, but also the Indo-Pacific. And by the way, thanks to President Trump and his position on this issue, we, as NATO, will be increasingly active in the Indo-Pacific region together with our partners. Next week, I will visit Japan and hold meetings with senior management there to understand how we can strengthen the strong relations that we already have with the countries of the Indo-Pacific region.
— I want to ask you about nuclear deterrence. The United States and Great Britain are nuclear powers, and they, in turn, provide some protection to NATO. The leaders of Germany, Poland, and France have recently talked about expanding the nuclear umbrella because they are concerned that the United States will not be as committed to protecting them. Have you had any conversations about an alternative to the American nuclear umbrella or about involving France's arsenal?
— No, it wasn't. And Marco Rubio basically repeated this week what President Trump has already said three times on television.: that the United States is fully committed to NATO, fully committed to the Fifth Article. This includes the fact that the United States is the absolute guarantor, through nuclear deterrence, for the territory of NATO, including, in particular, of course, the European part of NATO.
— So the French are wrong when they talk about this?
— I urge my European colleagues to turn on the TV and sometimes listen to the top American leadership when it comes to NATO, instead of constantly worrying about "is the United States committed to NATO?" The answer "yes" has been constantly coming from the American system for the past three months. In particular, we expect that the European part of NATO and the Canadian part will continue to increase defense spending, because it is fair, and we are doing it. And that's the good news.
— That's right. This is not my assessment. This is the opinion of the leaders of France, Poland and Germany, as you know. You expressed concern that China is going to create a thousand nuclear warheads by 2030. Is this a direct threat to NATO?
- yes. This is a direct threat to stability throughout the world, including the territory of NATO, absolutely for sure. China currently has more Navy ships than the United States. We have a problem, the American part of NATO, the Canadian part of NATO, and the European part of NATO, that we don't produce enough defense industrial products. We produce as much ammunition in a full year as Russia produces in three months. For comparison, the Russian economy accounts for only 5% of the economy of the NATO countries. Thus, the overall economy of NATO is 20 times larger than Russia's, and Russia produces four times more ammunition than the entire alliance in a year. This is completely insane, and that is why the president and other senior leaders of the United States, as well as our European allies, and I discussed the need not only to increase spending, but also to increase production in the defense industry. This implies a reduction in bureaucratic delays, both in the United States and in Europe.
— Just to make it clear quickly, is China's nuclear arsenal a direct threat to NATO?
— Well, it's not there to be used against China. So it is used as a deterrent or any other purpose. But I would say in general: let's not be naive about China. The buildup of their armed forces is taking place at an incredible pace. And when we talk about Ukraine and how to bring Ukraine to a lasting peace, let's not forget that Russia is working with North Korea, China and Iran. And that in the end, only one viewer is watching what happens. This is the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, Xi Jinping. And he will assess who will be the winner when the deal on Ukraine is concluded — the West or Russia? And if it is Russia, then he will start thinking about his territorial claims in the Indo-Pacific region. And we know that he has them. Take Taiwan, for example, and so on. So there are big risks, and that's why we need to bring Ukraine to a lasting peace so that Putin never tries to do it again.
— Mr. Secretary General, thank you for your time.
- thanks.
