“To Prevent War, NATO Must Spend More”

Thank you very much Rosa, and many thanks to Carnegie Europe for organising this event today in this spectacular venue. 
And it’s great to see so many people here in the room and I know many more join us online, from all over the world. 
So good morning, afternoon, evening to you all!

I’m very honoured to start a crucial conversation with the citizens living in NATO countries, especially in Europe and Canada. 
It’s you I’m talking to. 
It’s your support I need.
It’s your voices and actions that will determine our future security. 

I’ll be honest: the security situation does not look good. 
It’s undoubtedly the worst in my lifetime. 
And I suspect in yours too. 

From Brussels, it takes one day to drive to Ukraine.
One day - 
That’s how close the Russian bombs are falling.
It’s how close the Iranian drones are flying. 
And not very much further, the North Korean soldiers are fighting.
Every day, this war causes more devastation and death. 
Every week, there are over 10.000 killed or wounded on all sides in Ukraine.
Over 1 million casualties since February 2022.

Putin is trying to wipe Ukraine off the map. 
He is trying to fundamentally change the security architecture that has kept Europe safe for decades. 
And he is trying to crush our freedom and way of life. 

His pattern of aggression is not new.
But for too long, we did not act.
Georgia in 2008. 
Crimea in 2014. 
And many did not want to believe he would launch all-out war on Ukraine in February 2022.

How many more wake-up calls do we need?

We should be profoundly concerned. 
I know I am. 

Russia’s economy is on a war footing. 
In 2025, the total military spending will be 7 to 8% of GDP, if not more. 
That’s a third of Russia’s state budget – and the highest level since the Cold War.  

And Russia’s defence industry is producing huge numbers of tanks, armoured vehicles, and ammunition.
What Russia lacks in quality, it makes up for in quantity – with the help of China, Iran and North Korea. 

This all points in one clear direction: 
Russia is preparing for long-term confrontation. 
With Ukraine. 
And with us.

Hostile actions against Allied countries are real and accelerating. 
Malicious cyber-attacks on both sides of the Atlantic.
Assassination attempts on British and German soil. 
Explosions at an ammunition warehouse in Czechia. 
The weaponization of migrants crossing illegally into Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland. 
Jamming to disrupt civil aviation in the Baltic region. 

These attacks are not just isolated incidents. 
They are the result of a coordinated campaign to destabilise our societies and discourage us from supporting Ukraine.
They circumvent our deterrence and bring the front line to our front doors.
Even into our homes. 

Putin believes that “a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the formation of a new world order.”
These are his own words. 
Others share his belief. 
Not least China. 

We need to be clear-eyed about China’s ambitions.  
China is substantially building up its forces, including its nuclear weapons – with no transparency and no limitations. 
From 200 warheads in 2020, China is expected to have more than a 1,000 nuclear weapons by 2030.
Its space-launch investments are skyrocketing.
China is bullying Taiwan, and pursuing access to our critical infrastructure in ways that could cripple our societies. 
  
Russia, China, but also North Korea and Iran, are hard at work to try to weaken North America and Europe. 
To chip away at our freedom. 
They want to reshape the global order.
Not to create a fairer one, but to secure their own spheres of influence. 

They are testing us. 
And the rest of the world is watching.

No, we are not at war. 
But we are certainly not at peace either. 

***

I want to be clear:
There is no imminent military threat to our 32 Allies.
Because NATO has been transforming to keep us safe. 

Defence spending has gone up. 
Innovation has accelerated. 
We have more forces at higher readiness. 
Larger and more frequent military exercises. 
More troops and hardware on our eastern flank.
And, with Finland and Sweden, more NATO Allies. 

With all this, our deterrence is good – for now.
But it’s tomorrow I’m worried about. 
We are not ready for what is coming our way in four to five years. 
 
Danger is moving towards us at full speed. 
We must not look the other way. 
We must face it: 
What is happening in Ukraine could happen here too. 
And regardless of the outcome of this war, we will not be safe in the future unless we are prepared to deal with danger.

We can do that. 
We can prevent the next big war on NATO territory. 
And preserve our way of life.

This requires us all to be faster and fiercer. 
It is time to shift to a wartime mindset. 
And turbo-charge our defence production and defence spending. 

***

On defence production, I am absolutely convinced that ramping it up is a top priority. 

Since starting at NATO, I’ve been to Ukraine and seen what they need to fight for freedom. 
I have visited engineers at Thales in France, a Rheinmetall factory –no, not in Germany, in Italy and Turkish Aerospace Industries in Türkiye and I saw the capabilities they provide. 
And I have met with industry representatives who have told me that they require –what they require, to increase their production.  

I can tell you: 
There is a lot that needs to be done to ensure long-term deterrence and restore peace.  
We are not where we want to be. 

Our defence industry, here in Europe, has been hollowed out by decades of underinvestment and narrow national industrial interests – 
when our continent was at peace, and defence became an optional extra. 
As a result, our industry is too small, too fragmented and too slow.

Meanwhile, Russian arms factories are churning out war equipment around the clock.
And despite the heroic efforts of our Ukrainian friends,
Russia is reconstituting its forces much quicker than we had anticipated.
They are learning fast from the battlefield.

China’s military industrial base is also growing.  
According to some sources, China is acquiring high-end weapons systems and equipment five to six times faster than the US.
It is heavily investing in munitions, accelerating space capabilities and expanding its nuclear arsenal – I repeat – without any transparency or limitations.
China is also challenging our technological edge – by investing massively in the disruptive technologies of tomorrow, including AI, quantum and space. 
All this will help China with planning, command and control, and targeting. 

Russia and China are racing ahead. 
We risk lagging behind. 
This is very dangerous. 
But it does not have to be. 
If we boost our industry, we can outpace our competitors.

So what are we waiting for? 

We already have robust defence plans in place.
We know exactly how we will defend our Alliance and what future assets and capabilities we need – 
from ships, tanks, jets, munitions and satellites to new drone technologies. 
Ukrainians are fighting against Russian swarms of drones. 
That’s what we need to be prepared for. 

We also already have committed to accelerating the growth of defence industrial capacity and production across the Alliance.

Now, we must deliver – I repeat deliver – on our commitments. 
We all have a part to play to make this happen.

To governments I say: 
Give our industries the big orders and long-term contracts they need to rapidly produce more and better capabilities.
Buying only big-ticket items that are delivered too late will not keep us safe. 
We also need modern capabilities that use the most advanced technologies. And we need them now. 
So embrace risk and invest in the pool of innovators across our countries.   

Embracing risk requires you, governments, to change outdated procurement rules.
And to reconsider your detailed national requirements. 
With a million casualties on our doorstep, you have no time to waste.

As an example, related to armoured personnel carriers:
One nation needs to have the rear door opening to the left. 
Another needs it to open to the right. 
And a third one needs it to open upwards.  
All these requirements are mandatory.
Is this how we define our needs and priorities, especially when time is of the essence?
This has got to change!

I also say to governments: 
Stop creating barriers between each other and between industries, banks and pension funds.
Instead, tear these barriers down. 
They only increase production costs, stifle innovation and ultimately hamper our security. 

To the defence industry I say: 
You need to do everything you can to keep us safe. 
There’s money on the table, and it will only increase. 
So dare to innovate and take risks! 
Come up with solutions to the swarms of drones and other new war tactics. 
Put in the extra shifts and new production lines!

And finally, to the citizens of NATO countries, especially in Europe, I say: 
Tell your banks and pension funds it is simply unacceptable that they refuse to invest in the defence industry. 
Defence is not in the same category as illicit drugs and pornography.  
Investing in defence is an investment in our security.
It’s a must! 

And this brings me to my main point.  
Defence spending.

It is true that we spend more on defence now than we did a decade ago. 
But we are still spending far less than during the Cold War.
Even though the threats to our freedom and security are just as big – if not bigger. 

During the Cold War, Europeans spent far more than 3% of their GDP on defence.
With that mentality, we won the Cold War. 
Spending dropped after the Iron Curtain fell. 
The world was safer. 
It is not anymore. 

A decade ago, Allies agreed it was time to invest in defence once again. 
The benchmark was set at 2%. 
By 2023, NATO Allies agreed to invest ‘at least’ 2%. 
At least…
I can tell you, we are going to need a lot more than 2%. 

I know spending more on defence means spending less on other priorities. 
But it is only a little less. 
On average, European countries easily spend up to a quarter of their national income on pensions, health and social security systems. 
We need a small fraction of that money to make our defences much stronger, and to preserve our way of life.  

Prioritising defence requires political leadership. 
It can be tough and risky in the short term.  
But it’s absolutely essential in the long term.

Some people will tell you otherwise. 
They think strong defence is not the way to peace.  
Well, they are wrong. 
Because without strong defence, there is no lasting security. 
And without security, there is no freedom for our children and grand-children.
No schools, no hospitals, no businesses. 
There is nothing. 

Those who lived through the Second World War know this. 
And our Ukrainian friends are living it every day. 

When I was in Kharkiv earlier this year, I saw so many buildings completely destroyed. 
I stood in rubble where homes used to be. 
Where families used to live. 
I saw schools moved underground, into metro stations. 
It was very moving to see children so eager to learn, and teachers so eager to teach…despite their lives being completely disrupted. 
I visited the wounded in hospitals. 
Soldiers that lost limbs. 

War is brutal and ugly.

War is also very costly in economic terms. 

Ukraine, as we speak, is allocating nearly a quarter of its GDP for defence next year. 
That is more than 10 times what European NATO Allies spend.
A harsh reminder that freedom does not come for free.

If we don’t spend more together now to prevent war, we will pay a much, much, much higher price later to fight it.
Not billions, but trillions of euros.
That’s if we come out on top…and that’s if we win. 
 
***

In politics, there is a time to talk, a time to decide, and a time to act. 
I know politicians talk – a lot. 
That’s what I do here today!
They make decisions, when needed. 
Sometimes difficult ones.  
But to act, people must support those decisions. 
It’s in your hands. 
Today, I call for your support. 
Action is urgent. 
To protect our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life, your politicians need to listen to your voices.
Tell them you accept to make sacrifices today so that we can stay safe tomorrow. 
Tell them they need to spend more on defence so that we can continue to live in peace.
Tell them that security matters more than anything. 

I am confident that collectively at NATO, we can continue to keep our one billion people safe. 
We have enormous advantages. 
We are 32 Allies strong. 
Together, NATO Allies represent half of the world’s economic and military might.  
We have exceptional intelligence services. 
Innovative industries and businesses.
Some of the best universities and research institutions in the world. 
And we have many partners across the globe.

When we put our minds and political will to it, there is nothing we cannot do – Europe and North America together. 

Our adversaries think they are tough, and we are soft.
They invade other countries, while we uphold international rules. 
They oppress their people, while we cherish freedom.
They should remember that there is no greater power than democracies coming together.
When we are attacked, our response is fierce. 

To ensure no one ever considers attacking us, we must maintain long-term deterrence. 
We can do this. 
We have done it before. 
We can do it again.

Thank you very much.

 

Rosa Balfour, Director Carnegie Europe

Thank you very much. Please take a seat. That was a very powerful and frank speech. I’m sure it will be listened around Europe and Canada as you mentioned at the beginning. I'd like to ask you a few questions before we open it up to the audience, and in doing so, I'd like to thank you for your willingness to engage with a broad audience. So, we will be taking questions from people here, but also online. So, prepare your questions. But first, I'd like to just perhaps ask you to elaborate a little bit little more on the issues that you raised. You focus so much on defence spending and on explaining why it is important to ordinary citizens. Of course, in the community of experts and policy makers, defence spending has been has reached the sort of top of the agenda, the political agenda. Just today, the Financial Times was reporting the idea that is floating around in your circles about actually raising the goal from 2% of GDP to 3% of GDP to be spent on defence. The European Union, with the new term of the new leadership has just started, has created the position of a Defence Commissioner. And there are plenty of ideas circulating, a new white paper on defence in order to beef up the EU’s defence capacity. But I think it's not just the question of spending more. It's also a question of spending better. Your predecessor, Jens Stoltenberg, when he left, issued a warning about the risks of duplication. So, my question really is, how can European states organise themselves politically to overcome those obstacles that you yourself mentioned in your speech, and make sure that it's not just about spending more, it's also about spending better, better coordination, better joint procurement, better sharing, make sure that what Europeans can do on defence is more than the sum of its parts. What are your ideas to change the obstacles that we've seen so far?

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte

That is a very good question, a quite crucial question. And I saw that piece in the FT today, and this 3% being mentioned, and I decided today, not to mention a new figure. We will need more time to consult amongst Allies what exactly the new level should be. But it is considerably more than 2%. But let me be very frank, if you would only spend more and not spend better, you have to go to at least 4%. And you can lower the 4% by doing two things. One is innovation, making sure that you get the most innovative technologies as part of your defence industrial base, and therefore in your defence organisations. And secondly, by buying together. So, join procurement. And as I said in my speech, we have to get rid of that idiotic system where every Ally is having these detailed requirements, which makes it almost impossible to buy together, to have joint procurement, etc. So, it is crucial that we spend not only more, but also better, because otherwise the financial impact will be huge. And then even with 4% you can’t defend yourselves, because then you would not have the latest technologies implemented in in the, in your defence organisations, in your in your armies, in your navy, in your in the whole of your military.

Rosa Balfour, Director Carnegie Europe

Yeah, well, indeed, that's the second question I wanted to ask you. It's not just about how to spend better. It's also about what one spent on and what we've seen in Ukraine is at the same time, we've seen a war which has shown many of the conventional war, warfare, trenches, etc., but also the critical role of technology and Ukrainian creativity in putting technology to good use. So, we've seen the Ukrainians fight off the Russian fleet without even having a navy. And you yourself in your speech mentioned the wide, the hybrid challenges and threats that we are receiving. MI6 has issued warnings about Russian intelligence going rogue. There are constantly items of news just showing that the threat is also hybrid, is cyber. So, there's a wide gamut of technological innovation and equipment that we need to prepare ourselves with. So how do we do this? Again, I mean, you know, it's about working together, but can you just elaborate a little bit?

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte

So, when you talk about Ukraine, I mean, this is evidence that you need both. You need both the more traditional systems. So that's why some countries have delivered F16 to Ukraine. Why you see some of this heavy gear, the big-ticket items, moving into Ukraine. And at the same time, Ukraine is teaching us and showing us that by implementing the newest technologies, you can be very effective. But I do believe that for the foreseeable future, you will need both. So, you will need some of these big-ticket items, the big systems, but also the latest technology, including what we can learn from AI, from quantum, etc. But you also mentioned something else, which are the cyber-attacks, the sabotage, the fact that Russia and others are trying to put us under pressure. And it was one of the reasons why in my speech, I said that we are not at war, but we are certainly not at peace either, because we see this happening. Look what happened in the UK, where we had cyber-attacks at the National Health Service. In Belgium, where we had cyber-attacks at the ports. We have seen jamming in the Baltics of the, of civil aviation. And many. We have seen assassination attempts in the UK and in Germany. So, this is evidence that they are willing to go the whole way. And this is not a traditional war. It is not an Article 5, but we have to defend ourselves. And I'm so happy to say that NATO under Jens Stoltenberg´s leadership, and I will absolutely continue with this, has been working extremely hard with all Allies to make sure on cyber, on these acts of sabotage, on weaponisation of the problems with the gas and oil supply, etc., that we have moved to make sure that as an Alliance, we stand together, we work together, and we have in place the systems to defend ourselves. But that is crucial, because this is a very worrying development.

Rosa Balfour, Director Carnegie Europe

We talked about Ukraine, and I'd like to talk about Ukraine a little more, because since, I guess, since the outcome of the US election, there's a lot of talk, a lot of noise that some peace talks are imminent. We don't really have a plan. Nobody seems to have a plan yet. And of course, the situation on the ground is not in favour of Ukraine at the moment, so it's a very difficult moment, including from the perspective of this leadership transition in Europe. I think what I'd like to ask you is, what would be the grand principles of some kind of negotiation? What role should Europeans play in this? And here I'm speaking also to the European in you, the fact that you spent 14 years at the European Council table, what should be the role of Europeans? Because there's been a lot of talk about peace negotiations between incoming President Trump and the Russian President. Where does that leave Europeans? But also listening to how the Ukrainian president Zelenskyy has been addressing this difficult moment. He's been talking about peace guarantees. And my question to you would be, my second question, because I realise we have two questions here, the role of Europeans, that and you know, what are the principles that could perhaps, that that ought to be expected from your point of view in the context of peace negotiations. But also, is there anything short of NATO membership that can offer Ukraine peace guarantees?

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte

There is a huge risk here, and the risk is here that we are negotiating amongst ourselves what a peace deal might look like without Vladimir Putin at the table. And as we are democracies, we do this all out in the open. This is our strength. But this is also a small problem here, because discussing… I see all of this in the press about guarantees and NATO membership yes or no, and accepting yes or no to give up pieces of land in Ukraine. And I'm thinking, if I was now sitting in the Kremlin and my name will be Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, I would say, hey, this is moving very positively for me, and I'm not even at the table. So, I'm really holding back a bit on this. I remember when Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the first days of the war, when he was offered refuge, I think it was in Warsaw or some other European country that he said, I don't need a ride, I need ammunition here. I would say he doesn't need more plans. He needs again, ammunition and air defence, etc. Because what we need to do first now is to make sure that Ukraine from a situation where the front is moving in the wrong direction, very slowly, at a high cost for the Russians, they have already lost 700,000 people or wounded. Again, this month is again a record month in terms of the amount of casualties, but still, the front line is moving not in the direction to the east, but to the west. So, we have to make sure that whenever these talks start, and it has to be the government in Ukraine, first of all, to decide to do that, he should do this from a position of strength. What I do now, however, and this is what we also have to discuss, of course, with our colleagues in the US, the present Administration, the incoming Administration, that in the end, the question will be, if there is a deal, who comes out on top? Is that Trump, or is it Putin? And I can guarantee you, if Putin comes out on top, if it is a bad deal, that one Xi Jinping will be watching it, and will think, hey, what does this mean for me in terms of starting to nibble Taiwan, to do other stuff in my part of the world? So, it is crucial that whenever there is a deal, that it is a good deal with all the elements in there. You met, you mentioned many. I think these were very good considerations. But again, for me to start to discuss this. We start to sort of debate amongst ourselves, within the Alliance with our European partners, without having Putin at the table. And that is risky.

Rosa Balfour, Director Carnegie Europe

Okay, so also pay attention to whatever the peace deal means for other actors around the world.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte

Because at the moment, what we see is that the world is one world now. North Korea providing, getting missile technology and nuclear technology from the Russians, being able to use it against the US. Iran, getting money from the Russians in return for drone technology and other stuff, and Iran using it to steer up trouble in the Middle East. China, dual use goods and sanctions circumvention, helping the Russian war effort, supporting the Russian war effort, and of course, at a price. So, this is not Ukraine, Russia, Europe. This is global. And it is impacting on South Korea, Japan. It is impacting directly on the United States.

Rosa Balfour, Director Carnegie Europe

Thank you very much. And apologies. I have my phone out because I have all the questions that are coming from online. But first I'd like to invite a few people from the audience here, and I see, wow, fantastic. I'm going to try and take one question at a time. So, shall we start? There's some microphones. So, let's start, take one question here, and then move perhaps to the left, and I will ask you, there's one question just there at the back. Yep, I will ask you to introduce yourselves and just be brief and to the point, thank you.

Question from the audience

Thank you very much. Rosa. Good afternoon, Secretary General. My name is [inaudible] I'm a partner at [inaudible] Global, where I run the cyber and strategic intelligence practice. You'll doubtless remember a Gallup poll from the summer, I believe, which indicated that on average, 32% of Europeans were ready to fight for their country. So, my question is, what's the point of having more kit if we don't have the ability to generate the right force to fight high intensity conflict, number one. And number two, how do we convince populations of which only 32% are ready to fight that they need to spend more on defence and thus less on their pensions, their health care and their education.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte

Well, this is exactly why I addressed my speech, not to you, or to the politicians, but more generally, to the one billion people living in NATO territory and of course, particularly focusing on the European and Canadian part of NATO, because we need to have exactly this debate. And the politicians need to hear from their citizens that, yes, they love their health systems and the social models and the pensions, etcetera, or they don't love them because they want them to be improved. This is the political debates taking place in each country, in Europe and Canada and the US, everywhere. But when it comes to it, when you really drill down to what is at stake here, that defence has to take priority. Because without defence, without deterrence, without being able. And NATO is not an offensive Alliance. It is a defensive Alliance. We want peace, but peace through strength, to quote a famous American politician. And that means that you need the money and you need the industrial base. So, and this is also an ask I have from this audience, because many of you are in positions of influence to reach large numbers of people to please, amplify, echo what we are discussing here today, that this is crucial, and that if we stick at 2% yes, we are safe now, but in four or five years, we might not be safe anymore, and the deterrence might be too weakened to keep ourselves safe from whatever happens in Russia and other parts of the world. And there's a crucial debate, and then in the end, it is also a fair discussion. And if that people will decide, well, we are not willing to do that. We do accept the risk that at least we have done that deliberately. I don't think it will be the outcome. I'm absolutely convinced that when it comes to it, that parents and grandparents will always choose for the future of their children and making sure that they will make the necessary sacrifices, which are, by the way, limited. When you spend 25% on health and social security and on pensions, we don't. We only need a small fraction of that. And don't forget that in Europe, we are half of the world population, sorry, we are 10% of the world population and we spend 50% of all the spending in the world on social security. So, in that sense, we have some room, I think, for manoeuvre, but please help to reach the one billion, and then for them to pull up the politicians and tell them, please prioritise defence over other spending items.

Rosa Balfour, Director Carnegie Europe

I'd like to invite Elena. I'll try and take as many as many questions as possible. There are lots of questions, but I do want to take them one at a time, so that you have the opportunity to answer them individually.

Question from the audience

Thank you very much. Secretary General. Elena [inaudible] from the European Parliament's Research Service, I wanted to ask you about NATO's approach to the Southern Neighbourhood. And it's not unrelated. Your predecessor set out and launched a reflection process on the Southern Neighbourhood, largely based on the premise that the theatres are getting increasingly linked, including with Russia's action in Africa. So, with that reflection process having been wrapped up, but with the linkages between the theatres, I would say, more evident than ever before at the moment, including through hybrid threats that Rosa mentioned, what would be your next steps in the southern, the approach to the south, and how do you view the follow up to this reflection, and the way it links the various theatres that we are now looking at?

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte

I totally agree with you. And when you look at Africa, we see both Russia and China gaining a lot of influence, and some of the European powers moving out. And so, it is crucial that we move forward on our Southern Neighbourhood strategy, there is a Special Representative for the Southern Neighbourhood. We will open the liaison office in Jordan that is focused on Jordan, but obviously it is also a signal that we are really investing in the region. We are working on partnership with Tunisia, Mauritania, Jordan. Of course, we have the NATO mission in Iraq, which is not a part of Africa, but at least it's outside NATO territory. So, we have to work on but particularly also in Africa and in the Middle East, to make sure that we engage, that we liaise, not making them part of NATO, but helping them, for example, to build up their defence capacity. It's not always difficult. It can be by [inaudible] advisers helping in a country like Mauritania to ramp up their effectiveness in terms of defence. And NATO can do that, and that's what we will continue to do at a higher pace. So, I will really follow up on this, what my predecessor started. I totally agree. We cannot leave Africa to the Chinese and the Russians.

Rosa Balfour, Director Carnegie Europe

So what I’m going to do. I have a particularly provocative question from your online audience. So, the question is, is it conceivable that strengthening and emboldening NATO causes more instability because non-NATO powers become more nervous?

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte

No, it's not conceivable. And why? Because NATO is not an offensive organisation. It is a defensive organisation. We are, we are based on democracy, the rule of law, values which are underpinning our whole Alliance. But if we are not strong enough, if Putin and others would think that we cannot defend ourselves, then they might start to try to attack us. And already this is happening in the terrain of cyber, etc. But I mean really, really military attacks. We cannot, we cannot take that risk.

Rosa Balfour, Director Carnegie Europe

Please introduce yourself to everyone.

Question from the audience

Thank you, Secretary General, Maria, Greek newspaper [inaudible]. I have actually two short questions. One is about what is your view concerning the discussion whether defence programs funded by EU money should be also open to third countries, non-European countries. And the second question is a country specific one, you recently visited Türkiye and Greece, and I would like to ask you, what was your impression concerning their will to keep their dialogue on a solid basis, and how important is it now that they keep the waters calm in the Aegean especially given the crisis in Syria. Thank you.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte

Starting with the second question, it was my impression talking to both President Erdoğan, but also to Prime Minister Mitsotakis, that they're really working to improve the relationship. They are in a much better place than a couple of years ago, they are dialoguing, whatever we can do to help we will do because they are two. These are two key Allies and part of NATO, and obviously Greece has a very strong defence. Türkiye is defending its own territory, but obviously it's a key part of the overall NATO defence, and they have a huge and impressive defence industrial base, so I think that is moving in the right direction. Then on the issue of European defence spending. So, I'm working with Ursula Von der Leyen and Antonio Costa, I had dinner last night with Commissioner Kubilius, and we're really working hard to make sure that NATO and the EU work closely together, where NATO is about the hard stuff, like, for example, the standard setting and the capability targets, but the EU possesses a huge soft power element in terms of the internal market and helping to get the defence production going at a much higher pace. And obviously I understand when European money is involved that you do not want that European money to move to other parts of the world, that's clear. But at the same moment, it is also important to realise that you should not have new barriers and that you need a strong transatlantic defence industry community. Thales in France is working with partners in the US. I've visited Rheinmetall, not in Germany, as I said to my speech, but in Italy. I remember that I told Giorgia Meloni, the Prime Minister, I will visit the Rheinmetall metal factory, and I thought that she will be angry. She said, oh, this great is one of our best. But no, don't forget Leonardo, also a great Italian industry, obviously. And I met with the boss of Leonardo after that. But it's crucial that when we have this transatlantic industry base, at this moment, since 2022 European NATO Allies, have spent $184 billion in the US. So, about half of all the defence spending, where it goes in terms of procurement goes to US companies, and the other half stays in Europe. And this is increasing on both sides of the Atlantic because we are spending more money on defence. So, I would say there is so much money going around. Defence industry, please stop complaining about needing your 10-year contract. Understand it, but it's always difficult. And you know, there's a lot of money going around, so invest, put in the extra production lines and shifts, and to European and American Allies, please work together and obviously, this is an internal EU debate. I should not get involved any more than I've been done now by answering this question. But I would [inaudible] to have a situation where these markets can function as one. And again, I do understand, when European tax payers’ money is involved, that somehow you want that return on that euro to be as much as possible in the EU, we can do that without hurting the transatlantic defence cooperation.

Rosa Balfour, Director Carnegie Europe

Thank you very much. I’d like, for the sake of diversity, I'd like to give the floor to this gentleman here. He's in the second row here at the front because. It´s nice to see so many women intervening, and it's unusual, but it's also time to get a gentleman involved.

Question from the audience

Thank you, sir. Thank you for your speech. My name is [inaudible] from the European Commission. My question would be, in your view, is there sufficient talk about the role of Chin, for the public to support, in Europe, but maybe also in the United States. Thank you.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte

Oh, good question. I think we at least should make sure that those who know what is happening talk about it, so that as a collective, and this is democracy, our citizens know what is happening. And of course, the media are crucial here. They will report about it. They have their own sources. But also we as politicians, and [inaudible] organisation that we share what we know and what I try to explain in my speech that China is ramping up defence production; that we have now, a couple of big Chinese defence industrial companies in the top 10. Years ago, there were none. Now we have three or four big Chinese companies in the top 10 of big defence companies worldwide. So, this is evidence that they are really charging ahead and that they will overtake us in terms of the overall spending and overall defence capacity, and we are producing too slow. And when you combine Russia and China, we are really producing too slow. There are some numbers saying that we produce in a year what Russia is producing in three months. Can you imagine, Russia is no bigger than Belgium and Netherlands combined. The economy of Russia. Can you imagine Belgium and the Netherlands would produce in three months what the whole of NATO, from California to Türkiye is producing in a year? It's crazy, and this is because of all the bureaucracy and some of these defence companies waiting for the 10-year contracts and now what you see is that South Korea is getting into the market. There are many European Allies now buying South Korean stuff, which is good. I mean, I don't mind, as long as they get their hands on what they need. But I would be a bit worried if I was a defence company that the South Koreans are massively entering the NATO market, and this is because we have to do more. This is not only an attack on the defence industry, yes, I'm criticising to a certain extent, but also government, also NATO, we all have to do better.

Rosa Balfour, Director Carnegie Europe

So, I have, wow. Okay. I was just saying we're doing very well with our time, but actually with so many questions. So, if you could take questions from the back there, there’s several hands have gone up, yeah, and please introduce yourself.

Question from the audience

Well, good afternoon. I'm Joy from Jeunes [inaudible], and I would like to come with a youth perspective, it's already quite hard to advocate for 2% increase in our GDP, so the 3% is kind of a little bit an utopia for us right now. So, what advice can you give us to make defence sexier again, maybe. And also, do you think if we can do internship between universities and defence companies could be a good step to stop putting this double work on the defence industries.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte

I think that will be an excellent idea, yes, but it will not solve the whole issue of how to get the 1 billion people living in NATO territory with us, but it will help. But this is also a struggle I have, because this 2% target set in wills in 2014 had the plus of being simple. Everybody could understand you have to move to 2%, but of course, the downside of having this one number is that it is also a bit simplistic. So, to move to a new number, and again, I will not commit myself to a number, new number today, but clearly over the coming weeks and months, we have to agree on what that number should be. It has to be underpinned by what NATO is doing currently, and what we're doing currently is getting total clarity on the capability targets we need to achieve. And when you look at those capability targets and they are now being established, we are working one on one with Allies to make sure that we exactly understand, and Allies understand what we need to build up their defence as part of the overall NATO deterrence. Then, then a scale of 2% is not enough. But then the question will be, do you go to a new number? Or at least you have to underpin that number by making clear what type of capabilities we need. Top line it will be, of course, air and missile defence, long range weapons, logistics. These are three big issues where we have to invest in, where we are really lacking behind. We have to invest in the armies next to the navy and the air force. Our land forces have to be really ramped up, but to make that more country specific will probably help. And this is a discussion I had yesterday night with Commissioner Kubilius, who was also thinking of how to take that debate to the politicians, but also beyond the politicians, to the general public. I agree.

Rosa Balfour, Director Carnegie Europe

So, I'm going to ask one question online. Then I have the two Oanas who have raised their hands, so maybe. But first, let me ask this question, because it has popped up in the, on the online, for more than one person, and it's the elephant in the room. What do you think about Trump's statements about leaving NATO?

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte

Today? I haven’t heard that.

Rosa Balfour, Director Carnegie Europe

No, I think it's general No, admittedly, he hasn't said that recently.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte

No, I haven’t. No. I visited him a couple of weeks ago. There was absolutely no talk about [inaudible]. What he wants is to make sure that that the US is not overspending and we are not doing enough. And he's totally right. I mean, I remember when he became President in 2016, 2017 that he continued to push us. And since he became president, we spent 641 billion more than before he came on. That's an advocate of what we are spending more since, since then and since 2014 it was very sluggish. The uptake of moving to the 2% since he became president, we accelerated, of course, the full onslaught, the full-scale onslaught of Russia and Ukraine, has also ramped up defence spending, but he was very successful in ramping it up. He will again push us. But my point is this, I don't want to spend more because he wants, we have to spend more because our deterrence is at stake. Our security is at stake. Our collective defence is not what it should be, and we are in real difficulty in four or five years. That is why we need to spend more, not because of Donald Trump, but he is right. We need to do more. And by the way, what we need from him. I have a big ask from Donald Trump, and this is about the US industrial defence capacity. I know as Prime Minister of the Netherlands how difficult it is to buy anything in the US, be it Patriots or missiles, whatever you have to go through Congress and the Senate. No, sorry, the Congress, the Pentagon and the White House, they all have to agree. And as I said, we have our 184 billion we are spending since 2022, European Allies in the US, that can be even more. I'm absolutely convinced if he would make it easier for European Allies to buy in the US. So, this is something he can help with, and it helps also his own economy. But I know, I think he was spot on on forcing us to spend more. But again, let's not do it now because he wants it. We do it because we need to do it. It's our collective defence which is at stake.

Rosa Balfour, Director Carnegie Europe

And thank you. You've also answered another question online about integrated defence industrial base. Question to, and if that's okay, can I take two now? Because, so Oana and then the other Oana.

Question from the audience

So, I make this fast, so the better Oana has enough time, Oana Popescu-Zamfir with both Carnegie and Global Focus Centre in Romania. And perhaps predictably, I'm going to ask you if, following the annulment of the presidential election in Romania recently over Russian interference, is there any lesson learned? Is there any intention to step up, perhaps instruments to address hybrid threats, make it operational domain, perhaps just like cyber, any, anything that we can look forward to in the in the coming future. Thank you very much.

Rosa Balfour, Director Carnegie Europe

Thank you. And Celine, I'll ask you to sprint over to Oana. Here, who used to be the spokesperson of NATO.

Question from the audience

Indeed [inaudible], now distinguished fellow with the Royal United Services Institute, RUSI. Secretary General, I'm cheering you on to agree on 3% of GDP on defence by the Hague Summit. But I'm not going to ask you about that. My question is, are you concerned that a potential peace agreement on Ukraine could give a pretext to leaders who will think, well, the danger is gone now. So it's okay. We don't need to increase defence spending. And in order to dramatise the need for more spending on defence, are you prepared to declassify, to a certain extent, the capability targets that NATO has in line with what Defence Commissioner Kubilius seems to require.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte

Well, on the second question and then I come to the question on hybrid and cyber. When you look at the capability targets. First of all, of course, we have to be clear what they are. We are in the process of establishing them, and we try to before summer. It was foreseen for October, but we have taken forward, because we cannot wait till October. So, we will speed up the whole process. And hopefully defence ministers will agree on closing off this whole process of reviewing our collective defence by May or June. And then, of course, the question will be how to share that. And it could help, obviously, and this was also to the question in the back of the room, it could help us to underpin the need to spend more. But obviously there are also political considerations we have to take into account. And sometimes there are some sensitivities, but we are looking at that. At what level of aggregation you can share the capability targets once they have been established. And then, if I can make one suggestion, let's never again talk about hybrid, because hybrid gives you, it's such a silly word, because it's not covering at all what is happening. What is happening is sabotage. What is happening as exactly as you said, is cyber-attacks. NATO was hosting one of the biggest cyber exercises in Tallin. Recently, we have set up a cyber centre in NATO. We are helping with with task force which can, task forces which can go to Allies if they need extra support. We are sharing more information. We're doing everything on cyber, but also when it comes to undersea sea cables, when it comes to, more generally, cyber-crimes, sets of sabotage, we're really pulling together, working together, making sure that we can can fight back. And on Romania. Of course, I've seen what happened and, of course, very worrying, but we have seen it before. We have seen in Moldova, what happened there, with the European referendum, and with with the presidential election. And then Maia Sandu was visiting this week and updated the North Atlantic Council, the ambassadors, on what happened in Moldova. So, we have to, we, let's not be naive. And this is when I speak about, we are not at war, but we are not at peace either. And it is not, it is even now in our, in our living rooms, to a certain extent. And we have to take it, to get it out, we have to fight back.

Rosa Balfour, Director Carnegie Europe

Thank you very much. We have actually come to an end of our hour together. I must apologise to those who haven't been able to ask questions. There were many questions, including online, but I would like to thank you, because you have been very graceful in taking on all these questions unprepared. I mean, you were prepared to answer them, but the questions were not prepared. So, so it's been a really good opportunity to engage with the community here in Brussels and also globally. So, thank you very much.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte

Spread the message. Help me get to the one billion people.

Rosa Balfour, Director Carnegie Europe

And good luck with spreading your message.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte

Thank you so much. Thank you so much.