and prosperity. Leaders also agreed on the importance of modernizing our alliance and building for the future. That means a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO with European allies in Canada working with the United States taking on greater responsibility for the defense of the alliance, transformative investment in defense, major deals for industry on both sides of the Atlantic. We are rebalancing our security for the better. That is what NATO 3.0 is all about. An alliance that continues to adapt. An alliance that continues to deliver to keep 1 billion people safe. Thank you.
All right, we'll turn to your questions. Let's start over here in the fourth row. Second seat in.
Maya, TRT Arabic, I have two questions if you allow me. First, President Trump again criticized NATO while he was standing beside you. We've heard a lot of promises and determination. That's very good. But why isn't there a credible plan B if he went through his threats to decrease his forces in the region? Is that because there isn't or NATO cannot function without the US? This is my first question. My second question regarding Iran, the final declaration said that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons. If the US negotiations failed, what is the NATO strategy to keep this objective? Thank you.
Well, on your first question, I can only tell you that what I saw in the room with 32 leaders sitting together was a huge sense of unity. I've not seen this in recent history. And this is what I always believe NATO is all about. That yes, you will have your forceful debates. Sometimes we people will argue at the top of their lungs their points of view and others will answer and I'm never worried about that because in the end we are an alliance of democracies it makes us stronger it not only makes us stronger in the end we also come together to get today is evidence of that and I always know that President Trump and the US is completely committed to NATO but there is this big irritant the irritant that the Europeans were not paying the same as the Americans were paying and this is frustration on the US part since Eisenhower and this American president has been able to solve this and not only get the Europeans to commit to spend the same as the US but also to deliver on that commitment already 4% on a 10-year trajectory to reach the 5% 4% already reached of course also because we have the Russian threat the war in Ukraine etc etc but this is a huge encouragement done by the American president to get us to do this. So for all those reasons I sense this sense of unity and that is what makes this alliance so strong. It was really very special to be in that room to sense that situation. We all felt it that this alliance is more together than ever. I think particularly because we allow ourselves to sometimes disagree and then come together. On your second question, it's absolutely clear it is a NATO policy that and the viewpoint of all 32 allies that Iran should never get its hands on a nuclear capability. Obviously, Iran is outside NATO territory. That doesn't mean that NATO could never get involved. But as I said before, if helpful, NATO is always willing to play a role. But first now, let's see what happens over the coming days and weeks.
Okay, let's come up here. About halfway up on the right, I think I see Reuters. Ah, sorry. There you are.
Yeah. Oh, okay. Yeah, we made it. I'm Le from Reuters. Thank you very much for the question. Secretary General, we've heard President Trump talk a lot about the need to boost spending on defense and you yourself, you've emphasized that European allies in Canada are stepping up, but NATO released new data yesterday and what it showed is that there's actually quite a big spread in terms of what allies are spending as a percentage of GDP. Some are spending a lot, but there are actually quite a few allies that are still around 2% and don't have clear plans to make it to 3.5% on core defense. So, what is your message to those allies and do you foresee those allies that are still around 2% moving up soon? Thank you.
Well, let's indeed, as you already implied in your question, and I agree with that, I agree that $250 billion spent more in two years. Canada, Europe is massive and there is a max to what you can spend more in one or two years because you still have to recruit the men and women in uniform. You have to make sure that the defense industrial base produces the output. And of course we are also ramping up the defense industrial production but also there you need a couple of years to really get it going. Yes, there is always a certain spread between one country and the other. On the other hand, when you look at four big economies, Belgium, Italy, Spain, and Canada, they were far from 2% a year ago, they all committed to 2%. And I always sense that if you have to make such a jump from 1.3, 1.4% to 2%, that means in the case of some of these countries 5 to 10 billion dollar extra spent in one year, that you need to give yourself a little bit of time to indeed spend the money. Again the absorption capacity but then at a national level but all these countries commit to move forward and to deliver on the deck targets.
All right. Let's come to the front row here. Can I get a mic down in the center? If you can come down past the barrier. It's easier. Yep. The man here. Yes. Thanks, sir.
Thank you, Allison. Thank you, Mr. Secretary General. You mentioned that commitment from NATO. I'm John Decker from Great Television. You mentioned that commitment from NATO for Ukraine, 80 billion US dollars this year, a follow-up of at least that amount in 2027. What will it take in your view beyond those resources to bring Mr. Putin to the negotiating table? That's my first question. And my second question, we're here in Turkey. What's come up during the president's time here is that S400 missile system that Turkey possesses. Are you comfortable with that Russian missile system in the hands of a NATO ally? That's
On the second question. This is primarily a bilateral issue between Turkey and the United States and this has been discussed as far as I understand also in the bilateral discussions yesterday or at least the two countries are working on it. So let me not comment. And your first question was on what it will take to... Yes. So on Putin. Yes. I said this I gave that answer on Monday. I stopped a long time ago to try to interpret what is going on in the head of Vladimir Putin. What I do know is that Putin is in difficulty. The economy is doing badly. He is losing around 30,000 of his own people a month, which is terrible news for those families and people. It means he's willing to sacrifice up to 30, sometimes even 35,000 of his own, primarily men, on the battlefield. We see Ukraine striking deep into Russia when it comes to the energy infrastructure, the defense infrastructure, and the front line. He was making some gains earlier this year, and it is now more or less of a stalemate. So, he's not doing well. There is this firm commitment now by the 32 to continue the support for Ukraine. I think that is absolutely relevant and very important. And I know that President Trump and his team with help from everyone who is available is trying to end this terrible war. He's meeting now as we speak with President Volodymyr Zelensky to discuss what can be done more. And wherever we can be helpful, we will be helpful as NATO. But let me not try to predict what's going on in the mind of the Russian president.
All right. Let's come up here. Financial Times, please.
Okay. Secretary General Henry for Financial Times. Thank you. I can't. Can I hold it? You can trust me. Henry for Financial Times. Nice. Yes. Hi, Secretary General. How concerned are you that President Trump has brought back his desire to control Greenland in January? This sparked a huge crisis inside the alliance, forced you to get involved personally and almost started a trade war with the EU. Further, you told Trump this morning that you personally will make sure that an agreement on Greenland is implemented. Is that a promise you're allowed to make? Is that not the sovereign right of the Danish and Greenlandic people? Thank you.
Mr. President I agreed in Davos in January is first of all for when it comes to the defense of the Arctic, he absolutely was right because there is a huge risk that Russia and China will gain more and more access to the Arctic. And the discussion we had and the deal we made is for NATO particularly the seven countries bordering on the Arctic including of course the US through Norscom and Norat. So that means Canada with Norat and then of course the five European allies Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway working together backed up by all the other allies making sure that the Arctic stays safe. This is Arctic Sentry launched by the Supreme Allied Commander early February. And then secondly, and here you're right, I'm not allowed to discuss or make any commitments on this second part. The second part is about trilateral talks between the US, Greenland, and Denmark led by the foreign ministers of the United States, Greenland, and Denmark. Basically to make sure that whatever investments when it comes to the Golden Dome or deployment of troops on Greenland will be being made in the future. and that if Greenland would change its constitutional position within the kingdom of Denmark that these commitments these deals are still valid and that's why also Greenland is involved in those talks. I'm not involved in those talks. So your question are you allowed etc. On the second part this is up to the three parties. These talks are ongoing. When it comes to the first, of course, it is my role to work with our military leaders to make sure that we implement this Arctic Sentry and that's exactly what we are doing.
All right, we'll stay right up there just next to him. Bloomberg,
Secretary General Andre Palashiano from Bloomberg News. Good afternoon. Will there be I'm here. Hi, I see you. Yeah. Will there be a summit next year in Albania? If not, when? Thank you.
The next summit will indeed be in Albania. That was the decision in The Hague. So the summit now in Ankara and then the next summit in Albania. So from now on of course the next summit is not in Ankara because we are in Ankara now. So the next summit is in Albania and of course we still have to decide on the exact timing.
Okay. And then let's come down here in the second row right here.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary General. Hi. Given all the challenges you laid out of defense production, increasing spending, you had kind words to say or supportive words to say about the president's strikes on Iran last night. If that conflict enlarges again, are you concerned at all that that could divert money, munitions, resources, attention from stopping the war in Ukraine?
No, because the United States is so strong and powerful, it can do both. Obviously, we still have to produce more. That's anyway a goal we have both in the US and in Europe and Canada. But when it comes to Iran, degrading the nuclear capability, degrading the interballistic missile capability of Iran, crucial for the Middle East, crucial for Europe, crucial for the whole world. And then of course the American president deciding and I think he was totally right last night given the attacks on ships which happened over the last 24 hours to do these strikes obviously is completely the right thing to do because this was Iran breaking the deal.
All right. And then right here in the center Yes.
Mr. Secretary General, President Trump was quite unhappy how the European countries had a lack of contribution to the military operations against Iran. If the ceasefire ends completely and the war is back on, do you support European countries to contribute more into this conflict? And if Donald Trump makes a statement like that to call them for aid, do you support his call? Thank you.
Yeah, obviously this is not so much NATO, this is individual European allies having bilateral agreements with the United States which have been negotiated over the years when it comes for example to the use of bases etc. And I know when it comes to this that the United States is disappointed and what I pointed out is that this is about individual cases, isolated cases. When you look at Europe as a whole, massively the Europeans have done what they bilaterally agreed with United States when it comes to these agreements and this led in aggregate to as I mentioned on Monday up to 5,000 sorties from European bases in the context of Epic Fury and I would say Epic Fury would have been very difficult to do without Europe being a platform of power projection for the United States. Of course, this is one of the reasons why the United States is invested in its allies in Europe to keep itself safe from the nuclear submarines from Russia not ending up at the shores of the United States, but also for example for this reason to make sure that they can make use of these bases and massively that has been done.
All right, we're going to get challenging for the mic carriers because I've got several questions that are towards the center. So, first there's a man in the blue shirt. And we agreed on Monday that you were sitting. There's too many people. So, fourth row, blue shirt here. And then after that, I think we'll go back to the eighth row. About just as far in, or a little further.
Thanks for the opportunity. Mazaku from Al Jazeera. My question is President Trump was mentioning today that the peace deal is over for me for with Iran and just a couple minutes ago he said we will hit them hard tonight. So what is the NATO standing in the sense especially there's certain countries like Spain is not really collaborative with NATO ally, will NATO really fully support these attacks or involve especially when the topic comes the Strait of...
First political so the political position of NATO is clear over the years always been clear that Iran should not have a nuclear capability should not have an interballistic missile capability. So there's no doubt about that. That's the political side. Then the practical side, NATO itself is not involved. This is outside NATO territory. But as I just mentioned with your colleague, there are of course these bilateral agreements the United States has negotiated over the years with individual allies in Europe. And again when you looked at the situation between the end of February and mid-April till the ceasefire started, up to 5,000 sorties from European bases I think this is evidence that European allies have delivered.
