that is transforming this alliance and making it stronger. The message from this summit is simple. NATO delivers. One year ago in the Hague, allies took historic decisions to strengthen our alliance. Here in Ankara, excellently hosted by President Erdogan, we have demonstrated that those commitments are now being put into practice across the alliance. Defense investment continues to rise. New capabilities are being delivered. Industry is expanding production and European allies and Canada are assuming greater responsibility for our shared security. Together, these are the foundations for a stronger, a fairer, and a more capable NATO.
Allies reviewed the significant progress already made towards investing 5% of GDP in defense by 2035, already measuring 4% just one year into a 10-year project. So, the momentum is clear. Allies continue to increase both core defense spending and broader investment that strengthen our security. They are generating the capabilities our defense plans require and stepping up the contribution to NATO's collective deterrence and defense. This is not simply about spending more. It is about ensuring that our armed forces have what they need to keep our 1 billion people safe in a more dangerous world.
Our focus has now shifted decisively from setting targets to delivering results. That means accelerating production, breaking down barriers, boosting resilience, investing in innovation, and working with partners to maximize cooperation. The NATO summit defense industry forum demonstrated the determination of governments and industry to work together with greater speed and ambition. And the numbers are staggering, including over $50 billion in new procurement deals in just one day. We also launched a new major initiative, NATO's drone edge, which will see $40 billion invested by allies in uncrewed systems over the next five years, and big deals with US and European industry including Triton from Northrop Grumman and our new AEX from SA.
These new investments and industrial commitments announced here will help strengthen our collective defense while supporting innovation, economic growth, and of course skilled jobs across the whole of the alliance. This work must continue and that's why I'm happy to announce that allies are taking a historic step to enhance NATO's fuel supply chain to ensure our forces have the energy supplies they need for war fighting readiness. While allies continue to finalize the details, we know that this 27 billion euro investment will modernize our existing fuel storage and distribution infrastructure and support new facilities including pipelines towards the eastern part of the alliance.
We're also ensuring that we are using technology to our advantage, including through the adoption of powerful AI models and the development of an interoperable transatlantic war fighting cloud. So here again, credible deterrence and defense depends on what we deliver and we are delivering.
Allies also reaffirmed NATO's unwavering support for Ukraine. As Russia continues its war, we will continue to ensure Ukraine gets what it needs. Allies pledged to provide at least 70 billion euros in military equipment, assistance, and training for Ukraine this year and again next year as we continue to press for peace. As Ukraine shifts the dynamics on the battlefield, our support must continue.
This summit has shown that the alliance is stronger than ever. An alliance that is united and ready to defend every inch of our territory. Here in Ankara, allies reaffirmed their ironclad commitment to the collective defense under Article 5 that an attack on one is an attack on all and we will stand together. Our unity, solidarity, and collective strength remain the foundation of peace, security, 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 and 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.
Mayan 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 one 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 fail, 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 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 as 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 a 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. 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 this 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 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.
Okay. Yeah, we made it.
I'm Millie Bayer 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 and 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 to 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 defense target.
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.
The man here. Yes. Thanks.
Hi, 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 S-400 missile system that Turkey possesses. Are you comfortable with that Russian missile system in the hands of a NATO ally?
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 Putin. Yes. So on Putin, yes, 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 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 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 Foy, Financial Times.
Thank you. Can I hold it? You can trust me.
Henry for Financial Times. Nice to see you.
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.
What the president and 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 NORAD and NORCOM. So that means Canada with NORAD 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 made in the future, 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, please.
Secretary General Andre Palashiano from Bloomberg News.
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, 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 intercontinental 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 the 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 Operation Inherent Resolve. And I would say Operation Inherent Resolve 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.
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.
Mazak from Al Jazeera. My question is President Trump was mentioning today that the peace deal is over for me 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 this, you know, attacks or involve especially when the topic comes straight of...
Well 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 intercontinental 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.
Okay. All right. Towards the center in the eighth row. Do we have a mic moving? Is she already there?
Now you have to look at her. She decides, Allison decides. I see a gentleman there.
Making our way. And then once you're there, please stay there because we'll take a few in the neighborhood.
Thank you so much. Deborah Haynes from Sky News.
Thank you. You know Donald Trump well. Can you just give a sense from your perspective? Do you think that he is more committed and more enthusiastic about NATO and NATO membership now than he was a year ago given all the allies have done in terms of ramping up defense spending? Or are you seeing that these outbursts against the UK and others over failing to join the fight against Iran, his desire for Greenland, that actually he is as unhappy as ever before with NATO, maybe even more so? And could I have a clarification from what you said earlier about Iran. Are you saying that NATO actually would support the US militarily in terms of its operation in Iran?
What I said is that NATO is... Iran is outside NATO territory. NATO has a political position. You can also see that in the summit declaration that Iran should not get a nuclear capability, that the Strait of Hormuz should open up and NATO has always taken the position that when it comes to the intercontinental missile capability Iran should not get its hands on it but this is outside NATO territory. So this is individual allies navigating this with the United States. On your first question. I mean, I always felt that families where sometimes you have heart-to-hearts and sometimes you fight each other a bit are much stronger than families where you have, oh, let's not disagree and let's keep things nice and unity. That's a bit fake. I always felt I love it when sometimes between friends you can fight each other because it makes you stronger and President Trump is not a person which keeps his views to himself. So on two issues he was very clear. One is that Europe had to step up and this had to do with NATO. He was committed to NATO. He is committed to NATO but he said hey Mark, it's not a fair deal. How can it be that you have 600 million people living in Europe, the richest part of the world, big economies like Germany and the Netherlands and Italy and France and all the other nations together defending of course including with the US against 140 million Russians and then you are overly dependent on the United States. That's not fair and he's right and that's what he settled in The Hague. I think that was his leadership extremely important. So committed to NATO but also expecting us all to do more. And when it comes to Iran, clearly he was disappointed. What I pointed out again is this is about isolated cases. Massively Europeans have done what the United States bilaterally negotiated with the European countries.
Okay. This man here. Yes please.
Yeah. Thank you.
Rasmus from the Danish news agency. Danish news agency, Ritzau. Mark, you sit next to Donald Trump in moments where he talks about conquering Greenland, talks about lashing out at allies like Spain, starting trade wars, things that it doesn't seem like the old Mark would approve of. Does this have any effect on your self-respect when you sit next to him like that and say nothing?
You know, what I always do is acknowledge when praise is due. And I think we should praise Donald Trump for the fact that NATO is so much stronger. Of course, it has to do with the Russian threat. It has to do with the war in Ukraine, but it very much also has to do with President Trump delivering now what since Eisenhower the United States tried to achieve equalizing spending between the US and Europe. And it makes Europe stronger. It makes Europe more relevant for the United States as a partner. So that is the transformative character of this summit of what happened in The Hague, the implementation since The Hague, this summit as a point in time where we take stock and I think that is extremely important. And when it comes to Greenland, I already explained we had the meeting in Davos and I said I agree with you when it comes to Russia, when it comes to China gaining access to the high north but let's do this together we have NATO for this let's work together on this this is exactly what we are doing.
Okay, we have very little time and still lots and lots of questions. So, the woman who's standing here.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Secretary General. Yes, I am Al Akan from the Epoch Times, New York-based media outlet. I have a question on Russia. Russia is facing energy crisis, fuel shortages. Entire country is facing gasoline shortages. How do you see this impacting the war in Ukraine? And do you ask or do you expect President Trump to impose more sanctions on Russia?
Well, clearly Ukraine is very successful in hitting the energy infrastructure in Russia. They in Odesa yesterday they claimed and I think the Russians almost... well I have this from the media. So I didn't get this confirmed from other sources but I guess you reported this correctly. Some of you did at least yesterday that they have been successful in striking deep into Russia which was one of the biggest refinery plants in Russia and this is part of a pattern over the last two months where the Ukrainians are more and more successful in hitting the vital energy infrastructure in Russia. This is having an impact on people driving cars ending up at the gasoline stations. There was news yesterday that they had to put out mobile toilets because people had to wait all night for gasoline. Well, I can assure you one thing as a politician. In the 16th, 17th century, you had to make sure there was enough bread. In the 21st century, you have to make sure there's enough gasoline. Your voters don't like it if they cannot fill up their cars. And of course, this is having an impact on the Russian economy. At the same time, you have a Russian president which is willing to sacrifice up to 35,000 of his own young men in this crazy war against Ukraine, totally unprovoked. So again, to any Russian young man listening, if you contemplate joining the war effort, think again. You might be one of those 30 to 35,000 this month, next month, the month after because your president somehow doesn't care. He is willing to sacrifice you. So this is what is happening. And I know that the US and the European Union sanctions is not NATO. But the EU and European countries and the US and the United Kingdom are constantly coordinating when it comes to sanctions and to see what can be done.
Okay, I think we have two more questions. So the man in the orange tie here in the sixth row.
Hi Johannes Petra, Austrian National Television and Radio. I'm just curious about what NATO at the end of the day is really about. We heard a lot about defense spending and about following interests and about hard power politics, let's say. I was wondering also because we find ourselves in an autocracy where journalists are being arrested. What values does NATO represent, if any, and are those values shared by all 32 members? Thank you.
NATO is a defensive alliance defending 1 billion people living in NATO territory. That's United States, that's Canada and 30 countries in Europe. We are defensive. We will never attack another country. Never. We are a defensive alliance. But we will make absolutely sure that if anyone else does not wish us well and tries to attack us that they know that our reaction will be very forceful, that we can defend ourselves etc. And that is for a reason. First of all, because I strongly believe in the 21st century that you should not attack another country like the Russians have done with Ukraine. It's kind of crazy to do that. It's a playbook of the 19th century or the 20th century. We don't do this in grown-up democracies anymore in the 21st century. So that's one, but also because there are values at stake. Democracy and democracy as a center... Monday is not only free vote. Democracy is also you, the free media, that you can report, that you can try to find out what happened behind the scenes. Politicians not always liking what you find. But if it is fair, hey, it's your role and your job to do that. It's part of democracy. And the third pillar of democracy is that your societies have the ability to make their views known. And they do this sometimes through demonstrations. And that is always should be possible. And that means that journalists should always be able in person to participate in big news events.
Okay, final question. That's all we have time for. We're going to go to the fifth row on the aisle here.
Thank you, Secretary General.
Sachio from...
Yes. Hi.
Oh, we have more hands than one. Yes.
Sachio from NHK, the public station of Japan. Thank you. I'd like to ask about the IP4. Do you think it was important to have at least the representatives of all IP4 countries present in Ankara considering the challenges NATO faces from China and this is the second year not having all the leaders present at the summit but you already have any ideas on how to engage again at the leaders level with them?
Yes. Well, the president of the Republic of Korea was here so I had the opportunity to get to know him better. He and the first lady participated in a dinner last night and we had very senior representatives at the level of defense ministers and or foreign ministers of New Zealand, Australia and Japan. So I myself have my engagement with the leaders of these nations. So it's not necessary that always all the leaders are here. I was very happy to meet the Korean president because he is relatively new. We spoke a couple of times on the phone. This gives the opportunity to get to know each other better and I traveled myself last year to Japan and I might do other trips to the IP4 countries in the future because this is an important relationship and we said yesterday it is important because this is about the acknowledgement that the two theaters in the Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic are more and more interconnected. You cannot separate the two. That doesn't mean that you want to extend Article 5 to the Indo-Pacific. That's not the goal. The goal is to work as much together on defense industry, on innovation, on standards, also exchanging views on defense spending, how to do that in the best way. We have now experienced in NATO not to prescribe in detail how many tanks or how many fighter jets but what should be the battlefield outcomes we want to achieve by each nation's contribution to the collective defense. So this was a very useful discussion. I think we all felt it. Allison, there is one lady over there who really tried for some time. Is it okay if we do one more?
It's you and then we stop because I think there are other presidents and prime ministers also wanting to address you and get your questions.
Thank you so much for this opportunity. Anti-Turkey rhetoric continues to flow from Greece which persists in its illegal militarization activities in the Aegean. Greek Prime Minister Mitsotakis stated my country still faces an open threat of war from Turkey. How are these statements by Greece received between the allies? Thank you.
Yes, well, but I've said before when it came to other issues, issues sometimes between allies and it can always happen. We have an alliance of 32 nations. So there might be bilateral discussions and then obviously unavoidably I will get the question what is my view on this? But of course I'm not a commentator. I'm there to maintain the unity, at least trying to do my best to maintain the unity of the alliance. And that means that when there are discussions or sometimes irritants between allies that I do not comment in public so that I can be behind the scenes if necessary if so wanted by any of the discussing countries, helpful.
Thank you so much. It was really great to see you on Monday to see you today earlier today. You're amazing. See you next time. Thanks.
Thanks very much.
endlessly successful NATO summit here in Ankara. There was a great sense of unity. Allies warmly welcomed President Trump's leadership that is transforming this alliance and making it stronger. The message from this summit is simple. NATO delivers. One year ago in the Hague, allies took historic decisions to strengthen our alliance. Here in Ankara, excellently hosted by President Erdogan, we have demonstrated that those commitments are now being put into practice across the alliance. Defense investment continues to rise. New capabilities are being delivered. Industry is expanding production. And European allies and Canada are assuming greater responsibility for our shared security. Together, these are the foundations for a stronger, a fairer, and a more capable NATO.
Allies reviewed the significant progress already made towards investing 5% of GDP in defense by 2035. Already measuring 4% just one year into a 10-year project. So the momentum is clear. Allies continue to increase both core defense spending and broader investment that strengthen our security. They are generating the capabilities our defense plans require and stepping up the contribution to NATO's collective deterrence and defense. This is not simply about spending more. It is about ensuring that our armed forces have what they need to keep our 1 billion people safe. Our focus has now shifted decisively from setting targets to delivering results. That means accelerating production, breaking down barriers, boosting resilience, investing in innovation, and working with partners to maximize cooperation.
The NATO summit defense industry forum demonstrated the determination of governments and industry to work together with greater speed and ambition. And the numbers are staggering, including over $50 billion in new procurement deals in just one day. We also launched a new major initiative, NATO's drone edge, which will see $40 billion invested by allies in uncrewed systems over the next 5 years, and big deals with US and European industry, including Triton from Northrop Grumman and our new AEX from SA.
These new investments and industrial commitments announced here will help strengthen our collective defense while supporting innovation, economic growth, and of course skilled jobs across the whole of the alliance. This work must continue and that's why I'm happy to announce that allies are taking a historic step to enhance NATO's fuel supply chain to ensure our forces have the energy supplies they need for war fighting readiness. While allies continue to finalize the details, we know that this 27 billion euro investment will modernize our existing fuel storage and distribution infrastructure and support new facilities including pipelines towards the eastern part of the alliance.
We're also ensuring that we are using technology to our advantage, including through the adoption of powerful AI models and the development of an interoperable transatlantic war fighting cloud. So here again, credible deterrence and defense depends on what we deliver and we are delivering.
Allies also reaffirmed NATO's unwavering support for Ukraine. As Russia continues its war, we will continue to ensure Ukraine gets what it needs. Allies pledged to provide at least 70 billion euros in military equipment, assistance, and training for Ukraine this year and again next year as we continue to press for peace. As Ukraine shifts the dynamics on the battlefield, our support must continue.
This summit has shown that the alliance is stronger than ever. An alliance that is united and ready to defend every inch of our territory. Here in Ankara, allies reaffirmed their ironclad commitment to the collective defense under Article 5 that an attack on one is an attack on all and we will stand together. Our unity, solidarity, and collective strength remain the foundation of peace, security, 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 and 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.
Mayan 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 one 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 fail, 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 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 as 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 a 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 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.
Okay. Yeah, we made it.
I'm Millie Bayer 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 and 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 to 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 the 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 defense target.
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.
The man here. Yes. Thanks.
Hi, 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 S-400 missile system that Turkey possesses. Are you comfortable with that Russian missile system in the hands of a NATO ally?
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 Putin. Yes. So on Putin, yes, 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 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 or he's meeting now as we speak with President 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.
Secretary General Henry Foy Financial Times.
Thank you. Can I hold it? You can trust me.
Henry. Financial Times. Nice to see you.
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.
What the president and 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 NORAD and NORCOM. So that means Canada with NORAD 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 the 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 made in the future 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. Uh 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. 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 intercontinental ballistic 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.
Sager Haria. 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 the 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. Il Mazak from Al Jazeera. My question is, President Trump was mentioning today that the peace deal is over for me 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 this, you know, attacks or involve especially when the topic comes the Strait of Hormuz?
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 intercontinental ballistic 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.
Okay. All right. Towards the center in the eighth row. Do we have a mic moving? Is she already there? Now you have to look at her. She decides, Allison decides. I see a gentleman there. Making our way. And then once you're there, please stay there because we'll take a few in the neighborhood.
Thank you so much. Deborah Haynes from Sky News. Good to see you. Thank you. You know Donald Trump well. Can you just give a sense from your perspective? Do you think that he is more committed and more enthusiastic about NATO and NATO membership now than he was a year ago given all the allies have done in terms of ramping up defense spending? Or are you seeing that these outbursts against the UK and others over failing to join the fight against Iran, his desire for Greenland, that actually he is as unhappy as ever before with NATO, maybe even more so? And could I just have a clarification from what you said earlier about Iran? Are you saying that NATO actually would support the US militarily in terms of its operation in Iran?
What I said is that NATO, Iran is outside NATO territory. NATO has a political position. You can also see that in the summit declaration that Iran should not get a nuclear capability, that the Strait of Hormuz should open up and NATO has always taken the position that when it comes to the intercontinental ballistic missile capability, Iran should not get its hands on it. But this is outside NATO territory. So this is individual allies navigating this with the United States. On your first question, I mean, I always felt that families where sometimes you have heart-to-hearts and sometimes you fight each other a bit are much stronger than families where you have, oh, let's not disagree and let's keep things nice and unity. That's a bit fake. I always felt I love it when sometimes between friends you can fight each other because it makes you stronger and President Trump is not a person which keeps his views to himself. So on two issues he was very clear. One is that Europe had to step up and this had to do with NATO. He was committed to NATO, he is committed to NATO, but he said, 'Hey, Mark, it's not a fair deal. How can it be that you have 600 million people living in Europe, the richest part of the world, big economies like Germany and the Netherlands and Italy and France and all the other nations together defending of course including with the US against 140 million Russians and then you are overly dependent on the United States. That's not fair.' And he's right. And that's what he settled in The Hague. I think that was his leadership, extremely important. So committed to NATO but also expecting us all to do more. And when it comes to Iran, clearly he was disappointed. What I pointed out again is this is about isolated cases. Massively Europeans have done what the United States bilaterally negotiated with the European countries.
Okay. This man here. Yes, please.
Hey, Rasmus Rainbow from the Danish news agency. Danish news agency. Mark, you sit next to Donald Trump in moments where he talks about conquering Greenland, talks about lashing out at allies like Spain, starting trade wars, things that it doesn't seem like the old Mark would approve of. Does this have any effect on your self-respect when you sit next to him like that and say nothing?
You know, what I always do is acknowledge when praise is due. And I think we should praise Donald Trump for the fact that NATO is so much stronger. Of course, it has to do with the Russian threat. It has to do with the war in Ukraine, but it very much also has to do with President Trump delivering now what since Eisenhower, the United States tried to achieve, equalizing spending between the US and Europe. And it makes Europe stronger. It makes Europe more relevant for the United States as a partner. So that is the transformative character of this summit, of what happened in The Hague, the implementation since The Hague, this summit as a point in time where we take stock and I think that's extremely important. And when it comes to Greenland, I already explained, we had the meeting in Davos and I said I agree with you when it comes to Russia, when it comes to China gaining access to the high north, but let's do this together, we have NATO for this, let's work together on this, this is exactly what we are doing.
Okay, we have very little time and still lots and lots of questions. So, the woman who's standing here.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Secretary General. Yes, hi, Alkan from the Epoch Times, New York-based media outlet. I have a question on Russia. Russia is facing energy crisis, fuel shortages. Entire country is facing gasoline shortages. How do you see this impacting the war in Ukraine? And do you ask or do you expect President Trump to impose more sanctions on Russia?
Well, clearly Ukraine is very successful in hitting the energy infrastructure in Russia. Yesterday they claimed, and I think the Russians almost, well I have this from you, from the media. So I didn't get this confirmed from other sources but I guess you reported this correctly, some of you did at least yesterday, that they have been successful in striking deep into Russia which was one of the biggest refinery plants in Russia and this is part of a pattern over the last two months where the Ukrainians are more and more successful in hitting the vital energy infrastructure in Russia. This is having an impact on people driving cars ending up at the gasoline stations. There was news yesterday that they had to put out mobile toilets because people had to wait all night for gasoline. Well, I can assure you one thing as a politician. In the 16th, 17th century, you had to make sure there was enough bread. In the 21st century, you have to make sure there's enough gasoline. Your voters don't like it if they cannot fill up their cars. And of course, this is having an impact on the Russian economy. At the same time, you have a Russian president which is willing to sacrifice up to 35,000 of his own young men in this crazy war against Ukraine, totally unprovoked. So again, to any Russian young man listening, if you contemplate joining the war effort, think again. You might be one of those 30 to 35,000 this month, next month, the month after because your president somehow doesn't care. He is willing to sacrifice you. So this is what is happening. And I know that the US and the European Union sanctions is not NATO. But the EU and European countries and the US and the United Kingdom are constantly coordinating when it comes to sanctions and to see what can be done.
Okay, I think we have two more questions. So the man in the orange tie here in the sixth row.
Hi, Johannes Petra, Austrian National Television and Radio. I'm just curious about what NATO at the end of the day is really about. We heard a lot about defense spending and about following interests and about hard power politics, let's say. I was wondering also because we find ourselves in an autocracy where journalists are being arrested. What values does NATO represent, if any, and are those values shared by all 32 members? Thank you.
NATO is a defensive alliance defending 1 billion people living in NATO territory. That's United States, that's Canada and 30 countries in Europe. We are defensive. We will never attack another country. Never. We are a defensive alliance. But we will make absolutely sure that if anyone else does not wish us well and tries to attack us that they know that our reaction will be very forceful, that we can defend ourselves etc. etc. And that is for a reason. First of all, because I strongly believe in the 21st century that you should not attack another country like the Russians have done with Ukraine. It's kind of crazy to do that. It's a playbook of the 19th century or the 20th century. We don't do this in grown-up democracies anymore in the 21st century. So that's one, but also because there are values at stake. Democracy, and democracy as I said on Monday is not only free vote. Democracy is also you, the free media, that you can report, that you can try to find out what happened behind the scenes. Politicians not always liking what you find. But if it is fair, hey, it's your role and your job to do that. It's part of democracy. And the third pillar of democracy is that your societies have the ability to make their views known and they do this sometimes through demonstrations and that should always be possible. And that means that journalists should always be able in person to participate in big news events.
Okay, final question. That's all we have time for. We're going to go to the fifth row on the aisle here.
Thank you, Secretary General. Sachio from... Yes. Hi. Oh, we have more hands, more than one hand. Yes. Sachio from NHK, the public TV station of Japan. Thank you. I'd like to ask about the IP4. Do you think it was important to have at least the representatives of all IP4 countries present in Ankara considering the challenges NATO faces from China and this is the second year not having all the leaders present at the summit but you already have any ideas on how to engage again at the leaders level with them?
Yes. Well, the president of the Republic of Korea was here so I had the opportunity to get to know him better. He and the first lady participated in a dinner last night and we had very senior representatives at the level of defense ministers and or foreign ministers of New Zealand, Australia and Japan. So I myself have my engagement with the leaders of these nations. So it's not necessary that always all the leaders are here. I was very happy to meet the Korean president because he is relatively new. We spoke a couple of times on the phone. This gives the opportunity to get to know each other better and I traveled myself last year to Japan and I might do other trips to the IP4 countries in the future because this is an important relationship and we said yesterday it is important because this is about the acknowledgement that the two theaters in the Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic are more and more interconnected. You cannot separate the two. That doesn't mean that you want to extend Article 5 to the Indo-Pacific. That's not the goal. The goal is to work as much together on defense industry, on innovation, on standards, also exchanging views on defense spending, how to do that in the best way. We have now experienced at NATO not to prescribe in detail how many tanks or how many fighter jets but what should be the battlefield outcomes we want to achieve by each nation's contribution to the collective defense. So this was a very useful discussion. I think we all felt it. Allison, there is one lady over there who really tried for some time. Is it okay if we do one more?
It's you and then we stop because I think there are other presidents and prime ministers also wanting to address you and get your questions.
Thank you so much for this opportunity. Anti-Turkey rhetoric continues to flow from Greece which persists in its illegal militarization activities in the Aegean. Greek Prime Minister Mitsotakis stated my country still faces an open threat of war from Turkey. How are these statements by Greece received between the allies? Thank you.
Yes, well, but I've said before when it came to other issues, sometimes between allies and it can always happen. We have an alliance of 32 nations. So there might be bilateral discussions and then obviously unavoidably I will get the question what is my view on this? But of course I'm not a commentator. I'm there to maintain the unity, at least trying to do my best to maintain the unity of the alliance. And that means that when there are discussions or sometimes irritants between allies that I do not comment in public so that I can be behind the scenes if necessary if so wanted by any of the discussing countries, helpful.
Thank you so much. It was really great to see you on Monday to see you today, earlier today. You're amazing. See you next time. Thanks.
Thanks very much. An endlessly successful NATO summit here in Ankara. There was a great sense of unity. Allies warmly welcomed President Trump's leadership that is transforming this alliance and making it stronger. The message from this summit is simple: NATO delivers. One year ago in The Hague allies took historic decisions to strengthen our alliance. Here in Ankara, excellently hosted by President Erdogan, we have demonstrated that those commitments are now being put into practice across the alliance. Defense investment continues to rise. New capabilities are being delivered. Industry is expanding production and European allies and Canada are assuming greater responsibility for our shared security together. These are the foundations for a stronger, a fairer, and a more capable NATO. Allies reviewed the significant progress already made towards investing 5% of GDP in defense by 2035. Already measuring 4% just one year into a 10-year project. So the momentum is clear. Allies continue to increase both core defense spending and broader investments that strengthen our security. They are generating the capabilities our defense plans require and stepping up the contribution to NATO's collective deterrence and defense. This is not simply about spending more. It is about ensuring that our armed forces have what they need to keep our 1 billion people safe in a more dangerous world.
Our focus has now shifted decisively from setting targets to delivering results. That means accelerating production, breaking down barriers, boosting resilience, investing in innovation, and working with partners to maximize cooperation. The NATO Summit Defense Industry Forum demonstrated the determination of governments and industry to work together with greater speed and ambition. And the numbers are staggering, including over $50 billion in new procurement deals in just one day. We also launched a new major initiative, NATO's Drone Edge, which will see $40 billion invested by allies in unmanned systems over the next 5 years and big deals with US and European industry, including Triton from Northrop Grumman and our new AEX from SAP. These new investments and industrial commitments announced here will help strengthen our collective defense while supporting innovation, economic growth, and of course skilled jobs across the whole of the alliance. This work must continue and that's why I'm happy to announce that allies are taking a historic step to enhance NATO's fuel supply chain to ensure our forces have the energy supplies they need for war fighting readiness. While allies continue to finalize the details, we know that this 27 billion euro investment will modernize our existing fuel storage and distribution infrastructure and support new facilities including pipelines towards the eastern part of the alliance. We're also ensuring that we are using technology to our advantage, including through the adoption of powerful AI models and the development of an interoperable transatlantic war fighting cloud. So here again, credible deterrence and defense depends on what we deliver and we are delivering.
Allies also reaffirmed NATO's unwavering support for Ukraine. As Russia continues its war, we will continue to ensure Ukraine gets what it needs. Allies pledged to provide at least 70 billion euros in military equipment, assistance, and training for Ukraine this year and again next year as we continue to press for peace. As Ukraine shifts the dynamics on the battlefield, our support must continue. This summit has shown that the alliance is stronger than ever. An alliance that is united and ready to defend every inch of our territory. Here in Ankara, allies reaffirmed their ironclad commitment to the collective defense under Article 5. That an attack on one is an attack on all and we will stand together. Our unity, solidarity and collective strength remain the foundation of peace, security 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 and 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.
Mayan 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 one 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 fail, 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 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 all democracies. It makes us stronger. It not only makes us stronger. In the end, we also come together, today as 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 a 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 and a 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. Okay. Yeah, we made it.
I'm Lily Ber 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 and 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 to 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 target.
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. The man here. Yes. Thanks.
Hi, 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, 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 Putin. 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 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 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.
Secretary General, Henry Foy, Financial Times. Thank you. Can I hold it? You can trust me. Henry. Financial Times. Nice to see you. 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.
What the president and 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 NORAD, so that means Canada with NORAD 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 made in the future 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. Uh 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. 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 intercontinental ballistic 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.
Sager Haria. 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 the 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. 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. Il Mazak from Al Jazeera. My question is, President Trump was mentioning today that the peace deal is over for me 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 this, you know, attacks or involve especially when the topic comes the Strait of Hormuz?
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 intercontinental ballistic 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.
Okay. All right. Towards the center in the eighth row. Do we have a mic moving? Is she already there? Now you have to look at her. She decides, Allison decides. I see a gentleman there. Making our way. And then once you're there, please stay there because we'll take a few in the neighborhood.
Thank you so much. Deborah Haynes from Sky News. Good to see you. Thank you. You know Donald Trump well. Can you just give a sense from your perspective? Do you think that he is more committed and more enthusiastic about NATO and NATO membership now than he was a year ago given all the allies have done in terms of ramping up defense spending? Or are you seeing that these outbursts against the UK and others over failing to join the fight against Iran, his desire for Greenland, that actually he is as unhappy as ever before with NATO, maybe even more so? And could I just have a clarification from what you said earlier about Iran? Are you saying that NATO actually would support the US militarily in terms of its operation in Iran?
What I said is that NATO, Iran is outside NATO territory. NATO has a political position. You can also see that in the summit declaration that Iran should not get a nuclear capability, that the Strait of Hormuz should open up and NATO has always taken the position that when it comes to the intercontinental ballistic missile capability, Iran should not get its hands on it. But this is outside NATO territory. So this is individual allies navigating this with the United States. On your first question, I mean, I always felt that families where sometimes you have heart-to-hearts and sometimes you fight each other a bit are much stronger than families where you have, oh, let's not disagree and let's keep things nice and unity. That's a bit fake. I always felt I love it when sometimes between friends you can fight each other because it makes you stronger and President Trump is not a person which keeps his views to himself. So on two issues he was very clear. One is that Europe had to step up and this had to do with NATO. He was committed to NATO, is committed to NATO, but he said, 'Hey, Mark, it's not a fair deal. How can it be that you have 600 million people living in Europe, the richest part of the world, big economies like Germany and the Netherlands and Italy and France and all the other nations together defending of course including with the US against 140 million Russians and then you are overly dependent on the United States. That's not fair.' And he's right. And that's what he settled in The Hague. I think that was his leadership, extremely important. So committed to NATO but also expecting us all to do more. And when it comes to Iran, clearly he was disappointed. What I pointed out again is this is about isolated cases. Massively Europeans have done what the United States bilaterally negotiated with the European countries.
Okay. This man here. Yes, please.
Hey, Rasmus Rainbow from the Danish news agency. Danish news agency. Mark, you sit next to Donald Trump in moments where he talks about conquering Greenland, talks about lashing out at allies like Spain, starting trade wars, things that it doesn't seem like the old Mark would approve of. Does this have any effect on your self-respect when you sit next to him like that and say nothing?
You know, what I always do is acknowledge when praise is due. And I think we should praise Donald Trump for the fact that NATO is so much stronger. Of course, it has to do with the Russian threat. It has to do with the war in Ukraine, but it's very much also has to do with President Trump delivering now what since Eisenhower, the United States tried to achieve, equalizing spending between the US and Europe. And it makes Europe stronger. It makes Europe more relevant for the United States as a partner. So that is the transformative character of this summit, of what happened in The Hague, the implementation since The Hague, this summit as a point in time where we take stock and I think that is extremely important. And when it comes to Greenland, I already explained, we had the meeting in Davos and I said I agree with you when it comes to Russia, when it comes to China gaining access to the high north, but let's do this together, we have NATO for this, let's work together on this, this is exactly what we are doing.
Okay, we have very little time and still lots and lots of questions. So, the woman who's standing here.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Secretary General. Yes. Hi, Alkan from the Epoch Times, New York-based media outlet. I have a question on Russia. Russia is facing energy crisis, fuel shortages. Entire country is facing gasoline shortages. How do you see this impacting the war in Ukraine? And do you ask or do you expect President Trump to impose more sanctions on Russia?
Well, clearly Ukraine is very successful in hitting the energy infrastructure in Russia. Yesterday they claimed, and I think the Russians almost, well I have this from you, from the media. So I didn't get this confirmed from other sources but I guess you reported this correctly, some of you did at least yesterday, that they have been successful in striking deep into Russia which was one of the biggest refinery plants in Russia and this is part of a pattern over the last two months where the Ukrainians are more and more successful in hitting the vital energy infrastructure in Russia. This is having an impact on people driving cars ending up at the gasoline stations. There was news yesterday that they had to put out mobile toilets because people had to wait all night for gasoline. Well, I can assure you one thing as a politician. In the 16th, 17th century, you had to make sure there was enough bread. In the 21st century, you have to make sure there's enough gasoline. Your voters don't like it if they cannot fill up their cars. And of course, this is having an impact on the Russian economy. At the same time, you have a Russian president which is willing to sacrifice up to 35,000 of his own young men in this crazy war against Ukraine, totally unprovoked. So again, to any Russian young men listening, if you contemplate joining the war effort, think again. You might be one of those 30 to 35,000 this month, next month, the month after because your president somehow doesn't care. He is willing to sacrifice you. So this is what is happening. And I know that the US and the European Union sanctions is not NATO. But the EU and European countries and the US and the United Kingdom are constantly coordinating when it comes to sanctions and to see what can be done.
Okay, I think we have two more questions. So the man in the orange tie here in the sixth row.
Hi, Johannes Petra, Austrian National Television and Radio. I'm just curious about what NATO at the end of the day is really about. We heard a lot about defense spending and about following interests and about hard power politics, let's say. I was wondering also because we find ourselves in an autocracy where journalists are being arrested. What values does NATO represent, if any, and are those values shared by all 32 members? Thank you.
NATO is a defensive alliance defending 1 billion people living in NATO territory. That's United States, that's Canada and 30 countries in Europe. We are defensive. We will never attack another country. Never. We are a defensive alliance. But we will make absolutely sure that if anyone else does not wish us well and tries to attack us that they know that our reaction will be very forceful, that we can defend ourselves etc. etc. And that is for a reason. First of all, because I strongly believe in the 21st century that you should not attack another country like the Russians have done with Ukraine. It's kind of crazy to do that. It's a playbook of the 19th century or the 20th century. We don't do this in grown-up democracies anymore in the 21st century. So that's one, but also because there are values at stake. Democracy, and democracy as I said on Monday is not only free vote. Democracy is also you, the free media, that you can report, that you can try to find out what happened behind the scenes. Politicians not always liking what you find. But if it is fair, hey, it's your role and your job to do that. It's part of democracy. And the third pillar of democracy is that your societies have the ability to make their views known and they do this sometimes through demonstrations and that should always be possible. And that means that journalists should always be able in person to participate in big news events.
Hi, Johannes Petra, Austrian National Television and Radio. I'm just curious about what NATO at the end of the day is really about. We heard a lot about defense spending and about following interests and about hard power politics, let's say. I was wondering also because we find ourselves in an autocracy where journalists are being arrested. What values does NATO represent, if any, and are those values shared by all 32 members? Thank you.
NATO is a defensive alliance defending 1 billion people living in NATO territory. That's the United States, that's Canada and 30 countries in Europe. We are defensive. We will never attack another country. Never. We are a defensive alliance. But we will make absolutely sure that if anyone else does not wish as well and tries to attack us that they know that our reaction will be very forceful, that we can defend ourselves, etc. And that is for a reason. First of all, because I strongly believe in the 21st century that you should not attack another country like the Russians have done with Ukraine. It's kind of crazy to do that. It's a playbook of the 19th century or the 20th century. We don't do this in grown-up democracies anymore in the 21st century. So that's one, but also because there are values at stake. Democracy, and democracy as a central tenet, is not only free vote. Democracy is also you, the free media, that you can report, that you can try to find out what happened behind the scenes. Politicians not always liking what you find. But if it is fair, hey, it's your role and your job to do that. It's part of democracy. And a third pillar of democracy is that your societies have the ability to make their views known. And they do this sometimes through demonstrations. And that is always should be possible. And that means that journalists should always be able in person to participate in big news events.
Okay, final question. That's all we have time for. We're going to go to the fifth row on the aisle here.
Um, thank you, Secretary General. Um, Sachio from...
Yes. Hi.
Oh, we have more hands. More than one hand. Yes.
Sachio from NHK, the public TV station of Japan. Thank you. Um, I'd like to ask about the IP4. Do you think it was important to have at least the representatives of all IP4 countries present in Ankara considering the challenges NATO faces from China? And this is the second year not having all the leaders present at the summit, but do you already have any ideas on how to engage again at the leaders level with them?
Yes. Well, the president of the Republic of Korea was here so I had the opportunity to get to know him better. He and the first lady participated in a dinner last night and we had very senior representatives at the level of defense ministers and or foreign ministers of New Zealand, Australia and Japan. So I myself have my engagement with the leaders of these nations. So it's not necessary that always all the leaders are here. I was very happy to meet the Korean president because he is relatively new. We spoke a couple of times on the phone. This gives the opportunity to get to know each other better and I traveled myself last year to Japan and I might do other trips to the IP4 countries in the future because this is an important relationship and we said yesterday it is important because this is about the acknowledgement that the two theaters in the Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic are more and more interconnected. You cannot separate the two. That doesn't mean that you want to extend Article 5 to the Indo-Pacific. That's not the goal. The goal is to work as much together on defense industry, on innovation, on standards, also exchanging views on defense spending, how to do that in the best way. We have now experienced in NATO not to prescribe in detail how many tanks or how many fighter jets, but what should be the battlefield outcomes we want to achieve by each nation's contribution to the collective defense. So this was a very useful discussion. I think we all felt that. Allison, there is one lady over there who really tried for some time. Is it okay if we do one more?
It's you and then we stop because I think there are other presidents and prime ministers also wanting to address you and get your questions.
Thank you so much for this opportunity. Anti-Turkey rhetoric continues to flow from Greece which persists in its illegal militarization activities in the Aegean. Greek Prime Minister Mitsotakis stated that his country still faces an open threat of war from Turkey. How are these statements by Greece received between the allies? Thank you.
Yes. Well, I've said before when it came to other issues sometimes between allies and it can always happen. We have an alliance of 32 nations. So there might be bilateral discussions and then obviously unavoidably I will get the question what is my view on this? But of course I'm not a commentator. I'm there to maintain the unity, at least trying to do my best to maintain the unity of the alliance. And that means that when there are discussions or sometimes irritants between allies that I do not comment in public so that I can be behind the scenes if necessary if so wanted by any of the discussing countries, helpful.
Thank you so much. It was really great to see you on Monday to see you today, earlier today. You're amazing. See you next time. Thanks.
Thanks very much.
Tremendously successful NATO summit here in Ankara. There was a great sense of unity. Allies warmly welcomed President Trump's leadership that is transforming this alliance and making it stronger. The message from this summit is simple. NATO delivers. One year ago in The Hague allies took historic decisions to strengthen our alliance. Here in Ankara, excellently hosted by President Erdogan, we have demonstrated that those commitments are now being put into practice. Across the alliance, defense investment continues to rise. New capabilities are being delivered. Industry is expanding production. And European allies and Canada are assuming greater responsibility for our shared security. Together, these are the foundations for a stronger, a fairer, and a more capable NATO.
Allies reviewed the significant progress already made towards investing 5% of GDP in defense by 2035. Already measuring 4% just one year into a 10-year project. So the momentum is clear. Allies continue to increase both core defense spending and broader investment that strengthen our security. They are generating the capabilities our defense plans require and stepping up the contribution to NATO's collective deterrence and defense. This is not simply about spending more. It is about ensuring that our armed forces have what they need to keep our 1 billion people safe in a more dangerous world. Our focus has now shifted decisively from setting targets to delivering results. That means accelerating production, breaking down barriers, boosting resilience, investing in innovation, and working with partners to maximize cooperation.
The NATO summit defense industry forum demonstrated the determination of governments and industry to work together with greater speed and ambition. And the numbers are staggering, including over $50 billion in new procurement deals in just one day. We also launched a new major initiative, NATO's drone edge, which will see $40 billion invested by allies in uncrewed systems over the next 5 years. And big deals with US and European industry, including Triton from Northrop Grumman and our new AEX from SAP. These new investments and industrial commitments announced here will help strengthen our collective defense while supporting innovation, economic growth, and of course skilled jobs across the whole of the alliance.
This work must continue and that's why I'm happy to announce that allies are taking a historic step to enhance NATO's fuel supply chain to ensure our forces have the energy supplies they need for war fighting readiness. While allies continue to finalize the details, we know that this 27 billion euro investment will modernize our existing fuel storage and distribution infrastructure and support new facilities including pipelines towards the eastern part of the alliance. We're also ensuring that we are using technology to our advantage, including through the adoption of powerful AI models and the development of an interoperable transatlantic war fighting cloud. So here again, credible deterrence and defense depends on what we deliver and we are delivering.
Allies also reaffirmed NATO's unwavering support for Ukraine. As Russia continues its war, we will continue to ensure Ukraine gets what it needs. Allies pledged to provide at least 70 billion euros in military equipment, assistance, and training for Ukraine this year and again next year as we continue to press for peace. As Ukraine shifts the dynamics on the battlefield, our support must continue. This summit has shown that the alliance is stronger than ever. An alliance that is united and ready to defend every inch of our territory. Here in Ankara, allies reaffirmed their ironclad commitment to the collective defense under Article 5 that an attack on one is an attack on all and we will stand together. Our unity, solidarity, and collective strength remain the foundation of peace, security, 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 and 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.
Mayan, 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 one 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 fail, 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, 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 as evidence of that. And I always know that President Trump and the US has 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 a 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. 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 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. Um, about halfway up on the right, I think I see Reuters.
Ah, sorry. There you are.
Okay. Yeah, we made it. Um, I'm Millie Bayer from Reuters. Thank you very much for the question. Um, Secretary General, um, 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 and Canada are stepping up, but um 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 to 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 DEC target.
All right. Uh 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.
The man here. Yes. Thanks.
Sir, thank you Allison. Thank you, Mr. Secretary General. Uh, 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 followup 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. Uh what's come up during the president's time here is that S400 missile system that Turkey possesses. Are you comfortable with that, 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. Um so um and your first question was on...
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 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. Uh, Financial Times, please.
Secretary General, Henry Foy, Financial Times.
Thank you. Can I hold it? You can trust me.
Henry for Financial Times. Nice to see you.
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. The president I agreed with 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 NORAD and NORCOM. So that means Canada with NORAD 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 made in the future 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. Uh Bloomberg,
Secretary General, Andre Palashiano from Bloomberg News.
Will there be... I'm here.
Will there be a summit next year in Albania? If not, when? Thank you.
Um the next summit will indeed be in Albania. That was the decision in The Hague. Uh 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. Okay. And then let's come down here in the second row right here.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary General. Hi. Um, 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 intercontinental ballistic 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.
Sager Haria. Uh 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 the 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.
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. Uh Mazaku from Al Jazeera. Uh my question is uh President Trump was mentioning today that the peace deal is over for me 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 this, you know, attacks or involve especially when the topic comes straight of...
Well 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 intercontinental ballistic 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.
Okay. All right. Um towards the center in the eighth row. Do we have a mic moving? Is she already there?
Now you have to look at her. She decides, Allison decides. I see a gentleman there.
Making our way. And then once you're there, please stay there because we'll take a few in the neighborhood.
Thank you so much. Um Deborah Haynes from Sky News.
Thank you. Um you know Donald Trump well. Can you just give a sense from your perspective? Do you think that he is more committed and more enthusiastic about NATO and NATO membership now than he was a year ago given all the allies have done in terms of ramping up defense spending? Or are you seeing that these outbursts against the UK and others over failing to join the fight against Iran, his desire for Greenland, that actually he is as unhappy as ever before with NATO, maybe even more so? And could I have a clarification from what you said earlier about Iran. Are you saying that NATO actually would support the US militarily in terms of its operation in Iran?
What I said is that NATO is, Iran is outside NATO territory. NATO has a political position. You can also see that in the summit declaration that Iran should not get a nuclear capability, that the Strait of Hormuz should open up and NATO has always taken the position that when it comes to the intercontinental ballistic missile capability, Iran should not get its hands on it. But this is outside NATO territory. So this is individual allies navigating this with the United States. On your first question. I mean, I always felt that families where sometimes you have heart-to-hearts and sometimes you fight each other a bit are much stronger than families where you have, oh, let's not disagree and let's keep things nice and unity. That's a bit fake. I always felt I love it when sometimes between friends you can fight each other because it makes you stronger and President Trump is not a person which keeps his views to himself. So on two issues he was very clear. One is that Europe had to step up and this had to do with NATO. He was committed to NATO. He is committed to NATO but he said hey Mark, it's not a fair deal. How can it be that you have 600 million people living in Europe, the richest part of the world, big economies like Germany and the Netherlands and Italy and France and all the other nations together defending of course including with the US against 140 million Russians and then you are overly dependent on the United States. That's not fair and he's right and that's what he settled in The Hague. I think that was his leadership extremely important. So committed to NATO but also expecting us all to do more. And when it comes to Iran, clearly he was disappointed. What I pointed out again is this is about isolated cases. Massively Europeans have done what the United States bilaterally negotiated with the European countries.
Okay. Uh this man here. Yes, please.
Yeah. Thank you... from the Danish news agency. Danish news agency. Uh Mark, you sit next to Donald Trump in moments where he talks about conquering Greenland, talks about lashing out at allies like Spain, starting trade wars, things that it doesn't seem like the old Mark would approve of. Does this have any effect on your self-respect when you sit next to him like that and say nothing?
You know, what I always do is acknowledge when praise is due. And I think we should praise Donald Trump for the fact that NATO is so much stronger. Of course, it has to do with the Russian threat. It has to do with the war in Ukraine, but it very much also has to do with President Trump delivering now what since Eisenhower the United States tried to achieve, equalizing spending between the US and Europe. And it makes Europe stronger. It makes Europe more relevant for the United States as a partner. So that is the transformative character of this summit, of what happened in The Hague, implementation since The Hague, this summit as a point in time where we take stock and I think that's extremely important. And when it comes to Greenland, I already explained we had the meeting in Davos and I said I agree with you when it comes to Russia, when it comes to China gaining access to the high north but let's do this together, we have NATO for this, let's work together on this, this is exactly what we are doing.
Okay we have very little time and still lots and lots of questions so the woman who's standing here.
Thank you very much. Uh thank you Secretary General. Yes, Al Akan from the Epoch Times, New York-based media outlet. Um I would I have a question on Russia. Uh Russia is facing energy crisis, fuel shortages. Uh entire country is facing gasoline shortages. How do you see this impacting the war in Ukraine? And do you ask or do you expect President Trump to impose more sanctions on Russia?
Well, clearly Ukraine is very successful in hitting the energy infrastructure in Russia. They in Odesa yesterday they claimed and I think the Russians almost, well I have this from you from the media. So I didn't get this confirmed from other sources but I guess you reported this correctly some of you did at least yesterday that they have been successful in striking deep into Russia which was one of the biggest refinery plants in Russia and this is part of a pattern over the last two months where the Ukrainians are more and more successful in hitting the vital energy infrastructure in Russia. This is having an impact on people driving cars ending up at the gasoline stations. There was news yesterday that they had to put out mobile toilets because people had to wait all night for gasoline. Well, I can assure you one thing as a politician. In the 16th, 17th century, you had to make sure there was enough bread. In the 21st century, you have to make sure there's enough gasoline. Your voters don't like it if they cannot fill up their cars. And of course, this is having an impact on the Russian economy. At the same time, you have a Russian president which is willing to sacrifice up to 35,000 of his own young men in this crazy war against Ukraine, totally unprovoked. So again, to any Russian young man listening, if you contemplate joining the war effort, think again. You might be one of those 30 to 35,000 this month, next month, the month after because your president somehow doesn't care. He is willing to sacrifice you. So this is what is happening. And I know that the US and the European Union sanctions is not NATO. But the EU and European countries and the US and the United Kingdom are constantly coordinating when it comes to sanctions and to see what can be done.
Okay, I think we have two more questions. So the man in the orange tie here in the sixth row.
Hi Johannes Petra, Austrian National Television and Radio. Um, I'm just curious about what NATO at the end of the day is really about. We heard a lot about defense spending and about following interests and about hard power politics, let's say. I was wondering also because we find ourselves in an autocracy where journalists are being arrested. What values does NATO represent, if any, and are those values shared by all 32 members? Thank you.
NATO is a defensive alliance defending 1 billion people living in NATO territory. That's the United States, that's Canada and 30 countries in Europe. We are defensive. We will never attack another country. Never. We are a defensive alliance. But we will make absolutely sure that if anyone else does not wish as well and tries to attack us that they know that our reaction will be very forceful, that we can defend ourselves, etc. And that is for a reason. First of all, because I strongly believe in the 21st century that you should not attack another country like the Russians have done with Ukraine. It's kind of crazy to do that. It's a playbook of the 19th century or the 20th century. We don't do this in grown-up democracies anymore in the 21st century. So that's one, but also because there are values at stake. Democracy, and democracy as a central tenet, is not only free vote. Democracy is also you, the free media, that you can report, that you can try to find out what happened behind the scenes. Politicians not always liking what you find. But if it is fair, hey, it's your role and your job to do that. It's part of democracy. And the third pillar of democracy is that your societies have the ability to make their views known. And they do this sometimes through demonstrations and that is always should be possible. And that means that journalists should always be able in person to participate in big news events.
Okay, final question. That's all we have time for. We're going to go to the fifth row on the aisle here.
Um, thank you, Secretary General. Um, Sachio from...
Oh, we have more hands, more than one hand. Yes.
Sachio from NHK, the public TV station of Japan. Thank you. Um, I'd like to ask about the IP4. Do you think it was important to have at least the representatives of all IP4 countries present in Ankara considering the challenges NATO faces from China? And this is the second year not having all the leaders present at the summit, but do you already have any ideas on how to engage again at the leaders level with them?
Yes. Well, the president of the Republic of Korea was here so I had the opportunity to get to know him better. He and the first lady participated in a dinner last night and we had very senior representatives at the level of defense ministers and or foreign ministers of New Zealand, Australia and Japan. So I myself have my engagement with the leaders of these nations. So it's not necessary that always all the leaders are here. I was very happy to meet the Korean president because he is relatively new. We spoke a couple of times on the phone. This gives the opportunity to get to know each other better and I traveled myself last year to Japan and I might do other trips to the IP4 countries in the future because this is an important relationship and we said yesterday it is important because this is about the acknowledgement that the two theaters in the Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic are more and more interconnected. You cannot separate the two. That doesn't mean that you want to extend Article 5 to the Indo-Pacific. That's not the goal. The goal is to work as much together on defense industry, on innovation, on standards, also exchanging views on defense spending, how to do that in the best way. We have now experienced in NATO not to prescribe in detail how many tanks or how many fighter jets, but what should be the battlefield outcomes we want to achieve by each nation's contribution to the collective defense. So this was a very useful discussion. I think we all felt it. Allison, there is one lady over there who really tried for some time. Is it okay if we do one more?
It's you and then we stop because I think there are other presidents and prime ministers also wanting to address you and get your questions.
Thank you so much for this opportunity. Anti-Turkey rhetoric continues to flow from Greece which persists in its illegal militarization activities in the Aegean. Greek Prime Minister Mitsotakis stated that his country still faces an open threat of war from Turkey. How are these statements by Greece received between the allies? Thank you.
Yes, but I've said before when it came to other issues sometimes between allies and it can always happen. We have an alliance of 32 nations. So there might be bilateral discussions and then obviously unavoidably I will get the question what is my view on this? But of course I'm not a commentator. I'm there to maintain the unity, at least trying to do my best to maintain the unity of the alliance. And that means that when there are discussions or sometimes irritants between allies that I do not comment in public so that I can be behind the scenes if necessary if so wanted by any of the discussing countries, helpful.
Thank you so much. It was really great to see you on Monday to see you today, earlier today. You're amazing. See you next time. Thanks.
Thanks very much.
Tremendously successful NATO summit here in Ankara. There was a great sense of unity. Allies warmly welcomed President Trump's leadership that is transforming this alliance and making it stronger. The message from this summit is simple. NATO delivers. One year ago in The Hague allies took historic decisions to strengthen our alliance. Here in Ankara, excellently hosted by President Erdogan, we have demonstrated that those commitments are now being put into practice across the alliance. Defense investment continues to rise. New capabilities are being delivered. Industry is expanding production and European allies and Canada are assuming greater responsibility for our shared security. Together, these are the foundations for a stronger, a fairer, and a more capable NATO.
Allies reviewed the significant progress already made towards investing 5% of GDP in defense by 2035. Already measuring 4% just one year into a 10-year project. So the momentum is clear. Allies continue to increase both core defense spending and broader investment that strengthen our security. They are generating the capabilities our defense plans require and stepping up the contribution to NATO's collective deterrence and defense. This is not simply about spending more. It is about ensuring that our armed forces have what they need to keep our 1 billion people safe in a more dangerous world. Our focus has now shifted decisively from setting targets to delivering results. That means accelerating production, breaking down barriers, boosting resilience, investing in innovation, and working with partners to maximize cooperation.
The NATO summit defense industry forum demonstrated the determination of governments and industry to work together with greater speed and ambition. And the numbers are staggering, including over $50 billion in new procurement deals in just one day. We also launched a new major initiative, NATO's drone edge, which will see $40 billion invested by allies in uncrewed systems over the next 5 years. And big deals with US and European industry, including Triton from Northrop Grumman and our new AEX from SAP. These new investments and industrial commitments announced here will help strengthen our collective defense while supporting innovation, economic growth, and of course skilled jobs across the whole of the alliance.
This work must continue and that's why I'm happy to announce that allies are taking a historic step to enhance NATO's fuel supply chain to ensure our forces have the energy supplies they need for war fighting readiness. While allies continue to finalize the details, we know that this 27 billion euro investment will modernize our existing fuel storage and distribution infrastructure and support new facilities including pipelines towards the eastern part of the alliance. We're also ensuring that we are using technology to our advantage, including through the adoption of powerful AI models and the development of an interoperable transatlantic war fighting cloud. So here again, credible deterrence and defense depends on what we deliver and we are delivering.
Allies also reaffirmed NATO's unwavering support for Ukraine. As Russia continues its war, we will continue to ensure Ukraine gets what it needs. Allies pledged to provide at least 70 billion euros in military equipment, assistance, and training for Ukraine this year and again next year as we continue to press for peace. As Ukraine shifts the dynamics on the battlefield, our support must continue. This summit has shown that the alliance is stronger than ever. An alliance that is united and ready to defend every inch of our territory. Here in Ankara, allies reaffirmed their ironclad commitment to the collective defense under Article 5 that an attack on one is an attack on all and we will stand together. Our unity, solidarity, and collective strength remain the foundation of peace, security, 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 and 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.
Mayan, 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 one 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 fail, 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, 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 as evidence of that. And I always know that President Trump and the US has 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 a 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. 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 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. Um, about halfway up on the right, I think I see Reuters.
Ah, sorry. There you are.
Yeah.
Okay. Yeah, we made it. Um, I'm from Reuters. Thank you very much for the question. Um, Secretary General, um, we've heard
President Trump talks a lot about the need to boost spending on defense, and you yourself have emphasized that European allies and 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 dollars spent more in two years, Canada and 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 dollars 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 target.
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. The man here. Yes. Thanks.
Hi, sir. Thank you, Allison. Thank you, Mr. Secretary General. You mentioned that commitment from NATO. I'm John Decker from Gray 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 S-400 missile system that Turkey possesses. Are you comfortable with that Russian missile system in the hands of a NATO ally?
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... 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 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 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.
Secretary General, Henry Foy, Financial Times. Thank you. Can I hold it? You can trust me.
Henry, Financial Times. Nice to see you.
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.
What the president and I agreed in Davos in January is, first of all, 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 NORAD. So that means Canada with NORAD 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 made in the future, 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 intercontinental ballistic 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 the 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. Il Mazaken from Alazer. My question is, President Trump was mentioning today that the peace deal is over for me with Iran, and just a couple minutes ago he said we will hit them hard tonight. So what is NATO's standing in this, especially as there are certain countries like Spain that are not really collaborative with NATO allies? Will NATO really fully support these attacks or be involved, especially when the topic comes to...
Well, first, 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 intercontinental ballistic 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.
Okay. All right. Towards the center in the eighth row. Do we have a mic moving? Is she already there? Now you have to look at her. She decides, Ellison decides. I see a gentleman there. Making our way. And then once you're there, please stay there because we'll take a few in the neighborhood.
Thank you so much. Deborah Haynes from Sky News.
Thank you. You know Donald Trump well. Can you just give a sense from your perspective? Do you think that he is more committed and more enthusiastic about NATO and NATO membership now than he was a year ago, given all the allies have done in terms of ramping up defense spending? Or are you seeing that these outbursts against the UK and others over failing to join the fight against Iran, his desire for Greenland, that actually he is as unhappy as ever before with NATO, maybe even more so? And could I have a clarification from what you said earlier about Iran? Are you saying that NATO actually would support the US militarily in terms of its operation in Iran?
What I said is that Iran is outside NATO territory. NATO has a political position. You can also see that in the summit declaration that Iran should not get a nuclear capability, that the state of Hamas should open up, and NATO has always taken the position that when it comes to the intercontinental ballistic missile capability, Iran should not get its hands on it. But this is outside NATO territory. So this is individual allies navigating this with the United States. On your first question, I mean, I always felt that families where sometimes you have heart-to-hearts and sometimes you fight each other a bit are much stronger than families where you have, oh, let's not disagree and let's keep things nice and unity. That's a bit fake. I always felt I love it when sometimes between friends you can fight each other because it makes you stronger. And President Trump is not a person who keeps his views to himself. So on two issues he was very clear. One is that Europe had to step up and this had to do with NATO. He was committed to NATO, is committed to NATO, but he said, 'Hey, Mark, it's not a fair deal. How can it be that you have 600 million people living in Europe, the richest part of the world, big economies like Germany and the Netherlands and Italy and France and all the other nations together defending, of course, including with the US, against 140 million Russians, and then you are overly dependent on the United States. That's not fair.' And he's right. And that's what he settled in The Hague. I think that was his leadership, extremely important. So committed to NATO but also expecting us all to do more. And when it comes to Iran, clearly he was disappointed. What I pointed out again is this is about isolated cases. Massively Europeans have done what the United States bilaterally negotiated with the European countries.
Okay. This man here. Yes, please.
Yeah. Hey, Rasmus Rainbow from the Danish news agency. Mark, you sit next to Donald Trump in moments where he talks about conquering Greenland, talks about lashing out at allies like Spain, starting trade wars, things that it doesn't seem like the old Mark would approve of. Does this have any effect on your self-respect when you sit next to him like that and say nothing?
You know, what I always do is acknowledge when praise is due. And I think we should praise Donald Trump for the fact that NATO is so much stronger. Of course, it has to do with the Russian threat. It has to do with the war in Ukraine, but it very much also has to do with President Trump delivering now what since Eisenhower the United States tried to achieve, equalizing spending between the US and Europe. And it makes Europe stronger. Makes Europe more relevant for the United States as a partner. So that is the transformative character of this summit, of what happened in The Hague, the implementation since The Hague, this summit as a point in time where we take stock. And I think that is extremely important. And when it comes to Greenland, I already explained we had the meeting in Davos and I said I agree with you when it comes to Russia, when it comes to China gaining access to the high north, but let's do this together. We have NATO for this. Let's work together on this. This is exactly what we are...
Okay, we have very little time and still lots and lots of questions. So, the woman who's standing here.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Secretary General. Yes. Hi, Alkan from the Epoch Times, New York-based media outlet. I have a question on Russia. Russia is facing an energy crisis, fuel shortages. The entire country is facing gasoline shortages. How do you see this impacting the war in Ukraine? And do you ask or do you expect President Trump to impose more sanctions on Russia?
Well, clearly Ukraine is very successful in hitting the energy infrastructure in Russia. Yesterday they claimed, and I think the Russians almost... well, I have this from the media. So I didn't get this confirmed from other sources, but I guess you reported this correctly, some of you did at least yesterday, that they have been successful in striking deep into Russia, which was one of the biggest refinery plants in Russia. And this is part of a pattern over the last two months where the Ukrainians are more and more successful in hitting the vital energy infrastructure in Russia. This is having an impact on people driving cars ending up at the gasoline stations. There was news yesterday that they had to put out mobile toilets because people had to wait all night for gasoline. Well, I can assure you one thing as a politician. In the 16th, 17th century, you had to make sure there was enough bread. In the 21st century, you have to make sure there's enough gasoline. Your voters don't like it if they cannot fill up their cars. And of course, this is having an impact on the Russian economy. At the same time, you have a Russian president who is willing to sacrifice up to 35,000 of his own young men in this crazy war against Ukraine, totally unprovoked. So again, to any Russian young men listening, if you contemplate joining the war effort, think again. You might be one of those 30 to 35,000 this month, next month, the month after, because your president somehow doesn't care. He is willing to sacrifice you. So this is what is happening. And I know that the US and the European Union sanctions is not NATO. But the EU and European countries and the US and the United Kingdom are constantly coordinating when it comes to sanctions and to see what can be done.
Okay, I think we have two more questions. So the man in the orange tie here in the sixth row.
Hi, Johannes Petra, Austrian National Television and Radio. I'm just curious about what NATO at the end of the day is really about. We heard a lot about defense spending and about following interests and about hard power politics, let's say. I was wondering also because we find ourselves in an autocracy where journalists are being arrested. What values does NATO represent, if any, and are those values shared by all 32 members? Thank you.
NATO is a defensive alliance defending 1 billion people living in NATO territory. That's the United States, that's Canada and 30 countries in Europe. We are defensive. We will never attack another country. Never. We are a defensive alliance. But we will make absolutely sure that if anyone else does not wish us well and tries to attack us, that they know that our reaction will be very forceful, that we can defend ourselves, etc. And that is for a reason. First of all, because I strongly believe in the 21st century that you should not attack another country like the Russians have done with Ukraine. It's kind of crazy to do that. It's a playbook of the 19th century or the 20th century. We don't do this in grown-up democracies anymore in the 21st century. So that's one. But also because there are values at stake. Democracy, and democracy as a central element, is not only free vote. Democracy is also you, the free media, that you can report, that you can try to find out what happened behind the scenes. Politicians not always liking what you find. But if it is fair, hey, it's your role and your job to do that. It's part of democracy. And a third pillar of democracy is that your societies have the ability to make their views known. And they do this sometimes through demonstrations. And that should always be possible. And that means that journalists should always be able in person to participate in big news events.
Okay, final question. That's all we have time for. We're going to go to the fifth row on the aisle here.
Thank you, Secretary General. Sachio from... Yes. Hi. Oh, we have more hands. More than one hand. Yes. Sachio from NHK, the public TV station of Japan. Thank you. I'd like to ask about the IP4. Do you think it was important to have at least the representatives of all IP4 countries present in Ankara, considering the challenges NATO faces from China? And this is the second year not having all the leaders present at the summit, but do you already have any ideas on how to engage again at the leaders' level with them?
Yes. Well, the president of the Republic of Korea was here so I had the opportunity to get to know him better. He and the first lady participated in a dinner last night and we had very senior representatives at the level of defense ministers and or foreign ministers of New Zealand, Australia and Japan. So I myself have my engagement with the leaders of these nations. So it's not necessary that always all the leaders are here. I was very happy to meet the Korean president because he is relatively new. We spoke a couple of times on the phone. This gives the opportunity to get to know each other better. And I traveled myself last year to Japan and I might do other trips to the IP4 countries in the future because this is an important relationship. And we said yesterday it is important because this is about the acknowledgement that the two theaters in the Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic are more and more interconnected. You cannot separate the two. That doesn't mean that you want to extend Article 5 to the Indo-Pacific. That's not the goal. The goal is to work as much together on defense industry, on innovation, on standards, also exchanging views on defense spending, how to do that in the best way. We have now experienced a NATO not to prescribe in detail how many tanks or how many fighter jets, but what should be the battlefield outcomes we want to achieve by each nation's contribution to the collective defense. So, this was a very useful discussion. I think we all felt that.
Allison, there is one lady over there who really tried for some time. Is it okay if we do one more? One more. It's you and then we stop because I think there are other presidents and prime ministers also wanting to address you and get your questions.
Thank you so much for this opportunity. Anti-Turkey rhetoric continues to flow from Greece which persists in its illegal militarization activities in the Aegean. Greek Prime Minister Mitsotakis stated my country still faces an open threat of war from Turkey. How are these statements by Greece received between the allies? Thank you.
Yes. But well, I've said before when it came to other issues, sometimes between allies, and it can always happen. We have an alliance of 32 nations. So there might be bilateral discussions and then obviously unavoidably I will get the question what is my view on this? But of course I'm not a commentator. I'm there to maintain the unity, at least trying to do my best to maintain the unity of the alliance. And that means that when there are discussions or sometimes irritants between allies, that I do not comment in public, so that I can be behind the scenes if necessary, if so wanted by any of the discussing countries, helpful.
Thank you so much. It was really great to see you on Monday, to see you today earlier today. You're amazing. See you next time. Thanks.
Thanks very much. A tremendously successful NATO summit here in Ankara. There was a great sense of unity. Allies warmly welcomed President Trump's leadership that is transforming this alliance and making it stronger. The message from this summit is simple. NATO delivers.
One year ago in The Hague, allies took historic decisions to strengthen our alliance. Here in Ankara, excellently hosted by President Erdogan, we have demonstrated that those commitments are now being put into practice. Across the alliance, defense investment continues to rise. New capabilities are being delivered. Industry is expanding production. And European allies and Canada are assuming greater responsibility for our shared security together. These are the foundations for a stronger, a fairer, and a more capable NATO.
Allies reviewed the significant progress already made towards investing 5% of GDP in defense by 2035, already measuring 4% just one year into a 10-year project. So the momentum is clear. Allies continue to increase both core defense spending and broader investments that strengthen our security. They are generating the capabilities our defense plans require and stepping up the contribution to NATO's collective deterrence and defense.
This is not simply about spending more. It is about ensuring that our armed forces have what they need to keep our 1 billion people safe in a more dangerous world. Our focus has now shifted decisively from setting targets to delivering results. That means accelerating production, breaking down barriers, boosting resilience, investing in innovation, and working with partners to maximize cooperation.
The NATO summit defense industry forum demonstrated the determination of governments and industry to work together with greater speed and ambition. And the numbers are staggering, including over 50 billion dollars in new procurement deals in just one day. We also launched a new major initiative, NATO's Drone Edge, which will see 40 billion dollars invested by allies in uncrewed systems over the next 5 years, and big deals with US and European industry, including Triton from Northrop Grumman and our new AEX from SAP. These new investments and industrial commitments announced here will help strengthen our collective defense while supporting innovation, economic growth, and of course skilled jobs across the whole of the alliance.
This work must continue and that's why I'm happy to announce that allies are taking a historic step to enhance NATO's fuel supply chain to ensure our forces have the energy supplies they need for war fighting readiness. While allies continue to finalize the details, we know that this 27 billion euro investment will modernize our existing fuel storage and distribution infrastructure and support new facilities including pipelines towards the eastern part of the alliance. We're also ensuring that we are using technology to our advantage, including through the adoption of powerful AI models and the development of an interoperable transatlantic war fighting cloud. So here again, credible deterrence and defense depends on what we deliver and we are delivering.
Allies also reaffirmed NATO's unwavering support for Ukraine. As Russia continues its war, we will continue to ensure Ukraine gets what it needs. Allies pledged to provide at least 70 billion euros in military equipment, assistance, and training for Ukraine this year and again next year, as we continue to press for peace. As Ukraine shifts the dynamics on the battlefield, our support must continue. This summit has shown that the alliance is stronger than ever. An alliance that is united and ready to defend every inch of our territory. Here in Ankara, allies reaffirmed their ironclad commitment to the collective defense under Article 5, that an attack on one is an attack on all, and we will stand together.
Our unity, solidarity, and collective strength remain the foundation of peace, security, 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 and 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...
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 one 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 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, today as 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. 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 and a 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.
Oh, okay. Yeah, we made it. I'm Millie Bayer from Reuters. Thank you very much. Secretary General, we've heard President Trump talk a lot about the need to boost spending on defense, and you yourself have emphasized that European allies and 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 dollars spent more in two years, Canada and 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 dollars 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 target.
All right. Let's come to the front row here. Could I get a mic down in the center? If you can come down past the barrier, it's easier. The man here. Yes. Thanks.
Hi, sir. Thank you, Allison. Thank you, Mr. Secretary General. You mentioned that commitment from NATO. I'm John Decker from Gray 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 S-400 missile system that Turkey possesses. Are you comfortable with that Russian missile system in the hands of a NATO ally?
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... 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 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 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.
Secretary General, Henry Foy, Financial Times. Thank you. Can I hold it? You can trust me.
Henry, Financial Times. Nice to see you.
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.
What the president and I agreed in Davos in January is, first of all, 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 NORAD. So that means Canada with NORAD 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 made in the future, 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 intercontinental ballistic 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 the 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 Alazer. My question is, President Trump was mentioning today that the peace deal is over for me with Iran, and just a couple minutes ago he said we will hit them hard tonight. So what is NATO's standing in this, especially as there are certain countries like Spain that are not really collaborative with NATO allies? Will NATO really fully support these attacks or be involved, especially when the topic comes to...
Well, first, 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 intercontinental ballistic 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.
Okay. All right. Towards the center in the eighth row. Do we have a mic moving? Is she already there? Now you have to look at her. She decides, Ellison decides. I see a gentleman there. Making our way. And then once you're there, please stay there because we'll take a few in the neighborhood.
Thank you so much. Deborah Haynes from Sky News.
Thank you. You know Donald Trump well. Can you just give a sense from your perspective? Do you think that he is more committed and more enthusiastic about NATO and NATO membership now than he was a year ago, given all the allies have done in terms of ramping up defense spending? Or are you seeing that these outbursts against the UK and others over failing to join the fight against Iran, his desire for Greenland, that actually he is as unhappy as ever before with NATO, maybe even more so? And could I have a clarification from what you said earlier about Iran? Are you saying that NATO actually would support the US militarily in terms of its operation in Iran?
What I said is that Iran is outside NATO territory. NATO has a political position. You can also see that in the summit declaration that Iran should not get a nuclear capability, that the state of Hamas should open up, and NATO has always taken the position that when it comes to the intercontinental ballistic missile capability, Iran should not get its hands on it. But this is outside NATO territory.
should open up and NATO has always taken the position that when it comes to the intercontinental ballistic missile capability, Iran should not get its hands on it. But this is outside NATO territory. So this is individual allies navigating this with the United States. On your first question, I mean, I always felt that families where sometimes you have heart-to-hearts and sometimes you fight each other a bit are much stronger than families where you have, oh, let's not disagree and let's keep things nice and unity. That's a bit fake. I always felt I love it when sometimes between friends you can fight each other because it makes you stronger. And President Trump is not a person who keeps his views to himself. So on two issues he was very clear. One is that Europe had to step up and this had to do with NATO. He was committed to NATO, is committed to NATO, but he said, hey Mark, it's not a fair deal. How can it be that you have 600 million people living in Europe, the richest part of the world, big economies like Germany and the Netherlands and Italy and France and all the other nations together defending, of course including with the US, against 140 million Russians and then you are overly dependent on the United States. That's not fair. And he's right and that's what he settled in the Hague. I think that was his leadership, extremely important. So committed to NATO but also expecting us all to do more. And when it comes to Iran, clearly he was disappointed. What I pointed out again is this is about isolated cases. Massively Europeans have done what the United States bilaterally negotiated with the European countries.
Okay. This man here. Yes please.
Yeah. Thank you. Rasmus Rainbow from the Danish news agency. Mark, you sit next to Donald Trump in moments where he talks about conquering Greenland, talks about lashing out at allies like Spain, starting trade wars, things that it doesn't seem like the old Mark would approve of. Does this have any effect on your self-respect when you sit next to him like that and say nothing?
You know, what I always do is acknowledge when praise is due. And I think we should praise Donald Trump for the fact that NATO is so much stronger. Of course, it has to do with the Russian threat. It has to do with the war in Ukraine. But it very much also has to do with President Trump delivering now what since Eisenhower the United States tried to achieve: equalizing spending between the US and Europe. And it makes Europe stronger. It makes Europe more relevant for the United States as a partner. So that is the transformative character of this summit, of what happened in the Hague, the implementation since the Hague, this summit as a point in time where we take stock and I think that is extremely important. And when it comes to Greenland, I already explained we had the meeting in Davos and I said I agree with you when it comes to Russia, when it comes to China gaining access to the high north, but let's do this together. We have NATO for this. Let's work together on this. This is exactly what we are doing.
Okay, we have very little time and still lots and lots of questions. So, the woman who's standing here.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Secretary General. Yes, I am Al Akan from the Epoch Times, New York-based media outlet. I have a question on Russia. Russia is facing energy crisis, fuel shortages. The entire country is facing gasoline shortages. How do you see this impacting the war in Ukraine? And do you ask or do you expect President Trump to impose more sanctions on Russia?
Well, clearly Ukraine is very successful in hitting the energy infrastructure in Russia. Yesterday they claimed, and I think the Russians almost, well I have this from the media. So I didn't get this confirmed from other sources but I guess you reported this correctly, some of you did at least yesterday, that they have been successful in striking deep into Russia which was one of the biggest refinery plants in Russia. And this is part of a pattern over the last two months where the Ukrainians are more and more successful in hitting the vital energy infrastructure in Russia. This is having an impact on people driving cars ending up at the gasoline stations. There was news yesterday that they had to put out mobile toilets because people had to wait all night for gasoline. Well, I can assure you one thing as a politician. In the 16th, 17th century, you had to make sure there was enough bread. In the 21st century, you have to make sure there's enough gasoline. Your voters don't like it if they cannot fill up their cars. And of course, this is having an impact on the Russian economy. At the same time, you have a Russian president which is willing to sacrifice up to 35,000 of his own young men in this crazy war against Ukraine, totally unprovoked. So again, to any Russian young men listening, if you contemplate joining the war effort, think again. You might be one of those 30 to 35,000 this month, next month, the month after because your president somehow doesn't care. He is willing to sacrifice you. So this is what is happening. And I know that the US and the European Union sanctions is not NATO. But the EU and European countries and the US and the United Kingdom are constantly coordinating when it comes to sanctions and to see what can be done.
Okay, I think we have two more questions. So the man in the orange tie here in the sixth row.
Hi, Johannes Petra, Austrian National Television and Radio. I'm just curious about what NATO at the end of the day is really about. We heard a lot about defense spending and about following interests and about hard power politics, let's say. I was wondering also because we find ourselves in an autocracy where journalists are being arrested. What values does NATO represent, if any, and are those values shared by all 32 members? Thank you.
NATO is a defensive alliance defending 1 billion people living in NATO territory. That's the United States, that's Canada and 30 countries in Europe. We are defensive. We will never attack another country. Never. We are a defensive alliance. But we will make absolutely sure that if anyone else does not wish us well and tries to attack us that they know that our reaction will be very forceful, that we can defend ourselves, etc. And that is for a reason. First of all, because I strongly believe in the 21st century that you should not attack another country like the Russians have done with Ukraine. It's kind of crazy to do that. It's a playbook of the 19th century or the 20th century. We don't do this in grown-up democracies anymore in the 21st century. So that's one, but also because there are values at stake. Democracy, and democracy as a central tenet, is not only free vote. Democracy is also you, the free media, that you can report, that you can try to find out what happened behind the scenes. Politicians not always liking what you find. But if it is fair, hey, it's your role and your job to do that. It's part of democracy. And the third pillar of democracy is that your societies have the ability to make their views known. And they do this sometimes through demonstrations. And that always should be possible. And that means that journalists should always be able in person to participate in big news events.
Okay, final question. That's all we have time for. We're going to go to the fifth row on the aisle here.
Thank you, Secretary General. Sachio from NHK, the public TV station of Japan. Thank you. I'd like to ask about the IP4. Do you think it was important to have at least the representatives of all IP4 countries present in Ankara considering the challenges NATO faces from China? And this is the second year not having all the leaders present at the summit, but do you already have any ideas on how to engage again at the leaders level with them?
Yes. Well, the president of the Republic of Korea was here so I had the opportunity to get to know him better. He and the first lady participated in a dinner last night and we had very senior representatives at the level of defense ministers and or foreign ministers of New Zealand, Australia and Japan. So I myself have my engagement with the leaders of these nations. So it's not necessary that always all the leaders are here. I was very happy to meet the Korean president because he is relatively new. We spoke a couple of times on the phone. This gives the opportunity to get to know each other better and I traveled myself last year to Japan and I might do other trips to the IP4 countries in the future because this is an important relationship and we said yesterday it is important because this is about the acknowledgement that the two theaters in the Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic are more and more interconnected. You cannot separate the two. That doesn't mean that you want to extend Article 5 to the Indo-Pacific. That's not the goal. The goal is to work as much together on defense industry, on innovation, on standards, also exchanging views on defense spending, how to do that in the best way. We have now experienced in NATO not to prescribe in detail how many tanks or how many fighter jets, but what should be the battlefield outcomes we want to achieve by each nation's contribution to the collective defense. So, this was a very useful discussion. I think we all felt that. Allison, there is one lady over there who really tried for some time. Is it okay if we do one more?
It's you and then we stop because I think there are other presidents and prime ministers also wanting to address you and get your questions.
Thank you so much for this opportunity. Anti-Turkey rhetoric continues to flow from Greece which persists in its illegal militarization activities in the Aegean. Greek Prime Minister Mitsotakis stated my country still faces an open threat of war from Turkey. How are these statements by Greece received between the allies? Thank you.
Yes. Well, I've said before when it came to other issues sometimes between allies and it can always happen. We have an alliance of 32 nations. So there might be bilateral discussions and then obviously unavoidably I will get the question what is my view on this? But of course I'm not a commentator. I'm there to maintain the unity, at least trying to do my best to maintain the unity of the alliance. And that means that when there are discussions or sometimes irritants between allies that I do not comment in public so that I can be behind the scenes if necessary if so wanted by any of the discussing countries, helpful.
Thank you so much. It was really great to see you on Monday to see you today earlier today. You're amazing. See you next time. Thanks.
Thanks very much. A tremendously successful NATO summit here in Ankara. There was a great sense of unity. Allies warmly welcomed President Trump's leadership that is transforming this alliance and making it stronger. The message from this summit is simple. NATO delivers. One year ago in the Hague allies took historic decisions to strengthen our alliance. Here in Ankara, excellently hosted by President Erdogan, we have demonstrated that those commitments are now being put into practice. Across the alliance, defense investment continues to rise. New capabilities are being delivered. Industry is expanding production. And European allies and Canada are assuming greater responsibility for our shared security. Together, these are the foundations for a stronger, a fairer, and a more capable NATO. Allies reviewed the significant progress already made towards investing 5% of GDP in defense by 2035. Already measuring 4% just one year into a 10-year project. So the momentum is clear. Allies continue to increase both core defense spending and broader investments that strengthen our security. They are generating the capabilities our defense plans require and stepping up the contribution to NATO's collective deterrence and defense. This is not simply about spending more. It is about ensuring that our armed forces have what they need to keep our 1 billion people safe in a more dangerous world. Our focus has now shifted decisively from setting targets to delivering results. That means accelerating production, breaking down barriers, boosting resilience, investing in innovation, and working with partners to maximize cooperation. The NATO summit defense industry forum demonstrated the determination of governments and industry to work together with greater speed and ambition. And the numbers are staggering, including over $50 billion in new procurement deals in just one day. We also launched a new major initiative, NATO's drone edge, which will see $40 billion invested by allies in uncrewed systems over the next 5 years and big deals with US and European industry including Triton from Northrop Grumman and our new AEX from SAP. These new investments and industrial commitments announced here will help strengthen our collective defense while supporting innovation, economic growth, and of course skilled jobs across the whole of the alliance. This work must continue and that's why I'm happy to announce that allies are taking a historic step to enhance NATO's fuel supply chain to ensure our forces have the energy supplies they need for war fighting readiness. While allies continue to finalize the details, we know that this 27 billion euro investment will modernize our existing fuel storage and distribution infrastructure and support new facilities including pipelines towards the eastern part of the alliance. We're also ensuring that we are using technology to our advantage, including through the adoption of powerful AI models and the development of an interoperable transatlantic war fighting cloud. So here again, credible deterrence and defense depends on what we deliver and we are delivering. Allies also reaffirmed NATO's unwavering support for Ukraine. As Russia continues its war, we will continue to ensure Ukraine gets what it needs. Allies pledged to provide at least 70 billion euros in military equipment, assistance, and training for Ukraine this year and again next year as we continue to press for peace. As Ukraine shifts the dynamics on the battlefield, our support must continue. This summit has shown that the alliance is stronger than ever. An alliance that is united and ready to defend every inch of our territory. Here in Ankara, allies reaffirmed their ironclad commitment to the collective defense under Article 5. That an attack on one is an attack on all and we will stand together. Our unity, solidarity, and collective strength remain the foundation of peace, security, 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 and 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.
Mayan 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 one 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 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, as 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 a 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. 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 and a 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.
Oh, okay. Yeah, we made it. I'm Millie Bayer 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 and 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 to 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 target.
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.
The man here. Yes. Thanks. Hi, 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 S-400 missile system that Turkey possesses. Are you comfortable with that Russian missile system in the hands of a NATO ally? That's my second question.
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 Putin. 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 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 terror. He's meeting now as we speak with President 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.
Secretary General, Henry Foy, Financial Times. Thank you. Can I hold it? You can trust me. Henry. Financial Times. Nice to see you. 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.
What the president and 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 NORAD and NORSCOM. So that means Canada with NORAD 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 the 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 made in the future, 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 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 intercontinental ballistic 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.
Media. 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 the 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. 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. Mazaka from Al Jazeera. My question is President Trump was mentioning today that the peace deal is over for me 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, will NATO really fully support this, you know, attacks or involve especially when the topic comes straight of...
Well 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 intercontinental ballistic 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.
Okay. All right. Towards the center in the eighth row. Do we have a mic moving? Is she already there? Now you have to look at her. She decides, Allison decides. I see a gentleman there. Making our way. And then once you're there, please stay there because we'll take a few in the neighborhood.
Thank you so much. Deborah Haynes from Sky News. Good to see you. Thank you. You know Donald Trump well. Can you just give a sense from your perspective? Do you think that he is more committed and more enthusiastic about NATO and NATO membership now than he was a year ago given all the allies have done in terms of ramping up defense spending? Or are you seeing that these outbursts against the UK and others over failing to join the fight against Iran, his desire for Greenland, that actually he is as unhappy as ever before with NATO, maybe even more so? And could I have a clarification from what you said earlier about Iran. Are you saying that NATO actually would support the US militarily in terms of its operation in Iran?
What I said is that NATO is, Iran is outside NATO territory. NATO has a political position. You can also see that in the summit declaration that Iran should not get a nuclear capability, that the state of Hamas should open up and NATO has always taken the position that when it comes to the intercontinental ballistic missile capability Iran should not get its hands on it but this is outside NATO territory. So this is individual allies navigating this with the United States. On your first question. I mean, I always felt that families where sometimes you have heart-to-hearts and sometimes you fight each other a bit are much stronger than families where you have, oh, let's not disagree and let's keep things nice and unity. That's a bit fake. I always felt I love it when sometimes between friends you can fight each other because it makes you stronger. And President Trump is not a person who keeps his views to himself. So on two issues he was very clear. One is that Europe had to step up and this had to do with NATO. He was committed to NATO, he is committed to NATO, but he said, hey Mark, it's not a fair deal. How can it be that you have 600 million people living in Europe, the richest part of the world, big economies like Germany and the Netherlands and Italy and France and all the other nations together defending, of course including with the US, against 140 million Russians and then you are overly dependent on the United States. That's not fair. And he's right and that's what he settled in the Hague. I think that was his leadership, extremely important. So committed to NATO but also expecting us all to do more. And when it comes to Iran, clearly he was disappointed. What I pointed out again is this is about isolated cases. Massively Europeans have done what the United States bilaterally negotiated with the European countries.
Okay. This man here. Yes, please.
Yeah, thank you. Rasmus from the Danish news agency. Mark, you sit next to Donald Trump in moments where he talks about conquering Greenland, talks about lashing out at allies like Spain, starting trade wars, things that it doesn't seem like the old Mark would approve of. Does this have any effect on your self-respect when you sit next to him like that and say nothing?
You know, what I always do is acknowledge when praise is due. And I think we should praise Donald Trump for the fact that NATO is so much stronger. Of course, it has to do with the Russian threat. It has to do with the war in Ukraine, but it very much also has to do with President Trump delivering now what since Eisenhower, the United States tried to achieve: equalizing spending between the US and Europe. And it makes Europe stronger. It makes Europe more relevant for the United States as a partner. So that is the transformative character of this summit, of what happened in the Hague, the implementation since the Hague, this summit as a point in time where we take stock and I think that's extremely important. And when it comes to Greenland, I already explained we had the meeting in Davos and I said I agree with you when it comes to Russia, when it comes to China gaining access to the high north, but let's do this together. We have NATO for this. Let's work together on this. This is exactly what we are doing.
Okay, we have very little time and still lots and lots of questions. So, the woman who's standing here.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Secretary General. Yes. Hi, Alkan from the Epoch Times, New York-based media outlet. I have a question on Russia. Russia is facing energy crisis, fuel shortages. The entire country is facing gasoline shortages. How do you see this impacting the war in Ukraine? And do you ask or do you expect President Trump to impose more sanctions on Russia?
Well, clearly Ukraine is very successful in hitting the energy infrastructure in Russia. Yesterday they claimed, and I think the Russians almost, well I have this from the media. So I didn't get this confirmed from other sources but I guess you reported this correctly, some of you did at least yesterday, that they have been successful in striking deep into Russia which was one of the biggest refinery plants in Russia. And this is part of a pattern over the last two months where the Ukrainians are more and more successful in hitting the vital energy infrastructure in Russia. This is having an impact on people driving cars ending up at the gasoline stations. There was news yesterday that they had to put out mobile toilets because people had to wait all night for gasoline. Well, I can assure you one thing as a politician. In the 16th, 17th century, you had to make sure there was enough bread. In the 21st century, you have to make sure there's enough gasoline. Your voters don't like it if they cannot fill up their cars. And of course, this is having an impact on the Russian economy. At the same time, you have a Russian president which is willing to sacrifice up to 35,000 of his own young men in this crazy war against Ukraine, totally unprovoked. So again, to any Russian young men listening, if you contemplate joining the war effort, think again. You might be one of those 30 to 35,000 this month, next month, the month after because your president somehow doesn't care. He is willing to sacrifice you. So this is what is happening. And I know that the US and the European Union sanctions is not NATO. But the EU and European countries and the US and the United Kingdom are constantly coordinating when it comes to sanctions and to see what can be done.
Okay, I think we have two more questions. So the man in the orange tie here in the sixth row.
Hi, Johannes Petra, Austrian National Television and Radio. I'm just curious about what NATO at the end of the day is really about. We heard a lot about defense spending and about following interests and about hard power politics, let's say. I was wondering also because we find ourselves in an autocracy where journalists are being arrested. What values does NATO represent, if any, and are those values shared by all 32 members? Thank you.
NATO is a defensive alliance defending 1 billion people living in NATO territory. That's the United States, that's Canada and 30 countries in Europe. We are defensive. We will never attack another country. Never. We are a defensive alliance. But we will make absolutely sure that if anyone else does not wish us well and tries to attack us that they know that our reaction will be very forceful, that we can defend ourselves, etc. And that is for a reason. First of all, because I strongly believe in the 21st century that you should not attack another country like the Russians have done with Ukraine. It's kind of crazy to do that. It's a playbook of the 19th century or the 20th century. We don't do this in grown-up democracies anymore in the 21st century. So that's one, but also because there are values at stake. Democracy, and democracy as a central tenet, is not only free vote. Democracy is also you, the free media, that you can report, that you can try to find out what happened behind the scenes. Politicians not always liking what you find. But if it is fair, hey, it's your role and your job to do that. It's part of democracy. And the third pillar of democracy is that your societies have the ability to make their views known. And they do this sometimes through demonstrations and that always should be possible. And that means that journalists should always be able in person to participate in big news events.
Okay, final question. That's all we have time for. We're going to go to the fifth row on the aisle here.
Thank you, Secretary General. Sachio from NHK, the public TV station of Japan. Thank you. I'd like to ask about the IP4. Do you think it was important to have at least the representatives of all IP4 countries present in Ankara considering the challenges NATO faces from China? And this is the second year not having all the leaders present at the summit, but do you already have any ideas on how to engage again at the leaders level with them?
Yes. Well, the president of the Republic of Korea was here so I had the opportunity to get to know him better. He and the first lady participated in a dinner last night and we had very senior representatives at the level of defense ministers and or foreign ministers of New Zealand, Australia and Japan. So I myself have my engagement with the leaders of these nations. So it's not necessary that always all the leaders are here. I was very happy to meet the Korean president because he is relatively new. We spoke a couple of times on the phone. This gives the opportunity to get to know each other better and I traveled myself last year to Japan and I might do other trips to the IP4 countries in the future because this is an important relationship and we said yesterday it is important because this is about the acknowledgement that the two theaters in the Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic are more and more interconnected. You cannot separate the two. That doesn't mean that you want to extend Article 5 to the Indo-Pacific. That's not the goal. The goal is to work as much together on defense industry, on innovation, on standards, also exchanging views on defense spending, how to do that in the best way. We have now experienced in NATO not to prescribe in detail how many tanks or how many fighter jets, but what should be the battlefield outcomes we want to achieve by each nation's contribution to the collective defense. So this was a very useful discussion. I think we all felt it. Allison, there is one lady over there who really tried for some time. Is it okay if we do one more?
It's you and then we stop because I think there are other presidents and prime ministers also wanting to address you and get your questions.
Thank you so much for this opportunity. Anti-Turkey rhetoric continues to flow from Greece which persists in its illegal militarization activities in the Aegean. Greek Prime Minister Mitsotakis stated my country still faces an open threat of war from Turkey. How are these statements by Greece received between the allies? Thank you.
Yes. Well, I've said before when it came to other issues sometimes between allies and it can always happen. We have an alliance of 32 nations. So there might be bilateral discussions and then obviously unavoidably I will get the question what is my view on this? But of course, I'm not a commentator. I'm there to maintain the unity, at least trying to do my best to maintain the unity of the alliance. And that means that when there are discussions or sometimes irritants between allies that I do not comment in public so that I can be behind the scenes if necessary if so wanted by any of the discussing countries, helpful.
Thank you so much. It was really great to see you on Monday to see you today earlier today. You're amazing. See you next time. Thanks.
Thanks very much. A tremendously successful NATO summit here in Ankara. There was a great sense of unity. Allies warmly welcomed President Trump's leadership that is transforming this alliance and making it stronger. The message from this summit is simple. NATO delivers. One year ago in the Hague allies took historic decisions to strengthen our alliance. Here in Ankara, excellently hosted by President Erdogan, we have demonstrated that those commitments are now being put into practice across the alliance. Defense investment continues to rise. New capabilities are being delivered. Industry is expanding production and European allies and Canada are assuming greater responsibility for our shared security. Together, these are the foundations for a stronger, a fairer, and a more capable NATO. Allies reviewed the significant progress already made towards investing 5% of GDP in defense by 2035. Already measuring 4% just one year into a 10-year project. So the momentum is clear. Allies continue to increase both core defense spending and broader investments that strengthen our security. They are generating the capabilities our defense plans require and stepping up the contribution to NATO's collective deterrence and defense. This is not simply about spending more. It is about ensuring that our armed forces have what they need to keep our 1 billion people safe in a more dangerous world. Our focus has now shifted decisively from setting targets to delivering results. That means accelerating production, breaking down barriers, boosting resilience, investing in innovation and working with partners to maximize cooperation. The NATO summit defense industry forum demonstrated the determination of governments and industry to work together with greater speed and ambition. And the numbers are staggering, including over $50 billion in new procurement deals in just one day. We
also launched a new major initiative, NATO's drone edge, which will see $40 billion invested by allies in uncrewed systems over the next 5 years and big deals with US and European industry including Triton from Northrop Grumman and our new AEX from SAP. These new investments and industrial commitments announced here will help strengthen our collective defense while supporting innovation, economic growth, and of course skilled jobs across the whole of the alliance.
This work must continue and that's why I'm happy to announce that allies are taking a historic step to enhance NATO's fuel supply chain to ensure our forces have the energy supplies they need for war fighting readiness. While allies continue to finalize the details, we know that this 27 billion euro investment will modernize our existing fuel storage and distribution infrastructure and support new facilities including pipelines towards the eastern part of the alliance.
We're also ensuring that we are using technology to our advantage, including through the adoption of powerful AI models and the development of an interoperable transatlantic war fighting cloud. So here again, credible deterrence and defense depends on what we deliver and we are delivering.
Allies also reaffirmed NATO's unwavering support for Ukraine. As Russia continues its war, we will continue to ensure Ukraine gets what it needs. Allies pledged to provide at least 70 billion euros in military equipment, assistance, and training for Ukraine this year and again next year as we continue to press for peace. As Ukraine shifts the dynamics on the battlefield, our support must continue.
This summit has shown that the alliance is stronger than ever. An alliance that is united and ready to defend every inch of our territory. Here in Ankara, allies reaffirmed their ironclad commitment to the collective defense under Article 5 that an attack on one is an attack on all and we will stand together. Our unity, solidarity, and collective strength remain the foundation of peace, security, 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 and 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.
Mayan 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 one or because 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 fail, 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 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. That makes us stronger. It not only makes us stronger, in the end, we also come together. Today is evidence of that. And I always know that President Trump and the US are 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 a 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. 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 and the viewpoint of all 32 allies that Iran should never get its hand 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.
Okay. Yeah, we made it.
I'm Henry Foy from the Financial Times. 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 and 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 to your question, and I agree with that, 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 dollars 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 target.
All right. Let's come to the front row here. Could I get a mic down in the center? If you can come down past the barrier, it's easier. The man here. Yes. Thanks.
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?
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 Putin.
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 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 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.
Secretary General Henry Foy, Financial Times.
Henry for Financial Times. Nice to see you. 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.
What the president and 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 NORAD and NORCOM. So that means Canada with NORAD and then of course the five European allies. So 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 made in the future 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.
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. 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 intercontinental ballistic 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.
Sager Haria. 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 the 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 region 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 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, will NATO really fully support this, you know, attacks or involve especially when the topic comes the Strait of Hormuz?
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 intercontinental ballistic 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.
Okay. All right. Towards the center in the eighth row. Do we have a mic moving? Is she already there? Now you have to look at her. She decides, Allison decides. I see a gentleman there. Making our way. And then once you're there, please stay there because we'll take a few in the neighborhood.
Thank you so much. Deborah Haynes from Sky News. Good to see you. Thank you. You know Donald Trump well. Can you just give a sense from your perspective? Do you think that he is more committed and more enthusiastic about NATO and NATO membership now than he was a year ago given all the allies have done in terms of ramping up defense spending? Or are you seeing that these outbursts against the UK and others over failing to join the fight against Iran, his desire for Greenland, that actually he is as unhappy as ever before with NATO, maybe even more so. And could I have a clarification from what you said earlier about Iran? Are you saying that NATO actually would support the US militarily in terms of its operation in Iran?
What I said is that NATO, Iran is outside NATO territory. NATO has a political position. You can also see that in the summit declaration that Iran should not get a nuclear capability, that the Strait of Hormuz should open up and NATO has always taken the position that when it comes to the intercontinental ballistic missile capability Iran should not get its hands on it but this is outside NATO territory. So this is individual allies navigating this with the United States.
On your first question. I mean, I always felt that families where sometimes you have heart-to-hearts and sometimes you fight each other a bit are much stronger than families where you have, oh, let's not disagree and let's keep things nice and unity. That's a bit fake. I always felt I love it when sometimes between friends you can fight each other because it makes you stronger. And President Trump is not a person which keeps his views to himself. So on two issues he was very clear. One is that Europe had to step up and this had to do with NATO. He was committed to NATO, is committed to NATO, but he said, 'Hey, Mark, it's not a fair deal. How can it be that you have 600 million people living in Europe, the richest part of the world, big economies like Germany and the Netherlands and Italy and France and all the other nations together defending of course including with the US against 140 million Russians and then you are overly dependent on the United States. That's not fair.' And he's right and that's what he settled in The Hague. I think that was his leadership, extremely important. So committed to NATO but also expecting us all to do more. And when it comes to Iran, clearly he was disappointed. What I pointed out again is this is about isolated cases, massively Europeans have done what the United States bilaterally negotiated with the European countries.
Okay. This man here, yes please.
Thank you. Rasmus from the Danish news agency. Mark, you sit next to Donald Trump in moments where he talks about conquering Greenland, talks about lashing out at allies like Spain, starting trade wars, things that it doesn't seem like the old Mark would approve of. Does this have any effect on your self-respect when you sit next to him like that and say nothing?
You know, what I always do is acknowledge when praise is due. And I think we should praise Donald Trump for the fact that NATO is so much stronger. Of course, it has to do with the Russian threat. It has to do with the war in Ukraine, but it very much also has to do with President Trump delivering now what since Eisenhower, the United States tried to achieve, equalizing spending between the US and Europe. And it makes Europe stronger. It makes Europe more relevant for the United States as a partner. So that is the transformative character of this summit, of what happened in The Hague, the implementation since The Hague, this summit as a point in time where we take stock and I think that is extremely important.
And when it comes to Greenland, I already explained we had the meeting in Davos and I said I agree with you when it comes to Russia, when it comes to China gaining access to the high north but let's do this together. We have NATO for this. Let's work together on this. This is exactly what we are doing.
Okay, we have very little time and still lots and lots of questions. So, the woman who's standing here.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Secretary General. Al Akan from the Epoch Times, New York-based media outlet. I have a question on Russia. Russia is facing energy crisis, fuel shortages. Entire country is facing gasoline shortages. How do you see this impacting the war in Ukraine? And do you ask or do you expect President Trump to impose more sanctions on Russia?
Well, clearly Ukraine is very successful in hitting the energy infrastructure in Russia. They in Odesa yesterday they claimed and I think the Russians almost, well I have this from you, from the media. So I didn't get this confirmed from other sources but I guess you reported this correctly. Some of you did at least yesterday that they have been successful in striking deep into Russia which was one of the biggest refinery plants in Russia and this is part of a pattern over the last two months where the Ukrainians are more and more successful in hitting the vital energy infrastructure in Russia. This is having an impact on people driving cars ending up at the gasoline stations. There was news yesterday that they had to put out mobile toilets because people had to wait all night for gasoline. Well, I can assure you one thing as a politician. In the 16th, 17th century, you had to make sure there was enough bread. In the 21st century, you have to make sure there's enough gasoline. Your voters don't like it if they cannot fill up their cars. And of course, this is having an impact on the Russian economy. At the same time, you have a Russian president which is willing to sacrifice up to 35,000 of his own young men in this crazy war against Ukraine, totally unprovoked. So again, to any Russian young man listening, if you contemplate joining the war effort, think again. You might be one of those 30 to 35,000 this month, next month, the month after because your president somehow doesn't care. He is willing to sacrifice you. So this is what is happening. And I know that the US and the European Union sanctions is not NATO. But the EU and European countries and the US and the United Kingdom are constantly coordinating when it comes to sanctions and to see what can be done.
Okay, I think we have two more questions. So the man in the orange tie here in the sixth row.
Hi Johannes Petra, Austrian National Television and Radio ORF. I'm just curious about what NATO at the end of the day is really about. We heard a lot about defense spending and about following interests and about hard power politics, let's say. I was wondering also because we find ourselves in an autocracy where journalists are being arrested. What values does NATO represent, if any, and are those values shared by all 32 members? Thank you.
NATO is a defensive alliance defending 1 billion people living in NATO territory. That's United States, that's Canada and 30 countries in Europe. We are defensive. We will never attack another country. Never. We are a defensive alliance. But we will make absolutely sure that if anyone else does not wish us well and tries to attack us that they know that our reaction will be very forceful, that we can defend ourselves etc. And that is for a reason. First of all, because I strongly believe in the 21st century that you should not attack another country like the Russians have done with Ukraine. It's kind of crazy to do that. It's a playbook of the 19th century or the 20th century. We don't do this in grown-up democracies anymore in the 21st century. So that's one, but also because there are values at stake. Democracy and democracy as a central element is not only free vote. Democracy is also you, the free media, that you can report, that you can try to find out what happened behind the scenes. Politicians not always liking what you find. But if it is fair, hey, it's your role and your job to do that. It's part of democracy. And the third pillar of democracy is that your societies have the ability to make their views known. And they do this sometimes through demonstrations. And that should always be possible. And that means that journalists should always be able in person to participate in big news events.
Okay, final question. That's all we have time for. We're going to go to the fifth row on the aisle here.
Thank you, Secretary General. Sachio from NHK, the public station of Japan. Thank you. I'd like to ask about the IP4. Do you think it was important to have at least the representatives of all IP4 countries present in Ankara considering the challenges NATO faces from China and this is the second year not having all the leaders present at the summit but you already have any ideas on how to engage again at the leaders level with them?
Yes. Well, the president of the Republic of Korea was here so I had the opportunity to get to know him better. He and the first lady participated in a dinner last night and we had very senior representatives at the level of defense ministers and or foreign ministers of New Zealand, Australia and Japan. So I myself have my engagement with the leaders of these nations. So it's not necessary that always all the leaders are here. I was very happy to meet the Korean president because he is relatively new. We spoke a couple of times on the phone. This gives the opportunity to get to know each other better and I traveled myself last year to Japan and I might do other trips to the IP4 countries in the future because this is an important relationship and we said yesterday it is important because this is about the acknowledgement that the two theaters in the Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic are more and more interconnected. You cannot separate the two. That doesn't mean that you want to extend Article 5 to the Indo-Pacific. That's not the goal. The goal is to work as much together on defense industry, on innovation, on standards, also exchanging views on defense spending, how to do that in the best way. We have now experienced in NATO not to prescribe in detail how many tanks or how many fighter jets but what should be the battlefield outcomes we want to achieve by each nation's contribution to the collective defense. So this was a very useful discussion. I think we all felt it. Allison, there is one lady over there who really tried for some time. Is it okay if we do one more?
It's you and then we stop because I think there are other presidents and prime ministers also wanting to address you and get your questions.
Thank you so much for this opportunity. Anti-Turkey rhetoric continues to flow from Greece which persists in its illegal militarization activities in the Aegean. Greek Prime Minister Mitsotakis stated my country still faces an open threat of war from Turkey. How are these statements by Greece received between the allies? Thank you.
Yes. But well, I've said before when it came to other issues sometimes between allies and it can always happen. We have an alliance of 32 nations. So there might be bilateral discussions and then obviously unavoidably I will get the question what is my view on this? But of course I'm not a commentator. I'm there to maintain the unity, at least trying to do my best to maintain the unity of the alliance. And that means that when there are discussions or sometimes irritants between allies that I do not comment in public so that I can be behind the scenes if necessary if so wanted by any of the discussing countries, helpful.
Thank you so much. It was really great to see you on Monday to see you today earlier today. You're amazing. See you next time. Thanks.
Thanks very much.
An endlessly successful NATO summit here in Ankara. There was a great sense of unity. Allies warmly welcomed President Trump's leadership that is transforming this alliance and making it stronger. The message from this summit is simple. NATO delivers.
One year ago in The Hague allies took historic decisions to strengthen our alliance. Here in Ankara, excellently hosted by President Erdogan, we have demonstrated that those commitments are now being put into practice across the alliance. Defense investment continues to rise. New capabilities are being delivered. Industry is expanding production. And European allies and Canada are assuming greater responsibility for our shared security together. These are the foundations for a stronger, a fairer, and a more capable NATO.
Allies reviewed the significant progress already made towards investing 5% of GDP in defense by 2035, already measuring 4% just one year into a 10-year project. So the momentum is clear. Allies continue to increase both core defense spending and broader investment that strengthen our security. They are generating the capabilities our defense plans require and stepping up the contribution to NATO's collective deterrence and defense.
This is not simply about spending more. It is about ensuring that our armed forces have what they need to keep our 1 billion people safe in a more dangerous world. Our focus has now shifted decisively from setting targets to delivering results. That means accelerating production, breaking down barriers, boosting resilience, investing in innovation and working with partners to maximize cooperation.
The NATO summit defense industry forum demonstrated the determination of governments and industry to work together with greater speed and ambition. And the numbers are staggering, including over $50 billion in new procurement deals in just one day. We also launched a new major initiative, NATO's drone edge, which will see $40 billion invested by allies in uncrewed systems over the next 5 years and big deals with US and European industry, including Triton from Northrop Grumman and our new AEX from SAP. These new investments and industrial commitments announced here will help strengthen our collective defense while supporting innovation, economic growth, and of course skilled jobs across the whole of the alliance.
This work must continue and that's why I'm happy to announce that allies are taking a historic step to enhance NATO's fuel supply chain to ensure our forces have the energy supplies they need for war fighting readiness. While allies continue to finalize the details, we know that this 27 billion euro investment will modernize our existing fuel storage and distribution infrastructure and support new facilities including pipelines towards the eastern part of the alliance.
We're also ensuring that we are using technology to our advantage, including through the adoption of powerful AI models and the development of an interoperable transatlantic war fighting cloud. So here again, credible deterrence and defense depends on what we deliver and we are delivering.
Allies also reaffirmed NATO's unwavering support for Ukraine. As Russia continues its war, we will continue to ensure Ukraine gets what it needs. Allies pledged to provide at least 70 billion euros in military equipment, assistance, and training for Ukraine this year and again next year as we continue to press for peace. As Ukraine shifts the dynamics on the battlefield, our support must continue.
This summit has shown that the alliance is stronger than ever. An alliance that is united and ready to defend every inch of our territory. Here in Ankara, allies reaffirmed their ironclad commitment to the collective defense under Article 5 that an attack on one is an attack on all and we will stand together. Our unity, solidarity and collective strength remain the foundation of peace, security 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 and 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 and 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.
Mayan 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 one or because 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 fail, 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 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. That makes us stronger. It not only makes us stronger, in the end, we also come together. Today is evidence of that. And I always know that President Trump and the US are 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 a 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. 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 and the viewpoint of all 32 allies that Iran should never get its hand 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.
Okay. Yeah, we made it.
I'm Henry Foy from the Financial Times. 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 and 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 to 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 dollars 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 target.
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. The man here. Yes. Thanks.
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?
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 Putin.
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 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 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.
Secretary General Henry Foy, Financial Times.
Henry. Financial Times. Nice to see you.
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.
What the president and 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 NORAD and NORCOM so that means Canada with NORAD 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 made in the future 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.
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. Okay. And then let's come down here in the second row right here.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary General. Hi. Um, 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 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 interbalistic 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.
Har media. 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. Il Mazaken from Al Jazeera. My question is President Trump was mentioning today that the peace deal is over for me 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 are certain countries like Spain is not really collaborative with NATO ally, will NATO really fully support this you know attacks or involve especially when the topic comes the strait of
Well 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 a interbalistic 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.
Okay. All right. Towards the center in the eighth row. Do we have a mic moving? Is she already there? Now you have to look at her. She decides, Ellison decides. I see a gentleman there. Making our way. And then once you're there, please stay there because we'll take a few in the neighborhood.
Thank you so much. Deborah Haynes from Sky News. Good to see you. Thank you. You know Donald Trump well. Can you just give a sense from your perspective? Do you think that he is more committed and more enthusiastic about NATO and NATO membership now than he was a year ago given all the allies have done in terms of ramping up defense spending? Or are you seeing that these outbursts against the UK and others over failing to join the fight against Iran, his desire for Greenland, that actually he is as unhappy as ever before with NATO, maybe even more so? And could I just have a clarification from what you said earlier about Iran? Are you saying that NATO actually would support the US militarily in terms of its operation in Iran?
What I said is that NATO is Iran is outside NATO territory. NATO has a political position. You can also see that in the summit declaration that Iran should not get a nuclear capability that the state of Hormuz should open up and NATO has always taken the position that when it comes to the interbalistic missile capability Iran should not get its hands on it but this is outside NATO territory. So this is individual allies navigating this with the United States. On your first question. I mean, I always felt that families where sometimes you have heart-to-hearts and sometimes you fight each other a bit are much stronger than families where you have, oh, let's not disagree and let's keep things nice and unity. That's a bit fake. I always felt I love it when sometimes between friends you can fight each other because it makes you stronger and President Trump is not a person which keeps his views to himself. So on two issues he was very clear. One is that Europe had to step up and this had to do with NATO. He was committed to NATO, is committed to NATO, but he said, hey, Mark, it's not a fair deal. How can it be that you have 600 million people living in Europe, the richest part of the world, big economies like Germany and the Netherlands and Italy and France and all the other nations together defending of course including with the US against 140 million Russians and then you are overly dependent on the United States. That's not fair. And he's right. And that's what we settled in the Hague. I think that was his leadership extremely important. So committed to NATO but also expecting us all to do more. And when it comes to Iran, clearly he was disappointed. What I pointed out again is this is about isolated cases. Massively Europeans have done what the United States bilaterally negotiated with the European countries.
Okay. This man here. Yes, please.
Yeah. Hey, Rasmus Rainbow from the Danish news agency. Danish news agency Ritzau. Mark, you sit next to Donald Trump in moments where he talks about conquering Greenland, talks about lashing out at allies like Spain, starting trade wars, things that it doesn't seem like the old Mark would approve of. Does this have any effect on your self-respect when you sit next to him like that and say nothing?
You know, what I always do is acknowledge when praise is due. And I think we should praise Donald Trump for the fact that NATO is so much stronger. Of course, it has to do with the Russian threat. It has to do with the war in Ukraine, but it's very much also has to do with President Trump delivering now what since Eisenhower, the United States tried to achieve, equalizing spending between the US and Europe. And it makes Europe stronger. Makes Europe more relevant for the United States as a partner. So that is the transformative character of this summit of what happened in the Hague, the implementation since the Hague, this summit as a point in time where we take stock and I think that is extremely important and when it comes to Greenland I already explained we had the meeting in Davos and I said I agree with you when it comes to Russia when it comes to China gaining access to the high north but let's do this together we have NATO for this let's work together on this this is exactly what we are doing.
Okay, we have very little time and still lots and lots of questions. So, the woman who's standing here,
Thank you very much. Thank you, Secretary General. Yes. Hi, Al Akan from the Epoch Times, New York-based media outlet. I would I have a question on Russia. Russia is facing energy crisis, fuel shortages. Entire country is facing gasoline shortages. How do you see this impacting the war in Ukraine? And do you ask or do you expect President Trump to impose more sanctions on Russia?
Well, clearly Ukraine is very successful in hitting the energy infrastructure in Russia. They in Ob yesterday they claimed and I think the Russians almost well I have this from the media. So I didn't get this confirmed from other sources but I guess you reported this correctly. Some of you did at least yesterday that they have been successful in striking deep into Russia which was one of the biggest refinery plants in Russia and this is part of a pattern over the last two months where the Ukrainians are more and more successful in hitting the vital energy infrastructure in Russia. This is having an impact on people driving cars ending up at the gasoline stations. There was news yesterday that they had to put out mobile toilets because people had to wait all night for gasoline. Well, I can assure you one thing as a politician. In the 16th, 17th century, you had to make sure there was enough bread. In the 21st century, you have to make sure there's enough gasoline. Your voters don't like it if they cannot fill up their cars. And of course, this is having an impact on the Russian economy. At the same time, you have a Russian president which is willing to sacrifice up to 35,000 of his own young men in this crazy war against Ukraine, totally unprovoked. So again, to any Russian young men listening, if you contemplate joining the war effort, think again. You might be one of those 30 to 35,000 this month, next month, the month after because your president somehow doesn't care. He is willing to sacrifice you. So this is what is happening. And I know that the US and the European Union sanctions is not NATO. But the EU and European countries and the US and the United Kingdom are constantly coordinating when it comes to sanctions and to see what can be done.
Okay, I think we have two more questions. So the man in the orange tie here in the sixth row.
Hi Johannes Petra, Austrian National Television and Radio. I'm just curious about what NATO at the end of the day is really about. We heard a lot about defense spending and about following interests and about hard power politics, let's say. I was wondering also because we find ourselves in an autocracy where journalists are being arrested. What values does NATO represent, if any, and are those values shared by all 32 members? Thank you.
NATO is a defensive alliance defending 1 billion people living in NATO territory. That's the United States, that's Canada and 30 countries in Europe. We are defensive. We will never attack another country. Never. We are a defensive alliance. But we will make absolutely sure that if anyone else does not wish us well and tries to attack us that they know that our reaction will be very forceful, that we can defend ourselves etc etc. And that is for a reason. First of all, because I strongly believe in the 21st century that you should not attack another country like the Russians have done with Ukraine. It's kind of crazy to do that. It's a playbook of the 19th century or the 20th century. We don't do this in grown-up democracies anymore in the 21st century. So, that's one, but also because there are values at stake. Democracy and democracy as a central tenet is not only free vote. Democracy is also you, the free media, that you can report, that you can try to find out what happened behind the scenes. Politicians not always liking what you find. But if it is fair, hey, it's your role and your job to do that. It's part of democracy. And the third pillar of democracy is that your societies have the ability to make their views known. And they do this sometimes through demonstrations. And that is always should be possible. And that means that journalists should always be able in person to participate in big news events.
Okay, final question. That's all we have time for. We're going to go to the fifth row on the aisle here.
Thank you, Secretary General. Sachio from NHK, the public TV station of Japan. Thank you. I'd like to ask about the IP4. Do you think it was important to have at least the representatives of all IP4 countries present in Ankara considering the challenges NATO faces from China and this is the second year not having all the leaders present at the summit but do you already have any ideas on how to engage again at the leaders level with them?
Yes. Well, the president of the Republic of Korea was here so I had the opportunity to get to know him better. He and the first lady participated in a dinner last night and we had very senior representatives at the level of defense ministers and or foreign ministers of New Zealand, Australia and Japan. So I myself have my engagement with the leaders of these nations. So it's not necessary that always all the leaders are here. I was very happy to meet the Korean president because he is relatively new. We spoke a couple of times on the phone. This gives the opportunity to get to know each other better and I traveled myself last year to Japan and I might do other trips to the IP4 countries in the future because this is an important relationship and we said yesterday it is important because this is about the acknowledgement that the two theaters in the Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic are more and more interconnected. You cannot separate the two. That doesn't mean that you want to extend Article 5 to the Indo-Pacific. That's not the goal. The goal is to work as much together on defense industry, on innovation, on standards also exchanging views on defense spending, how to do that in the best way. We have now experienced a NATO not to prescribe in detail how many tanks or how many fighter jets, but what should be the battlefield outcomes we want to achieve by each nation's contribution to the collective defense. So this was a very useful discussion. I think we all felt that. Allison, there is one lady over there who really tried for some time. Is it okay if you do one more?
One more. It's you and then we stop because I think there are other presidents and prime ministers also wanting to address you and get your questions.
Thank you so much for this opportunity. Anti-Turkey rhetoric continues to flow from Greece which persists in its illegal militarization activities in the Aegean. Greek Prime Minister Mitsotakis stated my country still faces an open threat of war from Turkey. How are these statements by Greece received between the allies? Thank you.
Yes. But well but I've said before when it came to other issues sometimes between allies and it can always happen. We have an alliance of 32 nations. So there might be bilateral discussions and then obviously unavoidably I will get the question what is my view on this? But of course I'm not a commentator. I'm there to maintain the unity at least trying to do my best to maintain the unity of the alliance. And that means that when there are discussions or sometimes irritants between allies that I do not comment in public so that I can be behind the scenes if necessary if so wanted by any of the discussing countries helpful.
Thank you so much. It was really great to see you on Monday to see you today earlier today. You're amazing. See you next time. Thanks.
Thanks very much. Tremendously successful NATO summit here in Ankara. There was a great sense of unity. Allies warmly welcomed President Trump's leadership that is transforming this alliance and making it stronger. The message from this summit is simple. NATO delivers. One year ago in the Hague allies took historic decisions to strengthen our alliance. Here in Ankara, excellently hosted by President Erdogan. We have demonstrated that those commitments are now being put into practice. Across the alliance, defense investment continues to rise. New capabilities are being delivered. Industry is expanding production. And European allies and Canada are assuming greater responsibility for our shared security. Together, these are the foundations for a stronger, a fairer, and a more capable NATO. Allies reviewed the significant progress already made towards investing 5% of GDP in defense by 2035. Already measuring 4% just one year into a 10-year project. So the momentum is clear. Allies continue to increase both core defense spending and broader investment that strengthen our security. They are generating the capabilities our defense plans require and stepping up the contribution to NATO's collective deterrence and defense. This is not simply about spending more. It is about ensuring that our armed forces have what they need to keep our 1 billion people safe in a more dangerous world. Our focus has now shifted decisively from setting targets to delivering results. That means accelerating production, breaking down barriers, boosting resilience, investing in innovation and working with partners to maximize cooperation. The NATO summit defense industry forum demonstrated the determination of governments and industry to work together with greater speed and ambition. And the numbers are staggering, including over $50 billion in new procurement deals in just one day. We also launched a new major initiative, NATO's drone edge, which will see $40 billion invested by allies in uncrewed systems over the next 5 years and big deals with US and European industry, including Triton from Northrop Grumman and our new AEX from SAP. These new investments and industrial commitments announced here will help strengthen our collective defense while supporting innovation, economic growth, and of course skilled jobs across the whole of the alliance. This work must continue and that's why I'm happy to announce that allies are taking a historic step to enhance NATO's fuel supply chain to ensure our forces have the energy supplies they need for war fighting readiness. While allies continue to finalize the details, we know that this 27 billion euro investment will modernize our existing fuel storage and distribution infrastructure and support new facilities including pipelines towards the eastern part of the alliance. We're also ensuring that we are using technology to our advantage, including through the adoption of powerful AI models and the development of an interoperable transatlantic war fighting cloud. So here again, credible deterrence and defense depends on what we deliver and we are delivering. Allies also reaffirmed NATO's unwavering support for Ukraine. As Russia continues its war, we will continue to ensure Ukraine gets what it needs. Allies pledged to provide at least 70 billion euros in military equipment, assistance, and training for Ukraine this year and again next year as we continue to press for peace. As Ukraine shifts the dynamics on the battlefield, our support must continue. This summit has shown that the alliance is stronger than ever. An alliance that is united and ready to defend every inch of our territory. Here in Ankara, allies reaffirmed their ironclad commitment to the collective defense under Article 5. That an attack on one is an attack on all and we will stand together. Our unity, solidarity, and collective strength remain the foundation of peace, security, 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 and 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 the NATO while he was standing beside you. We've heard a lot of promises and determination. That's very good. But why there isn't a credible plan B if he went through his threats to decrease his forces in the region? Is that because there isn't or the 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 as 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 a 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 hand 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 Henry Foy from the Financial Times. 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 to 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 spend 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 Hague target.
All right. Let's come to the front row here. Could I get a mic down in the center? If you can come down past the barrier, it's easier. 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 followup 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 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 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 men 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 battlefields. 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 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 Foy, Financial Times. Thank you. Can I hold it? You can trust me. Henry for Financial Times. Nice to see you. 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. The 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 NORAD. So that means Canada with NORAD 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 made in the future 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.
