Good afternoon everyone. It's good to see you. We will start as usual with a statement from the secretary general followed by your questions.
Thank you and good afternoon. We have just finished the last meeting of NATO defense ministers before the Ankara summit and we made good progress on our priorities: spending more and better on the forces and capabilities we need to defend every inch of Allied territory. Around the table today, I heard ally after ally after ally explaining how they are increasing investment in defense. There's a strong commitment to get defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. Some allies will already get there this year, way ahead of schedule. European allies and Canada are really stepping up with record increases. Last year over $90 billion extra in real terms, which means $139 billion extra in nominal terms. I repeat, $139 billion extra.
Cash is crucial, but you cannot stop a missile or a tank with a dollar or a euro. We need to turn the cash into combat ready capabilities and fast. This is our shared priority for the Ankara summit and the years ahead. We need more forces. We need more resources and a stronger industrial base. So today, defense ministers agreed on a renewed push to turbocharge transatlantic defense cooperation. We want to scale up our defense industries on both sides of the Atlantic while fostering the kind of cooperation that leads to better innovation as well as more production. NATO is and will always be a transatlantic alliance, but we need a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO through increased defense spending and defense production and with European allies and Canada backed by American power taking more responsibility for defense.
The United States expressed strong commitment to NATO very clearly today. And we also heard about the importance of a more equitable distribution of labor and how we must rebalance our security for the better. Secretary Hegseth was very clear about the need for a NATO 3.0, an alliance rebooted for the modern age. On that we all agree. We heard the US announcement to review force posture in Europe. In today's dynamic security environment, I think it is prudent to ensure NATO's forces are optimally arrayed to deter conflict and if necessary to defend against any threat.
There was also broad agreement among allies on the need to step up as the US adjusts its pledges to the NATO force model. The NATO force model is about planning and planning is crucial if we are to be prepared. Allies have already filled some of the slots completely. Others are nearly complete. Others require more work. Allies in the nuclear planning group also met today to address NATO's nuclear capabilities which are the ultimate guarantor of allied security. I welcome the statement released by the MPG which demonstrates allies' commitment to NATO's nuclear deterrence and reiterates our unity and our resolve. As the statement makes clear, we will continue to modernize our nuclear capabilities, improve planning, and adapt to ensure our nuclear deterrence remains fit for purpose.
We today will shortly start a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which President Zelensky will join. Ukraine is changing the dynamic on the battlefield and inflicting huge, huge losses on Russia. But they can only keep doing this if we step up our support. Not just for immediate needs such as air defense, but assessing how we can work together over the long term to ensure Ukraine can remain sovereign, free, and secure because Ukraine's security is important for our own security. And with that, I'm ready to take your questions.
Okay. Let's start here in the second row. Bloomberg.
Thank you, Secretary General. I want to come back to the force model. Of course there is a force model and then there is the announcement of the force posture review this morning. I want to clarify one thing. What will be NATO, especially NATO's European and Canadian allies' strategy? Will it be to replace everything or will it be to figure out a new way to achieve the same aims with the means available? Because it seems that you suggested that everything would be replaced not immediately but that would ultimately be replaced. Certain of the things that have been reassigned in the force model, for example, strategic bombers, Europe simply doesn't have. So are you saying there will be plans to replace those assets or a third way perhaps? Thank you.
First of all, I'm sorry that I cannot get into what is exactly in the NATO force model. I know that some news outlets have reported on it. I cannot confirm whether that was true or they reported because we are saying nothing about it. We don't want to make the Russians any wiser. I think it is good to know what the NATO force model is and basically I can quote SACEUR here, the Supreme Allied Commander. What he is saying basically is that the NATO force model is there so that he knows what he can count on in case of a simultaneous multi-theater conflict. And it's for planning purposes. That means that if ultimately you would get into a situation of a real war, a real Article 5 situation if we were under attack then of course it is reasonable to assume that allies would do all they can to defend ourselves. So this is for planning purposes. As I said this morning this is immediate. So what the US is doing here is immediate for planning purposes but it doesn't mean it's not there if necessary. It is to make sure that the US can provide what they really can provide in case of a multi-theater threat and therefore it also important what SACEUR said I think yesterday that it makes the plans more realistic and therefore stronger because there was an overreliance on the United States.
I'm over here second row BBC.
Good afternoon. Jess Parker, BBC News. First of all, is it inevitable that there will be a significantly depleted US presence in Europe after this review that Secretary Hegseth announced earlier? And I want to ask you as well, are allies being punished for the stance they took on the war in Iran?
Well, what we seeing, let's first of all agree what we are seeing today, which is $139 billion in nominal terms. What we are spending at the moment extra compared to last year, that's incredible. That's Canada and Europe. I think against that background it is completely acceptable that the US is thinking, okay, what is our role here in terms of the force posture? Do we have to make changes or not? This will take months. They will do this in close consultation with allies. So I think this will be a structured process somewhere over the next six months.
I've not heard anything of the kind. This is but what Hegseth did today I think is acknowledging that a lot is happening compared to what he said in February last year when he spoke last time. No, it was not last time that he spoke to the ambassadors but when he did a big speech in February last year when he said hey we really want Europe and Canada to step up. What he is acknowledging today, it's happening, it's taking place. Not everywhere, still more needs to be done. I think it is good that he is clear about what he feels, what his sense is of where we are at the moment. We need to have that discussion. So there is clearly that balance of a lot happening, acknowledging that but also clearly saying I want to keep the pressure on. So that was his speech today. Generally when it comes to NATO and that is specific to this review, that's clearly about the force posture against the background of an alliance which is massively investing in its defense, particularly of course the Canadians and the Europeans when it comes to NATO's collective defense.
All right, coming over here, Wall Street Journal second row.
Wall Street Journal Reporter
15:27 ↗
Thank you very much, Secretary General. If I could follow up on that, you've been quite articulate about how much more allies in Europe and Canada are doing, especially since the HEG. But, at the same time, Secretary Hegseth this morning essentially said not good enough. So, how frustrating is it for you that your messaging to the US, to the White House, the administration, doesn't seem to be registering and resonating with them? And how concerned are you about that in the run-up to Ankara? Thank you.
It's not me messaging to one particular audience. What I'm trying to explain to you and to the wider world through you is what's happening and the over 90 billion. So the 139 billion in terms of the nominal terms of extra defense spent in 2025 is historic. I think we are at a level where you have to question yourself if it is even more in one year. Can you absorb all that money? I think you all acknowledge that also Pete Hegseth. But then when you look basically more in detail, you will still find allies holding back a little bit and needing to do more. And I think what he tried to do today is to keep the pressure on. And I think that's good. That's his role. He is the US is by far the biggest ally in NATO. US economy is over half of the total NATO economy. So the other 31 are smaller together than the United States when it comes to the overall size of the economy. So I think it is important that this ally which for so many years was spending much more on defense than the Europeans and the Canadians in aggregate is keeping that pressure on whilst also acknowledging that a lot is happening. So I think that's the story and I'm happy he does this because we need to speak the truth to each other. This alliance is going through a massive transformation, probably the biggest transformation in its history to build this NATO 3.0. And obviously that means also that there are some rough waters. It is a rocky phase. You will have these debates, these discussions and that's good.
All right. Coming over here second row towards the center New York Times.
Good afternoon Mr. Rutte.
Good afternoon ma'am. Hi.
So ministers came into the doorsteps this morning. They seemed like they were in agreement about the need to spend more on defense. They seemed many expressed pleasure that the developments in the Middle East that there seemed to be a ceasefire on the horizon. And then Secretary Hegseth this morning called the alliance a paper tiger. He said that the alliance reluctance to get involved in Iran was shameful and so on. You just said that you're happy he does this. But what was the mood in the room afterwards? Was this helpful, especially in the run-up to Ankara?
Well, I'm not sure you completely give credit to what Hegseth was saying. But I'm not sure about the Okay, I leave that with you. You will listen carefully to what he said. But what's more important is this. Allies are very happy with the deal on Iran because for NATO it has always been clear and we commend President Trump for getting here that Iran cannot have his hands on a nuclear capability. This is now severely degraded. That we have to prevent Iran getting a ballistic missile capability which is a threat to the region and to Europe and to the wider world, severely degraded by the United States what the United States has done over the last couple of months. And obviously also important that the Strait of Hormuz opens up and the freedom of navigation is restored. We have heard many allies saying we want to help there. You have seen the G7 statement also completely supporting what the American president, President Trump is doing here. I think there's widespread support and we are in agreement. What this is about from what I hear, from what he was saying, but also from my conversations with Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of War of the United States is again this balance acknowledging a lot is happening, but you look at the total numbers, it's really impressive, but still I want to maintain the pressure on those allies still not there needing to do more. That's one. Second, given the fact that Europe and Canada are stepping up, it is only logical that the US again and they do this overtime regularly reviews its force posture.
Comments sir, what do you make of...
But I'm not going to comment on every word every ally is saying. I never do that.
Okay, let's go to the back. Ry...
Hi. Italian television. Hi. Italy. Hi. Thank you. Italy has announced for Hormuz it would provide as a contribution to a demining mission. What's your comment and what NATO wants to do for the freedom of navigation? Thank you.
Thank you for that question. So what we are seeing now is that thanks to the hard work by the American administration, nuclear degraded, ballistic missile capacity of Iran degraded, extremely important long-standing positions of NATO that Iran should not have these capabilities plus now the perspective of the Strait of Hormuz opening up. What the French and the Brits are doing, they're leading this coalition of I think it's over 40 countries at the moment who have capabilities which can be helpful here particularly when it comes to demining. You know the US is very strong but two things they miss: one is icebreakers, you don't need them in the Strait of Hormuz, and the other thing is demining and you need that now in the Strait of Hormuz and Europe has that capacity, that capability, really big. And we have seen over the last couple of weeks that many European nations are prepositioning these assets close to theater. What the G7 leaders including of course six of them in NATO including the American president concluded in the G7 meeting, but this was also clearly the tone of discussion of the debate today is the necessity to do everything together to make sure the strait opens up and that discussion is ongoing. What exactly that will mean, how this demining will be done, for NATO to play a role there is not yet foreseen. It is of course out of NATO area but if NATO can be helpful in any way as I said yesterday, of course, we are always available.
All right, coming over here. Second row, Reuters.
Hi, Secretary General. Hi, Andrew Gray from Reuters. Secretary Hegseth said that the US's annual dues to NATO will now be contingent on other countries meeting their defense spending targets. And he said, 'When other allies do not spend with urgency, our dues will go down.' Isn't that basically collective punishment? And did you push back against that idea at all?
Again, I'm not going to comment on everything that has been said today, but more generally speaking, what we are working on very hard is to make sure that the whole of the alliance implements the Hague decisions. What we are seeing at the moment, when you look at the collective, it's there. Again, when you look at the individual countries, there are still some who need to do more and others who are overachieving, which is great, are doing more than, take Germany already reaching the 3.5 and therefore on its way to the 5% already by 2029 instead of 2035. But also when you look at the Baltic countries, when you look at Poland, when you look at others, they're really ahead. Some others are lacking behind a little bit and we are working hard to make sure they also keep up. So let's prevent a situation like that.
All right, third row towards the center here.
Frankfurter Allgemeine Reporter
23:08 ↗
Thank you. Thomas Kuchka with Frankfurter Allgemeine. Good afternoon Secretary General. As the US is reviewing its force posture in Europe, does the alliance need a road map moving forward so that the US consults with allies before it actually takes draw down or decommit decisions unlike we've seen with the previous decision? And do you see a risk of dangerous defense gaps as the German defense minister Boris Pistorius has said this morning if there is no synchronizing of this kind. Thank you.
I think Pete Hegseth made quite clear that the US will do this force posture review in close consultation with allies. He was very clear about it. And when it comes to the NATO force model, we always knew that there had to be a moment where the US had to create clarity on what they can do in case of a multi-theater situation. And we always knew there was a risk that even US would then spread its resources too thinly and that some of what they said they could deliver in case of a conflict would maybe not be there because they also might need it for example in the Indo-Pacific. So and this is exactly why the Supreme Allied Commander was saying yesterday that this change is strengthening NATO's defense plans because they become more resilient, they become more realistic.
