No problem.
Okay, this time I really mean it. We're about to start. Please, everyone, take your seats. We have a real treat for you to start off the event. So, you'll want to hear this.
[Music and singing: Joyful, joyful, we adore the God of glory, Lord God of love. Stars unfold like clouds before their falling to the sun and bow. Melt the clouds of sin and sadness. Drive the dark of doubt away. Give all mortal gladness. Fill us with the light of day. All the words rejoice around the earth that heaven's perfect grace. Stars and angels sing around this center of unbroken praise. Lay and forest whale and mountain flowing made a sea. Sing and burn and flow and faulting all to rejoice in thee. Though our given and forgiving, ever blessing ever blessing all the joy of living ocean rest.]
[Music]
Though I'll follow the Christ our brother all who live in love all night teaches how to love each other to the joy divine I [singing]
[Music]
[Music]
Mortals joy their happy corals. We the morning stars be gone. Father love is raining nor brother love is meant to men ever singing mar the home world victors in the maze of tri me don't try D
Okay.
[Music and singing: Joyful music leads us somewhere in the dream song of life. Song of life.]
Thank you so much to Advantage Project, this Ukrainian band which once again showed us how Ukrainians can blow our minds with their creativity. And thanks also to all of you who are joining us here for the Global Europe Forum, whether you're here with us in the European Parliament in Brussels or tuning in online as we are broadcasting this live. I'm Terry Schultz. I'm going to be your moderator for today, promising you thought-provoking discussion for the afternoon. We all know we need to have it the way 2026 is shaping up so far. Ukraine was not invited here by accident. Renew Europe very much wanted to start this event by reminding us all how central Ukraine is to Europe's security and defense. And not only that, but how much they are already part of the European family culturally, emotionally, spiritually. And if Renew Europe and other advocates have their way, of course, it will also be a full member of the European Union as soon as possible. So that is certainly something that is going to be in our minds today as we continue our discussions throughout the afternoon on how to make Europe safer, how to protect democracy, how to improve the democracy that we have to protect. And once again, I am very pleased to welcome you here on that beautiful note. And now to bring to the stage the president of Renew Europe, Valerie Aay, who will really get us started.
Thank you, dear Terry. Dear colleagues, dear guests, dear friends, thank you for coming in such large numbers and welcome to the first events organized by the Renew Europe group this year. First of all, as is customary but no less sincere, I would like to wish you all the best for the new year. I wish you all happiness and good health. And above all, I hope that we don't lose our way in 2026. This may sound like a joke, but the risk is real. The risk is real in a world that seems to become increasingly deregulated. Where alliances are being called into question. Where some prefer the use of force and brutality over diplomacy. Where the internet is a battlefield that begins in the privacy of our homes and influences even the ballot box. Let's not lose our way. Let's not lose sight of the ultimate goal of our European history, which is peace and freedom for all peoples. Let's not lose our values and principles, particularly our belief in a multilateral order governed by international law. But in the midst of this prevailing gloom where the urge to overengage in self-criticism is very present, let's not lose sight of our strengths, our assets, and our weapons either. The European Union is an economic power, a political power, a military power. Not only do we not say this enough, but worse still, we forget it. And even sometimes we internalize in our own discourse the criticisms thrown at us by our enemies. So yes, we must do better, do more, do bigger, do stronger on many issues. Yes, the Draghi report should already have been implemented in its entirety. Yes, we must invest heavily in our independence and sovereignty. A thousand times, yes. And you will always find the Renew Europe Group to be a demanding and constructive partner in this regard. But despite all the flaws of our union, let's not forget that we are a highly attractive market of 450 million consumers. A market on which even the United States depends. Let's not forget that we have legislative weapons that enable us to defend our values and economic interests such as the DSA, the DMA, and the anti-coercion instrument. And let's not forget that tomorrow it is through our power of sanctions that we will be able to strike a harder blow against the mullahs regime and support the Iranian people's revolution. Let's not forget our strengths. We are free to speak our minds and for that reason it is our responsibility to be the voice of the people fighting for their freedom in Ukraine, in Georgia, in Palestine, Israel, Venezuela, or Iran. This dual observation on one hand of a world that is changing and breaking free from the foundations of multilateralism and on the other hand of our inability to want to be powerful could be fatal to us. But at Renew Europe we don't believe in fatalism. On the contrary, we believe in the power of action and change. And that's why we are gathered here today to discuss the theme of freedom on the offensive. I'm counting on our discussions to turn observations into proposals. So on behalf of the Renew Europe group, I'm honored by the presence of all our guests today. I'm honored that President Salome Zurabishvili is with us today to echo the ongoing fight of the Georgian people for democracy and holding free elections. And I'm honored by the presence of all our guests of course, Margrethe, Cam, Greber, Andreak and Marich, whom I welcome back to parliament. I would like to thank them all as well as my colleagues Maragnas, Chakimman and Natali Reso who will lead the discussions. And without further ado, I'm delighted to hand over the microphone to open this day of reflection to someone who in his previous capacity has been a great and longstanding leader of the Renew Europe family and whom in his new role we are still very lucky to call a friend and an ally. Of course, I'm calling Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte. Please Mark.
Well, great to be here and to see so many people I know so well. Good to see you, madam. How you doing? Pleasure to see you. I hope you're fine. And of course, Terry, who will lead us later in the debate and of course you, Madame President, dear Valerie, thank you for your very warm welcome. And let me start by saying that it is always a pleasure to be on this side of town to be at the European Parliament. This is my first public speaking engagement this year and it is very meaningful to have this conversation with you with the members of parliament. At the NATO summit in The Hague last summer, we decided to make our deterrence and defense a priority. We agreed to plan, as you know, to invest 5% of GDP annually in defense by 2035 with 3.5% on core defense and 1.5% on defense and security related issues. Yes, that is a lot of money, but it is what is required to build our armed forces and buy the capabilities those forces need to protect us. And here we are talking about battle tanks, fighter jets, ships, long-range missiles and ammunition, but also artificial intelligence, cyber defense, space capabilities, and of course much more. In The Hague, we also agreed to speed up defense production and innovation. And this is of course about re-energizing our industries across Europe and North America so that they step up supply. There are certainly business opportunities for our industries. But it is more than that. There are real benefits for all of us because when supply goes up the result is more security, more economic growth and also many more jobs. The defense dividend, the defense dividend is real. I know and you all know that getting to this famous 5% and accelerating production requires hard work and tough decisions from all of us, all our nations and all your constituents. But we need to do it. And we need to do it basically for two reasons. One, because the security situation demands it. We need to be honest. The dangers we face are real and the dangers we face are lasting. Russia remains our most significant threat. Putin's war machine is churning out military equipment around the clock and Moscow is testing us through cyber attacks, sabotage, and more. And there's no reason to believe Russia's pattern of aggressive and reckless actions will change anytime soon. On the contrary, Russia is seeking long-term confrontation. And it is not alone. Russia is working with China, with Iran, and North Korea. And these countries fuel Moscow's war against Ukraine. And together they are attempting to undermine our stability and security. At the same time, the threat from terrorism persists and instability remains rampant in NATO's southern neighborhood. The second reason why we need to deliver on the 5% is that the time when we conveniently let the United States carry the burden for our security is over. The US is absolutely committed to NATO. But this commitment comes with a clear and longstanding expectation that Europe and Canada take more responsibility for their own security. And I believe that is only fair. So 5% must be the direction of travel. There's basically no time to waste. Ensuring allies step up and speed up efforts on defense will remain my and NATO's absolute priority as we prepare for the next summit which will take place in Ankara in Turkey in July. Then Ukraine, which clearly is still a huge priority because as you all know, our security is inextricably linked to Ukraine's security. Just last week, I was at the coalition of the willing meeting in Paris where leaders discussed how we can support and secure the future for Ukraine. It was a constructive meeting where we had concrete discussions on robust security guarantees for Ukraine and where Europe and the US affirmed their readiness to provide such guarantees to secure Ukraine after the peace deal with Russia. Meanwhile, NATO continues to support Ukraine every day, and we do that in various ways, including through the Pearl initiative, which supplies vital US equipment, including air defense, which is particularly vital these days for Ukraine to protect its people and hold the front line paid for by allies. Regardless of when this war ends, our support to Ukraine will continue to be important to ensure a lasting peace. After all, the Ukrainian armed forces will remain the first line of defense. Supporting Ukraine and keeping our own people safe is not a job that NATO does alone. It is a team effort and the European Union is an essential player. The partnership between NATO and the EU is growing stronger every day. And that is exactly what we need because when we combine our strength of NATO and the EU, we can more effectively tackle the many challenges we face. And as you know, 23 nations, members of the EU, are also allies in NATO. And working together, we keep Ukraine strong today and able to defend itself against any aggression in the future. And working together, we can produce more defense capabilities. And we can produce them faster. We can innovate better and outsmart our competitors. Now is not the time to go it alone and it's not the time to create barriers between us that would increase costs, complicate production and hamper innovation. Instead, we need to leverage our respective strength even more. NATO is strong at standard setting and capability targets that are informed by our defense plans. NATO has a strong command and control force structure and the European Union has all the tools of the internal market at its disposal and of course the convening power to bring together the member states in the EU so to make sure that the money is there to invest in defense. So we complement each other. And yes, it is undeniable that Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are aligning more and more and they are challenging us. But they are only starting to understand what partnership really means. We are miles ahead. We can build on decades of friendship between our organizations and between our nations on both side of the Atlantic. And we can build on the growing partnerships with countries around the world and that is an incredible advantage. Let's ensure we retain it. I'll certainly play my part and I count on you and I know I can to play yours. So, thank you very much and I look forward to our discussions. Thank you so much.
Which one do you like? There you go. Oh, you want Okay, there's your mic. Great. Thank you. A drink of water. Okay. So, Mr. Secretary General, I know things some things are going well for you. And I would just point out I've covered NATO almost 20 years, so we're kind of the same and that we kind of just hang around and keep our jobs and hope for the best. But, you know, I have to ask this. You mentioned don't go it alone. Don't create fractures where none are needed. We cannot avoid the question the problem that has been created with President Trump's claims on Greenland. The Greenlandic government yesterday stated again they want their security to be determined by NATO to be inside NATO. So this is going to be on your plate even if you wish it weren't. And you said yesterday that it is not a crisis. So I would like to know what word you would use to describe what's happening now and how you can possibly explain that security inside the alliance is enhanced in any way by the US claims that they need to own Greenland, not just maybe boost their presence, but actually own the island. Can you just unpack that for us? It's really what's on everybody's minds here.
Well, let me start by saying that it was Donald Trump, the American president, who already when he was Trump 45, so his previous presidency between 2016 and 2020 was making us aware collectively of the need to protect the high north in the Arctic. As you know, we have eight high north countries in the Arctic. One is Russia outside NATO and seven are inside NATO. That's Canada and the US. And then in Europe it is Denmark through Greenland and Iceland, Finland, Norway and Sweden. These seven countries are basically bordering on the Arctic. And it was President Trump in his first term as I said who basically alerted us to the fact that sea lanes are opening up that Russia and China are more active and that we have to do more there together. We had a very good discussion in NATO. It was around summer. We are now taking next steps to build on that because we all agree in NATO. We all agree that when it comes to the protection of the Arctic, we have to work together and that's exactly what we are doing. Then of course I'm never commenting when there are discussions between allies. That's not up for me to comment on, but I can assure you that there is complete agreement that when it comes to the assessment of the urgency of the security situation, not only in the Baltic Sea, not only on the eastern flank, but also in the Arctic and in the southern neighborhood obviously also, but now concentrating on the Arctic, we all work together.
Okay. But I really asked about Greenland specifically. Is there any single ally who would support the US forcibly taking Greenland?
Again, what we are discussing here is to make sure that the Arctic is safe that we have seven countries working together including the United States. So we came together in NATO in the North Atlantic Council. As you know we work together as an the ambassadors and sometimes it is in the formation of foreign ministers or defense ministers or the leaders when it is a summit. We called it the North Atlantic Council a bit like you have the European Council in Europe and a North Atlantic Council came together at the level of the ambassadors and decided that we have to step up collectively. We all agree on this and when it comes now to the next steps. We all also all agree that we have to take those next steps and we are working on that diligently at the moment.
And Denmark did this. I mean over the last year it spent 14 billion additional dollars including on defense for Greenland specifically. It has enhanced its missile defense. It's got new Arctic vessels. It's really spent a lot of money and put a lot of time perhaps acknowledging that it should have been done earlier. You know, per this is something that allies can agree on, but I still have to come back to the point how would Arctic security be enhanced if the US invaded Greenland?
But again, and therefore my role is to make sure that the alliance as a whole is doing what is necessary to keep the whole of the alliance safe. And you're totally right on Denmark. Denmark is investing in Boeing P8s. Denmark is investing in long range surveillance planes for those non people.
Yeah. They are also investing in more F-35s and they are investing in air-to-air refueling and all these capabilities you need not only to keep Denmark safe to keep NATO as a whole safe but also to make sure that when it comes to the Arctic region and for them of course a special priority when it comes to Greenland to stay as safe as possible.
But again I never comment when there are discussions between allies you know exactly so so we agree but we but I can tell you that one when we talk about the security of the Arctic region there is no disagreement within the alliance when it comes to that issue and that is not only pertaining to the seven who border on the Arctic that's also true for other allies who are very much involved here you have seen comments from the Brits and from the Germans who all want to help here to make sure that the Arctic region that is US, Canada and Europe stay safe.
Well, I was just going to follow up if you wanted to make any announcement that there's going to be something like an Arctic sentry mission. It would be a good place to do it. You know, you had Baltic Sentry, Eastern Sentry when the need was acute. I mean, do you expect Arctic sentry or Greenland sentry to be stood up?
What I expect over the coming weeks is discussions how we will take the next step and the next step has to be about given the fact that we come to the same analysis all NATO allies and had a very good discussion on this around summer. We had a first debate again it was now I think last week in the North Atlantic Council on what the next step should be and we are now working on that with all allies involved particularly of course the seven who are bordering on the Arctic. I'm not allowed to take all the questions for myself because I would, but I do have to open to discussion. And hopefully some of them will follow up on some of this and when I call on you, please stand up because I don't know where everyone is sitting that is going to get a question. First MEP is Dan Bara. There you go, Dan.
Thank you. And we have the secretary general until four o'clock. He's given us some extra time, so let's do our best.
Thank you, Mark. Nice to see you here. Following the January 6th summit you have mentioned in your speech, how does NATO assess the genuine credibility of security guarantees that rely primarily on European force projections without direct troop commitment of the United States? Specifically, does shifting the burden of enforcement to a coalition within the alliance risk creating a two-tier NATO that emboldens Russia to test these new boundaries. This is the first question. The second one is something on everyone's lips. We hear about NATO's future and role in academia, in media, and of course in politics. I grew up in Romania where that was just a dream and then became a reality and now I see doubts and fears cast shadow on this reality. So allow me to be very blunt. Are you the last secretary general of NATO?
So you thought I would be provocative. I was not planning to quit already. But I'm sure there will be a successor someday. I have no idea by the way how long I will be in this job because nobody told me but you never know as we saw with Stoltenberg. Yeah, you never know and there needs to be unanimity on the successor but I never got a contract or whatever. So I have no idea for how long I've been appointed but I'm thoroughly enjoying the role and the job and I feel it's really important and there's a lot of support not for me personally that's not important but for the collective endeavor as NATO and I'm so happy what you are from Romania and what you just mentioned and I think it is totally true that NATO is crucial. I mean only I mean I was born in 1967 and I was raised with the idea that Nicolae Ceausescu would forever rule Romania. No Romania is in the EU. Romania is in NATO. These are some of the big events of history. Let's never forget what we collectively went through and how important that is. Now NATO is strong and I think because of the decisions in The Hague during the NATO summit it is even stronger because finally now we have decided to spend what is needed to protect ourselves based on an assessment of all the defense needs we collectively have and by doing that we are also equalizing our spending with the United States which was since Eisenhower debate the fact that the US was spending so much more than the Europeans and the Canadians and now we are equalizing. I think that's great news. On your first question, it is a little bit different. When you look at the meeting in Paris last week, what came out of that meeting is a three level approach when it comes to security guarantees for Ukraine. Level one is Ukrainian armed forces. They will be of course the first line of defense as in every country defending themselves. The second element of security guarantees will be what is called the coalition of the willing being brought together by Keir Starmer and President Macron of France, Emmanuel Macron, many countries working together providing security guarantees for Ukraine including training the Ukrainian armed forces and whatever is necessary to make sure that Ukraine can defend itself. But there is a third element and the third element is the United States. United States is now completely involved. And that involvement of the United States in securing the security guarantees is really extremely important. So that means that you now have a package in place which is almost done. We have to nail the final details. But that will provide a situation where if Russia would ever think of attacking again post a long-term ceasefire or a peace deal, they will only think of this a couple of minutes and then let go because they know the situation has changed dramatically since Minsk. And the reaction will be devastating. They will not do it.
Okay. All right. Take a drink of water because I'm calling on a Danish MEP. Stenos.
Thank you very much and thank you for being here with us today. And allow me to address you as the guy who's looking after all of us. And I just want you to notice, and I'm sure you have noticed it because it's been all over the place, that the people of Greenland, it's 56,000 people, are scared, stiff, they're stressed, and they're more than just worried. You have put now also out there all the truths about Denmark has invested. We are all parts of NATO. We are all talking together and yet we have already an agreement. It's from 1951. You know that as well between Denmark, Kingdom of Denmark and the US. Allowing the US to deploy all the military forces they want. They had more than thousand. Now they have 200. There are not one single Chinese or Russian ship around Greenland. Let that be stated as a fact. And there are of course also now conversations going on to try and make this go in a direction where we as allies and I and my country and all the people in Greenland strongly believe that we are allies and that you are there to protect us. But please give us an indication of what can this alliance do if two parts two countries within the alliance cannot agree. Thank you.
Yes. But I thank you. Thank you so much for that very well put question. But you have to respect the fact that when there are discussions between allies, my role has to be to make sure we solve issues. And when it comes to the protection of the high north, that is my role. I can never comment on that. That's impossible in public. And what I'm doing with US and Canada and all our allies in Europe is to make sure that we not only concentrate about Greenland, this is an issue about the high north. This is an issue about the Arctic territory. Let's not be naive. Even if there are not that many ships sailing at the moment, we know that with the sea lanes opening up in the high north in the Arctic and this is not only true for Greenland, this is true for the whole Arctic area. It's not only Russia active there, it is increasingly also China being active there. So when it comes to the Arctic region, we have to work together as an alliance and that's exactly what we are doing and we are now putting more details to the next step to make sure that we indeed can do that as a collective alliance. You can be sure of that.
But is it unthinkable as the unimaginable the words we used to use that one ally could take up arms against another inside NATO?
Again, my role as Secretary General, I'm very clear. I never ever comment when there are discussions within the alliance. We have discussions between Greece and Turkey. We have had discussions between other allies. What you then will see all my predecessors do and myself is never comment on that in public. You work behind the scenes. And when it comes to the issue at stake here, and I believe there is a bigger issue at stake here, and that is the defense of the high north, the defense of the Arctic area, there you can be sure that we do everything to protect the whole of the alliance. That's my role to keep 1 billion people safe and that is not only the eastern flank and the US and the southern flank that is also the Arctic area.
You might want to take another drink because I'm calling on Andrew. Andrew Gray from Reuters. Please stand up. He's way in the back. He's back there. You know him. There he is.
Thank you, Andrew Gray from Reuters, Secretary General. I will keep this one short. I'm not asking you to comment on specific discussions as you've already made clear that you won't do that. But in general, is it acceptable for one NATO ally to threaten the use of force to take the territory of another?
I think it's the same question in another. So I refer to the previous answer.
Oh, that was it. Okay. All right. This is going well. Okay. Next on my list is Malik Amani.
