LIVE: NATO Secretary General Rutte speaks in Washington, DC

Thank you so much for that introduction. And good morning to all of you. And good morning ambassadors. I see so many here. So many friends. Matt Whitaker is here, Ambassador of the United States to NATO, my good friend. And so many other faces I know so well. So we are really among friends this morning. And it is a pleasure to be back in the United States and particularly to be back here in Washington DC. And yes, I'm an admirer of the 40th president of the United States, Ronald Reagan, and I'm particularly honored to be here today at the Reagan Institute. If peace is to have a chance, if the hope for freedom is to be kept alive, the United States must play a powerful and active role in world affairs. When President Reagan offered those words at a gathering of the Reserve Officers Association on January 27th, 1988, the world was a very different place. The Berlin Wall still held people's hopes and dreams captive. More than 100 million men, women, and children lived in European countries behind an iron curtain. Those differences notwithstanding, what President Reagan knew then and what I know today is quite simple. American leadership is absolutely essential if freedom is to be the rule and not the exception. As Prime Minister of the Netherlands and now as Secretary General of NATO, I have developed an unflinching appreciation for the value of American leadership. And yes, I was raised with Ronald Reagan. He was my host time president and I still remember how important he was for so many people in Europe because in the end, Bush his successor, the Cold War ended. It ended by winning it and it was won by Reagan and can I add, Mikhail, the two of them working in conjunction, making the whole world safer and ending the Cold War. And I think everybody in Europe and everybody in the world should be eternally grateful to that leadership. But I've also had the opportunity to reflect on what happens when America's allies take that leadership, that US leadership for granted. In the years following President Reagan's address to those reserve officers as we entered the so-called end of history. While those newly free sought a path into NATO and began to build their own capacities to contribute to our shared security, other European allies shifted away from decades of investing in conventional military partnership with the United States during the Cold War in favor of an unhealthy codependence. So convinced that peace was permanent and didn't demand the investment we now know is essential, Western European forces shrank and defense budgets shriveled into irrelevance. Overreliance on the notion that security was just the new norm and the United States would take care of any threats further afield caused us Europeans to imagine that hard power was something to be embarrassed by, a relic of a bygone past that humankind had now outgrown. But recent years have made abundantly clear that history is alive and kicking. That while Europe may not think in spheres of influence, countries like Russia certainly do. And we have seen that Putin is all too willing to use force to press the point. Thankfully though, the same American leadership that set the conditions for staring down an evil empire, has helped keep the alliance, an alliance that ensured freedom and security during the Cold War, that alliance going, retaining the foundations and tools we need, even while many of its allies underinvested. President Trump's commitment to progress reversed more than a generation of stagnation and atrophy by reminding Europe that values must be backed by hard power. Hard power provided not only by the United States but through the collective effort of countries who are part of the most successful military alliance ever built. The president drove allies toward a historic decision at NATO summit in The Hague last summer to invest 5% of GDP into defense. And this will help to ensure that the NATO of the future is not an alliance in which allies are unhealthily dependent on the United States and in which the United States knows that it has capable partners who are ready, willing, and able to defend our freedom and security. Those investments are already laying the foundation for a stronger Europe, in a stronger NATO, for a genuine partnership and the security that our freedom deserves. These investments are crucial and allies are moving quickly to secure the budgets, grow their armed forces, and field the capabilities we know we need. But even with this progress, it is clear we will need more. More high-end exquisite capabilities to defend against the modern missiles our adversaries are employing against Kyiv and Tel Aviv. More scalable, adaptable drone interceptor technology. And here, Ukraine's hard-earned battle lessons are saving lives beyond its own borders. At this moment, allies on NATO's eastern flank and our dear friends in the Gulf are defending against Russian and Iranian drones, thanks in part to Ukrainian technology that did not exist even one year ago. So business as usual will not meet this moment. And allow me here to applaud President Trump for his bold leadership and vision. The United States, and this is just an example from last week, just announced a framework agreement to triple production of certain types of Patriot missiles. And this is absolutely crucial and is another example of American leadership and it is essential to refilling our magazines and building the arsenal of freedom. As I look toward the Ankara summit, I'm confident NATO collectively and allies individually will similarly act to break down barriers and unleash the potential of defense industry on both sides of the Atlantic. So the money is flowing. Industry and government will cooperate to ensure that money translates into the capabilities we need. Why then does everyone in this room have a knot in their stomach about the future of the transatlantic alliance? Why when we turn on our televisions or scroll on our phones do we see eager early drafts of NATO's obituary? Let me be clear. This alliance is not whistling past the graveyard as you would say in the United States. Allies recognize and I recognize we are in a period of profound change in the transatlantic alliance. Europe is assuming a greater and fairer share of the task of providing for its conventional defense and from that there will be no going back and nor should there be. This is a move from unhealthy codependence to a transatlantic alliance grounded in true partnership. For increased investments and improved production to matter, they must be accompanied by a mindset shift. That mindset shift is well underway. But these shifts are often only fully appreciated with the benefit of time and the space between can be precarious. Let's consider the most recent events. When it came time to provide the logistical and other support the United States needed in Iran, some allies were a bit slow, to say the least. In fairness, they were also a bit surprised. To maintain the element of surprise for the initial strikes, President Trump opted not to inform allies ahead of time. And I understand that. But what I see when I look across Europe today is allies providing a massive amount of support, basing, logistics, and other measures to ensure the powerful US military succeeds in denying Iran a nuclear weapon and degrading its capacity to export chaos. Nearly without exception, allies are doing everything the United States is asking. They have heard and are responding to President Trump's request. United Kingdom. United Kingdom is leading a coalition of countries that are aligning the military, the political and the economic tools that will be required to ensure free passage through the Strait of Hormuz. This is evidence of a mindset shift. And right now, European allies play leading roles in NATO's operations to secure our eastern flank, the Baltic Sea, and the Arctic, acting rapidly to field personnel, aircraft, naval vessels, and more to bolster our security in the face of emerging threats in these regions. When Russian MiG-31s crossed the Estonian airspace last fall, it was European aircraft, Italians in the lead backed up by Finns and Swedes that turned them back. And a flock of Russian drones were recklessly into Poland around the same time. I'm proud to say it was a Dutch F-35 that fired the shot that took down the danger. In my estimation, Secretary Rubio is spot on when he says that an alliance cannot be a one-way street. It was not a one-way alliance when US, European, and Canadian troops fought and sacrificed shoulder-to-shoulder in Afghanistan. And I'm heartened by the knowledge that every day as we speak, the US, European, and Canadian troops continue to train and deploy in support of our shared security. I'm confident that a stronger Europe and a stronger NATO will not take US leadership for granted. On the 40th anniversary of D-Day in 1984, standing atop the cliffs at Pointe du Hoc where the US Second Ranger Battalion had fought to carve out a toehold on the continent, President Reagan offered an apt reflection. It is good and fitting to renew our commitment to each other, to our freedom, and to the alliance that protects it. NATO is changing. Thanks to American leadership and a collective commitment to ensuring continued freedom and security, NATO is growing stronger. Thanks to the mindset shift that is happening, I see a true partnership on the transatlantic horizon. The future doesn't belong to the faint-hearted, Reagan famously said. As we brave this new path before us, I'm confident that together, the United States and its allies in NATO will deliver on our shared commitment to securing our freedom today, tomorrow, and well beyond. Thank you.

Well, I mean, as they would say in diplomatic circles, these conversations were very frank and open. Which is good. I mean, they may have been candid, they even were candid, frank enough. But that's good because we are amongst friends here. I mean, the president, myself, we like each other. We are good friends for many years now. And I'd rather have the conversation on the table instead of tiptoeing around it. And I sensed his disappointment about the fact that he felt that too many allies were not with him. And I explained to him yesterday, I said, "Hey, Mr. President, clearly the overwhelming majority of Europeans have done what the US asked of them and what was previously agreed in these circumstances." And yes, sometimes it takes a bit of time, but hey, guess what? We have coalitions in Europe. We have sometimes the political horizon to take care of. Sometimes it takes a couple of days. But then we pull together and almost the whole of Europe did. For the US to project power on the world stage through its partners in Europe and NATO is there of course to protect the Europeans but also to protect the United States. As Jonas Støre, the Norwegian prime minister said, these huge nuclear submarines in Russia are not there to attack Norway, they are there to attack the United States and it is thanks to the alliance that we are able to make sure that they are not able to get in a position to do that. So this is just an example where both the US mainland and Europe stay stronger and safer because of the alliance. So it was a good conversation. It was open and candid. And I clearly felt his disappointment which again to a certain extent I understand.

Well, let's start with sometimes the wrong value proposition, the wrong view on this. I feel, I mean I'm an audience of one but let's have that debate, is that NATO was founded because the United States didn't want to repeat the mistake after the Second World War of isolationism which was the case after the First World War. At a famous speech by Churchill late December in the US Congress where he said again for the second time in the 20th century the long arm of history reaches out to the new world to come to the defense of the old and let's not repeat that mistake. That was one reason to create NATO. But the main reason to create NATO is there because there is a case to be built for the Europeans, for the transatlantic community as a whole, including the United States and Canada to stay safe. And for the United States to stay safe, you need a secure Europe, yes, but you also need a secure Arctic. You need a secure Atlantic. Because otherwise the Russians and others might pose a threat. And we know by now, hey let's not be naive about this, that you cannot separate what happens in the Indo-Pacific from what happens in the Atlantic. It is China and North Korea and the Russians working together with Iran when it comes for example to the war effort, unprovoked war of aggression of Russia against Ukraine, they've worked together. So this is worldwide and we have to work together. I'm not pleading for NATO to expand to the Indo-Pacific but the fact that we have that close cooperation now with Japan, with South Korea, with obviously Australia and New Zealand, I think it's evidence of that. So for all these reasons, if my family lives in the United States and they are partly Americans anyway by birth and others have moved here after the Second World War, they deeply sense that for the US to stay safe, we have to stick together. And we need this transatlantic partnership.

Yeah. So I think two elements to my reaction, to my answer. One is it has always been a long-standing position of NATO that Iran should not get its hands on a nuclear capability but also not on a ballistic missile capability. And the fact that under US leadership those capabilities have been severely degraded is good news. Existential news for Israel, existential news for the Middle East, but also for Europe and for the whole world. And I know there are those who pleaded to continue the negotiating track. But hey, listen, we know what happened with North Korea. That can be a moment where you've negotiated so long that guess what? North Korea got its hands on the nuclear capability and then it is too late. So NATO always being clear that Iran should not be able to get its hands on those capabilities. So then when the US started the campaign late February on that last Saturday in February, there are long-standing arrangements and agreements with European allies on overflight, on basing, there are examples of European countries that had to shut down their commercial airports because they had to host tanker planes from the US. Fine. I mean this is the deals they made before and this is exactly what we need. This is the US also being able to make use, as I said, for Europe to be a power projection platform for the United States and this is part of the deal. Not all European nations but most did, sometimes with a little bit of delay and there I think part of the explanation is the fact that the president wanted to maintain the element of surprise which I totally understand but that also meant that there was not a lot of prior consultation. So then they had to scramble to understand what was happening and then to step up. But when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz, it was Keir Starmer, the UK prime minister who took the leadership role here and he said we have to bring together a coalition of countries which is able collectively to make sure that the principle of free shipping, of free travel on our seas and oceans is upheld. And obviously that means with the United States together discussing the what, the where and the when of the mission. But this is about practical support. It is about, when you take my country, the Netherlands, announcing yesterday, it will probably be about mine hunters. It will be about frigates. It will be about radar technology. And so each country is now looking for what they can do to contribute to this to make sure that the Strait of Hormuz stays open. Of course, it is early days. This only, as you said right, two days into the ceasefire. So we have to see what happens with the shipping lanes as we now go forward day by day and I know the president is very keen on making sure that the sea lanes are open as soon as possible. But this is practical support, one with the campaign itself and now in the next stage to make sure that this principle of free shipping is maintained and this is why we have allies, coalitions, this is not only NATO nations, this is including Japan, Korea, Australia being part of this, countries like Bahrain and the UAE in the Gulf part of this, but of course the overwhelming amount of countries is from NATO.

Well, again, as I said, he was disappointed yesterday, but he also had a very frank and open discussion amongst friends. But generally, I mean, I totally understand that over time the US wants more and more to pivot towards the Indo-Pacific. This is one of the reasons why in Europe we have to step up and that period of codependence and become more interdependent with the United States within the alliance, a stronger Europe and a stronger NATO. As I said, what is important of course over time when you achieve that point is to make sure that whilst the Europeans are stepping up and the US is over time making sure that they can also take care of the threats in the Pacific and of course here in their own hemisphere, that it's done in a way where when it comes to the essential capabilities and essential support that we stay strong as an alliance. But everybody agrees with that. There's no debate on that.

And these are striking numbers, right? So you have to imagine that countries like Belgium, like Spain, Italy and Canada, big economies were not in 2%. They all reached the 2% in one go. And I would argue without President Trump, I'm not sure they would have done that in only 9 to 12 months. This is billions and billions, actually for Italy, it is an increase of defense spending of 10 billion in one year. And then the whole of the alliance having committed to the 5% at the summit in The Hague. So we need the credible path to get there. So not just simmering around to 2% and then in 2034 all of a sudden we go from two to five. No, it

There has to be a credible path. This is one of the things we will look for in Ankara. Ankara will focus primarily on industry, industrial production, but of course we will also celebrate these good numbers but also make sure that as an alliance collectively we reach that credible path. The good thing is, and this was under my predecessor Jens Stoltenberg, that when you had the Welsh defense pledge of 2%, this was a bit taken from the air, the 2%. Now this 5%, including the 3.5% core defense spending, the 1.5% defense-related spending, is deeply rooted in the plans which are there basically saying when Article 5 will be triggered, hopefully never, but if it would ever be triggered and there is an attack on NATO territory, who will do what when and where and what is needed. So every country, my country, the Netherlands, Germany, everybody knows this is the list of requirements from NATO and that list of requirements when you add it all up together in the core defense spending the 3.5, overall spending 5%. That's about the number you need, a little bit more in some cases, a little bit less, but it is hovering around 3.5 for example when it comes to the core defense and five for the overall defense. So everybody, every country knows what they need to do. So it's not just spending more. The problem is the defense industrial production and that is a problem here in the United States. It is a problem in Europe. Look, shipbuilding in the United States but also in Europe, an issue. The Chinese have now more ships sailing than the United States has and we know that the Chinese are heavily investing in their defense. And of course we look for Russia when it comes to our adversaries but let's also be watchful what China is doing. So for all these reasons there is this big issue of the defense industrial production. I predict that over time you will see parts of our industry, maybe in the US but maybe sooner even in Europe, will move into more of a wartime mindset, not to prepare for war but to make sure that you are able to refill the stockpiles, also making use of the traditional industrial base, not only of the defense industrial base because we are really in a tight race here and we have to get this right very soon.

Well, first of all, produce more. Put in the extra shifts, put in the extra production lines where necessary. Build the new factories. Please don't talk about 10-year contracts. Because you know, in the US system, you have a one-year cycle. In the European system, you have an election cycle of three or four years, but the money is there. I mean, you just mentioned the 20% increase, where look what Europeans are spending in the US. It was 10 billion in 2020. It was already 43 billion in 2024, buying from Europe into the US industrial base. And that will massively increase, let alone what the US will need for itself to buy given the huge increase of the defense budget here in the United States under Trump's leadership. So, do this. And then secondly, work together. And I know there are many examples of US companies investing in Europe, setting up factories, for example, factories in the southern part of Bavaria to produce interceptors. And there are many of these examples, but also European companies like Thales, like Leonardo, so many companies, I mean, many companies from Turkey for example, investing in the US, working together. So it's this transatlantic defense industrial base and there is no way you can separate that. There's absolutely no way because the only one who will benefit from that is Russia in the short term and China in the longer term and we cannot have it.

Well, on the first question, I'm afraid my view will be a bit more nuanced. It's true that Russia is losing massive amounts of people each month, up to a month with 30,000 to 35,000 people dead or seriously wounded. Can you imagine? I mean, the Soviets in the 1980s lost under 20,000 in 10 years in Afghanistan and now they're losing this in 3 weeks. So this is massive and this has to reach somehow Moscow and St. Petersburg. You cannot try to contain this to the parts of Russia which will not be reached by the general media. So that will have an impact on Russia no doubt. But on the other hand, still overall, the front line is moving in the wrong direction extremely slowly and again against extreme costs and the Ukrainians are staunchly defending themselves and they are using the latest technology. I mentioned in my introduction the drone technology and this gives them immense power of course and also when it comes to drones and anti-drones they really have the upper hand on that part but more generally you still see very slowly that the movement is in the wrong direction if you are pro-Ukraine like I am and anti-Russian. When it comes to the second question, I still think we need a settlement for this, a peace deal and this is what President Trump was driving. He broke the deadlock with Putin last year by getting engaged with him. He, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are working around the clock together with Marco Rubio to get this done. And we all understand that the key to unlock this is for Ukraine to know that after a peace deal, NATO membership not being on the table for now, that there will be security guarantees in place so strong that they know that the Russians will not try to attack again. And early January in Paris under President Macron's leadership we had a meeting with all the countries part of the coalition of the willing, including the key in the United States, we agreed on a three-layer approach. Layer one is the Ukrainian armed forces, they have to be the strongest possible with huge investments from Europe and the US to make sure they can defend themselves. Second layer being the coalition of the willing, so that's primarily Europe but also some non-European nations. And the third layer being the United States providing the backstop to that coalition. And that is a very strong package of security guarantees. And this is key to unlock the debate on what is somehow the landing ground for a peace. But of course you need two to play tango. Also Putin has to play ball and of course this is also testing him how serious he is in getting this done.

Well, of course, what again on my predecessor Stoltenberg happened is that in all the countries on the eastern flank, we have now what we in NATO parlance now call the forward land forces and these are multi-country forces defending, helping to defend for example Latvia where it is Canada taking the lead, Estonia where the UK is taking the lead, Poland where the US is taking the lead, and Lithuania where my country the Netherlands is active under the leadership of Germany. So this is one way to make sure that all these countries on the eastern flank have in addition to their own national armed forces and of course the overall NATO Article 5 protection, that they have what they need to defend themselves. And of course you always have to make use of your resources which are always limited in the best possible way. So this is a debate we constantly are having, where should you deploy, what is the best way to do that. I leave that primarily to the military. And we have by the way with Alexus Grynkewich, the new Supreme Allied Commander Europe and also commander of the US forces in Europe, we have an amazing senior commander, a four-star general who is constantly with his team assessing what is the best way to make use of all the resources available from the US, from Europe to protect the continent.

The total clarity of focus from the day he entered into office till he left the presidency in 1988 and handed over to Bush, to Herbert Walker Bush who then took that legacy and in the end saw the Berlin Wall coming down. That leadership, first of all, total clarity of focus which is we have to win the Cold War, ended by winning it, there's no other way. And he knew that in Maggie he had the best possible ally in Europe, in the United Kingdom, that special relationship which is so important to the alliance and to the whole transatlantic community. And it was like I said, who at that time was rebuilding her country. Don't forget that in the 1970s the UK was run by the trade unions more or less and she was able, fighting the coal miners' union, getting the Falklands back from Argentina in 1982. She was a staunch leader and these two leaders, deeply understanding the value of democracy, of freedom, that power, I think has brought us so far. But also there is the legacy of the diplomacy when Bush, when the Berlin Wall came down. It was Bush who understood that he could not celebrate that and he got criticized for that here in the United States. Why don't you celebrate the fact that thanks to your leadership and the president preceding your presidency, Reagan's leadership, you brought down the Berlin Wall? He understood that for Gorbachev to survive at that important moment he could not celebrate that too openly. And it is also that type of leadership and I really admire also Bush but first of all Reagan. And of course there are so many funny stories about that relationship but I'll make use of that in the lunch. But how Maggie said she would hand herself into the Oval Office and the whole of the American administration tell the president, 'You've got to say no to the prime minister.' 'Yes, I will.' 'You've got to say no.' 'Hello, Ronnie. Let's first have a meeting one-on-one.' And then she went to the Oval Office, sat for an hour. They came out and of course he had agreed with everything the prime minister wanted. And his staff said, 'But you would say no to the prime minister.' 'You cannot say no to Maggie.' And this is also the sweet part of that relationship.

We are.