A Romanian F-16 downed a drone over Estonia. This was a Ukrainian drone that would not have been there but for Russia's aggression. The key is that NATO's air defenses were effective yet again, and we will continue to improve our capacity to address any threat to our territory or to our people. Ministers in Sweden will exchange views on key developments affecting all our security, including in the Middle East. As I reflect on current developments, I see two distinct situations, both of which carry significant implications for our security. On one hand is the United States' effort to ensure Iran doesn't obtain nuclear weapons, and a nuclear Iran is an outcome the NATO alliance and the broader international community has long deemed unacceptable. Iran is trying to hold the global economy hostage by closing a vital waterway on which much of the world depends, especially many of our partners. This is a direct assault on freedom of navigation and global commerce. Importantly, we are now seeing many countries coming together around plans to ensure freedom of navigation, including Germany, the United Kingdom, and others. This is about strength and cooperation with NATO's partners in the Gulf region. The Hague summit agenda is about delivery: delivery of a stronger, fairer NATO, delivery of our support to Ukraine, and ultimately of the security of one billion people across the alliance. And with that, I'm as always ready to take your questions.
Okay. Let's start here in the front. Bloomberg.
Secretary General, from Bloomberg News. I want to ask you about the situation in the Middle East. You mentioned that a lot of allies have joined interests in the Strait of Hormuz. At which point and under which conditions would NATO be ready to consider further involvement under a NATO flag, and what could that look like, and what's the timeline? Thank you.
Well, let me first acknowledge the fact that European and Canadian allies have heard the US call for action. We have seen from day one thousands of flights taking off from European bases in support of US operations, and this was all aligned and in line with bilateral commitments. This is all over Europe. It's massive: restocking, refueling, etc. And then to your question, when it comes to this strait, you now see allies increasingly reacting to the call for action, hearing the call for action when it comes to prepositioning crucial assets close to the theater. And of course, this alliance always has debates and discussions going on how we can, yes or no, have a potential contribution as NATO to whatever is happening. Also, in my mind, these are informal discussions. But hey, the situation is dynamic. The situation is continuing to develop, and we are continuing to monitor.
Okay. Let's just next to her. Answer.
Yes. Hi, Matagoli. Answer. Thank you for taking my question. Secretary General, next week the European foreign affairs ministers are convening in Cyprus, and one of the key issues there is to find out which red lines are for Europe for possible direct negotiations with Russia. Do you support a direct negotiation process between Europe and Russia? And secondly, one of the names that's been floated as a possible European negotiator is Mario Draghi, who seems to be the solution for every problem in Europe. Would you support him as a European negotiator?
Mario Draghi is a close personal friend. I'm not going to comment on whoever should take that role. I think first the EU has to decide on what role it will play. The European Union, I think, really has to come over here.
Secretary General, Andrew Gray from Reuters. Good morning. You have said that you have a 'no surprises' agreement with President Trump in terms of the transition to a greater European role in NATO, but what we've seen over the last couple of weeks is repeated surprises over this announcement about a drawdown of US troops. First it was meant to be coming from Germany, now it's meant to be coming from Poland. Nobody's very clear about the numbers. Even the Polish government doesn't seem to know what's happening. And NATO itself said it was seeking to clarify with the US when it made the initial announcement. So doesn't this mean that it's not 'no surprises' but has turned into 'surprise central', and that undermines your deterrence?
I will answer your question, but let me first zone out for a few minutes—I won't be that long—but let me first zone out and then I'll get to your question. What is happening at the moment, and this is taking place now since February last year, is that the Europeans and the Canadians are massively stepping up in terms of defense spending. As I mentioned before, Germany will spend by 2029 over 150 billion euros. That's over 175 billion dollars, twice as much as in 2021. We see this all over Europe. My country, the whole of the European—all the European allies and Canada, the whole of the alliance on 2%, and including the bigger economies. So this is massively taking place at this moment. You heard the US Vice President yesterday. I totally agreed with him. Europe has to take a bigger role. Europe will take a bigger role. Together with Canada, a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO, taking more of the responsibility for the conventional defense. And yes, the US will stay involved in Europe, also over time, of course, when it comes to nuclear, but also when it comes to the conventional. Against that background, we know that adjustments will take place. The US has to pivot more towards, for example, Asia. This will take place over time in a structured way. What you have clearly heard yesterday from the Supreme Allied Commander, from General Cavoli, is that NATO's defense is not punitive, impulsive from President Trump against Germany for speaking out against him. And then secondly, on a related note, this new force model is expected to be agreed on by defense policy people on Friday. The US is widely expected in Europe to massively reduce the number of its forces. Do you expect them to reduce the number of forces available to SACEUR, and what message will that send over the US commitment to Europe? Hey, the NATO force model and the US contribution to the NATO force model—this is a debate which started again a year ago. This is why Europe is spending so much more to basically end the over-reliance on one ally when it comes to defense of the over totality of NATO territory. This is why European and Canadian allies are increasing their spending, increasing their capabilities, massively investing in the defense industrial base on both sides of the Atlantic. When it comes to the NATO force model, we have the processes in place. This is normal business, so this was to be expected. I think it is only right that it happens. What exactly will be the announcement, you have to wait till later. I'm not allowed to disclose that, but I think this is exactly as we expected, absolutely within the realm of the 'no surprises' approach.
Third row, center. Lithuanian broadcaster.
Thank you. Hello, Secretary General. Milda Vilikskita from Lithuanian public broadcaster. You mentioned yesterday's incident in Estonia. Today we had an incident in Lithuania, also a drone. Citizens got code red alerts to their phones. They went to shelter. I know that it is mostly national responsibility to intercept, to find those drones. But unfortunately, it looks like countries on their own are not capable to do that successfully. So could we say that fighter jets are still the only, the main option to shut down drones? Does NATO have algorithms how to do that? And second question on that: do you have information that Russia overtook those Ukrainian drones and navigated them to Baltic states on purpose? Thank you.
Well, let's look at what happened over the last couple of days. This is exactly what we planned and prepared for: a calm, decisive, and proportionate response to these drone incursions. And if drones come from Ukraine, they are not there because Ukraine wanted to send a drone to Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia. They are there because of the reckless, illegal, full-scale attack of Russia in 2022, starting in 2022 after, of course, what it did in Crimea in 2014 against Ukraine. This is why this is happening. And as you have seen yesterday, on the 9th of May—was that yesterday or the day before?—it was a Romanian F-16 fighter jet from NATO's Baltic Air Policing Mission in Lithuania shooting down this drone over Estonian airspace. So this is exactly what we planned to prepare for. When it comes to your broader question about how can you best counter drones, this depends of course on the situation. I will not comment on in what situation you need fighter jets or other systems, but more generally speaking, as you know, part of the eastern flank is not only to bring together all our capabilities on the eastern flank, but also to be able to learn all the lessons from Ukraine and the drone war Ukraine is fighting against Russia successfully, to incorporate those lessons in NATO systems, models, and approach. I have no information on that.
Radio Europe Ukrainian service.
Secretary General, up to this point, Russia has not attacked any NATO member state. NATO membership protects Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia from Russia. In this context, Russia's representative at the UN Security Council even referred to the decision-making centers in Latvia. So my question is: what is your reaction to the spread of such claims about NATO, and what is your reaction to the threats coming out from Russia? Should they be taken seriously?
That Russian claim is totally ridiculous. Totally ridiculous, and Russia knows it.
Okay. Third row is behind. Anadolu.
Thank you very much, Secretary General. From Anadolu Agency. You've mentioned it yourself during your statement. I think it wouldn't be an over-exaggeration to state that the alliance is facing threats not only externally but internally as well, and views are evolving that the summit in Turkey will actually be one of the most important and consequential summits in the history of the alliance. You recently visited Turkey yourself, so I'd like to know what your expectations are from the Ankara summit, and do you think NATO can emerge stronger from the summit? Thank you.
Yes, I already think we're stronger than a year ago. Look at what the European and Canadian allies are doing in ramping up their defense spending, taking more control of the conventional defense of this part of NATO territory, and therefore making it possible for the US indeed to pivot also to other interests, which we completely share when it comes, for example, to the Indo-Pacific. It is crucial, of course, that the US is able also to open up resources to do more in the Pacific if they so wish. This has to be done in a controlled way over time, exactly as the senior American politicians, including the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense, have stated. And this is taking place. It is ending the over-reliance on one ally. It is also equalizing the defense spending in Europe and Canada with the defense spending in the United States. We talked about this for 30, 40, 50 years, basically since Eisenhower, and it took us all the way to Trump 47 to solve this. Last year in The Hague, defense spending commitments, and allies are delivering. Defense spending last year was increasing by 20% in Europe. So there is a lot, in Canada, a lot of money. So I think we are in a better shape, and you will always have internal debates. This is an alliance of democracies. We will have discussions. That's not only affordable, I even think it is the strength of this alliance. When it comes to Turkey and the summit, I want that summit to really focus on the biggest issue we are facing today. The biggest issue we are facing today when it comes to alliance policy is how can we not only ramp up spending but then more of that transfer that into more defense industrial output. I'm meeting today with financial capital. I was yesterday with industry. The American President, President Trump, meeting the big primes in the United States, being very clear that he wants to quadruple the defense industrial output. I completely support that policy. In my own conversations with American companies, European companies, Canadian companies, in Europe, including Turkey and the UK and Norway and the European Union, we have to do more because we know there is a massive need for increase in defense industrial production. What I expect in Ankara is really again a splash like we had in The Hague. The splash was about defense spending. The Ankara summit has to be about really now moving the needle substantially on defense industrial production.
Okay. Wall Street Journal here on the third.
Wall Street Journal Reporter
16:47 ↗
Thank you very much, Michel. Can I follow up on your... We're now years into the war in Ukraine and of course...
Yes, I think there are many reasons. I think part of it is that defense industry sometimes requires 5 to 10-year long-term contracts, which is very difficult in the US system. You're basically working on a yearly cycle. In Europe, we work elections to elections, basically, or five-year cycles. It's difficult to give those long-term demand signals. What I'm telling the industry is this: seeing that we are now collectively moving to the 3.5%, 5% core defense spending, 5% overall defense spending, this means hundreds of billions extra coming in when it comes to spending on the defense industrial output. So they are businesswomen, businessmen in the senior positions in these companies. So put in the extra production lines, put in the extra shifts, make sure the output is there. Not at higher prices, at lower prices preferably, but at least not at higher prices. And also, please realize this money comes from the taxpayer. So when the American president was quite critical of one of the primes in the US saying, 'Hey, you get a big kickback from your own company in terms of a bonus. Great if you are a purely commercial company, but hey, you are very much dependent on taxpayer money, so it is difficult to explain to the taxpayer why a big defense company would get such a high salary.' So I think he was right there. The same debates we need to have in Europe. What I'm seeing, however, this is the positive: when I speak with the defense industrial companies, is that they are going through that change in mindset. The mindset shift is taking place. They understand this is crucial. The other issue is making sure that the supply chain is functioning. So it is more than only the defense base, also everything before it, and of course the financial sector, who is also turning the corner. Only two, three years ago, it was difficult for them to see the difference between...
