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. You have clearly heard yesterday from the Supreme Allied Commander, General Krinkovic. When it comes to this announcement, the 4,000 to 5,000, it is rotational forces, not having an impact on NATO's defense plans.
Thanks so much, Secretary General. Up on this subject, you said structured, but this seems anything but structured. So how do you respond to this notion that this is punitive, impulsive from President Trump against Germany for speaking out against him? And then secondly, on a related force agreed defense policy, people on Friday, the US is expected to mass reduce number of forces. Do you expect them to reduce number of forces available to SAC and what message will send over the US commitment to Europe?
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 overall alliance relying on one ally when it comes to defense of the 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. It is normal business. It is expected. I think it is only right 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 and absolutely within the realm of the no surprises approach.
Okay. Coming here, 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, 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 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.
Thank you so much for giving me the floor. Stepan, Radio Europe Ukrainian service. Secretary General, please. Russia insists that Latvia is giving territory to Ukraine in order to launch the attacks on Russian territory with the drones and claims that NATO membership will not protect Latvia from the possible retaliation by 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? So should they be taken seriously?
Yet another example of that Russian claim is totally ridiculous, totally ridiculous, and Russia knows it.
Okay. Third row is behind, Anol.
Thank you very much, Secretary General. You've mentioned it yourself during your statement. I think it wouldn't be an overstatement 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, 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 NATO is 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 Indo-Pacific if they so wish. But 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 overreliance 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, the 5% defense spending commitment, and allies are delivering. The 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. There will always be discussions, that's unavoidable. 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 firms when it comes to defense spending. I was meeting yesterday with industry. I will meet again with industry in a couple of weeks. You have seen the American president, President Trump, meeting with the big primes in the United States, being very clear that he wants to quadruple the defense industrial output. I completely support that policy. I have my own conversations with American companies, European companies, Canadian companies. And when I talk Europe, it is 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 Hague splash was about defense spending. The Ankara summit has to be about really now moving the needle substantially when it comes to defense industrial production.
Okay. Wall Street Journal here on the third.
Thank you very much. Dan Michaels. Hi. Good morning. Can I follow up on your comment just now? So we're now years into the war in Ukraine and a lot of these conversations are very similar to the ones that were happening in 2022. So from all your discussions, can you explain to us why is it taking so long for, why is it taking so long for industry to ramp up? Thank you.
Yes, I think there are many reasons. I think part of it is that defense industry sometimes is requiring 5 to 10 year long-term contracts which is very difficult. In the US system, you basically are working on a yearly cycle. In the European system, you work from elections to elections, so basically four or five year cycles. So it is difficult to give those long-term demand signals. But 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 that we need more, for example, Patriot systems, F-35s, and when it comes to the European defense industrial base, we need more SAMP/Ts, more tanks, jets, etc., etc. Behind this, of course, is a big other issue which is making sure that the fuel is there, that the supply is there, that the supply chain is functioning. It was to differ drugs, pornography versus investing in defense. Now they understand the difference and they are doing it.
Just behind him, Romanian radio.
Hello, B1 Radio Romania. Could you share us more details about the incident yesterday in Estonia?
No, I can't because that is really of course confidential. But let me just say, you are Romanian. It was a Romanian F-16 who basically was able to shut down a drone over Estonian airspace, part of this Baltic Air Policing Mission in Lithuania. So I think you can be proud of that. And I know that Romania itself, and I was visiting last week Bucharest where we had the meeting with the two presidents of Romania and Poland, and then the next day the meeting with the B9 and the Nordic countries, and obviously this is on the agenda. How can we become better and better at countering drones? And this is one of the reasons why we have the eastern flank. This is one of the reasons why the eastern flank goes all the way from the High North to the Black Sea, covering the whole of the eastern flank, to become better and better, learning from Ukraine when it comes to drone technology and also counter technology.
