Davos, 23 January 2025
On Wednesday 22 and Thursday 23 January NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte attended the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Speaking at a breakfast held in support of Ukraine, hosted by The Victor Pinchuk Foundation and Yalta European Strategy, Mr Rutte underlined that a win for Putin would be a defeat for freedom, security and global stability. “We really have to step up and not scale back the support for Ukraine. We have to change the trajectory of the war,” he insisted adding that any deal that pleased Russia, China, Iran and North Korea would not bring peace but make the world a darker place. The Secretary General went on to emphasise the vital need for Europeans to ramp up defence investment and production, noting that this is crucial to allowing NATO to deter aggression and ensure our collective defence into the future.
The Secretary General also spoke at a plenary event on ‘Technology in the world’ about the role innovation plays in meeting global challenges. Mr Rutte made clear that harnessing technology and increasing investment in defence is key to keeping the one billion people living in NATO countries safe. He also called on NATO Allies to be faster and fiercer in shifting to a wartime mindset saying “speed is of the essence”.
Audio
- Ukrainian Breakfast on “Your Country First – Win With Us” – A panel discussion at the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum | download mp3
- Plenary Session: “Technology in the World”. A panel discussion with the NATO Secretary General and CEOs of technological companies | download mp3
Opinions
Topics
Remarks by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte during a panel discussion “Your Country First – Win With Us” at the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland
23 January 2025
(As delivered)
Fareed Zakaria, CNN – So that I don’t offend any protocol I am going to start with the one person on the panel who is not a head of government – though was – Mark Rutte. Mark, let me ask you the central question that so many people think about is how will NATO support Ukraine going forward? And in an eventual ceasefire deal, what is Ukraine’s future with NATO?
NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte – Thank you very much. And also Victor and Klaus, thank you for making this possible again. Before I get to the question, please allow me to say, first of all that we really have to step up and not scale back the support for Ukraine. We have to change the trajectory of the war (which is ongoing, and so far as we know, the front line is moving in the wrong direction). It’s going [west]wards. And this is for three reasons. One, because of Ukraine. We cannot allow in the 21st century that one country invades another country and tries to colonise it. We are beyond those days, past those days, so that’s one. Secondly, because we know it is yes Ukraine but it is also about how China and North Korea and Iran and Russia are all working together. And this is, this is basically testimony to the fact that this is not only a European conflict, it is a geopolitical issue, a geopolitical conflict which is being fought out. And if we get a bad deal, it would only mean that we will see the President of Russia high-fiving with the leaders of North Korea, Iran and China, and we cannot accept that. That will be geopolitically a big, a big mistake. So for all these reasons, but also for NATO itself. If Ukraine would lose, that would mean that within NATO, we are not talking about whatever 3% instead of the present spending commitments we have made with the NATO. Whatever, exactly the outcome of that debate will be – it will not be billions extra, it will be trillions extra. Because if Ukraine loses, then to restore the deterrence of the west, of NATO. Again, it will be a much, much higher price than what we’re contemplating at this moment in terms of spending up, of ramping up our spending and ramping up our industrial production.
To your question, and as you know, there is a commitment that Ukraine will become a member of NATO. The question now, of course, is how this will exactly play out whenever, hopefully, as soon as possible, Zelenskyy would say – the President of Ukraine – I’m willing to enter into peace talks when we can get Putin to the table, the most important thing at that moment is how to make sure that we have a sustainable peace. That we will never again experience what happened with Minsk in 2014 where we thought that we had a sustainable peace, but basically Putin was able to continue his quest to get more of Ukraine. And he did in 2022 but also before, of course, with the “green men”, not Russians, of course, but still, we know they were in the Donbas. So it has to be sustainable. And for it to be sustainable, we have to make sure that Putin will never, ever, ever again try to get a square kilometre of Ukraine in the future.
My problem with the question is this – that I see too many politicians inside Ukraine and outside Ukraine contemplating, if you would have peace talks, what would that mean first of all, for the territory the Russians have now captured? And secondly, what it would mean for NATO, yes and no? And the risk here is that we start to negotiate with Putin without Putin at the table. And the risk is that Putin is sitting in his reclining chair in Moscow, that he is just ticking boxes, yes or not NATO, yes or not keeping some of the territory I have captured in the past.
So I would say our focus has to be to bring Ukraine in the best possible position when peace talks will start. And when they end, we have to make sure that the peace then we have collectively fostered that that peace is sustainable, will never, ever be challenged again. And yes, obviously full NATO membership is then the easiest outcome. But whatever exactly the outcome is, it has to be clear that is sustainable. And finally, on this, we have to make clear that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, has no veto and has no vote on whoever would join NATO in the future. Only if he wants to join NATO – but I don’t think he wants – so, and he has nothing to say about it. We have to be very clear.
Fareed Zakaria, CNN – I’m going to ask President Stubb of Finland to close out this, this round. But before that, I did want to give Mark Rutte a chance to respond, respond to Ambassador Grennell, because he did directly address some of the comments you made.
NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte – Yes, well, he is right, of course, that the problem is not the US, the problem is Europe. The problem is that – and Trump has consistently made this point – that in Europe, we are underspending in terms of defence. And he made that point I think it was in 1980 the first time and became President, first time in 2016, 2017, he was very clear on this. And I think thanks partly also to him, and maybe to a large extent, we have seen this upturn in spending in NATO on the European side. And he felt that basically, the US was getting a bad deal, and that Europe was basically is funding its social model and its health care system, etc, and its pension system by underfunding in defence.
The problem, of course, is that we are not yet all at 2% – that’s problem number one. Problem number two is that 2% is not nearly enough. To your point – it is not nearly enough. We are safe now, but NATO collectively is not able to defend itself in four or five years if we stick to the 2%. Now, Jens Stoltenberg started this whole process within NATO, which will end somewhere in May, June, this year, by which we will decide what that is exactly we need, in terms of – excuse me for the jargon – the capabilities and the measurements and the gaps we have. But this is necessary stuff to be done to exactly establish what we need. But I can guarantee you, when you look at the incoming data now, 2% is not nearly enough. It will be much more, really much more, and that will have a huge impact. But we have to do this.
And secondly, we have to ramp up industry production, because at the moment, we are not doing it. But this is also a problem in the US. China is producing six times faster industrial output now than the US. And the whole of NATO, from California up to and including Ankara, is in terms of ammunition producing in a full year what Russia is producing in three months. And as I said yesterday, Russia is no bigger as an economy, the size of the economy than Belgium and the Netherlands combined. So we are really in crisis mode here.
So first, money. Much more to be spent faster. Ones not on 2% have to get to the 2% in the next couple of months, we cannot wait any longer. And then we have, collectively, to move up. And we will decide on the exact number later this year, but it will be considerably more than at two. And then on industry production. We are really in a bad place here. And don’t think that China is producing crap like they did 10 to 20 years ago. These ships they are now building – and they have now a bigger navy than the US has – are much better (than before), at least, quality wise, at the same level. And this is a problem we have within NATO. That the better is always, in NATO, the enemy of good. That we want to have perfection, and we not always need perfection. This of course, Ukraine is learning us and teaching us in this war. They don’t have the luxury of going for the 10 on the 1-10 scale. They have the luxury to get to a six or a seven and then apply at a fast speed the latest developments and innovation. So, and this is another problem, we don’t innovate enough. We do not buy collectively enough. We are not getting into big contracts with industry. So all these things we are working on, we can solve them – this is the good news. So don’t end this breakfast from my side on a bad, on a sombre note, I’m still very much optimistic we can handle this; the spending, the industry, production etc.
And on Ukraine. We need the US also to stay involved and to do as much as possible to get Ukraine in a position of strength and have the peace talks start. But I can tell the Europeans, if this new Trump administration is willing to keep on supplying Ukraine with defence industrial, from its defence industrial base, the bill will be paid by the Europeans. I’m absolutely convinced of this. We have to be willing to do that, because at this moment, they are paying more than the Europeans. And here Trump is right. It is a worldwide conflict, yes, but still, Ukraine is closer to Europe than to the US.
Remarks by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte during Plenary Session: “Technology in the World” at the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland
23 January 2025
(As delivered)
Mr Nicholas Thompson:
First question for you. Lot of technological change. It’s been interesting to watch the war in Ukraine, where, in fact, one of the most interesting technologies that has been most impactful has been drones. Tell me, as you see military change and as you see AI coming, what to you is the most important change that will affect the balance of power in the coming years.
Mr Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary General:
Clearly, at the moment, it is the drone technology which is really changing the way we conduct these wars. You see now $400 Ukraine drones taking out multi-million dollar, in terms of cost, Russian tanks. We just launched Baltic Sentry, a mission or an activity, we should say, in the Baltic Sea, to fight off the Russians who are getting at our critical undersea infrastructure. We are using sea drone technology there, next to the more traditional technology with ships, etc, and aircraft. But also this drone technology here, and obviously, AI will also be transformative in the terms of how we fight our wars. Of course, the question I’m getting a lot is that I’m really pleading for more money to be spent on defence. And then people are worried that we will spend that in the same way as we did the last 100 years. But that is not the case. Yes, we have to spend more. We are spending now, on average here in Europe, 2%. That has to be much more. I think Donald Trump is right here that we are spending not enough. And anyway, we have to get it into a balance with what the US is spending. But particularly here, we have to look out for the industry base. So, what our defence industry is producing. And they are not producing enough. But also, in terms of innovation, we are too slow in innovating.
One of the problems here is that the ‘better’ is the enemy of ‘good’. It has to be perfect, but it doesn’t have to be perfect. When Ukraine is fighting this war on a one to ten scale, they can set for a six or a seven. But in NATO, we can only bring something out if it is a nine or a 10. We don’t have that luxury anymore. So, speed is of the essence, not perfection, to get these new technologies in. And if we don’t, then we have to spend even more. So, joint procurement, yes, we have to get the big contracts in. But also, in terms of the innovation, if do not innovate faster, at a higher speed, not achieving perfection, but getting speed and enough quality done in the right conjunction, then we have to spend even more. And it is already a big drain, of course, on society, defence spending, and we need more of that. So, in that sense, technology is a crucial factor. Is a crucial factor.
Mr Nicholas Thompson:
Secretary General, do you want to jump in here?
Mr Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary General:
Building on this, what I’m seeing in my work and my job now is that what is holding us back, in terms of speed, of applying AI, exactly as you were saying, is a traditional structure. The bureaucracies and basically three types. One, of course, if there is no war, then the only way to leverage these new technologies to make sure that you work with small, medium sized enterprises, with startups who are really leading edge here. So, in NATO, we have all this system, DIANA and investment funds, etc, to make sure that you work with Academia and with the startup sector. But it’s not easy, because the system was used to building these huge tanks, use fire, jets, etc, and not ships, and not implementing necessarily this latest technology. A second level is these, what we call hybrid threats, which can be quite scary. These hybrid threats, it can be an assassination attempt on the boss of Rheinmetall, it can be a cyber-attack on the NHS in the United Kingdom, it can be the jamming of commercial flights in the Baltics, and of course, getting at the critical undersea cables like between Estonia and Finland.
And then there is a need to apply the latest technology fast. And I was happy to see that at least within the NATO system, we were able to do this. But then, of course, leading edge here, cutting edge is Ukraine. What they have to do is to implement, every two weeks, the newest technologies to stay in front of, technology wise, the Russians. But the Russians are copying what the Ukrainians are doing also in two weeks. So, these technologies, including the use of AI, and how we can speed up the bureaucracies to do this is really key, and I’m absolutely optimistic. But the question is, what is holding us back to do it even faster?
Mr Nicholas Thompson:
All right, we’re out of time, but Mark, I want you to give one final thought to wrap up how we’re going to save Western democracy here.
Mr Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary General:
I would say that AI on balance is very good news for the Western democracy, because it gives you access to a huge fund of wisdom and information. And many of my friends have shut off Google and are just using AI tools, even as a search engine, to get to the latest insights, etc. So, I do believe we can be generally optimistic. The reason why voters are not any longer voting for the centrist parties in the flocking to the extreme right and extreme left wing is because the centrist parties, the liberals and the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats, have not given answers to the two biggest issues of this time, and that is migration one and two, how to rebalance climate change with making sure that our economies stay competitive. And if we don’t do that, and the centrist parties are not allowing for answers to these questions, then it is not a vote turning in the wrong way. It is the centrist parties delivering a bad deal. And this has nothing to do with AI. This is just basic politics. You have to deal with the issues that voters want you to deal with.