Yet that is what Mark Rutte has chosen to do. He formally started his new job on 1 October – and he has inherited a military alliance facing its most significant challenges since the Cold War.
Russia wages its war in Ukraine. China expands its global influence. Within NATO itself, political tensions threaten its future. Yet Rutte, in his first statements, appears undaunted by the task ahead.
Maybe his confidence stems from NATO’s renewed sense of purpose. The alliance has not seemed this relevant in decades. But relevance does not guarantee effectiveness.
In his first press conference at NATO Headquarters, Rutte made his position clear: “To do more, we must spend more. There is no cost-free alternative if we are to rise to the challenges ahead and keep our one billion people safe.” This statement sets the tone for his tenure, emphasising the urgency of NATO’s mission and the practical steps needed to fulfil it.
Rutte brings a wealth of political experience to the role. As the Netherlands’ longest-serving prime minister, he managed four coalition governments, often involving parties with conflicting ideologies. His experience in finding common ground among diverse political actors could prove invaluable in building consensus among NATO’s 32 member states.
Still, leading NATO is a job like no other. As Secretary-General, Rutte becomes the alliance’s chief spokesperson and its most senior international civil servant. He will chair meetings of the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s principal political decision-making body, and oversee the organisation’s international staff.
Rutte holds no military command; his role is primarily diplomatic, focused on building consensus and articulating NATO’s strategic vision.
If Rutte needed a brief on the complexities of the role, he could talk to his predecessor. Jens Stoltenberg led NATO for a decade, during which time it expanded to include Montenegro, North Macedonia, Finland and Sweden. He also navigated the turbulent years of the Trump administration, which brought NATO’s very existence into question.
In his first few weeks, Rutte has already demonstrated a sense of purpose. He made a symbolic visit to Kyiv, underscoring NATO’s commitment to Ukraine.
Rutte also outlined three priorities for his tenure. First and foremost, NATO must maintain its strength and credibility against all threats (read Russia and China). Second, he aims to increase support for Ukraine and bring it closer to NATO membership (which is less than a promise of membership). Third, Rutte emphasises the need to strengthen NATO’s global partnerships (which can only mean the Indo-Pacific).
Rutte has echoed his predecessor’s calls for increased investment in defence spending, aiming for NATO’s longstanding 2% of GDP target. In a way, lifting European defence spending to that level would be the best insurance policy against the United States’ reorientation of its defence and security commitments away from Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union.
The challenges facing Rutte are thus manifold. The ongoing war in Ukraine remains NATO’s most pressing concern, requiring a delicate balance between support for Kyiv and avoiding direct conflict with Moscow. But this is by no means the only challenge. There are also Turkey’s ongoing diplomatic tensions with Greece. There is Hungary and its position is soft towards Moscow. There is also the varied positioning of NATO members on the Israel-Iran conflict.
However, the most significant wild card in Rutte’s tenure is the potential return of Donald Trump to the White House. Trump’s previous term saw unprecedented tension between the United States and its NATO allies to the point that Trump was reportedly considering pulling the US out of the alliance.
The recent revelations from Bob Woodward’s book, which highlight Trump’s seven phone calls with Putin after the conclusion of his presidency, raise more concerns about the potential impact of a second Trump administration on reshaping NATO. Would Trump (again) push for increased European defence spending? Or might he go further, this time explicitly questioning the alliance? Would Trump do a deal with Putin on Ukraine, bypassing NATO?
Rutte will be prepared for this possibility. In his first press conference as NATO Secretary-General on 2 October, Rutte was asked about it. “He was the one pushing us to spend more,” Rutte said, quickly adding that NATO member countries are now at much higher spending levels than when Trump took office in 2017. It sounded like a well-prepared talking point, specifically anticipating Trump’s next attack on NATO.
His experiences as an international networker may help Rutte in his dealing with people like Trump, Orban and Erdoğan. When he was Dutch Prime Minister, he had an international profile larger than the size of his country might have suggested.
Rutte’s immediate challenges are daunting. His first big test is already on the horizon: the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, to be held in late June next year. The location is probably not coincidental because in more than 70 years of membership, the Netherlands has never hosted a NATO Summit.
Rutte’s hosting of NATO’s members (and approximately 8,500 attendees, including 45 heads of state and government) in his home country will occur at a crucial time. There will be a new US president. Nobody knows whether the Ukraine war will still be ongoing. And who would dare guess how China will have responded to the new US President and the situation in Ukraine by then?
This will be a crucial time for NATO and its future. Rutte will hope that this Summit (the largest ever hosted by the Netherlands) will put the alliance on a path to dealing with the geopolitical challenges of the 21st century.
NATO is a product of the First Cold War. It is also a relic of an era in which the US looked to defend Europe and Europeans looked to America for guidance and support.
Whether you want to call it multipolar or see it as a Second Cold War, today’s world is different. Rutte’s job will be to define NATO’s role in these circumstances, unite its diverse membership and keep it relevant to new challenges.
It is not the easiest job in world politics, but at least with Rutte, NATO seems to have found the right kind of person for it.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
In his first press conference at NATO Headquarters, Rutte made his position clear: “To do more, we must spend more. There is no cost-free alternative if we are to rise to the challenges ahead and keep our one billion people safe.” This statement sets the tone for his tenure, emphasising the urgency of NATO’s mission and the practical steps needed to fulfil it.
Rutte brings a wealth of political experience to the role. As the Netherlands’ longest-serving prime minister, he managed four coalition governments, often involving parties with conflicting ideologies. His experience in finding common ground among diverse political actors could prove invaluable in building consensus among NATO’s 32 member states.
Still, leading NATO is a job like no other. As Secretary-General, Rutte becomes the alliance’s chief spokesperson and its most senior international civil servant. He will chair meetings of the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s principal political decision-making body, and oversee the organisation’s international staff.
Rutte holds no military command; his role is primarily diplomatic, focused on building consensus and articulating NATO’s strategic vision.
If Rutte needed a brief on the complexities of the role, he could talk to his predecessor. Jens Stoltenberg led NATO for a decade, during which time it expanded to include Montenegro, North Macedonia, Finland and Sweden. He also navigated the turbulent years of the Trump administration, which brought NATO’s very existence into question.
In his first few weeks, Rutte has already demonstrated a sense of purpose. He made a symbolic visit to Kyiv, underscoring NATO’s commitment to Ukraine.
Rutte also outlined three priorities for his tenure. First and foremost, NATO must maintain its strength and credibility against all threats (read Russia and China). Second, he aims to increase support for Ukraine and bring it closer to NATO membership (which is less than a promise of membership). Third, Rutte emphasises the need to strengthen NATO’s global partnerships (which can only mean the Indo-Pacific).
Rutte has echoed his predecessor’s calls for increased investment in defence spending, aiming for NATO’s longstanding 2% of GDP target. In a way, lifting European defence spending to that level would be the best insurance policy against the United States’ reorientation of its defence and security commitments away from Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union.
The challenges facing Rutte are thus manifold. The ongoing war in Ukraine remains NATO’s most pressing concern, requiring a delicate balance between support for Kyiv and avoiding direct conflict with Moscow. But this is by no means the only challenge. There are also Turkey’s ongoing diplomatic tensions with Greece. There is Hungary and its position is soft towards Moscow. There is also the varied positioning of NATO members on the Israel-Iran conflict.
However, the most significant wild card in Rutte’s tenure is the potential return of Donald Trump to the White House. Trump’s previous term saw unprecedented tension between the United States and its NATO allies to the point that Trump was reportedly considering pulling the US out of the alliance.
The recent revelations from Bob Woodward’s book, which highlight Trump’s seven phone calls with Putin after the conclusion of his presidency, raise more concerns about the potential impact of a second Trump administration on reshaping NATO. Would Trump (again) push for increased European defence spending? Or might he go further, this time explicitly questioning the alliance? Would Trump do a deal with Putin on Ukraine, bypassing NATO?
Rutte will be prepared for this possibility. In his first press conference as NATO Secretary-General on 2 October, Rutte was asked about it. “He was the one pushing us to spend more,” Rutte said, quickly adding that NATO member countries are now at much higher spending levels than when Trump took office in 2017. It sounded like a well-prepared talking point, specifically anticipating Trump’s next attack on NATO.
His experiences as an international networker may help Rutte in his dealing with people like Trump, Orban and Erdoğan. When he was Dutch Prime Minister, he had an international profile larger than the size of his country might have suggested.
Rutte’s immediate challenges are daunting. His first big test is already on the horizon: the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, to be held in late June next year. The location is probably not coincidental because in more than 70 years of membership, the Netherlands has never hosted a NATO Summit.
Rutte’s hosting of NATO’s members (and approximately 8,500 attendees, including 45 heads of state and government) in his home country will occur at a crucial time. There will be a new US president. Nobody knows whether the Ukraine war will still be ongoing. And who would dare guess how China will have responded to the new US President and the situation in Ukraine by then?
This will be a crucial time for NATO and its future. Rutte will hope that this Summit (the largest ever hosted by the Netherlands) will put the alliance on a path to dealing with the geopolitical challenges of the 21st century.
NATO is a product of the First Cold War. It is also a relic of an era in which the US looked to defend Europe and Europeans looked to America for guidance and support.
Whether you want to call it multipolar or see it as a Second Cold War, today’s world is different. Rutte’s job will be to define NATO’s role in these circumstances, unite its diverse membership and keep it relevant to new challenges.
It is not the easiest job in world politics, but at least with Rutte, NATO seems to have found the right kind of person for it.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
3 comments:
Let's begin with the Russia-Ukraine thing. Ukraine is losing. There is no hope for Ukraine to prevail, or even to survive without direct NATO entry into the conflict.
The future of NATO is at-stake and if Ukraine falls, NATO is likely to follow. That's why we're headed into a bat-shit-crazy escalation.
If NATO enters the conflict, then that is immediate, NUCLEAR, World War 3.
Oh I wouldn’t worry too much about a nuclear conflict breaking out. That would be dreadfully inconvenient for the vast bureaucracy now making up NATO and its various appendages. Of course it does seem likely that they will fight to the last Ukrainian, but over a period of many years. Can’t have the show ending too early can we?
On this comment, I stand to be corrected - and if so I hope those critiquing my comments can add positive elements.
On the basis of the Author's comments within article re - "To do more, we must spend more..". I do recall that, then President Donald Trump on a visit o NATO & Germany (early in His Presidency) made the comment, that the European Nations needed to increase their financial support to NATO, as the USA was not going to continue being the main money provider.
It was noted at the time that Chancellor Angela Merkel "laughed at him". I wonder why?
It is also of interest, during her tenure as Chancellor, that German spending on matters military had declined.
Also keep in mind, that the recent arms shipments from Germany to Ukraine come from reserve stock - which means we have "a bone yard of stuff, that we are now quite happy to get rid of "- (to someone else) - strange that, because Chancellor Schultz "originally dug his heels in'" as to be seen to aid Ukraine would have upset Russia, being the main provider of gas for electricity production. Angela closed both the coal mines & Nuclear power plants - odd that last one!
Also interestingly, that once Russia invaded Ukraine, how quickly Finland, Sweden "rushed to become members of NATO", yet it is known that Finland, previously had indicated no interest in such a move". Now can we assume that Sweden's neutrality is till intact, after such a move?
Oh and Vlad Putin, moving into Russia, did you know that he "has stated, that it is to punish the Nazis", this relating to Ukraine aligning with Germany, WW2 and providing manpower to their Military - hence the "Runes" that still appear on uniforms of Ukraine Military Units (which upset Mr Putin no end) - which Russia ( think Iosef Stalin ) did not like and ensured a decisive punishment when it invaded Ukraine whilst pushing the German Army back.
Yes, words from Mr Rutte, but it is actions that speak louder.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.