In a sobering address delivered in Brussels, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte cautioned that while the alliance is currently secure, it is unprepared for the escalating dangers expected in the coming years.
Speaking on 12 December, Rutte issued a stark warning, saying, “We are not ready for what is coming our way in four to five years. Danger is moving towards us at full speed.”
Rutte highlighted the growing threats posed by Russia’s military resurgence, China’s rapid armament, and increasing cyber-attacks, warning that the alliance must adopt a “wartime mindset” to counter these challenges. “What is happening in Ukraine could happen here too,” he said, pointing to the devastating impacts of Russia’s aggression and its long-term ambitions.
The Secretary General commended NATO’s current deterrence measures—expanded deployments, higher readiness levels, and the addition of Finland and Sweden—but stressed their insufficiency in addressing future risks. “Our deterrence is good—for now. But it’s tomorrow I’m worried about,” he said.
He pointed to alarming figures, including Russia’s defence spending projected to reach 7–8% of GDP in 2025, and China’s acquisition of high-end weapons systems at rates far outpacing NATO countries. “China is expanding its nuclear arsenal, accelerating space capabilities, and investing heavily in disruptive technologies like AI and quantum computing,” Rutte noted, warning that these advancements threaten NATO’s technological edge.
Rutte also underscored the need to counter Russian influence operations, which he described as “Putin’s biggest success,” saying, “We need a very good assessment of just what Russia is capable of.”
Rutte laid out a roadmap for addressing NATO’s readiness gaps, urging member states to increase defence spending, modernise procurement processes, and invest in innovation. “We must turbo-charge our defence production and spending,” he said, criticising outdated procurement practices and fragmented national requirements that slow progress.
He also appealed to citizens to back increased defence spending, arguing that the costs of inaction would be far greater. “If we don’t spend more together now to prevent war, we will pay a much, much higher price later to fight it—not billions, but trillions,” he said.
The speech ended on a resolute note, with Rutte calling on NATO to leverage its collective strength. “We have done it before. We can do it again. But we must act now,” he concluded.
Another alarming statistic is that Russian Defence spending will account for 32% of total 2025 budget expenditure of 41.5 trillion roubles.
When security is factored in: “Defence and national security spending would account for 40% of total government expenditures in 2025, surpassing the combined allocations for education, healthcare, social policies and the national economy, according to Bloomberg”.
They have slowly transitioned to a wartime economy, whilst the West hasn’t even reached late 1990’s ‘peacetime dividend’ levels of spending. Our transition to a wartime economy, if/when it eventually happens, will be much more sudden and painful.
On the one hand the above is concerning, but on the other hand all the additional resource thrown at the conflict by Russia has barely tilted the military balance in their favour despite the West’s paltry efforts. But if it remains a war of attrition then Russia seems to have the advantage. If Russia are on the front foot when Trump enters office I’m not sure what appetite they are going to have for a peace deal.
You are speaking of Europe, not the US. The US currently spends 3.4% of GDP on Defense. In 1990 it spent 5.61%. By 1999 it reached its lowest point 3.09%. By 2005 it had risen back to 4.09%. And that’s Trump’s point. The US has been shouldering the burden and Europe has been acting like parasites.
Putin’s incentive for making a peace deal is a Trump threat to unleash US power against him.
Agree that Europe needs to do more. Hopefully Trump reiterates this point, and names and shames the worst offenders. A new NATO target of 2.5% would help.
And hopefully Musk’s new department can shine a light on extraordinary defence inflation, and similarly names and shames the industry culprits. If it works, other western countries might follow suit. The UK seems to get a very poor bang for our buck.
Musk’s “new department” has no jurisdiction, no authority, no budget, and no staff… except apparently for 2 part-time heads, an arrangement that can hardly be described as efficient 😆
Yes but actually the greatest risk to the US is china, Russia is quite frankly unable to invade a second world county..and European NATO if push came to shove would be able to manage Russia…china on the other hand requires the U.S. to spend 3% of GDP or it would hand the US it’s arse if it slipped below that,
Who exactly is the USA guarding Europe from?
The Orcs and NK division(s) at the moment. In the foreseeable future, the ChiComs potentially as well. ENATO had better be rearmed, locked and loaded, if that becomes a future reality. CW I rates of defence expenditure by ENATO will seem trivial at that point.
The Russian economy is a mess though, sky high interest rates and inflation and massive job shortages across all sectors and yet they aren’t making any form of substantive progress in the war. They can’t maintain this, and the same thing that brought down the USSR is likely to happen to Russia.
China is a different topic but right now it’s not our fight. Helping Taiwan would absolutely destroy our economy and same for all of NATO including the US and so no one will ger involved.
If the US was serious about defending Taiwan it would deploy a large force in Taiwan as a dterence, just like the west should have done with ukraine post crimea, but they didn’t and it showed Russia they were free to attack and same is happening with Taiwan.
Militarily, the stupidest thing the US could do to defend Taiwan is to deploy a large military force on the island.
Russia attacked Ukraine because incompetent, corrupt Joe Biden replaced Donald Trump. And Putin believed that just like incompetent Obama allowed him to take the Crimea with no opposition, Biden would do the same.
Although Trump seem very un-happy that Biden has allowed Ukraine to fire Atacms into Russia ?
There’s several reasons why Russia attacked Ukraine, Russian geopolitics mainly, but it has nothing to do with Biden. That people like you keep peddling that line just shows how deranged and divorced from reality MAGA reasoning is. In actual fact, part of Russia’s reason for the invasion was in part, the refusal of the US and NATO to concede a withdrawal to the old CW borders that formed part of Putins demands. The kind of demand that your orange felon would have gladly rolled over for to appease him.
We’ll see in a few short weeks just how strong your imitation tough guy is as he helps make Russia great again.
BTW, how old are you? 17 ?
Russia’s attack on Ukraine had nothing to do with Biden. It’s a good job Biden was in post to authorise military aid to Ukraine, otherwise Putin might had succeeded. We saw in Afghanistan how Trump handles the enemy – surrender!
A tripwire US force deployed to Taiwan would prove to be an extremely provacative move at this point. Would be rational to deliver the damn weapons the Taiwanese have already contracted for, as an interim measure. Trump will not permit PRC acquisition of TSMC fabrication plants. Period. Absolutely no countermeasure/countertactic will be off the table if PRC invades Taiwan.
Isn’t Trump’s schtick that he does not initiate wars but tries to close them down? That he is a pacifist at heart and does not want to spend even big bucks on conducting expeditionary warfare?
Of course with their total stranglehold on silicon chip production by not defending Taiwan will destroy our economies, it’s not exactly an either or scenario. It’s this balance China is playing with. It’s building up its own capabilities in chip production while deciding when it’s the best moment on balance to take out Taiwan. Like the West it will be hit hard in the immediate aftermath by chip shortages and its economy hit by the disastrous effect on Western economies and thus its own exports. But as the West becomes less important to its economy and in the knowledge that it can restore Taiwanese capacity over time it will recover far quicker than we can and with the bonus that it will control most of the aworlds chip capacity and thus have a hand on our throats. America is trying to take some chip production out of Taiwan but woefully slowly and Europe barely features sadly so we will be ironically designing chips we can barely produce. Win win for China as long as the act of acquiring Taiwan isn’t a disaster.
Within that future one can assess Russia’s role in that is or will be, part taking advantage of Chinas moves, part trying to look useful to them to avoid or put off potential conflict and part trying to split NATO and exert Ottoman like control over the whole of Europe to exploit it to try to generate capabilities, strength and mass to resist China should (when) the pals act expires down the line and China wants its ancestral lands back.
I’m not sure why anyone in Europe would think chinas on the cusp of invading Europe.
There’s a symbiotic like relationship between the West and China:
China manufactures affordable goods and we give them our wealth in exchange.
War between us would destroy an economic exchange that is very beneficial to China so I don’t think it will readily happen.
However, reshoring the manufacture of vitally important things like integrated circuits should be a priority for Western governments. Because it de-risks any type of supply chain problems caused by conflict or other disaster scenarios and provides economic benefits locally.
Meanwhile over here we continue to cut cut cut. We really deserve what we get – we’ve been warned
Indeed we do, it’s beyond bloody obvious that Defence spending should be 3% gdp.
Unfortunately this government is as weak and useless as the last, so it will simply sit on the fence and hope for the best.
Heads in sand comes to mind, thinking the Americans wouldn’t be stupid enough to desert us because it would effectively start a slow death for themselves. I see no reason to think that they aren’t that stupid and winding up a short sighted, self serving clown like Trump and co up by refusing to show defence commitment might push them over that line in the sand. Business always ‘trumps’ sanity. Of course a trade war will only weaken European, other western Countries tries and very possibly US ability to respond to Chinese/Russian hegemony.
And at the same time the elites in the US are tearing into each other about how they assess how much china spends on defence..with one side stating after parity indicators it’s over 700 billion and the other side saying it’s fine they only spend 460 billion a year.
With the doves going..but a pacific war between china and the US would decimate both navies…it would be a mutual catastrophe..All the while the doves are ignoring the fact china now has 260 times the ship building capacity of the US…china could rebuild its navy far faster than the US could..Also they do not take into account china has very happily killed millions of its own people in social experiments, it will not blink at casualties in the hundreds of thousands,
I’ve gone on many a rant that china has also spend untold billions on hardening it’s whole economy for war, even losing up to 2% a year in growth to modify its supply side to harden it for war. While at the same time telling its population to prepare for war ( when a communist party says that they actually mean it). It’s literally practiced mobilising entire provinces larger than the UK for war..l
But the most telling fact of all is its naval build up since 2020 it’s built and launches the following:
10 13000 ton AAW cruisers
17 7500 ton AAW Destroyers
5 4500 ton ASW frigates
25 1500 ton ASuW corvettes
4 40,000 ton helicopter landing docks
2 25,000 ton landing docks
1 SSBN
1 SSN ( it sank )
3 occean going electric boats ( 3600 ton)
1 80,000 ton carrier…
Total tonnage of warships in 5 years around about 633,000 tons..launched
USN built/launched
7 burkes at 9000 tons
5 litoral combat ships 3500 tons
7 litoral combat ships 2500 tons
1 Ford class carrier 100,000 tons
1 America class LHA 45,000 tons
3 25,000 transport docks
7 SSNs 8000 tons
So to compare directly..
USA.
7 Large surface combatants ( 63,000 tons). 32 large surface combatants (280,000 tons)
12 small surface combatants ( 35,000 tons). 25 small surface combatants ( 38,000 tons)
4 amphibious vessels (120,000 tons). 6 large amphibious vessels (210,000 thousand tons)
1 carrier (100,000 tons) 1 carrier ( 80,000 tons)
7 submarines (56,000 tons). 5 subs ( 25,000 tons)
Total warship tons 374,000. Total tons 633,000
As we can see it’s only really the US historic mass which is keeping it as a viable deterrent in the western pacific, the PLAN is significantly outbuilding it in surface combatants, matching with carrier construction ( although the carrier itself is inferior)..it’s only in submarines that the U.S. is maintaining it lead.
So you’re expecting China to go on a mad global invasion splurge and conquer Europe?
Why do you think China has any interest in expanding outside its region?
I don’t think they care about Europe right now, but they want to dominate the Pacific.
But I think Jonathan has a point.
If we do fall out with them somehow, they will have enough ships to send a very powerful expeditionary force our way.
They also have a ongoing presence in the western Indian Ocean, gulf states and east Africa, they are trying to move into west Africa ans the pacific..we will class because we have the same interests.
I mean into west Africa and the Atlantic
BoF, China may have a large Navy but is it truly yet a bluewater Navy?
Who knows? They clearly have a big enough budget to develop the skills and technology.
Contagion Jim, any indopacifc war will drag Europe into it.. it’s likely to go in stages, if we take china deciding strategic suprise is the best option ( it’s the one they practice a lot and the one Taiwan thinks they will use
1) day one..china moves from an annual exercise to beheading attack on Taiwan, mass missile attack on U.S. western pacific bases.
2) week one..US and Japanese western pacific forces are likely to be running for their lives due to overwhelming odds
3) month one the USN reacts into the western pacific with every CBG it has. The PLAN and USN gut each other.
4) six month..no matter the outcome of the first campaign neither side will give in ( this a war neither country can loss) and China believes in the concept od the long war
5) six months+ both sides will try and get their allies involved..china will probably mount some form of attack on the US mainland that will trigger NATO..or Russia, Iran and or North Korea will take advantage. The war will likely go global.
“1) day one..china moves from an annual exercise to beheading attack on Taiwan, mass missile attack on U.S. western pacific bases”
But why would they do this? , is capturing Taiwan worth more to their economy than continued trade with the West?
By starting such a war they would destroy their own economy.
Really need not be too concerned by Stage 5 events, or beyond. PRC and DPRK will cease to exist after an attack on US territory. Guaranteed. Regardless of POTUS. Perhaps ENATO will be able to initiate urban renewal, after a decade(s).
This coming from a man who had the Netherlands spending not much above 1% on defence and was very happy to let others, notably the US, carry the burden. Difficult to take him seriously when he makes these calls – not sure he’s the most credible choice for this role.
I thought that as well, when he was appointed. The Netherlands had spent less then 2% since 1993
Exactly. While it is possible Mark Rutte had a true ‘on the road to Damascus’ conversion experience coincident w/ appointment as NATO Sec.-Gen., the cynic w/in me would wager against it. Political expedience would seem a more plausible explanation. It is one matter to campaign for increased defence expenditures, if you are not directly beholden to taxpayers for employment, quite another issue if you have to enact tax increases on a vengeful, tax-paying public. Still believe Big Ben Wallace would have been a superior choice by NATO.
Russia’s GDP nominal is less than Italy’s. 7/8% on defence amounts to @$150 m. – a big increase on the level pre Ukraine but less than UK. Germany, France combined. Historically, Russia has relied not on quality but mass. It is struggling to assemble sufficient mass and the quality of much of its equipment is low. Of course Russia is a threat, but in conventional war, it’s forces qualitatively vastly inferior.
Putin knows that Ukraine is not a serious threat so his special operations entailed little risk to Russia. Provoking a unified response from NATO would be a huge danger.
It’s what you can buy for that % of GDP locally that counts
Cost of Living in Italy is approx 113.3% higher than in Russia, meaning they would not get as much for the same amount of money spent.
Rutte also underscored the need to counter Russian influence operations, which he described as “Putin’s biggest success”
Indeed you just have to look at the conspiracy theory movement, how it’s expanded and now interferes in politics. They may be a lunatic fringe, but Reform could damage our political system and our ability to counter Russian threats.
I think a lot of the woke nonsense and identity politics is fuelled by Russia, Iran and China’s misinformation campaigns, it’s an ideal way to make us fight each other rather than focus and unite on our common problems and external threats.
Four to five years.
So it’s basically too late then? Even if NATO spontaneously decided on 5% and without exception went to that overnight, what could actually change? Using the UK as the example, we aren’t going to be able to double the Typhoon fleet within that timeframe, nor are we going to be able to acquire entire divisions worth of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, artillery and so on and all the munitions needed to fight a lengthy prolonged war. And that’s before trying to get the recruits.
Sounds like we may end up needing a rearmarment rush and still get caught partially unprepared.
Your analysis is probably accurate, w/ the possible exception of munitions manufacturing. Of course, if it is a discussion of aerial munitions for F-35, assume all progress would be blocked by the LM Block 4 software clusterflock.