Taking over after Jens Stoltenberg’s decade-long stewardship of Nato on October 1, 2024, former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte knew that there would be no easing into his new position. Rutte had been a shoo-in for the job because European allies believed that if Donald Trump were reelected as US president just over a month later, he was the leader best suited to handle what would soon be an incredibly precarious relationship between Nato and the United States.On the campaign trail, Trump had openly offered Nato’s nemesis, Russian President Vladimir Putin, to do “whatever the hell you want” with countries that hadn’t met their 2014 pledge to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense. In his first term, Trump had mused about withdrawing the United States from the alliance.Nato’s first secretary general, Lord Hastings Ismay, coined three goals, the most important of which were to keep the Americans in and the Russians out. (The third goal, keeping “the Germans down,” would ultimately reverse as Berlin was prodded to amp up its defense budget and military readiness.)
‘What needs to be done’
Once Trump was indeed reelected, Rutte took on the role of renewing the US commitment to Nato with relish, if not necessarily full transparency. He set off even before Trump’s inauguration to meet the president-elect in Mar-a-Lago, in a trip he unsuccessfully sought to keep a secret.At a later meeting, in March, after Trump had been sworn in, Rutte was criticised for sitting in near silence as the president vowed to acquire Greenland, the world’s biggest island, and a semiautonomous province of alliance member Denmark.Jim Townsend, the former US deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and Nato policy, said the specter of Trump and Vice President JD Vance publicly berating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the White House may have dissuaded Rutte from arguing at that moment about Greenland. “You don’t do that unless lives are at stake,” Townsend said. “You go quietly afterwards and make the correction. So I think really, for Rutte, if he had jumped in there and tried to say something about that, that wouldn’t have gone over well and would have made the situation worse.”Townsend, now a senior fellow with the Center for a New American Security, said Rutte might have gone “over the top” with his flattery of Trump. “Certainly it’s not good to cater so much to a single ally,” he said. “You can’t have favorites. But, in this case, the US being a powerful ally, it’s important that Rutte do what needs to be done to keep [Trump] alongside and active in the alliance, not throwing rocks at it.”
Working with Trump
US officials warned that Trump might not even attend June’s Nato summit in The Hague, Rutte’s hometown, if the alliance did not raise the spending goal from 2% of GDP for defense to 5%. Rutte lobbied members and, in at least one case, employed creative wording to make the numbers match, and by summit time Air Force One was winging its way across the Atlantic.“His ability to effectively deal with internal tensions and political fissures is proven,” said Rem Korteweg, head of the US program at the Hague-based Clingendael Institute. “European allies need to take more responsibility for their own security. That much is now clear. They committed to more defense spending, and the US in return has recommitted to the defense of the alliance. This is good news. The problem is: We don’t know how durable this is. These may turn out to be short-term successes. Given the pressures facing the alliance, other important-but-perhaps-less-urgent topics, are now taking a backseat.”Trump’s response to the summit was one few members could have imagined. “I came here because it was something I am supposed to be doing, but I left here differently,” Trump said upon departure from The Hague. “I left here saying that these [Nato leaders] really love their countries. It’s not a rip-off, and we’re here to help them protect their country.”The US president may not have have arrived at this conclusion through Rutte’s doing alone, several other Nato leaders worked hard on trans-Atlantic rapprochement, but just as the pressure had fallen on him, so, too, has the credit.
Grading Rutte’s performance
Speaking of credit, DW asked several foreign-policy experts to grade Rutte after his first year, with “A” being the highest. “B-” Elena Lazarou, director general of ELIAMEP, the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy: “Ensuring the allies’ commitment to increased defense spending in the Hague was not an easy feat. It helped reestablish a sense of continuity and credibility for the alliance. I would say the secretary general has navigated his first 12 months with the adequate mix of strategy and diplomacy, despite the occasional communication slip here and there.” She’ll watch to see the fate of the EU-Nato high-level task force announced shortly after Rutte assumed his role.“B” Jim Townsend, Center for a New American Security: “It’s still early days for him, so let’s see if he works his way to an A in the years ahead. His energy and bouncy optimism are a plus (in the right amount applied at the right time). But the true test is upon him now: How will he keep Nato together and face down an aggressive Russia?”“B+” Rem Korteweg, Clingendael Institute: “So far, so good. Nato’s European allies need time, time to improve their military capabilities and time to gradually take on more responsibility for Europe’s security. Rutte has contributed in no small part to keeping Trump happy and giving Europe that much-needed time. If he has to ingratiate himself with the US president in the meantime, so be it.”“A” Ian Lesser, head of the Brussels office of the German Marshall Fund of the United States: “I would have to rate his performance very, very highly. He fulfilled the expectations that existed before his appointment in that regard … but not only that. He also has brought the alliance along with him on things that were very hard to do, on spending, on other things. And then presumably there will also be new challenges now that have to do with the rules of engagement about air incursions from Russia and other things where alliance consensus is absolutely critical.“So all in all, not a bad first year, according to international observers. His second, of course, will bring even more tests.“Now that the alliance itself is increasingly under threat [from drones, airspace incursions, hybrid operations], it remains to be seen whether the always cheerful and somewhat informal Rutte can also effectively lead Nato as it faces more external pressures,” Korteweg said. “Can he be the tough secretary general as well as the inclusive one?”
