The Flattering Mr Rutte

Observations following the NATO Summit

Unity Undermined

To better understand the peculiarities of the NATO summit held in The Hague on June 24-25, it is necessary to recall that since early 2025, US President Donald Trump has taken a number of steps to undermine Euro-Atlantic unity. First, he stunned everyone with a statement that it would be nice to make Canada a new 51th state, then transparently hinted at the annexation of Greenland. Washington officials have made it clear that the new “sort of” (yes, “sort of”) isolationist policy of the US involves reducing its participation in NATO, possibly withdrawing troops from Europe, or even leaving the organization. These unprovoked escapades by the Alliance's main military power, coupled with Trump's tariff wars and his complimentary rhetoric toward NATO's main threat, Russia, caused consternation and panic among Europeans. Judging by the summit, their task was to keep Trump in NATO at all costs, much like a desperate wife trying to keep her philandering husband in the family, mostly by showing how much they appreciate Donald Trump and everything he does.

Hold At All Costs

Even before the summit, a number of European leaders had already expressed their enthusiastic support for US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

At the summit itself, NATO went even further and enthusiastically recorded in the declaration of the alliance's leaders their intention to bring the military spending of member countries to 5% of gross domestic product by 2035.

The figure of 5% of GDP that NATO countries are now prepared to spend on defense is exactly the figure that Trump mentioned during his first presidential term. At the time, he rightly pointed out that NATO allies were spending too little on collective security, shifting the bulk of the burden onto the US. The current commitment to reach 5% in 10 years looks like an attempt by European leaders to show that they are ready to listen to Trump, support his “leadership,” and meet him halfway.

But 10 years is a long time. It remains to be seen how realistic an increase in defense spending will be. Especially since there is no unity within the alliance. While Eastern European countries—the Baltic states and Poland—have been consistently increasing their military budgets for a long time without external pressure, others are showing little interest in increasing defense spending. Spain, for example, has stated that even 3.5% is an unattainable level for it.

It is to be expected that different countries with different attitudes toward the need to increase defense spending will look for ways to formally report an increase in spending that does not necessarily mean a real strengthening of the armed forces or the military-industrial complex.

The issue of Ukraine has receded into the background (and, according to rumors, there were no plans to invite its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to the summit at all — in the end, he arrived and spoke), and any “anti-Russian” statements were carefully edited to avoid “offending Moscow.” After all, as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio continues to convince the world community, “if we talk to Moscow disrespectfully, the doors will be shut to a diplomatic settlement of the war in Ukraine”.

The Family Needs A Father

The most striking feature was the behavior of European leaders, especially the new NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, towards Trump. Rutte chose a tactic that was almost unprecedented in its humiliating nature: if Trump likes flattery, we will fawn over him. If he wants to be persuaded, we will beg him.

The rhetoric Rutte used to comment on Trump's statements regarding the Iranian-Israeli conflict — “sometimes daddy has to use strong words to calm the children down” — is perhaps unique in the history of modern diplomacy. No one has ever groveled so low before an “ally.” A reasonable question arises: does an alliance imply equal status between allies, and if they have to talk in such a tone, can we really call it an alliance? Usually, other terms are used for this.

This humiliating, begging style of behavior defines everything else: NATO's unwillingness to make a firm statement about its commitments to Ukraine, its refusal to include clear wording on assistance to Ukraine in the final documents, and its avoidance of harsh criticism of Russia, despite recognizing it as the main threat.

Deus Ex Machina

In three years of full-scale Russian aggression against Ukraine, directly affecting the security of the whole of Europe, European countries have still not come to the conclusion that it is time to take responsibility. They need a “senior” behind whom they can hide. Even if that senior figure is Donald Trump, a man whose word is not worth the paper it is printed on. Today he promises, tomorrow he changes his mind. He can hardly be expected, even if he is lulled by European flattery, to show any resolve in the event of a conflict with Russia, let alone send American troops to the aid of a hypothetical Estonia. He is more likely to immediately call on all sides to make peace and offer the aggressor another “deal” — at the expense of the victims of aggression, of course. It is no coincidence that some Americans have nicknamed their president TACO — Trump Always Chickens Out. There are many reasons for this nickname, given the chaotic and ill-conceived policies of the White House.

A logical question arises: why are Europeans humiliating themselves so much? After all, according to their own words, Russia threatens not only their borders or armies, but the very European way of life — a free society built on human rights. But if you are willing to humiliate yourself before those who, you hope, can protect your right not to be humiliated, then you have already lost. In that case, what is the difference between Trump and Putin?

One might even ask the seditious question: doesn't Putin himself look more attractive against the backdrop of Trump? He does not write confused posts on social media, does not change his mind every week, and is consistent in his speeches and actions.

Moreover, unlike Trump, Putin is not afraid to challenge great powers and nuclear states. Trump bravely bombed Iran, which had already been bombed by Israel and was unable to respond seriously — with unclear results. But with Putin, he still avoids any kind of open confrontation. Maybe in that case, Russia, with its nuclear arsenal and willingness to fight and take losses, will turn out to be a more reliable guarantor of European security?

What is to prevent Trump, faced with Russian provocations in Eastern Europe, from agreeing to a “deal” with Putin — for example, on the division of spheres of influence in Europe? What would prevent him from accepting the Kremlin's offer if it seemed advantageous to him?

European Diplomacy: Beggars Can’t Be Choosers

We will be told that diplomacy is the art of winning over important allies. That is certainly true. But in diplomacy, as in life, one must not humiliate oneself. One must not lose self-respect. Without self-respect, there is no strength. And without strength, there is no partnership. There is only the role of an errand boy.

In other words, if Europe wants to have the US as a reliable ally, it must behave as an alliance of strong and self-confident states ready to solve their problems on their own, without the involvement of external players. The European Machiavelli wrote that only a ruler who already has his own strong army can count on strong and loyal allies. No one needs “allies” who are incapable of strengthening you and only ask for your protection. In this case, again, there is no point in talking about “alliance” — we should be talking about patronage, a relationship between a patron and his clients, a suzerain and his vassals.

These were the considerations that guided Charles de Gaulle, who made France a nuclear power and ensured that it was the only country in Europe capable of producing the entire range of military products, from small arms to submarines, aircraft carriers, and fighter jets. De Gaulle wanted to talk to the US and the USSR as equals — and he got his way. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of his successors.

Paradoxically, this style of behavior on the part of Europeans is entirely consistent with Russian propaganda, which claims that Europe is incapable of anything and that Europeans will do whatever Washington tells them to do: "I assure you: Trump, with his character and his persistence, will bring order there fairly quickly. And all of them, you'll see, it will happen quickly, soon, all of them will stand at their master's feet and wag their tails a little."

This is exactly how the picture is shaping up. Moscow is once again confirming the correctness of its view of the world and Europe, and therefore the correctness of its aggressive course. Weakness provokes further aggression. However, in the fourth year of full-scale aggression, it is no longer surprising that European politicians are unable to learn from what is happening.

Europe could be strong and independent — if it wanted to. It has the economy, the technology, the industry, and the population. The only thing it lacks is political will and awareness of itself as an independent entity.

If Mr Rutte's style is not revised, if Europeans continue to grovel before the US, then dreams of an independent and strong Europe will remain just dreams, and its fate and security will remain in the hands of more decisive powers.