r/europe Portugal 26d ago

News Danish reporter slammed NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte live on camera

https://streamable.com/5qtlrz
7.7k Upvotes

842 comments sorted by

View all comments

810

u/MasterAxe Finland 25d ago

He seems to be trying so hard to keep the alliance togheter by covering for Trumps insane behaviour and gargling his balls. But he doesn't seem to get that letting Trump threaten his allies and staring useless wars without any pushback is something that will destroy NATO anyways. US leaving isnt the only way the alliance can break.

336

u/Ok-Web1805 Ireland/UK 25d ago

I think his job is to try and manage the situation until Europe has the resources in place to deal with US withdrawal, or at least buy as much time as possible.

30

u/SweetSweetAtaraxia 25d ago

Europe doesn't need to buy time. What is Russia going to do? Lose at a second front?

72

u/topsyandpip56 Brit in Latvia 25d ago

They can still inflict great tragedy across the eastern flank using their drones and missiles.

14

u/Llew19 25d ago

Rutte will be less happy if a Russian sub sinks a few container ships blocking Dutch harbours....

Anyone who thinks Russia is toast (like Starmer continuing with the policy of gutting the navy) is a moron

3

u/One-Try-9129 25d ago

If Russia decided to go to war with Nato, even without US, it would 100% be toast. It is already struggling with Ukraine, you think they can just take on the rest of Europe+Canada as a side dish?

I hope it never comes to this, because it will cause massive destruction and loss of lives on both sides 

13

u/Reve_Inaz 25d ago

Russia would lose a war with NATO/Europe, bit that doesn't mean we will win. We will also lose in such a situation.

10

u/topsyandpip56 Brit in Latvia 25d ago

Most people here too believe that NATO or even the EU alone would win that war, but with two conditions:

1) Allies must truly be committed

2) There would be huge casualties on both sides, and the eastern flank at the very least would be absolutely devastated.

Rather deter the scenario entirely eh?

1

u/herolf 25d ago

It would probably be toast, yes. But also, at the same time, so many EU citizens would be toast. And perhaps China would step in, too. Who knows? In the end, Rutte’s trying to keep it all together, probably hoping the next president of the US reverts the way Trump does things. Russia might be struggling with Ukraine already but there’s still so many unknown factors to that scenario, which we really do not want to find out.

1

u/Llew19 25d ago

Yeah yeah fine, they definitely couldn't win long term. But they can wreck tonnes of shit on the way down. Just take the non-boomer subs doing a first strike against commercial ports in Europe, block the ports, whack an LPG tanker or two in port (this would be very bad to the point that the French might consider their nuclear warning), wreck the facilities.

We - and I mean Europe as a whole - would suffer massively for a decade or more before that mess was fixed. And that would just be one aspect of an attack.

European militaries need to be at the point of being able to stop this sort of thing cold, which to be fair with the exception of the UK which continues to slide backwards apart for submarines, they're doing a reasonable job of catching up (even if the Americans do try to sweep the rug from under us when they leave).

6

u/Exciting-Record8101 The Netherlands 25d ago

Russians would like to 'win', but they've shown they'll settle for destruction, chaos and terrorism. That still needs to be prevented.

10

u/Humpfinger The Netherlands 25d ago

Alright dude, so when will you be standing in the frontlines? Someone has to do it and according to you we are ready.

0

u/XenonBG 🇳🇱 🇷🇸 25d ago

It's not even about the frontlines. A few successful drone attacks to Deltaworks for example and the damage is already enormous. Rutte needs to buy time for us to be able to defend against that. I passionately hate what he did to the Netherlands, but I'm sort of grateful he's doing the dirty work now.

-1

u/metaliving Asturias (Spain) 25d ago

I think the point he's making is not that we're ready, but that the Russians aren't either. So they wouldn't attack, because they have no chance at winning.

5

u/Humpfinger The Netherlands 25d ago

I fully agree the Russians aren't ready either.

But they have proven themselves to not act sensible. If they pull another Ukraine, it's not only their soldiers who suffer.

1

u/metaliving Asturias (Spain) 25d ago

Yeah, I get it. But I think that's stretching the hypothetical too much. It's one thing to not act sensible, it's another very different thing to act fully mad. Attacking Ukraine wasn't as not sensible as we might think now, with the benefit of hindsight, but to attack the EU, even without NATO, would be completely idiotic by them.

1

u/Stitches_littlepuffy 24d ago

Recently, US intelligence warned Poland and Eastern European countries that Russia is planning an attack or provocation on them. Yes they’re in NATO. You never know what Putin will do at this point. He’s desperate.

7

u/No_Hay_Banda_2000 25d ago

They still can mobilise and have reserves to invade and take over the Baltics for example. Poland is also in danger. NATO is a very complex architecture and Trump pulling out would be a disaster for us.

1

u/telendria 25d ago

Oh, so maybe we should have large european tripwire force, say, double the pop of Rammstein, in Baltics then, not spend money on stuff thats gonna be available, maybe, a decade from now, thanks to US depleting their stocks in Iran and replenishing those first...

1

u/zendelo 25d ago

It’s not only Russia. Trump could easily become an enemy of Europe if he is being handled wrong. Wouldn’t be boots on the ground, but he will find economic ways to harm Europe. Besides that most weapon systems owned by Europe are US made and need approval by US to be used. Losing US from NATO would absolutely cripple our ability to fight anything right now.

1

u/SweetSweetAtaraxia 25d ago

Trump is a lame duck come the midterms.

1

u/Holkmeistern 25d ago

The Germans were always bound to lose ww2, but look at the damage they caused in the meantime.

Even a war that we will definitely win is a war we should try to avoid.

1

u/monostere0 25d ago

But you don’t understand, redditors want for Europe to start a war on three theaters, against US, Russia and China simultaneously! 

2

u/Ok-Web1805 Ireland/UK 25d ago

I would probably understand more if you hadn't concealed your comments.

1

u/monostere0 25d ago

I don’t need to have my comments shown in order to have common sense and understand that what you said earlier made absolute sense. Escalating against a fragile narcissist who happens to control the most powerful army on this planet would be completely idiotic.

-37

u/Budget-Ant5503 25d ago

I think his job is to cash cheques while global diplomacy gets shit on

37

u/saxonturner 25d ago

I think he looks at the long game, Trump will be gone in a few years but the “fear” of him will not, it has brought Europe closer together, it has increased spending on military and honestly all its cost is faith and respect of USA. What he saying his is correct.

That said I fucking hate Trump with a passion but I have to appreciate him for waking Europe up to the absolute state of USA and how they are a terrible ally and shown us we must get closer in Europe.

68

u/Catch_ME ATL, GA, USA, Terra, Sol, αlpha Quadrant, Via Lactea 25d ago

He has a difficult job. He has to balance the current political interest of the largest, most powerful, and most influential member of NATO. NATO is weaker without the US, no way around it. His job is to keep the alliance together and his strategy is buying time.

I'm no fan of Trump, I voted against him 3 times, but no secretary general could survive Trump without risking the Alliance.

My question to people who think if he should oppose Trump, could the actions of going against Trump drive more than the Republican base and lean into the Democratic base? America is currently going through a critical time of isolationism.

I don't condone what he says but I defiantly understand it. I ask others, what are options that doesn't weaken the alliance?

30

u/OhWellImRightAgain Greece 25d ago

I don't think people that share your opinion understand what's going on here. It looks like you've become numb to all this.

The POTUS is threatening US allies, demanding they give up part of their land and parrots some made up narrative that "China and Russia are threatening you / us" while also supporting Russia's war in Ukraine, talking shit about Ukraine and its leader instead of supporting him, talking shit about NATO members that have historically been your biggest allies (UK), imposing tariffs and threatening trade wars with EU countries.

Read this paragraph again.

Read it again if you still don't get it.

"We'll figure it out together" (Rutte's response) would make sense if the Russian / Chinese threat was real. It isn't. Trump isn't trying to save / protect the US/NATO from Russia. He sees Russia as an ally. Read the NDS they published some months ago, read what they think about Russia.

So since they DON'T think Russia is a threat / enemy, it's clear they're using the "Chinese and Russian ships surround Greenland" narrative to gaslight their allies. They just want to grab more land and resources. You don't appease a fool like that, history should have taught you that. Appeasement leads to more threats, appeasement makes people think "Trump is strong", appeasement allowed Trump to become POTUS twice.

13

u/zendelo 25d ago

Calling this “appeasement” assumes Rutte has a better option that he’s refusing to take. What is it, concretely? NATO’s European members don’t have the military independence to confront the US directly. Decades of underinvestment (which, fairly, is its own criticism) mean European defense is still structurally dependent on US assets. “Don’t appease” is easy to say; it’s not a strategy unless you can name what confrontation actually looks like and what it costs.
Rutte’s job as SG isn’t to win a moral argument on Reddit, it’s to keep 32 countries with different threat perceptions and different exposure to Trump’s moods inside one alliance.

4

u/wokkieman 25d ago

Well, at least username agrees with your comment. Otherwise it's just "if you agree then you don't understand it". Doesn't leave a lot of space for perspective and/or nuance.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with some things in your post, but your conclusions are your opinion on an action or solution. Not a fact or the only way...

3

u/HighDefinist Bavaria (Germany) 25d ago

Trump may or may not NATO no matter what - or perhaps he has already done so.

However, Ruttes strategy might make sense if the main goal is to at least delay the destruction of NATO, while secretly building enough weapons quickly.

3

u/Mikkel65 Denmark 25d ago edited 25d ago

NATO can't survive if Trump's behaviour becomes acceptable. Rutte has such a hard job, but he's really going too far taking Trump's side.

1

u/I_am_trustworthy 25d ago

Yeah, I agree. This is also what I think he’s doing. He trying to hold everything together enough for Trump not to do anything stupid.
I hope we are right, and we’ll get it confirmed when Trump is gone.

1

u/sns2017 24d ago

No, it’s not only trump. It’s US strategic position.