Welcome back to Off the Record, after a hectic week in our newsroom. 

The Brussels media loves to talk about itself, but we prefer to speak with the newsmakers. This week, Euronews hosted its first defence summit -and it made news. That's how I measure success and impact, and it's the only metric I care about. Talking about yourself is fine, but making news is better.

On stage, I sat down with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. I have covered the Dutchman for years, going back to his four terms as prime minister of the Netherlands, when he earned the nickname Teflon Mark. 

In the green room, I told him that one of my craziest moments as a journalist in Brussels was a rough doorstep at the height of negotiations over the EU’s 2020 pandemic recovery fund: shaky cameras, people pushing, technicians tripping over each other as we waited for him to return to his hotel.

He remembered it in remarkable detail. He also reminded me that his Brussels hotel was the cheapest used by any of the leaders – others favoured the fancy Amigo – and reminisced about his post-summit walks from the Europa building back to his hotel. No official car, no police escort: the “cheapest and fastest” option.

That’s the thing about Mark Rutte. Most politicians have an ego, but he has always been very effective at pretending he doesn’t. He enjoys self-deprecation and, after a lifetime in politics, knows exactly when to switch on the charming small talk. Not bad for the often blunt Dutchman.

Rutte is approachable and leans into his caricature as a man who is simply there to serve. He understands that managing NATO in the age of Trump means cosying up to the US president – even at the expense of his own image – while preventing Russia’s war from spilling into allied territory. 

If, by the end of his tenure, NATO is better funded and Washington is still on board, his “daddy” diplomacy – an unfortunate remark that still haunts him – will have been worth it. My guess is that he genuinely believes this is the right calculus, no matter the cringe.

On stage, he confirmed NATO responded to a provocative Russian letter sent to the alliance threatening to use its full arsenal – including nuclear weapons – if the territory of the Russian Federation came under threat. Moscow mentioned specifically its enclave of Kaliningrad, on the border with Lithuania, and a region where experts say the risk of a false-flag attack is real. 

Playing the nuclear card is nothing new for Russia – the West rarely even utters the word – and the Kremlin often reaches for it when the battlefield situation is going badly. But that does not mean it can be ignored.

Rutte was clear: Russia should simply end the war in Ukraine and stop the nuclear threats. He was on a mission to calm nerves after weeks of speculation about a deteriorating security picture on NATO’s eastern flank, particularly in the Baltic states, which have remained on high alert as hybrid attacks linked to Russia multiply. Rutte insisted – and that is part of his job – that there is “no imminent threat” to NATO territory.

This was a secretary-general determined to project an alliance that is strong and united. “So much stronger than Russia. It could never beat us,” he said.

The Kremlin knows it too, hence the sabre-rattling. Nor is the war going well for Russia: the battlefield is largely stuck. A Russia incapable of defeating Ukraine cannot take on NATO. Let’s be clear: it would be wiped out – perhaps we all would – but conventionally, this is not a fight Russia can win.

That doesn’t mean Moscow cannot inflict enormous damage. It has created a climate of paranoia across Europe, while pounding Ukraine in a sharp escalation of the air war. My colleague Sasha Vakulina, who was in Kyiv on assignment, was routinely woken by attacks. During one of our security check-ins, she said it felt worse than at any point this year. Winter is approaching, and Ukraine clearly needs more air defence.

When I pressed Rutte on licensing Patriot systems for Kyiv, he did not give me an answer. The US and Ukraine have been negotiating a deal that would allow Kyiv to produce the system and reduce its dependence on external deliveries. It would not be a game changer in the short term – Rutte is right about that – but this should have been ironed out at the NATO summit in Turkey over the summer.

Rutte is careful not to criticise Donald Trump and is prepared to defend the president’s intervention in Iran at great length – even if the war against the regime in Tehran has also inflicted pain on Ukraine.

Energy prices are surging around the world and the Strait of Hormuz remains shut, despite an agreement three months ago that was supposed to restore freedom of navigation. That promise has yet to materialise.

Trump is also cautioning Ukraine against hitting Russian energy facilities, which are instrumental in financing the war.

He has a point: cutting refinery capacity at a time of acute market stress does not help. But Zelenskyy is not the root cause of the energy squeeze. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is.

Rutte is remarkably measured in his words. He won't utter the smallest criticism of Trump. Instead, he calls on Europeans to do more to help unblock the situation. 

Europe, he argues, should have been capable of dealing with Iran’s nuclear threat rather than leaving the US to do the heavy lifting. When I asked Rutte, a European, whether he really believed Europe could have done it, his answer was emphatic.

“It should be us doing it. It should be us taking care of the Houthis and the Red Sea, not the Americans.”

Under his watch, NATO allies have committed to spend 5% of gross domestic product on defence, of which 3.5% will go to hard military capabilities. It is an accomplishment, and let's be honest, it's in large part due to Trump’s return to the White House.

But as Europeans put real money on the table, another question is becoming unavoidable: what should they buy? Should Europe favour European arms and equipment, or continue spending much of that money on the American defence industry?

To me, the answer is clear: if Europe pays, Europe should benefit. Rutte, however, dismissed this as a “luxury debate” of the Brussels bubble. It isn’t. It is a fundamental question, and it goes to the heart of the emerging NATO 3.0 strategy.

The US is mulling a major shift in which Europe will have to take the lead in its own defence, pay more of the bill and deploy more of its troops, while Washington reduces its footprint to focus on the Pacific and China. That makes sense. It is a legitimate posture

But will the Trump administration allow Europeans to build up their own defence industries? If you listen to the words of the US ambassador to NATO, the answer is not quite. Will NATO 3.0 lead to an alliance of equals? I doubt it. 

Mark Rutte believes he has learned to tame the beast. And he is convinced he is saving the alliance. If you ask me, he is doing the best job anyone can under the circumstances, and his Teflon skin is helping. It's cringey, but necessary.

Thank you for reading Off the Record. 

You can email me at maria.tadeo@euronews.com

— Maria Tadeo