NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte is facing growing criticism from European capitals over his conciliatory approach to Donald Trump, exposing a fundamental divide over how the alliance should respond to the American president's demands for higher defense spending and his skepticism toward European security.
The tensions, reported by Politico Europe, reveal a strategic split within the alliance at a moment when unity is critical. Russia is watching. And European leaders are asking: does flattery work, or does it embolden?
The Rutte Doctrine: Charm Offensive
Rutte, who took over NATO's top job in October 2024, has adopted what diplomats privately call the "Trump whisperer" approach. The former Dutch prime minister has publicly praised Trump's focus on burden-sharing, acknowledged European underinvestment in defense, and emphasized points of agreement rather than confrontation.
In recent weeks, Rutte has called Trump's push for NATO members to spend 3% of GDP on defense "not unreasonable," a statement that sent shockwaves through capitals already struggling to reach the current 2% target. He's repeatedly thanked the president for "focusing minds" on European defense capabilities.
The strategy isn't subtle: keep Trump engaged, avoid public spats, and use personal rapport to preserve American commitment to Article 5 - the collective defense clause that underpins NATO. Rutte saw firsthand during Trump's first term how public criticism triggered presidential tantrums. He's betting charm works better.
Paris and Warsaw Push Back
But France and Poland - among others - are not convinced. French officials, speaking on background, argue that Rutte's approach validates Trump's threats to abandon allies and undermines European strategic autonomy. "We cannot build a credible defense posture by constantly appeasing Washington," one senior French diplomat said.
Poland, which already spends over 4% of GDP on defense, sees Rutte's deference as dangerous. Warsaw believes Trump interprets accommodation as weakness - and that European leaders need to make clear that NATO is not negotiable, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.
The frustration reflects a deeper question: what is NATO's Secretary-General supposed to be? A diplomat managing alliance consensus, or a political leader setting strategic direction? Rutte sees his role as the former. Critics want the latter.
Ukraine Caught in the Middle
The stakes extend beyond alliance politics. Ukraine's survival depends on Western unity, and any fracture between Washington and Europe gives Moscow leverage. Vladimir Putin has spent years trying to peel America away from European security commitments. A NATO Secretary-General who appears to prioritize Trump's ego over European solidarity plays into that strategy.
Yet Rutte's defenders argue that maintaining American engagement requires political realism. Trump has repeatedly questioned whether the U.S. should defend allies who "don't pay their bills." If flattery keeps him committed to NATO, isn't that worth the discomfort?
Brussels insiders describe the tension as generational and philosophical. Older European leaders remember the Cold War, when American protection was unquestioned. They're willing to defer to Washington. Younger leaders see a multipolar world where Europe must stand on its own feet - and they resent Rutte's deference.
The 3% Trap
The 3% spending target illustrates the problem. Most NATO members don't meet the existing 2% guideline. Raising the bar to 3% would require massive budgetary shifts in countries like Germany, Italy, and Spain - politically difficult, economically painful, and strategically questionable given competing priorities like climate investment and social spending.
By endorsing Trump's 3% demand, Rutte has backed European governments into a corner. They either accept an unrealistic target (and face domestic backlash) or reject it (and give Trump ammunition to call them freeloaders). Either way, they lose.
French President Emmanuel Macron has proposed an alternative: Europe should increase defense spending, but channel it through European defense industries and EU procurement mechanisms, not just buy American weapons. This "strategic autonomy" vision directly contradicts Rutte's transatlantic focus - and the Secretary-General has conspicuously avoided endorsing it.
Brussels Decides More Than You Think
This isn't just alliance politics - it's about who leads European security in the 21st century. If Rutte's approach prevails, NATO remains anchored to Washington, for better or worse. If his critics win, Europe accelerates its own defense integration, potentially sidelining NATO in favor of EU structures.
The outcome affects everyone. A weakened NATO emboldens Russia and China. A fractured alliance makes war more likely. And a Europe that cannot defend itself becomes vulnerable to coercion - economic, political, and military.
Rutte has a narrow path: keep Trump engaged without alienating European capitals. Whether he can walk it remains to be seen. But one thing is clear - Moscow is watching every stumble.
