Europe Today: Rutte tells Russia to stop nuclear threats at Euronews defence summit

Good morning. It's Thursday, October 1st. You're watching Euronews, and this is Europe Today. Coming up, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte called on Russia to stop issuing nuclear threats. This comes after Moscow reportedly sent a letter to the Western alliance that it is prepared to deploy its nuclear arsenal if its territory comes under attack. Rutte spoke at the Euronews Defense and Space Summit in Brussels. The United States has urged European countries to release more emergency oil reserves to curb soaring energy prices. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is considering a 90-day diesel export ban in an effort to contain domestic fuel prices ahead of November's midterm elections. And the Spanish government has ordered the military to investigate claims its soldiers maltreated migrants in Ceuta. This was Madrid's response to a report by Amnesty International. The organization had gathered dozens of testimonies blaming soldiers for beatings, harassment, humiliations or theft of money. Welcome to the program, I'm Stefan Grover. Europe is facing its most serious security challenge in decades. From Russia's war in Ukraine to drones, sabotage and hybrid attacks increasingly testing NATO's eastern flank. Against that backdrop, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte came to the Euronews Defense and Space Summit in Brussels with a clear message. NATO is ready, united and prepared to defend every inch of Allied territory. But as Moscow issues fresh nuclear warnings and pressure grows on Europe to do more for its own defense, the questions are becoming harder to ignore. How far could this confrontation go? And how much more must Europe do to protect itself? At our defense summit, Mark Rutte addressed those questions and talked about that strange letter that Moscow sent NATO. From Russia with love? What was exactly in the Russian letter, I think it's up to them to disclose. Putin knows that he can never win from NATO, so I don't take this that serious. But of course we had to reply and make clear to him that NATO is a defensive alliance, as I said, and stop the war in Ukraine and stop the nuclear threat because it's not helpful. And NATO is so much stronger than Russia is, so there's no way they can ever beat us. There's a lot of frenzy around the situation in the Baltics and a security scenario that has or seems to have deteriorated over the past three weeks. What are the scenarios you're preparing for? 43,000 Russians killed or seriously wounded a month now in Ukraine. Ukraine holding the front line, doing much better than only a half year or a year ago, striking deep inside Russia, allies supporting Ukraine in terms of weapons delivery, etc. So this is the picture. So Putin is not winning this. So let's assume that he is a bit worried and a bit rattled. And I think the best way to deal with this is to have a little bit of calm here. What Putin tries to do, don't forget, by these letters and these hybrid grey zone activities, is he tries to divide us and lose the focus on Ukraine. We will not. So every hybrid whatever happens in Europe will be met with more support for Ukraine, not less support for Ukraine. That's the message. Should we just take away from this conversation that regardless of the letters, the trip of a CIA top officer or not, nothing has changed. And even if Russia was planning to do something, you are prepared for it. And this is NATO territory. We'll be protected. There is no imminent threat to NATO territory. If there is a buildup, we will see it and we will deal with it. If anything happens otherwise, we will also deal with it because we have prepared and trained for this. And we have to be clear-eyed. Russia is not doing well in Ukraine. And this is all about that. And every minute we spend on this is exactly what Putin loves us to do, being rattled and talking about, oh, what's happening here, what's happening there. Calm. We are stronger. Carry on. Keep on investing. And most of us, most of all, make sure that Ukraine has what it needs to stay in the fight. How much of a problem is a war in Iran when it comes to the situation in Ukraine? Yeah, but let's also assess. And here we might not all of us agree that it was only the United States which was capable of taking out the nuclear capability of Iran, which was a threat potentially soon, not only for Israel and the Middle East, but also for us here. You really believe that? In Brussels. I absolutely believe that. Yes. So the American president's taking out that threat, degrading that capability is crucial. And of course, every war also has its downsides. That's clear. But I'm looking at the upsides here. And by the way, with all the extra investments European countries are making in their defense, this 3.5 percent leading to the 5 percent overall defense spending, this will lead to a situation where in the future, this stronger Europe and a stronger NATO, where the Europeans will be able to take care of their backyard themselves. It should be us doing this, not the Americans. But do you worry about the ramifications and the energy markets? I mean, there are always downsides. There are always downsides when war breaks out. That's clear. But hey, let's face it. Europe was not able to take out the nuclear capability of Iran. We couldn't. We didn't have the capabilities. In 10 years we can and we should. It should not be the Americans doing it. It should us be doing it. It should also us be taking care of the Houthis in the Red Sea and not the Americans. But hey, of course, there are always ramifications, but the ramifications start from a premise that it is good that the Americans did this. And I'm one believing that it was absolutely essential for the Americans to take on Iran. And do you believe the vast majority of the Alliance agrees with your assessment? No, I don't think so, but that doesn't care. I don't care. You ask me on my opinion. Let's be honest. The war is not popular in Europe. I take all those comments very seriously. But what I'm telling you is that the nuclear capability of Iran, in my assessment, is a direct threat, not only to the Middle East, but also to Europe, that it was only the United States which was able to degrade it. Yes, when you have a war like this, that will have also negative consequences, but you have to take them into account. How is the atmosphere in the Alliance at this point? It's great. It's the best it has ever been, because you have now a Europe which is taking responsibility for its own defense. President Trump loves NATO. He only hated one element, which was the fact that we were not spending enough. And Secretary General, just a final question. What do you think NATO 3.0 means? The problem was that NATO was not sustainable. It is not sustainable that you have a country in the United States being overly responsible for the defense of 600 million Europeans. The problem was there was a total lack of equality in terms of spending. That's now being redressed, not only because Trump wants this, but also because we have to spend much more in Europe to be able to defend ourselves against the Russians. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte there, speaking to our own Maria Taddeo. Now I'm joined in the studio by our NATO correspondent Shona Murray. Good morning, Shona. Well, that was quite a lineup at the Euronews Defense Summit. You were heavily involved with interviews and roundtables. Tell us about the atmosphere in the room. What were your biggest impressions? Well, I mean, it was heavily subscribed because defense is really the key issue in Europe at the moment. So we had, for example, the EU Commissioner for Defense, the EU Commissioner for Technology. We had Sean Clancy, who's the chair of the EU Military Committee. And the engagement was really important because we had obviously issues around hybrid threat, threat of Moscow, and also issues around the scarcity of interceptors, because we know that that is a real problem across not just NATO, but across the world as well. So those issues were very much on the agenda. And I think it was very interesting to hear from Mark Rutte there saying that there's no immediate threat to NATO territory. But I suppose that he would also make the point that that's because NATO has ramped up its defenses. At the same time, ask the Baltics what their view is, because we're seeing on a weekly basis drones with often military payloads coming into Polish, Lithuanian, Finnish territory often have to be shot down, scrambled. We've seen arson, sabotage attacks. So there is a sort of a disconnection there, it seems, a little bit. Right. There were a lot of top speakers. You mentioned some of them. I agree. I think one of them stood out, and that was the Defense Minister of Belgium, Theo Franken. Why? Because of his bluntness, especially when he was asked about what is Belgium's biggest threat right now. Let's take a listen to what he said. Russia, air attack, air attack, air attack. So this is the biggest threat. So we need air defense, air defense, air defense. So yes, we need really air defense. We need to scale up our air defenses. We need to have more stocks, more production, scale up production, industrial base and large industrial base. Everything has to go faster. And then again, yeah, hybrid threat, of course, there will be more hybrid threat actions next coming months. It will be a dark winter for Europe. Let's talk about the hybrid threats. Rewind 12 months ago, Belgium was seemingly inundated with drones. There were some unmanned aerial vehicles seen spotted flying near military assets. Their airports were ground to a halt. But it's my understanding that the Belgian federal prosecutor's office is still determining roughly where 40 of these drones come from. What conclusion do you draw from this incident? Who is to blame here? That is the definition of hybrid warfare. It's very difficult to find the actor when you don't find the instrument, the drone or the pilot who's doing this. It's really difficult to have the proof. They're very, very smart. Hybrid warfare is not something that Russia is starting since two or three years. They're doing this for 50 years. This is something that Putin was really very good at. So yeah, this is something that they have a lot of expertise in hybrid warfare. Absolutely. So just speaking on drones once again, in a wide ranging interview with the Flemish broadcaster VRT, Robert Brovdi, who heads up Ukraine's drone defence department, he told Belgium to take off its, quote, rose tinted glasses and that Belgium, because it hosts NATO, the EU institutions and Euroclear, which is the financial institution that holds a big chunk of Russia's immobilised assets. This is what makes Belgium vulnerable. Do you think that you're doing enough to protect the country from these incursions? Do you share his assessment? So yes, we were the first, the worst pupil of NATO class. Now Belgium is back again, but it takes time. So I need time. I'm working 24 seven, like everybody, every defence minister for the moment. But yeah, I think that's, it's going in the right direction. Have we already all the capabilities that I want to have? No. It takes time. It takes time also. Industry cannot follow. When I'm buying Patriots, I have to wait 10 years to get them. So it is, we're in a very difficult position at this moment. Europe has been very good in investing in soft power, in social security, and it's beautiful to have a pension system, to have social welfare systems. When somebody gets sick, when somebody's lost his job, we have everything. But when there's war or when there's hybrid threats, we don't, we have anything. So yeah, we were in a really difficult position and Belgium was a really bad pupil in the past, but trying to step up, we have a stable government and trying to do what we need to do. Well, Belgium trying to do what it needs to do. That was the Belgian Defence Minister Theo Franken. Another speaker who I thought was very impressive was Bulgaria's Prime Minister, Rumen Radev. Let's listen to what he said. Bulgaria is a strong, strong participant in strengthening the deterrence and defence on the eastern flank. Each member state on the eastern flank must do this, and not only on the eastern flank. Now we have seven nations in the multinational battalion settled in Bulgaria. You mentioned hybrid warfare with drones. It is extremely difficult to counter these drones. Why? It is extremely difficult to detect them. They fly low, they use non-metal materials. It is extremely difficult to detect on the radars. So if you apply anti-drone systems, they need to be very, very congested on your border. That means a lot, a lot, a huge number of such systems. And their integration, and this is a huge technical challenge to all of us. And that's why we need to think as soon as possible to put this war to an end. And I'm afraid, like President Zelensky, for the winter approaching Ukraine, again, devastating energy system, transportation, industry, defence industry, warehouses. And we are suffering from this because the freedom of navigation in the Black Sea has It's over. Yeah, it's over. And the insurance companies, they don't like anymore to insure the ships, and this influence the transport system of all the Black Sea countries around. This is a huge impact on our economies. Made in Europe, and again, this clear European preference. The US ambassador was right here just a few hours ago saying it is clear the new instruments that the EU is creating are looking to limit the US participation. This is also coming at a time at which multiple European leaders would question whether or not President Trump is an ally of the EU. Are you in favour of legislating in this way? We cannot immediately guarantee our security by ourselves. Even talking about the nuclear shield, we cannot go without the United States of America because they provide the essence of the core defence capabilities in NATO. It is absolutely clear. It will take time for us to recover, to renovate our industries, our industrial base, our technology development. Should Ukraine be a core part of it? We heard from the Ukraine and say the Europeans will need us more than at this point we need them on the technology advancement. Should we get them in this context? Ukraine has been already a part of this. Ukraine has been sharing the latest state-of-the-art drone technologies they have developed through experimenting them every day on the front line. Yeah. And finally, Shona, you interviewed the US ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, a close ally of President Trump. And if we say that Trump is critical towards the European Union, that would be an understatement as we all know. Now, listen to what Whitaker said at the summit. Typically, these hybrid actions, as they're happening or after they happen, can't be determined who is behind it. That only comes through investigation by oftentimes law enforcement and judicial processes together with intelligence agencies working together. And at the same time, we're coordinating with allies and coordinating with NATO. And we were talking about it at the table at the NAC. So I think that is, right now, a pretty good model for how to address these. And everyone wants sort of some line in the sand that says, if this happens, then sort of that means we invoke Article 5. But Article 5 is really ultimately intentionally vague. But the bottom line is, let's ask why. Why is this happening? It's happening mainly to deter NATO and allies from supporting Ukraine, from supporting other efforts that the allies and members of the alliance want to support. And so that just means we should lean in more as to what we're doing. We should not be deterred. And I also think it just means we need to invest. The reason that we made the 5% commitment at the Hague was, in addition to, you know, hard military power, we also identified the need for resilience. In the next few months, we'll hear the results of the U.S. force posture review, due by December, we believe. But we've heard some leaks that it could be as many as 25,000 to 40,000 troops withdrawn from NATO territory. Can you give us a bit of clarity about that? We have reaffirmed over and over the nuclear umbrella that we provide to NATO and our allies. We have continued to say that we're going to stay engaged in Europe. This is a, not only is it a forced posture review, it is also a forced posture and basing review. And so we're looking at the issues about access, basing and overflight, some of which were a little clunky during Epic Fury. So I mean, there's a lot going on right now to make sure that, importantly, in an America first, you know, sort of from a U.S. ambassador standpoint, America first means that we look at it from what's in the interest of the United States of America and its people and its taxpayers. And so we are doing that right now. We're saying, you know, what is the value of our basing? Is it what we thought it was? And we're just doing a very kind of mathematical, mechanical analysis of how we're laid down globally because we have to address global challenges. Our allies expect that out of us to be able to do that. All right, Shona, so we had Franken, Radev, Whittaker, who was your favorite? Oh, well, obviously, Matthew Whittaker was my one that was interested in most. No, they were all very good. I think there was a few things that we can point at. The first thing from the Belgian defence minister, air defence, air defence, air defence, the scarcity of air defence globally, mainly as a result of the United States burning through its stockpile because of the war in Iran, but also Ukraine is therefore suffering, as we know, day to day by these air attacks, drone attacks and ballistic missile attacks from Russia. That's a real problem. At the summit yesterday, we did have an amazing moment from Firepoint, which is a Ukrainian organisation that's trying to create their own Ukrainian made air defences, interceptors, but that won't be on the market for another year or so. The other piece is I think there's a lack of consensus about how NATO should respond to these below threshold hybrid attacks that we're seeing. The Baltics, much more confrontational about it. The United States, Mark Rutter saying less so. Right. Lack of consensus is also about the nuclear threat. So Mark Rutter was very clear. There is no real threat. But the Bulgarians had a different view. They're definitely intimidated by this nuclear threat from Moscow. And of course, Matthew Whitaker then not being too clear about what's going to happen in relation to US troops in Asia Territory. All right, Shona, thank you so much for coming on this morning. That does it for us today. Thank you for watching. I'm Stefan Grover and I see you tomorrow.