I watched NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s meeting with Trump yesterday to gauge whether something substantial would come out of it, but for the most part it went fairly routinely with no surprises.
After the meeting, I was contacted by a couple of people on the question of NATO’s role and an article I had written a while back on Rutte being one of the most dangerous people in the world at the present moment (you can find it here).
So, I just wanted to use this opportunity to clarify that the danger he poses does not arise from him personally, more so as a virtue of his position and the fact that he immersed himself entirely becoming a ‘company man,’ prioritizing the interests of NATO as an organization above all else (even its own members).
The main reason I make this point is that NATO, an organization that was established in 1949 to counter the USSR, has by the simple process of existing for so long, developed its own organizational interests separate from that of its member states. It has developed a gravity of its own, and rather than the tool which its members use for their interests, it has grown influential enough that it is now able to influence members’ perspectives and directions.
As a student of organizational systems and behavior, I know that over time, organizations’ primary goal becomes continued existence (essentially survival), even if they have to perpetuate the circumstances that keep them relevant. Because NATO, despite evolving somewhat since the fall of the Soviet Union, is focused on defense and deterrence, its continued survival requires the existence of a threat to defend from and deter. Every hero (and everyone is a hero in their own story) needs a villain, even if they have to create them.
How does this apply to Rutte and NATO? Well think of it in these terms, if every threat to Europe and the U.S. disappeared tomorrow, would that be in NATO’s interests? NATO as an organization not NATO members. If there were nothing to defend from and nothing to deter, why would its members keep funding it?
Now, bring that back to the present moment, and consider the NATO prerogative to survive and remain relevant. Rutte, as NATO’s company man, has a mission to ensure the survival and continued relevance of NATO, and to do so he must accomplish several goals.
First…
…he must ensure that Europe does not in fact achieve independence from the American defense umbrella; he needs to keep the U.S. invested in European defense and in NATO itself. If Europe were to successfully create an independent security framework, built by and for the continent, then NATO would unavoidably find its relevance reduced.
The nascent independent European security architecture, particularly if it is holistic and inclusive of the nuclear deterrent umbrella as suggested by president Macron earlier this month, would no longer be beholden to NATO nor overly reliant on it. This would inevitably mean that European and NATO (as an organization) interests would diverge. They would likely assess threats differently and Europe would have a more continentally focused perspective, one that may include priorities contrary to NATO’s raison d’etre, think for example a gradual European Russian integration forming a powerful continental bloc, or a European Chinese strategic partnership that brings them closer together.
Unimaginable though that may be at this stage with the fiery rhetoric coming out of European capitals and Moscow, a Europe that is no longer connected intrinsically with the U.S. would likely hedge its bets against American interests to ensure its own security and independence through courting other powers.
Rutte cannot allow that to happen, and his mission at this stage is to ensure continued American presence and connection to Europe in terms of defense and military cooperation. He needs to ensure that this cooperation happens under the umbrella of NATO, and that the organization is able to set the tone of engagement with global rivals. As a company man, his goal is to frame threats as a collective risk shared by the U.S. and Europe to ensure continued NATO relevance (and survival moving forward).
He will face an uphill challenge in the coming period, because the Trump administration does not favor multilateralism, and has already diverged from the NATO strategic concept that frames Russia as the greatest threat to the Alliance. For Trump, the greatest threat is China and to counter its rise it has adopted a policy of reconciliation with Moscow rather than one of isolation. To counter this pivot, Rutte will likely shift NATO policy focus toward China to keep the U.S. invested, while maintaining the adversarial approach to Russia to keep Europe on board.
European security independence would be a death knell for NATO in its current form, likely evolving the alliance between the transatlantic partners into something more like a strategic partnership rather than the consolidated format it has now.
Second…
…he must magnify threats to Europe and the U.S. and present them in ways that far outpace the realities. Russia, beyond its nuclear arsenal poses limited threat to the collective European security architecture, and even less so to the American one. It has neither the capacity nor the interest in expanding west; to do so would be fatal. That is not to say that Russia is a demure doe, far from it, if the eastern flank of NATO were not reinforced, the states on that line would be exposed to extensive Russian interference and influence, but to posit that Russia presents an existential threat to Europe is questionable at best. The nuclear option itself is held in check by the mutually assured destruction doctrine, and taking that option at the present stage is unlikely.
As for China, he will likely piggyback on the U.S. perspective that China presents the greatest rising threat and attempt to keep the European approach to the Asian giant focused on that rather than alternative mechanisms whereby a rising European collective could harness its relations with China to balance great power relations as it navigates its way up the pecking order. A Europe dependent on the U.S. is good for NATO, and the best way to ensure that dependency is to magnify immediate threats that Europe cannot face alone.
Taken together…
…this means that Rutte, in order to succeed in preserving NATO relevance, needs to limit rapprochement between the transatlantic allies and their rivals. He needs to ensure that the U.S. and Europe adopt tunnel vision toward China and Russia, as the countries presenting the most viable threats to both Europe and the U.S. and limit their perspective of positive engagement with them. If these countries were to come to a point of collective agreement and reduce mutual threats, NATO’s raison d’etre would come into question.
Therefore, through his channels of influence and communication with the leaders of the member states, it is in his direct interest to keep the threats alive and well, and constantly remind the members of the Alliance of these threats and the need to counter them.
So….
…Rutte is not dangerous because he as an individual is problematic, but rather because of his position and the perspective it forces on him. When someone works within an organization, it is not unusual for them to internalize its identity as part of their own outward perspective, and this is what is happening with Rutte.
Rutte is pragmatic and has had unprecedented success in navigating the labyrinths of Dutch politics, skills that he brings to NATO. The longest serving Dutch prime minister, Teflon Mark, as he came to be known after surviving various political scandals, now leverages these skills as the head of the organization.
His effectiveness at influencing others and navigating challenging political environments positions him to have excessive influence as the head of NATO. As political leaders in Europe juggle their internal pressures and external threats, Rutte has the ability to recalibrate their perspectives. This results in a tail wagging the dog situation; the member states of the Alliance should be the ones setting the tone, but with someone like Rutte at its helm, it is possible that the case may be reversed. His style of engagement with President Trump during their briefing also indicates that he has charmed him and is likely to be able to influence his -and by extension the American- decision making process when it comes to the Alliance.
If NATO sets the tone and defines the perspective, Europe and the U.S. may find their outlook narrowed to the purely defense and security approach, limiting their options of engagement through many of the other tools they have on hand. Rutte is not dangerous because he is bad at his job, but rather because he has the potential to be excessively effective at it.