Mark Rutte and NATO at the Edge: Leadership, Flattery, and the Crisis of the Atlantic Alliance |
Mark Rutte and NATO at the Edge: Leadership, Flattery, and the Crisis of the Atlantic Alliance
Mark Rutte’s tenure as NATO Secretary General exposes the alliance’s deepest dilemma: whether survival through deference to Washington strengthens NATO or quietly accelerates its strategic erosion.
Rutte’s tenure is defined by a single overriding objective: preventing a U.S. withdrawal from NATO under a Trump presidency. This is not merely a tactical concern but an existential one for the alliance and leaves all European countries in a sort of despair.
Europe’s military capabilities, from intelligence and surveillance to strategic lift and missile defense, remain structurally dependent on the United States.
Since the former Dutch Prime-Minister took for himself the task of pleasing “Daddy” Trump, Mark Rutte saw his reputation ruined. European leaders see the ruin of his credibility not only as a personal fiasco but also as a deeper concern over the survival of NATO. Reactions are coming from different European capitals and in the European Parliament, where Rutte had a hard time in his latest appearance in that house.
Rutte’s blunt assertion before the European Parliament—“If anyone thinks Europe can defend itself without the U.S., keep on dreaming”—was not analytically wrong. But politically, it had a detonating effect.
French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Noël Barrot’s immediate rebuke and Nathalie Loiseau’s pointed question—“Are you NATO’s secretary general or America’s ambassador to NATO?”—captured a growing unease across European capitals. The criticism was not merely about tone; it was about legitimacy.
NATO’s Secretary General is expected to act as a custodian of alliance balance, neither as the private advocate of Donald Trump, nor for one capital over others.
The Politics of Flattery
At the heart of the controversy lies Rutte’s reliance on what has been labelled “flattery diplomacy.” His now-infamous “Daddy Trump” remark at the 2025 NATO summit, intended as a light metaphor, became emblematic of a leadership style that many Europeans perceive as submissive, even infantilizing. In an era when power politics have returned boldly, flattery is seen by critics not as realism but as appeasement.
This discomfort is not merely aesthetic. Alliances depend on credibility, and credibility depends on norms. When the alliance leader publicly praises a U.S. president who threatens tariffs against allies, questions Article 5, or flirts with territorial grabbing, such as Greenland, the line between diplomacy and indulgence becomes dangerously blurred. I would argue flattery may buy short-term calm but risks signaling that coercion works.
European Discontent and Its Limits
Are Europeans genuinely prepared to abandon NATO? In France, calls to leave the alliance have resurfaced, echoing Gaullist traditions of strategic autonomy. Yet these pressures remain politically marginal.
No major European government is currently prepared to exit NATO, nor could it realistically replace the security guarantees the alliance provides. Similar rhetorical threats elsewhere in Europe function more as signals of frustration than as credible exit strategies.
This tension exposes a paradox: European leaders criticize Rutte’s deference to Washington while simultaneously failing to provide concrete alternatives.
Declarations about “taking charge of our own security” are rarely matched with timelines, industrial coordination, or politically sustainable defense budgets. Rutte’s defenders argue that his bluntness about Europe not being able to defend itself alone merely exposes an uncomfortable truth Europe has avoided confronting.
NATO: Leadership Crisis or Structural Crisis?
The deeper question is whether NATO’s malaise is primarily a failure of Mark Rutte’s leadership or a manifestation of structural decay.
The evidence suggests it is both. Structurally, NATO is strained by asymmetrical burden-sharing, fragmented European defense industries, and a U.S. political system increasingly skeptical of alliances and multilateralism. Leadership, however, matters most precisely in such moments.
Rutte’s strategy prioritizes alliance survival through U.S. retention, even at the cost of European resentment for not positioning tough with Trump. His success in securing a commitment to raise defense spending toward 5 percent of GDP by 2035 (3.5% in defense and 1.5% in related infrastructure) is a tangible achievement. Yet spending alone does not equal cohesion or translate into defense capabilities. An alliance that pays more but feels politically marginalized may emerge financially stronger but strategically weaker.
How History May Judge Him
Does Rutte offer a strategy for NATO beyond managing Donald Trump? That is the central critique. His approach appears reactive rather than visionary, focused on crisis management rather than institutional renewal. Trump, after all, does not reward weakness, and recent examples suggest he does not respect flatterers either. Deference may delay confrontation, but it rarely reshapes behavior.
History may judge Mark Rutte not as the man who destroyed NATO, but as the leader who revealed its fragility. If NATO emerges more European, more balanced, and more resilient, he may be remembered as a hard-nosed realist who bought time. If, however, the alliance becomes an instrument shaped by U.S. domestic politics rather than collective norms, his tenure may be seen as the moment when credibility quietly eroded.
In the end, Rutte’s legacy will hinge on a brutal irony: in trying to save NATO from Trump, he may either preserve the alliance or normalize the very dynamics that put it at risk.
Ricardo Martins, Doctor in Sociology with specialisation in geopolitics and international relations
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel