Discussion at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2026 examines Europe’s defense strategies, security challenges, and regional cooperation in the face of evolving geopolitical pressures.
At Davos, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and European leaders argued that Europe can defend itself, but only by accelerating spending, production, and resilience while keeping NATO’s integrated transatlantic model intact. Rutte framed the alliance as vital to US security (“You need a safe Arctic, a safe Atlantic, and a safe Europe”), while refusing to comment publicly on Greenland, insisting diplomacy must manage internal tensions. Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki stressed US indispensability on NATO’s eastern flank, citing burden-sharing imbalances and Poland’s near-5% defense spending, but urged a diplomatic resolution and warned Europe has “big problem about the feeling… responsibility” for security.
Finland’s President Alexander Stubb described “NATO 3.0,” with Europe taking more responsibility and comprehensive security at home: “You fight wars on the battlefield, but you win them at home.” He argued deterrence is capability-based, not percentage-based. Rutte credited Trump with forcing overdue European action: “Without Donald Trump, this would never have happened.” European Investment Bank President Nadia Calviño highlighted a “sea change” as EIB defense financing hit 5% in 2025 and backed “European solidarity” on the eastern flank. Sanofi CEO Paul Hudson broadened defense to health sovereignty, warning Europe is slipping behind the US and China on innovation. All urged refocusing on Ukraine as “number one priority” even amid Arctic distractions.
Can Europe defend itself? Hello, and a very warm welcome to this special edition of Deutsche Welle's Conflict Zone from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. I'm Sarah Kelly. We're here with the NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte, the president of Poland, Karel Navrotsky. The president of Finland, Alexander Stubb, the president of the European Investment Bank, Nadia Calvino, and the CEO of Sanofi, Paul Hudson. Welcome to all of you. And thank you so much for joining us. Now, this question, can Europe defend itself has really been thrust into the forefront as Donald Trump threatens allies over Greenland, as we wait for Trump to deliver a statement in just a few hours? There has been so much discussion in the past few days, not only about the potential for a trade war with Europe, but also even the collapse of the NATO alliance itself. And with that, Mr. Secretary General, I'd like to begin with you, because, with the US still a guarantor of European security, are European NATO allies hostage to Trump's demands?
Well, listen, NATO since 1949 is the transatlantic alliance. And I think we have to be very careful in considering the fact that the US and Canada are not only NATO to prevent the historic mistake the US made in their own view, after the First World War, which was retreating from the world stage, and then the long arm of history reaching out to the US again in the Second World War, not wanting to repeat that mistake. They are a NATO because NATO is crucial not only for the defence of Europe, but also for the defence of the United States, for the United States to stay safe. Stay safe. You need a safe Arctic, a safe Atlantic, and a safe Europe. And and and all the military and all the politicians in the US know this, and we really have to be mindful of this. So when the question is, is Europe safe? Yes, Europe is safe because of what Europe, Europe is doing itself within NATO, but also because we have that strong transatlantic relationship.
But we know the history. We know the stakes. Let's talk about the current dynamics. And I'd like to ask you, you know, for, for perhaps a bit of reflection here. Did you ever think that you would ever see one NATO member threaten the territorial integrity of another? I mean, you have now the prime minister of Greenland telling his public an attack cannot be ruled out.
Listen, my secretary general, when there is tension within the alliance, it has been there in the past between Greece and Turkey. There have been other moments when there was tension. Then my predecessors always took the view that they should not comment on that in public. That's impossible. Why is that impossible? Because as soon as I do, I cannot any longer help to somehow with others. Of course not me, only myself, but of course with with other leaders to basically defuse the tension, to de-escalate, etc. and that's why you will not hear me comment. You can be assured that I'm working on this issue behind the scenes, but I cannot do that in public. So, sorry, no comments from you on Greenland.
Well, sometimes behind the scenes comments do become public in various ways, as.
We've seen in the past few days.
That's true.
You've talked about security in the Arctic. No matter how you come out of this Greenland row. I mean, it really seems as if the dynamics have fundamentally changed within NATO. You have Macron saying yesterday we are shifting to a world without rules, as in all of this fundamentally damaged the foundations of NATO, the shared trust, the shared values.
Of course, I see that there are these tensions at the moment. There's no doubt. Again, I'm not going to comment on that. But I can assure you the only way to deal with that is, in the end, thoughtful diplomacy. So statements from me will not add anything here. And when it comes to the Arctic, I think President Trump is right. Other leaders in NATO are right. We need to defend Arctic. We know that these sea lanes are opening up. We know that China and Russia are increasingly active in the Arctic. There are eight countries bordering on the Arctic, seven are a member of NATO. That's Finland and Sweden and Norway and Denmark, Iceland, Canada and the US. And there is only one country bordering on the Arctic outside NATO. And as Russia and I would argue, there is a ninth country, which is China, which is increasingly active in the Arctic region. So President Trump and other leaders are right. We have to do more there. We have to protect the Arctic against Russian and Chinese influence. And that's exactly what NATO ambassadors decided to do in September. We are working on that, making sure that collectively, will we defend the Arctic region.
I'd like to turn to Poland now. You have traditionally been furiously pro-American in terms of, you know, efforts to keep them on board as a guarantor of security. In Europe, you've turned the term to the Greenland dispute. And again, this was a comment that I understand you made last week, a matter between the Danish prime minister and President Trump, just briefly. Do you still stand by that after everything that you've seen in the past days and weeks?
Of course, United States of America are the most important Polish bilateral ally. But we also appreciate a lot, NATO, we are the part of NATO, and we feel responsible for NATO. This is the biggest alliance in the history of 20th century. I think, like Mark Rutte said, NATO is stable, NATO is solidifying. But we of course recognize some problems about the Greenland. And I'm looking at the problem of Greenland from the strategic side. We have Chinese, we have Russian. We fail in Poland. Russian threat for three centuries even, and we understand it at all in eastern flank of NATO. And if we consider. Ladies and gentlemen, that global GDP is consisted of 15% of European Union involvement and 15% of United States of America involvement. But according in terms of security, United States of America paying 65% for NATO and Europeans 35%. We have to consider what Donald Trump would like to say about the security, because he's responsible for security of the world as the leader and he would like to support.
Do you really think you can stay out of this?
Do you.
Really think? Do you really think you can stay out of this row? Do you really think that? I mean, isn't this the moment right now for solidarity in Europe? Isn't this key to a united and a strong response?
The necessity of solidarity in Europe? But there is also the necessity of building the good transatlantic relations. And I think that transatlantic relations are very important. We know in Europe we know, Alex, all my European friends knows how many mistakes had Europe done after and before 2022. And Donald Trump tried to convince our European partners that we have to solidify. And his, voice is very important because of the financial cost of the strategy, geo geopolitical point of view. I, of course, hope that it will be solved. Thanks to all partners on the diplomatic way. And I'm rather.
How far are you willing to go to have good transatlantic relations? Does that mean giving the Americans Greenland, selling the Americans? Greenland? How far should European allies go if the Americans do move on Greenland?
You know, we have 10,000 American soldiers, in Poland. We buy American military equipment, which is the best, on the world. South Korean is also very good, but American is.
And Finnish tanks.
And Finnish. Yeah. And Finnish tanks.
A little bit of a commercial break here. Yeah.
We have, the biggest army in east central Europe. Poland increased the. Percent of GDP for military service almost to 5% percent. So we feel responsible for Poland, I believe in Polish soldiers in our alliance. But United States of America for all eastern flank of NATO are very important ally. And those relations are also based on our history. This is the relation of values. We have common independence, heroes in Poland and in the United States of America. So I think that we should solve this problem on diplomatic way. Of course, I appreciate, Denmark voices. Naturally. It's our partner, Denmark. But I'm looking at the Greenland as strategic point, in the geopolitical, issue between free world democracies, world independence, and with Russia.
President Stubb, I'd like to turn to you now because you, along with the secretary general, have been known as the Trump whisperers. You know, now you're on the list being targeted for sanctions. You recently joined the NATO alliance. Is it just in time for its dissolution?
No, not at all.
I think actually, we're in the process of creating a stronger NATO than we have seen since the end of the Cold War. This is pretty much NATO 3.0. Remember that after the end of the Cold War, a lot of NATO countries actually dropped their guard in terms of defence expenditure and capabilities, whereas a country like Finland, which stayed outside, didn't do that. We still have conscription. And speaking of the Arctic, we have the biggest military force of Arctic capabilities in the alliance. We have 1 million individuals, men and women who've had their military training in Arctic conditions. So I think we're strengthening, actually, the alliance as we speak. And remember that we've doubled the border of the alliance with NATO, with Finland joining and then with Sweden joining. So I think we're creating a new NATO where Europe takes more responsibility.
So then take us to the diplomatic efforts and how you are trying to do that, because, you know, you we saw over the weekend, you, along with your Norwegian counterpart, sent this message to Trump calling for a de-escalation of tension. He he responded quite quickly, saying he's no longer purely thinking of peace. Who or what can defuse the tensions? Oh, Greenland, if not you?
Thank you. Alex.
Any time you want to take this one, Mark. No. I mean, listen, we're now in a phase in the transatlantic relationship, and you'll know that I'm pro-European, pro-American, and therefore, by default, pro transatlantic. We are in a relationship which is much more direct than it's ever actually been. I mean, the communication channels that we have directly with this, with the president and with the administration are actually good and solid. And then, you know, at some at times there are curveballs flying in different types of directions. We try to catch them and we try to solve them. You know, you have two schools of thought here on, on Greenland. One is to deescalate and the other one is to escalate to de-escalate. And I think at the end of the day, we'll we'll find an off ramp on this. I'll make two final remarks. If someone would have told me, in Washington, DC, for the 75th anniversary of the Alliance, we're going to increase our defense expenditure next year to 5%. I would have said you have no clue about international relations or seek help with the doctor. We did, and I think what we need as an off ramp now is some kind of a process whereby we start working on a real problem, which is Arctic security. Unfortunately, as Mark said, we have seven countries, Arctic countries, one of them with a huge military that can help to deal with this. So let's start working towards a process which leads us to a NATO summit in Ankara, where we actually strengthen Arctic security within the alliance. So this is what we're working on.
I'd like to ask you about the money. This is a key, point to also to Ken Europe defend itself, which is the topic that we're discussing today. The EU is freeing up hundreds of billions of euros to ramp up defense spending. You're part of that. You have quickly ramped up your capacity to mobilize capital for defense investment. This is something that's new for your bank. We also have to mention, how much do you see your future being defense and defense related projects?
Well, it's been a sea change in the last two years, and we were just discussing with Alex that in the past was also working at the European Investment Bank how things have changed, you know, in, in the last couple of years in that we have extended the scope of projects we are financing, and we have reached this magical number of 5% of our financing inside the union this year, last year, sorry, in 2025. So that outperformed our targets. We were hoping to to reach that level this year in 26, but we already did in 25. We have a very robust pipeline of flagship projects, a number of them in Poland, by the way. So that's European solidarity actually supporting the defense of Poland on the eastern flank. And and so my answer would undoubtedly be, yes, Europe can defend itself.
Yeah.
Paul, I'd like to turn to you, also with that, because there's a role for the private sector as well here. NATO is treating medical preparedness as part of collective defense. You have many of your capabilities anchored in Europe. Does what you are hearing about European defense in the past days make you feel secure as a business person? And how do you see the private sector's role.
You know, the subjects that have been discussed, obviously extremely important. And I trust in the process and, that people will get to the right conclusion. I think health is unrecognized as the severity of what could happen if health, sovereignty, innovation, sovereignty, protecting populations is deprioritized. I think NATO have made that point about making sure that people can get medicines they need in difficult times. I think in Covid, my own personal experience was that I was getting calls from heads of state, ministers of health saying, we need medicines, give them to us, don't give them to anybody else. It quickly delineated and fragmented and and it worried us greatly. Given the importance of trying to work together to find some unity, to make sure that we do things for Europe. Now, Sanofi is more than 50% of our manufacturing and R&D spend is in Europe. And so we believe that we're one of the few companies that has that resiliency to be able to provide. But there is a real moment for Europe. Perhaps it's not on the scale of this conversation and Greenland, but it is a real moment. Europe has long time been one of the great discoverers of medicines, the great providers, pressure from Donald Trump on the price that is paid for medicines in Europe has brought it into focus. And for the first time, China and the US published more clinical papers win more Nobel Prizes, discover more medicines than Europe, and Europe is slipping behind. And and it's a moment there's still in control. While I listen to this conversation, sometimes I worry that, there's a lot to be managed escalate to de-escalate. Europe in particular has health innovation and health sovereignty in the palm of his hand. And if it chooses to step forward, it can protect, it can innovate, it can compete. This is a moment not to be squandered.
I'd just like to add something and kind of reset us a little bit. We're talking about Ken Europe defend itself. And something that's really interesting is that we have not said the word Russia or Ukraine. I think so far in this conversation. And it just goes to show you, actually how the conversation has changed. But I'd like to really take it back to, now, defense, defense capabilities, the spending that also we were talking about Polish president. You know, we know that you're already projecting to get to 5% of GDP this year. You're doing all of this spending hundreds of billions of euros being ramped up, but to still be dependent on the Americans. And I'm talking about key things. So air transport, strategic command and control systems, high end intelligence. Do you get the sense, especially after the events of the past days, that Europeans are really in a state of urgency to quickly ramp up the ability to handle a protracted conflict without the US? What is the plan B if diplomacy fails?
I understand your question, but I would like to assure you that our Polish independence and sovereignty is very strong. The first I believe in Polish soldiers, of course, in our history and our readiness to fight with everyone who would like to invite Poland. So we felt the strong country on the eastern flank of NATO. But we also believe in diplomacy. It's natural in NATO, our cooperation with NATO, with European Union diplomacy is, of course, the part of the security guarantees. But what we can do as the Republic of Poland, that our friends are also doing this. I see the president of Latvia, Baltic states, we, of course, made the decisions to increase the budget for military service. And it was, the great achievement of Europe. And what have happened, in Hag, Donald Trump pushed Europeans to increase the military service, cost and GDP. Also, European Union need Donald Trump to be pushed by him to increase this budget. It it's not good way. And many countries inside Europe still haven't, done this. So you know, we have big problem about the feeling, for our security and responsibility for secure European Union.
I'm going to get to you in just a second, Mr. Secretary General. Of course. But, president, I would like to ask you first. Do you see this sense of urgency for a plan B? Among your European partners? Is there the need for that? And who should lead the charge? Because, I mean, it's a bit unfair. We're sitting here on the panel with Finland and Poland. You know, you are really doing a lot when it comes to defense, especially Finland. You have this comprehensive approach to, to defense in your country. Are your partners, are they experiencing urgency? Who needs to come up with the plan B and lead the charge?
Well, I mean, two answers. First is a direct answer to the question of this panel. Can Europe defend itself? My answer is unequivocally yes.
Without the Americans.
Without the Americans, I mean, how? Well, look.
But you're relying on them for these key elements. How would you how would you do it at scale and at duration? At at.
With an assumption that the United States would cut off completely any kind of work? Well, if we look at the defense composure of Europe, by and large, and a country like Finland. So how do we do it? We have conscription. 1 million have done it. We can mobilize 280,000 soldiers within weeks. We have 62 F-18s. Your next question is going to be, do they fly without Americans? No they don't. But do we trust that they will continue to fly because it's in the interest of America to do so? Yes. We just bought 64 F-35s. We have the biggest artillery in Europe together with Poland. We have long range missiles, land, sea and air. We don't have these because we're worried about Stockholm. Right. So, you know, the bottom line is that if you ask me the question that can the Finnish military defend itself against a Russian attack, the whole defense posture of the way in which you do it? Yes, we can. But then the second question, which you were alluding to, I think we also have to understand that you fight wars on the battlefield, but you win them at home. And that means that all of us need to focus more on comprehensive security, the civilian side of things. That's why we have civilian shelters for 4.4 million Finns. That's why we have a security of supply where we don't get into any kind of trouble with food shortages, energy shortages or electricity grids. Because we've got this and this is the, I think, capability that a lot of European states need to do. My absolutely. Final point. It's all good and well to talk about percentages. But just remember, you don't fight wars with percentages. You fight wars with capabilities. And those you just need to have in stock.
Do European NATO allies need to think more about having capabilities that overlap with the United States?
Well.
This is.
To hedge their bets.
The NATO is constructed like this that the US, Canada and the European NATO allies were completely integrated. It doesn't mean that there is the US coming to the rescue of Europe or Europe coming to the rescue of the United States. We are working completely integrated and, for the protection of both the US and Europe. It's crucial that NATO is there. There was one big irritant on the on the American side with NATO. And the big irritant since Eisenhower was that they were spending the US was spending so much more than Europe was spending. Even today, the US is spending 3.5% of GDP on defense. We are spending in Europe average 2% of defense. And here's my question to the audience. I mean, many of you I know criticize Donald Trump, but do you really think that there's now Donald Trump, eight big economies in Europe, including Spain and Italy and Belgium, Canada, by the way, also outside Europe would have come to 2% in 2025, when they were only on 1.5% at the beginning of the year. No way. Without Donald Trump, this would never have happened. They're all on 2% now. Do you really think that in the summit in The Hague, as Alex was saying, sorry, the president of Finland was saying that, we would come to an overall defense spending of 5%, including 3.5 defense, if President Trump would not have been reelected as president of the United States. No way. It would never have happened. So again, I am not popular with you now because I'm defending Donald Trump. But I really believe we can be happy that he is there because he has forced us in Europe to step up to face the consequences that we have to take care more of our own defense. And this is the thing, the Americans still have over 80,000 soldiers in Europe. They are still including in Poland and Germany. They are still heavily invested in European defense. And yes, they have to pivot more towards Asia. So it is only logical for them to expect us in Europe to step up over time. And there is this plan already in since Jens Stoltenberg, my predecessor, designed it, the NATO defence planning process to over time, make sure that Europe can take over more of these capabilities of these core enablers from the US to do more of the protection of the European continent. We still having a strong conventional US presence in Europe also going forward. And of course the nuclear umbrella as our ultimate guarantor. But again, I'm absolutely convinced without Donald Trump we would not have taken those decisions. And they are crucial, particularly for the European and the Canadian side of NATO, to really grow up in the post-Cold War world.
But you are not happy with this answer, I suppose, of Mark Rutte, that we need Donald Trump in the European Union, but we believe in our military service in Poland. I would like to add that Poland won with the Soviets and Bolsheviks. Finland won with the Soviet in Bolsheviks. In 20th century, Japanese and Afghans won with the Soviet Union. So we are ready in our countries to secure our independence. But we need geopolitical and some relations in Europe and in world to be stronger.
We have time for just a quick closing round now, and I'd like to turn to Nadia to kick us off with that, because we have the statement from the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, yesterday describing a seismic change, that makes it necessary to build a new form of European independence. And I'm wondering if you can give us, from the investment perspective, what you think is necessary to realize that vision?
I want to, since it's the closing remark, and I was listening to to my colleagues and I want to say, I think the European Union is is a superpower. And I think we have to believe in ourselves and our capability. And I'm very happy to see three leaders that are really very self-assured, you know, because that's what we think. I think we need to speak clearly. We are a superpower when it comes to research, to health tech, to new technologies, to research centers, universities. We are in quantum computing, we are in key technologies. We are not a defense superpower because the European Union is a project for peace. So it makes sense that we need some time to ramp it up. From the European Investment Bank perspective. We're all in to support Europe to be stronger in the world, but also to contribute to a peaceful world, a multilateral framework that actually can continue to provide us with win win partnerships based on respect, shared prosperity, stability. Because I think that that's, at the end of the day, what our children and grandchildren expect from us that are at the helm of important institutions at this historic moment for us.
Paul, what do you think? What do you think is needed for this new form of European independence from from your business perspective?
I think, I think it's a moment for us again, what the secretary general just said about defense spending, contributions to NATO. The president of United States has done the same in healthcare spend in most of the European markets in the UK demanding, in the UK to go from 0.3 percent GDP to 0.6 percent over a period of time to pay, for innovation in the countries. You know, that's a really remarkable intervention or challenge from the president of the United States. I've been in healthcare for 35 years. I'm having different conversations with heads of state and ministers of health, ministers of finance, and what it takes to to be the champion for innovation. One of the things you've got to do is give patients in your country access to the best medicines in the world. You can't want the manufacturing, want the research euro, but then not give it to patients. And I think that's a real issue. A lot of people are still struggling to understand that 54% of medicines approved by the European Medicines Agency aren't available to patients in Europe, approved in Europe, for Europe, not available because money is not being made available, because there are other priorities. And we don't ever belittle the trade offs. Draghi was very clear. Everybody read the report. Everybody understood it. My conversations with the commission have focused on fair play between member states and not enough on competing with China and the US. I think US is ready for the challenge because in the end, patients win with access to innovation. I think China is coming. China is going to launch 40% of the world's new medicines by 2030, 40%. And we're not having that conversation. Europe has all of these skills and capabilities, if prioritized, to get it done and to compete not just to play fair, but to compete in the rest of the world.
I want to turn to Poland now. And, Mr. President, I would like to ask you, we mentioned a little bit earlier, I mean, you know, the threat that is posed by Russia, its ongoing invasion of Ukraine. You know, this, of course, better than anyone being on the eastern flank there. Do you think, you know, in all of this talk, in all of this conversation over Greenland, is Ukraine the casualty here? Do we run that risk?
Can you repeat? I don't understand Ukraine.
The conversation has been dominated in the past week and.
Days about Greenland. Greenland. Okay. And no.
Where is the attention now on Ukraine? What could this potentially mean? For what could it mean for the resources that that they need so desperately in order to maintain this fight on the European continent?
I think that Ukraine issues subject after the attack of Russian Federation is most important not only for Poland and eastern flank of NATO, but for all free world. And I think that the problem around Greenland, doesn't mean that we don't think about the Ukraine. We support Ukraine, in Poland, in NATO, in European Union, United States of America supported Ukraine. And we have to consider this problem as the main problem in Europe nowadays. And I'm very happy that we are going maybe slowly, but we are going to long lasting peace in Ukraine. This must happen, I think. But I'm not afraid, madam, that the situation around the Greenland means that we forget about Ukraine. We understand the problem about the Ukraine and still feel the Russian threat. We are still in eastern central Europe under the Russian threat. And I think that we are in the middle of the hybrid war. This is the peculiar Soviet composition which we have known for 100 years. You know, this is the composition of, military force information, disinformation, propaganda. And we are nowadays in the middle of hybrid war in European Union.
President Steve, I'd like to ask you as well, the US administration has made it very clear we are in an era now of hard power. And they will wield it where they feel it is advantageous or necessary. You've said earlier that Europe can defend itself without the Americans if it comes down.
Not not exactly. My. That's not a quote.
More or less.
Or less.
Let's.
We'll go back to the transcripts to the last one. More or less. More or less.
I love.
Journalists if.
Stoop, stoop, stoop against.
But but if it comes down to it, if it comes down to it, given the dynamics that we that we have seen here, does Europe also need to have the potential to defend itself against America?
No. I mean, come on, let's not push the hypotheticals here. Let's get back let's let's get back to to to the reality of the situation. And let's put it back into perspective, and especially the war in Ukraine, which cattle? They're quite well mentioned. Look, what has Russia achieved in the past four years? It's quiet. 20% of the territory of Ukraine through military warfare, roughly 2%. In the process of doing that, it has provided about 1 million casualties and dead, it has decreased its sphere of influence. You can see the Central Asian countries. You can see the southern Caucasus detaching themselves from the Russian Empire. You look at the Russian economy right now, if we go with inflation rates of the two first weeks, we're looking at 30% inflation this year, 16% interest rates, zero growth, no more reserves, incapacity to pay the soldiers when the war ends. So I'm more worried about Russia's unwillingness to end this war because they cannot afford to do so than about Russia's capability to win this war. Because end this, not end this war, because they're moving ahead. So let's let's keep things into perspective. NATO hasn't entered the scene yet, and they have not been able to advance in the past four years as much as they expected. This war has been an utter strategic failure of President Putin. He increased the size of NATO, he made Ukraine European, he increased the defense budgets of European states. And here we are asking ourselves shaking, are we able to defend ourselves? My answer is yes, we are.
Secretary general.
Absolutely.
Secretary general, I'd like to ask for for your remarks. Also on that point, we've been talking about Ken, Europe defend itself. The question is how, and how that evolves. Also over the next years, do you ever see a day where European defense doesn't have NATO as the cornerstone?
No.
I don't, and let's not forget, the EU is great. It is 23 countries in NATO, of the 32 are also in the EU, but it is only 25% of NATO overall GDP. 75% of NATO GDP is outside the European Union. Let's not forget. That's a fact. The US is by far the most powerful nation on earth, and the president of United States is therefore the leader of the free world. And you cannot envisage NATO without the leader of the free world being an integral part of that organization. And nobody wants it, not on the US side, not on the European side. He said last night in his presser that he was doubtful whether the Europeans would come to the rescue if article five would be triggered. I tell him yes, they will. And they did on the ninth, on the 11th of September, 911, in in 2001, when for the first and only time article five was triggered, I've no doubt the US will come to the rescue here. We will come to the rescue of the US and we need each other for our collective protection. You made a very good point. The risk here is that if you focus, of course, on Greenland, because we have to make sure that that issue gets solved in an amicable way. But the main issue is not Greenland. Now the main issue is Ukraine. And I agree with everything Alex was saying, but I'm also a little bit worried that we might drop the ball focusing so much on these other issues. And as we speak, Russian missiles and Russian drones are attacking the energy infrastructure in Ukraine. We know that it is now -20 degrees in Kyiv. We know that Ukraine can only take care of 60% of its own electricity. And yes, it is true the Russians have lost in December 1000 people dead, not seriously wounded. That a day that's over 30,000. In the month of December. In the 1980s in Afghanistan, the Soviets lost 20,000 in 10 years. Now they lose 30,000 in a month, in one month. But they still continue the attack. They still, increase the attack. And that means that if we Europeans here in NATO are thinking that because of the 90 billion the Commission has been able to bring together with the nations, or because the peace process is moving in the right direction, we can forget about the defense of Ukraine. Don't they need our support now, tomorrow and the day after? And yes, great. If there is a peace deal, everybody is working on that. There are Americans of course, are leading that process. Great that the 90 billion is there, but that will only be there in March, April, May, whenever. So that still takes time. So I need European allies to keep focus on this issue. And what I'm really worrying about is that because of the peace process and because of the 90 billion, we lose sight, and that in the meantime, Ukrainians do not have enough interceptors, have enough American gear, particularly they need because it is not any longer available in Europe for them to defend themselves. So this focus on Ukraine should be our number one priority. And then we can discuss on all the issues, including Greenland. But it should be Ukraine first because it is crucial for our European and US security.
I'd like to open up the conversation now to the audience. There's a very high level audience we have to say. I'm seeing, President of Latvia sitting in the front row, I believe I also spotted the defense minister of the Netherlands here as well. Right there are you wave. Hello. We'll be passing around a mic, and, I would like to ask that you please stand up and that questions are kept brief because I see many hands going up.
Thank you very much. I have a very short question to section. Reuter. There are negotiations about Ukraine, and I fully agree with you that Ukraine is the main challenge. And the Russia basically is the main threat. The question is, once we agree that there are some chances for the long lasting peace, are we, as Europe prepared for would be next with Russia, with this aggressive approach, with the society which is still through the disinformation, educated, let me say, with aggressive approach towards the West, what will happen with those thousands or hundreds of thousands of troops, capabilities, etc., if they won't be engaged in Ukraine, they won't just wait for the better, prosperous future as we are we ready as NATO to take this problem? Thank you very much.
And a brief response, please.
We are we are ready today, there's no doubt, but we have to be ready in 27 and 29 and 31. And this is why what we decided in The Hague to ramp up defense spending to this 5% was crucial. But you also have to ramp up the defense industrial production. And we're not doing it. Not in the US, not in Europe. We are not producing enough. The fact that Poland, which is the closest ally to the US you can find is buying in South Korea, is because they cannot buy enough in the US or in the European defense.
Industry, Finland.
And Finland, but also Finland. Yes, Alex, I love you, but you are not producing enough. Your defense industrial base has to ramp up and you know it. So please spend time on that. And, this is true for the whole of NATO territory. So it is not only money, it's also the defense industrial base, including preparing our other industries, including our car industries, etc., for a moment when there might be a situation where we need them. Russia is on a war footing. They spend 40% of the state budget on defense, 200 billion a year with a spending power, with the 200 billion because of the structure of their economy, which is much higher than we can do in Europe. So we really have to be watchful here. Yes, we can defend ourselves today, but we have to deliver on our commitments not because of Donald Trump. Yes, it equalizes with the US that keeps them in, but particularly because we have to defend ourselves.
Okay. I think in the next round perhaps we take two questions and then we'll have them answered. I see many. Yes.
Sorry. My name is Andrea Malagutti. What do you think about the Board of Peace with Lukashenko and Putin for Gaza?
Please.
One more over here.
NATO is 32 countries in the northern Atlantic, and I'm not commenting on things outside the North Atlantic area. Sorry, I have too much on my plate already. Thank you.
Margaret, could you please comment on Marconi's speech yesterday here in Davos? That was very honest. What is your reaction to it?
I respect him a lot and I'll see him later today. And I think he had a he had a speech which was strong on Canadian values and what Canada can contribute to, to the world. And at the same time, I would say this is very good. And Canada is back. When you look at NATO, they were spending 1.3, 1.4%. They got to the 2%. They have now a plan to reach the 5%. They are massively helping out with Ukraine now since. So I would say since he became prime minister, NATO is really back in NATO, back in defending the transatlantic alliance. And I think that's great news.
I have.
One question. Can I.
Ask a question there?
Sorry, can I ask? Sure. I think it was.
An excellent speech. It was a deep analysis of the change in the world order, and the new balance that we are looking at. It was very realistic. It talked about values based realism as a driver for Canadian foreign policy. All in all, I think one of the best speeches that we've heard here in Davos this week so far.
Okay. We'll go first here.
Thank you very much. Would you think that if the transfer of sovereignty over Greenland can be achieved, would you think this might lead to the demise of the idea of so-called Western collective? And, secondly, that if these things be transferred, would you think that NATO 3.0, just like the present, to say we might be veering to something more like look like the Warsaw Pact rather than original NATO? Of course we have a Polish president. You can always call me. Thank you very much.
One question there.
I'm from Saudi Arabia with a Greek mother and an Italian wife. It's very clear.
Be a happy man.
Europe can defend itself. And that's very clear today. But my question is, do we feel safer? I'm planning to have retiring Europe. Do I feel safer today with all this talk up of military? Yes. As you ask the question, when the war is over, what do you do with all these?
If you want to prevent war, prepare for war. The only way we can prevent the Russians, or anyone who wants to do us harm, to do us harm, is to make sure that they know that the reaction we will have is devastating today. Yes, it is, but if we would have continued with this 1.8 1.9% defense spending and the defense industrial base, which is not producing enough, we would not be ready in 29 and 31. And our adversaries know this. So, I know that people are worried, oh, we are spending more on defense. Yes. We do this to prevent war from breaking out. You have to be strong. We have to be strong against those who wish us ill.
I think that what we are doing is still preparing to prevent ourselves for a war. And I think in terms of today's question, main question can Europe defend itself? I hope that we will never answer this question in terms of kinetic war. And this is our responsibility, leaders of Europe, to think about the future and to be ready for even kinetic war. And I think we try to do this.
But one point, if I if I may add one point, which is important, is that Europe's defense is not only about tanks, it is also about health. It is also about win win partnerships around the world, building strong partnerships and finding alliances that go beyond maybe what we had in the world order of the last 70 years. That is also a way to defend Europe. I want to also put a word for all the actions that are being taken which go, I think, in the right direction for a stronger Europe. And it's not only about the 5%, it is very important. But it's not only that.
Yeah. And can I answer the question from the gentleman there? I think we have to we have to understand that the world order is changing, much like it did after 1918, 1945 and 1989. And it's now emerging. And I think we have two options, which obviously are not binary. One is a multi-polar world, and that multipolar world is about transactions. It's about deals and it's about spheres of interest. So that's when we go back to the 19th century. A multilateral world is one where you have strong international institutions, rules and norms. I support the latter. And I think that a majority of the states in the world do that as well. But the multilateral order that was created after World War Two was created in the image of the West. Therefore, we need to now change the power structure and give agency to bigger players in the Global South. Otherwise, we go back into a dog eat dog world and we try to avoid that.
I'd like to thank you so much to everyone. There's there's a lot of hands still going up. I mean, the conversation I think is, is going to be continuing for quite some time. A relatively eventful day, I think. Also ahead of us here at the World Economic Forum in Davos. I know that there are bilaterals also planned as well. A lot of diplomacy, a flurry going on. You have been here with us for Ken Europe defend itself. Thank you so much for your time and thank you so much especially for the panelists. Thank you, thank you, thank you.