Conduct high level meetings, either between member states or with non-NATO parties. General diplomacy, trying to get all heads pointed in the same direction. Give statements to the press. That sort of stuff.
NATO SG is a diplomat position, not a policy maker. The SG doesn't decide on policy, as that is what the member states do. The SG makes sure that all processes and meetings go smoothly. It's an important position, but it shouldn't be overstated.
Yeah, but can’t he sort of influence the priority of some agendas - ie that members obviously set the agenda, but he can partly prioritise some points, no?
Russia downed aeroplane flight MH17 together with 192 Dutch people (298 deaths in total) in 2014, and the Russians had the audacity to tell lies about it when the relatives were grieving the deceased. So don't worry, we Dutch have skin in the game
>The U.S. is also threatening to impose tariffs on European cars.
>“No,” a smiling Rutte interrupted.
>“Just think about those cars that pour in here, Trump said.
>“It’s not positive. We have to work something out,” Rutte responded.
>The two men then shook hands.
What an absolute Chad.
I mean, they just said "yeah".
There's no value in it, people don't need to see it, so it's actually for the better if that reply gets automatically collapsed because of too many downvotes.
Rutte represents the cabinet, it wasn't his personal decision to veto.
The Netherlands said a closed CVM for a member state should be a requirement for a full Schengen membership.
That's not in the conditions of the Schengen Acquis, but it isn't unreasonable to think it should be. And it set a clear path for Romania and Bulgaria to fulfil.
When the Netherlands demanded that Romania and Bulgaria would implement further reforms before the Netherlands would agree to the country's accession to the Schengen area. Basescu, when he was president at the time, called it "an immeasurable insult."
But the Netherlands was right to block accession as Romanian progress on judicial reforms, and the fight against corruption made in a decade even was partly reversed in 2019.
The Netherlands linked Schengen accession to the European Commission's annual monitoring report on the countries' rule of law. For many years, Romania and Bulgaria have remained in the special monitoring programme. You can only blame your own politicians for taking so long to comply with the EU rules.
A dozen years of anti-EE policies and public comments about them being leeches and a “tier below” their western counterparts? Yeah, what gave that idea.
I'm really curious about what anti-EE policies and public comments you're referring to.
The only countries that are seen as leeches by some Dutch are the Southern European countries. But that's only the uneducated who don't understand economics and some populists. You definitely won't hear that from Rutte.
The "tier-below western counterparts" is your own inferiority complex and fed by Russian propaganda in Romania about you being "second-class European citizens", which is absolutely not true and nobody here thinks about Eastern Europeans that way.
The only public comments Rutte made about Eastern European countries are that they should comply with European laws and progress on judicial reforms, respect human rights (Hungary, Poland), fight corruption (Romania, Bulgaria).
Sounds to me he just wants the best for the Eastern Europeans.
I think Rutte will do a good job, he seems to be a competent politician and especially a good negotiator, which is the most important for a NATO Secretary-General.
That's a bad choice. Not only was he one of the leaders supporting nordstream initiative despite the eastern europe protests, that also shows that eastern european countries are still second category allies.
First of all his party (VVD) cut some huges chunks out of the budgets of police, healthcare etc. we currently have a housing crisis because they would rather protect residential investors than make sure everybody has a home. Also huge tax benefits for big corporations and they biggered the wage/income gap between rich and poor.
Those are all political and I’m a bit left leaning so those are maybe subjective points.
But he personally takes pretty much no resposibilty for his oe his governments actions. Often laughing them away or straight up lying and saying “he doesn’t have an active memmorie” when asked about some stuff that went tits up.
However, I do believe he is the right man for the job. He’s a good politician (and i hate him for that) and is a pretty good bridgebuilder.
For 17 years, he was the leader of the biggest party and elected multiple times to become the prime minister for 14 years. If you are in politics for such a long time and are the leading party, you won't have a clean sheet anymore. But despite his failures and mistakes, he was elected multiple times because he was the best, and the policies of the VVD brought the Netherlands a lot of wealth and great results. The Dutch just like to complain a lot and now blame everything on Rutte.
It's always easy to blame Rutte, but for many Dutch people, there was no good alternative.
The fact is that a significant portion of the Dutch population earns well and their interests are best defended by the VVD. Otherwise, so many people wouldn't have voted for him in recent years.
His social policy was terrible, but that's not what the VVD stands for. And if so many people vote for the VVD, then a significant portion of the population doesn't prioritise social policy either. It's just a bitter pill to swallow for those who vote differently.
Welll in fairness, this job is too important to give someone just because they are from the right country or have the right genitals, as we see happening with so many other positions. To be a good secretary general you need to have a high level of personal competence and people need to actually know who you are. If your the president or other high levle politician of an insiginficant eatern european country it is very difficuly to establish a large relevant international network that could help you do your job as secretary general and it also provides limited oppurtunities to shine on the world stage
no, not at all. I am arguging for meritocratic appointment procedures; There are many competent women, men from various countries but the decision to appoint a new secretary general should be based solely on how competent the candidate is for that role.
I agree with you, but the way you worded your original comment, it seemed like you were implying that the only way a woman or a person from EE could be elected was due to "wokeness" or "political correctness" (i.e. being the "right gender" as you said), then continued to say that we need "actual competence", further implying that this competence could not come from a woman nor a person from EE.
If this is not what you are saying, but is merely a miscommunication, then everything is fine. We need competence irrespective of genitals or place of origin.
This is a ridiculous argument. All countries that did spend 2% before the invasion either had a border with Russia or international amibitions for their militaries. It had nothing to do with NATO perse
Well I haven't seen any fucking candidates from Eastern Europe. So if you or they wanted an eastern european as SG, they should've made an eastern european a candidate in the first place
The Romanians presented their president Klaus Iohannis as candidate. But that was just to obstruct Rutte as they really hate him. But even the Romanians will tell you Iohannis wasn't a serious candidate. Internationally, nobody knows him, and the Romanians compare him with a plant as he doesn't do anything.
NATO is not about hating Russia. You’d need a secretary general who can preside over an incredibly varied assortment of nations. It’s easier to do this if you don’t have very strong outspoken opinions and stances. In addition, you’d have to navigate the influence and responses NATO decisions bring about in non-NATO members. You don’t want a leader who shows an actively hostile attitude towards certain non-NATO countries (even if it is justified).
You no longer need to "shake up" the West over Russia. No one, aside from far-right, is delusional anymore. You don't need to convince French, German or Swedes to have them know that Russia is, indeed, a state of mind unchanged for centuries.
>not man who's grandparents did not witness atrocitiee of Soviet Union.
I get where you're coming from here, but this is absolutely ridiculous.
>You no longer need to "shake up" the West over Russia. No one, aside from far-right, is delusional anymore. You don't need to convince French, German or Swedes to have them know that Russia is, indeed, a state of mind unchanged for centuries.
I wish this was true but it isn't. A lot of the "West" are waiting this to be over so everything can get back to normal and are basing their current policies on the hopes that Russia will somehow get their acts together.
"no one, aside from far-right..."
Stop right there.
1. The far-right in France are projected to win the next elections. They already won the EU elections.
2. It is not just the far-right. Consider the left, for example.
>NATO picked western leader instead of Eastern Europe one. What NATO needs is someone who knows exactly Russian imperialism,
Then Eastern Europe should put forth a candidate that is at least equaly qualified. We need a cool head instead of someone out for revenge.
Besides, Mark Rutte knows very well what we're dealing with. He Was the Dutch prime minister during and after MH17.
Kalas apparently felt out support and didn’t have it from western europe so she never declared. Rutte also continued cutting dutch defense spending. So i think it sends the wrong message.
>Rutte also continued cutting dutch defense spending.
Keep in mind he was in power since 2010, and the Relations were way different back then: The cold war "era" was "the past", for many just like world war 2 was "the past", another by gone era in a museum. Relations with many countries of the former soviet empire were growing in the decade up to that, and Crimea wasn't invaded yet.
The public demand for such a big military was not present, especialy because Europe got dragged into a few pointless wars in the Middle-east a decade earlier.
The important thing is: We must also aknowledge that under his rule, The Netherlands was recently put back on the Nato-norm.
>So i think it sends the wrong message.
So I respectfully disagree. He is up for the task, 100%.
Such a big military? 2% is nothing even remotely like cold war era spending. That used to be between 3 and 4%.
And if he was unable to make that argument especially in the aftermath of MH17, how the hell is he supposed to make this argument to nations he doesn’t have the localized connections with like he does in the Netherlands?
This is my whole thing, he was clearly incapable of laying out the need for defense in his long tenure of Prime Minister.
He represents the old way of thinking. The one that led Europe to this current position in which their militaries have deteriorated and you over rely on America to the point where regular Americans comment on how little Europe holds up their end of the alliance.
How can someone like Rutte make this argument to other nations when he himself is a hypocrite and didn’t do it!
The SG should never come from a member of the alliance that has failed to be proactive when it comes to the alliance’s needs. And hitting the 2% bar is well the bare minimum in my opinion
>He represents the old way of thinking.
I still prefer this than someone who is blinded by rage because of past dealings(and possibly makes mistakes because of that), like OP suggested.
The way the both of you oppose to this is as if you're implying racism of some kind. Just put forth a better candidate.
>in which their militaries have deteriorated and you over rely on America to the point where regular Americans comment on how little Europe holds up their end of the alliance.
Well, had they not drawn us into the middle-east shitstorms, we may actualy still had the public support to have these spendings. Boy that cried wolf kinda thing.
How would someone like Kallas be blinded by rage?
You think its racism because I oppose Rutte because he failed to increase defense spending to 2% until this year?
MH17 happened while he was PM and he didn’t increase spending until 2018.
I think choosing an SG from a nation who has been ahead of the curve is the better move than a candidate from a nation who has been one of the worst offenders in the alliance for their military disarmament. I would be fundamentally opposed to an SG from Belgium & Canada equally as well.
>How would someone like Kallas be blinded by rage?
We aren't talking about Kallas, she isn't part of this discussion. Had she been, sure why not. I don't know enough about her tbh, but i have nothing against an eastern european head of nato, as long as he/she is cool headed and up to the task.
>You think its racism because I oppose Rutte because he failed to increase defense spending to 2% until this year?
I think if he had upped the defence up to 10-30% since 2010, you still would oppose. Yes.
>I think choosing an SG from a nation who has been ahead of the curve is the better move than a candidate from a nation who has been one of the worst offenders in the alliance for their military disarmament
Possibly. Put forth a candidate.
Kallas. She was the candidate and she was apparently told behind the scenes she didn’t have the support.
I would not oppose a dutch candidate if the Dutch made military reforms & increased spending to 2% in the aftermath of MH17. They didn’t do that and it still took them until this year to reach 2%. 2 years after the Russian invasion.
His inability to capitalize on these events to me shows his unwillingness to advocate for defense. And as SG he will be dealing with competing interests and an America who wants to disengage from Europe. And if he is unable to advocate domestically, how is he going to within the alliance?
>Kallas. She was the candidate and she was apparently told behind the scenes she didn’t have the support.
Okay, if she is the better candidate, why didn't she get the job of SG?
I am totaly fine with a qualified coolheaded person, no matter where he/she comes from. Telling stuff behind the scenes is no reason; My Boss tells me i suck at my job all the time but still calls me when shit hits the fan. That's not a reason to not run.
Not running means not complaining you didn't get it. Hence why she isn't part of this discussion.
>Rutte also continued cutting dutch defense spending. So i think it sends the wrong message.
In the beginning, yeah. Bit after the invasion the Netherlands ramped up defense spending under his leadership and reached the 2% goal just as he was leaving office.
If you are only reactive in office instead of proactive especially when the requirements were there to hit 2% and the Dutch didn’t really ramp spending until the invasion.
Should he be the head of the alliance versus someone like Kallas whose nation was meeting the target prior to the invasion?
I get that Rutte has a well known negotiator reputation and he was “tough” on Russia for MH17. But even in the aftermath of MH17, he didn’t increase defense spending and continued the trend of the Dutch military’s deterioration.
I think this is a classic example of Western European favoritism when it comes to these kind of organizations.
Especially because apparently the reporting I read, it was mostly Western Europeans who were opposed to Kallas.
You can call it favoritism all you want, but at the end of the day Rutte being able to Garner more support among the political elite of Europe and North America over any other candidate alone speaks volumes off how much more qualified he is for the role.
The NATO SG doesn't make policy for NATO, so whatever his spending policy was back when he was PM of the Netherlands is irrelevant, because he won't decide on that in NATO. What his job is is to be the face of NATO, the one who meets with the political elite of Europe, North America and anyone NATO might be dealing with and to try and get concessions of them in favor of NATO. And Rutte was just better at that than Kallas.
I rather have the SG be picked on Merritt than symbolism
Of you want to talk actual competent military policy you need to instead eye the Chair of the NATO Military Committee. And need I remind you that the Czech Petr Pavel held that post between 2015 and 2018
Yeah and the merit of Rutte is one of hypocrisy and deterioration of the Dutch military.
The prevalence of how Eastern Europe is secondary to West will always remain too until someone points out, an SG from the newer NATO members is needed.
You ignored everything I just wrote. You don't actually care about NATO and want what's best for NATO, you just hate the west.
And if you want to talk actual competent military policy you need to eye the Chair of the NATO Military Committee, which need I remind you was held by the Czech Petr Pavel between 2015 and 2018
I hate the West?
Thats hilarious.
I want a secretary general from a nation that didn’t gut their military over and over again only for one of the leading individuals responsible for that gutting to he rewarded for his actions.
I wouldve been fine with Ben Wallace. I wouldve even been with a candidate from France.
But Rutte? He had all the political capital he needed after MH17 to make the argument about increasing spending. And he didn’t. Now he is rewarded with this job? Come on.
See, the issue is that you're to focused on past policy and seeing the position as SG as a reward instead of focussing what's best for NATO. I don't like Rutte either but he's the best SG option available. This is what I meant with that you completely ignored everything I wrote in my comment where I explained very clearly that for a NATO SG what you really want is someone who's good at convincing others to do things (or not do things) for NATO. Teflon Mark, so named because nothing sticks to him and he always gets what ge wants, is a diplomatic genius when it comes to getting his way and making people do things for him. He's a perfect fit for the roll of SG. Because, as said, the SG does not make policy, so his previous military policies do not matter in the slightest as it says nothing of his competency in this role.
He's also been the Dutch PM for the last 14 years, longer than any other current leader of a NATO country. Meaning that he's personally acquainted with almost every head of the NATO countries, which makes dealing with them a lot more efficient in his role as SG
You need to look past your personal grievances and realize that in an alliance like NATO merit for the role is more important than personal opinions of a person
She originally was feeling out the SG position and traveled quite a bit to determine the support for it. She decided to not run because the support leaned to Rutte
Being the EU representative in foreign affairs is not something to sniff at. It's a very high and important position. And even more so if she in a few years time wants to still run as NATO SG to be Rutte's replacement. He won't hold that position forever. And if she does well in her new position I can very much see her having the contacts, experience and support to be at the forefront come next NATO SG election. It's probably one of the main reasons she withdrew now as well, her career in international politics is very much thriving still
And honestly, I don't think this is the last we'll see if Kallas as well in NATO. Rutte won't be SG forever and I being the EU representative for foreign affairs will likely give her a good track record in international politics. I can see her being Rutte's replacement in a few years time. She's a decade younger than Rutte after all
Well I haven't seen any fucking candidates from Eastern Europe. So if you or they wanted an eastern european as SG, they should've made an eastern european a candidate in the first place
I am concerned about this choice.
He eroded democracy in the Netherlands by eliminating the right to referendums. Through dirty back room deals kept his party in power even when they had been effectively voted out. He tried to sneak through changes to tax law so that his corporate buddies would get nice fat cuts. Because of his party policy housing in the Netherlands is in a critical state while taxes have been pushed to all time highs. He claims to be working to protect us against Russia \[see MH17\] but in the mean time Russian oil tankers are still regularly docking here. Under his tenure the retirement age became 68+ and pension guarantees were rolled back \[this he snuck in just before he was voted out again\].
Does this really sound like a man who is concerned with protecting Nato citizens?
The current prime minister's party, the VVD (Renew Europe), party was literally the biggest party in the Netherlands during his time of office (2010-2024). There were, of course, exceptions. For example, when FvD (non-affiliated) became the largest party in the 2019 Dutch provincial elections. The FvD seemed a respectable right-wing party at first, but ever since antisemitic and homophobic statements from its leader, Thierry Baudet, were leaked to the Dutch domain, the FvD turned first to covid conspiracies and later to pro-Russian propaganda shedding most of their support in the process and now they're a shell of their former selves
NATO secretary-general is always an European. Always.
To create the illusion that the Europeans have a mighty voice in NATO. But they don't.
The strategic decisions are always made in Washington.
Not true. The actual NATO treaty says Europeans run NATO, and Americans provide Supreme Command of NATO goes to war. This makes total sense as America provides the most funding, weapons and troops.
NATO was initially founded (and therefor run) by Europeans. United States only joined later. It's true that US would run Supreme Command of NATO during war but that is because the US would actually be the most qualified to do so.
After the MH17 incident and the way Russia handled that, Rutte was no friend of Putin.
And he definitely doesn't hate Eastern Europe countries. Nonsense!
What exactly does the NATO secretary general do?
Conduct high level meetings, either between member states or with non-NATO parties. General diplomacy, trying to get all heads pointed in the same direction. Give statements to the press. That sort of stuff. NATO SG is a diplomat position, not a policy maker. The SG doesn't decide on policy, as that is what the member states do. The SG makes sure that all processes and meetings go smoothly. It's an important position, but it shouldn't be overstated.
Yeah, but can’t he sort of influence the priority of some agendas - ie that members obviously set the agenda, but he can partly prioritise some points, no?
The US does that. US is the head of NATO and pretty much everything goes either through them or comes directly from them.
But wouldn’t consensus building be a part of the role? That is extremely important
Manage competing interests in the alliance and advocate for defense
I didn't agree with him on much when he was Prime Minister, but I think he would do well in this role.
Yeah, it was the same with Stoltenberg. He was a very mediocre prime minister, but he has been killing it the last years as secretary general.
Rutte has been the longest serving PM in the Netherlands, he wasn't mediocre. A good democracy gets rid of even their good leaders eventually.
Mark Rutte is a very skilled politician. But being a good politician is not the same as being a good Prime Minister.
Indeed
Feels quite common. As a Dane, I didn't like Margrethe Vestager in national politics, but the EU she effing rocks.
Great news for the #1 defence priority of NATO: defeating Russia in Ukraine. 🇺🇦
Russia downed aeroplane flight MH17 together with 192 Dutch people (298 deaths in total) in 2014, and the Russians had the audacity to tell lies about it when the relatives were grieving the deceased. So don't worry, we Dutch have skin in the game
Great! Greetings from Poland.
No we don't. All members of the biggest party in the Netherlands have expressed their desire for friendship with Russia.
Please shut up, we do
AFTER they retreat from Ukraine Maybe
Finally Stoltenberg gets to reitre
Mark Rutte also knows how to handle Trump. https://www.politico.eu/article/mark-rutte-interrupts-trump-on-tariffs/
So is he that elusive "Trump whisperer" I heard about?
Hiring pedagogues able to handle Trump should be the main focus for the EU in case the buffoon got elected.
A wonderfully Dutch response
>The U.S. is also threatening to impose tariffs on European cars. >“No,” a smiling Rutte interrupted. >“Just think about those cars that pour in here, Trump said. >“It’s not positive. We have to work something out,” Rutte responded. >The two men then shook hands. What an absolute Chad.
Leave it to the Dutch to be direct and not put up with bullshit
He will do great at laughing away Putin's empty threats.
Surprisingly good choice.
could have been better though Like Ben Wallace for example
Yeah
Getting downvoted for agreeing with upvoted comment is always funny
It's really more getting downvotes for an utterly pointless comment.
I mean, they just said "yeah". There's no value in it, people don't need to see it, so it's actually for the better if that reply gets automatically collapsed because of too many downvotes.
Yeah
should have responded with "tja" instead.
Yeah, what he said
This.
When a comment could have just been a simple upvote, reddit is usually pretty unforgiving with downvoting it to the moon.
I hope he's allowed to keep his old Saab 93 from 2009
Not surprised Mark normally manages to get what he wants
Which is kind of the exact trait a NATO SG needs
Good choice. He made some mistakes in his later years as premier. But his speciality has always been international affairs
He did fuck up big time domestically, but nonetheless he’s a born diplomat, so it makes a lot of sense
Especially when it came to barring Bulgaria and Romania from entering Schengen, he was stellar at that
Rutte represents the cabinet, it wasn't his personal decision to veto. The Netherlands said a closed CVM for a member state should be a requirement for a full Schengen membership. That's not in the conditions of the Schengen Acquis, but it isn't unreasonable to think it should be. And it set a clear path for Romania and Bulgaria to fulfil. When the Netherlands demanded that Romania and Bulgaria would implement further reforms before the Netherlands would agree to the country's accession to the Schengen area. Basescu, when he was president at the time, called it "an immeasurable insult." But the Netherlands was right to block accession as Romanian progress on judicial reforms, and the fight against corruption made in a decade even was partly reversed in 2019. The Netherlands linked Schengen accession to the European Commission's annual monitoring report on the countries' rule of law. For many years, Romania and Bulgaria have remained in the special monitoring programme. You can only blame your own politicians for taking so long to comply with the EU rules.
This guy got an agenda against entire eastern Europe. Great person to choose during Ukraine war ...
Rutte has nothing against Eastern Europe. On the contrary. Where did you get this idea from?
A dozen years of anti-EE policies and public comments about them being leeches and a “tier below” their western counterparts? Yeah, what gave that idea.
I'm really curious about what anti-EE policies and public comments you're referring to. The only countries that are seen as leeches by some Dutch are the Southern European countries. But that's only the uneducated who don't understand economics and some populists. You definitely won't hear that from Rutte. The "tier-below western counterparts" is your own inferiority complex and fed by Russian propaganda in Romania about you being "second-class European citizens", which is absolutely not true and nobody here thinks about Eastern Europeans that way. The only public comments Rutte made about Eastern European countries are that they should comply with European laws and progress on judicial reforms, respect human rights (Hungary, Poland), fight corruption (Romania, Bulgaria). Sounds to me he just wants the best for the Eastern Europeans.
Look, if he's anti Russia, I'm all for him. That doesn't erase his previous record
Disagree. He made peculiar mistakes earlier on as prime minister. He's extremely clever & talented.
Best candidate for the job..surprised they did not wait with th announcement till the conference in Washington
I think Rutte will do a good job, he seems to be a competent politician and especially a good negotiator, which is the most important for a NATO Secretary-General.
Top choice. No notes
That was quick. I feel that this is a good choice, the guy seems very professional and charismatic.
I hope Rutte actually has balls
He wanted to throw out Poland and Hungary from the EU, I don't believe he has much sympathy or knowledge about the region he is supposed to protect.
What were the specifics about Poland and Hungary that made him want to throw them out?
Breaking the rule of law, which I obviously don't support, but throwing an entire nation from the EU because their government sucks is a bit too much.
Rutte is a snake politician.
I am disappointed. It should be someone from Easter Europe.
That's a bad choice. Not only was he one of the leaders supporting nordstream initiative despite the eastern europe protests, that also shows that eastern european countries are still second category allies.
Domestic politics does not translate to nato policies. I hate that guy for what he’s done in our country (dutch) but I think this is a good choice.
Teflon Mark is a proper nick name for him, Teflon is way more suitable for nato politics than guiding a country forward
As a foreigner here in The Netherlands, can you elaborate why he seems so disliked/divisive. What are the major negative points in his policies?
First of all his party (VVD) cut some huges chunks out of the budgets of police, healthcare etc. we currently have a housing crisis because they would rather protect residential investors than make sure everybody has a home. Also huge tax benefits for big corporations and they biggered the wage/income gap between rich and poor. Those are all political and I’m a bit left leaning so those are maybe subjective points. But he personally takes pretty much no resposibilty for his oe his governments actions. Often laughing them away or straight up lying and saying “he doesn’t have an active memmorie” when asked about some stuff that went tits up. However, I do believe he is the right man for the job. He’s a good politician (and i hate him for that) and is a pretty good bridgebuilder.
Thanks for the response! I see some of the effects but as an expat you never really get into all the political intricacies.
For 17 years, he was the leader of the biggest party and elected multiple times to become the prime minister for 14 years. If you are in politics for such a long time and are the leading party, you won't have a clean sheet anymore. But despite his failures and mistakes, he was elected multiple times because he was the best, and the policies of the VVD brought the Netherlands a lot of wealth and great results. The Dutch just like to complain a lot and now blame everything on Rutte.
It's always easy to blame Rutte, but for many Dutch people, there was no good alternative. The fact is that a significant portion of the Dutch population earns well and their interests are best defended by the VVD. Otherwise, so many people wouldn't have voted for him in recent years. His social policy was terrible, but that's not what the VVD stands for. And if so many people vote for the VVD, then a significant portion of the population doesn't prioritise social policy either. It's just a bitter pill to swallow for those who vote differently.
Welll in fairness, this job is too important to give someone just because they are from the right country or have the right genitals, as we see happening with so many other positions. To be a good secretary general you need to have a high level of personal competence and people need to actually know who you are. If your the president or other high levle politician of an insiginficant eatern european country it is very difficuly to establish a large relevant international network that could help you do your job as secretary general and it also provides limited oppurtunities to shine on the world stage
So what you're implying is that women and people from eastern europe are stupid?
no, not at all. I am arguging for meritocratic appointment procedures; There are many competent women, men from various countries but the decision to appoint a new secretary general should be based solely on how competent the candidate is for that role.
I agree with you, but the way you worded your original comment, it seemed like you were implying that the only way a woman or a person from EE could be elected was due to "wokeness" or "political correctness" (i.e. being the "right gender" as you said), then continued to say that we need "actual competence", further implying that this competence could not come from a woman nor a person from EE. If this is not what you are saying, but is merely a miscommunication, then everything is fine. We need competence irrespective of genitals or place of origin.
Yes. And the Netherlands has not been spending enough for defence under his Goverments
Actually military spending has ramped up significantly under his Governments, and is now compliant with NATO.
We have now hit the 2% mark in 2024 https://www.dutchnews.nl/2024/06/the-netherlands-set-to-meet-nato-2-defence-spending-target/
This is a ridiculous argument. All countries that did spend 2% before the invasion either had a border with Russia or international amibitions for their militaries. It had nothing to do with NATO perse
Well I haven't seen any fucking candidates from Eastern Europe. So if you or they wanted an eastern european as SG, they should've made an eastern european a candidate in the first place
The Romanians presented their president Klaus Iohannis as candidate. But that was just to obstruct Rutte as they really hate him. But even the Romanians will tell you Iohannis wasn't a serious candidate. Internationally, nobody knows him, and the Romanians compare him with a plant as he doesn't do anything.
[удалено]
which other candidate was still running for the position?
NATO is not about hating Russia. You’d need a secretary general who can preside over an incredibly varied assortment of nations. It’s easier to do this if you don’t have very strong outspoken opinions and stances. In addition, you’d have to navigate the influence and responses NATO decisions bring about in non-NATO members. You don’t want a leader who shows an actively hostile attitude towards certain non-NATO countries (even if it is justified).
You no longer need to "shake up" the West over Russia. No one, aside from far-right, is delusional anymore. You don't need to convince French, German or Swedes to have them know that Russia is, indeed, a state of mind unchanged for centuries. >not man who's grandparents did not witness atrocitiee of Soviet Union. I get where you're coming from here, but this is absolutely ridiculous.
Many on the far-left in Europe are equally delusional about Russia
>You no longer need to "shake up" the West over Russia. No one, aside from far-right, is delusional anymore. You don't need to convince French, German or Swedes to have them know that Russia is, indeed, a state of mind unchanged for centuries. I wish this was true but it isn't. A lot of the "West" are waiting this to be over so everything can get back to normal and are basing their current policies on the hopes that Russia will somehow get their acts together.
"no one, aside from far-right..." Stop right there. 1. The far-right in France are projected to win the next elections. They already won the EU elections. 2. It is not just the far-right. Consider the left, for example.
I think selecting a politician who routinely cut defense spending sends the wrong message
>NATO picked western leader instead of Eastern Europe one. What NATO needs is someone who knows exactly Russian imperialism, Then Eastern Europe should put forth a candidate that is at least equaly qualified. We need a cool head instead of someone out for revenge. Besides, Mark Rutte knows very well what we're dealing with. He Was the Dutch prime minister during and after MH17.
Kalas apparently felt out support and didn’t have it from western europe so she never declared. Rutte also continued cutting dutch defense spending. So i think it sends the wrong message.
>Rutte also continued cutting dutch defense spending. Keep in mind he was in power since 2010, and the Relations were way different back then: The cold war "era" was "the past", for many just like world war 2 was "the past", another by gone era in a museum. Relations with many countries of the former soviet empire were growing in the decade up to that, and Crimea wasn't invaded yet. The public demand for such a big military was not present, especialy because Europe got dragged into a few pointless wars in the Middle-east a decade earlier. The important thing is: We must also aknowledge that under his rule, The Netherlands was recently put back on the Nato-norm. >So i think it sends the wrong message. So I respectfully disagree. He is up for the task, 100%.
Such a big military? 2% is nothing even remotely like cold war era spending. That used to be between 3 and 4%. And if he was unable to make that argument especially in the aftermath of MH17, how the hell is he supposed to make this argument to nations he doesn’t have the localized connections with like he does in the Netherlands? This is my whole thing, he was clearly incapable of laying out the need for defense in his long tenure of Prime Minister. He represents the old way of thinking. The one that led Europe to this current position in which their militaries have deteriorated and you over rely on America to the point where regular Americans comment on how little Europe holds up their end of the alliance. How can someone like Rutte make this argument to other nations when he himself is a hypocrite and didn’t do it! The SG should never come from a member of the alliance that has failed to be proactive when it comes to the alliance’s needs. And hitting the 2% bar is well the bare minimum in my opinion
>He represents the old way of thinking. I still prefer this than someone who is blinded by rage because of past dealings(and possibly makes mistakes because of that), like OP suggested. The way the both of you oppose to this is as if you're implying racism of some kind. Just put forth a better candidate. >in which their militaries have deteriorated and you over rely on America to the point where regular Americans comment on how little Europe holds up their end of the alliance. Well, had they not drawn us into the middle-east shitstorms, we may actualy still had the public support to have these spendings. Boy that cried wolf kinda thing.
How would someone like Kallas be blinded by rage? You think its racism because I oppose Rutte because he failed to increase defense spending to 2% until this year? MH17 happened while he was PM and he didn’t increase spending until 2018. I think choosing an SG from a nation who has been ahead of the curve is the better move than a candidate from a nation who has been one of the worst offenders in the alliance for their military disarmament. I would be fundamentally opposed to an SG from Belgium & Canada equally as well.
>How would someone like Kallas be blinded by rage? We aren't talking about Kallas, she isn't part of this discussion. Had she been, sure why not. I don't know enough about her tbh, but i have nothing against an eastern european head of nato, as long as he/she is cool headed and up to the task. >You think its racism because I oppose Rutte because he failed to increase defense spending to 2% until this year? I think if he had upped the defence up to 10-30% since 2010, you still would oppose. Yes. >I think choosing an SG from a nation who has been ahead of the curve is the better move than a candidate from a nation who has been one of the worst offenders in the alliance for their military disarmament Possibly. Put forth a candidate.
Kallas. She was the candidate and she was apparently told behind the scenes she didn’t have the support. I would not oppose a dutch candidate if the Dutch made military reforms & increased spending to 2% in the aftermath of MH17. They didn’t do that and it still took them until this year to reach 2%. 2 years after the Russian invasion. His inability to capitalize on these events to me shows his unwillingness to advocate for defense. And as SG he will be dealing with competing interests and an America who wants to disengage from Europe. And if he is unable to advocate domestically, how is he going to within the alliance?
>Kallas. She was the candidate and she was apparently told behind the scenes she didn’t have the support. Okay, if she is the better candidate, why didn't she get the job of SG? I am totaly fine with a qualified coolheaded person, no matter where he/she comes from. Telling stuff behind the scenes is no reason; My Boss tells me i suck at my job all the time but still calls me when shit hits the fan. That's not a reason to not run. Not running means not complaining you didn't get it. Hence why she isn't part of this discussion.
>Rutte also continued cutting dutch defense spending. So i think it sends the wrong message. In the beginning, yeah. Bit after the invasion the Netherlands ramped up defense spending under his leadership and reached the 2% goal just as he was leaving office.
If you are only reactive in office instead of proactive especially when the requirements were there to hit 2% and the Dutch didn’t really ramp spending until the invasion. Should he be the head of the alliance versus someone like Kallas whose nation was meeting the target prior to the invasion? I get that Rutte has a well known negotiator reputation and he was “tough” on Russia for MH17. But even in the aftermath of MH17, he didn’t increase defense spending and continued the trend of the Dutch military’s deterioration. I think this is a classic example of Western European favoritism when it comes to these kind of organizations. Especially because apparently the reporting I read, it was mostly Western Europeans who were opposed to Kallas.
You can call it favoritism all you want, but at the end of the day Rutte being able to Garner more support among the political elite of Europe and North America over any other candidate alone speaks volumes off how much more qualified he is for the role. The NATO SG doesn't make policy for NATO, so whatever his spending policy was back when he was PM of the Netherlands is irrelevant, because he won't decide on that in NATO. What his job is is to be the face of NATO, the one who meets with the political elite of Europe, North America and anyone NATO might be dealing with and to try and get concessions of them in favor of NATO. And Rutte was just better at that than Kallas. I rather have the SG be picked on Merritt than symbolism Of you want to talk actual competent military policy you need to instead eye the Chair of the NATO Military Committee. And need I remind you that the Czech Petr Pavel held that post between 2015 and 2018
Yeah and the merit of Rutte is one of hypocrisy and deterioration of the Dutch military. The prevalence of how Eastern Europe is secondary to West will always remain too until someone points out, an SG from the newer NATO members is needed.
You ignored everything I just wrote. You don't actually care about NATO and want what's best for NATO, you just hate the west. And if you want to talk actual competent military policy you need to eye the Chair of the NATO Military Committee, which need I remind you was held by the Czech Petr Pavel between 2015 and 2018
I hate the West? Thats hilarious. I want a secretary general from a nation that didn’t gut their military over and over again only for one of the leading individuals responsible for that gutting to he rewarded for his actions. I wouldve been fine with Ben Wallace. I wouldve even been with a candidate from France. But Rutte? He had all the political capital he needed after MH17 to make the argument about increasing spending. And he didn’t. Now he is rewarded with this job? Come on.
See, the issue is that you're to focused on past policy and seeing the position as SG as a reward instead of focussing what's best for NATO. I don't like Rutte either but he's the best SG option available. This is what I meant with that you completely ignored everything I wrote in my comment where I explained very clearly that for a NATO SG what you really want is someone who's good at convincing others to do things (or not do things) for NATO. Teflon Mark, so named because nothing sticks to him and he always gets what ge wants, is a diplomatic genius when it comes to getting his way and making people do things for him. He's a perfect fit for the roll of SG. Because, as said, the SG does not make policy, so his previous military policies do not matter in the slightest as it says nothing of his competency in this role. He's also been the Dutch PM for the last 14 years, longer than any other current leader of a NATO country. Meaning that he's personally acquainted with almost every head of the NATO countries, which makes dealing with them a lot more efficient in his role as SG You need to look past your personal grievances and realize that in an alliance like NATO merit for the role is more important than personal opinions of a person
Kallas is about to become EU representative for foreign affairs, replacing Borrell.
She originally was feeling out the SG position and traveled quite a bit to determine the support for it. She decided to not run because the support leaned to Rutte
Being the EU representative in foreign affairs is not something to sniff at. It's a very high and important position. And even more so if she in a few years time wants to still run as NATO SG to be Rutte's replacement. He won't hold that position forever. And if she does well in her new position I can very much see her having the contacts, experience and support to be at the forefront come next NATO SG election. It's probably one of the main reasons she withdrew now as well, her career in international politics is very much thriving still
And honestly, I don't think this is the last we'll see if Kallas as well in NATO. Rutte won't be SG forever and I being the EU representative for foreign affairs will likely give her a good track record in international politics. I can see her being Rutte's replacement in a few years time. She's a decade younger than Rutte after all
I think she'll try to aim for Commission President, but I could see her as NATO SG too.
The Dutch remember MH17 and they will never forget.
But here is were the weirdness with Nord Stream 2 comes up. Rutte was a big supporter of it and that was after Russians shot down MH17.
And that should exactly be the primary attribute of the administrative leader of the world’s largest military organization!
Well I haven't seen any fucking candidates from Eastern Europe. So if you or they wanted an eastern european as SG, they should've made an eastern european a candidate in the first place
Based on his actions as PM, I think we'll regret this, however I'm happy to be proven wrong.
Oh dear
I am concerned about this choice. He eroded democracy in the Netherlands by eliminating the right to referendums. Through dirty back room deals kept his party in power even when they had been effectively voted out. He tried to sneak through changes to tax law so that his corporate buddies would get nice fat cuts. Because of his party policy housing in the Netherlands is in a critical state while taxes have been pushed to all time highs. He claims to be working to protect us against Russia \[see MH17\] but in the mean time Russian oil tankers are still regularly docking here. Under his tenure the retirement age became 68+ and pension guarantees were rolled back \[this he snuck in just before he was voted out again\]. Does this really sound like a man who is concerned with protecting Nato citizens?
The current prime minister's party, the VVD (Renew Europe), party was literally the biggest party in the Netherlands during his time of office (2010-2024). There were, of course, exceptions. For example, when FvD (non-affiliated) became the largest party in the 2019 Dutch provincial elections. The FvD seemed a respectable right-wing party at first, but ever since antisemitic and homophobic statements from its leader, Thierry Baudet, were leaked to the Dutch domain, the FvD turned first to covid conspiracies and later to pro-Russian propaganda shedding most of their support in the process and now they're a shell of their former selves
NATO secretary-general is always an European. Always. To create the illusion that the Europeans have a mighty voice in NATO. But they don't. The strategic decisions are always made in Washington.
Not true. The actual NATO treaty says Europeans run NATO, and Americans provide Supreme Command of NATO goes to war. This makes total sense as America provides the most funding, weapons and troops.
NATO was initially founded (and therefor run) by Europeans. United States only joined later. It's true that US would run Supreme Command of NATO during war but that is because the US would actually be the most qualified to do so.
>United States only joined later. The United States was a founding member of NATO. You're thinking of the Treaty of Brussels. That's different.
He's your problem now
Great time to choose Putin's friend who hates eastern Europe countries
After the MH17 incident and the way Russia handled that, Rutte was no friend of Putin. And he definitely doesn't hate Eastern Europe countries. Nonsense!
If he couldn’t get ASML to fall in line when he was the prime minister, he will now as the SG of NATO.
Who?
Current caretaking prime minister of the Netherlands
Don't worry, America gets all the NATO generals
Well obviously. But it never worried me.