Too Old or Still Relevant? NATO at 75 with Ambassador Julianne Smith
46:29 Share

On September 28th, the Global Citizen Festival will gather thousands of people who took action to end extreme poverty. Join Post Malone, Doja Cat, Lisa, Jelly Roll, and Raul Alejandro as they take the stage with world leaders and activists to defeat poverty, defend the planet, and demand equity. Download the Global Citizen app today and earn your spot at the festival. Learn more at globalcitizen.org.com.

It's on!

Hi, everyone. From New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network, this is On with Kara Swisher, and I'm Kara Swisher. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, turned 75 this year, and world leaders will be commemorating that anniversary during the NATO summit this week in Washington, D.C. The alliance has had a lot on its hands in the past two years with the war in Ukraine, but it's also faced pushback and scrutiny, especially from politicians here in the U.S.,

As we all remember, Donald Trump threatened many times to cut ties with NATO when he was president. He's still playing that very dangerous record, by the way. Meanwhile, Ukraine wants a seat at the table, which is tricky. And there are threats coming from other parts of the world, too, like China. So I'm going to be talking about all that with my guest today, U.S. Ambassador to NATO Julianne Smith. Smith has been in that role since November of 2021, starting just months before Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine.

Before NATO, Smith served as a senior advisor to Secretary of State Antony Blinken. She's also held senior government positions advising on national security and NATO policy. So she's got a lot of expertise and insight into the negotiations taking place this week. Our expert question today comes from the man who reported President Trump's infamous phone call with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, where he pushed for a Ukrainian investigation into Hunter Biden. It eventually led to Trump's first impeachment.

Hi, this is Colonel Alex Vindman, U.S. Army, retired. So looking forward to Vindman's question and hearing from the ambassador on how NATO is faring today. It is on!

Welcome, Ambassador Smith. Thanks for being with us on ON. It's my pleasure. We're going to jump right into things. So NATO leaders are gathering in Washington this week for the summit where they'll also commemorate the 75th anniversary of the alliance. NATO was founded in 1949 by 12 countries as a response to concerns over Soviet aggression in Europe. I want to know from your perspective, what are the biggest worries for the alliance right now? Well, that's a pretty easy question to answer.

It will not surprise your listeners to hear that we spend an enormous amount of our time here at NATO headquarters on Russia and the war of aggression that is still unfolding inside Ukraine. But we also have something inside NATO called a strategic concept. It's basically NATO's mission statement. And we roll those out about once a decade. And we had one come out in 2022. And in that document, there's two things to note.

The alliance basically says that the two main threats it's trying to tackle right now, Russia and terrorism. But for the first time in NATO's history, actually, that document mentioned China as well. And

Not because NATO's preparing to head off into the South China Sea, but because of what China is doing in and around the Euro-Atlantic area and because of this ever-deepening and evolving relationship between Beijing and Moscow.

So as you said, the war in Ukraine has obviously been a huge NATO issue for the past two years. When you were appointed U.S. ambassador to NATO in November of 2021, did you have Ukraine on your radar or are you mostly focused on rebuilding trust after the Trump administration?

Well, obviously, first and foremost, when I was nominated in the spring of 21, I had in my head the promises that then candidate Joe Biden had been making on the campaign trail. And that was he wanted to use his administration to revitalize America's vast network of alliances and partnerships. So that was kind of the guiding light.

But as I was preparing to be confirmed, I was serving as a senior advisor to Secretary Tony Blinken at the State Department. And obviously, at that point, I had a clearance and I was read in. I understood that the U.S. was

quite convinced that Russia was about to do this. And I also had a sense that not many other allies believed us. And so as I was confirmed in November, I had a feeling that what I was walking into was a tremendous amount of skepticism and questioning of this claim that this war is coming and the NATO alliance better ready itself for that war.

And when you were having that, when you're saying you had a feeling that they just didn't believe you, correct? It's not an intuition. Right. Correct. Yeah, well, a number of allies, particularly in Eastern Europe, some in Western Europe as well, said, look, the Russians...

are really well known for posturing themselves in a way that makes folks nervous. And they often bluff. And we've seen maneuvers like this before, where they move troops up close to a border. And so you Americans should

You might be exaggerating a bit. Perhaps you're reading too much into it. Perhaps you don't understand that this could just be posturing. We were coming back and saying, wait a minute. We have intelligence that indicates that this is much more than posturing. We're seeing the field hospitals move out, the blood banks, things that we look for to determine whether or not this is real and that they're preparing for some sort of conflict or war. So you know the history here.

the administration took the decision to share an unprecedented amount of intelligence with our closest allies to say, this time we know what's going to happen. You have to trust us and here's the intelligence that will convince you. But I have to

say even once I arrived at NATO and I settled into the seat into December and January, I remember sitting around the table with all of the allies looking at me. And I had a good sense at that moment that not everyone around the table was convinced. And if I could, I'll share one story from the morning of February 22nd. We come in, we got the call at 3 a.m.,

come into NATO for an emergency North Atlantic Council meeting, all of the allies get into their seats around the table. And one ally from Eastern Europe raised his hand, looked down the table, we're in alphabetical order, kind of leaned in and said, "I just, before we start,

We didn't believe you. We didn't believe you that this was going to happen, and now we can see you were right. So even on the day the war started, we still were facing a couple of allies that were skeptical, and despite the fact that we were sharing all of this intelligence.

Right. So speaking of the people around the table, there are now 32 member countries in NATO. Ukraine has been seeking membership for years, well before the current war. At last year's summit, leaders agreed to expedite the membership process. Where does that stand right now?

Well, so you're right. We had a summit last year in Lithuania, and what we did is we announced that the alliance was lifting one of the requirements. It's a bit wonky, but we have something called the Membership Action Plan, MAP. It goes by that abbreviation. That's a process that most of the recent members have gone through. And what the alliance said at the summit last summer was, you know what, you guys kind of get the

fast track here, and you will not require the membership action plan. You will not go through MAP to get to membership. We also said, though, one, you have a war on your territory right now. It's difficult for us to extend a proper invitation to join, given that reality. And two,

Ukraine needs to undertake a long list of internal reforms to qualify for membership. I get that. Yeah. So since last summer, they've done a lot of good work and we applaud those efforts. I will tell you at the summit in a day or two when it gets underway—

The allies are not coming to Washington to announce that Ukraine is a member. We still believe that those two conditions need to be met. We want to see an end to this war. We want to see Ukraine continue to make progress on those reforms that are needed, things like anti-corruption, transparency, accountability, etc.,

But joining NATO seems a pretty urgent question in that regard for them. And one of Russia's goals in the war is to control Ukraine and sever its ties to the West. So even though you're talking about bridges and paths and deliverables that they need to do, is it critical to kick the can down the road, essentially? And what is it prepared to offer Ukraine at the summit?

Well, what you're going to see at the summit in the next day or two is that those 32 heads of state will sit at the table with President Zelensky. He's coming in for the summit, which is important. And we will be announcing a series of initiatives that we're launching to draw them closer to the alliance.

So NATO is going to be taking on some of the coordination of assistance and the coordination of the training that either the United States or other allies have been doing bilaterally. So NATO is kind of assuming more responsibility for Ukraine's future and is going to bring more coherence and more order to all of the assistance that's flowing into Ukraine. So that's one. Two is

We are going to put on the table a pledge that is going to secure additional resources for our friends in Ukraine. Why are we doing that? We're doing that because President Putin has assumed from day one

that NATO allies would eventually get impatient, distracted, and look away. And we want to make sure President Putin understands that that's not happening, that the allies continue to stand in solidarity with Ukraine, assistance,

keeps flowing and that we're not going anywhere, that he can't wait us out. So this kind of longer-term sustainable pledge will be part of the signaling at the summit to Moscow. Speaking of leading, a long delay in the passage of the Ukrainian aid package here in the U.S. led to real consequences on the ground. Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has said it's one of the reasons Russia has occupied more land in Ukraine.

When you talk about U.S.'s commitment to aiding Ukraine, as you just did at NATO HQ and with Ukrainian officials, do they believe you now? I mean, are the conversations changed? And is the U.S. seen as a reliable partner still?

Yeah, everything changed once the supplemental went through. You're right to note that we had a very long gap in terms of waiting for the supplemental to get through the $60 billion in assistance.

It's a gap that left the Ukrainians with pretty acute shortages of ammunition in particular, but I think it's safe to say air defense belongs on that list as well. And

There's good news and bad news. The bad news during that period was there was this kind of open-ended question where folks were wondering, not just the Ukrainians, but NATO allies, like, is Congress capable of getting the supplemental through? But the good news is that Europeans took the opportunity to say, wait a minute, we don't have to wait for Washington to sort this out. We'll keep giving. And that's where you saw a number of countries in Europe sign these

bilateral security agreements with Ukraine and deliver more kit to the Ukrainians. Now that the supplemental is through, I think the Ukrainians are in a much better position on the battlefield.

But you're right, it does raise questions about the United States. You talked about $60 billion just now. According to the State Department, the U.S. has provided Ukraine with more than $51 billion in military assistance since 2022, not including financial and humanitarian aid. But a third of Americans, 31%, think that the U.S. is providing too much support. That's according to a recent Pew poll. Not everybody, but it's a substantive amount of people. Do you take public opinion?

opinion into consideration when negotiating and does it affect

how the Ukrainians are looking at our support as well as the rest of NATO? Well, I think what I've tried to do here is to help people, whether it's folks back in the United States or our European allies or audiences somewhere in between, first and foremost, understand why supporting Ukraine matters, reminding people of two things. One,

If you do not stop dictators or authoritarian leaders like President Putin, they usually keep going. And so for the amount of assistance that we are providing right now, this is enabling the Ukrainians to push Russia out.

out of its territory and prevent Russia from hitting NATO territory, where we have an obligation to then come to the assistance and get directly involved with U.S. troops to defend NATO territory. So that's the first point. The second point, I've done some engagements in the United States with different audiences, particularly in the Midwest, where I'm from Michigan originally.

I've traveled through Ohio and Michigan to hear Americans, how they're thinking about Ukraine, but also to help them understand that this isn't a situation where the United States is the only one helping Ukraine. I think it's easy to point to those big numbers that you just cited, the $60 billion in the supplemental or the over $50 billion over two years, but

And forget that collectively Europe is doing even more. Europe is coming in at about $120 billion worth of assistance. So this is a collective effort. The United States is not trying to do this alone.

And frankly, it's a bargain if you think about it in terms of the Ukrainians are fighting. We don't have U.S. troops on the ground. We are assisting them, but they're preventing this war from spreading and moving into NATO territory. We'll be back in a minute.

Hey, Kariswisher listeners. Sue Bird here. I'm Megan Rapinoe. Women's sports are reaching new heights these days, and there's so much to talk about. So Megan and I are launching a podcast where we're going to deep dive into all things sports, and then some. We're calling it...

a touch more. Because women's sports is everything. Pop culture, economics, politics, you name it. And there's no better folks than us to talk about what happens on the court or on the field and everywhere else too. And we'll have a whole bunch of friends on the show to help us break things down. We're talking athletes, actors, comedians, maybe even our moms. That'll be a fun episode.

Whether it's breaking down the biggest games or discussing the latest headlines, we'll be bringing a touch more insight into the world of sports and beyond. Follow A Touch More wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes drop every Wednesday.

- What is up, people of the internet? I'm Marques Brownlee, aka MKBHD, and I just wanted to quickly tell you about my podcast, Waveform. So after making tech reviews on YouTube for over a decade, I've had the chance to check out some real groundbreaking tech and some real dud products. And so on Waveform, along with my co-hosts, Andrew Manganielli and David Amell, we capture our immediate reactions to new technology that's coming out every week,

from smartphones to EVs, and even AI finding its way into everything. We've got you covered. And you also get a bit of a sneak peek into what it's like working at a YouTube channel closing in on 20 million subscribers. So if you want to stay up to date with the latest tech and internet news and culture and all sorts of stuff like that, you can find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or anywhere you listen. See you over there.

One of the things that's been problematic for Ukraine is Ukraine was not allowed to use weapons supplied by the U.S. and a couple of other members in strikes on Russian soil. Ukrainian President Zelensky has complained about this repeatedly and asked for more latitude. Some NATO leaders are similarly frustrated by the Biden administration's reluctance to give the green light. I'd like you to sort of walk out the concerns here. Is it escalation?

And last month, there were reports that Biden approved a strike on Russia using U.S. weapons to defend the city of Kharkiv. Does that represent a shift in strategy or a boundary? How do you look at that? And what's the red line?

Well, I guess how I look at it is throughout this entire war, many things have shifted. The type of assistance that the U.S. and European allies are providing, that has shifted. And similarly—

What they have asked of us, for example, on utilizing the weapons that we're providing on Russian territory has evolved as well. It was in early May when the Ukrainians came to the United States and said, look, we're

They've made some inroads up and around Kharkiv, a few kilometers, not in a major way. But the way in which they're doing that is they're operating from positions that are just across the border. And we want some assurance that we can use the weapons that you've provided to hit those targets just on the other side.

The president and his team wasn't part of those conversations. My understanding is they sat with it for a few days, discussed it, and eventually we heard a couple weeks later they said, all right, makes sense to us. Why don't you go ahead and hit those targets just over the border?

I think it's an evolving conversation. We're taking it month by month. We do have a policy right now. You are correct. The president is not in a position where he's willing to say that those long-range attack-ums

300-kilometer range can be used on Russian territory. He and his team, they believe they can be utilized in a very effective way, particularly in Crimea. And I think that's been the focus. So every week we get a question from an outside expert. This week we have one from retired U.S. Army Colonel Alex Bindman, who now runs a national security and defense think tank called the Institute for Informed American Leadership. Let's have a listen.

75 years ago, NATO was established to defend against the rising threat of communist Soviet authoritarian aggression. It proved to be the most effective alliance in history. It is an equally perilous moment where there seems to be a consolidation of authoritarian regimes

coming together to once again threaten democracy, threaten the U.S., threaten our allies in Europe. And NATO has proven its relevance by spending significantly more resources to defend itself. Can NATO stave off a major war in Europe, a European war,

Context in which there is already a major conflict between Russia and Ukraine that threatens to spill over. Can NATO continue to fulfill its role? And does that require bringing in threatened nations like we did in the past in order for us, the collective we, NATO, to stave off conflict? Thank you.

Go ahead.

There were only three members of the alliance that hit the target. And when we are in Washington this week, what we will be celebrating is the fact that now—

in July of 2024, 10 years later, 23 allies spend 2% of their GDP on defense. Now, of course, it needs to be 32. I'm the first person to say that. But 23, getting two-thirds of the alliance to 2% is a big deal. How does that relate to his question about

It means that allies are making the right investments in new capabilities and in the readiness of their forces to ensure that we can defend NATO territory from any threat that comes at us from anywhere. But I also have to say one other thing, and that is that last year we rolled out a

the most robust set of military plans the alliance has had since the end of the Cold War to defend every inch of NATO territory. And what those plans have given us is a clear picture of what we need, what each ally needs to do to defend territory. So the short answer to the question is yes, the alliance is probably

more prepared to defend NATO territory than it's been in many decades because of those investments and because of the new plans we have in place. And then if you'll forgive me, one final point. He mentioned this kind of almost, I know some people refer to it as the axis of upheaval, Russia, China, DPRK, Iran, and

NATO is also extending not membership, but partnerships. We're working more closely with Japan, with South Korea, with Jordan, with the African Union. We're working with Moldova and forming partnerships of like-minded groups.

countries that can share best practices in coping with a variety of threats and learn from one another. I took the first trip that NATO had ever had of NATO ambassadors to Seoul and Tokyo because these are two countries that are deepening their relationship with the alliance. So for all of those reasons, for the money,

plans and for this global network of partnerships that the alliance has, I do feel that the alliance is at the ready and prepared to take on whatever comes at us. With these additional funds. Might you call that NATO plus or something? I don't know. Well, yeah. I'm sure we'll think of some interesting acronym, but no, in truth, we were- Don't sound like a streaming service, but go ahead. Go ahead.

No, we, I mean, we call them NATO partners. Stinger Missiles and Bridgerton. So let me say that money and defense spending commitments from NATO members are a big issue for former President Trump. Obviously, he basically said NATO was a drain on American resources, getting back to people's feelings here in this country about spending, and threatened to leave the alliance, which was unprecedented. Let's play a quick clip from a 2018 rally in West Virginia. United States...

is paying close to 90% of the cost of protecting Europe. And I think that's wonderful. I said to Europe, I said, folks, NATO's better for you than it is for us. Believe me. And what happened is they asked a question. He said, would you leave us if we don't pay our bills? Now, they hated my answer. I said, yeah, I would have to consider it. You got to pay your bills. They hated the answer.

So in March, Trump added to that, and he said he wouldn't push to leave NATO as long as European members paid up. But earlier this year at a rally in February, he remarked that as president, he would not protect or defend NATO allies who did not contribute to defense spending, that he'd tell the Russians to, quote, do whatever the hell they want. What's the response among our allies who had vowed to defend us? And how are officials inside NATO preparing for a possible Trump presidency?

Well, a couple things on that. I just have to say at the top, encouraging Moscow to attack NATO territory is completely irrational. It's irresponsible. It's dangerous. And it's certainly something that would

not at all be supported by our current president. President Biden, it's through his administration actually that allies and his approach that allies have increased their spending. So we now have 23 allies, as I said, spending 2% of GDP on defense. And that's an important step forward that will enable the alliance again to acquire the capabilities that it needs going forward.

But in general, I think we don't want to see any change to what we've seen over the last 75 years. Look—

For over seven decades, all U.S. presidents of all political stripes have understood that NATO is not a country club. No one's delinquent. There aren't any dues. We do ask allies to spend more on their own defense because it makes the alliance stronger. But fundamentally, all of those U.S. presidents have understood the value of this alliance.

We are better off working with our partners and allies, the most capable allies we have in the world, on shared challenges rather than going it alone and trying to solve them on our own two feet.

How much time are you spending hand-holding? How big of a concern is this among NATO members? Do allies wonder, you know, what will transpire in our election? Absolutely. Are they watching the politics in the United States closely? Yes. But...

Frankly, they're watching their own elections. I mean, we have a number of elections coming up on this side of the pond as well. The good news there is that, again, 75 years of experience gives you some confidence that irrespective of what leaders look like on either side of the Atlantic, we will carry on and we will continue to support this alliance and allow it to flourish and prepare for future challenges.

Irrespective of what types of leaders exist on either side. So as part of his agenda at 47, Trump has said, quote,

Is there a possibility of a much reduced U.S. presence? And this is not a hypothetical. If he did move to withdraw from NATO or minimize our presence there, what's the procedure for that, given the U.S.'s major role in NATO?

over the past 75 years? Yeah, I mean, I hesitate to get into the perspective or possibility of the United States leaving NATO. I don't see it. Look, people say a lot on the campaign trail. We heard all sorts of things in 2016 that didn't come to pass.

And look at where we are right now in Congress. We still have deep bipartisan support for this alliance. The good news that I benefit from personally and my mission here in Brussels all the time is that when delegations come through and we have visits from Republicans and Democrats constantly, they come together in joint delegations, CODELs as we call them,

And what do I see? I see that NATO is one of the last issues that isn't overly partisan. I think that stems from the fact that Americans in their bones know why we created this thing, why it's still needed, and why it serves our interests. This isn't—we're not in NATO—

you know, out of the goodness of our hearts who are just floating around this alliance, leading this alliance serves U.S. interests. And I think that's something I feel when Republicans and Democrats come to visit and when I talk to Americans. There is enormous support, Lindsey Graham. I can think of a lot of people in the Republican Party. That said, they have...

on other things before, right? Saying one thing and then, you know, giving in to Trump in that regard. But what is your best argument to them, the ones that may be wavering? If you want to play devil's advocate, and we've spent 75 years defending Europe, what is your best argument? What is the U.S. interest? How does NATO come back and protect us? And how does the U.S. actually gain from continued membership? What, from your perspective, is your best argument for those people

who might waver, and they have before on lots of issues. Sure, sure. So two things. One, I just want everyone to understand what's changed over the last couple of years, and that is that Europeans are stepping up and they're taking on their fair share of the burden. That's the fundamental thing I want everyone to understand this week when NATO leaders are in Washington. But just to take a step back...

What NATO has provided over 75 years is, in essence, peace and security that has allowed our economies to grow and thrive and prosper. And it has been kind of, I guess, the quiet protector of

of the Euro-Atlantic area for decades that's benefited all of us. Why did we create this in the first place? Because it was one world war after the next that was creating global instability and forcing the United States eventually to get engaged and send

thousands and thousands of troops overseas, and NATO put the cap on that. It was the tonic that brought peace and stability to the continent. And today, it's not just an alliance. I mean, you know the old slogan, it's not your father's Oldsmobile. I mean, this is an alliance that's just a military alliance. NATO was designed to deal with tanks rolling across borders, right? But it's

It's still an alliance, a military alliance that worries about tanks rolling across borders. But this is now an alliance that's thinking about things like AI and cybersecurity and climate security and disinformation. And we're going deeper into a broader definition of security now.

that again helps serve U.S. interests because in the face of a cyber attack or a conventional military attack, the alliance will come to your aid. And that is still worth the investment. So relevance is what you're trying to sell here on this 75th anniversary. Yes, it's still relevant. Absolutely. Absolutely. We'll be back in a minute.

You mentioned the elections coming up in Europe, the political landscape also in flux. We're taping with you on June 27, but France may have a new parliament by the time this episode airs, run by a far-right minority. In Germany, the far-right group called Alternative for Germany has been gaining in popularity. Hungary and Italy both already have far-right leaders, Prime Ministers Viktor Orban and Giorgio Maloney.

How does this growing populism and nationalism impact the alliance? Some of these groups are closer to Vladimir Putin. Yeah, well...

I mean, again, the alliance is used to political transitions. We've coped with that many, many times. And so we won't be surprised if we see a different cast of characters arriving this week in Washington, depending on the outcomes of some of these elections. But this gets back to really the value of the alliance in terms of, you know, trying to debate folks on is it worth it anymore to have a NATO alliance?

One of the reasons it is valuable above and beyond the reasons I cited earlier is it allows us to sit at the table and make sure that all of the allies understand the risks,

of relying on Moscow for anything right now, the risks of relying on the PRC, the risks associated with this deepening relationship between Beijing and Moscow. So we talk about a lot the values that we share

Obviously, we all have different political systems, different histories, different geography, but it allows us to sit at one table and say, look, as a community of democracies, these are the values we hold dear. This alliance is here to protect those values. And what are any associated risks that come from risk?

relying on or interacting with certain actors for, for example, technology or chips or, you know, we're enabled to have a wider set of conversations here about our values and how NATO can help protect those values. And occasionally you can use that round table to put countries on the spot and say either, hey,

what more are you going to do for Ukraine? It's important we all contribute. So that's useful. But also, hey, we saw some interesting breaking news that your government is about to do X, Y, and Z. Let's have a conversation about that at the table. So it's a forum

that allows us to come together in a secure, classified environment at 32 and have some very sensitive conversations. But one of the things is making it bigger. You spoke about the threat of China, obviously a big one, the cooperation with countries like Japan, South Korea. Vindman talked about adding endangered countries. Are there

plans to add countries in the South China Sea? And we obviously have different military alliances there, but we've spoken to a number of people about the danger of war starting in Taiwan over the past two years. Everyone from Mike Gallagher, we have tons of people talking about the situation. Is that a possibility that this extends elsewhere?

No, I really, I don't see that. NATO at its core is a Euro-Atlantic alliance. I don't see it moving to become any sort of global alliance. That's not the intent. I will say before the war started, you'll remember that Putin submitted these

kind of draft treaties, one to the United States and one to NATO. And in that,

he tried to get the alliance to shut the door to membership and convince the alliance to basically kill one of its greatest success stories, and that's enlargement. And in fact, the Russians actually came in, we sat down at the table with them, and what they heard in stereo surround sound was that enlargement isn't going anywhere. You guys don't have a voice or a veto. This is a NATO policy. The door is open.

two countries in the Euro-Atlantic area. And months later, what happened? Sweden and Finland walked through the front door, I'll never forget it, and said, how about membership? And I mean, my jaw was hanging open because I'm somebody who's looked at these two countries for two decades, and they've had hundreds of years of non-alignment out the window, and suddenly they're interested in membership. It was unbelievable. So how does that affect

the NATO leadership and politics that obviously shifted the NATO red line that Putin was trying to put in place. Yeah, I mean a couple of things just in practical matters. I

I mean, NATO now has over 800-mile-long border along the spine of Finland that borders Russia that it is responsible for protecting. So in terms of the nuts and bolts of what NATO has to be prepared to defend, yes, it

That's significantly changed the situation. But even better for NATO, we brought in two incredibly capable allies. Well, they were originally our closest partners. Now they're allies. And these countries, I mean, they were ready for membership on day one. They sit at the table as if they've always been there.

And they have also shifted the dynamic. I mean, they're interested in the Nordic-Baltic region. They've elevated the profile of some of those spaces. But they come in with very innovative, creative approaches. They take kind of a whole-of-society approach to defense, which is really different from the United States and other allies around the table. And so it's just been a joy to

watch them take their seat at the table and immediately raise their hand and get to work and join the conversation. It's fabulous. But from a defense standpoint, you are correct. We are defending now a much, much longer border with Russia than we ever had to. And presumably Ukraine would be the next member, correct? Well, yes, we have...

a couple of aspirant countries. And Ukraine is also now one of our closest partners and has some arrangements that no other aspirant country has.

We created something last year called the NATO-Ukraine Council, which actually allows Ukraine to come in and sit at the table as an equal. No one's ever had this privilege. They come in and they can bring in any issue they want for discussion with the allies. And so you're right. They've kind of...

They've come right up to the edge of membership. There's still work to do. But there's Ukraine. But there's also, I would say, Bosnia has been waiting to join the alliance for some time. They have work to do internally on some of the reforms that we've talked to them about.

Georgia is a country that we talked about inviting. We made a commitment to invite to join the alliance in 2008, actually. But there's much, much more work for them to do as well. But, yeah, you could name a couple of countries. Probably those three would be it. Yeah, Putin's going to love that one. Yeah. Yeah, that'll make him thrilled.

Let me ask you, NATO is also going to experience a change in leadership itself. Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is stepping down this fall after a decade. His successor will be current Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. How do you think the transition will impact NATO and the U.S. position within the alliance? That is a really good question. Yeah.

Well, first I have to say Jens Stoltenberg, kudos to him, hats off, 10 years of service inside the NATO alliance. That's very rare. Usually have a secretary general come in somewhere between three and five years, but he was extended

A couple of times, particularly because of Russia's war in Ukraine, we felt like we needed continuity. He's just done an unbelievable job. He's a master communicator. We count our lucky stars that he's been here for 10 years. In terms of the incoming Seok-jin, I mean, Mark Rutte was someone that got the full support of the United States very early. We were thrilled when we heard he was interested in the job.

He's someone who is kind of an Atlanticist at heart. You want to have someone at the helm that's committed to this full transatlantic relationship, both North America and Europe.

But he's also deeply familiar with the European Union down the street. And that matters because increasingly the EU and NATO are working together on a whole host of challenges and threats. I think that President Biden really finds him to be a terrific leader. What they've done on Ukraine has been also very admirable. The Netherlands has increased its defense spending quite significantly in recent years. So I don't know.

know if there would be a major change. There's always some initial change when NATO gets a new secretary general. But I think some of the leadership qualities that we really admire in Stoltenberg are present in Ruta as well. And so I guess I don't think I could list any big changes. In terms of the U.S. role, we expect to continue leading this alliance. We believe

We play an important and critical role here, and I think that will continue. So I guess my final question is, NATO's 75. Now, younger than both presidential candidates. I get it. You don't have to comment. Good point. You don't have to comment. But if you go to the Midwest, you talk to people in a very pithy, short way. What's your best argument? You know, 75 is a long time. What is your best argument that it's still young and relevant, I guess? Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, you have to make the case in concrete ways. Why is it still relevant? I mean, I get it. I have young people come up to me and say, 75 feels a little rusty, creaky. I don't know. Is it built for a different era? You can say, yes, obviously, 75 years ago, we were facing a very different environment, although I'll say we were still focused on the Soviet Union slash Russia, so some things never changed. But I think defending the future is

I mean, that's it. NATO is getting prepared to deal with everything from those tanks rolling across borders, but challenges in space, cyber, emerging disruptive tech, you name it. We've got a plan here at NATO headquarters to take that on. Well, I really appreciate everything you said here. And I'm looking forward to hearing more about the cyber stuff that you guys are doing going forward. Anytime. That is probably a bigger threat than people realize.

Anyway, thank you so much. I really appreciate it, Ambassador. Thank you. It's been great. On with Kara Swisher is produced by Christian Castro-Russell, Kateri Yochum, Jolie Myers, and Megan Burney. Special thanks to Kate Gallagher, Kaylin Lynch, and Kate Furby. Our engineers are Rick Kwan, Fernando Arruda, and Aaliyah Jackson. Our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following the show, you've got a seat at the NATO table. If not, wait for NATO+. It comes with your Netflix subscription.

Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for On with Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network and us. We'll be back on Thursday with more.