Support for this episode comes from SAS. How is AI affecting how you learn, work and socialize and what you need to know to make responsible use of it as a business leader, worker and human in the world? Find out when you listen to pondering AI, a podcast featuring candid conversations with experts from across the AI ecosystem. Pondering AI explores the impact and implications of AI for better and for worse with a diverse group of innovators,
kids and data scientists. Check out pondering AI wherever you get your podcasts. Have a question or need how to advice? Just ask meta AI. Whether you need to summarize your class notes or want to create a recipe with the ingredients you already have in your fridge, meta AI has the answers. You can also research topics, explore interests and so much more. It's the most advanced AI at your fingertips. Expand your world with meta AI. Now on Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook and Messenger.
Hi everyone from New York Magazine and the Box 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 DC. 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 US. 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, US Ambassador to NATO, Julian 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, Anthony 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 Vemen, US Army retired. So looking forward to Vemen's question and hearing from the Ambassador on how NATO is fearing today.
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 at US Ambassador to NATO in November of 2021, did you have Ukraine on your radar or 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 ready and I understood that the US 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 saying you had a feeling that they just didn't believe you, correct? It's not an intuition
and not correct. 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, 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 bloodbanks, 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 3am, 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. 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 pretty urgent question in that regard for them. But and one of Russia's goals in the world 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. And the Ukrainian 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 along the lay in the passage of the Ukrainian aid package here in the U.S. that's a 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. 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 dressed now. According to the State Department, the U.S. is provided the 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 pupil. Not everybody, but it's a substantive amount of people.
Do you take public 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 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, 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 and the supplemental or the over 50 billion over two years. And forget that collectively, Europe is doing even more. Europe is coming in at about 120 billion dollars 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. Support for this show comes from Delete Me. Do you ever wonder how much of your personal information is out there on the internet? A lot. Chances are a lot more than you think, too. Your name, contact info, social security number, they can all be compiled by data brokers and sold online. It's happening right now. It might be why you keep getting those insane spam calls
about your student loans, even if you paid them off 20 years ago. And worse, you might want to try Delete Me to fix that. Delete Me is a subscription service that removes your personal information. From the largest people search databases on the web, and in the process, help prevents potential ID theft, doxing, and phishing scams. I have really enjoyed Delete Me largely because I'm a pretty good person about tech things, and I have a pretty good sense of
privacy in pushing all the correct buttons. But I was very surprised by how much data was out there about me. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount to our listeners today, get 20% off your Delete Me plan. When you go to joindeleteme.com slash Kara, and use the promo code Kara at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to joindeleteme.com slash Kara, enter the code Kara at checkout. That's joindeleteme.com slash
Kara code Kara. Support for on with Kara Swisher comes from Miro. You and your team have just come out on the other side of a month's long project. Congratulations! Now it's time for the celebration. In this case, meticulously going over your successes and failures. A retrospective is more than a regular meeting. You need the right tools to make sure that everyone's perspective is heard, and that common themes are synthesized with next steps in mind. It can be a lot, which is why Miro is
designed to help this exact kind of thing. Miro is the visual collaboration platform that can make your next retrospective effective engaging and actionable. And you can use helpful features like templates and icebreakers to communicate issues, express ideas, and solve problems as a team. You can also use private mode, which lets your team anonymously add notes or vote, or you can use or AI-enabled tools that let you save time summarizing notes. All in all, Miro lets you innovate
faster and feel stronger as a team. Whether you work in product design, engineering, UX, agile, or marketing, bring your team together on Miro. Your first three Miro boards are free when you sign up today at Miro.com. That's three free boards at MIRO.com. Support for the show comes from Ramp. If you're a finance professional,
Ramp could be a huge game changer for you and your organization. Ramp is the corporate card and spend management software that was designed to help you save time and put money back in your pocket. Ramp wants to give finance teams unprecedented control by helping illuminate the ways in which your company spends money. With Ramp, you can issue cards to every employee with customized limits and restrictions. Not only that, Ramp can automate expense reporting,
so you can finally take it off your to-do list. Their accounting software automatically collects receipts and categorizes expenses in real time, so no more chasing down receipts. That also means your employees won't have to spend hours submitting expense reports. Ramp is designed to save your business money, businesses that use Ramp reported saving an average of 5% their first year alone. And now you can get $250 when you join Ramp. Just go to ramp.com slash cara. That's ramp.com slash
cara spelled ramp.com slash cara. Cards issued by Sutton Bank and Celtic Bank members FDIC, terms and conditions apply. One of the things that's that's been problematic for Ukraine is Ukraine was not allowed to use weapons supplied by the US and a couple of other members in strikes on Russian soil. Ukraine and President Zelensky is 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 like it to sort of walk out the concerns here. Is it escalation? And last month, the reports that Biden approved to strike on Russia using US weapons to defend the city of Karkeev. 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 US and European allies are providing
that has shifted. And similarly, what they have asked of us, for example, on utilizing the weapons that were providing on Russian territory has evolved as well. It was in early May when the Ukrainians came to the United States and said, look, they've made some inroads up and around Karkeev, 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, I wasn't part of those conversations by understanding as they sat with it for a few days, discussed it, and eventually we heard a couple weeks later, they said, all right, make 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 attackums, 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 Binman, who now runs a national security 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 a 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 stay off a major war in Europe, a European 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 threaten nations like we did in the past in order for us, the collective we
NATO to stay off conflict? Thank you. That's a great question. And it's perfect because it allows us to get into a big part of what's happening this week in Washington DC at the summit. And that takes us to defense spending. Ten years ago, the allies pledged to spend 2% of their GDP on defense when they did that in 2014. 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 2 thirds of the alliance to 2% is a big deal. How does that relate to his question? 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 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 a pebble. 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 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, for the 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- with these additional funds. Whatever comes at us. Might you 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. No, we, I mean, we call them NATO partners. Stinger missiles and Bridgerton. So let me say one of the 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. The United States is paying close to 90 percent of the cost of protecting Europe, and I think that's wonderful. I said to Europe, I said, folks, NATO is 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 early this year, the rally in February, he remarked that as President, he would not protect your defense NATO allies who did not contribute to defense spending.
That he told 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 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 US presidents
of all political stripes have understood that NATO is not a country club. No one's to link with. 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 US 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. But how big of how much time are you spending handholding? How big of a concern is 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, 47 Trump has said, quote, we have to finish the process we begin under
my administration of fundamentally re-evaluating NATO's purpose and NATO's mission. Is there possibility of a much reduced US presence or and it's not a hypothetical? If he did move to withdraw from NATO or minimize our presence there, what's the procedure for that given the US's major role in NATO over the past seven or five years? Well, I, 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. I mean, 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. So 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 and 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 US interests. And I think that's something I feel when Republicans and Democrats come to visit and when I talk to America.
There is enormous support, Lindsey Graham. I can think of a lot of people in the Republican Party. That said, they have crashed on other things before, right, saying one thing and then, you know, giving into 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 US interest? How does NATO come back and protect us?
And how does the US actually gain from continued membership? What from your perspective is your best argument for those 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 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 old mobile. I mean, this isn't a alliance that's just a military alliance. NATO was designed to deal with tanks rolling across borders, right? But 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 cyber security and climate security and disinformation. And we're going deeper into a broader definition of security that again helps serve US 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. Have a question or need how to advice? Just ask meta AI. Whether you want to design a marathon training program that will get you race ready for the fall, or you're curious what planets are visible in tonight's sky, meta AI has the answers. Perhaps you want to learn how to plant basil when your garden only gets indirect sunlight. Meta AI is your intelligent assistant.
It can even answer your follow-up questions, like what you can make with your basil and other ingredients you have in your fridge. Meta AI can also summarize your class notes, visualize your ideas, and so much more. The best part is you can find meta AI right in the apps you already have. Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook, and Messenger. Just tag meta AI in your chat or tap the icon in the search bar to get started. It's the most advanced AI at your fingertips. Expand your world
with meta AI. 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 popularity. Hungary and Italy, both already have far right leaders, Prime Minister's Viktor Orban and Georgia 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 the 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 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 relying on or interacting with certain actors for, for example, technology or chips, or you know, we're, 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, big one, the cooperation with countries like Japan, South Korea, VINMAN talked about adding endangered countries. Are there plans to add countries in the South China Sea? And we obviously have a 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 my gallery, we have tons of people talking about the situation. Is that a possibility that this extends elsewhere? No, I really 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. 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. That's enlargement. In fact, the Russians actually came in. We sat down at the table with them. 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 have hundreds of years of non-alignment out the window. And suddenly they're interested in membership. It was unbelievable. 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. A couple of things. Just in practical matters. 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, that's significantly changed the situation. But even better for NATO, we brought in to 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've 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
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 order 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 worked 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. Putin's going to love that one. Yeah, that'll make him thrilled.
Let me ask. NATO is also going to experience a change in leadership itself. Secretary General Yens Stoltenberg is stepping down. This fall after a decade, his successor will be current Dutch Prime Minister Mark Ruta. How do you think the transition will impact NATO in the US position within the Alliance? That is a really good question. Well, first I have to say Yens 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 suction, I mean, Mark Ruta 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 Atlantisist 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. 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. I don't 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. I guess I don't think I could list any
big changes in terms of the US role we expect to continue leading this alliance. We believe we play an important and critical role here. I think that will continue. So I guess my final question is NATO is 75. Now younger than both presidential candidates, I get it. You don't have to comment. Good point. Good 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. 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 change. But I think defending
the future. I mean, that's it. That's 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 Carousel, it's produced by Christian Castell Rocell, Katari Yokem, Jolly Myers and Megan Bernie. Special thanks to Kate Gallagher, Kaylyn Lynch and Kate Furby. Our engineers are Rick Juan, Fernando Aruda and Alia Jackson. Our theme music is by Tracodemics. If you're already following the show, you've got to see at the
NATO table. If not, wait for NATO Plus. It comes with your Netflix subscription. Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for on with Carousel and hit follow. Thanks for listening to on with Carousel from New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network and us. We'll be back on Thursday with more. Have a question or need how to advice? Just ask meta AI. Whether you want to design a marathon training program or you're curious what planets are visible in tonight's sky, meta AI has the
answers. It can also summarize your class notes, visualize your ideas and so much more. It's the most advanced AI at your fingertips. Expand your world with meta AI. Now on Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook, and Messenger. If you've been enjoying this podcast, here's a look into what else is happening at New York Magazine. I'm Corey Seeker and I'm here with Reeves Wideman who has written about the American
obsession with NDAs. Where did they come from? Why are they everywhere? Are they good for anything besides covering up for abusers? After you've poked around NDAs for a while, do you see NDAs used mostly as tools of abuse and coercion? You see positive results like where did you land on NDAs? I think in most situations, it is used as a way to sort of claim power, but not even necessarily to do a bad thing. It's just kind of, it is now this sort of boring standard tool in the toolbox
of corporations or powerful people. But now it's being used on the people at the bottom. It's the warehouse workers at Amazon being made to sign them or I was just trawling job listings while doing this story and there were NDAs for forklift drivers and people working in butcher shops. And I think on the one hand, it's just kind of like, well, I might as well. There's no downside for me to do this. But it is also just another way that you sort of keep your employees or people
you get into a relationship with that you sort of keep your thumb on them. So I do think it is at the end of the day that people who are giving them out by and large are trying to control someone. Do you think that they're going to become standard for like literally every interaction in job interview and possibly relationship as well? Or do you think they're just finally going to die or become outlawed? Like where do we go from here? You know, it was corporations first. Then it was
celebrities. Then it was just rich people who aren't famous, but they also want to protect their privacy. The next frontier is people like you and me and and are we going to start giving them to their partners? You know, I think some people are going to start start experimenting with it. It doesn't take much to go online, download a free NDA and without even consulting a lawyer and hand it over to someone. I did as a joke, send one to my girlfriend. She hasn't signed it yet,
but I at least sent it. So that's Reeves Widement, who may or may not be single soon. You can read his work on NDAs in our beautiful print magazine in your own home or on nymag.com slash lineup.