NEW DELHI: Benedetta Berti, elected Secretary General of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in 2025, is one of the youngest and most influential strategists in transatlantic security circles. She previously served as NATO’s youngest-ever Director of Policy Planning, a role she held for eight years, shaping the alliance’s strategic priorities and long-term policy frameworks.
As Secretary General, she now leads the Assembly’s Secretariat as its senior executive officer and principal advisor, bridging NATO’s political leadership with parliamentary oversight across member states.
Speaking to Jayanth Jacob, Berti discusses Europe’s most volatile security environment in decades -- from the Russia–Ukraine War to instability in West Asia -- and explores how NATO is evolving, the pressures on the rules-based international order, and the rising strategic importance of India-Europe cooperation in trade, technology, and defence.
Europe finds itself caught between defending the rules-based international order it has long championed and mounting pressure from Washington, particularly given the United States’ leadership within North Atlantic Treaty Organization. How do you see Europe navigating this tension, and what direction do you think the situation will take?
I would say, at least from my point of view, from my personal point of view, European allies, the European continent, our security environment is the most volatile and unpredictable and perhaps dangerous it has been in decades.
I think that is the case because of Russia's war against Ukraine. So, full-scale war on our continent, sustained hybrid attacks in our countries, whether cyber attacks, sabotage of critical infrastructure, or other destabilization campaigns. On top of this, we also see that there is more instability in our broader neighborhood, both to the south and to the east and we live in a time of insecurity and systemic shocks.
So, because of all these factors, I think NATO has been changing quite a bit in the last decade and that has been driven by the need to have stronger defences and capabilities to make sure that we fulfill our main mission, which is to ensure the security and safety of allies. So, I would say NATO is in a transition period. European allies are very much focused, especially since 2022, on strengthening their militaries to respond to this more dangerous security environment so that they can have credible collective defense.
This is done with the United States as a committed ally, but there is a shifting of the burden in NATO with Europeans doing more and being more responsible, especially for the conventional deterrence and defense of Europe. I think this is the main trend that is reshaping the transatlantic alliance and I would say it's very much needed to make NATO both stronger, but also fairer
Still, on one side, you have the United States and Israel -- both key partners -- and on the other, your own strategic and political considerations. How do you see yourself navigating this increasingly difficult position?
So, I would say that, first let me quote Secretary General Mark Rutte. The NATO alliance is not militarily or otherwise involved in the current US-Israeli operations against Iran.
So, NATO is not involved directly. But at the same time, it's absolutely important for NATO to make sure that its deterrence and defense posture is watertight and able to prevent any threat against allies. This is exactly what happened very recently when Iran deliberately targeted a NATO ally, Turkey, and the NATO ballistic missile defense capabilities were able to successfully track and intercept the missile from Iran.
That, of course, is very serious. It is something that all allies have condemned, and they have also expressed solidarity with Turkey. We also know that our defense and deterrence is working, that our ballistic missile defense is on heightened alert to make sure that no threat is successful.
I think the point of view from the alliance is that Iran's indiscriminate attacks across the region are destabilizing and detrimental to regional and European and global security. Secretary General Mark Rutte has also commented that in the last decade, we have seen Iran being an exporter of instability in the region and beyond through support of terrorism, through its proliferation. Therefore, of course, a situation in which the Iranian regime would be militarily downgraded and not able to pose any threat would be not a negative situation from a European security point of view.
With the conflict widening due to Iranian counterattacks and several countries in the region now affected, attention is also divided with the ongoing Russia–Ukraine conflict. Given that Europe is deeply invested in that conflict, do you think this new escalation risks overshadowing it, or could it potentially shift pressure and attention away from Russia?
So I would say too, I think that's an excellent question.
Firstly, I would say many of Iran's indiscriminate attacks in the region are, of course, targeting, have targeted countries that have a partnership with NATO, like Israel, like the United Arab Emirates, like Qatar, and of course, Turkey is a NATO ally. We see individually, individual European allies are deploying some of their air defenses in support of these countries to strengthen these countries’ air defense posture vis-à-vis potential Iranian attacks. And that's, of course, an expression of solidarity.
So in terms of whether this overshadowing or overstretching (NATO) I would say NATO as an alliance remains focused on the territorial defense of allies in the Euro-Atlantic area, the primary mission remains to ensure that our collective defense in the Euro-Atlantic area remains strong. So it doesn't change our mission. Does this benefit Russia? I am not sure, because of course, if I look at the last few months, I can see that a number of states, including Iran, that has been very supportive of Russia's war weakened.
Iran had supplied ballistic missile technology to Russia, drone technology, the Shaheed drones, as you know. And of course, it has been a partner, I wouldn't say an ally, but it's been a partner, a supporter of Russia's war together with China and North Korea. So a weakened Iran, I don't think benefits Russia.
From a Global South perspective, this conflict is already affecting energy security, diaspora safety, and remittances due to disruptions across the region. Without any global mandate sorts from the United Nations, does this escalation signal a deeper challenge to the international system and the authority of global institutions?
I'm going to give you my own personal response.
I think that unfortunately, the rules-based international order has been under extreme pressure for a number of years. From my European point of view, I would strongly signal 2014, when Russia's illegally annexed Crimea, so used force to change borders as a very significant crack in the international rules-based order. And then, of course, I would also mention 2022, where Russia waged an unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine, which was not posing any threat to Russia.
So I think in my mind, those actions have severely undermined the rules-based international order. I think whenever Iran has over the years supported terrorism, shared ballistic missile technology and drone technology with Russia to wage a war of aggression, I also think those actions have undermined the rules-based international order. So I would nuance a little bit the notions that international order is in crisis since February 2026.
I don't think so. I think it has been in crisis for a while. And I think, at least from a NATO perspective, we see Russia and China at the forefront of a push back against the rules-based international order.
Given these challenges from multiple perspectives, what kind of solution do you see emerging? Is there any realistic path toward de-escalation or resolution that you foresee?
That's a big question. I would believe, so in terms of the war in Ukraine, as NATO Secretary General says very clearly, it is up to Ukrainians to determine what conditions to accept. From a European security perspective, I would say that an outcome that ensures that Ukraine remains a sovereign, independent and defensible state is very important.
It's very important to bring back some stability in Europe. I also think it's very important, more broadly, not to send signals to other revisionist authoritarian actors about the suitability of creating facts on the ground with force. And I'm thinking, for example, about the situation in and around Taiwan.
So I think it's important to have a just and lasting resolution of the war, and one that ensures that Ukraine remains a sovereign, independent country.
How do you see the India–European Union relations evolving, especially with ongoing discussions on a free trade agreement and expanding defence cooperation? Do you see the partnership as a stabilising factor, or is there still much more that needs to be done?
I think so.
So maybe two parts. First, one small note about NATO-India. Because, of course, NATO fully understands that India, as a sovereign nation, has no interest in either joining or becoming a partner with NATO, and that's absolutely understood.
The rationale between people from NATO visiting India and engaging with Indian thought leaders, experts, government representatives is very simple. We understand that India is an incredibly important actor on the global stage, economically, technologically, security-wise, in terms of the reshaping of the global international order. Therefore, understanding the Indian foreign policy security perspectives is incredibly important.
So that is the point. It is not about NATO wanting to become a security provider in the Indo-Pacific. It is not about NATO wanting to have a military role in the Indo-Pacific.
It is about engagement and understanding. I want to say this because I think it's very important to be clear. The second part is about Europe, because many NATO countries are also part of the European Union and are European countries.
And here the answer is broader, because on a bilateral basis, I think that many European countries have rightly understood, and the European Union as well has rightly understood, the geopolitical, geoeconomic, technological importance of India today. And I think they also understand that if you look into the future, that importance is only about to rise. So that's why it's so important to have a deep cooperation with India, whether it's on innovation, critical supply chains, there is so much potential.
So I think at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, we work with members of parliaments of different NATO countries. And we brought over 25 members of parliament from Europe to India, because they are incredibly interested in understanding the industrial base, the technological base, innovation, how innovation is done here. There's so much I think Europe can learn.
