During a recent press briefing hosted by the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), experts responded to a question I posed regarding the UK’s commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP without specifying a timeline.
Their answers revealed concerns about whether this pledge would adequately meet NATO obligations or align with the expectations of key allies, including the United States.
Gordon B. “Skip” Davis Jr., former NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary-General for Defence Investment, highlighted that while the commitment might be “welcome,” it would likely “not be seen as necessarily enough.”
He added, “We’re not seeing the kinds of defence spending programs for the UK to, frankly, provide the forces and the capabilities that they’ve signed up to in the NATO defence planning process… I’d have to see a real plan to field the forces that the UK would be expected [to provide] based on its total capabilities, but also its GDP and real potential.”
Kurt Volker, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO and a senior figure in the previous Trump administration, echoed this sentiment, suggesting that while the commitment might be interpreted as a positive step, it would fall short of allied expectations.
Volker remarked, “It would be seen as a positive step, but not enough… I suspect that [Trump] will expect countries to set a target around three and a half percent of GDP on defence and get realistic plans to get there.”
The discussion also touched on broader transatlantic dynamics, with questions about how allied cohesion has evolved during recent U.S. administrations. Davis pointed out that “the NATO of 2025 is not the NATO of early 2021.” He credited the Biden administration for fostering a stronger and more unified NATO in response to Russian aggression in Ukraine. “Without the U.S. leadership and the positive allies’ response, [NATO] wouldn’t be where we are today,” he said.
However, Davis did not shy away from critiquing what he described as a “cautious” approach by some allies, including the United States and Germany, in providing military support to Ukraine. This cautiousness, he argued, has likely contributed to higher casualties and limited territorial gains for Ukraine.
The briefing also underscored the evolving role of China in NATO’s strategic outlook. Volker noted that allies are increasingly expected to align with U.S. policies on China, particularly on issues like technology, investment, and the Belt and Road Initiative. “They are going to expect our European allies to be in lockstep… It’s going to be interesting because some European countries are very much on board with that, such as Sweden, but others like Germany or Italy will have to make adjustments,” he explained.
Davis added that NATO’s recognition of threats posed by China has significantly advanced since 2021. “There has been a very positive step change towards recognising the threat that China poses to NATO’s interests,” he said, highlighting ongoing efforts in cybersecurity, countering hybrid threats, and strategic intelligence sharing.
Maria Eagle, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, outlined the UK position in Parliament, stating:
“The Government remains committed to setting a path to spending 2.5% of GDP at a future fiscal event. Budget allocations will be set in the usual way and informed by the findings of the Strategic Defence Review.”
About CEPA
The Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institution headquartered in Washington, DC, with additional hubs in London and Brussels. CEPA focuses on strengthening the transatlantic alliance through research, analysis, and programmes that address democracy, security, and defence.
Higher rate tax relief on pension contributions is for the chop.
Would love to see 3.5% of GDP on defence but cant see it happening.
Am I right in thinking that even the USA does not spend 3.5% GDP on defence (I think it is 3.3% or thereabouts). I still say the UK managed a bare minimum, full spectrum credible forces on 2.7% GDP. That is where I would aim for. Of course we need to start by establishing a minimum of 2.4% GDP as soon as next year.
Tariffs on Chinese EVs would be a good place to get some money. Oh & scrap the £20 billion hole in the ground for unproved carbon capture, & spend £9 billion on UK defence rather than giving it to Mauritius.
Tbf it’s 9 Billion over 100 years
No fair about it😡 it’s money we have NO reason to give! Although it’s looking likely it’s not going to happen.
Apparently Mauritius wanted it cut to 50 yrs for the same money!
I agree on that Mauritius own claim to these islands is thin to say the least based on their fishermen fishing there a few hundred years back and the British administrative set up. Paying this money seems madness to me because the biased UN supports a claim when no one else cares a damn about what the UN says when it’s them. We are too easily guilt ridden.
2.75% -which is the number I’ve consistently promoted in these discussions gets us to where would like to be *if* we don’t just use the uplift on a few massively expensive programs and focus on people and small stuff first.
You talk to anyone military and it is the frustration of penny pinching purchasing that drives people up the walls with no spares leading to long fix times or just limited exercises to ‘save money’ -> bored and unmotivated people
Exercises are exhausting but can also be great fun and create amazing memories and the vital knowledge and trust in the unit.
Yes 2.75% for ongoing expenditure….but the UK has essentially mortgaged its defence for 2 decades and there is a huge capital expenditure backlog so there needed to a a separated capital budget uplift to bring the forces back on an even keel. So 2.75% with probably a big recapitalisation fund for the following above what is already ordered
1) 10 more escorts (the RN needs around 30 escorts )
2) 5-10 more patrol and mine warfare mother ships ( RN needs 10-15 patrol and mother ships)
3) 100 more fast jets ( the UK needs a fleet of around 250 fast jets)
4) 40 meduim lift rotor
5) 60 more MBTs
6) 500 IFVs
7) 500 APCs
8) 100+ armoured fires
9) 3 more SSNs
10) 12 more maritime patrol aircraft
11) 3 more AEW aircraft
12 ) new AEW for carriers
13) 2 more fleet tankers
14) 6 MRSS
15) 6 new strategic sea lift ships
16) 10-20 more A400s
All that is essentially around 80-100 billion of extra capital expenditure that should be above the 2.75%..probably spread over the. Next 10 years so around 8- 10 billion a year.
3.38% in 2024 (estimated) rather less than Estonia and Poland (over 4%) and less than it was in 2015 when it was about 3.7%. But a lot of that of course is non NATO and affected by a very costly Pacific bias due to its geography. Uk in 2024 2.33% (estimated) a little less than Finland and Denmark. Others higher than us are Lithuania, Greece and Latvia. Romania, Nth Macedonia and Norway a little below us.
Would be interesting to know what amount of that US decline occurred under Trump (ironically) and what under Biden, sadly I don’t have the yearly figures for that period at hand, I assume it’s out there somewhere.
Spending billions on carbon capture technology is ridiculous.
Do you know what’s a cheap and easy form of carbon capture that’s also dirt cheap? Trees! Just plant more, they’ll capture the carbon.
John, We are currently spending 2.3% GDP on Defence. Strip out the nuclear and it is 1.6%, way lower than the European average for non-nuclear weaon nations.
And hopefully he forces the government to scrap the outrageous Diego Garcia deal too, it certainly appears to be heading that way. We are run by at best incompetent and at worst actively hostile career politicians (of all stripes) so some significant degree of outside pressure is certainly welcome as pragmatism is in short supply in Westminster. Slash welfare, end the triple lock and stop these mad multi-billion pounds payments overseas for climate change mitigation and other foreign aid
Personally I would prefer not to be a colony thanks or at best a compliant Costa Rica to the United States whims and prejudices. What’s the point if Brexit if we just become the whipping boy of another nation a fair proportion of which esp MAGA are hostile to this Country. Can’t see the necessary instilling of self confidence in Britain will be helped by such emasculated impotency of free thought and actions.
As for the 3.5% it would be great but as the US is effectively stripping our economy of anything that will boost our economy by effectively acquiring our technologies be it arm or Deep Mind or simple unapologetic asset stripping and political enforcement of practices that benefit US corporations over non US corporations abandoning no EU to fight our corner now I don’t see anyway we will get any real growth to finance it, esp as Trump is covering these forms of exploitation as stopping the free ride, a bit ironic considering what made America Great was the acquisition of mostly British and German technology and exploiting it post war when everyone else was in ruins. We even had to give up our considerable US assets post war including our half share in Ford of Britain so had no chance even in taking advantage of that US expansion. I would expect that even if we did by some miracle hit 3.5 Trump would expect 5% that figure has already been mentioned by the way, he always wants to present the message to his followers that foreigners are freeloaders to cover his true need to exploit everyone to feed US growth.
Much as I deride the Tangerine Tinted one he does, in the case of defence, have a bit of a point.
The level of spending, drifting down to below 2% in a lot of cases, was getting ridiculous.
Personally, if The Donald is what it takes to get the UK to wake up and stop spending all its cash on creating a nonproductive benefits culture, and lets be honest a lot of Labour are saying that it has got out of control. The main reason we have such a mental health crisis is because of the benefits culture – lack of productive activity is not very good for mental health.
Fine, withdraw from NATO, demand all US Forces and intelligence assets withdraw from the UK, stop leasing Trident missiles, stop accepting nuclear warhead technology, stop all training in the US, withdraw from Five Eyes, and inform all nations that the UK is open to a military alliance. Then wait for the response and wait, and wait, and wait….
Although to be completely fair… what would then happen to the UK ?..would we be invaded Nope…the UK could withdraw to very little or no effect on the everyday lives of the citizens of the UK. The west has a whole would loss one of the few nations that everyone knows will go to war…
And when the US goes to war with china ( and it’s pretty likely it will within a decade) it will loss access to
1) it’s key indopacific airbase
2) an extra carrier battle group
3) support to deny access to the western Indian occean
4) the key to guarding chinas access to the northern Atlantic via the North east passage.
Levi, Incredible that HMG ignored totally the principle of self-determination and failed to invite the Chagossians to the talks. Apparently the last thing they wanted was for sovereignty to be gifted to Mauritius.
I wish we’d step away from % of GDP as an indicator of Defence Spending. I know why it is there it’s a political fudge to provide comparison in NATO.
However, it’s actually arbitrary.
Personally, I’d rather see capability based funding, where we commit to delivering capability, both nationally and in NATO and fund that. That is basically what we do with the NHS without calling it that.
The 5 of GDP allows politicians to get away with clever accounting, both in GDP calculation and in what they count towards defence spending. (Defence pensions anyone?!)
That sounds like a better idea but how many would sign up to it? I doubt Poland or Finland would have an issue, not with the spending spree Poland has gone on and the general stance of Finland, but how would the Germans feel about being designated to maintain an armoured corps, or the French or Spanish being told their requirement is several fast punchy mechanised brigades? Plus all the supporting arms and supply for say 60 days of fighting?
Depends. In theory Germany does maintain an armoured corps of 2 divisions, supported by s light division and a separate brigade.
France and Spain both have multiple “fast punchy brigades” notably in Frances case the 6th light armoured brigade and 9th Marine infantry brigade and for Spain the King Alfonso XIII, and Galicia Brigades.
Moving away from overall defence spending as a percentage of GDP would be fine if we moved to something better. Moving to nothing would be worse. Instead of total defence spending moving to UK defence conventional capability spending, divided by short term and long term results, would at least tell us by how much the military was going to be hollowed out in the future.
It’s time to distance ourselves from the US. They are not going to be a reliable partner. The US doesn’t even spend that much % of GDP.
Our reliance on US to supply our deterrent missiles from Polaris onwards has made it more difficult to pursue policies the US disapproves of. France has no such weakness.
In reality, we owe the US nothing and they are friends only when it suits them. Our defence priorities must be determined solely by what we need to protect ourselves.
Fully agree with this.
TBH if we upped our defence spending to 3-3.5%, perhaps in the long run we could build our own missiles to replace Trident, or even go in with France to build them together.
I think we should wean ourselves off US kit as much as we can, only purchasing it when we can’t build it ourselves and there’s no alternate solution.
Considering America considers China to be the main issue these days, it would be interesting to see what percentage of GDP the US allocates TO NATO.
What forces and capabilities have we signed up for that we have not delivered? I am in favour of increased self defence capability ( which would add to collective NATO security) but not because the USA says so.
Some sane comments at last, totally agree. The US is effectively in decline (though I would love to be in that sort of decline but that’s the fear and perception) in his last reign industrial jobs declined everything he says is cover nt reality and we are just a pawn in this process, the US wanted us out of the eu so they could exploit us and weaken a major economic competitor. This time around the only way Trump can improve the US economic figures is to worsen everyone else’s he can exploit to make it look better. It’s a short term process that we saw so often in the UK in the 60s and 70s to hide realities of decline but he has far more power to squeeze ‘foreigners’ than we ever did and all he is interested in is deceptive figures that make him look good in the short term and have a legacy. It’s why he wants Greenland, Canada and Panama Canal he can squeeze profit from it all while looking strong and powerful that feeds the MAGA message and the love of the useful idiots he exploits.
When it all falls apart later he will blame those who follow him and those foreigners he exploited and threatened of course. We need to wean ourselves off of being a US patsy but no easy way we can do it ex Brexit but more and more agreements with other Countries far and wide like the Pacific commercial ties we are seeking is a vital move. Post Trump Presidents may well be far more hostile to Britain than he is sadly which doesn’t bear thinking about already read a MAGA nutter yesterday calling us an enemy of the US something that Musk and others will be happy to fuel to take the weight off his own political and judicial problems.
Given the very clear uptick in business confidence in the US since Trump won the election he must be doing something right. Compare and contrast with what’s going on here.
Trump wants Greenland because of its strategic position and its mineral resources. He wants control of Panama because he can’t afford to let the Atlantic -Pacific gateway fall into Chinese hands. As regards Canada, their affectation with Trudeau’s liberal democracy and assisted dying is terminal- they have lost the will to live and Trump is the vulture come to pick at the flesh.
As a US state, Canada would have nearly 600 delegates to the US Presidential elections and maybe 55 congressional members in the House. It would swing US politics significantly towards the Democrats, so Canada would never become a US state under a Republican administration.
Paul,
The US already has bases in Greenland. Why does Trump not expand them or add a few new bases there, with Greenlands backing of course.
For my own benefit, is there an official NATO document you can point me to that defines what forces and commitments the U.K. and other countries have signed up to?
For example, it is often said that the U.K. needs to provide two army divisions, but have NATO defined what the expect these to look like.
Similarly, the Italian governments has stated they need 250 MBT to meet their NATO commitments, but I have struggled to find out how these are to be used.
Thanks
It’s not a unreasonable request and would love to see it but UKG isn’t serious when it comes to defence
Judging by the current state of our defence capabilities Trump is right. We’re not just relatively weak in core capabilities we’re absolutely weak.
Politicians have been negligent with regards to Defence funding. Criminally negligent.
I disagree with the Orange Shitgibbon on most things, but on this he’s got a good point.
3.5% of defence would give us over £100 billion a year and build up a very credible defence and armed forces with some decent size, depth and allow for decent stores of munitions and spares. Hell, even 3% would be around £85 billion, which would do very nicely.
Britain’s economy is disappearing down the toilet. No way can we start pumping money into defence without making some savage and very contentious cuts elsewhere.
I’d start by making unemployment & disability benefits a lot stricter. Spending on disability benefit is currently £39.1 billion. This needs to be made far more strict. No more people off with a gippy back or gammy leg, or off work on disability for years because of depression – sitting at home watching TV isn’t going to cure depression.
This should be assessed by medical professionals and those without a proper cause should be put back to work. Could probably cut that amount by half, which would be almost £20 billion we could put into defence.
TBH, there are avenues of taxation that the government hasn’t even considered. I’ve never smoked it and never will, but I think the government should legalise & regulate cannabis and any class B or C drugs. Legalise them, regulate them, and then tax them at 20% VAT plus the same duty as tobacco – that’d generate a fair bit of tax money, plus add a good few billion onto the GDP. Other avenues as well to be considered e.g. brothels.
People do these things anyway; why not regulate and tax them for more income?
Dude, getting on disability benefits is nails, 100% needs multiple doctors appointments even now.