At the NATO Defence Ministers’ meeting in Brussels, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth emphasised the urgent need for increased defence spending and industrial production to counter global threats.
Speaking ahead of the meeting, Rutte stressed that NATO must do more to ensure security in the coming years.
“Clearly, we have to do more. We have to ramp up defence spending, because we know we cannot protect ourselves four or five years from now if we don’t.”
Rutte acknowledged that the United States expects greater commitment from NATO’s European and Canadian members, saying:
“The US rightly requires us to do more here on the European side and the Canadian side of NATO. It’s only fair. It’s only sensible.”
This statement follows increasing calls from Washington for NATO allies to meet their spending commitments, ensuring a stronger transatlantic burden-sharing agreement.
Another key concern raised was the slow pace of weapons and ammunition production, with Rutte stressing that NATO members—including the US, Türkiye, and all European nations—must increase industrial output.
“We simply do not produce enough. We need to really get more output from our huge defence industrial base to keep up with Russia and the Chinese and others.”
This aligns with recent NATO discussions on bolstering supply chains, expanding production capacity, and securing long-term military readiness.
Ukraine ‘No Room for a Minsk III’
During the meeting, Ukraine was a central topic, with Rutte expressing optimism about a “clear convergence” on NATO’s approach to the conflict.
“We need peace in Ukraine. We have to make sure that Ukraine is in a position of strength. And, as you, Pete, said yesterday, we can never, ever, ever again have a Minsk Three situation where a peace is not durable.”
This statement underscores NATO’s commitment to ensuring that any future settlement in Ukraine does not repeat past mistakes, referencing the Minsk agreements, which were seen as failing to prevent Russia’s further aggression.
Rutte concluded by welcoming Secretary Hegseth to the alliance and reinforcing NATO’s determination to address growing security challenges collectively.
With global tensions rising, the Brussels meeting signals a push for greater defence spending, stronger industrial capabilities, and a firm stance on Ukraine, ensuring NATO remains prepared for the security challenges ahead.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
This should be a wake up call: we cannot rely on the US and should assume that they’re never coming to eNATO’s aid. All of eNATO, including us, needs to increase to at least 3% of GDP asap. I’d say be 2030 at the absolute latest. We could easily afford this, the political will just needs to be there!
They should look to Ukraine who is spending 26 percent of GDP on defence ! Invest now and save lots and lots of money
Fully agree with that.
We’d be spending hundreds of billions if we end up in war. It’s far cheaper to just invest more in defence now to deter war.
And if we spend as much of it as possible on UK businesses, producing equipment and munitions domestically, then it will increase jobs and boost the economy as a nice bonus!
The Ukrainian example is a little flawed to look at, considering they’re being invaded. I can imagine that there is a lot they’re currently not having to pay for from their GDP figures because of the financial aid given by other countries, allowing them to spend more of their GDP on defence.
I took it that he meant Ukraine is spending that much precisely because they’re at war.
Spend 3% now to try to deter war, or spend many times that later when war comes knocking.
I did Ukraine is at war and has to spend that much we have the chance to invest in deterrence and save money in the long run
In WW1 UK defence spending topped out at about 48% of GDP. During WW2 the number was 52%… Given that Ukraine is also fighting a war of national survival I am surprised it is only 26% of GDP nor have they yet called up the younger cohort either… While I have every sympathy for the Ukrainians and fully support our commitment to them I do wonder why they seem to be holding back in some respects. Having said that there resilience is remarkable.
The point about spending is that if we have to fight another major war against countries equipped with sizeable fleets, especially submarines, we will by default be fighting a war of national survival because of the inherent vulnerability of the Sea Lanes of Communication that we are totally dependent on as an island nation that happens to sit in a very important position geographically.
3% of GDP will no longer be enough to deter. The US spends 3.4% and China is no longer worried about facing off against the USN in the South China Sea. Deterring the CRINK nations (China, Russia, Iran and North Korea) is getting more challenging and expensive the longer we fail to properly deter them the worse it will get. Understandable, if they think they are winning the war of intimidation.
We need to respond resolutely and that now means 4 to 5% of GDP given that we need to rebuild the defence industrial base as will as the base and maintenance facilities with in the armed forces. The RN will need a very significant up lift in platforms and effectors in order to project power and secure the SLOC’s and defend the shipping using them, the RAF needs more aircraft of every class and the Army needs to be able to field a meaningful heavy division that can bring significant specialist capabilities to the frontline as well as support the RM in their crucial role in the high north. Most of all we need more people.
To recover from the low point we find ourselves in will take a lot of money and effort, but that is barely a drop in the ocean of what will be required if we need to fight WW3…
Cheers CR
I agree, it’s quite astounding at a time where the USA needs allies more than ever that’s it’s basically just spat in the face of all its most important and powerful allies. I suppose this is the level of strategy we can expect from a reality TV star and a Drunken Fox News Host.
But it’s clear that America is no longer a serious country and should have no role in the defence of the North Atlantic Area. Hopefully the US has the decency to just leave NATO so we don’t have to start over with a new organisation.
What would we do differently without the US in NATO that we can’t do with the US in NATO?
Spend a greater amount of money on defence, and spend more of it at home and in Europe on common procurement projects, as the US is clearly an unreliable ally.
How is the US stopping us from doing that right now?
Not have to listen to Pete Hegseth lecture us for a start. I’ll happily pay a few more percent on income tax for that.
To answer your second question about how is the US stopping us from doing that right now. They’re not, but clearly our own politicians aren’t taking it seriously, assuming that Uncle Sam would always do most of the heavy lifting.
Now it’s becoming more and more obvious that the US is unreliable, it might be the impetus needed to for HMG finally increase defence spending to the point where we have a credible armed forces that can sustain war against a peer or near-peer enemy e.g. Russia.
The US can bugger off out of NATO, and might as well take Hungary with them!
I’ll second that.
The thing is, we can’t easily afford it without either rasing taxes, borrowing more, or spending less on other things.And thats a hard sell to the British public when all of our public services need more money and borrowing is already at record highs along with taxes.
There are things that can be done. Governments just lack imagination.
Legalise class B & C drugs and regulate them. This would add several £billion from black market to legit economy. Do the same with brothels. Between them they could add another £15-20 billion a year to the economy at least.
Also, if defence spending is done right, e.g. more equipment and munitions purchased at home, then it will create more UK jobs and boost growth, so will in time offset any increased spending.
It’s also worth noting that expeditionary capabilities to support US operations are expensive as is supporting a global network of bases to support US operations.
Military capability to defend Europe from greatly diminished power like Russia is cheap. Just look at Finland.
I would urge Europeans and our useless government to increase defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP and do it now and if they think it’s unaffordable they need to look at Ukraine. Ukraine is spending 26 percent of GDP on defence and looking closer to home the uk spent 45 percent ( I believe) of GDP on defence during ww2 invest now and build up deterrence , plus trump will happily commit to nato if this is done.
Trump won’t commit to NATO if this is done. As has been seen with his dealing with other countries, everything is transactional.
Were a NATO member to be attacked, and Article V triggered, before committing any US forces he’d want to know “what’s in it for me?”. As we see with Ukraine, the only reason he’s not throwing Ukraine under a bus is the large deposits of rare earth elements in the south east of the country.
Funny isn’t when the only country to actually invoke A5 is the US🙄
I agree Trump neither knows or cares about other NATO member spending, he sees an excuse to bash foreign “liberals” so he takes it. Europe should move to 3% now but very much as a means of breaking away from the USA.
The UK in particular should increase spending to 3% but use the funds not to dramatically increase the size of our deployable forces but focus on replacing US participation in our defence. Chief amongst this should be to begin preparations for a UK manufactured SLBM to replace Trident II at the end of the planed life exploration date in the 2040’s.
We could easily cooperate with France on this via MBDA using M51 as the design foundation just like we did with Storm Shadow.
Much as I love America and it’s people its government is no longer serious, we go from Democrats who hate the UK to Republicans who just hate everyone. Now we have to put up with reality TV stars staging regular coups. Hungary or Turkey are more serious political bodies now than the USA. I feel deeply sorry for the American people but there is not a lot we can do for them, we need to isolate ourselves ASAP.
There’s a lot of what you say that I agree with and greater independence from US arms manufacture would be helpful. However, Trident simply isn’t a priority. We sink far too much into CASD as it stands (not that I have any real alternative), and spending even more on nuclear is of no clear benefit: it’s credible or it isn’t. Spending more doesn’t make it more of a deterrent.
I think it’s worth remembering that the US government is not the same as US Defence and Intelligence. FVEY is critical to UK Defence.
I agree on FYEY and I do really feel for the professional men and women of the US military and intelligence service but most of them will soon be gone. How could we even share intelligence with the USA on Russia knowing full well it’s being given to people literally on the Kremlin Payroll. The head of the FBI literally takes money direct from the kremlin.
As for CASD I disagree, Russia’s conventional army is a joke. Europe has everything it needs to defeat a conventional Russia attack with little difficulty.
The only real threat Russia poses is nuclear one and the only way to deter that is with nuclear weapons. France is also too politically unstable to be relied on as the sole provider of European nuclear security.
CASD along with intelligence and naval assets is the main thing we can bring to any European defence party.
Our CASD system is based on a Ronald Reagan era America. That ear is long gone and we are now at the point that Elon Musk or any number of TV stars in the government could cut our access to trident replacement missiles at any second for no reason. America already threw out multiple treaties and is now disregarding its own constitution.
Compared to that the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement is meaningless.
Wondering when Trump is planning on upping USA defence spending to match that of, say Poland or Lithuania, as a % of GDP…
It’ll come.
Not through increased spending; he’ll just crash the US economy so that what they currently spend will be over 5% of their GDP.
I don’t think it’s just the US economy he’ll crash, but the entire federal government. The US could end up as a failed state.
Meanwhile if the US economy goes down the pan, the economies of the rest of the western world will be dragged down with it.
Trump is probably going to gut DoD spending next. Even if he cuts defence spending to 2% of GDP America will still be running a bigger budget deficit than all of Europe and the UK combined.
America has a big credit card but it’s got a high interest rate and even they have limits.
The only thing Trump cares about is tax cuts. He hates the military and he has now sidelined congress so LM building stuff in 48 states no longer matters. Expect the F35 to be canceled by the end of the year.
All wholly predictable. UKR is thrown under the bus, remember Afghanistan. Europe and the UK must have seen this coming and therefore will have a coherent strategy ready. I will not hold my breath.
Note sure where the UK tilt to the Pacific now lies.
We shouldn’t have a tilt to the Pacific.
Sod the US; let them deal with China on their own!
We are on one side; Russia, China, N Korea and Iran are on the other. We don’t get to choose which of them we fight. They’ll make sure of that.
Tell that to Trump’s Murica; they’ll choose whom they fight.
If the US won’t come to aid Europe against Russia; why should Europe come to the US’s aid against China? After all, we’re all just puny socialists who freeride off the US, so they don’t need our help.
“During the meeting, Ukraine was a central topic, with Rutte expressing optimism about a “clear convergence” on NATO’s approach to the conflict.”
Well that’s polishing a turd…NATO is in complete divergence over Ukraine and is exposing massive levels of political weakness, it’s a shit show.
UK, Poland and other are clear in that Ukraine needs to be supported to win
Germany basically wants to support Ukraine only so Russia does not completely win..but does not want to really upset Russia
The U.S. wants to not have anything to do with Ukraine and is now clearly in discussions with Russia to force a peace treaty Ukraine and most European NATOs would not want.
NATO states essentially making it clear they are allies of Russia and telling the rest of NATO and Europe they can swivel if they don’t like it
That’s before we get to china and Europe still trying to be friends with china, while china is literally loading the guns ready to start shooting at the US, US encouraging Israel to essentially ethically cleanse gaza and the West Bank while subverting the government of Jordan when it’s close to collapse and turning into a new Iran and US political aggression against the EU, Canada and Greenland…
The west looks ripe for the picking and someone is going to try.
We need to step and create a European Army. NATO is no longer a reliable framework. the US wants to look only inwards and care for itself? so should we then.
European armies are already aligned with each other in NATO!IF the US was to pull out the framework of military cooperation would still exist!
To get 27+us to agree on funding,procurement and who builds the stuff at what cost is very unrealistic! Let’s face it one or two countries even in NATO are very lukewarm to that idea let alone a European army.
Well after yesterday announcement by the the US government ,is this going to make the UK to wake ⏰ up ? There still harping on but 2.5% when the economy picks up .Sorry no time MR Starmer Specially with the plans you and Reeves have .In fact 4% not 3% needs to be look at and that goes for the rest of Europe or you may not have a economy to worry about 😟
Increasing income tax a few points is the only answer and that will not happen. Expand the military? How we can not even staff what we have now. Best move the government could make is add Russian to the curriculum. Can you honestly imagine that God awful lawyer sending the military into war anyhow? Would he press the button, no way he would just surrender.
To be fair, plenty can be done to improve personnel levels.
– Ditch Capita and sort out the recruitment
– Increase military salaries
– Start visiting schools, colleges and universities again to attract interest
And anyone who thinks increasing income tax is the only answer lacks imagination!
The call for inceased spending will fall on deaf ears I,m afraid where the UK government is concerned . They just dont see defence as a priority . They may talk of a small increase to 2.5% at some indeterminate point in the future but that isnt nearly enough . We need to be looking at 3% as a minimum and 4% as a target to get us back to where we need to be in terms of capability and fulfilling our commitments . The RN in particular needs to double in size in terms of escort ships and subs
This is correct, nothing will change despite the worsening of the situation. For the U.K. it will be business as usual and the SDR will likely be a negative impact as most expect, U.K. politicians will continue to make statements that the countries forces cannot backup and look desperate.
I don’t think it will just be the U.K, apart from the frontline nations I think Europe will continue to highlight their outrage at the situation of the US no longer giving its support to Europe but they won’t change anything either, they’ll just continue to complain.
The reality is, even pre Trump Europe knew there was a good chance of this but still no real plans were put in place as a contingency, nothing was done to try and appease Trump to keep onside, the U.K. couldn’t even guarantee its election commitment 2.5% by the end of this parliament anymore.
Hegserth’s speech yesterday and Trump’s canoodling with Putin sound a big alarm bell for NATO Europe but also the wider world.
Trump completely ignores international law. The rules of warfare and occupation.were tightened up and extended following WW2, to ensure that never again could some nationalist racist fanatic run riot conquering territory and killing civilians. The rules are set out in Geneva Convention 4. A nation cannot seize another’s territory, cannot occupy it indefinitely, cannot drive out its inhabitants and settle its own people there, cannot rob the resources of the territory and so on. Doing any of the foregoing is not just a breach of the rules, it is a war crime. Israel is a long-term guilty party too, with its colonising, land-grabbing actions on the West Bank
Trump obviously doesn’t care to observe international law. The USA cannot legally acquire Gaza without the formal consent of the ruling authority. Nor can it expel civilians from the territory. Nor can it hand the governance to Israel, which looks to be his intent. Ditto Ukraine, where Russia cannot legally hold on to any part of it without the formal consent of the governing authority.
If Trump just ignores international law, it opens the door for China to invade and occupy Taiwwn. USA to take over Greenland, Israel to ethnically cleanse zpalestine. Autocrats worldwide will be licking their lips as they eye up the land and resources of their smaller neighbours.
In this respect, the Trump administration is a clear and present danger to world peace and the rule of law. It is also a clear signal that NATO cannot endure in its present form, where one oddball member dictates to the other 31 what daft, illegal plans they must accept and throws big doubts on the cornerstone of Article 5.
Europe’s key leaders, including UK, need to stand up to this, galvanise the other members to do so too – and make a quick and effective plan B that puts Europe in the military driving seat in Europe, Middle East and Africa, creating an Eastetn pillar of NATO that seeks to work with the USA as equals, not 31 subservient states.
The world has follo
The route that Hegseth set out yesterday is pretty alarming and a seminal challenge to NATO Europe.
They are obviously going to throw Ukraine under the bus to cement Trump-Putin symbiotic relations. Two elderly white, nationalist autocratslic land-grabbers turning the clock back to the dark days of.the 1930s. That is not at all in Europe’s or anyone else’s interests.
Trump is happy to give away someone else’s territory and will bask in being a ‘deal-maker’ to his rabid domestic followers. Some deal, he has given the adversary 3verything they want and got nothing in return. Of course Putin or anyone else would be very happy indeed to declare peace on such advantageous terms!
In doing so, he is throwing NATO members a real curved ball. We must all step up to police the new border in Ukraine, and turn a blind eye to its illegality. We cannot however do so wearing our NATO hat and cannot invoke Clause 5, which is the cornerstone of the alliance.
In military terms, that is a major problem. Europe does not have its own general staff or chain of command, we have invested these in NATO. How are we to organise a big military monitoring force if we cannot operate through the long-standing, multi-faceted NATO chain of command?
I think that this is a major challenge and undermines the whole role and standing of the Alliance.
It is time for a Plan B. Europe needs to scramble together a shadow command structure, covering air, land, sea, space, Intel, cyber etc. All 31 members need to get working on earmarking suitably trained and equipped troops to participate in what is ostensibly a monitoring, peacekeeping role, but is actually a potentially a war-fighting one.
From a look at the map and the mileage involved, I would think you would not get away with under 6 divisions/18 brigades. NATO Europe doesn’t have such forces available, without leaving itself weak elsewhere, but it doesn’t really need to, because the Ukranian army is also in the field. Put two UKR.bdes in each division and one NATO brigade and you have your force total. Each of the big 6 NATO nations would be the framework nation for one of the divisions, viz Turkey, Germany, UK, France, Italy and Spain/Portugal.
Would need a potent airpower too, in case Russia tries to play games.
The UK could just about manage the bare bones of the divisional troops, one war-fighting brigade and one Typhoon squadron.
The whole would see Europe standing up to its full height, squaring up to Russia and doing so without any US involvement, advice or bullying. And with its own Clause 5 among the participating countries, not involving the US at all.
If Europe embarked on setting up its own political-military pillar, then it could when ready invite Ukraine to join. As it would be separate from NATO, we could wave two fingers at Trump, Putin and their agreement.
Of course it will need European countries to increase defence spending, but Trump’s 5% figure plucked out of thin air by a guy who has nothing to teach us had to be ignored by all. We need to press on to get to 2.5% and then 3% pretty quickly and steadily: our public finances won’t permit anything like 5% just now, it is going to take work, commitment and levelling with the public to get defence expenditure up to a slightly more useful level. This is a time for the PM to show that he can kead the nation to do the right thing.
There is no reason Europe should need the US help against Russia, it collectively has a larger population and significantly more economic power than Russia on its own, it has chosen to cut back its forces and capabilities leaving it with insufficient defences, this doesn’t make it someone else’s responsibility. Having an ally like the US should be to have significant overmatch to be an extra level of deterrent not for them to be THE deterrent, as Europe is not willing to do the heavy lifting.
It’s a hard sell for any US government that protecting countries far from their own that choose not protect themselves against a neighbour they know has imperialist tendencies, is their responsibility because those countries chose other priorities that Americans don’t get themselves (like free healthcare).
The EU especially will only really be seen as an equal superpower like it tries to act when it is no longer reliant on the US and is fully self sufficient and can pursue its own independent foreign policy and goals whilst backing up its red lines with hard power, for them there is more to gain from this if they get it together and make the necessary changes, although this is unlikely as it’s much easier to grand stand and make headlines than actually back it up with changes.