NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has called for urgent increases in defence spending and delivery of new capability targets, as Defence Ministers meet in Brussels ahead of July’s NATO Summit in The Hague.
Speaking at a press conference on 4 June 2025, Rutte said Ministers would agree “ambitious new capability targets” focused on air and missile defence, long-range weapons, logistics, and large land manoeuvre formations.
“We need more resources, forces and capabilities so that we are prepared to face any threat, and to implement our collective defence plans in full,” said Rutte. “To deliver on our new targets, it’s clear that we will need significantly higher defence spending. That underpins everything.”
He emphasised that the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers would lay the groundwork for the summit in The Hague and stressed that “a new defence investment plan will be at the heart of the NATO Summit.”
“We must make NATO a stronger, fairer and more lethal Alliance,” Rutte added, warning that the world is “becoming more dangerous” due to “Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine, the threat of terrorism, and intense global competition.”
In addition to new targets, Rutte said Allies would work to increase defence production to match rising demand and ensure forces have “the critical capabilities they need.” He described this effort as essential not only for security, but also as an economic opportunity, stating: “Defence spending keeps us safe, but it also creates jobs across the Alliance.”
On Ukraine, Rutte reiterated NATO’s support for a just peace and acknowledged the role played by U.S. President Donald Trump in restarting negotiations with Russia.
“We really have to commend the fact that President Trump broke the deadlock,” he said. “It was important that Trump did this. Of course, this is not easy, and we have to make sure that we bring Ukraine to a lasting and durable peace.”
Addressing Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, Rutte reaffirmed that the Alliance remained committed to the “irreversible path of Ukraine into NATO” agreed at the Washington Summit. He noted that no promises had been made linking Ukrainian membership to a peace deal or ceasefire.
“That long-term commitment is there,” he said, citing continued support through the NATO-Ukraine Council and ongoing operations in Wiesbaden and Poland to capture lessons and coordinate military assistance.
Rutte also pointed to continued financial backing for Kyiv, saying: “Allies have pledged 20 billion euros again for Ukraine in terms of military support in the first three months of this year… and more will come in.”
He closed by reinforcing the Alliance’s deterrence posture and commitment to nuclear security.
“Strong defences send a clear message – no one should ever think of attacking us,” he said. “Nuclear deterrence is the cornerstone of Alliance security… to preserve peace, prevent coercion and deter aggression.”
The meeting concludes with a session of NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group. The July summit in The Hague is expected to formalise NATO’s new capability targets and defence investment plans.
What a week for encouraging words about the future of European defence. First, the UK and now NATO and all because the US backstop is now in question. Most expect Trump to turn towards Europe, having had its short dalliance with Russia, however, the issue of funding imbalance has only just begun. Trump wants a 5% guarantee from the alliance members, which at best may be achieved in ten years but not without serious opposition from the populations across Europe who will need to spend huge amounts on their military and not on critical welfare. In many ways, Putin needs to just sit back and let the cracks in NATO do the work for him.
Interesting times indeed. I guess a lot will depend upon the public’s perceived threat to its way of life. Until that changes to someth8ing a little more darker, there will be a lot of opposition. Its funny the demographic split amongst people I talk to. Those that are in the defence industry see the need to spend more, even those who have just started or are grads. However, people who I talk to who have had no connection to the military or its industry, see little point. As from their perspective nothing in their lives fell threatened, except the standard of life has gone down due to the increase in spending costs. Until Governments can land the argument that what Putin’s Russia is doing to Ukraine and how that’s affected the World’s market, along with Trumps tariffs, due to Europe not pulling its weight on defence are met. Then they will not see the need for increased defence spending!
Well then Trump had better increase US spending to 5% of GDP if he wants that from everyone else. But as I said, the NATO spending % is not something the US really cares about (beyond how much of it ends up being spend in the US MIC) what they care about is having something to complain about to their voting base and create an issue out of. Trump called for 2%, then when it was met 3%, now that most of NATO is moving to 3% he wants 5%. It’ll always be more.
Luckily it looks like ENATO is starting to make it’s own structures and move away from US command.
Has Trump committed America to 5% yet?
Most of Trump’s policies are basically bullying and intimidation (including this), most are an absolute disaster. However, he isn’t always wrong. Defence of the realm is a government’s most important responsibility – ask countries like Ukraine. I may not like the way he’s doing it, but for once I totally agree with the need for Western European (UK is in Europe!) nations to spend more. That 5% is a bit arbitrary but in the right area.
Time frame? It’s possible to increase orders and start expanding recruitment virtually from day 1. ‘We’re buying an extra x F35s and Typhoons, order being processed not’ ‘We’re ordering x extra ships, companies being contacted for quotes now’… We’re not talking about R&D, we’re talking about ordering extra equipment already in production. Again, not talking about ‘how do we find crews’ – get pay structures, etc, sorted and make it more attractive and the extra crews should be ready by the time the extra equipment is.
It’s a matter of commitment, not logistics!
Its quite funny listening to Rutte etc and other politicians call for increases in defence spending. Its the very same people in many cases who slashed defence spending – Cameron/Osborne in particular in the UK – that has left UK Forces in such a poor state.
Maybe if NATO had shown more support for Ukraine much earlier and dealt with Russia much more aggressively, then maybe Ukraine wouldn’t have been invaded.
In the whole Ukraine saga the biggest mistake NATO made, was by being too timid with Russia before the invasion. Instead of ruling out fighting to help Ukraine, NATO should have given/taken an ambiguous position as to whether NATO would have fought for Ukraine. That would have left Putin wondering whether to risk invading Ukraine.
By ruling out fighting alongside Ukraine gave Putin the green light to invade.
But returning to the original position that meant NATO Forces should not have been in such a weak position in the 1st place, brought about by the defence cuts by the same politicians over the past 30yrs or so.
I don’t disagree with you, when they kicked off in 2014 by taking Crimea and little green men in 2 Ukrainian Oblasts, the US, France andcBritain should just have told him to get out or else. Russia was way less prepared than they are now and as China also signed the Budapest agreement, he’d have got no help there.
But they didn’t, just mild sanctions.
Yes. In retrospect. However what about Georgia (South Ossetia, Abkasia) 2008, and Modolva (Transnistria) in the 1990s. The problem in 2014 was that the West had been letting Russia get away with salami-slicing their neighbours ever since the break up of the Soviet Union. It didn’t necessarily feel to some like it was going to turn into a bigger deal this time, other than the Crimea being annexed instead of separatists supported, like in the Donbas. I’m not sure NATO could easily complain for the first 15 years (until 2004/5) as it was busy swallowing up the Warsaw Pact in Central Europe and the Baltics, just grateful that the Soviet empire broke up relatively peacefully. After that, the rules must have seemed set.
So we have Trump demanding all other NATO Allies spend 5% of GDP and Rutte pushing for all NATO countries to go to 3.5% + 1.5%. Does Trump / Rutte really think that :-
A) European and Canada NATO countries will actually agree to this when the US is at 3.33% ?
B) The Trump will agree to match them at 5% when he actually wants to cut the US defence budget to give out Tax Cuts ?
Please can someone get real, it’s a start point for negotiations and Trump is going to be Trump, reading his speech Rutte is practically egging him on to read the riot act act to those who haven’t met the last target.
So Canada, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Slovenia, Luxembourg and Croatia all better stick some Comics down their Trews, cause they are going to be getting it full bore from POTUS.
Trump just needs to threaten to close US bases in Spain, Belgium, Portugal and Italy or move them to countries that pay their way (why the hell does the US Army have 2 bases in Italy ?). Or make US commitment to article 5 conditional on 100% agreement or they leave NATO !
And to be quite honest 3 of those countries deserve to get everything they get (if only we could add Eire).
What do the sums actually look like ?
Based on 2024/25 figures the GDP of the US was $27.2 Trillion and the EUs was £18.59 Trillion.
So in the same period the US spent 3.38% of GDP or $967 Billion on Defence so if the EU matched that 3.38% it would equate to $604 Billion then add on ours at the same % and European NATO spending would be $718 Billion pa.
If however the Target for EU/UK NATO members was set at 5% then the sums add up to $925 billion which pretty well matches the USA. I doubt even Trump could get his country to be happy with that one.
I don’t think anyone here on UKDJ will disagree that when the immediate threat to us is Russia and half their Nuclear deterrent points elsewhere that’s a wee bit of overkill (yes that was a Pun). Fact is if France and UK coordinate their SSBN rotas and provide tactical weapons (with some central funding from others ) we don’t need the US any more.
I suspect that after all the threats, tantrums etc they will all go in and negotiate in a realistic way and I think they will end up with a Target at about 3 -3.25% but with the caveat that there will consequences for this that don’t comply. And in the full understanding that the US will remain committed to NATO but Europe has to take on the conventional tasking and provide its own Nuclear Umbrella.
The problem with this is: Okay so the US closes it’s bases In Spain, Belgium and Portugal….. so what? None of those three face any threats that the US is protecting them from. The only way Spain is ending up in a NATO war is if they respond to an allies request for Article V support.
So in that context; what are we going to do? You can’t kick states out of NATO. There literally isn’t a mechanism for that. And even if you could, you’d be cutting off your own nose to spite your face, better a Spain paying 1% into NATO and providing a few brigades, than a Spain that provides nothing. Bit of an economic hit, but I don’t think that any of those three nations would care that much.
Italy is even worse, because Italy, despite a relatively small defence budget, has one of the best armies and navies in western europe. So do you really want to cut out two Italian Divisions from your orbat just because you think they should be providing a third one? (Not you in particular a general you, although I imagine trump would happily do that kind of terrible deal for the optics of looking tough).
Honestly Europe probably can get by without the US, even without elevating it’s funding to 5%. Aggregated, the EU memberstates represent one of the largest land forces on the planet (by number of personnel they’re even larger than the US active duty force). The issue is centralisation and lack of structure. European ground forces are all designed to bolt into US commands and support forces, and the big thing Europe needs to do in order to get VFM and a Non-US dependent force is work out a common structure that it’s member states can slot into. Not surprisingly the US has been very much against this sort of thing and repeatedly torpedoed European attempts at creating these kind of structures, claiming it would “undermine NATO”. (This is one of the big reasons I get really annoyed with US claims of “European freeloading” and “not paying their way” because if the US actually cared about combat output, and ENATO pulling it’s weight, they’d have encouraged that kind of thing, instead it’s more about optics and maintaining hegemony while asking Europe to fund American hegemony).
Interesting reply I actually see Italy slightly differently with their army being the weakest link, either way they aren’t doing enough, as for Spain I really don’t care if they don’t see any need to contribute as they are not in Eastern Europe they either commit to common defence or leave.
Portugal is very minor but the economic effect in closing those bases in Belgium, Spain’s and Italys would be pretty important. The base in Belgium is NATO headquarters, the Rota base has the only US ABM Burke DG’s in Europe and the ones in Italy include the US Mediterranean fleet base.
I agree with you Europe can survive on its own but it has opted to not do so thus far, they just haven’t had the political will to do so. Now we have to and we do really need to decide the best way to do it.
I actually think the best solution would be for the EU to sit down with the U.K and agree a common Defence Industrial Strategy which would include a central fund for France and U.K Nuclear programmes (but due to NPT no control), AWACS, Air Transport, Satelites and some other things that are best funded centrally (integrated AD network)and ENATO provides the military structures and requirements.
These are going to be interesting times, but we all need to pay our way.
“They either commit to common defence.”
There is no compulsion in the NATO treaty to spend x amount or leave, and as I said, there is nothing in the NATO treaty that allows expulsion of member states. I point again to the point I made about kicking Spain out being counter productive cutting your nose off to spite your face. NATO minus spain is weaker than NATO with a spain that isn’t paying 2%. That’s a simple fact.
Italy has an Army that can put 2 credible divisions into the field and maybe some independent 1star formation, that puts them in the same league as France, arguably in a higher league than the UK. Again you want to kick one of the better European Armies because they don’t make your magic % number? That’s insanity.
Re Europe, it’s less European political will to do anything that’s been lacking. Several attempts where made over the years. The fault lies squarely at the feet of the USA which spat it’s dummy out every time European leaders moved to anything that suggested European Forces working together without US command. The change here is the EU basically saying “fuck you trump we don’t care what you think, you’re a c*nt.” No point worrying about the US withdrawing support if you make a EU defence structure if the US is withdrawing support anyway.
Agreed on the latter point, but with a non-nationalist hat on, I’d argue the EU needs to work unilaterally and then invite the UK to a fait acompli. But that’s more because frankly I don’t trust our government to work well with the EU and potentially torpedo things to curry favour with Eurosceptic voters.
What you say about there being no compulsion to spend the agreed NATO floor is why I think the 3.5% +1.5% will be signed up, because in the end it’s not a binding part of the treaty. So the NATO nations will all agree it for say 2032.. because let’s be honest trumps not going to be president then and going to be dead then anyway… that way they can get to the figure they need to, which is 3% for France, UK and Germany..it will give a national mandate to keep the whinging down about spending so much on defence… then in the early 2030s they will asses the security situation and decide on that if they need to push on to 3.5% or have a meeting involving the new U.S. administration and keep it at 3%..Spain will never pay more that 2% and not offer much put everyone will just sort of ignored them.. Italy will be the same but in its bizarrely efficient way will still turn up with a carrier and more escorts than the RN… so everyone will let them off. The nations on the Russian border will all happy spend 5% anyway.
We should stop about gdp ratio as a sole criteria: it’s a financial one that somewhat gives too much angle for national ministries of finance for potential push back. Collectively, as european countries, we need to determine what countries need to appropriately defend themselves and Europe and THEN let’s see what’s financially possible. Asking Belgium or Portugal to spend 5% is very nice but we haven’t slightest idea where they Will spend it.
I think the rest of nato will agree to this 3.5% +1.5% for a few reasons
1) it’s completely non binding and there is not penalty for not getting to it
2) it will keep the US enablers in Europe long enough for the EU to replace them ( and it will be the EU )
3) it will allow the UK, France and Germany to get the the spends they want to..which is about 3% for the end of the decade..without as much internal impact..it gives political cover to spend on defence
4) it gives the UK, France and Germany polical cover to get to Cold War spending in the 2030s if they think the security situation requires it..if not they will just get it changed at say the 2030 nato summit when trump is gone.
5) the U.S. is as you pointed out only at 3.3% so essentially that’s the hard ceiling no matter what.l because the U.S. is a nato member and if it does not go the 3.5% +1.5% no one else will
6) Spain and Italy etc will only ever stretch to 2%..but as there is no penalty it does not matter.
Personally I think it’s pretty sown up in Europe..the interesting bit will be what happens in the pacific.
I pretty well have been saying the same myself, except I think it may be 3.25% and no additional bit.
But given recent actions I do think that the non binding bit may be true but there will be other consequences. Treaty obligations are all fine and Dandy but if this is agreed they have said it’s not going to be like the Wales agreement. That was an open ended commitment to get to 2% and some large countries have still not reached it after 14 years and no intention of doing so.
This time it’s going to be sign up and do it, this is the target Y and you need to be there by X, if not then there will be consequences. The NATO Treaty doesn’t have consequences or a way if kicking a member out but there are other avenues for pressure.
Right now there are 2 sets of major negotiations going on between Europe / Canada and the US, the NATO targets and a Trade Agreement. So what happens if Mr Trump decides to make it a non negotiable condition that all EU NATO members must meet the NATO Targets or there is no Trade deal ! Meanwhile he could stick even higher Tarrifs on the hold outs.
Trump hates the EU and daft as it sounds, one of the easiest way to cause internal division or even break it up is by just sticking Tariffs on individual countries products rather than the EU ! Would you bet against Trump doing precisely that ?
Personally I suspect it will be a little lower at @3.25% and the reluctant usual suspects will sign up in blood rather than risk the consequences. Of the EU countries Spain has the 3rd fastest growing economy in Europe so it has no excuses (Eire and Poland are higher).
NATO Summit scheduled for 24-25 Jun 25 at the Hague, not July.
Any real discussion/division of the budgetary expenditure goal will be related to the 3.X% of GDP for direct military spending by 203Y, not the 1.5% of GDP collective slush fund to be allocated to “associated” military spending. This budget goal will remain in place until Jan 20th 2029, whereupon it may well be subject to revision, as a result of next US Presidential Election.
There is no formal NATO mechanism for retribution/penalties against non-performing members countries, however, other measures may be implemented during the remainder of the current US administration (e.g., tariffs, etc.).
Almost inevitably, ENATO military capabilities will increase in proportion to increased defence expenditures. ENATO will have increased command responsibilities, as US attention is diverted to the I-P in preparation for virtually inevitable unlimited warfare in that theater. Upon commencement of hostilities, ENATO will have total responsibility for dealing w/ the R component of the CRINK alliance. The US will eliminate the C & NK components w/ extreme prejudice before exiting history, and the Israelis will eliminate the I component. Virtually guaranteed. Uncertain whether Europeans will be afforded an opportunity to continue coexistence w/ the Russians, or whether that will be the last domino to fall. 🤔 Enjoy today, tomorrow less than totally assured.
…member countries…🙄
Time SACEUR to actually be a European.
I’m not sure…I honestly don’t think the U.S. will ever trigger mad.. remember they were steely eyed missile men over Cuba because they knew the USSR only had 20-60 ICBMs single warhead ICBS total and vs the US 170 ICBMs and 130 sub launched Polaris with 390 warheads the U.S. new it would utterly destroy the USSR and had a more than sneaking suspicion it could survive the response..dial that to china and they have a lot of ICBMs.. 500-600 and about 400-500 operational warheads .. so it’s MAD..I don’t think any U.S. president has the brass balls to be the last president in history..China and the US will smash the shit our of each other.. but at some point one will give a bit they will sign a peace treaty and just glare at each other for a few decades across 10,000 Km of sea.. north and South Korea will go for each other.. I think the north will win simply because it’s a hell of a lot easier for china to re enforce the north than it would be for the US to re-enforce the south ( 10,000km of ocean is a stone cold killer in war)… Iran will try something on with Isreal and if Isreal looks like it’s going to loose will go tonto and glass everyone around who looks even slightly side eye at it…India and Pakistan will probably use it as an excuse to start carving chunks off each other ( Pakistani to side with china India sort of on its own ).. they possibly even go nuclear with each other.. Russia will probably try to do a sneaky political attack on the Baltics and see if it can split European NATO.. if it can it will take the Baltic states..if not it will have its arse handed to it.. Europe will not push it beyond destruction of Russias offensive war fighting ability..to prevent triggering MAD.. but Russia and NATO will then spend years throwing natsty things at each other..until Russia runs out of everything..
The root cause of this problem is not Trump. The root cause of this is a European political Liberal elite who had an arrogant and totally deluded utopian view of the world. History had not ended. Mr Putin did not share “European Values” (whatever that means) and spending 2% on Defence (regardless of requirement) was not a sign of you doing a grand job.
It was self-evident throughout the early 2000’s that European Defence was chronically underfunded. Underfunded both in relative terms against Russia but also in absolute terms with loss of capability or prolonged capability gaps.
It also wasn’t that the money was not there for proper funding. Properly funding defence was always an available option. The problem was that in the prevailing Daft political consensus of that time Defence was politically weak and other things such as Virtue-Signalling Foreign Aid or the Holy NHS were stronger.
We had a generation of politicians not competent enough to be in power who’s imagination of the world never stretched beyond a “fluffy bunny” view of international relations and history and who’s skillsets were never greater than being able to post the latest establishment narrative to Twitter.
What we’re experiencing now is not an abhorration or the chaotic results of “Orangeman Bad” but simply the implications of the true cost of ownership for living next door to a China-Russia authoritarian alliance.
Trump is a necessary catalyst for forcing the European political elite to grow up.
To be fair the actual authors of the liberal elite view was from the US.. thought up by the US and propagated by the US.. the end of history and the last man was essentially US foreign policy..linked into it was a need to keep European nations fat and not a geopolitical competitor… yes the European nations fell for it hook line and sinker.. but the US was the leader, the progenitor and main beneficiary of it all.
Almost all of the nations spending well under 2% have announced plans to increase spending to 2%.
Canada is planning to do so by 2032 IIRC.
Belgium has announced plans to raise a third mechanised infantry brigade, buy a further batch of F-35As, increase air defences in a joint plan with the Netherlans, etc.
And so on. There will be a good overall increase in European service personnel, equipment, weapons stockpiles and capability. Whether or not we all reach this mythical 5% is another matter.
It is basically a figure plucked out of thin air by Trump and Hegseth and bears no relation to economic reality or indeed the USA’s 3.5% defence expenditure. It is there to give Trump another political target to attack for his gleeful followers, and behind the scenes, a push to sell Europe more US equipment, because we will have more money to spend and need to buy kit rapidly and who better to buy it from, in Trump’s book, than the big American manufacturers?
The 5% figure is Trump acting as a Roman emperor, dictating to the little colonies what they have to do. Trouble is, NATO doesn’t work like that. The 32 members agree things by consensus. If that consensus is 3%, 3.5%, 4% or whatever, that is what the member states will do
If it’s not 5%, Trump and USA will have to do whatever they have to.do, whether tantrum, closing bases in Europe or whatever.
What NATO Europe needs is a Europe-first ORBAT and hard targets to meet it. For example, the army. The overall need is for 5 echelons of troops:
– Eastern and northern European forces forming the front line…
– … incorporating 5 multinational EFP divisions
– A main armoured battle force of 3 Western European corps
– A western European Allied Reaction Force of 10 multinational divisions, heavy medium, light, alpine, airborne and marine.
To achieve that ORBAT, the 18 forward Eastern and Northern European members would need to field one combat manoeuvre brigade per 3 million population. They are all between two-thirds and the full quota already, really just Chechia and Hungary needing to raise a third brigade each.
The 10 western European nations should be tasked to field one combat manoeuvre brigade per 5 million population, less than Eastern Europe because they are contributing most of the high-end military equipment. The smaller nations are already at or exceeding two-thirds of that quota. Italy and Spain are two-thirds of the way. The three biggies, Germany, France and the UK, are however miles short. Germany at 50%, France at near 50%, the UK bottom of the list at 33%.
Put on place a force plan like that, with European corps and divisional command, and, while US troops would be welcome reinforcements in wartime, they would not be critical unless China sent substantial land forces to assist their mate Putin.
The western European air forces would follow the same quota, one fast jet combat air squadron per 5 million population. Again, the UK is at the cow’s tail in numbers.
Something like this would create the mass ENATO needs to stand on its own feet, not that dependent on US reinforcements. Mass is of course only one part of the equation, there are overarching needs for greater weapons stockpiles, collaborative European equipment acquisition, development of high-end missiles, satellites, air defences and so on, plus counters to the whole panoply of grey zone threats.
But Europe has the wealth and knowhow to develop what is needed, and, contrary to Trump’s hopes, become ever less dependent on US defence equipment purchases. And I doubt we need to be spending 5% to do so. In the UK and French cases though, the vast cost of our nuclear weapons would need to be shared with the rest of ENATO, with all members making a small, proportionate contribution. Otherwise, we and France are hampered in our ability to increase our conventional forces to the levels needed.
The fifth echelon, omitted above, would be home forces. On the format set out, these would largely have to be reserve formations, with a stiffening of regular troops.
Side note; it’s amazing how much we don’t give Hungary stick when it’s actively lead by a pro putin stooge.
Anyway boradly agree, though I don’t think tying Brigades to population is the way to go about it. Instead it needs a sober calculation of what Europes strategic needs are (are we just having a defence force to hold the line against Russia? Do we want to project power into North Africa and engage in state competition to secure friendly governments and resources there? Are we contesting the high north? Does europe collectively look to make security guarentees to partners in the Indo-Pac and South America, contesting Chinese and American dominance? Because a yes or no answer to those implies very different European force structures.)
Some of those are a given, we are definitely going to want to be able to win a defensive war against Russia, so rather than just “You have X population we need X brigades from you.” There needs to be an assessment of the combat capability of the Russian Forces and how much we’d need to achieve over-match, and then base European Defence structures on that, rather than population. This is why I’ve always been a bit skeptical of % of GDP as an alliance measure, it’s crude and doesn’t translate great to combat power (Italy I’d argue gets more combat power for a under-spend on % of GDP than most other NATO countries).
Honestly, the bigger issue than mass though is common command structures, and enabling formations. Europe has, in theory, enough mass in combat formations to at least make a war with Russia a very costly affair. The common themes are lack of Divisional enablers, lack of Corps and Army level enablers, lack of Command and Control at corps or army level (all of these are farmed out to the US via NATO in reality).
I’ll illustrate with the example of an Airborne Corps, because Europe absolutely could have an Airborne Corps:
Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Czechia, Belgium (kind of), Portugal, and the Netherlands, all have an Airborne Brigade each. In theory Europe could put together an Multinational Airborne Corps with 3 Divisions (aka matching the US Airborne forces, 1tth, 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions). But with the exception of the Dutch 11th Airmobile Brigade subordinating to the German Rapid Forces Division, there is no structure for a multinational Airborne Division, let alone a Airborne Corps. (Okay we can argue about whether we’d want an airborne corps of if airmobile brigades sit better under national divisional commands eg 16AA under 1 UK div and 11 Airmobile and Airborne Brigade 1 under RFD, but it’s an example that applies across European NATO forces).
Good points Dern. My example layout perhaps looks overly oriented to the Russian threat.
I recognise that ENATO is also currently and increasingly expected to look after its own backyard in North Africa and the Middle East. My calc was that the “Allied Reaction Force’ would take on this responsibility. The population’-based maths gave 4 multinational ARF corps, one arm, one infantry, one airborne, one marine infantry, totalling 8 or 9 Divs with a gap for a third AI div. Basically, a golf bag of capabilities.
(I got tired of using airborne, air assault, air landing as precise terms. Basically, if they come in by air, might as well call them airborne. But that is just Me).
You are right, if ENATO decided to give itself a wider political-strategic role outside the Treaty area, such as helping the US in the Pacific or defending democracies elsewhere, the force layout would need a rethink. I’m not sure though that, apart from the Euro navies, 3.5% would result in enough troops or aircraft to do more than a corps-scale deployment outside the Treaty area.
Agree entirely about command structures and enabling formations. My rudimentary sums resulted in 9 northern and Eastern European corps, all led by European nations, commanded by Europeans, only US involvement at bde level in 2 cases High North and Baltic Republics).
It also resulted in 7 Western Euro corps, again all-Euro troops under Euro command, no US troops or commanders required.
That would in3vitably lead to a European SACEUR, which could be a good or not so good thing.
Agree particularly about need for enablers, this has to be ENATO’s weakest point. With the 3.5% spend mooted, this has to be the first call on the additional funds.
I used population as a yardstick to work out why some member states are able to put useful numbers of combat troops in the field and others, whether underspending or exceeding the 2% target. can’t. I’ m sure there is a better task-oriented way of doing it, just unsure what that would be.
“I’m not sure that 3.5% would result in enough troops to do more than a Corps scale deployment outside of the treaty area.”
Worth noting that a Corps scale overseas deployment is actually pretty large. For a comparison point in the 2003 invasion of Iraq the US deployed 1 Army Corps and a Marine Expeditionary Force that kind of became a Corps when the British Forces where added to it. (Btw I’m not for a moment suggesting ENATO should help the US in the Indo-Pacific. The opposite in fact).
Another perspective; on 2% European NATO (minus Turkey and Greece) has around 19 Divisions (considerably more if the various smaller countries that have 1-3 independent brigades grouped them into division [Rough guess maybe 30 active European Divisions could be formed out of the current force]). By Comparison the US Army has 14 (granted + 3 Marine Divisions). I’ll also point out that 9+7 Corps results in 16 European Corps, which is more Corps than the US has divisions (also frankly 16 European Corps consisting of 3+ divisions each is probably overmatch for a Russian Army that has 19 Combined Arms Armies/Corps (which themselves are anything from a reinforced brigade group to a full NATO Corps, but most commonly seem to be reinforced Division strength [At a rough guess, I’d place the Russian Ground Forces plus VDV at about 25ish divisions]).