The government has rejected a Defence Committee warning that Europe remains overly dependent on United States military power, arguing that recent NATO commitments represent a decisive shift in burden-sharing across the Alliance.
In its Sixth Special Report of Session 2024–26, the Defence Committee concluded that European NATO members continue to rely heavily on US defence capabilities, particularly in areas described as “strategic enablers”, despite repeated pressure from Washington for Europe to take greater responsibility.
The committee stated that, “despite indications from successive US Presidents that Europe needs to step up, European NATO members have failed to invest in key strategic enablers.”
In its formal response, the government pointed to decisions taken at the NATO Summit in The Hague in June 2025, where all 32 Allies agreed what ministers described as the “foundations for a stronger, fairer, and more lethal NATO”.
The response said the summit marked a historic turning point, citing a collective commitment by Allies to spend “5% of GDP on defence and wider national security by 2035”, which it said would deliver a “generational increase in defence and security spending across the Alliance”.
According to the government, this agreement “underlines the UK’s and our European Allies’ commitment to stepping up and taking a greater share of the burden in NATO.”
Ministers also sought to address concerns over the durability of US engagement, stating that “President Trump has reaffirmed America’s commitment to NATO and Article 5”, while stressing that the UK continues to view the transatlantic relationship as essential.
The response added that “the transatlantic relationship is vital for our security and defence, as it also is for theirs.”
On UK spending, the government said it is already on a rising trajectory, supported by what it described as a fully funded plan to increase core defence spending to 2.6 percent of GDP by 2027, alongside “an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament.”
Ministers characterised this as “the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War.”
The government argued that these increases align with commitments made at the Hague Summit, stating that “these steps ensure the UK remains a leading contributor to NATO and Euro-Atlantic security.”
It also highlighted the UK’s nuclear posture within the Alliance, noting that Britain remains “the only European nation to commit its nuclear deterrent to the security of the Alliance”, describing this capability as “the ultimate ‘strategic enabler’.”
While the Defence Committee’s report focused on Europe’s continued dependence on US capabilities in areas such as intelligence, air and missile defence, logistics and long-range strike, the government response maintained that current policy direction demonstrates clear progress toward addressing those imbalances.
The committee has previously warned, however, that headline spending commitments alone may not resolve structural capability gaps unless European nations deliver sustained investment in the specific enablers that underpin NATO’s ability to operate at scale.
Needs to be 3% minimum by 2027 rising to 4% or even 5% in the next parliament. Equipment purchasing and upgrades will easily need that. Won’t happen, of course, but we need to double the numbers of frigates and destroyers we have as a minimum – yes, I agree that’s wishful thinking, doesn’t mean I’m not right though.
Unfortunately you’re not quite right. You need to wish faster. It can’t wait another year. We need a steep increase this year and all of it new money going into conventional capability. We were talking about 3% before the Ukraine war, nevermind before the US repositioning. Jeremy Hunt and Grant Shapps both came out for it: the future Chancellor and Defence Secretary. Even Liz Truss did, proving a stopped clock is right twice a day. Then Sunak arrived and the talk dropped back to 2.5% at some point in the never never.
Where you are right is to keep mentioning the bigger numbers, as we all have to. We can’t let governments get away with claiming 2.6% in 2027 will have any effect on our defence readiness when we’ve been told that even next year’s belated increase won’t fill in the black hole. 3.5% this year is where we need to be, or about £35bn extra, with most of it going into conventional capability.
It’s pretty hollow considering the treasury asked the single services for in-year savings this year, and consequently all are now officially overspent with 8 weeks to go in the Financial Year.
Meanwhile we are doing sweet FA !
Isn’t that the new deterrence strategy?
Putin can’t figure out what we are doing – they must be doing something Komrad? Da, they must be keeping it very quiet Oh Great One.
Laurel and Hardy geopolitics are here.
The big problem is that Starmer knows he can only get DIP funded if it is a back door industrial jobs creation scheme. That means convincing RAF that they do want Typhoon and not F35; RN needs for T31+ not uncrewed; and that army needs kit that works. RAF don’t want more Typhoon; rn wants unscrewed buzzword everything; and Army don’t wants MOTS only so they get something they can actually deploy in the next decade.
Yet no sign of us setting a good example.
“Britain pushes European rearmament”. Given the last eighteen months in particular I presume that rearmament doesn’t include Britain. No money, no orders, no thought for veterans.
The only way for the UK and other European countries not to be reliant on the USA is to build a new alliance that doesn’t incorporate the USA.
Expanding the JEF to include Canada, Poland, Germany and France would allow us to develop capabilities independent of the USA. The current NATO can then become more of a political security forum rather than our primary military structure.
These northern Euro Atlantic countries have everything they need to create the worlds strongest alliance and a military force to rival any super power.
Codswallop.
US exchange Officers? Perfect inter personal communications.
I has to deal with a French exchange Officer, he spoke ‘English’, but so poorly with such a strong accent it was fortunate I spoke some French.
Did his commander threaten to invade another nato country?
“I has to deal with a French exchange officer and am annoyed that he spoke poorly with an accent but only speak a small amount of French myself” isn’t the Flex he thinks it is either.
He got me at “I has to” when commenting on another persons use of English…..
Hahaha Yes! There was a reason I quoted him. Should have said “I has [sic]” lol
Moscow really is giving it’s drones minimal training these days.
I don’t think throwing everything into the JEF is the best way ahead. As I recall there are three NATO groupings that span out, the JEF being the UK-led one for Northern Europe. France has one that does something in Central Europe, but I can’t recall what, and I never heard what the Italian-led one did in the South or if it ever got going. The point is that there’s perhaps a four group structure already there if the maybe Polish-led Eastern Europeans get together, and together they could form a E-NATO+, with Canada being a good fit into the JEF.
The RAF has had an urgent need for 24 new Typhoons for yonks to replace the Tranche 1 models going to scrap.
Orders? Zip, zilch, nada.
And not forgetting the sword of Damocles hanging over Leonardo Yeovil because the medium helicopter order hasnt materialised….
Geoffi, I’m sure I read that if they don’t get a significant order by March, they are likely to be closed by HQ Leonardo in Italy.
“an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament.”
More words and no substance. Same old, same old, from HMG.
Get a move on and order something meaningful, GBAD, Artillery, T31+.
Our government talks a lot and does little in effect. It doesn’t fool anyone.
Watching Healey yesterday answer questions in the Parliament to the Defence Ctte, to me it was evident that the Gov has no intention of doing anything to re-arm. Like Trump in the USA, Starmer is working against the national security of this country for some reason.
They needs to lead by example and they are failing miserably .
Allies are telling us we need to invest faster and they reply with our plus two percent but the bit they fail to mention is that a large chunk of our two plus defence spending is going on the deterrent. Because the Tories kicked the can down the road on starting the dreadnoughts we have the drain from building the new boats plus the drain from BAe putting max effort in to building them asap . Because the Vanguards are well past their useful life they are taking more and more maintenance to keep them at sea which is affecting the fleet boat availability, which is further compounded by the lack of investment in maintenance facilities . The ship lift at Faslane has only recently been brought back into operation after several years because of lack of money to fix it.
The defence budget is suffering from poor and delayed decision making during the last government setting off a domino chain that is crippling the conventional defence budget. Starmer needs to bite the bullet and tell Reeves to pay up. The MoD needs a large injection of cash to get out in front of the bigger and bigger dominos crippling our defence. And for god sake order more maritime patrol and AWACs !!
The problem is NATO is structurally dependent on the US… without the US having total commitment it is essentially weakest where it most matters ans that is politically.. because the U.S. built NATO to only work with the US in charge.
Functionally NATO was part of the U.S. containment policy against the USSR.. with the fall of the USSR and without any real functional realignment NATO moved from the major building block of containing the USSR to a defensive alliance of all possible European North American and European liberal democracies.. that is the root of its disease… the US no longer needed to contain the USSR..so NATOs only real use to the US was strategic control of the military infrastructure of Europe.. which quite frankly has not been great for either Europe or the US and especially now they are on divergent geostrategic paths.
So more than spend more money and buy more stuff.. the European NATOs need to build an effective ENATO homogeneous political understanding.. while France is still trying to keep the UK out of military funding and the UK sees the EU as the big bad enemy of everything good, spending more will do Jack shite.. because might without political unity and purpose is as pointless as a chocolate teapot..
Second to political purpose is unified and swift executive functions.. basically command and control.. needs to be swift and unified.. not 32 nations all decided what their military will and will not do in any given situation.. a power in which its component parts can unilaterally decide to either right a stern letter or launch a strategic nuclear attack when reacting to the same event is not really a power at all.. its just a load of small nations that may or many not point in the same direction..
Finally we come to power.. now I think it’s really important here that we recognise E NATO does not lack for power.. we may bitch and whinge but the simple truth is Europe does contain a pretty significant percentage of the world’s military and economic might.. 1700-1900 modem fixed wing fighters, 2500 MBTs ( with another 2500 if you include Turkey), 120 frigates and destroyers, 44 modern electric and AIP submarines, 13 latests generation SSNs ( well soon), 8 SSBNs, 600 nuclear warheads, 1.6 million personnel, 3 large aircraft carriers and 3 small aircraft carriers..that is serious might… its fragmentation, lack of command and control, ISTAR enablers and a singular political will that are the core issues with political will being the single most fundamental..
Personally I think the only way Europe will have true strategic independence is of the EU steps up..
We can all produce long lists of new kir needed across the services.
The big question is, after 14 years of governments cutting the defence budget relentlessly and leaving the Treasury.bare, where is the great defence boost to come from? There is no magic money tree and virtually every government department is strapped for funds.
HMG has conjured up a 22% rise over two years, so there is an extra £13bn in the defence budget. That is a good boost but of course it is not enough. However, it s about the max that the Treasury can squeeze out within the straitjacket of the strict fiscal.rules. There is not going.to be any more for the forseeable future, because the cofferscare bare again.
And it is £13bn more than defence got from PMs Cameron, May, Johnson or Truss. (Sunak did actually find an extra £6bn over 2 years). I can’t immediately see why everyone is chucking rocks at Starmer on defence, his government is the first for 14 years to actually increase the budget and plan for a sustained increase over the next 10 years.
The only way we will get more money anytime soon is by getting into the EU’s SAFE scheme or setting up the same kind of lending.or defence bonds arrangements here.
They don’t like that sort of honest assessment around here.
Seriously?! Backing Starmer? Straight jacket of fiscal rules? Depends on priorities and actually really wanting to support jobs , improving our industrial base and backing up all the hot air that is contributing to global warming!
Super tax the very richest. Most money is made by the super rich who take it mostly offshore & bank it where it can’t do mankind any good. We’ve been bleeding wealth that needs to fund civilised & safe society, including defence, for so many decades that we’re running out of sufficient to run socuiety, hence everything crumbling. Every time there’s a crisis austerity is the precription, so we get even less spent on maintaining the pillers of civilisation, less on most peoples income. Yet the super rich get even wealthier, faster, practically every time. They’re the only ones never asked to make sacrifices, that’s where “all the money” has gone. Yet they hold the keys to power & all our media, so always pumpout lies like it isn’t worth trying(!)/they’d all leave the country/ etc. Funny how that never applies to the poor or middle or moderately well off who suffer every time, especially the poor who invariably end up being blamed/kicked for being poor too.
Our civilisation is weak & failing becausethe tax revenues are on a dwindling amount of funds in crculation. The majority has been taken by the fat cats, who don’t want to share.