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.
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.