Speaking ahead of what he called a “historic day”, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said Allies are poised to agree sweeping new military capability targets that will drive a major increase in defence spending across the Alliance.
Addressing myself and other jounalists at NATO Headquarters on Thursday morning, Rutte declared, “Today is really key, because we will decide on the capability targets, and this is an important building block to decide on the money we are going to spend in the coming years on defence.”
He warned that significantly more investment is needed to meet NATO’s deterrence goals: “We have to invest in our air defence systems. We have to invest in long-range missiles, manoeuvrable land formations, command and control systems. All of this has to happen… These mean huge investments we need, all over NATO territory.”
Rutte confirmed that proposals for a new NATO defence investment plan will be unveiled later today, grounded in the outcomes of Thursday’s meeting. “Sometimes people are thinking The Hague will discuss a percentage of GDP spent on defence—as if this is something we pluck from the air. That is not true,” he said. “What we will decide in The Hague is rooted in what we need in terms of the hard capabilities.”
He added that meeting the new targets would also rebalance burden-sharing across the Alliance: “Doing this will also equalise what we are spending with what the United States is spending. We, Canada and Europe, equalising with the US. We know this is important, because we want a fair NATO where all Allies spend the same.”
Asked directly whether NATO was on a war footing, Rutte responded: “To prepare for war, spend more—and when you are really prepared for war, you will not be attacked.”
Rutte was joined by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for a brief bilateral appearance before the start of the ministerial. The Secretary General thanked him for his personal commitment and that of President Trump.
“Today we will agree on the capability targets we need going forward to keep one billion people safe in NATO territory,” Rutte told Hegseth. “We already know we need to spend much, much more if we want to fulfil all these targets… There has been a total commitment by the US to NATO, but also this expectation that European and Canadian Allies will step up spending.”
Turning to Ukraine, Rutte praised the role of the United States in breaking the political impasse: “Thank you and the President for what you are doing with Ukraine—driving the peace, engaging with President Putin and breaking the deadlock.”
Later today, ministers will meet with their Ukrainian counterpart, Rustem Umerov, during a NATO-Ukraine Council lunch session, joined by EU High Representative Kaja Kallas.
The Secretary General confirmed that a formal announcement on the new NATO capability targets and spending roadmap will follow the conclusion of Thursday’s sessions.
Rutte sounds like a real suck up to the US. That’s probably a good thing and might allow him to pull a rabbit out of the hat. Was it Disraeli who said that Queen Victoria like her flattery laid on with a trowel? Trump and the MAGAs may be even bigger drama queens.
Geez Jon I wrote mine before yours was posted or visible but seems we got the exact same impression. Spooky.
It’s got to be done but can’t help feeling a bit nauseous at how we have to suck up to and pay submissive homage to our great across pond overlords, especially when that Overlord representative is a total drunkard know nothing incompetent like Hegseth. The problem of endlessly stoking their egos is that it gives them a sense of competency that in no way have they ever earned, geez this guy wasn’t even one of the more prominent Fox hacks.
Reminds me of the bad old days when minor aristocrats controlled Regiments based on their illusionary status and worth rather than any remote competence in battle, so it was all a lottery as to their effectiveness. Pretty much applies to everyone in the Trump administration from top down but great at barking orders for the sake of it to their minions, even if it feels like the rest of us are merely the Light Brigade in Crimea carrying them out.
‘We, Canada and Europe, equalising with the US. We know this is important, because we want a fair NATO where all Allies spend the same.’
Like it or not, without Trump playing hardball, the rest of NATO would still be sitting on their wallets and letting the Yanks pick up the tab.
Except that paying the same presently seems to be Europe paying a higher percentage than the US as it looks now. As I stated yesterday this is as much much about the Europeans kissing the Presidential ring in very visual servitude so the Trump’s ego and presentation to his constituency can be stoked up to turn round fading support than much actual change in what the Europeans were already on the road to doing or will end up to doing. Clearly not only that constituency is being taken in by this charade. One thing it might do perhaps I will grant you is make it more difficult to get off the moving train, but for me the real message in this is that Europe need to get our armed forces effective together and be strong and independent enough and gain the damn confidence, to start speaking up for ourselves on the World stage instead of being US subjugated acolytes. With equal investment (some more equal than others if they have their way) should come influence and equality which the US especially, under MAGA will not want equality on. How did it go ‘no taxation without representation’ which is very different to unquestioning arse licking in my book. Europe should easily be able to deter Russia and by 2025 should never have allowed ourselves to be remotely under such a threat. Indeed we need to be strong so we can stand up to US hegemony too if required, maybe it’s that fear that is finally driving Europeans to wake up to real but less clear threat and start spending on defence more urgently.
So I guess that means the yanks are going to be happy with us kicking them out of places in Africa, the Middle East and South America right?
The US pays as much as it does to play great power games, not to protect Europe, so by extension if we are matching US spending it’s time we play those games too right?
We wrote the book.
Not an answer.
This is something that many people don’t really get.. European defence dependency was created..the U.S. essentially actively engaged in and encouraged European nations to over embrace the U.S. idea of the end of history and that last man.. this was purposeful, the US wanted useful regional allies and a placeholder world power ally in the UK but it most certainly did not want Europe as a peer world power.. it cu the knees of European NATO just as it did to the British empire in the 1940s and 50s.
One of the things I think Europe needs to do is embrace its place as a peer superpower with china and the U.S…. Just being a defensive alliance will end with it being nothing more that a more wealthy and nicer verson of Africa.. essentially beholden to other world powers to access to markets and resources.
Some very large ones are still sitting on them Italy, Spain and Canada.
The current US defence expenditure is 3.4% but if the “big beautiful bill” gets the go-ahead this will raise the US national debt by $3 to 4 Trillion so they are already looking to make cuts in all departments with the defence department expected to make quite a number of cuts so although in principle we should all (all Nato members) be paying the same amount I believe that the more realistic number would be 3 to 3.5% but with Trump’s import tariff’s which is already affecting all of the Nato members with countries like Canada who need to raise its Defence budget from less than 2% to 3.5% will struggle.
That being said if Nato is to combat the raise of Russian aggression then we need to be spending more and more right now not in 10 years time. Canada and Europe might have to look at Nato without America which is already being discussed on the European main land but whether Europe/UK/Canada can fill the void in the next few years is extremely debatable.
I actually think you will see US defence spending go up.. I think behind closed door the US are bricking it over china and are struggling to know what to do..They know they are a few years away from a peer that can fight them to a standstill and exact a massive toll over years.. essentially shattering US hegemony ( as the British empire was shattered )… that is really what this NATO 5% is probably about… because they just went to the pacific powers and said..look at china it’s coming for you.. look at what Europe are going to be spending..you need to start to..
I think on the QT this is the US way of getting ready for a indopacific war that is likely to be long and cover the global.. they want any allies they can scrap up to be as ready as possible..
You may well be right Jonathan, but my personnal opinion is that Trump cannot think that far in front and with no sense of history he lives in the moment created by himself.
I do think we are living in dangerous times and that we all need to step up to the plate but these dangerous times have been partly created by Trump stating in the public domain that the US will not come to the aid of a European state should Russia invade that state as it was artical 5 that was the main deterrent against Russian aggression. Also with Trump hitting his allies with tariffs countries who would traditionally be steadfast allies of America like Canada and Australia and even Japan and S, Korea will be thinking twice about helping America (under the Trump administration).
If Trumps Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) dose get pushed through then America’s debt will go up by several Trillion and we may even see America start to default on it payments as they will be as big as the current defence budget so it is my belief that America will be forced to cut its defence budget quit dramatically.
The plain truth is that NATO is rudderless without the might of the USA, and any alternative option is going to take a decade or more to materialise. In addition, the costs will be astronomical, and there will be imbalances in terms of financial contributions as the smaller nations will be unable to match the big players. With imbalance comes division, and the NATO Secretary will have to play a delicate role if harmony is to be maintained.
The UK/Europe should be okay with backing itself and the rules based international order that it believes in. Standing up both with and without over dependence on the USA. Self-national interest simultaneously contributing to the greater good and democratic collective. EU and Nato mechanisms are already there plus all the bi-lateral relationdhios underneath the multi-lateral. The US, UK/Europe vs Russia and China looks like a neat 2 a side but they all have their ambitions for want of influence and Trump’s behind the scenes relationship with Putin is a foot in 3 camps.
*relationships
The ‘Founding Fathers’ of the US were Europeans. Constitutionally the United States is a child of the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Donald Trump’s mother, Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, gave him a Bible to mark his Sunday Church Primary School graduation in 1955. This Bible, which is a revised standard version, was used during his swearing-in ceremony as president. The US is not going to separate itself from Europe.
Paul.P, it’s nothing to do with the history of the USA it’s their huge capability to supply munitions and aircraft that the Europeans currently can’t match. Unlike the UK, which does not take military war reserves seriously and the huge issue of logistic resupply in a protracted conflict. Admittedly, the latest SDR is attempting to improve munition supply chains, but sadly not tanks as all Warrior and surplus CH2s will be either given away, sold for scrap or dealers. Considering the UK is a major force in the World the situation as I have described clearly means the UK would have to go to America for critical replenishment, as most NATO members are in the same boat.
Hmmm…thought at least one previous article stated that specific capability requirements would be classified? Dunno, may have been hallucinating at the time…🤔
and about time too, it’s taken trump to wake these people up, what a shame the dem’s very probably fixed the 2020 election
Its interesting peoples different take on things and It’s funny the differing outlooks..especially on where defence spending is going what I think many people who comment on defence websites fail to remember is that most of the General public hate spending lots of money on defence.. having to cut services to spend on defence is a vote loser not a vote winner..this means any increase beyond the modest 2.5% are going to hidden in smoke and mirrors.. that is why what has essentially said is we will spend at least 3% by 2034 at the latest as long as we can do it in our fiscal rules…in one interview starmer was literally staring at the interverviewer in frustration, going you know what I’m saying ..we promised 2.5% by 2030 and delivered it for 2027..so you know what I’m looking to
personally I think this is essentially the warm up to the news NATO requirement of 3.5% by 2032/34..because for those of us who listen to what is not stated.. the present promise can fit in as a stepping stone to that almost inevitable new NATO target…
when all is said an do you may love a 3.5% target.. that majority of the voting public want it spent on child benefit cap removal, winter fuel allowance and more GP practices…the politicians know this and are going to sell it slow..not fast.
In regards to were the UK is going, clearly the US government have an idea as when asked about the UK only agreeing to 3% by 2032 at the latest the following responce was given
“One potential point of complication is America’s closest ally, the UK, which only plans on reaching 3 percent GDP by 2034, falling someway short of the new spending target. Today Hegseth dismissed the issue. “Our friends in the UK … they’re gonna get there,” he said, without elaborating.” Clearly discussions have been had..
Look, debt is everywhere around the world. Trump’s tax cuts for billionaires is going to add at least another $2.4 trillion to the US $30 trillion+ debt. Bond markets are not keen on buying more government debt.
The UK Gov is £2.8 trillion in debt & rising.
I have spent the last twenty years saying UK defence spending should be 2.7% GDP not 2%, so I am in the unusual position of not wanting 3%, 3.5% or 5% GDP defence spending, because it is not affordable. The Donald will be out of office before the US gets anywhere near 5%. Lets be real. Anything beyond 2.9% GDP for UK defence is dangerous fantasy.