NATO is less concerned with the repeated delays to the United Kingdom’s Defence Investment Plan than with whether Britain and other allies are actually delivering the military capability the alliance needs against a potentially reconstituting Russia, a senior NATO official has said.
Asked by the UK Defence Journal at a background briefing whether the repeatedly delayed plan was frustrating the alliance’s ability to plan and deter over the short, medium and longer term, the official said that what really mattered was that countries accumulated the resources needed to deliver on their capability targets, adding that NATO was “not so much interested in money” as in making sure that nations were “on a clear path towards the delivery of the capability that we need”, especially in the shortest term, as the alliance faced the potential of a reconstituting Russia.
The frustration, the official said, was a general one across the alliance rather than a complaint aimed at any single nation, arising from “nations not being able to deliver the equipment that is needed” to fight the plans, a problem rooted in the long history of underinvestment from which European militaries were only now emerging.
Setting the wider scene, the official said the alliance now had a clear idea of how its members planned to reach the capability targets agreed last year, even as it embarked on the next cycle of defence planning, with intensive political discussions expected in the autumn of 2026 to set the parameters for that cycle on the basis of revised force requirements, a process that will in turn feed updated capability targets for nations including the United Kingdom.
On the financial side, the official said almost all allies were now close to or across the 2 per cent of GDP guideline, with some far above it and a number already approaching 5 per cent, and with allies holding plans towards 3.5 per cent by 2035, placing the United Kingdom’s position as one part of a broader picture in which European members are markedly increasing what they spend.
The remarks on capability over cash chimes with the message coming from the top of the alliance, where the Secretary General Mark Rutte has repeatedly insisted that the Ankara summit must be about combat-ready forces and a scaled-up defence industry rather than spending pledges alone, and it places the underlying test for Britain not on when the plan is published but on whether it funds the equipment the alliance is counting on, at a moment when NATO is increasingly focused on the prospect of a rebuilt Russian military.
Has Trump yet berated Starmer at the G7 for underfunding the MoD?
I’m thinking touting the availability of our armoured vehicles is probably not a good strategy.
Some hope; remember Labour’s motto, ‘Welfare before warfare.’ As long as Starmer is in No. 10, there is no chance of increasing defence spending. A fresh leader could bring in a new chancellor who might look favourably on the MOD, more so than the current blinkered No. 11 occupant.
I think if you had the nations bank balance in your hands you would be cautions too.
‘…to deliver on their capability targets’
Britain is in breach of its obligations as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. It is in breach of its security assurances to Ukraine. It has been in breach of its defence treaty obligations to its Middle Eastern friends and allies. It is in breach of its capability target obligations to NATO.
All three major political parties are responsible for this state of affairs.
What an absolute disgrace!