NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte visited Romania on 5 and 6 November, meeting national leaders and addressing the NATO-Industry Forum in Bucharest.
According to NATO, the visit highlighted Romania’s growing role in regional security and the alliance’s drive to expand defence industrial capacity.
During meetings with President Nicușor Dan and Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan, Rutte thanked Romania for its contributions to Black Sea security, increased defence spending and support for Ukraine. He said, “Romania is invested in NATO, and NATO is invested in Romania,” describing the country as central to the alliance’s southern and eastern posture.
Speaking at the NATO-Industry Forum, Rutte told defence leaders and industrial executives that “there simply is no strong defence without a strong defence industry.” The conference, titled Rearming NATO: Innovate, Accelerate, Sustain, focused on strengthening collaboration between governments and industry as allies prepare to raise collective defence spending toward 5% of GDP by 2035.
He urged companies to expand production and adapt supply chains to meet the alliance’s requirements, saying NATO would accelerate procurement and support innovation to help them do so. Rutte also warned that “Russia will remain a destabilising force in Europe and the world,” pointing to cooperation between Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang as signs of “long-term confrontation.”
“We cannot be naive. We must be prepared,” he said, adding that NATO and its partners must “out-gun, out-produce and out-smart those that seek to harm or diminish us.”
Following the forum, Rutte met students at the University of Bucharest to discuss security challenges facing NATO and the importance of maintaining public and industrial support for allied defence.
Is it “Rutte ing” Season ?
He’s certainly making a lot of loud calls.
I wonder if the UK Government is listening, as their defence investment plan seems to have gone into the Chancellor’s waste bin!
Known as the DIP. Abbreviation of Defence Investment Plan says it all…..
Jonathan,.
Please explain an apparent inconsistency, perhaps paradox. Believe you have stated previously that UK allocated approximately 60% of GDP to defence during peak period of WW II, and maintained at least 5% throughout CW I. However, there is apparently significant question re capability/resolve to gradually increase defence spending from 2.3% of GDP to 3.5% over a period of 10 years. Somewhat difficult to reconcile policy differences over time. Is the UK population and political perspective radically different post CWI, as a result of the net effect of recent immigration policy? A result of general distrust by the electorate of government policies? Result of unconstrained social-welfare expenditures? Difficult to rationalize change in perspective w/in one generation (1990-2025). Requesting analysis. 🤔
You are right. I served for 25 years in the RAF from 1980 after my father who served from the early 1950s.
We once spent nearly 10 per cent of GDP on Defence. Now sub 2.5% and a dream probably to get to 3.5% possibly with some creative accounting. Our empire used to be enormous but the cost of fighting the Second World War bro us frankly and it has been decline since then.
Today, we have hollowed out forces and trade increasingly on our history. Recent campaigns in the Middle East can hardly be described as a success.
We are an increasingly poor nation, with low economic growth, having to adapt unwillingly to straightened circumstance.
Sorry to be so downbeat but alas this is the bitter reality.
Jonathan,
Thanks for the interesting response. Previously believed capitalism was largely restored under Thatcher/Major, and the UK economy has since then been performing adequately, if not spectacularly. Very sorry to learn otherwise. Still believe UK would be capable of executing a Fortress UK strategy.
I do hope you are right, but I am not sure re your final piece. I hope I am proved wrong were we to be tested.
Under both Tory and Labour recent Governments, lots of rhetoric but lack of funding, I am afraid.
Interesting to hear the view from an ally (F/USAF). I am nearly 70 and have seen phenomenal change in the UK over time, especially over the last one or two generations. I am just starting to read Brig (Retd) Ben Barry’s book ‘The Rise and Fall of the British Army 1975-2025’. Whilst army-centric, it says it all about the decline of Defence.
When I was born in 1955 we were spending 7.5% of GDP on Defence. I joined the army in 1975 (coincidentally as regards that book) when we were spending 4.3%. In 1975 Defence at £5.8bn was the 3rd largest Government spending category and only just short of Education spend (£6.9bn) and Welfare spend (£6.6bn).
In 2026 we will spend £73.5bn on Defence and a great deal (not just a little more) more on those other categories – welfare, pensions, Health and Social Care. Interest on and repayment of the National Debt is also costly.
Not only has Welfare, Pensions and Health spending increased stratospherically in a generation or two, but Defence expenditure is fudged. We really do not now spend 2.3% GDP on Defence in reality as other stuff is sneaked in – some non-Defence Intelligence, veterans pensions, the Defence Nuclear Enterprise (which many consider Treasury should fund seperately as it is a political, rather than a military requirement), military support to Ukraine, the Chagos settlement. We probably really spend well under 2% in reality – I once worked out it is probably 1.6 – 1.75%.
The Welfare State costs a lot. Governments of both political stripes dare not cut Education, Health, Pensions or Welfare (Starmer got nowhere with his ‘reforms’). To give just a small boost to Defence in the Sep 2024 budget, there was a raid on the Overseas Development Fund – not many citizens will object to that being raided (eg. we give money to India even though they can afford huge armed forces and a space programme).
Much money is wasted in Defence for all sorts of reasons, including much bad procurement.
Reeves is a terrible Chancellor claiming to endeavour to boost growth to pay for more expenditure (on Defence etc) yet her last budget killed growth. The People will not really take to the streets if Defence spending is continually supressed. I am sure that many doubt we will get to 2.5 or 2.6% in the short term then 3.5%+1.5% in the longer term.
GM,
Thanks for the extensive, thought provoking response. Although presumably allowable under NATO accounting procedures, personally have reservations about including military support for UKR and the proposed Chagos settlement under the MoD Alternatively, perhaps the Foreign Office (whatever the current title)? Personally deem reasonable the inclusion of all DNE expenses, based upon the theory that nukes are one of the very few reasons the CRINKs are not already storming the gates of the collective NATO realm.
In regard to procurement issues, uncertain whether anyone has cracked the code. Even in the UK, there have been some notable success (e.g., CAMM, T-26, Typhoon). Unfortunately, no BA equipment procurement acquisition triumphs are immediately recallable. However, the UK has many of the same procurement issues ias Uncle Sugar. 🤔😱
the problem is that life expectancy was 13 years less in 1955 than it is now (I believe. Jonathan would be able to advise) and social care was pretty much non-existence. The a vast range of health conditions that would kill you, that are treatable now The moment now you try to cut expenditure that is outrage. Winter fuel allowance and welfare cuts and tax breaks for farmers are just a few examples.
With over 60 reccomendations accepted, the DIP funding Is probably rather difficult to account for. I’m already seing Spin and deflection in various reports.
Fingers crossed, It’ll be published soon and we can all share our thoughts.
Personally, I’m not convinced any significant orders will be forth coming but serious amounts may be given over to papering over some temporarily filled cracks.
See, this is the trouble with this site, no one takes it seriously
Here I am tapping away, keeping it nice and short (not enough viewers here) and Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Might just as well write a load of stupid comments !
HW,
Actually, DIP Is totally dependent upon HMG’s attitude toward fulfilling stated defence spending commitments. Is there any certainty HMG is truly committed to a rearmament process, as opposed to placating the current POTUS’ defence spending demands of NATO allies, in an attempt to secure more favorable trade policy? Not certain if any non-politician is capable of providing a complete answer. 🤔
No one in HMG actually BELIEVES the Russians will attack NATO so they talk tough, pile money into Ukraine and hope for the best while paying ever more in welfare benefits and throwing money at the NHS and praying that one day it will be enough. Nothing is getting ordered and everything is for another day as we have other problems to deal with. Having a PM that collects airmiles for a living doesn’t help.