The UK government has said it is not yet in a position to comment on proposals by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte for member states to commit 3.5% of GDP to “hard defence” and a further 1.5% to broader security.
Responding to a parliamentary question on Wednesday, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said: “This will form part of discussions ahead of the NATO Summit at the end of June. As these proposals are subject to agreement of all NATO Allies, including the UK, I hope the hon. Gentleman will know it would not be appropriate to comment at this time.”
The question was asked by Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty following remarks by Secretary General Rutte earlier this week, in which he laid out a vision for a more “lethal” NATO. The proposals are expected to feature prominently at the NATO Summit in The Hague later this month.
Pollard’s careful response highlights the UK’s current position ahead of negotiations. While Rutte’s proposal for a 5% GDP commitment has been widely interpreted as a bid to reassure Washington and ensure continued US engagement under a potential second Trump presidency, it has also raised questions in London about affordability and timelines.
NATO sources believe that Britain will eventually be compelled to support the 3.5% target for defence spending by 2035, with defence officials privately conceding that UK reluctance will only delay what appears to be a growing consensus within the alliance.
The 3.5% figure is seen as the central benchmark. An additional 1.5% of GDP is proposed for broader defence and security spending, such as infrastructure, cyber resilience, and industrial capacity. However, that part of the plan remains vaguely defined, leading to concerns about accounting flexibility and a repeat of the “smoke and mirrors” approach seen when the original 2% NATO spending target was introduced in 2014.
At Chatham House on Monday, Rutte warned: “The fact is, we need a quantum leap in our collective defence. The fact is, we must have more forces and capabilities to implement our defence plans in full. The fact is, danger will not disappear even when the war in Ukraine ends.”
He added: “At the Summit in The Hague, I expect Allied leaders will agree to spend 5% of GDP on defence. It will be a NATO-wide commitment and a defining moment for the Alliance.”
The UK’s recently published Strategic Defence Review committed to a long-term increase in defence spending but did not explicitly embrace the 3.5% target. It is understood that Downing Street would prefer to commit to the new levels over a ten-year timeframe, while Rutte has reportedly asked allies to reach the goal by 2032.
While the UK has welcomed the overarching goals of the Rutte plan, its formal position on the specific percentages remains cautious, as officials weigh cost implications and potential trade-offs within the wider government spending framework.
It’s frustrating, yet good, that we’re being made to do this, which we will.
Who is making us do something?
I’m not sure if you are aware but NATO is a unanimous consent treaty organisation.
We were the ones who came up with the 2% target in 2014 not the USA or anyone else.
If there is going to be a new target we will be the ones deciding that also, we are the only major country that meets such international obligations on things like, defence spending, CO2 production, foreign development aid spending. Everyone else ignores them and the USA is easily the worst offender in all metrics followed closely by Canada.
HMG will only commit to a target it believes others will meet or atleast attempt to. No one outside of Poland and the Baltics will get anywhere near 5% and the USA is currently on track for 2.7% by the early 2030’s.
Neither HMG or the ENATO governments are stupid, they know the security threat and economic abilities better than any of us.
Unless The Donald can find Lizz Truss’s magic money tree he holds no cards in this debate because everyone can see that the US Government credit card just maxed out and it’s political establishment is unable to take even the most basic fiscal actions to remedy the situation.
3% is more than enough to deal with the threat environment we face. Britains 300 year peace time average is closer to 2% than 3%. We managed to fight and win multiple global conflicts on that. Over spending on a peace time military against a threat over hyped by disingenuous politicans like Mark Rutte and a MIC that’s looking to generate shareholder value is a sure fire way to loose.
Over spending on the military killed the Soviet Union.
Over spending on the military is increasingly decimating the Chinese and Iranian economies too.
Fully aware of what NATO is. However, if you think that we’re likely to not hit the 3.5% (5%) target when most others will, I think you’re mistaken. It’s not only legally binding obligations that drive us to meet such targets, it’s UK public perception, US perception and other domestic and international political and economic considerations. 3% is not enough as we’re making up for years of cuts, which puts us at a real disadvantage.
Most European countries only meet 2% because of aid to Ukraine which might stop at any minute then they will drop back to around 1.5%. It’s taken them ten years and the biggest war in Europe since 1945 to get that far.
So how do you suppose they are getting to 5%? Where would the money come from. How would the economy absorb such spending without a draft.
How is America getting to 5%? Tax rises? Medicare cuts?
What could it spend 5% on?
Why should HMG commit to 5% when it’s unlikely anyone else will get there even if they agree at a NATO summit.
Not sure if you’ve noticed but in the Trump era countries can feel the economic wrath of the US in an amazingly short period of time. He will use that stick, along with the ultimate threat of withdrawing from NATO. Both carry significant economic consequences.
I don’t know what each nation will do to reach the new targets but rest assured, nobody will want to be the odd man out. They’ll at least want plans and all members will have their feet held to the fire by NATO (under US pressure); that’s already been stated. As for the 1.5%, much of what nations already spend on infrastructure will be included within that, possibly with a few tweaks.
It sounds like the 5% is set in stone, the only things upbfor debate is when and what spend sits where in the 5%. This is a new era, so keep an open mind.
We just set out our spending plans (plans that Trump welcomed in the Oval Office) until 2029 which is after Trump will leave office. Our plans cap spending at 2.6% and we have gone further than anyone else not bordering Russia. No one is or can pledges 3.5% before Trump leaves office.
The US is rapidly cutting its core budget, Hegseth wants 8% reduction over 5 years, he says to spend on new stuff but that’s highly speculative, America just does not have any more money and has no way to get any more.
It’s long term bond auctions are failing like ours in 2022. Tax rises are politically toxic, cuts to welfare even worse.
It’s just had to surrender to China in a trade war it started just 8 weeks ago.
The guy they brought in to cut the budget resigned after three months and accused the president of being a paedophile.
Am I missing something here?
Actually the real issue will be 3.5% of GDP goal for direct military spending. Would virtually guarantee that all 32; NATO countries will be able to generate a formidable list of infrastructure related projects to satisfy the 1.5% of GDP on “militarily related” projects, in perpetuity. Predict this would not require bureaucrats and/or politicians to break a sweat, or even disturb their luncheon plans. The 3.5% of GDP threshold may indeed be an entirely matter.
BTW, no sane US politician will meddle w/ Medicare or Social Security. (The pensioners would wreak terrible vengeance upon anyone attempting entitlement reform re specifically target programs. Unfortunately, there is no national champion for the Medicaid progam (health insurance for the poor and disabled). Current omnibus bill before Congress has Medicaid “reform” embedded. Virtually every sentient being on this side of the Pond realizes that translates into some individuals being forced to walk the health-care plank directly into Davy Jones’s Locker.
…entirely different matter. 🙄
… specifically targeted programs. 🙄🙄
Oh great and glorious website masters, we humbly beseech thee to restoreth the edit function. Amen and Amen.
I agree completely. Some NATO members have failed consistently to meet the 2% target, the biggest offenders being Germany, Italy ,Spain ,Netherlands ( under Rutte’s leadership). Germany and Netherlands have started to raise their defence budgets but have years of under spending to make good.
The UK has generally met the target but the high costs of the carriers and the nuclear capability, boats and weapons, has inflicted real damage on the rest of our forces.
Following the lean years after the Cameron cuts, injections of further funding under Johnson have allowed much needed modernisation to go ahead.
By 2030, the army will have CH3, Ajax, Boxer, more MRLS and new SPGs. The RN will have started commissioning replacement frigates. There appears to be no plan to increase the RAF combat fleet, apart from the daft idea of freefall nukes from F35A. I still think a further order of Typhoons is necessary and hopefully likely.
The language used by Rutte is silly, vastly overstating the threat from a Russia whose conventional military incompetence has been clearly exposed.
If NATO members all raised their core budgets to 2.5/2.7% of GDP ( plus making good previous shortfalls as Germany has done), this would deliver big increases in capability and match or even exceed the GDP % of the US defence budget devoted to the NATO area.
There should also be an emphasis on the word “target”
Not “minimum” not “membership fee” not “what they have to spend” but “target.”
Jim Just bear in mind that your 2% for 300 years and we won most of the wars analogy is ever so slightly cockeyed. It was 2 % of a GDP which included the spoils of the largest and richest empire the world has ever seen. Everyone else were economic minnows in comparison the only reason we lost the America’s was we were fighting France, most of Europe and in India at the same time.
Agreed Paul,
Or rather at least to an extent, the government will be put under immense political pressure, particularly with Trump (personally a very positive influence in this regard I think). Daniele here is rightly sceptical, but the trajectory is firmly in the ascendant. But of course the proof is in the pudding!
I will believe it when I see it, and numbers are going up, kit ordered, and training and recruitment plans put in place for an expansion of personnel for all three services. Till then, like this government, all hot air.
Furnishing the MIC, always HMGs main aim regards defence, along with the political clout of being a nuclear power, is all well and good, but if the forces remain as small as they are, with all the gaps, well, we will remain stretched and shrinking.
They lack the will, or the interest. Sorry.
Likewise I’ll cheer if and when I see more hard orders for kit and numbers of anything going up and capability gaps not being the norm.
Well Reeves is inflating again. She has just announced 2.6% by 2027, not 2,5%
Would sound good, but for the minor detail that the % includes the intelligence agencies, so the SIA, included.
While I have always supported the UKIC as being as vital for defence as the military, it is in conventional force spend that expansion is needed.
That was always clear though. 2.5%, plus 0.1% due to the addition of intelligence to align with the NATO definition of spending. From UK POV it’s 2.5% as promised. But for the purposes of NATO we really spend 2.6%.
Yes, to be fair we read of this before.
Good summation
It was the removal of US intelligence that was the only card that Trump had to play against Ukraine. ENATO has more soldiers than the USA and China combined but it lacks intelligence capabilities especially SIGNIT and space based assets. The UK is good at both if these so seems logical for us to focus on that, leave the heavy armour to Germany and Poland.
One of the things that has alway been interesting and why some nations are even worse than published compared to the UK on defence spending ( even though we know we don’t spend enough) is the NATO definition is far wider than the UK definition..so NATO includes security..
“They might also include parts of other forces such as Ministry of Interior troops, national police forces, coast guards etc. In such cases, expenditure is included only in proportion to the forces that are trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force,”
“Expenditure for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, paid by the Ministry of Defence or other ministries,”
“Expenditure for the military component of mixed civilian-military activities is included, but only when the military component can be specifically accounted for or estimated. For example, these include airfields, meteorological services, aids to navigation, joint procurement services, research and development.”
It also includes the full spectrum of veteran support.. including pensions and healthcare.
The UK has not really ever included this in defence spending figures.. others have.. for instance most people don’t realise that the healthcare for US veterans is included in it defence spending.. that’s 10.2 billion dollars of DOD budget a year on healthcare costs.. the UK on the other hand puts that in its NHS budget not defence.. much of US boarder forces are are totted into defence spend, coast guard etc etc.
Ssssh! Don’t give them ideas!
That’s very interesting good to get a handle on these matters. So are the costs of the National Guard (not to mention the Marines) going into LA going to allow the US Govt to claim its defence spending has gone up. Geez when their revolution comes it will shoot up to 10 to 20% on that basis, we might have to put a few more bobbies in cam jackets on the streets to match it.
It’s one of the massive lies about America “military” spending. A massive junk of it is actually spent on private health insurance ($61 billion per annum) and VA benefits ($230 billion).
For UK and almost all European militaries such costs are born by the state (NHS) and not covered under NATO military calculations (ex Pensions)
Around 1/3 rd of US “Military” spend goes on welfare payments.
This is what such figures are included in NATO military spending despite MAGA propaganda.
@Spyinthesky wonder if Colonel Lee today would count towards defence spending….
Daniele, did you gain no encouragement from the 60+ recommendations, all accepted by HMG, in the SDR?
Hi Graham.
None whatsoever! It read like all the other SDRs. I know the nitty gritty is in the autumn with the DCP/White Paper.
What did they actually confirm beyond “modernisation” ? Something that has occurred since time began.
A shuffling of the deckchairs. A “new” Cyber and Electromagnetic Command” which I detailed in a previous article is simply a rebranding and re brigading of existing assets, an old, old MoD trick.
A few new organisations.
I don’t recall any of those 60 being a cast iron commitment to –
More people.
More helicopters, planes, ships, subs, armoured vehicles, artillery, and so on.
The 12 SSN ? Don’t make me laugh. Many of us here will be dead by the time they appear, given the timescales involved and other Parliaments with ample chance to alter proceedings. Like the vow of 12 T45? Then vowed to be 8. Ended up at 6.
That was the primary headline grabber for the public to latch onto, the big carrot dangled, with zero need to spend any serious money until when? ABC? Long lead items, Reactors, and such?
Geez Daniele don’t you understand how much that branding costs, we will need at least another .5% on top to handle that. Gotta have a smart cap badge and classy stationary you know and it will take endless committees to get that just right for the 22nd Century.
There could be another wrinkle on the way!TWZ reporting the cousins have binned Wedgetail and going for Hawkeye for the USAF instead🙄
😆
Rutte will be lucky to push this through ie get it agreed by all 32 nations in the NAC. Some (9 or 10?) member countries still don’t spend the 2% figure (the 2014 floor figure) so would balk at 5%.
Hi Graham, If the war in Ukraine wasn’t enough to push these countries to reach even the 2% mark, then I agree 5% seems well out of reach. Frankly, we probably wouldn’t be talking about such a massive jump if more nations had been pulling their weight.
Rutte’s aspirations do seem a bit far-fetched at this point. It feels like a classic opening negotiation tactic—aim high and settle somewhere in the middle.
Indeed Canada has only just committed to meeting that 2%. Trouble is Trump is committed to make everyone else poorer just to feed his balance of Payments short falls and over spending on tax cuts to the rich and as such to make himself look mythically good at business, cave ins will be presented as 4D chess and Western trade and markets will suffer, certainly the rest of us outside of the bs simply trying to pay out way while our innovative Companies are picked off (2 this week) and absorbed into feeding the mythical American Dream even as it fails.
Canada committed to 2 % but by 2030 by Trudeau. Trudeau kicked the can down the road on a lot of things.
Canada is now committed to 2% by the end of this fiscal year by Carney which as you have mentioned probably has something to do with the US Presidents economic polices (which will impact his voter base very soon).
Good news for enlistment in Canada is that 7000 recruits were brought in last year and Canada also has a lot of big ticket purchases happening for the Forces.
I also see the arming of the Canadian Coast Guard as a positive move.
Just announced 11 extra billion for defence.
Is that per year or over the 3 years, and is that new spending ontop of the already existing talk of going up to 2.4 ish % 2026/2027 and then 2.5% 2027 onwards?
2025/2026 was planned for 59.8 billion in the Spring statement it was upped to 62.2 billion.
Keir said 2.3% towards 2.5% was around 6 billion extra per year from 2027 onwards but whats this 11 billion ??
As I mentioned above, BBC also note Reeves mentioned 2.6% but including the UKIC, so the SIA. Maybe that is it.
I think she has taken the base figure from the 23/24 spend (which is when she got the job) so by 2027 that’s roughly an extra £11 billion. But it’s no where near sufficient to Defend the UK from Russia or deter Trump from Starmers throat.
What everyone has to remember is yes £11 billion extra pa is a sizeable increase but only 36% of Defense Budget is spent on equipment, so that’s about £4 billion extra pa. Which sounds bad but as a % of our Defence budget it is actually higher than US, France or Germany (Poland is over 51%). Don’t even mention value for money ☹️
Something most dont realise is the US includes some odd stuff in its defence spend..so 10.2billion a year on veteran healthcare costs..is part of its 3.3% defence spend.. the Uk on the other hand does not include veterans healthcare in the defence budget.
Yes, but we do include the RAF Regiment…
The only realistic source of the money needed for this is our welfare spending. This government has made a valiant attempt to start reeling that in to howls of anguish across the board. Reform in particular seems to want to outflank them there which may successfully stop real rearmament.
Leave/Reform is the best plan the FSB ever come up with to undermine the UK
No wonder Starmer looked grim it’s 2.6% by April 2027. She then mentioned the investment in industry and the DNE that has already been announced but is that coming out of the Defence Budget or is it separate ?
I’d love to be a fly on the wall at G7 15/17th and NATO summit on 24/25th, it’s going to very interesting to see if she has to have a rethink !
The UK should play hardball here. Many NATO countries havd spent less than UK for a long time and as for what UK has given to Ukraine compared to others ( looking at France, Spain and Italy amongst others) we should claim that against our share of any increase.
Good luck trying that one with Trump.
I suspect Trump will present the 5% as a pre condition for still sending equipment et al to Ukraine not only does it get him off the hook with Lockheed Martin (as we found yesterday with F-35 investments to be paid by Europe) but effectively gets Europe to pay for US involvement in Ukraine while he takes all the credit with his constituency. The US does like to make a profit from wars as history shows us.
While there were multiple factors at play, France backed by Germany and other EU countries pushed for a NATO leader from within the EU, citing Brexit as a barrier. In hindsight, they may come to regret not backing Ben Wallace.
“Stuck In a Rutte”
I thought Wallace did as well as anyone could have as Defence Secretary, it was however about managed rapid decline during his time no matter how well he rearranged deck chairs and the extra scraps he collected from the Treasury’s bins. He also wasn’t great at the International Politics game, including publicly calling out Ukraine over some issues (no matter how right) when everyone was supposed to be on message.
Trump: “Ukraine are ungrateful.”
Wallace: “They are grateful and need our support.”
Trump: “Didn’t you tell them the UK isn’t Amazon and to show some gratitude?”
Wallace: “Yea, but no, but….”
Rutte knows how to appeal to Trump and Europe as a whole, he’s not a miracle worker though so we do actually have to improve. Labour aren’t exactly on the same page as Rutte right now (this will bite us in the near future even if 3% is final number as we are seen as the reluctant ones), this will have been worse with Wallace as all our lot are good at is petty party politics.
The 1.5% on infrastructure could easily be marked off already with general civilian and military projects. We must have powe stations, railways and ports etc as well as the recently announced funding for Faislaine etc
So it’s only in reality the 3.5% we have to fine. I think Nato will agree on 3% for equipment anyway,which we have already stated we want to meet,
I agree many will present investment in Nuclear Power Stations amongst others as a way to strategically avoid Russian fossil fuels.
According to the description I saw the defence adjacent funding would include any funding of Ukraine, as opposed to it coming out of the 3.5 % defence budget.
Never going to happen. Not in this decade anyway. The SDR was a waste of trees.
For the last twenty years, I said it was a mistake for Britain to drop below 2.7% GDP defence spending. Now I find myself saying that anything above 2.9% defence spending, is unaffordable given our £2.8 trillion debt, moving quickly to £3 trillion+.