Britain arrived at the Ankara summit with its position weakened by political turmoil, according to former senior NATO and allied officials, who warned ahead of the gathering that any nation turning up short on its spending commitments would face pointed questions in public and in private.
The assessments came at an on-the-record press briefing hosted by the Center for European Policy Analysis ahead of the summit, when asked whether the imminent resignation of the Prime Minister, the resignation of former Defence Secretary John Healey and the then absence of the plan had cost London its reputation for delivery.
Jan Lipavský, the former Czech foreign minister, said the situation diminishes British influence at the top table. “It weakens the position of the UK, because they are not delivering on the budget, they have a Prime Minister in resignation, so any words from them on such an occasion will be weaker than they could be,” he said, while adding that in the European scale of things the UK “remains and will remain for a long time one of the strongest militaries and a clear voice” against Russian imperialism, and that in the long term he would not worry.
David Cattler, who led intelligence and security at NATO as Assistant Secretary General from 2019 to 2023, said the British situation would be the subject of considerable discussion behind closed doors, set against the alliance’s recent decisions on the 5 per cent spending commitment, capability targets and regional plans. “Any nation that arrives at the Ankara summit significantly below 5 per cent, or even worse, still below the Wales target, is going to have a very tough time of it, I would imagine, in public and in private,” he said, arguing that with a significant Russia threat manifesting in Ukraine and in sub-threshold activity against a range of allies, “now is not the time to not have a clear plan about how to move forward with real military spending and capability delivery on a real timeline.”
Cattler said a newly seated Prime Minister and Defence Secretary would face “quite a number of pretty pointed questions about the direction of travel,” and cautioned that publishing a plan is the easier part. What would matter more, he said, is sustained political consensus, approved budgets for acquisition to meet capability targets, and “real equipment showing up on the timeline,” something no incoming Prime Minister could resolve between then and the summit or in the months that follow.
Events have partly moved on since the briefing, with the Defence Investment Plan published on 30 June committing £298 billion to defence over four years, Dan Jarvis established as Defence Secretary, and Andy Burnham expected in Downing Street this month having pledged to fully fund the plan, although the pathway to 3 per cent of GDP and beyond remains deferred to the next spending review and around £4.7 billion of the plan’s uplift is left to be found at the next Budget, points the chair of the Defence Committee raised in the Commons this week in warning that the Prime Minister would arrive in Ankara empty-handed.
This comes not long after a CEPA Report, Unleashing Defence Innovation, which includes a number of recommendations for the NATO alliance’s investment in defence technologies and lessons it should learn from Ukraine.
The indictment is that Britain’s government, a permanent member of the UN security council, is sheltering behind NATO members who have already stepped up to the plate on defence. And the UK government is knowingly doing that sheltering in a vain attempt to enhance its own domedtic electoral prospects.
Shameful…and shamefully transparent…an utter disgrace!
It’s okay to vent, but that wasn’t the point of the post.
Chopping and changing constantly isn’t good for a lot of organisations and a persons standing in it – and tbf none of that is rocket science tbf
“…according to former senior NATO and allied officials, who warned ahead of the gathering that any nation turning up short on its spending commitments would face pointed questions in public and in private.’
Britain’s representatives deserve the ‘Spanish Inquisition’!
Perhaps. But who in NATO is ‘ sheltering’ under the UK’s nuclear deterrent which unlike the French one is assigned to NATO. It works both ways.
No question NATO members bordering Russia would prefer to have their own nuclear capabilities. The nuclear non proliferation treaty prevents that. Consequently: ‘The US is discussing whether to deploy nuclear weapons in additional European Nato states, in a move intended to reassure allies that reduced conventional military support does not weaken security guarantees.
US officials have signalled openness to additional deployments beyond the existing six countries hosting nuclear-capable bombers,’
FT June 2026
Unsurprisingly there is not much confidence in Britain amongst our European allies. That is a missed opportunity. A restoration of our conventional deterrent would give Britain considerable leverage within Europe on other matters, something successive British governments since 1990 have squandered.