The United States is pushing NATO Allies to commit at least 5% of their GDP to defence and security spending, describing it as a “baseline for deterrence” amid growing threats from Russia and China.
Speaking to media ahead of the NATO Defence Ministerial in Brussels, US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker told us:
“Let me cut to the core of our message. 5%—peace through strength demands nothing less, and it demands it equally from all Allies. This is not going to be just a pledge. This is going to be a commitment.”
The call represents a significant step-up from the previous Wales Pledge, in which Allies committed to 2% GDP spending on defence. Whitaker insisted:
“We cannot have another Wales Pledge with a year 10 or 11 hockey stick.”
Referencing the upcoming NATO Summit at The Hague later this month, Whitaker said:
“The United States expects every Ally to step up with concrete plans, budgets, timelines, deliverables, to meet the 5% target and close capability gaps.”
The proposed 5% benchmark is not yet finalised, but the US expects the commitment to be enshrined at the Summit. Allies are currently negotiating the scope and timeline of the pledge, including whether support to Ukraine would count towards the total.
“We are currently negotiating within the North Atlantic Council the timelines and… what is included in the 5%, both from a core defence standpoint and also from a defence-related and security-related spending [perspective],” said Whitaker.
“But let me be clear on this… we cannot have another Wales Pledge-style [commitment], where… Allies [only] meet their commitments until year 10 or year 11.”
The Ambassador stressed the urgency of the current security environment, particularly citing Russia’s military build-up:
“Russia has announced, I believe, a second army. If you’re on the eastern flank, you understand the threat. I have always said that the biggest threat to the Euro-Atlantic Alliance is Russia.”
Asked about the Secretary General’s suggested 2032 deadline for reaching 5%, Whitaker said:
“We would prefer our Allies move out urgently… We think that the threats facing NATO are growing, and our adversaries are certainly not waiting for us to rearm or be ready.”
In a separate exchange, Whitaker stated:
“Allies will need to show meaningful progress on increasing their defence budgets to meet the challenge. Our adversaries will not wait for us to be ready.”
The proposal follows growing concern over shortfalls in allied capability, including air defence, deep strike, mobility and infrastructure. The US hopes that a renewed commitment will drive investment into munitions, air defence, heavy armour, and innovation across the alliance. As Whitaker put it:
“This isn’t just about warfighting power, it’s also about jobs, innovation and economic strength across the Alliance.”
The NATO Defence Ministerial precedes The Hague Summit, where the “Hague Defence Commitment” is expected to be adopted.
Full title could be: « The United States is pushing NATO Allies to commit at least 5% of their GDP to defence and security spending for buying US equipment ».
Exactly that, this is about corporate shilling for yank defence company’s.
We need to go to at least 3.5% and push as much of that as we can to our own industry to build our resilience in time of need
You are right, it’s about supporting US industry not defence itself as a priority. In reality 5% is presently unrealistic as much I wish it were possible , even the US is no where near that and is not capable of reaching it either they are trying to save outlay on defence presently indeed. Their present Bovt spending is unsustainable, yet the Big Beautiful, Bill raises it further while taking from the poor to give to the rich, the economy is faltering (which Trump in 2am rants blames everyone else for) and Doge has not saved remotely what was promised, indeed has likely cost money and its effects in the future in health, education and research is likely to be stoking up massive future costs. So has anyone actually commited the US to 5%? This is all to put as much responsibility on Europe as possible (even if he unlike Trump acknowledges Russias threat) and forcing them to buy US weapons while the meme will be that the Aus doesn’t need to spend 5% because it’s been spending to defend Europe over the years blah, blah, blah. Fact is even if we spend 5% he would want more.
To be honest I suspect this is as much about damaging European economies, EU unity and overall democracy for their own perceived, if naive benefit as it is about defence spending. At best it’s laying down unrealistic targets to try to actually get more realistic ones like 3.5% which is certainly a level we should all be aiming for.
The grief they’ve given allies means that they’ll be receiving a lot less than they otherwise would’ve been. A weird approach from them, at least in-part.
Perusal has a good video where he breaks down how the US was basically getting its way with increased NATO expenditure going into US coffers in November 24, but now with TACO, that golden goose looks like it’ll die.
When the US hits 5% we can talk.
USA current sequestration set up is to spend 2.7% by 2030 and trump hasn’t changed that.
Spending actually declined under Trump 1.
That’s not quite how it works, to be fair. How many NATO troops are stationed on US territory?
Several Hundred Thousand. The US is a NATO state.
Ok, you’re technically correct (the best kind of correct), but I think you know what wasn’t what I meant 😅
Oh and Bjorn, just a little reminder that the only time NATO Article V was ever enacted was when an attack was launched on US territory and the United States Government called NATO to it’s aid (and NATO responded).
Apparently having nearly 1000 British soldiers die in defence of America doesn’t count because they were not in America.
🙈
Exactly.
I’m aware, of course. My point is that from the US perspective, they’re the ones doing us a favour (whether right or wrong) and from their perspective, the threat is in our backyard, so we ought to take the threat more seriously than they do.
I’m not really arguing for the reasonableness of that viewpoint, merely stating that the US can see the logic of us spending more on our own defense than they do.
Clearly that’s not what NATO is about, which is why that viewpoint seems to shocking to us, but seen with American eyes, us spending 5% and them spending 3.7% is reasonable enough.
You might not be intending to argue that it’s reasonable, but you very much are defending the viewpoint, and a lot of what you are saying is frankly falling for Trumpian talking points.
Even from the US viewpoint us spending 5% and the US spending 3.7% is not reasonable: the US maintains a global hegemony, power projecting into the Pacific, executing the monreau doctrine, fighting wars of choice in the middle east, and using it’s bases in Europe to enable those strategic deployments (there’s a reason the US didn’t close places like Ramstein after the cold war ended even though we were on good terms with Yeltsin). The US’s 3.7% all goes towards those endeavors, none of which Europe has.
Does Europe need 11 Carriers to deploy into the Pacific and Indian Ocean and contest US military power there? Because that’s the kind of thing the US defence budget goes on.
So no, it’s not reasonable in any way, it’s just a bad take that trump is using to rile up an uncritical audience that doesn’t stop to think beyond their emotions.
That’s exactly how sequestration works pal, what’s the got to do with troops stationed in the USA.
Well I guess if Mexico was Russia there would be quite a few if we perceived as an alliance it was a threat to us all and as Dern says the US is the only one to have enacted article 5.
Yes and in that world, Europeans would no doubt argue that this was a problem close the US borders so while the US would have our support, they’re would have to pay for the majority of that standing force near Mexico.
You do know that ENATO has more active duty troops than the US right? And that the US maintains only a very small % of NATO troops in Europe?
Exactly. Unless Trump is planning on going all-in with Putin & kindly warning us we’re not just on our own, but have Russia & Chuna from the east & rogue USA from the west.
Though we certainly need to both up our spending, forces & shorten dramatically the time when we expect to be ready.
Say what you will about Trump, but he’s responsible for the renewed focus on increasing defense spending. Even a war on the European continent wasn’t enough to spur us or most of our allies—into action; it took his pressure to finally move the needle.
Exactly. Labour talk tough now, but they were not moving beyond 2.3%, and had no intention to, until they were compelled.
Even now they don’t want to, which is why Starmer is officially resisting, in fear of the left of his party.
A left we should ALL fear.
Hi Daniele,
(Apologies for getting your name wrong on a different post – I don’t know how to edit).
The crazy thing is, people who’ve been calling for increased defense spending for years are now turning against it, simply because credit goes to the current U.S. administration.
Honestly, I don’t care if it came from my ex or from Trump—it’s good news either way 👍
Hi JJ.
You said you were new here earlier. Welcome.
No worries with the name, I’m used to it.
Thanks Daniele 👍
We did have an edit function, it was lost when the site had difficulties many months back.
My comments are now marked as “under review.”
In any case, this is what I sent.
Hi George (and Team),
UKDJ is a platform I really value, and I genuinely hope to see it continue to grow and thrive.
I only recently started contributing to the comments section and noticed there’s currently no option to edit comments once they’ve been posted. One of the contributors mentioned that this feature used to exist, which made the experience much smoother.
Would it be possible to reinstate the ‘edit’ option for comments? I believe it would enhance user engagement and improve the overall experience on the platform.
Thanks again for all the work you do in running such a great site.
Best regards,
JJ
JJ.
There was also a “Flag” option to report abuse and Trolls, and poster comment history was available, which was very useful for looking back for conversations, or to find a current conversation, handy when you might have several on the go.
I do miss that. Most forums include an edit function for as long as there is no reply at which point it is set in stone. It means one can correct spell checker errors or mistakes one misses as one writes.
As much as we should be concerned about the Putin appeasing right…
Extremism of all forms is best avoided and treated with deep suspicion.
The big issue is its not just the left.. it’s the bulk of most voters.. the defence is vital brigade is actually tiny.. most people would vote against a 5% rise unless it’s been normalised.. as you know I think that is essentially what is going on.. the way starmer talks….good for jobs.. 3% as soon as we can figure out how etc. the light pushing from the Conservative Party, the Lib Dem’s not kicking up…silence from reform.. how the SDR was worded..this is the British’s state essentially gearing the public back up to the Cold War so there is not a huge voter backlash against a massive defence spend increase..
Oops I posted this on the wrong post.
So we have Trump demanding all other NATO Allies spend 5% of GDP and Rutte pushing for all NATO countries to go to 3.5% + 1.5%. Does Trump / Rutte really think that :-
A) European and Canada NATO countries will actually agree to this when the US is at 3.33% ?
B) The Trump will agree to match them at 5% when he actually wants to cut the US defence budget to give out Tax Cuts ?
Please can someone get real, it’s a start point for negotiations and Trump is going to be Trump, reading his speech Rutte is practically egging him on to read the riot act act to those who haven’t met the last target.
So Canada, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Slovenia, Luxembourg and Croatia all better stick some Comics down their Trews, cause they are going to be getting it full bore from POTUS.
Trump just needs to threaten to close US bases in Spain, Belgium, Portugal and Italy or move them to countries that pay their way (why the hell does the US Army have 2 bases in Italy ?). Or make US commitment to article 5 conditional on 100% agreement or they leave NATO !
And to be quite honest 3 of those countries deserve to get everything they get (if only we could add Eire).
What do the sums actually look like ?
Based on 2024/25 figures the GDP of the US was $27.2 Trillion and the EUs was £18.59 Trillion.
So in the same period the US spent 3.38% of GDP or $967 Billion on Defence so if the EU matched that 3.38% it would equate to $604 Billion then add on ours at the same % and European NATO spending would be $718 Billion pa.
If however the Target for EU/UK NATO members was set at 5% then the sums add up to $925 billion which pretty well matches the USA. I doubt even Trump could get his country to be happy with that one.
I don’t think anyone here on UKDJ will disagree that when the immediate threat to us is Russia and half their Nuclear deterrent points elsewhere that’s a wee bit of overkill (yes that was a Pun). Fact is if France and UK coordinate their SSBN rotas and provide tactical weapons (with some central funding from others ) we don’t need the US any more.
I suspect that after all the threats, tantrums etc they will all go in and negotiate in a realistic way and I think they will end up with a Target at about 3 -3.25% but with the caveat that there will consequences for this that don’t comply. And in the full understanding that the US will remain committed to NATO but Europe has to take on the conventional tasking and provide its own Nuclear Umbrella.
Chucked a reply to this on your OG post mate.
Personally I think 5% is too high.. which is why I think the 3.5+1.5 % seems to be the thing that NATO is signing up to .. the 1.5% seems to be very lax and essentially simply industrial stimulus packages etc.
But it does seem the 3+1.5 has been almost universally accepted ( with Spain on the naughty step) and it’s now more about when that comes in..
As for the US I suspect its defence spending will be moving north.. the US is really just beginning to realise China can beat it.. and it’s a peer power in the western pacific.. that’s why the US has gone out and said to the pacific democracies you need to do 5% as well..
There was a good guardian article which went through it and essentially said that starmer has essentially tied himself to whatever NATO comes up with as an agreement and there was a cabinet meeting specifically last Tuesday about how the UK gets to the new NATO floor..
good post ABC, I think you are spot on in your commentary!
If Starmer feared the left he wouldn’t be pissing them off at every opportunity with Gaza, trans rights, the environment, housing, transport and immigration. In fact since taking power he’s done his best job at impersonating the previous Prime Minister he beat with a center left manifesto.
He’s dragging his feet because he knows there’s nobody left to tax aside from the wealthy and corporations and he’s no braver than any of the spineless bootlicking worms we’ve had since the 80’s
Good last paragraph to be fair!
I agree Tomartyr. Closer to home for me , Anthony Albanese has mirrored this. He shifted the Aussie labour party back to the centre and won a convincing majority in the recent election. I see a similar theme with the recent Canadian election. Globally, the labour left has taken the mood of the electoral room and re set.
“The crazy thing is, people who’ve been calling for increased defense spending for years are now turning against it, simply because credit goes to the current U.S. administration.”
Nope. I’m happy to call for increased spending, but also not think that the US administration torpedoing NATO and demanding an increase in defence spending while also demanding no additional European Autonomy is a bad thing, and I’ve been pretty consistent on that point.
Hi Dern,
What you feel or think,for that matter is irrelevant.
The reality is that nothing substantial changed in terms of defence spending in the UK or Europe until Trump stepped in. That’s a fact.
Okay projection much? Because you are replying to exactly nothing I brought up.
But if you want to go down that road: The German injection of 100 billion, and the Polish build up where both substantial changes that happened pre-Trump.
But hey, if you think that Trump bringing down the rules based international order is a good thing if it means Europe spend a bit more on defence, then you do you. Personally I think what he’s doing is terrible and while it will result in more european defence spending, it will hurt the US (and already has reputationally). So you do you.
Well yes and no the Germans didn’t take a blind notice of Trump 1 NATO targets as cheap Russian Gas was way more important. Ukraine encouraged them but I think that when it looked like Trump was coming back that motivated them.
That’s not what I think JJ is saying.
That Trump has managed to increase European defence spending is the silver lining behind a really bad turn of events. That it took, well, THIS (no italics, sorry) to make it happen is a problem, one that we need to recognise. Trump isn’t any better a person or a president because this has happened, it’s just that one of his geopolitical flailings happened to nudge a lever in the right direction.
Hi Dern,
Why does it bother you so much that Trump plans to increase defense spending?
Western governments have had years to act, yet little was done—until Trump began pushing with his rhetoric about NATO.
JJ.
Comsider reading what I said instead of what you want me to have said.
It’s far more Putin’s aggresion that is raising European defence spending. We give Trump way too much credit. Most US presidents have decried us slashing our defence spending & capabilities. But now we have a cleaver moron in the Kremlin actually invading freindly European states & a dumb moron in the Whitehouse spoeaking from the kremlin hymn sheet we’re waking up to reality at last.
Yes, but he has already destroyed the western alliance, he is a clown. Anyone can cure the disease by killing the patient.
No one will be coming to America’s aid in the pacific. The NATO treaty doesn’t compel anyone and all good will has gone.
China is the big winner.
Jim I can’t stand the man, he’s everything I loathe ! But even a busted clock is right twice a day, calling his NATO “Allies” out as freeloading on the US is the one correct time in this half of the day.
The Polish Foreign Minister summed it up, “Trumps right, how can anyone justify 700 million being defended by a country of 320million against a country of 140 million”.
I happen to think his Orange spring may break before he gets it right again 😂
Is the US correct on that? The reason the NATO allies spent less for years was because of the system the US put in place and the US demanding that Europe have no autonomy…
Despite 5% being unrealistic for anyone currently, pushing the proposed increase has the potential to be a win win situation for Trump, he either gets Europe to stand up and rearm seriously or has an excuse to push for the US to leave NATO or pull back and blame it on Europe not taking defence seriously, both he can sell to his supporters as wins. US companies benefiting will be a bonus.
On the other side, whether it’s is forced or not, Europe becomes stronger, safer and likely regains some autonomy it had lost being reliant on the US.
Regardless of the reason for the increase, European nations still need to get serious, but it also needs to be realistic otherwise it just won’t happen as there are still a number of countries not even at 2% agreed over 10 years ago.
It was the whole annexing NATO members for “minerals” thing 😀
ABCR – the big issue is the nuclear weapons imbalance between Russia and Europe. For that, we need USA to be involved.
Well I accept he has had an influence but as usual he takes credit and re writes history on the hoof to give a very different perspective to reality. Biden and Obama called on Europe to do more but sadly until reality bites we dig our heads in the sand and Ukraine and more importantly Russias move to a persistent war economy and no sign it will give up is forcing Europe to finally bite the bullet even as much of it tries to extend the timescale. Poland and the Baltics certainly were not simply influenced by Trump and I don’t think even German has been much. France and Britain have the added complexity of the nuclear deterrent and France has an over 100% borrowings to GDP while trying to keep the Facists at bay. Britain hasn’t really committed more than it was before Trump but like the trade deal that isn’t has go out of its way to publicise it as Starmer was about to go meet him to make him feel he was getting something more he can claim as a victory.
Others are doing the same as we saw in the Middle East when Bulf States were promising ridiculously unachievable investments many times their GDP to flatter his ego so he can boast about mythical deals at home while the true investments were mostly to his family fortunes through effective bribes. This is how he does business and politics is simply business to him so like Musk (as we are now seeing as he limps out of the ring) don’t believe all the mythical pr dig deeper into the underlying reality. Most of it is people telling him what he wants to hear, so he can boost the myth to a gullible public, create a distortion field of rewritten truth and lap up the personal benefit be it money or contrived popularity. Like all that ‘18 carat gold’ he plastered around the Oval Office and boasts about much of it was cheaply obtained on eBay, it’s all a superficial con. Geez the arch exploiter is still peddling the lie that USAID was financing research into transsexual mice.
US is well below 3%.
Spending needed to rise from sub 2% but 2.5% for most NATO states is adequate with 3% for nuclear states.
Any spending should, as far as reasonably practicable, avoid US sourcing.
5% is either a US industrial boost strategy or get ready to help fight both China and Russia
They know we’ll never agree to 5%, but high (or low) balling their initial position means that the negotiated mid point will be closer to what they realistically want from us, which is about 3.5% in my estimation.
Aim high, land in the middle
Since that’s roughly the US spending level I’d tend to agree.
I was going to post this exact point. I suspect roughly 3.5% is the ceiling for most countries during peace time.
Let’s hope so, because it’s all that’s possible at least till a NATO member is in that pre Ukraine imminent threat stage or an attack occurs.
The alliance must spend 5%.. also remember to buy American so that the US can plug its debt hole, then sit with theyr feet up under theyr new golden umbrella when the shit hits the fan
Even to reach 3.5% is going to require major cuts for us, given where bond yields are even at the short end of the yield curve – borrowing is out, the gilt market has made that abundantly clear over the past 18 months or so. Ending the insane and unjustifiable triple lock and what’s left of foreign aid would be a start
A comparison of state pension alone shows the UK providing a lower level of pension than most other advanced economies relative to average earnings. The UK has an overall net replacement rate of 54.4% from mandatory pensions for an average earner, below the OECD average. Out of 22 European countries our pension payments rank 11th.
Why not look at the £4Bn per year we are spending on looking after illegal migrants, cut the benefits of the work shy and reduce tax evasion by the mega rich.
You can pull Stats buy their are also other ‘facts’ like our European neighbours mainly have unfunded State schemes whilst the UK (and NL, I believe) have far more money in funded, employer sponsored, private schemes. We’ve also had auto-enrollment on workplace pensions for a long time which, intergenerationally, will take the heat off our State pension and future UK Governments. We bankrupt our nation on the NHS whilst the likes of France bankrupt their nation with State pensions.
Illegal immigrants are the least of our issues. The biggest is a 100% made in the UK, pure blooded problem of our own which I am neck deep in dealing with daily. The underclass.
They are a drain on the justice system, a drain on unemployment aka unemployability benefits, a drain on health care with their drug/ alcohol use and violent lifestyle, a drain on social care both child and adult. They reproduce at an alarming rate (all adding to social care as above) and as a proportion of the UK population are growing faster than any other thus their cost is only going to increase.
This is what will bankrupt the country before anything else but it never seems to be talked about anywhere. I see the resources sucked into dealing with them and the cost is staggering.
I agree with you there.
I deal with low level anti social behavior for a living (Railways: tickets please). In my experience first gen immigrants are far more law abiding than people born here.
We have what appears to be a growing underclass who hate the society around them and feel entitled to rip it off in every way they can. I believe a large part of this is the lefts abuse of their near total control of the education system and popular media to attack society for its perceived faults.
This underclass is disproportionately black and Asian, but still mainly white.
Just don’t cut your pension though 😂
Jim, I have over a decade before I get mine but begrudging a pension of £12k a year for someone who has paid taxes all their working lives seems to show a real lack of understanding of what it takes to maintain a civilised society.
I’ve long suspected that if we had a better functioning state then that will unlock billions in growth and revenue that will help pay for much of the things we want. Big reforms of liability laws, human rights, health & safety, planning, DEI laws etc. I work in the public sector and I see inefficiencies all around me because ‘we’re liable if we do x, y or z so we can’t do the sensible thing’.
Yes we can make cuts to things like Arts England, foreign aid etc but the real money spinner will be in reforming the state.
Hi Donald
We will match what you do. Btw we won’t be buying US. Anything but America first!!
^this.
Be interesting to see if the rest of NATO says no/non/nein to 5% whether DT takes the US out of NATO! Might be a wake-up call for everybody to spend more, whatever happens!
Trumps attitude to NATO suggests that he just might do it!
As Jim and others often say, we’d struggle to spend it given the small size of the forces in the short term.
Including UKR money and the SIA, which I read Starmer already did, in the extra 1.5 would help.
SIA is separate and means the actual defence budget for NATO point of view is 2.6%
0.1% of which is support for Ukraine at £3.5b per year. The loans to Ukraine are purely a treasury matter so they don’t count (and in theory are paid back anyway)
Hi M8 I actually think Starmer and Healey have played a blinder on their own Team.
Announce a rather decent (if confused in bits) SDR which would really be brilliant if properly funded, but don’t commit political suicide on announcing the necessary increases in it.
Push the actual decision making back to the Autumn command knowing full well Trump & Rutte will ram the necessary funding of 3 or 3.25% down the throats of the Labour / Treasury opposition.
Labour can’t risk losing the new Trade agreements with US / EU, Reform will love it as it sucks up to Trump and the pro EU mob have to be quiet as the rest of Europe have to do it as well.him.
Best bit he doesn’t get the blame, gets what Healey wanted and survives. It’s brilliant, it’s Machiavelli reborn !
I hope you’re right mate.
Not a chance. The better way to approach this is to recognize that some countries have more or less delivered on the 2% commitment for years- Greece, UK. France. Others, Germany ,Spain, Netherlands for example have consistently failed to get anywhere near8 the target. Any new commitment should take account of past shortfalls. So Germany should be required to spend more in future to compensate. France and UK should have a lower commitment.
Out of interest did you vote Remain?
Check your facts Netherlands has met the Target (2.05% last year and going up) also one of the biggest supporters of Ukraine per capita.
Belgium, Slovenia, Croatia, Luxembourg, Portugal, Italy, Canada and Spain haven’t and I suspect the latter 3 are in for a shock.
I always do.
Netherlands has upped its spending in the last 2 years. Before that it spent only just over 1% of GDP for many years.
We should look at say the last 10 years to calculate the cumulative shortfall against the agreed 2%. This would determine how much a country would be expected to spend over the next 10 year period..Simple and fair.
Some definitely need to step up, but Italy is an odd one as despite spending a lower % they seem to have maintained reasonable force levels and equipment, they also have some pretty decent equipment programs in place to modernise the remaining areas. But still doesn’t change that they could do more in the same envelope as others.
Are the US also planning for 5%, or just telling everyone else to ?
Anyone got an idea how much money the extra 2.5% is for the UK in 2025 cash terms ?
As I have said a number of times we are being relaxed into 3.5% +1.5%. The British state know that most voters would not be happy with that spend.. so it’s 3% as soon as week can and look at all the jobs this is making and how good it is for the economy.. with an SDR which as all about changing the cultural view of the population about defence.. next it will be see 3% is a stepping stone to 3.5+1.5% and look we can achieve it by 2029 so we can get to the NATO target by 203x.. why they are so cagey and say it’s at least 3% by the latest 2034.. and look at all the jobs and factories.. we are being fluffed ready for the main even😂😂
Political good sense (why take a bullet when someone else will next month).
ABCR,
Excellent summation! 😂😁👍
If that’s true they need to change up the messaging and saturate it. The old “250 new jobs at former tractor factory” is nothing to the greater public, “500 new apprentices in Scotland” the same. It just doesn’t register beyond the local area even if you announce 20,30,50 similar schemes.
“50,000+ new, high-paying, “lifetime” jobs across the UK. Another 150,000 in the supply chain, 100,000 at the service level. Every £1 spent on defence is £4 into the economy & £0.80p back in tax. 40,000 taken off benefits saving £1,000,000,000 per year.”
Later on add “The extra 0.2% GDP we spent on defence was responsible for 10% of our economic growth.” (All numbers obviously for example).
3.5% may be doable if the jobs are created, remain high-paying and are deemed secure. This requires firm orders, initially from the UK government, not just hope about potential foreign orders along with a UK first, second and third approach to procurement. The second you “save” a few million on a foreign off-the-shelf solution you lose tens if not hundreds of millions from the UK economy.
An additional 1.5% would have to be very loosely defined to sell in most NATO nations and would need to include most infrastructure as this would have easily sellable advantages to the public. It also could have been announced last week without any fluffing needed and simply be counted later towards the requirement. “Don’t improve the roads and keep our energy prices high.” Said no-one ever, outside of cartoon villains.
If this is about prepping the public, time is not on the governments side. If it’s just about fluffing the Donald for a bit…
Ged,
Excellent explanation of the 1.5% of GDP component for associated military expenditures. Confidently predict every NATO government will enthusiastically support that measure. 😳😁😉
Out of interest what proportion of the US defence budget goes towards NATO commitments? I can’t find any info on that.
You won’t find any info on it, because the US doesn’t calculate it’s defence spending like that. As far as the US is concerned, all of it’s defence spending is NATO based, even if the vast majority of it is being used to fight wars in the middle east or fund it’s naval arms race with China.
The NATO area is clearly defined in the treaty. You can look at where in the world US forces are deployed to get an indication of how much is outside that area. To a smaller extent, Britain and France also have forces deployed outside the treaty area.j
Make major cuts and do it now, not in the future!
We need not see savage cuts. Commentators are suggesting the spending review will see big increases for defence, inflation rises for health and significant investment in transport. Everything else will see minor cuts. The economy of Greater Manchester, population about 3M is growing at 3.6%. It can be done. Every metro mayor just needs to learn from Andy Burnham.
After decades of cuts, austerity, wage freezes etc you must be joking. When we start going after the biggest free loaders, the richest & making them pay more, then you’ll know we’re serious. Until then it’s all rearranging the lifeboats on the Ti….
Gaslighting & scapegoating the weakest, poorest, sick & vulnerable has to stop.
It is said the wealthist 5% have more than the lower 50%. But every time we have a crisis it’s always the poorer who are made to bear the brunt, while the rich just get richer even faster.
We don’t need to spend 5%, 3% adds capability across the board, increasing our current budget by £15bn annually. 5% would necessitate deep cuts to many other areas and would ultimately be self defeating as the public would vote against it.
I agree. 3% is fantastic compared to where we were a few short years ago, with the awful Michael Fallon going on about a 2% which had pensions and the cost of having nuclear weapons shoved in it.
In 2025 terms and in $ 3% is about £73 billion so not too shabby.
Bah in £££’s
Fingers crossed.
So where are our misiles to defend againt icbm attack, and underwater cable monitoring solutions. If we were to get attacked now we’d be screwed. A lot more needs to be done and 3% just isn’t going to cut the mustard
ICBM defence is the MAD concept. It’s why we have nukes in the first place. Only the US has the resources to develop a missile system to defend against ICBMs. It is ludicrously expensive and it’s effectiveness is in question.
One of the main for the collapse of the Roman Empire was heavy taxes to fund wars and pay for the military.
And paying for silk.
And being “barbarised” from within as Goths and others crossed the Rhine and Danube, pushed by Huns and others from the east.
Emperors would also spend big to buy the loyalty of the military.
And plague.
And the fact that it was almost constantly at war with itself for a century and a half.
And the tribes beyond the border becoming more Romanised, and their militaries learning lessons from the legions
And the destruction of the middle class by wealthy land owners
…
I could go on. A lot. Longer.
I know, I remember this convo we had years ago on Rome. Wasn’t it your degree?
and off course the rise of the Sasanian Empire in the East(Persia). The fall (or rather decline) of the Roman Empire is a fascinating topic.
It is mate. Although my studies of Rome tend to end at Commodus. It generally goes downhill from there!
I prefer the classical period of the Empire, Augustus onwards.
Hi DM, funny how history repeats. A parallel with illegal immigration in Europe today? Dean put it well, with it the cumulative effect of the events, the summary of the parts being greater. A recurring plague disease, the decentralisation of power , internal conflict and corruption. And as you say the barbarian hordes.
Its a personal view, but as a culture they had long lost the will to expand and conquer . I blame Hadrina! (nice wall though) 😁
The Visigoths were Christian; the Romans were dissolute, woke pagans – democrats and liberals. No contest 🙂
What have the romans ever done for us….. had to get in first 🙂
Plus a growing class of the richest exempted from tax.
Sorry President Trump but there’s no way Starmer going to pay 5% on Defence ,he’d rather waste money on bad deals what don’t help the nation 😟
There is literally no way short of an active full scale war that the UK is going to be able to stretch out to 5% GDP to defence ratio- that would equate to £80 billion a year additionally going into defence and a defence budget of roughly £150 billion a year. Eye wateringly huge sum of money and likely could only be afforded through extreme cuts to welfare, benefits and social security- in other words the most in need in society.
This is why Labour have gone hell for leather for growth- that is the best way to afford large sums of money required for defence and national infrastructure.
If the whole economy and GDP can grow then remaining on 2.5-3% would still be sufficient to afford a reasonably large increase in expenditure. 5% we have had that before- in the 1908s we were at around 5%- at the height of the cold war we were at 7-8% so it is doable but I don’t think Russia is a threat to the West except in the nuclear and WMD area- in which case lets just continue as planned and refresh the nuclear deterrent, add additional trident MIRV warheads, purchase 36-48 F35As as a dual use strike/bomber/ nuclear strike aircraft and equip them with UK made/ possibly shared with France long range nuclear armed cruise missiles or gravity bombs. That is the best way to counter Russia’s threats of nuclear Armageddon- the certainty the UK would punch back and make Russia pay a very high cost for destroying our country.
I think getting to 3% before the next parliament will have to be done- and not just when it is convenient and fiscally tolerable. It might well be 3.5% with a NATO requirement to spend 1.5% on defence related expenditure- so civil defence (of which the UK has none, scandalously) industrial investment, protection on infrastrucutre, R+D and armed forces housing. It is likely when Starmer returns from the NATO summer summit and before the comprehensive spending review that we wil have been moved to agreed an escalation to 3-3.5% before the end of this parliamentary period.
5% is still 5% no matter how big the pie gets
Remember the TACO principle: Trump Always Chickens Out.
5% is just the initial bargaining position for Europe to talk him down from, probably ending up at 3-3.5%
Either that or he’s a moron who doesn’t realise 5% would make America into the junior partner of the EU on the continent. Which at least aligns with the general trend of Trump dismantling the USA and its hegemony.
in reality he’s recognised the emerging multi-polar world, and see’s more important issue in other places
you can be assured. trump has changed the europeans perspective on world issues for the better, they’ve been asleep at the wheel for 25 years, ever since they started poking the bear
jog on krembot
Have a taco cherub, you’ll feel much better
ABCR,
Believe you have cracked the code re HMG plan for increased defence spending. Classic good cop-bad cop scenario. Peace loving HMG would love to continue/expand social welfare spending, but the extremely annoying Mad Vlad and the Orange One are conspiring to make that improbable/impossible (the proverbial sticks 🏑). Reality will ultimately be a fiscal pathway to 3.X% of GDP for direct military spending by 203Y. The 1.5% in “associated” military expenditures is undoubtedly assured, w/ nearly unanimous votes, on prescribed timeline. Politicians of all parties w/in every NATO country will inevitably sense the utility of a public slush fund when perusing future government budgets (the proverbial carrot 🥕). Guaranteed. 🤔😉 Predict an update of the published SDR in due course. 🤔
it’s like the climate change doomsday cult, we’ve heard all this before
We need to commit to 3.5% – 4% sooner rather than later. Then spend that budget in UK/European manufacturers. We have the capability, and the skills to do it. Just need the commitment from the Governnment. We will have to buy some items fm America, ( F-35b, P8, E7, Tomahawk Etc), until such times that those weapons and platforms can be designed and built in the UK or Europe.
We have to cut off this dependance on weapon platforms from the US. This cancer has been growing since WW2, the US has manouvered the majority of the free world into buying fm US manufacturers, and used their immense Political and Military influence, to close down and curtail other nations manufacturing industries.
It will take time and money, the only draw back is the commitment from a UK Government.
“This is not going to be just a pledge. This is going to be a commitment.” Take note Starmer!