Britain’s defence targets may need rapid revision

Defence ministers from 32 Nato countries agreed “capability targets” based for the first time on operational plans, “a huge leap forward” according to secretary general Mark Rutte.

So what? The targets might be agreed but the money is not, and the UK is under increasing pressure to step up.

A new goal for Nato defence spending to reach 5 per cent of GDP is a key ask from President Trump as he looks to shift responsibility for Europe’s security back onto the continent. This figure comprises

• 3.5 per cent for “hard military”; and
• 1.5 per cent for infrastructure, cyber and hybrid activities.

The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, said at the summit in Brussels that there was “almost near consensus on 5 per cent for Nato”. He cited France, Germany, Greece, the Baltics and Hungary as those which had committed.

Missing in action was Britain, which spends 2.3 per cent and has yet to commit even to 3 per cent. But Hegseth was confident. “Our friends in the UK – we’re going to get there,” he told journalists. “We think everybody’s going to get there.”

SDARGH. The timing of Hegseth’s comments was inevitable, but awkward given they came less than a week after the UK’s landmark strategic defence review was published.

The government has pledged to meet every one of the 62 recommendations, setting the UK’s military strategy for the next decade in full. This includes adopting a “Nato-first approach”. But it has been less forthcoming on the money side.

Piecemeal announcements include commitments totalling several billion over the next few years, but MoD sources could not say how much was new money. A £15 billion nuclear warhead programme was already in the works, and £4.5 billion of £6 billion earmarked for munitions had already been announced.

Coded criticism. “I hear a few countries talk about capabilities and the importance of capabilities, then hedge a little bit on how much we spend,” Hegseth said. “You’ve got to spend to have hard power.” That is not to say capabilities are the wrong thing to be discussing, since that is what this week’s summit was about. The spending was always expected to be signed off when leaders meet at the Hague in three weeks’ time.

What’s the plan? Details on which country provides what are classified, but they range from nuclear, conventional and missile defence to ground forces. Commitments on logistics, infrastructure, cyber and hybrid operations will also be agreed at the leaders’ summit.

When? There is a shared sense of urgency on meeting new spending targets, but differences on the precise timeline.

• “Given the speed of reconstitution of Russia’s forces it has to happen within five to 10 years,” a senior Nato source involved in the process said. “All this will come with a cost.”
• The US ambassador to Nato, Matthew Whitaker, offered a tweaked end-point: “We are not driving the timeline, the threats are driving the timeline. Russia is going to reconstitute in five years or less.” He suggested each member state would have “a unique timeline”.
• Rutte brought the deadline even closer, saying member states are “safe for a couple of years”. He told allies to increase spending imminently.

If they don’t? The alliance’s all-for-one principle enshrined in Article 5 of its charter remains unshakeable, the Nato source insists. But if the Russians succeed in showing that solidarity among Nato allies is not credible, “they will probably have achieved their objective”.

What’s more… “It wouldn’t take a full-fledged invasion of Europe to do this.”

Elephant in the room. Asked whether the US would consider pulling out of the alliance if allies failed to deliver, Hegseth dodged the question. “That’s not what we’re here to discuss,” he said. A conversation for another time.