Nato chief warns of Russian threat and calls for ‘quantum leap' in collective defence
Russia will remain an imminent threat to Nato even if there is peace in Ukraine and the western alliance has to dramatically increase its air defences and tank and weapon numbers as a result, the head of the organisation will say on Monday.
Mark Rutte, who is visiting the UK and meeting the prime minister, Keir Starmer, is expected to outline why it is necessary for allies to agree a dramatic increase in military spending to 5% of GDP at a summit in The Hague later this month.
At a speech at the Chatham House thinktank in London on Monday afternoon, the Nato secretary general will argue the alliance needs 'a quantum leap in our collective defence' and 'more forces and capabilities to implement our defence plans in full'.
Critically, Rutte is expected to say 'the fact is, danger will not disappear even when the war in Ukraine ends', reflecting a belief that the Kremlin will not demilitarise even it agrees to a ceasefire and eventually a peace with Kyiv.
Military planners believe that Russia will seek to retain an active and experienced army in excess of 600,000-strong and maintain elevated levels of defence spending of about 6.5% of the country's GDP, so threatening Nato's eastern flank.
Rutte will first visit Sheffield Forgemasters, a nationalised steelmaker owned by the Ministry of Defence which makes complex components for nuclear submarines, before meeting Starmer and then giving his speech.
The secretary general, a former Dutch prime minister, has been pushing a proposal for Nato members to agree to lift core defence spending to 3.5% of GDP by about 2035, with a further 1.5% on cyber and other related military infrastructure.
Britain is expected to sign up to the plan, to be formally confirmed at the summit, as part of an effort to maintain the support of the US president, Donald Trump, who pressed for the new 5% target once he was elected president for the second time.
Justifying the need for extra spending, Rutte is expected to say that Nato needs 'a 400% increase in air and missile defence' as part of a wider rearmament to maintain credible deterrence and defence.
'We see in Ukraine how Russia delivers terror from above, so we will strengthen the shield that protects our skies,' Rutte is expected to say, according to remarks trailed by Nato ahead of the speech, due to begin at 3.45pm London time (1645 GMT).
There will also have to be wider restocking of weapons, run down initially during the long period of post-old ar peace and second, because so much has been donated to Ukraine to help it fend off the full-scale Russian invasion over the past three years.
'Our militaries also need thousands more armoured vehicles and tanks, millions more artillery shells, and we must double our enabling capabilities, such as logistics, supply, transportation, and medical support,' Rutte will add.
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
Britain has promised to increase defence spending from the current 2.33% of GDP to 2.5% by 2027 and to 3% in the early 2030s. But a week ago, Starmer acknowledged that discussions about Nato's future military needs were also taking place.
'There are discussions about what the contribution should be going into the Nato conference in two or three weeks' time,' the prime minister said as he unveiled the UK's strategic defence review, as part of a wider conversation about 'what sort of Nato will be capable of being as effective in the future'.
Rutte is expected to welcome the UK's strategic defence review which he will say will 'enhance Nato's collective defence'. The document said Britain faced 'a new era of threat' and that in order to deter Russia the UK had to become, in the words of Starmer, 'battle-ready'.
Last week, one of the three members of the defence review team, the foreign policy expert Fiona Hill, said the UK needed to recognise that Russia considered itself at war with Britain and that the US under Trump was no longer a reliable ally. 'We're in pretty big trouble,' Hill said in an interview with the Guardian.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
26 minutes ago
- The National
Will the SNP's anti-nuclear energy policy survive?
Just take Wendy Wood, one of the founders of the National Party of Scotland – which later grew into the SNP. As early as 1953, the artist and Scottish independence campaigner was vocally against the nuclear power site Dounreay on the north coast of Caithness, which has been in the long process of being decommissioned since 1994. In the 1970s and 1980s, the wider anti-nuclear movement – which organised mass protests against the likes of Torness power station in East Lothian, which is set to close in 2030 – also had strong ties to pro-independence circles and the SNP. It's a link that has stood until today, with the wider Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) long backing Scottish independence. READ MORE: Former Sky Sports presenter banned from business for football betting scam The SNP, meanwhile, has itself had a long-standing commitment to block new nuclear projects through devolved planning powers. But Labour are pushing for nuclear energy to make a comeback across the UK, lumping pressure on the Scottish Government to do the same. On Tuesday, Keir Starmer promised there would be no more 'dithering' about backing nuclear power as the UK Government committed to the Sizewell C plant and the development of new small modular reactors (SMRs). The Prime Minister said the 'change of mindset' would help free the UK from reliance on international fossil fuel markets and prevent price spikes such as those in the wake of Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Scottish Labour, of course, were at the ready with anti-SNP attack lines. 'A Scottish Labour government with Anas Sarwar as First Minister will end the SNP's ban on nuclear power which is blocking jobs and investment from being created in Scotland,' Scottish Secretary Ian Murray said. The SNP, for the time being, are not for moving. Acting Energy Secretary Gillian Martin said in response to the announcement that the Scottish Government will continue to focus on renewable energy not nuclear power. The party's energy spokesperson at Westminster, Dave Doogan, also hit out at the UK Government. "The evidence is clear that nuclear is extortionate, takes decades to build and the toxic waste is a risk to local communities – Scotland's future is in renewables, carbon capture and links to Europe, not more money for white elephants,' he said. But could that be changing? Polls certainly indicate that Scots aren't totally opposed to the idea of nuclear power. SNP supporters too – over half of the party's voters believe nuclear power should be part of Scotland's mix of clean energy generation, a poll suggested last month. The Opinium survey for the campaign group Britain Remade (which, to note, was founded by a former energy and climate adviser to Boris Johnson) found 57% of those who voted for the party in last year's general election believe nuclear power should be included in Scotland's energy mix to meet the 2045 net zero target. READ MORE: Palestinian shop 'abruptly evicted' from Edinburgh property after 12 years A total of 56% of Scots thought nuclear power should be part of Scotland's clean energy mix to meet the targets, while 23% disagreed, and 21% said they did not know. This isn't a totally new phenomenon, either. Ipsos polling in 2022 found that more of the Scottish public support the building of more nuclear power stations in Scotland (39%) than oppose it (32%). Meanwhile, an SNP source told The National last month that the party's stance on atomic energy is softening. 'The younger membership honestly couldn't give two shits about this sort of stuff,' they said. 'The younger membership are quite distant from CND.' The source also said that Labour continuing to pursue the Tory nuclear policy might eventually make the SNP stance appear 'dated' but predicted any changes in policy would come further down the line given the Holyrood election is in just a year's time. But will Scottish Labour's recent shock win in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election change things? Before last year's General Election, John Swinney scrapped the Nicola Sturgeon and Bute House Agreement-era 'presumption against' new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. Instead, going forward, the party said it would look at licenses on a "rigorously evidence-led, case-by-case basis". Will the party take this so-called 'pragmatic' approach with nuclear, too?
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
EU seeks to lower a price cap on Russian oil and discourage Nord Stream pipeline investors
The European Union wants to lower a cap on the price of Russian oil to deprive the Kremlin of extra profits to fund its war in Ukraine as part of a new raft of sanctions aimed at forcing Moscow to the negotiating table, senior officials said on Tuesday. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said the bloc is 'proposing to lower the oil price cap from $60 to $45, which is lower than the market price, and lowering the oil price cap will hit Russia's revenues hard.' Kallas said the EU also wants to impose 'sanctions on the Nord Stream pipelines to prevent Russia generating any revenue in the future. In this way, it sends a clear signal we are not going back to business as usual.' All 27 EU member countries must all agree for the sanctions to enter force. In 2023, Ukraine's Western allies limited sales of Russian oil to $60 per barrel but the price cap was largely symbolic as most of Moscow's crude — its main moneymaker — cost less than that. Still, the cap was there in case oil prices rose. Oil income is the linchpin of Russia's economy, allowing President Vladimir Putin to pour money into the armed forces while avoiding worsening inflation for everyday people and a currency collapse. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said she assumed that the price cap would be discussed and agreed among the leaders of the Group of Seven major world economic powers when they meet in Canada on June 15-17. She said the United States and its G7 partners realize 'that the oil price has lowered so much that the effectiveness of the cap is to be questioned, and therefore we all want to lower the oil price from $60 per barrel down to $45 per barrel.' The Nord Stream gas pipelines were built to carry Russian natural gas to Germany but are not in operation. They were sabotaged in 2022, but the source of the underwater explosions has remained a major international mystery. The Commission has said that it wants to impose sanctions on the operating consortium to discourage investors from trying to use the pipelines in future. The blasts happened as Europe attempted to wean itself off Russian energy sources following the Kremlin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and contributed to tensions that followed the start of the war. Von der Leyen noted on Tuesday that at the beginning of the war in 2022, 'Russia had 12 billion euros ($14 billion) of energy revenues from fossil fuels" from Europe per month. "And now we're down to 1.8 billion (euros).' The new EU sanctions would also target Russia's banking sector, with the aim of limiting the Kremlin's ability to raise funds or carry out financial transactions. A further 22 Russian banks will be hit with measures, von der Leyen said. An export ban worth some 2.5 billion euros would also be imposed, and the assets frozen of more than 20 Russian and foreign companies alleged to be providing support to the Kremlin's war machine. Von der Leyen said the sanctions are aimed at forcing Russia into serious talks about peace with Ukraine. 'We need a real ceasefire, and Russia has to come to the negotiating table with a serious proposal,' she told reporters. The EU has imposed several rounds of sanctions on Russia since Putin ordered his troops into Ukraine in February 2022. Around 2,400 officials and 'entities' – often government agencies, banks and organizations – have been hit. It's last raft of sanctions, imposed on May 20, targeted almost 200 ships in Russia's sanction-busting shadow fleet of tankers, and tightened trade restrictions to stop produce that could be used for military purposes from reaching Russia's armed forces.
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
HMRC failure to notify MPs sooner about £47m phishing scam ‘unacceptable'
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has been warned by a committee of MPs that its failure to report details of a breach affecting around 100,000 taxpayers is 'unacceptable'. The Treasury Committee said it was only alerted to the information when a notification was published on the HMRC website on the same day as a live session. On June 4, it emerged that HMRC had lost £47 million after a phishing scam breached tens of thousands of tax accounts. Senior civil servants at HMRC told the Treasury Committee that 100,000 people have been contacted, or are in the process of being contacted, after their accounts were locked down in what they said was an 'organised crime' incident which started last year. On Tuesday, the committee published a letter from the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) stipulating that it had not discussed the phishing incident with HMRC and was not aware of it prior to the hearing on June 4. The committee also published a letter sent via email from its chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier to John-Paul Marks, chief executive, HMRC. The letter said: 'I am alarmed that it was never deemed necessary to inform Parliament about an issue which affected such a vast number of taxpayers and led to the loss of £47 million of public money. 'To discover this information during a session from press reports and without adequate time for the committee to review the information in detail is unacceptable.' The letter said the committee is seeking responses from HMRC as to 'why was Parliament not notified earlier about the loss of £47 million of taxpayers' money, whether through a written ministerial statement and/or public or confidential letters to the Treasury Committee and the Public Accounts Committee?' The committee is also seeking responses over why the update was published on the day of the committee hearing on the work of HMRC and who else in Government was told about the incident and when. It also wants to receive a timeline of how the incident unfolded and find out what measures HMRC has put in place to ensure that such incidents do not happen in future. The letter asked for a reply by June 24 2025. Meanwhile, the letter from Glenn Collins, head of technical and strategic engagement, ACCA, to Dame Meg, dated June 5, said: 'While we regularly engage with HMRC, including earlier in the year about issues relating to agent account access, we have not received any communication from HMRC on the issue of taxpayer account breaches until yesterday. 'We have highlighted to HMRC our frustration that HMRC has not been transparent or timely in its communication over this important issue.'
