Nato set to approve new military purchases as part of a defence spending hike
Nato defence ministers are set to approve purchasing targets for stocking up on weapons and military equipment to better defend Europe, the Arctic and the North Atlantic, as part of a US push to ramp up security spending.
The 'capability targets' lay out goals for each of the 32 nations to purchase priority equipment such as air defence systems, long-range missiles, artillery, ammunition, drones and 'strategic enablers' such as air-to-air refuelling, heavy air transport and logistics.
Advertisement
Each nation's plan is classified, so details are scarce.
'Today we decide on the capability targets. From there, we will assess the gaps we have, not only to be able to defend ourselves today, but also three, five, seven years from now,' Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte said.
'All these investments have to be financed,' he told reporters before chairing the meeting at Nato's Brussels headquarters.
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth delivers a statement ahead of the meeting at Nato headquarters in Brussels on Thursday (Virginia Mayo/AP)
US President Donald Trump and his Nato counterparts will meet on June 24-25 to agree to new defence investment goals.
Advertisement
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said that 'to be an alliance, you've got to be more than flags. You got to be more than conferences. You need to keep combat ready capabilities'.
Spurred on by their own security concerns, European allies and Canada have already been ramping up military spending, including arms and ammunition purchases, since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
At the same time, some allies balk at US demands to invest 5% of their gross domestic product in defence – 3.5% on core military spending and 1.5% on the roads, bridges, airfields and sea ports needed to deploy armies more quickly – when they have already struggled to grow their budgets to 2% of GDP.
The new targets are assigned by Nato based on a blueprint agreed upon in 2023 – the military organisation's biggest planning shake-up since the Cold War — to defend its territory from an attack by Russia or another major adversary.
Advertisement
Under those plans, Nato would aim to have up to 300,000 troops ready to move to its eastern flank within 30 days, although experts suggest the allies would struggle to muster those kinds of numbers.
The member countries are assigned roles in defending Nato territory across three major zones – the high north and Atlantic area, a zone north of the Alps, and another in southern Europe.
Nato planners believe that the targets must be met within five to 10 years, given the speed at which Russia is building its armed forces now, and which would accelerate were any peace agreement reached to end its war on Ukraine.
Some fear Russia might be ready to strike at a Nato country even sooner, especially if Western sanctions are eased and Europe has not prepared.
Advertisement
'Are we going to gather here again and say 'OK, we failed a bit', and then maybe we start learning Russian?' Lithuanian Defence Minister Dovile Sakaliene said.
Swedish Defence Minister Pal Jonson also warned that while Russia is bogged down in Ukraine right now, things could quickly change.
'We also know after an armistice or a peace agreement, of course, Russia is going to allocate more forces closer to our vicinity. Therefore, it's extremely important that the alliance use these couple of years now when Russia is still limited by its force posture in and around Ukraine,' Mr Jonson said.
If the targets are respected, the member countries will need to spend at least 3% of GDP on defence.
Advertisement
Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans said his country calculates in the medium term that 'we should spend 3.5% at least on defence, which in the Netherlands means an additional 16 to 19 billion euro (£13-16 billion) addition to our current budget.'
The Netherlands is likely to buy more tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and long-range missile systems, including US-made Patriots that can target aircraft, cruise missiles and shorter-range ballistic missiles.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Who owns the news? It must not be a group of foreign powers
Who owns the news? Much of the Left has been obsessed with the issue for over a century. They have long railed against press barons and their supposed bias. So it is perhaps surprising that this Labour Government is taking such a lackadaisical approach to foreign states having substantial holdings in British newspapers. The last Conservative government back in December 2023 intervened to put on hold and scrutinise the proposed sale of The Telegraph to a company backed by Sheikh Mansour, the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates. Columnists, including Charles Moore, The Telegraph's former editor, rightly argued that even if there was no actual interference in the newspaper's editorial line, there would be the perception that the paper would no longer be independent. This would fatally undermine the newspaper's standing by throwing away its reputation for fearless reporting, whatever the reality of the situation. The then government listened and last year, in the Digital, Media and Competitions Act, introduced a new regulatory regime to restrict foreign state ownership of newspapers and news magazines. But this Act only set out the broad principle, not the details of how it would be implemented. A total ban would come with its own problems. There would be little risk of editorial interference if, say, the sovereign wealth fund of Norway was a passive investor owning 3pc or 4pc in a UK-listed media company. During the consultations, it was proposed that a 5pc limit may be appropriate to allow for such holdings. Last month the new Government announced that the threshold would not be 5pc, but actually 15pc. I and many of my colleagues in the House of Lords have serious misgivings about this much higher limit, but it is one we can live with. However, there is another aspect of the draft regulations which is unacceptable. The 15pc threshold is not cumulative, it applies to each individual holding. This means that there would be nothing to stop multiple states each owning 15pc of a newspaper. It has been reported that after The Telegraph's proposed takeover by RedBird Capital, Sheikh Mansour intends to retain up to a 15pc stake in the newspaper. With the current proposals there would be nothing to stop, say, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain from each taking 15pc holdings. A cumulative 60pc of a British newspaper owned by foreign states is a very different proposition. The guarantees against foreign control would have evaporated. Has this potential scenario arisen as a result of an oversight by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary? Alongside 50 of my fellow peers, I have written to Ms Nandy asking for clarification. Signatories include former chancellor Lord Lamont, former trade secretary Lord Lilley, long-time chairman of the 1922 committee Lord Brady, ex-director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald and the current chairman of Ipso, the independent press regulator, Lord Faulks. Our fears could be easily assuaged by simply amending the proposed regulations to ensure that 15pc is a cap on total foreign ownership. If the move is deliberate, it raises serious questions about this Government's commitment to a free press. The statutory instrument implementing the Government's regulations has now been laid and will shortly come before both Houses of Parliament. If the proposals reach the Lords in their current form, I and many of my colleagues will not be able to support the measure. The Telegraph's ownership has been left in limbo for two years so far. It is time for the new regulatory framework to be put in place that will allow its smooth transfer to new owners. But this must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press. The issues are much wider than the future of just one newspaper.
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Downing Street ‘welcomes' ECHR debate as Badenoch launches exit probe
Downing Street has welcomed discussion about changing how the European Convention on Human Rights operates. A Number 10 spokesman said on Friday it is 'important' there is discussion on how the system works, after Alain Berset, the secretary-general of the Council of Europe, said in a rare interview there should be 'no taboo' about changing the rules of the agreement. It comes as Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the ECHR had become a 'sword used to attack democratic decisions' and launched a review into whether she would commit to leaving the agreement. Asked about Mr Berset's remarks, a Number 10 spokesman said on Friday: 'Border security is vital to national security, and we welcome efforts to ensure the European Convention on Human Rights is being applied correctly and allowing countries to protect their borders. 'It's important there is discussion on how the ECHR operates to ensure it can safeguard human rights while meeting the needs of democracies. The Prime Minister has been clear on this, it should be parliament that makes the rules on immigration and government that makes the policy.' On Friday, Mrs Badenoch announced a review to be spearheaded by her shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson, to look into whether the UK should withdraw from the treaty which underpins human rights law. 'The ECHR is now being used in ways never intended by its original authors,' she told a Westminster event. 'It should be a shield to protect, instead, it's become a sword, a sword used to attack democratic decisions and common sense. 'This use of litigation as a political weapon is what I am calling lawfare. It isn't just damaging our security, it's also damaging our prosperity.' She said she was tasking her shadow minister Lord Wolfson with examining 'what the unintended consequences might be' if the UK were to leave the ECHR. 'Because it is clear that the ECHR is a major issue, I'm not asking Lord Wolfson if we should leave, that's a political not a legal question,' she said. 'I'm asking him to set out how we would leave and to consider what the unintended consequences might be, not least in Northern Ireland, if we decide to go down this route, we must do so knowingly.' Shadow home secretary Chris Philp suggested earlier on Friday that the ECHR could not be reformed. He told the BBC: 'I don't really take that very seriously. There have been previous attempts to do it.'
Reuters
22 minutes ago
- Reuters
X plays up blue checkmark disclaimer to stave off possible EU fine, source says
BRUSSELS, June 6 (Reuters) - Elon Musk's social media company X has highlighted a disclaimer to its blue checkmark in an attempt to head off a possible hefty fine from EU antitrust regulators, a person familiar with the matter said. The European Commission in July last year charged X with deceiving users, saying that the blue checkmark does not correspond to industry practices and that anyone can pay to get a "verified" status. The blue checkmark had previously indicated that an account belonged to a public figure whose identity was verified but Musk changed it to indicate it belonged to a paid subscriber after acquiring X in 2022. X has not admitted wrongdoing and the prominent display of the blue checkmark disclaimer is not part of any settlement proposal with the EU tech enforcer, the person said. The prominent display started a week ago. The Commission said it took note of X's announcement. "Our investigation related to the blue checkmark is ongoing," a spokesperson said. X did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment. The EU probe is under the Digital Services Act which requires large online platforms to do more to tackle illegal and harmful content or risk fines as much as 6% of their global annual revenue. Bloomberg was the first to report on the blue checkmark disclaimer.
