Nato to ask Germany for 40,000 more troops under new targets, sources say
The Nato alliance is dramatically increasing its military capability targets as it views Russia as a much greater threat since its 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. PHOTO: REUTERS
Nato to ask Germany for 40,000 more troops under new targets, sources say
BERLIN - Nato will ask Germany to provide seven more brigades, or some 40,000 troops, for the alliance's defence, three sources told Reuters, under new targets for weapons and troop numbers that its members' defence ministers are set to agree on next week.
The alliance is dramatically increasing its military capability targets as it views Russia as a much greater threat since its 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Exact figures for Nato's targets - either overall or country by country - are hard to verify as the information is highly classified.
One senior military official who, like the other sources spoke on condition of anonymity, said the target for the total number of brigades that Nato allies would have to provide in future will be raised to between 120 and 130.
This would mean a hike of some 50 per cent from the current target of around 80 brigades, the source said. A government source put the target at 130 brigades for all of Nato.
Neither the German defence ministry nor Nato responded immediately to requests for comment.
In 2021, Germany agreed to provide 10 brigades - units usually comprising around 5,000 troops - for Nato by 2030. It currently has eight brigades and is building up a ninth in Lithuania to be ready from 2027.
Providing a further 40,000 active troops will be a big challenge for Berlin, however. The Bundeswehr has not yet met a target of 203,000 troops set in 2018, and is currently short-staffed by some 20,000 regular troops, according to defence ministry data.
In 2024, Reuters reported that Nato would need 35 to 50 extra brigades to fully realise its new plans to defend against an attack from Russia and that Germany alone would have to quadruple its air defence capabilities.
Furthermore, the new Nato targets do not yet reflect any provisions for a drawdown of US troops in Europe, sources said, the prospect of which has rattled Europeans due to Nato's defence plans that rely heavily on US assets.
Washington has said it will start discussing its reduction plans with allies later this year. US President Donald Trump's administration has told Europeans that the US can no longer be primarily focused on European security.
During the Cold War, Germany maintained 500,000 troops and 800,000 reserve forces. Today, alongside Poland, it is tasked by Nato with providing the bulk of ground forces that would be first responders to any Russian attack on the alliance's eastern flank.
Spending increase
Nato members have massively increased defence spending since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and have been urged to go further by Mr Trump, who has threatened not to defend countries lagging behind on defence spending.
At a summit in The Hague in June, alliance head Mark Rutte will seek an agreement from national leaders to more than double their current spending target from 2 per cent of GDP to 5 per cent - with 3.5 per cent for defence and 1.5 per cent for more broadly defined security-related spending.
In a historic shift, Germany recently loosened its constitutional debt brake so that it can raise defence spending, and it has backed Mr Rutte's 5 per cent target.
German chief of defence Carsten Breuer has ordered his country's forces to be fully equipped by 2029, by which time the alliance expects Moscow to have reconstituted its military forces sufficiently to attack Nato territory. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
26 minutes ago
- Straits Times
UK's Starmer seeks nuclear build-up in sweeping military revamp
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the UK will move to a position of "war-fighting readiness" on June 2 during an interview. PHOTO: EPA-EFE British Prime Minister Keir Starmer outlined a sweeping overhaul of the military, including a costly expansion of the country's nuclear deterrent, but declined to specify when the United Kingdom would meet a key target of spending 3 per cent of national output on defence. The UK will move to a position of 'war-fighting readiness' in response to growing threats and greater instability in the world, Mr Starmer said, as his government announced plans to invest £15 billion (S$26.1 billion) in its nuclear warhead program and to build as many as 12 submarines as part of the AUKUS partnership it operates with the US and Australia. 'If you want to deter conflict, then the best way to do that is to prepare for conflict,' Mr Starmer told BBC Radio on June 2, ahead of the publication of the government's strategic defence review scheduled for later in the day. 'The world has changed: we need to be ready,' he said. Britain's long-awaited defence review comes against the backdrop of doubts over US willingness to guarantee security in Europe at a time of Russian aggression, a geopolitical shift under Mr Donald Trump's presidency that has already spurred the government to announce plans to ramp up defence spending to 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product in 2027 from about 2.3 per cent currently. But the review risks being overshadowed by Mr Starmer's ambiguity over when Britain will raise defence spending to 3 per cent of national output, a goal that still falls short of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Secretary-General Mark Rutte's proposal that members should spend at least 3.5 per cent on core defence activities. Mr Trump has demanded they spend 5 per cent. Pressed on the timeline, Mr Starmer was non-committal, beyond a restatement of his 'ambition' to get there in the next Parliament, which is due to run through 2034. Declining to commit to a precise date, until he knows where the money would come from, he said: 'I don't believe in performative fantasy politics, and certainly not on defence and security.' Nevertheless, the prime minister emphasised in a press conference later in the day that he's '100 per cent confident' the pledges outlined in June 2's review can be delivered, because they're premised on defence spending at 2.5 per cent of economic output. The new nuclear investment, which Defence Secretary John Healey said on June 1 would send a 'message to Moscow', comes alongside building six new munitions factories to create an 'always on' industrial production, buying as many as 7,000 long-range missiles and investing in cybersecurity and stockpiles of support equipment. June 2's review comes after a period of underinvestment in the country's defence industry that has seen the size of the UK army shrink to its smallest since the Napoleonic era. An end to the so-called 'peace dividend' will put more pressure on the country's stretched public finances, with Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves set to unveil departments' budget settlements at the multi-year spending review on June 11. Higher military spending comes at a time of multiple demands on the public purse, from healthcare to prisons. 'All of Labour's strategic defence review promises will be taken with a pinch of salt unless they can show there will actually be enough money to pay for them,' Conservative Shadow Defence Secretary James Cartlidge said in a statement on June 1. The Sunday Times reported that the Labour government wants to buy American-made fighter jets capable of carrying tactical nuclear weapons. The review will also recommend new defensive shields to protect the country from enemy missiles as well as reestablishing a civilian home guard, according to the report. Russia's war in Ukraine has brought the state of European defences into the spotlight in recent years, with Mr Starmer saying the UK 'can't ignore' the threat posed by Mr Vladimir Putin's regime. Moscow launched one of its longest drone and missile attacks against Kyiv this weekend, while Ukrainian drones hit several strategic airfields in Russia, escalating tensions ahead of crucial talks in Istanbul on June 2 aimed at securing a ceasefire in the years-long conflict. BLOOMBERG Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
CNA
an hour ago
- CNA
Ukraine says ready for 'necessary steps' at Istanbul talks with Russia
ISTANBUL: Ukraine said Monday (Jun 2) it was ready to take "necessary steps for peace" at talks with Russia in Istanbul, where the two sides will exchange plans on how they want to end the three-year war, Europe's largest conflict since World War II. Urged on by US President Donald Trump, Moscow and Kyiv have opened direct negotiations for the first time since the early weeks of Russia's invasion, but have yet to make significant progress towards an elusive agreement. Monday's talks come a day after Ukraine carried out one of its most brazen and successful attacks ever on Russian soil - hitting dozens of strategic bombers parked at airbases thousands of kilometres behind the front line. A first round of talks in Istanbul last month yielded a large-scale prisoner exchange but no pause in the fighting, which has raged since Russia invaded in February 2022. The second round is scheduled to get underway at 1pm at the Ciragan Palace in Istanbul, an Ottoman imperial house on the banks of the Bosphorus that is now a luxury five-star hotel. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan will mediate the talks. "We are ready to take the necessary steps for peace," Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said at a summit of NATO members in Vilnius ahead of the talks. A source in the negotiating team urged Russia to avoid repeating its previous hardline demands and show "flexibility". "If they are ready to move forward, not just repeat the same previous ultimatums, then there may be good and big news today," the source told AFP. "UNCONDITIONAL CEASEFIRE" Moscow says it will present a "memorandum" of its peace terms, having resisted pressure by Ukraine to send its demands in advance. Despite the flurry of diplomacy, the two sides remain far apart. Zelenskyy on Sunday refreshed his call for an immediate halt to the fighting, something Kyiv says is a necessary first step to discussions of long-term peace. "First - a full and unconditional ceasefire. Second - the release of prisoners. Third - the return of abducted children," he said Sunday in a post on social media. He also called for the sides to discuss a direct meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "The key issues can only be resolved by the leaders," Zelenskyy said. The Kremlin has repeatedly pushed back against the prospect of a Zelenskyy-Putin meeting, having questioned his legitimacy throughout the war and repeatedly called for him to be toppled. Moscow says it wants to address the "root causes" of the conflict - language typically used to refer to a mix of sweeping demands including limiting Ukraine's military, banning the country from joining NATO and massive territorial concessions. Kyiv and the West have rejected those calls and cast Russia's assault as nothing but an imperialist land grab. Tens of thousands have been killed since Russia invaded, with swathes of eastern and southern Ukraine destroyed and millions forced to flee their homes, in Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II. Russia's top negotiator in Istanbul will be Vladimir Medinsky, an ideological Putin aide who led failed talks in 2022, has written school textbooks justifying the invasion, and has questioned Ukraine's right to exist as a nation. Ukraine's team will be led by Defence Minister Rustem Umerov, seen as a skilled and pragmatic negotiator, but who has been mired in domestic scandal over alleged abuse of power and a lack of transparency. Members of the Ukrainian delegation met officials from Britain, Germany and Italy in Istanbul ahead of the talks, Kyiv's foreign ministry said. IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE After months of setbacks for Kyiv's military, Ukraine said it had carried out an audacious attack on Sunday, damaging some 40 strategic Russian bombers worth US$7 billion in a major special operation. Kyiv's security service said the plan, 18 months in the making, had involved smuggling drones into Russia, then launching them from near the airbases, thousands of kilometres away from the front lines. For months, Russian troops have been advancing on the ground, particularly in the northeastern Sumy region, where Putin ordered his forces to establish a "buffer zone" along the border. Ahead of the talks, Russian officials have called for Ukraine to be cut off from Western military support and cede territory still controlled by its army. Kyiv has previously accepted it may only be able to get territory taken by Russia through diplomacy, not fighting.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Trump plans to offload national park sites, but states don't want them
The Trump administration may walk away from Florida's Big Cypress National Preserve and other areas that aren't among the 63 with 'national park' in their name. PHOTO: AFP FLORIDA - Florida's Big Cypress National Preserve sprawls north from Everglades National Park over 729,000 acres of swamp, an ancient forest that protects the endangered Florida panther and the pristine waters of the Everglades – the source of drinking water for millions of south Floridians. About 2.2 million people visited in 2024, roughly three times the number at Everglades National Park, according to National Park Service (NPS) data. The preserve and others like it are 'typically the places where the local people enjoy the most,' said Mr Neal McAliley, an environmental lawyer at Carlton Fields in Miami and a former environmental litigator at the Justice Department. The Trump administration may walk away from Big Cypress and some other national monuments, historical parks, battlefields and protected areas that aren't among the 63 with 'national park' in their name. The White House is proposing to cut about US$1.2 billion (S$1.54 billion) from the NPS's budget, including US$900 million from park operations, mainly by shedding sites that it considers too obscure or too local to merit federal management, transferring these to states and tribal governments. But some states with large numbers of such sites – there are roughly 370 in total – warn that they can't afford to manage and staff them, either, and that some could end up closing. 'It takes about 350 parks to wipe out in order to get US$900 million in budget savings,' said Ms Kristen Brengel, senior vice president of government affairs for the National Parks Conservation Association. 'So it's everything from battlefields to seashores, to recreation areas to monuments.' The stakes are high: Big Cypress as well as Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, protect their regions' drinking water supplies. Park Service staff at Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina keep the sand on Outer Banks beaches in place and the islands from eroding away. Dozens of NPS locations preserve American history, from the birthplaces of Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln to Gettysburg National Military Park and the Flight 93 National Memorial in Pennsylvania. It's not clear who wants the national park system to be trimmed, other than the White House and some conservative groups who say the plan promotes federalism. But even some Republicans who are eager to see other federal lands developed or taken over aren't necessarily excited about breaking up the national park system. Congress has long responded to members' requests to protect a historic site in their district by putting the NPS in charge of it, which has bloated the national park system, said representative Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican. But Mr Simpson warned: 'Let's not screw up the national parks because that's something the American people will never forgive us for.' Birthplaces, battlefields scrutinised The White House doesn't yet have a list of places to offload, although a more detailed budget for the Interior Department is expected in coming days. Asked at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing on May 21 whether Big Cypress and other large NPS sites could be transferred, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told Bloomberg Law only that the 63 'crown jewel' national parks will be left alone. Mr Burgum named a few possible transfer candidates: Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace National Historic Site in New York City, Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site in North Dakota and possibly 'a battlefield site someplace'. Only about 25,000 people stopped by Roosevelt's birthplace in Manhattan in 2024. About 10,800 people visited Knife River Indian Villages in 2024, which puts it at number 370 on the NPS' ranking of 398 park units for which visitation statistics are kept. The park service spends less than US$2 million annually to keep each of these sites open. Park advocates bristle at visitation numbers being used as a criterion. 'Regardless whether they're well visited or not, whether people can view it themselves or watch it on TV, they don't want to see them dismantled,' Ms Brengel said. 'These schemes to save a couple of nickels by getting rid of parks – it's unpopular.' Republican Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma has offered Chickasaw National Recreation Area in Oklahoma as a candidate to be transferred to the Chickasaw Nation, which sold it to the federal government in 1902. Congress turned it into Platt National Park, until it stripped the park of 'crown jewel' status and changed its name in 1976. Today, the park service spends about US$4.5 million to accommodate more than 1.5 million annual visitors at Chickasaw NRA. Mr Cole's office said the Chickasaw Nation hasn't asked for the recreation area to be returned, but the nation's governor, Mr Bill Anoatubby, said in a statement that it's interested. So far, though, there's little other interest in transfers. States wary of taking on more Many states have long been eager for Congress to designate their facilities as National Park System sites because that increases tourist traffic, boosts the economies of nearby communities and spares states the financial burden of managing those sites, said Ms K.K. Duvivier, a natural resources law professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. That's among the top reasons why Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina and Colorado state governments say they oppose transfers. New Mexico has 18 NPS sites at risk, including Valles Caldera National Preserve, one of the region's newest additions to the national park system. Any national park units transferred to the state would likely end up closing because it already struggles to maintain its parks with limited funding, outdated facilities and high personnel vacancy rates, said Mr Toby Velasquez, state parks director. Maryland, which doesn't have a 'crown jewel' national park but has at least 14 other NPS sites, would step in to save them if necessary, but the federal government should continue to support them because of the tourist draw, said Mr AJ Metcalf, spokesman for the state's Department of Natural Resources. The state's NPS sites supported a total of 2,940 jobs in Maryland and generated US$344 million in economic benefits to the state, he said, citing 2022 NPS data. 'If the federal government does approve these cuts, Maryland will consider all options to obtain and manage these sites to ensure they remain open and accessible to the public,' Mr Metcalf said. Mr Will Yeatman, senior legal fellow at the Pacific Legal Foundation, which has argued for federal land transfers in court, said more than half the Western US is under federal control. It makes sense to return some of that to the states, he said. 'In those states primarily, there is considerable political traction for policies like this,' Mr Yeatman said. 'I know Utah has passed a bill seeking the return of federal lands.' Utah did try in 2024 to force the Interior Department to transfer 18 million acres of other federal land to it, but it hasn't asked for park service properties, said Mr Redge Johnson, executive director of the Utah Governor's Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office. 'Would we step in?' he said. 'Yeah, we'd want to make sure they stay solvent and operational. We're not actively seeking anything there.' New legal questions In some cases, the National Park Service was put in charge of some areas because residents didn't trust the states to manage them. That's what happened at Big Cypress, which became the first national preserve in 1974. Congress agreed with many south Floridians that the Rhode Island-sized wetland needed to be protected from the state's plan to build what would have been the world's largest commercial airport. Floridians 'wanted to protect it and they didn't trust the state,' Mr McAliley said. 'People wanted the Park Service because they trusted them to manage natural qualities.' That's still true today, said Ms Eve Samples, executive director of the Friends of the Everglades. 'Every single year those of us engaged in environmental advocacy in Florida are fighting off bad bills in Tallahassee, and there's not a high degree of trust in the state legislature doing what's right for our public lands,' Ms Samples said. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, didn't respond to requests for comment about whether state officials have discussed a possible transfer and if the state could afford it. Big Cypress's fiscal 2024 budget was about US$7.8 million. Congress made Big Cypress a preserve, not a national park, because it wanted to allow hunting, oil and gas drilling, off-highway vehicle and swamp-buggy use, and other activities that aren't usually allowed in national parks. Transferring the preserve to the state would open a host of legal questions, including how the federal government's duty of trust to area tribes would be handled, whether proposed wilderness areas in Big Cypress would be respected, and whether the land would be given or sold to the state, Mr McAliley said. 'If they're just going to be giving it, they'd be giving away a tremendously valuable asset,' he said. 'Then the state has to manage it. If the president is trying to cut the expenses of the park service, doesn't that assume the state is going to have to pay the money?' 'Whoever approved this,'' he said, 'this is like a meat-cleaver approach.' BLOOMBERG Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
