NATO

June 9 (UPI) — NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte was expected to call for member nations and allies to increase defense spending in London on Monday.

Rutte is set to deliver remarks at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a British think tank also known as Chatham House, in London and meet with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on the visit to London.

“The fact is, we need a quantum leap in our collective defense,” he is expected to say according to remarks shared with reporters.

It is anticipated that Rutte will ask NATO allies to increase their defense spending by 400%. He’s likely to lay out an outline for why it’s necessary for each to agree to up their military spending to 5% of GDP when they meet at a summit in The Hague later this month.

“The work ahead of us for the [NATO summit] in The Hague is clear,” Rutte posted to X Thursday. “We need a new defense investment plan that will ensure we have the resources we need to be able to deter and defend in this more dangerous world.”

Each will be asked to invest millions more on tanks and artillery shells as Rutte will focus on the possibility of an aggressive Russia in the future.

“The fact is, danger will not disappear even when the war in Ukraine ends,” Rutte is expected to say while adding that, that Russia won’t back down on its military even if and after when its war on Ukraine ends.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov already reportedly responded Monday to what Rutte is expected to discuss and said that NATO “is demonstrating itself as an instrument of aggression and confrontation.”

NATo already announced Friday that Rutte will ask for its allies to spend 3.5% of that 5% on core defense, with the other 1.5% to go to defense and security-related investments.

Rutte is also slated to meet with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer while in London Monday.

Ukrainian air force says Russia struck with 215 missiles and drones in overnight assault.

At least five people have been killed and more than 20 wounded as Russia launched a barrage of missiles, drones and bombs across Ukraine, officials said.

The Ukrainian air force said on Saturday that Russia struck with 215 missiles and drones overnight, and Ukrainian air defences shot down and neutralised 87 drones and seven missiles.

At least three people were killed and 17 others, including two children, were wounded in the northeastern city of Kharkiv, Mayor Ihor Terekhov said, describing the assault as “the most powerful” on the city since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

He reported 48 Iranian-made drones, two missiles and four guided bombs were fired before dawn at the city of 1.4 million people, located just 50km (30 miles) from the Russian border.

“Drones are still circling above,” Terekhov wrote on Telegram at 4:40am (01:40 GMT), as air raid sirens wailed across the city. Residential buildings and civilian infrastructure were heavily damaged.

The northeastern city was also hit by a missile strike on Thursday that left 18 people injured, including four children.

Surge in attacks

Elsewhere in the south, Russian shelling hit the city of Kherson, killing a couple and damaging residential buildings, regional Governor Oleksandr Prokudin confirmed. In Dnipro, two women, aged 45 and 88, were injured in separate attacks.

Officials said on Friday that at least six people were killed and dozens were wounded on Friday when Russia launched an aerial bombardment across Ukraine. Rescue workers in the city of Lutsk on Saturday recovered another body, raising the toll from Friday’s attacks to seven.

Moscow said Friday’s assault was carried out in response to Ukrainian “terrorist acts” against Russia, saying military sites were targeted.

The surge in Russian attacks follows a Ukrainian drone operation last weekend that damaged nuclear-capable military aircraft at Russian airbases deep behind the front lines, including in Siberia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has pledged to retaliate for the attack, which Kyiv reportedly planned for 18 months using smuggled drones.

Ukraine, meanwhile, continues to push for a 30-day ceasefire and presented its latest proposal during talks in Istanbul on Monday. But Moscow has rejected calls for a truce, insisting the war is a matter of national survival.

“For us, it is an existential issue,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Friday. “It concerns our national interest, our safety, and the future of our country.”

Putin has demanded Ukraine withdraw from four partially occupied regions, abandon its NATO ambitions and halt all Western military cooperation – terms Kyiv has dismissed as unacceptable. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has instead called for a three-way summit involving himself, Putin and United States President Donald Trump.

June 5 (UPI) — NATO defense ministers are proposing a 5% annual investment in defense spending by member nations to enhance defensive capabilities during a meeting in Brussels on Thursday.

The proposed defense investment plan would require member nations to invest 5% of their respective gross domestic products in defense, NATO officials announced.

The change would make NATO a “stronger, fairer, more lethal alliance and ensure warfighting readiness for years to come,” according to NATO.

The ministers’ plan describes “exactly what capabilities allies need to invest over their coming years … to keep our deterrence and defense strong and our one billion people safe,” NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said.

U.S. supports increased NATO member spending

Many NATO members currently spend about 2% of their respective GDPs, which President Donald Trump has said is insufficient.

The 5% defense investment by NATO member states is virtually assured, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told media upon arriving for Thursday’s meeting.

“We’re here to continue the work that President Trump started, which is a commitment to 5% defense spending across this alliance, which we think will happen,” Hegseth said.

“There are a few countries that are not quite there yet,” Hegseth added. “I won’t name any names, [but] we will get them there.”

If approved during the upcoming NATO Summit, defense investments would require respective member nations to spend equal to 3.5% of GDP on core defense spending, plus 1.5% in annual defense and security investments, including infrastructure.

The two-day NATO Summit is scheduled to start on June 24 at The Hague.

Ukraine support and nuclear deterrence

An ad hoc NATO-Ukraine Council also met and reaffirmed NATO’s support of Ukraine and agreed that nuclear deterrence is its primary goal.

Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov and European Union Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Minister Kaja Kallas joined the council to discuss support for Ukraine.

Rutte said NATO allies have pledged nearly $23 billion in security assistance for Ukraine in 2025 and are focused on preventing the use of nuclear weapons by Russia and other nations.

The final meeting of NATO ministers during the summit also affirmed the alliance’s focus on nuclear deterrence.

“Nuclear deterrence remains the cornerstone of alliance security,” Rutte said.

“We will ensure that NATO’s nuclear capability remains strong and effective in order to preserve peace, prevent coercion and deter aggression.”

Trump nominates U.S. general for NATO commander

Trump also nominated U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich to lead combined U.S. and NATO forces in Europe.

If approved during the NATO Summit, Grynkewich would become NATO’s supreme allied commander for Europe and commander of the U.S. European Command.

Trump is scheduled to attend the NATO Summit.

If approved by NATO member states, Grynkewich would replace current Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Chris Cavoli.

Grynkewich is an experienced fighter pilot, and his nomination affirms that the United States would continue to emphasize defensive security for Europe.

A U.S. officer has been NATO’s supreme allied commander since Gen. Dwight Eisenhower first held the post in 1951.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has called on the US to apply more pressure on Russia to end its three-year-old war on Ukraine.

“You know that we gave support to Ukraine and that we are looking for more pressure on Russia,” Merz told US President Donald Trump at the start of their meeting on Thursday at the Oval Office.

Merz emphasised that Germany “was on the side of Ukraine”, while Trump likened the war to a fight between two young children who hated each other.

“Sometimes, you’re better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart,” Trump said. He added that he had relayed that analogy to Russian President Vladimir Putin in their phone conversation on Wednesday.

Asked about Trump’s comments as the two leaders sat next to each other, Merz stressed that both he and Trump agreed “on this war and how terrible this war is going on,” pointing to the US president as the “key person in the world” who would be able to stop the bloodshed.

Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett said that, while the two men agreed that the war needed to end, how that happens “seems to be a point of contention”.

“What we saw there was the German chancellor suggesting and pointing out that … Russia continues to hit back at civilian targets, whereas, when it comes to Ukraine, the focus in the eyes of Germany has been strictly on military targets inside Russia,” she said from Washington, DC.

Halkett added that Trump revealed during the meeting that he “implored the Russian president not to retaliate for that attack that took place over the weekend … and Vladimir Putin said he was going to attack regardless.”

A ‘decent’ relationship

Thursday’s meeting marked the first time that the two leaders sat down in person. After exchanging pleasantries – Merz gave Trump a gold-framed birth certificate of the US president’s grandfather, Friedrich Trump, who immigrated from Germany – the two leaders were to discuss issues such as Ukraine, trade and NATO spending.

Trump and Merz have spoken several times by phone, either bilaterally or with other European leaders, since Merz took office on May 6. German officials say the two leaders have started to build a “decent” relationship, with Merz wanting to avoid the antagonism that defined Trump’s relationship with one of his predecessors, Angela Merkel, in the Republican president’s first term.

The 69-year-old Merz, who came to office with an extensive business background, is a conservative former rival of Merkel’s who took over her party after she retired from politics.

Merz has thrown himself into diplomacy on Ukraine, travelling to Kyiv with fellow European leaders days after taking office and receiving Zelenskyy in Berlin last week.

He has thanked Trump for his support for an unconditional ceasefire while rejecting the idea of “dictated peace” or the “subjugation” of Ukraine and advocating for more sanctions against Russia.

In their first phone call since Merz became chancellor, Trump said he would support the efforts of Germany and other European countries to achieve peace, according to a readout from the German government. Merz also said last month that “it is of paramount importance that the political West not let itself be divided, so I will continue to make every effort to produce the greatest possible unity between the European and American partners.”

Under Merz’s immediate predecessor, Olaf Scholz, Germany became the second-biggest supplier of military aid to Ukraine after the United States. Merz has promised to keep up the support and last week, pledged to help Ukraine develop its own long-range missile systems that would be free of any imposed range limits.

At home, Merz’s government is intensifying a drive that Scholz started to bolster the German military after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In Trump’s first term, Berlin was a target of his ire for failing to meet the current NATO target of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on defence, and Trump is now demanding at least 5 percent from allies.

The White House official said the upcoming NATO summit in the Netherlands later this month is a “good opportunity” for Germany to commit to meeting that 5 percent mark.

During their meeting on Thursday, Trump described Merz as a good representative of Germany and also “difficult,” which he suggested was a compliment. He said US troops would remain in Germany and said it was positive that Berlin was spending more money on defence.

‘Ok with tariffs’

Another top priority for Merz is to get Germany’s economy, Europe’s biggest, moving again after it shrank the past two years. He wants to make it a “locomotive of growth,” but Trump’s tariff threats are a potential obstacle for a country whose exports have been a key strength. At present, the economy is forecast to stagnate in 2025.

Germany exported $160bn worth of goods to the US last year, according to the Census Bureau. That was about $85bn more than what the US sent to Germany, a trade deficit that Trump wants to erase.

“Germany is one of the very big investors in America,” Merz told reporters Thursday morning. “Only a few countries invest more than Germany in the USA. We are in third place in terms of foreign direct investment.”

The United States and the European Union are in talks to reach a trade deal, which would be critical for Germany’s export-heavy economy, but Trump said he would be fine with an agreement or with tariffs.

“We’ll end up hopefully with a trade deal,” Trump said. “I’m OK with the tariffs, or we make a deal with the trade.”

The United Kingdom has announced a major investment in defence in response to a “new era of threats” driven by “growing Russian aggression”.

The UK’s Strategic Defence Review (SDR), unveiled on Monday, includes new investments in nuclear warheads, a fleet of new submarines and new munitions factories. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the SDR would bring the country to “war-fighting readiness”.

“The threat we now face is more serious, more immediate and more unpredictable than at any time since the Cold War,” Starmer said as he delivered the review in Glasgow, Scotland.

The SDR described Russia as an “immediate and pressing” threat, and referred to China as a “sophisticated and persistent challenge”.

European nations have rushed to strengthen their armed forces in recent months, following Trump’s repeated demands that Europe must shoulder more responsibility for its security.

What are the key features of the UK’s Strategic Defence Review?

The defence review, the UK’s first since 2021, was led by former NATO Secretary-General George Robertson. Among the 62 recommendations in the SDR, all have been accepted by the government.

Starmer said the measures recommended in the review would bring “fundamental changes” to the armed forces, including “moving to war-fighting readiness”, re-centring a “NATO first” defence posture and accelerating innovation.

“Every part of society, every citizen of this country, has a role to play because we have to recognise that things have changed in the world of today,” he said. “The front line, if you like, is here.”

Boosting weapons production and stockpiles

Based on the recommendations in the review, the government said it would boost stockpiles and weapons production capacity, which could be scaled up if needed.

A total of 1.5 billion pounds ($2bn) will be dedicated to building “at least six munitions and energetics factories”, with plans to produce 7,000 long-range weapons.

In turn, UK ammunitions spending – just one component of overall military spending – is expected to hit 6 billion pounds ($8.1bn) over the current parliamentary term, which ends in 2029.

New attack submarines

There are also plans to build up to 12 new attack submarines by the late 2030s as part of the AUKUS military alliance with Australia and the United States – equivalent to a new submarine every 18 months.

This accounts for nearly half the projected spending outlined in the SDR.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) also said it would invest 15 billion pounds ($20.3bn) in its own nuclear warhead programme.

New F-35 fighter jets

The SDR recommended procuring new F-35 fighter jets and the Global Combat Aircraft Programme, a sixth-generation fighter produced jointly with Japan and Italy.

Use of technology to improve the army

The target size of the army will remain roughly the same, but the SDR recommended a slight increase in the number of regular soldiers “if funding allows”. There are currently about 71,000.

Instead of a dramatic increase in troop numbers, the SDR recommends using technology, drones and software to “increase lethality tenfold”.

To do this, the MoD plans to deliver a 1 billion pound ($1.35bn) “digital targeting web”, an AI-driven software tool designed to collect battlefield data and use it to enable faster decision making.

Investment in defence companies

More details about the SDR will be provided in the upcoming Defence Industrial Strategy, expected in the coming weeks, but UK defence companies will be among the big winners from the new SDR.

Though supposedly a 10-year review, past SDRs suggest its shelf life might be more limited.

The last SDR was published in 2021 and recommended “a strategic pivot towards the Indo-Pacific region to counter China’s influence and deepen ties with allies like Australia, India, and Japan”, in line with strategic priorities of the time.

This SDR, undertaken in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, has re-oriented the UK’s geographical priorities. In the coming years, those could change again.

Can the UK afford this defence expansion?

Proposals to prepare the UK’s armed forces to be “battle ready” will cost at least 67.6 billion pounds ($91.4bn) through to the late 2030s, according to costings and estimates provided in the SDR.

Before Monday’s announcement, the government had already pledged to increase spending on defence from 2.3 percent currently to 2.5 percent by 2027, an increase of about 6 billion pounds ($8.1bn) per year. This would raise 60 billion pounds over 10 years – a bit shy of the cost projected by the SDR.

The government has said it will cut overseas aid to fund that 0.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) rise in defence spending.

Critics say this will not be enough and that the measures outlined by the SDR will cost more like 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, said the “authors of the strategic defence review were clear that 3 percent [not 2.5 percent] of GDP ‘established the affordability’ of the plan.”

In February, the Labour government said it had “an ambition” to raise defence spending to 3 percent in the next parliament (after 2029), but Cartlidge said: “That commitment cannot be guaranteed ahead of the next general election.”

According to researchers at the Institute for Fiscal Studies – an independent, London-based research organisation – raising defence spending to 3 percent of GDP by 2030 would require an extra 17 billion pounds between now and then, which the government has not yet accounted for.

But the UK could be required to raise spending even more than this. In discussions taking place in advance of the NATO summit in The Hague later this month, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is understood to be pushing for member nations to commit 5 percent of GDP towards defence-related spending.

Rutte has proposed that NATO’s 32 members commit to spending 3.5 percent on hard defence and 1.5 percent on broader security, such as cyber, by 2032.

“At this Ministerial, we are going to take a huge leap forward,” Rutte stated before a meeting of defence ministers in Brussels on Thursday this week. “We will strengthen our deterrence and defence by agreeing ambitious new capability targets.” He specified air and missile defence, long-range weapons, logistics, and large land manoeuvre formations as among the alliance’s top priorities, according to a briefing note from NATO on Wednesday.

“We need more resources, forces and capabilities so that we are prepared to face any threat, and to implement our collective defence plans in full,” he said, adding: “We will need significantly higher defence spending. That underpins everything.”

Will taxes have to rise in the UK?

On Monday, Starmer refused to rule out another raid on the aid budget to fund higher military spending, and signalled that he was hopeful the extra investment could be supported by a growing the economy and generating more taxes to pay for defence.

After the SDR’s announcement, Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, warned that the prime minister will need to make “really quite chunky tax increases” to pay for the plans.

Alternatively, increased defence spending could be siphoned off from other parts of the budget – for instance, through reduced state spending on areas like transport and energy infrastructure.

Investment to pour into nuclear warheads, submarines and munitions to confront the ‘most immediate threat since the Cold War’.

The United Kingdom has announced a major boost to its defence infrastructure to confront a “new era of threats” driven by “growing Russian aggression”.

The package, unveiled on Monday, includes huge investments in a nuclear warhead programme, a fleet of attack submarines and munitions factories and is part of a Strategic Defence Review that Prime Minister Keir Starmer said will shift the country to “war-fighting readiness”.

“The threat we now face is more serious, more immediate and more unpredictable than at any time since the Cold War,” Starmer said as he delivered the review in Glasgow.

“We face war in Europe, new nuclear risks, daily cyberattacks, growing Russian aggression in our waters, menacing our skies,” he added.

‘The front line is here’

The defence review, the UK’s first since 2021, was led by former NATO Secretary-General George Robertson.

Starmer said it would bring “fundamental changes” to the armed forces, including “moving to war-fighting readiness”, recentring a “NATO first” defence posture and accelerating innovation.

“Every part of society, every citizen of this country, has a role to play because we have to recognise that things have changed in the world of today,” he said. “The front line, if you like, is here.”

The UK has been racing to rearm in the face of what it sees as a growing threat from Russia. Fears that the United States has become a less reliable ally under President Donald Trump and will downsize its military presence in Europe as Trump demands NATO states raise their defence spending are other significant factors.

Starmer’s government pledged in February to lift defence spending to 2.5 percent of gross domestic product by 2027, which would mark the “largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War”.

The government has said it will cut overseas aid to help fund the spending.

New munitions factories, attack submarines

Based on the recommendations in the review, the government said on Sunday that it would boost stockpiles and weapons production capacity, which could be scaled up if needed.

A total of 1.5 billion pounds ($2bn) will be dedicated to building “at least six munitions and energetics factories” with plans to produce 7,000 long-range weapons. As a result, total UK munitions spending is expected to hit 6 billion pounds ($8.1bn) over the current parliamentary term, which ends in 2029.

There are also plans to build up to 12 new attack submarines as part of the AUKUS military alliance with Australia and the US.

The Ministry of Defence also said it would invest 15 billion pounds ($20.3bn) in its nuclear warhead programme. Last week, it pledged 1 billion pounds ($1.3bn) for the creation of a “cyber command” to help on the battlefield.

The review described Russia as an “immediate and pressing” threat while calling China a “sophisticated and persistent challenge”.

Day before his government’s publication of a defence strategy review, PM Keir Starmer says he will ‘restore Britain’s war-fighting readiness’.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has warned the United Kingdom must be prepared to confront and defeat hostile states with modern military capabilities, as his government unveils a 1.5-billion-pound (about $2bn) plan to build at least six new weapons and explosives factories.

“We are being directly threatened by states with advanced military forces, so we must be ready to fight and win,” Starmer wrote in The Sun newspaper on Sunday. “We will restore Britain’s war-fighting readiness as the central purpose of our armed forces.”

The announcement came in advance of a Strategic Defence Review (SDR), which Starmer is set to publish on Monday. The review will assess threats facing the UK amid the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and pressure from United States President Donald Trump for NATO allies to bolster their defences.

European nations have rushed to strengthen their armed forces in recent months, following Trump’s comments that Europe must shoulder more responsibility for its security.

Defence Secretary John Healey, speaking to the BBC network, said the planned investment signals a clear warning to Moscow and would also help revive the UK’s sluggish economy.

“We are in a world that is changing now … and it is a world of growing threats,” Healey told the BBC on Sunday. “It’s growing Russian aggression. It’s those daily cyberattacks, it’s new nuclear risks, and it’s increasing tension in other parts of the world as well.”

The UK’s Ministry of Defence confirmed the funds would support the domestic production of up to 7,000 long-range missiles. With this package, its total munitions spending will reach approximately 6 billion pounds (nearly $8bn) during the current parliamentary term.

Meanwhile, The Sunday Times reported that the government is eyeing US-built jets capable of launching tactical nuclear weapons, although the UK’s Defence Ministry has yet to comment.

The forthcoming SDR, ordered after the Labour Party’s election win in July 2024, will outline emerging threats and the military capabilities required to address them. Starmer has pledged to raise defence spending to 2.5 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2027, with an eventual aim of reaching 3 percent.

The arms initiative follows earlier government pledges to invest 1 billion pounds ($1.3bn) in artificial intelligence technology for battlefield decision-making and an additional 1.5 billion pounds (about $2bn) to improve housing conditions for armed forces personnel.

With the recent pivot in US foreign policy regarding Europe and NATO, it has become clear that NATO’s European members need to ramp up spending on defense, and the time of relying on the US for defense in Europe is over. Many would argue that it’s well overdue, with Trump saying that NATO members should boost their defense spending to 5% of their GDP versus the traditional 2% target set by NATO. This target for NATO members was first set at the 2006 Riga summit; however, that target was reaffirmed and made more concrete in the 2014 Defence Investment Pledge at their summit in Wales, with only four members hitting the target that year. In 2024, those numbers were up, with NATO estimating 22 out of 32 would hit the target that year, so it’s clear defense spending in Europe is on the up. The Secretary-General of NATO, Mark Rutte, said, “We will need more time to consult amongst Allies what exactly the new level should be. But it is considerably more than 2%,” when asked about higher spending targets.

Inevitably, it will come down to the middle powers of NATO—France, Germany, Poland, and the UK—to step up to the plate and take over the leadership roles. Ultimately, this shift in responsibility will largely shape the alliance and Europe for years to come. But is this realistic, and what hurdles will the middle powers overcome to get there?

The US is the glue that holds NATO together.

Since NATO’s inception, the US has acted as the glue that keeps the alliance together, and it is evident from recent events just how crucial that role is. And it’s significantly more than just manpower/firepower, as you may expect.

The middle powers of NATO face a series of challenges ahead in their effort to step up and take over that role from the US. One of these challenges is the fact that the US plays a monumental role in the hierarchy of NATO’s various operational commands, with the US holding a lot of key roles within that structure that NATO, without the US, would not be able to operate certainly anywhere near as efficiently as it is currently run.

 The US also has an integral part to play in NATO’s capability for intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), with most of the capability that NATO has being US-supplied and run. An example of this occurred during Operation Unified Protector (Libya, 2011): the US provided an estimated 75% of ISR assets, enabling NATO to carry out precision strikes and monitor Gaddafi regime movements.

All of this is said without even touching the subject of the US’s missile defense and general man/firepower capabilities, with the European nations currently not having an equivalent.

Defense spending and capabilities

The only way the middle powers will be able to step into the US’s shoes and fill the role Washington has traditionally played is through an increase in defense spending, resulting in a significant boost to their military capabilities. However, this necessity presents several challenges of its own, so what does the current situation look like, and how will it develop?

France has consistently maintained a capable military and spent a good amount of their GDP on defense. Fluctuations in their defense budget have meant they’ve fallen short of the 2% goal set by NATO in previous years.

President Macron announced plans in early 2023 to vastly increase military spending, pledging to spend 413 billion euros on defense in 2024-2030, an increase of 118 billion euros compared to the previous period.

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, we have seen a vast increase in defense budgets across NATO, none perhaps more noticeable than in Germany, with Chancellor Olaf Scholz wanting to inject 100 billion euros into the German military (Bundeswehr) to increase military capability and readiness. With the German Federal Minister of Defence, Boris Pistorius, pledging to make the German military “the backbone of deterrence and collective defense in Europe.”

It would seem this shift in defense policy is here to stay, with both German parliaments recently voting in favor of another boost to military spending.

Nevertheless, it’s not all plain sailing for Germany. With recent recruitment numbers falling short of their targets, the Bundeswehr still faces personnel shortages. It’s clear that the intention is there, but there are still many practical challenges for them to overcome.

Poland has quickly become a key player within NATO, from having a humble military at the time of the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russian forces to boasting the third-largest military within NATO, only behind that of the US and Turkey. Their armed forces have undergone a significant modernization program at this time, too.

This rapid modernization has meant Poland has fast become one of the leading defense powers within NATO, playing a crucial role in securing their eastern flank; they have also become one of NATO’s highest spenders on defense, spending an impressive 4.12% of their GDP.

The UK has consistently hit the 2% target set by NATO and, for the past four years, has even slightly exceeded this, with projects such as the Challenger 3 and the Boxer armored vehicle receiving around £5 billion in funding.

As with Germany, this isn’t without its challenges. The UK has faced significant setbacks in recruitment, with it being reported in November 2024 that the British armed forces had “consistently fallen short of recruitment targets over the past five years,” with some saying that the armed forces were losing 300 people a month more than they were recruiting.

It is also worth mentioning that France and the UK both possess nuclear capabilities, although the UK’s Trident missile system is US-supplied and maintained. Meanwhile, the French “Force de dissuasion” is fully independent.

Whilst it is undoubtable that the middle powers and Europe as a whole are taking defense spending a lot more seriously, and, for the first time since the Cold War, it is being seen as a priority, there is still a long way to go before NATO without the US taking a primary role could even be considered comparable to the NATO we have known up until now.

No natural leader

Other issues the middle powers face when trying to take over these roles are cooperation, coordination of efforts, and political and military leadership. To put it simply, NATO risks lacking unified leadership without the US. There is no obvious alternative to U.S. leadership within NATO. This means the alliance’s future leadership will depend entirely on the ability of European members to cooperate. Historically, however, that cooperation has been difficult. Europe is often divided by differing political ideologies, national interests, and unresolved disputes between member states. Countries frequently prioritize their own agendas, making it hard to reach collective decisions. A key example of this is the long-standing tension between Turkey and Greece—both NATO members, yet frequently at odds due to their history of conflict and territorial disputes. There is also the issue of the European Union and NATO often failing to cooperate, causing frequent internal strife on key issues such as the situation with Turkey and Cyprus.

Nevertheless, there are recent examples of political cohesion, such as the UK stating it would back the potential incoming German chancellor Friedrich Merz in sending Taurus missiles to Ukraine come across more as a patchwork than cohesive leadership. Most of the middle powers appear to focus on strengthening their own national capabilities rather than fostering cohesion and building multinational capacity. The result is a fragmented and disorganized approach—unsurprising, given that NATO is fundamentally an alliance of countries with a long history of rivalry and conflict. However, one should never underestimate the power of an external threat in uniting nations and giving them a common enemy, and Russia certainly seems to be doing just that.

NATO going forward

What does all this mean going forward? Across the board, especially amongst the middle powers of NATO, the intention to take a more active role in defense is there. Generally, NATO isn’t in a terrible position, and the desire for collective defense amongst member states has become paramount.

That said, the alliance still faces significant challenges ahead, especially when it comes to leadership; the US has long been the force that bridged the gap where the European members fell short. The US shifting its focus away from Europe has undoubtedly had a profound effect. It was perhaps not until this happened that it became clear just how much NATO relied on Washington for political direction, and whilst it is entirely possible for the middle powers to collectively take over that role, presently, that reality seems distant. Reaching that reality will be far from an overnight process. With Europe’s attention firmly focused on the war in Ukraine, many argue that the clock is already ticking, bringing the prospect of a conflict with Russia closer to reality.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte addresses a press conference following an informal meeting foreign ministers of member nations on May 15, 2025. On Monday, he said he expects member nations to agree to spend 5% GDP on defense spending next month in The Hague. Photo by NATO/UPI | License Photo

May 27 (UPI) — NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said that he expects alliance members to agree during next month’s summit to a defense spending target of 5% of gross domestic product.

Rutte made the revelation during the sixth and final day of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Dayton, Ohio.

“I assume that in The Hague we will agree on a hard defense spend target of 5%,” he said.

“Let’s say that this 5%, but I will not say what is the individual breakup, but it will be considerably north of 3% when it comes to the hard spend and it will be also a target on defense-related spending.”

“We need this, because otherwise we can never, ever, ever reach the capability targets,” he added.

All NATO members have agreed to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense by 2025, with no country yet reaching the 5% threshold.

NATO spending by member nations has long been an issue of contention for U.S. President Donald Trump, who has called for European nations to pay more, accusing them of relying on Washington for their defense.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has been calling for NATO members to increase defense spending to 5%.

Of the 32 NATO nations, Poland spent an alliance-high 4.12% of GDP on defense last year, according to statistics from the security alliance, with Estonia second at 3.43% and the United States third at 3.38%.

Eight countries spent below the 2% GDP on defense last year, with Spain coming in last at 1.28% GDP.

The NATO Summit is to be held in The Hague from June 24-25, where world leaders and defense chiefs of alliance members will congregate to discuss pressing security issues and decide on the alliance’s strategic direction.

Pro-European Nicusor Dan faces big challenges after defeating pro-Russian George Simion last week in a tense run-off.

Pro-European Nicusor Dan has been sworn in as Romania’s new president amid persisting claims from the far right that his election was illegitimate.

The centrist promised on Monday to usher in a “new chapter” in Romania amid hopes that his inauguration could help bring an end to months of political crisis. However, his pro-Russian and nationalist rival George Simion maintained that the May 18 election represents a “coup d’etat”.

In the run-up to the election, which was marred by the annulment of November’s initial vote due to Russian interference, Dan promised to quash corruption and reaffirm Romania’s commitment to the European Union and NATO.

In his inauguration speech, he said he would fix Romania’s economic and political woes and be a president “open to the voice of society”.

“The Romanian state needs a fundamental change within the rule of law, and I invite you to continue to be involved in order to put positive pressure on state institutions to reform,” he said. “I call on political parties to act in the national interest.”

‘National treason’

The May election rerun was held months after the Constitutional Court voided the previous election.

Far-right, pro-Russian Calin Georgescu had won the most votes in the first round of November’s vote but was thrown out of the race after allegations of electoral violations and Russian interference, which Moscow has denied.

Simion, leader of the far-right Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), took his place and led the polls for weeks before a surge in the final days of the campaign pushed Dan past the post.

Since the result was announced, Simion has repeatedly alleged, without providing evidence, that the election was rigged through foreign interference.

However, the Constitutional Court validated the results on Thursday after rejecting an appeal from Simion to annul the vote.

Lawmakers from the AUR boycotted the swearing-in ceremony, calling it “legitimising a national treason” while Simion condemned the court’s decision as a “coup d’etat”.

Authorities remain on alert with protests expected by supporters of the far right.

Dan’s victory over Simion was heralded around Europe with the outcome viewed as crucial to maintaining Romania’s place within Western alliances, especially as the war continues in neighbouring Ukraine.

“We won the Romanian presidential elections. People rejected isolationism and Russian influence,” Dan said on Sunday at a rally in Poland for liberal Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski, who will face nationalist Karol Nawrocki in a presidential run-off on June 1.

However, significant challenges lie ahead for Dan as Romania faces political and economic crises.

He must first nominate a prime minister who can garner the support necessary to form a new government as widespread rejection of the political class has propelled figures like Georgescu and Simion into leading challengers.

Dan is expected to meet Ilie Bolojan, who had been serving as interim president. The member of the pro-EU National Liberal Party has been tipped as a possible prime minister.

As for Romanians struggling economically, Dan made few promises on Monday.

“Put simply, … the Romanian state is spending more than it can afford,” the new president said.

“It is in the national interest for Romania to send a message of stability to financial markets,” he said. “It is in the national interest to send a signal of openness and predictability to the investment environment.”

May 24 (UPI) — Germany is deploying soldiers beyond its border, moving troops into Lithuania to defend its European neighbor.

Deploying troops to the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius is an indefinite move, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on X, accompanied by photos of him greeting soldiers.

“In Lithuania we are taking the defence of NATO’s eastern flank into our own hands: Together, Lithuanians and Germans show that we are ready to defend Europe’s freedom against any aggressor,” Merz said in the post.

“Germany stands by its responsibility. Today. Tomorrow. For as long as it takes.”

The move marks the first time Germany has installed a permanent military presence in another country since World War II.

Merz last month signaled that Germany would send troops to Lithuania on a long-term basis.

The deployment is meant to shore up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s eastern flank and to ensure “the security of our Baltic allies is also our security,” Merz said during the event.

German officials expect the 45th Armored Brigade to be at full strength in late 2027. At that point, it is expected to have around 4,800 soldiers and 2,000 vehicles, including tanks and will be headquartered in the Lithuanian city of Rudninkai, near the capital.

Earlier in the month, Merz said Germany planned to build the “strongest conventional army in Europe,” citing a demand from its “friends and partners.”

Lithuania is straddled by allies Belarus to the east and the Russian province of Kaliningrad to the west.

This week, Lithuania accused Belarus of carrying out a massive smuggling scheme and launched legal proceedings against its neighbor at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Only a narrow strip of land known as the Suwalki Gap connects Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia to other NATO territories in Europe. The strip straddles the border between Poland and Lithuania and has a small population, making it a potential target for possible Russian military aggression.

In Vilnius this week, Merz mentioned the area while discussing “Russia’s aggressive revisionism” in relation to that country’s ongoing war in Ukraine.