UK vows to spend 5% of GDP on national security by 2035

9 hours ago Share Save Kate Whannel Political reporter Sam Francis Political reporter Share Save

EPA

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to meet a new Nato target to spend 5% of the UK’s GDP on national security by 2035. At a Nato summit in the Netherlands, 32 member countries including the UK are expected to agree the 5% goal, with 3.5% to go on core defence and the remaining 1.5% on defence-related areas such as resilience and security. The split target is aimed at placating US President Donald Trump, who has urged Nato allies to spend more, while giving cash-strapped EU countries flexibility over how they meet the target. Downing Street has argued measures on energy and tackling smuggling gangs could be classified as security spending.

Conservative shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel accused ministers of announcing the target with “no new money” to fund it. Dame Priti said the government should raise funding sooner because of the dangerous “state of geopolitics”. Speaking to BBC Breakfast, she added: “I don’t think they can go to a meeting of Nato and speak about funding that could come in 10 years’ time, when there’s a real and present threat to us now.” Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have supported increasing defence spending. Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson Helen Maguire said it was “absolutely right” the government matched the 5% Nato spending target, “especially after the damage done to our defence by the Conservatives”. “The threat of Putin’s Russia – combined with the unpredictability of the Trump White House – demands a once-in-a-generation commitment,” she said.

Speaking ahead of the two-day summit, Sir Keir said the UK had to “navigate this era of radical uncertainty with agility, speed and a clear-eyed sense of the national interest”. “After all, economic security is national security, and through this strategy we will bring the whole of society with us, creating jobs, growth and wages for working people.” Nato (the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) is made up of 32 member countries who agree to defend each other if attacked. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and Trump’s re-election as US president last year, members of the organisation have faced increased pressure to boost their defence spending. Countries had been expected to spend at least 2% of their national income – or GDP – on defence, although last year, only 23 hit that target – an increase from three in 2014.

Video and images show strike on Iranian radar site after ceasefire

Shayan Sardarizadeh and Alex Murray

BBC Verify

Image source, X/Vahid Online Image caption, One video showed smoke rising from behind a warehouse which we could locate on maps due to its distinctive roof

We have been working on verifying footage of a reported Israeli air strike in Iran after the ceasefire negotiated by US President Donald Trump came into effect.

The Israelis acted after accusing Iran of launching a missile in breach of the truce – which Tehran has denied.

One video, which we have confirmed, claims to show a plume of smoke rising from a location behind a big warehouse next to a green field in the northern city of Babolsar.

We were able to find the warehouse, with its distinctive shape and white roof, on a satellite map.

We were then able to locate an Iranian air defence radar site approximately 6km (3.7 miles) north-east of the warehouse. A sphere at the site looks like the frame of a radar dome.

The site’s location ties in with the direction of the camera in the video, which is looking east.

We also verified an image which was taken from a vantage point in the north looking south towards the radar site.

We used a mobile phone mast seen in that image and its shadow on satellite imagery to establish the perspective from where it was taken.

Which countries are in Nato and how much do they spend on defence?

11 hours ago Share Save Share Save

Getty Images

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to meet a new Nato target to spend 5% of the UK’s GDP on national security by 2035. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte has called on members to commit 3.5% on core defence spending, and the remaining 1.5% on related areas such as resilience and cyber-security. Members are expected to agree the 5% goal at a two-day Nato summit taking place at the Hague in the Netherlands.

What is Nato and why was it set up?

Nato – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – was formed in Washington DC in 1949 by 12 countries. The founding members were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK and the US.

Getty Images Nato was founded in Washington DC in 1949

Nato’s primary purpose was to block expansion in Europe by the former Soviet Union – a group of communist republics which included Russia. Members agree that if one of them is attacked, the others will help defend it. Nato does not have its own army, but member states can take collective military action in response to international crises. For instance, the alliance supported the UN by intervening in the war in the former Yugoslavia between 1992 and 2004. It also co-ordinates military plans and carries out joint military exercises.

Which countries are Nato members?

Nato has 32 members across Europe and North America – the original 12 founders plus 20 countries which have joined since 1949. After the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, many Eastern European countries became members, including Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.

Finland – which has a 1,340km (832 mile) land border with Russia – joined in April 2023. Sweden became a member in March 2024. Having been neutral for decades, both applied to Nato in May 2022, shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Georgia have also asked to join.

How much do Nato members spend on defence?

Nato members are currently expected to spend 2% of their national income, or GDP on defence. The US and countries which are close to Russia – such as Poland and the Baltic states – have traditionally spent the most on defence. It is thought that 23 countries met the 2% target in 2024, compared to only three in 2014.

The new split 5% target is seen as a concession to US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly urged European Nato allies to boost defence spending. The US currently spends 3.4%. Nato chief Rutte said the US had agreed to meet the new target, although Trump later suggested it might not. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said France, Germany, the Baltic and Nordic countries, Poland, Greece and Hungary backed the 5% pledge. Spain – which spent just 1.24% of GDP on defence in 2024 – said it had secured an opt-out from the new spending plan, something Rutte later denied. In February, Sir Keir set out plans to increase the UK’s core defence spending to 2.5% by April 2027 and expressed a “clear ambition” to reach 3% by 2034 if economic conditions allowed. The government has now said it will spend 2.6% on core defence and 1.5% on wider security measures by 2027. Core defence spending is not expected to hit 3.5% until 2035. It has not confirmed how it will fund the additional spending.

Why isn’t Ukraine a member of Nato?

Russia has consistently opposed the idea of Ukraine becoming a member, fearing it would bring Nato forces too close to its borders. However, in 2008, the alliance said that Ukraine could eventually join. After Russia’s invasion, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky asked for this process to be fast-tracked. Former Nato chief Jens Stoltenberg said Ukraine could join “in the long term” but not until after the war ended.

Getty Former Nato chief Jens Stoltenberg told President Volodymyr Zelensky that Ukraine could still join in “the long-term”

MPs should get Iran conflict veto, Plaid says

1 day ago Share Save Mark Palmer Assistant editor, BBC Wales News Share Save

Getty Images Plaid Cymru leader Rhun ap Iorwerth said the US’s attack on Iran’s nuclear sites was “a mistake”

MPs should have the opportunity to veto any plans for UK military involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, Plaid Cymru has said. The US bombed three nuclear sites in Iran at the weekend after escalation between Israel and Iran entered its third week. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer called for de-escalation as Iran and Israel still launch missiles at each other’s territory. Foreign Secretary David Lammy is due to make a statement to MPs in the Commons later on the conflict.

US President Donald Trump said the US military had carried out “massive, precision strikes” on three key nuclear facilities in Iran following concerns about reports Tehran was working on a nuclear missile programme. Iranian officials confirmed sites were struck but denied they suffered any major damage and have vowed there would be “everlasting consequences” following the US strikes. Sir Keir stressed the UK was not involved in the US strikes. He also warned of the risk of escalation, and said he wanted to reassure people “we’re doing everything we can to stabilise the situation”.

Could this be the most significant Nato summit since the Cold War?

1 day ago Share Save Katya Adler Europe Editor Share Save

BBC

As the world holds its breath to see what happens next after the US launched direct attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites, US President Donald Trump is expected in the Netherlands on Tuesday for a Nato summit. This will be Trump’s first Nato meeting since being re-elected. In the past, he’s made angry comments about alliance members freeloading off US security guarantees. European allies are desperate to prove him wrong. They hope to persuade him not to pull troops or US capabilities out of the continent. “Relations with Europe have been so strained since Trump returned to the White House – over trade tariffs and more – that a few weeks ago, we weren’t even sure he’d turn up to this summit,” one high level diplomat – who spoke on condition of anonymity – told me. “With Russia and China watching for western weakness, that would have been a disaster.” But Moscow and Beijing may yet be able to bring out the popcorn.

Getty Images Nato’s secretary general Mark Rutte (pictured left) is said to have designed this summit around Trump

Nato’s secretary general Mark Rutte designed this summit around Trump. He aimed to flatter him by agreeing massive hikes in defence spending, to show that Europeans would now take more responsibility for their own security. Rutte also hoped that by keeping the meeting narrowly focused on money, he’d avoid any potential clashes or outbursts between Trump and his allies. That carefully-laid plan could be crumbling. Now that Iran has launched missiles at US airbases in Qatar and Iraq in response to Saturday’s strikes on its nuclear sites, the US commander-in-chief may decide to remain in the Situation Room in Washington. If he does come to Europe, as expected, how will it be possible not to talk about the Middle East considering what’s at stake? That would introduce the risk of a fallout between the US President and European allies, who advocated diplomacy over bombing when it came to Iran.

Rutte: No opt-outs for 5% GDP commitment

Trump loves a win and he’s very thin-skinned. He won’t want to feel any disapproval at the Nato meeting. Separately, he’d been assured of a headline-grabbing victory at the summit, with European countries committing to spending a whopping 5% of GDP on defence – exactly as he demanded in his first weeks back in the White House. “This summit is about credibility,” is how the US ambassador to Nato, Matthew Whitaker, puts it. But Spain claimed on Sunday that it had secured an opt-out from the new spending plan – something Rutte later denied. Other allies in Europe that are struggling to find the extra cash are bristling too. The bottom line is: Europe needs to keep big military and nuclear power US onside. That’s how Rutte managed to corral reluctant leaders – bar Spain – into signing up to the new big spending push. It’s a massive commitment. But as the former US ambassador to Nato, Julianne Smith, told me – even then, there are absolutely no guarantees with Trump.

AFP via Getty Images “A watershed moment” is how one high-level diplomat described this week’s Nato summit. (Trump pictured in 2019)

It’s unclear if the US would sign up to an end-of-summit declaration this week identifying Russia as the main threat to the Nato alliance. Europe’s trust in the US as its ultimate protector has been shaken by Trump’s seemingly softly-softly approach with Moscow, and by his heavy-handed pressure on Kyiv, as he’s tried to end the war in Ukraine. Additionally, on Friday night, you could almost hear European diplomats grinding their teeth, after Trump blithely justified the enormous 5% defence spending target he’s demanded of allies, while exempting himself and the US from the commitment. “I don’t think we should, but I think they should,” he said. “We’ve been supporting Nato so long… So I don’t think we should, but I think that the Nato countries should, absolutely.” Then again, Europe’s leaders arguably should have been better prepared by now in terms of self-defence. He may be the bluntest and most unpredictable, but Trump is by no means the first US president to want to move military attention and investment from Europe to other priority areas, particularly the Indo-Pacific. President Obama was very clear about that back in 2011.

Getty Images “We’ve been supporting Nato so long,” Trump has said. (Pictured here at the opening ceremony of the 2018 summit)

The US has nuclear weapons stored in Italy, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. It has 100,000 battle-ready troops stationed across Europe, 20,000 of them in Eastern European Nato countries, sent there by President Biden after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The continent could make up a shortfall in troop numbers, especially with Germany and Poland planning to significantly build up their ground forces over the next few years. But Europe’s dependency on the US goes deeper, says Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director-general of the Royal United Services Institute. It has relied on Washington for intelligence gathering, surveillance, air force capabilities and command and control. The US has performed a pivotal leadership role in Nato, bringing its members and forces together. These are exactly the capabilities that are scarce and needed by the US military in Asia, says Mr Chalmers. If removed from Europe, they’d take a very long time to replicate. Not long ago, many Nato countries in Europe avoided building up continental capabilities, such as extending France’s nuclear umbrella to other allies, for fear the US might say: “Oh well, you no longer need us. We’re off!” But now, Europe is being forced to shoulder more security responsibility, not only to try to persuade Washington to stay – but also in case the US president decides to withdraw from Europe to a greater or lesser extent.

Getty Images The US has 100,000 battle-ready troops stationed across Europe

No one knows what Trump’s intentions are. Europe’s Nato leaders were hugely relieved recently, when his administration announced that US Air Force Lieutenant General Alexus Grynkewich would assume the traditionally US-occupied Nato position of Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. That implied commitment to the defence alliance. But Washington is carrying out its own military spending and defence review. Announcements are expected in autumn. It’s thought unlikely there’ll be any new US funding for Ukraine. And very likely that the 20,000 extra troops in eastern Europe will be the first US forces to be pulled out of the continent. Despite this, Poland says it will attend this week’s Nato summit in a confident mood. In stark contrast to Spain, Warsaw believes it’s leading by example – spending more of its national income on defence (currently 4.7% of GDP) than any other Nato member, including the US. It aims, it says, to build the most powerful land army in Europe. During the Cold War, Poland lived under the shadow of the Soviet Union. The country neighbours Ukraine. It’s not hard to persuade Poles that defence is a top priority. For politicians in countries further away from Russia, the argument is more challenging. Spanish media has been full of speculation that disagreements over defence spending could topple the country’s precarious coalition government.

Getty Images Nato’s Secretary General says that Russia could be able to attack a Nato country within five years

Trying to both placate Trump by agreeing to his defence spending demands, while also sweetening the pill for more cash-strapped European leaders, Nato is proposing to split the 5% target into two parts: 3.5% of annual national income on defence, with a further 1.5% of GDP to be spent on “defence-related” issues, like expanding cargo sea ports in the Netherlands, for example, or France investing in cyber security. This has the added bonus of bringing Europe into line with US military spending of 3.4% of GDP – a huge psychological landmark, says Camille Grand, former Assistant Secretary General for Defence Investment at Nato and now defence expert at the European Council of Foreign Relations. But however you play with the figures, we’re talking about governments having to spend billions more on defence. The money has to come from somewhere. Either new taxes – a method Estonia has been trying out – or more borrowing, which will be hugely expensive for countries like Italy that already have large amounts of government debt. Another option is a reduction in welfare spending – known as “guns or butter,” or “tanks or pensions” economics. With its Strategic Defence Review, the UK recently stressed to the public the need for more military spending, but Mr Chalmers says neither Downing Street nor most other European governments have fully prepared their electorates for the trade-offs that huge new defence investments will require. The timetable for reaching the 5% target is key. Nato allies have called for a 7-10 year window. Nato’s Secretary General has suggested that could be too late. With Moscow’s economy very much on a war footing, Russia will be able to attack a Nato country within five years, he says.

Defending Europe isn’t just about how much governments spend. As important is what they spend their money on. A big European weakness is that there are lots of duplicate and incompatible capabilities across the continent: reportedly 178 different types of weapon systems and 17 different makes of tanks in the EU alone, for example. Putting aside national defence contracts and pride, and pooling European resources in the name of efficiency, is yet another thorny debate that will likely be sidelined at this week’s summit. So what definite outcomes can we expect? That very much depends on the man arriving in the Netherlands on Airforce One. Trump’s ambassador to Nato says the meeting could be historic. “A watershed moment” is how another high-level diplomat put it to me – and possibly “the most significant Nato summit since the Cold War”: the moment Europe began to spend as much as the US on defence and to truly assume responsibility for its own security.