The six gaping holes in NATO’s European defences

NATO officials have admitted to huge failings in its European defences that could allow Putin to strike. A dozen military and civilian officials have revealed classified plans for the biggest overhaul in three decades of the alliance’s defence capabilities, amid growing fears of Russian aggression. They said NATO has identified six areas as the most pressing to address, which are shortages in air defences and long-range missiles, troop numbers, ammunition, logistical headaches and a lack of secure digital communications on the battlefield.

Alliance leaders agreed to the plans last year and officials have since been poring over the minimum defence requirements – which were reportedly sent to national governments in recent weeks – to achieve those plans behind the scenes. The minimum requirements detail the shortfalls in NATO armies in key areas, providing a rough indication of how many billions of pounds it could cost to fix, one military planner said on condition of anonymity. 

NATO aims to convert these requirements into binding targets for individual governments to provide for the defence of Europe by autumn 2025, when it holds a regular meeting of defence ministers. The 12 officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss security matters more freely. NATO hasn’t publicly given an estimate of the overall costs. The findings show NATO faces a slog to achieve its goals at a time when its unity could be tested by budgetary constraints among senior European members, and differences over how hawkish its stance on Russia should be. 

Crucially, this year’s U.S. presidential election has raised the spectre that NATO’s preeminent power may be led by a man critical of the alliance – former President Donald Trump – who has accused European partners of taking advantage of U.S military support. At the July 9-11 Washington summit, some European policymakers publicly acknowledged that, regardless of who wins November’s election, the continent will need to hike its military spending.

‘We need to recognize that for America, whatever the result of the presidential election, the priority is increasingly going to shift to the Indo-Pacific, so that the European nations in NATO must do more of the heavy lifting,’ British Defence Secretary John Healey said on the sidelines of the summit. A NATO official said the alliance’s leaders had agreed in Washington that in many cases expenditure beyond 2 per cent of GDP would be needed to remedy shortfalls. He noted that 23 members now meet the 2 per cent minimum requirement, or exceed it.

‘Regardless of the outcome of the U.S. elections, European Allies will need to continue to increase their defence capabilities, forces’ readiness and ammunition stocks,’ the NATO official said. NATO is at its highest alert stage since the Cold War, with its more pessimistic officials, including German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, warning that an attack by Russia on its borders could happen within five years. While the Russian economy is already on a war footing, European governments may face resistance if they demand more money for defence spending from taxpayers reeling from a cost-of-living squeeze to prepare for a war that seems a distant prospect to many, analysts say.

‘We may expect to see a political backlash materialise, especially if politicians try to explain away cuts elsewhere with increased defence budgets,’ Eurointelligence, a news and analysis service focused on the EU, said in a July 12 note. NATO’s first serious overhaul since the end of the Cold War will pivot the alliance back to the defence of Europe against a possible Russian attack, after years of more distant missions in the likes of Afghanistan. It has been previously reported that NATO planners believe it will need between 35 and 50 extra brigades to withstand a Russian attack. A brigade consists of 3,000 to 7,000 troops, which would mean anywhere from 105,000 to 350,000 soldiers.

It means, for example, that Germany would need 3-5 extra brigades or 20,000 to 30,000 additional combat troops, the source said, effectively one more division on top of the three divisions Berlin is working to equip at the moment. The defence ministry in Berlin declined to comment on classified plans. Echoing U.S. officials, many European policymakers – including Britain’s Healey – are already saying that defence spending will have to top the alliance’s current target of 2 per cent of GDP. Tuuli Duneton, undersecretary for defence policy in Estonia – one of Europe’s most hawkish governments – suggested in an online briefing on July 2 ahead of the Washington gathering that next year’s NATO summit should discuss raising the spending goal to either 2.5 per cent or 3 per cent.

United States will spend $967.7billion on defence in 2024, roughly 10 times as much as Germany, the second-largest spending country, with $97.7 billion. Total NATO military expenditures for 2024 are estimated at $1,474.4 billion. Trump’s selection in July of Senator J.D. Vance as his vice-presidential running partner – who opposes aid to Ukraine and has criticised NATO partners as ‘welfare clients’ – stirred concern in some European capitals. Lieutenant Colonel Charlie Dietz, a Pentagon spokesperson, said the U.S. supported European allies’ efforts to increasing defense spending to at least the 2 per cent of GDP target, and noted they had already made significant progress in boosting budgets. ‘NATO’s regional defense plans involve enhancing readiness and flexibility across the Alliance. We remain committed to contributing significantly to these efforts,’ Dietz said.

Want more stories like this from the Daily Mail? Hit the follow button above for more of the news you need.