The row over what is, in relative terms, a modest contribution of 0.25 per cent of GDP has once again exposed growing tensions inside NATO over who should shoulder the long-term cost of supporting Ukraine. Britain, France and several other allies have refused to back the alliance’s proposal for a fixed level of military aid. The debate has also laid bare starkly different perceptions of the Russian threat across the bloc.
Europe’s leading powers have rejected a proposal by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte to introduce a minimum military aid commitment for Ukraine. The resistance comes from countries that have cast themselves as the Kyiv’s staunchest supporters since Russia launched its full-scale invasion. Yet they also sit further from Russia geographically and lack the direct historical experience of Soviet domination that still shapes thinking on NATO’s eastern flank.
According to British daily The Telegraph, Rutte’s proposal — which would require allies to spend 0.25 per cent of GDP on military support for Ukraine — met opposition from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain and Canada. “They’re not very enthusiastic about the idea,” an anonymous alliance source told the newspaper.
The NATO chief himself acknowledged on Friday that the proposal faced strong resistance. “I don’t think this one will be proposed,” he told reporters, without naming the opponent countries. Rutte had hoped the plan, designed to establish a minimum standard among NATO members, could win approval at the alliance’s upcoming summit in Ankara.
You might be interested
Britain’s controversial step
The stance taken by London and Paris appears especially delicate. In recent months, both governments have positioned themselves as the driving European force behind support for Ukraine and have led the so-called “coalition of the willing”, which is working on long-term security guarantees for Kyiv. Their refusal to accept a concrete financial commitment may therefore deepen doubts over how much Europe’s declarations of unwavering support amount to more than political rhetoric.
For Britain, the dispute comes only days after a controversial easing of certain sanctions rules on Russian energy products. On 19 May, London issued a temporary licence allowing imports of diesel and jet fuel refined from Russian oil in third countries, due to the crisis in the Middle East. The British government also authorised shipping and supplies of liquefied natural gas from Russia’s Sakhalin-2 and Yamal LNG projects.
Efforts to close funding gap
Rutte tabled the proposal in an effort to address what has become an increasingly visible imbalance within NATO. In recent days, the Secretary General has repeatedly warned that support for Ukraine remains unevenly distributed among allies. While some countries provide extensive assistance, others, he argues, “are not spending enough”. Estimates suggest the 0.25 per cent target could have generated tens of billions of dollars in additional military aid for Kyiv.
Last week, ahead of a NATO meeting in Helsingborg, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson urged allies to step up their support. “I really would like more countries that speak so extremely well about Ukraine to also put the money where the mouth is,” he said.
The debate has also highlighted a long-standing divide within Europe itself. According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, the countries devoting the largest share of GDP to military aid for Ukraine are primarily the Nordic and Baltic states, alongside Poland and also the Netherlands. Most of these countries sit closer to Russia geographically and tend to view Moscow’s expansionist ambitions far more urgently than the major economies of western Europe.
The institute notes that Nordic countries contribute far beyond what their economic weight would suggest. Large western European states spend roughly in line with expectations, while southern Europe “remains a small donor”.
East and North carry the burden
Officials from NATO’s eastern and northern flank have repeatedly drawn attention to the uneven burden-sharing. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, herself from Estonia, said last week that countries contributing more raise the issue “every time”. “If you look at the numbers, it becomes clear that the burden is distributed unevenly,” she added.
Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who led the alliance until autumn 2024, had previously tried to open a similar debate. Rutte, however, pushed the issue further by proposing a binding minimum commitment. That step appears to have crossed a political red line. Any such measure would require unanimous backing from all 32 NATO members — support the proposal clearly lacks.
What began as a dispute over a relatively small contribution now points to a deeper problem. NATO members still agree, in broad terms, on backing Ukraine, yet finding consensus on how to divide the financial and military burden is becoming steadily harder. If the alliance cannot unite even around a comparatively limited commitment of 0.25 per cent of GDP, maintaining long-term cohesion over support for Kyiv may prove increasingly difficult.
