There is much misunderstanding on this side of the Atlantic about the nature of NATO membership. NATO fully respects the sovereignty of each member. Unlike the EU it does not require members to do anything they do not wish to do, and has no legal powers to enforce its policies. Many Europeans think that because the Treaty says an attack on any one is also an attack on the rest the US would automatically come to their aid and fight their war for them. This faux pas has led many European countries to provide insufficiently for their own defence whilst sheltering under the US umbrella.
Article 1 favours NATO members finding peaceful means to settle disputes and warns against them using any threat of collective force in international relations that the UN would not approve. The crucial Article 3, much forgotten, urges each member to build up their own individual defence capacity.
Article 3
“In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.”
The better known Article 5 does indeed says an attack on one is an attack on all, but it goes on to make clear that does not require all to respond by declaring war on the aggressor and joining the battles.
Article 5
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .”
In other words whilst NATO can ask each nation to join in a war, each state can decide instead to simply issue a condemnatory statement, impose sanctions, or seek diplomatic redress as it sees fit.
With the US spending around two thirds of NATO’s budget and supplying a higher proportion of the fighting resources the other members are right to be concerned about committing NATO to any action where the US may decide to exercise its right not to contribute. The European members are now increasing their spend . President Trump has been insisting that European members of NATO make a much enlarged contribution to their own defence, as he wishes the US to be less committed to the defence of Europe. So far most of the countries have not made much increase in their capabilities and are very dependent on US heavy lift, air cover, missile protection and the rest. President Trump thinks they need to be spending 5% of the their GDP on defence whilst most have only just got to 2%.
I will consider tomorrow whether the UK should be willing to shoot down a Russian plane. The context for the decision should be a cautious approach as Poland, Germany and the other eastern members of NATO are much better placed to respond to daily testing of the eastern borders of NATO adjacent to Russia. It would be more normal to intercept and conduct the Russian plane out of the area. The UK should concentrate on using its current resources to respond to any Russian drone/missile or aircraft intrusion into our airspace which we are much better placed to do from our own airfields and installations. Our usual practice is to intercept and conduct Russian planes out of our airspace promptly, which is a measured response.
September 25, 2025
Before we go shooting down any Russian planes, we should concentrate on the bigger problem of stopping the channel invasion.
No doubt Russua and other bad actors have a hand in this invasion of Europe. Trump was 100% right.
As you say the USA has 80% of NATO hardware and countries like Germany have been happily selling arms without making any contribution.
Until the UK and Europe are willing to pull their weight, Trump us quite correct to admonish them. Enough American lives were lost during WW2 and Vietnam, both for the benefit of Europe and the wider world.
September 25, 2025
Ian, agree Russia is happy to see Europe damaged by mass immigration. Equally, seeing how limited their army has progressed in Ukraine I would question Russia’s capacity to take any significant amount of NATO country territory – provided that country and neighbours responded forcefully with their own military.
Rely on your own people to defend your own nation…
September 25, 2025
Your final line says it all.
September 25, 2025
😂🤣 there is no Ukrainian Armed Force, the largest standing army is Europe has gone. And you think you can impugn the fighting power of the single country that defeated NATO in Europe?
September 25, 2025
@Ian Wragg +1 – friends, partners tend to have reciprocal arrangements. But when one side just takes there is no value to these arrangements. The EU works better with China than it does with NATO, the USA or even the UK
September 25, 2025
IW :
Absolutely correct. We need to stop the far Left’s open border and hence mass immigration (both legal and illegal) project before we’re no longer a country who wants to or is capable of defending itself. We also need to stop the Far Left’s CAGW/Net Zero hoax which is devised to cause impoverishment and de-industrialisation which together with chaotically intermittent, expensive un-defendable renewables and electrification will make very vulnerable to attack by states still using hydrocarbon fuels. The Labour/NESO plan is for electricity rationing by 2030. Interestingly, Mark Carney, when Governor made achieving Net Zero a primary function of the BoE. Now that he is PM of Canada he has cancelled the carbon tax, delayed the ev mandate and promoted increased oil and gas production. He knows that the CO2 CAGW/Net scare story is a hoax.
September 25, 2025
Telegraph I believe had article other day saying Putin transporting illegal immigrants into Europe via Belarus and many end up here in UK. Makes sense. Putin hates UK / chippy about us from his KGB days. Wants to achieve that through underhand means like this. We got to support Ukraine without risking nuclear war waiting patiently for the day Putin messes up and slips on his own sword.
September 25, 2025
Defence procurement and recruitment under Cameron, May, Boris & Sunak (and Major Blair and Brown) has been appallingly managed.
September 25, 2025
@Lifelogic – managed?
September 25, 2025
He meant to say run down.
September 25, 2025
“Unlike the EU it does not require members to do anything they do not wish to do” This was something the EU did all the time, and with hugely damaging effects especially for the UK!
September 25, 2025
@Lifelogic +1, even now the EU is the bully in the playground all take, take, take.
September 25, 2025
Indeed and our government let them take. When Sunak agreed the stop the boat people payments what results were required for the payments. Just a couple of puncture the boat photo ops PA I assume!
September 25, 2025
Morning Sir John,
Thank you for clarifying the situation regarding the obligations we have and benefits we receive from NATO membership.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that, some leaders of European nations are rather keen to have a major conflict in Europe. We need to ensure that our nation isn’t one of them and that we send a strong message to our government saying so.
During the last global major conflict, those who’s origin was one of our enemies, were put into secure camps for the duration of the war. I doubt we could do the same today, given the size of number of foreign nationals we have living here.
I do not think we could financially afford to fight a major conflict at present given our dire finances. I don’t believe we have a credible military at present in terms of numbers and equipment, to fight any serious conflict and judging by a recent survey, the government would struggle to raise the number of military personnel with such a major percentage unwilling to fight for the country.
The UK and the world are in a mess and we live in worrying, but interesting times.
September 25, 2025
Russia, mostly due to Putin’s ego, works hard all the time to raise the country’s apparent strength and threat, insisting they gather those who succeeded in escaping the iron fist.
China, however, are playing the long game, building economic, military and geographic influence far from home borders almost by stealth due to most countries and its peoples ignoring the daily invasion underway.
In both cases the advances, often not friendly, need to be challenged to try to curtail rather than letting it all go until a major incident inflames and risks are taken.
September 25, 2025
If people prayed to (The Christian) God, things would change dramatically. This is the cost of living in the godless West: high taxes, low productivity, dysfunctional familes and lack of sense of patriotism, lack of national boundaries, lack of work ethic, over dependance on state instead of family, socialism, autocracy, and so on. Only God can solve all this ultimately.
September 26, 2025
And I am NOT politicising religion here. Religion is much more than what I say here (and people can disagree with my right-wing views – Evelyn Waugh was right-wing, Graham Greene was left-wing). Christ was / is NOT political. He’s above politics. Offering refuge for ALL. But I can make claims about some of the things that happen in a godless culture (that people are allowed to disagree with in a political sense).
September 25, 2025
It’s a good piece, many people including even some here, think that an attack on a NATO member means all the rest must pile into a war in response. If people knew better, they might take a different attitude to foreign relations.
An aircraft spending some time in our airspace is a provocative act, but not immidiately threatening or even particularly intimidating, given our military capability and nuclear defences. We (the West) undoubtedly do the same thing to Russia. This is the military playing with expensive toys, testing the opposition, and political braggadocio.
The interception and conduct out of airspace is a measured response by both sides. What would be our purpose in escalating the response, and how would it improve the chances of continued peaceful conditions in our country?
Putin and Russia have no need for a cataclysmic war with NATO, and ordinary citizens here have no need for a war with Russia. Only the MIC, politicians wanting wartime powers over their populaton, plus corporations and oligarchs who covet Russia’s natural resources would benefit.
September 25, 2025
Very glad to see someone else point out the misconceptions around the NATO Treaty. But Sir John misquoted Art 5. An attack on one is considered to be an attack on all. The word considered is crucial since an attack on one is obviously not an attack on any other member. The point of Article 5 is that it instantly enables a coalition of the willing to act in mutual defence without the usual will they won’t they kerfuffle of ad hoc coalitions.
Art5 is commonly referred to as a guarantee. It is nothing of the kind. NATO has no power whatsoever to require any member state to go to war. Art 5 merely gives those who do a legal casus belli. Even that is nothing special. Any defensive coalition has the same legal cover.
The real value of NATO is that it has established all the infrastructure needed for joint actions, interoperability between members .
Sir John is absolutely right to emphasise the key difference from EU defence. Political control of armed forces in NATO remains at all times with national governments which may withdraw their forces from a NATO operation unillaterally. The EU is a supranational government and exercises political control of the armed forces in an EU led operation.
September 25, 2025
The 5% figure was never a requirement of NATO membership and is still not a requirement. It was originally posited as a rough rule of thumb for comparative purposes. However NATO members did agree a few years ago (I can’t remember the date and it doesn’t matter) to increase expenditure to 5% of GDP. But whether they do or don’t remains their decision.
September 25, 2025
Oops. My bad, not 5% but 3%
September 25, 2025
Peter, the percentage is simply a guide at best. When you have a Starmer style government in place which is happy to include pensions paid to ex military veterans as part of the supposed active funding commitment to defence then what hope is there?
Abuse of the collective security provided by the NATO pact is best shown by Ursula Von Der Leyen’s period as defence minister in Germany. Under here watch the German army was so poorly supplied with weapons, they were forced to go on parade with broom handles in place of rifles for exercises!
Lest we forget she was so good at her job she is now head of the EU Commission i.e. quasi commander in chief of EU forces….never have the words “Houston we have a problem” been more apt.
September 25, 2025
@Peter Gardner – agreed. The EU has redefined the 3/5%, in their mind it is 5% as it includes all infrastructure, telecoms, rail and roads, even not the likes of AI and Data Banks. As those facilities are only needed for defence and nothing else.
A percentage of GDP should never be the criteria it is the duty of Government to keep us safe and secure, so the cost is what ever it takes.
September 25, 2025
It all depends on how the 3 or 5% is spent.
It would be possible, at times we have shown it, that big expenditure does little to defend. Cruising round the world’s oceans demonstrating limitations does nothing to defend home islands. Cheap sea and air items added to top notch cyber investment would be far cheaper and more effective than a palace floating about thousands of miles away.
September 25, 2025
@MT – I was only repeating what the EU and to a certain extent 2TK have intimated what constitutes defence. ‘It now includes all infrastructure, telecoms, rail and roads, even the likes of AI and Data Banks’ even those these facilities are needed for standard commercial activities. They haven’t been talking front line personnel or equipment as being part of their expenditure on defence. Its also a EU fudge, to define things as defence, when they are restricted it what they can spend and raise debt for elsewhere.
September 25, 2025
Ian,
Agreed – and once Putin turned the bullying up EU realised they would rather like the UK military such as it is to add to meagre defences.
At which point we should have replied ‘Go Forth… you relied on USA for decades now your cupboard is bare’.
September 25, 2025
We have only sent TWO typhoon fighters to Poland to support NATO. And those without the latest ECRS Mk 2 radar. The rest are in bits waiting for spare parts – or trained pilots. We just scrapped 80 Tranche 1 Typhoons so we can cannibalise them for spares
We cannot use our Typhoons to shoot down anything unless the Germans agree – they have rights over several crucial components that are not made by BAEs
September 25, 2025
Whilst the UK under the NATO agreement/treaty might well have the option to support or not directly another member by force of arms I would be surprised if our current collection of politicians could restrain themselves from wanting to appear to take the lead. Would Spain Germany Italy come to our aid? May be with words.
September 25, 2025
Good morning.
I seem to remember that we have signed a defence treaty with Poland.
With that in mind, one has to ask, what could possibly go wrong ?
September 25, 2025
And with Ukraine! Why have we not ‘gone to her aid’?
September 25, 2025
Surely the great risk of shooting down a Russian plane in our airspace is that the crew lands safely after bailing out. We are then lumbered with the costs of 5 star hotels, unlimited taxi fares, and more pressure on a not coping NHS as well as the repugnant spectacle of the Foreign Office falling over itself to apologize. How can we afford that?
September 25, 2025
After so many years of the US being the major force within NATO protecting it, President Trump does expect other members to prepare to defend Europe themselves, and pay the price for advanced weaponry. He seems very willing for the US to deliver that weaponry, being the main supplier selling it. He puts the interests of his own country first. Keir Starmer in contrast doesn’t.
September 25, 2025
Are the NATO articles any better when compared to the treaty agreements that got us into two world wars where we were obliged to come to the defence of European countries?
Friends naturally help each other, but national friendship is a fragile thing these days. Would Germany, for example, should China attack the UK throw itself into a war that eventually drains it of all resources, making it bankrupt and heavily in debt to say Singapore?
The world always seems to expect too much of the UK, which during relatively peaceful times is mocked and imposed upon, while in the event of a crisis those same countries would expect the UK to be the first onto the battle front.
Ignorance of what NATO actually stands for will not help at all should WW3 erupt.
September 25, 2025
It seems to stand for ‘No Attempt To Oppose’.
September 25, 2025
Intercepting Russian aircraft near the UK’s “area of interest” is not a new or rare event but a long-standing practice by Russia since the Cold War era
These are often Tu-142 “Bear-F” maritime patrol and reconnaissance planes, used for intelligence-gathering and anti-submarine warfare. Tu-160 “Blackjack” nuclear-capable bombers have also frequently been intercepted over the N Sea, less than 15 minutes flying time from London. They usually have their bomb bay doors open, which is highly intimidating
Flights by Russian bombers near UK airspace involve long-range missions to test defences, monitor our rection time and demonstrate Russia’s operational capabilities
Russia will take years to replace nuclear-capable bomber planes that were hit in the Ukrainian drone strikes earlier this year. Satellite photos of airfields in Siberia and Russia’s far north show extensive damage from the attacks, with dozens aircraft completely burnt out and many more damaged.
There have been NO Russian incursions anywhere near our airspace since the Ukrainian drone attack. Which demonstrates yet again that when we stand up to Russian bullying, they stop. I am all in favour of shooting down Russian threats to our airspace, for two reasons. First, it reduces the number of nuclear capable assets that Putin can deploy against us. And second, it demonstrates Russian weakness and that Putin is indeed a “paper tiger”, tho a “paper bear” would be more accurate.
September 25, 2025
I agree with you, which is somewhat a rarity.
September 25, 2025
Putin, Peskov and Medvedev have been making noises about delaying their withdrawal from the US-Russia START treaty for a year. Specifically, they wish to persuade Trump to decommission American B52 nuclear capable bombers to match the number left after the Ukraine drone attack on their bomber airfields
As has become apparent since this attack, the Russians have been unable to repair their damaged assets. Many of their bombers were old and the spares are no longer manufactured. The long-term effects of the outstanding SAS-like operation are only now becoming apparent.
Ukraine should consider mounting an operation against Russian first strike nuclear missile silo locations, including their major facilities at Kozelsk, Tatishchevo, Uzhur, Dombarovsky, Kartaly, and Aleysk. That would really show how impotent the war criminal Putin has become
September 25, 2025
Agreed twice…remarkable.
September 25, 2025
@SG. Have you got your own personal nuclear bunker? Could we all share it, if your wishes come true?
September 25, 2025
Russia never withdrew from START which expires 8n 2026. It withdrew from negotiations for the replacement new treaty.
This is understandable as the USA and NATO had been preparing its proxy, Ukraine, for a war with Russia since 2014. These actions included targeting Russia’s Early Warning System used to deploy Nuclear weapons AUTOMATICALLY if they are attacked by same.
All of you couch Generals (including Johnson-the-destroyer) who think Putin is too weak to respond to a nuclear attack will be surprised, but the surprise will not last long and it will be the last emotion you experience.
I think you are incredibly dangerous, deranged people. I think the west, in the hand of people like you, should surrender all it nuclear weapons. You are too irresponsible to have such power.
September 25, 2025
“With the US now supplying around 80% of NATO’s fighting resources” Those resources include not just equipment but also the manpower. That is US Lives willing to be put on the line to help others. It has as being intimated become a lop-sided agreement.
The EU by population is much bigger than the USA, some 100milion people bigger, getting towards a 1/3rd bigger. Yet they, the EU, are not even contributing the other 20%, as Canada and the UK are a decent size of the chunk of that.
Meanwhile the USA has threat to its west in the form of China. That poses the question if China attacks the USA would the EU step-up?
We all know the EU is about them taking, nothing reciprocal, just take.
Time for the concept of NATO as with the distorted UN to step down, they themselves have destroyed their purpose.
September 25, 2025
Sir John
Personally, I think we should withdraw our personal from the EU. We are unable to protect our own territory; we should be doing that before playing games elsewhere.
The EU is 450 million people, the UK just 70 million. The EU is not stepping in to stop the criminal invasion of the UK, they could quite easily. But the EU are ‘takers’ now reciprocal players – do we need friends like these?
September 25, 2025
correction – ‘personnel’
September 25, 2025
which sort of personnel are you talking about?
September 25, 2025
How about withdrawing them from Ukraine too?
September 25, 2025
Manned aircraft should be escorted from our airspace unless they decline to leave but I think we should make clear that any unmanned intruders will be brought down where ever possible. We need to develop our drone defense capabilities and if anyone wants to give us the opportunity to test cost effective ways of doing so, we should take advantage of it. You can’t spend £50-450K shooting down something that may have cost just £10k.
As to Defense and the state of our economy, I’d suggest keeping our heads down and keeping our fingers crossed until someone willing to make the hard choices comes along. Quite clearly, private business will also have to get a lot more serious about their cyber security and people vetting – quickly!
September 25, 2025
To what degree is Putin facilitating the movement of illegal migrants into UK? Makes sense he would so such a thing to the UK. One of many ways he’s a danger to the UK.
September 25, 2025
Btw, Putin’s hostility to the UK goes back to his days in the KGB. Not something new. He’s not far off being like one of those clever but crazy, psycho villains in a James Bond movie. Except this isn’t entertainment. It’s real.
September 25, 2025
‘not far off’ ?
He’s the whole 9 yards.
September 25, 2025
Ed nobody can compete with you. You are the undisputed champ. You could even get Britain blown off the map were you ever elected.
September 26, 2025
Trump says it is the UN doing it – and paying for it with our money.
September 25, 2025
Publishing some text of these articles is most helpful as the text makes clear war should be avoided before involvement of the UN Security Council. Some recent MSM articles on alleged drone incursions are wildly aggressive urging all out war with Russia. Alistair Heath’s piece in today’s Telegraph is a classic example. Our politicians both here and within Europe sadly appear to have lost the ability to negotiate, to sit down with a leader of an adversary nation and engage in diplomacy? It’s all done now via media outlets and on line! President Trump’s recent ‘Truth Social’ message is a classic example of alarmist messaging against an adversary when only a few weeks ago he met the leader of Russia in Alaska and reported significant progress being made! Furthermore, during his rambling UN speech he spoke about the numbers of soldiers being killed in Ukraine on both sides was unacceptable and how he wanted the war to stop? This is a bizarre and erratic way to conduct diplomacy and it’s extremely dangerous. Why doesn’t our Prime Minister show real leadership by seeking engagement in diplomacy with Russia and urge other leaders to stop using social media platforms by ‘upping the anti’ and risking escalation? The same can be said of the leaders of France and Germany.
September 25, 2025
Sir John Kaja Kallis need to read your article. She swaggers around believing she has her finger on the US Nuclear button.
September 26, 2025
And she is no more elected than Mrs Peter Kellner was.
September 25, 2025
Reading Media comments in relationship to POTUS now supporting the Ukraine, its interesting to note that Russia is said to have lost more than 10 times the troops than the UK has in total. The Ukraine is not in NATO, its neighbours the EU, India tec maintain their support of Putin by flooding him with their money, yet the Ukraine under threat from a big powerful enemy still has the courage and tenacity to defend it own territory.
NATO especially without the USA has made its self by their continued contradictions made its self redundant.
If a Russian plane was to actually attack the UK and the UK retaliated, it would be the UK fighting the EU for real. At no time should UK personnel be involved in the EU unless and until there was a level playing field and they the EU were able to reciprocate on defending the UK, they refuse, they are takers not givers – so the question is answered
Under the one returned 2TK rule we have taken 3 to put on the UK benefits gravy train
September 25, 2025
The rest of NATO collectively has a bigger economy than the USA so if it is supplying only a quarter of the military USA complaints are fully justified.
God helps those who help themselves.
September 25, 2025
“Many Europeans think…the US would automatically come to their aid and fight their war for them. ”
I don’t personally know any who do think that, not since 1990 anyway. But I do know lots who ignore the history of Europe and its borders, even of their own, and have overly gung-ho ideas about defence which a cursory reading of history would disabuse. The EEC, then the EU, encouraged unrealistic thinking by treating every tiny Ruritanian dukedom as if it was a fully-fledged independent nation (take a bow, Luxemburg, Estonia, Malta) and every fraudulent front a mature economy (e.g. Greece, Romania). And now the EU (with its laughable pretence at foreign diplomacy) wants to set itself up as a military power – sheer hubris.
September 25, 2025
A tricky question. If in UK air space, we should shoot them down, but not over EU or other countries’ air space.
Putin is a bully, and the big mistake we made at the start of the Ukrainian war was not giving Ukraine the weapons to hit Russia hard. You cannot win a defensive war, as Ukraine shows.
Putin will only back down to superior strength. He does not care what his war costs in Russian, Ukrainian and other lives. He has treated President Trump like a fool and has no intention of agreeing to a peace plan.
The UK and European countries need to take defence spending seriously now, not in the 2030s.
September 25, 2025
I was serving in a NATO HQ when the Baltic States acceded to the Alliance. My thinking, at the time, was that it was akin to extending insurance cover to parties who weren’t paying the premiums – and that their membership would cause problems.
Whatever, last week’s incursion should have led to an Article 5 response, with the allies filling Combat Air Patrol stations along the threatened borders, and with the operation under NATO command, with ‘robust’ ROE in place, so that the appropriate NATO commander can shoot down any Russian military aircraft crossing the border – without recourse to politicians. And tell Russia, quietly, that that’s exactly what will happen.
September 25, 2025
O/t I heard on the radio that there is a backlog of 78,000 cases awaiting trial in the court system. So in effect the court system is broken. The NHS is broken. The prison system is broken. The police service is broken. I could go on. Doubtless many people are hoping the government that we are currently saddled with will redress the deficiencies. Unfortunately, this is a somewhat less than inspiring notion (not to say a pipe dream). The only thing that needs to be remembered about the majority of ministers within in the government at present, (including 2TK) is that they wanted Jeremy Corbyn to be prime minister.
September 25, 2025
“Our usual practice is to intercept and conduct Russian planes out of our airspace promptly, which is a measured response.”
I expect Russia (and China) is patiently waiting for the time we are either unwilling or incapable of any such response when its comrades in our country have finally achieved their mission to destroy both our ability through Net Zero impoverishment, de-industrialisation and electrification and mass immigration has brought all the features of a failed state unable to muster any defence.
September 25, 2025
Giving away Chagos Islands – Not in manifest
Recognising Palestine – Not in manifesto
Mandatory ID cards – Not in manifesto
September 26, 2025
What you say is borne out by the Turks shooting down a Russian jet which strayed into Turkish airspace. There wasn’t any hysteria all over Europe and not much discussion. As far as I know it hasn’t happened again.