Exclusive: EU27 underspent on defence by €1 TRILLION since Putin first invaded Ukraine

A chilling Brexit Facts4EU report if you’re a British soldier soon to be joining a ‘Coalition of the Willing’

Montage © Facts4EU.Org 2025, Attribution: Tim Green, via Wikimedia Commons

Not so much Dad’s Army, EU’s figures reveal what a “Vati’s Wehrmacht” Sir Keir wants to ‘align’ with

Yesterday (27 Mar 2025), the full extent of the EU’s underspend on defence was revealed, showing the defence expenditure of the EU27 countries in the 10 years since President Putin’s Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014. In those 10 years, compared to the NATP minimum of spending 2% of GDP on defence, the EU27 underspent by an astonishing € -1,079,661,000,000, or just over 1 TRILLION euros.

In previous reports, the Facts4EU think-tank has published analysis of defence based on NATO data. Naturally, this included only those EU countries that are NATO members. Now that the EU talks daily about ramping up ‘European’ defence, (by which it means ‘EU’ defence), it is perhaps not surprising that yesterday it felt obliged to issue its figures for the defence spending of all EU27 member countries.

The EU’s contribution (or lack thereof) to ‘European’ defence in ‘the Putin years’

Helpfully the EU provided its data for the last 10 years for which it has data, covering the period from Putin’s first invasion in 2014 – when he invaded and annexed Ukraine’s Crimea - up until the end of 2023.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org Summary

1. EU27 percentage of GDP spent on defence, 2014-2023

2023 Highest: Latvia (3.1%)
2023 Lowest: Republic of Ireland (0.2%)
2014-2023 EU27 average: 1.2%

The EU27’s €1 TRILLION underspend on defence, compared to NATO’s 2% of GDP minimum, 10 years, 2014-2023

Using the EU’s own GDP figures, the Facts4EU think-tank calculated how much each EU country should have spent on defence in each of the last 10 years from 2014-2023. These totals were then deducted from the actual defence spend for each country to reveal the shortfall.

We badly need your support to continue
Please help us by making a donation below

Any credit card user

Quick One-off

From £5 - £1,000

Monthly

From £3 per month

Paypal Users Only - Choose amount first

Quick One-off

Monthly

Brexit Facts4EU.Org Summary

2. EU’s cumulative underspend on defence based on NATO’s 2% of GDP minimum, 2014-2023

EU27 actual defence spend : € 1,709,394 bn (€1.7 trillion)
EU27 notional spend if at 2% : € 2,789,055 bn (2.8 trillion)
Underspend : € -1,079,661 bn (€ 1 trillion)

Observations

On seeing our report, in their usual desperation Rejoiners will scrabble around, trying to find some way to discredit our analysis. Unable to find any fault with the figures, they will then move to their next tactic: deflection. They will say that it is not reasonable to compare the defence expenditure of EU countries which are not members of NATO with NATO’s 2% of GDP minimum spend.

Why not? Why should countries such as non-NATO Ireland get a free ride? Ireland relies on the UK’s defence shield to protect it, but has never been prepared to pay the UK anything towards its cost.

Furthermore, if the EU wants to talk about ‘European’ (i.e. EU) defence – as it is now doing all the time – and if it collects and publishes defence expenditure for all 27 of its member countries – as it did yesterday – then it is perfectly reasonable to look at the EU’s entire defence expenditure. As for comparing with the NATO 2% of GDP minimum, it is now accepted across the EU and most certainly in the Commission that this now needs to be increased.

Donald Trump has called for European countries to spend 5% of GDP on defence, presumably to get them to make up for their chronic underspend over so many years. Some people may not like his rhetoric, but it is working.

Brexit Facts4EU has always argued for 3.5%, but of course this was in relation to the UK, which has no shortfall to make up. As we have shown many times, the UK has consistently spent more than the NATO minimum and so any increase will be adding to an existing expenditure above the minimum. This may not have been enough in our view, but it was certainly a great deal better than the EU’s.

The simple fact is that the calibre of defence forces and equipment across EU countries is of a very mixed standard. Who can forget the famous occasion a few years ago when German soldiers turned up for a joint NATO military exercise carrying broom handles for rifles? Not so much Dad’s Army as ‘Vati’s Wehrmacht’……

Please, please help us to carry on our vital work in defence of independence, sovereignty, democracy and freedom by donating today. Thank you.

[ Sources: EU Commission ] Politicians and journalists can contact us for details, as ever.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org, Fri 28 Mar 2025

Click here to go to our news headlines

Please scroll down to COMMENT on the above article.
And don't forget actually to post your message after you have previewed it!

Something to say about this? Scroll down for reader comments

Since before the EU Referendum, Brexit Facts4EU.Org
has been the most prolific researcher and publisher of Brexit facts in the world.

Supported by MPs, MEPs, & other groups, our work has impact.

We think facts matter. Please donate today, so that we can continue to ensure a clean Brexit is finally delivered.

Any credit card user

Quick One-off

From £5 - £1,000

Monthly

From £3 per month

Paypal Users Only - Choose amount first

Quick One-off

Monthly

PLEASE NOTE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT : You can write your comment under any existing comments below. After you have clicked to preview your comment, you MUST then click on the CAPTCHA system and send you comment, for it to be published. Thank you!

Reader Comments 15

1. Sparky , Friday, March 28, 2025, 08:44:

Trumps stance on NATO spending and questions over his reliability as an ally has been a wake up call and is pushing the UK back towards our European neighbours.
.
Our own armed forces are not strong enough on their own. Historically the UK has, in the majority of cases, been involved with defence or conflict with allies, whether that be Afghanistan, Iran, WWII, WWI, Crimea or Waterloo. We will be reliant on European allies to help build a strong enough deterrent.
.
Defence is a significant plus to the US economy, given Trumps approach, the UK and EU should do as much as possible to keep the increase in expenditure in the UK and EU. However the UK has already been shut out of the $150billion increase in defence spending planned for the EU. Thanks Brexit.

2. Major GWL MC OBE , Friday, March 28, 2025, 09:33:

1. Sparky , You’ve just seen how much debt the EU has racked up in defence—€1 TRILLION since Putin first decided to play Risk in real life. And yet, you still think re-aligning with the EU is the golden ticket? Honestly, your logic deserves its own Netflix special.
Having had the privilege of working with major players over the years and witnessing first hand the disputes among EU NATO members, I know exactly who I’d trust to share a trench with—and let’s just say, it’s not the person arguing over who ate the last croissant. For years, the Americans have also expressed frustration with EU members and Canada for leaving the U.S. to shoulder the financial burden—because apparently, Uncle Sam’s wallet is endless.
Let me be clear: the investment needed for our national defence far exceeds the commonly suggested 2.5% or even 3.5% of GDP. Realistically, we’re looking at 10–12% over the next decade just to bring our forces up to standard, after which we could scale back to around 5%. The army urgently requires 300,000 personnel and 2,000 tanks. The RAF needs 1,000 fighters and 200 additional logistical aircraft. Meanwhile, the Royal Navy is in desperate need of at least 200 more frigates and destroyers. Successive governments have consistently failed to address these shortcomings, leaving our defences in a dire state.
As for you, I’d suggest gaining some first hand experience before commenting on military matters or alliances, because it’s clear you lack a proper understanding of what’s truly at stake.

3. NH , Friday, March 28, 2025, 10:24:

1. Sp.
If you believe what you are saying you are just as deluded as Kier Starmer. Ursula's defence funding plan is already crumbling as Italy, Spain and France are worried about the market reaction if they increase debt further. They want more mutual debt but Germany, the Netherlands and others are strongly against this.
.
It's not the USA that is the unreliable partner, they have invested hugely over many years and as a result have huge capabilities. It's the EU that's been unreliable. They have underspent for many years and are using defence spending to try and manipulate the UK over fishing rights, youth free movement and defence funding. If they exclude the USA and UK from their defence spending plans it will result in a far inferior defence capability. As usual it's the same old dysfunctional system where each nation pushes for it's own interests and as a result they achieve very little.

4. Sparky , Friday, March 28, 2025, 10:47:

2 M (respect to the awards). The 10-12% isn’t realistic, that’s why we need allies. The military size you’re suggesting will nearly match Russia on their own. Trump made a hash of negotiations to pull out of Afghanistan (implemented by Biden) which is our main source of illegal migrants as a result. Looks like Trump will end the war in Ukraine for now, with a massive gain for USA and Russia, but Putin is making a fool of him. Easiest way to end a war, give in.
.
3 NH. What about UK debt, the debt interest is now massive, after Johnson’s generosity (he loved spending tax payers money)

5. NH , Friday, March 28, 2025, 12:26:

4. Sp.
What on earth are you on about ?
The UK is not funding defence spending by increasing debt. As the UK has always exceeded NATO spending requirements the increase spending is very modest and we have have been one of Ukraine's major supporters after the USA and Germany. As most of the EU has very little defence capability it needs an additional 800 Billion Euros. The countries which have so far contributed very little to Ukraine (France, Italy, Spain etc) are now trying to push this cost onto other countries. This is an ongoing cost so you can not fund it by increasing debt.
.
This war is on the EU's borders. It's 5000 miles from the USA and 2000 miles from the UK. As usual the EU is tying to blame other countries for the problems it has created and it's rapidly disintegrating to a state of embarrassing infighting. It's not surprising that Putin does not fear the EU.

6. Sparky , Friday, March 28, 2025, 13:19:

5 NH. UK bond rates are around 2% higher than those for EU, Germany, France but are understandable reluctant to increase their debt. We cant be taking on any more debt, hence the cutting back announced this week. As for 2,000 miles away, that's 30 minutes for an ICBM.

7. NH , Friday, March 28, 2025, 14:40:

6. Sp.
Are you now claiming that Putin is going to attack the UK with nuclear missiles ? A nuclear power and fully compliant NATO member.
.
The UK does not need increased debt to fund our NATO commitments the EU does. Recessions usually do lead to low interest rates, but extreme levels of debt (National + Mutual) can rapidly reverse that. That's why Italy, France and Spain are so worried. The EU does not want to leave NATO it just doesn't want to pay for it. The USA's plan is working and we should respect their intervention because it will make all free countries safer.
.
Your attempts to defend the EU's undeniable irresponsible behaviour, despite all the evidence, just highlights that you have a very strange irrational obsession with a dysfunctional and failing institution.

8. LuxuryBalloon , Friday, March 28, 2025, 15:09:

7. NH ‘Your attempts to defend the EU's undeniable irresponsible behaviour’ … are you suggesting that the EU has set the military spending budgets for each member state for the last 10 years?

9. NH , Friday, March 28, 2025, 18:43:

8. LB.
I am referring to the EU as a collection of countries each looking after their own interests, which is what the EU is. The original EU treaties prevented the use of EU funds for military purposes but the Russia invasion of Ukraine initiated an EU power grab with each country, as usual, pursuing it's own interests. If you are saying because defence was not controlled by the EU 10 years ago it excuses the EU from any blame I do not agree. If it was the EU or each EU country that did not comply with NATO rules the outcome is the same.

10. LuxuryBaloon , Friday, March 28, 2025, 19:07:

9 NH … I realise it can be confusing as both EU and NATO headquarters are in Brussels.

15 comments, page 1 of 2

Add comment:

Please note: Your email address is never published unless you choose to enter it.