NATO allies have voiced growing concerns over the deteriorating condition of the United Kingdom’s armed forces, warning that Britain’s limited defence spending is eroding its influence within the alliance. This apprehension comes ahead of the upcoming NATO summit in Ankara, where members are expected to reaffirm their commitments to defence investment targets.

Several senior European officials and military commanders familiar with the UK’s armed forces expressed alarm over what they describe as a “threadbare” military. One European official recalled touring Royal Navy facilities in Plymouth and noting even the sale of historical pictures from naval buildings, underscoring a wider sense of decline. Another senior military figure compared the British armed forces to a family trying to maintain appearances while divesting critical assets.

Central to the unease is Britain’s inability to meet NATO’s enhanced defence spending goals. All but one of the alliance’s 32 members have pledged to devote 3.5 percent of their GDP to defence by 2035, alongside 1.5 percent for related areas such as cybersecurity and civil preparedness. While northeastern European nations like Poland and the Baltic states have exceeded this target, and several northern and central European countries, including Germany and the Nordic states, are set to achieve it early, the UK remains at approximately 2.46 percent of GDP. More notably, the British government has not outlined a clear strategy to reach the 3.5 percent benchmark.

The UK’s defence secretary, John Healey, and armed forces minister, Al Carns, resigned last week in protest over an announced budget increase viewed as insufficient—a 0.08 percentage point rise for the current year and a projected 2.68 percent of GDP by 2030. Their successors have yet to clarify whether they will advocate for significantly greater funding.

Interviews with anonymised senior military officers and defence officials from four NATO allies closest to the UK reveal frustration at Britain’s failure to match its rhetoric with adequate resources. “It’s damaging NATO,” one official said, highlighting that the UK remains a politically leading nation yet continues to underinvest after years of spending below commitments. Another officer expressed disillusionment over the UK’s claim to leadership within the alliance, describing it as “sheer arrogance” given the current shortcomings.

Recent operational setbacks have fueled these concerns. For instance, Germany lent a frigate to the Royal Navy for a NATO mission because the UK’s only two operational destroyers were deployed elsewhere. Additionally, some experts warn that Britain’s air defences are so thin that a single adversary submarine could disrupt key Royal Air Force installations in Scotland.

Security experts, including Guntram Wolff of the Université Libre de Bruxelles and the Bruegel think tank, noted widespread frustration among European allies regarding Britain’s defence budget, emphasizing the need for prioritisation to maintain the UK’s role as a cornerstone of European security.

Historically, the UK was among the few European NATO members to consistently meet the previous 2 percent defence spending target set in 2014 and has maintained its status as a major “framework nation” within the alliance. This stature has been bolstered by its nuclear deterrent, intelligence capabilities, close ties with the United States, and leadership in initiatives such as the Joint Expeditionary Force—an intra-NATO coalition including the Netherlands, Nordic, and Baltic states.

While other NATO countries also lag in their spending commitments, Britain’s pivotal role in European security causes its shortfalls to resonate more strongly among partners. The NATO secretary general underscored the importance of submitting credible 3.5 percent spending plans at a recent defence ministers meeting in Brussels, a reminder widely interpreted as directed at the UK.

Brussels-based defence observers worry that the UK’s military policy is increasingly driven by Treasury constraints rather than strategic necessity. Maintaining effective deterrence, they warn, requires not only political will but also sufficient operational capacity—areas where Britain currently faces significant challenges, potentially undermining its standing within NATO.