Europe is building its own muscle, independent of American firepower
On a Wednesday in Ankara, twelve nations pledged more than £37 billion toward a missile system that does not yet exist — a collective act of will as much as of war-making. The Deep Precision Strike project, convened by British Prime Minister Starmer at the NATO summit, is Europe's answer to a question that has haunted the continent since Russia's invasion of Ukraine: can the West deter aggression without depending entirely on American power? The weapon itself will not be ready until the 2030s, but the commitment is immediate — a signal, written in billions, that Europe intends to arm itself for the world it now inhabits.
- Russia has triggered NATO jet scrambles over 700 times and surged military activity near UK waters by 30 percent, making the urgency of European rearmament impossible to ignore.
- Starmer arrives at what he calls his final NATO summit under pressure from Trump to meet a 3.5 percent GDP defense spending target the UK has yet to plan for.
- The Deep Precision Strike missile — capable of hitting targets up to 1,250 miles away with pinpoint accuracy — is designed to strike the kind of deep logistical targets Ukraine has already proven decisive against Russian supply lines.
- Moscow has dismissed the announcement, with Kremlin spokesman Peskov insisting Russia will pursue its military objectives regardless, even as Zelensky pleads for more air defense systems from the summit floor.
- The missile won't be operational until the 2030s, meaning NATO is staking its deterrence posture on a promise — a bet that the act of commitment itself reshapes the balance before the weapon ever flies.
Twelve nations gathered in Ankara on Wednesday to pledge more than £37 billion over the next decade toward a weapon that does not yet exist. The Deep Precision Strike project, unveiled by the British government at the NATO summit in Turkey's capital, is designed to hit targets with precision accuracy at distances of up to 1,250 miles — and to signal that Europe is building its own military muscle, independent of American firepower, at the continent's most serious security juncture since the Cold War.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer convened the allied leaders around the initiative at a moment of personal and political pressure. Arriving at what he has indicated will be his final NATO summit as prime minister, Starmer faces demands from US President Donald Trump to meet a 3.5 percent of GDP defense spending target that the UK has not yet planned for. The Deep Precision Strike announcement offers a different kind of answer — not an immediate budget increase, but a decade-long, multinational weapons program that binds allies together and demonstrates long-term commitment. The UK has already pledged £300 billion to defense investment by 2030.
Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper framed the project as a response to a harder world, describing it as a means to strike high-value military targets and the logistical infrastructure that sustains armies — a direct echo of Ukraine's own long-range strikes against Russian fuel depots and supply lines, operations that have already proven the strategic value of precision weapons at depth.
The shadow of Russia hangs over the entire summit. NATO has scrambled jets to intercept Russian aircraft more than 700 times, and Russian military activity near UK waters has risen 30 percent. The Kremlin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed the new missile project, insisting Russia would continue its military operation in Ukraine until its objectives are met. Meanwhile, President Zelensky used his summit address to press allies for the air defense systems Ukraine needs now, even as its own long-range strikes continue to degrade Russian logistics and infrastructure.
The catch is time. The missile system is not expected to be operational until the 2030s — a reminder that deterrence sometimes means betting on capabilities that live more in planning documents than in arsenals. For now, the message is the weapon: Europe is investing in itself, binding its members through shared purpose, and telling both Washington and Moscow that it intends to be taken seriously.
Twelve nations gathered around a table in Ankara on Wednesday to commit more than £37 billion over the next decade to a weapon that doesn't yet exist. The Deep Precision Strike project, unveiled by the British government, represents NATO's bet that a new generation of long-range missiles will reshape the military balance in Europe and deter Russian aggression for years to come.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer convened the allied leaders to discuss the initiative at the NATO summit in Turkey's capital. The missile system, billed as among NATO's most sophisticated weapons, is designed to strike targets with precision accuracy at distances ranging from nearly 200 miles to potentially 1,250 miles away. It is, in essence, a statement of intent: Europe is building its own muscle, independent of American firepower, at a moment when the continent faces its most serious security challenge since the Cold War.
The timing is pointed. Starmer arrives at what he has indicated will be his final NATO summit as prime minister facing pressure from US President Donald Trump over defense spending. The UK has not yet laid out a plan to reach the 3.5 percent of GDP defense spending target that nearly all NATO members agreed to last year. Yet the Deep Precision Strike announcement allows Starmer to demonstrate commitment to European security in a different register—not through immediate spending increases, but through a long-term, collaborative weapons program that binds allies together. The UK government has already committed £300 billion to defense investment by 2030, a figure Starmer will likely emphasize.
Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper framed the project as recognition of a harder world. "This is about how we make sure we have a stronger Europe within a stronger NATO," she said from Ankara. The missile system, she explained, would allow NATO forces to strike high-value military targets and the logistical infrastructure that sustains armies—a direct reference to the kind of deep strikes Ukraine has been executing against Russian fuel depots and supply lines. Those Ukrainian operations have already demonstrated the strategic value of long-range precision weapons, degrading Russia's capacity to sustain its offensive in Ukraine.
The shadow of Russia looms over the entire summit. NATO has scrambled fighter jets to intercept Russian aircraft approaching allied airspace more than 700 times, and Russian military activity around UK waters has surged 30 percent. Starmer is expected to stress that while NATO does not seek confrontation with Moscow, it must be prepared to defend every member. The Kremlin, through spokesman Dmitry Peskov, has already signaled it will watch the summit closely. Peskov said Russia would continue its military operation in Ukraine until its objectives are met, dismissing the notion that new NATO weapons could change that calculation. He called for political and diplomatic settlement, even as Russian forces continue their invasion.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky used his speech at the summit to press allies for the air defense systems Ukraine urgently needs. Ukraine's own long-range strikes have proven devastatingly effective—hitting oil refineries, military targets, and logistics hubs deep inside Russia, causing significant fuel shortages and power cuts. These operations have shown that precision long-range weapons can reshape a battlefield, a lesson NATO is now codifying into the Deep Precision Strike project.
There is, however, a catch. The missile system is not expected to be operational until the 2030s. NATO is making a commitment to a weapon that will take years to develop, test, and deploy—a timeline that reflects both the complexity of modern weapons development and the reality that deterrence sometimes means betting on capabilities that exist more in planning documents than in arsenals. For now, the message is what matters: Europe is investing in its own defense, binding itself together through a shared weapons program, and signaling to both Washington and Moscow that it intends to be a serious military power in its own right.
Citas Notables
This is about how we make sure we have a stronger Europe within a stronger NATO— Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper
We must step up to deliver a stronger, more European NATO— Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does NATO need its own missile system when the US already has advanced long-range weapons?
Because Europe can't depend on American commitment the way it once could. Trump is questioning NATO's value, and allies need to show they can defend themselves. A shared European project also binds countries together in a way buying American weapons doesn't.
But the system won't be ready until the 2030s. How does that help with the threat from Russia right now?
It doesn't, directly. But deterrence isn't just about what you have today—it's about what an adversary believes you'll have tomorrow. Russia needs to know that NATO is investing in capabilities that will make any future aggression prohibitively costly.
Why is Starmer announcing this when he's facing criticism from Trump over defense spending targets?
Because it's a different kind of answer to the same question. Trump wants more spending; Starmer is showing that the UK is leading a major collaborative weapons program. It's a way of demonstrating commitment without immediately raising the defense budget percentage.
What does Ukraine's success with long-range strikes have to do with this NATO project?
Everything. Ukraine has proven that precision long-range weapons can cripple an enemy's logistics and fuel supply. NATO is essentially saying: we've seen what works in Ukraine, and we're building it into our own arsenal. It's a lesson written in Russian oil fires.
Is Russia likely to see this as escalatory?
Almost certainly. The Kremlin will frame it as NATO encirclement and aggression. But from NATO's perspective, it's the opposite—it's a defensive posture meant to make invasion too costly to contemplate. Both sides will interpret the same action through their own security lens.