E5 leaders statement from Berlin on NATO and Ukraine

When you first read a government security statement, it can feel like a wall of formal language. The E5 statement published by the UK Government on 24 June 2026 is like that at first glance. Beneath the official phrasing, though, the picture is fairly clear: France, Germany, Italy, Poland and the UK met in Berlin to say Europe needs to do more for its own security, while keeping NATO and the US firmly in the frame. The NATO Secretary General joined from Washington, which gave the meeting extra weight. The group also used the Berlin gathering to point ahead to the next NATO summit in Ankara on 7 and 8 July 2026, hosted by President Erdogan. So this was not just a meeting between five capitals. It was a staging post before a larger alliance summit where spending, military readiness and political unity will all be tested.

The phrase running through the statement is ‘a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO’. That matters. The E5 are not arguing for Europe to go it alone. They are arguing for a Europe that can do more inside the alliance, with the transatlantic bond still treated as essential. In the statement, the leaders explicitly recognised the vital role the US continues to play in NATO, which is an important signal at a time when European governments are under pressure to prove they can carry more of the load. If you are new to this kind of language, ‘Euro-Atlantic security’ simply means the shared security space linking Europe and North America. And ‘burden sharing’ is the less glamorous but very real question of who pays, who builds, who deploys and who is ready first. The E5 welcomed progress on NATO’s Defence Investment Pledge from The Hague and said they want to work together on ways to strengthen Europe’s contribution to allied capabilities.

The next idea is deterrence. You will hear that word a lot in NATO debates, so it is worth pinning down. Deterrence means trying to prevent an attack by making clear that the response would be strong, costly and immediate. In the Gov.uk text, the E5 said they want to strengthen NATO’s deterrence and defence posture, increase their contribution to alliance activity and respond to what they called the most significant and direct threat from Russia, alongside the most direct asymmetric threat of terrorism. There is also a phrase in the statement about a ‘360-degree approach’. That is NATO shorthand for watching every direction and every type of threat, not only one border or one style of warfare. Terrorism is described as ‘asymmetric’ because it does not arrive like a conventional army crossing a frontier. So when you read this part, think beyond troops on a map. Think air defence, intelligence, cyber protection, stockpiles, logistics and the political promise that allies will act together, and in time, if the Euro-Atlantic area is threatened.

One of the most practical parts of the Berlin statement is about the defence industry. This is where security talk meets factories, contracts and deadlines. The five governments said they want closer co-operation so NATO can get the capabilities it needs with enough speed, scale and value. The sectors named in the statement are revealing: air defence, unmanned systems, artificial intelligence and long-range firepower, plus faster joint European work on deep precision strike. If that wording feels distant, bring it back to a simple question: can European states buy the right equipment, buy it together and get it delivered fast enough? That is the procurement problem in plain English. The E5 are also signalling that they want finance to move with defence policy, using existing instruments and other investment routes to close gaps and make sure allied systems can work side by side.

Ukraine is where the moral and military stakes become impossible to ignore. According to the UK Government statement, the E5 committed to substantial further support for Ukraine’s defence against Russian aggression. That includes military help, sanctions and economic pressure on Russia, and support for the resilience of Ukraine’s energy sector. The emphasis on energy matters because attacks on power systems are not a side issue in war; they shape whether civilians can heat homes, power hospitals and keep daily life going. The statement also backs stronger co-operation with Ukraine through NATO initiatives including JATEC and NSATU, and it supports new military pledges to be made at the NATO summit. Just as importantly, the E5 repeat their commitment to deepen NATO’s partnership with Ukraine and bring the country closer to the alliance, while recognising Ukraine’s contribution to Euro-Atlantic security.

The language on peace is careful but important. The E5 say they are aligned on the conditions for a just and lasting peace and support proposals for direct dialogue between Ukraine and Russia, with active US and European participation. That tells you they are trying to hold together two ideas at once: keep supporting Ukraine’s defence, and keep the door open to diplomacy that does not brush aside Ukrainian security. This is worth pausing on, because official statements can sometimes make military support and peace efforts sound like opposites. Here, they are presented as connected. The underlying message is that any future talks should happen from a position where Ukraine is still being supported, not abandoned into a settlement shaped only by pressure.

The Berlin text then widens out to Iran, which may seem like a sudden turn until you remember that European security is tied to shipping routes, energy flows and wider regional stability. The E5 welcomed a US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding which, the statement says, was secured under President Trump’s leadership with support from mediating countries. They described it as an opening to restore regional stability and help stabilise the global economy. The leaders also repeated a firm line that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon. Just as important, they stressed unconditional and unrestricted freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. That is not a side note. If shipping through Hormuz is blocked or mined, the effects can move quickly through fuel prices, insurance costs and global trade. The statement says the five countries are prepared, when conditions allow and under their own constitutional rules, to join a UK-France-led multinational military mission that could help reassure shipping and support the reopening of the strait, including through demining verification.

What gives this statement its political weight is not just what it says, but when it says it. Berlin came just under two weeks before the NATO summit in Ankara. That timing makes the document read like a joint marker laid down before a bigger test. The E5 want to show that Europe’s largest military and industrial players can arrive with a shared position on spending, readiness, procurement, Ukraine and Iran. It is also worth keeping a little healthy scepticism. Government statements are promises of direction, not proof of delivery. The real test will come in budgets, factory output, joint orders, training missions, sanctions enforcement and the staying power of support for Ukraine. If you want one line to hold onto, it is this: Europe is trying to say it will do more for its own defence, but it still wants to do that through NATO and alongside the United States.