Wes Streeting in US for Hegseth meeting as Ukraine tensions escalate – as it happened

The meeting is a discussion between the United Kingdom’s Defence Secretary, Wes Streeting, and his US counterpart, Peter Hegseth. It is taking place at the Pentagon, the headquarters of the US Department of Defense. The article says it is their first meeting since Streeting became Defence Secretary in July.

The meeting matters because defence ministers manage cooperation on security, military planning and support for allies. Their talks come during disagreements between Washington and some NATO partners. The article specifically identifies Iran, Ukraine and a growing US-NATO rift as issues on the agenda.

The meeting also follows criticism of Hegseth over his proposed livestream of a military firing-squad execution. Streeting avoided personal criticism and said the UK does not support the death penalty. US President Donald Trump later called off the proposed livestream after strong backlash.

The meeting’s agenda covers several linked security concerns. Ukraine is central because military support depends on cooperation among the US, the UK and other partners. Iran is another focus, especially after reports of a possible Iranian plot connected with Washington’s removal of bombers from a UK air base.

The ministers are also expected to discuss the growing US-NATO rift. NATO is a military alliance, so disagreements between its leading members can affect planning, deterrence and confidence. Defence officials need to coordinate responses, share information and decide how forces and equipment should be used.

The article gives no detailed list of decisions expected from the meeting. It does show that the talks occur during a politically sensitive period. Streeting also faces questions about Hegseth’s proposed execution livestream, while the wider defence discussion remains focused on Ukraine, Iran and alliance relations.

NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is a political and military alliance of countries in Europe and North America. Its purpose is collective security. Members consult one another and coordinate their defence policies, forces and responses to threats. This gives countries a framework for acting together rather than relying only on separate national decisions.

The United States and the United Kingdom work together through NATO’s command structures, joint exercises, intelligence sharing and military planning. They can also contribute troops, aircraft, ships, weapons and other capabilities to alliance operations. The article’s reference to bombers at a UK air base illustrates how national military assets can become part of wider alliance discussions.

Cooperation is political as well as military. Defence ministers set priorities and manage disagreements, while military commanders turn decisions into plans. The reported US-NATO rift matters because trust and coordination are essential to NATO’s ability to deter threats and support partners such as Ukraine.

NATO currently has 32 member countries. Its central promise is collective defence, set out in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. An armed attack on one member is treated as an attack on all. This principle is designed to deter aggression by making clear that an attacker could face the combined response of the alliance.

Collective defence does not mean every country automatically sends the same forces or declares war. Each member decides what action it considers necessary. Contributions can include troops, aircraft, ships, air defence, intelligence, money, logistics or political support. Members also need to maintain capable forces and participate in planning and exercises.

The article’s focus on a US-NATO rift shows why the promise depends on political unity. NATO’s size provides strength, but members must communicate and coordinate. Disagreements can weaken confidence, complicate deployments and make it harder to respond quickly to threats.

Russia’s full-scale war in Ukraine has made cooperation among the US, UK and other NATO countries especially important. Ukraine needs sustained political, financial and military backing, while NATO members must coordinate equipment, training, intelligence and wider security planning. United action can increase support’s effectiveness and show that aggression will not divide the alliance.

The article places Ukraine directly on the agenda for the Streeting-Hegseth meeting. That means defence leaders need to discuss priorities, capabilities and the alliance’s political position. The US and UK are particularly significant partners because both have major military resources and influence within NATO.

The current reality is politically difficult. The article refers to a growing US-NATO rift, which could complicate decisions about Ukraine. Continued cooperation would help maintain pressure on Russia and reassure European allies. A deeper split could create uncertainty about future support, military planning and Europe’s broader security.

A growing dispute between Washington and NATO allies could affect how quickly and reliably countries provide military support to Ukraine. Allies might disagree over weapons, funding, deployments or long-term strategy. Even without an immediate policy change, uncertainty could make planning harder for Ukraine and its supporters.

The key mechanism is coordination. The US supplies major military capabilities, while European allies provide their own forces, equipment and political backing. If governments lose trust, they may share less information, delay decisions or pursue separate plans. That can reduce the combined impact of assistance and make responses to threats less predictable.

For Europe, the consequences could extend beyond Ukraine. NATO’s deterrence depends on an expectation that members will act together. A visible split could encourage adversaries to test alliance unity and make European countries reconsider their defence plans. The article does not state that these outcomes have happened, but it identifies the rift as a major concern.

Defence ministers connect political decisions with military action. Governments decide what they want to achieve, such as supporting Ukraine or responding to a regional threat. Ministers then set priorities for defence departments, approve resources and provide political authority for military plans. They must balance security needs, legal duties, budgets and alliance commitments.

The mechanism involves civilian and military officials working together. Defence ministries translate decisions into force deployments, equipment transfers, training, intelligence cooperation and logistics. Ministers also meet counterparts to coordinate timing, responsibilities and rules. In NATO, national decisions must fit wider alliance planning and command arrangements.

The Streeting-Hegseth meeting illustrates this process. The article says they will discuss Iran, Ukraine and the US-NATO rift. Those discussions could shape policy, although the article reports no final decisions. Their choices may influence deployments, support for Ukraine and how allies respond to security concerns.