The UK is prepared to deploy troops to Ukraine as part of potential security guarantees, according to Defence Minister Luke Pollard.
Responding to parliamentary questions, Pollard stated that “the UK is ready and willing to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine by putting our own troops on the ground if necessary.”
The statement came in response to Conservative MP Saqib Bhatti, who asked about discussions within the armed forces regarding potential deployments.
While Pollard refrained from providing operational details, he emphasised that “our focus is on ensuring Ukraine is in as strong a position as possible.”
Bhatti also inquired whether troops would need to be diverted from other commitments to maintain a UK presence in Ukraine, and whether the UK had adequate resources for a sustained deployment. In both responses, Pollard reiterated that the UK remains committed to supporting Ukraine.
The responses mark a significant shift in the UK’s stance on military involvement in Ukraine. While the UK has provided extensive military aid and training to Ukrainian forces, the potential deployment of British peacekeeping troops on the ground would represent a major escalation in the West’s support for Kyiv.
Pollard stressed that the UK’s approach remains tied to Ukraine’s needs and ongoing negotiations, stating, “When, how and on what terms this war comes to an end can only be decided by negotiations with Ukraine at the heart of them.”
This development comes amid continued discussions among European leaders regarding long-term security guarantees for Ukraine and increased military assistance. However, any potential deployment of UK troops would raise significant questions about the risk of direct confrontation with Russian forces.
Has any reporter/journalist asked a member of the government whether or not they’re going to look at troops numbers? I.E whether or not to increase the size.
I’ve yet to see the question be asked.
I heard a rumour of the huge increase of 2 or 3,000 – speculation though
2-3k or 20-30k? Cause its the latter thats needed.
I have earned and received $19,683 by working online from home. In previous month i have this income just by doing work for 2 hours maximum a day using my laptop. This job is just awesome and regular earning from this just great. Now everybody can now get this job and start making real money online just by follow instructions on this website…
——–>> 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/
I have earned and received $19,683 by working online from home. In previous month i have this income just by doing work for 2 hours maximum a day using my laptop. This job is just awesome and regular earning from this just great. Now everybody can now get this job and start making real money online just by follow instructions on this website…
——–>> 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/
All will be revealed when the SDSR is published.
Which of course will be delayed again.
Paul, you’re joking? SDR is all about the future size and shape of the armed forces. Peacekeeping in Ukraine may be a task in a few weeks or months time. We go with what we’ve got, which ain’t much!
Where exactly have i mentioned anything about Troops going to Ukraine ?.SDSR is as you say all about the future of our Armed Forces which is what Elliot was asking about.Think before writing stupid replies.
Ah yes the SDSR, whatever they release it will last less than 6 months. Such is the speed of change within the geopolitical situation.
Unless we are going to be undertaking, finally, 3 years too late, a re armament programme then SDSR will be a total fudge.
The army needs to increase 20-30k. That then makes sense of the additional MLRS and approx 200 RC155s being ordered. Hopefully more announcements coming about all C2s to C3 standard, a new IFV, additional Apaches (best way to massively increase army firepower)
RN and RAF also need approx 5000 additional service personnel to man expanded forces and platforms.
More fantasy ignoring the real world situation. Russian won’t allow EUROPEAN peacekeepers into the Ukraine. Never mind we don’t have the capability to send anything more than a token force. Do any of you know how large the Ukraine is a piece of territory? Ultimately the UK will do as the US tells it do.
No.
The UK has steadfastly sworn to keep supporting Ukraine despite the Orange Toddler’s tantrums.
Ultimately, the US will do as Putin tells it to do. We’re having none of that shit.
Who cares what Russia wants or doesn’t want? What happens in another countries borders is f all to do with Russia. Sod their red lines too, we have crossed so many their never ending empty threats are meaningless.
Would Russia allow peacekeepers from their new ally America?
I think too much deference is being paid to what Russia thinks.
Can uk troops be peacekeepers, may have to a disinterested country Brazil, India and under UN ? The problem is giving Ukraine a security guarantee, which is basically nato with usa.
We need to stop worrying about Russia’s demands for non-NATO peacekeepers. Sod Russia and sod Putin!
Understandable response, but we then are facing a euro nato confrontation with Russia. nato allies will have to stand together knowing the consequences of war with an opponent willing to strike nuclear power stations and target a civilian population.
Sorry but we cannot keep bending to the will of pootin!I doubt it will happen but those troops will not be in Russia so he basically has no say in it whatsoever! In the end we will have to call his bluff sooner or later.
And the Russia should also know the consequences of such actions. Us and the French have nukes. Europe as a whole has a larger, more modern and far more professional military than Russia does.
I’m not saying we deliberately trigger a war with Russia, but at the same time we shouldn’t kowtow to Putin like Trump is.
I’ll never get used to some on here that think Russia can do whatever it wants but no one is allowed to touch them, we should have told Ukraine to hit wherever it wants in Russia with our missiles from the start including Moscow we might not be in the position we’re in now and I don’t believe for a minute Russia would have used nuclear weapons because they know it’s game over if that happens.
I don’t think Putin could stick to a peace deal ,to risky for any European troops if in NATO .If it was USA troops may work ,but we all know that won’t happen .IS really worth the risk ?
How can we possibly be ready?
Have we got a set of TTPs for dealing with FPVs? What are the ROE that mean service personnel aren’t threatened with prison in 30 years time!
The real question is where is European nato drawing its red line..where is the we are going to war with you line ? That is the key question, without that E NATO peacekeepers in Ukraine will both be at risk of attack and therefore a risk of war is increased..but the same time what really is Russias red line for war with NATO.
Whatever ENato decided as it red line it will need to define it with massive force and very very clear deterrence..that shows all three Cs capability, credibility and communications..
The usual grandstanding from politicians.
To be honest I think it’s more a geopolitical play around playing to the US audience as well as giving Russian something to rally against in negotiations…give your opponent a target to hit in negotiations that you know your really never going to push…and Russia cannot allow UK troops in Ukraine…so its a big concession when its agreed they are not going to be there.
Does that mean if we send troops to Ukraine, we then pull them out of the Baltics? There isn’t enough to maintain a healthy roulemont for both requirements. If Ukraine gets the priority it will leave the Baltics vulnerable.
Personally I think we’d be better placed to put a Typhoon squadron in Ukraine to police the skies, and potentially even a few RN ships to police the Black Sea for peacekeeping. Maybe a brigade of ground troops. Let other countries with larger ground armies e.g. Germany and Poland send more ground troops.
Steve, we cannot deploy a brigade group on an enduring operation without assistance from Army Reserve and RM. If the remit is for a mech or armoured brigade, then we can’t do it at all.
Interesting point. Would Turkey open the Bosphorus to warship transit during a ceasefire?
Exactly.
I see more double hatting coming, bog standard HMG/MoD.
Are we genuinely capable of sustaining a brigade for more than 6 months that is not only capable of defending itself and as part of a larger force offer a real deterrent? This must also include suitable air support both rotary and fixed wing. If not we are putting our service personnel deliberately in harms without the tools to do the job.
Would some of those with more knowledge of the army on here offer their thoughts ?
For me, no.
It’ll be a patched up job nicking elements from various units, task orged I think the army lads here call it, in the process robbing other formations.
12 and 20 are involved with Cabrit, have virtually no SP Guns, Recc Regs with Warrior as CVRT is gone, Ajax still being rolled out.
7 Light Mechs heavier Fire power is a Regiment of Light Guns.
16 Air Assault Brigade isn’t suitable either.
That’s our intact deployable Brigades.
4 Brigade has no regular CS CSS and a Reg of Jackal.
The British Army needs to be allocated a front, and stick to it.
That has been planned to be Estonia, while supposedly being NATO reserve through the ARRC. Already double hatting as our “Reserve” has a chunk of its force forming a BG in Estonia.
A few months ago, Healey and his Grandstanding was talking of assigning 4 Bde there too.
Hilarious given what it lacks.
Our blasted political class created the state our military is now in. They need to OWN IT, stop rhr grandstanding, and stop pretending, and the Army’s can do attitude isn’t helping either.
I do fear an I’ll equipped force that others have stated on here spread to thin in a theatre where they are potentially at risk of being wiped out because a force of your normal UN type peacekeepers is not suitable.
Those at the head of the Army and our Labour defence secretary should well remember the calamitous decision to take on Helmand. A different theatre and threat but this started with our then Def Secretary, John Reid prophetically stating he hoped it would a ‘peaceful deployment’ (paraphrased).
I totally support Ukraine in defending themselves and us offering military aid and funding but if we were stupid enough to deploy forces as part of a small force, which is I’ll equipped to deter Russia then I would be wholeheartedly against the idea as my local MP would soon find out.
Regrettably I would also be wary of any US air support offered when the POTUS is so unpredictable.
I’m with you, SJB.
I’m against it. Politicians will always be desperate to grandstand and emphasise our key role so would send forces regardless of their true state.
Give all the aid we can, our forces should be on the NATO side of the border, until such a time that UKR is actually in NATO.
They’d be more of a threat stationed around Lviv, the implication being that we would join Ukrainian forces if Russia attacked. (Peacekeeper neutrality is overrated.) Putting British troops on the front would be a big mistake. Just send Reapers.
In reality Ukraine has a lot of trained manpower.. if supported properly it could be build up to be to big a nut to crack..I question if ENATO troops should be spread thin..and exposed when what needs to happen is for ENATO to have a core deployable army in a central place that can smash Russia hard if it crosses the NATO red line.
What would be a better deterrent, 20,000 ENATO forces spreed across the Ukraine Russia border..(when Ukraine could already field a 250,000 strong army) or 2 fully equipped and well supported heavy divisions sitting ready in Poland to smash into the Russian army in a way only western armies can.
Better to throw a lot of resources into Ukraine to build its army and airforce into a true large western style force.
And when they get killed in combat, then what?
Is the peace over? Will the UK be attacking Russia?
Good luck with that when successive government’s and torn the armed forces to shreads with cuts cuts and cuts
All this willingness from the government to send troops is because they know it’s unlikely to happen as Russia won’t agree to peace on those terms anyway, I’ll bet if it did actually get agreed the toilet at number 10 might be occupied for a while!! It’s all bluff.
The best thing the UK can offer is again bulking out the Typhoon force in Cyprus and do air policing from there.
You could do air policing a lot nearer from Poland or Lithuania. Not sure about Bulgaria…
The logistics of getting the force into Ukraine could be challenging. I read 10 or so days ago that neither Poland or Hungary are very keen on allowing transit as they are all too aware of what the Russians have done to them in the past so they are not to keen to make themselves a possible target now. That only leaves Romania with a land border with Ukraine.
Send in the Stramertrooppers…
Slovakia has a border with Ukraine, unfortunately, Mini Meciar aka Robert Fico is in thrall to Putin although the younger generations have been out on the streets in protest at him.