The UK is intensifying its military posture in Europe in response to a shifting NATO strategy and evolving US global force priorities, Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard told MPs this week.
Appearing before the Defence Committee, Pollard confirmed that the UK will maintain its presence in Estonia as part of a broader NATO approach that now views the Baltic region as a single theatre of operations. This reflects a wider shift prompted by NATO’s new regional plans, endorsed at the recent Washington summit, which emphasise interoperability and deterrence.
“The UK maintains and will continue to maintain our forward land force in Estonia,” said Pollard. “But what we now see with the new NATO regional plan for that area is a single battle space… with the units working together much more.”
Rather than seeking to offload responsibilities, the UK is aiming to maximise efficiency and integrate more deeply with partners, including newer members like Sweden and Finland. Pollard pointed to Sweden’s growing role in Baltic air defence and the need for European allies to increase investment in interoperable and deployable forces.
He said the Defence Investment Plan, due this autumn, would align with these goals and correct past imbalances: “The old equipment plan… loaded attention on kit and equipment and did not load it on infrastructure at all, and our people. The defence investment plan is designed to be broader.”
Pressed on the implications of a US force posture review, Pollard insisted that American allies should not interpret it as a withdrawal.
“What we have been reassured by in our discussions, is that it is not withdrawal; it is a new balance,” he said. “It is burden sharing, not an exit.”
Pollard noted that the UK is already contributing more to NATO readiness, highlighting recent deployments to exercises such as Northern Strike in Finland and Steadfast Dart in eastern Europe. He also cited the government’s F-35A acquisition as a move that boosts both pilot training and UK participation in NATO’s nuclear mission.
“For NATO to be stronger in an era of enhanced threats, we need to increase our lethality,” he said. “That means increasing our interoperability, yes, increasing our spend, the depth of our magazines and our experience of deploying together.”
Air Vice-Marshal Mark Flewin added that NATO’s defence planning process was mature and could adapt to future changes in allied postures.
“If a member were to alter their posture, that would be considered and rebalanced through that process,” he said.
? And with what????
With 100 tanks ? , ridiculous.
Top brass and the Defence Sec talk a good deluded bluff. 14 wheeled SPG’s Less than 200′ 30 year old tanks with no new ammo for them and some 40 year old Warriors is not going to do much. As always on here is all talk, promises , wish lists but nothing has been brought in well over 2 years for the Army. Even if new kit ordered today is will take 3 to 5 years to have enough in service. Making 3rd Ard Div all tracks?. Is that tracked IFV’s tracked Arty? or was that bit left out. Oh yeah tracked machine gun armed APC’s? great idea, no tracked guns though or tracked air defence or drone defence. 146 tanks when they are built for the entire Army, Poland has 1000 which will all be modern. Germany may order 600 more we get 146. We are a joke those in charge just can not admit it.
If the British Army’s prime role is to mumble around the counties keeping a watchful eye then its armoured strength is adequate. However, the Army is primarily designed to fight wars beyound British borders and useually in the thick of it. So why is there very little in the SDR in regard to increasing armoured clout? Yes okay, we all know about Ajax, Boxer and CH3 but sadly the latter is a fart in a culender and the other two are too few in number. The RA has been a disgrace for too long with very little modernisation in the last twenty years. Now it will receive Archer and a Boxer mounted replacement, but in miserable quantities, and the towed field gun never appears to list more than 60 guns or so. The sad truth, more kit was lost on one ship sunk in WW2 than is currently held by the RA. How can the powers at be sleep at night, when they commit UK forces across the globe, knowing they are poorly equipped? Currently, there is some nonsense that Russia has lost most of it armour and poses less of a threat, well, believe that if you want but Putin intends to continue the fight in Ukraine and bully bordering nations with the threat of incursion. The UK must make greater strides with its heavy armour and conclude a deal with South Korea for more MBTs and tracked artillary rather than wait for the maroon to go off. Okay, it would result in more complexity and further logistic expenditure, but that in itself must never come before providing our forces with the kit they rightly deserve.
I feel its all just wish list, bluff, deflection and in spite of increasing defence spending our armoured forces will not grow much if at all in real numbers. Lost wheeled this and that but no more tracked items. It will be covers Arues to an APC not a proper turreted IFV, done on the cheap. No tracked Arty less fir MLRS. Will look great in paper, and impressive with some smoke and mirrors MOD waffle but in tbde ground not change just less kit that’s newer but not a step up. As always brave talk but nothing else . We have a very good Navy, an average Air Force but a kit starved too small Army that lacks Air defence/Ifv,s/ tracked arty. Drone defence/ and no war reserve at all.
I bet the Kremlin is worried. As Kaiser Bill commented – what is there to to fear from eine veraechtlich kleine Armee.
The current British Army may be sufficient for home defence and small scale expeditionary operations.It is not big enough nor fully equipped to conduct all arms operations at scale in peer or near peer warfare.
If this government of incompetent halfwits wants to give these commitments some teeth, they are going to have to increase the defence budget now. If they can’t make that decision, they should stop making these bullshit statements.