The UK Ministry of Defence has confirmed that an Army two-star officer has been selected to lead the headquarters of the Multinational Force Ukraine (MNF-U) in Kyiv, with France and Britain jointly providing the higher-level three-star command.
In a series of written answers to Conservative MP James Cartlidge, Defence Minister Luke Pollard clarified details of the new multinational structure, first announced by Defence Secretary John Healey in July.
Pollard confirmed that “under current plans, the two-star military commander in Kyiv will be an Army officer” and that the individual has already been selected, although “for security reasons we are not publishing further details about this role at this time.”
On wider force commitments, the minister said: “Defence holds forces from across the single Services at readiness for a broad range of contingencies and operations, including the Multinational Force Ukraine. Further information will be published in due course in the usual way.”
At the three-star level, responsibility for the multinational command headquarters will be shared between London and Paris. Pollard stated: “It is currently planned that France and the UK will jointly provide the three star commanders. This will be reviewed once the detail of any ceasefire is known.”
He added that the joint command arrangement is expected to remain in place even when the MNF-U headquarters transitions from Paris to London. “The intent is for the three star command of the Multinational Force Ukraine to remain joint between UK and France. This will be reviewed once the detail of any ceasefire is known,” he wrote.
With over 30 nations expected to participate in MNF-U, the question of interoperability has been central to planning. Pollard confirmed that the primary working language of the three-star headquarters will be English, describing this as consistent with “usual protocols for international collaboration.”
The structure of MNF-U reflects NATO and allied efforts to prepare for a potential ceasefire and follow-on stabilisation mission in Ukraine. By committing senior command personnel and readiness forces, the UK is positioning itself at the core of what would be one of the largest multinational deployments in Europe since the 1990s.
Every uk government does this refuse to invest what is required in the armed forces but are more than happy to send troops to here there and everywhere.
Absolutely Ya, the equation of commitment v assets is a trap we always fall into. Take Afghanistan, we send out our young lives and give them Snatch Landrovers, and many die. Suddenly, we start spending the money from the strategic reserve and deliver the Mastif family. This time, we would have to use the Bulldog and Warrior as our primary armoured transport, as there won’t be enough Ajax or Boxer to provide our troops with the state-of-the-art kit. However, I doubt Putin will sanction NATO member states operating peacekeeping troops on Ukrainian soil due to the high risk of escalation caused by his forces.
Hmmm…very sorry, but a sense of foreboding compels a warning for all potential MNF-U participants. A tenuous, short-duration ceasefire may eventually be negotiated, but Mad Vlad and the Orcs will remain on a war footing for the foreseeable future. Would also anticipate passive and/or active participation/support from the other CRINK alliance members. Significant doubt exists re US commitment/participation/support during the tenure of the current US administration. ENATO is just beginning the process of credible rearmament. Perhaps in 10-15 years ENATO will be capable of guarding the frontier, and, if necessary, hunting down the Bear and associated predators, but the odds are not favorable in the interim. Pontification/prognosticatuon over. Fully anticipate significant incoming, but deem this warning to be necessary. Apology proactively extended to those who may be offended by this assessment.
To be honest if ENATO committed Russia would have no real chance of getting anywhere. You have to remember Ukraine has about 10th of the total resources of Russia and Russia is bleeding out to maintain a rate of advance that would see it take decades to conquer Ukraine, even if it could maintain its efforts ( which it cannot). ENATO has about 10 times the total resources of Russia.. Russia has diddly squat chance against ENATO and Putin knows it.
Yes due to distance and geography he could cause a problem in the Baltics if ENATO was stupid and played a purely defensive stance.. but if he took a bit of the Baltic’s ENATO could simply go offensive and take, destroy areas of Russia until the Russians ran out of steam ( ships, planes and infrastructure) and ability to undertake offensive operations.
Always to my mind Russia is a second fiddle.. it’s like fascist Italy in 1940 it will only really come out truly when the true menace has made its move.
F/USAF, I for one ever get offended by the truth!
Trump failed to get Putin to agree a ceasefire despite being ‘master of the deal’. In fact Putin doesn’t want a ceasefire – he is just about willing to go straight to a final and binding peace treaty…but imposes unacceptable pre-conditions on Ukraine before even entering into talks.
Putin has just re-stated his refusal to accept ENATO/European troops in Ukraine in a Peace Support role. So we are getting no closer to MNF-U deployment.
I understand that the US backstop might look like comprising US PMC armed contractors in-country doing reconstruction tasks etc and possibly some air cover.
The MNF-U role cannot be to guard the UKR-RUS border. It would have to be enormous to do that…and it would be an ally of UKR, rather than ‘neutral’. It must be a theoretically neutral interpositional force.
I don’t think President Trump is going to get his Nobel Peace Prize this year!
‘never’, not ‘ever’. Blast this lack of an edit function!
Seems obvious that if it can’t be an American general it has to be a British general. No doubt que the wingers complaining we don’t have four armoured divisions to send to the Donbas.
Europe has a massive army far larger than the USA, Russia or China.
It just needs someone to pull that together and we are easily best placed to do that. Just s wellington was in the seventh coalition.
Jim, MoD stated a while back that the UK role for MNF-U would be the supply of trainers and logisticians. They will need Force Protection of course, but the details of that have not been revealed. MoD has never said we are sending any armoured formation, whether at the Brigade level or the Div level.
I don’t see how we are best placed to do that. Having left the EU it’s going to be very difficult for us to de-jure take up a leadership role in Europe, and with the lack of funding available to our armed forces it’s going to be increasingly difficult for us to take a De-Facto leading role to pull us together.
Been reading about the Army’s FEF.
Now including 77, 11, and the ASOB.
A very interesting development, especially 11s role.
An expanded “Tripwire” by my understanding of it.
If this “peacekeeping” role happened in Ukraine ( I cannot see it, as I don’t think Russia would ever accept NATO there ) could that be expanded from its primarily Cabrit role?
As we lack so much otherwise beyond sorting out the Logistics.
Sorry, Dern, re reading, that doesn’t come across as clear enough as to my thought process.
11 seems to be allocated to Estonia going forward, but for the rest of LSOF the FEF, or EFP, Cabrit, whatever it is called, is but one commitment, with the other regional roles Ranger Reg have, by Battalion.
The two areas seem linked, however, by my understanding.
I mean not really news. 3 Ranger has always been primarily engaged with Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Poland space, as have elements of 11 Brigade. I believe I quietly pointed to how the force structure might dictate 11 Brigades ConOps (even if it’s not finalised yet). If Ukraine came to a peacekeeping role it would fall into 1 Rangers AO presumably.
Not going into detail for very obvious reasons, but EFP scenarios certainly have been in the exercise portfolio for ASOB for a while now.
Thanks.
Indeed you did.
I remain intrigued by 11 Bde going forward.
Actually, command will be shared between French and UK generals, HQ in Paris and then in Londoni, which is fine, both cities are great. Now, when will this take place… This is a good question.
The second thing is that since now Russia is a Chineese junior partner, how will it take before Russia starts to gain access and buy Chineese kit, and Chineese kit are way more advanced. We are not talking about cheap drones from Iran here…
Send in the troops, offer them up as always first. but neglect to equip them properly, state normal. And the yes men top brass just go along with it. Any troops sent to Ukraine are lost off strength for years. Including those just returning or warned to go there. It will sap man/women power which is not some thing we have a lot of. Depending on their role if more are sent above the command element what do we equip them with? What ever we send we need the near the same number back here to train on. 14 Archers does not go far when some will always be held at the RSA/ trials.
Likely be rob Peter to pay Paul, like always. Just so the UK can look good at the table and pretend we matter more than we really do.
Just need 2 week to train on Caesar, order 100, you will get them next year.
Says who? I served on 6 different arty weapons systems and nothing takes two weeks not even a basic guns course. Why on earth would we by it? Even Ukraine report issues with it. And if we ever get RCH 155, ITS BETTER, offers more and is based on boxer. No weapon system will get in service until its trialed at the RSA, IG,s, SMIG,s amf DC”s and crew and REme are trained on it and spares are held for it. It’s not great system as crew atre exposed
Says Ukrainien gunmen. 2 week of training is sufficient to start using Caesar for a crew. Chassi is civilian, hence easy to get spare parts. Best regards
Its crew are exposed, it can not fire 6400 mils as has a rear ground platform, No way would the Royal Artillery do a two week cause on it and then say you can crew it. What Ukraine does will not wash at the RSA. Its a fantasy idea not based in any fact. When you crewed, instructed on Arty weapons you know it will never happen in two weeks. RCH155 is what better system, in every respect if we ever order any.
YOUR understanding of Army trials and training course is clearly lacking. NO western peace time Army will ever buy a new system and spend just 2 weeks training on it. It take months and years to bring any weapon system in to service.
Ukraine had no choice it is at war, corners were cut that would never be allowed in peace time.
Martin.
Math is French.
Therefore, he will suggest their own product.
You were lamenting how long we take to get kit into service after spending years talking.
So Math suggests Ceaser, which might well be quicker for UKR, where the norms are thrown out the window.
But not for us, as you say, RSA do things differently.
Fair one, Ceaser has too many issues, limited traverse for firing, exposed crew, its not that mobile compared to Boxer RCH 155, spares , They might do things differently there but not here as you agree.
I do.
I’d not want Ceaser for the RA.
I wanted the K9 Thunder!
Same here, i still hope they may get some as any wheeled SPG has limits across ground, Would make sense to get some but i know they won’t. RCH 155 as a boxer variant is a good choice but no tracked SPG is a bad idea. Which like most those in power make will either have to fixed later or just gapped never talked about.
Well the word is Sunak chose it, not the Army.
I don’t think RATDU ever got the chance to play with any of the options beyond Ceaser.
Not going to happen. Putin can keep his special operation going indefinitely and the plan to put NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine just plays to his narrative of Western aggression.
Only undeniable defeat of Russian forces might bring about a lasting ceasefire. So supplying Ukraine with the weapons necessary to achieve this is the only option. These should include long range effectors capable of retaliating on Russian cities for every attack on Ukrainian population centres.
In current context, yes, but we can start to be pressing, with air and naval operations that would tighten the rope. Putin ain’t going to give up, but gradually we can explain him that he does not have as much freedom anymore, by shooting cruise missiles, demining, sending warships to Odessa, etc.
That will end us shooting at Russia or Russia shooting at us, which really will F things up. A peace keeping force only works if both side agree to it. It bad idea that Stramer and his idiots came up with other EEC/Nato leaders that is a recipe for possible war. Any kit sent there is lost from the military for years and can not be deployed any where else, along with lost man power x3 ie units there, units going there, units just coming back. Any more than an thousand would likely strain the Army.
I don’t see it this way. We have been extremely patient with Russia silly actions and this meant death to Ukrainians and fear for our allies. This in turn have strenghtened their resolve, but if now we lack resolve and readiness to fight, Russia will attack once more. After Georgia and Crimea, Russians military was openly talking about Ukraine. Now, they have their eyes on Baltics. It must be painfull for Russians at some point. We must signify that what if left of Ukraine will be defended, that our patience is runing out. It is not costly compared to looking as cowards and seeing further errors of Russians beeing carried again.
Putin has just re-stated his adamant objection to ENATO/European troops in Ukraine in a Peace Support Operation. So is this MNF-U going to happen?
I doubt it.
A ceasefire surely involves Russia agreeing.
A ceasefire which I assume comes with the caveat that peacekeepers come in.
Who else will do that as part of a “coalition of the willing”?
African, Asian or South American troops? Hardly any of them has condemned Russia at the UN, they abstained.
And if Russia does not agree to ENATO forces in Ukraine, are we going to call their bluff and go in anyway?
I highly doubt it. Starmer will bail.
Seems to me the only way to tackle aggressive authoritarian characters like Putin is through strength. West has done a lot to help Ukraine quite rightly, but a lot more needs to be done. All seems pretty hopeless at the moment largely because of having a very weak President in the White House.. By the way, Respect to the USA itself, have been very fortunate to spend time over there on quite a few occasions. But, the big problem is Trump – Who says a lot but never follows that up with any action when it comes to the crisis in eastern Europe. Now what I believe is that one day the western Democracies ‘WILL’ need to make a joint statement to the Kremlin: Saying ” We will never let the Russian Federation take control of the entire geography of the nation state of Ukraine, that will never happen.” End of statement. Then there will be comments and rants as usual from the Kremlin. So the best answer to that is not to answer them, say nothing. That would put some confusion and doubt into Putin’s warped mind.. At the same time USA and Europe plus anyone else who wants to join must put further economic pressures on Russia adding to that further increases in weaponry support for the Ukrainian military. Then perhaps over time and given the Russian economy is starting to have signs of deeper growing problems – The Kremlin might drag it’s feet towards the negotiating table. The only way to confront dictators is to counter with strength.. I’m not necessarily saying western troops would become involved, if ever.. But, possibly they would.. That’s the doubt you could put into Putin’s mind. Fed up with hearing from Putin and the Kremlin playing there mind games, time we countered that with some of our own.
Yes, it will. Nothing can stop it now.
Russia is exhausted and wants a peace, but China is pressing not to make any, in fear of facing alone USA.
Russia wants to look tough, but they look just as they are: exhausted.
This is Macron and Starmer trying to be relevant. I for one take Putin seriously, he said any foreign troops become targets.
Politicians, all to willing to offer up our troops lives because it makes them look tough.
Grandstanding.
It’s always the same.
Now I want Great Britain to take a leading role in affairs, due to our P5, G7, and historical status, AND have the military commitment to match.
The political commitment is always there, it goes hand in hand with the grandstanding.
The financial commitment is not, and never has been since the Cold War.
More than any nation our politicians talk the talk opposing Russia, yet deploy smoke and mirrors at the same time.
It is very frustrating.
Face reality. The UK no longer has the economic or military might, not to mention national will, to play a major role in world affairs. Starmer and Macron can huff and puff and threaten to blow Putin’s house down all they want, but everyone in the world knows it’s only hot air. The only real player is the US which does not see Ukraine as a threat to its national interest and which, the majority of Americans see as a totally corrupt country not worth the expenditure of American lives and treasure.
Well, from what we see, the Russian bear looks a bit pathetic. So even if France and UK are not in their prime, it is allready with Ukraine more people than Russia. Not to mention the difference in engineering levels. USA is not really relevant to mention, as Trump plays pussy, so here it is.
If the Russian bear is so pathetic why can’t England, France and the rest of Europe expel him from illegally seized territory without US help? You Europeans are the real pussies. If stopping the Russian bear is so crucial to your national security interest go spend your blood and treasure and stop it. EU GDP – $20 trillion. Russia GDP – $2.1 trillion. EU population – 450 million. Russia population – 145 million. As they say in Texas – All hat, no cattle.
So America is also all hat no cattle then since you failed to expel Putin from Ukraine before Trump chickened out (again)? How long did you flounder in Afghanistan before you ran away with your tail between your legs? America seems very good at spending money on it’s military, but pretty shit at actually achieving any results with that military.
What a bunch of nonsense. It isn’t the US’s responsibility to expel Putin from Ukraine it’s the UK and EU’s responsibility. America is sick and tired of having to fight Europe’s wars for it. Had stupid Joe Biden and the incompetent Democrats followed Trump’s withdrawal plan for Afghanistan things would have worked out quite differently. You Europeans just love to have Americans to occupy your lands to keep you from killing each other. The US has had to spend 80 years in Europe to keep the peace. It’s about time you Europeans learned to keep the peace so the US can withdraw from Europe and stop having to defend a continent not worth defending.
If you don’t want US protection then demand that all US forces withdraw from the UK and continental Europe. Go ahead, America is waiting.
So basicially standard American “refuse to do the right thing until cornered.” FYI if you think the only real player is the US I suggest you look at the breakdown of Aid between Europe and the US. Because Europe has given more aid than you guys, and unlike the US, we haven’t cut it off randomly because it’s Tuesday.
Europe should be providing more aid to Ukraine. It’s a security issue for the EU not the US. Try standing on your own two feet for a change. And it was the US’s provision of HIMARS and javelin that helped the Ukrainians in the first year, not the non-support of the EU. 80 years of providing support for the Europe is 75 years too much.
The European definition of “doing the right thing” is having America save them when they refuse to save themselves. It’s America cut the apron strings on you spoiled teenage brat Europeans and sent you away to fend for yourselves becaue no matter how much the US does it’s never enough.
Wiedersehen
The British government once again willing the mission but not the means.
The entire plan is, though, moot.
China will support Russia for as long as it takes, the grateful recipient of knock down prices for Russian fossil fuels. Putin is under no domestic pressure and precious little international pressure to negotiate terms.
So on they go, homo ‘sapiens’ at its very worst, thick as mince; venality and base barbarism, pure and simple.
I for one would like a clearly made out role of ‘peacekeeping’ in any of this before there is any serious discussions.
As many who have served in such a role very much dislikes the ambiguity of the role.
The French have already announced that the HQ will be initially based in France. This looks like a quid pro quo for the UK. I bet his deputy is French, and he will be the real power behind the throne. If the British general and his small team are not going to be effectively side-lined, they are going to have to speak fluent French and be damn strong at making sure things are not being decided behind their back. I’ve attended joint commander conferences (as a junior officer sitting in the back row!) where decisions were apparently agreed, and then the French (and Americans) would go away and have another meeting to decide what they were actually going to do.