The government has declined to set out details of potential UK military contributions to a proposed multinational force for Ukraine, citing operational security as planning discussions continue with allies, the Ministry of Defence stated.
The position was set out in a series of written parliamentary answers responding to questions from James Cartlidge, Conservative MP for South Suffolk, following the publication of a Declaration of Intent between the United Kingdom, France and Ukraine on 7 January 2026 covering the possible deployment of multinational forces to support Ukraine’s defence, reconstruction and long-term sustainability.
Asked what discussions had taken place on scenario planning for UK naval assets, Defence Minister Al Carns said the Defence Secretary remains in regular contact with French, Ukrainian and other partner nations on Ukraine-related security issues, particularly in the event of a cessation of hostilities.
“The Secretary of State for Defence has regular engagement with Ukraine, France and other partners on Ukraine-related security in the event of a cessation of hostilities,” he said.
Carns added that the government remains committed to maintaining readiness across the armed forces, including the possibility of deployment to Ukraine, but said further detail could not be provided.
“Planning continues at pace, but we will not be drawn into the details of any future UK Armed Forces deployment, including its levels, composition, assets, and participating nations, due to the risk to operational security,” he said.
The same response was given when Cartlidge asked for information on potential UK land force contributions, as well as any ranges for personnel numbers or equipment that might be assigned to the proposed Multinational Force – Ukraine.
Further questions seeking confirmation of which nations had agreed in principle to contribute air, naval or land assets, or to deploy service personnel, were also declined on the same grounds. The minister repeated that discussions with allies were ongoing but said the government would not publish details of participating nations or force structures.
In his responses, Carns reiterated that the government views such planning as necessary contingency work rather than a confirmed deployment.
“This Government is committed to ensuring our Armed Forces remain ready to respond to all challenges, including deployment to Ukraine,” he said.
I wonder why – we’ve barely any infantry, artillery or GBAD. Has anyone actually spelt out to the politicians in numbers how pathetically small our armed forces now are! They act like we spend >5% of GDP on conventional forces when it’s probably nearer 1%. Given in 1945 we spent 40% it shows how out far we’ve fallen – yet they still carry a big mouth
So you think we should realise the plans and it’s not about OpSeC?
On spending
Yes we spent 40% of GDP in 1945 mostly funded by insane levels of borrowing
Is that what you’re advocating?
If it helps the long term average for UK defence spending prior to 1939 is about 2.5% of GDP. The Cold War was some what of a blip.
Indeed and much of the spending when it went up pre war was kept from the public (a lot easier back then) because the anti war mob were still a very powerful lobby. Lansbury was still saying as late as 1938 in a statement post dialogue with Hitler that all he wanted was peace, literally after having just listened to him having pleaded to him for harmony and understanding, rant off in a bastardised combination of Trump and Putin on a bad day about the Jews et al out to get him. Trouble is now we are being secret about how very little we are doing to re arm, not disguising how much we are doing.
Our spend and tempo should equate to threats. You mention 2.5% pre 1939 – which as a % purely invested in conventional capabilities (not pensions, nuclear) is a significant uplift from today..
As for OpSec – it doesn’t take much to understand the weaknesses in our ORBAT
Jim I appreciate the point you are making but comparing U.K. defence spending today with that of a World Power that Great Britain was pre 1939 is no comparison. The Royal Navy even after the cuts post WW1 and the international naval treaties was the (joint) largest on the planet by a significant margin.
Even though much diminished after WW1 the British Empire was still economically powerful and rich compared to the vast majority of nations so that average of just 2.5% GDP was enough to sustain a super power.
The country despite suffering a severe economic depression also belatedly recognised a deteriorating international situation to rearm. Imagine if that generation waited until the economic situation improved before raising spending? We would all be speaking German!
Britains entire history and success was built on a long tradition of not spending much on a peace time military and especially an Army. America was the same.
Large peace time militaries are a total waste of money. Very few countries can sustainably spend much more than 3% of GDP on the military long term without suffering consequences of failing infrastructure and economic collapse. This is what enviably doomed Hitler and also ended the Soviet Union.
Britains strategy primarily revolved around having a sufficiently strong navy and strong public finances and in the event of continental war it would in effect buy an army by financially supporting a combination of continental powers while simultaneously building up its own army to conduct peripheral campaigns before eventually generating sufficient force with Allie’s to confront its now weakened enemy on the main battlefield.
That’s how we won ever single war since the Spanish succession.
It’s was not lack of military power that ended the British empire, it was lack of money
The USA is increasingly in a similar position, increasingly reliant on foreign credit to keep the wheels on for a military budget it’s can’t afford. It’s running a 7% budget deficit which is insane in peace time.
That sufficiently strong navy was in effect the most capable navy on the planet for over two centuries. When we reduced that Navy the Dutch sailed up the Thames and burnt it and at the time the lesson was learnt by our leaders and we didn’t repeat that mistake for 300 years.
There are several reasons why the British Empire came to end but the Fall of Singapore early in 1942 certainly signalled the death nell. You could argue if we hadn’t been supporting the Soviet Union that more modern equipment could have been deployed to the Far East and had military spending increased earlier then we might have been able to deploy a stronger naval force but in truth to fight wars across the globe against determined and capable enemies was not possible without the total mobilisation of the British Empire. This took time and as you pointed out economically broke the country and led to the break up of the Empire.
Perhaps a lesson for the current US president that, however, strong you are, you still need allies. He doesn’t understand this and we have certainly forgotten that even with allies you need a truly independent foreign policy with hard power to back it up.
“withholds details” as in… the prime minister hasn’t got a clue. He thought it was just for a sound bite.
The point is moot, as long as a ceasefire isn’t set in place then this remains a theoretical military deployment. And by the looks of the world, we are far from peace. Maybe by then the UK would have enough soldiers to send and imperial star destroyers
Certainly sounds very Death Star ominous at the moment. It’s getting surreal what with pay Trump a billion and you can sit on a Peace Commission for Gaza and be allowed to watch him do nothing but stash the cash away in some dodgy bank account to ‘keep it safe’ while planning a Casino. This really is becoming gangster politics and damn the little people.
Fuck, they approved the Chinese super-embassy. Disappointing.
Trolling Trump, seems to have been coordinated with Canada.
I’m in two minds here.
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
Operational Security my arse, embarrassment more likely due to the sudden realization that we don’t have anything to send.
Real reason is we as in the MOD do not know what they can scrape togeather to send. Be interesting to see what wheel light stuff we send and excuse as to why not much heavy armour, Can not wait hear those reasons
Putin would never agree to this anyway. To do so would be to let NATO get even nearer his eastern border, and that would be the end of him.
So as usual Starmer is talking stale wind.