British Defence Secretary Ben Wallace and Estonian Minister of Defence Hanno Pevkur commit to stronger defence cooperation.
According to a Ministry of Defence statement, the United Kingdom will periodically deploy helicopters to Estonia “as part of enhancing our nations’ deep defence relationship built on shared interests and values”.
The Defence Secretary Ben Wallace hosted his counterpart Estonian Minister of Defence Hanno Pevkur in London for a meeting, during which the Ministers committed to stronger ties and issued a joint statement.
“The Ministers signed a roadmap which sets out a shared plan to implement commitments made at the NATO Summit in Madrid earlier this year. The roadmap will see a more capable UK presence in Estonia, continuing our commitment to deter aggression and defend European and NATO security.”
UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said:
“The UK’s commitment to Estonia and European defence and security is unwavering. The deployment of assets such as Apache and Chinook helicopters to exercise in Estonia is a clear example of the strength of our relationship, and the importance we place on our ability to effectively operate side by side.”
Estonia Defence Minister Hanno Pevkur said:
“In the roadmap, Estonia have committed to start the development of an Estonian warfighting Division which will ensure coordinated use of national and allied forces in the defence of Estonia. This work will be supported by the UK, who are providing training and mentoring through an advisory team and close links with the UK’s 3rd Division.”
The Ministry of Defence added in a news release that the UK has an enhanced forward presence (eFP) Battlegroup in Estonia, and this deployment will be enhanced through divisional-level assets such as short range air defence and multiple rocket launch systems in the country.
“These will be augmented with periodic deployments of additional capabilities including Apache and Chinook helicopters. The first of these surges will begin January 2023, when Chinook Helicopters will deploy to Estonia. From April 2023, the UK’s eFP Headquarters in Estonia will be led by a Brigadier, enhancing the HQ’s capabilities. In addition, the UK will hold a Brigade sized force at high readiness in the UK, ready to reinforce Estonia and the Baltics at a time of need. These forces will regularly exercise in Estonia and the first exercise, Spring Storm, is planned for May 2023.
Estonia is supporting these plans by building four additional accommodation halls and other necessary support facilities at Tapa Camp which will be completed before the exercise begins. Separately, the UK will be providing Baltic Air Policing in Estonia from March to July 2023 using Typhoon aircraft and will continue to contribute to NATO maritime patrols in the Baltics.”
Very good. Might as well go the full way and have a permanent presence of a few thousand fully equipped troops, a squadron of chinooks and perhaps apaches.
It would give the army a purpose and easier to say to the government we need x,y and z equipment.
The Estonians seem willing to have the forces.
A mini version of BAOR?
Id be fine with that concept. Although there is an issue of not leaving a reasonable percentage of British army firepower exposed and not able to be adequately reinforced quickly or withdrawn if Estonia was to be invaded.
Not that I think that is going to happen any time soon as Russia’s military is in disarray. Putin has to tread very carefully. There is a very fine line now between Russia committing all in to win the war in Ukraine and not having adequate reserves and high end kit to deter territorial claims such as by China.
I suggested the possibility in conversation with Graham many months ago. Not so much a roulement as a permanent garrison.
A garrison takes more assets than just that small list to enable it properly. Accommodation? Supplies? Storage Depots? Relaxation? They cannot just sit in the forest.
The Army is in such a state now even an enduring brigade roulement seems beyond it.
Quite.
However, having nice garrison locations to rotate to might help retention?
Although I’m sure the MOD would work overtime to provide a soulless dilapidated environment for the boys and girls……they have got that down to a T now.
Joking apart Akrotiri and Gib were always popular postings for good reason…..there was a wider nice place to hand for tourism or R&R.
That and they can take their families, always a big plus in the morale stakes.
Had an Estonian girlfriend for several years. lovely people. Hated the Russian settlers who came post-WWII (like many such countries). Estonia would make a lovely posting for a permanent, rotatable, garrison and therefore help with recruitment.
I liked Gib, the accommodation even for officers is in need of a major upgrade
I suspect it hasn’t been upgraded since the 1980’s?
Isn’t the host country generally expected to assist in defraying infrastructure expenses incurred? Question: Is anyone knowledgeable re the process used to assign Estonia’s defense to UK? Random? Some political, cultural, or historic affinity? Strictly a matter of curiosity.
I have no idea. Is that what happens with you and the numerous USAF Bases overseas?
Depends on affluence of host countries. Believe Germany and Japan make significant contributions (cash or in kind support). Developing countries probably token, if at all. Don’t know how to characterize Baltic states.
You are correct in your assumption of host nation providing contributions, certainly in the case of Germany when we had BAOR assets stationed there.
Part of the deal was that when we left, all the infrastructure would be returned to the local authorities at no cost.
Musing upon your response; if HMG/MoD are planning proactively, the next renewal of Host/Tenant agreement for USAF would include several clauses w/ net effect of USAF providing GBAD coverage conveniently tailored to dimensions of UK landmass (probably buried in the boilerplate small print section of the contract/treaty). USAF, in turn, hits up paymasters in Congress to pony up the funds. If Congress doesn’t comply w/ provisions, may be able to sue in Federal courts. This could prove not only beneficial but also profitable for UK. 🤔😳😉😁
A brigade-sized roulement would require the commitment of a full division wouldn’t it? That would be quite significant, given all the commiments of the Army in other geographical locations.
We can no longer do that, they’ve cut the ORBAT so much.
The 3 (UK) Division pre A2020R had 3 Armoured Brigades, 3 regiments of Tanks, 3 regiments of AS90, and so on.
Post A2020 was even better, they could still work to the rule of 5 with 3 Armoured and 2 Infantry Bdes in 1 UK Div that had the enablers from the CS/CSS to deploy.
No longer.
I frankly don’t understand the Army any more. SDSR 2010 was the last plan that made any sense to me. Since then it all looks to me like just a bag of pick-and-mix… a hodgepodge of this and that.
Agree, the army reorganises in response to the latest cuts every few years, so often in fact that the previous alterations and cuts have often not even been actioned before it all changes again.
Blame Boxer in a way, until they u turned for the umpteenth time and decided wheels were the way they were looking at a mostly all tracked force and Boxer was coming lower priority late 2020s in just 3 battalions, then known as MIV.
Carter knows why, and that idiot Fallon who concurred with it.
Maybe the Estonians could invest in their defences and buy some British made equipment to return the favour?
I like Estonia’s kit as they have it. What the uk could bring among other things is typhoons, F35b helicopters, sky sabre, armour vehicles (tanks, m270 etc etc). Integrating that with Estonia’s forces makes a great formidable force.
If Russia or Belarus was to try and attack anywhere again it would be the Baltic’s. Very unlikely as it’s part of nato.
British forces in Estonia are deployed very forward. NATO and the RN might have to contest control of the Baltic Sea to reinforce them by sea. The UK is grandstanding this deployment and we should remember just how weak our armed forces are, following years of Conservative defence cuts.
Dowding’s letter to Churchill concerning the deployment of the RAF to France in 1940 comes to mind.
I agree with that statement, we may think of Russia as a paper tiger, however, are we much better?
We bigged it up and took on Helmand – undersourced, under-trooped and without a coherent strategy passed from Brigade commander to Brigade commander; if it wasn’t for the fighting tenacity of PARA and Royal Irish, the mission would have been sunk from the get go.
Now, we have taken on Estonia – Poland would have been the better logistical base, Lithuania would have seen a force with the will to fight; instead, we see the UK out on a limb although thankfully, Finland is flanking us and Sweden is now linebacking us. Canada took Latvia and Germany took Lithuania – a Germany who in the ‘teenies’ were very accommodating of Russian ‘needs and demands’ – would they have stood? Will they stand? America did the sensible thing and took Poland!
The elected Con for the last 12 years have salami sliced defence, it is disgraceful that they laud BritMil and give even more commitments. Empty Rhetoric
“of PARA and Royal Irish..”
Spit, puft, huh?
Four tours of that hole and I can assure you it was not only the Army that spilled blood and lost some wonderful people there!
…FIRST tour… the inkspot approach, forgetting that Afghan sand soaks up blood, let alone ink, faster than a tick can suck it and an under resourced Brigade was hung out to dry.
Estonia could be a bridge too far; depends what mad Vlad will do next.
Worked very closely with the Estonians in Afghan. If push comes to shove, they will stand with the rest of us. They have no love for Russia.
When they deployed to Mali, they in part came under UK the force structure. They did really well and were proving a point on their effectiveness as a new member of NATO. Their lads and lasses were also eager to prove a point, especially when out in the sticks on patrol. I think taking on and basing forces in Estonia is a logical option for the UK.
I can’t deny the Estonians are nails, I could never say they aren’t hard. I’ve lived in Latvia for 8 years and General Winter is hard.
My point is the logistics chain is our weak point unless we can mallet Kaliningrad and bottle up St Petersburg.
Hi Dave, agree to a point. If Russia got back its military strength to what it had pre-February’s invasion of Ukraine. I would say you’re correct. However, as we stand today, Russia is no longer in a serious position to threaten the Baltic States. Especially now that both Finland and Sweden are joining the club.
If Russia did try something stupid against the Baltic States. The ports of Kaliningrad and St.Petersburg would not only be under siege, but Russian Naval forces will be hammered. I would fully expect Poland on its own to neutralize Kaliningrad militarily and widen the Sulwalki corridor.
Tactically, the Ukraine war has shown that Russia is significantly lacking in precision air launched stand-off weapons. In particular modern anti-radiation missiles. Where it had to overly rely on unguided rockets and dumb/cluster munitions. Thereby making their aircraft vulnerable to air defenses.
The biggest eye opener for me is their lack of an agile logistic supply and control. How many times have we seen their arms dumps hit by M270/HIMARS. Secondly and perhaps more importantly is their lack of trucks and an over-reliance on rail. Which makes their logistics hubs predicable and therefore vulnerable.
If we look at the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. They can be easily cut-off from resupply from land, sea and air. So in essence they can be starved out by a siege. Even if Belarus got involved. I think their forces will be in a far worse predicament than Russias. Their material is generally an older generation that what Russia has been using. Making them very vulnerable to NATO militarily.
In the days prior to February, I was one of the advocates saying that Russia would steam roller over Ukraine’s forces. But that was built on the pretext of all the historical propaganda we were fed, especially when I was still in the military. I was happily proved wrong! Evidence has shown that since the Chechen wars. Russia simply has not learnt the lessons and put them into practice. They have not evolved, they still use the sledgehammer tactics of the Soviet era. Which is slow, sluggish and predictable, proving to be easily outwitted by hard hitting maneuvering units.
This is why I don’t believe our units in the Baltics will be in any serious trouble if things did kick off. Unless Russia has held back a division in secret. They simply don’t have the strength to seriously threaten the Baltics.
I can’t disagree with you.
We were fed a vision of a super human army and yet that has not materialised; thank heaven.
However, we are also a paper tiger and our real enemy, China, knows all too well.
Interesting times…
Estonia will do fine. What’s left of Russian forces trying to attack would be pointless. Forces would need to hold out for a couple of weeks until the reinforcements arrived.
Russia could only manage one area of attack at one time. A few thousand troops working with Estonia’s forces. Lots of air cover, anti tank missiles etc etc.
The army should of already worked out everywhere they can fight from, dig in, kill zones. Then over the next few days to months nato land forces rock up behind.
Russia versus nato in conventional war is a win for nato every time. Of course casualties and nobody would want it to happen.