The UK has maintained a consistent deployment of around 700 personnel in Estonia between 2021 and 2025, according to Defence Minister Luke Pollard.
Responding to a written parliamentary question from Liberal Democrat MP Will Forster, Pollard outlined the UK’s ongoing role in NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) initiative.
“Since 2017, the UK has been the Framework Nation to Estonia as part of the NATO construct, enhanced Forward Presence,” he said. The eFP initiative, established to reinforce NATO’s eastern flank, “provides members of the Alliance positioned along the Eastern Flank of NATO (Host Nations) with bilateral guarantees from other NATO members.”
At the heart of the UK’s presence is an armoured battle group based in Tapa. According to the response, the force includes “up to 1,300 Service personnel and high-end warfighting capabilities,” with equipment including “the Challenger 2 Armoured Tank, numerous Anti-Tank capabilities, armoured infantry and artillery.”
Pollard also noted that the battle group benefits from additional divisional-level support assets, such as “Short Range Air Defence and long-range strike artillery.”
Following the 2022 NATO summit in Madrid and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Alliance increased its support to host nations. Pollard explained that the UK had aligned its contributions with NATO’s new “Forward Land Forces” concept, agreeing to reinforce Estonia with up to a full brigade during periods of crisis.
“To date, the UK has achieved this through the allocation of 12 Armoured Brigade and associated capability,” Pollard said. “This year, 12 Bde are being replaced by 4 Bde, reinforced with an Aviation Task Force.” He added that this transition would be “showcased on Exercise HEDGEHOG, a Baltic-wide demonstration of the FLF construct.”
Although the number of troops in country at any one time has remained steady at around 700, the UK retains the ability to surge forces when necessary. The forward deployment model, Pollard stressed, reflects the UK’s commitment to deterrence and regional security.
The written answer did not provide specific figures for tanks or vehicles in theatre on the given dates, but highlighted that core capabilities, including Challenger 2 tanks and supporting systems, remain integral to the UK’s contribution.
Tokenism
It’s still showing we support our allies, though.
JOIN US Everybody can earn 250/h Dollar + daily 1K… You can earn from 6000-12000 Dollar a month or even more if you work as a part time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.tab for more detail thank you……..
COPY AND OPEN →→→→ 𝐖𝐖𝐖.𝐇𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐅𝐈𝐓𝟏.𝐂𝐎𝐌
700 troop during a period of war isn’t showing them anything. Realistically we should have 10-20k deployed to show to Russia that NATO means business and will defend it’s borders.
The issue is a large deployment would quicky show the cracks in the logistics caused by under investment and polictically that would be a nightmare as it’s not the current governments fault that under investment has happened for the last few decades and equally they can’t fix it quickly, but the pressure would be on them to do it.
Ideally way more than 20k but that isn’t even theoretically possible.
Steve, we are not at war. We deploy a force on eFP duties in Estonia of the size required by NATO. This is a NATO mission, not a national UK mission. eFP is all about NATO troops acting as a tripwire.
Although we are not involved in a kinetic conflict, we are and have been for some time in a conflict within the so called “grey zone”
Cyber warfare attacks from the likes of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea are constantly being attempted, not to mention more overt physical attacks on infrastructure such as the Nord Stream gas oil pipeline, Russian “trawlers” attempting to interfere with fibre optic cables in the North Sea, and the recent attack on the Heathrow substation all point to an uptempo in activity from NATO’s enemies.
Steve, Estonia has 41,000 soldiers. That’s backed up with a roughly 2,000 strong NATO battle group, so about 43,000 strong NATO commitment. That’s twice what you where asking for no?
So with a 3:1 attacking force requirement that 130,000 army is not going to be hard to spot with rail transport the RF standard. Such trains with T-80s on board are distinctive and easy meat for precision fire.
Since RF armour can’t even be replaced for the losses in Ukraine there’s no chance that a major armoured formation can be mobilised.
When Finland joined NATO, RF forces near the border were removed, such is their confidence that they won’t fight NATO and their pressing need in Ukraine.
The second best army in Ukraine uses donkeys and golf carts for transport with occasional Lada as available. FPV Drones remove these from use, while long range Drones destroy the hydrocarbon infrastructure so that there’s no fuel for armoured vehicles or buhanka delivery vans.
The 3:1 attacking force requirement is not a hard and fast rule, and even then it doesn’t strictly refer to force size but to combat power.
20 thousand would be majority of the British Army regular teeth…
That’s how bad it is, more than penny packet deployments and it becomes a major logistical exercise.
John, we could not roule a 20k force. We could not properly roule a 5k force of regular army, without massively cutting other commitments and risking burnout. It is not logistics that is the problem; it is that we have far too small an army.
Steve R, we are sending the sort of force that NATO requires us to send.
Better than apathy
James, this is a NATO operation. NATO determines the overall force structure and give the orders. All eFP missions were set at the BG level. Why are you criticising the UK for doing what they have been tasked to do by NATO? This force is a trip wire force; it is not designed to hold back 30,000 or 40,000 Russian troops.
No, it’s a tripwire force. Making it impossible for Russia to invade without having to engage the British forces and get us involved in a war.
You combine that with French, German, Canadian, etc tripwire forces, and the not inconsiderable Baltic TDF forces and it’s actually something to think about for the Russians.
Canada will have a Mech Brigade in Latvia by 2026. It is taking shape there.
That force combined with the other NATO contributing forces will be a force of over 6000.
This is not including the Latvian Armed Forces.
Canada’s “persistently deployed Brigade” apparently is a force of about 2,000 troops at most, which is a pretty small brigade (not surprising since it’s only got three, but hey, better than Ireland, which isn’t saying much).
Considering that deployment is 10% of the Army Reg force , that is a large commitment for Canada to support and at distance.
Its the same Brigade level that was stationed in Kandahar to great affect.
With the announced funding to increase the overall Canadian Armed forces, the Army will be getting a much needed boost in its ranks soon.
Pretty much my point: Canada can’t support more than one or two Battle Groups, rather than a full brigade.
And we will see. I’m not holding my breath.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is on record that Canada can no longer depend on their neighbours to the south so must rebuild their sovereign capabilities and the forces required for independence.
Thus Canada is looking for weapons that can be built locally under licence as a fast route to those capabilities. Grippen fighters were mentioned as they are proven in the far north.
SAAB Gripen uses American engines…
X article reports it’s been reduced to 10Tanks.
4 Bde replacing 12 Bde providing this is a paper Brigade without its own regular CS CSS, neither is it Armoured.
So I assume elements will be task urged by taking bits from other formations.
And Starmer has his boots on the ground in UKR, and the UK “central” to this.
They just cannot stop grandstanding.
The UK, as a P5 G7 member, with the forces it should have for a nation of our stature and wealth, should be able to, comfortably, provide a Brigade on rotation and a full Division best shot effort.
Daniele, it was always 10 for, 10ish years. Did it flex higher? It did.
Agree. However, we should have a rotational capability for a Div and that would mean forward workshops; would Russia be upset?
Do I look concerned? Russians understand strength, force, power and death. Anything else is of no interest to them.
So. Look to Finland for RCZ base facilities and beef up BritMil to supply rotational capability, if needed.
DB, we cannot roule a brigade so we could not roule a division for an enduring operation. Why do you emphasise a forward workshop above all other elements? We certainly need REME first and second line out in Estonia.
Yup. As I said, there was a temporary surge, and this is just going back to the baseline of what the BG was.
Will the BA eventually be in a better position to fulfill deployment requirements post Ajax, Boxer, CR-3 and Precision Fires IOC? Or is the essential problem a lack of available personnel, or both unavailable manpower and materiel?
F/USAF, we have kit, albeit aged and largely unmodernised kit. Swapping out, for example, CR2 for CR3 does not enable us to fulfil deployment requirements as CR2 is good eneough ie able to give a good account of itself in doing battle with T-series equipment.
The issue is manpower. The army just does not have enough regular (active duty in US-speak) manpower to conduct an enduring operation with armoured/mech forces at the brigade level without burnout. You really need 5 armoured or mech brigades in your army to deliver and roulemont one brigade to Theatre – we have just two conventional (ie with Infantry) armoured brigades and one light mech brigade (with no tanks).
Thanks, a rather concerning description of current BA capability. BA longer-term capabilities development, given an eventual 2.5% of GDP MoD budget?
F/USAF, that 2.5% is not being delivered ‘eventually’ but in just 2 years time. It is a quite small increase from the 2.33% of today. A total cynic will say that that spending boost will be swallowed up in countering inflation, coping with Defence nuclear overspends, adverse currency exchange rates on our foreign equipment purchases, giving the guys a decent annual pay rise, improving the living accomodation for marrieds and singlies, improving recruiting and retention policies etc….with precious little left over for buying more platforms or increasing headcount.
The regular army is coming to the end of the process of adjustment after its last 10,000 post cut – that was a colossal cut (from 82k to 72k trained personnel). Looking back, the army had been ‘right-sized’ after the Cold War ended by reducing from 160k to 120k regulars in the summer 1990 defence review (Options for Change). That was the ‘Peace dividend’.
Further cuts from 120k to 72k over the last 30 years have not been so justified by reduction in threat or tame, ie they were not Peace divident cuts but savings measures to enable greater government expenditure elsewhere.
Of course not all of that 72k regular army strength is deployable, for a whole host of reasons – it might be 45k or less that are truly deployable. There is also a world of difference between a one-shot (or best effort) operation which lasts a few weeks or months… and an enduring (or persistent) operation, lasting many years, or even decades. (We have been doing peacekeeping in Cyprus since 1964! and Northern Ireland’s Op Banner was a 38-year Operation). For an enduring operation at, say, brigade strength you need to have 5 brigades in your Orbat that are roughly similar in strength, role and equipment to committ sequentially and to avoid burnout of the troops by maintaining a decent tour interval before a soldier is sent again on that op.
I think that if there is to be a boost in army manpower from SDR, which is debatable, it is unlikely to be more than 500 – 1,000 posts ( a token gesture).
It won’t be until the further boost to 3% in the next Parliamentary term (next General Election to be held by 15th Aug 2029) (assuming Labour are returned to power) that there is serious scope for manpower increases.
This reply is just about manpower. You will have heard about the discussions on equipment, which are another subject of course.
The Strategic Defence Review led by Lord Robertson former NATO SecGen has an HM Treasury inspired 2.75% GDP Defence spending target, by 2030, so no relation to the threat at hand.
The Peace Dividend delusion has allowed politicians to safeguard their electoral prospects by shifting Defence spending to social provision and even war in Europe hasn’t enabled them to pivot back to Defence, the first responsibility of the nation state.
When the Chief of Defence Staff said that “we were in the pre-war phase and conscription will be required” he meant pay now or pay much more blood and treasure later.
So it’s up to voters to inform their elected representatives that Defence is our national priority.
Mine is a member of the Defence Select Committee having served previously and gets to hear frequently…
Hi Daniele, its already beginning to unravel. The eFP BG needs to be armoured/mech (as the potential enemy is armoured/mech) and that includes the HQ. A single squadron of 14 tanks would be barely adequate. Two squadrons somewhat more convincing. If it is just 10 tanks then that is unimpressive – SHQ and two Troops of tanks. Must have CS as well as first and second line CSS.
I agree that a nation of our standing should be able to roule a brigade for an enduring Operation – we did that for Op HERRICK but the army is 10,000 posts lighter since then. As you have said many times, we don’t have enough proper brigades now to roule without burnout.
As you say, 4x just have to Task Org the deployed BG.
GM,
Thanks for so capably laying out the personnel deficiencies w/in the BA, occuring principally because of chronic underfunding of defence over a generational period. All should read your response and possibly appropriately respond in a civic forum. 👍👍
“Task urged”
FFS….Task Orged.
Flippin phone autocorrect!
With 100 operational tanks Britain is irrelevant in the land theatre.
Hardly. Tanks are only part of the story for a land war. Most of the fighting is still by infantry and IFVs.
The UK might not have the mass, but combo of f35/typhoons proving top cover /cas combined with Apache and reaper/protector, means that on a limited front they can provide a signficant punch.
The issue is when they get spread out like in Afghanistan, at which point the mass becomes a major issue with lack of jets and armour to back up the infantry.
Steve, only the army can seize and hold ground and take prisoners, and restore territorial integrity, and keep a peace. You can’t win a war with air power alone. The army must have sufficient mass.
Micki, last figure published by MoD stated about 150 tanks operational or nearly so. We currently have three armoured regiments in an armoured division. Our armoured division would make a difference in a European war.
“The challenger two armoured tank” thank the lord it wasn’t the “un-armoured” version! Muppets, these clowns read off any chuff without having a clue what they are talking about!
As opposed to the Mark II unarmoured tank? I guess the Mark II and the Challenger 2 are easily confused.
You say that, but there’s a record of an un-armoured Cromwell tank that somehow made it from the testing grounds into service, and nobody realised until it came under fire from a low calibre AA gun.
Of those 700. how many are high quality fighters ?
Jack, they are all high quality. Are you concerned at the number of Combat Arms personnel within that 700? About 25% will probably be Infantry. A much smaller percentage will be RAC – if we really do only have 10 tanks, then about 60-70 RAC soldiers?. Not sure if they have AAC elements.
I read 4 Bde will include an AATF, built around an Apache Sqn, plus Wildcats, with SHF Chinooks in support.
A not inconsiderable commitment.
They are soldiers. They cannot all be Infantry if that is what you mean?
I was wondering If Russia attacked, how many would go to the front and engage in direct combat.
So why phrase it in such a deliberately dismissive way?
I’ve no idea, never bothered to try to break it down.
The element at the coalface is nothing without the support elements, so it seems a bit pointless.
i wonder if Ajax will be sent for some operational experience (vital for forward deployed maintenance feedback, etc…)?
It’s an interesting idea, as they must be close to IOC based upon figures / reports of them coming into service with different units.
But don’t think they’re part of 4th brigade.
They’re not. 4 Brigade has a Jackal Light Cavalry Regiment, not Armoured Cavalry.
However, just because 4 Bde will provide the HQ framework and personnel doesn’t mean the BG armour will vanish, as they will just Task Org and take bits from other elements of 12 and 20 Bdes for the armoured element.
lord, Do you mean to send Ajax to Ukraine as part of a British ‘reassurance force’? That would almost certainly happen. We would need armoured recce vehicles.
In planning its new force struture, NATO had apparently called for the eFP battle groups in Estonis, Latvia and Lithuania to be increased to brigade group strength i.e. from under 1,000 personnel to 4,000+.
The thinking behind this appears to be that the ready forces in these countries is necessarily pretty limited, due to their small populations and does not constitute much of a deterrent in Russian minds. A western European BG does not add much to the force levels. Additionally, the eFP tripwire stance only really works if NATO can reinforce the forward troops rapidly if needed. The only reinforcement routes are both threatened by Russian forces in Kalinigrad. Their anti-ship missiles could close the Baltic sea lanes and the narrow Suwalki land corridor could be interdiction or occupied
So NATO reinforcements could be stymied in the key opening days of hostilities.
Of course Kaliningrad would be battered from the air but keeping the land corridor open would depend on.what strength Russia would throw at it and whether NATO had sufficient forces to prevail
Germany has complied with the NATO request, creating a new armoured infantry Bde Grp in Lithuania. We haven’t the force numbers to do so, so have earmarked 4 Inf Bde as a reinforcement bde in times of tension or direct military threat. Given that 4 Bde is not armoured, has no tanks and no regular artillery, engineers or combat service support units, it is something of a paper exercise at this point.
It rather underlines how short we are of troops and also how much we need more armoured, artillery and engineer units, ideally tracked, rather than the current drive to procure unarmed wheeled APCs and medium mine-resistant vehicles. Air support for the Baltic Republics is token and not much of a deterrent, a flight of 4 jets. Would think that at a minimum, would need the best part of 2 squadrons there to discourage any Russian thoughts of a quick, easy win.
This is a bit of a paper exercise
Cripes, the mind boggles at the thought of 4 Light Brigade being tasked to provide the framework for a eFP Bde in Estonia. Such an odd and such a wrong choice, even if Task Org’d to be beefed up with some AFVs. Should have been a Bde from 3 Div.
Okay, so I’m going to play Devils Advocate here for a bit:
If we agree that EFP is mostly about deterrence via tripwire forces and that EFP is supposed to basically fight in place (ie doesn’t really have an offensive role beyond counter attacking), maybe it makes sense to use a relatively static brigade which has a lower logsitical footprint as the initial sacrificial holding force, and maintain the integrity of 3 UK Div as a strategic NATO reserve.
Dern, very good point. What you lose in having less muscle in the Estonia front window (arguably a degree less deterrence), you gain by having the heavy metal ‘in rear’ grouped with its parent formation.
The importance of kaliningrad has been lowered by the flanking manoeuvre of joining two more nations, Sweden and Finland to the NATO alliance to make the Baltic a NATO lake.
Since the terrorist state has been burning 1,300 dead daily in Ukraine they have been forced to relocate trained soldiers from kaliningrad which is largely empty.
I suspect that in the event the Polish forces would neutralise kaliningrad in short order since they’ve had a while to plan for that, and no shortage of determination.
What did we send a cobbled together load what we have left and what was working at the time. Last of AS90’s the few working C2’s we have and un up graded 40 year old Warriors. One set of air defence as we can not spare any more as we ordered so few. Some old not up dated 30 year MLRS as we gave our newer 4/5 B1’s to Ukraine.