The Ministry of Defence has reiterated the UK’s commitment to defending the High North, emphasising a strong and coherent defence posture in the strategically significant region.
Responding to a parliamentary question from Graeme Downie MP (Labour – Dunfermline and Dollar), Luke Pollard, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Defence, detailed the forces and activities deployed to safeguard the Arctic.
Pollard highlighted the long-standing relationship between the UK and Norway, stating:
“The Royal Marines have conducted annual exercises with Norway for over 50 years to hone their extreme cold weather warfighting skills, supported by assets from Joint Aviation Command.”
These exercises are part of a broader effort to maintain readiness for operations in extreme Arctic conditions, a region of growing geopolitical interest and military activity.
The response also underscored the deployment of high-profile assets to the region in recent years:
“In the last 18 months, P8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft and the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers have all operated in the region. During Exercise STEADFAST DEFENDER, the Royal Navy was at the heart of this maritime exercise with HMS Prince of Wales, demonstrating the importance of interoperability.”
Additionally, the UK has conducted Icelandic Air Policing missions using F-35 jets, further enhancing its presence in the High North.
Pollard reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to working closely with NATO and other allies to ensure regional security:
“In 2025, the UK will continue to develop our already close relationships with our Allies and partners in the High North, as part of NATO, Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) and bilaterally.”
Continued Engagement with NATO Counterparts
In response to a related parliamentary question from Downie, Pollard emphasised the importance of international collaboration in Arctic defence:
“Engagement with NATO Allies is central to our approach to defend and deter in the Arctic and High North. The Secretary of State for Defence and Defence Ministers regularly engage with their NATO counterparts, including High North countries, to discuss how to strengthen deterrence and defence in the region, through NATO, the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) and bilaterally.”
Rehash?
Love the carriers being being trundled out… we have a carrier committed to the Arctic, Baltic, NATO reserve, South China Seas, Atlantic, Indian Ocean… and another 6 in reserve… Daniele might have been use to double, sometimes triple counting but this might fry even his brain.
And is there even some attempt at journalism or just a repost of a MoD press release?
The only place our carriers are regularly deployed is the North Atlantic. We don’t have any other commitments else where for them.
Morning David.
UKDJ articles usually just report the news, like what’s said, and whats ordered.
Occasionally there is an opinion piece.
The comments section of the informed can then debunk the government’s incessant nonsense, half truths, wjat is not ordered, and downright SPIN for less well informed readers.
Being committed is different to having actual forces in the required strength to commit!
Spot on but I am afraid these stupid press releases are only possible because your average journalist is unable to challenge this nonsense. Personally I have actually become to realise they are just lies.
I’ve lamented that many times mate.
The poor quality of defence journalism in newspapers, and lack of knowledge.
It doesn’t help in holding HMG to account.
Thus the importance of sites like this.
I know it lacks the hitting power of a widespread new paper but at least it’s something.
Spot on DM as always.
DB, do we really commit one or both carriers to a specific area of sea. They surely deploy as and when required to wherever is required.
Reporting these routine parliamentary questions and “answers” isn’t really worth the effort. Replies are usually truthful but rarely provide any new information.
Protecting the arctic is critical for allowing the RAF to perform its annual yuletide escort mission.
Accepting most gooberment speke is just hot air and sheer propaganda is a starting point. And reading the comments, from some very knowledgeable folk is the best part. Especially the dissection of myths. And it also is a safe space for cynical old infantrymen who have heard the BS before.
The point of committing to the high north is to act as a deterrent, for a deterrent to work it must be effective in four domains:
A deterrent is essentially a threat of harm being delivered greater than the benefits gained from an action and follows the rule of the four Cs
1)Capability: are the forces actually capable of delivering the level of harm threatened . I would question the Uks armed forces capability to undertake the required levels of harm to deter.
2) commitment, would the nation actually enact that threat with all the risk. Do the leaders and population have the political will to suffer to enact the threat. Would we really engage in and take part in a years long world war for say turkey or Taiwan. This is where allies commitment are important a potential lack of commitment to an ally reduces the deterrent.. Putin will be weighing up the US trumps commitment to the Baltic states as will China around Taiwan.. this is one area the UK tends to be strong in.. most nations think the UK is pretty much willing to plow in to support an ally if far less able than it was.
3) communication.. the commitment and capability must be shown.. so you need to be very obvious with lots of displays of power to the nations being deterred.. this is where mass is important you need the mass to ensure constant deployment in the deterred nations faces.. its no good keeping you capability in port to preserve readiness as that does not prove capability or intent. I would say this is the worse weakness at preset.. from 2010 onwards any level of mass was cut as excess fat, because Cameron had no understanding of deterrent.
4) all of the first three are then bound by context.. how likely is the opponent to be willing to take harm to achieve their goals. As an example previous Chinese leadership wanted Taiwan but they were never willing for China to suffer for that, so deterrent was in that context. Xi is essentially very likely close to a brain washed zealot who believes in the teaching of Mao and that China must suffer any and all harm for reunification.. the only deterrent in that case needs to be massively strong in the 3 Cs.
It is pretty obvious none of this is taught on the PPE course at Oxbridge.
Given what’s happening in the Bond Market and Starmer commitment to spending cuts i think that there will another raid on the Defence Budget probably resulting in the Army going down to 60 thousand and the F35 fleet cut to 38
I think Mr Trump might have a say in all this yet.
Commited to defending the artic.
We spend millions on a camp in Norway defending Norway and billions defending Europe ,whom the Norwegians in particular has got the highest wealth funds in the world .
Europe ought to do better
That is not a bad point the Scandinavian countries in general have spent a very low GDP on defence, Norway spends around 1.6 percentage of gdp.
Please excuse my sense of humour but they do send us a Christmas tree every year.