The Treasury has taken on responsibility for the cost of further support for ongoing international objectives, including Ukraine security guarantees in the event of a ceasefire, transferring that risk away from the Ministry of Defence when the Defence Investment Plan was finalised, according to an answer given in Parliament.
Ben Obese-Jecty, the Conservative member for Huntingdon, asked which risks had been transferred to the Treasury from the Ministry of Defence, and when, following an answer given on 21 September.
Luke Pollard, the Minister of State for Defence, said: “His Majesty’s Treasury have taken on responsibility for the cost of further support for ongoing international objectives, including Ukraine Security Guarantees in case of a ceasefire, and unlocking additional savings from improved procurement.
“These risks were transferred at the point the Defence Investment Plan was finalised.”
Transfers of this kind happen inside Whitehall and change what the armed forces can plan around. A department holding a risk has to carry provision for it inside its own settlement, and that provision sits against everything else the budget is meant to deliver. Moving the risk to the Treasury removes that claim on the defence budget and places it on the reserve.
Britain and its European partners have been working on what a reassurance force would look like after a ceasefire, with the coalition of the willing having examined options including a ground presence, air policing and maritime security in the Black Sea.
‘His Majesty’s Treasury have taken on responsibility for the cost of further support for ongoing international objectives, including Ukraine Security Guarantees in case of a ceasefire’
A big commitment…not really…
Any ceasefire in the near future is highly unlikely.
Any negotiations regarding such a ceasefire will rule out NATO security forces positioned within Ukraine.
Who knows what the cease fire would look like. Right now both sides think they can win/survive. Something will have to change to get them both around the table. Likely a coup in Russia would be needed, as I can’t see Russia suddenly becoming more successful in it’s offensive operations to reach the objectives that Putin wants to be able to announce it as a victory.
A coup in Russia may very well usher in more of the same or worse:
‘In the bigger picture, Russia will change if society undergoes de-Stalinisation, which has never happened in Russia. In other words, that Russian people would come to understand, in the broader sense, what went wrong in the past. And only Russia itself can do that. Nobody from outside can do it for them. My fear is that, looking at the brainwashing of the next generation and young people in Russia, Russia will remain a concern for us here for decades. Unfortunately, I really do not see a positive scenario. Regardless of who is in power there, what they say, or whether they are more aggressive internationally or less, it is very difficult to see that underlying nature changing.’
Kaupo Rosin, Director General Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service, 09 Oct 2026
Yeah I don’t think it’s likely to end well but depends what the trigger of the coup is. If it’s just another oligarch then who knows but if it’s a popular uprising caused by Ukraine making the war hit home to the normal russian then it’s possible the focus will move away from Ukraine
‘Russia will remain a concern for us here for decades. Unfortunately, I really do not see a positive scenario. Regardless of who is in power there, what they say, or whether they are more aggressive internationally or less, it is very difficult to see that underlying nature changing.
.that Russian Advent calendar: every time you open a window, somebody falls out.
Putin’s adviser Yuri Ushakov said that Putin had stressed that the idea of launching a military attack on Europe had never even crossed their minds. Do you believe Putin?
‘Many people say: do not believe anything until the Kremlin has denied it’
‘A false-flag operation is a realistic scenario. Ensuring security is actually hard, day-to-day work…the possibility of a conventional attack. Today, deterrence is working, and Russia has no such intention. Of course, we should add here that Russia also reassesses the situation at regular intervals, and in that sense the future is in our own hands. We ourselves have to invest in defence. We have to make sure NATO works. If we can maintain credibility — if our plans are real plans backed by real resources — then I would say that deterrence will still be working in six months, and in one, two, three or four years.’
Kaupo Rosin
Our future is in our hands. This war is not going away. If we do not reconstitute NATO’s conventional land/air deterrent in Central Europe, sooner or later, it will be us falling out of the Russian advent calendar.
I would not be so worried about the next generation in Russia, most have either fled or been chewed up in the meat grinder.
‘Mobilisation has been ongoing since September 2022. The mobilisation decree is still in force. There is no longer any need for great fanfare or a ceremonial announcement. We see that vulnerable groups and individuals have been identified by sifting through databases. Local police then go after them in a very targeted way and try to force them to sign a [military service] contract through extremely intense discussions and persuasion. Whatever we call it — recruitment or mobilisation — there is a very active search for personnel underway.’
Rosin Oct 2026
Actually I would say it’s a big risk removed, because the MOD would have to plan its budgets on the assumption it covers that risk.. if someone dumps a risk on you, then you have to have the plan in place to manage and fund the management of that risk.
Does this effectively free up MOD funds for our own Armed Forces taking the risk from the MOD?
Possibly, If you have a financial risk the bean counters will expect you to have a contingency within your budget, if the contingency is gone then you can spend it.
Corporate governance does not allow you to ignore a financial risk you hold and that’s as much for go government executive agencies as anything else.
Thanks for the explanation 👍
I used to have to hold money for a couple of risks I held, basically you would hold the budget, then move it to the next financial year.. spend that money you did not spend in year, but then have to hold money from your new financial years settlement in the risk pool.. because you were only allowed to take unspent budget into the new financial year for specific reasons and then only for 1 extra year.. it was a stupid faf.
Yeah, sounds it. Cheers pal.
Hi Robert, yes it does because it reduces the amount of contingency the MoD had to hold in its own forward plans.
It’s nonsense that the MoD ever had such risk on its balance sheet before. Such cost should always be on the treasury contingency fund.
Thanks Jim 👍
MoD would have written the contingency plan some time ago. The treasury have relieved them of responsibility for it now that it is ‘implausible’. Does it free up resources? There are, no doubt, multiple contingency plans in play, all counting on the same resources…
Bless ’em all…
The forces being proposed for Ukraine won’t be NATO. They will be coalition of the willing forces.
Ukraine won’t agree to peace without such a force in place. So Russia can either agree to it or kiss its oil and gas industry goodbye.
Ukraine is only getting stronger, Russia weaker and Russias one hope, Donald Trump, is about to get bitched slapped in the mid terms by the American electorate who, seems as horrified by his actions as the rest of the civilised world.
The coalition of the willing contains NATO members. Russia will not accept that because it has no intention of honouring any peace agreement in the longer term. It will simply attempt to outlast the political will of Europe.
That may not take long:
‘The RN remains opposed to expanding bilateral financial assistance to Kyiv and is deeply skeptical of the EU budget. As one senior party official asked: “How can we explain to voters we need to cut everything domestically, yet the only thing increasing is aid to Ukraine?”
The European Commission’s proposal for the next long-term budget includes a reserve fund of up to €100 billion for Ukraine. Even if EU leaders reach an agreement later this year or in early 2027, Le Pen could torpedo it before it takes effect.’
It’s a catch 22 issue and why war is not always about the biggest armed forces, but instead about will and cohesion.. it’s why the US and NATO as a whole are great at winning campaigns and Shite at winning wars.
Seems more likely we’ll end up stepping in to stop Trump, Putin & possibly Xi from railroading Ukraine into a humiliating, genocidal ease fire & “peace” delivering at least what Russia still occupies, probably the entire regions they’ve failed to take thus far.
That would be absolutely unacceptable & the final nail in the coffin of the Transatlantic alliance until Trump is removed. All 3 superpowers ganging up to deliver Ukraine & a weakened Europe for Putin to slowly try to consume with Trump seeking scavenging rights while Xi stands by waiting for either, or both to become so weak he can become top dog.
Terrifying. Must be stopped, we can’t mince words any longer or the fascists have won.
The only thing I would change is that is Russia is not a superpower, it’s a decaying medium power that is trying to use the two cohesive superpowers to its advantage.. it’s only because of three things that Russia is getting away with this 1) At best Trump and MAGA are geostrategically the equivalent of the village idiot and at worst a suborned Traitors and Russian agents.
2) China is quite happy to use Russia as a weapon against its opponents ( the US and Europe).
3) The third superpower in the room is essentially suffering from the geopolitical version of a split personality and just argues with itself ( The EU and ex EU members).
If either the EU became cohesive or the US gets rid of the traitor/idiot Russia would be put firmly in it’s place..
Agreed 👍
another strongly worded letter?
Accompanied by terrifying threats like: “Shut up and go away’