The United Kingdom and France have set out detailed plans for military involvement in Ukraine following any future ceasefire with Russia, including troop deployments, long-term defence support and binding security commitments, under a declaration agreed in Paris on Tuesday.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the agreement, signed with France and supported by other members of the so-called Coalition of the Willing, establishes the framework for British, French and partner forces to operate on Ukrainian soil once a credible cessation of hostilities is in place. The declaration goes beyond political intent, laying out specific military, intelligence and logistical measures intended to underpin a lasting peace.
Central to the plan is participation in a continuous ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism led by the United States. Coalition members would contribute to a permanent monitoring system and be represented on a Special Commission tasked with investigating breaches, attributing responsibility and determining remedial action. U.S. officials said security protocols linked to this mechanism are largely complete.
The declaration also commits coalition members to sustained long-term support for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which leaders described as remaining the country’s first line of defence and deterrence even after a ceasefire. This support is to include continued arms deliveries, long-term defence funding packages, cooperation on Ukraine’s national defence budget, access to defence depots capable of rapid reinforcement, and practical assistance in building defensive fortifications.
A key element of the agreement is the creation of a Multinational Force for Ukraine, composed of contributions from willing states. The force would be deployed at Ukraine’s request once hostilities cease, with coordinated planning already undertaken for reassurance measures in the air, at sea and on land. The declaration states that the force would be European-led, with participation from non-European partners and proposed backing from the United States.
In addition, the UK, France and their partners agreed to finalise binding commitments to support Ukraine in the event of any future Russian attack. These commitments may include the use of military capabilities, intelligence sharing, logistical support, diplomatic action and the imposition of further sanctions. The aim, according to the declaration, is to ensure rapid restoration of peace and security should deterrence fail.
The agreement also sets out a commitment to deepen long-term defence cooperation with Ukraine, including expanded training programmes, intelligence cooperation and defence industrial collaboration. This is expected to include joint production initiatives using European defence instruments, reinforcing Ukraine’s ability to sustain its armed forces over the long term.
Speaking after the talks, Starmer described the agreement as a vital step toward delivering a peace that can endure, while acknowledging that significant challenges remain. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky welcomed the declaration as a major advance but stressed that security guarantees would only be sufficient once the war had fully ended.
Cool so we’re going to expand the army then yes?
I will bet you every penny I have that that hasn’t even crossed the minds of our venerable leaders
I would take that bet. I’m pretty sure Healey and others, even Starmer, would like a bigger army. The govt has prioritised incentives for recruitment and retention; pay and housing, and on leveraging the reserves. I suspect an increase of around 3,000 full time troops is still very much a live item.
3000 is better than nothing, but let’s not pretend its anything of note.
At the end of the Cold War, it was decided our Army should reduce from 155,000 to 116,000.
I would suggest that 115,000 regulars and 30,000/ 40,000 Army Reserve would be a sensible number.
Of course that would mean a huge increase in defence estate ( sold off) and equipment, so it will never happen.
Re Ukraine, I see Germany again would love to come, but the dog ate its homework and its gran died so he’s at a funeral that day and the cheque is in the post…
Britain and France, same old, carrying the can while the others cheer on.
Im afraid it should be a unified NATO response, a Brigade sized contribution from every larger European Army and a Battalion sized contribution from the smaller ones, or nothing from anyone.
We should be able to deploy a European NATO light Division.
What can we deploy and sustain, 3,000 ‘tops’ I would think.
I’ll bow to your expertise on 115,000 as a desirable but probably dream number.
Agree your comments on Germany and on France and UK carrying the can.
I mention the 3000 number because I have a vague memory that an increase of 3000 regular troops would somehow make ongoing deployment of a brigade strength force a more credible proposition.
115,000 would mean that the UK would be able to deploy a 3 Division Corps, in other words an Armoured Division, a Mech Inf division, and a follow on Reserve division, each of three manuever brigades, each supported by a DSB (combining fires and GBAD) and an information group, plus a SOF command with 16AB, ASOB and 11 Brigade and Corps level enablers (Theatre Log Brigade, Engineering Brigade, Signal Brigade, Medical Brigade and a Corps Artillery Division [Corps level MLRS fires, Army Aviation, and GBAD]). Essentially it would allow us to use what we have to it’s best extent.
I think the comments about Germany and France are a bit unfair. Out of the three of us, Germany is permanently basis a full Armoured Brigade in the Baltics, which neither the UK nor France shows any inclination of matching.
Thx. So, reversing what happened in the years of the coalition government.
To a degree, I don’t think we ever had Corps level fires for ARRC. I think that went by the wayside with the end of I (BR) Corps. Also I don’t think we’ve ever had SOF reporting to a 3* HQ. Also our Reserve (Regenerative) Divisions never where intended to be deployable, so that would be a change.
To be fair Dern (a very happy new yearto you too), the Germans can deploy within Europe for extended periods, because they will ‘never’ deploy anywhere else.
The UK and France both are expeditionary Armies, with worldwide commitments and responsibilities, both starved of funds and personnel, neither of us could commit to anything more than a Brigade level deployment (for a clearly defined perod), dropping to a Battalion group if required on a longer term basis.
To commit a Brigade long term would seriously damage our ability to deploy elsewhere in any meaningful way.
Happy New Year,
Eh, only to an extend. The German Army didn’t simply deploy a Brigade that it had lying conveniently around to Lithuania, it basically raised a new Brigade from scratch. Something both us and the French could do, but have chosen not too. Also while the German army isn’t as expeditionary as we are, it’s worth remembering they do deploy outside Europe if the Alliance needs it.
Committing a Brigade vs basing a Brigade also is worth noting, have very different requirements. Basing is probably more expensive in the long run, but doesn’t require force generation cycles and can be much more passive.
Anyway, point being Germany looked at the east, increased the budget, and added a new Brigade to it’s Orbat, which we didn’t, so it’s a bit glass houses to complain about us pulling weight and them not at this point. (Also I think that if a peace keeping mission ever does happen in Ukraine the Germans probably will take part, as Peace Keeping is good way to stretch operational and strategic muscles while being very palatable to German voters).
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa- Nice one centurion.
Not so much expand as stretch… very thinly.
“Binding security commitments” – With what?
I think the idea is that you bind the border very tightly with duct tape and you attached to that duct tape a copy of the treaty – so it becomes a tightly binding treaty?
Joking apart this is pure comedy as we neither have the kit nor manpower to offer anything significant.
That said anything we offer would be at a totally different level to what Mad Vlad can do and what happened in Caracas gives a strong indication of the tech overmatch that Russia would face.
One would assume the Anglo French Battle group would be deployed forward in strategic boarder locations, as a trip wire force to guarantee any ceasefire agreement…??
If it went wrong, what then?
They would need to send in Jack Ryan and John Clark if they were not too busy busting up cartels in Latin America fresh from the excitement of Venezuela?
I couldn’t possibly comment 🤣 🤣🤣🤣
The UK and France will deploy to Ukraine when the Americans and the Russians tell them they are allowed to do so. Until that happens this is all so much (typical) posturing.
Posturing is a fundamental part of deterrents and this force will not be getting deployed to Ukraine unless there is a peace agreement (Russia agrees) and the US participates in providing security guarantees (The USA agrees)
What’s wrong with any of that?
UK and France have been driving the negotiation, we aren’t being led by the US. If we had left it to the US by now Russia would own Ukraine. If there is an independent Ukraine that comes out of this, it’s because of the foot work our leaders have done to steer trump away from his russian masters. It seems starmer is informally hated for some reason here but as a stateman his played a blinder over the last year in support for Ukraine. Just look at his actions following the informus whitehouse you have no cards meeting.
The UK and France are not Great Powers. They are secondary players in all this. And let’s at least be honest. It is US aid that has been instrumental in allowing Ukraine to defend itself. The European countries are all secondary to this. They may be, to varying degrees important secondaries, but they are secondaries nevertheless.
The US has just been selling Ukraine stuff. Europe and the UK have made the funds available from the frozen russian money.
I think you over place the US here, as they don’t seem to be able to influence Russia at all and are not using their cloat to do it.
UK + France is may be not a super power, but sufficient to make Russia nervous as we see their reactions everyday.
Besides, if our 2 countries will be on the ground and can annonce it, it does not say other would not join, even covertly. The coalition of the willing is made of 27 countries. All agreed to support Ukraine, so their is serious power behind this statement.
In terms of military build up, France is below UK, we are gradually catching up. The aim is still 100 Bn€ in 2030. This year, we will be around 60 Bn€. Big steps are still ahead of us. Though, public support for military spending is at an all time high. And we are not alone, far from it.
How many troops? Article doesn’t say.
I think we should give Ukraine a nuclear deterrent. Right now, not wait til the war ends. When Putin objects, break off diplomatic relations.
That isn’t a wise move. Desperate people do desperate things and if Ukraine were to pull the trigger on them nukes it would be the end of the world.
Maybe once a peace deal is done maybe but not in the middle of a war, where they are losing. Very very slowly but losing
We have responded mildly on the escalation ladder, for some good reasons: tire Russia, will reconstiting stock pile of missiles. I know some inventory get lower, but production rate of Rafale, Scalp, 155mm shell, ground to air missile, Dragon Fire, drones, Caesar and many more items have ramped up significantly. This will not end. If Ukraine receive new jets, better solutions to deal with drones and other stuff keep pumping in, any attempt to restart a war will be far more costly for Russia. We will have boots on the ground, we will not pull them back if Russia attack again, we will just reinforce them. The dynamic would be completely different. Putin and all his Russian supporters know that only to well. That’s why they are crying every where with all their bots to tell us why this is such a bad idea. It is an extremely good idea. No need to deploy people before a war in great numbers for it would only stress hard military budgets for nothing. You don’t amasse troups unless you want to attack. In defense, the issue is always to have the will, préposition Ed troupes nd the ability to scale up. It seems to me that it is exactly what is happening.
Main issue with this, is the assumption that the deterrence of large number of russian losses means anything to Putin. His shown using russians for meat waves, ww1 style is perfectly acceptable, as long as he eventually gets what he wants.
It’s difficult to deter someone that doesn’t value human life.
I can guess what will happen next. Native British people will be sent to Ukraine and they will try and police this dispute. When inevitable Russian troops fires on British troops and our troops respond in kind then the ambulance chasing lawyers in the UK will pursue our troops through the courts until they are old and infirm. They UK lawyers will then make bucket loads of cash from the UK taxpayer and for the Russian troops. Sir Keir Starmer and Lord Hermer will then proclaim our British troops are all evil and deserve to be punished whilst welcoming the Russian troops as refugees. All UK troops should not comply with this insane request to serve in Ukraine. Why don’t they send some of the boat people instead…maybe they can be useful for once.
What’s a native British person?
Maybe Andrew is thinking of Colonial Troops? Deploy the Royal Bermuda and Gibraltar Regiments!
😀
Native comes from the Latin natus: was born, and in this case means there’s one born every minute.
He’s probably referring to the Britons, before others arrived (you know, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Danes, Normans, etc etc)
If Russian troops shoot soldiers of France and UK, Russian solidiers will inevitably die as well. You know the difference between war and hunting? In wars, rabbit also shoot.
And perhaps, just perhaps, Rabbits will have a very good equipment, currently lacking in Ukrainian forces.
May be, just may be, they will have jets, long range missiles, heavy tanks and other nice kit.
It wont be easy, but we will see what Russia will do when Su34 can’t easily deliver 1000 kg bombs and instead receive some in the face. That’s what will be different. And it makes for a lot.
Russia face 50 to 80km A2A missile, we will see what they do with 250 km A2A missiles. A different armement can make things very different.
A few Supacat HMV and some towed 105mm and a small number of M270?
Warrior is out in 2027. Ajax isn’t going and Boxer is only just in.
I could understand a learning and development team to rinse Ukr battle knowledge and drone tactics.
An army of 70k , with % unfit for service ? Costs out of the general budget and no extra money no doubt.
Does this mean someone else will backfill in the Baltics?
“Contributions from willing states” I look forward to seeing how “big” that list will be.
It will be pitifully small contributions from the UK and France, plus whatever troops the Baltics and maybe Poland are willing to spare.
The rest will continue to do what europeans tend to do and just make excuses or outright refuse to support the initiative
Whilst I agree our military has been hollowed out and needs rebuilding, it should still not be underestimated.
Ukraine is more or less holding it’s own again Russia. If we and France say deployed say 20k troops each and a couple of squadrons of fighter jets, that equation changes. Russia knows it’s barely beating Ukraine, it would also know that add western forces and tech to the mix and it wouldn’t stand a chance. Also during any peace deal the west has a chance to properly train Ukraine forces and get all the pending orderes delivered.
The only question I have is how long would France/UK need to be there, we can sustain say 20k troops and equipment for a handful of years but not indefinitely.
No chance we could support 20k troops. Those 20k troops would need rotating after 4-6 months with another, different 20k. We only have 70-80k.
Of course we could, between Iraq and Afghanistan we had more than 20k for years deployed. It would mean we are very thinly spread and wouldn’t be in a place to react to other issues but it’s possible.
Steve,
“Of course we could, between Iraq and Afghanistan we had more than 20k for years deployed”. .
The army had 10k more regular posts in that era of overlap (2003-2011); many reservists were deployed to both operations and that would have to happen again for MNF-U.
Yep for sure reservists would need to be used. Not saying it would be easy but it would be possible.
Sorry Steve we could not deploy 20k on any sort of rotational basis, and we don’t have enough decent armoured platforms to provide them with protection/offensive and defensive capabilities. The Army is hollowed out to the state we could deploy (very slowly) a weak Armoured Division with just a small number of BCTs. Ukraine would be an armoured game of peacekeeping/observation and our wheeled and light vehicles won’t cut it. Let’s face it the Army is dead to any form of large ongoing deployments.
Your assuming we are doing this in isolation, we won’t be. Main force will be provided by Ukraine. UK force would be there as a deterrence. I do think we can do it, but I can’t see it happening anytime soon as Putin isn’t ready for peace just yet.
Plus if you read the detail, UK/France aren’t offering combat roles, they are offering to protect supply deposits well behind the front line to allow Ukraine forces to be freed up for the front line.
If it’s just UK and France then it’s pretty isolated! I was even listening to the Starmer clown during PMQs. Also ref your other reply, have you served mate? As all roles can be combat, whether you’re protecting a fixed location or doing an advance to contact! Who is monitoring any breaks of the supposed ceasefire (if it ever happens), certainly not from a fixed location. People will have to move and will need both protection and an offensive capability for any required extraction. It’s an easy get out saying it’s not combat roles, until combat starts that is. It’s just a grandstanding opportunity for the Dtarmer clown and other desperate people who don’t want to sink into insignificance as they are not part of the real negotiations.
P..s. that 80k figure only included the army, I would expect all 3 services deployed.
Well said Steve. Starmer has played a good innings on Ukraine, he and Macron have orchestrated Europe’s support forr Ukraine and – so far – prevented Trump selling out Ukraine to his great buddy in the Kremlin.
I think it will be an interesting test to see if Germany’s bite matches its new-found bark
Clunker, The Coalition of the Willing amounts to 35 countries. Why then think that only 5 or 6 will come up with deployable military manpower?
Just going off most European members of NATOs reputation. More bark than bite, as has been their style for the last few decades
Into the lion’s mouth.
Don’t think Putin is interested in any peace plan he’s quite happy sending is troops to their death . For the coalition of the willing 🙄 come on Starmer stop acting MR Big USSR aren’t worried what you or France have to bring to the table , we need the USA otherwise it’s pointless .And yet Trump has is eyes on Greenland 🙄 so not looking at this moment in time Trump going to give any Security guarantees to Ukraine . IT’S all a bloody mess 😟
Currently no, but his running out of affordable troops to send. He can get away with sending people from poorer areas of Russia with almost no consequences but once he starts sending them from richer areas or even Moscow then he might have a coup on his hands once the body bags start arriving.
His also slowly running out of trading partners with both china and India reducing how much russian oil they buy.
Unlike Ukraine, Russia is not fighting for survival and there is only so much the country can take before it’s people revolt.
How long that will be is another question, that I don’t think anyone really has the answer to.
Hi Steve Absolutely agree ,hopefully a coup is sooner rather than later ..The world seems to have gone mad .Trump talks about stopping wars by is famous Phone calls , but is actions of late same to be Starting wars taking a Tanker under a Russia flag and Commits about Military action on Greenland Who’s under a NATO Country Denmark etc 😟
Leave.
Whatever the form is – leave.
The USA is the primary guarantor of NATO.
If troops from a NATO country get killed, what will the USA do?
If they do not send USA forces, stay away.
Not sure that would trigger NATO guarantees, as it wouldn’t be an attack on a NATO member country.
However with Greenland in the sights of the US, does NATO actually still exist?
Steve, under Article VI of NATO:
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
-on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
– on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Note the second bullet point. An attack on NATO forces in Ukraine per Article VI would definitely count as an Armed Attack on a NATO member.
Potentially, depends on how you ready and interpret that.
Either way the article only requires support, it doesn’t require anything beyond. It is often misunderstood as if you attack one member all other members will be required to go to war, it doesn’t. There is hope they will be no legal requirement, not that there is some magical court or police that make you follow international treaties, it’s all on good faith principles in the end.
“on the forces […] of any of the Parties when in […] territories or any other area in Europe.” is about as black and white as political talk goes. As long as it’s an attack within the geographic confines and on NATO forces it counts.
It also takes about geographic location at point of entering the alliance, which Ukraine is not and never was.
Hmmmm, if we send troops to Ukraine, will there be any left to send to Greenland?
Trumps actions are undermining any pretence of west having moral high ground in supporting Ukraine / Taiwan
This is becoming the age of the tyrant unfortunately. Probably because so many countries are facing financial crises, and imminent issues like food and water security as populations continue to grow. War has always been the best way for tyrants to distract and, better yet, unite their countries.
Trump is absolutely no different from Putin. The factor separating them is the culture they come from. It’s harder (in theory) for Trump to attack other countries, let alone take them over, but people are becoming so ground down, so bombarded with the sense that resistance is futile, that Trump might get his way.
It is helpful as :
1. The Army (and the RAF and RN) have something firm to start planning against. E.g. (Just an example) – bringing 4th Light Brigade up to strength and making arrangements for it to deployed to the Ukraine at short notice.
2. The MOD can now apply to the Treasury for a contingency budget for the proposed deployment. E.g. RFA Lyme Bay has been stranded in Gibraltar for months as an “economy”, she will suddenly be vital if it happens.
Ah… So the UK will provide ‘marshalling services’, setting out and designating, where other nations ground forces will, set up their bases and camps?
Lets be honest here… The UK cannot even send a whole Battalion anywhere for training, let alone the numbers that would be required, to hold and police any neutral zone.
Tethered goats that Putin will directly target
So we’re going to send our tank and our gun. Oh and Ajax of course. How about Boxer? No, can’t do that. Looks like Warrioir and 432’s then.
Bulldogs are pootling into action once again. I can see them getting a ‘mid-life’ upgrade. I really can.
Yep, FV432 sustainment program is the way to go; more comfy cushions and a Kongsberg RS4. 😂
We jest, but it could very well happen. Boxer is delayed, Ajax might get binned and Warrior is going. If they need mass, on the cheap, stranger things have happened…
I wouldn’t be suprised Sam. At least we know they work!
I can’t see any Armoured vehicles deployed save maybe Jackal.
The 2 AI Brigades are needed to sustain the Cabrit enhanced BG.
The “rule of 5” as I understand it, with 5 fully CS CSS enabled Brigades to sustain one deployed, was thrown away.
As always, courtesy of HMG.
You know what I thought abour Sunak but this mob bring a whole new world of cynical attitude into my mind. I really don’t think they have a clue but of course they’re not going to be put into harms way are they?. My slightly jokey comment is sadly not far from the truth. What armour?, what command and communications capabilty?, what protection for the poeple on the ground? Are the French going to be the bosses? The questiions are really rhetorical my friend. I just despair.
I get you, mate.
If we want to posture like this, it would help if we could be consistent about it. One minute our politicians are umming and ahhing and failing to take a strong position, or our defence bigwigs are scheduling more meetings and requesting proposals, the next we’re telling the world we’ll send troops into Ukraine.
I’m 100% in favour of supporting Ukraine. You know, given that they’re dying in battle against Russia so we don’t have to (yet), a point those who say “stop sending them stuff!” don’t understand. But we’ve got to pick a tone and stick with it. We’re either strong, or we’re reeds blowing in the breeze. Keep vacillating and we will look weak; no-one is ever going to take us seriously.
The Prime Minister likes to speak loudly and carry a small stick. That’s bound to lead to inconsistencies. Putin takes us somewhat seriously because much of the rest of NATO does even worse.
“Talks loudly and carries a small stick” – I LOVE that!!
He has a small stick on the world stage, but a cat o’ nine tails when dealing with the people of Britain. If only it were the other way around!
That’s very big talk.. And with absolutely nothing behind it and no way possible to end the war.. but it’s a cool story
Cyprus UN buffer zone 100 miles policed by four battalions and a (wheeled) armoured squadron.
Ukraine likely buffer zone 1400 miles, so 56 battalions and four armoured regiments, say an infantry heavy Army of 3, more likely 4 Army Corps.
No problem. Everyone will be spending 5% of GDP so a combined defence budget of circa Euro 1 trillion.
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh! The eu only really spend circa Euro 300 billion on defence at the moment……
The triumph of hope over experience. No wonder, after the long peace 1945-2014, there is war once more on Continental Europe….
Only €300 billion 😀
The UN is not involved in this so I don’t see the relevance in your example , it will be Ukrainians on the boarder. They are doing the job now on their own so anything Europe sends will only add to that.
Much the same as Korea.
The example of UNFICYP is simply to provide an idea of scale.
The idea that Russia will agree to Ukraine monitoring any buffer zone itself is just as laughable is the idea that Russia will accept any Western European troops on its borders whatsoever.
Yesterday in Paris was simply that of the impotent meeting the unedifying….
And €300 billion doesn’t currently buy even one formed armoured division outside Poland….and Poland certainly won’t be offering those up…..
Are you another fake American like ray spruance?
Europe (EU and UK) currently have 10 active armoured divisions, the USA has just three
None are beyond Poland because Poland is the end of the EU and NATO’s border.
So what are you on about?
That’s also changing, MND North East is rapidly becoming an armoured Division in it’s own right, and it’s mostly based in Lithuania (the 15th Mechanised Brigade, which with K2 Panther and Borsuk IFV’s is an Armoured Brigade in all but name, is based on the Polish side of the Border, as is the 2nd Reconnaissance Regiment).
Plus European Armoured Divisions tend to hide within the ORBAT and TOE. Italy and Spain both technically don’t have standing Armoured Divisions, but both Nations operate a “Arms plot” brigade structure, where they just have a mass of Brigades under one command, and both could create an Armoured Division by just picking their Armoured Brigades and placing them under a Divisional HQ together.
Western Europe, outside Poland, does not possess even one formed armoured division. Britain could, perhaps, put two armoured brigades in the field but, as General Sir Patrick Sanders has pointed out to a parliamentary defence committee, we could not sustain them. Brilliant!
Russia is unable to make any movement in the ground to end the war, its economy is collapsing and it’s loosing forces at a rate freer than it can replace them.
So one day it will have to accept European forces in Ukraine.
It’s just a question of when, or do you think the people of Ukraine will just surrender after fighting so well for four years?
Monro, the other example from UNFICYP is that the mission is now in its 62nd year. Very much an enduring operation!
Russia will not stop in Ukraine. It may pause and wait for another weak U.S. President but it will not stop. That is why it will never accept Western European forces policing a buffer zone in Ukraine.
Just as well, since the British Army is now incapable of sustaining any prolonged deployment of more than one infantry brigade.
Any European force would be kept well away from the front lines and there as a token gesture. Between us we do not have the deployable manpower, equipment, or will to do anything else. It is all pointless talk anyway. Putin is not interested in peace and will not accept NATO/European troops in Ukraine.
Plus all this assumes that the US won’t simply walk away from Ukraine in the wake of the current Greenland crisis. It is all a bit of a mess.
I look forward to our Government waking up and smelling the coffee, with an immediate announcement to increase the size of our armed forces through a real sustained increase in budget. Pigs might fly.
What kit will our soldiers use? And how do we send troops if Russia has clearly said no troops as part of cease fire. Starmer just does not get it, just because he rail roads things through in the UK and only hears or see’s what he wants to see here does not mean it will be the same. Reality of it is what will we send which 40 to 60 bits of kit will we equip them with? and with one group there one group training to go there and and one group returning where will we get the man/women power from? what ever kit they have you you need nearly the same back here to train with. what ammo will they take we have not replaced any we gifted to Ukraine.
Fantasy ideas from those out of touch with reality or just too stupid to even accept reality,
Time to stick “white” posts into the ground, re-establish an “inner-German border” guard of retired servicemen to take soldiers on a weeks “border patrol”.
On a serious note, if I was still serving, I would certainly want to consider if a career in the military was still a good option, given the massive reduction in size and equipment, coupled with poor support and leadership from both MP’s and Senior Officers. It really does seem as if we are back to “Lions led by Donkeys”. Starmer does nothing but grandstand, and our Generals wait till their pensions are paid before raising their heads above the parapet.
Oh what a sad state we find ourselves in.
MPs can’t decide how to repair the Palace of Westminster. Why not build a new parliament building in Ukraine? Just a temporary one for maybe ten or fifteen years while the fabric of the UK building is fixed. Then the PM can have “shoes on the ground” and we don’t have to risk military lives.
Move them to the de Montford Hall in Leicester; a fitting venue for Parliament.
A circus tent would be more appropriate.
Yeah. Sky News have spotted that a few clown MPs are asking hundreds of trivial witten parliamentary, questions, arguing that they are ‘holding tbe government to account’. Never mind the quality feel the width. Probably using AI. 😂
If this imbecile of a PM does send troops in then may I suggest the French go in first.
They have better kit
new vehicles that actually work
new rifles
Updating their comms infrastructure
Have recent combat experience (Africa)
Far more helicopters than us
A government that wont throw their troops under a bus
We could supply an ever decreasing number of chinooks just in case
I suggest you review French equipment numbers relative to ours as your figures are clearly wrong.
Where is he wrong?
On the contrary, they’ve spent less than half of what the British Army has spent, on a range of vehicles that all seem to work. From APC to IFV.
And in great numbers.
Why?
I think I’m giving up on UK Defence Journal for a while. So many fake trolls now trying to stir up nonsense. None with any insight most run by AI. This comments section is just becoming a propaganda website.
Welcome to the internet. 99% of it is junk. You will of course disagree with at least half of those left, but at least these few will respect your decision.
I get you, I did the same for a bit.
I don’t think parliament will sign the bill or vote to allow UK troops deployment.
Those “reassurance” force troops will be a prime target for Russia who will most definitely look at them as a target and will test the resolve of the troops and nations to be in Ukraine.
Guaranteed casualties and our armed forces suffering fatalities.
Starmer is prancing around signing treaties and commitments he can’t fulfill.
Unless our defence budget goes up immediately by 25-30% and hardware such as CV90, turret armed boxer, RCH155 , more Archer gun systems as well as hundreds of SHORAD/ air defence Vs drones are ordered and the army is being increased by at least 10,000-15,000 troops ?
As we all know that is not about to happen then the UK should stay out of Ukraine.
Hopefully parliament will block the deployment and embarrass Starmer.
Nigel is voting against it !!
Reading between the lines I reckon the UK will build and protect the “hubs” and the French will go off and do the peacekeeping! It’s all about Starmer grandstanding again, trying to be the big man on the global stage, who doesn’t give a stuff about the UK but is happy to use its people and limited assets to get him some arse licking international kudos! The blokes a lizard and if protecting Ukrainians borders while ignoring ours gets him on the world stage then so be it, that’s all he cares about!
Great …. who pays for it or is this another hit on our limited defence budget?