The UK government has confirmed it is in discussions over proposals for a multilateral defence, security and resilience bank aimed at supporting Ukraine’s long-term security and reconstruction, following questions in the House of Commons on Wednesday.
Labour MP Alex Baker said that while military guarantees for Ukraine were essential, deterrence also depended on sustained financial backing. She argued that long-term security commitments required “financial guarantees that underpin our security commitments today and in the years ahead”, and asked whether the UK would join other nations in exploring a multilateral institution to support defence, resilience and reconstruction efforts.
Responding, Defence Secretary John Healey agreed that support for Ukraine extended beyond military assistance or the potential deployment of a multinational force. He said the government recognised that Ukraine would require significant long-term financial support alongside security guarantees, and confirmed that the UK was actively engaged in discussions on the proposals.
Healey told MPs that talks were being led by the Treasury and involved governments and institutions developing the concept, adding that ministers would “continue to hold those discussions” because such mechanisms could play a significant role in delivering the scale of investment Ukraine would need over the long term.
The exchange came during a Commons update on Ukraine and wider operational matters, as European governments consider how to underpin any future security arrangements with durable economic and financial structures.
With what? We either keep the brigade in Estonia and maintain its rotation and support, or we pull it and put in Ukraine. We won’t be able to do both simultaneously. We would be able to send light forces to Ukraine, but they won’t be seen as deterrence on a trip wire!
As you suggest, the problem with British deployments as ‘tripwire’ forces is that there is nothing available to be attached to the other end of the tripwire.
What has that got to do with a bank? ie a security funding mechanism that Ukraine can draw down on?
‘…while military guarantees for Ukraine were essential, deterrence also depended on sustained financial backing. She argued that long-term security commitments required “financial guarantees that underpin our security commitments today and in the years ahead”
The cart before the horse. We have been in breach of our security assurances to Ukraine since 2014. Financial guarantees miss the point without any ability to back up ‘military guarantees’.
The clue is in the DS (John Healey) response.
The HMG grandstanding continues. I’m reading that the UK and France might put up to 15k troops into UKR.
Hello?
NATO had agreed that the British Army will form one SACEURs reserve Corps, of 2 Divisions. ( themselves in bits as we know, but scraping things together, manageable, but with gaps.)
The 2 Brigades of one those Divisions are needed to maintain the Cabrit BG.
If they deploy, they are not reserve are they?
So that leaves 1 UK Division, until recently a bit of a skeleton until the usual musical chairs, yet another Army reorg, has been shoving units into it and out of it, but it is now in a better place than it was. Light forces only.
If we are talking a logistical presence only, that falls to 101,102, and 104 Brigades.
101 supports 3 Division, you cannot use that.
102, itself weak, supports 1 Division.
And possibly the most important, 104 supports the whole force, enabling the ARRC to deploy with niche enablers not found elsewhere in the army.
Any deployment, and the ARRC is diluted.
But, HMG will care not about these things, nor the imbecile Cameron who okayed the Army losing so many personnel after 2010.
We should stay the hell out of it and concentrate on the JRF and Scandinavia.
We won’t, another looking tough on the world stage moment needed for Starmer and Healey.
Farcial. Can a British Army officer not turn around and say “no can do”? Save Putin the bother! As when will he ever agree to NATO forces in Ukraine?
I’m not too clued up myself – how do French forces stack up? Could it be they form the backbone and majority of this proposed force? I don’t suppose we know yet, but I don’t see how the numbers are made up if that isn’t the case.
More to the point what is the state of the French army? I assume in a far better shape than our own, but with a markedly smaller budget and somehow even more inefficient bureaucracy, there must be holes somewhere. Maybe they just do a better job obscuring it than we do.
Mate. I can comment on our own military and intell orbat. On others, not a clue, sorry. I do know they have a far more successful armoured vehicle programme than ours, J has outlined that here often enough.
Understood – cheers!
The scorpion program is planned to ready 27 000 men deployable within 30 days by 2027. I understood a second division of the same size should be available by 2030 but not sure now.
Thanks mate – very impressive
Absolutely. This will be a long-term indefinite deployment and I don’t believe the Army could field 7,500 troops for a long period of time without significant expansion, which would be difficult even in the money was available. At “best” we start at that number by pointing everything at Ukraine including forces from Estonia and Poland, and drop down to maybe 4,000 or fewer after six months.
To achieve what? They can’t stand in the middle of a million troops on each side of the border. Planes in the air, possibly; boots on the ground, futile.
Quite so. The reality of Britain’s mighty (not) conventional land forces was set out by General Sir Patrick Sanders to the parliamentary committee on defence a couple of years ago. I doubt much will have changed since then:
Question: ‘…can I ask you about the ability to put out a British warfighting division?
Answer: ‘I can absolutely assure the committee that we can provide a trained divisional headquarters and certified and assured brigades-16 Brigade, 7th Light Mech Brigade Combat Team, and an armoured brigade-but there will be capability gaps in our ability to get there (!) and our ability to sustain it for time (!)
To paraphrase then: not really.
Out of touch with reality in la la land, like every thing its just not any thing like things really are. Fantasy man power, fantasy kit, majic money tree but really just means scraping what old broken kit we can togeather and bluffing we have loads more. MOD/Government/Heads of military all in denile of the world as it is.
Farce after farce of promising money, kit, man power we do not have, backed up by ammo we never replaced. Yes men at the top agreeing to this crap.
I’m still waiting for the UK to place an emergency order for 40+ Typhoons (and pilots) to be produced ASAP, as a key indicator for how serious this Gov is about defence…or not.
Let alone all the other stuff needed.
I’m not holding my breath as I think the UK Gov outpourings are just hot air.
There is no money for it.
The UK will procure a grand total of 27 new Fast Air between now and 2033!
Namely the 15/12 F35s.
They are hot air, it seems to have sunk in now!
Apparently DIP is delayed until March (according to Larisa Brown) as Starmer was under the impression that the SDR was ‘costed’. Also Knighton reportedly says that we need £7bn more each year until the end of the decade than what is currently budgeted. Unfortunately, the full article is behind a paywall.
Very unlikely to happen, I would say. The Typhoon order from Türkiye will keep Warton busy until Tempest and the RAF would prefer more than the 12 F-35As we have conjured out of our F-35B order. I wonder whether more helicopters and the replacement for the Hawk might become a higher priority in the context of a layered GBAD
I think there’s more chance of our Government placing orders for Flying Pigs rather than any more Typhoons. 🙄.
I agree it would probably be beyond us based on the current size of the army and it’s other committments. One example, google AI here, comparisn of armoured divisions: ‘Tank Strength of a UK Armoured Division: A modern UK “Heavy” or Armoured Division traditionally consists of three brigades. Current Structure: A standard UK armoured regiment typically possesses 56 tanks. A full division with three such regiments would theoretically require 168 tanks. Future Structure: Under the Future Soldier program, the 3rd (UK) Division is being reorganized into two heavy brigades. Recent planning suggests each brigade would have approximately 36 tanks, totaling 108 tanks for the division’s active units’ – so the 148 Challenger 3 tanks mean the UK won’t have enough tanks to fill a current armoured division and will be totally hollowed out. In other words, we won’t be able to meet the ‘traditional’ obligation! Meanwhile other countries are increasing their tank force.
But what does that matter when we have all our glorious soft power to boast of!
I think you have hit the nail on the head with your point about the current size of the army. The $64 thousand dollar question is whether the govt will initiate a program for increasing the size of the army, reversing the cuts of the Tory- Liberal coalition government. I never did understand the point on the Liberal party.
The reality for this potential deployment any announcement to increase the size of the Army is too late.
Firstly you have deal with the glacial pace of the the recruitment process, then can you actually get enough people interested in joining.
Then you will need to ensure that we have improved the gender balance of those recruited along with ensuring that we meet those all important ethnic targets.
Finally, what equipment are you going to give these new recruits because we might have enough small arms but we have very little else.
Pardon my sarcasm but our political elite and the chattering classes are so far removed from reality it is terrifying.
As for Ukraine we should be supporting them but definitely not by putting any of our troops in harms way when they are already overstretched and under equipped. That is criminal negligence on behalf of our politicians but unfortunately Labour have a track record for doing this as they did exactly the same in Iraq and Afghanistan. The two main culprits received knighthoods.
What I would like to know is why aren’t the Germans and the Poles leading this deployment because it is literally on their doorstep.
I actually think and hope Putin will save us the embarrassment of this deployment but if by some miracle it goes ahead then we will further dilute our forces as others have ably set out above.
Worryingly and most annoying of all is the quality of British Military leadership that seems to have learnt absolutely nothing from the desert wars and instead of firmly saying no we can’t do it are again suggesting we be part of of a 15k force in a country 2.5 times bigger than the U.K. and which we have no way of reinforcing or removing if things get hot.
Understand your screpticism. In fairness to govt they have done something about pay, conditions and housing and recruitment might be turning a corner.
Ukraine is the front line. It made sense to gift them assets lije AS90, Bulldog etc. No point in equipment sitting in the UK.
A sequence of govts and service leaders have a lot to answer for, but probably wont.
Heads should roll for Ajax and WCSP but probably wont.
Boxer and CR3 projects look to be in control and it looks like deals have been struck for uk build of Patria and Nurol Makina vehicles. Orders for MLRS and plans for future deep fires look ok.
Gaps in amoured vehicles and heavy artillery remain. RCH155mm should be a credible SPG.
We can’t put front line combat troops into Ukraine. But we can help to build and run hubs for logistics and cease fire monitoring, which I believe is the intention.
Why would anyone ever need an exit strategy?
Oooo! Banks, something we ARE good at, producing Bankers! Did I spell that correctly?
Maybe the UK could provide the contact details for Sodexo for the catering?
Just saying is all… 😀
First you need to stop the fighting. Putin isn’t going to do that unless UKR surrenders or Russian forces are defeated. So I think we need (& needed years ago) to put in forces to go toe to toe with Russian occupying fiorces to tip the balance & convince even Putin that he’s on a hiding to nowhere. Then you can negotiate a ceasefire. But we need to allow UKR every defence she can get & be ready to commit forces long term so Putin or his successors don’t think they can try it on again.
The USA under idiot Trump is a danger to the western hemisphere & likely to cause far more wars than he ever even claims to settle. So the USA is little help. More like he is cruelly wasting loads of ENATO & UKR time & effort trying to manage his outrages.
We urgently need to raise our forces to a level that adds significant strength to NATO(especially if the USA remains MAGA neo-colonial authoratarian) & ensures we can hold our own. Trumps regime is casually off hand simply making up stories that suit their deranged agenda. We cannot be shackled to that, hugely painful & costly as, hopefully temporarily until sane overnment returns to the USA, seperating from many decades of intimate integration will be.