The primary objective of NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence (EFP) is to deter potential aggression by presenting a credible and united military presence in the region.
The forces involved, while not large enough to pose a direct threat to Russia, are significant enough to ensure that any invasion would encounter NATO forces and trigger a collective response.
This serves as a powerful deterrent against potential aggression.
According to NATO, the EFP demonstrates the Alliance’s resolve and readiness to defend its territory. It also reinforces the transatlantic bond, showcasing the solidarity and unity of NATO member states.
NATO has established eight multinational battalion-size battlegroups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia. Each battlegroup is led by a framework nation and supported by various contributing Allies.
Here’s a breakdown of the deployment:
- Estonia: Led by the United Kingdom, with contributions from France and Iceland.
- Latvia: Led by Canada, with forces from multiple nations including Italy and Spain.
- Lithuania: Led by Germany, with support from Belgium, the Netherlands, and Norway.
- Poland: Led by the United States, with troops from Croatia, Romania, and others.
- Bulgaria: Led by Italy, with contributions from several Balkan and Mediterranean countries.
- Hungary: Led by Hungary, with support from Croatia, Italy, and the United States.
- Romania: Led by France, with contributions from Belgium, Luxembourg, and the United States.
- Slovakia: Led by Spain, with support from Germany and Slovenia.
These battlegroups are fully integrated into NATO’s command structure, ensuring they are ready and responsive. They operate in coordination with national home defence forces, with the aim of providing a continuous and credible presence.
The EFP has evolved in response to the changing security environment. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, NATO reinforced existing battlegroups and established new ones, effectively doubling the number of troops on the ground. This expansion extended NATO’s forward presence from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south.
At the 2022 NATO Summit in Madrid, Allies agreed to scale up the battlegroups from battalion-size to brigade-size formations when required. This flexibility demonstrates NATO’s ability to deploy high-readiness forces quickly and effectively in response to any threats.
NATO’s forward presence is a key part of its strengthened deterrence and defence posture. This deployment is defensive, proportionate, and transparent, in line with international commitments. The presence of Allied forces serves as a tangible reminder that an attack on one NATO Ally is an attack on all.
The EFP battlegroups are designed to operate in concert with national home defence forces and are present at all times in the host countries. The multinational nature of these forces highlights the unity and solidarity of NATO member states, working together to ensure regional stability and security.
I think Estonia should consider a land swap with Russia, to swap Narva for new boarder land further south. Narva is mainly Russian speaking. It would enable Estonia to fortify land to the west of Narva. But Estonia should hold a referendum in the town first.
What do people think?
What could possibly compensate Estonia for losing its third largest city? The ethnic cleansing of Narva by the Soviets should not be rewarded.
Narva will be the place Putin chooses for the next incursion. He will use the same justification as he used for Crimea and Donetsk. How NATO reacts will decide whether they withdraw across the border or stay. The Russians have already moved border markers on the river Narva, stealing 180 metres into Estonian territory.
If we have learned nothing else we should have figured that Putin’s little tests just get bigger if unanswered.
Hmmm…apparently Mad Vlad is beginning to develop through gray zone activities the pretext for incursion into the Baltics (once UKR conflict is resolved to Orcs’ satisfaction) to “protect” the varied ethic Russian enclaves from the dastardly ENATO occupation. The Orcs’ playbook is quite transparent. Georgia and Moldova will either serve as an appetizer or desert for Mad Vlad’s rapacious banquet. This will especially be the case if US deemphasizes European commitments. The Russian tactical nukes stationed in Belarus will be used to intimidate ENATO. (Recommend RN place a substantial order for SLCM-N for SSN-A, at the earliest feasible opportunity.) Not… Read more »
Seems we are considering a land based cruise missile system with Germany now to act as a deterrent. Apparently it was discussed between new UK government and German government this week. It’s land based conventional and with a range of 2000 miles. Apparently to be based in Germany and used to conduct a massive precision strike against Russia if it uses a nuclear weapon. The system is being designed to replace US missile that are being moved into Germany as an interim in 2026. I do like the idea of the UK having a second nuclear capable system however I’m… Read more »
Where did you read that mate, missed it?
Was on Times Radio yesterday on YouTube. Try searching for the headline below on you tube.
Putin concerned as UK considers long range missiles
Ta.
You may well be right. Thanks for the feedback👍
Yes I agree Sovietization should Not be rewarded.
The issue is, can Narva be defended? Or even rebuilt further west in Estonia using seized ruZZian assets?
👍Thanks for the feedback.
Narva could be easily defended; there are only four crossing points of the Narva River, which provides a really handy choke point, and the nearest crossing is 100 miles away (beyond the city you don’t only have to go around the resevoir, but Lake Peipus as well, unless you throw up a pontoon Bridge, but the Russian’s haven’t covered themselves with glory trying that particular technique). Even if the Russian’s managed to capture those bridges intact, the Estonians could make Narva into a horrific combination of Bakmuht and Kherson if they put their minds to it.
EU is only taking the profits from seized assets, about $3 billion per year, that is all meant for Ukraine. So far EU has decided not to touch all of siezed money for fear damage to European financial institutions but that is voted for evey 6 months so might change
I repeated earlier, apologies!
Sounds sensible to me, but I’m not Estonian.
The enemy within is never a good thing. They at least can remove theirs, we’re stuck with ours.
The UK won’t let the EU do custom checks at Gibraltar airport for fears of territorial integrity, I can’t see Estonia giving up its third biggest city.
Do you think, the UK Army should base a minimum of a brigade in Estonia, Daniele?
A battalion is insufficient I think.
Hi M. The UK Army, not heard it called that before. No, I don’t think the British Army should have a Brigade there. We must contribute though, and we are. I prefer the eastern European nations to provide the bulk, They are closer geographically. I don’t think we can roule so much as a Brigade in our current set up with 2 AI Brigades and to recreate another BAOR type set up regards garrison facilities to maintain one Brigade forward would be very expensive. It also splits up 3 Division, which is below full Divisional size as it is. I’m… Read more »
And just to add, the northern area of NATO seems the place we should be, so Norway, Sweden, Finland.
Great post mate. As we know we could only roule the bulk of a brigade for an enduring operation if we had five armoured or AI brigades. CGS is bang on in proposing ARRC as a SACEUR strategic reserve. Although it is meant to be a rapid reaction formation, that gives the impression that it could assemble quickly and move quickly and maybe to be the first on the scene. The reality is that it would take some time to do that. So it makes sense to have eFP forces forward as a tripwire. Some might consider they could serve… Read more »
Unsure on your last para mate, no knowledge there. The other reserve “Corps” that CGS spoke of was French. Again, makes sense with the geography. I don’t think many recall or are aware of the “rule of five”, we had it until 2015 when the Strike mess spoiled things. 5 all arms brigades with the requisite CS and CSS formations. Even if 2 of those were Infantry, in 1 Division, alongside the 3 AI Bdes in 3 Division. And on top we had 3 Cdo and 16AA! The earlier A2020 idea of 5 identical Brigades would also have sufficed for… Read more »
I’ve heard various rules running from four to six. The idea of a six month deployment every two years is commonly mentioned, which would be a rule of four. I’ve heard someone else on here (was it you Graham?) talking about Harmony rules requiring sixfold. So while the higher multiple might be okay in UK peacetime, where the war is not-existential, can it reduce down to four if we are talking about an existential war in Europe, given that we would be calling up reserves and looking to increase the size of the Army over the two years? The other… Read more »
Those questions are beyond me, and require Dern or Graham.
The rule of 5/4/6 varies because it’s not a hard science in peace time, it’s mostly about what tempo your personnel can sustain before they want a more stable life. It’s a question of balancing home life, career progression and individual competency, collective training and deployment. Where war is existential harmony guidelines go out the window, even if you are not in the line you will not be having significant portions of the armed forces back in the UK. Instead you get a rule of 3, where you have 2 units in the front line and 1 in reserve (not… Read more »
Cheers, Dern. Very informative.
People said ‘the rule of 5’ but it was never an immutable rule. Point is that you need 5 BGs (or bdes) in the Orbat in order that one is deployed on an enduring operation and to ensure reasonable tour Intervals (one tour then 2 years tour free). Yes, rotations are usually every 6 months (for enduring ops) for the British Army. Brigades do not have to be identical – indeed it is rre that the BAs Orbat ever would have 5 identical brigades. When I did Op HERRIC, in quick succession we had an AA Bde deploy (16x), a… Read more »
I am not sure of the status of the Franco-German Corps – it must be NATO-assigned, but for use as a Reserve or what? The “rule of 5” was never quite a rule, more a guideline. It should not be dead, as decent Tour Intervals is still important. But of course difficult to impossible to achieve brigade deployment on an enduring op, with decent tour interval if you don’t have 5 roughly similar brigades. With eFP in Estonia of course it is not totally a British brigade, so the numbers are somewhat eased. I despair if CGS is not interested… Read more »
Short answer: No. The US hasn’t exercised Reforger in AGES, additionally the 1st Canadian Division has no permanent subordinate units, so “being ready to deploy quickly” requires establishing which units of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th divisions would be stripped out and reassigned to the 1st.
Edit: Also remember that Canada only has 2 Mechanised Brigade groups, and one of those is going to be forward deployed, so what would a hypothetical Canadian Division even look like? 1 Mechanised Brigade Group and 2 Infantry Brigade Groups?
Canada has 3 Mechanized Brigade groups.
Thanks Dern. ARRC is not as ‘Rapid Reaction’ as many would like.
Nothing in NATO can be, to paraphrase Life of Brian, any reaction will call for immediate discussion.
But with the exception of the US, I don’t think any NATO power maintains divisions at High Readyness, even Brigades are a big ask.
👍
Side note, we probably wouldn’t roule a brigade for Estonia, we’d follow the German and Canadian example, and make a permanent Garrison. Might be a recruiting draw for people, and I look forward to the Estonian loanwords that the British Army will adopt alongside its German and Hindi vocab.
If 3 Div end up being ARRC Reserve, would you still draw the EFP from a 3 Div Bde ? Or use elements of 7 or 4 if they were outfitted with better artillery and ATGW? And in 4s case LPM vehicles?
And could a BG be garrison or would you have Bde strength?
EFP will always come from 3 Division because it requires armour to have any degree of credibility. The only way around that is if the framework nation changes and the UK only provides a coy to a foreign battlegroup ala the deployment to Poland.
Forgive an idiot question. What’s the practical difference between a roulement and a permanent garrison?
A roulement means you have a brigade in country but it’s not always the same brigade.
Think of it like rounds at a pub. Someone is always buying, but people take turns walking up to the bar. So we might send 12th Brigade out, then after 6-9 months we replace it with 20th, then 7th (we might leave the vehicles and just rotate the people, or rotate everything).
Permanent Garrison means that we say “12th Brigade your now in Estonia.” So the unit never comes back to the UK, families get homes in Estonia, etc.
Again, thank you.
What happened to the idea of uplifting the BGs to Brigades? It would be challenging for the UK!
Healey has an “aspiration” of an all British Corps of 2 Divisions, of 6 Bdes, I think I read.
We covered that earlier, quite an uplift in CS CSS to realise that.
If ARRC does become SACEUR reserve no need to increase the EFP BG, as 3 Division can be held further west, even in its UK garrison, and inserted where SACEUR needs it.
Hope they invest in lift in that case!
Perhaps you might be coming around to a more favourable view of Healey? I think he is better than Shapps. More intelligent, more shrewd, better informed, not overtly a ‘Yes’ man etc. Funny to think that it really wasn’t that long ago that 1xx and 3xx were both truly deployable divs, surely each with 3 genuine, proper, bdes. Good if Healey is looking at a structure as you describe. Could still also have another div (6 Div) with the miscellaneous specialists. Agree the point about resourcing CS and CSS properly throughout a new Orbat. There still is scope for some… Read more »
Yes, possibly. Also depends on the review! My opinions were based on what he was saying while in opposition, certain rhetoric on their ideas on Britain’s geostrategic posture worried me.
I recall you had more faith in him than I.
Pleased to read too that the CSG 25 deployment is going ahead…so far!
Too embarrassing for new HMG to cancel what must be advanced planning for CSG25.
The Chancellor’s speech yesterday and her immediate actions, including tasking all Depts to cut 2% from current budget especially in back office functions – is a worry.
I therefore have doubts that Defence will get a monetary boost in the September budget or even very soon after SDR reports in the first half of 2025. I see cans being kicked down the road for a year or two.
Canada is in the process of that currently. Vehicles for the support of the Brigade were delivered by ship two weeks ago to Riga.
That is really impressive for a country with a small army. It will be tough roulementing that over time, but of course the whole bde is not Canadian – it is multinational.
There will be 2200 deployed for Canada. Not sure what the other states are deploying to Latvia. The Canadian Army needs to be at least twice the size it currently is and the reserves 1/3 larger.
Quite a challenge for Canada to ramp up to provide the core framework of a brigade (to go from 540 to 2200 pers), in Latvia. I guess the other contributing countries are increasing their contingents size up as well.
The Canadian Army has 22,500 regulars, 21,500 reservists. So the equivalent of 10% of their reg soldiers deployed when the Latvia BG is upgraded to a bde. That would be like the BA deploying over 7,000 on an enduring operation.
Yes, such a deployment will put pressure on the Army. It did also for the Canadian Afghan mission.
That’s interesting. Canada could not sustain roulemont in Afghanistan?
What I meant to say is the organizational challenge of the Afghan mission mixed with other priorities of the Canadian Army at that time put pressure on the Army. Canada was able to fulfill its Afghan mission. Staffing was a concern back then but more so now.
OK, thanks. Canadian Forces are too small and their Defence budget has never hit the 2% mark. There would be no pressure if both were increased.
IF this scenario actually appears that the Orcs are moving towards the Baltics isNATO just going to sit there and let them do an Ukraine style attack? I really hope that they would decide to get AirPower in and stop them dead on their side of any border! In this case be proactive instead of reactive🤞let the Orcs dance to our tune for a change.
Russia is not able to win in Ukraine, nato press all time writing that is going to invade Europe and innthe other side writing that Russia is a disaster militarily speaking, so, what of the 2:versions is true?
Just listen to your own propaganda! They don’t actually make s secret of their ambitions do they?
What ambitions ? , the reality is that they aren,t able to defeat Ukraine so how they could defeat to the whole nato. Stop hysteria please.
They,re agresive but not so stupid.
I don’t know where your from but can I come and live in your bubble?it seems all nice and safe and sound👍