Thread by @FTusa284

@JohnHealey_MP @spellar @JohnnyMercerUK @ShadowDefence @RishiSunak @Jeremy_Hunt @CommonsDefence @commonslibrary @CommonsPAC @sylviapfeifer @MarkNicolDM @jeromestarkey @thinkdefence @BritishArmy @AdmTonyRadakin_ @DefenceSenseUK @ReutersAero @timhepher @NATO @nicholadrummond

A thread about an intriguing story that came via Reuters on 3 January about leadership of the NATO Very high-readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF). The core (original) story? Germany, the current VJTF leader, was being asked to extend this role into 2024...
reuters.com/world/europe/g…

So what? Well, in theory, the UK takes over the role as of 1 January 2024. Berlin being asked to extend by 3-4mths, minimum, suggests that the British Army is finding itself in a position where, for whatever reasons, it cannot generate a formed Bgde HQ...

..., a recognisable Mech Inf battlegroup, plus the supporting arms, or a variation of all of these. Sure, the lead nation isn't having to provide a complete bgde - there will be other nations providing contributing units. But the core comes from the lead nation.

Of note: the original article had, "The British defence ministry did not respond to a request for comment".

However, an updated article (reuters.com/world/europe/g…), had the following:

"The UK is ready to honour our commitment to lead NATO's VJTF in 2024..."

"... any suggestion otherwise is completely untrue".

So that's clear: the story isn't true. However, the next statement by the MoD spox is also worth quoting: "NATO is currently reviewing its military plans and force model which may affect their request to Alliance members".

To my eyes, this shows the core of the story: having committed to the role several years ago, the UK is now seeing a situation where it cannot provide what NATO/NATO members would recognise as a Bgde HQ as well as a mech/AI BG.

And as a result, the UK has been trying to weasel its way in NATO, to get the definitions of what has to be provided changed. Note that last year, the MoD/Army "declared" a Bgde HQ and bgde assets in Estonia. However, the HQ, apart from a lean fwd detachment, never left the UK...

...and the "bgde"" was a part inf bn, CR2 sqdn, AS90 tp, an MLRS tp, a bit of this, a bit of that. TBH, 1944 East Front Wehrmacht composite inf bns looked more credible. And what is cheerfully ignored both at Main Building as well as Andover, is that UK allies see through this

It's become a bit "Alice Through The Looking Glass": "'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean..'" So, I say, a brigade is 3-4 manoeuvre units based around tanks regts, mech/AI bns + spt units...

"OH! That's sooo Cold War! We can task organise, shake it up, do these things differently". Maybe, maybe not... My chats around European bazaars are that the claims that the British Army is a "Reference Army" are met with, "Reference for WHAT? Not a reference for effectiveness "

To return to the outraged MoD spox comment, and the original story: a clear, easy deduction is that having been asked, informally or otherwise by NATO to look at extending their VJTF, the Bundeswehr were happy to leak this...

I hear that they've got a wee bit hacked off with UK SecDef going around boasting about how brilliant the UK defence capability is, and how the UK is a European leader in defence etc... So, popping this bumptiousness was far too attractive a target for Berlin!

And consider: if the Bundeswehr had NOT been approached by NATO about leadership extension, why did they leak it? It'd be so easily disproved, and then ridiculed. Whoever did this felt that it was confident enough to do this, as they had the paper trail.

Which tells you that the story is true... Reuters do checks, so this would not have got past those without the trail being examined. Between Reuters and the UK MoD, I know who I would trust first... One makes money about being a trusted source ($6.35bn)...

Let's go back to the issue: the British Army is struggling to put 3 full, fully-operational CR2 sqns into the field on a sustainable basis; Estonia deployment can't provide AI/mech inf to support the scratch CR2 sqdns there (there are, what, 12, 13 such bns, and yet none aval?)

And there is an extra headache for the MoD/Army: because Estonia and Poland are NATO missions, as is the VJTF, the UK cannot pull its normal stunt, and double hat Unit X for 2, 3 different missions - VJTF units are dedicated to that, and nothing else.

Equally, from what I can tell, even if the "active leadership" of VJTF is a year, there is a form of requirement to have some availability for the subsequent year, to cover as the new formation stands up. So, I see that the UK's 2 (is it as low as this?) active mech bgde HQs...

...can't be fixed for at least 2yrs to this single role. Equally, the UK/Army can't support, on a sustainable basis this level of commitment.

Seriously, how, why is the UK in a position whereby it still has an Army of 75k+, but is struggling to field, say, 5-6,000 personnel...

...in Europe = "next door", on a sustainable basis.

"The British Army is busy training the Ukrainians".

OK, that's 1,600 - assume a 3:1 ratio for rotation, that's another 5,000. So, the British Army cannot sustain a sustained generation of 6-7,000, even 20,000 on a 3:1 ratio?

I'm hearing that a number of hacks, who had started to look at this story, got warned off going deeper - that makes me even more suspicious. One such told me, "I was told that it was too hot to handle, and I should move away". This doesn't bode well, for a variety of reasons.

A last comment/observation: the announcement that the PM was calling for some form of audit about the UK contribution to Ukraine was a sign that he was going weak. Instead, I now hear it was because he wanted to see how effective the MoD was...

...and that he had heard that is was anything but. Initial supply of NLAW/Starstreak? Brilliant - no sarcasm, brilliant! Subsequent? The cupboard is pretty much bare. The UK has nothing much to supply.

Any artillery ammo sent to Ukraine is having to be bought, until local supply chains can ramp up, on the open (and now expensive) market. There's been a lot of boasting about how the UK has been the largest supplier of equipment to Ukraine in Europe...

I'm not sure that this is now standing up to in-depth scrutiny - Germany and France have been chucking some pretty chunky packages over. @benmoores2 @BFBSRadioHQ @bfbsSitrep @combat_boot. End...