Plan for 65,000-strong Ukraine stabilisation force unveiled – but can UK cope

Britain may lead a force of 65,000 Nato troops to defend Ukraine from a third Russian invasion.

The scenario is one of many being assessed, senior sources say, in anticipation of a peace deal which will create a “buffer zone” along a 800​-mile border following the end of the bloody three-year-conflict.

But doubts remain as to whether the UK – expected to contribute 8,000 troops in an enduring commitment equivalent to Operation Telic in Iraq – would be able to play its part without a sizeable boost to the defence budget.

“Our military is so run down at the present moment, numerically and as far as capability and equipment is concerned, it would potentially be quite embarrassing,” said former head of the British Army General Lord Dannatt.

Under the proposals, the peacekeeping ​force would be spearheaded by Nato’s Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, commanded by former SAS General Sir Ralph Wooddisse at Innsworth, Gloucestershire,

It would be headquartered in Kyiv, supporting troops providing medical and engineering capabilities across eastern Ukraine.

The UK would be expected to offer an extended brigade – 8,000 troops – who would initially deliver security before supporting a reconstruction project across the country, with a major focus on mine clearing.

The stabilisation force would carry purely a defensive mandate and be ready by September at the earliest.

While the rapid reaction force can technically field 120,000 troops, US President Donald Trump‘s decision to focus his military might on China instead of Europe has left planners cutting US forces out of the equation.

The 65,000 strength has been chosen as the number which can keep Russian forces at bay without use of American troops.

“Right now, the idea is to field a stabilisation force of 65,000, and we would expect it to represent the full spectrum of alliance members from across Europe. However, it would not include US troops“ said a senior military source from Brussels.

It is not the first time the US has not joined its Nato allies.

Following the removal of the Taliban from power in November 2001, it signalled a reluctance to join reconstruction and stability efforts, and the 5,000-strong International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was created, under UK leadership, to support the country’s new Government.

In fact, of the 61,000 uniformed personnel currently deployed on UN peacekeeping duties today, the US contributes just 27

Describing the UK’s role, a Whitehall source added: ”There is a plan on the table and it will involve Nato’s Allied Rapid Reaction Corps leading the operation.

“It will, on current planning, involve 8,000 UK troops and will not deploy until clear agreements and a peace settlement is in place”

But fielding this number of troops may prove to be a challenge,

Nato is already committed to providing more than 20,000 troops to Enhanced Forward Presence, a security mission in the Baltic States which involves nations from across the Alliance supporting four battlegroups based in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. The UK contributes around 1,000 troops to Operation Cabrit.

Currently, eFP deployment to Eastern Europe and the Baltics last six months, meaning that Nato must find and field 40,000 troops over a 12-month period.

The UK’s contribution of 8,000 troops to Ukraine would mean being able to commit 16,000 boots on the ground over a year as part of an enduring commitment.

Essentially, this is a return to Operation Telic, the campaign to stabilise Iraq after the second Iraq war which, at its peak, fielded 8,500 British troops.

But much has changed since 2005, when the British Army was 108,000 strong.

Now it has been cut to 75,000, its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars, is losing 300 soldiers a month and reached just 63% of its recruitment target last year.

And there are only around 18,000 Reservists out of a target of 30,000.

”Make no mistake, this will represent a big challenge for both the UK​ – which, on top of the 8,000 troops, would also be will be expected to provide air and maritime assets​ – and other European alliance members”, added a Whitehall source.

Lord Dannatt added: “If we were to deploy 10,000 troops, each rotation for six months, that would effectively tie up 30,000 or 40,000 troops and we just haven’t got that number available.

“So there are some big issues here that today’s politicians won’t really have considered.”

And some experts question whether this can be a Nato exercise at all, given Donald Trump’s recent announcement.

“Donald Trump’s shift presents a problem for Nato,” said Justin Crump, of Sibylline strategic risk group.

“It’s unclear whether Trump would accept the use of Arrc, to which the US contributes financially, to what will be a non – Nato mission due to the US’ withdrawal. He may well expect Arcc to be ready for other Nato missions

“So it may need to be an EU mission, with Britain – or, at the very least, rebranded.”

He added: “Europe is more than able to meet the Russian challenge without US support, but it would come to define Nato – and we’d have to ensure Europe’s other flanks are also protected.

“So you can forget operations in the Middle East, for instance.”

An MOD spokesperson said: “This is unhelpful speculation, and we wouldn’t want to comment on hypotheticals before peace talks have even begun.

“Right now, the Ukrainians are still fighting with huge courage. Our government is stepping up support for Ukraine‘s war fighters to put them in the best possible position for any peace talks.

“That’s why we announced a new £150 million firepower package this week, providing more drones, tanks and air defence systems to Ukraine.”

In response to Gen Dannet’s remarks, the spokesman added: “Our armed forces are respected worldwide for their professionalism and excellence. “