Europe

[Czech_pivo]

Those 300+ would form, what, a light battalion?

That's the point though - "if." They've both had fairly robust combat teams in Latvia's multinational eFP battle group which is led by Canada.

However, when NATO decided to create a multinational brigade group, we took the lead for the bde HQ and added some components (such as tanks and a more persistent gun battery). However, in order to create a brigade, Denmark and Sweden stepped up to add a joint surge mech battalion and we added a flyover surge light battalion as the brigade's third manoeuvre unit. Italy and Spain maintained their current commitments. They didn't offer any new commitments (Possibly there was some slight adjustment to the current commitments)

I think we are stuck with Latvia as is.

We do, however, have around 300+ folks on Op UNIFER committed until 2026 training Ukrainians in the UK. In the event of a ceasefire that commitment could conceivably be converted to be the core of a force in Ukraine. Just guessing here.

 

[Good2Golf]

Those 300+ would form, what, a light battalion?

I’d go with Coy(+)

 

[GR66]

Those 300+ would form, what, a light battalion?

I assume @FJAG is proposing to use them as the core of the peacekeeping force he proposed upthread:

Post in thread 'Europe'

Thursday at 23:43

Make Latvia a 3 year posting or akin to 4 CMBG in Germany - it should not be an albatross around the neck of the CA to do other issues.

6 month rotos are a killer. I don't know why we haven't learned that from Afghanistan. Make Latvia a posting. If we want to send a "peacekeeping force" to Ukraine then build a core and recruit specifically for it.

A bn of 600 pers has 350 cpls and ptes and another 100 MCpls. That's 450 out of 600.

1) On day 1 take a RegF/ARes core of 150 MCpls and above as the cadre. Take in another 100 ARes Cpls and take in, lets say roughly 700 recruits on a...

• FJAG

• 

Might be doable but even with a ceasefire agreement Ukraine will still need to train their own forces. It may be just as useful in the long run to keep those troops doing what they are doing now. Eventually Ukraine will have to be able to stand on their own unless you want to have the peacekeeping force stuck there for eternity.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I’d go with Coy(+)

If you add up all the full time/ regular bodies currently occupying the various ARes CBG HQs, plus all the other semi-useless HOs lying around these days, that might net you a thousand or more.

A sacrifice we are willing to make for the sake of international peace.

Just sayin'

 

[Kirkhill]

I can only hope we end up with a PM of this calibre.

 

[Kirkhill]

Trump and Putin have unwittingly given Germany a golden opportunity

National renewal and Europe’s economic crown are there for the taking

www.telegraph.co.uk

Time was when the sight of Germany rearming would have sent a shiver down the spine. Granted, it’s a different story today.

German plans for hundreds of billions of euros in additional military spending are for defensive purposes, not as in the past for territorial gain.

Even so, for Germany to abandon the fiscal straitjacket of its “schwarze Null,” or “black zero”, debt brake so as to open the spigots of military and infrastructure renewal is quite a moment, and marks a potentially decisive break with the pacifist leanings of the country’s immediate post war past.

Over time, it might also galvanise Germany’s re-emergence as an overmighty, political and economic hegemon at the heart of Europe, with the hard power to match.

For Putin’s invasion of Ukraine to end up triggering such a reshaping of Europe’s geopolitical order would be a supreme irony.

Re-empowering the historic enemy is surely not what the Russian leader had in mind when he sent his tanks into Ukraine. Yet this could all too easily be the ultimate outcome.

NATO - to keep America in, the Russians out and Germany down.

Bye Bye NATO.