The following article has been written by Quinten De Bode
British presence in Eastern Europe
On January the 20th British Defence Minister, the Rt. Hon. Micheal Fallon MP, announced the commitment of 950 British soldiers to NATO drills Anakonda and Swift Response. Fallon also promised to commit 1.000 troops, who would be permanently stationed in Poland, for the Polish-led Very High Readiness Joint Task Force in 2020. Furthermore visits of Royal Navy ships in the region are to be increased. This permanent presence would mean that the United Kingdom is becoming an increasingly important actor, if not the most important actor, in the defence of NATO’s eastern flank. This article looks at both the political and military motivations for Britain to commit to the defence of Eastern Europe.
 |
| Exercise of the Queen's Royal Hussars |
Political motivations
The date of the announcement could have something to do with the conclusions of the Litvinenko enquiry who were made public a few days before. This, however, could not have played a major part in the decision itself since negotiations between the UK and eastern European governments were already going on for quite a few months. The main political motivation has more to do with the proposed EU reforms.
As one of Europe’s most powerful armed forces the UK has quite a few very desired capabilities in its toolbox. Giving military support in exchange for political concessions on the EU negotiating table has lately been a successful tactic of Whitehall. Last year’s deployment of HMS Bulwark in the Mediterranean in exchange for a favourable number of refugees bears testimony to this tactic. By giving military assistance to Poland the United Kingdom buys itself a trump card that can be used in the negotiations on the proposed cap of EU immigrants in the UK.
Military motivations
Even after the Cold War ended, Britain kept a sizable presence in Germany. By doing so the armed forces retained a logistical network to support the units in Germany. Furthermore, being located in Germany was ideal for the cavalry since Germany has the largest training centre for mechanised units in Europe. In the UK are no comparable centres. After more than 60 years, however, the Union Jack is to be lowered for the last time in the British garrisons in Germany in 2019. The British withdrawal implies a loss of good training opportunities for the cavalry. A move to Poland could mean continued access to larger training grounds than would have been available in Britain. Furthermore, the troops would be strategically better placed.
A second important military motivation is the so-called ‘smart presence’. The mere 1.000 troops couldn’t possibly stand comparison with the whole 1 Br Corps that Britain stationed in Germany during the Cold War. But it means that the British have to set up a logistical chain to Poland and that the British presence could be increased in times of tensions because the facilities are already being created. Britain has already announced the construction of such hubs in other parts of the world, for example the reinstatement of HMS Jufair in Bahrein.
Conclusion
In sum the British commitments to eastern Europe are both testimony of the UK’s will to be an important security provider in Europe by creating hubs which can be used to host larger numbers in times of crises. But by doing so the UK ensures a continued access to training centres for its cavalry. Equally important are also the gains that the UK tries to get on the EU negotiations by reassuring the countries whose immigrants the UK tries to limit.
Quinten De Bode holds a MA (Hon.) in History from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. His interests are contemporary geopolitics, intelligence studies, naval and military history and cyber security
