The discussion on an earlier post turned to me asking this question. Can the UK repeat the Falklands if it happened today?
Some took the question as being a direct repeat of the events that led to that war, but I was asking it in a larger context.
If British territory was seized, could they retake it? Not necessarily the Falklands but anywhere in the world.
After talking with friends, I realize that isn't the right question.
The right question is this...Is the European Union, as its currently organized, capable of mustering the forces of its member nations to be able to come to the defense of any of its members to regain territory.
The answer that we arrived at was maybe. It would all depend on if the territory was a colonial holdover, if the territory's people wanted to remain part of the member countries sphere of influence etc...
Two elements of the EU's military bear watching.
The Rapid Deployment Force (information is hard to come by...does it even exist)
The Anti-Piracy Task Force
More to come.
The list of "friends" & "foes" also has changed over the years.
ReplyDeleteDoes the EU or anyone care about the UK losing the Falklands?
ReplyDelete@Anonymous 8:17
ReplyDeleteGuantánamo Bay to USA is Falkland Islands to the UK. It's arguably never theirs to begin with.
Well, Guantanamo, like the rest of Cuba is rightfully ours. We won it fair and square.
ReplyDeleteWell, Jim, that's exactly the sort of
ReplyDeleteattitude and perception that lead to the demise of an empire, any empire/expansionist.
Probably. Britain still maintains a strong expeditionary land force capability, especially with the Royal Marine Commando and Parachute Regiments not being touched under SDSR.
ReplyDeleteUK Specops capability is absolutely world class and RN amphibious capability is and will remain strong. If they have to fight against a solid air threat, without their own land based air combat capability within range, then they might be in trouble, but short of a significant air threat, they will be fine.
I can't really envisage the UK having to fight a significant air threat, outside the range of land based air power, without the USN being present...
My belief is an emphatic, 'No'. This is not based on an inability to field sufficient troops to repel an invasive force, but rather a lack of collective will to support any individual nation's claim on a territory. The EU seldom agrees on domestic, political or economic matters let alone having to muster a force that would be put in harm's way, cost precious Euros to operate, or more importantly, put them at odds with nations upon which they are dependent.
ReplyDeleteThere are the European Union Battlegroups (1.500 to 2.500, light/mechanised/mixed infantry battalion plus artillery battery, armoured reconnaissance company, engineer company, ... and an aviation element, e.g. attack helicopter, fighter aircraft, ..., there's talk about creating a permanent multinational operations headquarters for the EUBG, there's a French-German-Polish (the so-called Weimar Triangle) intitiative to enhance the EUs military capabilities/save money/...) and the Helsinki Headline Goal which is just a force catalogue (units are often assigned both to the HHG and to NATO).
ReplyDeleteYour question: Is the European Union, as its currently organized, capable of mustering the forces of its member nations to be able to come to the defense of any of its members to regain territory.
Lisbon Treaty Article 2: "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain
Member States." This also applies to the overseas territories included in the Lisbon Treaty (in case of the UK only Gibraltar and Akrotiri and Dhekelia). So there's an at least legally binding defence agreement.
I don't doubt that the EU member states can muster enough forces to retake occupied overseas territories. But the EU lacks its own military headquarters and would have to rely on one of the national or NATO HQs.
Land forces: Airborne (~ 28 airborne infantry battalions plus enough combat support and combat service support troops for at least ten brigades) and amphibious forces (~ 20 amphibious infantry battalions and enough combat support and combat service support troops for about five brigades). Add to that various light and medium troops, more than 200 attack helicopter (not counting the aging Mi-24) and quite a lot of transport helicopter.
Air forces: Large number of fighter aircraft, EW/SEAD specialized fighter aircraft, few military heavy lift aircraft, large number of tactical transport aircraft, transport and refueling aircraft, few long range reconnaissance aircraft, few AWACS (not counting the NATO AWACS force which is mostly European staffed), few ground surveillance aircraft (not counting NATO's Alliance Ground Surveillance project). There are military bases around the globe, in overseas territories and allied countries.
Maritime forces: Commercial shipping available on short notice through several contracts with private companies. Probably only one supercarrier and one light carrier available at any given time, increasing number of LHDs and LPDs, increasing number of missile destroyers/frigates, onyl 13 nuclear attack submarines, large number of slow AIP or modern diesel electric submarines.
The Common Defence and Security Policy is a work in progress and a lot of capabilities and capacities are spread out to NATO, the EU and bilateral agreements.
Franks, you and a few others locked onto my point with this post.
ReplyDeleteI finally locked onto what the UK military is heading to...along with the Germans, Netherlands, Romanians, and all the other EU members with the exception (in my opinion of the French, Italians and Spain)...they are designing their forces to fight only as part of a coalition.
they'll maintain the ability to conduct humanitarian operations...evacuation of embassies but independent operations are going to be a stretch.
To base an entire defence strategy on the notion of having to go an retake the Falklands would be a complete dereliction. To have to go a do it very expensively in blood and treasure in 1982 was a grave error, to go and have to do it again would be ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThis is why we base the strategy on diplomacy and good relations first, then intelligence to provide us some notice of intentions, then an effective deterrent based on a range of capabilities, then a well rehearsed reinforcement plan, then a defence based on a deep understanding the terrain and 30 years of planning and then if, and only if, all those things have failed, an ability to mount an amphibious operation to retake the islands.
Lets just assume for one moment that Argentina suddenly changes from being a progressive democracy that occasionally rattles a sabre when it senses some commercial advantage to a raving dictatorship hell bent on having another pop at the title.
So the politics completely changes and we fail to notice, they decide they need to go again and we stay at a low level of readiness.
Whats in the Argentine military cupboard, oh dear, it would seem to be rather bare.
Then they decide to rearm and yet again we fail to notice them transforming their armed forces that have more or less stood still for 30 years.
So we have arrived at a point where the politics has changed and we have missed the signs and to compound our grave error and the attention of the worlds media they have transformed their military and launched an attack.
They have to get past the small matter of a flight of Typhoon, the FIDF, Rapier FSC, roulement company of one of the most experienced armed forces in the world whose officers and men when deployed to the Islands do nothing but working on plans for defending the islands. What about the FI guard ship, APT(S) and the non insignificant matter on a fully armed SSN always mooching around the area.
Lets again, suspend belief and assume that Argentine forces have taken the islands.
How exactly are they going to sustain their force with a Navy sitting in port or on the bottom and a complete lack of control of the sea, with SSN launched Tomahawks landing on their air fields and an amphibious force on the way South containing Aster armed T45 plus various others and thousands of soldiers/Royal Marines/Gurkha absolutely itching to get their own South Atlantic medal
Seriously, it beggars belief
Apart from the South Atlantic, we don't have any overseas territories that are even remotely under threat, the Pitcairns, Bermuda or Gibralter for example.
On the wider question, could the EU mount an out of area amphibious operation. Of course it could, but the real question is, does it as a collective have the minerals to do so.
Not so sure about that, I for one would not rely on it.
Franks, are you sure the Lisbon Treaty only recognises Gib and Cyprus SBA?
The Falkland Islands are associated with the European Union as an overseas territory of the UK in accordance with Articles 198/204 of Part Four of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
This puts them firmly under the auspices of Article 42.7
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
This would also apply to any other overseas territory as well, this is of course a 2 way street.
its not just about the Falklands but any territory that has UK citizens requesting assistance.
ReplyDeletei used that only as the starting point here.
Hi Sol
ReplyDeleteThe Falkland Island question always raises a smile because we do not base our military stance, strategy or capabilities on retaking them. Through failures in intelligence we had to mount a very expensive operation to retake them, we will not make the same mistake again.
The scenario where Argentine forces manage to retake the islands is to be honest a bit Tom Clancy.
We base our defence of the area on a number of principles; the first is that of quiet but firm diplomacy, it is not in the islander’s interest to have a belligerent Argentina and they have held out several olive branches over the years, most of which tend to be rebuffed or taken and then thrown back. Beyond diplomacy is intelligence, the world is a more connected place and it is very unlikely they would be able to mount an operation without us knowing in advance.
Argentina is a progressive democracy, not a mad dictatorship wanting to raise the spectre of nationalism to deflect the people from their woes so in this respect it is highly unlikely that beyond the sabre rattling, Argentina will actually do anything.
Let’s just assume that we have failed to notice a complete change in intent and Argentina, not being at all deterred by the forces on and around the islands, decides to mount an operation to take the Islands they would need to look what was in the military cupboard, oh dear, it would seem to be rather bare.
So they realise they need to modernise their armed forces with a range of capabilities they no longer have, do you think for one second this would go un-noticed and we have failed to put into action the extremely well rehearsed reinforcement plans.
Suspending belief for a moment; let’s now assume they have both changed their national political stance and modernised their military without us noticing and have launched an attack. The first challenge is to knock out the defenders.
Based at RAF Mount Pleasant is a flight of four Typhoon, a Hercules and VC10 tanker and these would be combined with the various radar sites and Rapier FSC GBAD system to make an airborne approach rather dicey. Then there is the Falkland Islands Defence Force and roulement infantry company, the latter being well equipped and rather experienced (most of them would have a very good tan!) For the last 30 years the defence forces have been doing more than working every angle, rehearsing every scenario and making sure that any attack would have to be tip top to even get ashore, let alone consolidate ground.
ReplyDeleteThis ignores the FI Patrol Ship, APT(S) ship and a likely SSN in the area and given even a few hours notice several Typhoon and C17/A400 would be on their way as well.
What about sustainment, would be pretty difficult without a single Argentine naval vessel because they would all be on the bottom, courtesy of various SSN’s and whilst we are talking about sustainment, the forces now ashore would have to face constant attacks from dispersed forces. Sustainment by air would be rather difficult whilst your airbases have been attacked by SSN launched Tomahawks
If complete air superiority has not been achieved then the RAF might be able to land and/or airdrop forces direct from Ascension.
So now the Argentine forces are firmly ensconced on the Islands, dealt with all forces in and around the islands and are waiting for a response. They had better dig in quick because now there is an amphibious capability on its way south that is hugely more capable than 1982, surrounded by a naval force that is likewise hugely more capable. Already operating in the area special forces have been infiltrated by submarine and with a combination of direct and indirect attacks have started to destroy the morale of the invaders, take a toll on comms facilities and more or less made sure they are cut off from resupply.
It’s an interesting debating point but not really relevant to the disposition of the wider force structures.
On your wider question, again, very interesting, I think in terms of capability, absolutely yes. Combining EU forces actually creates a very capable group but the real question is not ‘could they’ it is ‘would they’
Despite the Lisbon Treaty covering the Falkland Islands (and others) in the self defence article I rather doubt the treaty would stand up to much in the real world.
The SDSR created something called Future Force 2020, which basically moves the UK to a structure that provides capabilities to sustain a Brigade indefinitely on an enduring operation and a one off of three Brigades, along with supporting capabilities.
On other territories, we don't have any that are under any credible threat
Could we do a Falklands today, yes, absolutely
Would we need to, highly unlikely
Could the EU do a similar out of area operation, yes, absolutely
Would the EU do a similar out of area operation, maybe, after taking 6 months to decide the operations name!
Based at RAF Mount Pleasant is a flight of four Typhoon, a Hercules and VC10 tanker and these would be combined with the various radar sites and Rapier FSC GBAD system to make an airborne approach rather dicey. Then there is the Falkland Islands Defence Force and roulement infantry company, the latter being well equipped and rather experienced (most of them would have a very good tan!) For the last 30 years the defence forces have been doing more than working every angle, rehearsing every scenario and making sure that any attack would have to be tip top to even get ashore, let alone consolidate ground.
ReplyDeleteThis ignores the FI Patrol Ship, APT(S) ship and a likely SSN in the area and given even a few hours notice several Typhoon and C17/A400 would be on their way as well.
What about sustainment, would be pretty difficult without a single Argentine naval vessel because they would all be on the bottom, courtesy of various SSN’s and whilst we are talking about sustainment, the forces now ashore would have to face constant attacks from dispersed forces. Sustainment by air would be rather difficult whilst your airbases have been attacked by SSN launched Tomahawks
If complete air superiority has not been achieved then the RAF might be able to land and/or airdrop forces direct from Ascension.
So now the Argentine forces are firmly ensconced on the Islands, dealt with all forces in and around the islands and are waiting for a response. They had better dig in quick because now there is an amphibious capability on its way south that is hugely more capable than 1982, surrounded by a naval force that is likewise hugely more capable. Already operating in the area special forces have been infiltrated by submarine and with a combination of direct and indirect attacks have started to destroy the morale of the invaders, take a toll on comms facilities and more or less made sure they are cut off from resupply.
It’s an interesting debating point but not really relevant to the disposition of the wider force structures.
On your wider question, again, very interesting, I think in terms of capability, absolutely yes. Combining EU forces actually creates a very capable group but the real question is not ‘could they’ it is ‘would they’
Despite the Lisbon Treaty covering the Falkland Islands (and others) in the self defence article I rather doubt the treaty would stand up to much in the real world.
The SDSR created something called Future Force 2020, which basically moves the UK to a structure that provides capabilities to sustain a Brigade indefinitely on an enduring operation and a one off of three Brigades, along with supporting capabilities.
On other territories, we don't have any that are under any credible threat
Could we do a Falklands today, yes, absolutely
Would we need to, highly unlikely
Could the EU do a similar out of area operation, yes, absolutely
Would the EU do a similar out of area operation, maybe, after taking 6 months to decide the operations name!
Based at RAF Mount Pleasant is a flight of four Typhoon, a Hercules and VC10 tanker and these would be combined with the various radar sites and Rapier FSC GBAD system to make an airborne approach rather dicey. Then there is the Falkland Islands Defence Force and roulement infantry company, the latter being well equipped and rather experienced (most of them would have a very good tan!) For the last 30 years the defence forces have been doing more than working every angle, rehearsing every scenario and making sure that any attack would have to be tip top to even get ashore, let alone consolidate ground.
ReplyDeleteThis ignores the FI Patrol Ship, APT(S) ship and a likely SSN in the area and given even a few hours notice several Typhoon and C17/A400 would be on their way as well.
What about sustainment, would be pretty difficult without a single Argentine naval vessel because they would all be on the bottom, courtesy of various SSN’s and whilst we are talking about sustainment, the forces now ashore would have to face constant attacks from dispersed forces. Sustainment by air would be rather difficult whilst your airbases have been attacked by SSN launched Tomahawks
If complete air superiority has not been achieved then the RAF might be able to land and/or airdrop forces direct from Ascension.
So now the Argentine forces are firmly ensconced on the Islands, dealt with all forces in and around the islands and are waiting for a response. They had better dig in quick because now there is an amphibious capability on its way south that is hugely more capable than 1982, surrounded by a naval force that is likewise hugely more capable. Already operating in the area special forces have been infiltrated by submarine and with a combination of direct and indirect attacks have started to destroy the morale of the invaders, take a toll on comms facilities and more or less made sure they are cut off from resupply.
It’s an interesting debating point but lets not get carried away
On your wider question, again, very interesting, I think in terms of capability, absolutely yes. Combining EU forces actually creates a very capable group but the real question is not ‘could they’ it is ‘would they’
ReplyDeleteDespite the Lisbon Treaty covering the Falkland Islands (and others) in the self defence article I rather doubt the treaty would stand up to much in the real world.
The SDSR created something called Future Force 2020, which basically moves the UK to a structure that provides capabilities to sustain a Brigade indefinitely on an enduring operation and a one off of three Brigades, along with supporting capabilities.
On other territories, we don't have any that are under any credible threat
Could we do a Falklands today, yes, absolutely
Would we need to, highly unlikely
Could the EU do a similar out of area operation, yes, absolutely
Would the EU do a similar out of area operation, maybe, after taking 6 months to decide the operations name!
sorry about my crappy posting technique, this one should be in between the two above (sorry)
ReplyDeleteBased at RAF Mount Pleasant is a flight of four Typhoon, a Hercules and VC10 tanker and these would be combined with the various radar sites and Rapier FSC GBAD system to make an airborne approach rather dicey. Then there is the Falkland Islands Defence Force and roulement infantry company, the latter being well equipped and rather experienced (most of them would have a very good tan!) For the last 30 years the defence forces have been doing more than working every angle, rehearsing every scenario and making sure that any attack would have to be tip top to even get ashore, let alone consolidate ground.
This ignores the FI Patrol Ship, APT(S) ship and a likely SSN in the area and given even a few hours notice several Typhoon and C17/A400 would be on their way as well.
What about sustainment, would be pretty difficult without a single Argentine naval vessel because they would all be on the bottom, courtesy of various SSN’s and whilst we are talking about sustainment, the forces now ashore would have to face constant attacks from dispersed forces. Sustainment by air would be rather difficult whilst your airbases have been attacked by SSN launched Tomahawks
If complete air superiority has not been achieved then the RAF might be able to land and/or airdrop forces direct from Ascension.
So now the Argentine forces are firmly ensconced on the Islands, dealt with all forces in and around the islands and are waiting for a response. They had better dig in quick because now there is an amphibious capability on its way south that is hugely more capable than 1982, surrounded by a naval force that is likewise hugely more capable. Already operating in the area special forces have been infiltrated by submarine and with a combination of direct and indirect attacks have started to destroy the morale of the invaders, take a toll on comms facilities and more or less made sure they are cut off from resupply.
I think that the Falklands just like most British overseas territories are not covered in the Treaty of Lisbon (typo in my first post, it's Article 42). The treaty distinguishes between Outermost Regions and Overseas countries and territories (and a few special cases like Gibraltar).
ReplyDeleteSol, this is indeed a very interesting topic, one that has been discussed several times in the Romanian military blogosphere as well, since the Falklands conflict is one of the most clear examples of what the future of military operations looks like for an expeditionary force(not that we have something to do with it).
ReplyDeleteBut for the sake of the idea, I totally agree with what thinkdefence said, a second Falklands scenario is not likely, because we're not living in the same world. Sure, the UK military has some cuts, just like all others, but it still maintains a force capable with dealing such threats, especially in terms of preemtive measures.
As for the EU military, that's an entirely different matter. This is where the UK, like the French, have a different approach since these are the only two EU contries that have expeditionary force capabilitiers. The UE military doesn't wnd will not exist because of the NATO alliance which is more than an assurance for the member countries, especially in today's realities.
Romania, which you've mentioned, is simply trying to maintain a skeleton force, a base to be used in case of need of extending their defence policy. We're trying to maintain an elite in terms of training and operating, with various small forces able to react quickly since our equipment, despite upgrading and limited aquisition, is aging rapidly.
It's not a matter on putting it on paper anymore. Military has become a low level priority for most european countries because no real large threat is forseen for the next decade. Where does Russia stand in this?
Franks
ReplyDeleteI am not an expert on EU treaties, is anyone, but I think Lisbon tidies up all these oddities
From article 198
The Member States agree to associate with the Union the non-European countries and territories … [including the Falkland Islands, as listed in Annex II]
The term associate is the important one
And then in Article 42.7
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power
The way I read it is, if Argentina attacks the FI then every Lisbon signatory (which includes Spain and Portugal ha ha) has a clear treaty obligation
If Argentina mounts even a token attack it will still be an attack and the UK would therefore have a legal right to go knocking on the neighbours doors for support. Whether they would answer or be hiding behind the settee pretending not to be in is entirely a different matter.
Thinkdefence, whilst I disagree somewhat with the assessment that the UK still have a very capabile amphibious capability, I agree with you on basically all your other points which largely mirror my comments made on an earlier topic - I assume which then inspired this topic.
ReplyDeleteThe question of an EU force responding to an act of violence such as this is an interesting one. I personally don't see a unified military response under an EU banner as being realistic under current political conditions.
However, all the key EU nations are also NATO members an so are bound to Article 5 of the NATO charter on mutual self-defence. As such any collective military response would thus likely be a NATO response under Article 5 (if envoked). Article 5 wasn't envoked during the Falklands as Britain didn't wish it to be and because at that time Article 5 only technically covered territory in the NATO area - ie: europe, the atlantic and N.America.
The utility of Article 5 has somewhat changed since the Falklands however, for example it was envoked against a terroist organisation - whilst technically it only related to state action - after 9/11. Article 5 is also generally now perceived to apply outside of NATO traditional areas as NATOs role has changed since the end of the cold war. So I think it probably that Article 5 could/would be envoked if the Falklands were re-invaded (especially after Britains previous commitment to the fact that they were not a colony, but a part of Britain).
So realistically I think you'd see a NATO rather than an EU response - the EU after all isn't a military alliance but a trade alliance with a few add-ons.
All of this misses the point of whether Argentina wants to militarily take back the Falklands to which the answer is no and it also misses the point of whether Argentina has the capability to reinvade the falklands, to which again the answer is no.
Furthermore, the original invasion was a gamble based on premise that Britain wouldn't try to retake them militarily. It would be political suicide for a modern UK government not to use force to defend/retake the Falklands. I don't think even the most delusional gambler would now roll the dice on a UK military response to any military aggression to the Falklands.
delarrn, I accept that the SDSR has reduced the amphib capacity somewhat it is still able (just) to shift a brigade plus don't forget, we will also have C17/A400 so the ability to project power is much better than 1982
ReplyDeletePlus, the quality is so much better
The the EU/NATO thing. I just can't see Spain sending the Juan Carlos south which would interestingly, be the death knell for the EU, at least for the UK. Without the UK pumping in vast sums of cash it is even possible that the EU would break up
Whilst it may have started as an economic alliance it certainly is not that now or in the future.
Look at the Lisbon Treaty, it quite clearly has collective defence and the way I read the various articles is that the FI is very definitely included. The treaty explicitly recognises the islands as part of the UK so an attack on it would allow the UK to invoke the equivalent of NATO Article 5
Given that Spain is a net debtor to the EU budget and the UK a net creditor I think it would actually be more than fair for the UK to expect Spain to live up to its treaty obligations, its happy enough taking the cash from the UK.
I could just see the headlines, would almost be worth Argentina having a go just for the fun of it!