Has the Joint Expeditionary Force been a success?
Has the Joint Expeditionary Force been a success?
The Big Ask | No. 10.2024
The Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) was formally established ten years ago this week. The minilateral defence coalition made up of Britain, the Netherlands, the Baltic and Nordic states, and Iceland, is designed to bring together a group of like-minded nations to provide expeditionary capabilities, enhance deterrence and improve cooperation, integration and interoperability of its members’ armed forces.
While the grouping has been relatively obscure in the public eye, since the invasion of Ukraine by Russia the JEF has become more important as the threat to European security has grown. So, in this week’s Big Ask, we asked seven experts: Has the Joint Expeditionary Force been a success and how should the minilateral grouping develop in the future?
Research Fellow in Northern European Security, Finnish Institute of International Affairs
From a Finnish point of view, the JEF is an important puzzle piece in the layered defence concept that is emerging post-North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) accession. The first and most important layer remains Finland’s national defence capability. The Nordic defence cooperation framework, NORDEFCO, and the JEF build an intermediate layer, which works both as a gap-filler between national defence and NATO’s Article 5, and as a first response force in an early phase of a conflict or a below-threshold situation. NATO’s Article 5 and the nuclear umbrella provide the top layer of deterrence which will hopefully render armed conflict unlikely.
Being a flexible format, the JEF can also provide a useful tool to counter the growing challenge of hybrid threats. Incidents are increasing everywhere in Europe, but due to its proximity to Russia, the Nordic-Baltic region is particularly exposed to Russia’s below-threshold – so-called ‘grey zone’ – aggression. The JEF could work as a platform to develop best practices in countering grey zone aggression, for example by establishing information exchange and coordinated response mechanisms. Such mechanisms, if successful, could then be scaled up to a NATO and/or European Union (EU) level. As a like-minded minilateral group, developing best practices among the JEF nations can be more feasible than within the larger institutions.
Senior Lecturer in National Security Studies, King’s College London
The ten year anniversary of the formal establishment of the JEF is an opportune moment to reflect on its value. For the Nordic and Baltic partners, the JEF enables them to shore up their collective security and demonstrate commitment to partnerships in defence, particularly in confronting Russian irredentism in the East, and the increasing militarisation of the Arctic.
The JEF’s ability to deploy forces rapidly and conduct joint operations strengthens deterrence and provides these smaller nations with an agile and flexible military capability that supersedes what they can accomplish individually.
For the smaller states, the success of the JEF lies in its capacity to foster deeper, structured military integration and interoperability with larger allies, particularly the UK. This not only enhances their defence posture, but also amplifies their voices within a strategic European framework. In turn, Britain’s ambition to enhance regional security aligns closely with these partners. Together, therefore, the JEF presents an opportunity for equitable partnership in pursuing the shared goals of defending territorial sovereignty and maintaining stability in the Baltic Sea region. With the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO (meaning all JEF participating countries are now NATO members), political will and strategic coherence are stronger than ever.
Looking ahead, the JEF could be further strengthened by enhancing its capabilities in cyber defence, intelligence sharing, and joint readiness. While the challenges confronting European defence continue to mount, this expeditionary ‘Little Engine that Could’ has shown that even a relatively small, determined coalition can achieve significant impact.
Sir Michael Fallon
Secretary of State for Defence (2014-2017)
Ten years ago this month, at the NATO Wales Summit, I launched the JEF. The JEF is unique in originally including countries outside NATO and the EU. Unlike NATO, it operates entirely on consensus: members simply opt in or out of particular missions.
At first, we thought it might operate on essentially humanitarian or peacekeeping missions: it was never intended as an integrated or permanent force. However, its scope has evolved well beyond just humanitarian work, meanwhile its membership has grown to ten, in itself a tribute to the JEF’s usefulness.
There have been regular deployments in the Baltic, with the Royal Navy working alongside ships from the three Baltic states. All countries in the GIUK Gap are now members, dove-tailing with NATO’s Iceland Air Policing missions. Member navies now train together and exercise together, patrolling the High North and safeguarding critical subsea infrastructure in the Baltic and Atlantic. Missions have included air defence exercises – with the United States (US) – and cyber, space and information operations, concentrating on countering hybrid threats below the threshold of war.
The future for the JEF? I’m sure it will expand again. Poland has every interest in supporting a well-defended Baltic. Ireland could better protect its Atlantic cabling through the JEF framework without committing to the NATO Treaty. And there are other geographies where the JEF concept – flexible, consensual, ad hoc – could work profitably, such as the eastern Mediterranean, and one day the Black Sea too.
Gunilla Herolf
Senior Associate Research Fellow, Swedish Institute of International Affairs
Sweden joined the JEF together with Finland in 2017. At that time, neither country had plans to join NATO, but since 2014, both Sweden and Finland have become ever more concerned about Russian aggression, including its impact in the High North.
Because of Swedish non-alignment doctrine, cooperation with a NATO country, including assurances of military support, was excluded, but other kinds of NATO cooperation were not – and had been pursued for a long time. From 2014, the security aspect of cooperation became even more important and Sweden actively sought participation in bilateral and multilateral cooperation having a focus on northern Europe. A strong perceived advantage of the JEF in this context was its rapid reaction capability, meaning that it could act at a very early stage of a conflict or in a grey zone crisis.
Since 2017, the JEF has made significant contributions to security in northern Europe and is even more important now, due to increased Russian aggression. The accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO also brought operational synergies to the JEF. As stated in the October 2023 Strategic Partnership agreement between the UK and Sweden, enhancing strategic stability and strengthening deterrence in northern Europe is a key priority for both countries. The strengthening of the JEF, including the building of interoperability and military options in response to regional crises, as outlined in the agreement, will therefore be a very good and much-needed development. It will also be a good complement to the NATO regional plans and should furthermore be connected to the northern Group cooperation.
Research Fellow, Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Yes, the JEF has been a success. This was by no means a guarantee at its inception in 2014. Minilateral military cooperation has a mixed history, contrasting greatly from permanent alliances such as NATO. Agreed for specific issues, minilateral cooperation is less institutionalised but more ad hoc and flexible. Some arrangements are important at certain times but then drift as strategic circumstances evolve. Other initiatives fail to fully optimise and need significant later adjustments, such as the EU Battlegroups.
Much of the JEF’s success is because of the UK’s consistent commitment as its framework nation. The JEF’s other members are smaller states that, once confident of Britain’s consistent leadership, see value in enthusiastically committing their own resources. While continuing to prioritise readiness and interoperability, the JEF must adapt as strategic circumstances change. It has recently branched out considerably across land, sea and air operations. Widening is probably approaching its limit, but plentiful scope remains to deepen the JEF’s existing competences.
Adaptation of military exercises for specific defence scenarios in Northern Europe is vital to maintain the JEF’s important niche supplementing its members’ contributions to wider EU and NATO initiatives. JEF members have similar military needs and, when equipment upgrades are necessary but expensive, it should be a no-brainer to view the JEF as an important place for members to discuss joint procurements, pooling orders where possible to leverage better economies of scale to reduce costs.
Visiting Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Since 2014, the JEF has quietly become the workhorse of defence and security in Northern Europe. Led by the UK, it is a standout example of how small groups of like-minded nations can overcome the collective action problem that blights European defence cooperation.
While it was established a decade ago, the JEF came of age in 2022 after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It ramped up operations to deliver multi-domain reassurance and deterrence missions in Northern Europe and provided a high-level political forum for Northern European leaders to coordinate support for Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine, often joined these meetings, while Ukraine has been invited to observe future JEF exercises.
The JEF has continued to evolve, adapting its focus towards countering hybrid threats to undersea infrastructure. Future development of the JEF should address three questions: 1. How does the JEF fit into the proliferation of initiatives to protect Europe’s critical undersea infrastructure? 2. Does the JEF now need its own standing forces to deliver its ten year vision? 3. Should the JEF expand to include new members and partners?
Leadership of the JEF should remain a top priority for Britain. The JEF is a ready-made ‘NATO first’ policy, given its roots in NATO’s ‘Framework Nations Concept’ and the UK’s 2012 commitment to put ‘NATO at the heart of UK Defence.’ The JEF also provides an important foundation stone for a stronger ‘European pillar’ of NATO.
Freelance Security and Defence Consultant
Conflict, battle, and even NATO is changing. As the most structurally established military alliance in operation, NATO leads in the practice of collective defence, including altering the structure of necessary military response. This includes the JEF, a Framework Nation Concept. Despite being established ten years ago, its significance has increased in the last two years, due to the addition of Finland and Sweden to NATO, but also because of the escalation of regional conflicts. It would still be premature to declare the organisation a definitive ‘success’, but it is a move in the right strategic direction.
NATO – but primarily Britain and the US – have spent the last 20 years fighting land wars in the Middle East, but conflict is returning to the high seas. The purpose of the Framework Nation Concept is to enhance the capabilities of European nations, effectively and rapidly. As a subsidiary minilateral alliance, the JEF operates in affiliation to, but separately from, NATO.
NATO, like any other multilateral organisation, faces procedural challenges. Decisions of the North Atlantic Council (NAC) are adopted by unanimity, and there simply is not always a consensus among NATO allies. Further, the specific regional challenges are best adopted by those closest to the conflict. The High North, North Atlantic and the Baltic Sea is an area that needs to be secured. Because of historic and established naval knowledge, the UK is the correct nation to lead this initiative. The JEF presents an opportunity for Britain to be a leader in defence, and tactically prepare for the impending phase of warfare.
If you enjoyed this Big Ask, please subscribe or pledge your support!
What do you think about the perspectives put forward in this Big Ask? Why not leave a comment below?