London: As the US and Russia push ahead – so far without Ukraine at the table – on talks to end the war, political and military leaders in Europe are fleshing out details of a plan for European forces to help ensure Moscow does not attack again.
After months of quiet discussions, the proposal has become increasingly public. It will likely be on the agenda when British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, two major backers of the idea, visit Washington on separate days next week for talks with President Donald Trump.
Starmer, who will visit Thursday, has stressed that the force won’t work without US military might to back it up. Persuading Trump to provide it could be a tall order.
What is the plan?
The security guarantee that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy really wants is NATO membership. European members of the military alliance still back that goal, but the US looks to have taken it off the table, along with Ukrainian hopes of regaining the fifth of its territory seized by Russia.
In the absence of NATO membership, Zelenskyy has said that more than 100,000 European troops could be needed in Ukraine to guarantee the conflict does not flare up again after a ceasefire.
But Western officials say what’s being discussed is a “reassurance force,” not an army of peacekeepers posted along the 600-mile (1,000-kilometer) front line in Ukraine’s east.
The proposal backed by Britain and France would see fewer than 30,000 European troops on the ground in Ukraine – away from the front line at key infrastructure sites such as nuclear power plants – backed by Western air and sea power.
Under the plan, the front line would largely be monitored remotely, with drones and other technology. Air power based outside Ukraine – perhaps in Poland or Romania — would be in reserve to deter breaches and reopen Ukrainian airspace to commercial flights.
That could include US air power.
“There must be a U.S. backstop because a US security guarantee is the only way to effectively deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again,” Starmer said on Monday.
What do the Americans say?
Trump has long expressed the view that America’s NATO allies don’t pull their weight and that Europe must do more for its own security.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has told European allies that “there will not be U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine,” but has not ruled out American support such as air transport or logistics.
Gen. Keith Kellogg, Trump’s Ukraine envoy, said during a visit to NATO this week that all options must be kept on the table because the shape of any force will depend on the outcome of peace negotiations that have yet to be held.
Jamie Shea, a former senior NATO official, said “different people in the administration are sending different signals … Who do you believe is an issue.”
It’s unclear whether Ukraine will be happy with the proposal.
Russia, meanwhile, has rejected the idea outright. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said deployment of troops from NATO nations, even if not under the banner of the alliance, “will certainly be unacceptable for us.”
Are other European countries onboard?
Britain, France and the Nordic and Baltic states that are the closest NATO nations to Russia appear most likely to play the main roles in any force.
Italy has constitutional limits on the use of its forces. In some countries including The Netherlands, deploying troops would need parliament’s approval.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said his country, a key logistics base for support to Ukraine since the Russian invasion three years ago, will not send troops into its neighbor.
After a hastily arranged meeting of European leaders in Paris this week to discuss the war, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said talk of a Europe-lead security force was “premature.” Scholz said he was “a little irritated” that peacekeeping forces were even being discussed “at the wrong time.” He insisted NATO — not an independent European force — must remain the foundation of security.
Could the plan work?
The success of the plan depends on the nature of any agreement to stop the fighting. Russia has some 600,000 troops in Ukraine, and analysts say any ceasefire deal that leaves the bulk of them there is a recipe for renewed conflict.
France’s military has just over 200,000 personnel, Britain’s less than 150,000. Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, said Europe would struggle to mount a force even in the tens of thousands.
“European countries will have a limited ability to deploy something that can be sustained for multiple rotations, potentially over several years,” he said.
And it could be many years. Michael Clarke, visiting professor in war studies at King’s College London, noted that peacekeeping forces in Cyprus and Lebanon have remained in place for decades.
“If it is successful, it will last 20 or 30 years,” he said. “If it is not successful, it will break down into fighting inside two years.”
Lithuanian defense minister Dovile Šakaliene said there was truth in the Trump administration’s “painful” criticism of Europe’s defense spending and military strength.
“Russia is preparing for a long war,” she told the AP. “They have now three times the manpower and their defense industry is moving quicker than that of Europe. Does anybody believe that this is only aimed at Ukraine?
“What is the use of security guarantees from a weak party? Europe needs to muscle up right now to be actually able to provide security guarantees that will hold.”
