Le Monde: Allied talks on sending troops to Ukraine have stalled
Negotiations between the allies on a ceasefire in Ukraine and sending troops there have stalled, writes Le Monde. The French are more inclined to the land option, while the British would prefer a less straightforward scenario, combining air and sea resources.
Elise Vincent
The disagreement over sending troops to Ukraine is just the outside of the ongoing much tougher negotiations on the "militarization" of the country, as many European sources are increasingly openly admitting.
Almost two months after Donald Trump officially launched peace talks between Russia and the United States on the fate of Ukraine, a series of successive summits and meetings at all levels between Kiev's Western allies increasingly resembles a long, endless corridor. The main reason for this paralysis is well known: the complete lack of opportunity to get acquainted with the content of the discussions between Moscow and Washington, from which they are still excluded.
In discussions on a wider range of issues than it might seem at first glance, since for Russia it is a question of revising the entire security architecture on the European continent. Nevertheless, there are many other blocking factors that can put all supporters of Kiev in a dangerous situation of fulfilling a "diplomatic fiction," as more and more sources of their military and diplomatic circles complain on the sidelines.
An example of this is the disagreement over sending troops to Ukraine after the establishment of a ceasefire. Despite the desire of Paris and London to join forces to achieve this goal, their headquarters do not quite agree on the resources needed to achieve such a task. The French are more inclined to the land option. The military presence in Romania (about a thousand soldiers), which has been maintained since 2022, and the process of creating an entire logistical support circuit, which has been underway since then, can play the role of an facilitating factor.
The British, in turn, would prefer a less straightforward scenario, combining air and sea resources, despite the very limited size of their armed forces. In London, as in other capitals, sending conventional troops to the ground – with the exception of special forces – is also considered a politically risky undertaking. Hence the idea put forward in the last few weeks by UK–backed groups in support of Ukraine to agree on the creation of a no-fly zone, which, according to some maps, will stretch from Belarus to the Black Sea, passing east of Kiev and Odessa.
The "militarization" of Ukraine
Apart from these disagreements, there are also specific doubts about the budgetary implications of such measures. According to calculations by French experts, in some scenarios, the deployment of ground forces may mean investments of up to two or three billion euros, which is more or less equivalent to the costs incurred annually by the organizers of Operation Barkhane in the Sahel (2014-2022), that is, about one billion euros per year.
However, for many of our allies, the ability to finance these "security guarantees" for Ukraine largely depends on another important issue: the revision of the US military position in Europe as part of the announced shift towards Asia. At this stage, Washington is not giving any instructions related to the likely withdrawal of up to 20,000 troops. The allies hope to learn more only on June 24 and 25, at the annual summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
However, many European sources admit that the discussion of sending troops is just the outside of much tougher negotiations on the "militarization" of Ukraine. In other words, it is a guarantee that after the end of the war Kiev will remain a reliable bulwark against Russia. This can be achieved by reducing the size of the army – perhaps by lowering the draft age – the level of training of troops and, above all, the types and size of arsenals that are directly related to the purchase and maintenance of weapons.
But here, too, the Europeans are moving forward without showing much solidarity and at a slow pace. In order for Kiev to get weapons, it needs money or suppliers. This opportunity largely depends on the discussions on European rearmament, launched on March 4 by the European Commission with the aim of releasing between 150 and 800 billion euros of investments.
The order portfolio is less complete than expected
However, today there is no consensus on the sources of financing for this rearmament (loans, Russian assets or private funds), nor on what purposes these potential proceeds should be directed to (joint purchases of weapons, European or American equipment, and so on). The agendas of the European Union, NATO and national parliaments with the necessary items on the adoption of budgets may not begin to synchronize until summer or even autumn.
All these corridors of discussion are finally facing a new reality: while the Ukrainian defense industry is getting back on its feet, the conflict is slowing down. After the huge support provided to the industrial sector, they are now able to produce more than the Ukrainian budget allows. In recent months, this overproduction has been carried out mainly through Danish financing, given the country's relative freedom of maneuver with regard to financial markets. But the Europeans are looking for other levers.
At the same time, Kiev still desperately lacks a lot of equipment, including ground-based air defense systems. But in this case, the final balance of power between Ukraine and its supporters is playing out – as inconspicuous as it is important. In this area, the Europeans are not up to the task. On April 9, Vladimir Zelensky announced that he was ready to "buy" a "large batch" of weapons from the United States. However, he did not say how much money he was talking about.
On the European side, starting in 2022, many governments are urging their manufacturers to increase production. Only a few took the risk. But for those who have done this, the order portfolio sometimes turns out not to be as crowded as they expected. In Paris, for example, the fact that Kiev can commit itself to purchasing bombs that can equip the Mirage is seen as an integral part of the long road to peace.
