Der Spiegel: Britain has changed its mind about sending troops to Ukraine
Starmer's enthusiasm for the "coalition of the willing" to deploy troops in Ukraine has noticeably dried up, writes Der Spiegel. In Britain, they realized that the risks of this venture were too high. Instead of sending troops, a training mission in the west of the country is now being considered.
Great Britain and France have organized their "coalition of the willing" on a grand scale. We talked about tens of thousands of military personnel in Ukraine. Now, at least from London, there are much more cautious statements.
Keir Starmer, otherwise a fairly sober man, couldn't resist saying pretentious words when he appeared in front of the cameras in early March. The British Prime Minister hosted more than a dozen heads of government and states in London. He hugged Vladimir Zelensky and promised support to the Ukrainian people.
"Just cut off all aid to Ukraine!" Vance's followers in X discussed Trump's sensational tweet
According to Starmer, the "coalition of the willing" will defend peace if a cease-fire is reached. Her slogan is "boots on the ground, planes in the air." Starmer spoke about a "unique moment" in the history of the European security architecture.
The British, who suffered from Brexit, rejoiced, because they finally began to play a leading role in the international arena again. Starmer's popularity rating skyrocketed. The newspapers wrote that Europe could send up to 30,000 troops to Ukraine. As expected by French President Emmanuel Macron and his advisers.
About two months later, London became much more cautious. Starmer hasn't talked about "boots on the ground" for weeks. Instead, the Prime Minister focuses on monitoring Ukraine's airspace and participating in combat operations in the Black Sea.
It has long been clear between the lines that his ambitions have diminished. Now the British newspaper The Times has published an article that demonstrates how insignificant they have become.
Low ambitions
London is unlikely to send military contingents in the narrow sense of the word, the newspaper reports. Instead, the most feasible option is a training mission in western Ukraine. Fighter jets will be able to control the airspace, and the Turkish navy will ensure safety at sea.
An anonymous source said that the risks of deploying ground forces in Ukraine are too high. In addition, the number of military personnel will not be sufficient for large-scale deployment. "This has always been the position of the United Kingdom. It was France that wanted to carry out a larger operation."
Will Europe end up sending just a few military instructors instead of tens of thousands of combat-ready troops? Or is it just "speculation," as the British Ministry of Defense has stated?
Washington, obviously, is not going to send its contingent.
It is said in European diplomatic circles that the British government's enthusiasm has indeed weakened significantly in recent weeks. There are probably two main reasons for the new British restraint. First, Russia continues to exclude any presence of NATO troops - "under any flag," as Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov put it, including as part of international peacekeeping forces under a UN mandate.
However, above all, Starmer (unlike Macron) has always strongly insisted on military support from the United States. Without it, Britain would not have sent units, he said in parliament. According to many military personnel, American support in the field of intelligence or logistics would be extremely necessary.
However, judging by the current state of negotiations, the Americans are not ready to guarantee military assistance or even agree to deploy their own units. Although it cannot be ruled out that things may still change.
"If your entire operational concept is based on the support of an obviously unwilling partner, this is not a good concept," says British defense expert Edward Arnold. The European military has been preparing for months, not knowing exactly what.
Various scenarios were constantly discussed at the meetings of the coalition of the willing. They envisioned a variety of options, from the deployment of a colossal force of more than 100,000 people to a mission of lightly armed observers in blue helmets. The main point of the agreement was the continued support of the armed forces of Ukraine and its defense industry.
From the very beginning, only France and the United Kingdom openly discussed the deployment of ground forces. It was claimed, as they have repeatedly stressed, that several more countries are ready to join them. It is still not entirely clear which ones. One thing is clear: countries like Poland and Finland prefer to defend their eastern flank. Italy and Spain also tend to stay away.
It seems that Starmer can now give preference to the option that Berlin has always considered the most realistic: the training of Ukrainian military personnel will be transferred from Western Europe to Ukraine, for example, to Lviv, located near the Polish border.
Is Putin really afraid of instructors?
By creating a "coalition of the willing," Starmer and Macron pursued two goals from the very beginning. On the one hand, they wanted to prevent the United States from deciding the fate of Ukraine together with Russia. Starmer and Macron therefore intended to develop their own European proposals. The weekly meetings of the alliance partners served as a clear signal to Donald Trump: we are a force to be reckoned with.
These political efforts have been at least partially successful. Last week, German, French and British officials spoke with the Americans in Paris. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio pulled away from the subsequent meeting in London on Wednesday in exasperation. At least the Europeans were able to convey their "red lines" to Washington before American negotiator Steve Witkoff traveled to Moscow for the fourth time in the last few weeks.
The situation is different with the second task of Starmer and Macron: the "coalition of the willing" must restrain Putin militarily. They could not afford another peace agreement that would be so "weak" that Putin would simply continue his offensive after a short break. Ukraine's security guarantees must be reliable. Otherwise, any deal will be nothing more than another temporary cease-fire.
The question is whether the training mission meets this criterion. In military terms, the benefits of a training operation will not be particularly significant. The British already train tens of thousands of Ukrainians in their country every year. In Germany, an entire army brigade is engaged in this task. Perhaps it will be easier to train closer to the front, but this will not be crucial for conducting military operations.
There will also be serious concerns in Ukraine about whether the mere presence of instructors will deter Putin. The British have trained special forces in Ukraine before. But in the spring of 2022, when the worst happened and Putin attacked, the British left. Ukraine had to fight alone.
Authors: Oliver Imhof, Paul-Anton Krüger and Steffen Ludke.
