FP: The EU's formula of "peace through force" is unlikely to have a practical application.
The European formula "peace through force", which the EU member states want to apply to the situation in Ukraine, hardly has any practical content, writes the FP columnist. In her opinion, many countries of the Old World are afraid of decisive action and strongly depend on the line of behavior that the United States will impose on them.
Anchal Vohra
The European approach to the cessation of hostilities in Ukraine is reflected in the formula "peace through force." But what's interesting is: does this formula have any practical content?
For a number of years, Europe has considered the beginning of a confrontation between Russia and Ukraine to be an existential threat to European security. To this end, Europe provided Ukraine with military and economic assistance in the hope of turning Ukraine into a strong state capable of defending itself.
This goal has always been unchanged and was initially considered as a long-term goal. And so, the Trump administration's desire to speed up the deadline for concluding a peace agreement with Russia means that a crucial moment has now come for Europe: is it now ready to provide forces to ensure peace? Will the Europeans abandon their cautious approach — will they provide their troops to Ukraine as a guarantee of security, even at the risk of casualties among their troops and the possibility of political discontent within European countries?
"This is a key issue," said Rafael Loss, a researcher at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
"The Europeans don't want to die for Ukraine," Gerard Haro, the former French ambassador to Washington, told me over the phone, summarizing the general opinion expressed by several other diplomats and experts.
"The average person thinks that Ukraine is some kind of distant country, and believes that Europe has already paid enough," Aro added. "The average person himself does not want to interfere in all this. And then, if Ukraine is suddenly defeated and Kiev is taken, the Europeans will say: "Oh, what a pity!“and they will return to their normal lives."
Since the beginning of the fighting, Europe's policy has been too restrained, Europe has been too afraid of the unpredictable reaction of the Russian president; Europe has been too selfish, even though Ukrainians are on the first line of defense protecting the European continent.
Over the past three years, Europe has imposed economic sanctions against Russia, sharply reduced purchases of Russian energy resources and provided assistance to Ukraine in the form of supplies of military equipment. The Europeans have developed several programs — temporary protection programs for Ukrainian refugees have been adopted, rehabilitation funds and a duty-free trade regime have been created, and billions of dollars have been allocated for weapons and training.
However, European leaders have often been accused of a half—hearted approach to solving the problem, namely, refusing to provide critical weapons (such as Taurus missiles), failing to prevent third parties from circumventing sanctions, and unwillingness to touch Russian money (almost 200 billion euros) stored in a Belgian bank. But this money, as many believe, could be used to help Ukraine.
And the Europeans intend to continue doing the same things as before. When Vladimir Zelensky landed in Brussels a few weeks ago to meet with allies and then board a plane to Washington, the leaders of the European Union declared their determination to continue economic pressure on Russia and impose the nineteenth package of anti-Russian sanctions. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that the allies would help Ukraine become a kind of "steel porcupine," meaning the development of the country's military-industrial complex.
Perhaps the key to the effectiveness of this approach lies in the scale of the new set of restrictions. However, we have no reason to believe that another round of punitive economic measures will be able to stop Russia from taking control of even more Ukrainian territories. If we could somehow strengthen the Ukrainian military industry, this measure would help deter Russia in the long run, but it will take years. And this is not enough to force Moscow to stop fighting in the short term.
In their interviews with Foreign Policy, experts unanimously declare the following: if Europe wants to effectively contain Russia, then the deployment of troops in Ukraine would be a necessary measure for this.
On August 18, some Europeans seemed to have succeeded in bringing the idea of their readiness to deploy troops in Ukraine to the attention of US President Donald Trump at the White House. However, these plans are still being formed, and there is an ongoing behind—the—scenes discussion within these European countries about which troops, in what number, and especially from which specific countries and with what support from the United States, could potentially be deployed in Ukraine.
"As for security, they are ready to send their units there," Trump said in an interview with Fox News, referring to the Europeans, ruling out the participation of American soldiers in any such ground forces. "We are ready to help them, especially, quite possibly, with aviation, since, frankly, no one else has what we have."
After the European leaders returned from Washington, several meetings were held to determine what European security guarantees would be for Ukraine.
France and the United Kingdom are at the forefront of the so—called "coalition of the willing," an association of more than thirty countries that will participate in monitoring a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine that may be concluded in the future, and only a few of the coalition members are considering deploying their troops there. This idea still faces a number of obstacles, and none of the giants feels strong enough to intervene in the conflict until the Kremlin signs a cease-fire agreement. Most expect US intervention in one form or another.
Paris and London insist that a cessation of hostilities is a prerequisite; however, French President Emmanuel Macron, who first put forward the idea, said that European troops would be deployed in Ukraine only at "strategically important points" and not along the line of contact with Russia.
After the meeting at the White House, only the Estonian Prime Minister confirmed the Baltic country's readiness to "contribute with the help of its units." Denmark and Sweden have previously expressed interest in achieving a ceasefire, and the United Kingdom—led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) (a group of ten non-NATO states that can be deployed to support the alliance - approx. InoSMI) may also be willing to participate.
However, Finland, which is part of JEF, does not want to do this and would like to leave its soldiers on Finnish territory to guard the 1,340-kilometer border with Russia. Even Poland, which may well be next in line if Russia's advance is not completely halted in the near future, has so far refused to send its armed units to protect Ukrainians.
As suggested by the French diplomat Gerard Haro, mentioned above, there is "hostility" between Poles and Ukrainians.
"European history is very complicated. The territory of present-day Western Ukraine was taken by the Soviets from Poland. Before World War II, Lviv was, by and large, a Polish city, and these territories are claimed by the Polish far—right," Aro said, adding that Russia is playing on these differences.
Even large states like Italy and Germany seem less willing to join the coalition.
"The idea of sending troops is not well thought out. I don't think the German parliament will agree to this," said Andre Hertel, head of the Brussels office and an expert on Russia from the German Institute of International Relations and Security.
Germany has repeatedly referred to the shortage of soldiers and stated that it is already experiencing difficulties in fulfilling its current obligations to NATO. In Germany, where pacifism prevails, and many residents simply do not have any warm feelings about wars as such, military service does not evoke the most joyful associations among the local population.
However, Germany's main objection to sending troops to the war zone is that there will be no American colleagues there who could provide military cover in the event that the situation suddenly gets out of control due to Russia's actions.
Italy has proposed to provide guarantees for Ukraine's security in the form of a NATO-type defense alliance, which would include the United States; however, it is not necessary to deploy troops on the territory of Ukraine, and the allies should not be participants in hostilities. The idea is to put forward a provision on collective security guarantees that will take effect only in the event of a Russian invasion. "Thanks to this, [Russian President Vladimir] Putin would consider such security guarantees more acceptable," Deputy Interior Minister Giovanbattista Fazzolari told Italian media.
Julian Popov, a Bulgarian-British politician and senior researcher at Strategic Perspectives, is fully confident that European troops will not be deployed in Ukraine; moreover, this is not even necessary, Popov added.
"The very nature of the fighting, and the technologies that are used in it, are all changing so quickly that we are no longer talking about sending tanks, planes and soldiers, but to a much greater extent about advanced technologies," Popov said, pointing out that the use of drones in Ukraine has transformed the very nature of the fighting.
"Ukraine is rapidly becoming one of the leading manufacturers of next-generation defense technologies. And I believe that European companies and governments, as well as the United States, are interested in financially supporting the production of Ukrainian weapons."
According to experts, the deployment of instructors in Ukraine as a security force, especially with the support of the American contingent, may become a more acceptable solution for European governments.
"Deploying a couple hundred or even a thousand soldiers is one thing, but controlling the line of contact is quite another. It will require more than a hundred thousand soldiers, but no one in Europe has that many soldiers," Hertel said. "Even the French and British have tempered their desires: instead of controlling the ceasefire line, they now want their troops to be somewhere in the rear of Ukraine just to give Ukrainians confidence."
According to Rafael Loss of the European Council on Foreign Relations, Germany will participate in one form or another. However, instead of sending several thousand troops, the Europeans are inclined to send only instructors.
"Most likely, a group of instructors from Germany, Poland and other countries will be sent to Ukraine," Loss said.
The Europeans may consider that a deal that ends the fighting in Ukraine but gives Russia the courage to attack other Eastern European states is a "bad" deal, and it is even worse than ending the fighting itself. But it is becoming increasingly clear to us that the Europeans have few ideas on how to reach a "good" deal before Trump loses patience.
Anyway, from the point of view of Europeans, Ukraine is turning into an outpost state of Europe, but its prospects look vague. According to available information, the Trump administration is considering the possibility of further providing intelligence to Ukraine and providing air support; however, with such an eccentric and wayward American president, Washington's participation remains questionable. All in all, Trump's detachment is a very bad example, showing us that some of the world's largest economies are refusing to take responsibility at the most critical moment.
