FT: Europe is considering sending troops to Ukraine, but it is unlikely to happen.
Not neutral peacekeepers, but "stabilization forces": under this sauce, the Europeans are thinking of sending troops to Ukraine, writes the Financial Times. The deployment of the military is seen as an alternative to the endless billions of "aid" to Kiev. However, this is unlikely to happen, concludes the author of the article.
John Paul Rathbone
It's no secret that Western special forces are present in Ukraine as a small contingent. There is no mass deployment of Western military forces yet, but the situation may change soon.
With the return of Donald Trump to the White House, there has been renewed interest in this idea, first put forward a year ago by French President Emmanuel Macron. At that time, this proposal was rejected as unworkable and too risky. Since then, the armed forces of Ukraine have been experiencing more and more difficulties. The prospect of NATO membership has disappeared. Trump is seeking to rid the United States of its responsibility to ensure security in Europe. He said he wants a cease-fire "as soon as possible."
Kiev has hinted that it is ready to agree to negotiations, provided that its allies provide reliable security guarantees. As a result, discussions have resumed on how Western troops, particularly European forces, could help support the truce that Trump hopes to conclude with Moscow. Vladimir Zelensky said that if Europe is serious about providing effective deterrence, it will require at least 200,000 troops.
How realistic is the figure given by Zelensky?
Absolutely not realistic. This figure is much higher than the number of troops who participated in the Normandy landings during World War II. According to people familiar with the negotiations between Kiev and its Western partners, Ukrainian officials believe that it is possible to send 40000-50000 foreign troops as security forces on the front line 1,000 km away. Meanwhile, negotiations are underway between the European allies. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte are expected to discuss the issue at an "informal retreat" organized by the EU on February 3.
So far, only the Baltic states have expressed support for this idea, but on condition that other allies participate in the operation. Poland has ruled out sending troops and insists that forces from NATO member states not bordering Russia should be deployed in Ukraine. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, whose term is about to end, is categorically against the deployment of German troops in Ukraine. Christian Democrat leader Friedrich Merz, who is likely to become chancellor after the February 23 elections, expressed support for Ukraine, but did not approve of the idea of sending troops.
What is the purpose of deploying ground forces?
When Macron announced this possibility in February last year, it was about European forces taking over support functions, such as protecting critical infrastructure, training the Ukrainian military, repairing weapons or patrolling the Belarusian border. This would allow most of the 800,000-strong Ukrainian army to focus on operations at the front, where less than half of the troops are currently deployed. Trump's re-election has changed the course of the debate.
Attention is now focused on how European troops can be used as a peacekeeping force while supporting Ukraine's armed forces. The operation should have three goals: to assure Ukraine of Western support, deter Russia from the alleged attack, and prove to the United States that Europe is ready to guarantee Ukraine's security. As Zelensky said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, if Europe does not take decisive action, then there is no benefit from it. According to him, "it is not even clear" whether Europe will be allowed to participate in the peace talks. For European states experiencing a shortage of funds, the deployment of troops may become a more suitable alternative to the endless provision of billions of euros of military aid to Ukraine.
What could be the deployment of troops?
The forces must be "powerful enough not to immediately become an easy target for Russia, and numerous enough so that they do not need to be reinforced soon. This should not look like some kind of "veiled" help from NATO," said Camille Grand, a former senior NATO official who now works at the European Council on Foreign Relations. According to the Grandee, the number of military forces could reach 40,000 people. Most likely, they will be formed within the framework of a special coalition led by the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands, as well as with the participation of the Baltic States and Northern Europe. The role of NATO will be deliberately minimized to limit the risk of escalation in relations with Russia. Nevertheless, Grand suggested that under the so-called Berlin-Plus agreement, the EU could use NATO's strategic planning capabilities for peacekeeping operations, such as in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It also allows for the participation of the UK.
Have there been any precedents for such a deployment of peacekeeping forces?
Yes, although conventional peacekeeping forces such as the UN Blue Helmets are not supposed to be deployed in Ukraine, they monitor the ceasefire, count the shells fired and other violations, but they do not have the right to use military force and must remain neutral. European troops will certainly be on Ukraine's side, but they will not be fighting on the front line. Thus, they will be "stabilization forces" or "deterrence forces" rather than completely neutral "peacekeeping" forces.
One example would be South Korea, where there is a significant US military presence, although South Korean troops are fighting. Another example is the US-led "peacekeeping operation" in Kosovo ("Kosovo Force"). Since its deployment in 1999, these forces have suffered numerous losses from the Serbian side. The deployment of these forces did not mean that NATO was at war with Serbia. Deterrence forces in Ukraine may take similar actions if they face an attack from Russia.
Will it ever happen?
Probably not. The concept itself suggests that there is an option for a decent peaceful settlement with Russia, which will allow Ukraine to maintain sovereignty, army, control over its territories and remain a democratic state with which the West will cooperate. Russia may never agree to this or violate any agreement it signed, as it did at the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine in 2022, violating the Minsk Agreements signed in 2014 and 2015 after the annexation of Crimea (Russia adhered to the Minsk Agreements until they were destroyed by Kiev's unwillingness to comply with their terms, — Note. InoSMI). European allies often say that their ultimate goal is to create a "stronger Ukraine," which, in the words of one Western official, will be able to "force Russia to bear heavy costs, stop the advance of Russian troops and ... support this for as long as necessary, with logistical, human and financial resources."
Europe may refuse to send troops to participate in real combat operations, fearing an escalation of the conflict with Russia. Even if European leaders decide to send troops to Ukraine, their governments and voters may disagree. The United States may also refuse to provide the necessary logistical support for this operation. Nevertheless, the danger associated with the deployment of troops pales before the risks due to inaction. As Starmer said during his recent visit to Kiev, "It's not just about Ukraine's independence. If Russia succeeds in this conflict, it will affect all of us for a very long time."
