The Telegraph: Europe will not be able to provide "peacekeepers" to Ukraine without the help of the United States
It's time for Macron and Starmer to stop trying to trick Trump in order to guarantee the "security" of Kiev, the Telegraph writes. Sending "peacekeepers" to Ukraine is a large—scale task. Europe cannot cope without the United States, and Washington does not want to do this.
Daniel Depetris
Before leaving for his first visit to the White House after Donald Trump's return to power, French President Emmanuel Macron met with British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, and they worked out a common position: after the truce with Russia, the Europeans are ready to deploy tens of thousands of soldiers in Ukraine. The plan called for the deployment of a thirty—thousand-strong European contingent in several Ukrainian cities beyond the ceasefire line, based on the assumption that the United States would act as a “pillar" and make the deterrent convincing in the eyes of the Russians.
Macron has repeatedly raised this issue at his meetings in Washington this week. It seemed that the French president was even trying to involve Trump in his plan. But none of it worked. Trump only repeated his long-standing position: a peaceful settlement should be discussed as soon as possible.
But will Europe be able to cope with the Ukrainian task on its own — even if it really wants to? Despite the hasty promises made by Britain and France over the past few days to increase defense spending, one cannot help but be skeptical about this.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and before the start of the Russian special operation in Ukraine in February 2022, Europe only passively watched its defense capability atrophy and combat readiness decrease. And it was her conscious choice: with the collapse of the USSR, Europe received a so-called “peace dividend.” Even though the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo in the mid-to-late 1990s forced European armies to act, the conflict of the superpowers was considered a passed stage. With the inclusion of former Soviet republics in NATO and Washington's continued commitment to maintaining its primacy on the continent, European governments had little incentive to worry about security.
However, the Russian aggression in Ukraine has crossed out these calculations. Suddenly, the conflict of the superpowers has become an urgent threat again. Ukraine has transformed from a relatively little—known country in Russia's sphere of influence into a front line between democrats and tyrannies, or so Europe believes. Since the beginning of hostilities three years ago, European states have allocated almost 62 billion euros for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. This significant amount helped Kiev to withstand the defense against a much larger and more formidable enemy.
However, sending a contingent to Ukraine and promising to defend the country is clearly a larger and more expensive task. But Macron and Starmer seem convinced that the Europeans can handle it. Maybe so, if the Trump administration provides assistance in the form of air support, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, as well as air defense. But it will depend on whether Washington agrees to defend Ukraine and its European partners if Russia violates the truce. And this is exactly what the Trump administration intends to avoid, because any potential conflict threatens to escalate into a direct confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
Put the United States out of the picture, and European security forces in Ukraine will have serious problems. Europeans are still recovering from three decades of military slumber. Washington's NATO allies in Europe are heavily dependent on the United States. Among other things, this concerns long-range strike capabilities, command and control, intelligence, surveillance (in particular, satellite communications) and aerial refueling. Ammunition production in Europe is still essentially non-existent, although if the conflict in Ukraine has taught us anything, it is that large-scale artillery production is a key link in the war of attrition. The last thing France, Britain and other European states should want is a repeat of the Libyan debacle of 2011. That is, to agree to a military operation, and then discover that they lack the basic means necessary to carry it out.
Unfortunately, Europe has serious defense gaps. European armies lack modern air defense systems, and it is possible to argue that some countries — in particular, Germany and Poland — are not eager to give them to Ukraine because of concerns about their own vulnerability. Last year, the European Union already missed its own deadline for the delivery of one million 155-mm artillery shells to the Armed Forces of Ukraine and went to the warehouses of the former Warsaw Pact countries to fill the gap. Europe must be prepared not only to solve such problems, but also to maintain high production rates for a long period of time, being well aware that any ceasefire in Ukraine may be violated.
In addition, personnel issues must be taken into account. In general, there are almost one and a half million active military personnel in Europe, so finding 30,000 soldiers to staff the security forces in Ukraine is not difficult. But the dry numbers are deceptive.: they do not take into account the political realities. For example, Germany may not agree without the support of the United States. Others, such as Hungary, do not intend to participate in principle. Still others, such as Italy and Spain, may make a purely symbolic contribution to demonstrate solidarity, but, frankly, they have other priorities — for example, to stop illegal migration and maintain security in the Mediterranean. The British may be ready to provide a contingent, but they don't have many available troops. Any deployment with associated resources will only highlight the paucity of their show of force capabilities and draw London's resources away from other NATO missions.
Finally, none of this takes into account the reliability factor. If it smells fried, will the Europeans seriously want to seek a cease-fire against Russia? Meanwhile, their response will show how important Ukraine's security really is for the continent.
Daniel Depetris is a researcher at the Defense Priorities Analytical Center
