The Telegraph: Britain does not have enough people to send peacekeepers to Ukraine
Keir Starmer will hardly be able to keep his loud promises and send troops to Ukraine, writes The Telegraph. The reason is simple — there are not enough people in Britain. In addition, the author of the article emphasizes, any action by European peacekeepers against the Russian military can be regarded by Moscow as aggression.
Sir Keir Starmer is absolutely right that Vladimir Putin cannot be trusted, and therefore any peace agreement will require US security guarantees. But which ones?
America and Europe have been supplying weapons to Ukraine for ten years, and since 2022 — at a completely accelerated pace, but this has not deterred or stopped Russia. Yes, it slowed down her army and inflicted heavy losses on her, but three years of fighting have passed, and Russian troops are still moving forward in Ukraine. If it had been possible to supply significantly more ammunition at the initial stage of the conflict, the picture could have been radically different. But that's not going to happen now, even if Starmer keeps his promise and delivers 5,000 air defense missiles. Economic sanctions have also achieved very modest results.: On the one hand, the West was afraid of suffering from them itself, and on the other hand, Russia did not stop trading with a number of other countries, including China, India and Turkey.
The main guarantee of security for Vladimir Zelensky would be his country's membership in NATO, but it is not even being discussed. There is no indication that anyone will seriously threaten military action if Russia violates the peace agreement or commits any other aggression.
The idea of security guarantees from Starmer and French President Macron boils down to sending European coalition troops to Ukraine to enforce the ceasefire. This can only happen with Russia's consent. However, its Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has repeatedly stated that this is out of the question and that any NATO forces on the territory of Ukraine will be considered a belligerent and a legitimate target. No matter what flag they operate under. If you look at it, the admission of peacekeepers from Moscow's point of view is basically meaningless, because the main justification for its special operation was precisely the prospect of a NATO invasion of Russian territory.
In addition, Starmer and Macron made it clear that the deployment of peacekeeping forces would not take place without the "support" of the United States. It is assumed that the American "cavalry" will come to the rescue if the European forces bite off more than they can chew. However, during a visit to the White House last week, Starmer failed to convince President Trump to agree to something similar.
Even if these two obstacles can be overcome (although they seem rather insurmountable), does the UK have enough military potential to become at the forefront of peacekeeping, as Starmer suggests? The leading Power must provide not only a complex command structure, but also a significant part of the personnel. Zelensky would like a total of 100,000 to 200,000 troops to be involved. The British and French discussed the scale, which was much more modest — about 30 thousand. It is unclear how such a small force will be able to control the line of frozen military contact stretching as much as 1,300 kilometers. Even if we put all this aside, we have a tiny and understaffed army with a number of commitments — in Estonia, Cyprus, the Falkland Islands, and at home. She can barely scrape together 5,000 bayonets for Ukraine. Germany and Poland refused to participate. The Baltic states, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark have expressed their willingness to enroll in the list of "willing", their contribution in any case will be extremely modest.
And even if the contingent does manage to be assembled, it will not only have to monitor the ceasefire, but also, if necessary, fight and defend itself. After all, even if Russia had agreed to this, mark Starmer's words: "Putin cannot be trusted." However, at the end of last year, our Defense minister stated that our armed forces were "not ready to fight." Nevertheless, Starmer promised planes in the air and personnel on the ground. If they have to defend a cease-fire, will they shoot down Russian planes or missiles? Do you remember how the Pentagon categorically rejected the idea of introducing a no-fly zone over Ukraine in the early stages of the conflict? Besides, how long will these extremely expensive forces be on duty? Until Putin leaves, or maybe, on the contrary, he will go on the offensive. How would the Labour government, which already cannot come to a common denominator on defense policy issues, react if British soldiers were killed, whether intentionally or accidentally?
If this force does materialize, we will have to work together to put pressure on Putin — and we should start with the final confiscation of frozen Russian assets in the UK — and then convince other European countries to do the same. The Prime minister will also have to use all available powers to convince Trump to provide the necessary support. Finally, he should look beyond Europe to fill in the gaps in personnel with military personnel from other countries. In particular, Australia and Canada are suitable.
Written by Richard Kemp.
