Diplomatic discussions within Europe have revealed a split over the idea of deploying a large-scale peacekeeping force to Ukraine, with key European countries divided on the feasibility and strategic implications of such a mission. As reported by The Times UK, Britain and France are backing the concept of a Europe-led initiative to send tens of thousands of troops to Ukraine, contingent on a ceasefire agreement. However, Germany and other countries, including some Baltic states and Poland, have expressed opposition, citing concerns that this move could detract from NATO’s focus on its eastern borders with Russia, leaving those areas vulnerable.
The proposal for a peacekeeping mission, which would involve tens of thousands of troops in the aftermath of a ceasefire, has gained traction among the UK, France, and Nordic countries. However, a key challenge remains in securing the support of Russia and the United States, both of which would need to be involved to ensure the peacekeeping force’s viability.
A senior British government source indicated that while Europe could potentially generate a ground force, the US would be asked to provide crucial “air cover.” This could include the provision of advanced defense systems like Patriot missiles and intelligence support, capabilities that Europe lacks on its own. The British Army could, in theory, deploy a division-sized force, ranging from 10,000 to 25,000 troops, although current commitments in Estonia would stretch available resources.
However, concerns abound about whether Europe alone could generate a force strong enough to deter Russia from mounting further aggression once it has had time to recover. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has stated that an effective peacekeeping force would need to be significantly larger, estimating that as many as 200,000 troops would be necessary. This could require a total force of 600,000 soldiers, including those preparing to deploy and recovering from prior deployments.
Some military sources have suggested that a UN-led peacekeeping mission, with troops from countries such as India, Bangladesh, and China, may be more achievable and could garner more support from Russia. A force of 100,000 peacekeepers positioned in Ukraine and Russia would not require direct US involvement, which could make it more palatable for all parties, including Moscow.
Despite these alternatives, the idea of a European-led force remains a key point of discussion. The German government is reportedly reluctant to commit to such an initiative, partly due to the uncertainty surrounding upcoming elections. There are also concerns that this peacekeeping effort could divert attention from NATO’s primary mission of protecting its members from Russian aggression.
Key European officials are aware that the involvement of the United States may be crucial, not only for security guarantees but also because of the unique capabilities the US possesses, such as intelligence, surveillance, and rapid-response forces. However, there are reports that former US President Donald Trump, if re-elected, may oppose the idea of US troops patrolling a buffer zone or financing the mission, though some sources believe he could eventually be persuaded.
