By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President-elect Trump proposed that European troops oversee a potential Ukraine ceasefire, a suggestion discussed among European officials but rejected by Poland. This proposal, coupled with his desire for a reduced U.S. role and opposition to Ukraine’s NATO membership, reflects a strategy to leverage European involvement and pressure from China to end the conflict. Trump intends to maintain Ukrainian military support while simultaneously urging Moscow to negotiate. He also criticized the Biden administration’s approach to the conflict, particularly long-range strikes within Russia.
Read the original article here
Trump’s suggestion that European troops monitor a Ukraine ceasefire is a complex proposal riddled with potential pitfalls. The very idea hinges on the assumption that Russia would agree to a ceasefire under such conditions, a scenario deemed highly unlikely by many. Russia’s current military advancements, albeit costly, suggest a lack of incentive for them to halt operations, especially with the prospect of NATO-affiliated forces on Ukrainian soil.
This proposal directly contradicts Russia’s strategic objectives, making a renewed invasion considerably easier once a period of respite is secured. The success of any monitoring operation also depends critically on the mandate given to the European troops. Passive observation, without the authority to respond to further Russian aggression, renders the entire enterprise futile. The focus should remain squarely on preventing further Russian incursions into Ukraine, rather than equally monitoring both sides, which could create a false impression of parity in culpability.
The potential for escalation is another major concern. While Trump’s proposal might ostensibly remove American boots from the ground, it simultaneously throws European forces directly into harm’s way. The capacity of European forces to deter a renewed Russian offensive is questionable, and a decisive response to a ceasefire violation could trigger a wider European conflict. Historically, the presence of American troops in Western Europe helped to deter Soviet aggression; however, Europe currently lacks the equivalent military capability to provide a similar guarantee of safety.
The effectiveness of such a peace deal is also debated. Offering a partial concession to Russia, even with nominal safeguards for Ukraine, could embolden further Russian aggression down the road. A more decisive approach, providing Ukraine with the necessary weapons and unwavering support to achieve a complete and decisive military victory, presents a far more viable path towards a lasting peace. Anything short of this could simply postpone the conflict, offering Russia a chance to regroup and rearm, ultimately setting the stage for future hostilities.
The feasibility of a lasting peace without a substantial shift in the military balance is also questionable. The idea of a ceasefire, even with European monitoring, seems premature in the context of an ongoing, large-scale conflict. The proposed monitoring force needs sufficient strength and a clear mandate to deter aggression and enforce the peace terms; otherwise, it could serve as little more than a symbolic gesture, unlikely to impact the conflict’s outcome.
The timing of Trump’s suggestion adds another layer of complexity. Considering that Trump is not currently the President of the United States, the lack of political mandate undermines the credibility and gravitas of his proposal. His suggestion for European involvement raises questions about his intentions, especially given that he previously championed a more isolationist foreign policy. Furthermore, his past comments on Putin and his administration’s actions toward Ukraine cast doubt on his objectivity.
Ultimately, Trump’s proposition is seen by many as a simplistic and potentially dangerous approach to resolving a complex conflict. The reliance on European troops without commensurate military capability and the lack of clarity about the response protocols to ceasefire violations pose significant risks. A more robust approach, focusing on fully empowering Ukraine to achieve its security goals, remains a more sustainable solution. The deployment of European troops, without a clear strategy and sufficient strength, is viewed by many as an irresponsible and potentially self-defeating initiative.