By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Driven by concerns over shifting U.S. security priorities, several European nations are developing a plan to deploy troops to Ukraine, bolstering any future peace agreement with Russia. This initiative, spearheaded by Britain and France, aims to provide Ukraine with crucial security guarantees, a need amplified by the U.S. rejection of Ukraine’s NATO membership bid. While the force’s size and composition remain undefined, a robust contingent, exceeding peacekeeping capabilities, is considered necessary, with the U.S. potentially playing a supporting but non-deployable role. However, Ukraine emphasizes the vital need for American involvement in ensuring any security guarantees’ success.
Read the original article here
Europe is quietly forging a plan to deploy troops to Ukraine, aiming to bolster post-war security. This initiative, primarily spearheaded by Britain and France, seeks to address the critical need for Ukraine’s security guarantees once a peace agreement with Russia is reached. The urgency stems from growing European concerns regarding potential U.S. compromises with Russia, potentially overlooking Ukraine’s interests.
This discreet approach aims to prevent tipping off President Putin, ensuring negotiations aren’t undermined. However, the lack of transparency also raises concerns; the exact nature of this proposed force remains undefined. While Ukraine desperately needs security assurances, a promised NATO membership currently seems off the table, prompting the exploration of alternative protective measures.
The idea, initially floated by French President Macron, initially faced opposition but has gained momentum. The plan initially involved discussions among several European nations, including Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Poland, along with top EU officials. The size and composition of the proposed force are still open to debate, hinging heavily on the specifics of a future peace agreement.
Several hurdles stand in the way. Italy’s constitution restricts its military deployments, while the Netherlands and Germany require parliamentary approval, complicating the situation further. Poland’s historical relationship with Ukraine also adds a layer of complexity. The lack of a clear U.S. role is another significant unknown, with many questioning the potential level of American involvement and support.
The force’s design will be profoundly affected by the conditions of the peace agreement. A more amicable resolution might necessitate a smaller, less robust force, but current circumstances suggest a much larger, more capable deployment is needed. Experts stress that a robust force, not simply peacekeepers, is crucial. A sizeable force, potentially equipped with airpower, drones, and comprehensive defense systems, is deemed necessary to deter potential Russian aggression.
The ideal force size remains unclear, with estimates ranging from 30,000-40,000 to Zelenskyy’s preferred 100,000-150,000 troops. Ukraine’s need for air support, beyond ground troops, adds another challenge. Europe’s capacity to quickly muster a large force, particularly one of such scale, appears limited. Even Macron acknowledges that the idea of deploying a massive force is unrealistic. The logistical and practical challenges are substantial, highlighting the scale of the undertaking.
The US has expressed some conditions. Any potential security force would need to consist of European and non-European troops deployed outside of a NATO mission, explicitly excluding U.S. troops from deployment in Ukraine. This avoids triggering Putin’s concerns about NATO expansion, yet excludes the collective security guarantees afforded under NATO’s Article 5.
The potential for a purely European operation is questionable, as Ukraine’s foreign minister has stressed the critical role of U.S. involvement for the success of any security guarantees. Without significant American logistical and military support, the feasibility of a purely European security force becomes doubtful, adding another layer of complexity. Europe’s rapid militarization efforts are still in their nascent stages. Building independent supply chains and maintaining internal security are long-term projects.
The questions surrounding Ukraine’s potential NATO membership during an ongoing occupation complicate matters. The precedent of West Germany joining NATO while still having unresolved territorial issues is noted, but does not fully address the modern context and nuances involved. The prospect of Russia’s reaction and the ambiguities surrounding Article 5’s application add layers of uncertainty. Any solution needs to handle occupied territories diplomatically to avoid immediate conflict while ensuring Ukraine’s security.
Negotiating a resolution requires addressing the needs of both sides. Ukraine must accept losses, while Russia must accept limitations on expansionist tendencies. A potential compromise could involve restoring 2014 borders and allowing foreign troops into Ukraine under some conditions, with the removal of some sanctions. The US role remains significant, and avoiding unilateral demands is key to reaching a mutually acceptable agreement. The situation highlights the complex interplay between military strategy, geopolitical maneuvering, and the necessity of finding compromises in a long and grueling conflict.