By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Prime Minister Starmer will present a plan to President Trump proposing a 30,000-strong European peacekeeping force for Ukraine, contingent upon a US-brokered ceasefire. This Anglo-French initiative involves deploying troops to key infrastructure, supported by technical monitoring and air power to deter Russian aggression. The plan, significantly smaller than Ukraine’s requested deployment, aims to reassure Ukraine and prevent renewed conflict while avoiding direct NATO-Russia confrontation. The strategy relies on a US “backstop” of air power in Eastern Europe to deter Russia, minimizing American troop deployment in Ukraine itself.
Read the original article here
The UK Prime Minister’s proposal to send 30,000 European soldiers to Ukraine to maintain a ceasefire is a bold move that warrants careful consideration. While the number might seem small initially, the plan’s effectiveness hinges on the crucial support of other NATO partners and the availability of substantial backup forces. The long-term affordability is also a key factor. This deployment could act as a significant deterrent, forcing Russia to reconsider any attempts to breach a ceasefire agreement.
The biggest hurdle, however, lies in securing the backing of the US and other NATO allies. The proposal’s presentation to US President Trump, while seemingly a prerequisite, raises questions about the overall strategy. Why is US approval necessary? Couldn’t a direct agreement between the UK and Ukraine suffice, bypassing the potential complications of involving the US? This direct approach could streamline the process and potentially avoid potential vetoes or conditions imposed by the US.
This proposed “reassurance force,” developed amidst concerns about potential US disengagement following a peace deal, aims to prevent a Russian resurgence. The argument is that a strong European presence, supported by US military assets on standby, would effectively contain Russia, limiting its ability to act aggressively. This would need to take into account the considerable challenges of confronting a Russia potentially supported and armed by the US, a situation that could involve simultaneous economic sanctions from the US against Europe.
The potential for US involvement on the side of Russia is a very real consideration. The notion of the US simultaneously supporting Russia while imposing sanctions on Europe is a chilling one, underscoring the high-stakes nature of the proposal. Many believe that a strong show of force is necessary to deter Russia, whose government, they say, is rooted in dictatorship and coercion. Negotiation and diplomacy, they argue, have failed, and only a demonstration of overwhelming military strength can prevent further aggression.
This view is supported by those who draw parallels between dealing with a national bully and dealing with Russia. A peaceful approach is often dismissed as naive, with many arguing that Russia only understands the language of power and force. This necessitates a unified European response, as exemplified by the Baltic states’ persistent warnings that have often been ignored by the rest of Europe. The need for a powerful ally, even if metaphorically represented by a “baseball bat”, becomes a crucial factor in this strategic discussion. A unified Europe is positioned to play this role, potentially acting as a crucial bulwark against Russian aggression. Other countries, such as Canada, are urged to join this coalition, contributing troops to further amplify the message of resolve.
However, there are concerns that this plan may be insufficient. Some question whether a peacekeeping force, composed of countries involved in the conflict even indirectly, would be acceptable to Russia. The suggestion of using troops from nations outside of Europe and North America is an alternative proposal, aiming to secure neutrality and avoid perception of bias. The placement of the troops is also pivotal. Positioning them in western Ukraine, creating a no-fly zone, could free Ukrainian forces for offensive operations in the east, providing a substantial advantage.
A crucial factor influencing the overall effectiveness of the plan is timing. Immediate deployment, rather than waiting for a ceasefire, could offer numerous advantages. The absence of a ceasefire would remove the need to negotiate without European input, ensuring that the deployment is a part of the ongoing strategy and not simply a reactive measure to a negotiated agreement. Such a timely response could significantly impact the course of the conflict. The 30,000-strong force, however, might be insufficient for peacekeeping over a vast front line, rendering it more of a tripwire – escalating the situation if attacked.
Despite the criticisms and concerns, the proposal has garnered significant support. Many view it as a necessary step, given the perceived failures of diplomacy and the potential for further Russian aggression. The need for a strong, unified European response is repeatedly emphasized, with criticisms of current diplomatic efforts and calls for decisive action. The plan’s detractors point out that the proposal needs to have a clear mandate, appropriate rules of engagement and ensure a swift response to any aggression by Russia. There are suggestions for expansion of the deployment to 50,000 troops, including contributions from countries beyond Europe and a clear articulation of strategic goals.
Ultimately, the proposal to send 30,000 European troops to Ukraine is a complex and multifaceted issue, fraught with challenges and uncertainties. Its success hinges on international cooperation, strategic planning, and the willingness of involved nations to commit to a long-term strategy. The possibility of unintended consequences, including an escalation of the conflict, must be carefully weighed against the potential benefits of deterring further Russian aggression.