By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A virtual summit hosted by U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer proposed a 10,000-strong multinational peacekeeping force for Ukraine, contingent upon a peace deal with Russia. This coalition, involving at least 35 countries providing various support, aims to secure Ukraine post-conflict. While the U.K. and France are expected to be the largest contributors, some European nations have expressed reservations. Further military talks are scheduled for March 20th to solidify the coalition’s plans.
Read the original article here
The UK’s proposal for a 10,000-strong Western peacekeeping mission in Ukraine is a significant development, sparking a wave of diverse reactions. It’s a bold move, aiming to create a “coalition of the willing” to secure Ukraine’s territory in the event of a peace deal with Russia. The proposed force, largely comprised of UK and French troops, represents a substantial commitment, although smaller than initially suggested in previous discussions.
The initial plan, as presented at a virtual summit involving 29 international leaders, envisions a peacekeeping contingent of approximately 10,000 troops. This contingent wouldn’t just consist of boots on the ground; it would also involve 35 countries supplying weapons, logistical support, and intelligence to the mission, highlighting a collaborative approach. The summit’s outcome underscores a growing international consensus on the need for a stabilizing presence in Ukraine, though certainly not without dissent.
However, the 10,000-troop figure has been met with significant skepticism. Some believe it’s insufficient to deter further Russian aggression. This viewpoint raises important questions regarding the mission’s effectiveness and ability to withstand a potential Russian offensive. Many argue that significantly more troops – estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000 – would be needed to create a truly credible deterrent. The disparity between the proposed force size and the number of troops Zelensky previously requested (100,000-150,000) highlights this concern.
Another perspective suggests that the force’s true strength lies not in its sheer size, but in its symbolic value. The presence of Western troops, even in smaller numbers, would signal a strong international commitment to Ukraine’s territorial integrity. It suggests that any attack on these troops would directly implicate the countries that contributed them, raising the stakes for further Russian aggression. This “tripwire” strategy, while controversial, emphasizes that even a relatively small force can have a disproportionate impact by altering the risk-reward calculation for Russia.
The proposed mission’s composition and role also invite debate. Concerns have been raised about the lack of sufficient air support and the challenges of deploying primarily infantry troops in the face of modern warfare’s emphasis on technological advantages. Many commenters emphasized the need for integrating advanced weaponry and air power alongside ground troops to create a robust deterrent. Additionally, questions surround the mission’s operational parameters and logistical considerations, with uncertainty concerning its long-term deployment and mandate.
The international response to the UK’s proposal has been mixed. While some countries, such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, have expressed strong support, others have expressed reservations or outright opposition. Italy, for instance, while voicing support for Ukraine, has ruled out participating in the peacekeeping force. This highlights the ongoing challenge of forging a truly unified international response to the conflict.
The future of the proposed mission remains uncertain. The second round of military talks planned for March 20th will be crucial in determining the mission’s final shape and composition, as will the continued international diplomatic efforts to secure a lasting peace in Ukraine. The feasibility and ultimate success of the mission hinge on resolving numerous logistical, strategic, and political challenges, and the degree to which this small force might act as a tripwire remains to be seen. The inherent risks involved, along with the complexities of coordinating a multinational force under uncertain circumstances, pose a substantial hurdle for the proposed peacekeeping mission.