By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On January 6, Western allies, including France and the UK, formalized long-term security guarantees for Ukraine by signing a declaration to establish a “Multinational Force for Ukraine” after the war ends. This force will secure Ukraine’s skies and seas, support the rebuilding of its armed forces, and provide logistical support, including military hubs across the country. The agreement paves the way for a legal framework enabling French and UK forces to operate on Ukrainian soil, along with long-term security guarantees and continued military and humanitarian aid. Both leaders also committed to maintaining pressure on Russia through further sanctions and supporting Ukraine’s future prosperity and defense.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy, Macron, and Starmer Sign Declaration for Deployment of Western Forces to Ukraine After War – Well, this is a fascinating development, isn’t it? It seems the UK, alongside France, has taken a significant step by signing a declaration outlining their intention to send forces to Ukraine *after* the war ends. The focus is specifically on a post-conflict scenario, emphasizing a commitment to providing security and support. What strikes me is the context: this declaration seems to be shaped by a recognition of shifting geopolitical landscapes.
The fact that this initiative is largely spearheaded by the UK and France sparks immediate questions. Why these two nations primarily? It’s been said they were trying to build a coalition of European nations from the start, but found limited enthusiasm elsewhere. Perhaps a shift in perspective is happening, a realization that NATO might be facing uncertainty in the near future, specifically concerning the potential impact of a future US administration. This declaration could be seen as a way to step up, filling a perceived void and guaranteeing Ukraine’s safety. Of course, this is all premised on the end of the war, a detail that brings up its own set of considerations.
Interestingly, this declaration specifies that the troops would be deployed after the war concludes, and based in the west, which naturally raises questions about its practical impact. Some have argued that this arrangement does not seem like a decisive move, considering the possibility of future aggression. It is true, there is a question about what happens if Ukraine finds itself under attack *during* a ceasefire. Would the troops switch to combat roles? A crucial detail, and one that highlights the complex nature of this commitment. Some also argue this should have been done much earlier, as Ukraine needs help now.
The limited participation of other European nations is a recurring point of discussion. Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain, amongst others, have not joined in this initial commitment. This absence has led to criticisms and raised eyebrows, and the feeling that other nations should be ashamed. The fact that the largest European power, Germany, is not present in the declaration is especially notable. This raises the question of whether a true coalition is forming or if the responsibility is falling on only a few countries.
There is the potential that it will be a “declaration of intent” to build the infrastructure required rather than just an offer of forces. It seems this could be more about establishing a framework for future support. The declaration is also very dependent on the US for the record. In other words, the UK and France will only act if the US does. The PM said the UK would participate in US-led “monitoring and verification of any ceasefire”, would provide arms to Ukraine in the long-term, and would seek binding commitments to support Ukraine in case of a future armed attack by Russia. This begs the question of why the USA is even mentioned, and why the USA is still seen as the main decider on this.
Of course, the fact that only the UK and France, both nuclear powers, are driving this also adds another layer of complexity. This is an important detail that is causing some understandable concerns. Some have speculated that this declaration is perhaps a response to concerns about reliance on the US, given potential shifts in American foreign policy. There is also the obvious reality of deterrence; the UK and France are the only European nations that can match Russia’s nuclear capabilities, making them the most significant deterrent forces.
The declaration and any resulting coalition will not only depend on the US leading the ceasefire, but also on the US providing security guarantees for any peace plan, according to Ukraine. It may seem like a foregone conclusion that others will join later; Canada and 30 other nations actually are in line. It’s also reasonable to expect that Poland and the Baltic States would be willing to help keep the peace in Ukraine, given the potential stakes. It is easy to see how this effort would require the infrastructure and backing of many more nations.
For all these reasons, it’s a complicated picture. The commitment from the UK and France is a step in a certain direction, but its true impact will depend on the specifics of the eventual peace agreement, the level of support from other nations, and the ever-present shadow of potential future Russian actions.