By Matt Underwood The heart of the matter, as I understand it, is that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy is essentially stating that the involvement of UK and French troops is a “mandatory” component of any meaningful security guarantee. He sees it as a necessity, and here’s why. It’s a matter of boots on the ground, a physical presence designed to deter further aggression from Russia. He is seeking a very firm commitment.
Zelenskyy is looking at a situation where words, promises, and pledges are falling short of real action. While many nations have voiced support for Ukraine, only the UK and France have stepped up to the plate by actually committing to sending troops. The numbers being discussed are significant, potentially in the tens of thousands. This echoes the concept of a strong deterrent effect. Having these nations on the ground sends a clear message. The UK and France, possessing nuclear capabilities, add a significant layer of deterrence. It signals to Russia that an attack on Ukraine is also an attack on nations with the capacity to inflict devastating consequences.
This isn’t just about military strength, it’s also about trust. There seems to be a general sentiment that the UK and France are perceived as reliable partners. With the benefit of being permanent UN Security Council members, which elevates the diplomatic impact of their deployment. There’s a belief that they will act carefully and uphold their commitments. This contrasts with past experiences. The focus is to make it a NATO operation, or nothing at all, so this is not really about trust.
However, the reality of military capacity is also a factor. The UK and France, while capable, have limitations. They can’t simply deploy vast armies overnight. They have existing commitments elsewhere, and they need to maintain a level of readiness. The proposed numbers, in the range of 60,000 troops, could stretch their resources considerably. There are discussions that this number might be impossible to fulfill, because of troop rotation and general readiness.
This brings up a larger problem – a “bystander effect.” Many countries seem hesitant to commit, waiting to see what others will do. There’s an expectation that the burden should be shared, but a lack of consensus on how to do so. Inaction can also be seen as an issue. Some have stated the European Union needs to step up.
There’s also a political dimension. The rise of nationalist sentiments in both the UK and France is a concern. The possibility of figures like Farage and Le Pen gaining power raises questions about the long-term commitment to Ukraine. Putin has been working hard to destabilise both countries.
The debate also touches on NATO’s role. It is a possibility that a coalition could be made outside of NATO to avoid invoking Article 5.
Furthermore, there is a distinct recognition that the issue is not just about military numbers. It’s about a clear signal. Putin understands that an attack on an international coalition would be a far riskier endeavor than confronting Ukraine alone. The UK and France, with their nuclear capabilities, amplify this deterrent effect.
This isn’t about intervention, but about making sure peace is maintained. It may be that this situation is being used as a way to have the Trump regime. Zelenskyy is seeking a strong presence and a clear commitment to ensure that Russia doesn’t escalate the situation.