It is an open secret that Western special forces exist in Ukraine as “sneakers on the ground.” However, so far there has been no mass deployment of “boots on the ground” in the West. That may be about to change.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House was first floated by French President Emmanuel Macron a year ago. At the time, it was ruled out as unfeasible and too dangerous. But since then, the Ukrainian military has struggled. Prospects for NATO membership are declining. Trump has said he is trying to disengage the United States from European security and wants a ceasefire “as soon as possible.” And Kiev has hinted that it is ready for a deal as long as its allies provide strong security guarantees.
As a result, on-off talks have resumed over how Western militaries, particularly European forces, can help maintain the ceasefire that Trump hopes to broker with Moscow. Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that if Europe is serious about providing an effective deterrent, it will need 200,000 troops “at a minimum”.
How realistic is Zelenskyy’s figure?
Not at all. That far exceeds the number of troops who took part in the D-Day landings of World War II.
Ukrainian officials believe 40,000 to 50,000 foreign troops to act as security forces across a 1,000 km front line is viable, according to people involved in discussions between Kiev and its western partners. I am.
Meanwhile, talks are underway among European allies. British Prime Minister Kiel Kiel and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte are expected to discuss the issue at an “informal retreat” hosted by the EU on February 3.
So far, only the Baltic states have shown support for the idea as far as a broader mission with other allies. Poland has ruled out sending troops and insists it should not be a NATO border state with Russia involved in troops on the ground in Ukraine.
Outgoing German Chancellor Olaf Scholz vehemently opposed the deployment of German troops in Ukraine. Christian Democratic leader Friedrich Merz, who is likely to become prime minister after the February 23 election, has expressed support for Ukraine but has not explicitly supported the idea of deploying troops. Not yet.
What is the goal of putting troops on the ground?
When Macron floated the possibility last February, European forces could take on key support roles, including defending critical infrastructure, training Ukrainian troops, repairing weapons and patrolling Belarus’ borders. I thought it could be done. This will free up the 800,000-strong Army, less than half of which is currently deployed, to focus on front-line operations.
But Trump’s reelection has changed the debate. The focus is now on how European troops will be used as peacekeepers while supporting the maintenance of the Ukrainian military.
The mission has three objectives. By reassuring Ukraine, there is Western support. Prevent Russia from attacking again. And it will show the United States that Europe is committed to guaranteeing Ukraine’s security. As Zelenskyy said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, if Europe failed to act decisively, the continent could slide into irrelevance. Europeans have a role in peace negotiations, Zelenskiy said.
For cash-strapped European countries, deploying troops may be a more viable alternative to providing Ukraine with billions of euros in military aid indefinitely.
What does the deployment look like?
The force would have to be “robust enough not to become a soft target that Russia could quickly test, not require immediate reinforcement, and large enough not to be seen as a backdoor commitment by NATO.” ” said Camille Grand of the former. Currently a senior NATO official at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
Such a force could total an estimated 40,000 troops and could possibly be formed under an ad hoc coalition led by Britain, France and the Netherlands, with further contributions from the Baltic and Nordic countries. there is.
NATO’s role will be deliberately minimized to limit the risk of escalation with Russia. Still, Grand suggested that under a “more than Berlin format” the EU could use NATO’s strategic planning capabilities for peacekeeping operations, as in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is also possible for the UK to participate.
Is there any precedent for such peacekeeping forces?
Yes – this is not a traditional peacekeeping operation like the UN’s Blue Helmets, which monitor ceasefires, firings and other violations, but are not allowed to use deadly force and remain neutral. must be.
European forces will obviously be on the side of Ukraine. However, they never fought on the front lines. As such, it forms a “stabilizing force” or a “deterrent force” rather than a completely neutral “peacekeeping” force.
One model is South Korea, which has a significant U.S. military presence, although South Korean troops are doing the fighting. The other is KFOR, KOSOVO’s NATO-led “Peace Support Operation.”
KFOR has sustained multiple casualties from the Serbian side since it was deployed in 1999, but that does not mean NATO was “at war” with Serbia. A similar logic is likely to hold for Ukraine’s stabilizing forces in the face of Russian aggression.
Will it happen?
Probably not. The very concept is that of a decent peace settlement with Russia that would allow Ukraine to maintain its sovereignty, control its territory, maintain its military, and remain a democracy with which the West is willing to cooperate. It is assumed that there was.
Russia may never agree to that. Moscow may also break the agreements it signs, as it did when it invaded Ukraine in 2022, violating the Minsk accords it signed after annexing Crimea in 2014 and 2015.
European allies often say their ultimate goal is to build a “stronger Ukraine.” It could, according to one Western official, “continue to impose massive costs on Russia and halt the progress of the Russian military… sustaining it for as long as necessary in terms of materials, manpower, and finance.” I will.”
But Europe, fearing escalating a conflict with Russia, may balk at sending troops into a “hot war”. Even if European leaders decide to send in troops, their parliaments and voters may not agree. The United States may also refuse to provide the logistical support the operation requires.
Still, the risks of sending troops may pale in comparison to the risks of inaction. As Priority said during a recent visit to Kyiv: “This is not just about the sovereignty of Ukraine. If Russia succeeds in its aggression, it will affect all of us for a very long time.”
Additional reporting by Christopher Miller of Kyiv
