The United Kingdom and other European nations are divided in their opinions regarding the feasibility of deploying large-scale peacekeeping forces in Ukraine. This was reported by The Times citing diplomats and officials.
"The UK, France, and Northern European countries support the idea of a European initiative to send tens of thousands of troops in the event of a ceasefire agreement. However, Germany and other nations are known to oppose it," the publication states.
It is believed that the Baltic states and Poland are concerned that the proposed mission could divert much-needed resources from NATO's border states with Russia, leaving them vulnerable.
There is a growing consensus that such a post-conflict deployment will require "support" from Donald Trump and security guarantees.
A senior source within the British government stated that Europe could independently form ground forces if necessary, but ministers have asked the U.S. to provide "air cover." This could take the form of Patriot missile batteries capable of intercepting ballistic missiles or aircraft using intelligence and surveillance capabilities that Europe lacks.
The British Army could theoretically deploy a division of between 10,000 and 25,000 soldiers, according to a military source, although this might be an exaggeration given that troops are already stationed in Estonia.
"UN peacekeeping forces made up of troops from countries like India, Bangladesh, and China are considered by some to be more achievable," the article notes.
Kier Starmer is expected to discuss this issue with EU leaders and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at a meeting in Brussels.
Defense Secretary John Healey insists that the UK must show strong leadership on this matter. However, some officials believe they still need to convince Chancellor Rachel Reeves of the importance of Ukraine, fearing she views it as a "money pit."
A major sticking point remains whether Russian President Vladimir Putin would agree to such forces during U.S.-led peace negotiations. A senior military source said:
"If Russia doesn't buy into this idea, it's dead, and if the U.S. doesn't provide the hammer, the idea is dead. Never say never, but I don’t see this albatross taking off."
Some diplomats and military sources believe that a UN peacekeeping operation is a more sensible alternative that is more likely to gain Putin's consent. This could involve around 100,000 peacekeepers deployed in both Ukraine and Russia, and would not require direct U.S. involvement.
"They [the Russians] are not going to attack Bangladeshis or Indians," said a second source.
Regarding the European-led forces, the Germans are reportedly against making commitments due to uncertainties surrounding upcoming elections.
Another European diplomatic source stated that the U.S. would need to be involved to ensure stronger deterrence against Russia and "because they have capabilities that the whole of Europe lacks," such as intelligence and surveillance capabilities, as well as "the ability to deliver a large-scale retaliatory strike if necessary."
Reports indicate that Trump had previously suggested that the U.S. should not send troops or finance the mission. However, one defense source speculated that Trump could be convinced otherwise, stating:
"I don't think the U.S. can keep its fingers away from the pie."
Possibility of Deploying Peacekeepers in Ukraine
It is widely known that Western special forces are present in Ukraine; however, a large-scale deployment of Western troops has yet to be observed. Nevertheless, as reported by the Financial Times, this may soon change, as Donald Trump's return to the White House has rekindled interest in this idea.
According to individuals involved in discussions between Kyiv and Western partners, Ukrainian officials believe that the deployment of between 40,000 and 50,000 foreign military personnel could be realistic and sufficient.