Even before the tense meeting of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House last month, British Prime Minister Keir Stmerer was already confident about placing British troops on Ukrainian soil-widely understood as land forces-in the case of a ceasefire with Russia.
After the setback in Washington, Starmer – along with French President Emmanuel Macron and other European leaders – quickly reinforced his promises to support the Ukrainian leader.
“This is not a time for more conversations,” Starmer said after a large meeting of heads of state and government leaders in London the next day. “It’s time to act.”
Now, four weeks later and after two major meetings of European leaders, the predominant feeling is from a process that is inevitably slowing down. Probably this should not surprise us.
The favorite terminology now is – the idea of European “peace forces” is no longer part of the vocabulary. This force would not act on the front line, Macron told reporters after Thursday’s meeting in Paris, nor would he act on behalf of the Ukrainian forces.
Recent reports suggest that London in particular may be cooling the idea of sending troops to Ukraine, but Macron has insisted that nothing has been discarded so far.
“We are analyzing possibilities in the air, in the sea and on land as well. Nothing is excluded,” he said, adding: “This reaffirmation force will be implanted in Ukraine.”
More details will be released in time, but for now, military chiefs have the task of working with their Ukrainian counterparts to define the number of troops that would compose this force, where they would be positioned and what their abilities would be, he said.
In military jargon, it is time to develop the “operational concept” that would support this force. What are the possible threats she would face? What would be the rules of engagement?
These are not simple questions and will probably take weeks to be resolved. Inevitably, answers need to consider a limited or nonexistent participation of the United States, which should further slow down planning.
For Andriy Zagorodnyuk, former Ukraine Defense Minister, ambitions need to be realistic.
He highlights the obvious logistical challenges represented by his thousand kilometers of his country with Russia, as well as the low likelihood that Starmer and Macron approve rules of engagement that allow European troops to go into direct combat with Russian soldiers. According to him, an advanced displacement of the British or French earthly forces would be an ineffective initiative, but a more limited commitment could also be little impactful.
“There have been so many discussions about Europe to intervene and help with security agreements, but if they end up sending 10,000 people to stay in Kiev, without being able to leave the city, it will certainly not change anything in Russia’s calculations,” he told the CNN.
In fact, with an insignificant determination effect, such a movement could even make Europe look weaker. Russia’s temptation to humiliate-breaking any ceasefire with an attack on hundreds of kilometers from the British and French troops trapped in the capital-could be difficult to resist.
In an article written for the Royal United Services Institute, a London -based defense tank, Zagorodnyuk, along with two colleagues, argues that a better option for Europe could be “aircraft boots” on ground – a commitment to watch over Ukraine’s skies against Russian attacks.
Such protection would almost certainly mean British, French and other nationalities parked in Ukraine, along with crews and accompanying logistics support. It may be that Europe may provide coverage only on the East and the Ukrainian Center, he says, but even so, it would allow Ukraine to dedicate all its strength to defend the eastern part of the country.
Even a reaffirmation force that was not but placing air assets within Ukraine would still be a big step to Europe. However, the risks of credibility, although still present, would certainly be lower than with any implantation of land forces.
At the same time, Europe needs to be extremely cautious. Managing expectations before any possible announcement is also critical. The credibility of any eventual implementation will be judged largely by the way it compares to what was discussed publicly previously.
If it seems that the answer is insufficient, it will not only be Ukraine that will be impaired. Putin and Trump will also have their suspicions confirmed that Europe is a “manco duck.”
