The idea of sending a Western military contingent to Ukraine as a deterrent against renewed Russian aggression, originally proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron, has gained traction with the return of Donald Trump to the White House.
Considered unfeasible and risky a year ago, the changing dynamics in Ukraine, including the difficulties faced by the Ukrainian army and the fading prospects of NATO membership, have led to a reconsideration of the idea. Trump has repeatedly said that he wants the war to end as soon as possible. Kyiv, on the other hand, has signaled its readiness to reach an agreement if the allies provide reliable security guarantees.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said that while he discusses the need for 200,000 soldiers, it may be an exaggeration. Ukrainian officials believe that a quarter of that contingent might be a realistic number.
Discussions on this matter are ongoing between Kyiv and its allies, with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte expected to discuss the issue at an informal meeting on Feb. 3.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte are expected to discuss the issue at an “informal meeting” on February 3. While the Baltic States have expressed support for the idea, further support from other allies has yet to be confirmed.
Initially, Macron's concept suggested that European troops could provide support by protecting critical infrastructure, training Ukrainian forces, and patrolling the Belarus border. With Trump's election, however, the focus has shifted to using European troops as peacekeepers and supporting Ukrainian defense forces.
The envisioned mission would have three key goals: reassuring Ukraine of Western support, deterring Russia from future aggression, and demonstrating to the United States Europe's commitment to Ukraine's security.
Former senior NATO official Camille Grand suggested that a Western military deployment to Ukraine should be powerful enough to withstand potential testing by Russia, but not seen as a backroom commitment by NATO. He estimated that a force of 40,000 troops could be appropriate, led by the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands, with the involvement of Baltic and Nordic countries. NATO's role would be limited to minimize the risk of escalation with Russia.
A possible mission would not be a traditional peacekeeping mission, but at the same time would not be involved on the frontlines. The Western military would thus be a “stabilizing force” or a “deterrent force” rather than a fully neutral “peacekeeping” force.
It is important to note that the deployment of foreign troops to Ukraine may never come to fruition as the idea itself is based on a potential agreement with Russia that would allow Ukraine to retain its sovereignty and its army, control its territory and remain a democratic country with which the West cooperates. Russia may never agree to this.
Besides, European nations may also be reluctant to send troops to a war zone, fearing an escalation with Russia. Additionally, parliamentary or voter opposition could hinder the approval of such a mission. However, the risks of inaction in Ukraine may outweigh the risks of sending troops