Sending peacekeepers to Ukraine: a proposal with a lot of fine print

LondonThe possibility of the sending of Western peacekeepers to Ukraine in the short or medium term future is not clear. The announcement made by the British Prime Minister on Monday hours before the Paris meeting, Keir Starmer, revealing he was willing to do so, an announcement that also called on Western allies to commit more to Ukraine's future and to spend more on NATO, seemed more like a pre-meeting of European leaders than the start of drawing up a generic plan to begin discussing and agreeing on the details.

Much like the Saudi Arabia meeting between Russia and the United States on Tuesday between the head of American diplomacy, Marco Rubio, and that of the Kremlin, Sergei Lavrov, about which Rubio has said that it was "exploratory." The difference is that it seems that the United States and Russia are going for work, while the differences on the continent are deeper.

Germany and Spain already announced on Monday that before talking about troops on Ukrainian soil, there had to be peace, and for that to happen many obstacles must first be overcome. On the other hand, Poland, for example, assured that it would not send soldiers. And the United Kingdom ruled that in all cases the United States should provide cover for any Western participation in Ukraine. A logistical or other type of cover. But even if all the political reservations that currently exist between Volodymyr Zelensky's allies were overcome, the issues to be resolved are still many and very complex.

Sir Lawrence Freedman, emeritus professor of war studies at King's College London, has assured various British media outlets in recent hours that "a substantial force would be needed, perhaps more than 100,000 soldiers" to offer Ukraine real "security". For his part, John Sawers, former director of MI6 - the British foreign espionage service - has also commented to the British media that, first of all, a clear mandate would be needed for this hypothetical peacekeeping force: "We should be very clear about what the mission is and what the rules of engagement are. Would it be needed to provide cover for these forces on the ground?

Surveillance and intelligence

By contrast, US General David Petraeus, who led US and international forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and is a strong supporter of Ukraine, has suggested in several speeches, including to British media, that a large peacekeeping force in Ukraine might not be necessary: “You don’t necessarily need troops on the ground. You just have a very robust intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance architecture, along with the ability to strike Russia if it breaches the terms of the agreement.” And this is a key point. Who would do it?

But if troops were needed, how many should the UK, which is the first or one of the first countries to offer them, send? The defense specialist of the prestigious weekly The Economist Shashank Joshi gives the example of the difficulties involved if London decided to send a corps from its strategic reserve. "First of all, we would have to officially inform NATO and its Supreme Allied Commander in Europe – currently the American general named Chris Cavoli – of the decision. And that includes mobilising several brigades and a large headquarters behind them to manage them."

But in his own words, the UK is not in a position to implement this. Just as it would not be able to “deploy a combat division [about 20,000 men]”. At most, a brigade would be feasible, i.e. only around 5,000 soldiers. The problem is that the UK has already committed to the presence of a brigade in Estonia, where it currently has a combat group. In the event of a crisis or war, London has guaranteed to expand it to a full brigade.

And to do so London “would consume the majority of the British Army’s resources”, Joshi also points out. And deploying a single armoured brigade would require approximately 70-80% of all combat engineering capabilities. “In other words, we could not do much more, because we would not have the necessary support capabilities.” And fulfilling the pact with Estonia and giving an end to Starmer’s hypothetical commitment to Kiev would create an additional problem for the UK. Because NATO would have holes to fill and another would have to defend the rest of the Alliance's front line with Russia. It would be stretching the sheet on one side to cover another, a body that would leave the first one exposed.

The relationship with Washington

Another key question arises from what Starmer said on Monday when he left the Paris meeting: what role would the United States, with whom Europe is now in crisis, play?

If it were a deterrent force – designed to react with a broader intervention in the event that Kiev was attacked – US political support would be necessary. And Donald Trump, as Starmer will ask him to do next week when they meet in the White House, should make clear on what terms they would support this hypothetical peacekeeping force. "There would be a need for certain specific military capabilities. Air cover would be crucial. Because we would not want to operate under the constant threat of Russian air attacks. And ground-based air defences would also be necessary. Europe does not have the means to cover the ladder on this front," says Freedman. The list is long: intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft; logistical support; and electronic warfare capabilities, among others, would have to be part of the contingent on the front line or in the rear.

But if the purpose of the troop presence in Kiev is only symbolic, with the deployment of soldiers in western Ukraine, perhaps for training purposes or to free up Ukrainian troops to be deployed on the front line, or in the designated neutral zone, then . What is clear is that for a hypothetical deployment of troops it is first necessary to secure a peace agreement. And it will not be achieved easily without Kiev's approval.