Ever since Donald Trump returned to the White House, a key question has been what kind of support the US would continue to provide to Ukraine. Surprisingly for some, the US President has broadly followed Joe Biden’s strategy of giving Kyiv the weapons and ammunition it requests.
Two weeks ago, European leaders claimed that Trump — reversing his previous stance — promised to contribute to a European “reassurance force” for postwar Ukraine. This week, White House officials told the Financial Times that Washington would provide “US aircraft, logistics and ground-based radar supporting and enabling a European-enforced no-fly zone and air shield for the country”. But will this really materialise?
Given that Russia has repeatedly said that it will not accept any peacekeeping force as part of a peace agreement, it is strange that the British and Europeans are continuing to promote one. One interpretation is that the US-backed reassurance force is an attempt to block a peace settlement in the hope the Russians can be worn down and accept terms that much of the Russian establishment and people would see as outright defeat.
This, however, would mean war for many years to come with the attendant risks that the Ukrainian army will collapse or that European support will break down. With a fresh political crisis brewing in France and the collapse of the political centre in Germany and Britain, this is a real possibility.
Another interpretation is that this proposed force is intended as a bargaining counter that can be traded in return for the Russian government giving up its unacceptable demands. For example, Moscow has demanded the Ukrainian army’s withdrawal from the part of the Donbas that it still holds.
This is the most sensible approach, for the idea of actually deploying such a force verges on the lunatic. The forces available are utterly inadequate. The entire British Army, it should be noted, now has only 74,000 soldiers. The French army is in no better shape. As a result, French and British officials are now speaking of a joint British and French contribution of only 6,000 to 10,000 men. According to the Wall Street Journal, Britain’s involvement will be “focused on maritime and air domains”.
But how can a force this weak possibly “deter” Russia? Previously it was argued that to be credible, such a force would need around 50,000 to 100,000 soldiers on the ground. Where are the rest to come from? Both the EU’s biggest economy, Germany, and its largest military power by numbers, Poland, have expressed their refusal to take part. So far, apart from Britain and France, only Belgium, Estonia and Lithuania have offered to send troops — which really tells you everything you need to know about this projected “force”.
Finally, part of the point of the Europeans drawing the US into a role in such a force would be to ensure continued US security commitment not just to Ukraine but to Europe itself. But this would cut both ways. If British and European troops were stationed in Ukraine and depended critically on US military backing, this would reduce or destroy any possibility of Britain and Europe distancing themselves from the US on other issues.
We have seen the results in the recent EU surrender to Trump over tariffs and the purchase of US (rather than European) arms. Even worse, it would make it impossible for the British and Europeans to take an independent stance towards Israel’s war on the Palestinians; and this issue is visibly starting to tear our societies and political systems apart, in a way that the war in Ukraine, however bad, can never do. To embark on such a mission would not only be militarily futile, it would also bind Europe ever tighter to Washington’s agenda at the very moment it most needs the freedom to set its own.