According to military sources, military personnel from more than 30 nations are planning to thrash out the scope and size of a ceasefire enforcement mission to Ukraine this week.
Two weeks after UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that a “coalition of the willing” would develop a peace plan to be presented to US President Donald Trump, who has cast doubts on Washington’s support for the war-torn nation, the meeting takes place.
A senior military source who was informed of the discussion, who pleaded for anonymity to speak freely, said, “They’re looking very seriously… at what is required, what countries can contribute.”
According to the source, “it needs to be a maximalist approach so that we can see if the US can provide any enablers.” The Europeans have a chance to take action in this. This is very exciting, and we can finish it quickly.
The US excels in air, land, and sea defense, but Europe still falls behind in terms of long-range fires, drones, counter-drones, and air missile defense.
If a Ukrainian peacekeeping implementation force were to sit between Russia’s invading armies, estimated to be 650 000, and Ukraine’s standing army, which would require “tens of thousands” of troops, according to military analysts, according to Al Jazeera.
Additionally, it is possible that the US only serves as a support force.
Trump stated to reporters last month that he anticipated that Europe would take the lead in securing Ukraine.
He stated on February 26 that he wouldn’t go into great detail about security. “That will be the result of Europe.”
The so-called “Ceasefire Toolkit,” which was created in secret by US, Russian, and Ukrainian military experts and released this month, appears to have far beyond the scope of that burden.
A 5 km wide (3 miles) buffer zone along the entire front, according to the report, would have 5, 000 police and 10, 000 supporting military personnel as well. However, this was based on Russia’s consent to the creation of humanitarian corridors, joint military coordination, and the pullback of heavy military equipment.
Although the majority of countries that are voluntarily deploying troops are from the European Union, non-EU nations like Norway and Turkey and those in the Asia-Pacific have also expressed interest.
The military source said, “If you don’t achieve peace in Europe, there could be consequences elsewhere in the world, and there could be repercussions in the Pacific,” praising the interest of non-Europeans.
There does appear to be consensus on the need for a ceasefire.
A European nation can’t seem to have put its forces in Ukraine while a war is still raging, the source said.
Without Russia attacking a NATO member, European casualties could trigger NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause, according to the source. “Article 5 is sacred,” Putin respects it for one reason or another. It is the only thing that prevents him from attacking a NATO member. That must be protected, we must.”
What would be done by the force?
Former US forces commander in Europe, General Ben Hodges, said, “You think of blue helmets, a UN mandate… that the Russians never respect and will not have a prayer of being successful in this case.” He added that the force must have “real deterrent capabilities.”
The force must have “the authority to use them immediately,” Hodges told Al Jazeera, adding that there is also armor, firepower, and enablers.
He argued that if a Russian drone is flying overhead, they must be able to shoot it down right away without needing to call Brussels or some capital to request permission. In the first few hours, the Russians will of course put everything to the test.
Contributing nations have not yet come to a consensus on this authority. The military source said, “I don’t believe there is any consensus yet.”
Russia has made it abundantly clear that it opposes the idea of an international force stationed in Ukraine.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described the initiative as an “audacious stance” and “continued to provoke the Kyiv regime into war with us” in an interview last month.
Another crucial decision is the force’s location.
Because the line of contact is currently 1, 000 kilometers (621 miles) long and because troops would have to be rotated in and out over a long period of time, possibly years, Hodges said, “that could be a substantially large number.”
Another option is to set up a reaction force behind Ukrainians, where “these guys would be deployed forward to deal with it,” Hodges said.
He claimed that this would be safer for the troops, but that Russians’ ability to react “probably” would be less effective at first because they would be testing how long it would take them.
Europe’s capacity for success
This multinational force is gaining ground in the UK and France.
They have led the formation of successful coalitions in two world wars, and they are veterans in this regard.
Their more recent history is shaky.
The last significant foreign policy by France to expel armed groups from Mali and the Sahel was a failure. The UK mobilized last for Afghanistan in 2009 and the second Gulf War in 2003.
According to the Military Balance, which was released by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, their standing armies are 140 000 (UK) and 202 000 (France).
In February of last year, French President Emmanuel Macron first suggested sending troops to Ukraine, but his lieutenants quickly changed that into a peacekeeping force rather than a combat force affiliated with Ukraine.
Prior to the February 17 summit in Paris, Starmer made the announcement that the UK was willing to send troops to Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping force.
When Europe’s leaders ratified earlier this month to keep increases in defense spending off the books, the purse strings were loosened. According to EU chief Ursula Von Der Leyen, that could result in 800 billion euros ($874 billion) in new defense investments.
Others were unsure of how Europe would respond.
Demetries Andrew Grimes, a decorated US special forces commander who served in the second Gulf War, said, “They haven’t delivered to this day, and I see these European officials throwing around figures.”
According to Antonio Costa, president of the European Council, European defense budgets have only increased by an average of 30% during the three years of full-fledged war in Ukraine.
According to Grimes, the fear of dying has for decades hindered European defense autonomy, even more than money.
He said, referring to base-camp activities, “We saw in the Balkans and in Afghanistan, it was all support level activities that were inside the wire.” That is “a lot different from being on the front lines.”
The UK’s most recent example was last summer when it backed out of a plan to monitor a floating pier in Gaza and safeguard humanitarian resupply operations, he claimed.
According to Grimes, “a few smaller units to symbolically go in, to show that they’re there,” are peppered with “caveats associated with what they can’t do where they can’t do, and they can’t operate,” and would take onerously long to piece together.
