Is idea of European-led peacekeeping troops in Ukraine evaporating?

The UK and France have been the primary forces behind proposals for Europe's future military ambitions in Ukraine once a ceasefire has been agreed to, particularly the proposed European-led peacekeeping force.

In the early stages of the so-called “coalition of the willing,” estimates of up to 60,000 troops were given that could potentially be deployed to Ukraine. However, this plan has met with stiff resistance. Major NATO members like Italy, Spain, and Poland have declined to contribute troops, making it likely that the idea will be reduced to a limited training mission, rather than a full-fledged peacekeeping force.

The British Times magazine has published an article that offers a sharply critical perspective on what the author sees as the pitfalls of modern diplomacy, particularly in the context of European military ambitions in Ukraine. It argues that contemporary political leaders increasingly mistake flashy public declarations and media soundbites for effective diplomacy. 

This is playing out in real time through the actions of Sir Keir Starmer, whose ambitious plan is rapidly unravelling. According to the article, Starmer, encouraged by French President Emmanuel Macron, had initially championed the idea of a muscular, postwar European force possibly numbering up to 60,000 troops. This proposal gained attention in the early days of March 2024, spurred in part by fears that a second Trump presidency would lead to US disengagement from Ukraine. 

The author emphasizes that the impracticality of the plan was foreseeable. Years of underinvestment in defence across Europe have left most national armies hollowed out — impressive in theory, but lacking the resources to sustain large-scale deployments. Britain and France, the continent’s leading military powers, would struggle to maintain even a single brigade of about 6,000 troops each in Ukraine for an extended period. 

Even halving the original proposal to a 30,000-troop mission would be near impossible. Following a NATO summit of defence ministers in April, the EU's top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, stressed that the goal of the reassurance force also needs to be determined to proceed forward: "Is it deterrence, monitoring, or peacekeeping?" she asked. Defence ministers attending the meeting acknowledged that while the plans are now "well developed", much more work needs to be done to define the scope of any post-peace deal mission and how many troops may be needed. Compounding the issue is the lack of US support. 

As the article stresses, any meaningful peacekeeping mission in Ukraine would require US airlift, surveillance, intelligence, and air cover. Without these elements, such a force would be highly vulnerable — especially given Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threats to strike NATO forces entering Ukraine, or, as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov put it, “the troops from NATO countries [in Ukraine] under a foreign flag “. Although Starmer later acknowledged the need for an American “backstop” to deter Russia, the article points out that this ignores Donald Trump’s stated unwillingness to provide one. Instead, Trump has floated the idea of using American business interests — such as rare earth mineral mining — as a symbolic deterrent. 

There are also geopolitical challenges that complicate the prospects of this proposal. Many European states — particularly those close to Russia like Poland and the Baltics — are either unable or unwilling to commit troops. Meanwhile, governments in countries such as Hungary, Slovakia, and Italy remain ambivalent about long-term support for Ukraine. This fractured response underlines, in the author’s view, Europe’s failure to function as a cohesive military actor. 

The piece concludes by framing these developments as a sobering lesson. For those who believe Europe must become a credible strategic power independent of US support, the failure of Starmer’s initiative is a disillusioning moment. The author argues that it exposes both Europe’s structural military weaknesses and the dangers of what he terms “soundbite diplomacy.” Real strategic capacity, he insists, cannot be built on rhetoric or rushed coalitions, but only through unified planning and sustained investment. 

By Nazrin Sadigova