BRUSSELS: Increasingly alarmed that US security priorities lie elsewhere, a group of European countries has been quietly working on a plan to send troops into Ukraine to help enforce any future peace settlement with Russia.
Britain and France are at the forefront of the effort, though details remain scarce. The countries involved in the discussions are reluctant to tip their hand and give Russian President Vladimir Putin an edge should he agree to negotiate an end to the war he launched three years ago.
What is clear is that Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky needs a guarantee that his country’s security will be assured until peace takes hold. The best protection would be the NATO membership that Ukraine has long been promised, but the US has taken that option off the table.
“I won’t get into the particular capabilities, but I do accept that if there is peace then there needs to be some sort of security guarantee for Ukraine and the UK will play its part in that,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in cautious remarks on Thursday.
The Europeans began exploring what kind of force might be needed about a year ago, but the sense of urgency has grown amid concern that US President Donald Trump might go over their heads, and possibly even Ukraine’s, to clinch a deal with Putin.
Many questions remain unanswered but one stands out: what role, if any, might the United States play?
European powers consider the road ahead
In December, after Trump was elected but before he took office, a group of leaders and ministers huddled with Zelensky at NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte’s residence in Brussels. They came from Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland. Top European Union officials attended too.
The talks built on an idea promoted by French President Emmanuel Macron in early 2024. At the time his refusal to rule out putting troops on the ground in Ukraine prompted an outcry, notably from the leaders of Germany and Poland.
Macron appeared isolated on the European stage, but his plan has gained traction since.
Still, much about what the force might look like and who will take part will depend on the terms of any peace settlement, and more.
Italy has constitutional limits on the use of its forces. The Netherlands would need a greenlight from its parliament, as would Germany, whose position could evolve after the Feb. 23 elections usher in a new government. Poland is cautious, given lingering animosities with Ukraine that date from World War II.
A robust security force rather than peacekeepers
The makeup and role of the force will be dictated by the kind of peace deal that’s reached. If Russia and Ukraine can agree terms as the negotiations progress, it’s plausible that fewer security precautions and a smaller force would be needed.
But experts and officials warn that, as things stand, the Europeans must deploy a robust and sizeable contingent, rather than a team of peacekeepers like United Nations “blue helmets.”
“It has to be a real force (so) that the Russians know that if they ever tested it that they would get crushed. And you can be sure that Russia will test it,” Ben Hodges, the former Commanding General of US Army Europe, said last month at a European Policy Center think tank event.
“They violate every single agreement. So if we send a force in there, they’ve got to have airpower, large land forces, drones, counter-drones, air and missile defense. All of that,” he said. “If they go in there with a bunch of blue helmets and rifles, they will get crushed.”
Retired French General Dominique Trinquand, a former head of France’s military mission at the United Nations, agreed that UN peacekeepers are better suited “for deployment in zones that are far more stable.”
“For starters, mounting this operation with soldiers taken from across the world would take about a year,” he said.
How big a force?
The nature of the peace deal will determine the size and location of the European contingent. Zelensky has insisted on at least 100,000 to 150,000 troops. Media reports have speculated about a 30,000-40,000 strong force. Diplomats and officials have not confirmed either figure.
Ukraine also wants air support, not just boots on the ground.
What is clear is that the Europeans would struggle to muster a large-scale force, and certainly could not do it quickly.
In an interview on Friday with the Financial Times, Macron said that the idea of deploying a huge force is “far-fetched.”
“We have to do things that are appropriate, realistic, well thought, measured and negotiated,” he said.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted this week on “robust international oversight of the line of contact,” a reference to the roughly 1,000-kilometer (600-mile) long front line. The Europeans are reluctant as that would require too many troops.
Nearly all agree that some kind of “American backstop” is essential. European armed forces have long relied on superior US logistics, air transport and other military capabilities.
The US lays down some rules
At NATO headquarters on Wednesday, Hegseth began describing the terms under which the US might agree to a force that would help provide Ukraine with the “robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again.”
“Any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops,” Hegseth told almost 50 of Ukraine’s Western backers. If they go to Ukraine, he said, “they should be deployed as part of a non-NATO mission.”
Putin has said that he launched the invasion in part due to NATO territory expanding too close to Russia’s borders and is unlikely to accept any operation run by the world’s biggest military organization.
Any European allies taking part would not benefit from NATO’s collective security guarantee if they were attacked, Hegseth said. He underlined that “there will not be US troops deployed to Ukraine.”
He did not reveal what role the US might play.
From Ukraine’s perspective, a Europe-only operation simply would not work. “Any security guarantees are impossible without the Americans,” Ukrainian Foreign Minister Sybiha warned on Thursday.
Europe quietly works on a plan to send troops to Ukraine for post-war security
https://arab.news/jcnp3
Europe quietly works on a plan to send troops to Ukraine for post-war security
- Britain and France are at the forefront of the effort, though details remain scarce
- “I won’t get into the particular capabilities, but I do accept that if there is peace then there needs to be some sort of security guarantee for Ukraine,” Starmer said
Trump targets non-white immigrants in renewed xenophobic rants
- During a rally in Pennsylvania on Wednesday, Trump doubled down on his tirade against Somali migrants
- "Why is it we only take people from shithole countries,’ right? Trump told his cheering audience
WASHINGTON: Back in 2018, President Donald Trump disputed having used the epithet “shithole” to describe some countries whose citizens emigrated to the United States.
Nowadays, he embraces it and pushes his anti-immigrant and xenophobic tirades even further.
Case in point: during a rally in the northeastern state of Pennsylvania on Wednesday that was supposed to focus on his economic policy, the 79-year-old Republican openly ranted and reused the phrase that had sparked an outcry during his first term.
“We had a meeting and I said, ‘Why is it we only take people from shithole countries,’ right? ‘Why can’t we have some people from Norway, Sweden?’” Trump told his cheering audience.
“But we always take people from Somalia,” he continued. “Places that are a disaster. Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime.”
Recently, he called Somali immigrants “trash.”
These comments are “more proof of his racist, anti-immigrant agenda,” Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey responded on X.
The Trump megaphone
Florida Republican lawmaker Randy Fine, on the other hand, defended Trump.
“Not all cultures are equal and not all countries are equal,” he said on CNN, adding “the president speaks in language that Americans understand, he is blunt.”
University of Albany history professor Carl Bon Tempo told AFP this type of anti-immigrant rhetoric has long thrived on the far-right.
“The difference is now it’s coming directly out of the White House,” he said, adding “there’s no bigger megaphone” in American politics.
On the campaign trail in 2023, Trump told a rally in New Hampshire that immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country” — a remark that drew comparisons to Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler.
Now back in power, Trump’s administration has launched a sweeping and brutal deportation campaign and suspended immigration applications from nationals of 19 of the poorest countries on the planet.
Simultaneously, the president ordered white South African farmers to be admitted to the US, claiming their persecution.
No filter left
“Any filter he might have had is gone,” Terri Givens, a professor at the University of British Columbia in Canada and immigration policy expert, told AFP.
For Trump, it doesn’t matter whether an immigrant obeys the law, or owns a business, or has been here for decades, according to Syracuse University political science professor Mark Brockway.
“They are caught in the middle of Trump’s fight against an invented evil enemy,” Brockway told AFP.
By describing some immigrants as “killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies” — as Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem did earlier this month — the White House is designating a target other than itself for American economic ire at a time when the cost of living has gone up and fears are growing over job security and loss of federal benefits.
But, Bon Tempo noted, “when immigration spikes as an issue, it spikes because of economics sometimes, but it also spikes because of these larger sort of foundational questions about what it means to be an American.”
On November 28, after an Afghan national attacked two National Guard soldiers in Washington, Trump took to his Truth Social network to call for “REVERSE MIGRATION.”
This notion, developed by European far-right theorists such as French writer Renaud Camus, refers to the mass expulsion of foreigners deemed incapable of assimilation.
Digging into the “Make America Great Again” belief system, many experts have noted echoes of the “nativist” current of politics from the 1920s in the US, which held that white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant culture was the true American identity.
That stance led to immigration policies favoring Northern and Western Europe.
As White House senior adviser Stephen Miller recently wrote on X: “This is the great lie of mass migration. You are not just importing individuals. You are importing societies...At scale, migrants and their descendants recreate the conditions, and terrors, of their broken homelands.”
