Europe Gets Jitters on Feasibility of Ukraine Peacekeeping Mission of 100,000 Troops: Report

Diplomats and officials have reportedly expressed doubt about the practicality of Europe actually providing a 100,000-strong field army to serve as peacekeepers in a post-ceasefire Ukraine.

European states are divided over the practicalities of generating and deploying a viable peacekeeping force to Ukraine in a theoretical post-ceasefire situation, potentially standing guard against renewed fighting indefinitely, as has been the case with other frozen conflicts over the past century.

British newspaper of record, The Times, states the capitals of Europe itself are split over the wisdom of such a venture. While both appear fundamentally settled on showing strength to Russia, there is reportedly no agreement on how to achieve this.

In one camp, both the report and the public, widely-reported pronouncements of the nations involved make clear, is the pro-peacekeeper faction, including the United Kingdom, France, and the “Nordic” nations — Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland — who say Europe should lead in Ukraine.

One of the “sources” claimed by the report said that Europe could generate a peacekeeping force of 100,000 on its own without a single U.S. ‘boot on the ground’, but that European states seriously lack the advanced air assets needed to make the mission a success. So, while the mission could operate without American frontline troops, it would rely on “buy-in” from President Trump and the achievement of total air superiority through the Patriot air defence missile system and, presumably, if unspoken at this stage, combat air patrols by the U.S. Air Force.

One of the standout features of the Ukraine war to this point has been neither Ukraine nor Russia achieving air superiority, allowing the reversion to historic means of fighting like trench warfare. It is unlikely any European democracy would commit its troops to such a situation willingly without total faith in the air umbrella protecting its forces from attack.

A further issue for the pro-peacekeeping camp is that while European militaries are generally very technologically advanced, they are not currently set up for sustained operations. In recent years, it has been repeatedly said that NATO doesn’t have the military-industrial complex to supply a Ukraine-like conflict, and its militaries would exhaust their ammunition stocks in days.

Ultimately, while the purpose of a peacekeeping force is not to fight, without the strong deterrent of being able to do so credibly in an emergency, it might struggle to fulfil its intended purpose of preventing further conflict.

In the other camp are Germany, Poland, and the Baltic nations — Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania — who are allegedly deeply concerned that many European troops in Ukraine at once would leave the northeast of Europe, which has a considerable land border with Russia and Belarus, perilously unguarded. It is those Baltic states and Poland who self-report as feeling the most threatened by Russian expansionism, not just because they are the closest to Moscow but also because they are all ex-Soviet countries.

The assertion from The Times that “the Baltic states” are all of the same mind comes despite Lithuanian Armed Forces Commander-in-Chief Raimundas Vaiksnoras saying this week the country would likely contribute to a Ukraine peacekeeping mission. Germany is also questionable, with the Chancellor and Defence Minister both having given contradictory statements on whether Berlin would contribute to a mission. In any case, the present government very likely only have three weeks left in power, as an election with very weak polling looms in February.

That Europe’s NATO members don’t have the equipment to establish air superiority in a European country- albeit not an EU or NATO member- is embarrassing enough and certainly underlines President Trump’s repeated criticisms that the continent should take more responsibility for its defence. Yet perhaps more comprehensively humiliating is the second scenario outlined by The Times, that if a European force fails to materialise, a UN peacekeeping deployment of “India, Bangladesh and China” troops on European soil.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly talked up the prospect of a NATO peacekeeping deployment to his country, tacitly accepting a ceasefire may be on its way — something Ukraine otherwise doesn’t much discuss — as it would be a counterbalance to the idea that Russia would simply use any break in fighting to regenerate its forces for a future assault. Zelensky is absolutely certain any such mission would need American involvement and guarantees, however, as — just as is alluded to by The Times’ sources — European nations wouldn’t be brave enough to deploy without the security of an American backstop.

He said in January: “It can’t be without the United States… Even if some European friends think it can be, no it can’t be. Nobody will risk without the United States.” Russia, for its part, has reacted angrily to the notion of Western states deterring their invasion of Ukraine with a peacekeeper force, with their foreign ministry warning of ‘escalation beyond control’.