By John Irish, Lili Bayer and Andrew Gray
PARIS/BRUSSELS (Reuters) – European efforts to create security arrangements for Ukraine are shifting from sending troops to other alternatives as they face political and logistical constraints, and the prospect of Russia and the United States opposing their plans, officials said.
France, which has been working closely with Britain to come up with options, will host 30 leaders and delegations from around 30 countries on Thursday, part of what has become a “coalition of the willing” to try and flesh out some ideas.
But while London and Paris have been working for weeks on a plan to send thousands of troops to Ukraine to help safeguard a future ceasefire, diplomats say there is growing acceptance that sending such a force is not the likeliest outcome.
“They are taking a step back from ground troops and trying to re-dimension what they were doing to something that could be more sensible,” said one European diplomat.
Said another: “When Ukraine was in a better position, the idea of sending troops appealed. But now, with the situation on the ground and the U.S administration as it is, it’s not very sexy.”
Ukraine has long said that any peace deal would require firm security guarantees from the West to prevent any repeat of attacks by Russia, which launched its full-scale invasion in 2022.
French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who both visited the White House last month, have each suggested their countries could contribute thousands of troops to a future force. But they have also so far fruitlessly sought some form of “backstop” from Washington, without specifying what this entails.
Moscow says it will never agree to any proposal for NATO countries to send troops to Ukraine.
President Donald Trump, who has shifted U.S. policy abruptly towards accepting Russia’s narrative about the conflict, initially praised the British and French proposals to send troops and said he thought Russia would agree to them.
But lately American officials have sounded more sceptical. In an interview with podcaster Tucker Carlson last week, Trump envoy Steve Witkoff ridiculed the European proposals as “a posture and a pose”.
SECURITY BUFFET
Officials said discussions at the meeting in Paris this week would focus on a range of issues, such as on how to strengthen Ukraine militarily to deter future attacks, and how to monitor limited ceasefires over sea targets and energy infrastructure, as discussed at U.S.-led talks this week in Saudi Arabia.
“Security guarantees are a kind of intercontinental breakfast buffet in which you have 1,000 sub-dishes,” said a senior European official. “In the end it will all depend on the degree of sincerity of the ceasefire and I’m not optimistic.”
A senior European defence official said that while the focus was shifting away from the idea of European boots on the ground “it doesn’t mean individual countries won’t have soldiers deployed in Ukraine to provide training and other support”.
But even if a big European ground force is not seen as likely now, plans are still being made to keep options open. A concept paper for the summit seen by Reuters refers to a possible future reassurance force in Ukraine “as part of a future peace settlement and with support of the United States”.
A French presidency official said that in talks with the United States, officials had shown an interest in a solid European contribution once a permanent ceasefire was in place.
Britain’s Starmer said last week that military planners were “focusing on keeping the skies safe, the seas safe and the borders safe and secure in Ukraine”.
“Now we’re working at pace because we don’t know if there’ll be a deal – I certainly hope there will be – but if there’s a deal, it’s really important that we’re able to react straight away.”
Some European allies have baulked at the prospect of sending troops without a firm U.S. guarantees and an international mandate. They worry about the cost, about shortages of manpower and equipment, and ultimately about the prospect of ending up fighting Russia.
Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, said it was necessary to define a clear mission for any force, before trying to plan for its capabilities.
“I cannot overemphasise how important that is, because only if you get the mission right can you determine what you need to do the mission,” he said.
European military officials said that even if there was a good chance that no force would be deployed, the discussions were still creating momentum and showing Europe can act.
“We have to see this not just through the prism of ‘We’re going to put, X tanks, X men, X planes behind the Ukrainian borders,'” said one European military official. “It’s an overall dynamic that hasn’t finished developing. This project is going to be long, several, several years.”
If Europe is not going to send a large force into Ukraine, it could still play a role by acting as a backup for a separate force operating inside Ukraine under a hypothetical peace deal, perhaps with approval from the United Nations.
U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations Jean-Pierre Lacroix told reporters on Tuesday that speculation over a possible future UN monitoring mission in Ukraine was “very hypothetical” and that any planning would require a mandate, although “the question is asked more frequently”.
Diplomats said Europe could find its role in bolstering troops in adjacent countries such as Romania, possibly reinforcing existing NATO Enhanced Forward Presence (EFP) forces in eastern Europe.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has suggested that while NATO membership was off the table for Kyiv, the terms of NATO’s mutual defence treaty could be extended to guarantee that countries would aid Ukraine if attacked. U.S. envoy Witkoff has said this was open for discussion.
A third European diplomat said such a step would offer “the biggest security guarantee you can provide at a lower cost” than actually deploying troops into Ukraine.
(Reporting by John Irish; Editing by Peter Graff)
Comments