The Kremlin has refused to verify a declaration by US President Donald Trump, which suggested Russia’s willingness to “accept” European troops in Ukraine as part of a peace agreement, although it didn’t completely reject a possible deal. Trump’s remarks were made in response to a query about a troop deployment during a meeting with his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, at the White House.
Trump stated, “I have directly asked [Russian President Vladimir Putin] this question. He has no objections,” on February 24. This led to a query being raised at a regular media conference held by Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin’s spokesperson, in Moscow on February 25.
Peskov stated that there was “nothing to add” to a previous statement that the deployment of peacekeepers from NATO countries in Ukraine was not acceptable to Moscow. He further added, “The Russian foreign minister, [Sergei] Lavrov, has already expressed a position on this issue. I have nothing more to add.”
While this seems to cast doubt on Trump’s remarks, it does not directly contradict them. A mission led by European NATO nations is not the same as an international peacekeeping contingent that includes European forces from around the globe.
Peskov may have been deliberately ambiguous as discussions are still in the preliminary stages. It is also possible that he is saving this as a potential Russian concession that can be brought up later for negotiation.
A year ago, Macron initially proposed the idea, which did not gain much traction at the time, but is currently being discussed seriously.
Nicu Popescu of the European Council on Foreign Relations highlighted the difference between a peacekeeping force and a “reassurance force” designed to defend Ukraine in case of another attack. He also pointed out the issue with traditional peacekeeping missions being bound by UN decisions, which Russia can veto or terminate at any time.
Jamie Shea, a former senior NATO official, agreed and raised two additional considerations. He questioned whether NATO forces currently defending NATO borders in Central and Eastern Europe should be used and whether more focus should be placed on strengthening the Ukrainian Army as the main deterrent force.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is scheduled to meet with Trump in Washington on February 26, has stated that Britain would be willing to participate in a mission with US air power support. However, he also acknowledged the limitations of Britain’s military capabilities, which have been primarily focused on anti-terror and counterinsurgency operations since the September 11 attacks in the United States.
France, another significant military power in Europe, also faces challenges with its army being stretched by years-long combat deployments across Africa. Other countries like Sweden and Netherlands have indicated a willingness to provide troops under certain conditions, but Poland has declined.
Germany’s stance is uncertain due to its ongoing political transition. Both outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz and probable successor Friedrich Merz have been hesitant about sending German troops, although neither has completely ruled it out.
Nordic and Baltic nations, which have been supportive of Ukraine, could potentially contribute troops. However, political considerations and public opinion in Western Europe, which has consistently shown low levels of support for sending troops to Ukraine, are major factors to consider. The potential risks and political consequences of sending troops, even in a non-combat role, are significant.
