As the Russian-Ukrainian war enters its third year, discussions about a potential turning point in the conflict are intensifying; the idea of deploying peacekeeping forces has emerged as an option for achieving stability. On February 17, 2025, European leaders held an emergency meeting to discuss the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine as part of a ceasefire agreement, coinciding with the accelerating U.S.-Russia negotiations to end the war. The momentum for this proposal has increased among Europeans who fear being sidelined in the future settlement, particularly amidst direct talks between Washington and Moscow, with a clear absence of European and Ukrainian involvement. However, despite support from some European countries for a military presence in Ukraine, the implementation of this plan faces significant challenges, primarily strong Russian opposition, complicated logistical difficulties, and the risk of direct military escalation between Russia and Europe, alongside a lack of U.S. backing for these forces.
Motivations for the Proposal
Several factors have encouraged some European countries to consider forming peacekeeping forces in Ukraine following a potential agreement with Russia to end the war, including:
European Fears of Marginalization in Negotiations: European leaders express increasing concern about the possibility of being excluded from negotiations led by the U.S. with Russia, particularly following the phone call between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as the direct talks that took place on February 18 between Russia and the U.S. in Riyadh, involving Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan present. This is compounded by comments from U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth regarding Washington’s approach to negotiations aimed at ending the war and restructuring European security, without consulting European leaders and officials. European concerns have grown after the U.S.-Russian talks in Saudi Arabia, reinforcing the sentiment that Europeans are losing their real influence over the future of regional security. Consequently, some European capitals see the deployment of peacekeeping forces as a way to ensure a larger role in shaping Ukraine’s future and protecting European interests, despite U.S. attempts to reassure Europeans. Rubio had previously stated that Europe and Ukraine would participate in any serious follow-up negotiations.
Enhancing European Security and Deterring Russia: Some European countries, particularly France and the United Kingdom, believe that deploying forces in Ukraine is not only about ensuring Kyiv’s security but also serves as a strategic deterrent against Russian expansion. Moscow’s goal of increasing its influence is seen as a constant ambition; therefore, the presence of European peacekeeping forces would send a clear message that Europe is prepared to defend its security interests. In this context, French President Emmanuel Macron convened the emergency summit held in Paris on February 17 to discuss the repercussions of U.S.-Russian coordination, emphasizing that Trump’s administration has raised European leaders’ concerns about their collective security. European Council President Antonio Costa stated that this initiative represents the beginning of a long-term process that will be implemented in collaboration with all partners committed to peace and security on the continent.
Supporting the Ukrainian Government and Enhancing Its Military Capabilities: With Ukraine not being a NATO member, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky proposed deploying 200,000 foreign troops to protect any ceasefire agreement, but it appears that the West is incapable of mobilizing such a large number. Nonetheless, some European capitals—led by Paris and London—have suggested forming a force of between 30,000 and 40,000 soldiers backed by air cover to protect Ukraine and prevent any further Russian advances, especially along the 1000 km front line. While the ability to provide the number suggested by Zelensky is largely dismissed, experts believe this force could represent a “strategic trap,” as any Russian targeting of it could escalate into a broader military confrontation, potentially leading to an outright conflict between Europe and Russia.
U.S. Pressure for European Protection of Ukraine: Analysts believe that if a deal is reached, Washington will urge Europe to implement it and bear the responsibility for supporting Ukraine, aiming to reduce U.S. commitments. During a meeting in Paris on December 7, 2024, Trump informed his Ukrainian and French counterparts that he does not support Ukraine’s NATO membership but wishes to see a strong and well-armed Ukraine after fighting ceases, emphasizing that Europe should take the lead in defending Ukraine and the necessity of having European forces to monitor the ceasefire agreement’s implementation. U.S. Defense Secretary clarified that Trump expects Europe to take on more financial and military responsibilities in supporting Ukraine, pointing to the need for increasing European military spending to 5% of GDP. He noted that Trump’s rejection of Ukraine’s NATO membership is part of a strategic vision to avoid direct confrontation with Russia, while stressing the importance of Europeans shouldering the traditional defense burden for Ukraine, amid U.S. focus on countering China. In response to this pressure, some European nations, such as France, the UK, and the Baltic states, have begun discussing the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine, although Germany has expressed reservations and described the idea as premature.
Reducing Europe’s Dependence on the United States: With rising doubts about Washington’s commitment to European security, many European nations are striving to bolster their defense policies more independently of U.S. support. The American statements have revealed the reality of European security, indicating that European countries have faced decades of severe funding shortages for their defense systems, and highlighted their lack of a coherent security strategy amid declining U.S. involvement, coupled with the absence of clear leadership to guide the European security agenda. The potential deployment of peacekeeping forces in Ukraine is seen as an opportunity to demonstrate Europe’s ability to achieve strategic independence, especially as U.S. policy focus shifts towards the Indo-Pacific region. In this context, officials have reported that France has developed more advanced military plans compared to other European nations, estimating it could deploy around ten thousand troops, while some other European countries remain hesitant or face constraints on their military capabilities.
Uncertainty Regarding the Future of the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict: Since Donald Trump won the presidential election in November 2024, Ukraine and its allies have grown concerned that his pledge to end the war quickly could lead to cuts in U.S. military aid, pushing Kyiv to accept an unfavorable settlement. However, imposing a peace agreement that leaves Ukraine unsupported might not serve American interests or Trump’s administration. Additionally, Kyiv might lack the incentive to maintain an agreement it felt compelled to accept, particularly if it perceived it as a form of surrender, potentially encouraging Russia to initiate a new invasion to seize more territory or extract further concessions from the West.
A Realistic Alternative to Ukraine’s NATO Membership: The Ukrainian president has repeatedly stated that “inviting Ukraine to join NATO is essential for our survival.” However, Ukraine’s membership in the alliance is a key point of contention that hinders achieving peace with Russia, and it remains a commitment difficult for the U.S. and its European allies to fulfill. While the debate continues regarding Putin’s true objectives in starting the war in 2022, the West’s repeated commitment to NATO membership for Ukraine has been one of the war’s motivating factors, and Moscow likely prefers to continue the conflict rather than allow Kyiv to join the alliance. Hence, European security guarantees may be more realistic, given Europe’s direct interest in counterbalancing Russian power by maintaining Ukraine’s independence as a geopolitical buffer.
Key Challenges
The proposal to establish European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine is a contentious step; it may face numerous challenges, the most important of which are:
Russian Opposition to the Idea of Sending Peacekeeping Forces: Despite discussions about peace efforts, Russia continues to regard Ukraine as part of its strategic sphere of influence and will bolster its military forces even after any potential agreement; this means that European troops may operate in a hostile environment, with significant risks of direct confrontations with Russian forces. Moscow has made it clear that it will consider any foreign military presence in Ukraine to be a legitimate target unless it comes under a United Nations Security Council mandate, which is unlikely, given Russia’s veto power, warning that any European force lacking a UN mandate would not be legitimate under international law. On the other hand, military experts warn that deploying European forces might escalate the conflict and transform it into a wider confrontation between NATO and Russia. In this context, U.S. Defense Secretary Hegseth emphasized that any force deployed in Ukraine “must be outside the NATO framework and should not fall under Article 5.” Therefore, any European deployment in Ukraine means that European forces must be prepared to face a nuclear superpower without the reassurance of American security guarantees, making this intervention a significant strategic risk. In the best-case scenarios, this deployment could severely deplete European military capabilities, affecting readiness in other areas and forcing them to concentrate resources on a singular secondary operational theater.
Lack of U.S. Support for the Proposal to Send Troops to Ukraine: Although some European leaders support the idea of sending peacekeeping forces, the United States has made it clear it will not deploy its forces in Ukraine; this raises serious questions about the practical viability of executing this initiative effectively. This was confirmed by Starmer following the European meeting, where he noted that troop deployments would only achieve the desired success if backed by “U.S. support,” emphasizing that this is the “only way to effectively deter Russia and prevent it from launching a new attack on Ukraine.”
Logistical and Military Challenges: In the worst-case scenarios, sending European troops to Ukraine could drag Europe into a direct military confrontation away from its main logistical bases, a situation that Russia might exploit, especially given the European forces’ existing severe shortages of manpower and their lack of the logistical support provided by U.S. forces, which is critical for any joint war effort. Deploying thousands of European soldiers in Ukraine requires comprehensive military and logistical planning; experts indicate that any force of this nature will need intensive air support, alongside advanced missile defense systems and an integrated command and control structure to ensure operational effectiveness. Moreover, securing supply lines within an active war zone will pose a significant challenge, given the Russian military’s ability to target and disrupt vital infrastructure. In this context, a high-ranking European official stated that the European continent does not even have 200,000 soldiers available to deploy for this mission, emphasizing that any ground force requires U.S. support, especially against a nation like Russia, which is the second-largest nuclear power in the world. He added that the absence of this support would leave European forces perpetually vulnerable to Russian attempts to undermine the alliance’s military and political credibility. Even if a smaller number of soldiers, such as 40,000, were deployed, this would still challenge countries facing economic slowdowns, military shortages, and pressure to increase their defense budgets, especially since this number would not suffice to provide an effective deterrent capability against Russia.
Divisions Within the European Union: The positions of European countries regarding the nature of troop deployments have varied, including the size of the force to be formed, its mandate, and the need for U.S. support to execute the mission. While some countries have shown support for the idea, reaching a comprehensive European consensus remains distant, especially in the absence of clear security guarantees from either the United States or NATO. While France and the UK strongly support deploying European peacekeeping forces, other nations such as Germany, Poland, and Spain express significant hesitance; they view this move as potentially premature and likely to provoke a strong Russian reaction. For example, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has ruled out his country’s participation in the initiative, clarifying that Poland does not intend to send troops to Ukraine but will continue to provide logistical and political support to countries wishing to take this step in the future. Similarly, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has expressed discomfort with these discussions, stating that they are “completely premature and come at an inappropriate timing.” Spain displayed a similar stance, with Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares stating that “no one is currently considering sending troops to Ukraine under any potential peacekeeping mission.” Meanwhile, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico expressed surprise at the attendance of senior EU officials at talks in Paris about deploying foreign troops in Ukraine, indicating that this issue does not fall within the EU’s purview, hence participation in such meetings could harm the internal cohesion of the union.
The Possibility of Direct Confrontation with Russia: If European forces deployed in Ukraine are attacked by Russian troops or affiliated armed factions, European countries might find themselves compelled to respond militarily, increasing the likelihood of rapid and direct escalation between both sides. Legally, this intervention would not activate Article 5 of the NATO Charter, given that European operations would be conducted outside the alliance’s framework. Nevertheless, in practical terms, it would be challenging to separate the security guarantees provided by European countries for Ukraine from the protective umbrella offered by NATO, particularly if these forces came under direct attack. To avoid role overlap, experts believe it will be essential to establish a clear “firewall” between NATO and any broad European alliance seeking to guarantee Ukraine’s security, but such arrangements could significantly weaken the alliance, as they would impose formal conditions on its actual commitments, which ought to be centered around the principle of collective defense as a fundamental strategic necessity.
In Summary: The proposal to send peacekeeping forces to Ukraine remains fraught with complexities and risks, despite strong incentives pushing for it. While European leaders strive to enhance their influence in determining Ukraine’s future and deterring Russian aggression, this step faces major obstacles ranging from strong Russian opposition and a lack of clear U.S. support to logistical challenges and divisions within the European Union. Given these challenges, European countries may contemplate focusing on enhancing military and economic support for Kyiv through other means, such as developing the capabilities of the Ukrainian army and offering long-term security guarantees, rather than risking a direct involvement in an uncalculated military confrontation with Russia.
