Trump’s close ties with Russia are undermining Europe’s efforts to deploy a peacekeeping force in Ukraine.

 

European nations have intensified discussions on deploying peacekeepers to Ukraine to monitor and enforce a potential ceasefire. However, the initiative faces significant challenges and uncertainties, with European countries divided on the issue, and some openly opposing the idea.

The exact number of peacekeepers remains uncertain, raising concerns about whether the force would be sufficient to effectively enforce a ceasefire. Additionally, rules of engagement could pose a major obstacle.

A key challenge is the Kremlin's opposition to the deployment of Western peacekeepers in Ukraine. Without Russia's approval, the plan is unlikely to move forward, and there is no indication that U.S. President Donald Trump will pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin to support a European-led mission. European nations have also stated that peacekeepers would require some form of U.S. backing, yet it remains unclear whether Washington will provide it. Trump has aligned his policies closely with Moscow's agenda and has so far refused to offer security guarantees to Ukraine.

According to Neil Melvin, director of international security studies at the Royal United Services Institute, "The deployment of a European military force to Ukraine is the least likely form of security assistance due to the high risks involved. A key issue is whether the United States would provide security guarantees, essentially committing Washington to confront Russia. President Trump and his administration have repeatedly stated they will not offer such commitments."

Jenny Mathers, an international politics lecturer at Aberystwyth University, added, "Trump and Vice President JD Vance have made it clear how little they prioritize Ukraine’s security—or even Europe’s. European leaders and societies are beginning to accept that Europe must take the lead in providing security guarantees."

Divisions Among European Nations

The U.K. and France have spearheaded talks on a potential peacekeeping mission, with Ireland, Lithuania, and Canada also considering participation. The force would likely be led by the U.K. and France, with potential support from Sweden, Poland, the Baltic states, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, and Denmark, according to Pavel Havlicek, a research fellow at the Association for International Affairs.

However, some nations remain hesitant. Germany has sent mixed signals, with Defense Minister Boris Pistorius suggesting in January that Berlin might consider contributing troops, while Chancellor Olaf Scholz dismissed such discussions as "premature and inappropriate" in February. The CDU/CSU alliance, which won Germany’s February parliamentary election, appears more open to the idea, though its leader, Friedrich Merz, has stressed that any German participation would require Russia’s consent.

Former European Parliament member Rebecca Harms commented, "For Germany, this is a test of our reliability in shaping a new European security framework. Historically, it could also be seen as an opportunity for Germany to address its past atrocities in Ukraine."

Meanwhile, Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk stated in December that Warsaw was not planning to send peacekeepers. According to James Shea, a defense expert at Chatham House, "Italy, Spain, and Germany are hesitant due to the risks involved, particularly if the U.S. refuses to provide a backstop. Meanwhile, the Baltic states and Poland worry that peacekeeping troops could be drawn from NATO battalions currently defending their national territories, leaving them more vulnerable."

Role of Non-European Troops

If established, the peacekeeping force may also include non-EU countries. Turkey has expressed openness to deploying troops in Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping mission, according to Bloomberg. Shea noted that "Russia might push for non-European forces, advocating for a neutral, lightly armed UN-style peacekeeping force rather than one with a mandate to help Ukraine defend itself."

Havlicek added that "from the Western perspective, Turkish soldiers would be preferable, while Russia might favor Chinese or Central Asian forces."

Size of the Force

President Volodymyr Zelensky suggested in January that at least 200,000 peacekeepers would be needed on Ukraine’s eastern front to enforce a peace deal. However, he later clarified that this figure was not definitive. The Washington Post reported in February that participating European nations could send between 25,000 and 30,000 troops.

Melvin remarked, "Zelensky’s vision of hundreds of thousands of peacekeepers is unrealistic. A force of 30,000 might be possible, but whether it could be sustained is uncertain." Havlicek estimated that "30,000 to 50,000 troops are often discussed, stationed at key strategic points rather than the front line."

Russia’s Opposition

The Kremlin has firmly opposed any Western-led peacekeeping force in Ukraine. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned in February that Moscow would not tolerate NATO personnel in Ukraine after any potential peace deal. Melvin described this as a "major roadblock to a peace agreement."

Some analysts believe the West could pressure Russia to change its stance. Havlicek noted that "economic pressure, particularly on the energy sector, could push Putin toward negotiations." A European diplomatic source suggested that imposing tougher sanctions on Russia’s banking system or threatening penalties for ceasefire violations could be used as leverage.

Trump’s willingness or ability to influence Putin remains in question. Mathers argued, "Trump appears to have no leverage over Putin. Instead, he and his officials have echoed Kremlin talking points and shown eagerness to restore diplomatic and economic ties without demanding any Russian concessions."

Risks and Effectiveness

Even if Russia accepts a European peacekeeping force, significant risks remain. Havlicek cautioned, "These troops would be under constant threat, making U.S. support and guarantees essential. Their role would not be to fight, but to provide security, prevent escalation, and build trust."

Mathers emphasized the importance of clear rules of engagement, citing the failures of UN peacekeepers in Bosnia during the 1990s. "The effectiveness of the force depends on its mandate and authority. If it is merely an observing force, it risks being ineffective."

U.S. Role and Security Guarantees

European leaders have called for U.S. "backstop" support, though the specifics remain unclear. Melvin warned, "30,000 European peacekeepers would struggle to enforce a ceasefire alone. Without a U.S. security guarantee, and given Russia’s hostility, these troops could become targets."

Shea suggested alternative U.S. support options, including air defense, logistics, intelligence-sharing, and allowing NATO’s command structure to oversee the mission. "Ideally, the U.S. could provide a reserve or extraction force, but this would be a tough request for Trump and the Pentagon."

Mathers added that Europeans seek U.S. assurances akin to NATO’s Article 5—treating an attack on peacekeepers as an attack on the U.S. However, she doubted they would receive such a commitment from Trump. "At best, they might secure an agreement for U.S. aircraft patrols over Ukraine, but even that seems unlikely under Trump’s pro-Russia stance."

Conclusion

The idea of deploying European peacekeepers to Ukraine remains fraught with challenges, including European divisions, Russia’s opposition, and uncertainty over U.S. support. Without a unified strategy and clear security guarantees, the initiative faces an uphill battle.