US Security Guarantee in Ukraine Peace Deal: Starmer’s Push
In a significant diplomatic move, Sir Keir Starmer is poised to urge former President Donald Trump to commit to a US security guarantee as part of any peace agreement concerning Ukraine. This guarantee would involve the United States pledging air cover from a neighboring country, enhancing the security framework for Ukraine amid ongoing tensions with Russia.
Prime Minister Starmer has expressed a willingness to deploy British troops on the ground in Ukraine to maintain peace following a potential agreement with Russia. However, he has emphasized that a robust US “backstop” is crucial to deter any future violations of the agreement by Vladimir Putin, who may be tempted to resume military aggression.
The envisioned backstop, however, will not entail the deployment of American troops within Ukraine nor offer a NATO guarantee, which would classify any attack on peacekeeping forces—including British troops—as an attack on the entire alliance, triggering an automatic collective response.
Starmer is set to engage in discussions on this pressing issue during his talks at the White House with President Trump on Thursday. It is anticipated that Trump will have already conferred with French President Emmanuel Macron, who has been a key architect of the peacekeeping plan discussed earlier in the week.
Both Britain and France are reportedly advocating for a resolution that would focus on establishing a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine, with US military assets stationed in a nearby country, such as Poland. The US’s role would primarily involve providing aerial intelligence, surveillance, logistical support, and, if necessary, air cover in the event of a Russian breach of the peace agreement.
This proposed backstop is considered vital not only for deterring Russian aggression in the future but also for rallying hesitant allies to commit their own troops to the peacekeeping mission. Former defense ministers have underscored the urgent need for the UK and Europe to demonstrate their capability and willingness to uphold the peace.
Former Defense Secretary Ben Wallace remarked to The i Paper: “Earlier this week, we observed the Prime Minister using smoke and mirrors regarding defense spending instead of acknowledging the crucial message from the White House. Europe must transition from dialogue to action, providing concrete guarantees and financial commitments.” He added, “The Government is still searching for a painless solution to our national security needs, but that simply does not exist. I have firsthand experience of that.”
Wallace continued, “A Bosnia-style peacekeeping approach will not suffice. We need a peacekeeping strategy rooted in strength and deterrence.”
Ex-Defense Minister Tobias Ellwood indicated that there is currently an “active debate” within Ukraine regarding whether to reject Trump’s proposed peace deal and instead pursue a more aggressive strategy—arming Ukraine further and potentially instituting air cover, such as a no-fly zone, to facilitate territorial recovery.
This alternate approach would entail the UK and European nations deploying fighter jets in Ukraine to intercept Russian missiles and drones. Ellwood stated that any Russian manned aircraft entering Ukrainian airspace would need to be engaged by local forces, asserting that modern technology would allow for clear distinctions in the chaos of warfare.
He emphasized, “The critical question is whether we accept the initial terms of a deal… [given that] the consensus appears to be that America will not participate in peacekeeping, thus Europe must assume that role.” He added, “Alternatively, do we recognize that such a deal is likely to fail, inevitably leading to direct confrontations with Russia as they continue to destabilize Ukraine?”
Ellwood further elaborated, “Should we undertake a broader assessment, investing more resources to allow Ukraine to mount a significant counter-offensive over the next 12 months?” He stressed that rather than getting lost in discussions about the specifics of a peacekeeping force, this fundamental inquiry should take precedence.
The former Conservative MP pointed out, “Deploying troops on the ground would not be the immediate response; rather, it would involve providing aerial cover from a distance before considering ground units.” He questioned, “Could we implement a no-fly zone to intercept incoming missiles and rogue Russian aircraft?” He confidently asserted, “We could easily manage this independently, given the capabilities and assets across Europe, which far exceed the outdated and depleted Russian military inventory.”
A senior official from the Trump administration indicated that the nature of the US’s proposed backstop would largely depend on the specifics of any peace agreement reached. “There is a balance to be struck between the size of the military presence required and the strength of the diplomatic efforts supporting it,” the official stated.
“Many nations harbor reservations about deploying troops into an active conflict zone. If the intensity of the conflict were to resemble the dynamics observed between Ukraine and Russia from 2014-2015, following the annexation of Crimea, those nations would still be cautious, albeit perhaps less so,” the official elaborated.
“Conversely, if the conflict level is reduced to a functional ceasefire, there would be even fewer concerns, particularly if a broad consensus emerges for a peaceful resolution among the involved parties. In that scenario, the security forces deployed would likely be viewed more as peacekeepers than deterrents, making it more palatable for many nations.”
“Thus, the type of military force deployed will depend significantly on the political settlement achieved to conclude the war, and I believe that the leaders will be deliberating on these trade-offs today.”
