Trump’s Visit and the Unanswered Question of Peacekeeping in Ukraine
While the warm words and positive body language displayed by Donald Trump during his state visit and the discussions surrounding the Chagos deal may have brought a sigh of relief to Keir Starmer’s team, a pivotal question remains: what is the status of an international peacekeeping force in Ukraine?
It was profoundly significant for a sitting US president to label the UK as America’s “number one ally.” However, this raises a crucial concern: will the United States extend military support to this top ally if British peacekeeping troops in Ukraine come under fire from Russian forces? Trump’s remarks leading up to his discussions with Starmer do not provide a clear answer to this pressing question.
The Prime Minister has previously articulated that the UK is “ready and willing” to deploy “boots on the ground” in Ukraine to help solidify a peace agreement between Moscow and Kyiv. Nevertheless, he has also emphasized that the UK, along with other European partners contributing personnel to a peacekeeping contingent, would require a “backstop” from the US as a security guarantee.
Sources within Whitehall and military circles have indicated that this backstop could encompass the US providing air cover, logistical support, and other essential backing, even if it does not involve American troops on the ground.
However, during their joint appearance in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump hinted that the US security “backstop” might instead come in the form of American workers stationed in Ukraine as part of a minerals deal between Washington and Kyiv. Referring to the agreement he intends to sign with President Zelensky, the US president remarked: “It’s a backstop, you could say. I don’t think anybody’s going to play around if we’re there with a lot of workers and having to do with rare earths and other things which we need for our country.”
While this development could be seen as a positive initial step toward a security guarantee, it is unlikely to be sufficient. The notion that US civilian workers—including experts in geology and mining—would suddenly be prepared, let alone trained, to defend UK and other international troops is rather unrealistic.
Trump might argue that Putin would think twice about harming US civilian workers, as it would likely provoke a military response from the United States. It is conceivable that he will unveil further details regarding US military support; however, he has insisted that such disclosures will only occur once a peace agreement has been finalized.
When asked if the US would come to the UK’s aid in the event that British troops were attacked by Russia while maintaining peace in Ukraine, Trump suggested that the British could manage on their own. He stated: “You know, I’ve always found about the British—they don’t need much help. They can take care of themselves very well.”
He continued, “It sounds like it’s evasive, but it’s not evasive. You know, the British have been incredible soldiers, incredible military, and they can take care of themselves. But if they need help, I’ll always be with the British, OK? I’ll always be with them—but they don’t need help.”
When Trump posed the question to Starmer, “Could you take on Russia by yourselves?” the Prime Minister could only respond with a nervous smile and a hesitant, “Well…”
Despite the apparent camaraderie between the two leaders, it is evident that the issue of peacekeepers remains a crucial sticking point between the two allied nations.
