Western Troops in Ukraine: A Long-Term Commitment
British and other Western forces may find themselves stationed in Ukraine for decades as part of a potential peacekeeping mission, according to General Sir Richard Shirreff, the former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. He emphasizes that such a peace initiative would represent a “generational challenge”, drawing parallels to the long-standing presence of U.S. troops in South Korea since the conclusion of the Korean War.
During a recent summit of European leaders in London, Sir Keir Starmer outlined a comprehensive four-point strategy aimed at ending the ongoing conflict and safeguarding Ukraine against Russian aggression. This plan includes the formation of a “coalition of the willing” to deploy ground forces following a ceasefire, with British troops potentially contributing to a reassurance force estimated to number around 30,000 personnel.
French President Emmanuel Macron proposed an initial month-long truce focusing on air, sea, and energy infrastructure to create a conducive environment for peace negotiations. However, the UK government has downplayed this suggestion, expressing concerns that it could provide Russia with a critical opportunity to regroup and launch further offensives.
Sir Richard, who brings his extensive experience from deployments in Northern Ireland, Iraq, and Kosovo during his 37 years of service in the British Army, warned that a peacekeeping operation led by the UK and France could extend for decades. He stated, “Russia will never abandon its ambition to incorporate Ukraine into its sphere of influence, effectively erasing it as a sovereign nation from the map.” He likened the situation to the ongoing tensions between North and South Korea, which have persisted since the early 1950s, asserting that this is indeed a daunting and dangerous endeavor, marking it as a generational challenge.
Soldiers from NATO member countries could play a crucial role in forming this coalition peacekeeping force in Ukraine. The U.S. has maintained a military presence in South Korea since the Korean War ended in 1953, even though a formal peace treaty remains unsigned. Approximately 30,000 U.S. troops are stationed at Camp Humphreys, America’s largest overseas military installation, as a deterrent against nuclear threats from North Korea.
Lord Dannatt, a former head of the British Army, echoed Sir Richard’s sentiments, suggesting that the timeline for any deployment to Ukraine could mirror the U.S. presence in South Korea. He remarked, “Without a determined effort to establish a lasting peace agreement, this conflict may endure for a considerable duration.” Both military leaders agree that the most effective way for Britain and its allies to avoid future conflict with Russia is to decisively defeat Russian forces in Ukraine.
Mobilizing for Peace and Preparedness
Sir Richard urged allied nations to activate their defense industries on a “war footing” to ensure Ukraine remains capable of sustaining its defense into the upcoming year. “To prevent this nation from being at war with Russia in the near future, we must defeat Russia in Ukraine and subsequently establish a ceasefire agreement that guarantees Ukraine’s security with the support of Western troops,” he stated. “These forces must be highly capable because Russia will undoubtedly seek to rebuild and re-engage if it perceives an opportunity to do so.”
He also commented on Donald Trump’s previous actions regarding Ukraine’s rare minerals, suggesting that they may have inadvertently heightened the likelihood of conflict between Russia and Western powers rather than fostering a strategy to push back against Putin.
Discussions at the London summit included representatives from Canada and Turkey, with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau indicating a willingness to consider the deployment of Canadian peacekeepers as part of a broader “European plus” alliance.
Keir Giles, a senior research fellow at Chatham House’s Russia and Eurasia programme, cautioned that historical patterns suggest Russia is likely to breach any ceasefire at the first available opportunity. He noted, “The intricacies of the situation entail numerous variables that could complicate matters, even if both Russia and the U.S. are inclined to cooperate.”
The Risks of Underestimating the Situation
A Russian military expert pointed out that air defense capabilities would be one significant shortfall in a Western peacekeeping force if U.S. support for Ukraine continues to wane. Giles mentioned that the proposed month-long truce could serve as a temporary measure between active combat and the deployment of “peace enforcers” to maintain stability.
However, he stressed, “Describing any foreign military presence in Ukraine as “peacekeepers” is profoundly misleading. If they are to uphold peace, they must be fully prepared to defend themselves against any resumption of hostilities by Russia. Any strategy that treats a potential conflict with Russia as a distant concern is already dangerously outdated.”
Sir Richard, who served in a prominent NATO role from 2011 to 2014, asserted that the only circumstances under which Russia would consider a truce would be if a peace agreement concedes to all Kremlin demands. He called for a “united strategy” among European nations and Canada to enhance arms production for Ukraine. “The West must consolidate every capability to mobilize our defense industries for war, to establish multi-year contracts for ammunition, and to commit unwavering support,” he emphasized.
He suggested that the outcome of the conflict may hinge on which side opts to back down first, stating, “I believe Russia’s economy could falter within a year. Victory in this war hinges on the collapse of the Russian economy.”
On Monday, Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard indicated that military deployments to Ukraine could be feasible even without the U.S. backing sought by the Prime Minister and other allies, although he emphasized the necessity for a “durable and lasting peace”. He added, “It is crucial to grasp the distinction between a brief pause, which may be achievable, and a sustainable peace agreement.” He conveyed genuine concerns from President Zelensky and the Ukrainian leadership that a short respite might merely afford Russian forces the opportunity to rearm and regroup for renewed aggression.
The European Realization: A Potential Target
By Leo Cendrowicz
European officials have expressed a commitment to collaborate with Ukraine on a parallel peace initiative, as mentioned by Starmer, while simultaneously navigating a separate negotiation with Russia on behalf of the United States. In a recent interview with the French newspaper Le Figaro, Macron elaborated on the proposed ceasefire, suggesting a two-stage approach: initially targeting air, sea, and energy infrastructure, followed by an extension to ground combat, paving the way for the deployment of British, French, and other allied troops.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot emphasized that the truce would serve as a litmus test for Russia’s willingness to engage in good faith before embarking on discussions for a more enduring peace. “This is fundamentally about deterrence: if Russia violates the ceasefire and launches a third assault on Ukraine, it will find itself at war with us,” remarked Sven Biscop, director at Egmont, Belgium’s Royal Institute for International Relations. “This scenario carries the risk of conflict with Russia. However, so does abandoning Ukraine. If we continue to project an image of vulnerability, we may very well become a target ourselves.”
The European Commission is laying the groundwork to escalate support for Kyiv while also acknowledging the broader European efforts to sustain Ukraine. “It is imperative to fortify Ukraine so that it can engage in negotiations for a lasting peace, and all who can contribute to this endeavor are welcome,” stated a Commission spokesperson. “It is encouraging to see multiple leaders stepping up to take an active role in this critical situation.”
The Ministry of Defence has been approached for comment on these developments.
