> Downing Street said on Monday it expected “more than 30” countries to join a coalition to help secure a lasting peace in Ukraine, though British officials admit that many would not be willing to put boots on the ground. Britain, France and Australia have signalled they are ready to send troops to help enforce a ceasefire in Ukraine, but all have warned that any peace could only be guaranteed if the US provided a military “backstop”. Denmark and Sweden have also said they would be willing to contribute forces in some form to any agreed peacekeeping force in Ukraine, including the potential deployment of troops.
> Military planners from national capitals joining what UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has called “a coalition of the willing” are due to hold talks near London on Thursday to discuss operational details.
British officials have said that a multinational force could comprise up to 30,000 troops, but military officials admit that a “durable” peace could only be secured if it was backed by US air power and other support. Starmer’s spokesperson said on Monday that countries could contribute in many ways, including providing fast jets, engineering and logistics support and backfilling for forces engaged in other theatres. “It’s not just about troops,” the spokesman said, but added: “There would be a significant force with a significant number of countries.”
> A larger group of EU countries — including Ireland, Luxembourg and Belgium — have not ruled out participating in a possible force, depending on the rules of engagement agreed and its legal basis. Countries bordering Russia such as Finland and Poland have been active in the discussions over a peacekeeping presence without committing any of their own forces, arguing that their troops are required to remain to defend their own territory in the event that Russia uses a ceasefire to redeploy troops in a way that could threaten their countries. Downing Street said: “The PM has said that for the coalition of the willing and UK troops to be deployed it must be in the context of a secure and lasting peace with US backing being needed. Those discussions are ongoing.”
> The fact that US President Donald Trump has declined to offer US military air cover or other support has thrown huge doubts over the proposed peacekeeping mission. “No one wants to see a small number of European troops, without US support, in the firing line in Ukraine,” said one EU diplomat. “It would put enormous strain on Nato unity should something occur.” A total of 26 countries held talks in London on Saturday in what Starmer dubbed a “coalition of the willing”. Most were European nations, but they also including Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Japan was not on the call but has offered “backing”, Starmer said. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign affairs representative, will hold talks with UK foreign secretary David Lammy and defence secretary John Healey in London on Tuesday.
!ping UK&EUROPE
AniNgAnnoys on
Russia has already signaled they will not accept NATO troops in Ukraine or any kind of peace keeping force. The fact that the UK and Europe are pushing forward on this, imo, signals they are calling Trump’s bluff, presenting the only feasible peace plan, and then hoping Russia blows it up. The goal being, to help make Trump see Russia cannot be trusted and that Russia is the aggressor. I hope this works out, but as conciliatory as Trump has been to Russian demands, I could also see this going the other way, in that Trump claims Ukraine and Europe are not being reasonable and listening to Russia’s points and sides with Russia in the end.
Soft-Mongoose-4304 on
I don’t know how this is going to work out. Even before Trump this was going to be difficult.
I think from the US perspective the biggest fear is that this will spill out beyond Europe and into a global conflict. I don’t think the US wants to get into a direct conflict with Russia because that would risk a nuclear exchange and the US doesn’t want to destroy the world over Ukraine.
For the US this would turn a proxy war which it has struggled to contain into an actual war and maybe even a world war.
Maybe it has to be that any fighting within Ukriane has to stay with European actors and if it goes beyond that then the US will step in
Lol-I-Wear-Hats on
The key thing you know about how this is al keyfabe is that they’re essentially giving the Russians a veto on whether foreign troops are on Ukrainian territory by bundling this with with an armistice.
If they were serious they would be telling Moscow that the troops are coming with or without peace and daring them to shoot
4 Comments
> Downing Street said on Monday it expected “more than 30” countries to join a coalition to help secure a lasting peace in Ukraine, though British officials admit that many would not be willing to put boots on the ground. Britain, France and Australia have signalled they are ready to send troops to help enforce a ceasefire in Ukraine, but all have warned that any peace could only be guaranteed if the US provided a military “backstop”. Denmark and Sweden have also said they would be willing to contribute forces in some form to any agreed peacekeeping force in Ukraine, including the potential deployment of troops.
> Military planners from national capitals joining what UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has called “a coalition of the willing” are due to hold talks near London on Thursday to discuss operational details.
British officials have said that a multinational force could comprise up to 30,000 troops, but military officials admit that a “durable” peace could only be secured if it was backed by US air power and other support. Starmer’s spokesperson said on Monday that countries could contribute in many ways, including providing fast jets, engineering and logistics support and backfilling for forces engaged in other theatres. “It’s not just about troops,” the spokesman said, but added: “There would be a significant force with a significant number of countries.”
> A larger group of EU countries — including Ireland, Luxembourg and Belgium — have not ruled out participating in a possible force, depending on the rules of engagement agreed and its legal basis. Countries bordering Russia such as Finland and Poland have been active in the discussions over a peacekeeping presence without committing any of their own forces, arguing that their troops are required to remain to defend their own territory in the event that Russia uses a ceasefire to redeploy troops in a way that could threaten their countries. Downing Street said: “The PM has said that for the coalition of the willing and UK troops to be deployed it must be in the context of a secure and lasting peace with US backing being needed. Those discussions are ongoing.”
> The fact that US President Donald Trump has declined to offer US military air cover or other support has thrown huge doubts over the proposed peacekeeping mission. “No one wants to see a small number of European troops, without US support, in the firing line in Ukraine,” said one EU diplomat. “It would put enormous strain on Nato unity should something occur.” A total of 26 countries held talks in London on Saturday in what Starmer dubbed a “coalition of the willing”. Most were European nations, but they also including Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Japan was not on the call but has offered “backing”, Starmer said. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign affairs representative, will hold talks with UK foreign secretary David Lammy and defence secretary John Healey in London on Tuesday.
!ping UK&EUROPE
Russia has already signaled they will not accept NATO troops in Ukraine or any kind of peace keeping force. The fact that the UK and Europe are pushing forward on this, imo, signals they are calling Trump’s bluff, presenting the only feasible peace plan, and then hoping Russia blows it up. The goal being, to help make Trump see Russia cannot be trusted and that Russia is the aggressor. I hope this works out, but as conciliatory as Trump has been to Russian demands, I could also see this going the other way, in that Trump claims Ukraine and Europe are not being reasonable and listening to Russia’s points and sides with Russia in the end.
I don’t know how this is going to work out. Even before Trump this was going to be difficult.
I think from the US perspective the biggest fear is that this will spill out beyond Europe and into a global conflict. I don’t think the US wants to get into a direct conflict with Russia because that would risk a nuclear exchange and the US doesn’t want to destroy the world over Ukraine.
For the US this would turn a proxy war which it has struggled to contain into an actual war and maybe even a world war.
Maybe it has to be that any fighting within Ukriane has to stay with European actors and if it goes beyond that then the US will step in
The key thing you know about how this is al keyfabe is that they’re essentially giving the Russians a veto on whether foreign troops are on Ukrainian territory by bundling this with with an armistice.
If they were serious they would be telling Moscow that the troops are coming with or without peace and daring them to shoot