The British prime minister is pushing his “coalition of the willing” — but there are big questions over its viability while the U.S. and Russia continue to sideline Europe.
LONDON — Hopes of a ceasefire in Ukraine appear distant after Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin’s phone call this week. Perhaps someone should tell the U.K. prime minister.
European military leaders will gather on Thursday at Northwood, west London, as Britain, led by Keir Starmer, continues undaunted in its push to act as a guarantor for any ceasefire that might be achieved in Ukraine.
The summit comes despite the brush-off that Russia’s president gave his U.S. counterpart in a much-hyped call Tuesday, dismissing a plan for a fuller 30-day ceasefire presented by the U.S. and Ukraine.
Putin continues to hold fast to seemingly impossible red lines — including the end of all foreign military aid and Western intelligence-sharing with Kyiv — while the U.S. has been unwilling to offer any security guarantee for a postwar peacekeeping presence in Ukraine.
Starmer is nonetheless determined to move toward what he calls the “operational phase” of planning to protect any potential Ukraine ceasefire. Kyiv’s allies, led by Starmer and France’s Emmanuel Macron, are aiming to sustain the pressure for a pause in fighting, and to isolate Putin as the main roadblock to peace.
The backdrop to Thursday’s summit — which aims to flesh out a so-called coalition of the willing — is daunting.
And as the talks begin it is far less clear what the ultimate objectives of the peacekeeping force might be — or whether Ukraine’s allies can really sustain it for the long haul.
Down to brass tacks
The U.K. and France have led the way in promising to help provide the military force needed to keep Russia at bay if a ceasefire is reached while negotiations for a more lasting peace continue.
Yet at this point it is not clear what such a setup would actually look like. The options floated have ranged from a 30,000-strong “reassurance force” to a much larger peacekeeping presence, which one former British army head estimated would require 100,000 troops.
Other key issues include whether British troops would be permitted to fire at Russian soldiers, a question the prime minister has so far declined to answer.
Thursday’s U.K.-hosted meeting will see army chiefs and defense planners attempt to fill in some of that detail, discussing what equipment and personnel will be needed where, and who is best placed to provide it.
While the logistics are still very much in play, Starmer has been expansive in his commitments. He has repeatedly said the country will do “whatever it takes” to back Ukraine, suggesting an arrangement that could last for years.
A senior U.K. government official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said ministers were not thinking of “an endpoint” to peacekeeping efforts but were instead focused on “making sure what’s there on the ground is strong enough in order to ensure durable peace.”
That is also the hope and expectation of Britain’s allies, anxious for security guarantees. “I do think the international commitments in support of a possible peace agreement need to be long-term,” said Teija Tiilikainen, the former Finnish foreign minister who now directs the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats.
What next?
Such talk of a long-term peacekeeping force in Ukraine has already set alarm bells ringing in defense circles.
Despite a promised uplift in defense spending, the U.K.’s military is currently underpowered. Defence Secretary John Healey told POLITICO last year that the country’s armed forces are not “ready to fight” a war and need to be “more effective” in deterring future aggression against NATO members.
Marina Morin, from the war studies department of King’s College London, said this should be a major concern for the peacekeeping effort. “The U.K. and European partners have not, at least in the public space, articulated any sort of a coherent strategy,” she warned.
Morin asked: “How long can we realistically support Ukraine if we need to re-arm because our own stockpiles are empty? You can say to Ukraine ‘we will support you as long as it takes,’ but those words don’t mean anything if you cannot follow through.”
The U.K. Ministry of Defence has relied heavily on the recommendations of the damning Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war of the 2000s for its own guidance on planning for a military operation. But some fear those conclusions are now being ignored.
In particular, Ed Arnold, senior research fellow at RUSI and an army veteran, highlighted the need set out by Chilcot to have a clear idea of what success would look like in any intervention. “It’s a noble endeavor from the U.K. and the others in Europe, but it’s also potentially a terrible idea,” Arnold said. “We don’t know what the mission is.”
Outside the room
U.K. officials insist this is the wrong way to think about it, and maintain that the commitment to underpin a peace deal needs to be made as swiftly and forcefully as possible.
Tiilikainen argued: “It doesn’t mean that the U.K. troops need to be there for decades, as long as the arrangement is such that a solid support of an international presence can be granted.” That could entail some rotation of responsibilities, she said.
Yet no matter how willing the U.K. and its coalition partners are, they are ultimately stuck on the sidelines of conversations going on between Moscow and Washington.
Ben Wallace, former U.K. defense secretary, told Times Radio that Putin and Trump are “having lots of discussions without effectively the now de facto guarantor of Ukraine, which is Europe and the United Kingdom.”
“Ultimately, I think what needs to happen is all those four stakeholders need to be in that room.”
For now, the U.K.’s military planners can only knock at the door.
Sascha O’Sullivan contributed to this report.
