‘Weakness leads to war’ The U.K. says it’s ready to send troops to Ukraine as part of a ceasefire deal. What would this actually entail?
On Sunday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the U.K. is prepared to send troops to Ukraine as part of a European peacekeeping contingent under a potential ceasefire agreement. To understand what this initiative might entail, how it aligns with E.U countries’ plans, and what risks it carries, BBC News Russian spoke to a veteran of the U.K.’s peacekeeping forces in the Balkans as well as several military experts. Meduza shares an abridged translation of the outlet’s report.
London is prepared to take a leading role in developing security guarantees for Ukraine as part of a future peace deal, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer wrote in a February 16 column for The Daily Telegraph. Alongside military and financial support, he said, this would include “putting our own troops on the ground if necessary.”
These crucial days ahead will determine the future security of our continent. As I will say in Paris, peace comes through strength. But the reverse is also true. Weakness leads to war.
Following Monday’s emergency meeting in Paris with several of his European counterparts, Starmer added that U.S. security guarantees would be “the only way to effectively deter Russia” from launching another attack on Ukraine.
The potential size and mandate of a British or European contingent remain unclear, but experts who spoke to the BBC suggested that such proposals from London and other European capitals are, in part, directed at U.S. President Donald Trump. European leaders want to secure a seat at the table in ceasefire negotiations — something they’re currently being denied not only by Moscow but also by Washington.
By the numbers
Former British military intelligence officer Frank Ledwidge, who served in NATO peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, has extensive field experience, including deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. He now teaches military strategy at the University of Portsmouth.
Ledwidge told the BBC that after the conflict in Bosnia — which has an area 11 times smaller than Ukraine — NATO deployed 60,000 peacekeepers, nearly half of them American. At the peak of the operation in 1995-1996, the British contingent there reached a maximum of 11,500 troops.
Meduza has condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine from the very start, and we are committed to reporting objectively on a war we firmly oppose. Join Meduza in its mission to challenge the Kremlin’s censorship with the truth. Donate today.
However, since the early 1990s, the size of the British army has halved to 70,000 personnel and is now far less well-equipped than before, Ledwidge noted.
“In Ukraine, we could deploy and sustain a single brigade, which would amount to around 5,000 troops,” he told BBC News Russian.
John Foreman, a former British military attaché in Moscow, estimated that the British Army could send up to 10,000 troops. Both Foreman and Ledwidge emphasized that accounting for rotations and recovery periods, deploying even a single brigade would require at least 15,000 personnel.
The extent of contributions from other European NATO members remains uncertain. France, which was the first European country to raise the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine, is seen as least likely to hesitate. Germany, meanwhile, has elections scheduled for Sunday, making Berlin’s stance unpredictable until the results are in.
The U.S. and Poland have already ruled out deploying their troops, while Turkey has yet to announce any intention to participate. Without NATO’s three largest armies, Ledwidge estimates that the remaining alliance members could send no more than 30,000 troops to Ukraine, an assessment echoed by The Washington Post.
This is far short of the 100,000 to 200,000 troops that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and other officials have said would be necessary to deter another Russian attack. However, U.S. military analyst Michael Kofman, who has visited Ukraine’s front lines multiple times, argued that those estimates assume coverage of the entire front line, which is over 1,000 kilometers long. In reality, he wrote, any renewed Russian offensive would likely focus on a few predictable areas. To support Ukrainian forces in these sections, he believes a force of 45,000 to 50,000 troops would be sufficient.
Lessons from the past
Another key question is the mandate of a European contingent in Ukraine — where it would be stationed, what its mission would be, and what limits would be placed on its authority. A lack of clear rules could cost British soldiers their lives and Britain its reputation and ability to maintain peace, warned former MI6 chief Sir John Sawers.
Ledwidge pointed out that NATO peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo had the right to self-defense: if attacked, they could return fire. This distinguished them from UN peacekeepers — so-called Blue Helmets — who had to request permission from higher up and were generally more restricted in their actions.
“In all our peacekeeping missions, they feared us, and we had nothing to fear,” he said of his service in the former Yugoslavia. There, he always felt completely safe, knowing that his unit could defend itself at any time.
“First, the Americans had our backs. Second, our air force could step in if needed,” Ledwidge explained.
However, current discussions about sending British and European troops to Ukraine do not involve U.S. forces. Moreover, the mission may lack reliable air defense — either due to the risk of direct confrontation with Russia or simply because Moscow would refuse to accept such a deployment.
But even without air cover, it’s unclear whether Moscow would tolerate a European force in Ukraine. Russian Permanent Representative to the U.N. Vasily Nebenzya has stated that without a U.N. mandate, such troops would be considered “regular combatants and a legitimate military target” for the Russian army.
Additionally, Ledwidge noted that beyond their primary duties, any European contingent would have to deal with civilian issues, including the return of refugees and internally displaced persons — along with the disputes that would arise. Unexploded mines and ordnance would also pose significant challenges.
“This would be a far more hostile and dangerous environment than anything we faced in Bosnia, Kosovo, or, I suspect, even in Iraq or Afghanistan,” he said. “In my view, we should not deploy troops unless we have clear and robust rules of engagement to defend against drones and unless the force is large enough to ensure the safety of our personnel.”
However, former military attaché John Foreman believes London’s initiative could act as a catalyst, bringing continental Europe along with it. “We must take on this commitment so that weaker European countries can take part,” he said.
Ukrainian political analyst Alena Glivko expanded on this idea in a Daily Telegraph column, arguing that Europe currently lacks an informal leader — and that the U.K. could fill this role, gaining respect from the United States in the process.
“By providing security expertise, leveraging its centuries-old mastery of naval power, diplomacy, and intelligence, Britain can reassert itself as a strategic leader,” Glivko wrote.
However, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has spoken of a future contingent comprising both European and non-European forces, leading some to speculate that Washington is open to deploying troops from neutral countries — an option that might be more acceptable to Moscow than a NATO force.
According to The Economist, this could include Brazilian or Chinese peacekeepers. The magazine reported that U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance has warned European leaders that their forces alone would not be as effective a deterrent against renewed Russian aggression as a contingent that includes non-European troops.
Sign up for Meduza’s daily newsletter
A digest of Russia’s investigative reports and news analysis. If it matters, we summarize it.