European leaders face tough choices as the UK and France host another
meeting on Ukraine
[September 04, 2025]
By EMMA BURROWS
LONDON (AP) — European countries are stuck between a rock and a hard
place as a coalition of countries meets in Paris on Thursday to discuss
security guarantees for a postwar Ukraine.
The war is raging unabated, with no ceasefire in sight — and the crucial
question of American involvement in ensuring Ukraine’s future security
remains unresolved.
For months, the so-called “coalition of the willing” has been meeting to
discuss aid for Ukraine, including sketching out plans for military
support in the event of a ceasefire to deter future Russian aggression.
The coalition leaders — French President Emmanuel Macron and U.K.Prime
Minister Keir Starmer — have insisted that any European “reassurance”
force in Ukraine needs the backing of the United States. But while U.S.
President Donald Trump has hinted his country will be involved, he has
moved away from calling for a ceasefire in Ukraine and refrained from
implementing tough additional economic measures to punish Moscow.
Although Trump said he is “disappointed” in Russian President Vladimir
Putin and issued several threats to try to cajole him into negotiating
an end to hostilities, none has worked. At a meeting with Putin in
Alaska in August, Trump failed to persuade the Russian leader to stop
fighting and has not yet managed to broker talks between Putin and
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
While Trump and European leaders met in Washington after the Alaska
summit — and U.S., European and NATO military chiefs held discussions on
support for Ukraine — little concrete detail has emerged on the security
guarantees to deter Moscow from a future conflict.
Former military generals and experts suggest Europe is in a bind — not
knowing the level of support the U.S. is prepared to provide the
coalition, the nature of any ceasefire or if the U.S. will abide by
commitments made. It's also far from certain that Putin would agree to a
cessation of hostilities, something Russian officials have invariably
dismissed.
“Talking about detailed operational planning when you don’t actually
have your mission is, quite frankly, impossible,” said Ed Arnold, an
expert in European Security at the Royal United Services Institute in
London and a former military planner.
Why Europeans believe a ceasefire is necessary
The “coalition of the willing” is a broad term for about 30 nations
supporting Ukraine, but the so-called “reassurance force” that would
provide security guarantees to Kyiv is a subset of that group.
The U.K., France and Estonia have all suggested they are ready to deploy
troops to Ukraine to deter Putin from attacking again, while officials
in Poland said Warsaw will not take part and will instead focus on
bolstering NATO security in the east of Europe.
There is “no suggestion” that any troops will be deployed without a
ceasefire because it's too risky, said François Heisbourg, special
adviser at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris.
Despite Zelenskyy signaling his willingness to talk, a ceasefire
agreement is not currently in the cards — not least because of the
positions of the U.S. and Russian presidents.
At his Aug. 18 meeting with European leaders at the White House — three
days after meeting Putin — Trump walked back his previous demands for a
ceasefire in Ukraine and said he thought a peace agreement was
preferable.
The comments marked a shift toward the Russian position from Trump and
would allow Moscow to fight on in Ukraine while peace negotiations are
underway.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov later suggested an end to
hostilities was even further away, stating that Moscow will not accept
Zelenskyy's signature on any peace agreement as Russia considers him to
be an illegitimate president.
“If Putin doesn’t want a ceasefire — and if Trump doesn’t call for a
ceasefire — what are the chances of a ceasefire happening?” asked
Heisbourg.
[to top of second column]
|
What a European security guarantee for Ukraine could look like
Even if a ceasefire or peace agreement for Ukraine were implemented,
it's not clear it would be a sufficient deterrent to Putin and it would
still be “very, very risky” for European nations to deploy troops, said
Arnold at RUSI.
Such an operation hinges on the U.S. providing intelligence support and
the deterrent effect of U.S. airpower in countries outside Ukraine.
The Western appetite to potentially shoot down Russian missiles
violating a ceasefire or target launchers firing them from within Russia
is “close to zero,” said Heisbourg.
Any response to a ceasefire violation, he said, would likely depend on
“how many Western soldiers the Russians would have actually killed...and
nobody wants to think about that too much in advance.”
In March, Starmer told allies that a force for Ukraine would need at
least 10,000 troops, but that would potentially require around 30,000
troops when taking into account those on rotation and rest.
As a coalition leader, the U.K. should look at contributing a brigade of
5,000 soldiers which would become 15,000 when taking into account rest
and rotation, said Arnold.
That figure would account for about 30% of the deployable capacity of
the British Army, he said, and potentially create a “tricky” problem
whereby the U.K. deploys more forces on behalf of non-NATO ally Ukraine
than it does for NATO allies such as Estonia.
European officials have indicated that the troops could be involved in
training Ukrainian soldiers and likely based away from the frontlines
although the risk of Russian missile and drone strikes would remain
high.
But there would be “zero credibility" if Western troops were put in
various Ukrainian towns without a clear mission or purpose, said Ben
Hodges, former commanding general of the U.S. Army in Europe.
"That will not impress the Russians at all," he added.
US as a reliable partner
European leaders are also grappling with the question of whether to take
Trump and his officials at their word while also eyeing the rise of
populist parties — particularly in the U.K., France and Germany — which
may not share the same commitment to Ukraine as current political
leadership.
That means the future of any security guarantees for Kyiv could be
extremely fragile.
There is “absolutely no guarantee” that Trump will abide by commitments
made to European nations over Ukraine, said Arnold, pointing to Trump's
withdrawal from previous agreements, including the Paris climate
agreement and Iran's nuclear deal.
That means European nations cannot rely on him ordering U.S. jets into
action in the event of a ceasefire violation because “at one time he may
say yes, at another time he may say no,” Arnold said.
With NATO membership for Kyiv ruled out by Trump and a host of hurdles
to overcome to implement security guarantees for Ukraine, European
leaders may decide to navigate the situation by spending “a lot more
money on weapons” for Kyiv, said Heisbourg.
Arnold agreed, adding that the best option could be to give Kyiv “loads
of guns and loads of ammo.”
“There’s no easy way out," he said. “None of the options, especially for
the Europeans, are good.”
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved
|
