Britain and France announced a readiness to send troops to Ukraine following a potential peace deal, marking what leaders described as a major commitment. The trilateral declaration, signed by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy, aims to establish military hubs across Ukrainian territory “after a ceasefire.”
Yet, significant questions remain about the size, scope, and mandate of the forces, which are explicitly stated to remain “a long way behind the contact line” and unlikely to engage Russian troops directly.
How effective can a non-combat force really be?
Furthermore, it has been stated that the European forces will be a reassuring measure rather than being in the frontline position and that it will aid in building Ukrainian military strength in the long run.
However, it has been argued that symbolic strength in an area that is miles away from areas of conflict may have little to no impact in deterring Russian forces, mainly because Russia has an open rejection of any military forces within Ukraine’s borders in alliance with NATO.
Can Europe trust US security guarantees under Trump?
US representatives Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner touted “unprecedented” security guarantees meant to deter attacks on deployed forces. However, the credibility of these assurances is questioned in light of recent US actions in Venezuela and Trump’s threats against Greenland, which have strained US-European relations.
Observers warn that Europe may be asked to assume risk based on commitments from a US administration whose priorities appear unpredictable and geographically inconsistent.
Will Ukraine have to compromise on territory for peace?
A still-unresolved point in US-Ukrainian talks is whether Ukraine would consider surrendering land in order to reach a peaceful solution. This was referred to by Zelenskyy in his observation that “creative solutions” to this issue were still under consideration but said that he needed to speak with Trump himself in order to reach a solution. This has been recognized to be “the most critical issue” by Witkoff.
Critics question whether Western pledges of security can realistically compensate for potential territorial concessions.
Is Moscow actually willing to negotiate?
Despite Western optimism, Russian officials have repeatedly dismissed temporary ceasefires or quick agreements, insisting any deal must address so-called “root causes” of the conflict. The Kremlin’s categorical rejection of NATO troops in Ukraine casts doubt on the feasibility of European force deployments.
Even Starmer acknowledged that peace hinges on Putin’s willingness to compromise—something not yet evident. Analysts suggest that, in practice, Moscow may exploit the declarations as political signaling rather than seriously engaging in negotiations.
How united is the coalition of the willing?
The Paris summit gathered 27 world leaders, yet national commitments remain uneven. Italy and Poland have ruled out sending troops, while Germany would only deploy forces in neighboring countries.
Zelenskyy has also pointed out that the credibility of the coalition relies on the engagement of each of the states in it, otherwise it undermines the “willing” coalition description. However, the fragmentation of the coalition calls into question the impact of these intended deployments.
Are troop deployments a political signal more than a military solution?
It has been observed by observers that the communications may be aimed more at reassuring Ukraine and symbolizing Western solidarity rather than effective military deterrence. With its unclear rules of engagement, limited direct combat capabilities, and the continued uncertainties of Russian intentions, it has been argued that such a plan has a potential for symbolical action only.
On the other hand, the American preoccupation with Venezuela and Greenland makes American commitment to security in Europe ambiguous.
Can peace be achieved without concrete guarantees?
While Starmer claimed that the coalition is “closer to peace than ever,” analysts warn that vague commitments, partial troop deployments, and unresolved territorial disputes leave the situation precarious. The success of any future force, whether for reassurance or deterrence, hinges not only on political will but on actionable coordination, credible deterrence, and Moscow’s willingness to negotiate in good faith.
