What would a European force in Ukraine look like?

Diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine have intensified in recent days, prompting European states to talk of a new urgency for sending a peacekeeping force.

When first mentioned by French President Emmanuel Macron a year ago, the idea of ​​a European force to provide Ukraine's security after the war did not have much impact and was not taken seriously by most experts.

But, this has now changed.

Suggestions by the United States special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, that Europe “will not be at the table” for negotiations on Ukraine’s future have given the continent’s leaders a boost to make themselves relevant. The US-Russia talks on Ukraine on February 18 in Saudi Arabia have heightened tensions, writes Free Europe.

The Dutch Prime Minister explained the situation by saying that Europeans need to agree on what they can contribute and "that way we will get a seat at the table."

But, that is not the only reason behind this idea.

"This will be a difficult task for Europeans, but it cannot be avoided if Russia's threat to NATO is to be contained in Ukraine," said Jamie Shea, who had served in various senior positions at NATO before retiring in 2018.

Shea said that close to 50.000 European soldiers could be needed, implying a structure of 150.000 soldiers, with "continuous rotation".

Talks in Paris on February 17 produced no clear outcome on this front, but the discussion has now begun in earnest. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has invested politically in the project ahead of a meeting with US President Donald Trump next week.

But Starmer also said the mission would require Washington's involvement, talking about US "security" such as air power. Shea, who rose to prominence as a NATO spokesman during the 90s Balkan wars, said that raised a potential problem.

"Europeans should be wary of the failure in Bosnia in the early 90s, when Europeans were on the ground and constantly criticized the Americans for being safe in the air," he said.

Starmer's statements about his willingness to send troops attracted media attention, but critics also said Britain's military capabilities were limited. Chief among the critics was Richard Dannatt, the former head of the British army, who said the army was "so broken" that it could not lead such a mission.

Britain's military has largely focused on counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations since 2001. It has faced cuts in the last decade and a parliamentary report in September last year said Britain was "unprepared" to combat the Russian threat.

In July, Starmer himself said that Britain's armed forces were "weakened".

During a press conference on February 18, US President Donald Trump was asked whether he supports the deployment of European peacekeepers to Ukraine as part of an agreement.

"If they want to do that, great. I support it," he said.

Trump added that if a peace deal is reached, there should be European troops.

"We shouldn't send it because we're too far away. I don't oppose [the idea of ​​sending troops] at all," Trump said.

Europe's other major military power is France.

The French military is larger in numbers than the British, but it is also challenged by years of combat deployments across Africa. French experts have expressed skepticism about the military's capabilities for a high-intensity conflict like the one in Ukraine.

"We only have six long-range missile launchers left, we have no means to fight against drones," said Léo Périad Peigné of the French Institute of International Relations in November last year.

On February 18, French President Emmanuel Macron told French media that Paris was not “preparing to send ground troops to the conflict, to the front lines” in Ukraine, but was considering, together with Britain, sending “experts, or even troops, in limited terms, outside any conflict zone.”

Sweden and the Netherlands have hinted they might be willing to provide troops under certain conditions. But Poland, which has a large army, said it was not ready for such a thing.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who left before the meeting in Paris ended on February 17, said he was "concerned" by what he called "premature discussion" on the issue.

Polls in Germany suggest Scholz will lose the federal election on February 23. But he will be in charge for several more months, while negotiations on a governing coalition take place. Of course, he may be more inclined to support the idea of ​​sending German troops to Ukraine after the elections are over.

Juergen Hardt, a lawmaker from Germany's main opposition Christian Democrats, told Radio Free Europe that he could imagine sending troops to the ground under the banner of the United Nations. Hardt's party is likely to lead the next German government.

"I do not rule out a German military role if there is a peace agreement on the basis of a UN resolution, where international forces are required to supervise or contribute to that peace," he said.

This raises a key point about how realistic such a mission might be.

Nicu Popescu from the European Council on Foreign Relations said he sees another difficulty.

“The problem with traditional peacekeeping missions is that they are tied to UN decisions, which means that Russia can veto or end the mission at any time,” Popescu told REL last month. Popescu served as Moldova’s foreign minister from 2021 to 2024.

Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and has the right of veto.

At the same time, Popescu said that most of the discussions have not focused on a peacekeeping force, but on a preventive force. Jamie Shea said he agreed and raised two other issues.

"Should we use NATO forces that currently protect NATO borders in Central and Eastern Europe? Poland is against that. And should we focus more on strengthening the Ukrainian army as the main deterrent force and spend our money on that, rather than on the European security force, as Denmark is calling for?"

Political aspects also play a big role. Polls in Western Europe have consistently shown low levels of support for sending troops to Ukraine.

The risks of sending such a contingent, even in a non-combat role, would be great. The rules for involvement would need to be defined, including how they would react if they were fired upon by Russian forces and the political consequences if casualties were high.

"It will be an idea that will hardly get the green light," said Niklas Granholm of the Swedish Defense Research Agency.

"If you go from west to east, you have what used to be called the axis of uncertainty. Eastern Europeans feel this very clearly. But it's not as clear the further west you go."