The European endeavor to form a “reassurance force” of Ukraine is fraught with risks

Before the meeting of Ukrainian President, Voludmir Zellinski, at the White House, last month, which ended with a sharp Betlasen between US President Donald Trump, British Prime Minister Kiir Starmer was confidently talking about the sending of British ground forces to Ukraine, in the event of a ceasefire with Russia.

After what happened to Zelinski in Washington, Starmer, alongside French President Emmanuel Macron, and other European leaders, rushed to double their pledges to support the President of Ukraine.

“This is not a time for more talk,” Starmer said, after a major meeting of heads of state and governments in London. It is time to work, ”but now, after four weeks of two other major meetings for European leaders, a general feeling prevails that the process is relentlessly, and the door is open to all surprises.

The preferred term for these leaders now is to send a “reassurance force” to Ukraine, and talk about European “peacekeepers” is no longer possible. Macron told reporters after a meeting, last Thursday, in Paris, that this force will not work on the line of confrontation, and will not work on behalf of the Ukrainian forces.

Realistic ambitions

Recent reports indicated that London, in particular, may show some “frigidity” towards the idea of ​​deploying ground forces in Ukraine, but Macron insisted that he would not rule out anything yet. He said: “We study the matter, air, sea, righteousness, nothing is unlikely,” adding: “The force of (reassurance) will be spread in Ukraine.”

Additional details will be announced in a timely manner, but French and British military leaders are now charged with working with their Ukrainian counterparts to determine the number of forces that will form this force and its potential sites, in addition to their capabilities, he said.

In military terms, the phrase “time to start work” means “operational concept”, which will constitute the basis of any such power, and what are the potential threats that are likely to face? What are the rules of engagement?

These are not simple issues, and it is likely to take weeks to determine. The answers to these questions are unavoidable, a limited, or non -existent American participation, which is likely to slow down the planning process.

As for the former Ukrainian Minister of Defense, André Zagordonic, aspirations must be realistic. It refers to the clear logistical challenges imposed by his country’s huge confrontation line with Russia, which extends over 1000 km (600 miles), and the small possibility of Starmer and Macron’s approval on the rules of engagement that may allow European forces to enter into direct fighting with Russian soldiers.

He warned that the advanced publication of the British or French ground forces would be an ineffective endeavor, as well as the less comprehensive commitment.

“There have been many discussions about Europe’s intervention and help in security arrangements, but if they end up sending 10,000 soldiers to stay in Kiev, they are unable to leave the city, then this will certainly not change anything in Russia’s accounts,” Zagorodnack added.

In fact, with a little deterrent effect, such a move can make Europe look weaker. It may be difficult for Russia to resist the temptation of humiliation of London and Paris, by violating any ceasefire, with an attack that was carried out hundreds of miles away from the British and French forces stuck in the capital.

In a research paper prepared by Zagorodnaic in favor of the Royal Institute of United Services in London, a defensive research center, Zagorodnack argues, in conjunction with two colleagues, that the best option for Europe may be “deploying air forces” on the ground, that is, the commitment to protect the sky of Ukraine from Russian strikes.

It is almost certain that such protection means the presence of British, French warplanes and other countries in Ukraine, as well as air crews and logistical support. Zagorodionic said that European coverage may be limited to West and Central Ukraine only, but even this will allow Ukraine at least to devote all its forces to defend the eastern part of the country. This power of reassurance does not exceed the mere position of air assets inside Ukraine, and it will remain the main step for Europe, but with the risks of potential credibility, and if it is still existing, the European contribution will certainly be just deployment of ground forces.

The confrontation lines

Meanwhile, Europe must be very cautious, and the management of expectations in the period leading up to any possible advertisement is very important. The credibility of any possible publication will be governed to a large extent to which it matches what has been discussed previously.

The Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman told reporters last Thursday that such “publication” will be “military intervention in Ukraine under the guise of peace mission.” “This may lead to a direct military clash between Russia and NATO,” she added.

Macron stressed that any European force will not be on the confrontation lines, and will not be charged with monitoring or enforcing the ceasefire. He pointed out that this task may fall on the United Nations peacekeepers or other independent observers, while European forces will be stationed away from the confrontation line to deter Russia, and the Europeans will also help and support the Ukrainian forces.

President Trump’s Special Envoy, Steve Whitchov, described the idea of ​​a European power in Ukraine as “simplified” and “just a position and demonstration”, although the Trump administration has been criticizing Europe for shortening it in defending itself. Trump has not expressed any willingness to provide American guarantees to Ukraine’s security, which Starmer said was required from most European countries to consider sending forces.

With regard to American support, Macron said: “We have to hope the best, and prepare for the worst.” He added that he spoke to Trump on the phone before Thursday’s meeting, and he would inform him of the developments after that, but he began to feel that Trump would be the worst party in any deal. About CNN

. The best option for Europe may be “deploying air forces” on the ground, that is, commitment to protecting the sky of Ukraine from Russian strikes.