Britain and other European countries are divided over the viability of deploying a large-scale peacekeeping force to Ukraine, diplomats and officials have told The Times.
The UK, France and the Nordic states support the idea of a Europe-led initiative of sending tens of thousands of troops in the event of a ceasefire deal. However, Germany and others are opposed, it is understood.
The Baltic states and Poland are believed to be concerned that the proposed mission could divert much-needed resources from Nato’s border states with Russia, leaving them exposed.
There is growing consensus, however, that such a post-conflict deployment would need to have Donald Trump’s “buy in” and security guarantees.
A senior British government source said Europe alone could generate the ground force if necessary but ministers were asking the US to provide “air cover”. This could be in the form of Patriot surface-to-air missile batteries that can shoot down ballistic missiles or aircraft with intelligence and surveillance assets, capabilities Europe lacks.
The British Army could, in theory, send a division-sized force of 10,000 to 25,000 troops, an army source said, although it may be a stretch given that troops are already stationed in Estonia.
A UN peacekeeping force made up of troops from countries such as India, Bangladesh and China is deemed by some to be more achievable.
Sir Keir Starmer is expected to discuss the issue with EU leaders and Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary-general, at a meeting in Brussels on Monday. He will also hold a bilateral meeting with Rutte on the same day.
John Healey, the defence secretary, is pushing for the UK to show strong leadership on the matter. Yet some officials believe they are still to convince Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, of the importance of Ukraine and fear she sees it as a “money pit”.
A huge stumbling block is whether President Putin would agree to a force of this kind during peace talks led by the US.
“If Russia does not buy the idea it is dead and if the US does not provide a hammer the idea is dead. Never say never, but I do not see this albatross getting off the ground,” a senior military source said.
Allies are sceptical as to whether Europe alone could generate a force large enough to stop Russia from mounting a new attack after it has had time to rebuild its military. President Zelensky has said it would have to be 200,000 strong, which in reality would mean having 600,000 troops either deployed to Ukraine, preparing to go or in recovery.
Zelensky has also said any effective peacekeeping force would need to include US troops because his European allies did not have enough soldiers to pose a realistic deterrent to Putin, comments that irked some diplomats in Europe last week.
Some diplomats and military sources believe a UN peacekeeping is a wiser alternative and one more likely to secure the agreement of Putin. This could involve some 100,000 peacekeepers positioned inside both Ukraine and Russia and would not require any direct US involvement.
“They [the Russians] are not going to attack the Bangladeshis or the Indians,” a second military source said.
As for a European-led force, the Germans are understood to be against making a commitment because of uncertainty over the forthcoming election.
Another European diplomatic source said the US would need to be involved to provide a stronger deterrent to Russia and “because they have capabilities that all of Europe lacks”, such as intelligence and surveillance capabilities and the “ability to retaliate at scale if needed”.
According to reports, Trump has previously suggested the US should not contribute troops or finance the mission.
One defence source suggested Trump might be persuaded otherwise, however, saying: “I don’t think the US will be able to keep their fingers out of the pie.”
