Incoming U.S. President Donald Trump’s inauguration is likely to herald a tectonic shift in Washington’s policy on Ukraine, with a declared push for a peace or cease-fire deal and a clear desire for U.S. disengagement.
That has led European leaders to discuss previously unthinkable ideas about how to ensure Ukraine’s postwar security without U.S. involvement.
Top of the list is French President Emmanuel Macron’s suggestion of deploying European military forces to Ukraine if a deal is agreed.
Europe Invasion's New Name
As RFE/RL was preparing publication of this investigation, Europe Invasion changed its X handle from @EuropeInvasions to @UpdateNews724 – the most recent of several name changes the account has undergone over the past two years, according to archived data of the account. For the purposes of this report, the name “Europe Invasion” will be used throughout this report to refer to the account.
First mooted nearly a year ago, it was reinvigorated after Trump’s election victory. Last month, Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto said Rome would be willing to join a potential mission and his German counterpart, Boris Pistorius, said Berlin was “preparing” and “considering scenarios.”
But these two examples highlight the enormous obstacles to such a mission.
Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said such discussions were premature.
Given Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union -- including Ukraine -- during World War II, it is also hard to imagine German forces deployed in the country.
European Union Foreign Affairs chief Kaja Kallas said that as long as Russia was shelling Ukraine, “we have nothing to talk about.”
Of course, she meant publicly. But her comment underlines another factor that may make a European military role a nonstarter: Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“I think there is absolutely no indication that at the moment Putin is interested in negotiations at all,” said Ian Bond, deputy director of the Center for European Reform, a think tank. “You know, Putin thinks he's winning.”
A 'Tall Order'
Bond is not alone in this assessment. Trump appears to disagree, stating at his January 7 Mar-a-Lago news conference that he believed he could achieve a deal within six months. But even then, there’s no sign that Putin would agree to a European force.
Nicu Popescu, at the European Council on Foreign Relations, sees a further difficulty. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Moscow can block any peacekeeping mission.
“The problem with traditional peacekeeping missions is that they are bound by UN decisions, meaning Russia could veto it or terminate the mission at any time. Such a mission would also not be limited to Western countries but also have troops from other parts of the world,” he said.
Popescu, who was Moldovan Foreign Minister in 2021-2024, said the discussion among European leaders is not about peacekeepers.
“What’s being discussed is a military presence to prevent another war. It means troops, not lightly armed peacekeepers, but equipped with antiaircraft, anti-electronic warfare capacities, to defend cities like Odesa and Kyiv.”
Popescu admits that is a “tall order” for European armies.
Britain and France have Europe’s strongest militaries, but are overstretched.
In Britain, the military has been largely focused on anti-terror and counterinsurgency operations since the September 11 attacks in the United States in 2001. It has been through cuts in the last decade and a recent parliamentary report said Britain was “underprepared” to counter the Russian threat.
In July, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a review of defense strategy, declaring that Britain’s armed forces were “hollowed out.”
The French Army has greater numbers than the British but has also been stretched by yearslong combat deployments across Africa. French experts have voiced doubts about its capacity for a higher-intensity conflict, such as Ukraine.
“We only have six long-range rocket launchers left, we do not have any real means of combating drones,” noted Leo Peria Peigne from the French Institute of International Relations in November.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has said security guarantees for Kyiv to end Russia's war would only be effective if the United States provides them. Some advocates of a European military presence say it would only be possible with U.S. help in areas such as planning, logistics, and intelligence.
Political Constraints
Adding to these military constraints are political ones. Would European governments really be willing to deploy significant forces to Ukraine against Russia’s wishes and without U.S. involvement on the ground?
The idea could be deeply unpopular with public opinion. Polling in Western Europe has consistently shown low levels of support for sending troops to Ukraine.
The risks of sending such a contingent, even in a noncombat role, would be enormous. Rules of engagement would have to be set covering how to respond if they are fired on by Russian forces, and the political fallout of casualties could be huge.
Macron already has his back to the wall after losing his majority in France’s National Assembly. Starmer has only just returned his Labour Party to office after 14 years in opposition. Both leaders have a lot to lose from a bloody crisis involving their soldiers in Ukraine.
Many would also point to the danger of escalation. This appears to be one reason outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration ruled out any military presence in Ukraine.
Still, some analysts argue that the situation on the battlefield could get so bad that European leaders feel compelled to act.
“If you are Poland, the prospect of the collapse of Ukraine with millions of refugees flowing across your borders and Russian forces coming up to your border is much, much worse than the prospect of having to do more to shore up Ukraine's current front lines,” said Ian Bond.
But, he added, “We're a very, very long way away from that.”
