The Kremlin has declined to confirm a statement by U.S. President Donald Trump saying Russia is ready to "accept" European troops in Ukraine as part of a peace deal, although it left room for a potential agreement.
Trump made his comments after meeting French counterpart Emmanuel Macron at the White House, responding to a question about a deployment.
"I have specifically asked [Russian President Vladimir Putin] that question. He has no problem with it," Trump said on February 24.
This led to a question at a regular media briefing held by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov in Moscow on February 25.
His answer? There was, he said, "nothing to add" to an earlier statement that the deployment of peacekeepers from NATO countries in Ukraine was unacceptable to Moscow.
"There is a position on this matter that was expressed by the Russian foreign minister, [Sergei] Lavrov. I have nothing to add to this," Peskov said.
While this appears to cast doubt on Trump's comments, it also does not directly contradict it. A mission led by European NATO countries is not the same as an international contingent of peacekeepers from around the world that includes European forces.
All sides have said talks are at an early stage, and Peskov may have been aiming for deliberate ambiguity. He may also have been saving this as something that can be presented later as a Russian concession, to be sold at the highest possible price.
In any case, an idea that gained little traction when Macron first proposed it a year ago is now being discussed in earnest.
Military Considerations
Nicu Popescu, at the European Council on Foreign Relations, raises the distinction between a peacekeeping force and what has been called a "reassurance force" designed to fight if Ukraine is attacked again.
"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," Popescu, who was Moldovan foreign minister from 2021 to 2024, told RFE/RL last month.
Jamie Shea, who served in various senior NATO roles before retiring in 2018, agrees and raises two further issues.
"Do we use NATO forces currently defending NATO borders in Central and Eastern Europe? Poland is opposed to this. And do we focus more on building up the Ukrainian Army as the main deterrent force and spend our money on this rather than on the European reassurance force (as Denmark is advocating)?" he asked.
We could learn more when British Prime Minister Keir Starmer meets with Trump in Washington on February 26. Starmer has said Britain would be willing to put boots on the ground in a mission with a U.S. "backstop" such as air power.
"Europeans will be mindful of the Bosnian fiasco of the early 1990s when the Europeans were on the ground and being criticized all the time by the Americans who were safely in the air," said Shea, who became prominent as NATO spokesman during the 1990s Balkan wars.
Starmer's remarks on being willing to send troops grabbed headlines, but so did serious voices pointing out that Britain's military capabilities are limited. Chief among them was Richard Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, who said it was "so run down" it could not lead the mission.
Britain's military has been largely focused on anti-terror and counterinsurgency operations since the September 11 attacks in the United States. It has been through cuts in the last decade and a parliamentary report in September 2024 titled Ukraine: A Wakeup Call said Britain was "underprepared" to counter the Russian threat.
In July, Starmer himself said that Britain's armed forces were "hollowed out."
Political Factors
Europe's other military big-hitter is France.
The French Army has greater numbers than the British but has also been stretched by years-long 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.
Sweden and the Netherlands indicated they could be willing to provide troops under certain conditions. But Poland, which has a large army, said it would not.
Germany is currently going through a political transition following elections at the weekend. Both outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his likely successor, election winner Friedrich Merz, have been lukewarm on sending German troops. But neither has ruled it out, and there have been signals from within both men's parties that things may change.
Once again, it's early days.
Another key component from Europe could come from some Nordic and Baltic nations, which have been bullish in their support of Ukraine.
Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden issued a joint statement on February 24 marking the third anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine promising large and ongoing military support.
It did not mention sending troops, although Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen indicated she had an open mind on the matter.
Political considerations also still weigh heavily. 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're fired on by Russian forces, and the political fallout of casualties could be huge.
