Posted on 02/01/2025 9:20:31 AM PST by bimboeruption
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.
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”.
(Excerpt) Read more at thetimes.com ...
Zelensky however, doesn't want to do it alone and put Ukraine's soldiers at risk. He wants 200,000 troops, which means having 600,000 troops either deployed to Ukraine, or preparing to go or in recovery.
Zelensky also wants President Trump to send our troops because Europe doesn't have enough soldiers to keep Putin in line.
no
No.
No.
We don’t have time and manpower to do a “peacekeeping force”. Get with the powder blue helmet UN boyz for that. We’ve gotta get our guys ready to go kick Panama’s ass and get OUR canal back.
If you need a “peacekeeping” force it means you didn’t end the war.
End the f______ war.
Sitting on a fence that’s a dangerous course
Oh, you could even catch a bullet from the peace-keeping force
-Dire Straits (Once Upon A Time In The West)
Ukraine is neither an ally nor a NATO member.
Unless, and until, every single affected European country goes all in, 100%, to support Ukraine, our (United States) contribution should be restricted to that of verbal encouragement and offering to broker a lasting settlement. This means no more money, no more arms, no troops, no advisors.
This opinion from a Vietnam war Vet (not boots down, supporting role) who remembers what happens when we don't understand endless wars and mission creep.
An ill-conceived and certain method of bringing about WW3.
Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven is their thinking.
There are more than enough troops from European countries to deal with this... There should be no need for the United States or the God forbid, the UN being involved. All the UN has ever done when is comes to peacekeeping is screw things up.
no way.
Why would Russia agree to NATO peacekeeping forces in Ukraine when the primary cause of the war was NATO expansion? Non-starter.
“There is growing consensus, however, that such a post-conflict deployment would need to have Donald Trump’s “buy in” and security guarantees.”
They’ll have to wait at least four years to get a US buy-in. Trump is SICK OF UKRAINE, and for good reason, actually MANY good reasons.
If the big shots in Europe want to go into Ukraine, Trump won’t stop them, but they’d be awfully STUPID to do so.
That never works out very well for us.
Nope.
A 20 klick “No Go Zone” where no one is allowed. Let it revert back to wilderness after a through demining of course.
2026
The guys that shot the NATO guys are most likely Ukrainian citizens who have suffered at the hands of Ukrainian Nazis.
As we have told you many times before, get rid of the Ukrainian Nazis.
We have reams worth of printed copies of this excuse. Would you like another copy?
2027
Oh, they’ve been kidnapped like Israelis were in 2023....
Read the Bucharest memorandums that Osama/Biden did not up hold.
“Why would Russia agree to NATO peacekeeping forces in Ukraine when the primary cause of the war was NATO expansion? Non-starter.”
OBVIOUSLY - but one theory going around is that the Europeans are actually planning to go into Ukraine anyway, with or without a peace treaty, much less Trump’s support. That is why they keep meeting to try to come up with a plan.
Also obvious is that if the Europeans try that, Russia will simply dispose of them, much as they have done with unofficial military people, when they make good targets.
If the Europeans do go in without US backing, they are obviously taking a HUGE GAMBLE, as they would have to come crying to Trump to help them in some way after Russia spanks them (maybe just have Trump evacuate them), but Trump is not pre-disposed to do even that. Also, their population will not be so hot on purposely making them cannon fodder in a futile attempt to draw the US in.
Nothing in Ukraine is worth one America dollar or drop of blood.
Probably less than 1% of US soldiers speak a Slavic language.
The British army has about 75,000 soldiers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.