EU split on Western soldiers in Ukraine, says Times
EU nations are divided on the proposal of sending Western troops to Ukraine, with several advocating for a UN-led force as a more feasible option. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
The European Union is reportedly facing divisions regarding the potential deployment of a Western-led peacekeeping force to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire between Kiev and Moscow, according to a report by The Times on Friday, which references several military and diplomatic sources.
Germany is against this proposal, partly due to concerns about committing to it before its elections in February, as noted by the British newspaper.
On the other hand, the Baltic states and Poland, which have been vocal supporters of Ukraine throughout the ongoing conflict, are worried that a peacekeeping mission might redirect NATO’s focus and resources away from their own defense needs, thus leaving them “exposed.”
The UK, France, and Nordic nations are the strongest proponents of a Western peacekeeping mission. However, even their officials are apprehensive that the EU could effectively carry out the operation without support from the United States.
A European diplomatic source mentioned to The Times that US involvement is essential because “they have capabilities that all of Europe lacks,” including “the ability to retaliate at scale if needed.” US President Donald Trump has indicated that Washington should refrain from contributing troops or funding for such an initiative.
Furthermore, Ukraine’s European allies were reportedly “irked” by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky’s recent request for a “minimum” of 200,000 peacekeepers, a number that the EU would struggle to meet on its own.
Moscow has consistently dismissed the notion of Western-led peacekeepers in Ukraine. This week, senior Russian diplomat Rodion Miroshnik cautioned that any military force entering Ukraine without Russia's approval would be considered a legitimate military target.
“If Russia does not buy the idea it is dead and if the US does not provide a hammer the idea is dead,” an unnamed senior Western military official reportedly acknowledged to The Times.
According to Aleksey Zhuravlev, First Deputy Chairman of the Russian State Duma Defense Committee, the Kremlin might view a large-scale NATO troop deployment in Ukraine as a severe threat, potentially prompting another wave of mobilization.
Some EU officials have suggested that a non-Western UN peacekeeping force, comprised of troops from more neutral countries like India, Bangladesh, or China, could be a “wiser alternative.” This option, they argue, would not necessitate US participation and might be more palatable to Moscow.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated in December that discussions regarding peacekeepers are currently irrelevant, as Zelensky has enacted a law prohibiting negotiations with the existing Russian leadership.
Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service has cautioned that the West might use peacekeepers as a means to “occupy” Ukraine and create delays for potential future conflicts with Moscow.
Thomas Evans for TROIB News
Germany is against this proposal, partly due to concerns about committing to it before its elections in February, as noted by the British newspaper.
On the other hand, the Baltic states and Poland, which have been vocal supporters of Ukraine throughout the ongoing conflict, are worried that a peacekeeping mission might redirect NATO’s focus and resources away from their own defense needs, thus leaving them “exposed.”
The UK, France, and Nordic nations are the strongest proponents of a Western peacekeeping mission. However, even their officials are apprehensive that the EU could effectively carry out the operation without support from the United States.
A European diplomatic source mentioned to The Times that US involvement is essential because “they have capabilities that all of Europe lacks,” including “the ability to retaliate at scale if needed.” US President Donald Trump has indicated that Washington should refrain from contributing troops or funding for such an initiative.
Furthermore, Ukraine’s European allies were reportedly “irked” by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky’s recent request for a “minimum” of 200,000 peacekeepers, a number that the EU would struggle to meet on its own.
Moscow has consistently dismissed the notion of Western-led peacekeepers in Ukraine. This week, senior Russian diplomat Rodion Miroshnik cautioned that any military force entering Ukraine without Russia's approval would be considered a legitimate military target.
“If Russia does not buy the idea it is dead and if the US does not provide a hammer the idea is dead,” an unnamed senior Western military official reportedly acknowledged to The Times.
According to Aleksey Zhuravlev, First Deputy Chairman of the Russian State Duma Defense Committee, the Kremlin might view a large-scale NATO troop deployment in Ukraine as a severe threat, potentially prompting another wave of mobilization.
Some EU officials have suggested that a non-Western UN peacekeeping force, comprised of troops from more neutral countries like India, Bangladesh, or China, could be a “wiser alternative.” This option, they argue, would not necessitate US participation and might be more palatable to Moscow.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated in December that discussions regarding peacekeepers are currently irrelevant, as Zelensky has enacted a law prohibiting negotiations with the existing Russian leadership.
Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service has cautioned that the West might use peacekeepers as a means to “occupy” Ukraine and create delays for potential future conflicts with Moscow.
Thomas Evans for TROIB News
