President Trump promised to end the fights in Ukraine. The way he could do that could do, given, since President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia thinks he wins. But in his frank manner, Trump opened the possibility of a kind of negotiations for a cease-fire.
If an agreement was to be concluded, according to analysts, Trump may ask Europe to set it up and take responsibility for Ukraine, wishing to reduce American engagement.
But a key question remains: how to secure what remains of Ukraine and prevent Mr. Putin from restarting war, even in several years?
The prospect of an agreement has accelerated a debate on the so-called European boots on the ground to maintain peace, monitor a cease-fire and help to dissuade Russia from future aggression. The question is who is the boots and how much and if Mr. Putin would never agree.
This is a subject that is certainly a central discussion objective this week during the annual Munich security conference, that Vice-President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio should assist.
Some European countries, including Baltic nations, as well as France and Great Britain, have raised the possibility of including some of their own troops in a force in Ukraine. High German officials qualified the premature idea.
Unless membership of NATO for Ukraine, which seems unlikely for many years, the idea of having a large number of European troops from NATO countries seems reckless for many officials and analysts .
Without a clear American involvement in such an operation – with American air coverage, aerial defenses and information, both human and technical – European troops would be serious because of Russian survey and even attacks.
President Volodymyr Zelensky, from Ukraine, said that he was ready for serious discussions on an agreement to end the war, as long as his allies provide security guarantees, not just insurance.
In the absence of membership in NATO, which he prefers, Mr. Zelensky spoke of 200,000 foreign soldiers on the ground in Ukraine. But that is almost three times the size of the British army and is considered by analysts as impossible.
A senior European official said that the continent did not even have 200,000 soldiers to offer and that all boots on the ground should have American support, especially in the face of the second nuclear power in the world, Russia. Otherwise, they would be constantly vulnerable to Russian efforts aimed at undermining the political and military credibility of the Alliance.
Even a more modest number of European soldiers like 40,000 would be a difficult objective for a continent with slow economic growth, troop shortages and the need to increase military spending for its own protection. And it would probably not be enough to dissuade realistic against Russia.
A real deterrent force would generally require “much more than 100,000 soldiers assigned to the mission” for regular rotations and emergencies, said Lawrence Freedman, a professor of war studies at King’s College in London.
The danger would be a policy of what Claudia Major, a defense expert at the German Institute for International Affairs and Security, called “Bluff and Pray”.
“Provide too few troops, or triplage forces without reinforcements, would be equivalent to a bluff that could invite Russia to test waters, and NATO states could hardly counter this,” she wrote in A recent newspaper With Aldo Kleemann, a German lieutenant-colonel, on how to secure a Ukrainian ceasefire.
This is why Poland, which sees neighbors of Ukraine and is deeply involved in its security, has so far rejected participation in such a force.
“Poland understands that it needs the United States to be involved in such a proposal, so wants to see what Trump wants to do,” said Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer, interim director of the German Fund Marshall. “He wants Trump guarantees that there will be American security aid to support Europeans on the front line.”
But it’s not at all clear, she said. “Trump will agree and will look for a Nobel Prize and then expect Europeans to pay it and implement it,” she said.
However, the “European will to be ready to do something useful” for Ukraine without the Americans will be important to ensure that Europe has a seat at the table when negotiations occur, said, said Anthony Brenton, former British ambassador to Russia.
The declared objectives of Mr. Putin have not changed: the subordination of Ukraine in Russia, the end of the enlargement of NATO and a reduction of its forces, to force the creation of a new buffer zone Between the Western alliance and the supposed area of Russian influence.
It is also not likely that Russia would be suitable in any agreement to the deployment of NATO or NATO forces in Ukraine anyway, even if they were ostensibly there to form Ukrainian soldiers. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has already said that NATO troops in Ukraine would be “categorically unacceptable” and climbing.
Mr. Freedman described three possible models – peacekeeping, tripwire and deterrence – all of which have important faults.
Peace soldiers, intended to strengthen them to stop and separate the belligerents, are slightly armed for self -defense and often contain troops from many countries, generally under the United Nations. But since the contact line in Ukraine is approximately 1,300 kilometers, more than 800 miles, he said that “a large number of troops” would be necessary.
Before the invasion of 2022, there was an international surveillance mission of the security and cooperation organization in Europe, with a Russian agreement, to supervise the respect of a much shorter ceasefire line in East of Ukraine. It was a failure, said Michael Bociurkiw, who was his spokesperson from 2014 to 16 years old.
“The Russians did everything to block the mission,” he said. “They pretended to cooperate, limited access and hide various harmful activities. When things don’t work as they wish, they stopped it. »»
A tripwire force is essentially what NATO has deployed in eight member countries closest to Russia. There are not enough troops to stop an invasion or be considered by Moscow as provocative, but the concept only works if there is a clear and unbreakable link between the troops on the ground and more important reinforcements committed to Beat once the thread launched.
But there are always doubts about the absolute nature of this guarantee. And an attack force would gain an important territory before the reinforcements arrived, which is why NATO it Increase the size From its Tripwire forces of the Battalion at the level of the brigade, to improve deterrence against a newly aggressive Russia.
The third type, a deterrent force, is by far the most credible, but must be very large and well equipped, and would require up to 150,000 well -equipped troops, as well as significant commitments of air defense, intelligence and weapons – And American helps European strategic facilitators continues to miss, from air transport to satellites in anti -missile defense.
But it would be difficult to imagine that Russia would accept such a force for precisely the same reasons as Mr. Zelensky wants one, said Mr. Freedman.
Thus, the best answer for a near future after a potential ceasefire can be a version of the “porcupine” model: to give arms, resources and the formation of the Ukrainian army for the Ukrainian army-including by Western forces – to convince Russia not to try again. However, such a commitment should be long term.
But the first Ukraine must stop the slow advance of Russia in the East and Mr. Putin must be convinced to end the war, with other battlefield losses and economic pressure. How to do will be one of the main tests for Mr. Trump if he wants to succeed in ending the murder, as he promises to do.
