Britain and France have taken their clearest step yet toward a direct post-war security role in Ukraine, declaring that they are prepared to deploy troops on Ukrainian soil following the conclusion of a peace deal with Russia. The announcement, made after a high-level summit in Paris hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron, marks a significant escalation in Western political commitments to Kyiv—even as it remains deeply uncertain whether such a plan would ever be accepted by Moscow, or survive the shifting internal politics of Western capitals.
The proposal, which has reportedly been under discussion for months, stops short of committing NATO as an alliance. Instead, it advances the idea of a “coalition of the willing,” a looser framework that would allow selected allies to act outside NATO’s formal structures while still claiming political legitimacy and collective backing.
Yet the plan raises profound questions: Is this a credible deterrent against renewed Russian aggression, or a symbolic gesture unlikely to materialise? Does it stabilise a post-war Ukraine, or risk creating new flashpoints? And how durable is Western unity at a moment when domestic politics—particularly in the United States—remain volatile?
What Was Agreed in Paris
Following hours of talks, Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a trilateral declaration of intent that they said would pave the way for the deployment of French and British forces after a ceasefire. According to Starmer, the plan would involve the establishment of “military hubs across Ukraine” once hostilities formally end.
The summit brought together more than two dozen leaders from states aligned with Ukraine, alongside senior American representation in the form of US envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law. Kushner said that the US president “strongly stands” behind the initiative—language that suggests political support but leaves considerable ambiguity about the extent of future American involvement.
Crucially, the proposal is framed as post-conflict, not wartime, deployment. Western leaders were careful to emphasise that no foreign troops would enter Ukraine while active fighting continues. The stated purpose is deterrence and stabilisation: to help guarantee Ukraine’s security after a peace settlement and to discourage Russia from resuming hostilities.
Why Britain and France Are Taking the Lead
The decision by London and Paris to spearhead this initiative is not accidental. Both countries see themselves as Europe’s principal military powers, particularly in a context where Germany has been more cautious about forward military commitments and where NATO’s future posture depends heavily on US politics.
For France, the proposal aligns with Macron’s long-standing argument that Europe must assume greater responsibility for its own security. Paris has repeatedly warned that over-reliance on Washington leaves Europe vulnerable to political shifts in the United States. A French-British led force in Ukraine would be consistent with Macron’s vision of “strategic autonomy,” even if it remains politically controversial at home.
For the UK, the move reflects an effort to retain strategic relevance in European security affairs after Brexit. A visible leadership role in Ukraine allows London to demonstrate that it remains a key military actor on the continent, capable of shaping outcomes independently of EU membership.
Yet leadership does not automatically translate into capacity. Neither Britain nor France has indicated how many troops would be deployed, where exactly they would be stationed, or what rules of engagement would apply if Russian forces violated a ceasefire.
Russia’s Likely Response: A Red Line?
From Moscow’s perspective, the deployment of Western troops—even after a peace deal—would almost certainly be framed as a provocation. Russian officials have consistently described any foreign military presence in Ukraine as unacceptable, regardless of timing or mandate.
The Kremlin is likely to argue that such a force would amount to NATO expansion by other means, especially if it includes NATO members and operates in close coordination with Ukrainian forces. Even if formally outside NATO command structures, Russian strategists may see little practical difference.
This raises a fundamental dilemma: if Russia refuses to accept foreign troop deployments as part of a peace agreement, are Britain and France prepared to walk away from a deal? Or is the proposal ultimately more about shaping Western narratives of resolve than setting a non-negotiable condition?
The American Question
The presence of US representatives at the Paris summit underscores another unresolved issue: the United States’ long-term role. While Kushner’s remarks suggest political alignment with the initiative, they do not clarify whether Washington would provide material support, intelligence backing, or security guarantees to any post-war force.
This ambiguity matters. A European-led deployment without credible US backing may struggle to deter Russia effectively. Conversely, overt American involvement would almost certainly harden Moscow’s opposition and raise the stakes dramatically.
The uncertainty is compounded by the unpredictability of US domestic politics. Any post-war security arrangement that depends implicitly on American goodwill risks unraveling with a change in administration or congressional priorities.
Ukraine’s Perspective: Security Without NATO
For Kyiv, the proposal highlights both progress and limitation. On one hand, the willingness of major European powers to consider troop deployments reflects recognition that Ukraine’s security cannot be left to paper guarantees alone. On the other hand, it underscores the continued reluctance of NATO to extend full membership to Ukraine in the near term.
A French-British presence could provide a measure of reassurance, particularly if deployed near key infrastructure or strategic regions. However, it would not carry the same legal or political weight as NATO’s Article 5 guarantees.
Ukraine thus faces a difficult trade-off: accept a potentially fragile security arrangement now, or continue pushing for fuller integration into Western defence structures at the risk of prolonging uncertainty.
Deterrence or Symbolism?
Supporters of the plan argue that even a limited foreign troop presence could change Moscow’s calculus. The presence of British and French soldiers on Ukrainian soil would raise the political cost of renewed aggression and could serve as a tripwire, forcing immediate international response to any ceasefire violations.
Critics, however, warn that without clear mandates, sufficient troop numbers, and explicit enforcement mechanisms, such deployments risk becoming largely symbolic. A force that is unwilling or unable to respond decisively to Russian pressure could undermine, rather than enhance, Ukraine’s security.
There is also the risk of mission creep. What begins as a stabilisation force could gradually be drawn into localised confrontations, blurring the line between peacekeeping and active deterrence.
A High-Stakes Signal, Not a Settled Plan
At this stage, the announcement by Britain and France is better understood as a political signal than an operational blueprint. It signals resolve to Ukraine, solidarity among key European allies, and an attempt to shape the parameters of any future peace settlement.
But it also exposes the limits of Western consensus. The absence of clear commitments from other major powers, the likelihood of Russian resistance, and the unresolved role of the United States all suggest that the road from declaration to deployment will be long and uncertain.
Whether this initiative becomes a cornerstone of Ukraine’s post-war security—or remains an unrealised ambition—will depend not only on diplomatic negotiations with Moscow, but also on the political will, military capacity, and strategic coherence of the West itself.
For now, the proposal underscores a sobering reality: even in the search for peace, Ukraine remains at the centre of a broader contest over Europe’s future security order—one in which declarations of intent may matter, but hard choices will matter far more.
0 Comments