Security analysts are raising concerns about the significant obstacles to the peace initiatives presented at the recent summit in London, attended by 19 predominantly European leaders. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron are spearheading this effort, aiming to establish a lasting peace framework for Ukraine.
Assessing Europe’s Military Readiness
One of the primary challenges is whether Europe can assemble a deterrent force robust enough to support peace in Ukraine. The continent’s military capabilities have been diminished over the years, raising questions about which nations, aside from the UK and France, are willing to commit troops to such a volatile situation, especially amid uncertainty surrounding continued US support.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has indicated that an international force of up to 200,000 soldiers would be necessary to uphold a ceasefire along the extensive 600-mile (960 km) front line separating Ukrainian and Russian forces. While this figure may be overly ambitious, it underscores the significant manpower required to effectively deter any potential Russian advancements.
Given the current state of Europe’s military readiness, assembling even a third of that force may prove challenging, as decades of reduced defense spending have left many nations with insufficient military resources. The importance of air power cannot be understated, as it plays a critical role in both surveillance and combat operations. Without adequate air support, even a well-positioned ground force would struggle to defend against potential Russian offensives.
“Europe’s reliance on Washington’s military capabilities, especially critical enablers such as ISR and air-to-air refuelling, will make pursuing ‘independence’ a major challenge without major investment in those areas.”
Experts have highlighted that the United States currently supplies a significant portion of NATO’s air power, making it exceedingly difficult for Europe to establish a credible deterrent force without American military assistance.
The Role of US Leadership and Russian Stance
The potential for a US military backstop is another critical element in the peace process. Former President Donald Trump has been vocal about his preference for negotiating directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin rather than deploying American troops to a potentially volatile ceasefire line. This approach raises concerns that the US might not be inclined to intervene if the situation escalates.
Starmer’s objective is to craft a feasible ceasefire proposal that could be presented to Trump, in hopes of securing a US commitment to support the peace process. However, as it stands, this prospect appears uncertain.
Russia’s response to any peace proposal remains a point of contention. With its military making gains on the battlefield, some analysts question why Russia would agree to a ceasefire that could undermine its strategic objectives. President Putin has consistently opposed the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine and has shown little willingness to compromise on this issue, especially given the current political climate in the US. Without significant concessions from the West, it is likely that Russia will continue to pursue its broader ambitions in Ukraine, including territorial claims in regions like Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk.
The ongoing conflict has resulted in a precarious situation for Ukraine, and securing peace will require navigating complex geopolitical dynamics, significant military commitments, and the ever-present influence of external powers.