If Donald Trump manages to broker a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, it’s possible British troops could be called upon for peacekeeping, multiple security sources have told i.
On Monday, Defence Secretary John Healey dismissed a report from French newspaper Le Monde that Britain and France were discussing sending troops to Ukraine as part of an effort to mitigate the effects of any pullback of US support.
However, senior defence officials in the UK and at Nato say that while conventional deployments by Western troops into Ukraine are unlikely, any peace deal between the two sides would almost certainly need policing by a coalition of third parties – and a process of elimination makes Britain a prime candidate to lead that coalition.
Sources say it is too early to say how many UK troops might be needed on the ground to keep the peace. But any kind of role, particularly a leadership one, could place a significant new demand on the UK’s already stretched armed forces.
Ukrainian government sources have told i that security guarantees would be the most critical aspect of a peace deal to Kyiv – to protect the conditions under which even a brief ceasefire might be agreed. And that, in all likelihood, means peace keepers.
The current conflict in Ukraine began on 24 February 2022 when Russian military forces entered the country from Belarus, Russia and Crimea. Before the invasion, there had already been eight years of conflict in eastern Ukraine between Ukrainian government forces and Russia-backed separatists.
Ukraine would want British involvement
“We cannot have security guarantees without a third party,” said a Ukrainian defence official. They also suggested that this would need to be a nuclear power. When asked if that meant British involvement, the source replied: “I think so, yes.”
America, the biggest nuclear power outside the conflict, is viewed as a non starter for the role. Nato officials believe that even if Trump manages to shepherd a temporary ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia, he would still not be willing to send US troops as part of a peacekeeping force.
They believe his core supporters would oppose any deployment of US military boots on the ground in Ukraine and the president elect has made his opposition to sending American troops overseas in the past.
Russian leader Vladimir Putin would also be unlikely to countenance the US as peacekeepers, sources say.
So Trump would have to ask other allies to play a peace keeping role instead. “There would almost certainly be a nuclear dimension to this, which would require Britain and France,” a senior Nato official told i. A second Nato source explained: “Unless there is a nuclear power involved, it’s unlikely Russia would take it seriously. And you would need countries with larger armies that might have the appetite – which really only leaves France and Britain.”
A British security source told i that the prospect of British troops being used for peacekeeping “is a hypothetical question, but not a ridiculous one”. “It is at the very least being discussed as an option.”
Why UK is the leading candidate for peacekeeping
If America cannot keep the peace between Putin and Zelensky then who could? These are the pros and cons of the leading contenders:
Britain
Britain’s armed forces are already stretched and in desperate need of rejuvenation. The army only has around 74,000 regulars. However, the UK is a nuclear power and a member of Nato, which makes the risk of escalation greater for Russia and could act as a deterrent against further conflict.
France
Similar to Britain, France is a nuclear power and Nato member. It is considered to be marginally more powerful than the UK – and has more troops.
However, France has been politically unstable since the snap parliamentary elections called this summer. Pro-Russian far-right Marine Le Pen is likely to run again at the next presidential election, making France’s commitment to Ukraine more fragile.
Germany
Germany is a Nato member but not a nuclear power. It has historically had close ties to Russia through gas imports and, like France, is also politically quite unstable.
Despite current economic concerns, it is still Europe’s wealthiest country and has impressive military resources. However, it has dragged its heels on support for Ukraine since 2022.
Italy
Italy is not a nuclear power but does host American nuclear weapons. It is politically sliding further to the right, although its current leader, Giorgia Meloni, has been very hawkish on Russia since coming to power.
Poland
Arguably Europe’s biggest anti-Russia hawk and has Nato’s third largest military. It’s geographical location and modern history means it also understands the Russian threat better than some others in the potential coalition.
However, its hardline anti-Russia stance could make a peace deal harder to negotiate.
The question is hypothetical because exactly what Trump does next remains unclear. However, the fact he has held recent meetings with Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte and is in communication with both Putin and Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelensky is being taken as a sign that he would like to see some kind of ceasefire agreed under the auspices of the US.
On whose authority?
Typically, peacekeeping is done under a mandate given by the United Nations. However, sources at Nato think in the case of Ukraine, this could slow things down as it would allow other nations to insert themselves into the narrative.
It would also raise the prospect of China having a role. While China is unlikely to want any part of a peacekeeping role and Western allies would almost certainly not work with Chinese counterparts, even having this as a theoretical possibility could open a can of worms that would slow down peace talks –something Trump won’t want.
If Trump does manage to get an agreement on peacekeepers, the US would need to be heavily involved in the management of how those troops operate. “The US, even if not present in person, would still be the only country with true escalation power. They are the only ones who can say to Russia that if they break the terms of a ceasefire, Ukraine will be armed to the teeth, for example,” a Nato source told i.
Multiple sources have said they can see a scenario in which both Ukraine and Russia welcome an off ramp to the current conflict. Ukraine’s demands for third-party protection of a ceasefire could potentially be squared with Russia with if a few conditions are met.
And while the idea of American peacekeepers might be a no go for Putin, sources believe the Kremlin might accept peacekeepers from a smaller power like the UK even if it is part of Nato.
“This will come down to whether Putin can spin any deal back home as a win,” explained a Nato source working closely with Ukraine. “No US troops would be seen as a victory for Russia. More important, though, is where any Western troops might be stationed.”
‘Russia would want peacekeepers deep inside Ukraine’
The source said that Putin could use negotiations to claim de facto territorial victories to Russian citizens. “Where any peacekeepers would actually be could be up for negotiation,” they said. “If Russia can get them placed in a way that looks like they are keeping territory they currently hold inside Ukraine – or even deeper into Ukraine – that works as a victory for Moscow.”
There is also the question of why Ukraine would agree to any of this. Sources say that providing it’s clear any settlement is seen as the start of a process, that territory is not recognised as Russian and Ukraine retains the rights to reclaim it through diplomatic means, then it could be swallowed in exchange for an immediate end to fighting. It is broadly believed that Ukraine needs fighting to end sooner than Russia.
If this delicate balance can be found, then conversations would soon turn to third-party protection or enforcement of a ceasefire deal and what role any third-party, potentially British, troops might play.
“The key question is what hypothetical capability any Western troops might have and what precise role they would have,” said Malcolm Chalmers, Deputy Director General of the Royal United Services Institute, a leading security think-tank.
“Conventionally, peacekeepers don’t have the authority to use force other than in very specific circumstances – defence of their mandate and self-defence. Peace enforcers typically have a wider mandate to use force. However, I can’t see Russia agreeing to peace enforcers and it isn’t clear that any Western country is willing to send either the troops or equipment that would be required,” he adds.
Officials have suggested that, given the limited mandate any peacekeepers in Ukraine would be likely have, their presence would be to serve as a deterrent against Russian escalation. Having Nato troops in the region would make the prospect of starting a war a greater risk. “That is why I believe Ukraine will be looking to nuclear states in Europe: UK and France,” an Eastern European government source tells i.
British troops could be fired upon
How effective a deterrent UK peacekeepers would be against Russian aggression is debatable. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began in 2014 with proxies, not officially part of the Russian army. “It’s possible that troops would still be shot at by people claiming not to be Russian,” said a British security source.
There are also recent precedents of Russia not honouring peace agreements. As of 2015, Putin had signed up to two deals, known as the Minsk Agreements, that sought to end fighting in the Donbas region of Ukraine. After years of chipping away at those agreements, Putin declared they “no longer existed” in 2022, two days before his full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
If British troops were called upon to play a leading role in a peacekeeping force, the risks to those sent are clear, as is the risk of escalation. It would also expose Britain to wider Russian hostility – including escalations in hybrid warfare against the UK. Putin already views the UK as a key Western adversary and has only this week expelled a British diplomat over accusations of spying.
There is still a long way to go before anything resembling a Western peacekeeping force enters Ukraine. At every stage there is a hurdle to clear: whether that’s Trump’s level of genuine interest in reaching a peace deal or Putin’s degree of understanding that he cannot keep fighting this war forever.
But should a deal be struck and both sides agree to it, the presumed absence of American troops makes Britain a leading candidate to take their place. As one senior British security official put it: “Everything is hypothetical – until it’s not.”
The Ministry of Defence did not wish to comment.
Liz Truss needs to take her own advice, and cease and desist