The EU’s main plan for providing Ukraine with security from another Russian attack in a post-war set up is not going to work.

The main obstacle is that the Kremlin has already said that it will not accept it. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov repeated Russia’s objections to the presence of any Nato-backed troops on Ukrainian soil as “unacceptable”. The Kremlin’s position is that the deployment of Western troops in Ukraine is tantamount to Nato’s direct participation in a war against Russia. The whole point of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was to ensure that Ukraine never joins Nato – and never has Nato bases in the country.

Moscow’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, has warned that without a UN mandate, foreign peacekeepers in Ukraine would be deemed “regular combatants and a legitimate military target” for Russian forces.

However, Russian opposition outlet Meduza reported that the problems go well beyond Russia’s objections. Europe doesn’t have the men or resources to field a force large enough to police the proposed demilitarised zone (DMZ) that allows Russia to continue to occupy about 20% of Ukraine’s territory that seems to be the most likely outcome from the ceasefire talks that kicked off in Riyadh on February 18.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has been insisting on genuine security deals from his western partners, as opposed to the “security assurances” he has been given so far, but is not getting them. Following the Munich Security Conference (MSC) he rejected a draft $500bn minerals deal with the US, as the White House was not offering security guarantees in exchange for control over Ukraine’s considerable mineral resources.

Rather than ramp up its commitment, the US is considering the possibility of reducing its military presence in Europe as a whole and switching its focus to the Asia-Pacific region and the Mexican border, the US media reported US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth privately telling a “stunned” Zelenskiy.

In lieu of Nato-like Article 5 guarantees, EU leaders have been discussing the deployment of peacekeepers in Ukraine instead as a halfway measure.

At the emergency Paris summit on February 17, French President Emmanuel Macron proposed deploying peacekeeping troops in Ukraine. However, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Poland opposed this idea.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz labelled the discussion as "highly inappropriate." "This discussion is premature, and now is not the right time for it." Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni argued that sending European troops to Ukraine is the "most difficult and least effective" option available. Instead, all meeting participants agreed on the need to increase spending on the continent's defence, recognising that a ceasefire in Ukraine is impossible without a peace agreement.

Poland has also ruled out sending troops to Ukraine saying Poland’s role should be to keep its army at home and protect Europe’s eastern flank.

"Poland will continue to support Ukraine as it has before: organisationally, according to our financial capacity, and humanitarianly," Donald Tusk stressed adding that Poland has no intention of sending peacekeepers to Ukraine. “The issue is closed,” Tusk said.

Not enough men

Europe can’t send peacekeepers even if it wants to, as it doesn’t have enough soldiers, Meduza reports.

The US sent out a questionnaire last week asking EU members how many men they could send and the answer that came back was a total of some 25,000 – far short of the estimated 120,000 that experts say is needed to patrol the 1,200-km line of contact.

Europe's armies are insufficient to send a large force to Ukraine, according to the head of the Polish National Security Bureau, Dariusz Lukowski. He said that Germany, which has one of the largest armies in Europe, "most likely has only one division that could be fully mobilised, and even that would require considerable effort"

So far, only France and the UK have made solid commitments to sending peacekeepers to Ukraine, but Britain could only muster between 5,000 and 10,000 men if called up.

“In Bosnia, which is eleven times smaller than Ukraine, Nato deployed 60,000 peacekeepers, nearly half of them American,” Former British military intelligence officer Frank Ledwidge, who served in Nato peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo, told the BBC in a recent interview. At the peak of that mission in 1995-96, the UK committed a total of 11,500 troops.

Since then, the British Army has halved in size to 70,000 personnel and is less well equipped than in the 1990s, Ledwidge said, as cited by Meduza. Indeed, over the last two decades the switch from preparing for a major war with the Soviet Union to dealing with terror cells and smaller scale insurrections has seen all of Europe’s armies atrophy.

Today the UK could sustain a single brigade of approximately 5,000 troops in Ukraine, according to Ledwidge. Former British military attaché in Moscow John Foreman suggested that up to 10,000 British troops could be deployed. Both experts agreed that maintaining a single brigade would require at least 15,000 personnel when accounting for troop rotations and recovery periods, Meduza reports.

There is also a problem over the appropriate rules of engagement as well. The Nato-led missions in Bosnia and Kosovo were given self-defence mandates, allowing them to return fire if attacked. However, “blue helmet” UN peacekeepers are typically not allowed to shoot in any circumstances. Western troops in Ukraine will be in an especially difficult position as if they open fire they would be shooting at Russian soldiers and the Kremlin would automatically take any deaths as an attack on Russia by Nato.

In search of a workable compromise, Marcon has suggested that the bulk of the burden be put on Ukrainian troops who would man the line of contact, with the European troops held in the rear and out of danger. In this scenario, the European troops would be more of a “trip wire” force and it has also been suggested that although Kyiv has not been given Nato membership, should Russia mount a second invasion, Ukraine would automatically and immediately be admitted.

Strategic and diplomatic risks

There is no talk at all of including US forces in the current discussions, as the Washington administration has made it clear it will not participate. That also means there is unlikely to be any air cover for the peacekeepers, which leaves them vulnerable to Russian attacks.

According to The Economist, alternative peacekeeping options have been explored, including the possible involvement of Brazilian or Chinese forces. However, US Vice President J D Vance has reportedly cautioned European leaders that a force consisting solely of European troops would not serve as an effective deterrent against further Russian aggression.

Zelenskiy still maintains that Nato membership remains the country’s ultimate security objective, but said the presence of European or US troops on Ukrainian soil could serve as an interim guarantee. But the idea met with a lukewarm reception so far from most EU members and remains unlikely to happen.

Britain has pledged to send Typhoon fighter jets to bolster Ukraine’s air defences but is cautious about committing large numbers of ground troops.

France has ruled out direct participation in combat but is considering sending a limited number of military experts. French President Emmanuel Macron told La Dépêche at the weekend: “I have never announced that troops from France will be sent to Ukraine,” he said. “France is not making preparations to send troops.”

Lithuania has suggested that ensuring Ukraine’s security may require hundreds of thousands of peacekeepers.

The Netherlands has signalled support for deploying peacekeeping forces once a peace agreement is reached.

Germany has stated it is not yet ready to discuss troop deployments but will not rule out sending forces after the war.

Poland has warned that neighbouring countries should not take part in a peacekeeping mission to avoid escalating tensions with Russia.

The United States will not commit troops but has not opposed a European-led mission.

Canada has expressed interest in participating in post-war peace efforts.