 "How America suspending intelligence sharing impacts Ukraine war")
US President Donald Trump has paused military aid to Ukraine following his clash with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy last Friday, deepening the fissure that has opened between the two one-time allies. President Trump is clearly focused on peace. Zelenskyy kept repeating that the end of the war was “very, very far away.”
Trump criticised Zelenskyy for being insufficiently grateful for Washington’s backing in the war with Russia. On taking over office in January, he adopted a more conciliatory stance towards Moscow. Trump critics call him a “Putin Puppet”. Putin has said any normalising of relations would require lifting of sanctions first. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy finally offered truce, apologised, praised President Trump, and was grateful for all the aid Ukraine had received.
Minerals as compensation
Zelenskyy was open to signing a wide-ranging mineral deal with Trump if America committed to protecting Ukraine from future Russian attacks. Trump has suggested that a deal to open up Ukraine’s minerals to US investment could still be agreed despite his frustration with Kyiv. Trump described it as a “great deal for us”. Trump views a minerals deal as America’s way of earning back some of the tens of billions of dollars it has given to Ukraine in financial and military aid since the Russian invasion.
The US Congress had approved $175 billion in total assistance for Ukraine. In December, right before leaving office, President Joe Biden announced an additional $5.9 billion in security and budget assistance. In total the US had pledged $66.5 billion worth of weapons aid, of which a significant amount had already been shipped. The pause in military aid applies to that which was previously approved but not yet supplied. The total aid received by Ukraine from various countries has been close to $285 billion.
European peace plan
Before the showdown in the White House, European nations were rallying around Zelenskyy trying to hatch a peace plan. France, Britain and some other European countries had offered to send troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire, but would do that only if the U.S. was on-board. Moscow had vehemently objected to such a proposal.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsUkraine, which has already lost 20 per cent of its territory, wanted clear security guarantees from the West to ensure that Russia does not attack again. Trump has refused to give any such guarantees. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who hosted European leaders in London on March 2, said they agreed to draw up a peace plan to present to Washington.
Trump wants to befriend Russia
Trump’s recent decision to open talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and side-line both European leaders and Ukraine in those discussions has caused panic and anger in Europe. Trump is being seen seeking a “reset of relations with Russia” as part of a bigger plan to confront China. We can recall how in 1970, Kissinger had wooed China away from the Soviet Union, and split international Communism. Trump feels that the conflict in Ukraine is simply an obstacle to his ambition to reset relations with Russia. Many European leaders are deeply sceptical about his proposals. But this is what many analysts were suggesting even in 2021.
Coalition of the willing
After the disastrous Washington visit, Zelenskyy flew to London where he was hugged by the British PM Starmer, given a meeting with King Charles and celebrated as a hero by crowds. “We are at a crossroads in history,” said Starmer.
With Trump’s stand seen as abandoning Ukraine, European leaders are trying to form a “coalition of the willing” to continue arming Kyiv and help defend Ukraine from Russia. Even if it means sending peace-keeping troops. Starmer held a short notice summit where European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, backed the British leader’s plans to send troops to Ukraine in the event a ceasefire is reached.
Starmer said the UK was ready to put “boots on the ground and planes in the air” to defend a peace deal. Importantly, though, Starmer said he would only send troops if he had the backing of the United States. The summit did end with a commitment to defend Ukraine, but attempts would have to be made to assuage Trump.
On Thursday, March 6, European Union (EU) leaders will discuss their next steps. They are expected to announce a new major aid package of over $20 billion. The EU will find ways to raise funds. Maybe special defence bonds, or using the roughly $200 billion in frozen Russian assets sitting in European banks. Do European nations have the ability to arm Ukraine when their own military stockpiles are limited? Or they will be forced to buy from the U.S.? After all, Trump doesn’t mind such business.
Can Europe go it alone against Russia, with Trump acting in the opposite direction? Is Russia really an existential threat to Europe? Will Putin be emboldened after a favourable peace deal? Will Georgia, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and even Poland be next in Putin’s cross-hairs? Is Putin the type of nut that many portray him to be? Will European leaders be able to convince Trump to back European troops to Ukraine as peacekeepers? Will they send them without the U.S. being on-board? Will Europe strongly oppose U.S.-Russia peace deal? Many questions looking for answers.
Troops in Ukraine
NATO, U.S. and the EU had publicly taken a strict policy of “no boots on the ground” in Ukraine. But there have been secret placements. The United States had significantly increased the secret involvement of its special-operations military and CIA operatives in support of Ukrainian forces. As per leaked documents, the UK had the largest contingent of Special Forces in Ukraine (50), followed by fellow NATO states Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14), and the Netherlands (1).
The US Special Forces were posted to the US embassy in Kyiv to provide security for VIPs, and to assist with oversight of US equipment and supplies being sent to Ukraine. In the last days of his tenure, on November 8, 2024, US President Joe Biden allowed American Private Military Contractors to deploy to Ukraine to repair and maintain military equipment.
Who’s in, who’s out on the ground?
If Europe “must do the heavy lifting”, then who all should be involved? The idea is being led by the UK and France, two of the most powerful militaries in Europe, but questions remain over who else could be involved. Starmer has proposed that if a Russia-Ukraine ceasefire could be negotiated, 30,000 peacekeeping troops from across Europe should be stationed in Ukraine as a deterrent to future Russian attacks or re-armament.
While the UK may be taking the lead, sending UK troops abroad, even on a “peacekeeping” mission, always has the potential to spark huge public debate. Though Starmer does draw comfort from the limited opposition to deploying peacekeepers. The number of troops that the UK would contribute to this joint force is unclear. The cost will be the prime focus. It could also make things difficult with voters, who could have to endure tax rises or further cuts to public spending.
French President Macron had earlier raised the possibility of French troops in Ukraine last year. Only seven European countries were invited to the recent mid-February summit on Ukraine and European security at the Elysée Palace, Paris, prompting disappointment and criticism, particularly from the Czech Republic and Romania, the two countries strongly committed to supporting Ukraine.
The more threatened and worried Baltic States Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia are also likely to be on-board. All four countries are in NATO and share borders with Russia. Sweden said that it would not rule out sending troops to Ukraine if necessary.
The non-European NATO member, Canada could be on-board. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said he is “open” to sending troops to Ukraine as peacekeepers. Albanese did mention though that there was no concrete proposal on the table, nor had Australia been asked to contribute troops. Australia has already contributed $1.5 billion, with $1.3 billion of that given in direct military assistance. The Australian opposition leader, Peter Dutton, when asked if Australia would consider sending troops to Ukraine, replied: “The short answer is no.”
It has to be a coalition of the willing because you have at least two NATO members — Slovakia and Hungary — who are vetoing anything that Putin would not like. The coalition cannot be under the NATO umbrella, because that will make it a complex play after the US position. Poland, Spain and Germany are not expected to send troops as peacekeepers, for different reasons. Poland has a long border with Ukraine and Belarus and is concerned about its own security.
Spain feels it was too early to talk about deploying troops in Ukraine. Spain has been facing a number of political crises at home and spends around 1.28 per cent of GDP on defence, well below the NATO 2 per cent target. Italy’s Giorgia Meloni has been critical of plans to send troops to Ukraine, and has told France and UK they are on their own if they go into Ukraine. As the biggest economy in Europe, Germany is a crucial part of any united response to the Ukraine war. But after a fractured verdict, no new government has been formed after last month’s elections. Outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz has previously ruled out sending German troops to Ukraine as peacekeepers.
The elephant in the room is the biggest contributor to NATO, the United States. Of the 5,015 fighter and fighter ground-attack aircraft in NATO, 2,951 are from the United States. Without the U.S. nothing much can move. It is the single biggest donor to Kyiv. The “coalition of the willing” is more an exercise to impress the U.S. that they are willing to take on more responsibility for the security of Europe. Russia has so far rejected the idea of any NATO or European peacekeeping force in Ukraine.
Conclusion
With Trump saying he could meet Putin “very soon”, European leaders are hastening top-level talks on the continent’s security. After the summit, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that “we urgently have to rearm Europe” and that she would present a “comprehensive plan” at the meeting of European leaders this Thursday. She said, “It’s basically turning Ukraine into a steel porcupine that is indigestible for potential invaders.”
Any role in helping to guarantee Ukraine’s security is being seen as helping to guarantee the security of Europe. But clearly many feel that it was “premature” to discuss sending troops to war-torn Ukraine as part of any potential peacekeeping force. It is important to wait and see whether and how peace will hopefully emerge for Ukraine. Thus, there is first a need to negotiate a fair and sustainable peace. Putin is stronger than what he was three years back.
It is a no-win situation for Ukraine. Large number of Ukrainians have died. Many have fled. Americans are already suffering war fatigue. Trump wants to Make America Great Again (MAGA). Continuing the war is not an option. Foolhardy aggressive steps should not be taken that can push the world closer to World War III.
The writer is former Director General, Centre for Air Power Studies. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
