European Troops into the Ukraine Meat Grinder? By Richard Miller (Londonistan)
The article "Europe Working on Plans to Send 30,000 Troops to Ukraine As Trump Talks Drawdown On Continent,"
explores the evolving geopolitical dynamics around the Russia-Ukraine conflict as Donald Trump's second administration takes shape. Authored by Tyler Durden, it focuses on European efforts to bolster Ukraine militarily amid fears of reduced U.S. involvement.
European leaders, led by France and the UK, are developing a plan to deploy approximately 30,000 troops to Ukraine as a "reassurance force" rather than frontline peacekeepers. This force would be stationed away from the 600-mile eastern front line, guarding key infrastructure like nuclear power plants, and supported by Western air and sea power. The deployment aims to deter Russian aggression following any potential truce, filling a security void as Trump's administration signals a drawdown of U.S. troop presence in Europe and a push for a swift Ukraine peace deal. It's framed as a response to Ukraine's uncertain path to NATO membership.
The plan involves fewer than 30,000 troops on the ground, monitored remotely via drones and technology, with air power staged in Poland or Romania (possibly including U.S. assets) to enforce the truce and reopen Ukrainian airspace for commercial flights. Trump's Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly told Ukrainian officials that the U.S. might significantly reduce its 70,000-strong troop presence in Europe, a move tied to Trump's broader goal of shifting focus to Asia (e.g., countering China). This echoes his first-term critiques of Europe "freeloading" on U.S. security.
Trump has vowed no U.S. troops will enter Ukraine and is pursuing rapid peace talks with Russia, evidenced by a 90-minute call with Putin on February 12, 2025, and plans for a summit. Hegseth's February 12 statement in Brussels ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine and a return to 2014 borders as "unrealistic," prioritising a negotiated settlement. Despite the drawdown talk, some U.S. air power might remain in reserve for the European plan, though the article doubts Moscow's acceptance, suggesting European planners are overreaching.
British PM Keir Starmer and French leadership are driving the troop proposal. Starmer, in a February 16 Telegraph op-ed, expressed readiness to send British troops as peacekeepers, urging Europe to "bear its own burden" amid Trump's 5 percent NATO spending demands. France aligns with this hawkish pivot. With Trump sidelining Ukraine's NATO hopes and bypassing European input in early Russia talks (e.g., Saudi Arabia meetings reported by Politico), leaders fear being cut out of Ukraine's future. The 30,000-troop plan is partly a bid to retain influence and counterbalance Trump's deal-making.
Ukrainian President Zelensky opposes any deal excluding Europe, claiming on February 13 that 100,000+ European troops might be needed without NATO guarantees—a figure dwarfing the 30,000 proposed, highlighting his crazed maximalist stance.
Lord Dannatt, former British Army head (2006–2009), called the UK military "run down," questioning its capacity to lead. The article implies logistical and political hurdles could doom the plan, echoing Finnish President Alexander Stubb's December 2024 caution of needing 450,000 troops for a robust peacekeeping rotation.
The piece argues Moscow would view 30,000 Western troops—backed by NATO airpower—as a provocation, not a peacekeeping gesture, potentially sabotaging Trump's peace efforts. Putin's pre-war demand for NATO withdrawal from Eastern Europe (reiterated in February 21 Riyadh talks) underscores this tension.
Zero Hedge casts the troop plan as naive or manipulative, questioning its practicality and suggesting it's a ploy to derail Trump's peace push. It mocks European "dreaming" and aligns with a populist, anti-interventionist view favouring U.S. disengagement. The article contrasts European platitudes with Trump's pragmatic deal-making, portraying the former as out of touch and the latter as decisive, if unpredictable.
"European leaders have been urging that the United States must backstop any Ukraine peace deal to prevent the country from ever being attacked by Russia again. Of course, this means a military backstop; however, all signs point to Trump wanting to reduce the American troop presence in Europe, in favor of the Europeans doing more to provide for their own security.
Some European officials have already attacked this policy as the US signing off on Ukraine's "surrender" to Moscow. For example, days ago Finnish MEP member Mika Aaltola of the European People's Party claimed that the Trump administration "has given us three weeks to agree on terms for Ukraine's surrender." Aaltola added: "If we don't, the United States will withdraw from Europe."
These words also came around the time of an NBC News report which cited US officials who said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth privately informed Ukrainian officials that Washington may significantly reduce its troop presence in Europe.
This as President Zelensky has been urging against this, recently asserting that over 100,000 European troops could be needed in Ukraine to prevent another future war. He's described that this would be necessary in the scenario that Ukraine doesn't get a path to NATO membership.
Weekend reports indicate that Europe is readying a proposed plan to send at least 30,000 of its troops to Ukraine in a peacekeeping capacity in the wake of any truce deal. The report says this would be "with the US providing technical, logistics, and weapons support" - but crucially no American boots on the ground, as Trump has repeatedly promised. Meanwhile:
TRUMP: US BACKING OF SOME KIND FOR EUROPEAN TROOPS IN UKRAINE
The NY Times reports Monday of a European scramble to fill the US void as Trump signals draw back from Europe:
European leaders are racing to try to figure out how to fill a potential void — in Ukraine and in continental security as a whole — as President Trump's White House talks of dialing back American support and troop numbers in Europe.
...At the same time, European foreign ministers will be meeting in Brussels, where they are expected to debate how much to send to Kyiv in their next support package.
That plan could end up totaling more than 20 billion euros, according to two people familiar with the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Currently France and the UK under Starmer are leading the way in advancing such plans to send European troops to Ukraine.
NBC has more details on what this might look like practically in the following:
But Western officials say what's being discussed is a "reassurance force," not an army of peacekeepers posted along the 600-mile (1,000-kilometer) front line in Ukraine's east.
The proposal supported by the United Kingdom and France would see fewer than 30,000 European troops on the ground in Ukraine — away from the front line at key infrastructure sites such as nuclear power plants — backed by Western air and sea power.
Under the plan, the front line would largely be monitored remotely, with drones and other technology. Air power based outside Ukraine — perhaps in Poland or Romania — would be in reserve to deter breaches and reopen Ukrainian airspace to commercial flights.
The report adds, "That could include American air power." But European planners are dreaming if they think Moscow would actually go for this.
Some have suggested this is all about sabotaging efforts at quick negotiated peace...
From the start of the Kremlin contemplating negotiations, President Putin has made clear that Russia will not tolerate Western armies on the ground in Ukraine. Moscow has rejected as a non-starter any plans which put NATO forces along its border. This is especially given Russia is in the driver's seat regarding the war in Donbass, and will be able to dictate terms... at least much more so than the West.
Comments