10
Loading video...
By Shane Croucher
Senior Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The deployment of troops into Ukraine by NATO member states—either inside of the defensive alliance's structure or outside—is a sensitive subject that surfaces regularly in discussions about Russia's ongoing war against its neighbor.
Most recently, the British and French governments had reportedly "revived" discussions about deploying Western troops to shield Ukraine from further Russian aggression in the future. The Kremlin called such a move "hotheaded".
The story originated from anonymous sources in Le Monde, a French newspaper, and came in light of the potential withdrawal of American support for Ukraine—seen as vital to its defense unless Europe can fill the gap—when Donald Trump takes office in January.
Read More on World
But British Foreign Secretary David Lammy in response to the reports said "there has been a long-standing position that we are not committing U.K. troops to the theater of action," Politico reported, which "remains the U.K. position at this time."
Should troops from NATO member states be deployed to Ukraine? Newsweek asked military, defense, and geostrategy experts. Here's what they said.
Ian Brzezinski, Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council; Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Europe and NATO Policy
The answer is an unequivocal yes.
Allied troops, along with needed air power, air defense and long-range firepower, should be sent to Ukraine with the mandate to protect Ukraine's sovereignty.
This does not require those forces to enter Ukraine with the intent to offensively engage Russian forces. They could establish a bubble of security over a significant portion of Ukraine that is not occupied by Russia.
This would significantly strengthen Ukraine's prospects for ending this war on its terms and such a presence will be necessary to ensure ending stability when the fighting ends.
A tangible security guarantee evidenced by an on-the-ground military presence is the only way to convince Russian President Vladimir Putin that Ukraine's sovereignty and independence is no longer vulnerable to his revisionist, hegemonic ambitions.
It would demonstrate that Ukraine is no longer relegated to a grey zone of insecurity in Europe but has been embedded and integrated into the Euro-Atlantic security architecture.
It would also enable Ukraine to more effectively concentrate its military resources directly against Russia's invading ground forces.
...
While a NATO mission, and NATO membership, for Ukraine would have maximum effect, a robust transatlantic coalition of the willing would be sufficient and could help lead to the former.
Europe can and should provide the bulk of such a force, but the United States would have to also be involved providing necessary enabling capacities, including intelligence, air cover, air defense and long-range strike. Without such a U.S. contribution, Putin is unlikely to be convinced of this force's credibility.
The key to success, of course, is that this coalition has to be prepared and has to demonstrate it is ready to respond forcefully if attacked by Russia.
But such action by Putin would impose risk upon himself. Russian forces are in no position to take on Allied forces, be it under a NATO flag or a robust coalition of the willing.
The deployment of Allied forces to Ukraine is not only key to securing stability after the fighting ends, it would significantly, if not decisively, enable a win strategy designed to bring that fighting to an end, quickly, decisively and on the best terms possible for Ukraine.
Barry R. Posen, Ford International Professor of Political Science, MIT
No, NATO states should not deploy troops to Ukraine, in or out of the NATO structure. The U.S. should make crystal clear that it does not support this.
If these troops are used to solve real problems at the front, as infantry, tankers, or artillerymen, then they will often be in jeopardy. And if they get into real trouble they will expect NATO to bail them out.
This implicates the U.S. no matter what. Is it in our interest to be in a war with Russia.? So far, if we are honest, most members of the U.S. national security establishment, broadly conceived, would say NO, it is not in our interest.
If these European troops are used either on the ground or in the air, away from the front, as augmentations to Ukraine's air defenses, then perhaps the risks would be somewhat lower. But they are not zero.
If those troops or pilots got themselves into trouble, NATO member states bordering Ukraine would come under considerable pressure to fly air defense sorties out of their own bases to assist European forces in Ukraine. This could unfold very quickly. That too would implicate the U.S.
John Lough, Associate Fellow, Russia & Eurasia Programme, Chatham House
As things stand, no NATO country is going to send combat forces to Ukraine because of the danger of a widening of the war. This is understandable because Western publics are not prepared for such a move, and many would not support it.
If a ceasefire is negotiated, NATO countries should give serious consideration to sending monitors to ensure that it is observed.
In the meantime, there are strong arguments for officially sending military instructors from NATO countries to Ukraine to signal commitment to support the development of the Ukrainian army.
It is important for Ukraine's Western allies to signal to Russia that they are determined to help Ukraine in every way possible to bolster its security and deter further Russian aggression.
Kori Schake, Senior Fellow and Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Countries that want Russia to lose are going to have to give more and risk more. It would be monumental for European states to join Ukraine's war effort by sending troops.
As I understand the proposal, the troops would be training and maintaining Ukrainian forces and equipment, not fighting on the front lines. But it would still free up Ukraine's forces for the fight and would signal to Russia greater commitment to Ukraine's success.
Still, it's unlikely to be decisive.
Jamie Shea, Professor of Strategy and Security, University of Exeter, U.K.; former Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges at NATO
There are two scenarios for deploying European troops in Ukraine while the current Russian invasion of the country continues.
One would be to expedite the training and equipping of the new Ukrainian army units that are desperately needed in the frontline at the moment. A chronic shortage of manpower and the slowness in calling up a second generation of Ukrainian soldiers to replace those—killed, wounded or exhausted—who have been fighting since February 2022 is one reason why Ukraine is conceding more and more territory to the Russians in the Donbas.
The current training activities are taking place outside Ukraine so European governments need to do a risk v. benefit analysis of the merits of doing more of the training closer to the front line and integrated more into the Ukrainian army on the ground.
The second possibility would be to have European military specialists help to maintain and repair Western-supplied equipment (F16s, armored vehicles, Patriot batteries, etc). Currently, this equipment is sent outside Ukraine for repair and this takes a lot of time.
Equally, defense contractors and private security companies can be used for these jobs, as the U.S. has recently agreed. But in both these cases we are talking about small specialist teams, scattered for their own protection, and not large deployments of combat troops.
What I think the U.K. and France are discussing is the possible sending of European troops to Ukraine after a negotiated settlement with Russia has been achieved.
Zelensky will not accept an agreement with Putin unless Ukraine has adequate security guarantees from its Western backers. As Trump is unlikely to agree to send U.S. forces, the burden here is likely to fall onto the Europeans.
So with Trump saying he will start peace negotiations immediately, it is probably timely for the big European countries to debate the options and test their readiness to contribute. But nothing can be decided until the shape of a settlement becomes clear and the task of an international force agreed.
Would it simply be an observer force (like after 2014) or a force to actually defend Ukraine? Or linked to ultimate NATO membership or not? So watch this space.
Fabrice Pothier, CEO, Rasmussen Global; former Director Policy Planning at NATO
Yes, I think there is now a strong argument for a group of willing European military powers, likely led by France and the U.K. with contributions from the Nordics and Eastern Europe, deploying a train-and-advise mission in Western Ukraine.
These forces should be outside NATO auspices, to train Ukrainian forces and give logistical support, away from the frontlines, not to engage with Russian troops.
If requested by Ukraine, this is fully in line with international law and could form for basis for a later peace enforcement mission.
Sending these forces now would make clear Europe's commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty, showing Europe is prepared to shoulder the majority of the financial burden and political risk for a lasting peace.
Dr. Liana Fix, Fellow for Europe, David Rockefeller Studies Program, Council on Foreign Relations
NATO member states, especially Europeans, should aim for a coalition of the willing to send troops to Ukraine, consisting of a core group of the U.K., France, Germany and Poland, with support by the United States.
This is the only possibility to give Ukraine security guarantees which will make a ceasefire eventually possible and acceptable for Ukraine.
The other alternative would have been NATO membership for Ukraine, but Germany and the U.S. have opposed this in the past.
If a ceasefire is concluded without any security guarantees and without troops on the ground, this will be seen as an invitation to Vladimir Putin to break the ceasefire—such as he did with the Minsk II agreements—and to continue the war.
So security guarantees are not negotiable. Troops to Ukraine can take place within NATO, but this could be more of a red flag to Russia than a coalition of the willing. Also, the United States might not be willing to take the responsibility within a NATO framework.
James Carafano, Senior Counselor to the President and E.W. Richardson Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Peacekeepers would be more like hostages. What we need is a Ukraine that can defend itself. Not gimmicks.
Victoria Vdovychenko, Associate Professor and Joint Programme Leader, Centre of Geopolitics, University of Cambridge; Program Director for Security Studies, Center for Defence Strategies
The question of whether NATO member states, even outside of the NATO structure, should send troops to Ukraine is a complex one, especially taking into account the U.S. elections as well as unpredictability on how the newly elected President Trump will be advised and act in the Black Sea region, as well as whether he will be willing (and how and when) to influence on peace negotiations with Russian Federation.
Several key factors emerge from recent developments and statements:
1. Emergence of "Red Lines" for NATO Involvement
In May 2024, reports surfaced indicating that NATO, confidentially and without public announcements, identified at least two "red lines" that, if crossed by Russia, could trigger direct military intervention by NATO forces. This represents a significant shift in NATO's approach, signaling a potential readiness to escalate its involvement if the situation in Ukraine deteriorates drastically. These red lines highlight the Alliance's acknowledgment that its collective security interests are at stake in Ukraine. The recent PA NATO (November 25) openly recommended in its resolution to consider for the next NATO Summit Netherlands to have a more efficient deterrence mechanism for Russia (apart from China). Ukraine's future is playing a pivotal role here in providing security not only in the Black Sea area, but also Mediterranean as well as influencing what will be happening in the Indo-Pacific region.
2. Support for Potential Intervention Among European States
French President Emmanuel Macron has been one of the first European leaders to openly discuss the possibility of deploying NATO troops to Ukraine. Additionally, Poland and the Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—have expressed their willingness to act independently, sending forces to Ukraine if Russia achieves significant gains on the battlefield. This reflects the growing fear among these nations that insufficient Western support could embolden Russia, jeopardizing not only Ukraine but the security of the entire region.
3. Western Reluctance and Finland's Perspective
Finland's Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen articulated a cautious but pragmatic view, emphasizing that Western nations, including the U.S., should not entirely rule out the possibility of deploying troops to Ukraine in the long term. While Finland currently refrains from sending forces or discussing such actions, Valtonen stressed the importance of maintaining flexibility as the situation evolves. This measured stance reflects the recognition that circumstances may necessitate greater involvement if the conflict escalates further.
4. Immediate Focus on Supporting Ukraine
Despite these discussions, NATO leaders emphasize that the current priority should remain on providing robust material and logistical support to Ukraine. This approach aims to strengthen Ukraine's ability to defend itself and deter Russian advances, reducing the immediate necessity for direct foreign military intervention.
The Case for Sending Troops
Sending troops could provide several strategic and moral benefits:
Deterrence of Russian Aggression: The presence of NATO troops could deter further Russian advances by signaling a serious commitment from the West.
Protection of Regional Security: Intervention might prevent the conflict from spilling over into neighboring countries, safeguarding broader European stability.
European Security Architecture Responsibility: Ensuring Ukraine's sovereignty aligns with the democratic values that NATO member states uphold.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines