Europe's challenge: Securing Ukraine without U.S. troops
U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth unequivocally ruled out the involvement of American troops in a contingent that could enforce peace on the Russians after the end of the war in Ukraine. The burden of responsibility now rests on Europe. How can the Old Continent secure Ukraine against Russian aggression?
Statements by Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth clearly indicate that the United States wants security guarantees for Ukraine, stemming from the presence of European and non-European troops on the territory of that country.
This contingent would be deployed without American involvement and would not be a NATO operation, so the participating forces would not be covered by the security guarantees provided by the Alliance.
Doubts about this formula of peacekeeping forces are expressed by American commentators. As Steven Erlanger of "The New York Times" notes, without American involvement in such an operation—with American air cover, air defence, and intelligence data—European forces would be exposed to serious risk.
Lost potential
Regardless of the political conditions of such actions, it is also important to answer the question of whether Europe actually has the capabilities to deploy an adequately strong contingent.
Since the end of the Cold War, Europe has benefited from the "peace dividend," with the United States becoming the global guarantor. The low likelihood of a new war led the Old Continent, then possessing in the 1980s a robust arms industry and powerful armed forces, to begin disarming and losing capabilities built over years.
The extent of their loss is evident by the fact that currently—apart from Germany—no European NATO country is capable of building tanks (British Challengers 3 are made with German assistance), fifth-generation combat aircraft must be procured from the United States, and annual artillery shell production before the Russian attack on Ukraine was 20,000-30,000 units, which is less than Ukraine uses in a week.
European peace corps
When President Zelensky speaks of 200,000-strong peacekeeping forces, it is worth realizing that the largest NATO army in Europe (excluding Turkey) is Poland's army (216,000 soldiers), with only the French army (204,000 soldiers) slightly exceeding the 200,000 threshold.
Therefore, as pointed out by "The New York Times," among others, creating a peacekeeping corps smaller than the 40,000 proposed by Ukrainians might be a serious challenge for Europe, but it is not impossible.
European forces, American assistance
The reference to U.S. support is not accidental—for years, Europe has mainly sent small expeditionary forces, benefiting from a clear technical advantage, as in the case of forces sent to Afghanistan or the French intervention in Mali. The last major operation involving heavy European forces was the 1991 Desert Storm operation, where a coalition of 27 countries stood against the Iraqi army.
Meanwhile, peacekeeping troops in Ukraine cannot, as Americans themselves point out, just play the role of "tripwire." They must have armoured equipment, strong artillery, air cover, and effective air defence.
A too weak contingent—in a situation where it is not protected by NATO guarantees or a declaration of support from the U.S.—could encourage Russia to test its real capabilities. Therefore, it is hard to imagine its creation with complete passivity and lack of cooperation from Washington.
