International 'reassurance' force planned for Ukraine ceasefire
The potential Western troop deployment to Ukraine being discussed in London should be described as a "reassurance force" rather than a "peacekeeping force", defence and diplomatic sources say.Currently dubbed the Multinational Force Ukraine or MFU, it would be sent to the country to cement any ceasefire and encourage long-term confidence in the country.The focus would be on providing Ukraine with air cover to keep its skies safe and a naval presence in the Black Sea to encourage trade.The deployment of so-called "boots on the ground" - probably about 20,000 strong - would in terms of size not be big enough to enforce any peace.
Instead, the troops - provided by a so-called "coalition of the willing" - would most likely be deployed to protect cities, ports and major energy infrastructure.One option being considered is that the MFU might not operate in the east of Ukraine near the front line to try to reassure Russia it poses no offensive threat.Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin have said repeatedly they would not agree any ceasefire if European and other forces were deployed to Ukraine.The sources say any multinational operation in Ukraine would not be a "peacekeeping force" and should not be described as such. Peacekeeping forces - under the aegis of either the United Nations or Nato - traditionally are impartial, operate with the consent of both parties and use force only to defend themselves. The multinational force being discussed would very much be on Ukraine's side, there to help deter future Russian aggression.
UK hosts military leaders to work on Ukraine plansGermany votes for historic boost to defence spendingCan Europe deter Russia in Ukraine without US military?
At the moment, it is not expected that the multinational force on the ground would monitor any ceasefire. That would be done by Ukrainian troops on the frontline and Western surveillance assets in the air and space.The sources also say the coalition troops would not be deployed to provide a so-called "tripwire force" - meaning a force smaller than that of the opponent, designed to deter an attack without triggering escalation - if Russia resumed its invasion of Ukraine. They say the military impact of any allied deployment of about 20,000 troops would be limited compared to the number of troops on either side of the front line. Ukraine has almost a million military personnel, Russia's army is even larger.Much of the focus of Thursday's discussions is on how best any international force can provide Ukraine with assets it does not have, especially capability in the air. So, there will be discussions about which countries can provide warplanes to keep Ukraine's skies safe during a ceasefire.There will also be discussions about how to make the Black Sea safe for shipping. That may involve two components: how best to keep shipping lanes clear of mines and what kind of naval task force could provide a security presence in the sea.The key uncertainty is whether the United States would provide any air, satellite or intelligence cover for any European force on the ground. The US has thus far said it would not be willing to provide any military "backstop".The European strategy for now is to stop asking the US and instead organise the best force and capability it can to ensure the security of Ukraine in the future. Once the details are agreed, then the UK, France and others would see if the European offer was substantial enough for the US to have a change of heart and agree to play some kind of role.What all this planning depends on, of course, is some kind of ceasefire being agreed in Ukraine. While the US remains optimistic, many in Ukraine remain sceptical that Russia even wants to end the fighting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
What will Iran do next?
'They are scared. You can hear it in their voices,' someone wrote to me on Friday from Tehran. And in this case the 'they' is what's left of the Iranian military and intelligence commanders. And perhaps Khamenei, too (strikingly absent from the air waves since a speech on Friday morning). Israel's strikes, yet another show of tactical brilliance from the ever-resourceful Mossad, stunned the Islamic Republic in a brutal display of military and intelligence superiority. Iran is quite simply reeling, and the only question now is how far will Israel go, and to what end? Who, if anyone, will pick up the pieces of a broken Islamic Republic? For now, more than ever, the Islamic Republic faces internal splits, a crisis of confidence and a relentless Israeli military and intelligence machine with all the cards, to use a Trumpism. But as has been the case since October 2023, as Israel struts its hardware over the region, the most important question is, 'How does this all end?' Tactical geniuses are not always strategic masters, as Israel has shown us repeatedly. Whether the US knew about the attack in advance or not (they did) will, I feel, be a footnote in the history of this story, which begun many years ago with Netanyahu banging a large drum on the international stage, and telling everyone one day he would do something about Iran's nuclear ambitions. And now he has done something. Perhaps not as conclusive as he'd have liked, for Iran may still stun the world and announce they have a nuclear weapon. Yet given everything we've seen and heard from Tel Aviv and Washington, it's clear that these strikes are about so much more than yellow cake and centrifuges. This is about crippling the Islamic Republic, bringing it to its knees and destroying its capability to strike back and threaten Israel ever again. This is about regime change, or rather regime destruction. But what can Tehran do? The (relatively) fictional nature of the Islamic Republic's deterrent was exposed throughout 2024, with Tehran's responses to Israeli attacks being calibrated to save face, and avoid war all at the same time, a conjuring trick that Israel quickly rumbled. Iran knows it must do the same here; it needed to strike back to show the world it can't be bullied, but it also knows that its missile defence systems are comparatively weak, that its military senior leadership is in disarray and that its intelligence services are at war internally, playing the ultimate blame game. It could strike at global shipping through the Houthis, sending energy prices through the roof (and saving the Russian economy), and in an act of total desperation, it could also hit Saudi oilfields. But would any of this help its cause? Would any of this save the Islamic Republic? Unlikely. Its best, and riskiest, option would be to speed towards a nuclear weapon. Smart guesses suggest this could take many weeks. And from what we've seen so far, Israel can inflict a lot of damage to Iranian buildings, installation and psyches in a matter of hours. A number of weeks might just be too late. Of course, Trump is saying publicly that he wants Iran to come to the table to talk, but it seems as if the time for talking might well be at an end. But the wildcard in all of this will be Persian nationalism, a force so potent and with such a selective memory that it's entirely possible for large sections of the Iranian population to rally behind a hated regime as they all gather together to resist Israeli bombs. This is why Israel's attacks have been carefully calibrated to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. Having to rely on your enemies to save you from your own people, however, is a damning indictment of an exhausted revolution.
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Nicola Sturgeon brands actor Rupert Everett ‘deeply misogynistic'
Actor Rupert Everett, known for his role in My Best Friend's Wedding and the voice of Prince Charming in the Shrek franchise, called the former first minister 'a witch' when discussing the record of the SNP with the arts. In an interview with The Herald, the actor – who moved to Glasgow when he was 18 to work at the Citizens Theatre in Glasgow – compared his time at the theatre with now, saying in the 1970s 'it had a global outlook'. He said: 'It was a national European theatre … it never ran at a loss. It presented an uncompromising array of work to people that it never patronised. 'As soon as the witch Sturgeon came into power everything changed in Scottish arts and everything had to be about being Scottish.' Writing on Instagram, Sturgeon said: 'What is it with [some] men who can't disagree with a woman without resorting to deeply misogynistic tropes? His substantive point is baseless rubbish too.' Upcoming shows at the theatre include Small Acts of Love, set in Lockerbie in the wake of the 1988 Pan AM bombing, and a show about Glasgow's 'first unofficial gay bar'. The Glass Menagerie, a Tennessee Williams play set in St Louis; Sweat, set in a rust belt town in Pennsylvania; and the English actor Kieran Hodgson impersonating 'a bunch of old prospectors and former presidents' in a stand-up set called Voice of America are also set to be shown. READ MORE: 'Europe should thank us': Israeli ambassador to UK defends strikes on Iran In May, Sturgeon insisted misogyny is potentially worse now than it was when she first started out in politics more than 20 years ago. The former first minister's comments came after senior MPs called for a drastic overhaul of Westminster's culture amid concerns over sexism and inappropriate behaviour by politicians. She said she felt social media had handed sexist men a platform to hurl direct abuse at women in a way they couldn't previously. And she said it has led to some comments being much worse than they would've been in previous decades because people can hide behind a computer. She told GMB at the time: "I don't think there is a woman alive, not just in politics but in any walk of life, who will not have experienced somewhere on the spectrum of misogyny and sexism behaviour which is unacceptable. "For many, including myself, that will be at the end of the spectrum that is inappropriate comments and a sense of a culture of sexism, men making comments about what you wear and your hair and stuff. "Of course, for some women, that goes to the other end of the spectrum and involves serious sexual assault and sometimes murder, so it's a societal problem. "It can be worse in politics and public life. 'In some ways, I think it is worse today than it was when I was a woman starting out in politics." Sturgeon also said the SNP had struggled to get women to put themselves forward as candidates in the local election because of sexism in society and politics. She added: 'In this election, my party – and I think it will be the same for other parties – have found it more difficult than at any election I remember to persuade women to come forward because there's a sense that politics is not a safe space.'
Daily Record
4 hours ago
- Daily Record
Nicola Sturgeon blasts 'deeply misogynistic' Hollywood star after 'witch' jibe
The former SNP First Minister hit out at comments by Rupert Everett. Nicola Sturgeon has dismissed a Hollywood star as 'deeply misogynistic' after he branded her a 'witch' who had spoiled the arts in Scotland. The former First Minister also said the wider point Rupert Everett made about her record was 'baseless rubbish'. Everett, whose work includes My Best Friend's Wedding and providing the voice of Prince Charming in Shrek 2 and Shrek the Third, criticised the SNP 's time in power. In an interview with the Herald, he contrasted the outlook of the Citizens Theatre in Glasgow in previous decades to the arts under the Nationalist Government. The 66 year old said: 'It was a European theatre in the same vein as Peter Stein, Pina Bauch. It was a national European theatre. And unlike those theatres, it never ran at a loss. It presented an uncompromising array of work to people that it never patronised. 'As soon as the witch Sturgeon came into power everything changed in Scottish arts and everything had to be about being Scottish." 'In the whole United Kingdom there was nothing like that theatre. It was one of the most extraordinary cultural events I think in the British scene postwar, frankly.' Sturgeon, the country's longest-serving First Minister, hit back: "What is it with [some] men who can't disagree with a woman without resorting to deeply misogynistic tropes? His substantive point is baseless rubbish too.' In May, Sturgeon said her support for trans rights had seen her endure more sexism than on any other issue. She said: 'Many of those who are on the other side [of the issue] say it is all about protecting women.' 'Isn't it ironic that I have probably had more misogynistic abuse as a result of this issue than on any other issue in my entire political career. Go figure.' This is a breaking news story - we'll bring you updates, pictures and video as it happens. Follow us on Twitter @Record_Politics and get updates from the team: @paulhutcheon, @andrewJQuinn97 and @dennynews. We're also on Facebook - your must-see news, features, videos and pictures throughout the day from the Daily Record, Sunday Mail and Record Online Get all the big headlines, pictures, analysis, opinion and video on the stories that matter to you.
