International 'reassurance' force planned for Ukraine ceasefire
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
18 minutes ago
- Spectator
Has Zelensky become a liability?
Is Volodymyr Zelensky becoming a liability for the West and for his own country? We are entitled at least to pose this question as we (I mean America and Europe) are funding this war. I ask because it is clear, and for years has been clear, that the conflict with Russia must end in a compromise, and the shape of that compromise should not be in doubt. Russia must be given a ladder to climb down and this must involve land. Ukraine must gain what from the start has been the great prize that Moscow has tried to deny it: an unshakeable place in the community of European democracies, with the military and economic guarantees from the West that make that place secure. It was Boris Johnson who first framed the idiotic boast that now threatens to block progress towards such a settlement. 'Not an inch!' he cried, to Ukrainian cheers, when he was prime minister. Perhaps he thought this was just the kind of thing you say for an easy headline and the whoops of the groundlings; but even he must have doubted that Russia could realistically be driven from everything it had gained, and Vladimir Putin be forced to grovel. Too many British minds, I think, have been prey to the illusion that the second world war was a template for future conflict, and Hitler a template for Putin. Most wars, however, end in messy compromises, and that is how this one must end too. Let me start with the issue of land. It would be stupid for a generalist columnist like me to feign the knowledge that will be needed once negotiations over new borders begin, but I will volunteer this: Crimea (it can at least be argued) is not historically part of Ukraine and only got tacked onto Ukraine when the Soviet Union had both of them among its many countries and regions. I spent time in Ukraine last year, choosing to talk not to soldiers, generals or politicians, but to the under-25s. If you seek the point on the dial when many younger Ukrainians' refusal to contemplate ceding territory begins to waver, that place is Crimea. Despite official assurances from Ukraine that most citizens are against a land-for-peace deal, other polls (and my own conversations) suggest that people don't have principled objections to any ceding of land so much as serious doubts about whether Putin could ever be trusted to keep his word once a land-for-peace deal had been signed. That then – the security side of the agreement which I suggested at the beginning of this column – is absolutely the nub of the entire settlement. I'm in no doubt that if the Ukrainian people could be convinced the settlement would be permanent, and backed to the hilt by the West, they would vote tomorrow for a treaty that gave Russia permanent possession of some of what it has already taken. Let me anticipate at this point some readers' objections. Firstly this: 'Nothing agreed with Putin can he be relied upon to honour.' The trouble with this objection is that it is too strong. It means that even if he could be driven back to the old frontiers, and surrendered, he would try again later. I reply that he well might: that is why the security guarantees for Ukraine remain key. Secondly this: 'We must never reward Putin's aggression.' I'm afraid that, ever since wars began, aggression has often been rewarded. This one, in which incalculable numbers of lives on both sides have already been lost, and if it continues many more will be, must not be accorded the status of a moral lesson for the ages. The fact is that neither side seems capable of winning, so let's park the sermonising and look for the compromise in which so many wars – just wars as well as unjust ones – have always ended. And finally this: 'We owe it to the Ukrainian military dead, brave men and women whose lives were sacrificed for their country, not to settle for less than victory.' Well, if so, does Russia not owe it to the greater numbers of Russian military dead whose lives were sacrificed for their country too? What do we owe the British dead whose sacrifice in Afghanistan was also for a noble cause? This logic, applying as it must to both sides of any conflict, leads only to madness. None of us should be at all confident that Putin is ready to deal. I suspect otherwise. The greater likelihood is that in any negotiations he will fall back on Moscow's insistence that 'the root causes' of this conflict must be tackled. By this he means Ukraine's departure from the orbit of the Russian Federation. That is why security, not land, is what may prove the sticking point this time, because Ukraine's departure from Moscow's orbit must indeed be made secure. But if not this summer or this year, then next summer and next year, when the West's military support for Ukraine does not waver, and Moscow grows weary, this – security – must be at the heart of any negotiations. And those guarantees are up to us. Which brings me back to Zelensky. Who can blame him? Perhaps years of war, years of acute personal tension, years of sticking doggedly to your guns, years in the eye of the storm when your whole country's future rests on your shoulders, jam the flexibility of mind needed, not to fight but to deal. But there's a real danger now that Zelensky's apparent stubbornness over this 'not an inch' business may so infuriate a temperamental US President that American (and with it European) resolve begins to fray. Zelensky should not be digging in his heels on the question of land, and European nations, including our own, should not be encouraging him to. We probably can't save Ukraine without the Americans, and the Americans won't save Ukraine unless there's movement on conceding land. The Ukrainian President must get off his high horse, and Europe should stop indulging his intransigence. It's as simple as that.
Spectator
18 minutes ago
- Spectator
Trump's Alaska meeting is a gift for Putin
From the Kremlin's point of view, holding a US-Russia summit in Anchorage, Alaska is an idea of fiendish brilliance. The venue itself determines the agenda. Literally half a world away from the petty concerns of the European continent, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin can flex the vastness of their respective countries. Anchorage is an eight-hour flight from Washington D.C. and roughly the same distance from Moscow, flying over no other country but Russia for most of the way. By travelling to the point where their countries almost touch in the North Pacific, both leaders can feel justified in prioritising issues that concern just the two of them, from arms control treaties to space cooperation to Arctic mineral rights. Seen from Anchorage, Ukraine seems a very distant and very local problem. The summit is the brainchild of Yuri Ushakov, a veteran diplomat who joined the USSR's foreign ministry in 1970. Ushakov is a wily old attack dog who learned the ways of Washington during a decade-long stint as Russian ambassador from 1998 to 2008. And in suggesting Alaska as a meeting point, Ushakov clearly knows how to flatter not only Trump's ego but also his own President's obsession with history. For Putin, Russia's conquest of north-east Asia and much of the coast of America's Pacific north-west is the founding myth of his country's modern greatness. In the 16th century Muscovy and Spain had both defeated Muslim occupiers and began expanding into rich new worlds east and west – in Spain's case, gold-rich America; in Muscovy's, fur-rich Siberia. Spanish conquistadors and Russian Cossacks reached the Pacific from different sides and started settling colonies along the coasts. In 1776, the Spanish Crown ordered the foundation of San Francisco – in the form of a Franciscan Mission and garrisoned Presidio – in direct response to news that Catherine the Great had started assembling a major Russian fleet to grab the unclaimed territory of northern California. In the event, Catherine's fleet was redeployed to fight a war with the Swedes, leaving most of California to the Spanish. Who was to say who was the more logical ruler of America's north-west coast, distant Madrid or distant St Petersburg? From 1816 until 1842 the southernmost frontier of the Russian empire was 70 miles north of San Francisco at Fort Ross on the Russian River (hence the name). For a brief period in the early 19th century Russia had a colony on Kaua'i island in Hawaii. And until 1867 the modern state of Alaska with its 6,500-mile coastline was known as Russian America and was a possession of the Tsar's. In the wake of the Crimean War, during which a Royal Navy force bombarded and briefly occupied the port of Petropavlovsk on Kamchatka, Tsar Alexander II realised he lacked the naval power to maintain control of his American colonies. He first offered Russian America to the British prime minister Lord Palmerston for the eminently logical reason that the territory was contiguous with British Columbia. Palmerston, however, was uninterested in acquiring half a million square miles of mostly unexplored North American wilderness. The only other plausible buyer was the US. But it took two years, and the distribution of tens of thousands of dollars in bribes to congressmen, for the Russians to persuade a reluctant secretary of state, William Seward, to write a cheque for $7.2 million for the Alaska Purchase – mocked at the time as 'Seward's Folly'. Even today, Alaska still bears the stamp of its century and a half as part of the Russian empire. A third of Alaska's population is Native American (by far the largest proportion of any US state) and most of the Aleut and Tlingit peoples still adhere to the Russian Orthodox faith. The major feature of every coastal town from Sitka to Kodiak is a distinctively Russian church, and there are communities of black-robed monks on out-lying islands – though most are Americans and their services are in English. Colonial echoes of Britain, France and Spain are commonplace in other countries, whether Anglican worshippers in Simla, French baguettes in Saigon or Spanish missions in California. Living echoes of a vanished Russian empire are much rarer and exist mostly in Alaska. It is clearly flattering and heartwarming for Putin to meet his American counterpart on what was once Russian territory. Some more excitable western commentators have claimed that hosting a summit in Anchorage encourages Putin's neo-imperial ambitions – including, supposedly, reclaiming the American lands sold by Alexander II. But the idea that 'Alaska Nash' (Alaska is Ours) is anything other than a Russian pub joke is absurd. A roadside billboard bearing that slogan and featuring a map of Russia including all of Alaska has been doing the rounds of Twitter as supposed evidence of Putin's revanchism. In fact it's just a jokey advertisement for a real estate company called Alaska. Rather than dog-whistling Russian imperialism, the location allows Putin to appeal to a bygone age of Russian-American cooperation where the two nations divided up large swaths of the world. The most recent example is, to Putin's mind, the Yalta conference of February 1945 where Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill pored over maps and divided spheres of influence in the crumbling Nazi empire. A similar carve-up of Ukrainian territory is exactly what Volodymyr Zelensky fears and he has spent the week since the summit was announced gathering European support to insist that no deal can be done over the heads of the Ukrainians. Unfortunately for Kyiv, and for the Europeans, they're not invited. It's also highly likely that even if Putin and Trump reach some kind of a deal on a ceasefire, it will be largely on Russia's terms. But it's also possible that Moscow and Washington could agree on other, non-Ukraine related issues, such as getting Putin back on board with the New START treaty limiting the number of deployed nuclear weapons – the kind of deal that nuclear superpowers make between each other. And there is nothing that both Putin and Trump enjoy more than playing the role of imperial presidents.
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
Zelensky tells Trump that Putin is ‘bluffing' and does not want peace ahead of crunch Ukraine summit
Volodymyr Zelensky has warned Donald Trump and European leaders that Vladimir Putin is 'bluffing' over his intentions to end the war, ahead of a crucial summit between the US and Russia on Friday. The Ukrainian president reiterated that there can be no talk of territorial concessions without his country's involvement, as both he and European leaders are sidelined from the historic meeting in Anchorage, Alaska. Following a virtual conference with Zelensky, Trump, German chancellor Friedrich Merz and French president Emmanuel Macron, Sir Keir Starmer said a 'viable' chance of reaching a ceasefire in the Ukraine war now exists, but Britain stands ready to 'increase pressure' on Moscow if necessary. It comes as a report in The Times suggests Russia and the US have discussed the Israeli occupation of the West Bank as a potential model for a future settlement between Moscow and Kyiv. The plan, which is understood to be supported by Trump's peace envoy Steve Witkoff, would imitate Israel's rule over Palestinian territory since 1967, with Russia seizing military and economic control of the disputed regions. During Wednesday's meeting, Macron said that Trump had been 'very clear' in his objective to achieve a ceasefire, and had reiterated that "territorial issues relating to Ukraine will only be negotiated by the Ukrainian president." Meanwhile, Zelensky told Trump and European leaders that 'Putin is bluffing - he is trying to push forward along the whole front". "Putin is also bluffing saying he doesn't care about the sanctions and that they're not working,' he said. "In reality, the sanctions are very effective, and they're hurting the Russian military economy. Putin doesn't want peace - he wants to occupy our country". In recent days, Russian forces have been closing in on a key territorial grab around the city of Pokrovsk in the Donbas region, which could complicate Ukrainian supply lines to the Donetsk region , where the Kremlin have concentrated their military efforts. On Tuesday, Zelensky said that Putin has demanded Kyiv's forces withdraw from Donetsk as part of any potential ceasefire deal, a notion which he strongly rejected. Reiterating his stance that relinquishing the Donbas region would not be agreed by Ukraine, Zelensky told reporters: "Any questions concerning our country's territorial integrity cannot be discussed without regard for our people, for the will of our people and the Ukrainian constitution". Friedrich Merz convened the virtual meetings in an attempt to make sure European and Ukraine's leaders are heard ahead of the Trump-Putin summit on Friday. In a post to his Truth Social account ahead of the meeting, Trump said: 'Will be speaking to European Leaders in a short while. They are great people who want to see a deal done.' Merz said after the video conference that "important decisions" could be made in Anchorage, but stressed that "fundamental European and Ukrainian security interests must be protected" at the meeting. He added that the key principles that they made clear to Trump was that Ukraine must be at the table for any future meetings, a ceasefire must come ahead of the start of the negotiations and recognising Russian-occupied territory is not on the table. Other objectives included ensuring Ukrainian forces are to defend their country with the support of Europe, and wider negotiations must be part of a "transatlantic strategy". The summit on Friday has been described by the White House as a 'feel-out summit', with Trump looking to see if Putin is serious about ending the war, and to better understand his intentions. However, his comments that both Russia and Ukraine must concede territory and land swap has caused concern, with European leaders worried that any major concessions to Putin could cause security problems for the West in the future. A call among leaders of countries involved in the "coalition of the willing" — those who are prepared to help police any future peace agreement between Moscow and Kyiv, including the UK —also took place on Wednesday. Sir Keir said: 'This is a critical moment. We have to combine active diplomacy on the one hand with military support to Ukraine and pressure on Russia.' 'International borders cannot be, and must not be changed by force, and again that's a long-standing principle of this group. 'And alongside that, any talk about borders, diplomacy, ceasefire has to sit alongside a robust and credible security guarantee to ensure that any peace, if there is peace, is lasting peace and Ukraine can defend its territorial integrity as part of any deal.'
