Matthew Savill
European leaders still appear to be scrambling to create a consensus on both their priorities and support for Ukraine after a week of blunt US statements and jumbled diplomacy. Going in to a meeting of European leaders in Paris on 17 February, called by French President Emmanuel Macron during an uncomfortable Munich Security Conference, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer appeared to break with caution by stating his readiness to deploy UK ground forces to Ukraine as part of providing security guarantees. There is already a small UK military presence in Ukraine in the form of a defence section in the embassy and a medical training team, but this proposal appeared to suggest a more substantial force of some description. It has been nearly a year since Macron first used a classic ‘refusal to rule out’ approach on sending French troops, but Starmer’s suggestion was the firmest sign yet of any other major European military appearing to be ready to follow suit.
The problems are multiple: there is no agreement on the purpose or size of any such force; some countries appear reluctant to even discuss the issue; and without US support, there is serious doubt as to the credibility of any such force acting as a deterrent to future Russian aggression. The proposal rests upon the significant assumption that any ceasefire agreement will include the deployment of Western forces; initial indications suggest that the Russians will strenuously resist such a provision. While repeated statements about European willingness to step up are welcome, and European defence spending overall has been on an upward trend since the NATO Wales Summit in 2014, only a serious, coordinated European effort can make a substantial contribution to Ukrainian security if we assume that the US will be significantly reducing its involvement. It might not be a good sign that countries like the Baltic states, which have a clear interest in how Russia is tackled, were not involved in the Paris discussions.
No comments:
Post a Comment