[SS from essay by Barry R. Posen, Ford International Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.]

Ever since U.S. President Donald Trump began his effort to settle the war in Ukraine, European leaders have tried to assemble a military coalition capable of defending Kyiv. They have promised, specifically, to station forces in Ukraine. “There will be a reassurance force operating in Ukraine representing several countries,” said French President Emmanuel Macron in March. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for a “coalition of the willing” to help protect Kyiv.

This initiative may seem novel and bold, but it is old-think disguised as new-think. Europeans can call these forces whatever they want—peacekeepers, peace enforcers, a reassurance force, a deterrent force. But European leaders are simply repackaging NATO’s 1990s Balkan peacekeeping model for Ukraine. Penny packets of military force would be spread around the country to send the Russians a deterring message. Yet these forces would have limited combat power, and their credibility would depend on the promise of U.S. military force in reserve. European leaders even admit that their forces must be “backstopped” by Washington, which could provide massive air support in the event that the continent’s ground troops are attacked.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/north-america/how-europe-can-deter-russia

Posted by ForeignAffairsMag

9 comments

  1. Imo a better solution would be simply to deploy troops into Western Ukraine. Air defenses as well as border troops to oppose Belarus and prevent any Russian attacks elsewhere. This would free up Ukrainian troops to fight at the front and also give their air defense a great deal of relief.

    Unfortunately the chances of any European forces going even remotely near Ukraine seem close to zero. While I appreciate that they’re at least having this conversation, the “coalition of the willing” seems remarkably unwilling.

  2. Bemoaning their lack of combat power gives too much credit to Russia. I don’t think you’ll need to mobilize the continent to protect from poorly trained and equipped russian conscripts. Having trained, equipped and prepared troops to support the Ukrainians seems logical enough to me. Or has Russia been holding back up until this point?

  3. I sincerely support the motion for small European garrisons in eastern Ukraine.

  4. Surely there is more to be done isolating Russia economically. Even if it is long term, the repercussions should be made clear to Putin that he will be embargoed like Cuba. Crack down on the oil shipments and gas usage. It may take 5 years, but they should be aware it’s going to zero forever unless they stop the war. All telecommunication links to Russia from Europe should be cut. Let them go through China.

  5. US can’t afford to fight Russia with China getting stronger every year. This conversation is meaningless.

  6. it has to be economic and working with containment.

    Orban who I loathe is right that Europe and the West lost the collective attritional war against Russia. It lost economically, it lost strategically, it lost numerically in casualty losses (once the truth comes out) it lost diplomatically, militarily etc.

    Trump aka Krasnov is going to deliver final wins and I expect Russia will win in the elections in Moldova and Czech Republic this year as well.

  7. This proposal doesn’t address the core weakness of any scheme that involves deployment of Western forces in Eastern Europe.

    The weakness is that Russia can afford throwing hundreds of thousands of dead bodies and Western European governments can not afford this.

    The only way to deter Russia is to avoid this weakness is by nuclearizing the Eastern Europe.

  9. What a loser attitude. Europe should defend itself including in Ukraine, not hope for appeasement.

    Russia must learn its lesson and be made an example of for their aggression.

Comments are closed.