British military involvement in an international force in Ukraine, as suggested by the UK's Prime Minister Keir Starmer, would require a “high bar” because of the risk to troops on the ground, Whitehall sources have told The National.
Preparations are being made in Europe to secure Ukraine from Russian attacks in the event that Donald Trump coming to power means the two warring sides would end the fighting.
For a ceasefire to hold, proposals are being considered by politicians on constituting a strong European military force that can act as a deterrent against further Russian aggression.
Mr Starmer is understood to have progressed planning for a European or Nato mission following a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron last week then a trip to Kyiv to see President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Thursday.
After that meeting, he told journalists that “I don’t want to get ahead of discussions about precise roles, but we will play our full part,” and signalled British troops “would be part of any peacekeeping force”.
However, senior Whitehall sources have disclosed to The National that there were substantial risks in putting British troops into a situation where they might conflict with Russian forces.
"We are not confirming or denying this plan but there is a very high bar to putting UK troops at risk on the ground," the source said.
Tripwire force
With Mr Trump pressing for a peace deal to the three-year conflict within at least six months, plans are being considered as to how to keep the peace without Ukraine joining Nato, which in its Article 5 considers an armed attack on one member as an attack on all.
Placing European troops in Ukraine could work as a both a tripwire force to any Russian attack and as a potential deterrent.
In order to be an effective deterrent, the Ukraine stabilisation force would require large numbers with armoured vehicles and fighter jets, especially to patrol the 1,000km front line.
The Bosnian conflict of the 1990s was only stabilised after a Nato-led force of 60,000, that included US troops, was put in place after the failures of a UN-led force that largely contributed to the Srebrenica massacre of Muslims in 1995.
Military analyst Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Eye, argued that it would mainly be a “tripwire force” of a battlegroup of 900 British soldiers that would send a message to Russia stating “if you come over the border, you will start killing our guys, which means we will start killing you”.
It also demonstrated that the Ukraine’s allies “have skin in the game” and could trigger Nato’s Article 5 which “is very useful as a deterrent”.
Depleted army
However, there are concerns that given the British Army’s depleted numbers – it now has just 72,000 soldiers, compared with just over 100,000 in 2010 – it does not have enough personnel to contribute meaningfully.
“The army's so depleted, no one looks to the UK to provide substantial ground forces,” said Mr Tusa.
The RAF could surge a wing of 36 Eurofighter Typhoons but due to pilot shortages this could only last for six months, he added.
A Whitehall source stated that the proposal was “hypothetical at this stage” and that internal defence planning had been made with British forces “not ruled out”.
“If there is a negotiation and Ukraine wants to have peace, then we will support that, but we have to see how it plays out as quite a lot needs to happen,” the source added.
Retired colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon argued that despite their reduced numbers the British soldiers were “ideally placed” for the operation with an intelligent, even-handed approach to peacekeeping while also overseeing enforcement of the mission.
“The UK could be the framework nation for command and control and other Nato countries like France, Germany, and Finland will provide combat troops to cover various sectors of the front line,” he added
It was key to have Nato troops in any buffer as the Russian would “understand the firepower available”.
Testing resolve
There are also questions over whether the Russian would accept a force that is made up of countries which have supported Ukraine with arms, special forces and financing.
Ben Barry, of the IISS think tank, argued that the United Nations definition of a peacekeeping force is one drawn from non-warring parties, that could in this instance be Indians or Bangladeshis, but who are already stretched on UN deployments.
He added the force’s mission would have to be clearly defined as well as the rules of engagement as Russia could choose to attack it, particularly if no US troops were in it.
Even with a deterrent force in place they may well have to deal with Russian “hybrid, grey-zone warfare” such as a shelling of their locations that Moscow could blame on rogue forces.
“This could become a low level conflict to keep the pressure on the Ukrainian government and test the West’s resolve,” he said.