UK (Parliament Politics Magazine) – A former British army chief Sir Richard Shirreff, says any peacekeeping mission in Ukraine would need serious troop deployments to face down Russia.
According to Sir Richard Shirreff, who was NATO’s deputy supreme allied commander in Europe from 2011 to 2014, if Vladimir Putin’s nation violated a ceasefire, alliance forces would have to “overmatch” Russia in order to be able to retaliate.
However, he warned that this would not be feasible given Britain’s present defense budget, saying,
“A government without a sword is useless.”
Former defense secretary Sir Gavin Williamson agreed with Sir Richard’s assessment, stating that Britain would need to send some 40,000 troops to make sure the operation was successful. Approximately 147,000 persons were enlisted in the UK military last year, with slightly more than half of them serving in the army.
Britain and France made a historic deal on Tuesday pledging to send troops to Ukraine as soon as any ceasefire with Russia is implemented.
The agreement, which was signed in Paris by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Keir Starmer, has been praised as “a significant step forward” in utilizing the so-called coalition of the willing to ensure peace in the war-torn nation.
Friedrich Mertz, the chancellor of Germany, also hinted that his nation would soon agree to send soldiers to Ukraine.
Sir Richard stated on the Today show that Kosovo was “pocket sized” compared to Ukraine and that NATO had sent roughly 50,000 troops there in 1999.
“Any reassurance or enforcement force from Britain, France and other partners that is deployed to Ukraine has got to be capable of overmatching Russia,” he said.
“Because Russia, even if it is forced into accepting a ceasefire, will absolutely, as sure as eggs is eggs, break that ceasefire.
So any reassurance force has got to be capable of facing down Russia, and if necessary, being able to fight Russia. And this means serious capabilities, serious numbers, and a properly joined up military organisation.”
Asked if that meant “thousands and thousands” of personnel who would then not be able to be deployed to emergencies elsewhere, he said:
“Absolutely. I mean, if you think about the size of the frontline in Ukraine… the intervention force that was put into Kosovo by Nato in 1999, which was about 50,000, (and) Kosovo was a pocket-sized area compared to Ukraine. This requires serious numbers if it is to be effective.”
Additionally, Sir Richard criticized the UK and other European nations for their current defense spending levels.
In response to pressure from President Trump, Sir Keir has promised that the UK will allocate 5% of GDP to defense and national security by 2035.
However, Sir Richard cautioned that a
“government without a sword is useless”
and asserted that Germany was the only Western European nation “putting any money into defense.”
Speaking, Sir Gavin cautioned that compared to the 1,700 troops stationed in Estonia, the UK would need to be significantly more ambitious.
He said:
“You are talking of at least 40,000 personnel, the equivalent of the army of the Rhine we had in Germany after the war. Of course we cannot do that. We are talking about increasing the size of the army to 76,000 and we just do not have the personnel.”
Following President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner’s confirmation that the president “strongly, strongly, strongly” supported the security guarantees and would provide the backup to make it work, the deal to deploy troops in Ukraine was signed.
However, the apparent breakthrough occurs as European nations rush to respond to President Trump’s claim to Greenland, the autonomous territory of Denmark, an ally of the EU in NATO.
“It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland,”
according to a statement released by European leaders.
Without the US, the other NATO nations would be “really pushed” to defend Greenland from the US, Sir Richard said. He claimed that for other NATO nations to oppose the US would be “suicide.”
How might Russia respond to Western peacekeeping deployment?
Russia would probably view a Western( UK- French led) peacekeeping deployment in Ukraine as a direct escalation, treating colors as licit military targets and potentially launching attacks to test resoluteness or force pullout.
Vladimir Putin has constantly advised that anynon-UN commanded foreign forces in Ukraine especially during active conflict would be” licit targets for destruction,” citing NATO expansion as a core casus belli; this echoes previous pitfalls against French coaches and could prompt ordnance strikes, drone attacks, or mongrel sabotage on peacemakers to expose alliance schism.
Moscow might escalate via cyberattacks on Western structure, increased cold-blooded operations( e.g., sabotage in Europe), or nuclear smallsword- rattling to discourage further commitments; without UN Security Council blessing( nixed by Russia).