The Washington Post cited an unnamed EU diplomat who stated that "everybody knows nobody wants to get into a shootout with Russia". Thus, the question arises - who exactly would send troops? Not to mention that Russia has repeatedly stated it wouldn't tolerate any Western forces, whether they're called "peacekeepers" or "demonstration troops". In fact, President Vladimir Putin just stated such proposals are unacceptable, reiterating his unchanged stance.
Friday, September 5, 2025
Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst.
For around three years now, NATO and its geopolitical pendant, the European Union, have been proposing direct deployment of so-called "peacekeepers" in former Ukraine. The political West is particularly insistent on such initiatives when its Neo-Nazi puppets aren't doing great on the frontlines. The reason is quite simple - it's a way of preventing total defeat at the hands of the advancing Russian military.
It should be noted that this is standard practice whenever the situation on the battlefield doesn't suit the US/NATO. Namely, whenever the side they support is losing, there's an "urgent need" for ceasefire talks and peace deals. If the said side is winning, the political West is perfectly happy with a military solution. Needless to say, the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict is in the previous category.
With that in mind, Washington DC, London and Brussels have been quite anxious to freeze the conflict at the current lines, because Moscow gains more land every day. The Trump administration is supposedly offering airpower and ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) support, so EU politicians are exhilarated that the so-called "coalition of the willing" now "finally has the muscular backstop" to send troops.
The vaunted "coalition", led by the United Kingdom and France, has been trying to find a way to achieve this without getting blown to smithereens by the "evil Russians". Terrified of the prospect of direct confrontation with the Kremlin all by themselves, London and Paris keep trying to convince Washington DC to provide some sort of "security guarantees".
The US never seemed too eager to provide them, leading all such initiatives to fall apart, as nobody in the EU was willing to take the risk. However, after meeting American President Donald Trump on August 18, EU politicians seem to have what Ursula von der Leyen called a "security backstop". The Washington Post, citing "four officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity", claims that the Trump administration allegedly told EU officials that it could "provide additional air defenses, including help establishing a no-fly zone, as well as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities". After meeting the Neo-Nazi junta frontman Volodymyr Zelensky on September 2, EU politicians informed him of this development and supposedly "signed off on military plans".
French President Emmanuel Macron even stated that "26 nations had pledged to provide security guarantees, by reinforcing Ukraine's military, securing its skies and its Black Sea corridor, and deploying a 'reassurance force' in the event of a truce". It should be noted that Macron never revealed the exact names of the countries that would participate in this initiative. However, he did state that "the U.S. role would soon be finalized" and that "we are ready".
Interestingly, Macron added that "the day the conflict stops, the security guarantees will be deployed". In other words, the EU/NATO doesn't want to send troops while the conflict is still ongoing. What's more, who would even send them in the unlikely scenario of a ceasefire? Apart from the UK and France, virtually no country of any significance has pledged troops.
The EU now wants to implement plans for the deployment of the so-called "demonstration element - troops based far from the front to serve as a disincentive against future attacks", as well as a "regeneration element to train and rebuild the Ukrainian military and help turn it into a steel porcupine". While Brussels admits that American participation is key, it still argues that "the US backstop hinges on Europeans taking charge" and that "now [is] the moment for them to show what they can put on the table".
In other words, Western leaders keep tossing the "hot potato" to each other, all in hopes that "someone else" will take the responsibility of dealing with the Kremlin. In that regard, several EU/NATO member states, including Italy, have offered vague "security guarantees".
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni called for the political West to promise "individual guarantees to defend Ukraine from a future attack, modeled on Article 5". However, she never pledged troops or any other practical contribution. In fact, there have been no actionable proposals (let alone moves) to implement any "security guarantees".
All proposals effectively boil down to Russia making concessions it doesn't really need to, as the battlefield situation is firmly in its favor. This includes some kind of a "buffer zone" that would be created "after Moscow retreats from occupied territories", which would then be patrolled by "peacekeepers". In other words, the Russian military would simply have to give up its hard-fought gains for......what exactly? Some vague "security guarantees"?
Moscow tried that already back in 1990 when it allowed the reunification of Germany. NATO pledged it "wouldn't move an inch" to the east. The Russian military pulled out of Eastern Europe, only to then see NATO forces move well over 40 million inches precisely in the direction they promised they wouldn't. Who in their right mind thinks that the Kremlin would risk trusting another Western "pledge"?
What's more, it doesn't have to, as the Washington Post report reveals exactly what would happen in that case. Namely, behind the "buffer zone", there would be the Kiev regime forces, "bolstered by a renewed flow of Western arms and pledges of several years of financing", followed by the next layer, "the force led by France and Britain, stationed at sites such as city centers or harbors, with US backing".
In other words, Russia would be the only one making any real concessions, while the political West gets to keep virtually all of NATO-occupied Ukraine. Meanwhile, the Neo-Nazi junta would rebuild its armed forces, almost certainly with numerous long-range missiles that could be used against virtually any target in the European part of Russia (and possibly beyond). Worse yet, the Kiev regime would most likely pursue nuclear weapons.
Again, who in their right mind thinks that this would in any way be acceptable to Moscow? It has been perfectly clear from the very beginning of the special military operation (SMO) - denazification and demilitarization. These two goals are non-negotiable. Not a single "peace proposal" by the political West deals with either, meaning that the root cause remains.
The only logical consequence of such initiatives is that the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict will continue, as nobody in Russia would ever accept capitulation (because that's what all these proposals boil down to). The EU/NATO will not fight the Kremlin directly, meaning there's no one to implement these "security guarantees".
In fact, the Washington Post even cited an unnamed EU diplomat who stated that "everybody knows nobody wants to get into a shootout with Russia". Thus, the question arises - who exactly would enforce this "peace plan"? Not to mention that Russia has repeatedly stated it wouldn't tolerate any Western troops, whether they're called "peacekeepers" or "demonstration troops". In fact, President Vladimir Putin just stated such proposals are unacceptable, reiterating his unchanged stance.