- European Security at a Crossroads: Will the Continent Step Up?
As Ukraine continues its fight against Russian aggression, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has intensified calls for a massive 100,000-strong peacekeeping force to be deployed along Ukraine’s frontlines with Russia. With the U.S. ruling out NATO membership for Ukraine in the near future, Zelenskyy is searching for alternative security guarantees. However, securing a peacekeeping force of such magnitude from European allies presents formidable political and logistical challenges.
During a visit to the Khmelnytskyi Nuclear Power Plant on February 13, Zelenskyy laid out his vision for securing Ukraine against further Russian advances. “What are these security guarantees? Is it NATO? Mighty weapons, missiles, nuclear weapons? Some kind of deterrent package. Or, as I said, we will build NATO in Ukraine. Then, in reality, weapons from you, a contingent from Europeans and Americans. And the contingent will not be 5,000 to 7,000, as was once suggested…we need 100,000 personnel there,” he stated.
Yet, despite Zelenskyy’s determination, the U.S. has made it clear that American troops will not be part of any such deployment. During a recent meeting in Germany, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth reaffirmed this stance, stating unequivocally: “We are not sending U.S. troops into Ukraine.”
With the U.S. stepping back, the focus now shifts to Europe. Can European countries muster such a massive force? And is it even necessary for securing Ukraine’s frontlines?
At first glance, the idea of a 100,000-strong peacekeeping force may seem excessive. However, when considering the length of Ukraine’s contested borders, this number quickly appears inadequate.
Ukraine’s active frontlines with Russia stretch approximately 1,200 kilometers. If we include the entire Ukraine-Russia border (which is over 2,300 km) and factor in potential threats from Belarus (whose border with Ukraine is another 1,100 km), the total frontline requiring international monitoring could exceed 3,400 km.
Dividing 100,000 troops across this vast stretch means an average of less than 30 soldiers per kilometer—a relatively thin presence for securing such a volatile conflict zone.
Since the U.S. has ruled out troop involvement, this force must be assembled solely from European militaries. However, that task presents significant hurdles.
If successfully assembled, this force would represent the largest peacekeeping mission in history. To put it into perspective, the total number of UN peacekeepers worldwide currently stands at around 97,000, drawn from over 120 countries.
Notably, the largest contributors to UN peacekeeping missions—Nepal, Bangladesh, India, Rwanda, and Pakistan—are unlikely to participate in Ukraine due to geopolitical considerations and Russia’s veto power in the UN Security Council. This means Europe must shoulder the entire burden.
Yet, European countries have historically contributed only a few thousand troops to UN peacekeeping efforts. As of 2024, the top European contributors were:
- Italy – 876 soldiers
- Spain – 681 soldiers
- France – 626 soldiers
- Germany – 590 soldiers
- Ireland – 493 soldiers
These numbers highlight how far Europe is from being able to deploy 100,000 troops for a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine.
Without U.S. or Canadian participation, the available manpower within European NATO countries becomes a critical factor. According to Statista, NATO’s largest militaries (excluding the U.S., Canada, and Turkey) are:
- Poland – 202,100 active personnel
- France – 205,000
- Germany – 181,000
- United Kingdom – 150,000
- Italy – 170,000
In total, European NATO members (excluding the U.S., Canada, Turkey, and Russia-leaning Slovakia and Hungary) have approximately 1.44 million active soldiers. Deploying 100,000 troops would represent only 6.94% of their total manpower.
On paper, this appears feasible. If each NATO country contributed just 7% of their active-duty forces, Ukraine could get its requested peacekeeping contingent. However, real-world challenges make this far more complicated.
Even if European countries theoretically have the manpower, several factors complicate the deployment of such a force:
-
Constitutional Restrictions
- Italy’s constitution places significant limits on deploying troops abroad.
- Germany requires parliamentary approval for overseas military missions—a politically sensitive issue, especially ahead of elections.
-
Geopolitical Sensitivities
- Poland, despite being a key military supporter of Ukraine, has historic tensions with Kyiv dating back to World War II.
- France and the UK would likely take leadership roles, but both nations have already committed substantial military aid to Ukraine and may be reluctant to escalate their involvement.
- Hungary and Slovakia, led by pro-Russian governments, are unlikely to contribute troops.
-
Military Readiness Concerns
- The UK’s former Army chief, Lord Dannatt, recently warned that Britain lacks sufficient troops for a mission of this scale. “Our military is so run down at the present moment, numerically and as far as capability and equipment are concerned, it would potentially be quite embarrassing,” he said in a BBC interview.
- The British Army currently has around 150,000 active troops. Sending 10,000 to Ukraine would require 30,000-40,000 in rotation over time—an impossible commitment given current constraints.
-
Risk of Escalation with Russia
- Russia has explicitly warned that any international force in Ukraine without a UN mandate would be considered a legitimate military target.
- European leaders fear that placing troops directly in Ukraine would blur the line between a peacekeeping mission and direct military intervention, risking a dangerous escalation.
- Unlike NATO’s Article 5, which guarantees collective defense in the event of an attack, a peacekeeping force in Ukraine would not be under NATO protection—meaning any attack on European troops could lead to political paralysis.
While the U.S. has been Ukraine’s biggest military backer, Washington has drawn a clear line: no American boots on the ground. This suggests that Zelenskyy’s idea of building “NATO within Ukraine” is unlikely to receive direct U.S. support.
Even within NATO, enthusiasm for deploying a peacekeeping force is mixed. According to French newspaper Le Monde, discussions about troop deployment picked up after Donald Trump won the 2024 U.S. presidential election, raising concerns about America’s long-term commitment to Ukraine.
Additionally, Radio Free Europe reported in December 2024 that France and the UK were privately discussing deploying forces to Ukraine. However, no official commitments have been made.
Zelenskyy’s proposal is ambitious, but its feasibility remains questionable. A 100,000-strong European peacekeeping force would require an unprecedented level of military cooperation and political resolve, both of which are in short supply.
While Europe theoretically has the manpower to assemble such a force, legal, logistical, and geopolitical challenges make deployment highly unlikely in the near future.
For now, the idea remains a diplomatic pressure tool rather than an actionable military strategy. Whether European leaders muster the courage and coordination to bring it to life remains to be seen.
