The prospect of deploying a NATO-led peacekeeping force in Ukraine, absent US involvement, may be a real necessity if the United States brokers an armistice between Ukraine and Russia but then demands that Europe is in charge in the peacekeeping.
To understand the magnitude of a NATO peacekeeping exercise in Ukraine - the security guarantee Ukraine is insisting upon - necessitates a comprehensive evaluation of the required military resources and financial commitments from European member states. This analysis delves into the historical precedents of NATO peacekeeping missions, current defence spending trends among European allies, and the specific challenges posed by the Ukrainian context to estimate the additional funding, troop numbers, and armoured assets necessary for such an operation.
Historical Context of NATO Peacekeeping Missions
NATO’s involvement in peacekeeping has evolved over the decades, with significant operations in the Balkans during the 1990s serving as key reference points. The Stabilisation Force (SFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, for instance, initially comprised approximately 32,000 troops, which were later reduced to around 19,000 as the situation stabilised. Similarly, the Kosovo Force (KFOR) was deployed to maintain peace and security in the region. These missions underscore NATO’s capacity to mobilize substantial forces for peacekeeping purposes.
Current Defence Spending and Military Capabilities of European NATO Members
In recent years, European NATO members have incrementally increased their defense expenditures. By 2023, eleven nations met or exceeded the alliance’s guideline of allocating at least 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defense spending. Notably, Poland led with a defense budget constituting 4.12% of its GDP, surpassing even the United States, which allocated 3.38%. This upward trend in defence investment reflects Europe’s growing recognition of the need to bolster its military capabilities, especially in light of evolving security challenges.
Assessing the Requirements for a Ukrainian Peacekeeping Operation
1. Troop Deployment
The scale of a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine would likely surpass previous NATO operations, given the country’s vast territory and the intensity of the conflict. Drawing from historical precedents, a force exceeding 50,000 troops might be necessary to effectively monitor and enforce a ceasefire across multiple fronts. This figure aligns with the assessment that NATO currently faces a shortfall of 49 brigades—approximately 245,000 soldiers—to meet its minimum requirements for such large-scale operations.
2. Armoured Assets and Equipment
A robust deployment of armoured vehicles, including tanks and personnel carriers, would be essential to ensure the safety and mobility of peacekeeping forces. The exact number would depend on the mission’s mandate and the operational environment but could range into the hundreds, considering the need for both offensive and defensive capabilities in volatile regions.
3. Financial Implications
The financial burden of such an operation would be substantial. Beyond the direct costs of deploying and sustaining troops, significant investments would be required for equipment procurement, logistics, and infrastructure development. Given the US Department of Defense’s recent shift in focus towards homeland security and deterring China, European nations would need to shoulder the majority of these expenses.
Challenges and Considerations
• Logistical Coordination
Coordinating a multinational force of this magnitude would present significant logistical challenges, including supply chain management, communication interoperability, and command structure integration.
• Political Will and Public Support
Securing consensus among NATO members for such a mission would require substantial diplomatic efforts, especially in the absence of US leadership. Public support within contributing nations would also be crucial, necessitating transparent communication about the mission’s objectives and risks.
• Rules of Engagement and Mandate Clarity
Clearly defining the rules of engagement and the mission’s mandate would be essential to prevent misunderstandings and ensure the force’s effectiveness in maintaining peace and security.
The challenges ahead
Deploying a NATO-led peacekeeping force in Ukraine without US involvement would demand unprecedented commitments from European member states in terms of funding, personnel, and equipment. While historical precedents provide a framework, the unique challenges of the Ukrainian conflict necessitate an enormous and carefully tailored approach, with careful consideration of the operational, political, and logistical complexities involved. The Ukrainian front line is some 1,000 kilometres long, although the terrain is easier than Bosnia and Herzegovina (that was very mountainous).
Ultimately tens of thousands of troops will be required, operating under a joint command and fully equipped to be present potentially for several years. These multinational operations are not unprecedented, but it is unprecedented if a NATO operation goes ahead without US personnel on the ground. The Kellogg peace plan may build in a transition period for US personnel to be present in Ukraine upon an armistice, but President Trump is unlikely to want them there for long and therefore the European members of NATO need to get ready.