Europe’s Dilemma: Balancing Support For Ukraine Without Escalation

 Even before Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s tense meeting at the White House last month, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had confidently suggested that British troops could be deployed to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire with Russia. His comments, widely interpreted as a willingness to put land forces on the ground, signaled a strong commitment to Ukraine’s security.

Following that Washington meeting, Starmer, along with French President Emmanuel Macron and other European leaders, doubled down on pledges of support. “This is not a moment for more talk,” Starmer declared after a major summit in London. “It is time to act.”

Yet, four weeks and two major European meetings later, momentum appears to be slowing. This shift was perhaps inevitable.

From Peacekeepers to Reassurance Forces

The rhetoric surrounding European military involvement in Ukraine has softened. Talk of “peacekeepers” has faded, replaced by the idea of a “reassurance force.” Macron recently clarified that such a force would not operate on the front lines or directly fight for Ukraine.

Despite reports suggesting the UK is reconsidering its position, Macron has maintained that “nothing is excluded.” He emphasized that European military support could take multiple forms—land, air, or sea—but confirmed that some form of presence in Ukraine is still under consideration.

The next steps involve military planning: defining troop numbers, locations, and capabilities. Establishing the "operating concept"—outlining threats, rules of engagement, and strategic objectives—will take time, particularly given the likelihood of limited or no U.S. involvement.

Strategic and Logistical Challenges

Andriy Zagorodnyuk, Ukraine’s former defense minister, has urged realism in these discussions. Ukraine’s vast 1,000-kilometer (600-mile) front line presents significant logistical hurdles. Furthermore, neither Starmer nor Macron is likely to approve rules of engagement that would allow their troops to engage Russian forces directly.

A token deployment in Kyiv, he argues, would be ineffective. “If they end up sending 10,000 people to stay in Kyiv, unable to leave the city, that’s certainly not going to change anything in Russia’s calculations,” he warned. Worse, it could expose Europe’s weakness—Russia might simply strike elsewhere, humiliating London and Paris while avoiding direct confrontation with European troops.

An Alternative: Air Support Over Ukraine

A more viable option, according to a report from the Royal United Services Institute, could be “airmen boots” on the ground—a European commitment to policing Ukraine’s airspace. This would involve stationing British, French, and other European warplanes in Ukraine, supported by aircrews and logistical teams.

Even if Europe’s air cover extended only over western and central Ukraine, it would allow Kyiv to focus its military efforts on the eastern front. While still a significant step, this option carries fewer risks than deploying ground forces.

Managing Expectations and Credibility

As Europe weighs its next moves, expectations must be carefully managed. Any eventual deployment will be judged against the bold promises made in public. If it falls short, Ukraine may feel abandoned—and Russia could interpret Europe’s hesitation as a sign of weakness.

In the high-stakes arena of global politics, perception matters. If Europe is to convince both allies and adversaries of its resolve, it must ensure that its commitments are not just symbolic gestures, but credible actions that shift the balance in Ukraine’s favor.