Sir Keir Starmer has stated any Ukraine peace accord would necessitate a “US safeguard” to dissuade Russia from assaulting its neighbor once more.
Speaking after an urgently arranged summit with European leaders in Paris, the prime minister reiterated that he would contemplate dispatching UK troops to Ukraine in the event of a durable peace settlement.
However, he emphasized that “a US security assurance was the sole means to effectively deter Russia,” and pledged to deliberate on the “fundamental aspects” of a peace agreement with US President Donald Trump when they convene in Washington next week.
Sir Keir asserted Europe would “need to do more” to protect the continent amid the “generational” security challenge Russia represents.
He was reluctant to elaborate precisely on what he meant by a “safeguard”—but his associates indicate this could entail aerial support, logistics, and intelligence resources.
European leaders gathered at the Élysée Palace to address apprehensions over the Trump administration’s resolution to commence peace negotiations with Russia—set to begin in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday—independently.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has remarked that Kyiv was unaware of the discussions and would not acknowledge any arrangement made without its participation.
US representatives have indicated that European nations would be informed about peace talks with Russia but not actively involved in them.
The Paris conference also transpired days after US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, stated that Europe would need to assume primary responsibility for ensuring its own security moving forward.
In his remarks to journalists after the discussions, Sir Keir asserted that the US was “not withdrawing from NATO” but that it was “time to assume accountability for our security, our continent.”
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk remarked that transatlantic relations had entered a “new phase” and that the meeting confirmed the necessity for “a significantly enhanced capability for Europe to safeguard itself.”
Sir Keir has suggested that any deployment of British forces would be part of a multinational contingent responsible for monitoring the frontier between Ukrainian-controlled and Russian-occupied zones.
Nevertheless, analysts contend that to perform this task effectively would be an enormous commitment, necessitating a substantial escalation in defense expenditure.
Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute, explained that, unlike UN peacekeeping forces whose role is observational, if the proposed force is meant to deter Russian aggression, “it’s an entirely different challenge.”
“You require credible, well-equipped forces—not just frontline troops but also reserve units, air forces, and other resources,” he informed the BBC. “That’s a vastly greater demand.”
General Sir Adrian Bradshaw, a former NATO commander, remarked: “This cannot be a symbolic force; it cannot merely witness violations and stand idly by.”
He told BBC Radio 4’s World at One that such a force would need to “perform effectively as NATO does within its own jurisdiction—to genuinely discourage hostility” and must be “supported by a comprehensive strategy for restraining Russia” to ensure any future conflict does not remain confined to Ukraine.
“In essence, the force must be substantial enough to repel any incursion,” he added.
Former British Army chief Lord Dannatt previously estimated that such a contingent would require around 100,000 personnel—with the UK expected to contribute approximately two-fifths.
“We simply don’t have that number available,” he stated on Saturday, noting that preparing the military for such a role would entail considerable financial implications.
The UK presently allocates roughly 2.3% of its total economic output to defense. The administration has pledged to elevate defense funding to 2.5%, although no timeline has been provided for achieving this goal.
Sir Keir earlier informed reporters that the government would outline a strategy for reaching the 2.5% target following the conclusion of its strategic defense review.
“A crucial part of my message to our European partners is that we must all enhance our capabilities as well as our financial commitments,” he stated.
“That applies to the UK, which is why I’ve made this pledge to invest more.”
Some European officials have expressed alignment with this stance.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen asserted that Europe must “increase” defense investment and assistance for Ukraine, as “Russia is unfortunately endangering the entire continent,” while European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen advocated for a “substantial boost” in defense funding.
Sir Keir was joined in Paris by the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands, along with the president of the European Council and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte.
Prior to the assembly, European leaders had also voiced concern following Hegseth’s remark that it was “impractical” to anticipate Ukraine reclaiming its pre-2014 borders—before Russia annexed Crimea and seized portions of the nation’s south and east during its 2022 full-scale invasion.
Hegseth also downplayed Ukraine’s prospects of joining the collective defense alliance NATO—an ambition Sir Keir has described as “irreversibly set in motion.”
Gen Sir Bradshaw acknowledged these potential concessions to Russia and stated: “If restoring Ukraine to its former sovereignty is not feasible, we must ensure that peace endures.”
No.10 confirmed Sir Keir’s upcoming visit to Washington on Monday, after a minister suggested the UK could act as a “bridge” between the US and Europe.
The BBC has learned that the prime minister offered to host a follow-up summit of European leaders after his Washington visit.
Poland’s Tusk has already affirmed that his country would not send troops into Ukraine but would persist in providing military, financial, and humanitarian assistance.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, meanwhile, told reporters after the Paris gathering that discussions about deploying forces to Ukraine at this juncture were “entirely premature” and that he found the subject “somewhat perplexing.”
UK government insiders argue that it is “unsurprising” for leaders to hold differing perspectives and that not every nation is prepared to reveal its stance just yet.
British diplomats believe that while not all nations would need to commit forces, some must. Regardless of Europe’s eventual role, American participation would remain essential.
Prof Chalmers remarked: “Positioning significant NATO forces on Ukrainian soil after a ceasefire would represent a failure for Russia, so at this stage, it’s difficult to envision Moscow agreeing to such an arrangement.”
Deploying British troops would also require parliamentary approval, something Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey expressed confidence that “all parties in the House would likely endorse.”
Sir Keir’s spokesperson confirmed that Parliament would be consulted “as necessary,” though he cautioned that this was “premature” given the ongoing discussions with other global leaders.
Meanwhile, hostilities in Ukraine persisted over the weekend, with at least three civilians reportedly killed in Russian strikes on Sunday, according to local authorities.
Several regions in Ukraine are experiencing emergency blackouts following assaults on energy facilities, while Russia’s defense ministry claimed it intercepted and destroyed 90 Ukrainian drones on Sunday night.
