Starmer says US ‘backstop’ needed for Ukraine peace deal

Sir Keir Starmer said that any peace agreement in Ukraine would require a “American security net” to dissuade Russia from attacking its neighbor again.

Speaking after a hastily meeting with European leaders in Paris, the Prime Minister repeated that he was planning to deploy British troops in Ukraine in the event of a lasting peace agreement.

But he said that “an American security guarantee was the only way to effectively dissuade Russia”, and promised to discuss the “key elements” of a peace agreement with American president Donald Trump when the couple will meet at Washington next week.

Sir Keir said that Europe “should do more” to defend the continent in the face of the “generational” security challenge that Russia poses.

He wanted to avoid explaining exactly what he meant by a “safety net” – but his allies suggest that this could involve air support, logistics and intelligence capacities.

European leaders met at the Palais de l’Elysée to discuss concerns about the Trump administration’s decision to initiate peace talks with Russia – who should start in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday – alone.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said kyiv did not know talks and would not recognize any agreement concluded without his involvement.

US officials suggested that European nations would be consulted on peace talks with Russia, but not directly involved in them.

The Paris Summit also took place a few days after the US Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, said that Europe must be mainly responsible for the guarantee of its own security in the future.

In his declaration to journalists following talks, Sir Keir said that the United States “was not going to leave NATO”, but that it was “time to take responsibility for our security, our continent” .

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said that transatlantic relations were in a “new stage” and that the meeting had confirmed that the time had come “with much greater capacity for Europe to defend itself”.

Sir Keir has indicated that any contribution to the United Kingdom troops would be part of a multinational force to control the border between the territory held by the Ukrainian and Russia.

But experts say that it would be effectively a massive business that would require a sharp increase in defense expenses.

Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute, said that, unlike the United Nations peace forces, observation, if the proposed force is intended to dissuade Russian attacks, “it is a question ‘A completely different case “.

“You need credible and well-armed forces-and not only you need front line forces, you need emergency forces and air forces, etc.,” he told the BBC. “This is a much larger demand.”

General SIR Adrian Bradshaw, a former NATO commander, said: “This cannot be a symbolic force, it cannot be something that observes bad behavior and is on the sidelines.”

He said to BBC Radio 4 to have “effectively effectively what NATO does on its own lawn – really dissuade the attack” and should be “supported by a great strategy for Russia” The future conflicts would not be contained in Ukraine.

“Essentially, the force must be large enough to defeat a foray,” he added.

Former British army chief Lord Dannatt said that such a force would need around 100,000 soldiers – the United Kingdom contributing to the two fifths.

“We just don’t have this number available,” he said on Saturday, adding that putting the military in shape to play this role would have a considerable cost.

The United Kingdom is currently spending around 2.3% of its total economic production on defense. The government is committed to increasing defense expenses to 2.5%, but has not said when it is done.

Sir Keir told journalists earlier that the government provided a way to respect the 2.5% commitment once it has completed its strategic defense examination.

“A part of my message to our European allies is that we must all intensify capacities and expenses and financing,” he said.

“It includes the United Kingdom, which is why I made this commitment to spend more.”

Some European figures have reported their agreement with this.

The Danish Prime Minister puts Frederiksen said that Europe should “intensify” defense spending and support for Ukraine, because “Russia threatens all Europe now, unfortunately”, while the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen called for a “push” in defense expenses in defense of defense expenses in the defense.

Sir Keir was also joined in Paris by the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands, as well as the President of the European Council and the Secretary General of NATO , Mark Rutte.

Before the meeting, European leaders had also expressed their concern after Hegseth said that it was “unrealistic” to expect Ukraine to return to its borders before 2014 – before Russia was annexed Crimea and did not take part in the south and eastern country in 2022 invasion.

Hegseth also minimized the perspective that Ukraine joins the Mutual Defense Alliance NATO – something that Sir Keir said that it was on an “irreversible” path to.

Gen Sir Bradshaw noted these potential concessions to Russia and said: “If we cannot return Ukraine to what it was as a sovereign nation before this war, we must absolutely make a lasting peace.”

No 10 confirmed Sir Keir’s trip to Washington earlier on Monday after A minister said the United Kingdom could serve as a “bridge” between the United States and Europe.

The BBC understands that the PM proposed to organize a monitoring meeting for European leaders after the trip to Washington.

The defense of Poland has already indicated that his nation would not send troops in Ukraine, but would continue to support him with military, financial and humanitarian aid.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, on the other hand, told journalists after the Paris meeting that the discussion of the sending of troops to Ukraine was currently “completely premature” and that he was “a little irritated” with the subject.

British government sources argue that it is “no surprise” that there was a difference in opinion between the leaders, and that all nations are not yet ready to show their hand.

British diplomats do not believe that each nation should commit to contributing to the troops – but some would do it. And whatever the possible role of Europe, the participation of the United States would always be necessary.

Professor Chalmers said: “Having a large number of NATO troops on Ukrainian soil after a cease-fire would be a failure for Russia, so it is difficult for me to see Russia Accept a such a presence as part of the agreement. “

The deployment of British troops would also require the approval of the Parliament, which the chief of Lib Dem, Sir Ed Davey, said that he was confident “all the sides of the house are likely to agree”.

Sir Keir’s spokesman said the parliament would be consulted “if necessary”, but that “rose discussions” with other world leaders.

Meanwhile, fighting on the ground in Ukraine continued during the weekend, with at least three civilians killed in Russian strikes on Sunday, according to local authorities.

Several regions of Ukraine are under an emergency failure following attacks against energy infrastructure, while the Russian Defense Ministry said that it had intercepted and destroyed 90 Ukrainian drones on Sunday evening.