Senior British military officials have firmly rejected Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s proposal to deploy British troops to Ukraine as part of a so-called “coalition of the willing.”
According to reporting by The Telegraph, top defence sources have dismissed the idea as “political theatre,” claiming it lacks strategic clarity and fails to consider the operational realities on the ground.
One senior source accused the prime minister of speaking prematurely, stating, “Starmer got ahead of himself with talk of troops on the ground without knowing what he was talking about.”
The same source noted that attention within the government has already begun shifting toward more feasible military contributions—such as air and naval support—rather than a ground presence that would require basing troops inside Ukraine.
“Nobody Knows What the Mission Is”
Another senior figure within the military questioned the practicality of sending a peacekeeping force without a clearly defined purpose.
Talks of deploying an international contingent of 10,000 troops to western Ukraine have reportedly stalled, not least because of confusion about what such a force would actually be tasked with.
“What can a 10,000-strong international force based in the west of the country, more than 400 km from the front line, do? They can’t even defend themselves,” the official said.
Also read
He also pointed to the overwhelming presence of Russian troops—estimated at 700,000 in and around Ukraine—as a stark contrast to the proposed European force.
Unanswered questions remain about how peacekeepers would be supplied, where they would be stationed, who would command them, and how long they would remain in Ukraine. For now, insiders say the idea remains more political posturing than practical planning.
“This is politics. There is no military component,” one source concluded.
A Peace Plan on a Tight Timeline
Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have been leading talks on a broader European peace strategy for Ukraine, which includes a 30-day ceasefire, restrictions on strikes against energy infrastructure, and the eventual deployment of peacekeepers.
However, the timeline is tight.
According to Bloomberg, the White House is pushing for a ceasefire to begin by April 20, in time for the Easter holidays observed by both Orthodox and Catholic Christians. Military insiders say the UK is nowhere near ready to implement a plan of this scale by that date.
“Britain won’t even remotely have a plan in place to support peacekeeping in Ukraine by then,” one official said.
UK-French Talks Continue Despite Doubts
Despite concerns from the military, diplomatic coordination continues.
UK Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Tony Radakin is set to meet with his French counterparts in London on March 24 to further explore the idea of a peacekeeping mission.
Radakin acknowledged the sensitivity of the discussions but insisted the work remains essential.
“The process now underway, led by Prime Minister Starmer and President Macron, is preparing Europe and Ukraine for what comes next,” he said. “While it would be wrong for planning and damaging to any potential peace to comment on the options, no one should be in any doubt that this work is critical and essential.”
The Kremlin has previously issued warnings against any deployment of peacekeepers from NATO or EU countries on Ukrainian territory, saying it would create “additional problems.”
Russian officials have made clear that they see any foreign military presence in Ukraine—regardless of its stated purpose—as a provocation.
Still, Starmer has argued that Europe must be ready to act quickly in the event of a peace agreement.
“We can’t wait for a deal and then say, ‘Okay,’ and start scratching our heads,” he said. “Europe must play a key role in ensuring security in Ukraine.”
