The UK government has confirmed that it is playing a central role in building a potential multinational force to support Ukraine in the event of a future peacekeeping or reassurance mission—though many specifics, including the rules of engagement and contributing countries, remain confidential.
In a series of responses to written parliamentary questions from Conservative MP James Cartlidge and Labour MP Graeme Downie, Defence Minister Luke Pollard stated that “with France, the UK is leading plans to put together a Coalition of the Willing” to help secure a just and lasting peace following Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
So far, 31 nations participated in an initial planning meeting held at the UK’s Permanent Joint Headquarters, with over 200 military planners continuing discussions this week. According to Pollard, the scope of these conversations spans “aircraft, tanks, troops, intelligence and logistics capabilities”—indicating that any eventual multinational force could encompass land, sea, air, cyber, and potentially space domains.
However, the Minister declined to disclose which countries have committed in principle to contribute troops to the initiative, stating: “That is a matter for those countries to provide details on.”
While the government has not commented on the exact composition or timeline of such a mission, it did confirm that discussions with NATO allies and the United States are ongoing. “The Defence Secretary regularly speaks with his US and international counterparts,” Pollard noted, adding that the UK is ensuring its partners are “informed on that planning process.”
When asked whether the Ministry of Defence had engaged in talks about the rules of engagement for a possible UK force in Ukraine, Pollard responded bluntly: “Operational planning continues but it is long-standing Government policy not to comment on Rules of Engagement. The only person who would benefit from that is Putin.”
Labour MP Graeme Downie also asked whether the Ministry had considered CEPA’s recently published SkyShield report, which proposes a comprehensive air defence architecture for Ukraine. Pollard said the government was working with the Coalition of the Willing to explore “potential security assurances for Ukraine”, and that Defence Secretary John Healey remains in regular contact with NATO partners about collaborative efforts to support Kyiv.
Though no decisions on deployment have been announced, the UK’s active leadership in these planning efforts signals a shift towards more structured long-term security support for Ukraine beyond the delivery of weapons and training. As Pollard put it, “The Prime Minister has been clear that we must all come together to support Ukraine to remain in the fight… and to defend itself from future Russian aggression.”
We should get on and do this.
UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Norway and others could provide aircraft to protect western Ukraine from Russian missile and drone attacks, freeing Ukrainian aircraft for offensive operations.
Poland and the Baltics could provide ground troops, even just for the border with Belarus, deterring any attack from that direction and freeing up Ukrainian brigades currently there to go east or south to fight.
Why would Poland provide the troops? They need them at home incase this spirals out of control. Countries in the rear like the UK should provide the ground troops.
My thinking was because they have many more ground troops than we do.
European countries that don’t have large armies but do have advanced air forces to provide air cover. Those with larger land armies to provide more ground troops.
JOIN US Everybody can earn 250/h Dollar + daily 1K… You can earn from 6000-12000 Dollar a month or even more if you work as a part time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.tab for more detail thank you……..
COPY AND OPEN →→→→ 𝐖𝐖𝐖.𝐇𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐅𝐈𝐓𝟏.𝐂𝐎𝐌
Steve R, all NATO members should provide ground troops for the Reassurance force.
Also, western Ukraine is pretty close to Poland, so if SHTF they can be recalled home easily enough.
But as Ukraine is on Poland’s border, I’m sure they’d rather fight Russia in Ukraine than in their own country.
Poland has ruled out deploying any boots on the ground in Ukraine
Classic Biden administration mistake of telling the terrorist state how easy their invasion will be…
But we can’t because the concept of having a capable military and decent sized and equipped army apparently is beyond us as a nation with 60+ million people and GDP ranked 5-6th in the world.
All those defence cuts are now looking daft, incompetent and utter folly.
And the short term 0.2% GDP move of overseas aid (soft power) to Defence (hard power) is neither adequate for the threat nor sustainable.
Time for Rachel from accounts to tell the bankers that their profits depend on peace and stability which is provided by Defence investment. They typically price for risk so that investment must be cheaper than government borrowing in general.
They can’t have it both ways at the taxpayers expense. Grow a pair, Rachel..
Poland has deep insight into ruz mir so is committed to prevent RF imperialism. Practicality speaking they know that they would be next if the illegal invasion of Ukraine were successful.
Early engagement with RF forces outside Polish territory is a valuable training opportunity.
If WW2 is a guide, the Poles would smash them since their cavalry are tanks, not horses..
Why would the west put aircraft in the sky for Ukraine to continue fighting? We are only going to put forces in place in the event of a peace deal.
Get on and do what? You can’t monitor a peace while there’s still a war on. We need to focus on providing as many effective munitions and equipment as we can while the politcians make whatever noises they deem fit.
Yet more Guff from Dangerous Politicians – a comprehensive Peace Deal is miles away, a Coalition of the Unwilling won’t be putting Boots on the Ground in Ukraine, the Military aren’t interested, the ROE’s would be a major nightmare, it’s not happening.
Paul, very negative perspective! Someone has to do peacekeeping or peace support when there is a peace and Trump has clearly said the US won’t participate. I don’t think US forces have ever done peacekeeeping, so they wouldn’t be very good at it.Trump wants European involvement.
If there is a viable Peace to keep, it will be formed of non – NATO Troops, Russia has stated multiple times that NATO troops in Ukraine is a Red Line. That is not being negative, just a fact.
Russia’s had lots of red lines, and they’ve all turned out to be shite.
Not a fact at all rather an FSB demand however only the sovereign nation of Ukraine decides who to admit or invite. Nothing to do with the killer of the crimlin. Equally Nothing to do with their asset Krasnov and his many delusions.
#vpdfo
Prior to the Russian invasion there were frequent exchanges of artillery and mortar fire. The Russians would blame Ukraine for starting it and the Ukrainians would blame the Russians. What happens when deaths and injuries are incurred by multinational forces in similar circumstances? The Russians will just claim that it was counter fire and that the Ukrainians were acting recklessly to cause an incident. We have seen such scenarios play out around nuclear power plants. The truth of the matter would be almost irrelevant because I doubt any of the coalition leaders would escalate the situation and their troops would be just stuck there like sitting ducks, in the grey zone.
I hope some serious thought has been taken over this.
Logically foreign troops invited by Ukraine as part of bilateral treaties would mainly go where adequate Air Defence is deployed, thus giving full justification for the supply of AD ammunition. Having people at risk being a strong motivation for supply and also protection for Ukraine.
Good that the planning continues, though it’s unlikely to be implemented any time soon. Trump’s plan, despite rewarding aggression isn’t likely to happen as Putin thinks that he can do far better militarily with Trump in the White House.
Maybe the West will eventually get the weapons to turf Russia out of its territory. Maybe Putin will have a stroke and a more reasonable leader will take control of Russia. Maybe the Russians will hit Zaporizhzhia with a SRBM and turn all the occupied territory plus eastern Russia into an irradiated wasteland…
But for whatever reason when the fighting stops, there’ll need to be a peace-keeping force deployed. Better to plan now and dust it off eventually, then cobble something together in months/years time.
To paraphrase Churchill, “Nobody needs to point out the many difficulties involved, they speak for themselves’. I think that was during the planning for Overlord.
Democratic western nations that believe in the rule of international law cannot really sit watching while an aggressive power invades and overruns a democratic neighbour. We tried that in the appeasement years preceding WW2.
Yes, we are arming and funding Ukraine as best we can, but would need to do a lot more just to keep them in the fight. If Trump succeeds in getting a ceasefire, then NATO Europe should step up to police it and act as a deterrent force against further Russian adventures.
If Europe can only field 30,000 troops, we will have to act as a backstop to the Ukrainian forces deployed along the ceasefire line, with maybe 6 NAT0 bde gaps spread along the line.
The rules of engagement would not be significantly different from.those set out in Iraq or Afghan. We would not be there as UN blue helmets to be shot at, rather as a combat force prepared to use kinetic force if attacked.
I think the right thing to do now would be to assemble the troops of the willing forward on the Polish and Romanian borders with Ukraine, to make clear to both Russia and USA, that ENATO intends to police any ceasefire, regardless of what Putin thinks or wants. We are going to assist a democratic nation under threat from an aggressive, expansionist opponent.
One division on Polish border, under UK command, to police ceasefire line from Dnipro river to Russian border, one division on Romanian border, under French command, to police ceasefire line from Kherson to Zaporizhia
Something like that.
The UK contribution would be pretty small, elements of a Div HQ and Div troops, plus one of our two arm inf bde gps. To roule one bde grp on a 4-month rotation would require an overall force of 6 bde GPS so we would need to cobble one up disaggregated units, as we did for Afghan, was it 51 Highland Bde that was used as the Bde HQ?
All this to say that we should do something, rather than wringing our hands from afar. 30,000 troops may be far short of what’s needed, but coupled with forward E/NATO air power and warships in the Black Sea (Turkey permitting), it would be a big enough force to make Russia think twice about engaging us.
Türkiye has a record of both sidism and seeing what they can get from NATO membership.
That treaty forbids passage of vessels flagged to any state at war so NATO members like Romania can pass but not UA or RU. So in theory any nation not at war can visit Romanian ports travelling through the Black Sea and potentially defending themselves as required..
If peace ever comes to Ukraine I personal think no NATO troops should set foot in Ukraine .Russia have said many times they won’t expect NATO forces has part of a deal. It has to be none NATO members.However for air cover this would be difficult has what country’s could manage to do this ?And the sea lanes ? But from what ive seen on the media if NATO jets we’re to be sent to Ukraine they would be kept well back from the front line and if the cease fire was broken they not allow to engage so what’s the point ? I think best to just keep giving the Ukrainians weapons to defend them selfs. Prime minister starm can’t even sort the bin problem out here in the UK let alone a bloody war .Maybe he should start looking at the problems at home and stop kicking is own people pensions, farmer’s, and the General public with cost of living etc. 🙄
i suspect that means it’s working on a face saving measure, we all know russia will not accept NATO troops in ukraine under any guise
The FSB have no regard for sovereign nations so believe that they should have a say, however that’s nonsense and Ukraine can decide who they admit or invite to their sovereign territory.
It’s top level weakness to entertain the FSB talking points like believing their Escalation myth. Chairman xi has not authorised nuclear weapons so kaputin only has empty threats.
Global mercantile dominance is the CCP strategy, and no one dictator is allowed to threaten that.
Unlimited friendship means RF buy all the conventional weapons they want and pay with oil and gas that CCP knows RF can’t sell elsewhere.