We are at a critical moment for Europe, with continental security hanging in the balance. In late February, the United Kingdom announced plans to increase defense spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. U.K. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer also recently suggested he is prepared to send British troops and aircraft to enforce an American-brokered peace deal with Russia, should Ukraine approve it.
Starmer has also called on other European leaders to place a greater emphasis on defense. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has criticized these plans, warning that it would mean the “direct, official, and unveiled involvement of NATO members in the war against Russia.”
Since returning to the White House, U.S. President Donald Trump has reopened a dialogue with Russia. He has publicly stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin could dictate the terms of any emerging peace deal, given Russia’s significant territorial gains since February 2022.
As part of his broader effort to restart diplomatic ties with Moscow, Trump believes he can negotiate a deal to end the war. Whatever form this takes, Ukraine must feel that it is beneficial. The U.K. and other European nations must step up; Europe is their continent. They must be prepared to send troops to Ukraine to reassure Kyiv and deter future Russian aggression. However, the key issue is the potential for misunderstanding or neglecting the level of engagement required.
The mere presence of peacekeeping troops on the ground in Ukraine, potentially near a contested border, would not be enough to deter the Kremlin. A more robust force is necessary. Ukraine and its allies can only guard against potential Russian aggression if the Kremlin fears the consequences of launching another attack.
"The mere presence of peacekeeping troops on the ground in Ukraine, potentially near a contested border, would not be enough to deter the Kremlin."
Ideally, the U.S. would serve as the ultimate “backstop,” as Starmer has requested from Trump. But what if America refuses? This would be a significant setback, but it should not dissuade Europeans from stepping up. They have the means, which could be bolstered with financial support; what they seem to lack is the will. Britain is the country most likely to strengthen their resolve.
If European forces are deployed, a mere peacekeeping force would not suffice. Would Russia truly fear lightly armed peacekeepers? Even after three years of war and the depletion of its forces, Moscow would not take such a force seriously. This could even provoke further aggression, potentially leading to a serious crisis down the road.
For this reason, nuclear deterrence must be part of the answer. It is the ultimate — and arguably the only — sustainable way to ensure long-term deterrence against Russian belligerence. While the U.K.’s nuclear deterrent is smaller than Russia’s, it still has the capacity to devastate Russia’s major population centers. If France is willing to help lead the coalition, it would add additional nuclear capability, with both greater firepower and a sub-strategic delivery system.
But nuclear deterrence alone is not enough. It must be backed by a sufficient number of forward-deployed conventional forces so that Russia has no illusion that Britain and other European countries would be unable to disengage if it invades again.
Moreover, a strong focus on bolstering naval and air capabilities across Europe would enhance the continent’s ability to defend itself on multiple fronts and strengthen the reassurance force in Ukraine. Alongside this, there is a need to improve the Ukrainian Armed Forces' ability to protect their country. Investing in technology, equipment, and strategy will all shape how the forces operate. This is critical for deterring Russia.
Narrative projection is also essential. Through clear, resolute, and strong messaging, leaders across Europe can outline the consequences of any future invasion and the restarting of the war. Alongside allies, including French President Emmanuel Macron, Starmer must maintain an unyielding stance. The Kremlin must understand that Europe stands united against any resumption of war on the continent.
Finally, Europe needs to outline the escalatory steps it would take if confronted by Russian action. While this should not be too tactical, the Kremlin must not be left with the impression that a new offensive would go unchallenged. Despite tough statements on sanctions, Europe has spent more on Russian energy since February 2022 than it has on Ukrainian aid. As such, British and European threats must remain credible, and nothing should be done to ease pressure on the Russian economy in the near future.
How can we achieve this? With investment. The U.K. and European countries must allocate more resources to defense and defense-related infrastructure. European governments must invest in rearming and preparing their armed forces for potential future engagement.
The situation is severe, but not insurmountable; bold leadership is required to ensure a strong defense against Russian hostility. The UK, in particular, should aim to fill any leadership void left by the U.S. Spending 2.5% of GDP on defense by 2027 is a welcome first step to ensuring broader European security. But beyond that? The goal should be 3% or even 3.5% by the end of the decade.
Russia is not a superpower in the making. The U.K. and Europe possess far greater latent strength. It is time for them to enforce peace on their own continent and rise to the challenge.
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent.
Olena Yermakova
