Keir Starmer met Donald Trump at the White House on Thursday, using the visit to push for a US security “backstop” in Ukraine – hoping to gain an assurance from Washington, that if European peacekeeping were sent to Ukraine and were attacked by Russia, they would have support from the US.
In the days leading up to the meeting, Starmer increased UK defence spending – partly by cutting foreign aid. The move was designed to reassure the US president that London was on the same page, in the hope of securing a fervent commitment from Washington to back Europe’s strategy should peace talks with Russia succeed.
The meeting followed a White House visit by French President Emmanuel Macron earlier in the week, with experts describing the joint British-French strategy as a “good cop, bad cop” routine.
While passive aggression simmered under the surface amid Trump’s meeting with Macron, Starmer massaged Trump’s ego with a letter from King Charles. Trump later described Starmer as a “very, very special person”.
Despite the flattery, when asked by reporters about the “backstop”, Trump suggested that American businesses operating in Ukraine would serve as a deterrent to further Russian aggression – far short of the military assurances Starmer had sought for any UK and European “peacekeeping” force in Ukraine.
Experts say that what Starmer really wants is a guarantee that US air defences would be used if any peacekeepers were attacked in Ukraine by Russia. But without explicit US backing, the European plan to put boots on the ground may now be in jeopardy. Four experts told The i Paper that Europe’s leaders must now decide whether to push ahead with peacekeeping plans, or rethink their strategy entirely.
European nations have already increased their arms supplies to Kyiv, but the long-term question remains: Can they provide enough firepower to act as a credible deterrent without US support?
Jamie Shea, former deputy assistant secretary general for emerging security challenges at Nato, told The i Paper that funding and equipping Ukraine’s military “has to be the priority” if Europe wants to deter Russia.
“The Ukrainian army is 10 times larger than the 30,000 troops the UK and France are planning to send and has the battlefield experience of fighting the Russians,” he said. “It makes more sense for European forces to focus on training, air defence, and intelligence support.”
It comes as Nordic and Baltic countries pledged to increase military aid to Ukraine, including training and weapons, during a visit to Kyiv this week. Denmark pledged 2bn Danish kroner (£139m), while Sweden announced 1.2bn Swedish kronor (£56m) for air defences. Estonia also vowed to increase its aid by 25 per cent, including 10,000 mortar shells worth an additional £20m, while Latvia committed to delivering armoured personnel carriers, drones, and other equipment.
To fill the gap left by a US withdrawal of aid, experts say the EU would need to spend only 0.12 per cent more of its GDP.
Regardless of US commitments, experts agree that Europe must accelerate its military preparations.
“Ramping up defence spending is something Europe needs to do regardless of any deal,” said Professor of International Security at the University of Birmingham, Stefan Wolfe. “Europe must rethink what security guarantees mean for Ukraine, whether that’s better air defences, high-tech drones, or cyber protections.”
European defence spending reached a record €279bn (£230bn) in 2023 – a 10 per cent increase on the previous year and the ninth consecutive year of growth. However, analysts warn that this is still not enough. Some estimate that spending must increase by around €250bn (£20bn) annually to reach 3.5 per cent of GDP.
Countries like Poland are already spending 4.7 per cent of GDP, while Germany’s prospective Chancellor Friedrich Merz, looks set to approve a constitutional change to boost military spending by more around £85bn. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has also called for collective EU defence spending to rise above 3 per cent of GDP.
“The increase in Ukrainian defence output combined with European assistance should be sufficient to maintain resistance to Russia,” says Dr Mark Hilborne, a senior lecturer in the School of Security Studies at King’s College London.
“There is quite a lot of analysis that suggests Russia has little left with which to continue this conflict, beyond a year or thereabouts, as both its finances and military stockpiles are depleted.
“That is also true of Ukraine, but effectively they only have to outlast Russia, and the latter would then have to reconsider its stance. The rush for ‘a deal’ overlooks this.”
Some experts argue that European leaders should deploy troops to Ukraine even without an American guarantee. “They could and they should – this would send an important signal to the U.S., Ukraine, and Russia,” said Wolfe. However, without US support, any European peacekeeping force would face major risks.
Shea added: “The Europeans have to commit to a Ukraine force to have a seat at the table. They must prevail on Trump to get military concessions from Moscow, including pulling back some of its 700,000 troops from the front line and agreeing to a tightly monitored demilitarised buffer zone, similar to North Korea. This would make a European reassurance force’s job easier.”
However, without US backing, European countries like Germany, Spain, or Italy may hesitate to participate, leaving the burden on the UK and France.
“But Trump changes his mind frequently,” Shea noted. “Macron and Starmer must keep pushing for a US backstop. Europe must have a military presence to ensure it has a seat at the negotiating table.”
Even without full US support, Europe could still manage air defences, intelligence, and logistics, Shea said. “It would be helpful if the US allowed Nato’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) to assist with planning and force generation for European troops,” he added. “If the US provided an extraction force, like in Bosnia in 1994-95, that would be ideal – but asking Trump for that may be a big stretch.”
Experts also see Trump’s proposed US-Ukraine mineral deal as a potential tool to keep America engaged in Ukraine’s defence, even if only for commercial reasons.
Olena Borodyna, a senior geopolitical risks adviser at the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), warned that Europe risks being sidelined.
“For European countries, Ukraine’s security and managing the Russian threat are deeply intertwined with their own long-term security architecture,” she said. “However, it remains unclear whether Europe has a clear vision for this architecture in the event of a ceasefire or peace deal.”
She questioned why discussions about European security had not been prioritised earlier, arguing that the continent still lacks a coherent strategy to counter Russian hybrid warfare. Without a concrete security framework, she said, any agreement risks becoming a “temporary reprieve rather than a foundation for lasting peace.”
Starmer is expected to return to London on Sunday and consult with European allies on the next steps, while Zelensky meets Trump today. But experts agree on one thing: Europe can no longer rely on the US to guarantee its security.
Comments
Leave a Comment