WASHINGTON – Sir Keir Starmer has attempted to push Donald Trump to provide a US security guarantee for a Ukraine peace deal – but the US president stopped short of offering full military support.
The Prime Minister has said he is willing to put British troops on the ground in Ukraine to police any deal with Russia, but has made clear he views a US “backstop” as essential to stopping Vladimir Putin violating an agreement and launching fresh military action.
However, the backstop Starmer envisages will not involve any American troops on the ground in Ukraine, and will not include a Nato guarantee that an attack on the peacekeepers, including British troops, would be taken as an attack on the whole alliance and trigger a near-automatic response.
Sitting alongside Starmer at the Oval Office ahead of their talks, Trump suggested that the US security “backstop” would be in the form of American workers stationed in Ukraine as part of the minerals deal between Washington and Kyiv.
Referring to the deal he is poised to sign with Zelensky on Friday, the US president said: “It’s a backstop, you could say, I don’t think anybody’s going to play around if we’re there with a lot of workers and having to do with rare earths and other things which we need for our country.”
Asked if the US would come to the UK’s aid if British troops were attacked by Russia while keeping the peace in Ukraine, Trump said: “You know, I’ve always found about the British – they don’t need much help. They can take care of themselves very well.
“It sounds like it’s evasive but it’s not evasive. You know, the British have been incredible soldiers, incredible military, and they can take care of themselves.
“But if they need help, I’ll always be with the British, OK? I’ll always be with them – but they don’t need help.”
Trump asked Starmer: “Could you take on Russia by yourselves?” To which the Prime Minister smiled and said: “Well…”
Starmer raised the issue in White House talks with the US President on Thursday, with Trump likely to have discussed it in his own talks with Emmanuel Macron, the architect of the peacekeepers plan, earlier in the week.
Britain and France are understood to be pushing for an outcome that would centre around a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine, with American power based in a nearby country such as Poland.
The US would offer aerial intelligence and surveillance, as well as logistical support – and air cover in the last resort, if Russia broke the peace deal by attacking Ukraine as well.
The backstop is seen as crucial not only to deterring Putin in future, but also to convincing wavering allies to commit their own troops to the peacekeeping efforts.
Former defence ministers said it was time for the UK and Europe to step up and show they are able and willing to police the peace.
Former defence secretary Ben Wallace told The i Paper: “At the beginning of the week we saw the PM use smoke and mirrors on defence spending rather than demonstrate he has got the memo from the White House.
“Europe needs to stop talking and start acting with real guarantees and real cash The Government is still trying to find a pain-free way to address the needs of our national security. There isn’t any. I know we tried.
“A Bosnia-style of peacekeeping won’t do. It has to be peacekeeping through strength and deterrence.”
Ex-defence minister Tobias Ellwood said there was now an “active debate” including in Ukraine on whether Europe should reject Trump’s peace deal and go it alone, in further arming Ukraine and providing air cover itself, possibly to police a no-fly zone, in the hope that Ukraine can regain territory.
This would see the UK and Europe deploy jets in Ukraine to shoot down Russian missiles and drones.
Any manned Russian aircraft that incurred into Ukrainian airspace would have to be shot down by domestic forces, Ellwood said, adding that a distinction in the fog of war could be made “easily” using modern technology.
“The fundamental issue is whether we sign up to the first part of a deal… [when] by all accounts America will not take part in the peacekeeping, therefore Europe has to do it,” he said.
“Or do you then recognise that is destined to fail, it simply won’t happen, it’ll put us up against Russia directly because they will find deniable ways of causing trouble in Ukraine.
“Do you then do a wider assessment and say to avoid a bigger conflict further down the road, we invest more, we give it 12 months for Ukraine to really, really push back? That is the question, rather than getting into the weeds of what a peacekeeping force might look like.”
The former Conservative MP went on: “Boots on the ground isn’t going to be the first instance, that is going to be top cover, the units on high, then you work your way down to the units on the ground.
“So is there going to be some form of no-fly zone that we patrol to stop incoming missiles and rogue Russian aircraft coming across?
“We could easily do it alone, when you look at the capabilities across Europe, we have an awful lot of assets, we have superior equipment than the ageing Russian stocks which are already depleted – they are not top-tier.”
A senior Trump administration official suggested the type of backstop offered by the US would depend on the shape of any peace deal: “I would say that there’s a balance between the size of the force needed and the strength of the diplomacy that backstops that, that secures it.
“I think a lot of nations have concerns about putting troops into an active war zone.”
If the “conflict level” was similar to that between Ukraine and Russia in 2014-2015, after Putin annexed Crimea, those countries “would still have concerns, though they might have fewer”, the official said.
“If that conflict level… is dialled down to a functional ceasefire, they would have fewer concerns still if there was a broad-based, consensual peace settlement among the parties to where the security troops, whatever force there is – less a deterrent than a peacekeeping force – then I think that would be broadly more popular for many nations.
“So the type of force depends very much on the political settlement that is made to end the war, and I think that trade-off is part of what the leaders today are going to be discussing.”
Comments
Leave a Comment