Editorial News Uncategorized

Paris Signs the Pledge: Western Troops in Ukraine After the War

Jacques Pj Provost

2026-06-21 00:00:52

Five Pillars for Lasting Peace

The declaration signed in Paris is based on five components. First: a multinational force tasked with strengthening the Ukrainian armed forces and ensuring security “in the air, at sea, and on land.” Second: a U.S.-led ceasefire monitoring mechanism. Third: ongoing support for the Ukrainian military. Fourth: binding commitments to support Kyiv in the event of a new Russian attack. Fifth: long-term defense cooperation with Ukraine.

On paper, it’s impressive. It’s comprehensive. It’s exactly what Ukraine needs to feel secure. But the devil is in the details. How many soldiers will be deployed? Where exactly? With what mandate? What happens if Russia attacks these forces? The answers to these questions are vague. Macron spoke of “several thousand” French soldiers. Starmer mentioned “military hubs” across Ukraine. But no specific numbers. No maps. No detailed timeline. Just promises and intentions. And in geopolitics, intentions aren’t enough.

I read these five pillars and think: this is exactly what needed to be done two years ago. Before hundreds of thousands of people died. Before entire cities were razed to the ground. But better late than never, right? Except I can’t help but wonder if this isn’t too little, too late. If Putin hasn’t already gotten what he wanted. If this security guarantee isn’t just a band-aid on a gaping wound that will never truly heal.

Legally Binding Guarantees

The statement refers to “robust” and “legally binding” guarantees. This is important. Because until now, all the promises made to Ukraine have been conditional. Political. Revocable. Here, we’re talking about legal commitments. Treaties. Documents that bind the signatories under international law. In theory, that changes everything. In practice, it depends on the political will to enforce them. And recent history has taught us that international treaties are only worth as much as the powers that be are willing to invest in defending them.

Macron emphasized this point: these guarantees are “the key to ensuring that a peace agreement can never mean Ukrainian capitulation and that a peace agreement can never mean a new threat to Ukraine” from Russia. It’s a strong statement. It’s a clear red line. But Putin has already crossed so many red lines that one might wonder whether one more will really make a difference. The real question isn’t what’s written on paper. It’s what will happen the day Moscow decides to test these guarantees. And that day will come. It’s inevitable.

Mind-boggling figures

Between 15,000 and 30,000 soldiers: the debate over size

According to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, discussions have focused on deploying a force of 15,000 to 30,000 soldiers. That’s a wide range—too wide to be reassuring. Fifteen thousand soldiers is a symbolic presence. Thirty thousand is a credible deterrent. The difference between the two could determine whether this guarantee works or whether it becomes a death trap for Europeans. Macron mentioned “several thousand” French soldiers. Starmer did not give a figure. Germany said it could contribute, but only from neighboring countries. Italy and Poland refused.

Let’s do the math. If France sends 5,000 soldiers and the United Kingdom sends the same number, that comes to 10,000. Add a few thousand more from other European countries, and we might reach 15,000. That’s a far cry from the 30,000 mentioned. And above all, it’s a far cry from the hundreds of thousands of Russian troops stationed near the Ukrainian border. This multinational force will never be able to stop a full-scale Russian invasion. It isn’t designed for that. It’s designed to be a tripwire. If Russia attacks, it will kill European soldiers. And then, NATO will have to respond. It’s deterrence through commitment. It’s a gamble on Putin’s rationality. And we all know just how risky that gamble is.

Fifteen to thirty thousand soldiers. I’m thinking of the families of these men and women. Of the parents who will see their children leave for Ukraine. Of the spouses who will wait for news. These soldiers won’t be there to fight, we’re told. They’ll be there to deter. But deterrence only works if the adversary is rational. And Putin has proven time and again that he is not. So yes, I’m worried. I’m worried about these soldiers who will become pawns in a geopolitical game whose rules no one really controls.

Military hubs across Ukraine

Starmer was more specific about the form this presence will take. He spoke of “military hubs” established across Ukraine. Bases. Facilities. Weapons depots. Command centers. These hubs will serve several purposes: training Ukrainian forces, storing military equipment, and coordinating defense operations. But above all, they will serve as a symbol of Europe’s commitment. Each base will be a visible reminder that Ukraine is not alone. That Europe is there. That any Russian attack will target not only Ukrainians, but also the French, the British, and perhaps the Germans.

Macron clarified that these forces would be stationed “far behind the line of contact.” This is an important distinction. These soldiers will not be on the front lines. They will not be in the trenches. They will be in the rear, in relatively safe areas. This is one way to minimize risk. But it’s also a way to limit the effectiveness of deterrence. Because if these forces are too far from the front lines, they become less credible as a tripwire. Putin might calculate that he can launch a limited offensive without touching the European bases. And then, the whole strategy collapses. It’s a delicate balance. And no one really knows where to draw the line.

Trump's shadow looms over Paris

Witkoff and Kushner: The Emissaries of Chaos

Donald Trump wasn’t in Paris. But his shadow was everywhere. Represented by Steve Witkoff, his special envoy, and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, the U.S. president made his presence felt from afar. Witkoff stated that the discussions had led to “significant progress on several critical work streams.” Kushner added: “This doesn’t mean we’ll make peace, but peace wouldn’t be possible without the progress made here today.” Cautious words. Words that promise nothing. Words typical of the Trump era: lots of noise, little substance.

Senator Marco Rubio was scheduled to attend the talks. He canceled at the last minute, following Trump’s attack on Venezuela. This is telling. For Trump, Ukraine is not the priority. Venezuela is. Greenland is. Ukraine is just one issue among many. A problem to be resolved quickly so they can move on to something else. And this attitude is reflected in the U.S. approach: Washington wants a deal. Any deal. It doesn’t matter if it’s fair or sustainable. What matters is being able to say that Trump has “resolved” the Ukrainian conflict—even if that resolution condemns Ukraine to a precarious peace that won’t last.

I look at Witkoff and Kushner in Paris and feel disgust. These men are not diplomats. They are businessmen who treat war like a business deal. Who think you can negotiate peace the same way you negotiate a real estate contract. And the worst part is that Europe listens to them. Because it needs the United States. Because it knows that without Washington, all those security guarantees are worthless. So it smiles, nods, and pretends that everything is fine. But deep down, everyone knows that Trump could blow it all up with a single tweet.

U.S. Security Guarantees: Solid or Fragile?

Witkoff stated that the security guarantees were “as strong as anyone has ever seen” and that they were intended to “deter any further attacks.” He added: “The president is not backing down from his commitments; he is committed to Ukraine and to a peace agreement.” We will be there for the Ukrainians to help them achieve this final peace. ” Reassuring words. But are they credible? Trump spent his first term tearing up international agreements. He withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement. He abandoned the Iran nuclear deal. He threatened to leave NATO. Why should we believe he’ll honor his commitments to Ukraine?

The reality is that U.S. guarantees depend entirely on Trump’s will. And that will is unpredictable. Today, he supports Ukraine. Tomorrow, he might decide it’s too expensive, too complicated, too tedious. And then, all those promises will evaporate. Europe knows this. Zelensky knows this. But no one says it out loud. Because the alternative—admitting that Ukraine is on its own—is too terrifying. So we pretend. We sign declarations. We organize summits. We talk about robust guarantees. And we hope that Trump won’t change his mind.

Moscow's Red Lines

Putin Says No to Western Troops

Russia has been clear: no Western troops in Ukraine. That is an absolute red line. Moscow has repeated this message at every opportunity. Any NATO military presence on Ukrainian soil is unacceptable. It is a provocation. It is a casus belli. And Putin will not back down on this point. So how can this Russian position be reconciled with the Paris Declaration? The answer is simple: it cannot. These two positions are incompatible. And that is exactly the problem.

The Kremlin has also demanded that Ukraine abandon its aspirations to join NATO and cede the entire Donbas region, including the territories still controlled by Kyiv. These are maximalist demands. Demands designed to be unacceptable. Because Putin doesn’t really want to negotiate. He wants to win. He wants Ukraine to capitulate. And as long as he thinks he can achieve that, there will be no peace. The talks in Paris are important. But they won’t change anything as long as Moscow isn’t ready to compromise. And for now, there’s no indication that it is.

I read the Russian demands and wonder if anyone in Moscow is living in the real world. Ukraine giving up the Donbas? Ukraine renouncing NATO? After everything it has endured? After all those lives lost? It’s absurd. But it’s also revealing. Putin isn’t negotiating in good faith. He’s setting impossible conditions so he can claim that it’s the West that’s refusing peace. It’s a classic tactic. And it’s working. Because a segment of Western public opinion is starting to think, “Maybe we should accept. Maybe peace is worth this sacrifice.” No. A thousand times no.

Russia occupies 20% of Ukraine

Let’s look at the facts. Russia currently controls about 20% of Ukrainian territory. That’s enormous. It’s an area larger than Belgium and the Netherlands combined. Millions of Ukrainians are living under Russian occupation. Entire cities have been destroyed. Infrastructure has been obliterated. And Moscow has no intention of returning these territories. On the contrary, Putin wants more. He wants the entire Donbas. He wants a land corridor to Crimea. He wants Ukraine to be a weak, neutral state, incapable of threatening Russia.

It is against this backdrop that peace talks are taking place. And that is why they are so difficult. Because any peace deal that leaves Russia in control of 20% of Ukraine will be seen as a victory for Putin. As a defeat for the West. As a betrayal of the Ukrainians who fought and died to defend their country. But the alternative—continuing the war until every centimeter of territory is liberated—could take years. Decades. And cost hundreds of thousands more lives. It’s an impossible dilemma. And no one has the right answer.

A Divided Europe: Who Is Sending Troops, and Who Is Refusing?

France and the United Kingdom: The Only Volunteers

Of the thirty-five countries present in Paris, only two agreed to send troops to Ukraine: France and the United Kingdom. This is telling. It’s embarrassing. It proves that Europe is not united on this issue. Macron and Starmer took the plunge. They signed the declaration. They promised to send troops. But they stand alone—or nearly so. Because even among the countries that support Ukraine, many are not willing to put their soldiers at risk.

Why this reluctance? Several reasons. First, fear. Fear that these soldiers will become targets. Fear that their deaths will lead to an escalation. Fear that NATO will be drawn into a direct war with Russia. Next, domestic politics. In many European countries, public opinion is tired of Ukraine. Tired of paying. Tired of worrying. Sending troops would be political suicide. Finally, doubt. Doubt that this guarantee will actually work. Doubt that Putin will be deterred. Doubt that it’s worth the risk. And this doubt is paralyzing Europe.

I look at this list of countries refusing to send troops, and I feel anger. Not toward them—I understand their reasons. But toward the situation. Toward the fact that Europe, with its 450 million people and colossal GDP, cannot agree to defend a country fighting for its survival. At the fact that we’re letting France and the United Kingdom bear this burden alone. At our collective cowardice. Because that’s what this is all about. Cowardice disguised as caution.

Germany, Italy, Poland: the notable absentees

Germany has proposed a compromise: German soldiers could help monitor a ceasefire, but they would be based in a neighboring country, not in Ukraine. This is a typically German position—cautious, calculated—one that allows them to say, “We’re participating,” without actually taking any risks. Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated: “We will certainly have to make compromises.” But what kind of compromise? A compromise that costs nothing is not a compromise. It’s a dodge.

Italy and Poland were more direct: no. No troops in Ukraine. Giorgia Meloni and Donald Tusk were clear after the discussions. Their countries will not contribute to this multinational force. For Poland, this is particularly surprising. Warsaw has been one of Ukraine’s most ardent supporters. It has taken in millions of refugees. It has supplied weapons. It has advocated for a hard line against Moscow. But sending soldiers? That’s a step too far. Even for Poland. And if even Warsaw is backing down, what does that say about the state of European solidarity?

The territorial issue: the crux of the problem

The Donbas: Zelensky’s Red Line

Zelensky has been clear: the territorial issue remains the most critical point. Russia demands that Ukraine cede the entire Donbas region. Kyiv refuses. It’s a total stalemate. And as long as this deadlock persists, there will be no peace. Witkoff acknowledged that the territory “will be the most critical issue” in the discussions. He added: “Let’s hope we can find some compromises in this regard.” But what compromises? How can a territory that both sides consider non-negotiable be divided?

The Donbas is not just a matter of square kilometers. It is a matter of identity. Of pride. Of justice. For Ukraine, ceding the Donbas would be an admission of defeat. It would be rewarding Russian aggression. It would be betraying all those who died defending this land. For Russia, controlling the Donbas is a strategic objective. It is a wealthy industrial region. It is a corridor to Crimea. It is a symbol of Russian power. Neither side can back down without losing face. And that is exactly why this issue is so dangerous.

My thoughts are with the people of the Donbas. Those living under Russian occupation. Those who have fled. Those who have died. And I wonder: who decides their fate? Zelensky? Putin? Trump? Diplomats in Parisian palaces? These people did not choose this war. They do not want to be pawns in a geopolitical game. They just want to live. But their voices do not count. Because in peace negotiations, it is always the powerful who decide. And the weak who pay the price.

The Impossible Compromises

Witkoff talks about “compromises.” But what compromises are possible? Option one: Ukraine cedes the Donbas. Unacceptable to Kyiv. Option two: Russia withdraws completely. Unacceptable to Moscow. Option three: a freeze on the conflict with a demarcation line. But where? And for how long? And who can guarantee that Russia won’t resume hostilities in five years? Option four: a referendum in the occupied territories. But under whose supervision? With which population? Millions of Ukrainians have fled these regions. Will their votes count?

Every option is a trap. Every compromise is a defeat for someone. And that is why negotiations are stalling. Because there is no win-win solution. There are only lose-lose solutions. And the question becomes: who is willing to lose the least? Who is willing to accept the humiliation of a compromise to stop the carnage? For now, neither Kyiv nor Moscow seems ready. And as long as that remains the case, the war will continue. People will continue to die. And the talks in Paris will be nothing more than a charade.

What This Statement Really Means

Deterrence Through Engagement

The strategy behind this multinational force is simple: to create a tripwire. If Russia attacks Ukraine after the ceasefire, it will inevitably kill French and British soldiers. And then, NATO will have to respond. This is deterrence through commitment. We’re not promising to defend Ukraine with our full military might. We’re just promising to be there. And that presence is enough—in theory—to deter Putin. Because attacking Ukraine would mean attacking Europe. And even Putin can’t afford that. In theory.

But this strategy rests on a dangerous assumption: that Putin is rational. That he weighs the costs and benefits. That he will back down in the face of the threat of escalation. Yet recent history suggests the opposite. Putin invaded Ukraine despite the warnings. He continued the war despite the sanctions. He bombed civilians despite international condemnation. Why would he stop now? Why would he respect this red line when he has crossed so many others? Deterrence only works if the adversary believes in it. And there is no guarantee that Putin will believe in it.

I think of the soldiers who will be deployed to Ukraine. They won’t be there to fight, we’re told. They’ll be there to deter. But what happens if deterrence fails? What happens if Putin decides to test that guarantee? Those soldiers will die. And then, Europe will have to choose: escalate or back down. And I’m not sure we’re ready for that choice. I’m not sure our leaders have really thought through what will happen the day this strategy is put to the test.

A Bet on Europe’s Future

This declaration is not just a security guarantee for Ukraine. It is a gamble on Europe’s future. A gamble that Europe can be a geopolitical power. That it can defend its values. That it can stand up to Russia without relying entirely on the United States. It’s ambitious. It is necessary. But it is also terrifying. Because if this gamble fails, the consequences will be catastrophic. Europe will lose its credibility. NATO will be weakened. And Putin will have proven that he can defy the West with impunity.

But what if this gamble pays off? What if this multinational force truly deters Russia? What if Ukraine can finally live in peace? Then Europe will have reached a milestone. It will have proven that it can be more than just an economic club. That it can be a security alliance. That it can protect its members and partners. This is a decisive moment. A moment when Europe must choose who it wants to be. And this declaration signed in Paris is the first step toward that choice. But it is only the first step. The road ahead will be long. And fraught with obstacles.

The Reality Behind the Promises

Starmer Admits: Putin Isn’t Ready for Peace

Keir Starmer was the most honest of all the leaders present in Paris. He said what everyone is thinking but no one dares to say: “Putin is not showing that he is ready for peace.” On the contrary, he added, “in recent weeks, we have seen the opposite.” The bombings continue. The offensives continue. Civilians are dying. Moscow is not negotiating in good faith. It is stalling for time. It is testing the West’s resolve. It is waiting for Europe to grow weary. And it is right to do so. Because Europe is growing weary.

This admission is important. Because it serves as a reminder that all these discussions, all these statements, all these promises mean nothing as long as Russia is not ready to negotiate seriously. And for now, it is not. Putin thinks he can win. He thinks time is on his side. He thinks the West will eventually abandon Ukraine. And as long as he thinks that, there will be no peace. The summits in Paris are important. But they won’t change the reality on the ground. Only a Russian military defeat—or a regime change in Moscow—can do that.

I appreciate Starmer’s honesty. Because all too often, our leaders lie to us. They tell us that peace is near. That negotiations are progressing. That everything is fine. But the truth is, nothing is fine. The truth is, Putin doesn’t want peace. He wants victory. And as long as he thinks he can achieve it, he’ll keep fighting. So yes, let’s sign declarations. Let’s hold summits. Let’s promise guarantees. But let’s not lie to ourselves. The war isn’t over. It may only be just beginning.

The Gap Between Intentions and Reality

There is a huge gap between what was signed in Paris and what will actually happen. On paper, Ukraine has robust security guarantees. In reality, it has conditional promises that depend on a ceasefire that does not yet exist. On paper, thousands of European soldiers will be deployed. In reality, no one knows how many, where, or when. On paper, the United States will lead the monitoring of the ceasefire. In reality, Trump could change his mind tomorrow.

This gap isn’t a glitch. It’s a feature. Because European leaders know they can’t promise more. They know their publics won’t follow them. They know their budgets are limited. They know Trump is unpredictable. So they do what they can: they sign declarations of intent. They organize summits. They talk about robust guarantees. And they hope that will be enough. But deep down, everyone knows it won’t be enough. That Ukraine will need more. Much more. And that Europe won’t be able—or won’t be willing—to provide it.

Conclusion: Between Hope and Illusion

A historic moment… or a mirage?

January 6, 2026. A date to remember. The day Europe promised to put boots on Ukrainian soil. The day France and the United Kingdom crossed a red line that no one dared to cross. The day Zelensky got what he’d been demanding for months: a concrete guarantee that Ukraine would not be abandoned. It’s historic. It’s courageous. It’s exactly what needed to be done. But is it enough? Is it credible? Will it really make a difference?

The answer depends on who you ask. For optimists, it’s a turning point. Proof that Europe can be a geopolitical power. A deterrent that will prevent Putin from doing it again. For pessimists, it’s an illusion. An empty promise that will never be kept. A band-aid on a gaping wound. The truth, as is often the case, lies somewhere in between. This declaration is important. But it’s only a start. And the path to lasting peace will be long, difficult, and fraught with pitfalls that no one can foresee.

I look at that signature and I don’t know what to feel. Hope? Fear? Anger? A little of all three, I think. Hope because Europe is finally taking concrete action. Fear because I know it could go wrong. Anger because this should have been done two years ago. But above all, I feel sadness. Sadness for all the lives lost. Sadness for all the lives that will still be lost. Because even with this declaration, even with these guarantees, the war isn’t over. And it won’t be over anytime soon.

The future is being written now

What happens now will determine Europe’s future for decades to come. If this guarantee works, if Ukraine can live in peace, if Putin is deterred, then Europe will have proven that it can be a power. That it can defend its values. That it can stand up to dictators. But if this guarantee fails, if European soldiers die, if Ukraine is invaded again, then Europe will have proven the opposite. That it is weak. That it is divided. That it cannot protect its partners.

The choice does not rest solely with leaders. It rests with all of us. With European citizens who must support their governments. With parliaments that must approve budgets. With the soldiers who will have to go to Ukraine. With the families who will have to accept this sacrifice. This is a moment of truth. A moment when Europe must decide who it wants to be. And this declaration signed in Paris is only the first step—the easiest one. The next steps will be much more difficult. But they are necessary. Because the alternative—abandoning Ukraine, letting Putin win, accepting that might makes right—is unacceptable. For Ukraine. For Europe. For all of us.

Sources

Kyiv Independent – “Zelensky, UK, France sign declaration on multinational force in post-war Ukraine” – January 6, 2026 – https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-uk-france-sign-declaration-on-multinational-force-deployment-in-ukraine-post-war/

Le Monde – “Ukraine: Western allies agree on key security guarantees in Paris” – January 6, 2026 – https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/01/06/ukraine-western-allies-agree-on-key-security-guarantees-in-paris67491514.html

The Guardian – “UK and France ‘ready to deploy troops’ to Ukraine after ceasefire” – January 6, 2026 – https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/06/uk-france-ready-to-deploy-troops-to-ukraine-after-ceasefire

This content was created with the help of AI.

Commentaires

0 0 votes

Article Rating