UK’s peacekeeping force in Ukraine needs ‘serious numbers’ to face down Russia, former Nato chief warns
Plans to create a British and French peacekeeping force in Ukraine would require “significant numbers” of troops to counter Russia, a former army chief has warned.
Sir Richard Shirreff, who served as NATO’s deputy supreme allied commander in Europe between 2011 and 2014, said allied forces must “pass” to fight against Russia if Vladimir Putin breaks his country’s ceasefire agreement.
But he argued this would not be possible at the UK’s current level of defense spending, warning: “A government without a sword is useless.”
Sir Richard’s assessment was shared by former defense secretary Sir Gavin Williamson, who said the UK would need to deploy around 40,000 troops to ensure the operation was effective. Last year figures showed there were around 147,000 people in the UK armed forces, with just over half of them assigned to the military.
On Tuesday, Britain and France signed a historic agreement with Russia pledging to land in Ukraine as soon as a ceasefire is reached.
The document, signed by Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at a summit in Paris, was praised as a “significant step forward” in using the so-called coalition of the willing to guarantee peace in the war-torn country.
German Chancellor Friedrich Mertz also suggested that his country may soon commit to sending troops to Ukraine.
Sir Richard told the BBC’s Today program that nearly 50,000 troops were sent to Kosovo by NATO in 1999 and that the country was “pocket-sized” compared to Ukraine.
“Any assurance or sanctions sent to Ukraine from the UK, France and other partners must be capable of outpacing Russia,” he said. “Because even if Russia has to accept the ceasefire, it will definitely break the ceasefire, like all eggs are eggs.
“So any reassurance force must be able to counter Russia and, if necessary, fight Russia. That means serious capabilities, serious numbers and a properly integrated military organization.”
Asked if that meant “thousands and thousands” of personnel who could not be deployed to emergencies elsewhere, he said: “Absolutely. I mean, if you think about the size of the frontline in Ukraine… the intervention force deployed by NATO to Kosovo in 1999 was about 50,000 (and) Kosovo was a pocket-sized region compared to Ukraine. That would require serious numbers to be effective.”
Sir Richard also criticized the levels of defense spending by the UK and other European countries in recent years.
Sir Keir has promised the UK will spend 5 per cent of GDP on national security and defense by 2035, after bowing to pressure from President Trump on the issue.
But Sir Richard claimed that Germany was the only country in Western Europe that “spends money on defence” and warned that “a government without a sword is useless”.
He added: “Western European countries, especially this country, are ducking and ducking, avoiding and just talking.”
To talkIndependentSir Gavin warned that Britain must be much more assertive than the 1,700 troops stationed in Estonia.
“You are talking about at least 40 thousand personnel, which is the equivalent of the Rhine army we had in Germany after the war. Of course, we cannot do this. We are talking about increasing the size of the army to 76 thousand, but we just do not have personnel.”
The deal to field the boots in Ukraine was signed after President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, confirmed that he “strongly, strongly, strongly” supports the president’s security guarantees and will provide support to make it work.
But the apparent breakthrough comes as European countries attempt to respond to President Trump’s claim to Greenland, the sovereign territory of the EU’s NATO ally Denmark.
European leaders issued a statement stating that “the authority to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland lies solely with Denmark and Greenland.”
Sir Richard warned that without the US, the other countries that make up NATO would be “really forced” to defend Greenland against the US. He said that it would be “suicide” and “a complete massacre” for other NATO states to attack the United States, but he felt that this outcome could have been prevented.
