What could European troop deployment in Ukraine look like? – DW – 08/22/2025

It was a stunning show of unity as an entourage of European leaders backed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on his trip to Washington on August 18, impressing upon US President Donald Trump the need for security guarantees for Ukraine.

But the road ahead will be harder as they map out the details of their contribution, including potential troop deployment.

“They’re willing to put people on the ground,” Trump told Fox News on Tuesday, after he met with the European heavyweights.

Since their US visit there has been a flurry of meetings of the so-called “coalition of the willing,” a grouping of 30-plus countries that includes Germany, France and the United Kingdom. Some of the countries have even said they would be willing to send troops.

But what could a European troop deployment look like, and what could it mean for Ukraine and Europe?

Will Europe deploy peacekeepers?

Peacekeepers traditionally come from neutral states and act in a noncombat role.

“A peacekeeping role is the closest to the UN system; these forces observe warring parties in a tense situation after a ceasefire,” explained Rafael Loss, a defense and security expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).

“Conceptually I don’t think that role would fit in with what Ukrainians want and how Europeans see themselves. They are not neutral in this conflict and want to be seen to be on Ukraine’s side,” he added.

In addition, peacekeepers’ use of force is strictly governed by rules of engagement, which are specific to each mandate and can include acting in self-defense and protecting civilians.

In the Ukraine-Russia context the presence of peacekeepers boils down to observer missions “requiring some 1,000s of lightly-armed peacekeepers,” said Loss.

“They would be positioned along the contact line to observe,” he said, in reference to keeping the peace along boundaries agreed upon after a Ukraine-Russia agreement, “and report compliance with a ceasefire but not to engage in combat.”

Will Europe send trainers?

Several experts told DW that many European countries are more comfortable with sending a few hundreds to a few thousand trainers.

“Troops could be stationed in an advisory role to modernize Ukraine’s military structures and to align them with NATO standards and procedures,” said Loss.

Such troops would also be present in a noncombat role and would train Ukrainian soldiers inside the country to fight on the battlefield and operate specialized Western equipment.

Experts believe such a deployment would make the Ukrainian defense apparatus more efficient and also shift the overall defense culture — from one that is currently more inspired by Ukraine’s Soviet past to something that resembles Western practices and norms.

“One of the cultural effects would be changing the command style. Ukrainians worked with largely Soviet-based systems and now they are moving to NATO-based systems which privilege initiative over hierarchy,” said Loss.

But no one believes either peacekeepers or trainers would be an effective deterrent and ensure Russia doesn’t attack again.

A European combat force to deter, not to engage

Europeans have discussed deploying a combat-ready force, but not with the aim to engage Russia. Instead, they would rather be present on the ground and act as a deterrent.

“If you have a significant contingent on the ground then that represents deterrence in itself,” said Guntram Wolff, a foreign affairs expert at the Brussels-based Bruegel think tank.

In a recent paper, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) think tank said the aim of such a force would “not be to defend Ukraine in case of an aggression, but to deter Russia by stationing a sufficient European military presence.”

But this may require a large number of troops — up to 150,000.

According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, European countries including the United Kingdom currently have nearly 1.5 million active-duty military personnel. But many European countries are hesitant to pull out soldiers on national duty, and those engaged in NATO defense plans meant to prepare against a direct attack on the alliance’s territory.

“The forces deployed would create gaps in NATO’s current plans, which would have to be adapted,” the SWP paper said.

And there are other concerns. European soldiers are simply not as battle-hardened as their Russian counterparts, experts said. And 

a Bruegel study published in February further noted that their “effectiveness is hampered by the lack of a unified command,” since the respective armies come under respective governments.

Loss of ECFR added that sending such a large number of troops into a conflict was politically unpalatable.

“There are huge differences among European countries over troop deployment,” said Andre Hartel, head of SWP’s Brussels office. “Germany does not consider this as part of security guarantees.”

Italy has also ruled out deploying Italian troops on the ground.

Another idea is to deploy fewer European troops in what experts have described as a trip wire scenario.

“You can deploy 5,000 to 10,000 troops, but if anyone gets hurt then that draws in the entire European continent and therefore Russia supposedly wouldn’t attack,” said Wolff.

Would European troop presence make NATO a party to war?

In either deployment scenario, there is a risk of being shot at by Russian troops or killed in a drone strike and bombings.

However, just the presence of European troops on the ground wouldn’t necessarily involve NATO as an alliance.

And since Trump has already said that any deployment will be outside NATO, allies won’t de facto be at war with Russia even if European troops came under Russian fire.

“It is unlikely NATO will respond as an alliance. But they will have consultations,” said Loss.

“There is no legal obligation to do anything,” he added. “The way the [NATO] treaty is phrased, the response could be anything allies deem appropriate.”

Experts believe that any potential response from the countries involved in the coalition would probably be limited and specific to a situation.

“If there is, let’s say, just an accident then that’s one thing,” said Wolff of Bruegel. “If it’s a deliberate attack and a massive one [on European troops], then there would be a different response.”

The experts said various European governments are busy war-gaming such scenarios, but they face a dilemma: deploying troops is risky, and despite all caution may still involve their countries in a war they wanted to avoid.

Edited by: Martin Kuebler