The prospect of British troops being sent to Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping force is already raising alarm among military experts, with warnings that such a move would be under-resourced and strategically risky.
While the UK has expressed willingness to play a role in post-war stabilisation, former military leaders and analysts caution that Britain’s armed forces lack the numbers and resources to act as a significant deterrent to Russia.
UK Troops in Ukraine: A Dangerous Move?
The former head of the Royal Navy, Lord Admiral West, has called the idea of deploying British troops a potential “disaster,” arguing that they would not be powerful enough alone to counter any Russian threat. However, if European forces also joined the operation, the UK would likely be required to participate.
One possible role for the Royal Navy would be monitoring maritime routes, particularly for shipments of wheat and other key supplies. But Lord West warned that the UK’s naval capacity is already overstretched. “We’ve got hardly any ships,” he said, highlighting long-standing concerns about underfunding.
Command and Control: Britain’s Strength
Ed Arnold, a senior research fellow in European security at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), believes that Britain’s primary contribution would be in leadership rather than troop numbers.
“The UK’s value is not just about personnel. It’s actually more about the command and control, the headquarters, the ability to actually operate overseas,” he said. This suggests the UK would be better placed to lead a multinational effort rather than act as the main force on the ground.
How Many Troops Would Be Needed?
Even a limited UK contribution would require at least 5,000 troops, Arnold estimates. To sustain that deployment over time, another four brigades would need to be trained to rotate in, bringing the total number of personnel involved to 25,000.
A small force made up of a few thousand troops in light vehicles would be insufficient, Arnold warned. “Cobbling together a couple of thousand troops, that absolutely just won’t cut it,” he said.
The Cost of Commitment
The UK is already under pressure to increase defence spending, with experts arguing that years of cuts have left the military underfunded.
Lord West said that Britain has “disgracefully underfunded defence” for at least 15 years and called for an immediate increase in military spending to 4 per cent of GDP.
If the US reduces its commitment, the financial burden on the UK would rise significantly. Arnold estimates that Britain’s defence spending on Ukraine could jump from £3bn to £6bn annually. NATO allies, particularly in the wake of shifting US policy, are pushing for member states to meet a minimum of 3 per cent GDP in defence spending by 2027.
Would the UN Take the Lead?
A UN-led peacekeeping mission, rather than a NATO operation, is seen as a more likely scenario. Lord Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, previously told The i Paper that non-aligned countries such as India, Pakistan, and South American nations could form the core of such a force.
While the UK would be well positioned to play a role in a peacekeeping mission, concerns remain over whether Britain has the resources to sustain a long-term deployment.
How Long Would a Peacekeeping Mission Last?
Peacekeeping efforts can extend far beyond initial deployments. Lord Dannatt pointed to the Korean conflict as an example, noting that while fighting ended in 1953, no formal peace settlement has ever been reached.
“Unless there is determination to come up with an agreed lasting peace formula, this could go on for quite some time,” he warned.
With no clear timeline for a resolution in Ukraine and growing pressure on military budgets, the UK’s potential role in a peacekeeping mission remains uncertain, both in scope and in feasibility.
