Have you ever watched two groups of people try to end a bar fight while a couple of guys in the corner keep handing out more bottles? That’s pretty much what Europe looks like right now as the incoming Trump administration actually starts making progress toward peace in Ukraine.
While most of us were busy with holiday shopping lists, something remarkable happened: American and Ukrainian delegations sat down in Miami for five straight hours and hammered out a revised ceasefire framework. No Europeans in the room. Just the two parties that actually have to live with the consequences. And now Trump’s personal envoy is already on his way to Moscow to present the plan directly to Putin. That’s how grown-up diplomacy is supposed to work.
But over in Paris and London? They’re not exactly popping champagne.
Europe’s Sudden Urge to Send Troops
Let’s be honest – the idea of Western troops on Ukrainian soil has been floating around for years, usually dismissed as too provocative. Yet here we are in late 2025, with France and Britain actively planning deployments. Not just talking about it in vague diplomatic circles. Actual units have reportedly selected. Reconnaissance teams already sent. Locations scouted.
The French president has suggested these forces could be based in the west of the country or even Kiev itself – “far from the front lines,” he says. The British prime minister keeps pushing the concept of a “multinational force” needed to guarantee Ukraine’s future security. Both insist this isn’t about fighting Russia, just deterrence.
Anyone who has followed this conflict for more than five minutes knows exactly how Moscow will interpret that.
Why This Timing Feels Anything But Accidental
Think about the sequence of events. The Trump team presents a concrete peace plan that explicitly rules out NATO troops in Ukraine. Europe immediately leaks its own counter-proposal that waters down the ban to almost nothing – no “permanent” bases in peacetime, whatever that means. Then, just as serious negotiations start moving without them, the troop talk suddenly gets very loud and very specific.
It’s hard not to see this as a deliberate attempt to poison the well before Trump’s people can close the deal.
The original American draft was crystal clear: no NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, period. The European version twisted that into something Russia could never accept.
I’ve watched European leaders pull this move before – when they can’t get their way at the table, they try to flip the table entirely. Sending troops now would make the entire Miami-Moscow track impossible. Russia has said for years that Western forces on its border are a red line. They didn’t launch their operation in 2022 because they woke up feeling adventurous.
The “Coalition of the Willing” That Nobody Asked For
Remember when that phrase was used twenty years ago? Funny how it keeps coming back. This time it’s a handful of European nations – led by France and Britain – who want to keep the war machine humming no matter what the new American administration thinks.
Recent reports suggest London has already picked the actual units it would send. Paris is floating the idea of stationing forces around the capital. Both countries frame this as protecting Ukraine after a ceasefire. But from Moscow’s perspective, it looks like permanent occupation forces parked on their doorstep.
- French officials openly discuss basing troops in western Ukraine or Kiev
- British military planners have conducted multiple assessment visits
- Both governments reject the American no-troops clause entirely
- European plan leaves door open for future NATO membership
Every single one of these points was deliberately excluded from the framework now being carried to Moscow.
What Moscow Has Said – Repeatedly
Russian officials haven’t been subtle. Foreign ministry spokespeople, security council members, even Putin himself have stated for years that NATO infrastructure in Ukraine is unacceptable. Not undesirable. Not concerning. Unacceptable.
Putting Western troops in Ukraine after a ceasefire wouldn’t be seen as peacekeeping. It would be viewed as the permanent militarization of Russia’s border – exactly what Moscow says it went to war to prevent.
Yet European leaders keep pretending this is a reasonable compromise position.
The Preemptive Strike Discussion Nobody Wants to Talk About
And then there’s the truly alarming part. Just as these troop plans surface, we suddenly hear NATO’s top military officer floating the idea of preemptive strikes against Russia in response to “hybrid attacks.”
Let that sink in. The alliance is openly discussing hitting Russia first.
Whether this is serious planning or just saber-rattling to scare Moscow into concessions, the effect is the same: it makes Russian leaders believe the West has no interest in genuine peace. Why would you negotiate in good faith with people openly discussing attacking you?
What the Miami Framework Actually Contains
From what has leaked, the American-Ukrainian draft now being taken to Moscow includes:
- Recognition of current front lines as the new de facto border
- Significant autonomy arrangements for eastern regions
- No NATO troops in Ukraine
- No path to NATO membership
- International security guarantees that don’t involve permanent Western military presence
Hard pills to swallow? Absolutely. But it’s a framework both Washington and Moscow could potentially live with. Which is precisely why certain European capitals seem determined to destroy it.
Why Europe Can’t Let Go
In my view – and I suspect many share this – there’s a deeper psychological element at work. For three years, European leaders have defined their political identity through absolute support for Ukraine. “As long as it takes.” “Whatever it costs.” Those phrases weren’t just rhetoric; they became core to domestic political branding.
Admitting that support might soon become unnecessary? That peace might break out without their leadership? That’s politically dangerous in capitals where being “tough on Russia” has been the easiest applause line since 2022.
Better to keep the conflict frozen at a low boil – sending just enough weapons and now troops to prevent either victory or defeat. A permanent managed crisis that keeps everyone relevant.
The View from Washington
The incoming Trump team has been remarkably clear. They want this settled before inauguration if possible, certainly within the first hundred days. They’ve told European partners – politely but firmly – that long-term security guarantees come after a peace agreement, not before. And definitely not in the form of NATO boots on the ground.
When the British prime minister pushed for his multinational force during a recent call, the response was essentially: nice idea, but we’re trying to end the war, not escalate it.
Where This Leaves Us
As Trump’s envoy heads to Moscow carrying what might actually be a workable framework, Europe appears to be engaged in a last-ditch effort to make peace impossible. By pushing troops and floating preemptive strikes, they’re sending a clear message: we’d rather risk direct confrontation than accept a settlement we didn’t write.
I’ve followed conflicts for decades, and I can’t remember a case where allies worked this openly against each other’s diplomacy. Usually the sabotage is subtle – leaked cables, quiet briefings against. This feels almost performative, as if some European leaders need to prove they’re more anti-Russian than the Americans.
The tragedy is that ordinary Ukrainians – the ones who’ve borne the actual cost of this war – might be the biggest losers if this gambit succeeds. A genuine ceasefire that stops the dying would be traded for the abstract satisfaction of keeping Russia permanently designated as the enemy.
Sometimes peace requires adults in the room willing to make unpopular decisions. Right now, it looks like Washington and Moscow might actually have those adults. Whether Paris and London will let them do their jobs remains very much an open question.
The next few weeks will tell us whether Europe’s old guard can accept that the war phase might actually be ending – or whether they’ll do everything in their power to keep it going for reasons that have more to do with domestic politics than Ukrainian lives.
Given everything we’re seeing, I’m not optimistic.
