As the prospect of a ceasefire and rapid settlement in Ukraine gains traction under the new Trump administration, President Zelensky has issued a stark warning: At least 200,000 European peacekeepers would be necessary to prevent a renewed Russian offensive. 

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, just a day after President Trump’s return to the presidency, Mr. Zelenskiy emphasized the urgent need for security guarantees to protect Ukraine and the broader European continent.

“200,000, it’s a minimum. It’s a minimum, otherwise it’s nothing,” Mr. Zelensky stated with regard to how many peacekeepers would be needed should a deal be made. His estimate underscored the scale of protection he believes is required given that Russia’s armed forces number 1.5 million while Ukraine has half that personnel power. 

Mr. Zelensky later attempted to clarify the comments, noting he responded that Ukraine might require “maybe more, maybe less,” depending on the size of the Ukrainian forces at the time of any potential peace deal. That figure is roughly equivalent to the entire French armed forces, which France’s defense ministry estimated at just over 200,000 in 2020.

Defense experts have been quick to dismiss Mr. Zelensky’s expectations as unfeasible. “This isn’t a realistic request. It’s simply not clear where these forces would come from. A peacekeeping force of 200,000 would far surpass those used elsewhere,” a senior fellow at Defense Priorities, Jennifer Kavanagh, tells The New York Sun. “It is, in fact, twice as large as the total number of U.S. forces in all of Europe.”

A senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, Samuel Charap, who specializes in Russia and Eurasia policy, concurs. “The front line stretches nearly 1,200 miles, and Zelenskyy has estimated it would take 200,000 peacekeepers to monitor it — an accurate figure in terms of personnel needs, but completely unrealistic given global peacekeeping capacities,” he tells the Sun. 

Costs of the Proposed Mission

Peacekeepers in post-war countries typically monitor and support the implementation of peace agreements, including tasks like separating combatants, fostering confidence-building, and promoting the rule of law. They also assist in power-sharing arrangements, electoral processes, and economic and social development to help stabilize the country and prevent further conflict.

It is unclear whether a peacekeeping mission would be coordinated in or outside the United Nations system, which has long been plagued with allegations of abuse and corruption. In any case, deploying 200,000 peacekeepers to Ukraine would be an unprecedented and costly operation. 

Based on historical United Nations peacekeeping costs, which typically exceeds $1,400 per month in salary alone, excluding housing, food and operational costs. The total United Nations peacekeeping budget for 2023–2024 is $5.58 billion, supporting around 75,000 uniformed personnel across multiple missions. 

A mission involving 200,000 troops in Ukraine would thus likely exceed $15 billion annually, especially considering that Western troops require higher wages compared to personnel from developing countries, particularly those in South Asia and Africa, which are the primary sources of United Nations peacekeepers. High risk deployments in NATO countries typically demand higher wages, which further raises expenditures. 

a mission of this scale could range between $20 billion and $30 billion annually, with high-risk deployments potentially exceeding $40 billion per year. Given the 1,200-mile front line, maintaining such a force would require extensive logistics, surveillance technology, and enforcement mechanisms, further driving up costs.

For comparison, the UN’s largest current peacekeeping mission, the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, costs more than $1 billion a year for 17,000 troops. In comparison, NATO’s peak mission in Afghanistan, which consisted of 130,000 soldiers, cost over $100 billion annually. Given these figures, a well-equipped, large-scale deployment in Ukraine would likely be among history’s most expensive peacekeeping efforts, requiring substantial international funding and political commitment.

“The bill would likely be shared amongst a group of countries, though this would have to be negotiated,” Ms. Kavanagh said. “The United States and Europe might offer some funding. The seized Russian assets might also be used to cover this cost.”

Ms. Kavanagh pointed out that the hurdles to such a mission are significant, and that some 200,000 peacekeepers in Ukraine would be a non-starter in talks with Moscow. 

“There are a number of obstacles, but the biggest is probably Russia’s willingness to accept a settlement that would have 200,000 foreign forces, including U.S. soldiers next door,” she explained. “Putin would almost certainly keep fighting before taking a deal with this provision. The second major stumbling block would be the logistics and availability of forces for such an operation.”

Mixed Response Inside NATO 

The idea of peacekeepers has sparked mixed reactions among NATO allies, with the United Kingdom showing full support and with Poland rejecting the proposal, citing the need for better burden-sharing. 

Mr. Zelensky, however, confirmed discussions in Brussels about the potential deployment of peacekeepers as a deterrent against future Russian aggression, mentioning “positive signals” from some leaders, although he did not specify which countries. Mr. Zelensky said he had discussed the issue of sending Western “contingents” to Ukraine with President Macron. The French leader had earlier proposed sending peacekeepers if a ceasefire were to be reached.

In a recent conversation with President Macron, Mr. Zelenskyy noted that they discussed various forms of defense support for Ukraine, including arms packages and the possibility of sending Western “contingents” to Ukraine. While he did not disclose whether these would be combat troops or peacekeepers, Monsieur Macron had previously raised the idea of deploying peacekeepers in the event of a ceasefire, a topic also discussed with Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland.

Whether Washington would commit to sending troops is yet to be seen, although analysts don’t foresee Mr. Trump forging such an agreement anytime soon. “President Trump seems unlikely to put American boots on the ground, and many in the administration will balk at committing additional resources to Europe amid the competition with China,” Deputy Director of the Russia Program at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, John Hardie, tells the Sun. 

“Without significant U.S. involvement, at least in the form of air power and enabling capabilities, it’s hard to see the peacekeeping force being feasible, putting aside the question of whether European countries would be politically willing to commit to this without the United States,” Mr. Hardie said.

Ms. Kavanagh also contended that the United States should not be involved, stressing that “Russia probably would not accept U.S. involvement.”

“Having Europe involved might also be a deal-breaker for Russia. Right now, Europe would also struggle to maintain a peacekeeping force of this size or even a smaller size without U.S. support,” she continued. 

Funding such a force without Washington may also prove economically problematic, although European nations have upped their defense spending in the wake of Trump’s harsh rhetoric in his first term and the 2022 Russian invasion.

As of 2024, 23 out of 32 NATO member countries are expected to meet or exceed the alliance’s defense spending target of 2 percent of GDP, a significant increase from just three members in 2014. A handful of European nations, including Croatia, Italy, Belgium and Spain, are yet to meet this threshold. 

The Future of Peace Talks 

The war in Ukraine, meanwhile, claims lives by the day. The United Nations reports that since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, approximately 11,973 civilians, including 622 children, have been killed, with many more injured. Russia’s military actions continue to target civilian infrastructure, leading to widespread destruction and displacement. 

Despite Ukraine’s efforts to reclaim occupied territories, Russia last year hastened its advances and maintains control over approximately 18 percent of Ukraine’s territory. 

While Mr. Trump’s precise plan is not yet clear, his approach to ending the war focuses on achieving a swift resolution. His promise has raised concerns in Ukraine, as many fear that his push for a rapid peace deal could involve significant territorial concessions, potentially forcing Ukraine to make compromises that undermine its sovereignty. 

“The Trump administration and Ukraine need to take steps to bolster their negotiating leverage with Russia,” Mr. Hardie added. “For Washington, that should include passing another Ukraine assistance bill through Congress and tightening sanctions. For Ukraine, mobilizing more men is key.”