A Russian missile and drone strike on Zaporizhzhia kills one and injures 51 others, causing extensive damage. Russia must at least return to pre-invasion positions for peace talks to begin, Zelenskyi restates. The Financial Times describes a scenario in which foreign troops deploy to Ukraine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Russia unleashed a drone and missile strike on Zaporizhzhia overnight on Thursday, killing one, wounding at least 51 others and leaving tens of thousands without power or heat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Russian forces struck the city with drones first, destroying an energy facility, head of the Zaporizhzhia regional military administration Ivan Fedorov said. The attack cut power to more than 20,000 residents and heat to some 17,000, he added. A ballistic missile attack followed the drone strike in the early hours of Thursday. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Among the wounded is a two-month-old infant as well as rescue and energy workers who were working at the scene of the attack. A 47-year-old man was killed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Russia fired four ballistic missiles at the city in a span of 10 minutes, regional police said. One hit close to where a Shahed drone had earlier struck, causing a fire. An industrial facility was burning. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
One apartment building was destroyed and another 30 were damaged. Private homes and non-residential buildings in two districts of the city sustained damage, Fedorov said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In an interview with Bloomberg editor-in-chief John Micklethwait on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos on Wednesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyi confirmed that Russia withdrawing to pre-invasion positions is the minimum prerequisite for peace talks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When asked if he still sticks by what he had previously stated that peace talks can only begin if Russia goes back to where it was before the full-scale invasion, or if he is open to negotiating along the current contact line, Zelenskyi said: \u201cUkraine will do everything so that the negotiations are just. And just means that the guarantees are that the enemy will at least pull back to the line that existed before the full-scale invasion. That would be a just opportunity to start a dialogue. But in life it happens that things can go different ways.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Zelenskyi also said any effective peacekeeping force deployed in Ukraine will need to include U.S. troops.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIf security guarantees are just a piece of paper, we won\u2019t go for it,\u201d he said referring to the Budapest Memorandum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Drawing parallels between the document and NATO\u2019s Article 5, Zelenskyi said: \u201c[Under the Budapest Memorandum], just like in NATO, if your sovereignty is threatened, there is a possibility to call for consultations. We did after Crimea was occupied. Do you think anyone came? No.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Donald Trump\u2019s return to the White House reignited interest in the idea [of sending troops to Ukraine], first floated a year ago by French President Emmanuel Macron. At the time, it was ruled out as impracticable and too risky, the Financial Times said in an article on Thursday. The paragraphs below are quoted from the piece.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But since then, Ukraine\u2019s military has struggled. The prospect of Nato membership has dwindled. Trump, seeking to disengage the US from European security, has said he wants a ceasefire \u201cas soon as possible\u201d. And Kyiv has hinted at its readiness for a deal, as long as its allies provide strong security guarantees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said that if Europe is serious about providing an effective deterrent, 200,000 troops will be needed, at a \u201cminimum\u201d. How realistic is Zelenskyi\u2019s figure? Not at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ukrainian officials believe that between 40,000 and 50,000 foreign troops operating as a security force across the 1,000km frontline could be feasible, according to people involved in the discussions between Kyiv and its western partners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Talks are, meanwhile, under way among European allies, with British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte expected to discuss the issue at an \u201cinformal retreat\u201d hosted by the EU on February 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So far, only the Baltic states have signaled support for the idea, as long as it is a broader mission with other allies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When Macron floated the possibility last February, the idea was that European troops could take on important support roles \u2014 such as defending critical infrastructure, training Ukrainian forces, repairing weaponry, or patrolling the Belarus border.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, Trump\u2019s re-election changed the discussion. Now the focus is on how European troops might be used as a peacekeeping force, while helping to sustain Ukraine\u2019s military.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The mission would have three aims: to reassure Ukraine it has western support; deter Russia from attacking again; and show the US that Europe is committed to guaranteeing Ukraine\u2019s security.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The force would have to be \u201crobust enough to not be a soft target that Russia could immediately test, and big enough so that it does not require immediate reinforcement and is not seen as a backdoor commitment by Nato\u201d, said Camille Grand, a former senior Nato official now at the European Council on Foreign Relations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Such a force could total 40,000 troops, Grand estimated, and would probably be formed under an ad-hoc coalition led by the UK, France and the Netherlands, plus contributions from the Baltic and Nordic countries. Nato\u2019s role would be deliberately kept to a minimum to limit the risk of escalation with Russia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even so, Grand suggested that under the \u201cBerlin-plus format\u201d, the EU could use Nato\u2019s strategic planning capabilities for peacekeeping operations, as in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It also allows for UK participation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The European troops would obviously be on Ukraine\u2019s side. However, they would not fight on the frontline. As such, they would form a \u201cstabilisation force\u201d or a \u201cdeterrence force\u201d rather than a fully neutral \u201cpeacekeeping\u201d force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One model is South Korea, which has a sizeable US military presence although South Korean troops do the fighting. Another is KFOR, the Nato-led \u201cpeace support operation\u201d in Kosovo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Will it ever happen? Possibly not. The very notion is premised on there being a decent peace settlement with Russia that allows Ukraine to maintain sovereignty, control its territory, retain its army and remain a democracy that the west is happy to work with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Russia may never agree to that. Moscow might also break any deal it does sign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Europe may balk at sending troops into a \u201chot war\u201d for fear of escalating the conflict with Russia. Even if European leaders do decide to send troops, their parliaments and voters may disagree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Still, the risks of sending in troops may pale in comparison with those of inaction.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"