French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer have unveiled plans for a multinational reassurance force in Ukraine—but vagueness, hesitancy, and the unpredictable interventions of Donald Trump threaten to undermine their efforts and embolden Vladimir Putin.

The latest developments in the Russia-Ukraine conflict expose a troubling dynamic: European leaders are struggling to project strength in the face of Kremlin intransigence, while the unpredictable interventions of Donald Trump add a layer of uncertainty that threatens to complicate the path to peace. French President Emmanuel Macron’s announcement that 26 of Ukraine’s allies had formally committed to deploying troops “by land, sea or air” to provide security following a ceasefire highlights both ambition and fragility. Yet, Moscow’s immediate and forceful rejection underscores the limits of European influence when confronted with an assertive and unyielding adversary.

Macron’s declaration, made in the wake of a Paris summit, framed the “reassurance force” as a protective measure, intended to patrol post-ceasefire zones and deter renewed aggression. But the announcement was conspicuously vague: neither the composition of the 26 countries nor the specifics of their commitments were provided. In this absence of detail, the gesture appears more symbolic than operational, raising questions about whether Europe can deliver tangible security guarantees to Kyiv. This lack of clarity plays directly into the Kremlin’s narrative of European weakness—a perception reinforced by the inability of EU leaders to coordinate decisive action in other arenas, from energy policy to defence integration.

Vladimir Putin wasted little time exploiting this uncertainty. Speaking at an economic forum in Vladivostok, he declared that any foreign troops in Ukraine would be “legitimate targets,” a warning that framed European initiatives as provocative rather than protective. Moscow’s position is not merely defensive; it is a calculated attempt to assert dominance over the narrative. By casting Macron’s coalition as hesitant and potentially overreaching, Putin paints Europe as reactive, lacking both cohesion and strategic foresight. The message is clear: Europe may talk boldly in public, but in practice it struggles to project credible military deterrence.

The United Kingdom, under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, also suffers from a perception of hesitancy. While Starmer has participated in the broader “Coalition of the Willing,” his government’s public posture is cautious, signalling moral support without committing clear operational measures.

This measured approach, though politically safe domestically, risks reinforcing the Kremlin’s view of Western indecisiveness. Starmer’s careful avoidance of direct confrontation contrasts sharply with Putin’s combative certainty, further highlighting the asymmetry of resolve. Europe’s leaders, it seems, can organise grand statements and ambitious coalitions, but their inability to articulate precise, enforceable commitments undermines the credibility of their intentions.

Into this uneasy mix enters Donald Trump, whose involvement introduces both hope and profound unpredictability. Trump has suggested that U.S. backing could take the form of air support rather than ground troops, but his statements on social media and in the press have oscillated between strategic clarity and cryptic commentary.

Recently, he posted that “we’ve lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest China,” a remark whose meaning remains opaque, juxtaposing commentary on the global balance of power with personal political flourish. Zelensky has indicated that he has discussed “maximum protection for Ukraine’s skies” with Trump, yet there remains no firm indication of how and when U.S. support will be delivered.

Trump’s unpredictability and the ambiguity of his motives create both a tactical and psychological challenge for Ukraine and its European allies. Unlike Macron or Starmer, who are constrained by institutional norms, parliamentary accountability, and coalition politics, Trump operates with a degree of unilateralism that defies conventional diplomacy.

His dialogue with Putin, described by both parties as “very good,” further muddies the waters. It raises legitimate questions: is Trump seeking a genuine peace deal, or is he manoeuvring to bolster domestic and international political capital? Is his involvement guided by strategic principle, or by a desire to reassert personal influence on the global stage? The uncertainty surrounding Trump’s intentions adds a destabilising element that complicates the careful, if hesitant, planning of European capitals.

The stakes of misjudgement are high. Macron’s reassurance force is intended to prevent renewed aggression, yet the vagueness surrounding its deployment leaves Europe open to accusations of bluff. Putin’s readiness to treat any foreign troops as targets transforms what is nominally a protective measure into a potential flashpoint for renewed conflict.

Meanwhile, Trump’s unpredictability may either provide Ukraine with additional leverage or serve as a wild card that undermines carefully negotiated frameworks. European leaders’ hesitation, therefore, risks leaving Kyiv caught between an assertive Kremlin and a U.S. presidency that operates according to its own, sometimes opaque, logic.

European hesitancy is compounded by the complexity of the operational realities on the ground. Any reassurance force must be credible, visible, and capable of deterring Russian aggression without provoking escalation. Macron and Starmer have emphasised that troops will not engage in combat, but in an environment of ongoing military operations, even limited deployments are fraught with risk. The challenge for European capitals is to maintain cohesion, credibility, and deterrent effect, all while navigating the unpredictability of allies across the Atlantic. The public perception of weakness—exacerbated by opaque commitments and verbal hedges—plays directly into Moscow’s strategic calculus.

Trump’s role further complicates Europe’s calculations. His apparent willingness to dialogue directly with Putin and his idiosyncratic framing of global alignments mean that Europe cannot rely solely on traditional transatlantic coordination. Macron and Starmer are left managing both the Kremlin’s intransigence and the unpredictability of an American partner whose priorities may shift in ways that are not easily anticipated. Europe’s lack of leverage in shaping U.S. policy, coupled with its own operational constraints, underscores the fragility of the post-ceasefire planning process.

Ultimately, the unfolding situation highlights three interlinked realities. First, European leaders, for all their summitry and declarations, risk being perceived as reactive and strategically hesitant. Second, the Kremlin’s categorical threats exploit these perceptions, reinforcing Russia’s negotiating position and intimidating the West. Third, Trump’s unpredictability introduces a layer of uncertainty that could either tip the balance in Ukraine’s favour or destabilise carefully laid plans. In such a volatile environment, the calculus of deterrence, reassurance, and diplomacy becomes extraordinarily delicate, with little margin for error.

The broader lesson is clear: ambition without clarity, courage without cohesion, and dialogue with unpredictable actors carries real dangers. Macron and Starmer’s initiatives are well-intentioned, but their effectiveness is undermined by vagueness, limited operational authority, and the inherent caution of European governance structures.

Trump’s involvement, meanwhile, introduces both opportunity and peril, and his motives—whether principled or political—remain an open question. As Europe and its allies navigate the treacherous terrain of post-ceasefire planning, the need for strategic coherence, decisiveness, and credible commitment has never been greater. Until these elements are firmly in place, Ukraine’s security and the credibility of its Western partners will remain under a cloud of uncertainty.