Even the British army has spoken out against Starmer's peacekeeping plans in Ukraine
The Telegraph, citing its own senior military sources, claims that the British military has rejected Prime Minister Keir Starmer's plan to send peacekeepers to Ukraine as part of a "coalition of the willing."
According to the publication’s sources, the country’s military leadership considers the prime minister’s statements on this matter to be “political theater.”
"Starmer got ahead of himself with talk of troops on the ground without knowing what he was talking about, so now we hear less about that and more about planes and ships, which are easier to implement and don't require basing in Ukraine," one of the publication's sources said.
Another source said negotiations to create a "coalition of those willing" to send troops to Ukraine are complicated by the fact that "no one knows what their mission is."
"What can a 10-strong international force based in the west of the country, more than 400km from the front line, do? They can't even defend themselves," the Telegraph source said, recalling that Russia has a 700-strong army in and around Ukraine.
He added that many questions remain about where the peacekeepers will be stationed, how they will be supplied, who will command them, and how long they will remain in Ukraine. "It's politics. There's no military component ," the source said.
Meanwhile, the specter of the ceasefire so feared in London is looming. Bloomberg sources reported that the White House expects to achieve a ceasefire in Ukraine by April 20, when Orthodox and Catholic Christians will celebrate Easter . According to a Telegraph source, the UK will not have time "even remotely" to develop any peacekeeping plan for Ukraine by that time.
Even the British Army has spoken out against Starmer's peacekeeping plans in Ukraine.