European NATO Troops: A Key to Post-Ceasefire Peace in Ukraine?

Could NATO Troops Be the Key to Keeping Peace in Ukraine After a Ceasefire?

It’s one of the most delicate and high-stakes questions in global politics today: How do you secure long-term peace in Ukraine after a ceasefire? And now, a bold idea is gaining traction from someone with serious military and diplomatic credentials—Retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, who served as a special envoy under former President Donald Trump.

In a surprising but calculated move, Kellogg is proposing that European NATO troops—not American forces—take on a critical role in maintaining peace in Ukraine if a ceasefire agreement is finally reached. The idea? A “resiliency force” stationed in post-ceasefire Ukraine to help uphold its sovereignty, without further antagonizing Russia.

Wait, What’s a “Resiliency Force”?

Great question. In Kellogg’s vision, this wouldn’t be an occupying army or a permanent foreign military presence. Instead, it would be a strategic deployment of allied troops—led by France and the United Kingdom—to patrol specific zones west of the Dnieper River. This massive river cuts Ukraine almost in half, running north to south, and could serve as a natural dividing line for post-war monitoring.

Importantly, Kellogg emphasized that this would not be a partition of Ukraine, which would be an extremely controversial move. He clarified his statements on X (formerly known as Twitter), saying:

“I was speaking of a post-ceasefire resiliency force in support of Ukraine's sovereignty... I was NOT referring to a partitioning of Ukraine.”

Rewind: What’s Going On With Peace Talks Anyway?

The same day Kellogg floated his idea, Trump’s other envoy, Steve Witkoff, was in St. Petersburg, Russia, reportedly meeting with President Vladimir Putin to explore potential resolutions. But the approaches of Kellogg and Witkoff are very different.

According to reports from Reuters, Witkoff suggested that one way to end the fighting quickly could be to allow Russia to keep control of four Ukrainian regions it currently occupies—a strategy Kellogg adamantly disagrees with.

In contrast, Kellogg’s model keeps Ukraine’s territorial integrity front and center, though it does raise eyebrows by recognizing Russia’s de facto control over some occupied territory. It’s not a green light for Russian expansion, he insists, but rather a pragmatic path toward peace.

A Zone-Based Plan—With Strings Attached

Let’s break down what Kellogg is actually proposing, because it’s a bit complex but fascinating:

• NATO troops (not from the U.S.) would be deployed west of the Dnieper River.

• These troops would serve as stabilizers—not fighters—ensuring any ceasefire terms are followed.

• An 18-mile demilitarized zone would be established along the front lines in eastern Ukraine.

• Ukrainian forces would retain control of most of the east, while Russia would maintain its occupied territories for the time being.

That last point? That’s the real kicker. Even though it’s meant to de-escalate, it could be hard for Kyiv to swallow, as it essentially acknowledges Russia’s current positions—at least temporarily.

How Is This Different from Post-WWII Germany?

In The Times (a UK-based outlet), Kellogg’s comments were initially framed as resembling the post-World War II division of Berlin, where the city was split into American, British, French, and Russian zones. But Kellogg quickly clarified online that his plan is not about dividing Ukraine permanently or creating a Cold War-style buffer state.

He emphasized:

“In discussions of partitioning, I was referencing areas or zones of responsibility for an allied force... not actual political partitioning.”

So, think of it more like temporary peacekeeping sectors, not like creating new borders or handing territory over permanently.

Why This Matters Right Now

There’s growing impatience—especially in Washington. The White House publicly voiced frustration with both Moscow and Kyiv recently, saying neither side is making real headway in peace negotiations. And Trump? He’s had enough.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a briefing:

“[Trump] wants to see this fighting end. He wants the war to end, and we believe we have leverage in negotiating a deal.”

In fact, Trump has reportedly told aides that if a ceasefire isn’t reached by the end of April, Washington should consider ramping up pressure on Moscow—including more sanctions.

How Would Russia React?

That’s the million-dollar question. The Kremlin has historically opposed the idea of European troops monitoring Ukrainian territory, seeing it as a provocation. But Kellogg believes his plan sidesteps that concern.

Because the resiliency force would stay west of the Dnieper, Russia might be less inclined to view it as a threat. In his words, it “would not be provocative at all.”

But of course, this all hinges on whether Putin would accept such a setup, and Kellogg admits that violations of a ceasefire would be likely, at least in the beginning.

Minerals, Money, and Motivation

There’s also a big economic angle here. Kellogg told The Times that relations between Washington and Kyiv are “back on track,” especially after a rough patch in February between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

One potential sweetener in the talks? A Ukrainian minerals deal that Washington reportedly wants to leverage as partial payment for U.S. support. That could give both sides extra incentive to get serious about a resolution.

What People Are Saying

The reactions have been mixed, with some praising Kellogg for offering a balanced, realistic framework—and others warning that recognizing Russia’s current positions, even temporarily, could backfire.

One observer on social media noted, “This plan could give Ukraine breathing room—but it’s a slippery slope if Russia sees it as a green light to dig in.”

Others point out that the lack of U.S. boots on the ground could be both a strength and a weakness. It may calm tensions with Moscow, but will European forces alone be enough to maintain the peace?

What Comes Next?

Trump’s circle is clearly making moves—whether it’s Kellogg’s diplomatic push or Witkoff’s behind-closed-doors meetings in Russia. But the clock is ticking. With public impatience growing and a possible April deadline for peace progress, all eyes are on how Ukraine, Russia, and NATO will respond.

And while Kellogg’s plan might not be perfect, it has sparked a crucial conversation about what post-war Ukraine could—and should—look like.

One thing’s for sure: This isn’t just about borders or battlefields anymore. It’s about finding a sustainable future for Ukraine—one that honors its sovereignty, contains Russian aggression, and avoids dragging the West into a wider war.