Now it turns out that Britain would struggle to send 5000 troops to Ukraine in a so called "deterrence force." Policy thinkers in Whitehall desperately need to engage their brains and reach for peace.

In a remarkable turn of events, the Times Newspaper of London published an article of 29 April in which it said Europe would struggle to put 25,000 troops on the ground in Ukraine. This from the same newspaper that offered a bizarre eulogy just eighteen days ago about Britain's "crucial role" in directing Ukraine's failed counter-offensive in 2023.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has actively sought a role for himself, bringing divergent US and European policies closer on the conduct of the war and on plans for peace. To much fanfare, at the March 2 Lancaster House Summit, he announced a "coalition of the willing."

The idea emerged that such a coalition might deploy a peacekeeping force to Ukraine after a future ceasefire. Among other things, this force – comprising European and not American troops – would "defend a deal in Ukraine" and "guarantee peace afterwards." Many meetings were held since that time, in Paris and in London, to explore the details.

The coalition had four objectives. To keep military aid flowing into Ukraine and apply further pressure on Russia through sanctions, to maintain Ukraine's sovereignty and participation in peace talks (an obvious point), to boost Ukraine's defensive capabilities after a peace deal and to deploy the so called 'coalition of the willing' to maintain the peace.

No one, including Starmer, has articulated a clear strategy to guide these objectives. On the contrary, they seem to underpin a continuance of the war, not its cessation.

If we look at them in turn, keeping military aid flowing into Ukraine and applying more sanctions on Russia will most likely prolong the war, not end it. No one has articulated what the incentive would be for Russia to sue for peace on the basis on the further militarisation of Ukraine, and in the face of additional sanctions. This objective has clearly been driven by the Ukrainian side. Economically, barely a day goes by without Zelensky, Yermak or someone else in the Ukrainian power vertical calling for more sanctions on Russia, at a time when the US press for an end to the conflict. Indeed, Ukraine was calling for more sanctions on Russia in the days before the war's commencement. On many occasions, I have presented analysis showing how Russia has constantly found ways to adapt to sanctions and illustrated how more sanctions would have no significant economic impact. Like giving Ukraine more weapons, sanctions would only disincentive efforts at peace, by emboldening Russia to continue fighting.