April 12, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: US backs Euro ‘reassurance force’ in Ukraine, but Russia again rejects

Institute for the Study of War

US Special Envoy to Ukraine General Keith Kellogg expressed support on April 11 for the deployment of an allied “reassurance force” in rear areas of western Ukraine after a possible future ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia.[1] The Times reported on April 11 that Kellogg expressed support for a “partition” of Ukraine between European, Ukrainian, and Russian forces; the deployment of a European “reassurance force” in western Ukraine; and establishing an 18-mile-wide “demilitarized zone” along the current frontline.[2] Kellogg clarified later on April 11 that he supports the presence of a “reassurance force” that does not include US troops to support Ukrainian sovereignty, but that none of his statements during the interview suggested “a partitioning of Ukraine.”[3] Kellogg noted that the Times misrepresented some of his statements referencing possible areas of responsibility (AORs) of a future European “reassurance force.”

Kellogg’s clarification regarding the deployment of a “reassurance force” in Ukraine’s rear areas is consistent with several statements from Ukrainian and European leaders about a possible future peacekeeping contingent deployed to Ukraine. Ukrainian Commander in Chief General Oleksandr Syrskyi stated on April 9 that a putative peacekeeping contingent would not deploy to the frontline.[4] European Commission Vice President Kaja Kallas stated on April 10 that a future peacekeeping contingent would be likely to deploy not to the frontline but rather deeper within Ukraine or even outside of Ukraine.[5] Bloomberg reported on April 10 that UK Defense Secretary John Healey and French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu stated that the Coalition of the Willing aims to develop more detailed plans within the next two weeks about how the coalition will help secure Ukrainian airspace, coastline, and land.[6] People familiar with the matter told Bloomberg that the coalition hopes that the United States will agree to “backstop” any future European deployments to Ukraine with air power, border surveillance, and intelligence.

Russian state-owned and pro-Kremlin media amplified a Russian official’s blanket rejection of any peacekeeping force in Ukraine on April 12. Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik responded to Kellogg’s statements on April 12 and reiterated the Kremlin’s objection to the presence of any peacekeeping contingent in Ukraine following a possible future ceasefire or peace agreement because a peacekeeping force would preserve the “level of toxicity” that supposedly prompted Russia to launch its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.[7] Russian state-owned and pro-state media widely amplified Miroshnik’s statement.[8] Kremlin officials have repeatedly rejected the idea of a possible future peacekeeping force in Ukraine or any European involvement in post-war Ukraine.[9] Miroshnik’s accusation of “toxicity” in Ukraine is an indirect reference to the Kremlin’s continued demands that any conclusion to the war in Ukraine must address Russia’s so-called “root causes” of the war. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov previously defined Russia’s perceived “root causes” of the war as NATO’s alleged violation of obligations not to expand eastward and the Ukrainian government’s alleged discrimination against ethnic Russians and the Russian language, media, and culture in Ukraine.[10] Russian officials frequently directly invoke these “root causes” to justify Russia’s continued war effort and pre-war demands amounting to total Ukrainian capitulation, and Miroshnik’s April 12 statement is an indirect restatement of this concept.[11]

People’s Republic of China (PRC) military officials reportedly visited the frontline in Ukraine to glean insights for future warfare amid reports that at least 155 Chinese nationals are fighting in Ukraine. An unnamed former Western intelligence official told Reuters in an article published on April 11 that the PRC authorized an unspecified number of PRC military officers to visit the frontline in Ukraine alongside the Russian military to gain tactical insights from the war in Ukraine but did not specify when these visits may have occurred.[16] ISW cannot independently verify this report. Two unnamed US officials familiar with US intelligence and the former Western intelligence official told Reuters that roughly 100 to 200 Chinese nationals are fighting for the Russian military as “mercenaries” independent from the Chinese government. The sources further noted that the Chinese fighters appear to have minimal training and are not having any discernable impact on Russian military operations. ISW has observed reports that these Chinese nationals likely signed contracts with the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) of their own accord rather than at the direction of PRC officials.[17] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently reported that Ukrainian intelligence discovered that at least 155 Chinese nationals were fighting for the Russian military in Ukraine.[18] PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Spokesperson Lin Jian recently stated that the PRC MFA is unaware of the more than 155 Chinese nationals fighting in Ukraine, however.[19] The Guardian recently reported that Russian entities are actively operating recruitment campaigns across several Chinese social media networks, further suggesting that the PRC government may be aware of Russian military recruitment efforts targeting Chinese citizens and may be disinterested in combating these efforts.[20]

 Key Takeaways:

  • US Special Envoy to Ukraine General Keith Kellogg expressed support on April 11 for the deployment of an allied “reassurance force” in the rear areas of western Ukraine after a possible future ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia.
  • Russian state-owned and pro-Kremlin media amplified a Russian official’s blanket rejection of any peacekeeping force in Ukraine on April 12.
  • Russian forces have resumed a more typical strike pattern in late March and early April 2025 after a temporary spike in the size of Russian long-range strike packages in mid-February and early March 2025.
  • People’s Republic of China (PRC) military officials reportedly visited the frontline in Ukraine to glean insights for future warfare amid reports that at least 155 Chinese nationals are fighting in Ukraine.
  • Ukraine’s European partners announced additional military aid packages within the context of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group (the Ramstein format) meeting on April 11.
  • Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Kurakhove, and Russian forces recently advanced in Sumy Oblast and near Toretsk and Pokrovsk.

Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.