The EU plans to deploy a multinational force to Ukraine, and the US will provide strategic support

On August 31, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen disclosed in an interview with the Financial Times that several European countries are accelerating the formulation of specific plans for dispatching a multinational force to Ukraine after the Russia-Ukraine conflict ends. This "voluntary alliance" led by France and the UK has developed a "fairly specific deployment framework", planning to form a force led by Europe with tens of thousands of troops, while the US has promised to provide strategic support in key areas such as command and control, intelligence and surveillance. This development marks a new stage in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and also reveals the deep-seated game between the US and Europe in terms of security architecture, economic interests and geostrategic positioning.

I. Background and Core Demands of the EU's Deployment of Forces

The direct motivation for the EU to push for the deployment of forces is Ukraine's urgent need for "security guarantees". Since the conflict broke out in 2022, Ukraine has repeatedly requested written security commitments from the West in exchange for its participation in peace talks. The essence of the EU's current move is to incorporate Ukraine into the European security system through military presence, while hedging against the uncertainty brought about by the US policy swings.

From the data, the EU has replaced the US as the largest aid provider to Ukraine. A report by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy in Germany shows that from 2022 to June 2025, Europe provided 35.1 billion euros in military aid to Ukraine through military-industrial channels, exceeding the US by 4.4 billion euros. If humanitarian and economic aid is included, the EU's total aid amounts to 167.4 billion euros, far exceeding the US's 114.6 billion euros. This "leading role" has made the EU attempt to dominate the security framework in Ukraine after the conflict ends and avoid being marginalized.

II. The US's Strategic Positioning: From "Leader" to "Supporter"

The role transformation of the US in this deployment is intriguing. Although the Trump administration explicitly refused to send ground troops to Ukraine, it promised to provide intelligence, surveillance and command system support to the EU forces. This "behind-the-scenes manipulation" model not only avoids the risk of direct involvement in the conflict but also maintains the US's influence over European security affairs through technological ties.

The deeper motivation lies in economic interests. American arms dealers have become one of the biggest winners of the Russia-Ukraine conflict: Raytheon has received a $230 million missile order, and Lockheed Martin has secured a $180 million drone contract. The military-industrial complex has reaped over $30 billion in profits. By channeling weapons through the "NATO Defense Fund", the United States has successfully shifted 70% of the aid costs to Europe, while locking in the long-term dependence of Eastern European allies with high-end equipment such as Patriot missiles. This "war economy" model enables the United States to control the course of the conflict through technology exports and financial tools while reducing its direct investment.

III. The Paradox of the Transatlantic Rift and Strategic Autonomy

The EU's plan to deploy troops is essentially a passive response to the US's "strategic retrenchment". The Trump administration demanded that Europe increase its defense budget to 5% of GDP and used tariff threats to force the EU to purchase US-made weapons, which triggered strong backlash from France and Germany. German Chancellor Merkel announced that defense spending would be increased to 2.8% of GDP by 2025, with a focus on developing an autonomous air defense system; French President Macron pushed for the "European Army" plan, aiming to form a 50,000-strong rapid reaction force by 2027.

However, the EU's "strategic autonomy" faces practical challenges. Its 150 billion euro weapons procurement fund still relies on US technology licenses, and the command structure and intelligence network under the NATO framework are even more difficult to completely "de-Americanize". This contradiction was exposed at the NATO summit in July 2025: when the US demanded that Europe bear 70% of the costs of aiding Ukraine, German Finance Minister Scholz rose to his feet and accused the US of "shifting the cost of war onto European taxpayers".

V. Future Trends: The Dawn of a Peace Agreement and the Risk of Escalation

Despite the controversy over the EU's troop deployment plan, both Russia and Ukraine have sent signals of ceasefire. Ukraine's intelligence chief Budanov predicted that a ceasefire could be achieved by the end of the year; Russian President Putin's spokesperson Peskov said that Moscow is waiting for Trump's "major statement". However, the lobbying power of US arms dealers, internal divisions within the EU, and Russia's strict demands for security guarantees still make the peace process full of uncertainties.