Ukraine will not be granted NATO membership as a result of peace talks, nor will American boots be deployed on Ukrainian soil, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth emphasized. He stated that security guarantees should be backed by "capable European and non-European forces."

"If these forces are deployed as peacekeepers in Ukraine at any point, they should be part of a non-NATO mission and should not fall under NATO's Article 5," he added on Thursday during a meeting of alliance defense ministers.

But what kind of security guarantees should be offered to Ukraine? Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna, a member of the Eesti 200 party, said that Europe must take real responsibility.

"And that could mean a peacekeeping mission, it could mean a military mission — these are the matters that must be discussed with both the Ukrainians and the Americans right now," Tsahkna stated.

He said he could not imagine that Estonian soldiers, who have participated in missions far beyond the country's borders, would remain on the sidelines this time. "However, this decision must be made by the Riigikogu," Tsahkna noted.

Kaljulaid: Troops to be sent to Ukraine need to be of sufficient size

"There is no longer any talk of seeking a just peace," said Raimond Kaljulaid, a member of the Riigikogu National Defense Committee, referring to recent messages from the United States. However, the goal could be a sustainable peace — even if, according to the Americans, security guarantees should be Europe's responsibility.

"The only way to achieve this is by having a sufficiently large contingent of European troops on the ground in Ukraine," Kaljulaid stated. "So that if Russia resumes hostilities, European countries would intervene directly in the war."

According to Kaljulaid, a sufficiently large contingent would be one capable of physically repelling a potential Russian attack.

He recalled that after World War II, there were 1.6 million American soldiers stationed in Germany, with hundreds of thousands remaining there for an extended period. Similarly, after the Korean War ended, hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops were stationed along the armistice line.

"And even now, a significant number of U.S. military personnel are there to ensure the ceasefire holds," Kaljulaid noted. "So when discussions in Europe mention a contingent of around 40,000 troops, I find that completely unconvincing, given that we are talking about a frontline spanning over a thousand kilometers."

US participation not completely ruled out yet

According to Kaljulaid, the forces deployed to Ukraine should be significantly larger. The question remains, however, whether Europe can muster the necessary strength. And it's not just about the numbers.

"The United States is the one ensuring the real operational capability of various military domains in Europe — from serving as an enabler, to targeting and even nuclear deterrence," said Margus Tsahkna. "This is a complex structure that requires negotiation."

Prime Minister Kristen Michal (Reform) also believes that the U.S. role in future security guarantees should not be dismissed before substantive negotiations even begin.

"In an ideal world, a security guarantee for Ukraine would mean keeping NATO membership on the table, integrating into the European Union and ensuring Ukraine's security through cooperation between the United States and Europe," Michal said.

Urmas Reinsalu, chairman of Isamaa, also noted that the U.S. position — implying it would not contribute to security guarantees — should be seen as an initial stance open to negotiation.

"We must understand that this is just the starting point of negotiations," Reinsalu said. "We need Estonia's position, we need a joint European stance with like-minded countries, and in this environment, a practical outcome can be shaped."

Only troops ready to act provide credible deterrence

For deterrence to be effective, Kaljulaid argues that it is essential to carefully consider how the forces stationed in Ukraine would respond to any violation of peace. The decision-making process must be swift enough that responses do not require prolonged international debates.

"The more automated it is, the better," Kaljulaid stated.

International discussions have also emphasized that any potential security guarantee must have a robust command structure. This means that if Russia were to test the resolve of allied forces, responses would follow a pre-agreed plan.

Kaljulaid pointed to NATO as an example, where member states' representatives — ambassadors — are permanently stationed on-site. Through this presence and an established military framework, NATO can make decisions relatively quickly. However, even Article 5 is designed in a way that it does not trigger automatically.

"In the United States, there is a strong emphasis on ensuring that any decision to assist allies must go through Congress," Kaljulaid noted. "Of course, there are also European countries that insist such decisions should be debated in parliament or government. But the more automated the decision-making mechanism, the better."

Kiili: Kyiv's survival needs to be ensured through a strong Ukraine and weakened Russia

Meelis Kiili, a Reform Party member of the Riigikogu National Defense Committee, stated that the best way to ensure lasting peace is through a strong Ukraine and a weakened Russia. He emphasized that any negotiations must not lead to lifting sanctions on Russia.

"We must weaken Russia to the point where it simply lacks the power and will to march on Kyiv," Kiili said, adding that the West must continue arming Ukraine.

"Do foreign troops on Ukrainian territory add value or not?" he asked, answering his own question: "Probably not. What we must ensure is that Ukraine's armed forces are very strong."

Kiili also questioned why Russia would refrain from attacking German or French soldiers stationed in Ukraine. "Perhaps, on the contrary, Russia would see it as an opportunity," he said.

This assessment aligns with U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's statement that European troops in Ukraine would not be covered by NATO's Article 5.

Kiili stressed that Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine was not an end in itself but rather a means to support much broader ambitions. He recalled the ultimatum Russia issued before the attack, demanding NATO withdraw to its 1990s borders.

Nevertheless, Kiili does not rule out sending Western military personnel to Ukraine. He suggested that discussions could include deploying military advisors, as well as medical or demining teams, which have been considered before. However, he maintains that the most critical factor is ensuring Ukraine itself is as strong as possible.

Stoicescu: Nuclear umbrella only constant guarantee

Kalev Stoicescu (Eesti 200), chairman of the Riigikogu National Defense Committee, also believes that Ukraine's future does not depend solely on the presence of Western troops. Political and economic factors are even more critical.

"For example, whether Ukraine's accession to the European Union is actually progressing," Stoicescu noted. "Secondly, it is important that we continue to provide support and help Ukraine get back on its feet economically."

At the same time, he believes that military presence should be part of any security guarantee. Since the U.S. is unwilling to commit troops, he argues that a joint contingent should include both European Union and British forces. In his view, Estonia should also take part alongside its allies.

However, military presence alone may not be enough. "In my opinion, the only lasting security guarantee for Ukraine is a nuclear umbrella," Stoicescu stated.

The U.S. has made it clear that its nuclear deterrence does not currently extend over Ukraine. For this reason, attention should turn to Britain and France, but Stoicescu refrained from speculating on their potential decisions.

"These are the fundamental questions: Can strong political support, Ukraine's integration into the European Union, economic assistance and some form of military presence serve as a sufficient substitute for nuclear deterrence?" he asked.

Helme: Lasting peace in Ukraine a subject of a broader agreement between major powers

Martin Helme, chairman of the Conservative People's Party (EKRE), does not believe Estonia should send troops to Ukraine. "Even opening such a discussion is, in my opinion, dangerous, harmful and foolish," Helme said.

He is convinced that Ukraine's future will be decided in negotiations between major powers. "But major powers cannot decide on our behalf that we, as a frontline state with Russia, must take on the burden of defending yet another frontline state against Russia," he stated.

But if Western soldiers do not contribute to Ukraine's security guarantees, what would prevent Russia from marching on Kyiv again in a year or two?

Helme believes the U.S. will help Ukraine recover from the war and restore its defensive capabilities. However, he sees an agreement between major powers as even more crucial.

He is convinced that any deal between the Russians and the Americans will go far beyond Ukraine's borders and shape the entire global security architecture.

"This agreement won't just be between the two of them — it will also involve China, Europe, the Arctic and all related issues," Helme said. "What we are witnessing is a power struggle between great powers."

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!