Scottish MPs demand details after Sir Keir Starmer suggests sending troops to Ukraine

Sir Keir claimed on Monday the UK and Europe were facing a “generational challenge” and that security guarantees for Ukraine could mean putting British troops on the ground.

His claims prompted questions from across the political spectrum, with several MPs telling The Scotsman it did not make sense to plan on protecting a peace deal when it wasn’t clear what that would look like.

Sir Keir’s intervention comes as the Prime Minister arrived in Paris for emergency talks with European allies, in response to US President Donald Trump’s push for a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Ukraine has not been invited to the talks and will not accept the outcome if Kyiv is not involved, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky said on Monday.

Sir Keir claimed his message to European counterparts would be to “step up” and that it was important to have “realistic and credible answers” for how to make any peace agreement last.

He said: “I think that we need to do more. We need to step up in terms of our collective response in Europe, and by that I mean capability. By that, I mean playing our full part when it comes to the defence of the sovereignty of Ukraine if there’s a peace agreement, and, of course, when it comes to funding and training.

“So, on all those fronts, I want the UK and all European allies to step up and for the UK to play a leading part in that.”

Asked how high the stakes would be at the emergency talks in Paris with European leaders on Ukraine, Sir Keir said it was “very important” to try to move forward after three years of conflict.

“But until we get a peace agreement, we must ensure Ukraine is in the strongest possible position,” he said.

“We don’t know what’s going to happen next and we need to have realistic and credible answers to how any ceasefire, how any peace agreement, will be lasting, just and enduring, because the last thing I want to see is a pause in the fighting that simply gives Putin the chance to come again, which is why it’s very important that we have these discussions.”

Sir Keir has previously only hinted that British troops could be involved in safeguarding Ukraine after a ceasefire. But in an explicit message aimed at encouraging both European allies and Mr Trump to commit to deterring a future attack, he confirmed he could deploy the military.

Responding to the suggestion of boots on the ground, SNP MP Stephen Gethins claimed any response must come from Europe, not just Britain.

He said: “There needs to be a co-ordinated response. The United States is now an unreliable security partner and that means as Europeans, we need to rely on each other, co-ordinate with each other, and have a deeper partnership in defence and foreign policy affairs.

“I think it’s really difficult before you know what a stabilisation force is there for. We need to up the aid to Ukraine, because Ukrainians soldiers are not just dying for their own independence, but the freedom and rights of all Europeans. They deserve all the support that we can give them.

“I think we need to stop thinking simply about what the British do and what we as Europeans do. The answer does not lie in a single European state. The answer lies in what we collectively do as Europeans. For the British, that means coming to terms with what the world actually looks like now, and that means the UK bluntly getting over itself with the Brexit nonsense.”

Scottish Labour MP Graeme Downie was one of several MPs to call for an increase in defence spending, arguing the UK does not have the capability for a peacekeeping force without it.

He said: “I welcome the PM’s commitment for UK troops to play a part in the future of securing Ukraine democracy and that being done with European partners and allies as the PM has indicated.

“This does raise the question as to whether the 2.5 per cent commitment to defence spending is enough, or whether we will need to exceed that and quickly.

“If you’re going to commit troops to the ground, aircraft in the air or additional UK forces to a mission in Ukraine, defence spending will have to increase because we already know the current capability after Tory cuts is not up to those current commitments. Any increase should also be targeted at supporting the UK defence sector, and targeting jobs and growth.”

Sir Keir is unlikely to go beyond his commitment to set out a plan to increase defence spending to a 2.5 per cent share of the economy, despite calls from Mr Trump to hike spending to 5 per cent and Nato chief Mark Rutte’s suggestion allies should spend more than 3 per cent.

Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael suggested committing troops before knowing what a peace deal looked like was “premature”.

The Orkney and Shetland MP said: “If I have learned nothing else over the years, it’s that committing troops to a conflict, even a peacekeeping mission, without drawing limits on it or having an exit strategy is not always a particularly effective idea.

“History tells you that if you try to appease people like Vladimir Putin, then they bank what you give them, then they always want more. I think the priority should be to get the right peace deal, rather than about putting troops on the ground to enforce something that on the face of it does not even seem to include Ukraine herself at the moment.

“I am by no means averse to committing British troops to involvement on the ground, but that’s a decision you only make when you know what deal you are going to be enforcing, and only then can you answer questions like ‘what will the extent of this be and how long will it last?’

“If it’s a poor deal, are we going to commit British troops to enforcing a deal Ukraine does not want?”.

Concerns were also raised by former SNP defence spokesperson and MP Stewart McDonald, who was previously given a state honour by President Zelensky. He told The Scotsman a force would be needed, but it was unrealistic to expect one without increasing defence spending.

He said: “Any agreement that is reached has to be an agreement that Ukraine has been involved in and is happy to be involved in and happy to be signatories to.

“Yes, it will need a peacekeeping force, ideally with American and European troops, but American troops look unlikely. It completely makes sense for the UK to have a footprint in that along with other European countries, and that should be to uphold whatever the peace agreement is. If you had a UN peacekeeping force there, they would be neutral.

“Our forces would not be neutral, they would be there to uphold the agreement and ensure Russia doesn’t violate it. And if they do, they will be responded to by troops on the ground.

“Defence spending has to rise, 2.5 per cent allows Britain to wash its face, but realistically it needs to go up to at least 3.5 per cent by the 2030s.

“The European part of Nato needs to rethink how it approaches its international security. We have relied on the American umbrella for many decades, but that umbrella is just not there any more.”