Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur said authorities are weighing the possibility of sending the Estonian army to western Ukraine to perform non-combat tasks. He noted that a final decision has not been made yet because the safety of military instructors must be guaranteed, and such safeguards are a prerequisite for any planning. The discussion centers on the idea of deploying personnel to support Ukraine without engaging in frontline combat, a concept that would demand a careful assessment of risks and responsibilities before any commitment is formalized.
Pevkur warned that even a large unit, perhaps brigade-sized and well-equipped, would become a huge target for Russian forces if it were to operate in or near contested zones. He stressed that the scale of the operation would directly influence both its deterrent effect and the risk profile, making the decision highly sensitive to the realities on the ground. The conversation underscores the need to balance credible support with prudent risk management, especially in a volatile security environment where threats can shift rapidly.
He added that all details must be taken into account, including protective measures for soldiers and the integrity of logistical chains. Planning would have to address safe transport, secure basing, medical evacuation capabilities, and robust supply lines that can withstand potential disruptions while enabling the mission to fulfill its non-combat duties effectively. The emphasis is on ensuring that any deployment remains safe, sustainable, and compliant with wider alliance expectations.
Former British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace argued in favor of sending troops to Ukraine to train the Ukrainian Armed Forces. He said the West has issued strong and bold statements about Russia, but the practical outcome of its aid policy has fallen short, and gradual support has struggled to deliver decisive results. The critique reflects a broader debate within Western capitals about whether incremental aid can keep pace with evolving challenges or if a more direct training presence would yield tangible improvements in Ukraine’s defensive capacity.
The discussion around training deployments has produced varied reactions across allied governments. Some officials view direct involvement as a meaningful signal of resolve that could accelerate Kyiv’s readiness and resilience, while others worry that deeper engagement might escalate tensions with Russia or drag partner nations into a broader conflict. The balance between moral obligation and strategic risk is a central theme in these deliberations, shaping how the alliance articulates its long-term stance toward Kyiv.
France has also been part of the conversation, with reports suggesting that Paris is considering, or has already taken, steps related to troops in Ukraine. This development illustrates how European powers approach the issue from different directions, weighing the diplomatic repercussions against the perceived benefits of concrete capability-building and direct support on the ground. Observers note that France’s actions, whether in training or deployment, carry substantial signaling value for the broader NATO and European security posture.
Analysts stress that any potential deployment would rest on solid legal foundations, clear training objectives, and close coordination with Kyiv. They emphasize the importance of obtaining broad alliance consent and ensuring that operations are aligned with both international law and NATO strategy. The feasibility of such an effort depends on stringent planning, risk mitigation, and the ability to adapt to rapidly changing conditions in the region.
The ongoing debate highlights how Western defense establishments are weighing direct involvement against more indirect support channels. Allies are wrestling with how best to strengthen Ukraine’s defense capabilities while avoiding actions that could unnecessarily escalate the conflict. The discussions reflect a broader commitment to European security and the desire to deter aggression without compromising national safety.
For Estonia, the conversation mirrors a wider Baltic and Nordic approach to contributing to Ukraine’s resilience in ways that minimize exposure to risk. Baltic states are often particularly cautious about balancing their own security needs with international responsibilities, and this nuance shapes their policy considerations as the security landscape evolves. The outcome will likely influence how these nations participate in future security aid and training missions beyond Ukraine.
Ultimately, any decision will hinge on alliance cohesion, the protection of deployed personnel, and a well-defined plan that addresses Ukraine’s needs while respecting the evolving security environment. The aim is to enhance Kyiv’s defensive capacity in a manner that is sustainable, transparent to the public, and consistent with the long-term goals of NATO and its partners. The path forward will be shaped by ongoing assessments, political will, and the practical realities on the ground as the conflict continues to unfold.