Europe's Moment: A Sanctuary Strategy for Ukraine

By Nathaniel England. Extracts of his full Guest Commentary in RUSI, April 25, 2025

(...)

The War in Ukraine now demands a decisive intervention: a Sanctuary Strategy implemented by a coalition of the willing. This coalition – already preparing for a post-war peacekeeping role – must establish itself in Ukraine before the terms of peace are decided; waiting until after risks irrelevance. London and Paris must be the ones to drive this – as Europe’s two nuclear powers and permanent members of the UN Security Council. Along with regional anchors/enablers like Poland and Romania, smaller European states, many of whom already contribute to Ukraine’s defence, could be integrated in a NATO-style framework to ensure the mission is both scalable and collective.

By acting now, this European coalition would create a zone where Ukraine’s statehood endures and its armed forces are freed for decisive battles. Such a strategy provides necessity and relief for Ukraine, forces Moscow into strategic recalculation, re-establishes European credibility, further protects European airspace, and ultimately promotes the conditions for peace.

Sanctuary Strategy

The first element is a no-fly zone (NFZ) over central and western Ukraine. (...) This shields Ukraine’s heartland and covers the entire Belarusian border, denying Moscow a northern vector to circumvent Ukraine’s eastern air defences. Command and coordination would mirror NATO-style air policing, with clear rules of engagement and shared oversight.

The second element is a defensive ground presence on Ukraine’s border with Belarus. A modest multinational deployment along this flank would be far from the front lines and strictly defensive. Its purpose would be to prevent Moscow from opening a new axis of attack, as it did during the initial invasion in February 2022 and to relieve Ukraine of the need to keep large forces tied down in reserve. (...)

Four-Pillar Approach

The first pillar is necessity and resilience. Societal resilience and military necessity are inseparable: by protecting Ukraine’s heartland, Europe ensures both the capacity and the determination to endure.(...)

The second pillar is force redistribution.The effect would be a force multiplier: Europe absorbs the defence of Ukraine’s survival core, while Ukraine concentrates its best assets on regaining territory and resisting Russia’s offensives.(...)

The third pillar is strategic recalculation. Every missile or drone aimed at Ukraine’s west would now carry the risk of interception and confrontation with European states. Credible limits reduce miscalculation and this situation would force Moscow into a costly strategic recalculation. (...)

The fourth pillar is promoting peace. This war will not end through battlefield annihilation but at a negotiating table. A sanctuary ensures Ukraine arrives from a position of strength rather than desperation. Furthermore, a European presence must be reviewable and conditional, enduring only as long as Ukraine requires and scaling down as part of a settlement. This makes it not an open-ended protectorate but a shield for survival that can be adapted as circumstances change – and a card to hold in negotiations, turning protection into leverage for de-escalation. A presence that can be normalised or scaled down as part of a peace agreement.

For the full analysis and for Nathaniel England's Strategic Considerations, please read here.