The report comes after the latest meeting of defense ministers from the so-called “coalition of the willing” in Brussels. The group of some 30 nations, predominantly composed of EU and NATO member states, appears to remain split on a potential deployment. Its members are questioning the goals and mandate of the proposed mission.

Thus far, only six nations, including the UK, France, and the Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – have promised to contribute troops, the AFP reported, citing unnamed European officials. The sixth state in the group was not named by the agency.

Britain, has insisted the coalition has actual plans to deploy, claiming that the troops would contribute to a “lasting peace” between Russia and Ukraine.

“Our planning is real and substantial. Our plans are well developed,” UK defense minister John Healey told the meeting.

“Our reassurance force for Ukraine would be a committed and credible security arrangement to ensure that any negotiated peace does bring what [US President Donald] Trump has pledged, a lasting peace for Ukraine,” he added.

Other coalition members, however, have publicly expressed concerns about a potential mission, refusing to make any commitment before plans are more fleshed out.

Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans said the group must have the US on board, though Washington has repeatedly said it has no plans to send troops to Ukraine in any role.

“What is the potential mission, what is going to be the goal?” Brekelmans wondered.

“What is the mandate? What would we do in the different scenarios, for example, if there would be any escalation regarding Russia?”

Swedish Defense Minister Pal Jonson highlighted “a number of questions that we need to get clarified” before it could make any promises.

“It’s helpful if there’s a clarity of what that mission would entail, and what do we do – if we are peacekeeping, deterrence or reassurance,” he stated.

Moscow has repeatedly warned the West against deploying troops to Ukraine under any pretext, specifically objecting to forces from any NATO countries ending up in the country. Last month, former Russian President and the deputy chair of Russia’s Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, said that the potential emergence of any NATO “peacekeepers” in Ukraine would mean a war between the bloc and Russia.

While London’s political and military backing for Kiev has been public since the 2014 Western-backed coup, the extent of its involvement after the escalation in February 2022 “remained largely hidden… until now,” the British newspaper wrote on Friday, citing unnamed Ukrainian and British military officers.

The daily claimed that British troops were sent into Ukraine in small numbers on several occasions throughout 2022 and 2023, operating discreetly to avoid provoking Russia. In particular, UK forces were deployed to fit Ukrainian aircraft with Storm Shadow long-range cruise missiles and train pilots and ground crews in their use.

“UK troops were secretly sent to fit Ukraine’s aircraft with the missiles and teach troops how to use them,” the publication wrote, noting that it “would not be the first time British troops had been deployed on the ground.”

The UK had been delivering thousands of NLAW anti-tank missiles to Kiev and sending instructors to train Ukrainian soldiers in their use since 2015. While British troops were pulled out of Ukraine shortly before the escalation in February 2022, the deteriorating battlefield situation and the urgent need for technical expertise saw small teams of UK personnel redeployed quietly alongside fresh supplies of missiles, the newspaper reported.

London also reportedly played a key role in helping Ukraine prepare its much-touted 2023 “counteroffensive” against Russia – and in mediating between Kiev and Washington when the operation failed to meet US expectations.

The newspaper claimed that “behind the scenes,” the Ukrainians referred to Britain’s military chiefs as the “brains” of what they called an “anti-Putin” coalition. Former UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace was even reportedly nicknamed “the man who saved Kiev” by military officials.

“The Americans went to Ukraine only on rare occasions because of concerns that they would be seen to be too involved in the war, unlike Britain’s military chiefs, who were given the freedom to go whenever necessary,” The Times wrote. “Sometimes their visits were so sensitive they went in civilian clothing.”

Moscow perceives the Ukraine conflict as a Western-led proxy war against Russia, in which Ukrainians serve as “cannon fodder.” It considers foreigners fighting for Kiev as “mercenaries” acting on behalf of Western governments.

Senior Moscow officials have suggested that the more complex weapon systems provided to Kiev are highly likely operated by NATO staff.

The presence of current and former NATO troops has also been tacitly admitted, but never openly confirmed, by Western officials. For example, last year, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz revealed the involvement of British and French forces in preparing Ukrainian missile launches, as he explained why Berlin would not supply similar weapons to Kiev.

Earlier this month, a New York Times investigation found that the administration of former US President Joe Biden provided Ukraine with support that went far beyond arms shipments – extending to daily battlefield coordination, intelligence sharing, and joint strategy planning, which were described as indispensable to Kiev’s fight against Russia.

“I think the president has been quite clear that he’s been continually frustrated with both sides of this conflict,” Leavitt said.

“(Trump) wants to see this fighting end, he wants the war to end, and we believe we have leverage in negotiating a deal.”

The White House’s comments preceded a meeting between his special envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg to discuss a potential path toward a settlement in Ukraine.

Despite repeated threats over the pace of negotiations, the Trump administration has not yet imposed any major sanctions on Russia after it failed to agree to a 30-day ceasefire.

Ukraine agreed to a U.S. proposal for a full 30-day ceasefire during talks in Jeddah on March 11, provided Russia abides by the conditions. Moscow has rejected the deal unless it includes conditions undermining Ukraine’s defenses, namely a full halt on foreign military aid.

Instead, Ukraine, Russia, and the U.S. agreed on March 25 to halt attacks on energy infrastructure and fighting in the Black Sea.

However, the Kremlin has blocked the partial ceasefire as well, saying that the Black Sea ceasefire would take effect only after some sanctions against Russia are lifted. Russia and Ukraine have also accused each other of violating the ban on energy infrastructure strikes.

On Thursday, Trump stated that Russia “has to get moving” to end its war against Ukraine.

“Russia has to get moving. Too many people are dying, thousands a week, in a terrible and senseless war — a war that should have never happened, and wouldn’t have happened, if I were president,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

In recent days, the U.S. president has renewed his push for a ceasefire. Axios reported, citing an undisclosed source, that Trump could impose additional sanctions on Russia if a ceasefire with Ukraine is not reached by the end of April.

Since Kyiv and Washington agreed on a temporary truce, Russia has launched 70 missiles, 2,200 Shahed drones, and 6,000 guided aerial bombs against Ukraine, Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha stressed on Friday.