The Guardian: Russia could reinvade Ukraine without US security guarantees, Starmer warns

PM Keir Starmer has spent the night already in Washington and is preparing to meet Donald Trump.
Starmer’s main goal is to convince Trump to provide security guarantees – not to Ukraine – but to UK and EU troops that will be stationed in Ukraine.
Starmer warns that Russia, one day, may reinvade Ukraine if no NATO troops are stationed there.
There are many hypothesis under which Russia would reinvade Ukraine after a peace agreement, in particular, when Russia’s red lines are violated, such as Ukraine’s neutrality, non-admission to NATO, demilitarisation, no NATO troops on the territory of Ukraine …
The strongest hypothesis of a re-invasion after a peace agreement is a provocation by Ukrainian provocateurs, either through direct attacks on ceded Ukrainian territory or by committing terrorist attacks on Russia itself. There are thousands of possible reasons, even if provocations from Russian actors may occur, why Russia might reinvade.
The risk of a direct confrontation with NATO troops on the territory of Ukraine is therefore thousand times higher. Trump will not accept any risk that the US will become involved in new, unpredictable conflicts between Russia and Ukraine. The only security the US may provide is for its future investments into the Ukrainian mining industry, but US safeguarding a site will not help Starmer in sending tens of thousands of British troops to confront the Russian army.
Starmer may have overseen the last and first resolution of the UN Security Council regarding Ukraine: exprslessingly Russia was not blamed, not accused of any breach of International Law – with the US and other countries supporting the resolution – against France, UK who did not vote. With their accusation of Russia, France and UK and other EU countries stand pretty much alone and the International Law is not on their side. The UN Security Council resolution is part of the International Law now and France, UK and others may restrain rhetoric and action with regard to unilateral measures in view of supporting Ukraine or independently acting on Ukrainian territory. They risk themselves to violate International Law and expose themselves eventually to a rightful retaliation of Russia. It is indeed a very tricky situation for Starmer as the backdoor of sending NATO troops as peacekeepers to Ukraine is closed and any deployment of UK, French troops in Ukraine is, according to International Law, at least an unfriendly act.
The main difference between Trump and Starmer is that Trump wants peace now and Starmer wants peace under certain conditions. Starmer seems to be in favor to continue the fighting in Ukraine, to sacrifice Ukraine, till the conditions are agreed by Russia. This is, of course, the main interest of Europe, ie. to create a security situation with NATO troops and equipment in Ukraine, with missiles and eventually nukes at the border of Russia. Is seems that failed Project Ukraine still is not buried by some Europeans: Russia may not be agreeable with it.