In recent days, calls for the introduction of peacekeepers into the territory of Ukraine have been increasingly heard in the world’s political circles. This topic, which until recently seemed hypothetical, today acquires the characteristics of a real geopolitical strategy. However, as in all matters concerning international arrangements, public rhetoric often diverges from the real intentions of key players. Behind bright diplomatic wording may hide an attempt to impose not peace on Ukraine, but another compromise, beneficial primarily to those who seek to quickly “close the issue.” The true essence of the peacekeeping mission will depend not on its formal mandate, but on who, where and with what powers will implement it. And while Ukraine continues to fight for the liberation of its territories, a scenario may be brewing on the sidelines of major political players that will not only prolong the war, but also create the conditions for a frozen conflict that benefits everyone except Ukraine itself.
Peacekeepers in Ukraine: a global initiative
Today it became known that the USA is actively discussing the possibility of involving non-European countries in a potential peacekeeping mission in Ukraine. Washington is considering the option of deploying military contingents from countries such as China and Brazil along the likely cease-fire line. This initiative reflects the desire of the Trump administration to create a more balanced international format of peacekeeping forces, which will not be perceived as a purely Western initiative, which may cause opposition from Moscow. In the US, they believe that the involvement of countries outside of Europe, in particular China and Brazil, in the peace process will make the agreement more stable and neutral in the eyes of the international community. At the same time, the US seeks to create a buffer zone in which not only representatives of NATO or the EU will be present, but also countries that have an influence on global politics, but are not part of the Western military alliance.
However, China’s involvement seems particularly controversial since Beijing still takes a formally neutral but de facto pro-Russian position in the war. The inclusion of the Chinese military in the peacekeeping mission can give the People’s Republic of China serious geopolitical leverage over the future of Ukraine and European security as a whole. At the same time, for Brazil, such participation could be a chance to consolidate its status as a global peacemaker in the framework of multilateral diplomacy.
A few days earlier, Prime Minister of Great Britain Keir Starmer said that he is ready to send peacekeepers to Ukraine to ensure lasting peace. France also proposed placing European military contingents on the territory of Ukraine, but at a safe distance from the front line. However, this idea caused mixed reactions both among European partners and within Ukraine itself, since the role of these forces remained not fully understood – whether they will perform only an observation function, or will still foresee a possible participation in future hostilities.
Despite active discussions, the issue of placing peacekeepers in Ukraine remains extremely sensitive. For Kyiv, it is critically important that any such forces do not become a tool for freezing the conflict or a mechanism that effectively consolidates the Russian occupation of part of the territories. The leadership of Ukraine has not yet expressed an official position on the idea of involving non-European states in a peacekeeping mission, but it is clear that this scenario contains many risks, both political and military.
When the United Nations was created in 1945, the concept of peacekeeping troops was not even envisaged. The idea was that international law and diplomacy should resolve conflicts without involving weapons. But already the first decades after the Second World War showed that armistices without military force often remain only paper agreements.
The first UN peacekeeping mission began in 1948 in the Middle East, when it became clear that negotiations alone could not stop the war between Israel and its neighbors. Since then, the “blue helmets” have become a symbol of international intervention in conflicts, engaged in the control of buffer zones, monitoring the observance of the ceasefire and humanitarian aid. It should be noted that UN peacekeepers remain soldiers of their national armies, keeping their uniforms and equipment, but receive a uniform identification mark – a bright blue helmet or beret with UN symbols. This is necessary so that they are recognizable to all parties to the conflict and do not become random targets during hostilities. However, the right to use weapons in them is significantly limited. Peacekeepers can only open fire in self-defense or in cases where their mandate calls for “tough” measures to protect the civilian population. In most cases, they do not have the right to take an active part in hostilities, which has repeatedly become the reason for the failure of peacekeeping operations in conflict zones.
During the decade of work, UN peacekeepers have participated in dozens of missions around the world – from Africa to the Balkans, from the Middle East to Haiti. They even won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988, although their effectiveness has always been controversial. After all, the presence of “blue helmets” does not always mean peace, and their mandates often do not include the actual use of force.
The discussion about the possible placement of a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine is now gaining momentum, and more and more different proposals are being made every time. The format, the participating countries, the scale of the operation — all these are issues around which not only a diplomatic struggle is unfolding, but also real geopolitical bargaining. Even recently, the idea of introducing a UN mission to protect OSCE observers was discussed, which seemed to be a purely technical solution. However, this was only the first step. Subsequently, calls began to be heard for the deployment of peacekeepers throughout the territory of the temporarily occupied Donbas, which is a completely different scenario with potentially fatal consequences for Ukraine.
If world players continue to put pressure on Kyiv within the framework of the so-called “compromise for the sake of peace”, the result may look catastrophic. In fact, peacekeepers can become a mechanism for the implementation of “Minsk” in its worst version: a special status for the ORDLO, an amnesty for militants and immediate elections at gunpoint without restoring Ukraine’s control over the border. And what’s next? Removal of sanctions from Russia under the pretext that it allegedly agreed to an international mission? Legitimization of puppet republics? Freezing the conflict without any guarantees of a just peace?
Even more worrying is the US position, which remains unpredictable. Washington, despite its key role in supporting Ukraine, still vacillates between pragmatism and moral responsibility. Is America ready to support a mission that will really benefit Kyiv, or will it again try to find a “middle ground” that will actually turn out to be a trap? There are no answers to these questions yet.
Risks and possible consequences of introducing peacekeeping forces into Ukraine
In addition to the obvious risks associated with the potential introduction of a peacekeeping mission on terms favorable to Russia, there are several other important aspects that fall out of the official statements of world politicians, but play a key role in this process. First of all, it is worth considering the legal and political consequences of the placement of international forces in the occupied territory. Any peacekeeping mission has a specific mandate that defines its status and powers. If the peacekeepers receive a limited observation or buffer mandate, their presence will not change the real state of affairs – they will only legalize a new reality in which a part of Ukraine’s territory will actually fall out of its jurisdiction.
Despite their status, “blue helmets” are not a panacea for war. They can record violations, help victims, but where decisive action is needed, their role is often reduced to observation. Such a situation can not only freeze the conflict, but also create a precedent for future territorial concessions, because the official status of the mission will indicate that the Ukrainian authorities are no longer the only entity that controls these regions.
Another critical aspect is the long-term consequences for the military and political dynamics in the region. Ukraine has repeatedly proven that the strategic goal of the state is the complete de-occupation of territories, and not the creation of buffer zones or demarcation lines. But the introduction of an international contingent with vaguely defined functions automatically means that the military way of returning the territories becomes almost impossible. The official status of the peacekeeping mission provides for the complete demilitarization of the area of its activity, which may deprive Ukraine of the right even to defensive actions, not to mention counteroffensive operations.
Another important factor is the international diplomatic balance, which may change after the deployment of peacekeepers. Ukrainian diplomacy in recent years has been built around supporting allies and pressuring Russia through sanctions and military aid. But if international players get a physical presence in the conflict zone, it means a transition from direct support to Ukraine to a policy of “neutrality”, which can be used as an argument for reducing military aid to Kyiv. In other words, the “peacemaking compromise” can become an excuse for the West to gradually wind down military support, which will lead to a weakening of Ukrainian positions in future negotiations.
Another challenge is the role of peacekeepers in maintaining law and order. If they will perform only a surveillance function, who will take responsibility for controlling the security situation in the region? The experience of other conflict zones shows that international missions are often unable to ensure real control over territories, but instead become passive observers who do not intervene even in the event of aggressive actions by occupying forces or illegal groups.
All this indicates that the issue of peacekeepers is not just a diplomatic game, but a complex political mechanism that can have long-term consequences for the status of the occupied territories, Ukraine’s military strategy, and international support for Kyiv. If this initiative is implemented according to a scenario favorable to the Kremlin, it will mean not just the preservation of the current situation, but the potential beginning of a new stage of international pressure on Ukraine with the demand to consolidate the “peaceful settlement” in its current form.
However, the most serious consequence of the introduction of a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine may be a direct confrontation between the Russian military and NATO military or other foreign contingents, which automatically opens the door to a global armed conflict. At the same time, the risk of direct escalation may become particularly high if peacekeeping forces are deployed not only on the front line, but also in strategically important areas where the Russian military continues to act in an aggressive manner. Russia does not recognize its responsibility for the war, and its military doctrine allows considering any foreign presence in the war zone as a threat to its own security. This creates the ideal conditions for incidents that could lead to a larger war.
One deliberate or accidental attack on a foreign military contingent is enough, and the situation will get out of control. The response to such an attack will force the states participating in the peacekeeping mission to react, which can cause a domino effect: one side responds to the provocation, the other escalates the escalation, and after a few days the situation turns into a direct military conflict between Russia and the West.
Given Russia’s nuclear status and its aggressive rhetoric toward the West, the Kremlin can use any interaction with peacekeepers as a pretext for “forced protection.” This may include:
- Direct strikes on the troops of foreign countries under the pretext of “protecting the territorial integrity of the ORDLO” (which the Russian Federation can formally consider its territory after attempts at annexation).
2. The use of tactical nuclear weapons, if the situation begins to unfold not in favor of Moscow, which is one of the scenarios of its military doctrine.
3. Intensification of missile attacks on Ukraine, which may also affect the territories of neighboring countries, provoking a new phase of international intervention.
After that, there will be few options: either the West will be forced to enter into an open military conflict with the Russian Federation, or the international community will again try to “de-escalate” at the expense of new concessions, which will mean pressure on Ukraine to accept Russia’s conditions. That is why the idea of a peacekeeping mission is not only risky, but also explosive in conditions where the Kremlin is looking for any way to keep Ukraine in its sphere of influence. Any scenario that does not involve full control of Ukraine over its territory only prolongs the conflict and creates the prerequisites for a new global confrontation
What peacekeeping mission does Ukraine need?
The only format of peacekeepers that really meets the national interests of Ukraine is a mission on the state border with Russia. Only blocking the supply of weapons and militants from the Russian Federation can create real preconditions for the return of peace to Donbas. But is it possible?
Deploying such a mission would require at least 5,000 troops, which is a huge expense even for the UN. But the main thing is not money, but politics: such a format would mean the complete cutting off of Russia from the occupied territories and, in fact, the final stage of the liberation of Donbas. This is a kind of “Ukrainian entry into NATO”, but without formal membership. Will Russia allow the implementation of such a scenario? No. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it will block any peacekeeping mandate that does not play into its favor. The Kremlin is not interested in a real settlement, its goal is to freeze the conflict on terms that will allow Moscow to maintain control over Donbas and continue to destabilize Ukraine from within.
Is there an alternative? The answer lies not in the UN, but in the Budapest format. It is the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum – the countries that guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for its nuclear disarmament – who have the full moral right to implement their security mechanisms without Russia’s veto. If the collective West is truly serious about its own commitments, it should put this topic back on the agenda and shape a solution without the participation of the aggressor country.
But is the world ready for such a step? The answer is still uncertain. One thing is clear: Ukrainians have no right to allow Ukraine to receive not peace but a new geopolitical trap under the guise of a peacekeeping mission.
Experience of peacekeeping missions in the Balkans: lessons for Ukraine
Peacekeepers are not a guarantee of security, but primarily a division of responsibility, which does not always mean its actual implementation. When an international contingent enters a conflict zone, it undertakes to ensure order, but history has repeatedly proven that this mechanism does not work without real force and political will. However, no amount of peacekeepers guarantees peace unless their presence is backed up by a clear mandate to use force.
The experience of peacekeeping missions in the Balkans in the 1990s remains one of the most controversial in modern history. The missions of the UN and NATO, which were supposed to stop the war, often became not a guarantor of security, but a symbol of the powerlessness of the international community. There were peacekeepers in the Balkans, but they did not stop mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide. One of the most flagrant mistakes of peacekeeping missions was the tragedy in Srebrenica. In July 1995, UN peacekeepers from the Netherlands battalion were unable to protect the enclave, which was officially declared a “security zone”. At the same time, Serbian troops under the command of Ratko Mladic entered the city and staged a real genocide, killing more than 8,000 Bosnian men and boys. Therefore, the presence of the Dutch contingent was useless – they raised their hands and fled.
A key problem was that the peacekeepers did not have a clear mandate and authority to use force. They acted under strict restrictions, which did not allow them to resist the aggressor, but only to “observe”. When the militants entered Srebrenica, the peacekeepers were completely helpless, and their presence not only did not save people, but also created an illusion of security that cost thousands of victims dearly.
This experience is extremely important for Ukraine. If the international peacekeeping mission is introduced under the scenario of limited powers, it can only legitimize the presence of Russian troops in the occupied territories and turn Ukraine into another Srebrenica, where the “neutrality” of the international community will turn out to be a death sentence for civilians.
In contrast to the failure of the UN in Bosnia, another peacekeeping mission that directly affected the end of the conflict was NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999. But even here, the decision was made too late – after years of ethnic cleansing, persecution and mass murder. Only after Serbian troops continued the policy of expelling the Albanian population, NATO launched a military operation that forced Belgrade to make concessions.
The main lesson of Kosovo for Ukraine is that peacekeepers make sense only when they receive a real military mandate, can use force and force the aggressor to fulfill the terms of peace. Any mission that will “observe” or only provide a buffer zone without a clear guarantee of Ukrainian sovereignty can lead to a prolongation of the conflict and the legalization of Russian control over the occupied territories.
And another important point that should be taken into account is that the introduction of peacekeepers in Yugoslavia almost always ended with the actual division of territories. After the Dayton Agreement, Bosnia and Herzegovina remained divided into two parts: the Muslim-Croat Federation and the Republika Srpska. Kosovo actually separated from Serbia, although formally Belgrade does not recognize its independence.
Ukraine may receive a similar scenario: any peacekeeping mission that will operate without returning Ukraine’s control over Donbas will preserve the occupation for years. The Russian Federation will use peacekeepers as a tool for dispersing forces and recognizing ORDLO as a separate territory, which will give Moscow a political tool to influence the future of Ukraine.
Can a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine work?
Based on the Yugoslav experience, the only option for an effective peacekeeping mission in Ukraine is an operation with a full UN mandate to use force, deploy troops along the Ukrainian-Russian border, and control all illegal armed formations. However, such a scenario seems unlikely, because Russia, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, will block any mission that conflicts with its interests.
If the peacekeeping contingent is introduced on the model of Bosnia – with a limited mandate, without control over the border and without the possibility of using force, it will not be a path to peace, but a direct path to a frozen conflict, which Moscow will use to put pressure on Kyiv for many years to come. Ukraine, which is currently facing discussions about the possible introduction of peacekeepers, should carefully analyze this experience to avoid repeating the same mistakes that led to frozen conflicts, ethnic cleansing and international shame.
In the issue of the peacekeeping mission, as in the entire process of peace settlement, none of the “sides” speak frankly, leaving room for manipulation and political games. The big game around Ukraine continues, and its rules are determined not only in Kyiv. Peacekeepers, who in theory should be a tool to end war, can actually become a weapon of diplomatic pressure, change the balance of power and, ultimately, undermine a country’s sovereignty. The West talks about stability, Russia – about demarcation, and Ukraine has no right to make an error in calculations.
And the worst thing is that in this situation the biggest risk is not in the very fact of the introduction of peacekeepers, but in the fact that Ukrainians seem to be in no hurry to explain the true intentions of those who make decisions. Uncertainty, vague diplomatic formulations and backroom agreements can cost Ukraine not just a new political turn, but prospects for restoring peace on fair terms. Therefore, the main task now is not just to listen to the rhetoric of world players, but to clearly understand what is behind every word about “peacekeepers” and whose interests they really represent.
Another key lesson that needs to be taken into account in the context of Ukraine is the understanding that the presence of peacekeepers in itself does not mean an end to the war, if the Russian Federation is not interested in a just peace. Moreover, the very fact of the appearance of foreign troops in the war zone risks becoming a detonator of a global conflict. Any provocation or armed clash between the Russian military and international peacekeepers can instantly turn a regional conflict into a direct confrontation between Russia and other states.
So, if Ukraine allows the peacekeeping mission to turn into a geopolitical compromise beneficial to everyone except it, it will be its strategic defeat. Not every “peace” means justice, and not every peacemaker is a guarantor of security. The experience of the Balkans and other countries proves that international missions can be both a tool for stability and a mechanism for legalizing occupation. But Ukraine has no right to afford the second scenario, because it would mean the loss not only of territories, but also of the future, for which too high a price has already been paid.
