By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Zelensky stated that Ukraine may consider Macron’s proposal for foreign peacekeepers, contingent upon a clear NATO membership timeline. He plans to discuss a NATO invitation with President Biden, emphasizing that NATO membership is crucial for a lasting peace. While acknowledging the challenges of immediate membership, Zelensky reiterated Ukraine’s desire for a diplomatic end to the war, but only through strength and continued military support. This includes securing advanced weaponry to pressure Russia into peace negotiations.
Read the original article here
Zelensky may consider deploying foreign peacekeepers in Ukraine to ensure a ceasefire, a move driven by the urgent need to prevent further Russian aggression. The belief that only the presence of a robust European peacekeeping force on the Ukrainian-Russian border can effectively deter further attacks is widely held. Any alternative approach risks simply providing Russia with additional time to prepare for a renewed offensive.
This consideration of foreign peacekeepers, however, is not without complexities. The current stage of diplomatic talks suggests that any agreement, if reached, remains uncertain. This makes predicting the feasibility and impact of peacekeeping deployment highly speculative.
The notion of a European peacekeeping force naturally raises questions about which nations would participate. Several European powers, such as England, France, and potentially Turkey, possess the military capabilities for such a deployment. However, the political will to confront Russia directly, even within the context of a peacekeeping mission, is crucial and may not be universally present. A decisive response to Russian provocations, mirroring Turkey’s approach in similar situations, is considered essential by some. This might involve immediate retaliatory measures to any acts of aggression or airspace violations.
However, even the strongest resolve might not prevent escalation. Putin, facing potential internal challenges, might seize upon the deployment of foreign peacekeepers as a pretext for further aggression. Moreover, any negotiated ceasefire might be contingent on concessions from Ukraine, possibly including the lifting of sanctions and the return of assets, which may be highly unacceptable.
The proposed scale of such a peacekeeping force— figures as high as 100,000 troops have been mentioned— seems unrealistic and likely to provoke further escalation. The participation of Russia in such an agreement is entirely uncertain, and the absence of Russian cooperation would severely limit the effectiveness of the peacekeeping operation. The historical record of UN peacekeeping missions, some of which failed to prevent atrocities, highlights the inherent limitations of such deployments.
While the deployment of a NATO force might act as a powerful deterrent, particularly if the United States remains a key member, the precedent of an EU peacekeeping mission effectively deterring Russian aggression is not readily apparent. The composition of the force, potentially drawing on multiple European nations and groups, would aim to reduce the perception of a solely Western intervention. However, many countries within NATO, while capable of contributing troops, might have varying levels of political will, leading to challenges in deploying a significant force. NATO itself, often perceived as a purely military entity, is essentially a military agreement relying on the individual decisions of its member states to respond to crises.
The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO remains highly controversial. This is seen as a major escalation risk, potentially triggering a full-scale war. Even if there were international support for such a move, the idea is unlikely to be a near-term reality. The lack of universal support within NATO itself, and the strong opposition from Russia, practically eliminate this as a short-term option. Even if it were considered politically possible, the risk of nuclear war would be insurmountable. Any action that Russia interprets as aggressive could be used as justification for escalation.
Alternative solutions, such as restoring Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal, are also considered impractical. Such a move would likely further destabilize the region. The deployment of peacekeepers, whether from NATO or a broader European coalition, might be perceived by some as a lesser evil— a gamble to mitigate further conflict even if the chances of success are far from certain.
The deployment of a peacekeeping force to guard the Ukrainian-Belarusian border, allowing Ukraine to reposition its troops for offensive maneuvers, is also a possibility. While officially these states are not at war, the deployment of European peacekeepers to this border would be seen as provocative by Russia. However, it offers a pragmatic approach to allow for redeployment of Ukrainian troops while potentially lowering tensions. This would offer a less overtly confrontational strategy than broader peacekeeping efforts, but still has the potential for escalation. The potential for escalation remains a significant concern in any of these scenarios.
Ultimately, Zelensky’s consideration of foreign peacekeepers reflects the immense challenges in achieving a lasting ceasefire. The complex political dynamics, potential for escalation, and uncertainties surrounding Russia’s willingness to cooperate make the success of any such mission highly uncertain.