By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to Putin’s rejection of foreign troops in Ukraine, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy asserted that Russia holds no veto power over such deployments. This stance echoes prior statements by French President Macron. Lammy urged acceptance of a ceasefire proposal, emphasizing the need for a peace agreement that doesn’t grant Putin control over Ukraine’s security. Reports suggest UK Prime Minister Starmer has proposed a substantial Western peacekeeping force, contingent on US coordination.
Read the original article here
UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s assertion that Vladimir Putin cannot veto the deployment of peacekeepers in Ukraine is a powerful statement, reflecting the growing international frustration with Russia’s aggression. It’s a simple truth, grounded in the principle of Ukrainian sovereignty. Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, has the right to invite foreign assistance, including peacekeeping forces, onto its own territory. No external power, regardless of its military might or geopolitical influence, can unilaterally override this fundamental right.
The notion that Russia can invite North Korean troops into its war against Ukraine, yet somehow prevent Ukraine from seeking international peacekeeping support, is inherently hypocritical. This highlights a glaring double standard that many find unacceptable. Russia’s actions demonstrate a flagrant disregard for international law and norms, while simultaneously attempting to dictate the actions of a nation it is actively attacking.
The ongoing war in Ukraine has brought the issue of peacekeeping to the forefront. Ukraine’s plea for an independent peacekeeping force is a reasonable response to the ongoing aggression and a legitimate attempt to secure peace and end the conflict. The deployment of such a force would not be an act of aggression, but rather a measure to stabilize the situation and prevent further violence.
The suggestion that Russia could veto such a deployment ignores the very nature of a peacekeeping mission. Peacekeepers are deployed at the invitation of a sovereign nation to help maintain peace, not to initiate conflict. The idea that Russia, as the aggressor, could dictate the terms of peace is illogical and unsustainable. Unless Russia intends to escalate the conflict into a wider European war, it must accept the inevitability of Ukraine seeking external assistance to secure its borders and its people.
While technically true concerning EU or NATO peacekeeping forces, the reality is far more complex. The potential involvement of the United States, either through direct action or indirect influence, significantly shapes the geopolitical landscape. Concerns remain about potential escalations, with some fearing that a deployment of peacekeepers, however well-intentioned, could trigger a broader conflict. The lack of a united front amongst international actors adds further complexity.
The UN Security Council’s structure, with its veto power held by permanent members, presents a significant hurdle. Russia’s position on the Security Council, undoubtedly, complicates matters significantly. A UN peacekeeping mission would face an almost guaranteed veto from Russia and potentially China, thus highlighting the limitations of relying solely on UN intervention. The alternative – a coalition of willing nations acting outside the UN framework – risks exacerbating tensions and potentially escalating the conflict.
The assertion that Putin cannot veto the deployment of peacekeepers highlights a central tension in this conflict: the struggle between a sovereign nation’s right to self-determination and the ambitions of a major power seeking to impose its will. Ukraine’s request for peacekeepers isn’t simply a matter of international diplomacy; it’s a fundamental assertion of its right to exist free from foreign aggression. The UK’s outspoken position on this matter underscores the importance of international solidarity in the face of unchecked aggression.
The situation is far from simple. The potential risks of escalation are real, and the logistical challenges of deploying and maintaining a peacekeeping force in a war-torn country are substantial. The idea that peacekeepers are simply “fertilizer for the soil,” implying they will inevitably be targeted and destroyed, is a pessimistic but realistic consideration. Still, the principle remains unchanged: Ukraine has the right to determine who enters its territory, and no foreign power, including Russia, should have the power to veto its legitimate security concerns. The current international response is far from perfect, yet the fundamental truth stands: Putin cannot dictate the terms of peace in Ukraine.