By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to potential future Russian aggression, a plan is under development by European nations to deploy troops to Ukraine as a deterrent, not as frontline combatants. These forces would be positioned strategically to dissuade further attacks and demonstrate allied support. While the exact number of troops remains under discussion, the deployment’s purpose is explicitly defined as peacekeeping to maintain lasting peace, not direct engagement in conflict. However, Russia has warned that such a deployment would be considered a declaration of war.
Read the original article here
A proposed European peacekeeping force in Ukraine, as suggested by French President Macron, carries significant implications. The key element is its potential to respond to a Russian attack, a scenario that dramatically alters the conflict’s dynamics. This proposed response isn’t simply a symbolic gesture; it suggests a willingness to escalate in response to further Russian aggression.
This proposed response raises questions about the current stalemate. Achieving a ceasefire is undeniably crucial for deploying any peacekeeping force. Without a mutually agreed-upon truce, the introduction of peacekeepers would likely be interpreted as an act of war, potentially escalating tensions rather than de-escalating them.
The idea of a peacekeeping force naturally prompts comparisons to alternative approaches. The question arises: why not provide Ukraine with sufficient weaponry to expel Russian forces? This strategy, while seemingly straightforward, carries substantial risks, potentially leading to a broader conflict. Direct military intervention by European nations, a potential last resort, faces similar hurdles and risks.
The geopolitical landscape is further complicated by existing and emerging mineral deals between Ukraine and European nations, including the UK. These agreements create a strategic interest in Ukraine’s stability, offering a possible justification for military involvement, framed as protecting these economic interests rather than explicitly supporting Ukraine in the conflict. This approach aims to avoid a direct confrontation narrative with Russia, potentially mitigating the risk of a broader conflict. However, this nuanced strategy hinges on Putin’s response and acceptance of this justification.
The possibility of a European peacekeeping force being attacked and whether this would trigger a NATO response is a critical consideration. This scenario introduces the significant wildcard of US involvement. The existing ambiguity regarding the American response, coupled with the EU’s limited military capacity, makes this scenario uncertain. The outcome would largely depend on the scale of the attack and the perceived level of threat to NATO interests.
The prospect of a significant European military deployment, say 50,000 troops, is a serious escalation. While such a deployment could potentially force a Russian ceasefire given the overwhelming disparity in military strength, such a move carries significant risk. It’s a high-stakes gamble with potential ramifications that extend far beyond Ukraine’s borders. The potential for a larger conflict, even involving NATO, is very real.
The logistical and strategic challenges are immense. Even if a ceasefire were achieved, deploying and sustaining a peacekeeping force within Ukraine, encompassing contested regions like Donetsk and Luhansk, would be extremely complex, requiring extensive planning and resources. The effectiveness of such a force heavily depends on clear mandates, sufficient resources, and, critically, the cooperation of all parties involved. A peacekeeping mission without Russian consent could very easily become a combat deployment.
The perception of this proposed peacekeeping force is a significant element. Some see it as a credible deterrent, forcing Russia to reconsider further aggression. Others view it as political theater, unlikely to translate into significant military action. Public and political opinion across Europe will play a significant role in the feasibility of such a mission. The opinions of European soldiers themselves, their willingness to deploy into a high-risk conflict zone, are equally crucial factors.
The current situation underscores the necessity for carefully considered strategic decision-making. Any actions, whether direct military intervention or peacekeeping deployment, must factor in all potential consequences. The risk of escalating the conflict is undeniable and outweighs any simplistic solutions. A more comprehensive approach, incorporating a variety of diplomatic and military strategies, may be required to achieve a lasting resolution. The history of peacekeeping missions, and the experiences in places like Srebrenica, serve as a stark reminder of the need for cautious optimism. Ultimately, this is a deeply complex situation demanding long-term solutions rather than short-term victories.