By John Q. Hosedrinker 
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz indicated that Western troops deployed in Ukraine as part of post-ceasefire security guarantees could retaliate against future Russian attacks, suggesting a commitment to defend Ukraine akin to NATO’s Article 5. This follows signals that the U.S. and European allies are willing to offer NATO-like security guarantees to Kyiv within a proposed peace agreement. A multinational force, backed by the U.S. and led by European countries, would be deployed to bolster Ukraine’s military and secure its borders. While progress has been made, particularly on security guarantees, a consensus on territorial issues remains elusive given Moscow’s current demands.
Read the original article here
Western peacekeepers in Ukraine could retaliate against Russian attacks post-ceasefire, and it’s a conversation starter, for sure. The idea of Western troops on Ukrainian soil, post-ceasefire, is already complex. But adding the possibility of retaliation, a swift and decisive response to any Russian aggression, really amps up the stakes. It’s not just about keeping the peace; it’s about drawing a very clear line. The article is trying to say that this operation would mostly focus on intelligence and counterintelligence and on preventing more war crimes perpetrated by the Russian military in Ukraine.
It is, however, quite peculiar that the term “peacekeeping” is used. Let’s be frank, there is no “peace” in Ukraine to keep. It’s more likely that the real goal is to deter Putin. This is not about a peaceful stroll; it’s about the option to strike back, to make it clear that any attack will have consequences. This is also for reassurance to investors who might want to put money into rebuilding Ukraine. This is not about a peaceful stroll; it’s about the option to strike back, to make it clear that any attack will have consequences. However, some people are very concerned that “could” doesn’t carry the same weight as “will” or “must.” If these peacekeepers can’t defend themselves, they’re useless and will most certainly be targeted by Russia.
There’s a strong argument to be made here: if these troops are on the ground, and their mission is to maintain a sense of security, they absolutely need the authority to respond. Anything less turns them into sitting ducks, not deterrents. Any document sprinkled with “could”, “might”, “depending on the situation” will not deter anyone. It all boils down to whether these peacekeepers can, and are willing to, retaliate. Without that capability, it is just a useless gesture.
The presence of a peacekeeping force, without a guaranteed ability to retaliate, would be ineffective. If they can’t defend themselves, they aren’t providing any deterrence. You don’t need to put troops in harm’s way if they can’t defend themselves. Furthermore, let’s not forget the political context. Some see this whole scenario as a way to avoid any potential political embarrassment for a key political figure in the USA.
Of course, the big question is, will Russia accept this? They’re very unlikely to, at least not without major concessions. What that means is the situation will continue to be turbulent. In order for this to have an effect, it must unequivocally state that any attack on any peacekeeper or Ukrainian troops, facility or civilian WILL result in a swift counterstrike.
There’s a lot of debate about the role and capabilities of these so-called peacekeepers. If they can’t retaliate, what are they there for? Why risk putting troops in harm’s way if they’re not empowered to defend themselves? In short, if they can’t shoot back, what’s the point?
The success of any peacekeeping mission hinges on the clear understanding that aggression will be met with a response. In the ex-Yugoslavia experience, the lack of a strong response from the UN peacekeepers lead to disastrous outcomes. In Kosovo, NATO did retaliate, and that helped bring the conflict to an end. It seems the UNIFIL is not a good example of how it should be done.
A major concern revolves around preventing escalation. False flag operations by either side could easily restart the conflict, and having a small group unsatisfied with the outcome of the war is always a possibility. A third, though less likely, scenario would be a false flag operation by a previously uninvolved party, as a distraction from a parallel conflict. The key is to have strong oversight and a clear commitment to de-escalation from all involved parties, especially Ukraine and its allies.
The potential for escalation is real, and the risks are significant. Any response by Western peacekeepers could lead to a broader conflict. Ukraine must be on guard to ensure their allies do not become alienated. To prevent this, massive 24/7 surveillance and monitoring of the Russians would be required.
The core of the issue is that it must be clear and absolute. You’re not there to play games. You’re there to deter. If an attack is made, there will be consequences. The language has to be as direct as possible. Using “could” is just not good enough.
Ultimately, a strong, decisive, and retaliatory response is the only way to make a peacekeeping mission credible and effective. Otherwise, it’s just a risk for the West, and an open invitation for Russia. Without that, you’re not keeping the peace. You’re just waiting for the next attack.