Peacekeeping mission in Ukraine: chance for lasting peace or political game?

Statements by Western leaders about the possibility of deploying peacekeeping forces to Ukraine have sparked serious discussions. At present, this looks more like a political gamble. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has stated that London is ready to send troops if necessary to ensure security. Similar statements had previously been made by France. However, Emmanuel Macron recently clarified that he did not mean ground troops. Meanwhile, several other European countries consider these discussions premature. So, is there any real reason to hope for an effective peacekeeping mission in Ukraine? For now, it seems more like a purely political game with rising stakes. Moreover, the topic of peacekeepers remains highly controversial. Because they can be both an effective tool for ending a conflict and a means of freezing a war. To understand what to expect from a possible mission in Ukraine, it is crucial to examine the nature of peacekeeping operations, their types and real-world examples. 

Peacekeeping missions are generally aimed at resolving armed conflicts, protecting civilians or supporting state institutions during transitional periods. Modern peacekeeping missions emerged after World War II. When the UN was founded in 1945, one of its primary goals was maintaining international peace and security. Peacekeeping missions became one of the mechanisms for achieving this goal.

In 1948, following the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 50, the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) mission was established. It consisted of military observers tasked with monitoring the ceasefire in the Middle East. Their primary objective was to prevent conflict escalation through situational monitoring and engagement between the parties. UN military observers remain there to this day. Currently, peacekeeping operations remain an important tool for international security, although their effectiveness is often questionable and depends on political will and mandate. Modern peacekeeping missions can operate not only under the UN but also under other organizations (NATO, the EU or the African Union) or they can be established within coalitions of individual states. However, a key principle of peacekeeping missions remains the presence of an international mandate. In other cases, such involvement may be perceived as direct interference in the conflict. Overall, peacekeeping missions vary in type and function – some consist solely of observers monitoring the implementation of agreements, while others involve the deployment of military contingents to prevent hostilities.

Historical examples of peacekeeping missions

One of the most painful historical examples is the peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, whose mandate proved powerless in the face of international crimes, particularly genocide. The UN Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR) was established to oversee the implementation of a peace agreement between the government and the Rwandan Patriotic Front. Its tasks included monitoring the ceasefire and assisting in the formation of a new government. However, in April 1994, the situation changed drastically: after the assassination of the country’s president Juvénal Habyarimana, the genocide against the Tutsi population started, resulting in the murder of approximately 800,000 people. The UN peacekeepers, operating under a limited mandate, were unable to intervene or protect civilians. The UN leadership was slow to acknowledge the scale of the tragedy and sent additional forces only after several months when most of the killings had already taken place. Moreover, in some cases, peacekeepers withdrew from areas even as mass killings were taking place. One of the most infamous incidents occurred at a technical school in Kigali, where hundreds of people had sought temporary shelter under the protection of peacekeepers. However, after the troops left, nearly all those hiding there were massacred. Reasonable questions about this mission still arise regarding France and Belgium.

Thus, without an adequate mandate and the political will of the international community, even the presence of peacekeepers, unfortunately, does not save civilians.

Another instructive example for us is the Balkans, where the UN deployed the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) mission during the war to protect civilians. However, in July 1995, Bosnian Serbs attacked the town of Srebrenica, which was under the protection of the "blue helmets." The peacekeepers were not authorized to use force and were forced to withdraw. This led to the massacre of more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslims – an act later recognized as genocide. A weak mandate and a lack of political support from the international community turned the peacekeepers into powerless witnesses to mass killings. And in the end, as we remember, everything was resolved through a political decision on military intervention.

Of course, we cannot overlook the experience of Georgia, where a peacekeeping mission ceased to exist following an escalation and Russian aggression. After the conflict in Abkhazia, the UN deployed United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) to monitor compliance with the ceasefire. However, in 2008, Russia launched a war against Georgia, recognized the "independence" of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and subsequently blocked the extension of UNOMIG’s mandate in the UN Security Council. Thus, if one party to the conflict holds veto power in international organizations, a peacekeeping mission will not be effective.

One peacekeeping mission that stands out is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The The United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) mission is one of the largest UN operations. It was deployed to provide humanitarian aid to the local population and is forced to combat numerous armed groups that terrorize civilians. In other words, this is a UN peacekeeping mission that actively engages in combat operations.

In 2013, the UN established a "combat unit" in the DRC, authorized to use force to eliminate insurgents. Now, as the situation in the DRC has escalated once again, we are closely following the UN mission’s actions.

It is also important to know about the experience of UN peacekeeping missions in Somalia in 1992-1995, which became one of the most difficult and controversial in the history of peacekeeping activities. In the early 1990s, Somalia plunged into a deep political crisis. After the overthrow of dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991, various armed groups began fighting for power. This led to a humanitarian disaster – mass famine, thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, and the collapse of state institutions. The UN decided to intervene to stabilize the situation and ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid. However, the peacekeepers did not have enough force to control the situation, and the armed groups obstructed their activities. Fighting between local warlords continued, making the delivery of humanitarian aid almost impossible. In March 1993, the mission was restructured to establish peace between the warring factions. This mission was significantly larger, with around 28,000 military personnel from different countries. However, the goals were never achieved. Currently, Somalia remains an unstable country, although African peacekeeping contingents, such as AMISOM (African Union Mission in Somalia), continue to operate there.

Is a peacekeeping mission possible in Ukraine?

For me, currently, this seems utopian. In 2015, Ukraine already officially appealed to the UN with a proposal to deploy a peacekeeping mission in the temporarily occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The main goal of this appeal was to create safe conditions for halting hostilities, restoring Ukraine’s control over the border and ensuring stability in the region. Then, despite numerous diplomatic efforts, the issue of deploying UN peacekeepers to the conflict zone remained unresolved due to the lack of consensus in the UN Security Council, where Russia, as a permanent member, has veto power. Therefore, if we look at this issue realistically, it is unlikely that our partners would agree to implement this idea without the consent of both us and Russia. This is primarily due to their reluctance to provoke potential escalation. Additionally, Russia, through Lavrov, has already stated that the deployment of peacekeepers from NATO countries is unacceptable. Moreover, no one is saying that the mission is possible under the current circumstances. It is being considered exclusively as a step in the settlement process.

At the same time, it is important to understand that for even a conditional success of peacekeeping missions, they must have a clear mandate (from the UN Security Council, for example), which includes the right to use force to protect civilians. And if some EU countries decide to proceed with a peacekeeping mission, they will have to consult with NATO countries. Ultimately, there must be political will from the participating countries, as without it, no mission will be effective.

Gyunduz Mamedov