Today at 15:44
Recently, the British newspaper The Telegraph published information that French President Emmanuel Macron is considering the possibility of creating a mission to protect Ukraine under the auspices of the United Nations during a potential future peace agreement.
According to the publication, Macron raised the topic of a UN alternative at the European Council summit together with UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who was a guest at the gathering of EU leaders.
“Any UN peacekeeping forces require the approval of the Security Council. Since both Russia and potentially the United States oppose this, the prospects look bleak,” the The Telegraph publication states.
Currently, the French president is exploring various scenarios that could replace the deployment of a European military contingent to Ukraine. Macron, together with British Prime Minister Starmer, is trying to form a “coalition of the willing” to organize peacekeeping forces with the support of U.S. security guarantees.
Earlier, in an interview with Le Parisien, Macron stated that Ukraine, as a sovereign state, has the right to invite allied countries to deploy a peacekeeping contingent, and this is not an issue that Russia should decide. Moreover, Macron emphasized that European states do not need the Kremlin’s permission to make such a decision.
In general, the decision to introduce a UN peacekeeping mission must go through several stages, which will take at least a year. And at each stage, Ukraine will face pitfalls. Consultations, voting, budget formation, deployment issues, logistics—this could become a deadlock.
Even at the first stage—consultations—serious contradictions may arise. In particular, consultations on the possibility of a mission take place with both sides of the conflict, who must give their consent.
Even if Russia agrees, the technical assessment stage begins. UN representatives travel to the conflict zone and assess the full range of issues the mission will face—military, political, socio-economic, and religious aspects.
The pitfall of the technical assessment is that such a characterization can only be provided by UN representatives under the condition of guarantees for their security. That is, if Russian occupiers do not provide such guarantees, the mission will not proceed.
If these two stages are overcome, the decision on the mission’s mandate must be approved by the UN Security Council.
The main function of peacekeepers is determined based on the mandate of the peacekeeping mission. Either it is peace maintenance—then they stand between two opposing sides, and each side understands the rules of conduct. Or it is peace enforcement—then the peacekeepers actively participate in combat operations.
However, the mission’s mandate can be blocked by Russia, which has veto power in the UN Security Council. The Kremlin has already stated that the possibility of deploying a foreign peacekeeping contingent is categorically rejected by Russia. According to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine is unacceptable for Moscow.
The potential peacekeeping mission was also commented on by the press secretary of the Russian dictator, Peskov. He essentially repeated Lavrov’s theses about the “unacceptability” of this scenario, claiming that “nothing good will come of this.” Meanwhile, the representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the occupying country, Maria Zakharova, threatened “the involvement of countries in a direct armed conflict” if Western countries send peacekeepers to Ukraine.
Commenting on the repeatedly stated categorical disagreement of the aggressor country with the idea of deploying a peacekeeping contingent in Ukraine, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha emphasized that “we will do everything that corresponds to our national interest and truly guarantees Ukraine’s security in the long term.”
However, a vote can be held through the UN General Assembly. But the question arises—will Ukraine be able to secure two-thirds of the General Assembly members’ votes?
Regarding the mission’s contingent size, the numbers mentioned by European partners—up to 30,000 peacekeepers—are simply laughable given the scale of the front. The line of military engagement is about 1,200 kilometers long. Even by very conservative estimates from the Ukrainian president, up to 100,000 servicemen are needed.
However, this idea should not be completely dismissed. Diplomatic traps must be set directly for European partners. The deployment of even 30,000 peacekeepers would already exert both military and informational pressure on Russia.
But the most difficult issue is financing. The main expenses are borne by Security Council members. The U.S. provides 29%, while Russia contributes only 3.5%.
Thus, at every stage of introducing a UN peacekeeping mission, Ukraine faces pitfalls—voting, budget formation, contingent, deployment issues, logistics.
However, there is also an important legal aspect that is not yet being discussed in European capitals but could become an obstacle to such steps when it comes to implementation.
Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine prohibits the deployment of foreign military bases on the country’s territory. That is, in order to demand the military presence of foreign states, steps must be taken in response—specifically, amending the current Constitution. And this would be a political signal both to partners and, accordingly, to Russia that we are truly ready for the deployment of a military contingent as a security guarantee for the future.
Currently, discussions on the possible deployment of a peacekeeping contingent in Ukraine are ongoing.
However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is convinced that a UN peacekeeping mission cannot be an alternative to a military contingent or security guarantees.
“As for the UN—with all due respect, the UN will not protect us from occupation or Putin’s desire to return again. We do not see the UN as an alternative to a contingent or security guarantees. We maintain reasonable, logical relations with the UN, with its representatives and the secretary-general, but the UN cannot be an alternative to security guarantees,” he stated during a joint press conference with Czech President Petr Pavel.
In his conviction, if the UN does not have a mandate to protect Ukraine, Putin will return with war.
“Of course, when there are troops, air defense and ships, planes, and a serious army, when there is real intelligence from our partners here in Ukraine, going against such an infrastructure is dangerous for the Russians,” Zelenskyy expressed his opinion.
For his part, the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, Kyrylo Budanov, expressed doubts that the deployment of peacekeeping forces would become an effective security guarantee. He noted that he does not recall cases where the deployment of peacekeepers truly solved the problem and stopped aggression.
“Show me at least one country in the world where peacekeepers worked. Maybe there is one somewhere, but I don’t remember such a case. I was interested in this and analyzed many examples. Nowhere. So, can this be considered a guarantee? Obviously, it’s in question. Well, let’s just say: it’s simply in question,” said the head of the GUR.
Even American politicians understand that peacekeeping missions have never resolved conflicts but only frozen them.
“Very rarely does the deployment of peacekeepers do anything other than solidify the presence of these forces permanently,” stated former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton.
The discussion on the deployment of a foreign contingent in Ukraine intensified in November 2024, after Donald Trump won the U.S. presidential election. The very idea of a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine was supported in Washington. However, President Trump excluded the participation of American troops. He stated that Europe itself should take responsibility for security on the continent.
Earlier, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated that the country is ready to send its troops to Ukraine to ensure the implementation of a peace agreement if necessary.
Military-political analyst Dmytro Sniehyrov
Read also: 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine: What lies behind Putin’s demands
