French military (photo: Getty Images) Author: Roman Kot
European leaders are actively discussing the deployment of their military contingent in Ukraine. What it might be like, whether UN peacekeepers will appear in Ukraine and whether they can become a real guarantee of security – in the material of RBC-Ukraine journalist Roman Kot.
Content:
-
The leaders of the process are France and Great Britain
-
Expansion Prospects and the US Factor
-
How Peacekeeping Missions Work
-
What Makes Missions Effective and Why They Can Fail
-
Will the contingent be a guarantee of security?
Negotiations on ending Russia's war against Ukraine, diplomatic pressure from US President Donald Trump on Ukraine and Europe, and his attempts to negotiate with Russia have been the reality of recent months. At the same time, the US President does not take into account the interests of Ukraine and Europe, simply seeking to end the war as quickly as possible. For its part, Europe is looking for ways to avoid such a scenario and maintain constructive relations with the United States. The European vision is based on a plan to introduce its armed contingent into Ukrainian territory.
The main drivers of the idea are French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. According to the Wall Street Journal, both politicians presented their idea to US President Donald Trump during their visits to the US. And on March 2, Starmer, after an informal summit of European leaders in London, openly stated that Europe is ready to increase assistance to Ukraine with “planes in the air and boots on the ground” if a peace agreement is reached with Russia.
“We will send a contingent to Ukraine to protect the implementation of this agreement, “ the British prime minister said.
And Macron will gather in Paris this week the chiefs of staff of countries that are ready to guarantee peace in Ukraine in the future.
At the same time, Polish President Andrzej Duda did not rule out a full-fledged UN peacekeeping mission on March 6. “We may need some peacekeeping monitoring forces, but I do not rule out the possibility that both sides will agree to a UN force, “ he said.
Ukraine has also made proposals in this context. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha said on February 27 that a land-based component alone would not be enough. “Ensuring the security of Ukraine's skies and seas is no less important, if not more so. The land, sky and sea must be the focus, “ Sybiha stressed.
As can be seen from these statements, even at the conceptual level there is no unity yet – in the statements of European politicians there are either “peacekeepers”, or “contingents” or simply “missions” with a vague mandate. RBC-Ukraine has figured out what concepts are being considered, what missions are possible in principle according to international practice and in Ukrainian realities, and finally – what this can give Ukraine.
The leaders of the process are France and Great Britain
The French President began voicing the idea of deploying troops in Ukraine a year ago – in February 2024.
“The French offered to send their military brigade here to help us. But Ukraine didn't say yes or no,” Oleksandr Saenko, commander of the 67th brigade in 2022-2023 and now a military analyst at the Independent Anti-Corruption Commission (NACO), told RBC-Ukraine.
Therefore, at that time it remained at the level of hypothetical scenarios, and not an official proposal. Moreover, Macron's initiative caused noticeable resistance within France itself. And the lack of a clear reaction from Ukraine, as RBC-Ukraine's interlocutors say, even somewhat irritated the French president.
Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer meet in London on March 3 (Photo: Getty Images)
The idea received a new impetus sometime in December, after Donald Trump won the US election. At the end of January this year, the Financial Times reported that unnamed Ukrainian officials in negotiations with their European counterparts considered the deployment of 40-50 thousand foreign troops as security forces along the front line to be realistic. At that time, this was discussed as part of a peace agreement with Russia.
Britain and France are currently the only countries that have publicly committed to providing troops for deployment in Ukraine. However, their approaches are somewhat different.
British government sources told Reuters that Keir Starmer was pushing for a peace plan that would include the deployment of British troops as part of a “coalition of the willing”. The sources stressed that London wanted to work with allies but was prepared to “lead”.
According to the BBC, the UK is considering scenarios where British troops could act as peacekeepers along the demarcation line. At the same time, sources in the British Ministry of Defence told The Guardian that the troop deployment plan is seen as a “strategic signal to Russia”, but specific details have not yet been agreed due to the uncertainty of Washington's position.
As for France, Reuters sources in the country's Foreign Ministry said that Paris is considering sending peacekeepers to monitor the ceasefire, but only on the condition that Russia does not reject the proposal at the talks – France wants to avoid a direct conflict with Moscow, so it is looking for broader European support. Politico Europe's sources in French government circles say that for this purpose, talks are underway to involve Northern European countries, in particular Denmark and Norway, in the “coalition of the willing.” Le Figaro's sources in the country's government, in turn, noted that Paris is ready to lead the “coalition of the willing” together with London, but is also waiting for a clear position from the United States.
The US Factor and Expansion Prospects
The Europeans are considering the possibility of deploying a military presence in Ukraine under two conditions, Rafael Los, a research fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations who specializes in defense, security and technology issues, noted in a commentary to RBC-Ukraine.
First, if the US administration agrees to a “backstop,” which means that European troops will receive US security guarantees and will be potentially indirectly supported by the US.
Secondly, there will be a ceasefire that ends the current stage of hostilities, which means that Russia will have to stop its aggression.
“Both conditions look increasingly unlikely, and therefore the Europeans will have to reconsider their options. But intensive negotiations continue in various formats between European civilian and military leaders, “ Los said.
During a meeting with Macron on February 24, Trump said he saw no problem with the idea of peacekeepers.
“Peacekeeping missions would be better than all this death,” he said.
But overall, the Trump administration is skeptical of the idea and sees it as a “European problem.” A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told CNN that the U.S. military would not be involved in ground operations, but the U.S. could provide “technical support” to European forces.
Emmanuel Macron and Donald Trump during a meeting in Washington on February 24 (Photo: Getty Images)
The United States is also looking at Russia's position. Two U.S. officials involved in preparing the meetings with the Kremlin said the deployment of foreign troops in Ukraine was discussed as an option for “security guarantees,” but Russia rejects any NATO presence.
On March 6, the aggressor country's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov openly stated that Moscow is “categorically” against the deployment of a European peacekeeping contingent on Ukrainian territory. According to him, the deployment of peacekeepers is supposedly “a direct, official, overt involvement of NATO countries in the war against Russia.”
So, during Macron and Starmer’s recent visits to Washington, both leaders have tried to convince Trump of the benefits of such a post-war scenario for the United States. So far, these efforts have had limited effect. But Trump’s position may change again after the signing of a minerals deal with Ukraine, expected this week. In the meantime, Macron and Starmer are rallying potential participants in the mission.
“In addition to France and the UK, Germany, as the largest country in Europe, should also make a significant contribution to the European military presence in Ukraine. In addition, the Nordic countries have been involved in the relevant discussions and will likely provide troops, as will the Netherlands. Ukraine was very keen for Turkey to join the coalition, so it will be interesting to see how they fit into the European structure,” Rafael Los told the publication.
Canada and Australia should also not be forgotten, he said, “but those discussions are at a very early stage.”
The composition of the mission is, of course, important, but the main question is how effective it can be and what it can give Ukraine in practical terms. And here we need to look at the previous experience of peacekeeping missions.
What kind of peacekeeping missions work?
Even if France, Britain and others wishing to do so form a clear concept of their mission, they cannot simply go and send troops into another country. This requires legal procedures that differ depending on who is implementing the mission.
There are a number of organizations in the world that conduct peacekeeping missions aimed at maintaining peace, stability and conflict resolution. First of all, this is the UN. Its peacekeepers, known as “blue helmets”, act under the mandate of the UN Security Council. As of the beginning of this year, there are dozens of active missions under the UN mandate, involving more than 70 thousand peacekeepers.
There are also NATO missions. They often operate in cooperation with the UN or under their own mandate. Such missions were in Afghanistan – ISAF, and Kosovo – KFOR. They are usually military in nature and aimed at ensuring security in conflict zones.
A UN peacekeeper in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Photo: Getty Images)
The European Union carries out peacekeeping and stabilization missions within the framework of the Common Security and Defense Policy: EUFOR Althea in Bosnia and Herzegovina, EUNAVFOR – to combat piracy in the waters near Somalia. But other regional organizations can also carry out peacekeeping missions in their areas of influence. The African Union – in Somalia and Darfur. The Economic Community of West African States – in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
UN peacekeeping missions require a Security Council decision, in which Russia and China, as well as Ukraine's partners Great Britain and France , have veto power, so this option is practically impossible for political reasons alone, not to mention the issues of logistics, resources and the composition of the mission.
In particular, Paris and London may block models of the Russian-lobbied mission that are undesirable for Ukraine, for example, with the participation of Kremlin satellites. According to Bloomberg, this is among the possible conditions for a truce.
NATO, EU and other regional organisations' missions are also usually carried out with the consent of the UN Security Council. And its approval is not necessary, it is enough to simply notify. However, both the EU and NATO are too cumbersome organisations, which require consensus from all members. And here the position of Hungary or Slovakia can completely block the decision.
There is another option – a multinational force. In essence, these are coalitions of states that come together to respond to a specific crisis. Their deployment requires only the consent of the state in whose territory they operate. And their deployment at least in the rear regions of Ukraine would be entirely possible without Russia’s official consent.
What Makes Missions Effective and Why They Can Fail
One of the most successful is the UN peacekeeping mission in Namibia – UNTAG in 1989-1990. It was deployed to oversee the withdrawal of South African troops and the elections that were to lead Namibia to independence. The mission successfully organized the elections in 1989, ensured a peaceful transition to independence and completed its work. Namibia became a stable democratic state. What is important, the conflict did not resume later. UNTAG had a strong mandate, international support, including pressure on South Africa.
Another UN mission that has been partially successful is UNFICYP in Cyprus. It was launched in 1964 and is still ongoing. The mission was deployed following clashes between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots and the Turkish invasion of 1974. UNFICYP was able to maintain a buffer zone between the two communities, preventing large-scale fighting for decades. The mission helped de-escalate tensions and supported humanitarian initiatives, but the conflict has yet to be resolved. The island remains divided between the Republic of Cyprus and the unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Peacekeepers have failed to facilitate a final political settlement or the reunification of the island.
There are many more failed missions, and their lessons can be instructive for Ukraine. Perhaps the closest example for Ukraine is the UN mission UNPROFOR in Bosnia, which operated from 1992 to 1995. Peacekeepers were supposed to protect civilians and ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid during the war. However, they failed to prevent mass crimes, in particular the Srebrenica massacre in July 1995, when Bosnian Serb troops killed more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in a “safe zone” controlled by peacekeepers from the Netherlands.
Ukrainian peacekeepers in Bosnia (photo: archive of peacekeeper Andrey Khlusovich)
In general, the limited mandate, the lack of weapons and the political indecisiveness of the UN Security Council were the main problems of that mission, Sergey Polevik, an expert at the Borisfen Intel analytical center, told RBC-Ukraine. He was an officer in the liaison group with the warring parties of the 240th separate special battalion during a number of peacekeeping missions in Bosnia. According to him, the situation there improved only after the UN peacekeepers were replaced by NATO ones.
At the same time, during crisis situations, which will certainly arise with the participation of foreign troops, a lot depends on specific commanders on the ground. If in Srebrenica, Dutch peacekeepers simply watched the massacres without daring to stop them, then in the neighboring enclave of Zepa, Ukrainian forces were able to save between 5,000 and 10,000 Bosnian Muslims, Polevik said. Then, despite the lack of support from the UN headquarters in Sarajevo and limited resources, the Ukrainian military decided to act independently.
Evacuation of population from the Zepa enclave in Bosnia (Photo: Getty Images)
“(In Srebrenica, – ed.) The Netherlands were scared, to put it mildly, and followed the Serbs' orders to retreat and not interfere with their killing of Muslims. Ours did not agree to this. Nikolai Yakovlevich Verkhoglyad, our officer, immediately went to meet with Ratko Mladic (a Serbian general who was later recognized as a war criminal, – ed.), talked like an officer with an officer, and after that the Serb, a bandit, said: you are a real officer, you are strong, they negotiate with the strong, and dictate their will to the weak. After that, they allowed the people to be taken out in our cars and buses,” Polevik told RBC-Ukraine.
Will the contingent be a guarantee of security?
Even if we put aside the question of the moral and volitional qualities of the contingent, the key issue is its numbers and location. In January, the Ukrainian president stated that no less than 200,000 European peacekeepers would be needed to prevent a new Russian attack on Ukraine after any ceasefire agreement.
On February 17, The Washington Post wrote that European countries could send 25,000 to 30,000 troops to Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping mission. According to the publication, this number was disclosed in responses to a letter from the United States, where they asked European countries to detail their capabilities to support Kyiv. However, European countries must also keep troops in other threatening areas, and this imposes its own limitations.
“If they decide to deploy a contingent, we will probably see around three to five multinational brigades with support assets and air cover – anything more than that would risk seriously weakening NATO's eastern flank elsewhere at a time when confidence in the US commitment to European security seems to be eroding by the day,” Rafael Los told RBC-Ukraine.
According to Alexander Saenko, the contingent must have such power as to force Russia to peace by force. 30 thousand is not enough for this. Moreover, the deployment of such troops on the contact line may give Russia additional reasons for provocations and speculations.
French soldiers (Photo: Getty Images)
Due to these considerations, the scenario of deploying the contingent further from the front is being considered as more realistic, which is confirmed by informed sources of RBC-Ukraine.
“The most effective, from my point of view, is the deployment of not military contingents, but, for example, something like the French gendarmerie – an analogue of our National Guard, for the protection of nuclear power plants, for example. And here Russia's consent is no longer needed, “ Saenko noted.
Such a contingent can perform several important functions in Ukraine at once, simply due to its presence.
“The most important thing is that they ensure security in the air and at sea. That is, air defense/missile defense – possibly with air defense systems or aviation, as well as a naval component so that our sea lines of communication are not cut off. This is the most important thing, and it is realistic to do this without risking starting a Third World War, which Trump is scaring us with,” diplomat and director of the Center for Defense Strategies Alexander Khara told RBC-Ukraine.
Sergey Polevik added that the very fact of NATO structures' presence in Ukraine will be important. Even deep in the territory, they will be provided with the relevant information.
“This means that some AWACS (Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircraft – ed.) will be flying, that there will be air patrols along the demarcation line and along the borders of Ukraine with NATO countries. That is, this will enter the information space. Whether it will be public is another question, but it will be known what is being done by the Russians,” Polevik told the publication.
The expert stressed that this would be a “deterrent factor for the Russians, but it cannot be the dominant factor in changing the decision and actions of the Russians if they decide to continue aggression.”
However, in this case, there is no need to talk about security guarantees. According to Khara, the deployment of European troops on Ukrainian territory will not fall under Article 5. It will be Article 6, which does not provide for NATO to be drawn into the war if Russia attacks the contingent.
“When they talk about security guarantees, including our government, they mislead Ukrainian society. Security guarantees can consist of several elements. The first is nuclear deterrence, the second is collective security, that is, Article 5 (an armed attack on one of the NATO member countries will be considered an attack on all members, – ed.). No one in the West wants to give us this, because they do not want to take such risks, “ Khara told the publication.
In general, Ukraine's European partners have already begun to think more about their own security, not perceiving the “security umbrella” from the United States as a given. In turn, the issue of the contingent in Ukraine is one of the components of this security. But so far, even the boldest politicians in Europe are not ready to take risks and are not considering options for involving their troops on the Ukrainian side, which could significantly change the situation. Half-hearted measures that can be implemented are only capable of slightly easing Ukraine's situation, but will not become a guarantee against repeated Russian aggression.
When writing the material, statements by the leadership of Ukraine, France, Great Britain, publications by Reuters, CNN, Politico Europe, Le Figaro, BBC, Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, comments by Alexander Saenko, Sergey Polevyk, Alexander Jara, Rafael Los were used.