Recent developments regarding the peace process in Ukraine have sparked significant concern among European leaders and Ukrainian officials, particularly with the ongoing involvement of U.S. President Donald Trump in direct negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump has taken the initiative to explore potential pathways to end the war, but many are wary that such talks, if conducted without the inclusion of Ukraine and Europe, could lead to an imbalanced and unfair agreement. This concern was underscored by leaders from the European Union, who issued a warning against what they described as a “dirty deal” that could exclude Ukraine from the peace process, thereby favoring Russia's position. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed frustration, emphasizing that discussions should not take place until there is a clear and strategic plan to counter Putin’s actions.
In response, NATO's stance on the conflict remains firm, with Secretary General Mark Rutte reiterating the importance of ensuring Ukraine is in the best possible position for negotiations, while firmly stating that Russia should not be allowed to emerge victorious. As part of its ongoing support, NATO has committed to increasing defense spending and enhancing military production capacity, providing over €50 billion in security assistance to Ukraine in 2024 alone. This support underscores NATO's commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty and security.
A particularly contentious issue is the future security of Ukraine once a ceasefire is reached. Trump has suggested that European troops should serve as peacekeepers in Ukraine post-conflict, a proposition that has sparked debate regarding the potential role and efficacy of such a force. U.S. Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth has acknowledged that it is unlikely Ukraine will regain all of its lost territory and that NATO membership for Ukraine is not on the immediate horizon. Instead, the U.S. seems to favor a European-led peacekeeping force, explicitly excluding American troops from the post-war landscape.
From Ukraine’s perspective, President Zelensky has argued that a substantial presence of peacekeepers, possibly up to 100,000 European troops, would be required to maintain stability and security in the aftermath of the war. However, a central question remains: what exactly would be the role of these peacekeeping troops, particularly if Russia were to resume its aggression? The function of peacekeeping forces traditionally falls into two categories. Some peacekeepers are assigned non-combat roles, primarily to monitor ceasefire agreements and ensure both sides adhere to terms. These troops are typically lightly armed, if at all, and cannot engage in combat unless directly attacked. If Russia were to violate the ceasefire, non-combat peacekeepers would have little recourse but to report the violations, unable to stop the aggression.
On the other hand, if European troops are given combat authority, they would be authorized to use force to ensure peace and protect Ukraine from further Russian incursions. This would involve quick-reaction forces capable of intervening in case of breaches to the ceasefire. However, this scenario brings with it considerable risks, as European troops would be drawn into direct conflict with Russia, potentially escalating tensions and leading to a larger military confrontation.
The main purpose of these peacekeeping forces would be to enforce the ceasefire and stabilize the region, not necessarily to defend Ukraine in the same way NATO forces would. Their presence could create a buffer zone between Russian-controlled areas and the rest of Ukraine, helping to prevent further skirmishes from escalating into full-scale war. Peacekeepers could also buy time for diplomatic negotiations to take place, offering an opportunity for Ukraine to rebuild while international talks continue. However, the effectiveness of such a force would depend on the level of engagement they are authorized to undertake and whether they can be equipped to intervene if necessary.
Ultimately, European peacekeeping forces could help manage the post-war landscape temporarily, but without a strong security guarantee or deterrent force like NATO, Ukraine’s long-term security could remain uncertain. If these peacekeepers are merely symbolic or lack the authority to act in the event of Russian aggression, Russia may disregard them and continue to advance its objectives in Ukraine. For lasting peace and security, stronger deterrents, such as NATO membership or a robust military framework, would be needed to prevent future Russian aggression and ensure Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Comments