Is There a Role for Blue Helmets in Ukraine?

As Europe mobilizes a coalition to backstop Ukraine’s security, consideration should also be given to deploying a UN peacekeeping mission

Earlier this week, the Trump administration suspended military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. These decisions have been widely interpreted as a means to force Ukraine to the negotiating table and followed the unprecedented, televised blowup in the White House between Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy and U.S. President Trump. This topped off weeks of shifting U.S. policy towards Moscow, demonstrated by the seismic turnabout in the UN General Assembly and Security Council on Ukraine last week. In opposition to past positions, the U.S. aligned with Russia by ignoring the ‘invasion’ of Ukraine and focusing solely on the so-called ‘path to peace’.

The shift in U.S. position on Ukraine has prompted European leaders to step up their defense commitments on the continent including a potential security guarantee for a “verifiable peace” in Ukraine. UK Prime Minister Starmer has announced that a “coalition of the willing” will defend a potential peace deal “with boots on the ground and planes in the air”. Several European countries have expressed support, with France expected to convene a meeting of defense chiefs next week. Even Canada and Australia have indicated they will consider contributions. Yet details about the mandate of such as force remain unclear.

Russia has been steadfastly opposed to any military deployment by NATO member countries in Ukraine’s borders, despite Trump’s claims otherwise. Nonetheless, these geopolitical shifts prompt serious consideration around what would it mean to deploy a potential multinational peacekeeping mission to Ukraine, and the conditions required to enable such a force.

Getting to Peacekeeping: An End to the Fighting

The European continent is no stranger to peacekeeping. Throughout the 1990s, the UN deployed a series of peacekeeping missions to the former countries of Yugoslavia, creating safe zones for civilians and operating alongside more kinetic NATO partners. Despite some high-profile failures, these missions contributed to bringing about longer-term peace in the Balkans.

Peacekeeping is distinct from other forms of military operations involving the use of force. The UN has the clearest doctrinal approach to peacekeeping and while there are different interpretations by regional organizations, there is a general consensus that peacekeeping requires the consent of the parties to a conflict. In the case of the war in Ukraine, the deployment of a UN-led or multinational mission would require genuine agreement from Ukraine and Russia.

Peacekeeping missions are also typically deployed where there is a ‘peace to keep’. This requires the sustained engagement of the conflict parties to broker and implement a ceasefire or peace agreement. This was absent in the U.S.-led negotiations with Russia in Saudi Arabia in February. Furthermore, the process of reaching agreement on a ceasefire is also just as critical as the agreement itself. For instance, research shows that including women in peace processes increases the likelihood of a more durable peace. If the ceasefire is simply a result of external pressure, then it will not “translate into a genuine commitment to peace”. Zelenskyy has expressed willingness to move ahead on a potential peace plan and Ukrainian officials are expected to meet with the U.S. in Saudi Arabia next week. He has proposed initial options that include a halt to air and sea attacks, as well as attacks on energy and civilian infrastructure. But even if agreed to, ongoing negotiations would be needed to resolve a range of issues relating to territory and borders, displaced civilians, ethnic minorities, justice and accountability for human rights violations, and longer-term security guarantees.

Peacekeepers can facilitate important confidence-building measures, provided they are seen as a credible and trusted actor by both parties to the conflict. While an EU-led “coalition of the willing” is likely to provide a security guarantee for Ukraine, it is reasonable to assume it will not be viewed as impartial by both parties. Russia has also misappropriated the term ‘peacekeepers’ in this conflict before to justify its invasion of Ukraine. This makes it essential that there is a clear understanding amongst the parties and contributors of what peacekeeping requires in the event agreement is reached on ceasefire or cessation of hostilities in the coming weeks.

Peacekeeping Options: A Role for the UN?

The option of a UN peacekeeping mission has been off the table over the last three years due to divisions in the Security Council. But given shifting political and security developments, Russia may now see more value in the deployment of a UN peacekeeping mission. Furthermore, as a permanent member of the Council, Russia would have substantial influence over what is included in the mandate, with France and the UK positioned to protect Ukraine’s interests. An unexpected benefit is that such an approach may also offer a path for the UN to demonstrate its ongoing relevance to the maintenance of international peace and security.

The UN can generate a diverse set of troop contributors to a UN peacekeeping force funded through assessed contributions. The largest uniformed contributors to current UN peacekeeping missions are not European countries, but rather those from South Asia and Africa. Countries from these regions are likely to be tolerable to Russia due to more neutral positioning on the war. However, they may be hesitant to pledge personnel due to safety and security concerns. Up until now, the UN has been unable to conduct contingency planning for a possible blue helmet deployment, in part due to the divisions within the Security Council. That could immediately shift if the Council were to invite the UN Secretary-General to present options for a peacekeeping mission to Ukraine.

There are a range of mandated tasks and capabilities that could be included in a potential UN peacekeeping mission. At a minimum, this will need to include reporting on violations to a ceasefire agreement and liaising with parties to the conflict. But the mandate could be more expansive, including mine and ordnance removal, infrastructure protection or maritime security as part of the mission. It will be near impossible for a UN peacekeeping mission to generate enough personnel to monitor the entire length of any ceasefire line, meaning technology such as uncrewed aerial systems would be a critical enabler for any force. The significant civilian toll of the conflict means that negotiations to deploy a UN peacekeeping mission should also include interventions to protect civilians, including enabling humanitarian access and reporting on human rights violations. The authorizing mandate for such a mission could also offer stipulations about how it might work in parallel to an EU-led force, including air support or a no-fly zone. Many of these elements are likely to be less than acceptable to Russia, however, they should be comprehensively explored as part of negotiations.

The war in Ukraine has been one of the most technologically advanced in recent history. Grey zone tactics including the use of mercenaries and state-backed foreign fighters as well as disinformation campaigns have featured frequently. There is a substantial risk that the impartiality of any mission will quickly come into question. The short-term result may be an ongoing frozen conflict with heavily militarized forces on either side. Nonetheless, in this scenario the deployment of a UN peacekeeping mission could mitigate ongoing harm to civilians. This would also enable the time and space for further negotiations towards a more ‘just peace’.

Like to get involved? Become a Member of UNAA

Like to Find Out more about UNAA

or make a valuable donation to UNAA's work

Donate Now