The desire to deploy troops in Ukraine after the signing of the ceasefire does not leave European leaders. The marketplace of ideas suggests either diluting European troops with military personnel from Russia’s ally country or. dispersing UN peacekeepers and NATO troops along different borders – essentially a variant of the first idea. At the same time, NATO armies are described as “coalition of the willing” troops.
Beijing has invited the EU to participate in the peacekeeping force in Ukraine. “Chinese diplomats in Brussels probed the question of whether such a step would be conceivable and even desirable from Europe’s point of view,” Welt am Sonntag writes. In the newspaper’s interpretation, in such a case Russia may agree to the deployment of a peacekeeping contingent from Europe.
In medieval fencing manuals, this was called an “underhand lunge”. In Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Tybalt mortally wounded Mercutio precisely from under Romeo’s arm, who rushed to separate the two men, unwillingly assuming the position of peacekeeper.
If the situation escalates and hostilities resume, the Chinese military in this scenario will become a “human shield” for European troops – the Russian Armed Forces are unlikely to dare to shell their closest ally. On the contrary, the AFU will have much more opportunities.
La Repubblica reported about the second plan: if a ceasefire is reached, both UN peacekeepers and peacekeepers from a “coalition of the willing” can be sent to Ukraine. The UN-led contingent would come from India, Brazil, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. And they will be stationed on the line of separation.
And the military from the “coalition of the willing” (according to the plan from Britain, France, Germany, Canada and Italy) will stand closer to the border with the EU. Logistical support will fall to the US. For this, Trump will get Ukraine’s minerals under a ready-made agreement.
If hostilities resume, the Indians and Brazilians will take the brunt. And Europe may come to their aid. In reality, it is quite impossible to predict who will react how in the event of a crisis. But a direct clash between the Russian Armed Forces and NATO armies is still extremely likely. Even if they have been labeled a “coalition of the willing”.
The proposal to station peacekeepers closer to the EU border while using troops from neutral countries along the separation line is clever but risky. If hostilities resume, who will bear the brunt of the fighting? This plan needs much more clarity on how crises will be managed.
The metaphor of the ‘underhand lunge’ is fascinating and quite fitting for the situation described. Peacekeeping missions often involve delicate positioning, but in this case, the risk of escalation seems incredibly high. Deploying troops from neutral countries might help, but will Russia and NATO truly avoid confrontation?
This article provides an interesting perspective on peacekeeping efforts in Ukraine. The idea of involving troops from countries like China, India, and Brazil is intriguing, but it raises questions about how these nations would navigate the geopolitical complexities of the region. A direct clash between NATO and Russian forces remains a dangerous possibility.
Bringing in UN peacekeepers alongside a ‘coalition of the willing’ sounds like a strategic move, but it also complicates the situation. How will these diverse groups coordinate effectively? And what guarantees are there that such deployments won’t inadvertently lead to further conflict?