Prospects for a ceasefire in Ukraine remain uncertain amid ongoing diplomatic tensions. European leaders plan to discuss troop mobilization, which Russia opposes, warning of potential conflict escalation. Meanwhile, figures like Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen advocate for UN peacekeepers to secure Ukrainian nuclear sites, despite skepticism over the feasibility due to Russia’s veto power. Political expert Franck Petiteville highlights that effective peacekeeping requires a stable ceasefire, which is currently unattainable in the violent context of Ukraine.
The Uncertain Path to Ceasefire in Ukraine
After weeks of intense dialogue and a brewing diplomatic crisis, the prospects for a ceasefire in Ukraine remain as unclear as ever. A significant issue at the heart of this conflict is how to ensure a sustainable truce or even a lasting peace, especially considering Russia’s historical disregard for the Minsk agreements established over a decade ago. As European leaders prepare to convene in Paris on March 27 to discuss potential troop mobilization in Ukraine, Russian officials have firmly rejected this idea. Maria Zakharova emphasized on March 13, “This would mean the involvement of these countries in a direct armed conflict with our country, to which we will respond by all available means.”
Debating the Role of UN Peacekeepers
In light of the current impasse, both Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen advocate for the deployment of United Nations peacekeeping forces. Mélenchon remarked on March 13, “The government talks about war while a discussion is ongoing about peace,” proposing that “all Ukrainian nuclear power plants be surrounded by Blue Helmets.” Le Pen also expressed skepticism about the viability of a fanciful European defense, suggesting that involvement in a Blue Helmet operation might be the only acceptable option.
However, this proposal has met with skepticism from various online commentators, citing concerns over Russia’s veto power within the UN Security Council. This council, consisting of fifteen members—five of whom hold permanent veto power, including Russia—decides on peacekeeping missions. Nonetheless, political science expert Franck Petiteville notes that this veto can sometimes be overridden. He points out that the General Assembly can act when the Security Council is paralyzed, as illustrated by the 1956 decision to deploy Blue Helmets to the Suez Canal despite French and British vetoes.
Despite these possibilities, Petiteville expresses doubt about the feasibility of sending Blue Helmets to Ukraine, primarily due to the nature of peacekeeping missions. According to him, the fundamental requirement for any deployment is a stable ceasefire. This condition is particularly crucial given the grim history of UN forces in conflict zones like Bosnia-Herzegovina, where they faced significant challenges and losses. Petiteville emphasizes that “Blue Helmets are no longer deployed in war zones where there is actually no peace to maintain,” a reality that starkly contrasts with the ongoing violence in Ukraine. He concludes that employing soldiers in such a hostile environment, where their defensive doctrine would render them vulnerable, is not a viable option.
In conclusion, the suggestions put forth by Marine Le Pen and Jean-Luc Mélenchon regarding the deployment of Blue Helmets in Ukraine face considerable obstacles. Beyond the complex legal issues surrounding veto powers, the fundamental principles of peacekeeping do not align with the current situation in the region.