Peacekeeping in Ukraine: Unmighty Europeans
Only the Russian Federation can truly guarantee peace on Ukrainian territory. The posturing of Keir Starmer or Emmanuel Macron will do nothing to change that, writes Oleg Nesterenko.
Oleg Nesterenko is the president of the European Trade and Industry Center (CCIE) in Paris. He is also a specialist on Russia and sub-Saharan Africa. A former MBA director and professor for master’s programs at Paris’s leading business schools, he reflects on the period unfolding in post-war Ukraine. This comes as Emmanuel Macron, speaking from Brussels, announced plans to co-host a summit with the United Kingdom on Thursday, March 27, in Paris, dubbed the “coalition of the willing.”
However, deploying troops to Ukrainian soil as part of a potential peace agreement, as suggested by the French president, is legally impossible, explains Oleg Nesterenko.
In our “Réflexions Libres“ section, the opinions expressed by authors are their own and in no way reflect the views of L’Eclaireur, beyond our editorial choice to give them a platform in the interest of pluralism and a better understanding of the world.
A few days after British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that the “coalition of the willing” plan was entering an “operational phase,” representatives from the majority of NATO countries gathered on March 20 in a London suburb to discuss the creation of a “peacekeeping force” in Ukraine and to develop plans for its operations.
London, second only to Washington as the primary instigator and sustainer of the war in Ukraine, expects more than thirty countries, including all NATO members, to participate in this new coalition and contribute to it.
During the meeting, participants agreed that the “peacekeeping forces” in Ukraine would include ground troops as well as air and naval forces. British and French military personnel, in particular, would be deployed in cities, ports, and critical infrastructure, while NATO patrol vessels and minesweepers would operate in the Black Sea.
Meanwhile, Emmanuel Macron hosted a new summit in Paris on March 27 with Volodymyr Zelensky and his wartime partners. “We’ve done significant work with the British on the conditions for overseeing the ceasefire, and I think this will be an opportunity to discuss and refine it,” the French president stated.
Obviously, when speaking of a coalition and a large-scale military deployment by the North Atlantic Treaty alliance, this is not about a 30-day operation to cover the ceasefire proposed by the United States, but rather a long-term strategic endeavor.
Desperate Attempts to Save Face
The ambition expressed and plans drawn up by the Anglo-French-centric coalition is matched only by the abysmal disconnect from reality they reflect.
For no force from any NATO country will ever participate in the so-called “peacekeeping” process on post-conflict Ukrainian soil.
After the countries of the Old Continent were put back in their true place—as vassals of their transatlantic master—and their presence at the table of future peace negotiations in Ukraine (which will occur only between the two real warring powers, the United States and the Russian Federation) was rejected, their recent statements are nothing more than clumsy, desperate attempts to salvage the remnants of their reputation as military powers in the eyes of a world that views them with growing skepticism.
Contrary to the lies and illusions propagated since the London meeting about the future actions of the “peacekeeping” forces in post-war Ukraine, my assertion that NATO countries’ armed forces cannot participate in “peacekeeping” is unequivocal and grounded in irrefutable legal foundations.
Several key factors make the European initiative to “control” peace in Ukraine at the end of the armed conflict utterly impossible.
Moscow’s Sine Qua Non Condition
Without a signed peace agreement between Moscow and Kyiv, the official presence of even the smallest military contingent from a single NATO member state on Ukrainian soil would mean the North Atlantic alliance’s direct entry into war against the Russian Federation.
This has been made clear in advance through multiple unwavering statements from Moscow regarding Kyiv’s relations with NATO: one of the sine qua non conditions for signing a peace agreement is the ban of the presence of NATO forces on Ukrainian territory.
Legally, it is the Kremlin—and no one else—that will decide whether the enemy side can be present at its southwestern borders. A presence that will never happen: the mere threat of it was one of the main reasons Moscow went to war over three years ago.
The only way for European leaders to realize their fantasies of deploying “peacekeeping” forces in Ukraine would be to go to war with Russia and win.
The Blue Helmets
The Blue Helmets are a force acting on behalf of the United Nations (UN) in peacekeeping operations (PKOs). It might therefore seem logical to assume their presence could be possible in post-war Ukraine.
However, the deployment of such a mission can only be decided by the UN’s primary body, the Security Council, where the Russian Federation is a permanent member with veto power. Thus, once again, it is Moscow that will determine whether or not Blue Helmets are deployed in Ukraine.
Patrol Vessels and Minesweepers in the Black Sea
During the London meeting, one decision was the future presence of NATO patrol vessels and minesweepers operating in the Black Sea.
The purveyors of disinformation from London “forgot” to mention the Montreux Convention. Signed on July 20, 1936, the Montreux Convention governs navigation through the Dardanelles and Bosphorus straits (Turkey) and in the Black Sea. Paragraph 2 of Article 18 is unequivocal:
“Regardless of the purpose of their presence in the Black Sea, warships of non-littoral powers may not remain there for more than twenty-one days.”
Thus, no significant additional presence of NATO’s naval forces is permitted, except for those of Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey, which can navigate freely in their territorial waters and international waters—as they always have.
European declarations about the future presence of NATO ships operating in the Black Sea as part of the “peacekeeping force” in Ukraine are therefore nothing but empty rhetoric.
The Ukrainian Constitution
Given the gross daily violations of Ukraine’s Constitution since 2014, and especially over the past three years by successive regimes in Kyiv, it almost feels out of place to mention the existence of a Constitution in that country, let alone cite Article 17, which is unequivocal:
“The deployment of foreign military bases on Ukrainian territory is prohibited.”
It’s likely that yet another constitutional violation—among so many—caused by the deployment of NATO forces on Ukrainian soil would go unnoticed. This is especially true since the Constitutional Court, the sole body of constitutional jurisdiction in Ukraine, has been reduced under Zelensky’s regime to a mere paper entity.
Postscript
Let’s set aside the fantasies propagated by the European component of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and return to reality:
Inevitably, only the Russian Federation can truly guarantee peace on Ukrainian territory. There will be no peace if the security conditions and consideration of Russian interests, demanded by Moscow for years even before the war began, are not met. And by “enemy,” I am hardly referring to the Ukrainian side, which has never been more than a disposable tool in the hands of Anglo-Saxon puppet masters.
The direct and official intervention of even the smallest military component from a single NATO country on Ukrainian soil would mean an immediate entry into war against Russia, with all the global consequences that would follow.
That said, if such a scenario was carefully avoided during the darkest hours of the bellicose reign of “democrats” in the White House, it certainly won’t happen now: the posturing of former European powers, whose “golden age” has sunk forever into the past, is as archaic as it is impotent.
Merci de cette analyse des plus claires.