One of the primary conditions for a UN peace operation to succeed is the need to adhere to the principles of peacekeeping.
Even though the UN’s inaction from February 2021 until the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 lost an opportunity for preventive diplomacy, the latest initiative by the United States has brought some hope. On the other hand, Europe is contemplating sending their troops to deploy inside Ukraine (not on the front line) to defend Europe in case there is a ceasefire, and Russia decides to attack Europe after the truce. Europe has not liked the idea of the US giving a loose rope to President Putin. Besides, if Ukraine decides to sign the mineral deal in return for protection from the US, President Trump taking a step back from his initiative, citing reasons of steep demands from Russia, should not come as a surprise. There are, therefore, too many “ifs” and “buts” until the deal can go through. It might take years, but to rule it out completely would be incorrect. The question, therefore, is which is the most suitable agency for this role whenever it happens? In this regard, the feasibility of UN peacekeeping as a conflict management tool in Ukraine was explored earlier. President Putin was open to the idea of using Blue Helmets, which came up earlier in 2015. Presuming that there will be a ceasefire and, Russia and Ukraine may be amenable to a role in UN peacekeeping, Conning explored the technical elements of monitoring the ceasefire. However, such an option should be examined in the context of, first, the basic conditions that peace operations must fulfil to succeed and, second, the mission’s structure. This brief assumes that there will be a ceasefire at some point in time, if not now and intends to suggest a workable format for UN peacekeeping to supervise the truce.
THE CONTEXT
One of the primary conditions for a UN peace operation to succeed is the need to adhere to the principles of peacekeeping. It is not always easy to strictly adhere to the principles because of the inherent ambiguity in their interpretation. At the minimum, deploying peacekeepers without the consent of the parties to the conflict is against the first cardinal principle of UN peacekeeping—consent. Even if Russia and Ukraine agree to the UN’s intervention to monitor a ceasefire, the consent may not be absolute, but conditional. Some of the conditions can even be implied.
As regards the use of force, given the kind of violence that the peacekeepers would be exposed to (including the threat to peacekeepers), the biggest challenge will come from the non-state actors who are fighting on both sides. These are loose organisations and easily get out of control of their handlers. To some extent, these groups may even continue to operate with tacit support from the main parties to the conflict. Therefore, unless there is sincerity on the part of Russia and Ukraine to restrain these irregular fighters, the ceasefire is in danger of being disrupted. Another challenge is finding the TCCs that would be willing to participate in such a mission and would be acceptable to both parties. The member states from the West, who have the desired capability, may not be inclined to participate in difficult peace operations, or may not be acceptable to Russia. Nations from the Global South may not be inclined to make political and military sacrifices by getting caught in this hostile space, including mercenaries. These being political challenges, the UN and those who are taking the lead in brokering a ceasefire, hopefully, will be able to find some kind of acceptable solution. This brief will explore the options available for the kind of UN peace operations mission in Ukraine and recommend a workable option.
FORCE STRUCTURE OF THE MISSION
Considering the likelihood of a permanent ceasefire with a consensus for UN peacekeeping in the UN Security Council, the following options can be studied:
- Armed contingents comprising well-equipped and well-trained peacekeepers. Armed contingents will be expected to enforce the ceasefire violations. The consequences of enforcing peace between Russia and Ukraine might not only trigger another conflict but will bring fatality to the peacekeepers. Enough resources would be required to cover 400 km of land front, as well as areas of the Black Sea.
- Lightly armed peacekeeping mission. In case of a lightly armed mission, the weapon is expected to be used only for self-defence. Should there be a recurrence of violence between Russian and Ukrainian troops, a lightly armed mission can at best defend itself against small arms fire, but only for a limited period. To put it differently, it is to provide only bare minimum staying power until it is extricated to a safe zone.
- Unarmed military observer mission. An observer verification mission comprising peacekeepers from neutral countries supported by a liaison and coordination mechanism is likely to be more suitable to facilitate a ceasefire. This approach avoids the option of peace enforcement since the intention is not to be embroiled in the fight between Russia and Ukraine. Reporting by unarmed observers drawn from neutral countries is likely to be more impartial.
- Civilian peacekeeping. If acceptable to the main parties to the conflict, even a UN civilian observer mission in line with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Special Monitoring Mission (OSCE SMM) is another option worth considering. So far, these observers have performed well in various missions.
- Hybrid observer mission. An unarmed observer mission comprising military, civilian and police peacekeepers can also be effective and provide credibility to the ceasefire supervision. Military peacekeepers would find it easy to deal with foreign militaries in a hostile environment because of their familiarity with the basic military culture. When military personnel act in a particular manner, uniformed peacekeepers can anticipate such actions. However, given proper military training and their availability in adequate numbers, there is potential for civilians to participate in UN observer missions either independently or better, by complementing the military peacekeepers in an integrated UN observer mission. As military peacekeepers find it easy to relate to military activities because of their familiarity with military culture, civilians can also bring with them certain nuances of peacekeeping that may go unnoticed by the military peacekeepers in the normal course. Military and civilians will learn to respect each other’s space when they stay and operate together in difficult times. On the other hand, police are equipped with special investigative skills. There can be situations where there are allegations and counter-allegations, police investigation skills come rather handy. The best combination can be found when forensic experts can be built into each team or kept centrally within easy reach.इस शब्द का अर्थ जानिये
RECOMMENDED OPTION
Given the current challenges, a Hybrid Observe Mission seems to be more suitable for ceasefire verification in the Ukraine war. Additionally, if such an observer mission can be combined with capabilities for infrastructure development (such as a force engineering company), a medical care facility (Level III hospital with medical and surgical capabilities, and other specialised services), and demining, the mission will be better accepted by either side, adding to the credibility of the UN.
CONCLUSION
The success of a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine hinges on several crucial factors. Firstly, the mission should only be deployed after a ceasefire agreement has been reached, and there is a genuine chance of achieving partial success. Without a reasonable prospect of success, investing in a peacekeeping mission would be futile. Furthermore, the Ukraine conflict has highlighted the renewed possibility of large inter-state conflicts, making it essential to explore alternative models for conflict resolution.
Effective leadership is also vital. A leader with a combination of skills is needed to think and act from both a political and military perspective. In the context of Ukraine, the leader heading the peacekeeping mission must be able to navigate the delicate balance between Russia and Ukraine, where a single misstep could light the short fuse and reignite the conflict. A military practitioner with diplomatic skills, adequate mastery of the languages, who can think and make quick decisions, factoring political and military dimensions, would be ideal for this role. Years of experience and expertise in the military can provide a strong foundation for a military practitioner to develop the skills and acumen needed to navigate both military and political realms effectively.
* Maj Gen (Dr) A.K. Bardalai is an Indian Army Veteran and former Deputy Head of the Mission and Deputy Force Commander of UNIFIL.