On Dec. 7, 2024, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump made a proposal to French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. He told them that European troops should serve as peacekeepers in the event of a peace deal in Ukraine.
It was a signal of both the United States’ unwillingness to provide Ukraine with security guarantees as well as the growing likelihood of a negotiated end to the Russia-Ukraine war. But instead of looking to European countries as the main source for such a force, negotiators should turn to the global south.
On Dec. 7, 2024, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump made a proposal to French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. He told them that European troops should serve as peacekeepers in the event of a peace deal in Ukraine.
It was a signal of both the United States’ unwillingness to provide Ukraine with security guarantees as well as the growing likelihood of a negotiated end to the Russia-Ukraine war. But instead of looking to European countries as the main source for such a force, negotiators should turn to the global south.
In order for any international peacekeeping mission to be successful, it is necessary for parties to the conflict to have working relations with the countries that are sending blue helmets. The major concern in Europe since February 2022 has not been the fate of Ukraine but rather the risk that the fighting poses to broader Russian-Western relations and the possibility of escalation.
Putting NATO soldiers, even if there are no U.S. boots on the ground, in front of armed Russians in what Moscow considers to be its militarized frontier does nothing to resolve the underlying tensions. Instead, it would exponentially increase the risk of a wider European war.
An EU deployment also lacks credibility. The consistent unwillingness, aside from rhetorical flourishes from Macron, to send troops to Ukraine during an ongoing conflict suggests that should fighting resume between Russia and Ukraine, the EU will lack the will to commit. It is not even clear that European countries have the capacity to sustain a large deployment. European peacekeepers risk being stranded in the absence of U.S. logistical support.
Meanwhile, deploying a “NATO minus America” force near Russian troops would not only be unacceptable to the Kremlin but also potentially lead the Russian government to double down on its demands that Ukraine be excluded from any sort of Euro-Atlantic integration. Indeed, a pan-European force would remain indistinguishable from a NATO one for the Russians. Combined with the bellicose rhetoric of some Western leaders, including supporting direct strikes inside of Russia, such a deployment would be seen as NATO expansion by stealth.
On Feb. 12, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth confirmed the Trump administration’s opposition to Ukraine’s membership in NATO and instead called for “capable European and non-European troops” to provide security guarantees—without U.S. troop involvement.
Instead of debating the merits of a European mission, negotiators should instead look for a broad cross-section of peacekeepers from the global south with friendly, or at least non-hostile, ties with both Russia and the West. The wide number of peace initiatives and proposals—coming from countries such as Indonesia, Mexico, and the African delegation that visited Kyiv and Moscow—suggests that there is a real willingness by these nonaligned states to play a significant role.
A brief exchange of gunfire with Italian or Dutch troops in the Donbas that does not escalate to a Russia-NATO war would not meaningfully hurt Russia’s international standing.
By contrast, the risk of Russians exchanging fire with Indian and Chinese troops on the ground would force Moscow to consider the implications of a small skirmish on its global strategies—whether in terms of economics, security, or diplomacy.
Realistically, however, those two countries are unlikely to risk their bilateral relationships with Russia for the marginal gains that might be accrued from providing security in Ukraine by themselves. In the worst-case scenario, they might damage their ties with both Russia and the West. Instead, a multinational approach should be adopted.
The ever-expanding BRICS+ group, alongside members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, now have a genuine opportunity to help define a new era of international security. The African Union, meanwhile, has gained decades of experience by conducting its own peacekeeping missions.
Even Persian Gulf countries could send military and political officers to help defuse tensions as they have been able to cultivate trust with both Russia and Ukraine by organizing several rounds of prisoner exchanges. This sort of practical experience with the warring parties, combined with a pragmatic mindset and simultaneous close ties with the United States, is what is needed to prevent a local disagreement from spiraling out of control.
An effective force does not have to be large since its goal should not be to be able to fight one of the parties but rather to simply keep the peace.
In order to avoid the mistakes made in Bosnia, where peacekeepers became mired in an ongoing war, clear parameters will be necessary. Most crucially, a cease-fire has to be agreed to before peacekeepers arrive. Without this, countries are likely to be unwilling to send their personnel lest they get trapped in a quagmire. Additionally, a clear demarcation of the front line needs to be made before their arrival. A withdrawal by both sides from the front will also reduce the risk of accidental clashes.
Not all countries will be able to contribute in the same way, but there remains a wide scope for participation. Chile, for example, has offered to assist with demining. The Latin American country’s experience in removing thousands of mines along its borders that were planted during the Augusto Pinochet dictatorship when Chile faced border disputes with its three neighbors makes its a particularly suitable participant.
Meanwhile, some European countries may be able to play a role. A select few, such as Hungary and Slovakia, may even be welcomed given their stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. More likely, however, is that the EU can help finance a peacekeeping force. This would make Europe a meaningful stakeholder with skin in the game and help reassure the global south of the broad support for its efforts.
Rather than rushing eastward, the EU should embrace this as an opportunity to create space between its troops and Russia’s. Whether it is the Demilitarized Zone in the Korean Peninsula today or the inner-German border during the Cold War, large-scale stationing of soldiers within firing range of rivals and potential future enemies produces the very tension that their presence is meant to counteract.
Rather than trying to monopolize the structures of international security, Europe would be better off embracing the global south as an integral part of the solution to stabilizing its own backyard.
The post The Global South, Not Europe, Should Play Peacekeeper in Ukraine appeared first on Foreign Policy.
