The history of peacekeeping does not increase well for Ukraine

While Europe is thinking about sending peacekeeping troops to Ukraine, the history of peacekeeping missions suggests that the effort is far from being sure. Peace soldiers have often failed to prevent wars, or even became targets themselves.

Peacekeeping is generally associated with the UN, which first sent military observers in the Middle East in 1948 to monitor the armistice after the 1948 War of Israelisand today has 72,000 peace soldiers In 11 conflict zones. Russian peacekeepers served alongside NATO troops in BosniaAnd acted without success as a stamp between Armenia and Azerbaijan on the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.

The African Union has also deployed South African forces and African states in regional conflicts. For poorer nations, such as Bangladesh and Pakistan, the volunteer of their soldiers for relatively well paid peacekeeping has become a source of income.

The idea of ​​using European troops to maintain a trembling peace between Ukraine and Russia immediately comes up against a definition problem. Would they be there to maintain peace or to protect Ukraine? Peace soldiers are generally supposed to be neutral and act mainly as monitors. Indeed, the UN lists Four basic principles of peacekeeping: Impartiality, consent of the parts at war and not to use force except in self -defense.

The accusations of bias against the soldiers of peace are not uncommon. Israel, for example, has long accused the provisional force of the United Nations in Lebanon (Unifil) to ignore Hezbollah activities along the Israeli-Leban border, which led to Israeli troops entrance Lebanon in October.

But a European peacekeeping mission would be problematic. Even if the peacekeeping force proposed in Ukraine would be under European auspices rather than in NATO, the troops would come from convivial nations or NATO. It is difficult to believe that Russia would see it like something other than permanent Western expeditionary force to defend Ukraine against another Russia.

There are essentially two concepts for a peacekeeping force. One is to act as an armed conflict instructor, who can document what team has violated the agreements. Another is to have a sufficient size of force and a mandate to defend an attacked party, similar to the United Nations command led by the United States created to defend South Korea against the reinvasion which has been active for more than seven decades.

Related stories

Business Insider tells the innovative stories you want to know

Business Insider tells the innovative stories you want to know

Anyway, there is a danger: what happens when the soldiers of the peace themselves are attacked, either accidentally taken in the cross or deliberately targeted fires?

Some 4,423 United Nations peacekeepers was dead In February 2025, 1,134 of which were killed by a “malicious action”. In Lebanon, the United Nations was affected by Israeli fire and Hezbollah. In January 2025, several soldiers of the United Nations were killed by fighting the M23 rebels in eastern Congo.

Peacekeeping forces tend to have more symbolic power than firepower. These omnipresent white armored cars Use used by UN troops may be sufficient to dissuade unarmed rioters and looters, or perhaps insurgents with light weapons and IED. But in the Congo, the UN forces have trouble anti-tank missiles and drones.

Any peacekeeping force in Ukraine would be captured between two armed nations with artillery, tanks, missiles and drones. The fully equipped European mechanized brigades, supported by air power, could have the firepower to dissuade the attacks. Actually, Ukrainian officials said that a European peacekeeping mission only makes sense if the soldiers of peace are ready to fight.

On the other hand, Russia has invaded to dominate Ukraine and keep it away from the EU and NATO. A strong force of British and French troops on the Russian border could be considered by the Kremlin as a provocation.

Russia does not even need tanks or cannons to make peacekeeping untenable. There are many ways to harass the peace plans, IEDs put by dark pro-Russian groups, with artillery dams which “accidentally” struck a barracks. Although this would risk escalation with Europe and perhaps NATO, Moscow could hope that even some victims would encourage the European public to demand that the troops return home.

In the end, the success of peacekeeping is measured by peacekeeping, or at least violence is attenuated. The record here is uneven. The Israelis still remember how in 1967 United Nations (UNEF) emergency force – Park in Sinai as a buffer between Israel and Egypt – abruptly left in response to Egyptian requests. The result was Israel launching a preemptive strike against Egypt in the six -day war. Unifil troops have been stationed along the Israeli-Leban border since 1978, but that did not prevent wars in 1982, 2006 and 2024, as well as many border incidents.

However, the UN says that peacekeeping is working, pointing successful missions in places such as Cambodia and Namibia. Parking troops in the Allied nations have also succeeded in maintaining peace: American troops South Korea May well have dissuaded North Korea from invasing, while those deployed in Germany during the Cold War helped to prevent a Soviet invasion of Western Europe.

Peacekeeping seems more likely to succeed or when the peacekeepers have either overwhelming force or when the parts at war themselves decide to stop fighting. A European peacekeeping force in Ukraine could benefit from it either.

Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy Magazine and other publications. He has a master’s degree in political science of Rutgers Univ. Follow him Twitter And Liendin