Under what conditions a UN "peacekeeping" mission could benefit Ukraine

A UN-led peacekeeping mission could serve as an alternative to the "Coalition of the Willing" – a peacekeeping contingent formed by a coalition of European nations.

According to media reports, French President Emmanuel Macron has discussed this scenario with UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

While this initiative has sparked interest in several countries, it has not yet gained traction in Kyiv.

Read more to understand under what conditions such a mission could be beneficial for Ukraine and which terms Kyiv must not accept in the interview with Hanna Shelest, Director of Security Programmes at the Foreign Policy Council Ukrainian Prism – Aid with the aggressor’s permission: what a UN peacekeeping mission would mean for Ukraine.

In theory, several types of missions have evolved over the UN’s existence. Interestingly, the UN Charter does not mention "peacekeeping missions" at all, even though the first such mission was deployed in 1948 in the Middle East.

Over 80 years, four main types of peacekeeping missions have been established. The most significant are Peacekeeping Operations, which focus on maintaining peace.

Such operations require an initial ceasefire agreement, after which the UN deploys a contingent to prevent further armed conflict.

If Ukraine were to consider a UN mission, it would require at least a negotiated ceasefire, which the UN mission would then oversee. However, the mission would only guarantee compliance on the ground – it lacks the capability to enforce a ceasefire in the air or at sea.

What exactly this mission would do remains an open question. Think of it as a restaurant menu with 40 different options – the mission’s tasks would be selected from these. Since UN peacekeeping missions are not defined in the Charter, each new mission gets a specific mandate approved by the UN Security Council.

Macron’s sudden interest in a UN mission likely signals that US-led peace talks offer some hope for a long-term ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia.

A UN mission takes time. It would be impossible to deploy within just 30 days.

However, if a ceasefire is achieved, the mission could be positioned simultaneously in both Kherson and Nova Kakhovka, preventing provocations along the front line.

Additionally, such a mission would allow a broader range of countries to participate.

During a recent visit to India, I was repeatedly asked how Ukraine would react to the idea of inviting Indian peacekeepers. China has also expressed interest in sending peacekeepers, though there have been conflicting statements from Chinese officials.

For a country of Ukraine’s size, the UN mission should include at least 10,000 troops.

A peacekeeping mission must be acceptable to all parties in the conflict. However, the most crucial approval must come from the country where the mission is deployed – in this case, Ukraine.

Although this is a conflict between two countries, the mission would be stationed only on Ukrainian territory, meaning that, in theory, it only requires Ukraine’s approval. However, Russia, as a permanent UN Security Council member, can influence the mission’s mandate and composition since the Security Council must approve it.

Russia could block the mission’s mandate renewal – as it did after the 2008 war in Georgia – or cut off its funding. This would make the mission vulnerable to Russian demands, posing a significant risk for Ukraine.

Kyiv cannot outright reject a UN peacekeeping mission, as this could harm Ukraine’s international reputation.

However, and this is crucial: the presence of a UN mission must not exclude other missions.

Any agreement on a UN mission must explicitly state that it does not prevent the deployment of other internationalpeacekeeping missions.