The military conflict in the East of Ukraine has been going on for several years now. During that time politicians and representatives of numerous international organisations have talked of the need to introduce UN peacekeeping mission into the state for peace restoration.
Consultations on this issue in UN Security Council were initiated late in February 2015, after Ukraine addressed the UN and the EU seeking deployment of international peace and security operation within its territory. This issue has been actively discussed following another round of negotiations in the Normandy format. Deployment of military mission in Donbas was discussed in 2017 as well. However, only following the car detonation and death of the member of OSCE special monitoring mission to Ukraine in the territory of so-called Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR), the critical issue of taking urgent measures, i.e. sending UN peacekeeping mission, was arisen.
In September 2017 Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko held the meeting with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres within the framework of the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly. During the meeting he pointed out that only “the comprehensive peacekeeping mission may facilitate peace in Donbas”.
During that time Russia’s response to initiatives to send peacekeepers in Donbas was quite controversial: from flat denial to apparent approval, though, under numerous restrictions. If what Putin said is true, Russia supports the idea of deploying peacekeeping mission, however, under certain conditions. Particularly, Russian President gains sight of UN peacekeepers’ role as enhancing security of the OSCE mission. Meanwhile, President’s spokesman Dmitriy Peskov declares the need to implement Minsk agreements first. At the same time, Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov pleads such mission in Donbas is not provided under Minsk agreements.
Nevertheless, just before the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly Russia attempted to seize the initiative in discussing the issue of introducing international peacekeeping mission in Donbas and submitted their proposals.
Thus, today there are two ways to resolve the problem. Ukraine insists on patrolling the whole territory of occupied Donbas by ‘the blue helmets’. Such format of the mission was approved by Germany, France and the US. In the meantime, the US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker stressed that the representatives of ‘DPR’ and ‘LPR’ shall not take part in negotiations as they are not considered as independent entities. Volker claimed that peacekeeping forces in Donbas should not consist of Russians as Russia’s involvement in supporting separatists becomes increasingly apparent. He considers the role of Russia in withdrawing their forces to enable UN peacekeeping forces’ operation. Ukraine in turn is required to coordinate its actions with the UN.
US position as for ‘the blue helmets’ was clearly stated in its essence by ex-US ambassador in Ukraine Steven Pifer. According to him, the key to mission’s success lies in powers of peacekeepers under UN Security Council mandate. UN mission having proper mandate could make substantial contribution to end military conflict in Donbas. Moreover, he believes that introduction of the blue helmets interrelates with implementation of Minsk agreements as one without another is impossible. If the peacekeepers assure implementation of Minsk II agreement first three provisions – sustainable ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy armament, monitoring of ceasefire performance, then Kiev as well as other participants of Minsk agreements may proceed to implementation of political obligations.
Unfortunately, US initiative caused a wave of indignation among the authorities of separatist republics who declared no peacekeepers in Donbas without their approval. Russian politicians called the ideas stated by Volker provocative.
As for Russian version of peacekeeping mission, it involves staying of the peacekeepers only along the line of contact between Ukrainian army and militants, the rest of the territory shall remain under control of ‘DPR/LPR’ administrations. Thus, Russia proposes to withdraw arms from the line of contact only.
However, if all the participants of negotiations are truly interested in ceasefire and peace restoration, then the UN powers should cover the whole occupied territory of Ukraine. Then mission’s mandate may include such functions as disarmament, assistance in holding of elections, delivery of humanitarian aid, etc. And, the most important thing, such mandate may envisage a control of the Ukraine-Russia border which currently falls completely beyond the Ukrainian one.
The Washington Post journalist Ian Bateson has aptly remarked that a peacekeeping mission has the potential to pull the two sides away from each other and add muscle to the OSCE monitoring mission. Although peacekeepers will not end the conflict, they could make cease-fires stick and drastically improve the lives of the hundreds of thousands of people living along the front line.
Surely, it should take into account all ‘pros’ and ‘contras’ adopting a decision on sending ‘blue helmets’ in the East of Ukraine as well as all the suggestions of participants of peacekeeping process. Though, one should not forget that every moment civil citizens suffer and dies in the warfare territories and that is the politicians whose decisions determine when the bloodshed will be stopped and the peace would be restored in Donbas. Indefinite prolongation of negotiations leads to increase of victims of the conflict.