An Initiative Doomed To Failure. Russia Has Firmly Rejected The Idea Of NATO Peacekeepers

Support SouthFront

Click to see the full-size image

Proposals by European leaders to send military forces into Ukraine have been met with strong opposition from Russia.

“As discussions between the West and Ukraine show, all these plans essentially involve providing guarantees through foreign military intervention in part of Ukrainian territory. I very much hope that those hatching such plans are simply trying to attract attention, but I also hope they understand this would be absolutely unacceptable to the Russian Federation and all sane political forces in Europe,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Earlier, Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, responded more harshly to French President Emmanuel Macron:

Click to see the full-size image

“The brainless Gallic rooster can’t let go of the idea of sending troops to ‘Ukraine.’ It’s been explicitly stated: NO NATO troops as peacekeepers. Russia won’t accept such a “security guarantee.” But the hoarse, pathetic bird continues to crow to prove it’s king of the coop”.

Moscow will consider the deployment of French, German, or any other NATO military forces in Ukraine as direct intervention in the war. The consequences will be catastrophic for Europe and humanity. It’s important to remember that, besides Russia and the U.S., the U.K. and France also have nuclear weapons. Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron are among the main proponents of introducing “peacekeepers.”

The idea of the North Atlantic Alliance directly intervening in Ukraine with armed forces is not feasible. It has nothing to do with achieving a peaceful settlement. The only legitimate peacekeepers are those mandated by the UN Security Council, or “blue helmets.” This means the deployment of peacekeepers must be agreed upon in not only Washington, London, and Paris but also Moscow and Beijing. Historical experience shows that soldiers deployed to separate warring parties must be from neutral states. For instance, there are units from Indonesia, Spain, India, Ghana, Ireland, Malaysia, Italy, Finland, France, and South Korea in southern Lebanon. None of these countries have any alliance obligations to Beirut or Tel Aviv.

Click to see the full-size image

The European Union has spent billions of euros arming and equipping Ukraine’s Armed Forces. A significant proportion of the Armed Forces of Ukraine’s weapons come from European army warehouses. Thousands of citizens from EU member states are fighting alongside the AFU. The Russian leadership has repeatedly drawn attention to the presence of French, German, and other European military personnel among the technical staff of the Ukrainian Army. The entry of European troops into Ukraine would be a direct occupation, not an attempt to separate warring parties. All NATO peacekeeping missions conducted since the dissolution of the Soviet Union have escalated into direct aggression. The Kremlin is well aware of this, as it experienced it in the 1990s.

Two examples suffice to illustrate this point. In 1995, the Implementation Force (IFOR) was deployed to monitor compliance with the Dayton Accords between the Bosnian Serbs and the Croats and Muslims. Since then, the name of the occupying forces has changed — first to the Stabilization Force (SFOR) and then to the European Union Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina (EUFOR). The essence of this mission has not changed. The NATO group of forces did nothing but threaten the weakened Republika Srpska.

Under the pressure of brute force, the authorities in Banja Luka were forced to make fundamental concessions. As early as 1996, Radovan Karadžić, the man on whom the idea of a Serbian state in Bosnia was based, was removed from his position as president of Republika Srpska. In 1998, the Serbs were pressured into abandoning their currency. In 1999, the strategically important district of Brčko, which connects the two parts of the Republic, was taken out of the control of the RS through simple maneuvers. It is a narrow corridor. In the event of a future war, the Serbs will be defeated one by one. In 2004, Serbian Sarajevo was stripped of its name and renamed “East Sarajevo.” Finally, in 2006, the Army of the Republika Srpska, the fundamental basis of statehood, was eliminated.

The situation repeated itself in 1999, this time in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Following a series of so-called “humanitarian bombings,” Slobodan Milošević was forced to withdraw his army from Kosovo. NATO “peacekeepers” then entered the region as the Kosovo Force (KFOR). They were formally tasked with disarming the Albanian militants of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and establishing peace. That was the extent of their authority. Previous UN Security Council resolutions required strict observance of Yugoslavia’s territorial integrity and were binding on all members of the international community. In reality, the Kosovo Protection Corps, consisting of the same KLA militants, grew under the auspices of KFOR. In 2008, Pristina declared “independence.” This was immediately recognized by the United States, most European countries, and American allies around the world.

It is unnecessary to mention Western operations such as the invasion of Afghanistan, the attack on Iraq, and the bombing of Libya. As of 2025, it is safe to say that European countries have not had a single successful peacekeeping mission. Instead, the only “success” was that the situation in a particular region rapidly changed in the NATO bloc’s geopolitical interests. Why should Russia agree to such a development of events in Ukraine? It is completely incomprehensible.

President Donald Trump is trying to minimize U.S. involvement in a hypothetical “peacekeeping” mission, fully aware of what it could lead to. Washington is generally very cautious when it comes to providing security guarantees to Ukraine. Vice President JD Vance recently stated that the United States does not intend to make any vague commitments. This is a positive signal to the world because, without American involvement, the Europeans will not dare to openly confront Russia. Yet it seems that this is still not enough. The American administration must clearly state its position. Wisely, the US has abandoned demands for NATO expansion to the east. It’s time to stop talking about a European pseudo-peacekeeping contingent.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• Iskander Over Ukraine Pushes Zelensky To Peace In Washington
• Tomahawk-Armed U.S. Destroyers To Arrive Near Venezuela On Counter-Cartel Mission
• U.S. Deploys 4,000 Troops, Carrier, Submarine And More On Counter-Cartel Mission

Support SouthFront