Why Is Peacekeeping in Ukraine Possible Only After Ceasefire?
As international discussions intensify over potential post-war arrangements in Ukraine, political scientist Petro Oleshchuk, Ph.D., and expert at the United Ukraine Think Tank, emphasized in his article for The Gaze that the deployment of any peacekeeping or monitoring missions to Ukraine would require a formal ceasefire agreement between Kyiv and Moscow.
“Today, various scenarios for peacekeeping, monitoring and deterrence missions involving international organizations, including NATO, the UN and the EU, are being considered to end the war. However, any peacekeeping mission in Ukraine is possible only in case of a ceasefire,” Oleshchuk stated.
He highlighted that peacekeeping missions are among the international community’s primary tools to ensure post-war stability. For Ukraine, which has faced Russian aggression since 2014, exploring various peacekeeping formats is both urgent and complex.
Oleshchuk laid out the different types of peace operations globally, from missions that impose peace — such as NATO’s KFOR mission in Kosovo — to observer deployments like the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), which focus on verifying ceasefire compliance without using force.
Yet, applying these models to Ukraine is unprecedented. Oleshchuk noted the particular political and logistical hurdles, especially under the current conditions of active warfare.
“In the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war, deploying a peacekeeping mission presents significant obstacles. Missions intended to impose or establish peace typically require the consent of all parties involved and may authorize the use of force. However, any attempt to initiate such an operation under the UN framework faces a major hurdle: Russia’s veto power as a permanent member of the Security Council,” he explained.
He continued, “While an alternative could be considered through NATO mechanisms, this route carries the serious risk of a direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed state. Traditional peacekeeping efforts, aimed at maintaining stability after a ceasefire, also appear unfeasible at present. They depend on a mutually accepted political agreement and cooperation from both sides—conditions that are currently absent.”
Amid these challenges, Oleshchuk pointed to the possibility of a monitoring mission in the short term. “Among the available options, the most viable in the near term could be a mission focused on monitoring a truce or de-escalation line. Yet past experience, such as the OSCE’s presence in Donbas, has demonstrated the limitations of such efforts when missions lack enforcement powers, political backing, or a clearly defined mandate.”
While ceasefire monitoring may be the most realistic step in the short term, Oleshchuk concluded that “in the long term, after a political settlement is reached, a peacekeeping mission involving a broad coalition of international partners is possible.”
He stressed the importance of Ukraine working closely with partners now: “Ukraine should actively work with international partners to achieve a political settlement of the conflict. It is also necessary to develop a detailed plan for the structure, mandate, and composition of a potential peacekeeping mission. Ultimately, it is important to ensure the participation of as many countries as possible for the legitimacy and effectiveness of the mission.”
Read the full article by Petro Oleshchuk on The Gaze: Designing a Peace Mission for Ukraine: What Would It Take