It has become clear that a Ukrainian “victory” that results in recovery of the territory lost to Russia since 2014 is unlikely. As the conflict in Ukraine drags on, with negotiations for even a cease-fire at a virtual standstill, peacekeeping is being touted as a solution to this conflict.

Senior allied defense officials met in the U.K. on March 20 to discuss the possibility of forming a “coalition of the willing” for peacekeeping. Yet as Bence Németh of King’s College London has noted: “European leaders say they will only send troops if there is a lasting peace in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has so far ruled out signing a peace deal that includes Western forces in Ukraine.”

The reason peacekeeping cannot be a panacea is that its success depends on the existence of a treaty or other agreement that establishes a peace to be kept. The prospect of a peacekeeping mission might build confidence to increase the likelihood of a peace agreement between warring parties, but peacekeeping follows an agreement. It cannot compel an agreement.

Defending NATO territory through deterrence by force posture in Europe and NATO nuclear policy is possible, and quite likely to succeed, under

© The Hill