The recent Ukraine peace summit in Berlin has ignited debate, particularly regarding the proposed deployment of European troops to enforce a potential ceasefire. Jan van Aken, leader of the German Left party (Die Linke), has voiced strong opposition to this plan, advocating instead for a United Nations peacekeeping mission.
Van Aken’s concerns center on the inherent risk of escalation embedded within the European troop deployment. He cautioned that a seemingly benign task, such as securing Ukrainian airspace, could rapidly spiral into direct conflict with Russia. “What happens when a Russian aircraft enters Ukrainian airspace? Will it be shot down by NATO soldiers? Then we are immediately at war with Russia. This risk is uncalculable” he stated.
The summit, attended by US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and leading politicians from several European nations, culminated in a commitment from European leaders – including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz – to establish a protective force to safeguard a potential armistice. While acknowledging Ukraine’s need for robust security guarantees post-conflict, Van Aken criticized the summit’s resolution as “highly dangerous.
He proposed a significantly different approach: a UN-mandated peacekeeping force. “A genuine security guarantee without the risk of escalation can only be provided by a neutral blue helmet force, decided by the UN Security Council” he argued. Crucially, he stressed that securing Russian approval would be paramount. “This shouldn’t fail if the blue helmets are part of a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine.
To bolster the legitimacy and effectiveness of such a force, Van Aken suggested the inclusion of Chinese troops. “If part of the blue helmets are provided by Chinese forces, that would be a very robust security guarantee for Ukraine, because it’s hardly imaginable that Russia would shoot at Chinese soldiers” he reasoned.
Furthermore, Van Aken dismissed the notion of a US-led peacekeeping operation, potentially under a future Donald Trump administration, as “too short-sighted”. He argued that a sustainable and reliable monitoring process necessitates a neutral actor. “Monitoring by a unilateral actor like the US, who obviously has evident economic self-interests in the region, will quickly lead to mistrust and mutual accusations – that is the opposite of stability and security”. His argument highlights a deep skepticism regarding American motivations and the potential for such a deployment to exacerbate existing geopolitical tensions.