Today, the United States and Russia placed possible peace talks in Saudi Arabia in Saudi Arabia.
21: 47 • Updated 22:26
Ukraine peacekeepers should come from the global southern countries, says professor of world politics at the University of Helsinki Heikki Patomäki A-studio.
According to him, it has been clear from the outset that Russia will not accept the NATO troops as peacekeepers in Ukraine.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov Confirmed the position today at the end of the Ukraine negotiations between the US and Russia in Saudi Arabia. Russia would not accept peacekeepers from NATO countries to Ukraine, even if they were representing their own country.
-The NATO countries cover only one eighth of humanity. There are many countries outside, some of which have the ability to participate in peacekeeping, says Patomäki.
According to Patomäki, 25,000 to 50,000 peacekeepers should be sent to Ukraine. He mentions, for example, Indonesia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa and a group of other global south countries as possible peacekeepers.
BRICS countries as peacekeepers?
All countries mentioned by Patomäki as examples are part of the so-called BRICS group, which Russia belongs to.
Director of the European Hybrid Expertise Teija Tiilikainen Consider calling the BRICS countries twice.
“BRICS is strongly profiled as a new union for China and Russia,” he points out.
Tiilikainen also says that if Russia claims demands of peacekeepers, it is fair, from the point of view of fair peace, that Ukraine will hope who will be able to secure its peace.
According to Patomäki, it would be important for the Ukrainian peacekeeping through the UN. However, he admits that it is very unlikely in the current situation.
– The Trump administration is very critical of the UN and there is a risk that the United States may even leave the UN. In that situation, it is unclear whether the United States would allow the UN to bring together peacekeeping troops to Ukraine, he says.
Security guarantees different than peacekeeping
Patomäki points out that security guarantees are different from peacekeeping.
– If you give a promise that a country is defended if you are attacked, it will not guarantee the preservation of peace.
Patomäki gives examples of situations that have led to war where some country has had security guarantees.
– In 1939, Poland had security guarantees and led to World War I; South Vietnam had security guarantees and resulted in the Vietnam War, Patomäki sums up.
Tiilikainen states that the security guarantee is very difficult and complicated and it is unclear what the security guarantees would consist of Ukraine.
– Would security guarantees consist of a strong Ukraine or the idea of US senators that Ukraine would get a bypass lane in NATO if Russia broke peace, Tiilikainen ponders.
See the full A-studio at Arena.