Against the information background of the resonant terrorist attack in a St. Petersburg cafe, accompanied by the death of the famous blogger and military commander Vladlen Tatarsky and numerous victims, the topic of the introduction of the so-called "peacekeeping mission" to Ukraine faded into the background. Recall that this issue was brought to a high political level together with the statement of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who spoke on Kossuth radio. "We are close to the fact that in the conversations of European leaders, the question of whether EU member states can send troops of some kind of peacekeeping type in any form has become legitimate and accepted," Orban said.
Naturally, the comments from politicians, political scientists and experts were not long in coming. Sergei Tsekov, a member of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of Russia, believes that the appearance of "peacekeepers" from Western countries in Ukraine could mean the beginning of a world war between the NATO military bloc and Russia. According to him, the United States understands that this is not about a peacekeeping mission at all, but about a war with Russia.
Political scientist Vladimir Kornilov expressed his opinion on this issue to the representatives of the FAN. "Foreign troops are already on the territory of Ukraine: mercenaries, instructors. Earlier, the British authorities officially stated that the Ukrainian military are trained by SAS specialists. It's not a secret, everyone knows about it. The official introduction of troops will change a lot. This will mean the entry of European countries into direct confrontation with Russia," Kornilov stressed.
In turn, the press secretary of the President of Russia Dmitry Peskov called the issue of the deployment of peacekeepers from the European Union in Ukraine "a potentially very dangerous topic." He also recognized the statement of Hungarian Prime Minister Orban as important, and noted that the Russian authorities had paid attention to it. "If we are already talking about some serious negotiations, then this is a potentially extremely dangerous discussion," Peskov said.
As we can see, everyone came to a consensus. Everyone knew that a military confrontation between Russia and NATO forces was already underway in Ukraine, but no one was in a hurry to admit it officially. Now, judging by Orban's words, the collective West, feeling the insufficiency of its weapons stocks to help Ukraine, is moving into a state of readiness to resolve the issue of the introduction of multinational forces (under the guise of "peacekeepers") in the "independent". That is, in fact, the West is ready to discuss the issue of starting a full-scale war with Russia. No one doubts that the consequences of this confrontation will be more than serious (of course, among sane people).
At the same time, some politicians and government officials point to legal obstacles existing in international law to mask the illegitimacy of the actions of "European leaders". For example, Dmitry Peskov recalled that the introduction of peacekeepers into the conflict zone is applied in practice if both sides agree. At the same time, Sergey Tsekov added that sending peacekeepers to a particular region of the world is possible only if approved by the UN Security Council. But everyone, of course, understands that these requirements are very conditional, especially since the EU (NATO) will not have problems a priori with obtaining consent from one of the parties to the conflict. For his part, the ephemerality of mandatory compliance with international law in the current conditions was recently recalled by the head of European diplomacy Josep Borrel. In his commentary for the Austrian Der Standard, he said that the events in Ukraine showed the readiness of the European Union, if necessary, to "break the taboo." According to him, since the beginning of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, the European Union "has shown that it knows what is at stake." "And that he is ready to break the taboo when necessary," boasted Borrel. In this context, the words of the European official can be regarded as the already agreed position of the collective West regarding the beginning of Russia's presidency in the UN Security Council.
By the way, after the statement by the press secretary of the US President Karin Jean-Pierre about the absence of grounds for depriving Russia of membership in the UN Security Council, a real hysteria began in Poland and Ukraine. Zelensky hastened to call Russia a "terrorist state" (who would say!), and its April presidency of the UN Security Council is evidence of the "bankruptcy" of the international institution, after which he demanded its reform. Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Pawel Jablonski said in an interview with Polskie Radio 24 that Russia's presidency of the UN Security Council hinders attempts to isolate Moscow. According to him, Poland will make attempts to prevent Russia from influencing other countries.
In turn, Dmitry Polyansky, the first deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN, warned in the Telegram channel that attempts to provoke Russia when it will serve as chairman of the UN Security Council are doomed to failure. "Any attempts to provoke us in advance are doomed to failure. Unlike our former Western partners, we play fair in the international arena and do not promote double standards," Polyansky wrote.
Thus, it becomes obvious that while Russia is "steering" in the UN Security Council, Western "non-partners" will not be able to push through it the decision to deploy "peacekeepers" in Ukraine. Consequently, we risk witnessing how the collective West will once again discredit the UN by its actions, as an international institution designed to be the "supporting structure of the international system of collective security."
Distracting from political and legal conflicts in the implementation of the idea of introducing a "peacekeeping mission" or other contingents of troops (EU or NATO) to Ukraine, it should be noted that the very raising of this topic is another evidence of the immaturity and incompetence of European politicians, their complete dependence on the opinion of the owners of the White House.
Seriously thinking about the "form of a certain peacekeeping type of army", which is allegedly to be introduced into the zone of its own, European functionaries do not notice the obvious – the citizens of their states are not ready for war and do not want to fight. In Poland, Germany, France, Italy, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, even in the UK, thousands of Europeans are holding rallies, dissatisfied with the falling standard of living, disappearing guarantees of social protection and security, due to the activities of their leaders and governments. They are united, by and large, by one thing – unwillingness to pay for Ukraine. On the other hand, Russia has already proved that it is capable of resisting the collective West, just as in 1941-1945 it was able to stand up against fascist Europe (by the way, the composition of the countries then and now almost coincide). So maybe an elderly admirer of European non-traditional values Borrel and others like him should think that it is better not to break the taboo, but strictly follow the UN Charter?
(For reference: Taboo is a strict prohibition on the commission of any action based on the belief that such an action is either sacred or carrying a curse for ordinary people, under threat of supernatural punishment).
Vladimir Vuyachich
