Send Peacekeepers Into Donbas

[Photo Guy]

The West should propose sending in peacekeepers. If Putin disagrees, he'll be showing his true colors, his disapproval of a peace-keeping process. Allow various militias of various countries to participate. What do you think? I think it could work, if structured properly. 

[2tallbill]

The West should propose sending in peacekeepers. If Putin disagrees, he'll be showing his true colors, his disapproval of a peace-keeping process. Allow various militias of various countries to participate. What do you think? I think it could work, if structured properly.

Putin would agree to send in his own peace keepers but would do something to prevent
the arrival of foreign non Russian peacekeepers.

Secondly who is this mythical peacekeeper? do you think the French will send in any?
the Germans? who? I think that these Peacekeepers should be primarily European. This
is a European problem and they should try to make at least a token effort in their own
defense efforts.

[mendeleyev]

He cannot allow it. Foreign troops on soil in such an important part of the "near abroad" would be viewed at home as a defeat.

Now what the West could do is remove all insignia from uniforms and equipment, and introduce a whole new kind of "little green men" parachuting into Eastern Ukraine. 

[Larry1]

He cannot allow it. Foreign troops on soil in such an important part of the "near abroad" would be viewed at home as a defeat.

Now what the West could do is remove all insignia from uniforms and equipment, and introduce a whole new kind of "little green men" parachuting into Eastern Ukraine. 

That would be a game changer. But it would never happen under the regime of B. Hussein Obama.

[BillyB]

The West should propose sending in peacekeepers.

UN peacekeepers aren't peacemakers. They're an army without ammunition. Won't solve the problems there.

[Boethius]

Secondly who is this mythical peacekeeper? do you think the French will send in any?
the Germans? who? I think that these Peacekeepers should be primarily European. This
is a European problem and they should try to make at least a token effort in their own
defense efforts.

The French and Germans have sent UN peacekeepers to many regions.  There is currently a scandal involving French troops' behavior in Central Africa.


The UN will only send in peacekeepers if both sides agree.  The peacekeepers must be impartial.


Brass would know a lot about this, as I believe he served in a peacekeeping capacity in the past.

[Brasscasing]

The West should propose sending in peacekeepers. If Putin disagrees, he'll be showing his true colors, his disapproval of a peace-keeping process. Allow various militias of various countries to participate. What do you think? I think it could work, if structured properly.

Putin's already shown his true colors as you put it but that aside, there is a procedure for deploying Blue Berets and unfortunately one of the steps is a UN Security Council resolution...and guess who's got veto power on the council.

..."Security Council resolution

If the Security Council determines that deploying a UN Peacekeeping operation is the most appropriate step to take, it will formally authorize this by adopting a resolution. The resolution sets out the operation’s mandate and size, and details the tasks it will be responsible for performing. The budget and resources are then subject to General Assembly approval."...

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/newoperation.shtml

Unless they were exclusively Russian "Peacekeepers", wherein Mad Vlad would be able to turn his illegal invasion of Ukraine into a UN sanctioned invasion of Ukraine, I doubt he'd go for it.

Besides, once the peacekeeping door is opened the UN can request assistance from NATO as was done in the Balkans (UNPROFOR morphed into IFOR when the UN mandate/ROEs proved inadequate to deal with the combatants) and that's the last thing the criminals occupying the Kremlin want.

Brass

[Brasscasing]

Putin would agree to send in his own peace keepers but would do something to prevent
the arrival of foreign non Russian peacekeepers.

There is a fail safe within the UN General Assembly framework but chances are it would never be invoked with Russia's invasion of Ukraine as it would be tantamount to a declaration of war ...or at least that's the way the Russians would view it...

..."Uniting for Peace" resolution

Under the UN Charter, however, the General Assembly cannot discuss and make recommendations on peace and security matters which are at that time being addressed by the Security Council.

Despite the UN Charter's provision limiting the General Assembly's powers with regard to peace and security matters, there may be cases when the Assembly can take action.

In accordance with the General Assembly's "Uniting for Peace" resolution of November 1950 [resolution 377 (V)] PDF Document, if the Security Council fails to act, owing to the negative vote of a permanent member, then the General Assembly may act. This would happen in the case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. The General Assembly can consider the matter with a view to making recommendations to Members for collective measures to maintain or restore international peace and security.

This resolution was invoked only once in UN peacekeeping history, when in 1956 the General Assembly established the First UN Emergency Force (UNEF I) in the Middle East."...

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/rolega.shtml

Secondly who is this mythical peacekeeper? do you think the French will send in any?
the Germans? who? I think that these Peacekeepers should be primarily European. This
is a European problem and they should try to make at least a token effort in their own
defense efforts.

The French and Germans have sent UN peacekeepers to many regions.  There is currently a scandal involving French troops' behavior in Central Africa.

The UN will only send in peacekeepers if both sides agree.  The peacekeepers must be impartial.

Brass would know a lot about this, as I believe he served in a peacekeeping capacity in the past.

There's a lot here, Bo. More than I can address without adequate time.

Reader's Digest version is the UN asks it's member states to contribute...

..."Who provides peacekeepers?

The UN has no standing army or police force of its own, and Member States are asked to contribute military and police personnel required for each operation. Peacekeepers wear their countries’ uniform and are identified as UN Peacekeepers only by a UN blue helmet or beret and a badge.

Civilian staff of peacekeeping operations are international civil servants, recruited and deployed by the UN Secretariat."...

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/newoperation.shtml

The DPKO oversees the military end of the operations...

..."Office of Military Affairs

Office of Military Affairs (OMA) works to deploy the most appropriate military capability in support of United Nations objectives; and to enhance performance and improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of military components in United Nations Peacekeeping missions. More on military »"...

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/about/dpko/

Brass

[Darth_Budda]

Transnistria 2.0

[alex330]

UN peacekeepers aren't peacemakers. They're an army without ammunition. Won't solve the problems there.

Agreed. You don't bring a neutered and toothless dog to a fight.

[Brasscasing]

UN peacekeepers aren't peacemakers. They're an army without ammunition. Won't solve the problems there.

Agreed. You don't bring a neutered and toothless dog to a fight.

Depends. Some UN contingents and missions are 100% successful in meeting the objective, some are unmitigated disasters.

Is the UN the right organization for a mission in Ukraine? No, this is definitely within NATO's purview.  UN peacekeepers aren't geared for offensive operations and like the former Yugoslavia any such operation would just turn the UN into another combatant trying to maintain a peace that doesn't exist.

Having said that I consider the U.S. and NATO no more potent than the UN right now. Both country and organization have shown themselves to be as 'neutered' and 'toothless' as the UN in this matter.

 'Peacemakers' vs. 'Peacekeepers'- Peacemaking is more along the lines of diplomacy. 'Peacekeeping' and 'Peace Enforcement' are what you two are talking about.

As far as being an "army without ammunition". Not quite. Normally, the largest group of any UN Peacekeeping mission are typically Light Infantry with personal weapons and some combat support weapons like mortars, light armored fighting vehicles, Pln machine guns, etc. Lot's of ammunition but they must adhere to the ROE's.

In almost every incident I was involved with, the decision to engage (in a firefight) was a result of imminent mortal danger to refugees/non combatants/ethnic cleansing or peacekeepers themselves.

Brass



 

[BillyB]

Peacemaking is more along the lines of diplomacy.

Diplomacy is a method of asking, not making peace and diplomacy doesn't happen when both sides think they can win on the battlefield. Peace usually happens after one guy pounds the other guy into submission. That's what I mean by peacemaking. UN peacekeepers can't do that.

As far as being an "army without ammunition". Not quite. Normally, the largest group of any UN Peacekeeping mission are typically Light Infantry with personal weapons and some combat support weapons like mortars, light armored fighting vehicles, Pln machine guns, etc. Lot's of ammunition but they must adhere to the ROE's.
 

UN peacekeepers got pushed out Somolia, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda. Trained soldiers that are very limited in what they can do can't perform well against civilian populations that rise up. When I was in the army, nobody there wanted to be a part of any UN operation. A bunch politicians from various nations sending troops into harms way and telling the troops they are very limited in what they can do. Imagine UN soldiers from German and Polish backgrounds shooting Ukrainian citizens who have ethnic Russian backgrounds hurling rocks and Molotov cocktails at them? Even with Russian approval, I don't think the UN wants to go there.

[2tallbill]

The French and Germans have sent UN peacekeepers to many regions.  There is currently a scandal involving French troops' behavior in Central Africa.


The UN will only send in peacekeepers if both sides agree.  The peacekeepers must be impartial.


Brass would know a lot about this, as I believe he served in a peacekeeping capacity in the past.

France and Germany might send 30 each provided the US, Canada and England
had 20,000 there.

[Brasscasing]

Diplomacy is a method of asking, not making peace and diplomacy doesn't happen when both sides think they can win on the battlefield. Peace usually happens after one guy pounds the other guy into submission. That's what I mean by peacemaking. UN peacekeepers can't do that.

Peacemaking

..."UN peacemaking brings hostile parties to agreement through diplomatic means. The Security Council, in its efforts to maintain international peace and security, may recommend ways to avoid conflict or restore or secure peace — through negotiation, for example, or recourse to the International Court of Justice."...

http://www.un.org/Overview/uninbrief/peacemaking.shtml

UN peacekeepers got pushed out Somolia, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda. Trained soldiers that are very limited in what they can do can't perform well against civilian populations that rise up. When I was in the army, nobody there wanted to be a part of any UN operation. A bunch politicians from various nations sending troops into harms way and telling the troops they are very limited in what they can do. Imagine UN soldiers from German and Polish backgrounds shooting Ukrainian citizens who have ethnic Russian backgrounds hurling rocks and Molotov cocktails at them? Even with Russian approval, I don't think the UN wants to go there.

The UN were not "pushed out" of Somalia, the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda. They completed the mandates.  In some cases over multi generational evolving missions

Are/were these missions a failure? Depends on how you look at it. If the UN contingents hadn't initially intervened the slaughter of noncombatants in any of these theatres would have increased exponentially at the, and over time. Countless lives were saved and have been saved over the years, however, all the major participating contingents have suffered a black eye with these particular missions as a result. The U.S., Canada and UK were especially reviled internationally. We were expected to 'sort them out' upon arrival and that didn't happen.

I've served alongside the U.S. Armed Forces in several UN theatres. The overwhelming majority of American men and women were proud and considered it an honor to contribute 'In The Service Of Peace'.

Try to show some pride in your nation's contributions, Billy. This facility saved a lot of lives, military and civilian. I know. One or two of those saved are friends of mine...

M.A.S.H. Hospital in Zagreb Gives U.S. Army a Role in Balkans : Intervention: First patient is treated even as unit is setting up for casualties among U.N. peacekeepers.

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-11-24/news/mn-1140_1_united-nations

...UN missions aren't cake walks. Blue Berets are injured, maimed and killed almost everyday. I could list a dozen more references to U.S. support I'm personally aware of.

Your comment in regards to Poland, Germany...That's why I've stated this isn't a mission for the UN, it's more suited to a NATO intervention. However, the UN DPKO would probably not deploy military units from any countries that were considered possible stakeholders, or might believe it to be politically/historically a conflict of interest.

Brass

   



 

[BillyB]

The UN were not "pushed out" of Somalia, the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda. They completed the mandates.  In some cases over multi generational evolving missions

Are/were these missions a failure? Depends on how you look at it.

Hundreds of thousands dead in each of those conflicts. Not many would say those missions were a success.

Try to show some pride in your nation's contributions, Billy. This facility saved a lot of lives, military and civilian. I know. One or two of those saved are friends of mine...

I'm all for saving lives and UN peacekeeping missions have save some lives but not as much as they could. When you know where the troublemakers are and you can't act until they kill somebody first, it's not the best policy to save lives.

[2tallbill]

Hundreds of thousands dead in each of those conflicts. Not many would say those missions were a success.

Billy, your inability to use logic as it relates to events is becoming legendary.
Your argument is that Death = Not successful

WWII was a conflict where over 50 million were killed. The Allies won, but by Billy's
logic they lost because there were too many deaths in the conflict

Let's look at another example. Honest Abe was involved in the US Civil war. Nearly
100% of the deaths were Americans and the death toll was over 620,000. The Union
was saved from being torn apart, the slaves were freed and yet by Billy's legendary
logic it was a failure.

[BillyB]

Billy, your inability to use logic as it relates to events is becoming legendary.

Bill, you're the only one complaining. Figure out where the problem lies. It may seem that I don't use logic but it is you who doesn't comprehend it. You make yourself look silly.  You can find statements like the one below on Wiki all over the internet. Somolia, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda are UN peacekeeping failures. Experts agree. You want to be an expert? Start agreeing with us instead of insulting us.


"Security Council dispatched peacekeepers to conflict zones like Somalia, where neither ceasefires nor the consent of all the parties in conflict had been secured. These operations did not have the manpower, nor were they supported by the required political will, to implement their mandates. The failures — most notably the 1994 Rwandan Genocide and the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica and Bosnia and Herzegovina — led to a period of retrenchment and self-examination in UN peacekeeping."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_peacekeeping

WWII was a conflict where over 50 million were killed. The Allies won, but by Billy's
logic they lost because there were too many deaths in the conflict

Let's look at another example. Honest Abe was involved in the US Civil war. Nearly
100% of the deaths were Americans and the death toll was over 620,000. The Union
was saved from being torn apart, the slaves were freed and yet by Billy's legendary
logic it was a failure.

Use logic next time by comparing conflicts where the mission is to save lives as the UN peacekeeping missions are designed.

[2tallbill]

Bill, you're the only one complaining.

No, many complain about you jumping to conclusions, making stuff up in your
head and lack of reason. They might use different words than I do, but they
agree frequently that you lack of reason.

If you said there are many problems with various peacekeeping missions and
listed them, I wouldn't have taken up an argument with you. We all know there
are various problems but that's not what you did.

You defined the problem and oversimplified it to the point of absurdity and then
posted.

Previously you took a member to task about her opinion on Holodomor (spelling?)
Then asked her to justify silly stuff that was totally unrelated like Pol Pot etc. If
you argued the point I would have never taken you to task.

You have things bouncing around in your head, but the stuff that you actually
put down in your post is incomplete and often disjointed sometimes to the point
that nobody can follow.

Often when I make a post, I read it and edit it a half dozen times so that
it make sense. Maybe you should proofread your posts better and understand
that everything you didn't say in your post is unknown by all except for yourself.

[BillyB]

many complain about you jumping to conclusions, making stuff up in your
head and lack of reason.

I haven't seen "many" but if it makes you more comfortable that you have "many" like minded people along side you, have at it. I've seen you go off alone on this thread and others. I don't expect people to think like me and I don't expect people who think differently to have the same results in life either. So if you want to argue that some of the UN peacekeeping missions that were talking about were a success, feel free to state your opinion and people here are free to judge who lacks reason. The "many" people who thinks like me will think you're nuts.

[JayH]

No, many complain about you jumping to conclusions, making stuff up in your
head and lack of reason. They might use different words than I do, but they
agree frequently that you lack of reason.

If you said there are many problems with various peacekeeping missions and
listed them, I wouldn't have taken up an argument with you. We all know there
are various problems but that's not what you did.

You defined the problem and oversimplified it to the point of absurdity and then
posted.

Previously you took a member to task about her opinion on Holodomor (spelling?)
Then asked her to justify silly stuff that was totally unrelated like Pol Pot etc. If
you argued the point I would have never taken you to task.

You have things bouncing around in your head, but the stuff that you actually
put down in your post is incomplete and often disjointed sometimes to the point
that nobody can follow.

Often when I make a post, I read it and edit it a half dozen times so that
it make sense. Maybe you should proofread your posts better and understand
that everything you didn't say in your post is unknown by all except for yourself.

Well said-- the theme is familiar!!

[Anotherkiwi]

Settle down, all of you!    We have ALL (me included) been guilty, at least occasionally, of writing stuff on here which people have totally misinterpreted (to put it politely) because we haven't necessarily expressed our thoughts in the clearest possible manner.

BillyB - I agree with a lot of what you write but, occasionally, you come out with stuff which I just find totally bewildering (e.g. some of your stuff on Miquel's gun thread).  As 2tallbill wrote, maybe you SOMETIMES need to check your editing.

2tallbill - apart from getting bored with your relentless attacks on Hillary Clinton and President Obama, which I wish could be deleted from the site (along with anything to do with gun control, Ebola, and everything else that doesn't relate to the actual purpose of the forum), I really enjoy your style.  Your trip reports are terrifically descriptive, and I'm very glad that you seem to have ended up with such a wonderful family.

JayH - it occasionally seems that it's you and me representing the rest of the world in a sort of cyber-war against the posters from the USA.  Despite the constant criticisms from various members, I'm glad that you find time to search out the various links to news about Ukraine.  I certainly don't have time to do it, and I'm sure that most other members don't either.  That said, there is also the very rare occasion when I'll disagree with your stance on something, but that normally passes pretty quickly as another crisis rears its head. 

Some of you may remember that, well over a year ago, I was actually the first one to suggest that UN peacekeepers be sent into eastern Ukraine.  As was pointed out at that time, this can only be done by a resolution from the Security Council and, with Russia having a right of veto as a permanent member of the Council, that's never going to happen.  I'm not sure that throwing the resolution open to the General Assembly of the UN, as suggested earlier this week, would ever fly.  There are too many countries either beholden to Russia, or anti-USA, to let such a resolution pass.

[BillyB]

BillyB - I agree with a lot of what you write but, occasionally, you come out with stuff which I just find totally bewildering (e.g. some of your stuff on Miquel's gun thread).  As 2tallbill wrote, maybe you SOMETIMES need to check your editing.

If somebody doesn't understand something in Miquel's gun thread, they should bring it up in that thread. It's easy to misunderstand when one disagrees. What part of my post #14 is confusing to the point of getting people's panties bunched up and needs editing?


UN peacekeeping missions are supposed to save lives but as in the case of Rwanda, Somolia, and Yugoslavia, the UN wasn't invited into the countries by the warring parties so the parties kept on fighting even with the UN present resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths in each of those conflicts. Those deaths would have happened with or without UN peacekeepers there but the goal of the UN was to stop the fighting which wasn't achieved. Ukraine is another area where both sides in the conflict can't agree on letting the UN help with a ceasefire so if the UN goes into Ukraine, it will be another failed mission. This isn't complicated. If I'm illogical as some claim, then I'll continue to be illogical in their world.

[2tallbill]

2tallbill - apart from getting bored with your relentless attacks on Hillary Clinton and President Obama, which I wish could be deleted

I try to keep my Hillary/Obama bashing contained in the Useless political banter thread.

Your trip reports are terrifically descriptive, and I'm very glad that you seem to have ended up with such a wonderful family.

I'm pretty glad about winding up with Angel Eyes too

[Photo Guy]

The UN is viewed by Moscow as a general threat. Thinking outside the box, it might be practical to call in a replacement for the OSCE, an entity acceptable to both Russia and Ukraine. What comes to mind, is armed peace-keepers from Belarus. These peacekeepers would ideally oversee and suppress any violence on both sides. I'd like them to be armed with video cameras and AK-47's. They would not be pushed around like the OSCE, that has been rendered mostly useless. Minsk has an interest in enforcing peace. Minsk is close enough to Moscow, without being really cozy. Other 'third party' forces should also be considered.

[mendeleyev]

Under the terms of the Eurasian Union of which both Russia and Belarus are founding members, Moscow takes the lead in security matters. Translation: Other than in home security functions within the borders of Belarus, Moscow commands the Belarus military in a manner very similar as to how the USA command leads NATO forces.