The recent Ukraine peace talks held in Berlin have ignited debate over the proposed deployment of European forces to secure a potential ceasefire, with Die Linke (The Left) party leader Jan van Aken voicing strong reservations and advocating for a UN-mandated peacekeeping mission instead.
Van Aken cautioned against the significant risk of escalation inherent in the plan to assemble a protective force comprised of European troops. He questioned the seemingly innocuous prospect of securing Ukrainian airspace, highlighting the potential for a direct military confrontation with Russia if a Russian aircraft were to violate Ukrainian sovereignty and subsequently be engaged by NATO soldiers. “We risk immediate war with Russia. This risk is simply uncalculable” he stated.
The Berlin summit, attended by US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and leaders from several European nations – including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz – resulted in a commitment to provide robust security guarantees for Ukraine following a potential peace agreement. While acknowledging the necessity of such guarantees, Van Aken characterized the summit’s resolution as “highly dangerous.
He proposed a counter-strategy centered on a UN peacekeeping force, emphasizing that only a neutral entity, authorized by the UN Security Council, can offer a viable security guarantee without inviting further escalation. Critically, he argued securing Russian consent is paramount and achievable if the peacekeeping force is incorporated as a component of a comprehensive peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine.
To bolster the legitimacy and effectiveness of such a force, Van Aken suggested incorporating Chinese troops – given China’s strategic alignment with Russia. He posited that the presence of Chinese personnel would provide a crucial deterrent against Russian aggression, given the improbability of Russia engaging Chinese soldiers in hostile action.
The possibility of a US-led force, particularly under a potential return of Donald Trump to the presidency, was dismissed by Van Aken as “too short-sighted”. He asserted that durable and sustainable ceasefire monitoring requires the involvement of a truly neutral actor, free from perceived economic self-interest. A US-led effort, he warned, is likely to generate suspicion, accusations and ultimately undermine the fragile stability the ceasefire aims to establish. The core of lasting peace, according to Van Aken, lies in impartiality and a commitment to a universally accepted framework, rather than the projection of unilateral power.
