Seeking a Path to Durable Peace: How a Multinational Force for the Donbas Region Could Forge Stability in Ukraine
By: Professor David M. Crane
The ongoing Russian war in Ukraine poses significant challenges to stability in Europe and beyond. With the full-scale war entering its fourth year, finding a path to durable peace has proven nearly impossible. Government officials and foreign policy experts have laid out numerous ideas and proposals for peace, including the option of establishing a demilitarized zone, stationing European peacekeepers in Ukraine, or freezing the war on current battlefield lines. Despite the numerous ideas put forward, none have emerged as a clear solution.
This blog post explores a ceasefire model based on the successful Multinational Force and Observers (“MFO”) established for the Sinai Peninsula, examining how such a framework could be adapted for the Donbas region of Ukraine. The MFO, agreed upon in the 1981 Protocol to the Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel, functioned as a peacekeeping force to observe and verify compliance with the provisions of the peace treaty. By drawing inspiration from this model, a Multinational Force and Observers for the Donbas Region (“MFO-DR”) could offer a potential avenue for fostering security, dialogue, and cooperation among the affected parties in Ukraine.
While not proposing it as a definitive solution to the conflict, the MFO-DR model represents a framework through which neutral international forces could help ensure compliance with any ceasefire and facilitate further dialogue. The MFO-DR model is intended to only apply to the Donbas region as Crimea would likely require an alternative arrangement. Likewise, this model is not intended to replace security guarantees for Ukraine as a whole. This approach aims to contribute to the broader conversation on peacekeeping strategies without positioning itself as the sole path to resolution.
The Concept of the Multinational Force and Observers for the Donbas Region (MFO-DR)
The MFO-DR would divide the conflict zone into three distinct zones, each serving a specific purpose in maintaining peace and ensuring compliance with any ceasefire agreement. This division would allow for better monitoring, reduce the chances of escalation, and enable trust-building measures between Ukraine and Russia.
Zone A would cover an area directly adjacent to the Russian-Ukrainian border, where Russia would maintain control and stability. Military presence in this zone would be limited, with only non-offensive personnel, such as border police, allowed. Surveillance equipment could be employed to monitor activities in the region.
Zone B, the largest and most critical area, would be managed by the neutral Multinational Force. Composed of selected countries willing to contribute to peacekeeping efforts, the Multinational Force would serve as a buffer between the warring parties. This area would be where most of the monitoring, inspections, and negotiations would take place. The force would be equipped with basic defensive tools for self-protection but would refrain from deploying any offensive weapons.
Lastly, Zone C would be the Ukrainian-controlled area, where Ukrainian governance and security forces would operate. This zone would also prohibit heavy military equipment and offensive weapons, with the presence of Ukrainian border police limited to non-aggressive personnel. Surveillance would be used here as well to ensure compliance and prevent any violations of the ceasefire.
The command structure of the MFO-DR would be headed by a neutral general officer, someone with vast experience in international peacekeeping and diplomacy. The Director General, an equally impartial individual, would oversee the strategic and diplomatic aspects of the mission, working to maintain relationships between all stakeholders and keep the peace process moving forward.
The Importance of Neutrality in the MFO-DR
One of the key aspects of the MFO-DR would have to be its neutrality. Drawing from the success of the MFO in the Sinai, which had troops from various states with no affiliation to either party in the conflict, the MFO-DR would similarly need to maintain strict impartiality. This would allow the multinational force to be seen as a legitimate and trusted entity by both Ukraine and Russia, increasing the likelihood of cooperation.
States involved in the MFO-DR would not be part of NATO, ensuring that the initiative is not perceived as an extension of Western influence. The inclusion of states from diverse regions of the world, such as China, India, Kenya, Jordan, Brazil, Argentina, and Australia, could help mitigate concerns from all parties about bias or interference in the war. These states have historically held neutral stances in international conflicts, and their involvement could signal an effort to balance international interests while respecting the sovereignty of both Russia and Ukraine.
By remaining neutral and independent, the MFO-DR could play a vital role in easing tensions and encouraging dialogue between the two sides. The participation of neutral nations from a variety of geopolitical backgrounds would enhance the legitimacy of the peace process, giving it a broader, more inclusive global appeal. This diversity also brings a wealth of experience in conflict resolution and peacekeeping, making the MFO-DR a potentially effective instrument for long-term stability.
Operational Guidelines and Confidence-Building Measures
For the MFO-DR to function effectively, several operational guidelines would be required. Observers and peacekeepers within the force would need unrestricted access to all zones, allowing them to conduct regular inspections and engage with local populations to assess the situation on the ground. In addition, there would need to be a robust reporting mechanism to quickly address any incidents or breaches of peace, ensuring that any violations of ceasefire agreements are communicated and dealt with swiftly.
Perhaps one of the most crucial elements of the MFO-DR would have to be its role in building trust. Regular consultations between Russian, Ukrainian, and Multinational Force representatives could help maintain open lines of communication and address concerns as they arise. Additionally, cross-border cultural and economic initiatives could be implemented to foster collaboration among communities divided by the conflict.
Training programs for military and security forces from participating nations could further reinforce cooperative security principles and build trust. These programs could focus on cooperation, non-escalation tactics, and human rights, reinforcing a commitment to peaceful resolution rather than military confrontation.
Geopolitical and Diplomatic Considerations for the MFO-DR
As for any peace proposal for the Russian war in Ukraine, the evolving geopolitical landscape could present both challenges and opportunities for the MFO-DR. While NATO and the European Union would not formally participate, their influence as established power structures in Eastern Europe remains significant. For this model to work, Russia, Ukraine, and the international community, including NATO and the EU, would have to agree on the framework and support its implementation.
Furthermore, the MFO-DR may find itself navigating the complex tension between national sovereignty and collective international action. The MFO-DR, by involving nations outside traditional Western alliances, may reflect a new paradigm of cooperation. Nations like India and Brazil, with their histories of non-alignment, could facilitate dialogue between Russia and Ukraine and open doors for constructive engagement in negotiations.
The United Nations could serve as a critical facilitator for bringing together the core nations in establishing the MFO-DR. Leveraging its expertise in peacekeeping and conflict resolution, the UN could provide technical assistance and guidance to the MFO-DR, ensuring adherence to international norms and practices.
A potential General Assembly resolution supporting the MFO-DR could provide the initiative with the necessary legitimacy, especially if the UN Security Council remains paralyzed by political divisions. This would parallel the MFO in the Sinai Peninsula, which operated without direct UN involvement but received public support from the international community, including the UN.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Multinational Force and Observers for the Donbas Region could be another model to consider for peace in Ukraine. By involving nations from outside traditional Western alliances, the MFO-DR can provide a balanced, multi-polar approach to peacekeeping that avoids the pitfalls of geopolitical bias. The establishment of this framework would aim to reduce hostilities, encourage dialogue, and ultimately create a path towards long-term peace and stability in Ukraine.