Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
MILITARY BOOTS ON the ground is often the last wish of Governments but this is exactly what is being considered as possible peace looms in Ukraine.
On Thursday we learned that the Irish Government would consider sending Irish troops as part of a multinational peacekeeping mission.
Sources told us that this would likely be dependent on a United Nations resolution similar to that used in Lebanon.
Talks between Russian and US negotiators have been underway in Saudi Arabia as the Trump regime moves closer to Russia.
Irish involvement is not just a kite being flown by Government sources – there are real preparations and contingency planning going on across Europe and in other corners of the world.
So how likely is Irish involvement in any force that’s sent to Ukraine and what would have to happen before the Government makes that decision?
There’s an old saying in diplomacy: “if you are not sitting at the table you are on the menu”. As Russia and the US sit down to chat there is certainly an absence of two key players – Ukraine and Europe.
It’s a complex picture but speaking to diplomatic sources this week their read on the situation is that the security conference in Munich was a wake up call for Europeans. They were now taking it seriously – early warnings in recent years from more pragmatic albeit more hawkish Europhiles were dismissed previously.
However the dissonant display by US attendees, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Vice President JD Vance, focused the minds of European leaders.
The key messaging from the Europeans was that nothing could happen without Europe and Ukrainian involvement – both Tánaiste Simon Harris and taoiseach Micheál Martin also parotted that line in their interactions with the media.
The US efforts at talks seem to be more about securing a deal for access to rare earth metals.
Regardless of all this, as is always clear in reporting on diplomacy – there is a surface layer of drama and show boating, but under that surface there are multiple layers of officials talking.
John Healey MP, the British Defence Minister said last week that military preparations are at an advanced stage in Whitehall and Associated Press reported in December that planning was advancing quietly across Europe.
The possibility of a peace deal looks further away but all, except Russia, now accept the need for security guarantees and that means someway to ensure compliance with the established peace line – that means there will have to be a military solution part of that.
Put simply these are military measures that prevent the war restarting – this could be an on the ground peacekeeping mission akin to similar initiatives by the UN in the Middle East, the Balkans or Africa, the establishment of a no-fly zone, an observer force similar to UNTSO missions in the Middle East or all of the preceding.
In short Zelenskyy needs to know that if he accepts the terms of a ceasefire that there will not be a restart to the conflict. Putin needs to know that Ukraine will not be lobbing drones into Russian oil refineries or detonating drone boats under the Kerch or Crimea bridges.
This would make it a necessity that any mission would have to have the teeth to enforce the peace – that is the Hobson’s Choice for Governments.
An incursion would have to be responded to and if that was a so-called “kinetic” encounter between western peace enforcers and Russian troops could it then cause a wider conglomeration leading ultimately to war between Europe and Russia.
Military and diplomatic sources we spoke to said that the issue for any security guarantee is that the boots on the ground would have to be from countries that Russia is comfortable with but also there needs to be a so-called backstop and that is the threat of an American force response.
What are the mission options?
There are a multitude of options for a mission but the likely outcome, speaking to sources in Europe and in Ireland is the following.
Firstly boots on the ground patrols – there are two options here of a reassurance and stabilisation mission akin to the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon or a more robust peace enforcement mission as seen in places such as the Balkans and in Africa.
Both have their issues – Israeli incursions and Hezbollah attacks have repeatedly undermined the UNIFIL mandate.
The more robust peace enforcement response in the Balkans followed a previously impotent response in which genocide happened in view of peacekeepers in Bosnia, most infamously with Dutch troops’ inaction in the slaughter of civilians in Srebrenica when they were repeatedly ordered not to intervene.
A no-fly zone which would not just enforce a stop to bombing by Ukrainian and Russian aircraft but would also act as observers. Ukraine has previously requested this as an option. There would also need to be a naval element in the Black Sea, which sources have said, could be from Britain.
Another observer mission in which they record and monitor activities. Breaches are then reported back to, for example, the UN Security Council.
A similar concept would be an unarmed mission similar to that in the Middle East known as United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). They observe and report from watch towers but are backed by extensive Quick Reaction Forces to guarantee their safety – The Journal observed this on The Golan, in Syria.
Depending who you talk to among military sources here and abroad – the issue is the frontline in Ukraine is almost 1,000 kilometres long and it will require upwards of 30,000 troops.
But that is not even the base amount needed – as those 30,000 troops man the buffer zone, there are twice and three times the numbers needed to fulfill the preparations for the next rotation from individual countries. This is a military and logistical nightmare.
The short answer is: “Yes”. The Government has admitted it. Sources have said that politically it is a tangible way for Ireland to show it is a willing partner with other European partners, like France, who have started their planning.
As one diplomatic source put it: “If you want to be in the dressing room you have to be willing to play in the game”.
To be clear The Journal understands there is no meaningful contingency planning under way in the Defence Forces but it is being discussed quietly and the subject has made its way into daily briefings for senior officers.
Ireland is already involved in the efforts to support the Ukrainian side in the war. Irish soldiers have trained medics, mine clearance, bomb disposal, trained Ukrainian troops in military fighting drills and providing less lethal kit. it is also involved in a European Union mission in Kyiv.
However, the peacekeeping mission is a different beast.
Ireland’s small military, which is struggling to maintain its operations as it stands, can’t provide anything above a few hundred troops at a maximum. Its footprint in any security guarantee will be piecemeal.
Past missions are the best indicator – the most likely option for a boots on the ground scenario is a small detachment or at most a mechanised infantry battalion of around 130 troops similar to that seen in Lebanon or the now defunct participation in Syria.
Ireland could provide smaller numbers of specialists as in the former NATO mission in Afghanistan or like the current involvement in the administration of the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. Irish expertise in Explosive Ordnance Disposal is well respected.
The other option might be akin to their involvement of a Special Forces element to the German led peacekeeping MINUSMA mission in Mali.
The Irish are in the European Union Battlegroup led by German forces. Both the force commander and an Irish Commandant have said in December that behind the scenes a Ukraine peace mission has been discussed.
Regardless there is a complicator in all of this and that is the Triple Lock – Irish involvement will need a UN resolution from the notoriously ineffective Security Council, acceptance by Cabinet and a vote in the Dáil.
It is all entirely up in the air. A lot of commentary is out there from former diplomats, politicians and military talking heads in the media.
One interesting contribution on BBC’s Newsnight show is from Alex Younger the former head of British intelligence agency MI6 who believes there will not be a deal.
He believes that the US negotiating team has a lot of leverage given the impending economic disaster for Russia from a prolonged spend on war materiale but it may not be enough.
The fear factor for all the countries providing troops is simple – can they sustain this for years?
The 10,000 strong Interim UNIFIL force has been in the hills of South Lebanon since the 1970s. Worse still is the US experience in Korea where 24,000 troops man the line between North and South. They have been there, without a peace deal, since 1957.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say