The ongoing conflict in the Donbas region of Ukraine poses significant challenges to peace and stability in Eastern Europe. The complexity of the situation is exacerbated by geopolitical tensions, particularly between NATO allies and the Russian Federation. In this context, a Multinational Force and Observers for the Donbas Region (MFO-DR) may serve as an effective instrument for conflict resolution, peacekeeping, and trust-building between the conflicting parties. This paper examines the rationale for utilizing countries outside of NATO and the European Union, proposing a core group of nations — specifically China, India, Kenya, Jordan, Brazil, Argentina and Australia — and highlights their unique contributions to the MFO-DR. There are of course other nations that could join, but the following are the most promising to ensure trust and stability moving forward in the creation of the MFO-DR. This paper is offered to continue appropriate discussion and consideration of developing a politically viable and acceptable cornerstone upon which a peace process may be built.

Structure and Objectives of the MFO-DR

The MFO-DR aims to:

1. Facilitate a ceasefire between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
2. Build trust and dialogue between the parties involved.
3. Monitor compliance with ceasefire agreements and other peace accords.
4. Deliver humanitarian assistance and support local governance.

The structure of the MFO-DR would draw inspiration from the Multinational Force and Observers established in the Sinai Peninsula after the Camp David Accords, incorporating a flexible organizational framework that accommodates diverse troop contributions, expertise, and cultural sensitivities. It should be noted that 13 nations participate with the MFO in the Sinai. Headed by a civilian Director General, the force within the MFO is commanded by a Lieutenant General and both are selected from the following core nations.

The Suggested Core Nations

1. China

China’s increasing global presence and influence make it a pivotal player in international diplomacy. By engaging in the MFO-DR, China could leverage its political weight to facilitate dialogue, offering a neutral options for mediation between the conflicting parties. Furthermore, China’s somewhat indifferent stance towards Russia and Ukraine could enhance its credibility as a peace broker, fostering a conducive environment for negotiations.

2. India

India’s longstanding policy of non-alignment and mediation in global conflicts, coupled with its historical ties with Ukraine and Russia, positions it uniquely as a neutral peacekeeping force. Additionally, India’s experience in peacekeeping missions around the world — ranging from the UN to independently organized missions — could provide significant operational expertise to the MFO-DR. India’s participation would also amplify the initiative’s legitimacy and reflect a commitment to a multipolar world order.

3. Kenya

As a key member of the African Union and a contributor to peacekeeping missions under both the AU and the UN, Kenya has significant experience in conflict resolution and stabilization efforts. Its participation would bring an African perspective to the MFO-DR, fostering broader international support. Furthermore, Kenya’s focus on dialogue and conflict resolution, as demonstrated in various regional peace negotiations, would be invaluable in the context of the Donbas region.

4. Jordan

Jordan has long played a critical role in regional diplomacy, particularly concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its credible position as a mediator in the Arab world lends it an unique advantage for engaging with diverse stakeholders. Jordan’s military has also participated in various international operations, enhancing its capacity to operate effectively within the MFO-DR framework. The Kingdom’s role could contribute significantly to building trust and fostering communication.

5. Brazil

Brazil embodies the principles of diplomacy and non-intervention, emphasizing cooperation and dialogue in international conflicts. As a significant member of BRICS and a global South spokesperson, Brazil’s involvement in the MFO-DR could serve to counterbalance perceived biases and promote an inclusive approach to peace negotiations. Brazil’s diplomatic experience and its commitment to multilateralism could reinforce the MFO-DR’s legitimacy.

6. Argentina

Argentina’s long-standing experience in conflict resolution—demonstrated through its participation in peacekeeping operations in places like East Timor—positions it well as a member of the MFO-DR. Argentina can offer regional perspectives and has historically emphasized the importance of dialogue and negotiation in resolving disputes. Moreover, Argentina’s leadership could encourage a focus on humanitarian issues and the protection of civilians amidst the ongoing conflict.

7. Australia

Australia has a robust history of involvement in international peacekeeping missions, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East. Australia brings logistical capacity and expertise in capacity building and stabilization efforts. Its ability to foster regional partnerships and promote collaboration reflects the values of the MFO-DR. Moreover, Australia’s balanced diplomatic approach works towards bridging divides and ensuring inclusive dialogue, critical for fostering trust in the Donbas region.

Political Aspects

1. Geopolitical Dynamics

The evolving geopolitical landscape presents both challenges and opportunities for the MFO-DR. While NATO and the European Union may not formally participate, their influence as established power structures in Eastern Europe remains significant. Both organizations play a crucial role in shaping the security environment surrounding the conflict and ensuring stability.

• Strategic Deterrence and Support: NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe serves as a deterrent against further aggression from the Russian Federation. While official military engagement may not occur directly within the MFO-DR, NATO’s strategic objectives will continue to influence the mission’s operations. This backdrop could provide necessary support for observer missions and ensure the MFO-DR operates in an environment that encourages peace.

2. Role of the United States

The United States’ position under a potential new Trump administration is likely to introduce a distinctive nationalistic approach toward foreign policy and international organizations. Historically, the Trump administration has exhibited skepticism towards international bodies such as the UN, viewing them as impediments to US sovereignty and national interests. If this perspective persists, US support for initiatives like the MFO-DR could be conditional, cautious and even disruptive, demanding assurances of clear benefits to US interests, or refusing to participate.

3. National Sovereignty vs. Collective Action

A central theme of the nationalistic approach is the 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.

• Respect for Sovereignty: By positioning itself as a neutral force, MFO-DR might gain trust from both Russia and Ukraine. Each participating country can emphasize its commitment to respecting national sovereignty, addressing a core concern for both conflicting parties and ensuring a framework within which dialogue can flourish.

Diplomatic Aspects

1. Diplomatic Leverage of Non-Western Nations

The inclusion of non-Western nations in the MFO-DR could provide essential diplomatic levers in negotiations.

• Non-Aligned Positions: Nations like China, India, and Brazil, with their histories of non-alignment, can facilitate dialogue between Russia and Ukraine without the immediate encumbrance of Western biases. This perceived neutrality could open doors for constructive engagement in negotiations.
• Broader Representation: Representing diverse global perspectives through the inclusion of countries from Africa, Asia, and South America can lend credibility to the MFO-DR, enabling a more balanced approach to conflict resolution that incorporates interests from various corners of the globe.

2. Role of the United Nations as a Facilitator

The United Nations could serve as a critical facilitator for bringing together the core nations in establishing the MFO-DR. It’s diminished stature will challenge this facilitation.

• Conflict Resolution Expertise: 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.
• Legitimacy and Neutrality: As an established international body, the UN’s endorsement of the MFO-DR can imbue the initiative with legitimacy, enabling the participating countries to navigate sensitive political conversations both at home and on the international stage.
• Questionable support: With a permanent member of the Security Council as an aggressor that body is neutralized. Additionally, China’s “go alone” focus in the council could be problematic as well as its tendency to vote with Russia on issues. There is even a possibility that the United States could hamper a resolution, even vetoing such an effort. A General Assembly resolution supporting the creation of the MFO-DR would be the next most viable alternative and would help in making such an organization legitimate within the international community. In large measure the MFO-DR can be created outside the UN paradigm. The MFO in the Sinai had no affiliation with the UN, though the UN supported the concept publicly.

Conclusion

The establishment of a Multinational Force and Observers for the Donbas Region presents a timely opportunity for a diverse coalition of nations to engage in a pivotal peacekeeping/stabilization initiative. Countries outside of NATO and the European Union—such as China, India, Kenya, Jordan, Brazil, Argentina, and Australia—bring unique strengths and diplomatic approaches that can contribute effectively to the mission’s goals yet no nation is a perfect candidate. By fostering an inclusive, multipolar environment, the MFO-DR stands to create a credible platform for dialogue, ultimately paving the way for lasting peace in the Donbas region over time. Engaging these nations as core contributors not only enhances the legitimacy and effectiveness of the MFO-DR, but also illustrates the potential for global cooperation in addressing complex regional conflicts, particularly in light of the concerns about the role of the United Nations is a shifting world where nationalism is on the rise.

David M. Crane is the Founding Chief Prosecutor for the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone. He is also the founder of the Global Accountability Network. He also served as a legal advisor for the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai in 1983.