Introduction
Zaporizhzhia, a strategically vital city in southeastern Ukraine, has remained a key focal point in the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia. Although it is under Ukrainian control, its proximity to the front line, the presence of Russian infiltrators, and the looming threat of further territorial claims by Moscow make the region highly volatile.
A peacekeeping mission in Zaporizhzhia would face extraordinary challenges, including:
1. Reopening a civilian corridor to Melitopol, which was previously used for humanitarian crossings but was closed after a deadly Russian attack on civilians.
2. Ensuring international oversight of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Enerhodar, which remains under Russian occupation and whose current operational status is largely unknown.
3. Demilitarising areas to the east of Zaporizhzhia, particularly in the frontline town of Orikhiv, to prevent further hostilities and provide long-term security.
Here we explore the complexities involved in establishing and maintaining a peacekeeping force in Zaporizhzhia, given the geopolitical stakes, military realities, and logistical constraints.
Zaporizhzhia: A City Under Threat
The Civilian Corridor to Melitopol and Its Closure
In the early months of the full-scale invasion, Zaporizhzhia served as one of the few safe crossings for civilians fleeing Russian-occupied areas. The route from Melitopol to Zaporizhzhia became a critical lifeline for displaced persons and humanitarian convoys.
However, this corridor was effectively shut down after Russian forces shelled a convoy of fleeing civilians, resulting in a mass casualty event. Since then, civilians trapped in occupied territories have been unable to use this route, worsening the humanitarian crisis.
For any peacekeeping mission, reopening this corridor would be a top priority, but it would require:
• Firm security guarantees from both sides to prevent another attack.
• Strict monitoring of the movement of civilians and goods to prevent smuggling, espionage, or military exploitation of the crossing.
• The establishment of neutral buffer zones, patrolled by international peacekeepers to ensure civilian safety.
Given that Russia has shown disregard for civilian safety in previous attacks, peacekeepers would need robust rules of engagement and possibly Western military backing to enforce safe passage.
The Russian Claim to Zaporizhzhia and the City’s Resistance
Russia has made repeated territorial claims on Zaporizhzhia, arguing that it should be incorporated into Russian-controlled areas. While the city has a historically Russian-speaking population, its residents overwhelmingly oppose Russian occupation, having witnessed the brutal treatment of civilians in occupied areas such as Mariupol, Melitopol, and Berdyansk.
Despite Russia’s propaganda narrative, local resistance has remained strong. The presence of Russian infiltrators and spotters who assist in targeting missile and drone strikes on Zaporizhzhia does not reflect the majority sentiment of the city’s residents. Instead, these infiltrators operate as part of Russia’s covert destabilisation strategy, creating internal security risks.
For a peacekeeping force, this presents the challenge of:
• Identifying and neutralizing saboteurs and Russian intelligence operatives.
• Protecting civilians from potential Russian provocations, such as false-flag attacks.
• Ensuring that Zaporizhzhia remains under Ukrainian governance, while avoiding direct military engagement with Russian forces.
If Russia insists on its claim over Zaporizhzhia as part of future peace negotiations, peacekeepers could find themselves in a direct confrontation with Moscow, complicating their neutrality.
The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Enerhodar: A Looming Threat
One of the greatest security concerns in the region is the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, located 60 kilometers southwest of Zaporizhzhia, in Russian-occupied Enerhodar. As Europe’s largest nuclear power facility, its fate carries global security implications.
• Lack of Information on the Plant’s Status: While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was granted brief access to the site in the war’s early stages, their findings were limited, and since then, Russia has restricted further inspections. It remains unclear whether the plant has been safely shut down or if any reactors remain operational under precarious conditions.
• Military Occupation of a Nuclear Facility: Russian forces have been stationed within the plant’s premises, potentially using it as a shield for military operations. There are concerns that stored radioactive materials could be weaponised or that a disaster could be engineered to create chaos.
• Risk of an Environmental Catastrophe: Any damage to the plant’s cooling systems, nuclear waste storage, or reactor cores could lead to radiation leaks that would affect not only Ukraine but neighbouring countries.
For peacekeepers, ensuring safe international access to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant would be a high-stakes priority, requiring:
1. Immediate re-entry for the IAEA to assess the plant’s condition.
2. The withdrawal of all Russian military personnel from the facility.
3. A demilitarized security zone around the plant, enforced by international forces.
This would almost certainly require Russian cooperation, which would be difficult to obtain without serious international pressure or incentives.
The Hot Frontline at Orikhiv and the Need for Demilitarisation
To the east of Zaporizhzhia, the town of Orikhiv has become one of the most active battlegrounds of the war. Heavy artillery barrages, drone strikes, and trench warfare have turned the area into a wasteland.
Orikhiv’s destruction and continued fighting pose a major challenge to peacekeeping efforts:
• Without a ceasefire agreement, peacekeepers would be deployed into an active war zone, significantly increasing the risks of casualties.
• Russia has an interest in keeping the region unstable, making it unlikely that they would willingly accept full demilitarisation.
• Peacekeepers would need the power to enforce ceasefire violations, requiring robust rules of engagement, which some countries might be reluctant to commit to.
If a peacekeeping force is too weak or lacks a mandate to intervene, it could become ineffective, as seen in other conflicts where peacekeepers were present but unable to stop fighting (e.g., Bosnia in the 1990's).
Conclusion: The Need for a Strong Peacekeeping Mandate
A peacekeeping mission in Zaporizhzhia would be one of the most complex operations in modern history, given:
1. The need to secure the nuclear power plant and prevent a potential disaster.
2. The challenge of reopening humanitarian corridors while ensuring civilian safety.
3. The necessity of countering Russian infiltrators and ensuring Zaporizhzhia remains under Ukrainian governance.
4. The difficulty of enforcing demilitarisation in areas like Orikhiv, where active combat continues.
For a peacekeeping force to succeed, it would need a strong, internationally backed mandate and possibly the presence of Western military forces to ensure enforcement. However, given Russia’s history of violating agreements, any peacekeeping operation must be prepared for potential provocations, resistance, and ongoing security threats.
Ultimately, while peacekeepers could play a role in stabilising Zaporizhzhia, their effectiveness would depend on clear rules of engagement, international unity, and Russia’s willingness (or lack thereof) to respect ceasefire agreements. Without strong international enforcement mechanisms, any peacekeeping effort risks being undermined by continued Russian aggression.