How Great Power Rivalry Is Reshaping UN Peacekeeping

Small Wars Journal | Ausiuddin Aftab Abir

United Nations peacekeeping personnel numbers plummeted by mid-2026 to their lowest level in 25 years, driven by escalating great power rivalry, Security Council deadlocks, and severe budget cuts among permanent members. In August 2025, President Donald Trump cancelled roughly $800 million in peacekeeping funds, forcing a 25% personnel cut across nine of eleven active missions.

Deep ideological divides among the P5 permanent members have degraded mission mandates, while host nations like Mali leverage Russian support to terminate deployments like MINUSMA. Consequently, troop-contributing countries like Bangladesh, which fields 4,084 peacekeepers and has lost 175 personnel, bear operational costs and reduced reimbursements following drawdowns that repatriated 1,300 Bangladeshi troops. Escalating asymmetric threats from armed groups using drones and improvised explosive devices further endanger force protection in hostile theaters like South Sudan. As P5 powers treat peace operations as arenas for strategic competition, peacekeeping faces persistent structural decay and diminished international legitimacy.

Comment

When multidimensional missions like MINUSMA collapse under geopolitical friction, host nations incur immediate operational deficits in area denial and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. The withdrawal of UN utility helicopters and armoured transport forces local military formations to assume unassisted long-range convoy escort duties across contested corridors. Without UN-funded logistics buffers, national forces quickly exhaust their operational reserves on point defense and route clearance.

In response, regional military mechanisms such as the Southern African Development Community Mission in Mozambique (SAMIM) face severe operational overstretch when attempting to fill blue-helmet stabilization vacuums. The absence of standardized UN rules of engagement and unified coalition logistics degrades tactical coherence during high-intensity counter-insurgency operations. Consequently, SAMIM infantry contingents suffer acute tactical vulnerabilities when contesting Cabo Delgado insurgent networks equipped with weaponised commercial unmanned aerial vehicles and heavy improvised explosive devices.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Which factor imposes a greater operational constraint when regional security coalitions like SAMIM replace terminated UN missions such as MINUSMA — the loss of standardized UN logistics and airlift infrastructure, or the absence of a unified mandate and rules of engagement?

The operational trajectory suggests that deficits in logistics and organic airlift present the more immediate failure point for ad-hoc regional forces. While unified rules of engagement shape command decisions, the absence of sustained air mobility and automated supply lines rapidly degrades tactical persistence in contested operational theaters. Consequently, regional contingents struggle to sustain remote forward operating bases once UN-funded transport architecture is withdrawn.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here