In 1998, UNESCO launched a grandiose project "Culture of Peace", which stated that the end of the" cold war "also means the disappearance of the culture of troops, the education of military personnel in the spirit of"readiness for war". The reason for the turn to a culture of peace is the collapse of the bipolar construction of peace, built on " mutual deterrence and fear of retribution." The "Culture of Peace" project has been supported by prominent legal scholars, historians, and military officials, but modern realities, particularly the Kosovo crisis, have shown the ephemeral nature of even the most well-intentioned ideas when a dominant military-political bloc takes on the role of determining the fate of entire nations and states. It seems that we are returning to the early feudal era of "the right of the strong," and no matter what casuistic arguments are made in favor of order and democracy, aggression remains aggression, and the destruction of civilians remains genocide, even if it is shamefully referred to as a side effect of humanitarian intervention. Unfortunately, UNESCO's position does not clarify the impact of peace culture in peacekeeping operations or who can be considered a peace culture advocate. In none of the peacekeeping operations has it been possible to become an arbitrator who is not involved in the dispute of the parties to the conflict, which usually leads to a disastrous outcome of peacekeeping. Indeed, there is no perfect military solution, and in principle, only political perspectives determine military objectives. However, in the means and methods of conducting a peacekeeping operation, the moral character of the peacekeeper is no less important for the success of the operation than the equipment, knowledge of language and customs, and legal culture. The culture of peace implies the moral responsibility of the "soldiers of peace." "The external world is not a good in itself; it becomes important only in connection with the internal r ... Read more