I disagree. It’s about execution - creating an environment that is resistant to corrosion. A standing force can absolutely be viewed in that manner - which is why it cannot be a single static standing force.
The UN is the right idea but it needs teeth. And it needs the teeth to be double sided. If boots are on the ground peacekeeping they should be without bias and secondary interest. An attack on a peacekeeper has no guarantee of the creed nor country of origin of that keeper.
Peacekeeping should be like a draft. Every country that participates must provide and maintain a set number of rolling participants. These people will serve and train initially in humanitarian deployments with others… half way through their ‘term’ they should be moved to peacekeeping duties. This is idealized but would be good for both building trust amongst peacekeepers and goodwill towards them. This solves the military portion (roughly) - I have a lot of thoughts on this and believe it to be solvable… it just won’t be. No country gets to benefit therefore it has no merit.
That covered the military side… when talking about the economic side: the peacekeepers (let’s say un for simplicity) carry the ability to (by vote) censure a country and cut it off from direct trade / support. At that time any trade is then routed through the UN and it becomes the middleman. This allows economic pressures to be precisely controlled on an area. Once that country falls in line, by majority vote, operations are restored. Once again this is idealized and has no obviously advantaged party … so it has no merit and will never occur.
Basically everyone is equally held accountable and equally invested. Of course this means everyone gets a seat at the table and everyone gets one vote. I’m certain we can already see why this has 0 chance of ever happening. Those in power seek to keep it - very few will willingly give some away.