In the past several days Ukraine and Russia have been engaged in peace talks. Russia’s demand of Ukraine’s neutrality – along with “de-militarisation” – are among the core negotiating points. They are also the ones that Ukraine is seemingly willing to accept, with clarification that Ukraine may seek some alternative security guarantees.
Personally, I have been a strong proponent of Ukraine’s neutrality and have advised the previous government of President Petro Poroshenko (in a 2014 A Roadmap for Ukraine, commissioned by Atlantic Council, where I was a member of the defence working group) to seek Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) status with the United States ahead of NATO membership.
As former military planner – the one who worked on the initial wave of NATO enlargement as a part RAND Corporation team – I knew too well the difficulties of the navigating NATO accession process and did not expect Ukraine’s membership in the Alliance to materialise any time soon.
Given my previous position, it would seem I should rejoice that Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky is allegedly looking to seek Ukraine’s neutrality. I do – but not on the conditions that his team allegedly advocates.
Ukraine can have either neutrality or de-militarisation, but not both. Furthermore, If Ukraine chooses neutrality, it should protect itself purely on its own. Else it should dig in its heels, win the war, and become a NATO member.
Let me explain.
In 1994 Ukraine signed the ill-fated Budapest Memorandum giving up its nuclear weapons in exchange for what Ukraine presumed were security guarantees. Initially, the Memorandum focused only on strategic nuclear missile disarmament. Tactical nuclear weapons were added to it later on.
The memorandum was poorly drafted and legally unenforceable as it was supposed to seek unspecified assistance via UN Security Council action, where the three guarantor parties – the USA, the UK and Russia had a veto power. In other words, Ukraine was taken for a ride.
Ukraine may be committing a major negotiation blunder once more. With the exception of neutral Moldova, Ukraine’s land-border neighbours are either the members of NATO (Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia) or the aggressor nations (Russia and Belarus).
Despite the assurances given to Ukraine in 1994 by the US and the UK – the NATO members, NATO, at large, is not in a rush to intervene in Ukraine militarily. This is for the fear of provoking Russia and starting a nuclear war.
This means that: a) nuclear deterrence works and b) there will be no country in the world that could provide Ukraine with credible defence assurances against Russia going forward. Because … well… Russia is a nuclear state and nuclear deterrence works.
It would be a fallacy to think these circumstances will change. In other words, if Ukraine ties its neutrality to the third-party guarantees, it will end up with Budapest 2.0.
What should, Ukraine, then, aim for? Ukraine needs to de-couple neutrality and de-militarisation and seek to arm itself to the teeth if it is to agree to a neutral status. It will have to be able to defend itself on its own, using Israel’s type of defence as a blueprint.
Ukraine will have to institute obligatory conscription and military training for both males and females, fund and develop most advanced air defence systems in the world, mine its land border with Russia and Belarus, and, likely, either withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or seek to be reclassified as its nuclear power state.
This does not mean that Ukraine must develop its own nuclear weapons. It should, however, mean that Ukraine must have an option to develop them and to adopt a doctrine of plausible deniability. Maybe it has the nukes. Maybe it does not.
Alternatively, Ukraine should refuse neutrality and call upon NATO to make good on its 2008 promise and to accept Ukraine as a member. Ukraine demonstrated an immense fighting spirit to the world and the Alliance in the past 22 days, efficiently stalling Russia’s war machine despite being outnumbered 5 to 1. This is the type of a member any alliance should seek – and be proud to incorporate.
Being unable to break Ukraine’s will, Russia is now resorting to war crimes – shelling civilians, targeting nuclear power plants, and cutting forests to create ecologic disaster, destroying seed banks, farm equipment, meat and poultry farms to create artificial famine in Ukraine. This is a targeted genocide of Ukraine as a nation, one which is composed of many nationalities, Ukrainian, Russian, and Jewish including.
Ukraine is paying in blood of its people for the right to determine its future. It has demonstrated that no matter what language Ukrainians speak, Ukraine has no interest in becoming a part of the Russian World (Russkiy Mir).
Finally, can Ukraine survive as a de-militarised neutral state as Russia demands? The short answer is “no”. Opinion polls just published by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty indicate that 71% of Russians not only support the war in Ukraine, but, horrifyingly, experience positive emotions about it, such as pride, joy, respect, trust, and hope.
Yes, the three-quarters of Russia’s population gets their news of the war from the pro-Kremlin TV channels, but in the era of still-free access to YouTube and availability of VPNs, Russians’ disinterest in learning what is truly going on is a tell-tale.
It means that, for now, there is little hope for the bottom-up regime change in Russia and that even a top-down regime change (brought about by sanctions) may not result in a government that fully gives up Russia’s imperial ambitions.
Thus, if Ukraine is to become both neutral and de-militarised, Russia’s war shadow will engulf the entire country. Ukraine will be threatened at will, Russia will dictate political and economic course to Ukraine, Ukraine’s domestic development will stall, Ukraine’s political risk premia will permanently shift upwards, foreign investors will be reluctant to commit, and Ukraine will be choked slowly but surely. It will never truly recover from the war.
Ukraine must tread very carefully in how it negotiates with Russia. It is bargaining for its very right to exist.
