What would a 'Ukrainian-style' neutral status look like?

Despite the ongoing fighting between Russia and Ukraine, officials from both countries are still negotiating to find a way to end the conflict. And “neutrality” is one of the issues that both Kiev and Moscow are putting on the negotiating table at the moment.

According to Vox, the idea of ​​Ukraine acting as a neutral bridge between Russia and the West is not new. But in the context of the fighting that has lasted for more than a month, this idea has been brought back into the spotlight as a solution to end the war quickly and prevent the risk of future conflicts.

Russian and Ukrainian delegations during negotiations on February 28. Photo: TASS

More broadly, the neutral state ofUkrainecould force the Kiev government to abandon its ambitions to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and not allow NATO to deploy troops and weapons on its territory. But in return, Ukraine could receive some security guarantees, and prevent another “military operation.”

However, this solution does not seem easy to implement when Kiev and Moscow have different interpretations of the definition of "neutrality". One of these interpretations is the goal of "demilitarizing" Ukraine - something that Russian President Vladimir Putin has always emphasized.

“We are still not sure what the term ‘neutrality’ actually means here,” said Mark Kramer, director of the Cold War Studies Project at Harvard University’s Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies. “(For Russia, it could mean total subordination to Russia, which many Ukrainians would like to reject outright.”)

Models in Europe

Europe is no stranger to the term “neutrality,” whether in the 19th century or during the Cold War. Ulrika Möller, associate professor of political science at the University of Gothenburg (Germany), argues that “neutrality” is a way for smaller countries to protect their political integrity against a larger neighbor or a regional power.

A version of “neutralization” could be applied to Ukraine as a way out of its current situation. However, this policy can only be effective if not only Kiev but also Russia and the West see their interests in maintaining this status.

Currently, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Ireland and Malta are the European Union (EU) countries that maintain a neutral status. While Switzerland is also a neutral country but is not part of the EU.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the two sides are discussing the possibility of maintaining neutrality in Ukraine, similar to Austria or Sweden. According to experts, Austria could be the best model for a neutral Ukraine in the future.

In 1955, Austria adopted permanent neutrality into its constitution. It would not join military alliances, take sides in future wars, and would not allow foreign military bases on its territory.

Neutrality for Ukraine is also seen as an ideal political tool: The former Soviet republic could serve as a buffer between Russia and the rest of Europe, helping to maintain relations between the two sides. But after more than a month of conflict, many fear that this could be more complicated.

The problem that keeps the parties 'stuck'

But even if Ukraine accepts neutrality, a big question arises: who will guarantee its neutrality?

Vlad Mykhnenko, a geographer and economist at Oxford University who has studied the conflict in eastern Ukraine, said that even if a treaty were signed, there would be few constraints that would prevent Russia from breaking it.

Mr Mykhnenko also said that if neutral Ukraine were attacked again, there would need to be a "guarantee of military assistance on the ground".

According to Vox, potential candidates to “back” Ukraine include Europe, the US, and NATO. However, some are skeptical about whether that would be acceptable to Russia. Because if NATO becomes a guarantor of Ukraine’s neutrality, this is not the way Moscow wants it.

In the event that NATO allies pledge to support Ukraine if Russia carries out another “special military operation,” it would be no different from Kiev enjoying the benefits of NATO membership in all but name.

Mr. P. Terrence Hopmann, professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University (USA), said that after what just happened, Ukraine will find it difficult to accept a neutral position without some serious security guarantees.

Other experts say non-military mechanisms, such as automatic sanctions, could be an option. But that may not be enough for a country that is pushing for a no-fly zone from the West. “That’s where we’re stuck right now, in many ways,” Hopmann said.

Difficult to resolve at the negotiating table

The Kremlin’s “maximalist” stance may have made Russia unhappy with Ukraine’s neutrality, although battlefield losses and Kiev’s resistance may have changed Moscow’s calculations.

Neutrality might solve the current situation, but it is not the only issue. Some of the demands Russia has made include “demilitarization” and “denuclearization” of Ukraine, which many Ukrainians cannot agree to at this point.

It is unclear exactly what “demilitarization” means, but experts say it could mean limiting the offensive weapons or troop numbers of Ukraine’s military. However, the idea of ​​Ukraine giving up its military immediately after the conflict is unlikely. Moreover, most neutral countries still maintain their own armies.

There are also questions about whether Moscow will demand recognition of Russian control over Crimea or separatist areas in eastern Ukraine's Donbass region.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, who is facilitating talks between Russia and Ukraine, recently said that despite the momentum, "it is not easy for the parties to negotiate while fighting continues and many people are still dying."

“The outcome of this conflict will be resolved only on the battlefield,” said Vlad Mykhnenko. “I am afraid that this is a fundamental truth. Any discussions, negotiations, or decisions made in Belarus or Istanbul will be just a sideshow.”

g of this water.