“Neutrality” is the best way to strengthen Ukraine militarily and economically

Ukraine’s war, which will enter its fourth year at the end of next February, is widely referred to as a war of attrition, and this is true. Comparing maps of today’s battlefields with what they were at the beginning of 2024, you will find it difficult to find any disagreement between them.

With the exception of an initial Russian offensive in February 2022, and a Ukrainian counterattack later that year, major regional breakthroughs are few and far between, and slow, cumbersome, and expensive movement along the 620-mile front line has remained the norm.

Ukraine partners

Unfortunately for Kiev, in wars of attrition the balance usually favors the side with the most resources, but Ukraine has fewer men than Russia to bring into war (Russia’s population is four times that of Ukraine), while Ukraine’s economy is about the same size as Russia’s. One in 10 of the Russian economists, and Ukraine’s partners in the West seem increasingly skeptical about the possibility of Ukraine winning this war in the traditional sense of the word.

Although Russia has lost a large number of its forces, Moscow has so far been able to recruit enough replacements to continue strengthening the ranks of its forces. The same cannot be said about Ukraine, which suffers from a shortage of manpower, and which lost about 4,100 square kilometers of its territory by The year is 2024, and it sometimes makes bad decisions at the tactical level, such as invading Russia’s Kursk, instead of adopting a defensive strategy and strengthening its lines in Donbass.

Certainly, the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, is not blind to the facts on the ground, and there was a moment in the past, when he was determined not to make any concessions to Russia, in order to put an end to the war, but Zelensky presented the first peace plan in November 2022, while he was The Ukrainian army is at the peak of its victories, and it constitutes, in essence, a document of terms of surrender to the Russians who were – at the time – floundering – but this has changed now.

Zelensky’s tone

It is the Ukrainians who are floundering today, and Zelensky knows this, even if he did not express it. His tone has changed significantly over the past three months, and now the Ukrainian president himself is talking about the negotiations that he rejected in late 2022 and 2023 as the only way to end the war, especially now that he has returned. Donald Trump to the White House, with his own peace agenda.

The question now, of course, is what the form of these negotiations will look like, and whether US President Donald Trump has the ability to bring Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin together at the negotiating table, and what the final settlement of the war will be, and no one can answer these questions with any degree of certainty. Selection at the moment.

But the fact that diplomacy is no longer classified as “appeasement” by serious people, but has now become part of the general discussion, indicates that minds are becoming more aware of what is possible, and even Europeans who are usually content to sit on the couch and wait for Washington’s orders to them, are beginning to In taking some initiatives, in mid-December, European leaders met in Brussels to exchange ideas about deploying European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine, in the event of a ceasefire agreement being reached.

This is good news, but the bad news is that some of these ideas, which have the best attempt to achieve comprehensive peace or at least stop the war, remain controversial in Western capitals, and among many intellectuals in the field of foreign policy, and I am talking, of course, about the idea of ​​neutrality for Ukraine. It is a formula that requires Kiev to stop seeking membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), or mutual defense agreements with Washington and Europe.

Russia’s danger

For many, this is still a bridge too far. “Agreeing to Putin’s demands to make Ukraine neutral may provide a brief respite from Russia’s threat, but it will ultimately lead to a long-term respite,” one Ukrainian military analyst wrote to the Atlantic Council magazine last November. More wars, and most likely the collapse of the current global security system.”

The expert, Fred Kagan from the American Enterprise Institute, confirmed that neutrality would be tantamount to supporting Ukraine’s “truncated sovereignty,” which is exactly what Putin wants.

But all these claims are not true. In the beginning, just because a country is neutral does not mean that it is powerless. On the contrary, neutral Ukraine remains capable of strengthening economic relations with other countries, building a massive army to repel aggression, expanding diplomatic agreements or even signing arrangements. Defense cooperation with the West.

All this means, in principle, is that Ukraine will not be allowed to join a military bloc, such as NATO, something that will not happen anyway, given the resistance that the alliance itself shows to such a possibility. In short, Ukraine’s waiver of NATO membership The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or any other arrangement that includes similar security commitments, is merely a confirmation of reality.

Neutrality in the context of the war in Ukraine often has negative implications, but this is a misreading of the idea, as neutrality is not the only optimal and least dangerous option for the United States and Europe, but it is also in Ukraine’s interest.

Security guarantees

Alliances are fickle and shifting, and while it is true that some alliances can last a long time, they are not always that way, nor were they ever intended to be, as America’s founder and first president, George Washington, astutely advised during his farewell address. Delivered to the nation in 1796, there have been many instances in history when evolving regional or geopolitical circumstances, or regime change, have dissolved alliances or rendered them irrelevant.

And if alliances withstand pressure, there are always doubts that an ally will actually fulfill its commitments when the going gets tough. Technically, China and North Korea have a long-standing alliance, but despite this document, Beijing is unlikely to defend a leader. North Korea and its president, Kim Jong Un, if he chooses to enter into battle with the United States, the best security any country can buy is to invest in its own capabilities and improve its military capacity, and not to seek the help of foreign powers in terms of security policy.

Ukraine faces the same predicament, and even if Kiev receives security guarantees from NATO, can it really rely on its allies to intervene in the event of another Russian aggression? The US foreign policy establishment should assume so, but judging by the past three years, this confidence is not based on sufficient evidence. The United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and other members of NATO have provided massive amounts of weapons to Ukraine, But arming a distant country to resist Russia is not the same as deploying your own forces and going to war on behalf of Ukraine.

NATO has shown, time and time again, that although it is willing to do the first, it will not do the second. The risks and costs are simply too high. Putin is not stupid. He can see this for himself. Does Putin view Western security guarantees as credible? ?.

Ukraine considers neutrality a major win for itself, not a loss. By definition, this means that Ukraine will not be under the control of Moscow, and it certainly will not be under the control of the West either. About “The American Conservatism”

. Ukraine’s war will enter its fourth year at the end of next February, and is widely referred to as a war of attrition.

. The idea of ​​neutrality for Ukraine is the formula that requires Kiev to stop seeking NATO membership. Or mutual defense agreements with Washington and Europe.