Neutrality Option for Ukraine

The Russian entry into Ukraine by force is now a month old. It is a war by strange means, in the sense that conventional battle theories are not holding true. Neither is conventional diplomacy succeeding.

Among the things that Russia demanded even before the war was ensuring the neutrality of Ukraine. It is preferred as a buffer between NATO and Russia. Today instead of net neutrality and climate neutrality, we have again started talking about strategic neutrality in the context of Ukraine.

What this precisely means and how it will come about is at present unclear. Essentially what Russia wants is that Ukraine should not be a part of any inimical forces, detrimental to its security and hence should not be a member of NATO.

This idea of Ukraine remaining neutral has some models to follow. Several European countries were considered neutral around WWI and WWII. Neutrality was not taking sides among the great powers at war. Some of those countries continue to be neutral, but there are too many variations for there to be a consistent model of neutrality which Ukraine should follow.

Currently seven European countries are considered to be neutral. These are Finland, Malta, Ireland, Lichtenstein, Switzerland, Sweden and the Vatican. Lichtenstein and the Vatican are small states who do not maintain regular armed forces. They may be considered the model of demilitarised neutral states.

Sweden and Switzerland are armed neutral states, with divergences among them. Switzerland is not a member of NATO, the EU or any such body. Sweden is associated with the EU, but not a NATO member; both maintain armed forces. Sweden’s proximity to the Soviet Union was among the reasons for its neutrality.

Neutrality was a reaction to events in Europe and hence the neutrality issue is very much a European issue. A country is considered neutral among countries at war in a specific period or permanently neutral to avoid entering military alliances such as NATO or the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The rights and duties of a neutral country are defined in the Hague Convention of 1907, but one wonders whether that is relevant in 2022.

Sweden, Austria, Ireland and Finland, were active in UN peacekeeping operations and the four of them are allied with the EU. These EU countries along with Malta continue to use the terminology ‘neutral’ for themselves.

The EU evolved a Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and the neutrality that these five profess evidently requires qualification. In 2017, the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) was launched by the EU for greater coordination on defence issues. The PESCO aims to be inclusive, but allows its members to opt out of specific military cooperation. Thus, neutral EU countries are part of their CSDP, but need not participate in its activities. Most like to participate in peacekeeping, counterterrorism, cybersecurity, HADR and the like. Malta is the one EU member who has not joined PESCO. Cyprus has not joined NATO.

Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican are also neutral but perhaps the most salient examples we need to look at are Finland, Sweden and Austria. Moreover, Austria is in Central Europe and not directly bordering Russia. Its neutrality was more in the context of Germany.

Finland’s neutrality is perhaps the most relevant to the Ukraine crisis. It is a Nordic country, which has joined the EU and has land borders with Sweden, Russia, and Norway.  After WWII Finland signed treaties with the Soviet Union in 1947/48 delineating their obligations and constraints. It ceded nearly 10% of its land area and 20% of its then industrial capacity along with two ports to Russia. Most of the Finnish population in those areas left and moved to Finland. Those territories now are part of Russia as the Republic of Karelia, Leningrad Oblast and Murmansk Oblast.

Finland avoided speaking out or adopting policies which could be seen as anti-Soviet. The term ‘Finlandization’ emerged in the German media. Under this model, Finland maintained close relations with Russia, but had an open economy and trade privileges from both Russia and the European countries. It achieved a high rate of growth.

Once the Soviet Union dissipated, Finland increased integration with Western countries. Finland finally joined the EU in 1995 and the Eurozone in 1999. It is a part of a globalised world, though it maintains a non-aggressive posture towards Russia. It maintains a 35,000 strong defence force and is a frequent contributor to UN, NATO and EU missions.

Though not a direct member of NATO, Finland is part of the NATO response for the EU battle group, the NATO Partnership for Peace, and has since 2014 signed a MOU with NATO for practical cooperation. Finnish troops participated in Afghanistan and Kosovo under NATO led operations.

European countries which have a Russia focus, like Sweden and Finland, developed close relations with the EU and even with NATO, but have not provoked Russia and thereby maintained their neutrality.

Ukraine, the second largest country in Europe, after Russia, however, seems to have not managed its ambitions as well as Sweden or Finland. Its history is also more complicated. Therefore, a direct transfer of the Swedish or Finnish model of neutrality to Ukraine is not feasible.

Certain elements could be considered while working on a basis of an agreement.

First, Ukraine seems ready to give up its NATO ambitions which should partly assuage Russia.

Secondly, what will happen to Ukraine Defence Forces who have proved themselves so well? The possibility of them quietly sitting down so soon after fighting for their life with Russia, in a neutral position seems difficult to manage, and will be a critical component. It is unlikely that Ukraine will become a non-military neutral country. A role for its military, other than confronting Russia would need to be worked out.

Thirdly, like Finland, Ukraine may officially cede the areas that Russia has already taken over like Crimea and Donetsk and Luhansk. The rest of the country could remain neutral.

Fourthly, would Russia maintain forces within Ukraine to guarantee its neutrality? Who would be the guarantors of Ukrainian neutrality? Will it be the EU and Russia? The EU may secure a role since Russia’s main problem is with NATO.

Fifthly, Ukraine’s economy would need rebuilding and Russia is perhaps not in a position to reconstruct Ukraine and therefore, Ukraine will require EU fund flows. A guarantee of neutrality of Ukraine and consequently its security, by the EU and Russia could lead to EU funds flowing into Ukraine.

If Russia agrees, they could perhaps have a deal with the EU. This would create a cleavage within the Transatlantic Alliance. Prior to the Russian invasion this was already evident. The Europeans and the US have differing emphasis on how to counter Russia using Ukraine.

While several models of neutrality in Europe exist, in a globalised world this requires several current dimensions to be handled carefully. This includes refugees, movement of people, humanitarian aid, economic and energy related issues, besides the role of the defence forces.

Staying neutral is contextual and requires immense confidence building measures.

*************