By Adriana @Adobe Stock
As the Russo-Ukrainian war nears its third year, Jennifer Kavanagh and Christopher McCallion of War on the Rocks argue that “armed neutrality” is a better option than NATO membership. This approach allows Ukraine to build a strong defense without relying on unreliable security guarantees, offering the best chance for lasting peace while protecting NATO’s credibility. They write:
When it comes to securing Ukraine’s future, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, armed neutrality is the worst option for the United States and NATO, except for all the others.
As the Russo-Ukrainian war approaches its third anniversary, the conflict may be nearing a turning point. Ukraine’s military is dangerously exhausted, facing worsening manpower shortages and the prospect of diminishing Western aid. Russia, despite steady gains, hasn’t scored a decisive breakthrough and is suffering high losses amid tightening economic constraints. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has promised to end the war and has already held discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin to get negotiations started.
Whenever peace talks begin, they will be difficult and complex. While questions about territory will most likely be settled on the battlefield, arrangements for Ukraine’s long-term security will be a stubborn sticking point. Several alternatives have been proposed, including NATO membership with its Article 5 guarantee, a bi- or multilateral security guarantee from the United States or a group of European states, or “armed neutrality” — which would leave Ukraine with no security guarantee but with substantial military assistance. While Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky argues NATO membership is the only way to ensure a lasting peace, many current alliance members, including the United States, are opposed, unwilling to take on the additional security burden. […]
The final option, “armed neutrality,” would come with no foreign security guarantees, but it would not leave Ukraine defenseless. Ukraine would give up its bid for NATO and likely also E.U. membership permanently — or at least for an extended period — and the country would be turned into a bristling porcupine that would be difficult and costly for Russia to invade in the future, with impenetrable barriers and anti-tank mines on its de facto borders, strong air defense capabilities, and abundant munitions. NATO would likely never agree to commit in writing to limits on Ukraine’s alliance membership, as the alliance has long insisted that no third country has a veto over NATO membership decisions. Moscow, meanwhile, would also be unlikely to accept informal assurances from NATO given what it sees as a history of broken promises from the West. Ukraine could therefore agree to formally withdraw or indefinitely pause its NATO and E.U. membership bids as part of a larger political settlement, or could commit to non-aligned, neutral status in its constitution, as Kyiv has done in the past. […]
Critics of armed neutrality suggest that even this approach will be a deal-breaker for Putin. Some Russian leaders, like Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, have suggested that a fully “demilitarized” Ukraine is a requirement for an end to the war. But Russia seems unable to achieve this maximal objective on the battlefield, and Trump therefore has room to maneuver. There may be incentives Washington could trade for Russian flexibility on military aid to Ukraine, including sanctions relief or willingness to discuss other Russian priorities, such as the U.S. role in Europe’s security. Russia could be offered assurances on the types of aid the United States and Europe would provide Ukraine — excluding intermediate range missiles, for instance. Moscow and Washington could also probably agree to prevent Ukraine from acquiring an independent nuclear deterrent. Geographic limits for both Russia and Ukraine on troop deployments or long-range strike systems might also help grease the wheels. Ultimately, haggling would be required, but a mutually acceptable deal is a realistic goal. […]
Going forward, the tasks of ensuring NATO’s endurance and translating Ukraine’s armed neutrality into a long-term peace will fall largely to Europe. In particular, NATO’s European members will have to build military capabilities that allow them to match with hard power their growing commitments, including the Article 5 guarantee to the alliance’s eastern members and required support to Ukraine. These obligations cannot continue to be handed off to the United States, which has already indicated — if not in words then in deeds and actions — the limits of its willingness to defend “every inch” of NATO territory and its finite interests in Ukraine. If Europe does not step up, not only may Ukraine’s peace be short-lived, but worse, NATO itself may shatter under internal and external pressure on its Article 5 promise.
Ukraine’s armed neutrality is the best chance Brussels and Kyiv have for a lasting peace settlement that also preserves NATO, even if it falls short of what some hoped for early in the war. By offering Ukraine armed neutrality but no formal security guarantees, NATO members can prevent further damage to the alliance’s credibility and ensure that the alliance emerges from the Russo-Ukrainian war battered but not broken.
Read more here.
If you’re willing to fight for Main Street America, click here to sign up for the Richardcyoung.com free weekly email.
