Neutrality as a compromise

ie

In the third week of Russia’s war against Ukraine, a small glimmer of hope appears. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was asked by journalists in Moscow on Wednesday what he thinks of the Ukrainian proposal to declare the country’s neutrality along the lines of Sweden or Austria. “This is a variant that is actually being discussed at the moment and that can be seen as a compromise,” replies a confidant of President Vladimir Putin.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had previously said that there were formulations on which both sides could agree shortly. In an interview with the RBC TV channel, Lavrov even gave the impression that Putin had never wanted anything else. Neutrality, “that’s exactly what President Putin spoke about in February during one of his press conferences: all possible variants, any mutually acceptable guarantees of security for Ukraine and all countries, including Russia – with the exception of NATO expansion,” Lavrov said. The minister left out the fact that Putin actually named war goals that would have ended with the annihilation of Ukraine and the liquidation of its democratically elected leadership.

In the past few days, President Volodymyr Zelenskyi had bid farewell to hopes that Ukraine could become a member of NATO and thus be safer from Putin’s imperial claims. “For years we have heard about open doors, but now we have also heard that we are not allowed to enter there, and we have to accept that,” Zelenskyj said on Wednesday. In doing so, he is making it clear to his fellow citizens that we will not capitulate to Putin. It’s NATO that doesn’t want us.

The right to self-defense remains

Countries like Switzerland, Sweden, Finland or Austria have laid down their fundamental obligation to permanent – ​​in the case of Austria “perpetual” – neutrality either in political declarations of intent or in treaties. The right to self-defense is not called into question by neutrality. The head of the Ukrainian delegation, Mykhailo Podoliak, refused to simply adopt the example set by the previously neutral states. Ukraine is demanding far-reaching security guarantees and a treaty that also includes other states. This does not exist for any of the previous neutral states.

Austria’s neutrality was laid down in the Moscow Memorandum of 1955. For the Soviet Union, it was a condition for the sovereignty of Austria, which in return undertook the obligation not to unite with Germany or to join a military alliance.

“Neutrality is part of the self-image of the Austrians,” wrote the Viennese “Standard” of the day. Putin’s war against Ukraine has not changed that. The constitution states that Austria will protect its neutrality “with all necessary means”, and a large majority of the population trusts in that. In Finland and Sweden, on the other hand, the war has reignited discussions as to whether the concept of neutrality is still relevant. Moscow has already threatened both countries that NATO membership would also have negative consequences for them.

For Ukraine, the crucial question will be: Can Russia be trusted at the negotiating table? This country in particular has had negative experiences. With the Budapest Memorandum of December 1994, Kyiv had received guarantees from Russia of its independence, sovereignty and the inviolability of its borders – and in return gave up its nuclear weapons. Putin broke this binding obligation under international law back in 2014 when he annexed Crimea.