Neutrality for Ukraine will not bring peace as Russia cannot be trusted to adhere to any agreement, Finland's foreign minister says
Neutrality for Ukraine will not bring peace as Russia cannot be trusted to adhere to any agreement, Finland's foreign minister says
- Finland's Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen opposes imposing neutrality on Ukraine
- Valtonen questions Russia's trustworthiness in adhering to agreements
- Forcing Ukraine to accept terms could undermine international system, Valtonen says
Forcing neutrality onto Ukraine will not bring about a peaceful solution to the crisis with Russia, Finland's foreign minister said on Monday, adding that Moscow could not be trusted to adhere to any agreement it signs.
[...]
With the prospect of U.S. president elect Donald Trump seeking to end the conflict as quickly possible and concerns from some allies that the terms could be imposed in Kyiv, one scenario could be to force a neutral status on Ukraine.
Russia has repeatedly demanded Ukraine remain neutral for there to be peace, which would de facto kill its aspirations for NATO membership.
Russia trust issues
[...] Finland's Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen poured cold water on using the "Finlandisation" model, pointing out that firstly Helsinki had fended off Russia in World War 2 and that despite the ensuing peace had always continued to arm itself fearing a new conflict.
"I'm against it (Finlandisation), yes. Let's face it, Ukraine was neutral before they were attacked by Russia," Valtonen, whose country has a 1,300-km (810-mile) border with Russia, said on the sidelines of the Paris Peace Forum.
[...]
The Ukraine invasion led both Finland and Sweden to abandon decades of military non-alignment and seek safety in the NATO camp.
Valtonen questioned whether Russia could be trusted even if it agreed a deal and said forcing Ukraine's hand to accept terms against its will would tear down the international system.
"I really want to avoid a situation where any European country, or the United States for that matter, starts negotiating over the heads of Ukraine," she said.
"A larger power can not just grab territory, but also essentially weaken the sovereignty of another nation," she said.
You mean to tell me the country that broke agreements to do the very thing it's doing is unlikely to keep an agreement?
There's a difference between "cannot be trusted to adhere" and "can be trusted not to adhere", and Russia is the latter.
Russia will accept a peace when its economy is unable to support the war any longer.
Question is, what options are there?
If the outcome is Ukrainian NATO membership, Russia has no motivation to accept a negotiated peace. This leaves only two options:
-
The West abandons Ukraine and Russia conquers all of it.
-
The West extremely ramps up its effort to support Ukraine, defeating Russia.
Now option 1 still ends up with the problem, that there is a direct NATO-Russia border. This flips around the threat and motivation to move it back. So now the NATO has a motivation to reconquer Ukraine, maybe in 10, maybe in 20 years.
Option 2 could end with the collapse of Russia. Then some 10.000 nuclear warheads are unaccounted for. This creates an incentive for NATO to try and put a stabilizing force into western Russia, while China would probably move in form the East. Imagine having the instability of the Middle East, but with 10.000 nuclear warheads...
A properly armed and neutral Ukraine with full territorial integrity including Crimea seems to be the best way to create stable security architecture.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with NATO sharing a border with Russia. NATO is a defense pact. It won't invade Russia to "stabilise" or for anything else. It's all right there in the NATO charter.
In fact NATO has shared a border with the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad for decades. And there haven't been any problems. More recently, NATO member Finland has a land border of many hundreds of kilometers with Russia's mainland territory. That doesn't seem to be hurting anyone or anything, except perhaps Mr. Putin's ambitions to one day reconquer Finland.
Edit: I forgot the Baltics! How could I forget NATO members Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (since 2004)?
I forgot the Baltics! How could I forget NATO members Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (since 2004)?
Don't worry. Everyone does.
NATO member Finland has a land border of many hundreds of kilometers with Russia’s mainland territory. That doesn’t seem to be hurting anyone or anything, except perhaps Mr. Putin’s ambitions to one day reconquer Finland.
Fun fact: The border is essentially unmanned on the Russian side, they moved pretty much everyone to Ukraine. Doesn't look like they're expecting to be invaded. You may or may not be interested in what military installations exist up on the Kola peninsula and how many roads and rail lines go south.
Every military pact is a "defense pact". And no country with "superpower" or "regional power" ambition accepts another power right on its doorsteps.
I think the best historical example of the 20th century is the Cuban missile crisis. NATO-Nukes in Turkey, Warsaw-Pact-Nukes in Cuba. Both sides feeling threatened. The solution was to remove both missile threats.
And Finland now sharing a border with Russia certainly is not going to make them more fine with NATO in Ukraine. That is not how geopolitics work.
Your option 1 would mean that Russia is going to attack the next country.
Addition: Russia must be defeated and pay for Ukraine's reconstruction, Putin and possibly other war criminals face prosecution, Ukraine's future is in Nato and EU.
Which country would that be? Russia is not going for a direct confrontation with NATO as it would loose that for sure.
If they get Ukraine they would turn it into a compliant regime as a buffer zone. Using its war-economy is far more profitable in enforcing access to natural resource in Asia or Africa, rather than go to war with Poland or Finland.
Russia has very few regional bases of power. Most of Russia is controlled by the Kremlin pretty directly and the parts of Russia lacking direct control also lack nukes. So the most likely option is a bit of maybe even violent infighting in the Kremlin and then the victor rules Russia. The Kremlin would also control nukes, so China is unlikely to invade.
Speaking of nukes, there are 8 launch sites for ICBMs, 3 nuclear submarine naval bases with nukes and two air bases with long range bombers aremed with nukes. So 13 locations need to be controlled. That seems rather possible to me. So honestly I doubt it will be too bad.
Ukraine has seen what the Russians are willing to do to Ukraine, so they themself will try to become part of NATO or the EU as much and as soon as possible. So it is pretty much NATO/EU or Ukraine building nukes, probably even both.
Russia would be weakend and needs some time to rebuilt. A defeat would mean that reconstruction period would take a long time. Looking at demographics and Russias economy maybe never.
There's always option 3, which is to allow Russia to continue conquering smaller countries unchecked, which won't work out well for Europe, but has precedent. Kicking the problem along to the future seems to be the status quo these days.
Do I smell Vodka there?
To you maybe. To Russia, no way.
-