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.
Read article in War on the Rocks
Authors
Christopher
McCallion
Fellow
Jennifer
Kavanagh
Senior Fellow & Director of Military Analysis
More on Europe
Events on Ukraine-Russia
