The trap of neutrality: Kiev needs Western guarantors. Putin towards a mutilated victory?
What kind of neutrality for Kiev? A "Western" version, on the model of Austria and Sweden, or the Moscow protectorate?
Are the talks between Ukraine and Russia turning into real negotiations? It is to be hoped for, of course, but we must not get overwhelmed by wishful thinking . From the traces (perhaps premature to call it a draft agreement) reported yesterday by the Financial Times , it would seem that the negotiations are starting to come alive.
For some days we had noticed how in their public statements, President Zelensky and his collaborators tended to increasingly minimize Ukraine's chances of joining NATO. Already a week ago, she declared that she had "cooled down for a long time" her enthusiasm for joining NATO, after realizing that "it is not ready to accept Ukraine, this alliance is afraid of disputes, it is afraid of one clash with Russia ". The turning point coincided more or less with the acknowledgment of having obtained the maximum help from the West – in terms of military and Russian sanctions – and that a no-fly zone or the supply of fighter jets are not on the agenda. table.
On Tuesday, the Ukrainian president was even more explicit: “It is clear that Ukraine is not a member of NATO. We understand this. For years we have heard of alleged open doors, but we have heard that we cannot enter them. And this is true, we must admit it ”. Many have superficially remarked that if Zelensky had uttered this phrase a month ago, he would have avoided war and the sacrifices of the Ukrainian population. But let's not forget that Putin's request before the invasion was not only or mainly in Kiev, but in Washington: he demanded from the US a "legally binding guarantee" of Ukraine's non-adhesion to NATO and the renunciation of further enlargements, a request impossible (not even in Yalta similar guarantees were granted to the USSR on Eastern Europe), advanced only to have it rejected and to have a pretext for a long-planned invasion. In any case, it was not something that could be given to Putin for free, not on the terms in which he demanded it.
Yesterday, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov reported that the talks are focusing on Ukraine's neutrality and this is at the heart of the plan outlined by the Financial Times . Ukraine and Russia would have made "significant progress on a 15-point peace plan that includes a ceasefire and Russian withdrawal if Kiev declares its neutrality and accepts limits on its armed forces." The renunciation of entry into NATO and the commitment not to host foreign bases or armaments on its territory.
On the point of neutrality, yesterday morning it was leaked that it could be based on the model of Sweden and Austria. It is not clear to us which of the two sides mentioned these two countries first. Initially, it was reported that Russian negotiators had reported that Ukraine was proposing neutral status on the model of Austria and Sweden. But then the news came that Kiev had rejected Austria and Sweden as models of its neutrality and Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov declared that a neutrality of Ukraine based on the status of Austria and Sweden is "an option that is now being discussed and can be considered a compromise ".
The feeling is that there may have been an attempt on the Russian side to obtain a principled yes to neutrality from Kiev without going into detail about what this actually means, while it is in the details that the devil is hiding …
In any case, it is good to be clear: Sweden and Austria are not part of NATO but have their own army and are both members of the European Union. Therefore, the reference to these two countries would mean not closing the prospect of closer ties with the West to Ukraine, up to EU accession.
This, however, would conflict with the Russian request for demilitarization of the country and with President Putin's repeated assertions that Kiev is Russia. If by "neutrality" Moscow also means demilitarization and non-EU membership, as it seems, it must be clear that we are talking about something else, not Sweden and Austria.
But Kiev seems to be well aware of the trap that lies behind the apparently harmless principle of "neutrality" and seeks concrete guarantees of its sovereignty, integrity and independence. A neutrality that was "guaranteed" only by the word of Russia, the aggressor state that first with the annexation of Crimea in 2014, now today, violated the guarantees signed in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, would not be true neutrality but a constant threat, hence submission.
For this reason Kiev, in exchange for neutrality, for renouncing NATO, asks that third powers guarantee its security: the United States, the United Kingdom and Turkey. With concrete commitments, more stringent than those envisaged in the aforementioned memorandum, which did not avoid Russian aggression.
"We propose a 'Ukrainian model of security guarantees' – explained to the Financial Times Mykhailo Podolyak, Zelensky's negotiator and adviser – which implies the immediate and legally verified participation of a certain number of guaranteeing countries in defense of Ukraine if anyone it again violates its territorial integrity ”, as well as the certainty of maintaining its own army.
It is clear, and the Financial Times also points out, that the very nature of these Western guarantees on the security of Ukraine are a decisive point with respect to the sovereignty of Kiev and for this reason it is difficult for Moscow to consent. But it is a litmus test of real Russian intentions. These guarantees, in fact, would be triggered only if Ukraine were attacked, they would in no way imply the participation of Kiev in a possible conflict between Russia and the guaranteeing countries on their side, as envisaged by Article 5 of NATO. So, if the problem really was just Kiev's NATO membership, Moscow should have no problem with these guarantees. Conversely, if the goal is to make Ukraine a protectorate, Belarusian , then they are clearly an obstacle.
But neutrality is obviously not the only point of negotiation, there are also territorial issues. To the Financial Times , Podolyak said that any agreement would provide that "Russian troops in any case leave the territory of Ukraine" occupied since the invasion began on February 24, then the southern regions along the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. 'Azov and the territories north and east of Kiev and Kharkiv.
But the most critical point, observes the daily, remains Russia's request that Ukraine recognize the annexation of Crimea and the independence of the two republics of Donbass, already recognized by Moscow. So far Kiev has refused, but now seems willing to deal with the matter separately, Podolyak said: “The disputed and conflicting territories are a separate case. For now we are talking about a guaranteed withdrawal from the territories that have been occupied since the beginning of the military operation on February 24th ”.
Our reading is that the plan outlined briefly in the Financial Times may be a compromise proposal leaked by Kiev through the press, so as not to take its neutrality concessions for granted. Podolyak in a tweet almost denies it as a Ukrainian position: “the FT has published a draft, which represents the negotiating position of the Russian side. Nothing more. The Ukrainian side has its own positions. The only thing we are confirming at this stage is a ceasefire, the withdrawal of Russian troops and security guarantees from a number of countries ”.
And perhaps, more than in Moscow, the FT message could be addressed to Western capitals, to get involved at least as guarantors of Ukraine's future security, when Kiev renounces NATO and accepts a status of neutrality.
On the Ukrainian side, there is skepticism about President Putin's willingness to work on a peace agreement and the concern is that Moscow is using the negotiations, showing itself available to a diplomatic solution, to buy time, reorganize its forces and relaunch with more his offensive is effective.
Even in his televised speech yesterday, Putin used anything but conciliatory tones, assuring that Russia will achieve all its goals in the conflict in Ukraine. Yet, both from the words of Peskov and Lavrov, and from Putin himself, focused on the defense of Donbass, a retreat from the initial proclamations, when he claimed in practice the whole of Ukraine, which he did not even recognize the right to sovereignty, he solemnly proclaimed the membership of Kiev in Russia and not too covertly aimed at the overthrow of the current Ukrainian leadership.
It is not excluded, after acknowledging the difficulties on the pitch and at home, due to sanctions, that Putin is preparing to sell a victory halved as a complete victory, according to plan. Which does not mean that he will give up on achieving his goals, but that the difficulties of the moment suggest a tactical retreat and a more realistic version of victory.
So, one of two: either Putin realized that it would take months to achieve his goals and not have all this time; or, conversely, if the advance proceeds according to plan, there is no reason to seek an agreement before having taken the entire coast of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov – territories of obvious strategic interest beyond the Donbass, judging by the troop movements – and to have at least attempted the overthrow of Kiev or the Ukrainian government.
As we have explained several times in Atlantico Quotidiano , Putin's goal is not only to ensure the neutrality of Kiev, that it does not join NATO, this is a corollary, but it is the political control of Ukraine, in order to stop the political slide , cultural and economic of the country to the West and, possibly, to reverse it to the East. What Putin wants is not a buffer state, it is a sphere of influence.
Any formula that did not guarantee Moscow political control of Ukraine would be a defeat, albeit a temporary one, for Putin. If the neutrality of Kiev is on the true model of Sweden and Austria (accession to the EU and its own army), and also guaranteed by the US and the UK, for Putin it will be a defeat, which he will try to present as a victory by waving the renunciation of entry into the Born, the Donbass and the Crimea (which it already had). In this case, the Ukrainian resistance will not have been a useless sacrifice, but the premise for maintaining its sovereignty, and the mix of military aid and sanctions decisive at least in lowering Russian demands. Conversely, if the conflict ended with a neutrality of Kiev that includes demilitarization, non-EU membership and no Western guarantee of its security, the Kremlin could sing victory.
The post The trap of neutrality: Kiev needs Western guarantors. Putin towards a mutilated victory? appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL https://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/la-trappola-della-neutralita-a-kiev-servono-garanti-occidentali-putin-verso-una-vittoria-mutilata/ on Thu, 17 Mar 2022 03:56:00 +0000.