In the case of securing Ukraine’s future, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, armed neutrality is the worst possibility for the US and NATO, apart from all of the others.
Because the Russo-Ukrainian conflict approaches its third anniversary, the battle could also be nearing a turning level. Ukraine’s navy is dangerously exhausted, dealing with worsening manpower shortages and the prospect of diminishing Western support. Russia, regardless of regular beneficial properties, hasn’t scored a decisive breakthrough and is struggling excessive losses amid tightening financial constraints. In the meantime, President Donald Trump has promised to finish the conflict and has already held discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin to get negotiations began.
Every time peace talks start, they are going to be tough and complicated. Whereas questions on territory will most definitely be settled on the battlefield, preparations for Ukraine’s long-term safety will probably be a cussed sticking level. A number of options have been proposed, together with NATO membership with its Article 5 assure, a bi- or multilateral safety assure from the US or a gaggle of European states, or “armed neutrality” — which would depart Ukraine with no safety assure however with substantial navy help. Whereas Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky argues NATO membership is the one method to make sure a long-lasting peace, many present alliance members, together with the United States, are opposed, unwilling to tackle the extra safety burden.
The perceived security provided by NATO membership is a harmful phantasm for Ukraine, nevertheless. Though it’s described as “ironclad,” the alliance’s Article 5 dedication just isn’t fairly the assure Kyiv may hope for. Article 5 doesn’t require members to reply with navy power in opposition to an aggressor, and its intentionally imprecise wording offers allies the liberty to determine how and when to react. In consequence, previous Western refusal to ship navy forces to defend Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 would weaken the credibility of any formal safety assure provided to Kyiv by NATO nations. Phrases alone wouldn’t stop a deterrence failure, and an American tripwire power — which could deal with this danger — has already been dominated out by successive presidential administrations. Worse, by extending an unreliable dedication to Ukraine, NATO would additionally undermine the credibility of Article 5 ensures to current members.
Of proposed options, solely armed neutrality avoids these penalties whereas providing probably the most promising probability for long-term peace. Ukraine’s armed neutrality would, nevertheless, include duties for NATO members, particularly in Europe, to assist Kyiv construct its arsenal and fortify the continent’s personal defenses.
Doubtful Ensures
Since Trump’s November 2024 presidential election win, Ukraine and its supporters have feared that his promise to convey the conflict to a fast finish would halt U.S. navy support and push Kyiv into an unfavorable settlement. An imposed peace deal that leaves Ukraine with no assist wouldn’t serve America’s or Trump’s pursuits, nevertheless. Most significantly, previous analysis means that pressured conflict settlements hardly ever final. Not solely would Kyiv have incentives to undermine a deal that it felt pressured to just accept, particularly one it noticed as a give up, however Russia is likely to be emboldened to launch a 3rd invasion right into a defenseless Ukraine, hoping to grab extra territory or extract extra political wins from the West. Renewed conflict would as soon as once more put Moscow and NATO vulnerable to direct battle, whereas Russian geographic beneficial properties would additional erode Ukraine’s sovereign territory and permit Russia to pose new threats to Ukraine’s neighbors. For Trump himself, a resumption of hostilities would mark a international coverage failure and problem his “peace by way of power” narrative — and, if Kyiv fell, he is likely to be faulted for “dropping Ukraine.”
Trump’s early and proactive dedication to negotiations means that he might have a minimum of one aim in frequent with Zelensky: reaching a permanent settlement to the conflict. Efforts to realize a long-lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia face a dedication drawback, nevertheless. A historical past of mistrust and damaged agreements imply that neither facet believes that the opposite will adhere to a deal. At first blush, safety ensures appear to deal with this drawback by providing one or each side an assurance that renewed aggression will probably be met with penalties, together with exterior navy assist and retaliation.
Ukraine’s most well-liked safety assure is a fast accession to NATO. Recalling the toothless assurances contained within the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Ukrainian leaders have repeatedly expressed the view that the extra binding insurance coverage of Article 5 (and the implied safety of the U.S. nuclear umbrella) can be the greatest method to offer Ukraine the safety it wants. In December 2024, as an example, Zelensky informed European leaders that “An invite for Ukraine to affix NATO is a obligatory factor for our survival.”
Nonetheless, Ukraine’s membership in NATO is basically a non-starter as a situation for peace with Russia and as a reputable dedication by the US and its European allies. Although there stay disagreements about Putin’s targets for his 2022 invasion, the repeated pledge to convey Ukraine into NATO was a key contributing trigger of the conflict, and Moscow would virtually definitely want to proceed combating than enable it to affix the alliance. Furthermore, NATO has already demonstrated twice that it’s unwilling to come back to Ukraine’s protection when the latter has been invaded, assessing the dangers to be greater than the pursuits at stake. This might undermine the credibility of a future NATO assure to Ukraine. In spite of everything, merely extending NATO membership on paper to Ukraine wouldn’t change allied cost-benefit calculations. As importantly, an uncredible NATO dedication to Ukraine would deal a devastating blow to the alliance’s current ensures, particularly these on the jap entrance, which would appear much more unsure. Whereas Secretary of Protection Pete Hegseth appeared to rule out NATO membership for Ukraine in current remarks to different European leaders, he later walked that again, saying as a substitute that “all the pieces is on the desk.”
A bilateral U.S. safety assure for Ukraine can be equally unacceptable to Moscow and unworkable for the trans-Atlantic alliance, whether or not it took the type of a extra binding mutual protection settlement just like the U.S.-Japanese treaty relationship or one thing extra versatile just like the 1975 U.S. memorandum of settlement with Israel. America has lengthy been clear that Ukraine’s alignment just isn’t a nationwide safety crucial and that the steadiness of resolve would at all times be in Moscow’s favor in a showdown over the nation. Talking in 2016, President Barack Obama acknowledged the restricted U.S. stakes in Ukraine, arguing that “we now have to be very clear about what our core pursuits are and what we’re keen to go to conflict for.” Nothing Trump or President Joe Biden have mentioned or executed has wavered from this primary evaluation. Ukraine’s non-NATO standing is thus the consequence, not the trigger, of America’s lack of important curiosity in guaranteeing its protection. Within the phrases of former President Richard Nixon, “Our pursuits should form our commitments, somewhat than the opposite method round.”
Given its specific refusal to defend Ukraine previously, any U.S. promise to take action sooner or later would face questions on its reliability, particularly with out an accompanying deployment of U.S. navy forces, which Trump and his advisors have already dominated out. For his half, a U.S. miliary presence in Ukraine would even be unacceptable to Putin, who has made clear that he views the presence of American forces and navy infrastructure in jap Europe as the primary risk posed by NATO growth.
European ensures to Ukraine might sound extra credible on the floor. In spite of everything, Europe has a standard curiosity in balancing Russia with an unbiased Ukraine as a buffer. If Ukraine have been to turn out to be a member of the European Union, for instance, it will fall below the Lisbon Treaty’s mutual protection provision. Though the supply is modeled on NATO’s Article 5, it has not been sanctified in the identical method and stays extra ambiguous in nature. Nonetheless, a European safety dedication would convey its personal limitations and problems for NATO.
Technically, European ensures wouldn’t implicate Article 5, as European states can be appearing exterior the umbrella of the alliance. However in follow, it will show tough, if not inconceivable, to separate European ensures to Ukraine from de facto NATO safety, particularly if European forces have been attacked. To forestall entanglement, the firewall between NATO and any European guarantor coalition must be in depth. Such carveouts would inevitably and considerably weaken the alliance by formally conditioning commitments which are alleged to be grounded in a substantive strategic crucial for frequent protection. This might current an insoluble dilemma: If Ukraine and Russia acquired right into a future conflict and just some European states got here to Kyiv’s protection, both the remainder of NATO must stand apart as their allies are attacked — undermining the alliance past restore — or the formal limits positioned on Article 5 would fail, leaving the alliance splintered between these dragged into conflict and people seen as reneging on their commitments.
Armed Neutrality and Its Advantages
The ultimate possibility, “armed neutrality,” would include no international safety ensures, however it will not depart Ukraine defenseless. Ukraine would surrender its bid for NATO and certain additionally E.U. membership completely — or a minimum of for an prolonged interval — and the nation can be became a bristling porcupine that may be tough and dear for Russia to invade sooner or later, with impenetrable limitations and anti-tank mines on its de facto borders, robust air protection capabilities, and ample munitions. NATO would probably by no means comply with commit in writing to limits on Ukraine’s alliance membership, because the alliance has lengthy insisted that no third nation has a veto over NATO membership choices. Moscow, in the meantime, would even be unlikely to just accept casual assurances from NATO given what it sees as a historical past of damaged guarantees from the West. Ukraine may subsequently comply with formally withdraw or indefinitely pause its NATO and E.U. membership bids as half of a bigger political settlement, or may decide to non-aligned, impartial standing in its structure, as Kyiv has executed previously.
As a impartial state, Ukraine would nonetheless want vital navy assist from the US and Europe to construct an arsenal able to deterring Russia and defending its territory. America and NATO allies have restricted shares remaining and constrained protection manufacturing capability at this time however, since Russia too will want time to rebuild earlier than it may well think about a renewed assault, they’ll have 5 to 10 years to assist Ukraine construct a reputable deterrent.
Early tranches of support would concentrate on defensive capabilities restricted by what the US can nonetheless present at scale given world commitments: anti-tank mines, concrete for developing limitations like dragon’s enamel and trenches, short-range artillery, and a few varieties of ammunition. Although Ukraine has made some defensive efforts, there’s nonetheless a lot it may well do to make areas close to its lengthy borders with Russia inhospitable to invaders. Ukraine may also use navy help {dollars} to assist recruit and practice a massive combating power and succesful reserve. Continued funding in Ukraine’s drone improvement can supercharge its manufacturing of uncrewed methods, which can be utilized for surveillance or to harass adversary forces within the occasion of an assault. Later tranches of help may embrace command-and-control methods, some longer-range munitions, and armored automobiles. Initially, the US would lead Ukraine’s rearming, however as protection manufacturing in Europe will increase, it ought to assume main duty for arming Ukraine. Ukraine’s historical past as a protection manufacturing powerhouse must also be leveraged by investing closely in its indigenous weapons manufacturing. Lastly, to obtain enough air protection capabilities in any respect ranges, Ukraine might want to exploit many procurement pathways, together with co-production preparations between international and Ukrainian corporations.
Critics have deemed armed neutrality “doomed to fail,” however a cautious evaluation suggests it’s Ukraine’s least dangerous possibility. On this situation, Kyiv can be liable for its personal safety. It must spend money on rebuilding its defense-industrial base and strengthening and modernizing its fight capabilities over the long run, with assist from the US and Europe. However together with the burdens of independence, it will additionally obtain the advantages of self-sufficiency.
Certainly, historical past gives frequent reminders that the one actually “ironclad” protection is the one a rustic offers itself. It’s — as Kenneth Waltz famously claimed — finally a “self-help” world. In some ways, Ukraine’s state of affairs parallels that of Finland after World Warfare II. Having efficiently halted the Soviets within the Winter and Continuation Wars, Finland’s relative weak point nonetheless pressured it to successfully settle for a Soviet veto on its international coverage, in change for preserving its political independence and a formidable combating power. Whereas “Finlandization” has been regarded by some as a synonym for capitulation and lack of sovereignty, armed neutrality in reality preserved Finland’s home autonomy, permitting it to take pleasure in political liberties and a excessive way of life on par with its western European neighbors.
In response to Tomas Ries’ examine of Finnish protection, Finland’s postwar independence was sustained by three elements: willpower to battle, a practical steadiness of deterrence with “reassurance,” and the bigger problem for the Soviets posed by NATO. Armed neutrality would depart Ukraine well-positioned on these three dimensions. First, Ukrainians have proven the need and skill to defend their territory in opposition to Russian aggression regardless of their numerical and materials drawback. Ukraine’s navy steadiness with Russia can also be extra favorable than that between Finland and the Soviets. Second, by renouncing its NATO aspirations however constructing its navy capabilities, Kyiv may assuage Russian issues about Ukraine appearing as a Western “springboard” whereas sustaining formidable unbiased fight energy. Armed neutrality would thus steadiness reassurance with credible deterrence, whereas decreasing the advantages and growing the prices of renewed Russian aggression. Lastly, so long as Ukraine is seen as aligned with NATO, Russia feels compelled to direct the majority of its forces in direction of its southwestern neighbor. If Ukraine have been as a substitute impartial, Russia must divide its consideration between Ukraine and the extra highly effective NATO alliance, whereas nonetheless securing its large territory and plenty of borders. Armed neutrality would enable Ukraine to show Russia’s unenviable safety surroundings to its benefit, leaving Ukraine to face solely a fraction of Russia’s complete combating potential at a given time.
Critics of armed neutrality counsel that even this method will probably be a deal-breaker for Putin. Some Russian leaders, like Overseas Minister Sergei Lavrov, have recommended {that a} totally “demilitarized” Ukraine is a requirement for an finish to the conflict. However Russia appears unable to realize this maximal goal on the battlefield, and Trump subsequently has room to maneuver. There could also be incentives Washington may commerce for Russian flexibility on navy support to Ukraine, together with sanctions aid or willingness to debate different Russian priorities, such because the U.S. position in Europe’s safety. Russia could possibly be provided assurances on the varieties of support the US and Europe would supply Ukraine — excluding intermediate vary missiles, as an example. Moscow and Washington may additionally in all probability agree to stop Ukraine from buying an unbiased nuclear deterrent. Geographic limits for each Russia and Ukraine on troop deployments or long-range strike methods may also assist grease the wheels. In the end, haggling can be required, however a mutually acceptable deal is a practical aim.
NATO’s Existential Selection
Along with being Kyiv’s best choice, Ukrainian armed neutrality can also be the most suitable choice for NATO — particularly its eastern-most members who’ve made Article 5 the inspiration of their safety. In contrast to extending NATO membership to Ukraine or providing Kyiv a U.S.- or European-backed safety assure, armed neutrality doesn’t additional threaten the credibility of the alliance’s mutual protection dedication or overburden its members with one other resource-intensive and binding obligation.
Armed neutrality won’t be cost-free for NATO, nevertheless, as allies could have a near- and medium-term duty to assist construct Ukraine’s navy capabilities. Armed neutrality can also be not a cure-all for the challenges Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has laid at NATO’s doorstep. The alliance’s preliminary response to the Russian invasion appeared to show that NATO had rediscovered a way of frequent function. Over time, nevertheless, the conflict has pushed to the forefront the underlying pressure that NATO’s eastward growth launched into the alliance. The power of NATO’s authentic members to defend new entrants — particularly the Baltic states — has at all times been extra restricted than they have been keen to confess. Invading Ukraine in 2022, a resurgent Russia pressured NATO members to grapple with the true price of an expanded Article 5 dedication. Though Ukraine’s alignment has been extra contentious for Russia than that of the Baltic states, owing to Ukraine’s core place within the Soviet Union and inside Russian historical past and tradition, nations on NATO’s northeastern flank might have new questions on Article 5’s sturdiness after watching NATO waver over how and whether or not it may afford to assist Ukraine.
Going ahead, the duties of making certain NATO’s endurance and translating Ukraine’s armed neutrality right into a long-term peace will fall largely to Europe. Specifically, NATO’s European members must construct navy capabilities that enable them to match with onerous energy their rising commitments, together with the Article 5 assure to the alliance’s jap members and required assist to Ukraine. These obligations can not proceed to be handed off to the US, which has already indicated — if not in phrases then in deeds and actions — the bounds of its willingness to defend “each inch” of NATO territory and its finite pursuits in Ukraine. If Europe doesn’t step up, not solely might Ukraine’s peace be short-lived, however worse, NATO itself might shatter below inner and exterior stress on its Article 5 promise.
Ukraine’s armed neutrality is one of the best probability Brussels and Kyiv have for a long-lasting peace settlement that additionally preserves NATO, even when it falls wanting what some hoped for early within the conflict. By providing Ukraine armed neutrality however no formal safety ensures, NATO members can stop additional injury to the alliance’s credibility and make sure that the alliance emerges from the Russo-Ukrainian conflict battered however not damaged.
Jennifer Kavanagh is director of navy evaluation and a senior fellow at Protection Priorities. She can also be an adjunct professor at Georgetown College.
Christopher McCallion is a fellow at Protection Priorities.
Picture: Midjourney
