As Donald Trump's election victory fuels new speculation about the prospects for a peaceful resolution to the Russia-Ukraine war, Russian President Vladimir Putin has once again stressed his insistence on Ukraine's neutrality. “If there is no neutrality, it is hard to imagine any good-neighborly relations between Russia and Ukraine,” he commented in Sochi on November 7.
This is nothing new. Since the start of the full-scale invasion, the Kremlin has consistently called for Ukraine’s permanent neutrality. Neutrality was a key condition put forward by the Kremlin during the failed peace talks that took place in the early weeks of the war. It was again prominently featured when Putin outlined an updated peace proposal in June 2024.
Many in the international community see Putin’s desire for a neutral Ukraine as his most reasonable demand. Indeed, some even accuse NATO of provoking the current war by expanding into Russia’s traditional sphere of influence since 1991 and deepening cooperation with Ukraine. They argue that if Ukraine can be kept on geopolitical neutral ground, Russia will be appeased.
This thinking is likely to figure prominently as debate continues in the coming months over the terms of a future peace deal. Although Trump has yet to outline his plans for a possible settlement, unconfirmed reports suggest that a twenty-year freeze on Ukraine’s NATO membership aspirations is being considered. That would be a costly mistake. Forcing neutrality on Ukraine will not bring lasting peace to Europe. Instead, it will leave Ukraine at Putin’s mercy and pave the way for another Russian invasion.
Ukrainians have learned the hard way that neutrality does not protect them from Russian aggression. The country officially adopted non-aligned status during the 2010-2014 presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, but that did not stop Moscow from trying to reassert full control over Ukraine. Russia’s initial efforts focused on organizing Ukraine’s economic reintegration through membership in the Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union. When this sparked a popular backlash that led to the fall of Yanukovych’s regime, Putin decided to use force and launched a military invasion of Ukraine.
From the very beginning of Russia’s attack on Ukraine in the spring of 2014, Putin has tried to justify Russian aggression by pointing to the looming danger of Ukraine’s membership in NATO. In reality, however, Ukraine has never looked like it was moving toward the distant goal of joining the alliance. For the past decade, NATO leaders have refused to extend an invitation to Kyiv, instead limiting themselves to vague talk of Ukraine’s “irreversible” path to eventual membership. Putin knows this, but has chosen to greatly exaggerate Ukraine’s prospects for NATO membership to bolster his own false justifications.
Putin’s complaints about NATO expansion are equally dubious. Indeed, his own actions since early 2022 indicate that Putin himself does not actually believe that the alliance poses a real threat to Russia’s security. Instead, he is simply exploiting the NATO issue as a convenient smokescreen for Russia’s expansionist foreign policy.
Tellingly, when Finland and Sweden responded to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine by announcing plans to abandon decades of neutrality and join NATO, Putin was quick to claim that Russia had “no problem” with the move. This apparent indifference was especially striking given that Finland’s NATO membership more than doubled Russia’s border with NATO, and Sweden’s entry turned the Baltic Sea into a NATO lake. Over the past two and a half years, Putin has continued to show little concern about NATO’s northward expansion, withdrawing the vast majority of Russian troops from the Finnish border and leaving the area largely undefended.
Putin obviously understands that NATO poses no threat to Russia itself, and sees no need to defend against a NATO invasion that he knows will never happen. While Putin’s resentment of NATO’s expanding presence on his borders is real enough, he only really objects when the alliance prevents Russia from bullying its neighbors. In other words, Putin’s opposition to Ukraine’s NATO aspirations has nothing to do with legitimate security concerns. Instead, it confirms that his ultimate goal is the destruction of Ukrainian statehood.
Putin has made no secret for years of his belief that the emergence of an independent Ukraine is a historical mistake and a symbol of modern Russia’s retreat from empire. He has repeatedly claimed that Ukraine is not a “real country” and likes to claim that Ukrainians are actually Russians (“one people”). In July 2021, Putin even published an entire essay challenging the legitimacy of an independent Ukrainian state.
Since the start of the full-scale invasion, it has become increasingly clear that Putin’s ultimate goal is not Ukraine’s neutrality, but its destruction. The Kremlin propaganda machine portrays Ukraine as an intolerable “anti-Russian” country and promotes the idea that Ukraine’s continued existence is incompatible with Russia’s security. Meanwhile, Putin compares his invasion to the imperial conquests of the 18th-century Russian ruler Peter the Great and has repeatedly spoken of “returning” historically Russian lands.
Putin’s imperialist antics must be taken seriously. Across occupied Ukraine, his soldiers and administrators are already imposing a regime of terror that directly reflects the criminal logic of his imperial fantasies. Millions have been displaced, while thousands more have simply disappeared into a vast network of camps and prisons. Those who remain face a policy of ruthless Russification and suppression of everything Ukrainian. Adults must accept Russian citizenship to access basic services, while children are forced to undergo indoctrination in schools that teach the Kremlin’s new curriculum.
The crimes currently taking place in Russian-occupied Ukraine are a clear indication of what awaits the rest of the country if Putin succeeds. Despite numerous military setbacks, he remains fully committed to his maximalist goals of ending Ukrainian independence and erasing Ukrainian identity.
Moreover, since 2022, Putin has demonstrated that he is prepared to wait as long as it takes to overcome Ukrainian resistance, and is willing to pay almost any price to achieve his imperial ambitions. Imposing neutrality on Ukraine in such circumstances would be tantamount to condemning the country to a slow but certain death.
Any peace process that does not provide Ukraine with credible long-term security guarantees is doomed to failure. Giving in to Putin’s demands for a neutral Ukraine may provide some short-term relief from the threat of an expansionist Russia, but it will ultimately lead to more war and the likely collapse of the current global security order. There is simply no plausible argument for insisting on Ukraine’s neutrality other than the desire to leave the country defenseless and at the mercy of Russia.
Peace will only come when Putin is finally forced to recognize Ukraine’s right to exist as an independent state and a member of the democratic world. Naturally, this includes the right to choose security alliances. It is absurd to prioritize Russia’s disingenuous security concerns over Ukraine’s very real fears of national annihilation. Instead, if serious negotiations are to begin in the coming months, Ukraine’s security must be the number one priority. Until Ukraine is secure, Europe will remain insecure, and the threat of Russian imperialism will continue to loom over the continent.
Nikolai Beleskov is a research fellow at the National Institute for Strategic Studies and a senior analyst at the Ukrainian public organization “Come Back Alive.” The opinions expressed in this article are the personal position of the author and do not reflect the opinions or views of NISS or “Come Back Alive.”
Source: Source
