J.D. Vance, Republican vice presidential candidate. Vance attends an August 6, 2024, campaign rally in Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, U.S.). (Drew Hallowell/Getty Images)
J.D., the Republican vice presidential candidate, is a former U.S. Vance may consider himself a genius, considering that he proposed “neutrality” as the centerpiece of a plan to end Russia’s war. Vance’s eureka moment appears to be here.
The concept of neutrality for Ukraine is not a new one. Vance may be unaware, but Ukraine had a neutral status in 2014. Ukraine had a non-aligned, or neutral, status until Russia’s annexation and initial invasion of Donbas in 2014.
This neutral or non-aligned status failed to protect Ukraine. Its military weakness and neutrality instead gave Russian President Vladimir Putin the green light to annex Ukraine and invade its territory. It’s difficult to imagine that such a status will deter Putin from attacking once again. A strong defense, in ideal alliance with Western partners, is the only way to prevent further Russian aggression.
“The neutral, or non-aligned status, failed to protect Ukraine.” Instead, its neutrality and military weakness were a green signal for Russian President Vladimir Putin annexing and invading Ukrainian territory.
Finland and Sweden, who were neutral supporters in the past, joined NATO after Russia invaded Ukraine. This shift seemed impossible before the war. Swedes, unlike Vance’s starry eyed view of Putin have a clear understanding of the danger Russia poses to European Security. History has shown that neutrality is no defense and would give Ukraine no assurance that Russia won’t attack again.
Vance suggests that Ukraine could appease the Russian threat by reneging on any ambition to join Western institutions – NATO and the European Union, presumably. Vance should be reminded that Ukraine had no realistic prospect of joining NATO when Crimea was annexed in 2014. Opinion polls showed that only a small percentage of people supported NATO membership. NATO also had little appetite to accept Ukraine. Russia knew this, but invaded anyway. Not because it was afraid of future NATO expansion, but because Putin saw a chance to exploit Ukraine’s weaknesses in a pure land grab.
Putin has openly stated since that his invasion was a result of his refusal to accept Ukraine’s sovereignty or Ukrainians as separate from Russians. Putin believes that Russia and Ukraine should be united. His invasion was not about NATO expansion, which never happened – it was imperialism.
Ukrainian support for NATO has only grown in response to Russian aggression, out of necessity and recognition that the non-aligned policy failed. Vance’s suggestion that Ukraine reject its desire to join NATO would be to reward Russian aggression and bow to Russian bullying. It would probably encourage Russia to pursue more expansionist policies. The NATO membership of Ukraine not only strengthens Europe’s defence but also assures Ukraine’s safety. NATO would benefit from Ukraine’s improved military capabilities, which have been proven in combat.
“Only as a response to Russian aggression, has Ukrainian support for NATO increased. Out of necessity and a realization that non-aligned Status failed.”
Vance’s attempt to block Ukraine from joining the EU reveals a profound misunderstanding of recent Ukrainian History. His plan is based on an outdated view that Ukraine would be better off remaining a bridge between the East and West as it was before 2014. Vance may have romanticized a golden age for Ukrainian neutrality but in reality that status has failed. It encouraged Russian aggression and stunted Ukraine’s economic growth, leaving it vulnerable for state capture by oligarchs with ties to Russia.
Vance should compare Ukraine’s GDP per capita in 1991 to Poland and Russia – $3,000 for each. By 2013, Poland, Russia and Ukraine had all grown to almost $14,000. Poland chose the EU. Russia relied on commodities. And Ukraine was stuck in a no man’s land of corruption and stagnation. This instability led to the Orange Revolution of 2004 and the Euromaidan of 2013-14. By 2013, Ukraine was forced to choose between East and West. The Ukrainians chose the West and Putin could not accept this, leading to war.
Vance may not understand this, but Ukrainians certainly do – I would even argue that Putin does. A return to neutrality or nonalignment will lead to failure. Ukraine’s economy will collapse, it won’t be able to defend itself against Russia and Vance’s plans will pave the way for a second Russian invasion. Economic failure could lead to political and socio-economic instability, which would create risks for Europe. Imagine tens or even hundreds of millions of Ukrainians fleeing to the west while Ukraine’s security and military forces are destabilized. How would Europe respond to such a security threat in the future?
Vance is desperate to avoid a Russian victory in Ukraine. He’s even willing to give Putin a win. He fails to understand the consequences of his appeasement, including future security risks for Europe and a weakened Western alliance.
Editor’s note: The opinions expressed by the authors in the op/ed section do not reflect the views of Kyiv Independent.
Read More @ kyivindependent.com