All wars end with political agreements. But the war in Ukraine dragged on. And some analysts began to say that the consent of the Ukrainian side to political neutrality could become the basis of a peace pact with Russia..

At the same time, the devil of any agreement lies in the details, Gal Brands, professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, writes on the Bloomberg pages.. Neutrality, acceptable for Ukraine, is still unthinkable for Vladimir Putin. And neutrality, according to the criteria that the Kremlin satisfies, is a death sentence for Ukrainian independence.. Neutrality has long been seen as a seductive way to resolve disputes over small, strategically placed countries.. For example, this status of young Belgium was guaranteed by the multilateral London agreement in 1839.. Germany finally broke it in 1914.

After World War II, Finland agreed to restrictions in foreign policy in order to avoid full-scale involvement in the Soviet bloc.. In the 1950s, Austria became neutral due to an agreement made at the height of the Cold War.. Both Austria and Finland eventually slowly leaned more towards the West.. But none of them joined the blocs that divided Europe into two.

Theoretically, neutrality could make sense in the case of Ukraine. Putin baselessly claims that NATO's eastward expansion was the main reason for his conflict with the government in Kyiv. In reality, Ukraine has never received a clear prospect of joining the alliance.. And President Volodymyr Zelensky has now acknowledged this.. Perhaps there may be an agreement in which Putin stops the war in exchange for the formal neutrality of Ukraine. Kyiv recognizes Russian sovereignty over Crimea and Donbass. The author writes that the cession of territory that Moscow controlled before the outbreak of full-scale war may be acceptable. Zelensky probably understands that he will not be able to get Crimea or Donbass in the near future. Diplomats can craft clever language that recognizes Russian control of the territories without the need for formal recognition from Moscow's sovereignty..

The Real Problem in Conflicting Versions of Neutrality. When Putin talks about this, he means not only the Ukrainian non-bloc status. He wants Ukraine to become so weak and unarmed that it is unable to defend itself.. Russian negotiators proposed limiting the Ukrainian army to 50,000 soldiers. And this is only a small fraction of the forces that Kyiv has today. Such a concession would lead to the destruction rather than to the preservation of an independent Ukraine.. An unarmed, chronically vulnerable country will constantly fear that Putin, who was about to seize all of its territory in the current war, will simply try again at his convenience.. So if Zelensky agreed to such an agreement, the position of Ukraine should be so bad that Putin would not even need to negotiate..

How to make Ukraine's neutrality viable? There are two scenarios, each of which Putin will simply hate. First: Ukraine can protect its own neutrality if it is armed to the teeth so that it can smash the army of any aggressor to smithereens, as it is now Russian. To do this, it will be necessary to build a more advanced military-industrial complex of Ukraine or purchase a large number of advanced weapons: anti-tank missiles, ammunition, air defense systems, etc.. Also, the West should have provided more funding and even more training..

Or there is a second scenario: Ukrainian neutrality can be protected with the help of guarantees provided by big states. Any promises from Putin are empty. Therefore, the United States, Great Britain and other Western countries should become the guarantors of Ukraine in a neutral status.. If you think this is akin to NATO membership, then it is.. None of the scenarios will suit Putin. Because you can’t control Ukraine, which is able to protect its neutrality or ask Western forces to do it.. Complicating the situation is another problem: both sides believe that time is on their side..

[see_also ids\u003d"

Wars end when enemies converge in their expectations of the future.. For example, when country A and country B realize that the conflict between them is hopelessly deadlocked. However, despite the fact that the Russian offensive in Ukraine has largely stopped, there is still no such understanding.. Putin appears to think he can break Ukraine's will with brutal siege tactics and threats to use chemical or radiological weapons.. He uses artillery and air attacks in an attempt to destroy the Ukrainian economy and military-industrial capabilities.. It still has powerful non-kinetic tools, such as cyberattacks, that can be used against the West, hoping to influence economic chaos and dampen enthusiasm for sanctions..

Settlements of Ukraine are different. Its authorities are convinced that the forces of the Russian invaders are too stretched and vulnerable. The Ukrainian army is conducting powerful counter-campaigns in the vicinity of Kyiv.

Zelensky hopes sanctions will shatter Russian economy and defense industry. Ukrainian forces will be able to continue fighting as long as weapons and money from the West arrive. Zelenskiy and Putin still think they can eventually get better negotiating positions than they currently have. And it doesn't matter whether there will be talk of neutrality or not. Of course, they can't both be right.. But until the beliefs of one of them are dispelled, the war will continue.. And this means that the situation in Ukraine will become even worse..