One of the crucial things missing in today’s world of rants, partisan warfare and instant Twitter opinions is good-old fashioned thoughtful creativity. Nowhere is this more evident than in the long-simmering conflict between Russia and Ukraine that now sees us on the brink of an unpredictable war.
Amidst all the pronouncements from politicians, world leaders and earnest diplomats, amidst all the warnings and clichés about conflict resolution, I haven’t heard one interesting idea that might actually resolve the conflict.
That is, until I came across a piece from MIT Professor of Political Science Stephen Van Evera, titled, “To Prevent War and Secure Ukraine, Make Ukraine Neutral.”
What does “neutral” mean? It’s actually an artful diplomatic idea that has a long pedigree and is designed to balance conflicting interests.
In advancing a “grand bargain” to resolve the U.S.-NATO-Russia-Ukraine crisis, Evera cites examples from the past where “neutrality deals” helped forestall Franco-British conflict over Belgium in the 1830s and East-West conflict over Finland and Austria in the Cold War.
“The Belgian, Finnish, and Austrian neutrality deals,” Evara writes, “enhanced the security of the states they made neutral. Neutrality was an asset for Belgium, Finland, and Austria, not a handicap.”
Ukraine neutrality adds a carrot to the mix. There are plenty of important details and terms to negotiate, but at least this offers a roadmap to a solution, something we’ve never had.
A neutral status for Ukraine would be like a strategic balm that would calm everyone’s nerves. Most importantly, it would calm the nerves of the party planning the attack—Russia—by addressing President Putin’s perennial apprehension of encroachment from the West.
“Major powers never calmly accept the close approach to their borders of unfriendly powers or alliances. Russia is no exception,” Evara writes. “It will not accept a settlement that leaves open the possibility of Ukraine in NATO or NATO in Ukraine. Hence, a neutrality solution is both sufficient and necessary to resolve the current crisis.”
The problem is that no one is talking in these creative terms. All we’re hearing, whether from the U.S. or the European side, is bluster, alarm and brinkmanship. Where has this gotten us?
Right now, the U.S. and western approach is all stick, no carrot. We keep threatening sanctions while hoping for the best. But is this really the best way to deal with a high-ego adversary who misses the glory days of the Soviet Union?
Ukraine neutrality adds a carrot to the mix. There are plenty of important details and terms to negotiate, but at least this offers a roadmap to a solution, something we’ve never had.
Yes, it may be too late. There may be too much water under the bridge and too many Russian troops assembled on Ukraine’s border.
But if I were President Biden, I wouldn’t wait a second to summon a certain MIT professor to the Oval Office for a 15-minute class on how we can prevent this oncoming nightmare.
