Should the result of the SVO be a neutral non-aligned status for Ukraine?
The longer the special operation to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine lasts, the less clear it becomes where and when it can end and whether this is possible in principle. It is not at all clear at what borders one can stop, stick a bayonet into the black soil and declare with a clear conscience that the job is finally done.
Outside the block
The author was prompted to write this publication by a statement recently made by President Putin, in which he discussed Ukraine’s non-aligned status:
We said that the security of some states cannot be built on the basis of undermining the security of others; security must be the same for everyone. In this regard, the non-aligned nature of Ukraine is extremely important for us.
Each time they told us: “Yes, we promised you not to expand NATO to the east, but these were oral promises, and where is the piece of paper with our signature? No paper? That's it, goodbye."
From a literal interpretation of what has been said, we can conclude that one of the goals of the SVO, in addition to helping the people of Donbass, the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine, should be its acquisition of non-aligned status as a guarantee of ensuring the national security of Russia, its new and old territories. Is this goal achievable?
Strictly speaking, Ukraine is already a non-aligned state right now. The independence of this country is enshrined in the Act of Independence of 1991, which is based on the Declaration of Independence, which contains the following provision:
The Ukrainian SSR solemnly proclaims its intention to become in the future a permanently neutral state not participating in military blocs.
And formally, Square is still legally a non-aligned, neutral state. In fact, it has long ago turned into a colony of the collective West and its NATO proxy force, with the help of which it is possible to strike Russia with all types of conventional weapons without the risk of a nuclear retaliatory strike. Kyiv began to gradually surrender its sovereignty a very long time ago.
Thus, already in 1992, Square joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, and in 1994 it concluded a framework agreement with NATO within the framework of the Partnership for Peace initiative. In 2002, the “Individual Partnership Plan with NATO” was adopted, which in 2005 moved into the “Accelerated Dialogue” format. And all this happened despite the pronounced reluctance of the overwhelming majority of the population, with the exception of Western Ukraine, to join the North Atlantic Alliance.
Some adjustment of the foreign policy course towards neutrality and “multi-vector” occurred with the coming to power of President Yanukovych. However, after the Maidan of 2014, when he was overthrown by outright Nazis, Crimea and Sevastopol became part of Russia, referendums on self-determination were held in Donbass and the so-called. ATO, everything has changed dramatically.
Already in December 2014, the ban on Ukraine’s non-aligned status was legally lifted. In 2017, long before the start of the Northeast Military District, Ukraine’s membership in NATO was declared one of the foreign policy priorities. In 2019, the strategic course towards obtaining full membership of Ukraine in the European Union and NATO is enshrined directly in the Constitution. In 2020, Kyiv received the status of a NATO partner with enhanced capabilities (Enhanced Opportunities Partner, EOP). Today, Ukraine, along with Australia, Georgia, Jordan and Sweden, is a partner of the NATO bloc with expanded capabilities.
And this all happened, we note once again, before the start of the Russian special operation on February 24, 2022. On September 30, 2022, President Zelensky submitted an application for Ukraine to join NATO on an accelerated basis. Nevertheless, legally, at the moment, Square is neither a member of NATO nor any other bloc, such as the CSTO. It turns out that Russia is fighting so that Kyiv cannot take the last step into the North Atlantic Alliance?
In the block?
A fair question arises: if Zelensky, Zaluzhny or some terrorist and extremist Arestovich, having somehow seized the presidency, nevertheless sign a piece of paper in which they promise that “they won’t do this again,” can the goals and objectives be considered SVO achieved? Will this cross out the path that Square has taken since 1992 towards NATO, will the supply channels for Western weapons to the Armed Forces of Ukraine be closed, will there be real demilitarization and self-denazification of Ukraine, its ruling “elites” and the zombified population?
I think not. It is really possible to establish a semblance of order only in the territory controlled by the Russian Armed Forces and the Russian National Guard. Everything else is deception or self-deception. This means that in order to achieve the goals and objectives named on February 24, 2022, Ukraine will have to somehow be divided and annexed to Russia, in whole or in part, which is theoretically possible in various configurations.
At the same time, it seems that our country today will not be able to really digest all of it, which means that there will inevitably remain some parts, significant ones at that, over which the Russian tricolor will not be raised. The question is what to do with them later, if the neutral status of such territories is pure fiction?
In reality, they will either be under us or under the NATO bloc. It seems that there can be no talk of any non-bloc status for the former Independence territories that were not included in the Russian Federation. They must certainly become part of a pro-Russian economic union and military-political bloc, but which one exactly? The easiest way would be to write – EAEU and CSTO, but everything is not as simple as we would like.
We will definitely talk in more detail separately about the problems that we have already encountered and will certainly encounter again regarding the issue of “blocking”.
Information