Would the Swiss Model of Neutrality Save Ukraine?
By Brian4Liberty - 2/26/2022
As the tragedy of the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfolds, we must consider why this happened, how it can be stopped, and how it can be prevented in the future. An idea that comes to mind is neutrality. If Ukraine dedicated itself to the Swiss model of neutrality and a well-armed citizen defense militia, would it prevent foreign attacks?
To answer this question, it is necessary to look at the history of Ukraine since it's liberation from the Soviet Union. Was neutrality ever proposed or discussed in Ukraine? An essay from 2010 entitled "Ukraine’s Neutrality: A Myth or Reality?" is enlightening:
"Ukraine has been searching for its political and security identity ever since its independence in August 1991. ...
Situated on a crossroad between Russia and the European Union (EU), Ukraine was never able to cohesively decide and act with a foreign policy that was not chaotic or unsynchronized. On the one hand, Ukraine has set out clear priorities in its interest in European integration and becoming a more cooperative and close partner with the Euro-Atlantic community, with further prospects of joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). At the same time, Ukraine has close historical, cultural and economic ties with Russia, which impact a nostalgic urge to maintain this long and close association. Formulating and maintaining a strategic focus becomes even more problematic when given the fact that this divide is not restricted to purely political elites but the general public as well.
Ukraine is linguistically, however not ethnically, divided between the west and east, Ukrainian and Russian speakers, respectively. The Russian-speaking East-Ukrainian population is geographically situated closer to Russia, thus there exists closer ties and larger cross-border regional economic cooperation. Naturally, jeopardizing a good relationship would hurt Eastern Ukraine in many aspects; consequently the population meets NATO and EU membership with slight apprehension. Western Ukraine, which engages in minimal contact with Russia, does not see any benefit in closer cooperation, and thus is willing to cut all ties to its old neighbor and fully integrate into all political, economic and military institutions that the Euro-Atlantic community has to offer. Hence, Ukraine’s progress in its foreign policy presents numerous domestic obstacles, as politicians skid back and forth, further contributing to instability and confusion."
If accurate, this indicates that Ukraine has been divided on the subject since it gained independence from the Soviet Union. More importantly, it seems that many in Ukraine wanted to merge with Europe and NATO, no doubt for a variety of political and financial reasons, including as defense from Russia. As we see today, defense from Russia was a real fear, and war has unfortunately come to pass.
Unlike Switzerland, Ukraine is not homogenous, with many competing factions. This makes consensus on neutrality difficult at best. And it appears that the only options discussed were aligning with Europe and NATO, or siding with Russia. So was neutrality ever proposed in Ukraine? The essay continues:
"...a third often overlooked yet constitutionally and legislatively acceptable option exists for Ukraine; the option of neutrality. This issue has been briefly discussed in the previous years without much ado, and once again no action followed. Nevertheless, the issue has resurfaced again, this time followed by much debate and discussion, as it originated from the newly elected Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovich [Yanukovych], who has been repeatedly urging the Parliament to vote on the needed legislation and fully reaffirm the country’s neutrality."
This is where it gets interesting. It seems that there was a leader proposing neutrality, but strange things happened every time that Yanukovych came close to being elected President of Ukraine. The first time was in 2004. From Wikipedia:
"Yanukovych first ran for president in 2004: he advanced to the runoff election and was initially declared the winner against former Prime Minister Viktor Yushchenko. However, the election was fraught with allegations of electoral fraud and voter intimidation. This caused widespread citizen protests and Kyiv's Independence Square was occupied in what became known as the Orange Revolution. The Ukrainian Supreme Court nullified the runoff election and ordered a second runoff. Yanukovych lost this second election to Yushchenko."
So it appears that the election of the leader proposing neutrality was overturned under very suspicious and controversial circumstances. At the time, Pat Buchanan had questions, and a serious warning:
"According to the Guardian and other sources, NED – the National Endowment for Democracy – and USAid, Freedom House, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and George Soros’ Open Society Institute all pumped money or sent agents into Kiev to defeat the government-backed Viktor Yanukovich and elect Viktor Yushchenko as president. Allegedly in on the scheme is the supposedly objective and neutral Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
...
If the United States has indeed been interfering in Ukraine to swing the election of a president who will tilt to NATO, against Moscow, we are, as Steele writes, “playing with fire.”"
"Playing with fire" indeed.
In 2004, the idea of neutrality was temporarily defeated by the Orange Revolution, an event that reeked of foreign, outside interference. Not to be deterred, Viktor Yanukovich again ran for President in 2010, and this time he clearly won the election. It was time to implement his policy of neutrality:
As Yanukovich was elected on the promise of neutrality, it could be said that he had a mandate from the majority of the people to pursue this policy:
Once again, mysterious events deterred the implementation of a neutrality policy in Ukraine. In 2013, a coup that was dubbed "Euromaidan" began, which eventually led to the ouster of Yanukovich. It has been reported that this coup was plotted by outside forces, as early as 2012, and most likely the planning began as soon as Yanukovich was elected:
During the protests which led to the coup, the Soros activists were key:
Of course Soros was not alone in this endeavor, and the Obama Administration also played an active role. Some key names revealed via leaked documents are listed here:
It is clear that Swiss style neutrality for Ukraine has been opposed in the past by both internal and outside forces. Now that a lack of neutrality has led to actual war, could neutrality be a key to ending this war and preventing more death and destruction? The idea has been discussed by honest observers without a hidden agenda:
And word is leaking out that negotiations could potentially center on neutrality:
The bottom line is that Swiss style neutrality for Ukraine is a possible solution to the war now, and for peace in the future. We can only hope that there will be negotiations and a quick resolution to end the bloodshed.
Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Update 2/28/2022: Given current Swiss actions that are not strictly neutral, the title of this article should read "Would the Old Swiss Model of Neutrality Save Ukraine?"
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us