The Only Path to Peace in Ukraine: Neutrality, Not Militarization!

Already three years ago, in my blog essay of February 23, 2022, entitled “The Responsibility for this War in Ukraine is on the West's Side” (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2022/02/russian-statesmanship-against-ukraine.html), I argued that President Volodymyr Zelensky should have taken a lesson from Austria in 1955. When Austria regained full sovereignty after ten years of Allied occupation, it did so not by aligning with one bloc against another, but by promising to declare itself—once national sovereignty has been established—permanently neutral under International Law. That singular act—born of prudence rather than pride—enabled Austria to secure peace, prosperity, and exert an honored role as mediator between East and West throughout the Cold War.

Ukraine could have chosen a similar path. By declaring itself neutral—not necessarily according to International Law, just as a political declaration for future national strategic orientation—Kiev could have preserved peace, avoided devastation, and positioned itself as a bridge for cooperation and commerce rather than a battleground for weakening Russia. Instead, under pressure from the Biden White House, the neoconservative establishment, and Russophobic warmongers eager for contracts and profits, the dilettantish Zelensky chose confrontation. The result has been catastrophic: hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers dead, millions displaced, a ruined economy, shattered infrastructure, political opposition crushed, the Orthodox Church persecuted, and Europe dragged into the bloodiest war a generation after the Cold War’s end.

Now, after three and a half years of war, Ukraine stands on the brink of defeat. Its population is war-weary, its resources are exhausted, and its masters in Washington, Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and London scramble to save face. They continue to feed their public the myth of a coming Ukrainian victory, painting Russia as bled dry and overextended, while behind closed doors they know that they are lying and desperately search for a way out.

But what solutions do they now offer? Fantasies of a massive buffer zone in eastern Ukraine and a peacekeeping force manned by tens or hundreds of thousands of foreign troops to “protect” Ukraine from further Russian encroachments. This is sheer insanity. The same elites who failed Europe and betrayed Ukraine before the war are repeating their errors now in fantasies for peace arrangements. They pretend that stability lies in endless militarization—when in fact the very opposite is true.

My recommendation has not changed since February 2022 and it would now be even more important to implement: the Austrian archetype would still be the best model. If Ukraine declares itself neutral—outside of NATO, committed to peaceful coexistence—no foreign “peacekeepers” would be required. No Article 5-type guarantees, no restoration of a bloated NATO-style army rebuilt in a hollowed-out society, no endless arms shipments to an exhausted nation. Neutrality would suffice for credible assurance of peace.

To suggest otherwise and regurgitate the untrue assumptions of late—to insinuate that Russia is bent on occupying Kiev, subjugating all of Ukraine, and marching across Europe in some neoimperialist campaign—is as false now as it was in 2022. Russia’s “Special Military Operation” was not an imperialist war of aggression. It was, as I argued then and repeat now, a strategic necessity forced upon Moscow after every diplomatic overture was rejected and every legitimate Russian security concern mocked. Without the West’s refusal to engage in serious and meaningful dialogue, there would have been no war.

A just postwar settlement must therefore rest on simple realities. First, the territories now under Russian control in the east and south will remain under Russian control, unless and until a neutral government in Kiev emerges that can be trusted to deal in good faith with both West and East. Second, no foreign troops—NATO or otherwise—should be stationed in Ukraine. Third, Ukraine’s sovereignty must be preserved not by militarization but by renunciation of bloc politics. All of this, if need be, replenished by a non-attack treaty signed between NATO and Russia.

This also would require political renewal inside Ukraine. A government of neutrality and reconciliation could not be led by men such as Zelensky or Poroshenko, whose politics have been defined by hatred for Russia and subservience to Western dictates. Nor can it be founded on the suppression of religion and opposition parties or eradicating Russian language and culture in the oblasts in the east and south of Ukraine. Ukraine’s rebirth requires leadership capable of elevating itself beyond the animosities that poisoned the post-Maidan years. In this sense, even the restoration of President Yanukovych as an interim caretaker could be envisaged, until genuine elections are possible under conditions of stability and inclusion.

This will be controversial to Western ears, which have been deaf to factual reasoning for much too long. But one must remember: Ukraine is not an enemy of Russia. It is the cradle of Russian identity, a Slavic sister nation. Putin has never sought its eradication, only its refusal to be weaponized against Moscow by foreign powers. Once Washington and Brussels acknowledge this, peace becomes possible.

The larger question is whether Western leaders are capable of recovering their senses—intellectually, morally, and strategically. Can the neocons beleaguering  the White House and its chorus in European capitals, abandon their delusions of military triumph and accept neutrality as the only workable foundation of peace? Can they finally give peace, rather than perpetual mobilization and war faring, a chance?

This is not just about Ukraine. It is about Europe’s survival. The post–Cold War opportunities for peace were squandered by arrogance and blindness. But history may yet offer a second chance—if Europe has the courage to seize it.

If only this essay could reach Donald Trump himself—or at least one of his close advisors, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio! The time has come for a statesman to break with the disastrous course charted by neoconservatives and their European imitators. Neutrality, not militarization, is the only path forward—for Ukraine, for Europe, and for the West.

New Despotism - The Tyranny of the Mob

A new form of totalitarianism is upon us. It has arrived in the form of ideological despotism, wielded by the aggressive and intolerant leftist mob. It is the bold attempt of the culturally and morally degenerate of our time to implement a kind of 'mental dictatorship.' The plebeians of our day are no longer a class of citizens unable to read and write. They are those ill-educated and ignorant, rationally and/or morally wanting individuals who can potentially come from all strata of society teachers, journalists, and academia, scientists and politicians. 

 

Besides third-wave feminists, Black-Lives Matter activists, and Never-Trumpers, the most prominent representatives of this vast group of misguided people, who combine education with moral deficiencies, are well known. I count many of the Democrats (Reid, Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer, and the like) and Republicans (McCain, Rubio, Graham, to name a few) in Congress and Senate plus the neo-conservative and neo-liberal nomenclature in the State Department to this group. Yet, to be found at the peak of this particular deprivation was the previous holder of the most powerful political office globally, B. Obama.  

In recent years, the intellectual-educational and moral-ethical decline in culture and politics became ever more tangible in all society and state segments. In my blog entries, I have criticized the idiocies regarding the destruction of the nation-state by open border policies and the interventionist foreign affairs approach, combined with astonishing neglect of strategic and geopolitical parameters in international relations by the U.S. government and the transatlantic alliance. I also addressed the self-destructive equating of the Muslim religion, the bewilderment over (trans-) gender relation, and the general cultural decline in western societies.  

The confusion reached a sad apex in the race for the White House and specifically in the open war waged by the bulk of the mainstream media against the new president and his administration since his inauguration. The level of injustice and sheer destructiveness of the political opposition and most of the press is almost incomprehensible. It has reached a degree indeed unparalleled in Western post-World War II societies and is seriously putting in question the U.S. political system's maturity and proficiency. 

What shook up our civilization's societal fabric to such a degree and corrupted the sanity and sound judgment of politicians, educators, communicators of essential parts of the citizenry? I have addressed the reasons in my blog essays over the past few years. I alluded, among others, to the absurdities of the ideological tools such as the exploitation of political correctness, the undifferentiated interpretation of the notion of equality, the anything-goes of value relativism, the socialization of the young generation along the lines of egotism and individual hedonism, the absence of character-building efforts at home and in the places of education and culturization. Finally, I addressed the corruption of the educational culture by depriving it of classical art instruction ingredients. In other words: At the bottom of the dilettantism in politics and political relations in domestic and international affairs lies the utter lack of philosophical depth and wisdom.

  

The political illiteracy and moral confusion led to the described and criticized follies in domestic (i.e., immigration) and foreign affairs (i.e., support of insurgents and destruction of nation-state structures). Based on their misconceptions regarding the ontology of political and social coexistence (see my blog essay of November 2015 https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2015/11/immigration-us-and-europe-governed-by.html), governing authorities in the U.S. and Europe engaged in unjust interventions in the Middle East, in the Caucasus, in Asia, severely damaged the social fabric of the U.S. and European societies, and widened the domestic ideological divide to the point of irremediableness. 

The portrayed intellectual and moral decline became forcibly apparent in the wake of the U.S. presidential elections. Blind individual prejudice and pride, assertiveness, and stubbornness seem to be more important than objectivity, dignity, truth. Personal vanity not to have been wrong seemingly trumps all insight and appears to override all disabusing by experience and learning from actual failure. People and governments maintain their positions of prejudice and ideological bias at all costs. Political discourse appears to have degenerated into nothing more than turf warfare over partisan policy notions and the constant denial of responsibility for failed decisions (shining example in its negativity again B. Obama - Syria, Libya, ACA)

The epitome of the intellectual and moral carnage that has characterized the political rivalry of recent weeks, months, and indeed years is the apparent attempt to delegitimize conservative opposition and virtually destroy the newly elected U.S. president and his administration. Instead of partaking constructively in the political business and contributing to the bonum commune despite contrasting and opposing stances, large parts of society engage in outright destruction and annihilation, including media and representatives of the legislative estate. The decadence has reached an alarming degree. 

Short of outright civil war, things could barely get worse. Think about this: The oscillation of governments is natural to democratic republics. Thus, the alteration of governing regimes astounds only the under-educated and ideologically stultified. And probably those few who fantasize about an authoritarian one-party rule in the People's Republic of China style. The apparent attempt to disregard the outcome of the presidential elections and delegitimize President Trump's governance is not just the political left being a sore loser and incapable of accepting the rebuke of their Marxist-utopian globalist ideas by the electorate. In essence, it is a fascistic move on the part of those liberal and progressive elements in society and state who, in their arrogant hubris to govern unimpeded for the foreseeable future, might not even be consciously aware of the baseness of their doings. 

As I made clear in my blog essay below on "Truth in Life and Politics," to acknowledge existential verities and show dignity in the face of a legitimate opponent's victory requires proper knowledge and understanding of human relations and necessitates ethical disposition and moral strength. The current state of social and political affairs in the United States of America demonstrates most ostensibly the interconnection between the theoretical and practical judgment, the inescapable bond between knowledge and action, cognition, and morality. 

When the intent to see elected officials fail becomes more important than helping them succeed, an existential threat emerges. When, in a democratic political system, partisan dogmatism and party-political arrogance gain the nation's best interest over partisan dogmatism and party-political arrogance, the disconnect between those two intrinsic components of sound practice and meaningful human behavior amplifies.

The victory of Donald Trump has shocked the radical left in this country and united them in their desperation. The plebeians of our day have taken to the streets. Countrywide demonstrations peak in calls to remove Trump from office, with individual exponents even bluntly calling for his assassination. Rather than bringing people to their senses and quelling the riot, pundits and elected representatives stir the hatred and encourage the firebrand.  

Over time, the plebeians have managed to turn values and righteousness upside down through their aggressive agitation. They've turned right into wrong, straight into crooked, the upstanding is now considered insincere, and termed the reasonable 'un-American.' 

They deprived our societies of their religious foundation and are fervently working on dismantling any possible common denominator that could serve, beyond the pluralism of values and political stances, as a unifying force. (On that destructive aspect, read my blog essay on "The Crisis of Morality" of March 31, 2015, https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2015/03/the-crisis-of-morality.html). The plebeians of our day usurped the editorial offices of mainstream media outlets, they populate the academic quarters on the college campuses, and they became hateful obstructionists on Capitol Hill. 

At this juncture, perhaps the most pressing question is whether or not this culture war that is in full swing will escalate into what some commentators have already heralded as the Second American Civil War. We shall find out soon if the left's tyranny will ease up on their mental authoritarianism or drag this nation into a large-scale violent uprising and outright civil war.