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.

Chaos Unfolding: The Israel-Iran Escalation and the Crisis of Western National Security

For years, if not decades, we’ve heard that Iran is on the brink of building a nuclear bomb. This rationale has been used again and again to justify interventions, sanctions, and threats. It has now served as the moral pretext for Israel’s preemptive strike against Iranian infrastructure and personnel. Not only did those operations target nuclear enrichment sites but have also been extended to pinpointed strikes and assassinations against individuals, nuclear scientists and military brass, including their families—all flagrant violations of the principles of international law, yet, more importantly, of the fundamental stakes of an Ethics of International Relations.

The classical boundaries of just war—proportionality and distinction—have been discarded. The guiding principle is no longer rooted in legality or morality but in Machiavellian expediency. Imaginary political goals are pursued by any and all means. The immoral logic of “the end justifies all means” is applied without any limits and humanitarian concerns—a shameful conduct, which is not merely tragic, but rather a symptom of a deeper civilizational disorder.

Yet, the Israel-Iran confrontation is but one facet of a much broader global descent into chaotic disorder. Alongside it, we witness the persistence of the Ukraine war—now in its fourth year and still dominated by the West’s refusal to engage in serious diplomacy and in acknowledging Russia’s legitimate security interests—as well as domestic turbulence in the United States.

Protests erupted nationwide on June 14—coincidentally Donald Trump’s birthday and the 250th anniversary of the founding of the US Army—against the perceived authoritarianism of his administration, while cities like Los Angeles see mounting resistance to federal ICE operations. People tend to forget—or, more accurately, people particularly on the left are unaware of—that a democratic system's governing executive in order to maintain social stability and security must grow more authoritarian the more society gets increasingly lawless and anarchistic. This apparent authoritarianism is a natural outcome of political evolution toward societal disintegration and internal striving rather than having anything to do with the reign of an absolute monarch or king. Local Democrat mayors and governors defy presidential directives and—in their civic illiteracy—act in support of the ignorant leftist mob.

Across the Atlantic, the European Union engages in its own form of institutional despotism. Unelected Eurocrats in Brussels frequently contest or sabotage Conservative triumphs in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Austria and other places. Under the pretense of unavoidable rule of law-interventions, results of democratic elections are nullified—exposing an ideological disdain of political leaders and administrations on the left for the very populations they purport to represent. Authoritarian imposition of the European Union on member states where conservative parties and candidates are democratically elected has meanwhile become a matter of course. These widespread pseudo-interventions of totalitarian character are proof that the world is ever more entangled in chaos and mayhem.

In this environment, violence and outright war are no longer an anomaly and appear to be on the resurgence. All promising attempts post-Cold War to usher the world into a new, more peaceful and cooperative order, have failed. From Washington’s neoconservative warmongers to the belligerent factions in Brussels, Berlin, London, and Paris, one sees little evidence of restraint or prudence. They act as if they’ve lost their minds and dropped their moral compasses long time ago. They push the continuation of armed conflict that comes at horrendous expenses for populations in terms of blood and treasure. The armament and buildup of military organizations across Europe and beyond accelerates at an alarming pace. The fiscal and human cost of these policies is staggering, yet they continue, animated by a doctrine that no longer consults moral reason.

Regarding Iran specifically, I have long maintained that a rational, credible, and peaceful deterrence strategy was available. In my essays of 10 August and 27 September 2017, published in this blog here and here and included in my 2024 book "44 & 45. The Tenures of US Presidents Barack H. Obama and Donald J. Trump. A Social-Philosophical Treatise" (pp. 158–162), I proposed to apply the already existing doctrine of Annihilation upon First Strike as a sufficient strategic response to North Korea. Now it should be applied to Iran as well. This doctrine assures powers that the US will not use nuclear means first against them, but will strike with all her might when herself and allies are attacked by nuclear means first. When paired with rigorous inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), this strategy would ensure Iran’s nuclear program remained confined to peaceful civilian purposes. No preemptive strikes, sabotage, or assassination campaigns were necessary—or justifiable.

One cannot help but wonder whether President Trump, now in his second term, is still in command of U.S. foreign policy? Or has he been sidelined by a permanent national security bureaucracy—the so-called “Deep State”—and shadow-government figures such as South-Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and like-minded interventionists and war hawks? Trump doesn’t seem to be wholly informed about the ongoings in the security arena and left out of important decisions, such as the preemptive strike Israel’s against Iran. Trump’s 2019 decision to cancel retaliatory strikes against Iran following the downing of a U.S. drone showed prudence and moral instinct. It is hard to believe he would have approved the Israeli strikes amid active negotiations. And yet, if he was uninformed or bypassed, it raises profound constitutional and strategic questions about the erosion of civilian oversight in matters of war and peace.

Of course, I hold no illusions that either he or his advisors are familiar with the outlined positions. Although, fortunately, President Trump seems to have intuitive grasp of my idea when expressing on social media: "If we were attacked in any way, shape, or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before." If he added to this statement "if we or Israel or other allies in the region were attacked," the strategy of Annihilation Upon 1st Strike would render any preemptive application of violent means unnecessary. I have consistently called attention to the shocking illiteracy of Western security elites in the realm of strategic philosophy and international ethics. That these actors, hidden behind a screen of bureaucratic privilege and ideological confusion, continuously ignore wiser counsel is no surprise. It is, however, a tragedy.

The only hope of returning to reason and to bring the Western world to its senses is to restore the voice of philosophical insight in matters of policy as I have also pointed out in my book 44 & 45 mentioned above. As Immanuel Kant once emphasized in his 1795 essay "Zum ewigen Frieden" (Perpetual Peace), philosophers—who ideally think holistically and are immune to manipulation and propaganda—should be welcomed (again) into the ranks of political advisors and counselors to those in power.

Today, that advice is more needed than ever. Without it, the West drifts ever further from sanity, morality, and the rule of (moral) law—and closer to an age of chaos, unrestrained violence, and unreasonableness.