Why didn't Ukraine choose NEUTRAL??? Are they STUPID?

Hello friends.

 In the eyes of Americans, the President of Ukraine is nothing more than a world-class comedian, everyone thinks that what Mr. Zelensky does is silly, follows the West at all costs, causing all people to suffer the consequences of war. However, the truth is that Ukraine's politics is much more complicated than you think and in this video you will be approached from a different perspective, to be able to understand somewhat what Mr. Zelensky is doing. Let's get started together.

As you probably already know, from Ukraine's independence in 1991 to 2014 Ukraine has always remained neutral. However, in 2014, when a new, more pro-Western government rose to rule the country, Russia sent troops into the country and took away Crimea, believing that Ukraine was leaning towards the West.

 

To support Ukraine, the US and Europe have passed a lot of sanctions against Russia. However, when sanctions were issued, not only Russia but also the US and the West suffered, not to mention the political situation in Europe was also much more tense. That led American diplomats to think: "Ukraine is best to keep a neutral position, then Europe will be at peace".

 

For example, former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger suggested: "Ukraine has a position equivalent to Finland, aligned with Europe politically and economically, but avoiding institutional hostility towards Russia".

 

Professor Graham Allison of Harvard University argues: "Ukraine should, like Belgium, which has a neutral status under the London treaty, secure its existence as an independent state."

 

Other leading scholars including John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, Stephen Walt of Harvard and Barry Posen of MIT have argued that "Ukrainian neutrality can stabilize security in Europe".

 

Most recently, Anatol Lieven of the Legal Institute wrote that: "Ukraine's neutrality modeled on the 1955 Austrian State Treaty removes the greatest incentive to date for Russian intervention and intimidation Ukraine".

 

However, for more than 20 years, the goal of joining NATO has become deeply ingrained in Ukraine's culture, strategy and foreign policy. In February 2019, just two months before Zelensky was elected president, the National Assembly wrote into the country's Constitution that "must join NATO, any president who ascends must have the task of being a guarantor for the country's strategic roadmap to membership in the EU and NATO. And if a president does the opposite, it will be seen as unconstitutional."

 

This is a far cry from Kiev's intention to become a permanently independent state as outlined in the 1990 Declaration of National Sovereignty.

 

Thus, not comedian Zelensky but any president of Ukraine must take measures to bring the country closer to NATO and the EU. But why is Ukraine so determined to join NATO? The scholars analyzed and gave four reasons as follows:

 

The first is that neutral doesn't work. Supporters of this view say: "Ukraine has been neutral for more than 20 years, but in the end it was still attacked by Russia and took Crimea in 2014". That makes them think: "Ukraine's neutrality does not make this country safe from Russia". Then they must enter NATO, with the protection of the largest military alliance in the world, they will no longer have to worry about Russia.

 

Second, neutrality means surrendering to Russia. Supporters of this view argue that: "Ukraine has the freedom to choose its diplomatic path, Russia does not have the right to force it to choose this or that." And if given the freedom to choose, Ukraine prefers the West, but Russia does not like that, Russia demands Ukraine to be neutral. So, if Ukraine is neutral, it means that they are listening to Russia, obeying Russia's orders, but Ukraine doesn't like being forced, doesn't want the world to see them as a puppet for Russia to control, so they decided to join NATO.

 

Third, Russia is not trustworthy. This is perhaps the most widely supported argument, the neutral status of some European countries has been established through treaties.

 

For example, for Austria, the 1955 Moscow memorandum, later the State Treaty restoring Austria's independence, implied the express obligation of the Soviet Union to guarantee, together with the other great powers, the inviolability and territorial integrity of the Austrian nation. Switzerland is similar.

 

Ukraine has also received security guarantees from the US, UK and Russia based on a multilateral agreement, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. But in 2014, 20 years later, Russia sent troops into Ukraine in violation of the memorandum of understanding. Russia is also obliged to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity and the inviolability of its borders under the 1997 Russia-Ukraine Friendship Treaty, but has also violated it, so Ukraine does not trust Russia.

 

And that last view is that Russia controls Ukraine's neutrality. Those who hold this view argue that "Russia considers Ukraine as a historical and spiritual land of Russia", Russia considers it to belong to Russia, so Russia does not accept Ukraine's complete independence, does not allow Ukraine free integration with Europe. As Russian President Putin has emphasized: "True sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia", so Russia can intervene more in Ukraine, if Russia sees Ukraine's policies as going against its line. So even if it is neutral, if Ukraine is still controlled, Ukraine will not be neutral.

 

Thus, there are many views as to why Ukraine wants and is determined to join NATO, although neutrality provides stability for both them and Europe, and since NATO membership has become the guiding principle enshrined in the Constitution, Zelensky or whoever becomes president will have to do it. What is your opinion? Support or oppose Ukraine's diplomacy? Let's discuss together.

 

Thank you for watching the video, goodbye and see you again.