OPINION: Vance’s Peace Plan Is a Recipe for Ukraine to Become a Failed State

US VP hopeful JD Vance might well consider himself a genius for coming up with the idea of “neutrality” for Ukraine as the centerpiece of his plan to end Russia’s war on Ukraine. For Vance, this appears to be a truly Eureka moment. Unfortunately for Vance the concept of a neutral status for Ukraine is not new.

Vance might not be aware of the fact but Ukraine, de facto, had neutral status back in 2014 as until Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and is first invasion of Donbas in 2014, Ukraine had non-aligned status which near enough implied neutrality – actually back in 2014 Ukraine’s military doctrine saw the biggest threat from the West, not Russia.

This neutral, or non-aligned, status failed to serve to defend Ukraine but its lack of military, weak, non-aligned status was in fact just a green light for Putin to annex and invade Ukrainian territory.

It is hard to imagine that a second time around such status would sufficiently deter Putin from further attacking Ukraine. Indeed, the only assurance for Ukraine from further Russian attack is surely a strong defense, and best in alliance with Western partners.

As if to underline the obsolescence of neutral status now in Europe, post-Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, ardent prior supporters of such neutral status – Finland and Sweden – have subsequently voted with their feet and joined the NATO alliance.

Such an eventuality appeared impossible just prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Unlike Vance’s stary-eyed view of Putin, Swedes and Finns appear to have a clear-eyed view of the threat to European security from Russia as revealed by Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Neutral status would provide zero assurance for Ukraine that Russia would not attack again. Neutral status provides zero defense, as history has proven.

Vance also appears to suggest, alongside neutrality, that the threat from Russia can be appeased by Ukraine forgoing any ambition to join Western structures. By “structures” we assume here he means both NATO and the EU.

I might remind Vance here that Ukraine had zero perspective of joining NATO back in 2014 when Crimea was first annexed – opinion polls showed single-digit popular support, while NATO members themselves had little appetite to accept Ukraine as a member. Russia well understood this but annexed and invaded Ukraine, not because of fear over future NATO enlargement, but because it could, because Putin saw weakness and took advantage of that in a pure imperial land grab.

Subsequently, Putin has openly stated that his move to invade Ukraine was more about his own refusal to accept the very idea of Ukraine as a sovereign state or Ukrainian as a separate identity to Russian. For Putin Russia and Ukraine are the same people and should be United in a size country, Russia. This is what his invasion was about, and not a non-existent fear about NATO enlargement, which was never a reality.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was pure imperialism.

Only in response to Russian aggression has opinion in Ukraine moved to now support NATO membership, out of necessity and a sense that this is its only ultimate defense against future Russian aggression – and again recognition that its prior non-aligned (neutral) status failed.

By rejecting Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, Vance would be bowing to Russian bullying and rewarding Russian aggression. It would encourage more aggression and expansionist policy from Russia. And surely Ukrainian membership of NATO not only better assures Ukraine’s security but also that of Europe as Ukraine’s now much enhanced military capability would be an asset to NATO members. Ukraine now brings much to the table for NATO and Europe in terms of enhancing their defense against Russian aggression – proven in battle.

But what about EU accession?

Again, if Vance’s plan for Ukraine is to also blackball Ukraine’s EU membership, then this reveals an astonishing lack of basic understanding of recent Ukrainian history.

Vance’s plans for Ukraine seem to fall into pretty stale thinking around Ukraine, that its best position is not to be a member of either the Western or Russian block, but to go back to some non-aligned, or bridge status between East and West which was its position prior to 2014.

Vance seems to have some romantic vision of a golden age for Ukraine when it had this non-aligned/bridge status for the period from independence to 2014. The reality is that this non-aligned/bridge status failed spectacularly which is why Ukrainians opted to choose a course West.

Not only did the non-aligned status encourage Russian annexation/invasion of Ukraine but the bridge state actually gave Ukraine a no man’s land economic status that stalled economic development.

With no reform anchor from the EU, or commodity angle from a closer tie to Moscow, Ukraine ended up as a breeding ground for state capture – mostly from Russian-centric oligarchs – and corruption. The key statistic that Vance should have etched in his brain is the per capita GDP of Ukraine, Poland, and Russia in 1991, which was around $3000, but by 2013 this had grown to near $14,000 apiece for Poland and Russia, while Ukraine was stuck at just over $3000.

In explaining the divergence, Poland chose the EU accession anchor, Russia the commodity anchor, but Ukraine was caught in the no man’s land of state capture and corruption.

This lack of economic development, and actually, hugely unfair distribution of wealth (to oligarchs) meant that Ukraine had an inherently unstable political mix as reflected in two revolutions (Orange in 2004, then Euromaidan in 2013/14).

The status quo was simply not sustainable and Ukraine in 2013 had to choose East or West, as the neutral/non-aligned/Bridge strategy was simply not working. Ukrainians decided in 2014 to shift West.

Putin could not accept this and chose the path to war. It’s important for Vance to understand this: that it was Putin – not Ukraine – that chose the path to war.

Vance might not comprehend this, but Ukrainians understand the above – I would argue that Putin does as well. Going back to a neutral/non-aligned/bridge strategy is a recipe for future Ukrainian failure.

Its economy will fail, it will not be able to sustain a military defense against Russia, and likely Vance’s plan will just prepare the ground for Putin for another attempt to grab Ukraine through invasion.

Actually, under Vance’s plan, a likely economic failure of Ukraine also likely risks political and social instability in Ukraine, and on to Europe. This will obviously play to Putin’s advantage – which might also be Vance’s intent.

But if we are talking about a future Ukrainian state failure – either with or without a future further Russian invasion, that would suggest a huge latent security threat to Europe.

Imagine Ukraine is now a military superpower in Europe, second only to Russia. Imagine the risks here of a scenario where tens of millions of Ukrainians are forced to flee West, while Ukraine itself becomes near ungovernable and its military and security capacity up for hire. How would Europe confront this new security reality?

Blank face from Vance.

Vance seems so desperate to avoid a Russian defeat in Ukraine (actually he seems to want to give Putin a win) he fails to really comprehend what the consequences of his appeasement of Putin (by in effect tying Ukraine’s hands behind its back, and blindfolding it) will be.

Spelling it out to him – huge future security risks to Europe, and a consequent weakening of the Western alliance which I would have thought even Vance still thinks is an asset in the looming battle for hegemony with China.

Reprinted from the author’s @tashecon blog! See the original here.

The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.