• Finland’s Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen opposes imposing neutrality on Ukraine
  • Valtonen questions Russia’s trustworthiness in adhering to agreements
  • Forcing Ukraine to accept terms could undermine international system, Valtonen says

Forcing neutrality onto Ukraine will not bring about a peaceful solution to the crisis with Russia, Finland’s foreign minister said on Monday, adding that Moscow could not be trusted to adhere to any agreement it signs.

[…]

With the prospect of U.S. president elect Donald Trump seeking to end the conflict as quickly possible and concerns from some allies that the terms could be imposed in Kyiv, one scenario could be to force a neutral status on Ukraine.

Russia has repeatedly demanded Ukraine remain neutral for there to be peace, which would de facto kill its aspirations for NATO membership.

Russia trust issues

[…] Finland’s Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen poured cold water on using the “Finlandisation” model, pointing out that firstly Helsinki had fended off Russia in World War 2 and that despite the ensuing peace had always continued to arm itself fearing a new conflict.

I’m against it (Finlandisation), yes. Let’s face it, Ukraine was neutral before they were attacked by Russia,” Valtonen, whose country has a 1,300-km (810-mile) border with Russia, said on the sidelines of the Paris Peace Forum.

[…]

The Ukraine invasion led both Finland and Sweden to abandon decades of military non-alignment and seek safety in the NATO camp.

Valtonen questioned whether Russia could be trusted even if it agreed a deal and said forcing Ukraine’s hand to accept terms against its will would tear down the international system.

“I really want to avoid a situation where any European country, or the United States for that matter, starts negotiating over the heads of Ukraine,” she said.

“A larger power can not just grab territory, but also essentially weaken the sovereignty of another nation,” she said.

  • Saleh
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    10 days ago

    Every military pact is a “defense pact”. And no country with “superpower” or “regional power” ambition accepts another power right on its doorsteps.

    I think the best historical example of the 20th century is the Cuban missile crisis. NATO-Nukes in Turkey, Warsaw-Pact-Nukes in Cuba. Both sides feeling threatened. The solution was to remove both missile threats.

    And Finland now sharing a border with Russia certainly is not going to make them more fine with NATO in Ukraine. That is not how geopolitics work.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      Lol sure buddy.

      So let’s arm Ukraine to their teeths and see the russian “empire” crumble. It’s overdue anyway.

      Incoming: WW3!!!

      • Saleh
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        10 days ago

        Did you even read what i wrote?

        A properly armed and neutral Ukraine with full territorial integrity including Crimea seems to be the best way to create stable security architecture.

        There is a fundamental difference between arming a country and permanently integrating it into one geopolitical side. If you are so eager to fight in a war Ukraine can use every fighter. But it is always easy to call for other people to go to war isn’t it?

        • Maalus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          Why would Ukraine need to be neutral? Russians have shown themselves to be hostile and don’t respect neutrality. So fuck em.

          Also the “oh you want Ukraine in NATO? Then go fight there yourself!!!” Is such a fucking obvious russian shill line repeated over and over and over again.

          • Saleh
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            10 days ago

            Neutral Ukraine would mean a buffer between Russia and NATO. Russia claims it feels threatened by NATOs expansion to the East. While it is understandable for countries to prefer being in NATO over under Russian influence, that is how geopolitical security works. The US would never accept say Mexico to join a Russian or Chinese military pact.

            There is only two ways to get Russia out of Ukraine:

            Either defeat them and drive them out, or negotiate for them to withdraw.

            The latter wont happen with categorically demanding Ukraine to join NATO. The first needs much more Western support, in particular more soldiers to fight the war. When you exclude negotiating, not being willing to support your demand of fighting with your own capabilities is cynical. And that also goes to show how the support so far worked. Making grand statements, but when it came to actually giving what was necessary to Ukraine to defend itself, the West always fell short. If Ukraine had gotten proper equipment right away, the war could be over with a military win of Ukraine. Now to not only hold the line, but push back Russia, Ukraine needs far far more support, that the West is clearly not willing to give.

            I want a strong Ukraine with fully territorial integrity. Maybe this can be negotiated as the costs of the war for Russia keep increasing. But this needs to offer Russia an out. Denying that out means the only two options left are a military win or military defeat of Russia. Either will be incredibly costly for Ukraine.

            • Maalus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 days ago

              And I don’t give two shits about buffers. Russia started this mess, let them sort it out. Russia claims a lot of shit but the reality is - they are the agressors. They had every chance of enjoying free trade, peaceful coexistence but they chose war. So now they get fucked over it. And they deserve every single second of it happening to them. Russia will fracture into a million pieces. They are getting desperate. And you don’t win with “desperate” by appeasing those assholes and giving them a second chance to invade in 5 years. 40% of GDP spent on war, and they’re still unable to do shit.

        • Quittenbrot
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          and permanently integrating it into one geopolitical side

          I like how you talk about it as if it’s about game pieces on a game board. What about the people from Ukraine? How about letting them decide on which “geopolitical side” they want to live?

          • Saleh
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            10 days ago

            What about the people from Ukraine? How about letting them decide on which “geopolitical side” they want to live?

            Which is why someone in Finland shouldn’t be making statements limiting Ukraines decision space. If Ukranians decide to continue the war so they can join NATO, then that is their decision and should be supported.

            This brings us back to the problem that the Western support has been lacking and now with Trump becomes even more lackluster. But the West cannot withdraw military support while demanding Ukraine to continue fighting.

            As it stands Ukraine will be delivered to the Russian slaughter instead of working on actual solutions.

            • Quittenbrot
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 days ago

              Which is why someone in Finland shouldn’t be making statements limiting Ukraines decision space. If Ukranians decide to continue the war so they can join NATO, then that is their decision and should be supported.

              I read you talking about establishing a buffer zone between Russia and NATO. If this isn’t limiting Ukraine’s decision space over the head of Ukrainians, what is?

        • Valmond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          10 days ago

          Ukraine, with its 1991 border in NATO!

          Russia gets denuclearisation.

          World peace follows.

      • Saleh
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        10 days ago

        A properly armed and neutral Ukraine with full territorial integrity including Crimea seems to be the best way to create stable security architecture.

        • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          10 days ago

          And how would “properly armed” be different to NATO? Putin wants Ukraine to be demilitarized. The options for actual reliable self defense for Ukraine are either NATO membership or a nuclear arsenal.

          • Saleh
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 days ago

            Nukes are one option. Otherwise giving Ukraine the ability to rebuild its military and arsenal, in particular defensive weapons like Anti-Air and Anti-Missile capabilities.

            • Quittenbrot
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              10 days ago

              A Ukraine with nukes is as bad for Russia as a Ukraine in NATO. Russia wants to rule again over “its” (aka Soviet) lost “sphere of influence”. This is textbook imperialism and if that’s what you want to defend here, fine. Just don’t expect me to agree.

              • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 days ago

                Worse for Russia I’d argue. A NATO member state still lays under the pressure of political power of the pact. Ukraine armed with nukes is something that could go south with a future leadership change for the worse. And despite all the propaganda, Russia very well knows that they aren’t actually threatened by NATO - at least for as long as they don’t attack member states, which is where the issue lies. They want Ukraine, that’s why they don’t want them in NATO. Can’t invade and annex them anymore once they’re part of the pact.

                • Quittenbrot
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  10 days ago

                  …which is why we urgently need to dump the general rule of “frozen conflicts prevent accession into NATO” and change them into tailormade agreements. Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine: so far, Russia has an incentive for frozen conflicts to steer these countries on the course it wants. We should no longer allow this.

                  • barsoap@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    10 days ago

                    The EU accepts countries with border disputes into the union (in fact there’s a couple very fun ones between member states, generally low-intensity though, e.g NL and DE even agreed to disagree in perpetuity), the EU is also a defensive pact, trouble being getting into the EU is quite a bit harder than getting into NATO: Vastly stricter rule of law and democracy standards, on top of that trade integration, economics and everything.

                    OTOH the EU is also not above creating new ad-hoc treaty structures with unimaginative names so a… DCENSV, “Deep and Comprehensive European Neighbourhood Security Vehicle” is absolutely within the realm of possibilities. People are basically waiting for Trump to move while preparing responses for every scenario, very little if any of this kind of preparation will reach the public eye.