• 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.

  • Quittenbrot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month 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
      1 month 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
        ·
        1 month 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?