REVIEW Clause 17-1: The Military Engaged Neutrality

Home  |  Book  |  Reviews

Reviews

Please use the Enter Comment facility below to give us a review on the Clause 17-1: The Military Engaged Neutrality section.

We appreciate all the reviews. Interesting reviews, for or against the ideas expressed in this section, will be accepted for public display on this page.

Summary

This AI summary is generated by Microsoft Edge Copilot:

Here are the main points from the document:

1. **Clause 17-1: The Military Engaged Neutrality** 
    - Ukraine will seek partnership with both the CSTO and NATO without full membership.
    - Russia will support these Ukrainian partnerships.
    - This clause represents significant concessions from both Ukraine and Russia.

2. **CSTO Engagement**
    - CSTO offers partnerships, though none have been formed before.
    - Ukraine will be the first partner, potentially revitalizing CSTO's partnership program.
    - Ukraine aims for partnership, not full membership, to preserve neutrality.
    - The CSTO’s Article 4 and its limitations highlighted by the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.

3. **NATO Engagement**
    - Ukraine has a history with NATO since 1994 through the Partnership for Peace (PfP).
    - Ukraine seeks to upgrade its PfP status without full membership.
    - NATO's Article 5 and its limitations.
    - Comparison with Finland's fast-track NATO membership following the Russian invasion.

4. **Geography and Neutrality Rationale**
    - Ukraine’s geographical position makes neutrality a strategic choice.
    - Comparison with Switzerland and Belgium during WWII.
    - Buffer state strategy to avoid being a frontline state between NATO and Russia.

5. **Catch-22 Rationale**
    - Practicality of mepenism given the current war.
    - The need to balance relations with both NATO and Russia for protection and sovereignty.