What does it mean to be ‘neutral’ on Ukraine?

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Yet those who study history are doomed to stand helpless while everyone else repeats it.

As a historian, I do not subscribe much to the histoire se repete (history repeats itself) school of thought. No two moments are ever “same”. Context changes everything – and the complexities of context are just as important to understanding an event as its potential parallels with another moment in time.

I think the Ukrainian banquet has many historical similes about the war. There is nothing to be gained by comparing Putin with Hitler or comparing Russia’s invasion Ukraine With Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939.

But what is useful in studying past wars is that they help us understand what aspects of the current crisis may be worth asking important questions.

In that sense, Toro’s cartoon is fitting, especially when it comes to questioning our collective responsibility for the war in Ukraine and its victims. Are we watching war with as horror as we can? What responsibilities do we have as non-combatant “neutrals”?

neutral and non-combatant

I have spent much of my academic career studying international systems and great power diplomacy, particularly in times of war. I have written many books about neutrality, peacebuilding and war avoidance. My most recent (co-authored) title, Global War, Global Catastrophe, integrates the history of neutral and non-combatant peoples into the global history of World War I.

This research sheds light on the many ways in which governments and communities approach wars in which they are not actively involved as belligerents. Neutrality is a formal term used for a state that chooses not to go to war with other countries.

While we rarely use the term “neutral” today to describe countries that are not fighting wars (preferring to reserve that term for non-aligned countries like Switzerland), in the legal sense everyone who In this struggle remains non-combatant, he is neutral. For the laws of war.

Neutral and non-combatant are involved in all international conflicts. Even in the era of Collective Security, which developed after 1918 and through the Cold War, there were always neutral and non-aligned states.

But the world today is witnessing war in Ukraine, which is similar to the neutrality era of the 19th century, when most wars were fought by a small number of states, while the rest were chosen as neutral, including many great powers.

Neutrality helped these wars remain local and limited, preventing them from turning into major conflicts involving a more militarized world. As today, there were always more non-combatants who witnessed the war than those who fought the war.

neutrality is not passive

This history suggests that neutrality was not (and cannot be) a value-neutral concept. Neutral countries and communities are never politically impartial or hand-in-hand in their response to military conflict, even if they have legal obligations with respect to the warring parties.

As such, sanctioning Russia and sending military equipment to Ukraine are, on the face of it, not anti-neutral actions – although they certainly send powerful messages to Russia about what the rest of the world will allow or tolerate on Ukraine.

As in the past, neutral countries and non-combatant organizations and communities often have a number of important responsibilities and tasks to help alleviate the suffering of war or bring it to a close.

Neutral governments are often mediators and mediators of international crises and provide warring parties with safe spaces to negotiate solutions. They also provide humanitarian aid for victims of war, including front-line medical care and shelters for refugees.

And since all wars are also information wars, independent media sources play an influential role: uncovering the extreme violence of war, establishing how the viewing world understands what war is, and determining to which belligerents. Considered in favor of “rights”.

Neutrality and End War

The neutrals then actively determine what is at stake in the war. Winning the “hearts and minds” of those viewed as non-combatants is therefore extremely important to the warring parties.

Right now, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky is doing an extraordinary job of swaying the world’s expectations and creating a framework for an invasion of Ukraine. He needs that global support to help set the terms of any peace talks with Russia.

War historians almost always focus on the actions of those who are actually waging war or becoming victims of the violence of war. Even today, we are determined to understand Russia and Putin and explain why Ukraine is so important.

But it is important to ask questions about the responsibilities and actions of a neutral and non-combatant world – for those of us watching the war in real time – as is questioning any warring sides.

As in the 19th century, neutral parties played a major role in the conduct, outcome and conditions of this war. Their assessment will help determine how we perceive the conflict in the years to come.

As well as asking serious questions about why Russia invaded Ukraine, we must also train our mirrors to be non-combatant. How are we shaping the profile of this conflict? How are we responding to this? Where is our responsibility to bring its suffering to a successful and speedy one?