Nicolai Petro: Why the West Fears a Neutral Ukraine

Russia's multipolar discourse is a refinement of decades-old doctrine, not a new concept. Western policymakers and the public lack geographical awareness, preventing them from taking Russian, Chinese, and Indian rhetoric seriously. The term BRICS was invented by financial analyst Jim O'Neill, and the concepts of multipolarity and civilizational identity have not yet been adopted by Western academics or journalists.

The Western liberal order and BRICS multipolarity are not two sides of the same coin because they share only an aspiration for order, not the underlying ideals. Realists view civilizational identities as secondary to national survival and power, while liberals assume all civilizations will eventually adopt the American liberal order.

Peace is not established on the battlefield; rather, battlefield exhaustion allows a conflict to end while the defeated power retains its self-image unless it is physically occupied and re-educated. Post-WWII Germany took 25 years to become noticeably less authoritarian, demonstrating that transforming a country's culture requires a multi-decade investment.

The model of imposing democratic and economic know-how through long-term occupation is an updated form of colonial administration that is unfeasible in countries like Iraq or Afghanistan.

The conflict is a long-term project aimed at toppling or changing the regime in Russia, which would open the door to dismembering it to reduce its geopolitical weight. The West lacks cultural, historical, or religious leverage in Ukraine and instead relies on economic and security promises that have proven insufficient. Ukrainian officials and media are increasingly acknowledging that the West lied about the level of support, creating an existential crisis for the Ukrainian elite.

Post-war Ukraine will likely see the emergence of pro-Ukrainian political parties that argue the country was subjugated by both Russia and the West, advocating for self-reliance. Ukraine will not be homogeneously pro-NATO or pro-Russian in the foreseeable future, but will instead focus on internal political reckoning.

Ukraine remains divided, with Western Ukraine largely Russophobic, Eastern/Southern Ukraine Russophile, and central Ukraine supporting independence but speaking a mix of languages. The Ukrainian government is imposing a narrow national identity that requires speaking only Ukrainian, supporting NATO/EU membership, and following specific religious traditions, which alienates many citizens.

This exclusive identity, rooted in Western Ukrainian nationalism, prevents peaceful reconciliation and does not portend a prosperous future for Ukraine.

If Eastern Ukraine remains under Russian control, it will foster an inclusive identity where people can identify as both Russian and Ukrainian and choose their language. This inclusive model will likely have a stronger appeal in central Ukraine than the exclusive, narrow nationalism promoted in Western Ukraine.

Zelensky must pretend to be in charge, and the West will not support his removal because of their deep political ties and the lack of a viable alternative.

Zelensky could be encouraged to resign and offered exile, similar to former officials, but this does not solve the West's problem of finding a successor.

The West's greatest fear is that Zelensky will initiate direct negotiations with Russia, bypassing Western control and securing a better deal independently.