Why didn’t Ukraine follow Finland’s lead?

BOTH Finland and Ukraine are

– or, in the case of Ukraine, were – prosperous countries bordering on Russia. Finland however, is neutral, that is, non-aligned as between

Nato and Russia. It has not been attacked by Russia, despite the fact it is not a member of Nato. Surely Ukraine’s leaders could have spared their countrymen a great deal of destruction and misery if they had followed Finland’s example and incorporated a non-aligned clause into their constitution?

The Finns have a good standard of living and, as Ukraine is better endowed with natural resources than Finland, the lives of the Ukrainians could have been equally good, if not better.

However, by publicly insisting that it wanted to to join Nato, Ukraine’s leaders took an enormous gamble: would the Russian Bear be provoked? There were plenty of signs that it would be!

Ukraine had and has the right to apply to join Nato but it does not have the right to join; all existing members, including the UK, have the right to veto new members so, as was made clear to Ukraine in advance of the invasion, it was very unlikely that Nato would intervene militarily.

As a sovereign state, Ukraine had a perfect right to aspire to future Nato membership but, faced with the open declaration of this aspiration, there was a real possibility that Russia might invade. It was therefore imprudent, if not downright reckless for the Ukrainian government to assume Russia would not invade and that, if it did, the international community would ride in to the rescue. Even if Ukraine ‘wins’ this war (a pyrrhic victory!) the people of Ukraine will want to know why their president chose not to follow Finland’s example and renounce its aspiration to join Nato.

Adrian Romilly Stonehouse, Plymouth