But as Austria, Sweden, Finland, Ireland and Switzerland know, armed neutrality can serve the interests of a country. Countries have used carefully negotiated neutrality agreements to preserve territorial integrity, ensure sovereignty and keep the peace.

There is no one-size-fits-all theory of “neutrality” — it is a malleable concept tailored to each country’s interests and circumstances, especially post-Cold War. Here are five things you should know about neutrality.

1. Neutrality does not mean that the country disarms.

Switzerland, Sweden and Finland are non-NATO members with strong armed forces, including robust air defense systems. They buy guns from whoever they want.

The neutral Swiss are known for their strong territorial army. Males between the ages of 18 and 34 perform compulsory service and keep a gun either at home or in an armory. Switzerland has 45.7 guns per 100 inhabitants – the third highest gun ownership rate in the world after the United States and Yemen.

After Russia occupied Crimea in 2014, Sweden and Finland increased their defense spending. Swedish spending will skyrocket 40 percent between 2021 and 2025, until 1.5 percent of GDP. Finland spends 2 percent of GDP on defense after a 54 percent increase between 2020 and 2021 – and just signed a contract for 64 U.S. F-35s jets

So why do we associate neutrality with helplessness? Blame the First World War. European powers imposed neutralization treaties on Belgium (1831) and Luxembourg (1861), which left them completely disarmed – with disastrous results when Germany invaded in 1914.

But the dominant form of neutrality today is well-armed non-aligned – and defensive, armed neutrality appears to be the viable option for Ukraine.

2. Neutrality does not undermine sovereignty.

Negotiators will bicker over details, but neutrality need not limit national sovereignty any more than arms control agreements.

Neutral countries often gain greater independence and control over their territory. To understand why, look at Austria after World War II. As I write in my book: “Great Power Politics and the Struggle for AustriaAustria, like Germany, was broken into British, French, US and Soviet occupied zones. Negotiations made little headway until 1955, when Austrian Chancellor Julius Raab brought a neutrality proposal to Moscow, promising not to join any military alliance or allow military bases on Austrian soil.

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev wanted to forestall German rearmament by building a neutral corridor through Europe, so he agreed. The Soviet troops withdrew and Western troops followed suit. Austria thus remained united and neutral throughout the Cold War, while neighboring Germany was divided into East and West.

Of course, no such neutral corridor is possible today – although Russia has long had a preference for it buffer zones.

3. The key to neutrality is not joining military alliances.

Khrushchev had good reason to support Austrian neutrality. Would Putin accept a neutral Ukraine? Maybe not – if Putin is waging an irredentist war and trying to reintegrate what he sees as ethnic Russian relatives, there is nothing to negotiate. But he might consider fallback options if he sees no way to achieve those goals without provoking a broader European war.

These three things are at the heart of all forms of permanent neutrality: the promise not to join any military alliances, to protect a country’s territory, and the promise not to accept foreign troops. Other terms are negotiable and vary from location to location.

Not allowing Ukraine to join NATO appears to be crucial for Russia. Last month, in a joint press conference Along with French President Emmanuel Macron, Putin stated that a NATO-Russia conflict could turn nuclear if Ukraine joins NATO.

None of the European neutrals were members of NATO, although non-aligned Sweden and Finland work very closely with the alliance. And both Finland and Sweden have now sent arms to Ukraine and suggested they could join NATO. Should this happen, it would be a significant change in their traditionally non-aligned military policy.

It’s not clear if a non-NATO pledge would be enough for Putin, who has declared Ukrainians and Russians are “one people.” But existing models show that there are specific conditions that countries can negotiate.

4. Neutral countries often join trade and economic organizations

The neutral or non-aligned members of the European Union include Ireland, Austria, Sweden, Finland, Cyprus and Malta. Ukraine has asked the EU to speed up its application for membership. EU accession would not necessarily bring Ukraine into conflict with European neutrality. The question will be whether EU membership is as important to Putin as NATO membership.

Switzerland is neither a member of NATO nor the EU. However, Switzerland’s sudden decision to back EU sanctions is a notable change for a country that has doggedly maintained its economic and military neutrality ever since European powers guaranteed its permanent neutrality at the 1815 Congress of Vienna.

On February 28th Swiss President Ignazio Cassis called Russia’s invasion of Ukraine an “assault on the sovereignty, liberty, democracy and people and institutions of a free country,” adding: “Playing into the hands of an aggressor is not neutral.”

5. Would Ukraine have the neutrality option?

No neutrality agreement could come about without Ukrainians seeking and accepting it. Since World War II, externally imposed neutrality has invariably failed—as in the case of Laos in 1962 during the Vietnam War.

Under a negotiated agreement, the major powers could guarantee Ukraine’s territorial integrity and neutrality. They would have to weigh the serious risks of being drawn into a future crisis. But guarantees of impartiality could give Ukraine security and independence from Russia.

At the moment, it’s unclear if neutrality is an option — or when it might become one. It may take a protracted, bloody standoff to persuade Putin to revise his war goals. But history offers many examples of neutrality. Perhaps one day Ukraine will deliver another.