An ‘Austrian-Swiss’ solution for Ukraine?

What kind of negotiated settlement of the Ukrainian war could be acceptable to Kyiv and Moscow? Kyiv wants to retain Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Moscow needs an outcome that shows its intervention was not in vain. All parties should consider the deal that liberated Austria in 1955 and helped it to become a prosperous democracy. No party felt it lost in that deal; all could be considered winners. The “Austrian” solution, however, probably needs a “Swiss” inflection.

Some observers regarded Austria as another victim of Adolf Hitler’s aggression. Starting in 1945, however, Austria — somewhat like Germany — was occupied by four powers: the Soviet Union, United States, Britain and France. Each governed a part of Austria. As shown in the 1951 Swiss film, “Four in a Jeep” (Die Vier im Jeep), they shared responsibility for the capital, Vienna. 

As a student in Vienna in 1952-1953, I experienced several dangerous encounters with Soviet soldiers, usually based on mutual misunderstanding. Life was tough for Austrians. Living like an Austrian student, I lost 20 pounds during the year. In the final scene of a 1952 production of “Die Fledermaus,” the jailer can’t find a light and complains in Viennese dialect, “Poor Austria, they’ve taken all your oil” — a not-too-subtle comment on the Soviet occupation.

The Austrian State Treaty signed on May 15, 1955, restored the country’s pre-1938 independence. It marked the only Cold War withdrawal by the Soviet Union from a territory it occupied. The four occupying powers recognized the country’s independence but banned another Anschluss with Germany. The rights of Slovene and Croat minorities were guaranteed. Austria’s constitution affirmed that it would be forever neutral and permit no foreign bases on its territory.  

Why did the Kremlin give up its hold on this strategically vital pivot? The Khrushchev regime wanted to throw off the heritage of Joseph Stalin, who died in 1953. Moscow also wanted assurance that Austria would never join NATO, as West Germany did on May 5, 1955. To create a semblance of parity the Kremlin on May 14, 1955, created its own alliance, the Warsaw Treaty Organization, with seven East European partners.

The four occupiers departed Austria and the country prospered. The State Opera reopened in November 1955, 10 years after it was destroyed, with a performance of Beethoven’s “Fidelio.” Austria’s Diplomatic Academy, established under Empress Maria Theresa, attracted students from the Third World as well as East and West. Austria joined the United Nations but not NATO. In the 1990s , however, Austria joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace — as did Russia and Ukraine, along with Europe’s other neutrals. In 1995, Austria joined the European Union (EU) and embraced the Euro in 2002. 

The Kremlin will not be tempted soon to repeat its 2022 debacle, but an Austrian solution for Ukraine would leave the country vulnerable to another Russian invasion. Whereas neutral Switzerland, Sweden and Finland have maintained serious defense forces, Austria did not. Its military has been lightly armed. The Kremlin could have threatened but has not seriously menaced neutral Sweden or Finland, even though they have quietly cooperated with Norway and other NATO members for years. Their recent interest in joining the Western alliance might diminish if peace in Ukraine can be restored. 

Given Ukraine’s experiences, it probably should adapt the Swiss model of armed neutrality — a policy that goes back five centuries and has been recognized internationally since the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The country has not been in a state of war internationally since 1815 and did not join the United Nations until 2002 but is frequently involved in peace-building processes around the world.

Switzerland is like a porcupine — its quills kept away even Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Most of Switzerland’s soldiers train for short periods but keep weapons at home ready for mobilization. American-made jet fighters fly over the Alps and can be sheltered in mountain hangers. Having trained in the mountains with urban volunteers from Zurich, I have experienced the high morale of Switzerland’s militia and the support they receive when they pass through small towns.

An Austrian-Swiss model can be viewed in positive terms. Both Austria and Switzerland have prospered and neither has been seriously threatened by outside forces. The same is true of neutral Sweden and Finland, even though each cooperates with NATO.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated recently that his ardor for NATO membership has cooled. Austria made some concessions to win Soviet withdrawal in 1955. Would Ukraine have to give up something to persuade Russia to retreat? Kyiv might also offer greater autonomy to Russian speakers in the Donbas. Compromise might be needed for Sevastopol. But these are relatively simple problems. A far greater challenge would be compensation for the human and material losses caused by the Russian invasion. Most Russians do not know or believe that their “special military operation” was unprovoked and unjustified — indeed, that it entailed many war crimes and crimes against humanity. Should its instigator, President Vladimir Putin, remain in power? Should he be tried for war crimes by the International Criminal Court?   

After World War I, the victors pinned a “war guilt” clause on Berlin and forced Germany to pay reparations. These terms helped provoke the rise of Hitler in the 1930s. How to avoid an analogous outcome with today’s Russia is a conundrum. Many details of a Ukrainian settlement must be negotiated, but a useful starting point would be to agree on an Austrian-Swiss solution.

Walter C. Clemens is an associate with the Harvard University Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies and professor emeritus of political science at Boston University. His books include “Baltic Independence and Russian Empire” and “Can Russia Change?”