On December 12, marking the International Day of Neutrality, the International Institute for Global Analyses released an overview in its Analytical Dossier, examining contemporary world dynamics with particular attention to the concept of neutrality: Life in the «buffer zones» and Neutrality Alliance
Is Trump relying on a form of transactional diplomacy aimed at engaging China and Russia in a global governance system shaped primarily by the interests of these three major powers? It looks like the consensus among them has yet to be reached. Medium-sized states are scrambling to balance relations with all three powers, hoping to protect their vital national interests. Small states, especially those stranded in geopolitical buffer zones, have it even worse: being forced to choose sides. In this polarization, countries with traditions of neutrality, and those now adopting pro-neutrality policy as a survival strategy, are becoming more and more important.
Swiss neutrality: questioned, but not lost
The Swiss version of neutrality is often held up as an example for other nations to follow – those that do not wish to be absorbed into the spheres of influence of one of the three superpowers. Swiss neutrality was born in the middle ages through a combination of geography and the independent spirit of the country’s citizens. Powerful monarchies on all sides could have overwhelmed the Helvetians but did not believe the prize was worth the effort it would have taken to break Swiss spirit. While never rich in those early days, Switzerland provided a trading hub and a source of military manpower for its big neighbors and managed to survive independently of the European empires.
Switzerland’s status as a formally neutral state was strongly reinforced at the end of the Napoleonic wars, when the European powers and Russia, decided that it would be in their own interest and in the interest of the concert of Europe to insist on and codify Swiss neutrality, keeping Switzerland out of the hands of rivals and providing for a space free from their continuing competition. The decision to attach Geneva to the Confederation in 1815 added over time several important new dimensions to Swiss neutrality – an openness to refugees, a safe space for savants, a focus on humanitarian action, conventions and institutions that grew into a would-be supranational system of world governance, intergovernmental arbitration, multilateralism writ large and, most visibly, a home for what was designed to be the first world government, the League of Nations.
It was not just Geneva. By the end of the nineteenth century, hydroelectric power kick-started Swiss industry. Switzerland’s determination to be able to defend itself against all potential enemies led in time to a vigorous arms export sector – tous azimuths. The Federal government early on went into the business of providing “good offices” to maintain communication between mutually hostile states. Zurich contributed bank secrecy. The Cold War enhanced the role of Switzerland, especially Geneva, as the meeting place of great powers.
Since the end of the Cold War, however, Swiss neutrality has suffered severe blows. Superpower competition is no longer confined to Europe. Europe, including Switzerland, has tucked itself under the wing of the Americans, the same Americans whose attention has shifted toward China and a reemergent Russia. Switzerland finds itself not at the neutral center of competing powers but incorporated into one of them – the West. Bank secrecy has been partly abolished. The arms trade is curtailed. Multilateralism and the institutions that embody it are increasingly discredited. Respect for humanitarian law has become an attribute of small states, while the big ones prefer Realpolitik. Some Swiss favor joining the European Union and in any case follow the EU lead, as in sanctioning Russia. At the same time, other countries are stepping up as rivals in the business of facilitating dialogue. To be sure, all is not lost. Some Swiss are trying to hang on their neutrality and even enhance it. One of the examples - through becoming a neutral hub for data storage. The arc of Swiss neutrality – a noble history and tradition, what it might means in the twenty-first century context? Much will be decided by a national referendum in near future on Switzerland's neutrality.
Strategic independence with the neutrality elements
Today, all around the world, many countries are seeking to avoid having to join one superpower block. They aspire trying to reach the strategic independence – non-alignment, with pro-neutrality elements. But the option is not available to every country. Those that lie squarely within the sphere of influence of a superpower will be obliged to follow its lead, happily or grudgingly. Costa Rica, who is neutral by Constitution, for example, is free to state its aspirations but will be compelled to yield to the United States on any important strategic question. The same applies to Belarus vis-à-vis Russia or North Korea vis-à-vis China.
The nations that can legitimately hope for strategic independence are those that lie between the spheres of influence of the superpowers and try to write their own foreign policies, within limits, by playing off the superpowers and acting as a buffer between them.
India has been playing the game of strategic independence since 1947 and is likely to continue on this non-alignment line. Its traditional ties to Russia are still strong and Modi has worked for better relations with both the USA and China. Because of its size and growing wealth, India may be tempted to enter the ranks of the superpowers, but it will confront two major problems if it pursues that strategy – the fierce opposition of Pakistan to any Indian moves that would further tilt the balance of power in the subcontinent and the resistance of the Big Three to allowing India to amass the large nuclear arsenal that is a necessary component of superpower status.
The Near and Middle East has been for centuries a focal point of major power rivalry. Today the Big Three all seem to be on a different line. While hoping to exploit the wealth of the region economically, neither the USA, nor China, nor Russia seems inclined to operate geo-strategically in the region any longer than some may have to. Rather all three seem to want influence and trade without responsibility or reckless desire for change. This means that once Israel is protected by the Abraham Accords, the region should be free to pursue strategic independence, tailoring its relationships to the superpowers to fit its own interests. Interestingly, this same logic could soon apply to Iran, to whom the idea of neutrality is not acceptable today, but for the future may serve as the solution for it and for China, USA and Russia. Same for Lebanon, where the idea of neutrality seems to be utopian today, but there are forces, straggling for it now. Already China and Saudi Arabia are dealing with each other in ways that would have been inconceivable only a few years ago, and pragmatic neutrality appeared in the international vocabular today. Qatar has become a major locus of diplomacy and mediation, along the lines of the Swiss model, but at the same time hosts a major US military base, not really consistent with the Swiss pattern of neutrality, but compatible with strategic independence. The UAE would like to emulate Qatar.
Other lessons in strategic independence can be drawn from the nations that surround China. These are the very actors that the USA will need in any policy of slowing and containing China’s growth. At the same time they all depend heavily on China for trade and technology. If these countries wish to preserve their security and economic strength, they will be obliged to accommodate the interest of both China and the USA. East Asian countries, Australia included, would prefer to have it both ways, preserving the status quo. But if China pushes hard, its neighbors will be forced to choose between the security provided by the USA and the prosperity that depends, to a large extent, on China. The idea of neutrality for the countries surrounded China could be a solution, which will reduce tensions in the region.
In Central Asia the shift away from Russia began immediately after the breakup of the Soviet Union, though the historical and cultural ties remain strong. China’s Belt and Road strategy aims directly at Central Asia and beyond, providing a second strong pole of attraction for countries of the region. Turkey under Erdogan aspires to increased influence, especially in those countries speaking a Turkic language. This conjunction, coupled with dynamic economic development, should allow central Asian governments to implement – carefully – policies of strategic independence. At the same time Turkmenistan, whose neutral status was recognized by the UN General Assembly in 1995, maintains equal relations with all countries, cooperating with China, Russia, the US, the EU, and Iran without taking sides. This allows it to diversify its foreign policy and economic partnerships, benefiting from competition between major powers. Its neutral status increases investor and partner confidence in energy transportation and helps it act as a “bridge” between Asia and Europe along energy and transport routes. Turkmenistan’s internationalized neutrality through the UN, supported by economic diplomacy, has become an international brand of predictability.
African nations have largely succeeded in loosening the ties that bound them to the European colonial powers. China has moved in strongly, creating new infrastructure, and long term debt, as well as acquiring land for agriculture. Russia has experimented, mostly unsuccessfully, with military support to governments and rebels. US interests are limited to commerce and occasional peacemaking initiatives. In this climate, there is scope for strategic independence in some cases with neutrality elements, or at least room for bargaining.
European stability and Neutrality Alliance
The situation in Eastern Europe is complicated. Ukraine in a way illustrates the dangers posed by a situation where there is no buffer between two powers. Hundreds of thousands of deaths and a devastated country as a result of the competition between the West and Russia on that territory. Russia has made recognized neutrality for Ukraine one of its key conditions for ending the war and the USA would certainly go along with this element of a solution, but many of the European NATO countries would not. This question is on the table on the peace negotiations.
Moldova has always suffered from being historically held «hostage» to a “gray” or buffer zone, unable to capitalize on its position. Situated on the fault line between the EU and Russia, directly bordering Ukraine, where the war continues, it remains vulnerable to external pressure and internal instability. Its constitution enshrines neutrality, the result of domestic political consensus in 1994. Today 78% of population believe neutrality is in Moldova’s national interest, capable of serving as a guarantee of peace, according to polls conducted in 2025, shows the society mood, tired of energy and economic crises. Moldova’s European integration looks like accelerated, but the current government views neutrality as a constitutional obstacle on the path to EU membership, which in practice is not the case. Austria is a good example. Moldovan government is also increasing defense spending, even though more than a third of republic population lives in absolute poverty.
In Austria, neutrality is central to its identity. This concept, as in Switzerland, has a distinctly positive connotation. However, in reality, the country faces a complex European security environment, driven by the protracted war in Ukraine, pressure on neutrality from the growing great power rivalry, and rising EU expectations for defense cooperation. Keeping in mind, that thanks to neutrality Vienna became a diplomatic hub, a world-class venue for the UN Office, the OSCE, OPEC, etc. after joining the EU, Austria maintained its neutrality. Today, still 75% of the Austrian population supports the country remaining neutral. Perhaps by strengthening Austria's role as an international platform, forming a network of conflict mediation partners (Switzerland, UN) and adopting a renewed concept of active neutrality, Austria could significantly strengthen its security and influence in the EU.
Hungary experiences isolation within the EU, but pragmatically pursues its national interests. “Eastern European outlier” can hardly be called Putin's friend, as it votes for sanctions against Russia, but negotiates with Trump so that they do not affect Hungary. Orbán's policy could be described as a fight for a strategic independence and economic interests with elements of neutrality within the EU.
This partly applies to Georgia, an Eastern European country perceived as pro-Russian. But it is really the case, if diplomatic relations have not yet been established between Russia and Georgia? However, by maintaining trade relations with China, the US, the EU, the Central Asia countries, and Russia, the country has been demonstrating a growing GDP about 10% for several years now.
A buffer zone with pro-neutrality position from the Arctic to the Black Sea would have been the best outcome for European stability. The strategic independence with the pro-neutrality policy has a promising future. Many nations enjoy the necessary preconditions for the policy and are more and more clear that they see the advantages of it. Who knows, perhaps the superpowers, in an accession of rationality, will come to see that buffer states with the neutrality status are in their interest too.
Contemporary Indian thinker and scholar Sandeep Waslekar, author of the bestselling book "World Without War," consider neutrality in today’s world as essential. He advocates the creation of a Council of Neutral Nations within the United Nations. Its primary role would be to mediate conflicts between major powers. Neutral countries, more interested in their own independence than in the struggle for global domination, are better suited to put forward reasonable proposals.
How can such a coalition be formed? Governments around the world have so far shown little resolve on the issue of peace. Should civil society take a role in fostering this process and providing inspiration in building an Alliance of neutral states? A global consciousness is emerging aimed at promoting the common good and peace.https://www.vision-gt.eu/publications1/analytical-dossier/life-in-the-buffer-zones-and-neutrality-alliance/
Ambassador Brunson McKinley is a retired American Foreign Service officer with numerous posts in Europe, Asia and the Americas. In 1998 he settled in Geneva as Director General of the International Organization for Migration and has remained there as an independent foreign policy analyst.
Katy Cojuhari is a civil diplomacy professional with 20 years of journalistic background, the author of the book “Building Peace: Moldova&Switzerland “, co-founder of the Geneva Center for Neutrality.
