…and so the Russian wanton destruction of Ukraine continues. Weeks ago I said the best thing would be for Zelenskyy to make his country neutral. I haven’t changed that view. It would mean that Ukraine couldn’t join NATO, but if neutral it shouldn’t need defensive support. Russia couldn’t again invade, and Russia presumably would feel happy not to have NATO forces on its borders. Here’s what international law states: “A neutral country is a state that is neutral towards belligerants or is permanently neutral in all future conflicts (including avoiding entering into military alliances such as NATO or CSTO).” And nationals of neutral states enjoy protection too. Then I thought: why stop at Ukraine? Maybe Israel should consider becoming neutral too, to stop the incessant attacks and threats from the Arab states surrounding it. But, after suffering 4000 years of such attacks, Israel couldn’t risk demilitarising. I was surprised, therefore, to learn that some other neutral countries like Switzerland hold ‘armed neutrality’, whilst Austria, Ireland, Finland and Sweden have UN peacekeeping forces. So there seems to be scope to tailor the plan accordingly. And then a lateral thought. If becoming neutral stops lunatic leaders from war-mongering, why don’t we make every nation in the world neutral? Now there’s a thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment