Gongol.com Archives: November 2024
November 9, 2024
"Neutral" isn't synonymous with "good"
"Neutrality" is a word often loaded with positive connotations. It conjures up the image of Switzerland, whose deliberate policy of neutrality makes it appear to be above the lowly act of "choosing sides". ■ This is, of course, an incomplete view of things -- "neutrality" made Switzerland and its banks a hotbed of money laundering for evil during World War II. It may be to Switzerland's defensive advantage to take no sides in war, but it corrupts the soul to believe that neutrality in the face of evil is a moral good. ■ Vladimir Putin has adopted an even more sinister definition of neutrality which he wishes to apply to Ukraine, saying, "If there is no neutrality, it is difficult to imagine the existence of any good-neighborly relations between Russia and Ukraine". ■ The world shouldn't be even remotely fooled: In this context, he plainly means "neutrality" to mean "involuntary neutralization". Submission to the will of an aggressor. Incapacity to act defensively. Not just harmless, but helpless. ■ No one should expect Ukraine to submit to a policy like that. It is a throwback to the Soviet-era notion of spheres of influence, when big powers used their neighbors as buffers, as though the world were a giant board game of Risk. ■ Ukraine deserves to choose its own future, its own alliances, and its own way of life. The Ukrainian people will have no more peace if they have been involuntarily neutralized by a violent neighbor than if they were to remain openly at war. "Neutral" isn't a synonym for "good".
Despite what fatuous and gullible talking heads tell themselves, John Adams was never a party leader in the Senate. Actual history is almost invariably more interesting than the fairy tales and fever dreams people tell themselves, but it's really easy for the ignorant to convince themselves that fiction is fact.
