Independent academic Prime Minister Kamol Kamoltrakul has pointed out that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s reluctance is not neutral. causing the whole world to suffer along with the case studies of Finland – Belgium as a successful model in the neutral
On March 10, Mr. Kamol Kamoltrakul, an independent scholar Has released a message on his personal Facebook page “Kamon Kamoltrakul” about the war between Russia and Ukraine, pointing out that it is because Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is not neutral, causing the whole world to suffer. By Mr. Kamol stated that
“The neutral model that Ukrainian leaders did not choose. Make the whole world suffer too! Ending the War with Ukraine’s Neutrality
CNAStefan Wolff and David Hastings Dunn are a Professor of International Security and a Professor of International Politics in the Department of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Birmingham respectively. This commentary first appeared in The Conversation.
One of Vladimir Putin’s reasons for deploying troops to his demilitarization in Ukraine was the need to remove it. “Russia’s dagger,” affirming its neutrality and designating Ukraine’s demilitarized country.
The extent neutrality that can be achieved based on Putin’s declarations that have persisted for many years to the present is:
1. Ukraine must waive its right to join NATO or the European Union.
2.It is a completely demilitarized zone and
3. Not allowed to go abroad (Western world and NATO) set up a military base in Ukraine. and withdraw all the existing military bases
Russia’s vision of neutrality for Ukraine means a Moscow-friendly government in both domestic and foreign policy.
Ukrainian Finnish Model The idea of ”Finlandisation” of Ukraine is widely discussed.
The legal framework for this includes the 1947 Peace Treaty with Finland and the Finno-Soviet Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance Agreement of 1948. Article 8 of the 1947 Treaty prohibits Finland. “Organizations came to propagate hostility to the Soviet Union.” Later, there was a 1948 agreement, although it did not demilitarize. but it is stipulated in Article 4 that Finland must not “Join any alliance The 1947 peace treaty with Finland also reaffirmed the provisions of the 1944 armistice agreement, in which Finland would lease the USSR naval bases for 50 years, which Moscow revoked in 1956.
Another example of a “successful model” in neutral is Possible “solutions” to the current crisis include the 1955 Austrian State Treaty and Belgium’s earlier neutrality. which was agreed upon at the London Conference during the year. 1830-1832 stipulated by the Austrian State Treaty that when all Allied forces withdrew from Austria, permanent neutrality would be upheld as written in the constitution. and the council must follow the constitution by the Parliament announced that “In the future, Austria will not join the military alliance and will The establishment of any foreign military bases in her territory is not permitted.”
Another example is that Belgium has become Under the terms of the London Convention, the five powers of that era – England, France, Prussia, Austria and Russia – acted “a guarantee of lasting neutrality and respect for territorial integrity and territoriality.” The immutable of the Belgian territory
From the above dialogue and discussion All these models The President of Ukraine is elected for permanent peace and coexistence with Russia. Like many countries above, but did not choose, the whole world was in turmoil and suffering from high oil prices. high cost of living Product shortages, unemployed people, which country’s leaders choose a non-neutral side will make their people even more troubled (keep an eye on the new South Korean government). Today, a number of people have chosen a side. and instead is the one who pushes the government to choose a side?”
Read the original post.
