When a country remains neutral in a conflict like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it benefits the aggressor. Do you agree with this statement?

Being neutral doesn't benefit the aggressor. It also doesn't hamper them. That's how neutrality works. The idea that it's somehow a gain is just silly.

Being neutral could possibly benefit the aggressor depending on the situation, but it definitely benefits the neutral party.

No, I don't agree especially when 'your geography becomes your destiny'.

Ego Sum Lux Mundi, the answer is YES, and I am an American Vietnam Veteran.

So, when the US and UK were violent aggressors in the 2000s in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing thousands of innocent people, should all the "decent" countries have condemned them and sanctioned them?

When interfering means that my behind will be dragged into something that will cost me my house and the life of a few family members, I think I'd stay out of it.

This needs to apply to every aggressor and every illegal occupier, not just ones we don't like. fwiw, the US does not recognize the International Criminal Court in the Hague, the established place for trying war crimes. Russia doesn't either. You cannot just turn morality on and off when you feel like it.

Some European countries are still buying Russian energy in large amounts. Are they "neutral"? I'm sure the UK could seize lots of Russian money if it wanted to, but it knows fine well that this would end London's place as a (probably "the") money laundering capital. It's much easier to call for morality from others.

This question is worded in a very loaded and biased way. Why mention Russia?

When a country remains neutral in a conflict like the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, it benefits the aggressor. Do you agree with this statement?

Do you agree with both statements or just one?

It is far more complicated than Russia bad, Ukraine good

Tell that to the children who were shot or died under the debris, to mothers who lost their children, to teenage girls being gang raped by russian soldiers, to ruined big cities, to animals killed or dead from hunger in zoos.

if russia would do that to you, i wonder what would you talk then.

there could be no neutrality. If you are neutral to what aggressor does it means you continue your usual trade and other relations, and benefit the aggressor, while the country under attack cannot have any trade at all. How neutrality could do no harm at all? Is it maybe like witnessing a rape and saying ‘Im neutral so its okay It doesnt benefit the raper’?

Is not taking sides the same as remaining neutral?

At some point you must choose a side for decency sake.

But sometimes there are more than two sides. I'm against Russia for invading Ukraine. I'm against Ukraine for its activities against Russian speakers post 2014. I'm for the people of Donbas being able to decide their own futures, although I'm quite ignorant of what their opinions are.

If we could divide the sides into the politicians of both countries as one side and the people of both countries as the other, then I could take sides.

how about to ask about reason and not just care just about consequences?

No. Every country entitled to its own perspective and own policy.

It is one thing to be neutral during differences of opinion.

It is another to stand by and act neutral as one side brutalizes and murders another side, or both sides are being equally brutal to each other in the invasion of a sovereign state.

When you fail to use your voice, others can become deaf to your opinions. At some point you must choose a side for decency sake.

 India is neutral in this conflict and subsequently

is getting a bargain on Russian oil.

If, in the face of what is being termed "Russian" aggression or JUST 'aggression', countries were all required to choose sides 'against' the 'aggressor', America and its few parasitic fair weather 'allies' would be standing alone among all of the nations of the Earth. When it comes to never ending American aggression (America's only real 'foreign policy'), countries tend to mind their own business or be targeted as 'threats to democracy' (aka 'disobedient') and are punished in various blatant or under the table ways. So, in the case of Russia and America's disapproval, 'neutrality' does not benefit Russia or, really, the 'neutral' party. In the case of America, it does benefit America by silencing many critics who would otherwise be in opposition. If America in Vietnam, Cambodia, various South and Central America countries, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, at alia, had to face the censure being heaped upon Russia now, one can only imagine how many lives of men, women, and children would not have been brutally extinguished by 'democracy'.

I don't particularly agree, because anytime a conflict happens there are going to be people with strong feelings about it both ways, who feel that they are "in the right" and everyone should side with them. There&s no point to being neutral if you change your mind as soon as one side takes issue with it.

If an entity remains truly consistently neutral in all things, I don't think they are siding with anyone by definition. They are neutral. Even if it makes some people upset, there is an importance to having some neutral parties.

Now whether you consider being neutral morally acceptable or not is a totally different argument.

It is natural, and very understandable, that a country wishes a world that realizes the benefits of globalization. An inter-dependency between nations that makes war an extremely unprofitable and unthinkable enterprise.

Most countries of any GDP eagerly signed on to globalization long ago; with its promise of global peace and prosperity. And an embrace of neutrality necessary to carry it out.

But something happened along the way. What was supposed to be a level playing field between nations turned out to be anything but.

Turns out that globalization didn't benefit much of the world; mostly because for every country that needed business and economic growth, there was always another country willing to do everything on the cheap, to take it away.

And peace? Well, it didn't slow down the latest large-scale war aggressive war of empire by the strong and ambitious.

Friends with the world? Nice dream. Think you can do it without falling to someone else' dream of empire and conquest?

Yes, of course. It’s similar to someone who doesn’t vote or makes an invalid vote in an election. Then practically your voice is splitted unasked and distributed over the parties or candidates of the election in the relation of their percentage in the outcome. In this case here the same, if the power relation in that war between Russia and Ukraine would be estimated for example as 70-30 or 80-20, then someone declaring neutrality practically supports the Russian side with 70 or 80% and the weaker Ukrainian side at 30 or 20% respectively.

The western media (the propaganda arm of Nato) have brainwashed the masses into believing that this problem started the day Russian tanks crossed the border. This is a proxy war between the US and its vassal state Nato allies and Russia. It is far more complicated than Russia bad, Ukraine good. India is neutral in this conflict and subsequently has some of the best news reporting at the moment.

this depends, it's like the bystander effect in my opinion. Stand there and watch until something bad happens to you or take immediate action to help contain the situation. The former option is great in maintaining your peace, but until when? the latter might unknowingly throw you in a situation you might not be asking for. Skeptical's comment perfectly sums it up. In my opinion, in a world that is unavoidingly interconnected, everybody needs to do their part to maintain the peace or we all get pulled down.

Neutrality? In the face of what, exactly?

Short term benefit, means that the aggressor doesn't have to deal with you and your military?

Short term benefit, that its business-as-usual between you and them without interruption?

Short term benefit, that the aggressor and your foreign minister can issue joint statements, calling on all parties to "show restraint," and you can say that you are all about "peace," without actually making any attempt to promote peace in this any conflict?

Or long term: That your failure to do anything, combined with some nations who have been well paid off NOT to do anything, means the demise of friends, neighbors, and perhaps you, on down the road?

Hard question to answer.