Neutral or alliance?
Discussion statement | This is for ages 10 to 13
Countries sometimes work together in alliances to protect themselves and deal with shared risks. Being part of an alliance can mean sharing defence, information and support if a country feels threatened.
In recent years, some countries (like Finland and Sweden) that had stayed neutral for a long time have changed their minds and want to join the alliance.
Do you agree or disagree with the statement below? Explain why.
It is better for a country to stay neutral or join an alliance like NATO
Tell us what you think
You might want to structure your answer like this:
I think it is better for a country to stay [neutral / join an alliance] because [your reason]. This matters because [say why it is important].
Comments (12)
I beleive it is better for a country to join an alliance because then if other millitary power threaten the country, they will be protected bby the alliance, for instance, check what happened to Ukraine, as he was neutral Russia has seen the opportunity to conquer them and it has bring millions of death. If Ukranie was in the alliance, this would not have happened. This matters because if you are alone and you need some resources they are more difficult to get however, if you are inside an alliance they would try to help you as fast as possible.
So as I see it, belonging to an alliance is a better option than being neutral and along.
I think it is better for a country to join alliances because alliances give countries a collective strength that they cannot reach alone. For example groups like NATO share intelligence, military support and advance technology, which helps countries respond faster to threats such as cyber attacks, invasions, or global crises. When countries cooperate, they can also prevent conflicts by showing they stand together.
This matters because the world is becoming more unpredictable. Issues like war, terrorism and misinformation can spread across borders so no country can fully protect itself by staying neutral. Even countries tat were neutral for decades like Sweden and Finland, decided that joining alliances would make them safer in today's world. Being part of an alliances means a country has partners to rely on which helps keep peace and stability for everyone.
I think that staying neutral or joining alliances can be risky either way. The reason being is because there are some countries that join alliances with another country but that second country can either: betray the country that joined alliances with them and declare war on them or the second country then joins alliances with that nation that tried to destroy the first.
Staying neutral can be risky too because for example, if a country is in war and then the country that DECLARED war takes over the first country, the nation that was inherited is gonna regret staying neutral.
In conclusion, joining alliances and staying neutral are both risky in their own ways.
To be honest, that's a good point. Adding on what you said, countries like UK and Russia (Soviet Union then) would be close allies in both World Wars, now they're not due to the War in Ukraine. The UK keep on protecting Ukraine (Which is fine in my opinion), and they would be a close target for Russia
I think that it is better to join an alliance rather than staying neutral. When you are in an alliance, you can work together, have support and help in a time of need. You also know that if anything hard comes your way, you are not just left to fend for yourself - there will always be someone to provide that support and help that you so desperately need in a difficult situation. As well as this, when we work together, we can create unity through nations that strengthen us as not only countries, but human beings. When we are 'friends' with nations, it lowers the possibility that we might have conflict with them, or but heads.
On the contrary, one could argue that being in an alliance has its trade-offs. If the countries that are in alliance with you are struggling, in conflict, or desperately need help, your country has to be prepared to give economic and humanitarian aid, as well as weapons, doctors and food and water if needed. It means that you always have to have money set aside to help the other countries in need. If you are neutral, you only need to support your country, and no others. But I would argue that it can be even more risky than always knowing that you may have to help other countries - it means that if you need support, there is no guarantee you will get it.
Therefore, I believe that being in an alliance is better than staying neutral. Being in an alliance always means that there will be someone having your back in a time of need, and when we join together, we create a stronger society too.
From my point of view, it is better for a country to join an alliance like NATO because belonging to an alliance offers mutual protection. It also allows countries to collaborate on defense stategies, thus reducing the likelihood of being attacked.
I believe that no country can face all global risks alone. Alliances foster political and economic stability because member countries commit to protecting one another.
In conclusion, in a world with shared risks, joining an alliance can be a safer strategy than remaining neutral.
I think alliances can be very important for countries, especially in a world where no country can solve every problem alone. When countries work together, they become stronger because they can share ideas, technology, and support. This makes them feel safer and more confident. For example, if one country faces danger, its allies can help protect it, which can prevent conflicts from becoming worse.
However, being neutral also has advantages. A neutral country can avoid conflicts and focus more on improving its economy, education, and the well-being of its people. Neutral countries can also act as peacemakers, helping other countries talk and solve problems peacefully. This shows that neutrality can help create balance and peace.
In my opinion, the best choice depends on the country’s situation. If a country feels unsafe or surrounded by threats, joining an alliance can help protect it. But if a country is safe and wants to avoid conflict, neutrality can be a smart decision. What matters most is that countries choose what helps their people live safely, peacefully, and happily.
Overall, alliances show the power of teamwork, while neutrality shows the power of peace. Both choices can be good if they are used wisely and responsibly.
thank you topical talkers 🌹
I strongly believe that a country can benefit from strategic neutrality, along with active global engagement.
Strategic neutrality is not just about becoming isolated; it is about becoming stable through diplomacy, cooperation, and balanced relations.
Being in alliances can lead to increased conflict because alliances can fuel existing rivalries, making minor issues escalate because of loyalty ot one side or another.
Neutral countries can act as mediators, bridging gaps between countries, and can have multiple alliances without favouring one side.
Neutrality can also benefit a country economically because it can avoid military conflicts, channelling resources into development, innovation, education, and infrastructure, all of which are essential in a modern, high-tech world.
Neutrality can also provide a country with flexibility in terms of adapting to new dynamics in the region because it is not confined to any alliances, thus avoiding conflicts that are not in the interest of national security.
However, to effectively use neutrality, a country should have a strong internal defence, strong diplomacy, and strong relations with neighbouring countries, making it active, not passive, in becoming stable, secure, and a deterrent to potential threats.
Neutrality, if effectively utilised, can help a country become independent while at the same time becoming a pillar of stability in a chaotic world.
Eager to hear others' perspective!!!
Yes, it's better for a country to join an alliance or just be neutral. I think that because in war, having an alliance increases the protectivity of the country itself and being neutral would help the country stay out of it, maintaining normality there. However, if it's a big country staying out of it (E.g UK) then it would raise concerns and suspicions.
I think it is better for a country to stay join an alliance because it creates a friendly relationship among allied countries and countrie's security is also increased this matters because when you are an allie with country A and country B is your enemy but it may not attack you because you are an allie of country A and this country B is afraid of country A military power so country B goes to a situation where it can't attack it's enemy.
I think it’s better for a country to stay neutral rather than join an alliance like NATO.
When a country joins an alliance, it might have to get involved in conflicts or wars that aren’t its problem. Even if it doesn’t want to fight, it could be forced to help its allies, which can put its people in danger. Staying neutral lets a country focus on peace without being dragged into fights.
Also, being neutral lets a country help others in different ways. For example, countries like Sweden stay neutral but still support peace missions and help in conflicts like in Palestine, where people need aid and protection. Neutral countries can provide help without choosing sides, which can sometimes make their support more fair and trusted.
Finally, staying neutral can help build trust between countries. When a country joins a big alliance, it might make some countries nervous or angry. Neutral countries show they don’t want to pick sides and can work with anyone to solve problems around the world.
So, staying neutral can protect a country, let it help people like those in Palestine, and keep peace without the pressure of being part of a big team.
I think it is better for a country to join an alliance because it gives the country a helper for when there in need or in danger, also giving collective strength that on country can't achieve on there own. For example NATO share intelligence, knowledge economics and new tech advancing the country making it evolve which helps countries be safe from unexpected attacks or terrorism including global crisis. They can also stop conflict from spreading by standing together also bringing needs of needy country into there hands to provide. A country that I would chose to be an alliance with is a country that was democracy and shows that they have human rights and also show justice and fairness in their everyday life.
This matters because the world is getting worse and worse . Issues like terrorism, war, conflict and crisis also misinformation can mislead countries if hey stay neutral but alliances can also debate on what they should do which will help other nations see how they work things out.For example Sweden and Finland have stayed neutral for many years and are finally realising that they should join forces and work together so they would be safer.
In conclusion being part of an or a alliance for example NATO means they can rely on each others for answers which will keep the world peaceful and full of stability.
I hope this was clear and I get at least 1 or maybe even three stars for this comment see you, topical talkers !
I mostly agree that alliances should be made rather than staying neutral.
It's true that alliances allow countries to be capable of handling problems quicker( like pandemics and global crises) due to the combined military, medical treatment and knowledge. A great example is NATO ( the north Atlantic treaty organization) as their alliance is can stop conflicts by just showing that they aren't alone. If one country gets attacked the others defend it. This is basically the concept of teamwork and can work in multiple different ways.
But it isn't a perfect strategy there are some downsides. When countries create an alliance sometimes there are conflicts in which countries don't want to take part in but are dragged along with it. Then there comes betrayal in the form of switching sides. Countries in alliances trust each other which can be used as a weakness to attack causing extreme tension between two or more countries.
While alliances are powerful they shouldn't be relied on too much as that could create dependence.