These were the images around this time 23 years ago — the last occasion there was war in Europe.

Some 1.5m people fled Kosovo between March and June 1999, almost 90% of its population — a campaign of ethnic cleansing by Serbian and Yugoslav armed forces, mirroring their strategy in Bosnia earlier in the decade.

And here we are, in February 2022, seeing a similar exodus of people in Ukraine. 

The UN Refugee Agency on Sunday said that almost 370,000 people had fled into Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Moldova.

That number will grow.

Ukrainian figures show that, by Saturday, more than 210 Ukrainian people had been killed, including six children, and more than 1,100 people injured, including 100 children.

This toll will only mount.

How, many ask, can this be happening again in Europe? Surely, the EU can not just stand idly by again?

In Ireland, the options are entangled in the stranglehold of neutrality, as however defined.

Back during the war in Bosnia — when the reality of ethnic cleansing and genocide was plain for all to see — and again in Kosovo, swathes of the so-called “hard left” or “No to War” movement opposed Nato action against Serbia.

Their number one priority was opposing Nato — primarily the US — and the moral imperative to protect innocent people seemed, to many observers, to be a distant second.

That attitude is again present with Ukraine, where opposing ‘Nato imperialism’ is given the same ranking as criticising Putin's invasion of a sovereign country.

The position that has developed in Ireland is that because we are neutral, we can not intervene militarily in a war, even one with a clear aggressor.

On Saturday, Sinn Féin Senator and former MEP Lynn Boylan told RTÉ she and her party were proud of the country’s neutrality.

“Sinn Féin is consistent,” she said, “we’re opposed to military conflicts, we’re opposed to war … we are a neutral state.

“We do not agree with Nato or military intervention. I will not apologise for not supporting war, whether it's Russia, whether it's America,” she said, before raising the bogeyman of a European army.

But where does this leave Ireland in protecting the lives of innocent civilians in wars like those in Bosnia, Kosovo or Ukraine? 

How does Ireland stand up to military aggressors like Putin? 

Do we just quote neutrality, as if it is an edict from God, and stay sitting on the fence?

As many experts have pointed out, neutrality is not enshrined in our Constitution, nor is it provided for in any legislation. 

It is a traditional policy, most recently articulated in the 2015 White Paper on Defence, which stated that Ireland will continue its policy of “military neutrality”.

This means Ireland will not be a member of a military alliance and not participate in common or mutual defence arrangements.

In public discourse, ‘neutrality’ and ‘military neutrality’ have become conflated and confused.

Ireland operates in a mental straightjacket: we will not become involved militarily in wars at all, even off our own bat.

In the last week, Ireland’s political leaders have stated that while we are militarily neutral, we are most definitely not ‘politically neutral’ on the Ukraine conflict.

But what is the rational basis of this distinction? If the distinction makes sense and is morally justifiable, then let that conclusion be the result of clear and calm debate and discussion.

Germany agreed in the last week to provide the Ukrainian military with weaponry — a reversal of a long-standing policy.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz said: “We need to support Ukraine in its hour of desperate need. There is no other response possible to Putin’s aggression.” 

Could Ireland provide military equipment — like our Javelin’s anti-tank weapons — to be used against Russian tanks? This would limit risk to civilians from more indiscriminate weapons. If not, why not?

In a dramatic development yesterday, the EU Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, revealed a proposal which, she said, for the first time will allow the EU to “finance the purchase and delivery of weapons and equipment to a country under attack”.

The EU’s foreign affairs chief Joseph Borrell said he would propose to foreign ministers using the EU Peace Facility for two emergency measures: To finance the supply of lethal material to the Ukrainian army and urgently-needed fuel and protective equipment. 

“The last taboo has fallen,” he said, “the taboo that the European Union would not provide arms in a war. Yes, we are doing.” 

Ireland, however, remains "uncomfortable" spending money to buy arms to support Ukrainian forces but is still expected to pay €9m to fund non-lethal support, such as helmets and fuel.

Ireland is not the only EU country that is not a Nato member — Austria, Cyprus, Malta, Finland, and Sweden are not, though the latter two states do have links with Nato.

Sweden has announced it will supply anti-tank weapons, helmets and body armour to Ukraine.

It is worth repeating, again, that Ireland has an agreement with a major Nato member, Britain, to allow the RAF operate over Irish skies to deal with an aggressor.

Earlier this month, the Commission on the Defence Forces provided a commendably detailed report.

Although the commission was not tasked with examining neutrality, it did point out that “military neutrality” — as outlined in the 2015 White Paper

— required “a relatively high level of ambition for Ireland’s military capabilities”.

It said this ambition was “not supported by the resources actually provided for defence”.

In setting out three options for the Government, the commission called on the Government and the Oireachtas to “urgently address” the need to define what they want the Defence Forces to be able to do.

It called for a "more extensive and well-grounded debate" on defence and security issues. 

Yesterday, Taoiseach Micheál Martin tweeted: “The world has been changed by this unjustified war on Ukraine. Its people have shown such courage, in the face of great loss of life and destruction. Ireland’s humanitarian response will not be found wanting.” 

But, is that it?