BY the time this article comes to print, the world may well be a significantly more perilous place for all of us.

The potential for extreme escalation in regard to the Syrian debacle is, of course, plain for any right-minded individual to see. Unfortunately, however, trying to second guess the anything but right or even rational mind belonging to the current occupier of the so called 'World's most powerful nation' is, as we have all come to learn, impossible.

The consequences for places such as Cyprus where the British part of the Trump-led coalition may be launched from, will be severe and, no doubt, lead in the long term, to the Cypriots campaigning for the British to pack their bags once and for all. The American bases in Turkey will fare no better, but the risk of Turkey becoming further embroiled, is of even bigger concern.

That said, the world cannot stand idly by whilst regimes use chemical weapons on their own or anyone else's civilians. It seems to be, however, perfectly acceptable for civilians to be starved, tortured and killed, at will in huge numbers with barrel bombs, artillery, snipers etc, and the world will stand aside and give its tacit compliance, while chemically executed genocide is most defiantly frowned upon.

It's a funny old world of extreme contradictions and major hypocrisy. For example, when people asked whether the England team should boycott the World Cup due to the horrendous nerve agent attack that still hasn't fully played out in the unfortunate city of Salisbury, some people, politicians included, brought out that old, ridiculous saying: “ sport should be left out of politics”. As if there is any part of life that is separated and immune from political influence?

Surely, the whole point of national teams competing, is soft diplomacy and subtle psychological, cultural point scoring, as well as showcasing the hosts' wares for future economic growth and investment from visiting dignitaries, politicians and fans. By attending such occasions we too, as a nation, give support to not only the chemical atrocities in Syria but in Salisbury too.

Therefore, rather than risk an escalation of death and destruction on all sides, as well as a further degrading of the poor moral standing that England has earned itself over the centuries, surely boycotting the World Cup should only be the starting point, followed by excluding and boycotting Russia totally and comprehensively from international sports, Olympics, World Cup, European football competitions, at all levels, eject all its so-say diplomats and oligarchs and resist the urge to turn a blind eye to the billions in dodgy currency, currently propping up the city of London.

Russia, apparently, has an economy the size of Texas, so it shouldn't take long for economic warfare to curtail chemical warfare or war mongering in any form. I wonder why would America, England and its collective of allies not wage economic warfare and hit rogue states where it really hurts as opposed to investing in armaments and killing civilians?

Why do we continue dealing economically with anyone who wages war? Why isn't the United Nations used to intervene immediately with any and all armed conflict, not as a toothless thin blue line that is often ignored by warring nations, but rather as an instrument adjoined to the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation. That would immediately isolate and suspend any and all nations that use killing and carnage as a currency and bring to book any and all contraveners and transgressors of human rights.

I know that would put England in a pretty precarious position based on its past colonial history and its current role in the atrocious situation in Yemen etc, but without a coherent world strategy for the non-proliferation of violence we are continually looking at life down the barrel of a gun.