Is it time to join Nato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121955171#Comment_121955171

No, it doesn't.

Norway helped bomb Libya into oblivion.

Irish peacekeepers are the most respected in the world.

That's the fundamental point of NATO. One goes to war, we all go to war.

Stop pretending NATO is this meagre mish-mash of no hopers.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121954801#Comment_121954801

We are 2,000km and two seas crossings further away. Two nuclear powers further away. Three if you count the US bases and subs. To get to us the Russians would have to go through NATO or sail through NATO dominated Baltic and North Seas.

Why pay protection money when we don't need to ?

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121955177#Comment_121955177

The point is that, as demonstrated by what other nations are actually doing, Norway's membership of NATO has not hampered it on the diplomatic stage. Perhaps it's because it's not in the EU, one of the largest economic blocks on the field and so its efforts might not be seen to be tainted by either economic coercion or possible exploitation. More likely, though, it's just because the country has a reputation of being a fair, honest broker. I would observe that the actions in Libya were taken under the "obligation to protect" principle which was developed after the utter failure of UN peacekeeping in Kosovo barely a decade prior and agreed to by the UN in 2005. Srebrenice showed that an unwillingness to use miltary force was just as bad as an inability to use that force in the first place. At least the political problem was easily fixed. Ireland's ability to assist in such a goal remains limited.

Isreal and Palestine went to Oslo, not Dublin, for the 1995 peace accords despite Irish peacekeeping troops having been in the area for two decades. Irish politicians have attributed the fact that it won the vote a couple years back to be on the UN security council (for whatever good that does) to its neutrality, yet Norway was also selected in the same election, so obviously that factor was not a determining one. The two countries selected to be the negotiators of peace in Colombia were Norway and not-Ireland. (Actually, Cuba).

Irish UN troops are indeed excellent. I don't know if they are the most respected in the world, I've not seen any survey saying such, but they are known to be good. So are the Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Finns, Canadians and a number of other countries. Ireland does have diplomatic power in excess of its size... but so does Norway.

Whatever the arguments for or against membership of NATO, and i think the arguments for not are stronger, the diplomatic power arguments are not as strong a one against as many people believe them to be. There is simply no conclusive evidence to support the argument when there is very definitely evidence that NATO membership is not a killer to a nation's international standing nor a detriment to its diplomatic power.

buzzerxx

''Citizens of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and
Yugoslavia have seen how peaceful NATO is.'' Putin.

Disband NATO before the nukes start flying.

Sudden Valley

I can't see us joing Nato especially because of the 2% of GDP spending required. That is a huge increase given I've seem defence spending of about 0.2% qouted as our 2022 number.

I think the Irish are somewhat suspect of large military alliances and of the military escapades of the two most active Nato countries the USA and UK.

buzzerxx

PROPHETIC TRUTH:THE WEST COMPRISED OF USA, UK, EU, AND NATO USED DEMOCRACY AS A COVER OF THEIR WICKEDNESS.

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121956480#Comment_121956480

A classic example of projection there comrade given that the fascist dictatorship in Russia is the fundamental problem. I will take the free open and democratic societies that Ireland and our EU partners are over the repressive authoritarian dictatorship that is Russia no question.

eire4

And there we have it. The blatant pro Russian dictatorship propaganda. Interesting how so many eastern European countries formerly occupied by the Russian dictatorship joined NATO so quickly after re gaining their independence and now we have Finland and Sweden joining as they witness the current campaign of genocide being waged by the Russian dictatorship in Ukraine. Never mind that there would be nothing to worry about at all if the Russian dictatorship withdrew its invasion force and returned to its own country.

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121956443#Comment_121956443

First off that 2% of gdp number is a goal not a binding requirement. Nonetheless it is well know that using gdp is not realistic in Ireland given how heavily the data is distorted by the large multinationals sector we have in Ireland relative to our economies size. GNI* ( modified gross national income) is the measure the Irish central statistics office uses to now more accurately measure our economy.

eire4

Spending 2% of gdp is a target not a binding goal. Nevertheless it is well know that Irish gdp is pretty much a useless number when it comes to measuring the true economic activity of the country. We would never have to spend anything like 10B not even close.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121956732#Comment_121956732

It is well known regarding the gdp gni point but for the rest it has to be made clear to the voters how much joining Nato would cost us a year. Nato countries are constantly being pushed to meet the 2% goal so I presume we will drastically have to increase our spending to reach at least close to that number. Then the question becomes what areao f spending should we reduce to increase that spending in defence.

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121956744#Comment_121956744

Well we should and need to be significantly increasing our defense spending regardless of whether we join NATO or do not join NATO. The current fact we have at best only 2 Naval ships on patrol and sometimes this year only 1 is a prime example of how utterly not fit for purpose our defense capabilities are currently.

The reason why NATO countries are being pushed at the moment to spend more on defense is well quite simply the Russian dictatorships invasion of Ukraine and the clear threat that the authoritarian regime in Russia possess to Europe. But again in Ireland's case it is clear that we would never use gdp as a measure to be able to accurately assess any potential defense spending increases and certainly would not be spending anything remotely like 10b given how vastly distorted gdp numbers are in regards to our economy.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121956820#Comment_121956820

I get that you are confident that GDP should not be used as a measure if we join Nato but that is just your opinion, i havent heard anyone else voicing that opinion. I would be for increasing spending but I don't see the point of joining Nato if we are not going to at least try to meet the goals of being a good member of Nato, which is 2% of GDP.

Russia is not a clear danger to Ireland as much as i dislike ehat Putin is doing in Ukraine. If it goes to the people the costs of Nato membership will be have to spelled out to the voters. And then we can make an informed decision. But you or anyone else can not say for certain now how much Nato expects us to spend if we want to be members.

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121956861#Comment_121956861

Well first off no country currently in NATO is required to spend 2% of gdp that is a goal not a binding requirement. Secondly clearly like any potential treaty there would be negotiations between us and current NATO members. It is well know that Ireland is unusual in how the vast multi national sector relative to our economies size vastly distorts our gdp figures and does so to such an extent as to make them spurious in regards to accurately measuring economic activity it this country. You yourself acknowledged this above when you said "It is well known regarding the gdp gni point".

I have at no point advocated joining NATO. I have and continue to consistent argue that we need to take our responsibilities to be able to develop a capable and fit for purpose defense, security and intelligence capability for ourselves. We currently do not do so as is show in our current Naval situation with at best 2 and sometimes only 1 vessel patrolling our waters.

The Russian dictatorship is a clear danger to Ireland. They already recently cyber attacked our health service and caused significant disruption to our health service and cost us in the region of 150m. From an economic perspective that number pales when compared to the billions the Russian dictatorships invasion of Ukraine has cost us in terms of the costs of the tens of thousands of Ukrainian refugees now living here that otherwise would not be.

Again I will point out I am not nor have I at any point advocated NATO membership. So I have never attempted to say how much it would cost. What I can say though is that the figure of 10b is inaccurate for the reasons I have articulated in regards to gdp being a spurious barometer of Irish economic activity.

Polar101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121956820#Comment_121956820

If I were someone in NATO deciding whether Ireland should join or not, I'd vote no. "Give us a call when you've done something about your own defense first". The discussion is going around in circles anyway - joining NATO could be seen as a way to avoid spending money on defense, except that Ireland would have to spend something in case it wanted to join. This eventually leads to the obvious conclusion that Ireland isn't going to join NATO any time in the near future.

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121956979#Comment_121956979

Thats fair. Regardless of joining or not joining NATO we have to significantly overhaul and develop a fit for purpose defense, security and intelligence capability as we currently do not have that.

vswr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121954993#Comment_121954993

Denmark had to leave the room in Brussels whenever defense in the Union was discussed… them joining changes that… it is more so a political win rather than any significant military win. With their successive staunch anti EU governments, they realised they need to be able to be involved in discussions now, with an issue on their neighbours back door…. EU common defence is more a strategic talking shop with best endeavours (with the onus on each country contributing what they want/can) rather than a mandatory call to arms if something happens. You should read it sometime.

vswr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121955400#Comment_121955400

where did I mention anything about joining? My comment was on the EU Collective defence… which is untested and essentially a strategic talking shop… the onus is on each individual nation on how and where they respond to an immediate threat… there is no NATO article 5 equivalent in the Collective defence agreements.

edit: but I'll throw you a bone so you can come back with some anti-NATO guff….Firstly… I'm neither for or against joining…. However, I am for getting the most bang for your buck… under the new NATO warfare designations (Cyber, R&D, Logistics, supply chain, energy, comms infrastructure)…. with what Ireland are doing at the moment on a day to day basis for various national and multinational entities, it is being looked at that Ireland already contributes circa 1% + of GDP already to security of these elements. Taking this into account, in the long run, it may be cheaper to join NATO, than try an modernise and maintain the Defence Forces to a capability of being able to protect our own back garden in a substantial way.

I fully appreciate the implications from a diplomatic point of view where Ireland's neutrality is eradicated and how that plays out on the world stage, but, these are definitely the discussions that need to take place where in the future, it won't only be Russia that will need to be worried about.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121961808#Comment_121961808

Our geographical position within NATO, not quite Switzerland or Austria though.

Our position within US alliances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally Like Taiwan we make a lot of chips. And a lot of pharma. We don't have a military treaty with the US but we have close ties. So Morocco and Egypt probably won't invade us. South Africa ? Israel ??

The Middle East / Asian countries have to travel even further. Logistics are kinda important.

Ireland has been a member of partnership for peace (PfP) since 1999 https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_84336.htm and UN peacekeepers for a lot longer so we've been doing interoperability for a while now.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_218545.htm?selectedLocale=en we were there too.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_223222.htm?selectedLocale=en

“NATO and Ireland have been Partners for 25 years now. Throughout that time, Irish troops have served in NATO's missions in Bosnia and Afghanistan, and today, they still stand shoulder to shoulder with Allied forces in our KFOR mission in Kosovo. By working together, we help project stability and security beyond our borders”,

vswr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121962132#Comment_121962132

PfP, inclusion in NATO exercises and visitation from leaders of NATO means zero from a collective security standpoint… all it does is show you can integrate with NATO forces… The Irish visit was also on the back of Ireland joining The NATO CCDCOE…

Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia (who joined PfP in 1994, before Ireland in 1999) participated in numerous exercises, particularly in the 90's which started with Co-operative Bridge in 1994, cumulating in Ukraine being considered for NATO membership in 2008, with Georgia being promised accession at the same conference. Belarus had already cosied back up to Russia.

Even as recent as 2022, when Sweden were told you're on your own for the first 48 hrs if Gotland got invaded (something which pushed their accession request to NATO).

All examples of, if you're not in, you have no guarantee of support.

It'll be in the next 5 years, China will have a naval and Air Force base on the west coast of Africa, Russia also have similar ambitions… You immediately lose this buffer of NATO countries you keep mentioning, at that point.

Your thought process is considerably short sighted considering what's going on at the moment.

Like I said, I'm neither for or against joining NATO at the moment. However, I do see it as a cheaper short cut to a security posture potentially required by Ireland when the Atlantic Ocean has considerable un-friendly nations ports 3-4 days sailing away.

fly_agaric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121961711#Comment_121961711

I think I understand what you have been getting at (that in terms of practice or practical actions, cooperating on defence/security through the EU is much less developed than NATO).

I haven't read all of "it" and am no expert, but I thought wording in the EU treaties (i.e. the statement or promise that members will come to aid of each other if one is attacked) is pretty much the same as, or perhaps stronger than NATO Article 5 (of course it also has a weaselly bit at demand of the "neutrals" like us, about it not affecting/conflicting with existing policies)?

As per your other post the promise is "untested", but NATO Article 5 hasn't been fully tested (for what it was designed for) either. We won't really know until (God forbid…!), say Russia attacks a Baltic state, and they look for help. [edit: I suppose both will kick in then. Also may as well link a googled summary of the EU one - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/mutual-defence-clause.html ]

vswr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121965118#Comment_121965118

As mentioned previously, it's basically a lift and shift of Article 51 in the UN charter….. every statement is either an "obligation" or has numerous caveats to get out of it.

NATO Article 5 is straightforward and to the point, and not convoluted in ambiguity, as the UN charter can be taken.

While it hasn't been exercised in full, there is the legal framework and processes in place to respond quickly and effectively, that aren't in place with the UN and EU elements, something which Russia et al fully abuse.

Due to the ambiguity in the UN and EU elements, they will push and push and push, claiming not to have broken any treaties…

NATO article 5 is quite clear with "you do X, Y can happen"…. what is muddy in this side is the Hybrid warfare definitions and is currently be felt out from adversaries what they can and cant get away with under these additions.

fly_agaric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121965345#Comment_121965345

It doesn't seem to be a "lift and shift" (assume that means copy and paste). It is adding something.

"If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter."

From more googling the UN piece from charter (article 51) is merely saying countries have a right to defend themselves, and they also have the right to help defend other countries that suffer "armed attack" if they so decide…not that they have obligations to do anything at all.

I admit that all I have read is the short text of these NATO/EU promises on paper [where f.e.g. terms like "armed attack" are not defined further]. Already agreed with you that there's a lot more substance and weight in practice to the NATO alliance/NATO membership than there is to EU common defence. edit: Also a far larger military "stick" brandished at those who might test the promises, given the membership of the US. That is important.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121965345#Comment_121965345

Good point and an important consideration as what would bring Nato to our aid. As I don't think invasion is possibility currently. Actually I see very few,posters now pushing for us joing Nato , just to increase military spending.

vswr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121965460#Comment_121965460

Obligation is ambiguous, as it's not measurable… obligated by how much, for how long, required how much of X ?

Which then points to the UN charter… which is even more ambiguous, open ended and full of caveats.

That's the point I was getting at… It's a lift and shift as it just says member states are obligated to do "something" and that something should be in line with the UN charter.

It has been demonstrated numerous times in the last 30 years, people will follow the UN charter as they please.

From a defence perspective, I'd be hedging my bets on a NATO response, or unilateral UK or French response (covering their own interests) over an EU response. If we ever get to a point where it's required, the EU will already be knee deep in it or preparing on a secondary front (either before, or directly afterward).

You will probably ask still why bother with NATO then, I still think deterrence is better than trying to react to a global issue at the time, which would have been years in the making and would take years for Ireland to build an effective deterrence against.

Again mentioning Gotland… Island in the Baltic sea owned by Sweden and was probed by the Russian's numerous times before 2022, then approached pretty provocatively by amphibious craft full of men and kit in Jan 2022…. This island, owned by a nation with a pretty advanced military, who partook in numerous UN and NATO missions, was surrounded by NATO states, was told essentially, they would be on their own for at least 48hrs in dealing with a potential invasion.

While I don't think Ireland would be invaded, I do think it has a lot of high value targets which a lot of people are quite happy to secure through ambiguity, due to our location, demographic, neutral stance and lack of previous attacks being taken as the point at which to measure security posture…. which doesn't take into account changes worldwide

If there is some way to increase that defence robustness, to include:

-being able to hold off an attack for 48hrs

-being independently able to view and track underwater, surface and airborne targets within 100 miles distance of shore

-have some sort of effective offensive measures in place against the above if needed

-be able to secure comms and energy infrastructure within our area of responsibility (UN actually states the EEZ as our area of responsibility)

Without a ridiculous amount of money and losing neutrality…. sign me up…

Unfortunately, the shortcut to (and will probably be a necessity in the next 10 years) the above is NATO.

fly_agaric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121965935#Comment_121965935

I am not a lawyer. I don't know your expertise but that clearly says "obligation" (something you have to do, not a choice) and also they are to use "all means in their power". It seems fairly clear. The ref. "in accordance" [i.e. in agreement with] the UN Charter appears (to me?) to be purely about stating that this is permitted rather than a get out (i.e. under Int. law, we have the right to pledge to come to aid of each other, potentially even using military force in response to armed aggression committed against one of us).

The big "get out" clause I see is about policies of neutrality that existed before the treaty, ours, and the Finns and Swedes at time of Lisbon. I left out the key following sentence from the paragraph I quoted:

This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Anyway probably getting lost in the weeds. I totally agree with you that piece from the EU treaties and EU common defence in general is not replacement for NATO membership or rendering latter unnecessary. My point was I do not see how NATO Article 5 committment is that different from the EU treaty promise (on paper). I think the EU is also going to be heavily involved in response though if we ever (again God Forbid!) see some EU member state attacked.

I don't think we need to join NATO myself at the moment, but wouldn't have the very strong ideological opposition to it many people in Ireland seem to have either.

vswr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121965991#Comment_121965991

Obligations need to be spelled out specifically, is what I'm getting at… to use it in a general term makes it open to interpretation (i.e. ambiguous)

"to aid and assist it by all the means in their power"

EU doc states that… but in what way, who dictates how much is considered "in their power", how much does that accumulate in from a financial, medical and military perspective?

It can be argued that's a chicken and egg argument, but, it's that type of ambiguity that has caught the EU out on numerous topics, let alone defence.

What if we have 2 or 3 Hungary's at the time, who stall and cause infighting to a response.

Whereas, article 5 clearly spells out what will happen:

the Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

fly_agaric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121966155#Comment_121966155

Yes, I had read them both some time ago, and then reread when we started discussing it here. I still did (do) not see how much better or more binding on the members the Article 5 text (as posted) is, sorry, so just have to disagree there. I suppose a lawyer or defence/security expert's interpretation of the 2, with opinion of which one is stronger worded, or less flexible, may persuade me.

You are correct that you could have 1 or more EU members welching on it (EU defence) and Hungary is the most problematic right now, but (similar to NATO?) they can't actually stop other members that are committed to it, from honouring it themselves.

Equally one could question Hungary's good faith and committment to NATO's Article 5 promise as well I think, given their behaviour and their leader's relationship with Putin on display over the past 2 years. I would speculate most of the other NATO states do not (fully) trust them either.

highpitcheric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121961711#Comment_121961711

Yeah I've read up on it a little from time to time.

Thats how I know that EU/Csdp has quite a few military operations under its belt. Rather than being so clueless as to think of it as simply a "talking shop".

Was EU Navfor Mediterranean 2015 a talking shop?

Was EU Navfor Mediterranean 2020 a talking shop?

Was EU Navfor Somalia a talking shop?

Were any of the previous 6 EUFOR Missions talking shops? Or the 2022 Ukraine mission?

Do you really think Denmark recently changed its membership status for the convenience of not having to leave the room? Or perhaps are there some other recent developments around about the same time.

Telling me to read up the details, lovely post for April fools day.

Kermit.de.frog

I don't see our feckless approach to defence changing until something happens. If a Russian attack happened on infrastructure in Irish waters and this caused catastrophic communication or other issues then you'll see a sharp change of tone and more urgency to do things. The public would demand it as well.

It's been a pretty basic thing through human history that no one likes a freeloader.

When things go wrong for the freeloader and they require the assistance of those they freeload off that's when change happens.

That's what it's going to take before we get serious by the looks of things.

Ironically it's only recently we had the spectacle of the Russian navy declaring they would undertake exercises in our economic waters goading this state and basically saying "what are you going to do about it?". It took a bunch of fishermen to dissuade them.

That's the level we are at.