If being an unaligned country with a large army is no deterrent to Putin's ambitions is it time for ROI to join Nato?
No upsides, all the downsides. It's a tough decision!
We're a small island located between the United States and the UK on the very outskirts of europe, nothing is going to happen here unless it's due to either of those two. And if that happened, we couldn't do anything about it anyway.
Exactly what I said. The Netherlands unoccupied was a threat to Germany. They 'represented' a threat.
In the minds of the Germans the Netherlands posed a potential geographical and strategic threat to Germany. The Dutch did not threaten Germany. Their neutral position was guaranteed by Germany in 1939 - and violated in 1940.
That point was made earlier, if somebody wants to invade us then neutrality is of little use. We were not a threat to Germany in WW2. Certainly the Netherlands represented a threat to Germany and the Ruhr Valley if left unoccupied.
The difference between our political neutrality and military neutrality reminds me of Bill Clinton talking about smoking weed, how he smoked but did not inhale.
Surely having the UK, the RAF and the Royal navy between us and the Germans helped us more than neutrality in WW2?
Belgium and the Netherlands tried to remain neutral and both were rapidly invaded, defeated and occupied for years.
That's up to my chain of command. The whole 'military is subordinate to civilian leadership' thing.
The distinction between military neutrality and political neutrality has been made.
We did not militarily join in WW2.
Some of us have, mind.
I don't think the Ukrainians right now care very much whether or not democracy is brought to Russia. I don't think the Poles, Lithuanians, Estonians etc care much either, though there's a reasonable chance that should Russia turn democratic it will be less of a threat to those countries.
The goal is that whatever form of government Russia has, the other countries are left the hell alone. That doesn't seem to me like something which isn't worth fighting for.
'IF' Ukraine adopts neutrality and it brings peace then Neale and Leo's push will be scuppered as the value of neutrality will be underlined, the geo-political gameplayers will have to put the pieces back in the chess box too.
Higgins is right to broach the subject as we have experience, Dev's bravery in keeping us neutral meant the people (of a new fledgling state) won, the warmongers who wanted to drag us in to a war lost. History lesson indeed.
Neutrality brought peace? Like it did to many countries in Europe at the start of the Second World War as they were invaded by Germany?
Seriously, Francie, you need a history lesson. You could bring Michael D with you.
No one is saying NATO wants and needs to attack Russia, but well done on the Putin talking points.
In fairness, Michael D was and is on the wrong side of history here given his past utterances and the reality is that Ukraine is a non-aligned country, but has not stopped the Russians from invading it.
Should Ireland join NATO? No. NATO is an abhorrent organization.
Id wager many folks here have never been engaged in direct, violent confrontation. Nor do they have the stomach for the horrors of humanity first hand.
Asking the poor to die in a field in Eastern Europe so "democracy" can be brought to Russia and you get likes on Twitter?
Milqtoast stuff.
An interesting intervention by Michael D.
Higgins remarks on Ukraine neutrality ‘out of tune with reality’ | Ireland | The Times
Not going down well with some, whose plans would be scuppered if neutrality brought peace.
there is no such thing as exclusionary nationalism apart from in your mind, so that is nothing to do with why we won't join nato and join in the nonsense that would bring.
by the way joining nato would equal an expectation that others would rescue us, however as has been revealed, there is no guarantee that other members would do so, nor as there it seems, an obligation for them to do so but to simply meet to discuss the situation of an invasion.
ultimately, we don't need nato to move away from our current defense strategy, we simply need to invest more in our defense forces and keep our military neutrality, ultimately we could never beat a big power in a military face off, so our best defense is to still invest in our defense forces and train them in the use of all sorts of tactics including gurrilla tactics, which would bog the invasion force down.
that is the only option open to us.
I was discussing NATO with Eastern Europeans? How do you know that?
We are Westplaining again to the Eastern Europeans, are we?
I can tell you that Poland, Latvia are others are deeply grateful to the UK and US for the security they get from NATO. All very well to be sitting safe and secure in your Monaghan bunker throwing verbal darts at them.
I wouldn't describe it as 'anti British fervour', it is justifiable mistrust of the British and I would add American agendas and geo-political gameplay.
I must say the use of the phrase "Westplaining" to describe the supine attitude to Russia from some is entirely amusing.
@blanch152
I'd agree that residual anti-British fervour would be a factor in that. I believe it goes deeper than that though, that neutrality is in keeping the national character of the Irish as it developed after independence. We are not a people interested in advancing ourselves through violence, or helping others do the same. I think that is worth maintaining.
Our nearest neighbours and dearest friends are quite capable of defending themselves without our blood and steel; they are members of the most dominant military alliance that has existed in human history.
As for our own protection, there simply is no power we require protection from.
I understand we are in a position of geographical privilege. Ukraine, Taiwan, Poland and Estonia, for example, cannot afford such luxury.
We are lucky.
Some may call it cowardice, I call it wisdom.
Every nation-state that has existed has used its geographical position to its advantage. There's still no compelling reason we should discontinue doing the same.
But they didn't
The "I'm alright Jack" mentality aligned with the exclusionary nationalist position that anything the British do is wrong are the only things that have prevented us from joining NATO. You are probably right that a majority of the population would hold onto this, but isn't it more than a little cowardly that we leave our friends and neighbours not only to defend themselves, but to defend us?
It really is another failed attempt by FG (predominantly, as they sent the troops out on the airwaves to talk about it) to capture the zeitgeist. They are at it all the time and it spectacularly bombs, so out of touch are they.
Varadkar, attempting to blame the state of the defence forces on 'Irish people thinking someone else would rescue them' was not missed either. Wouldn't it be lovely to have a fall guy for swingeing government cuts.,
@markodaly
We're at an impasse over your unwillingness to diffentiate between association/allignment/sympathy and belligerence.
Few would claim we are not sympathetic to and aligned with the West. Indeed, our neutrality in WW2 was biased, for the reasons you outlined and more. Nevertheless it remained neutrality.
The Red Cross definition is imperfect, in my view, as it is agenda driven. The agenda being to shame the states and industries that profit from armed conflict. I'm certain it was written with more consequential military/industrial players than Ireland in mind.
In any event, even within that dubious frame set out by the Red Cross, Ireland still qualifies as neutral. Arguably "non-neutral" acts don't strip an actor of neutrality.
One could, indeed, hear a more apolitical, accurate definition in the pub, depending on who was in it.
Military neutrality means non-belligerence in warfare. A continuing policy of which we have followed and will continue to follow despite current noise.
Lemass' comments, which you quote, were made more in a political/economic sense than the military sense, he was speaking on membership of the Common Market, not membership of NATO.
Spun remarks by past Taoisigh and IT opinion pieces aside, some facts remain:
The State has never participated as belligerent in a foreign war.
The State has never applied to join NATO.
No party has ever run (successfully, at least) on a manifesto that included a promise to join NATO and/or end our policy of military neutrality.
There has never been a public appetite to end our policy of military neutrality.
I'm quite proud of this. I believe it better than having our youth butchered in the effort of improving the position of one great, uncaring power bloc over another.
This entire question is another example of sentimentalism taking over discourse. People see a few images of crying Ukrainians and demand a small, (relatively) peaceful republic with a long history of moral and successful neutrality becomes the US Marine Corp.
Looking forward to terms being reached in Ukraine for many good reasons, the least and most trivial of which being it will end this facile posturing we have seen over our neutrality.
So?
isn't this where you are supposed to back it up with me expressing a pro-Putin sentiment somewhere?
I don't think anyone criticising NATO is pro-Putin, but I do think that your criticism is coming from a pro-Putin perspective.
Do you understand the difference?
Again, I am not the person rehashing pro-Russian and pro-Putin talking points that came right out of the Kremlin. You and your bedfellows are doing that.
I posted an article from 1999 from Gareth Fitzgerald about our myth of neutrality and you have some go about his 'morals'. A classic case of playing the man, not the message. In fact, you totally ignored the article and then started on about your rants about NATO.
So, yea, given your history and reputation you are not being truthful here and you are being utterly tedious to debate against. But that is your tactic, isn't it?
I doan't like NATO for a reason.
You think anyone criticising it, is pro Putin.
And you dare suggest you are being genuine in this discussion.
Again, rehashing pro-Russian and pro-Putin talking points about NATO leads one to think you are not arguing honestly in this debate.
We get it, you don't like NATO.
Do you have anything else to add, or are we going to have to suffer a Francie special, with a few more dozen inane posts from yourself?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/23af546224513cf852af4d456d68d01c.svg)
