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 mark, I support the protection of our people. The Triple Lock is a part of that as was the moral imperative to send an aid mission into Derry.
'The protection of our people', by giving Russia and the UK a veto over our defence policy.
WUM x1000 Francie.
Meanwhile in the real world....
I guess there will be some claiming that Finland and Sweden are engaging in hyperbole.
How do Russia and the UK have a 'veto' over our defence policy? Was it the pesky Russians and the UK that hollowed out our defence forces?
The biggest danger to our 'defence' is the power swap.
The UK and Russia sit on the UNSC, and because of our Triple Lock....zzzz....zzzz
zzzzz
We have done this about ten times already.
We created the Triple Lock, not Russia or the UK. We want to keep it, Coveney said as much last week.
Is it in the constitution? ;)
It might as well be. For all the bluster of Neale and Leo, they aren't brave enough to proceed on getting rid of it. See Simon's comments.
Protection from what ,
Neutrality nor the UN Will protect us for anything,
"We want to keep it " who's this we want to keep it
No
Makes total sense for Sweden and Finland to join NATO and its good for NATO and Europe also as that makes us all more secure from the threat that is the authoritarian dictatorship in Russia in particular.
No question for me I would without hesitation fully support Ireland ending its military neutrality as well. Personally I favour us first looking at joining with a likely EU defense force as we hopefully gradually build up our defense spending from its current 0.3% of gdp level till we get to about 1.5% of gdp. But regardless of what military alliance or not IMHO we need to end our military neutrality and build up our defense spending to 1.5% of gdp.
We are 100 years old as a country and we haven't been attacked yet.
Coveney stated last week that he doesn't see us getting rid of it.
Were older than 100 years and seen more than one foreign invasion ,
It's not down to covney
He was speaking in his ministerial capacity so I would imagine this government won't be getting rid of it. Leo and Neale haven't been heard on the subject since.
There will be a discussion at some point is where it's at ,
It hasn't gone away nor will it anytime soon as seen with the hack of the hse we have major Issues in cyber and physical security of the country ,
We can't expect others to come to our rescue and then refuse to help others
We can't expect to be cyber secure running out of date equipment. Properly resource them as well maybe?
If Putin wins in Ukraine (and I don't know how he is going to do that) and invades somewhere else...maybe it will be discussed. But I'd say the NATO question is dead for another while.
Doubt it and if putin wants to make a statement on to the world the weakest link and non aligned Us would be a prime example of being the weakest link ,we have no defensive pacts with any other state ,and little or no ability to defend our skies lands or waters
I reckon it's a bit like the turf. Neale and Leo saw the polling and dropped it like a hot ...eh...sod of turf.
If there's any developments I'm sure this thread will revive.
As it is, it's just repetitive now.
Doubt it .
People are waking up to whats going on in the world and how vunerable we are are .
Beside the tens of thousands of Ukrainans coming here will have a say eventually got a feeling how they are leaning
It might as well be.
So its not?
Grand so.
ROFL.
Who is going to stop them resupplying? We're not in NATO
Neither is Ukraine and the whole of western Europe has done everything they can to restrict the activities of Russia and Russian oligarchs. They have blocked finance of wealthy Russians and seized they boats. If Russian state military aircraft and boats had to currently go through airspace and waters of the rest of Europe in order to reach Ukraine, do you think they would be allowed to pass freely?
Why would they be allowed to pass if enroute to supply an attacking force in Ireland whose only subsequent target after Ireland would be to then attack NATO? Why would every single NATO country, except the US and Canada, let that happen via their airspace and waters?
I don't think anyone takes issue with the Irish being weak livered willing to proclaim neutrality between good and evil.
It's for two reasons: cowardice and being cheap.
We don't have to lift a finger, everyone else will put their own on the battlefield for our way of life, and we'll just sponge off them and hide.
It hasn't been thought through though. I look forward to the same people supporting the massive increase in defence spending needed to defend this neutrality. I can't wait until the bills start arriving from the French and the Brits every time they have to send jets in to our airspace because we can't be arsed.
I also look forward to the same people supporting our exit from the EU which sooner or later won't be compatible with any form of neutrality. Finland and Sweden going in to NATO make us look lonely now.
The odd one out.
It's like being the child in the playground standing by while their friends get beaten up.
No one likes individuals like that.
In the mean time it's just an embarrassing fiction.
I can't wait until the bills start arriving from the French and the Brits every time they have to send jets in to our airspace because we can't be arsed.
Any bill for individual incidents would be way cheaper than paying for an equivalent force and maintaining it for Ireland.
Many would say as a sovereign nation we have a responsibility to ourselves and our neighbours to protect our own turf.
It's the most basic responsibility of every nation.
You are falling in to the "we're cheap" bucket.
Not a great look, not a great reputation, is it?
Maintaing a basic air defence is not that expensive incidentally. Every other country does it and more.
It is arguable that the major conflicts in the last century, ww1 and ww2, were exacerbated by military alliances and military treaties. WW1 saw young irish mem being recruited, and then slaughtered, because the UK decided to go to war in support of a Serbian assassin.
A good case could be made to ban all military alliances such as NATO.
It is good to see 2/3 of people here want to maintain our neutrality.
Overwhelming support for retention of Ireland’s military neutrality (irishtimes.com)
Yes, let's ban NATO and alliances. Russia and China would, of course, never take advantage of isolated weaker states... Oh wait
Well, the past 77 years in Europe were free of major wars (the Balkan mess excepted), arguably because of a firm military alliance in the form of NATO. Also WW2 was largely enabled by an alliance between two dictators (Hitler and Stalin), very little to do with any modern defence alliance between democracies.
Whether we like it or not the game has changed, as hard of a pill it may be to swallow we simply can't keep going forward blind the way we are, we're hiding behind the skirts of other countries and it's terribly embarrassing, we're not even doing the bare minimum and other countries/leaders must be looking at us with eyebrows raised...carrying on that way may have been okay before but Russia/Putin changed the game and all democracy's with shared interests are going to have to pull their socks up and we're no exception.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5dc0c82bb5d5c9e7a358d7971a18240f.svg)
