If being an unaligned country with a large army is no deterrent to Putin's ambitions is it time for ROI to join Nato?
You are repeating yourself. The end result is the same - NATO is a threat to Putin and on his doorstep. That is why Putin has gone to war.
More countries from the east have requested to join NATO rather than NATO imposing themselves on them. Its a pull expansion rather than a push. Motivated by countries fearing Russia rather than NATO trying to take over Russia.
End result is the same in that NATO countries now border Russia, but the motivation for why that happened is important and is not due to NATO doing anything other than appealing to be a preferable choice than Russia. Russia is the main motivation for NATO growing.
As I said, NATO has expanded eastward which has made Russia feel threatened. It is important to understand their mindset. This cannot be a zero sum game. Russia is the aggressor now though.
No longer in favour of having anything to do with eu battlegroups or an eu army after how France and Germany have performed.
It's neutrality or nato.
Its no coincidence that the land Putin is taking is resouce rich worth trillions
NATO stirred the pot by relentless expansion but it is Russia who is the aggressor here.
Did NATO stir the pot regarding their expansion, or did Russian make their former satellite states want to do everything possible to protect themselves from Russia?
Nobody was ever forced to join NATO. That doesn't apply to USSR / Russia though who have used force to expand.
You are probably right about how the war will pan out. I see it that way too. It’s looking like Putin will win a piece of Russian speaking territory but at a huge cost.
However, I disagree about the US. Russia is the invader here. NATO stirred the pot by relentless expansion but it is Russia who is the aggressor here.
i am glad the US is the dominant world power and not Russia.
When I say "sold down the river" I mean "used as a pawn to further a US interest in degrading Russia / bringing about regime change in Russia". The US would, of course, not intervene - they couldn't give a rat's ass about Ukraine outside using it against Russia. They'll feed in weapons which fall short of the level which might attract Russian retaliation (although they might miscalculate there). The more damage done Russia the better as far as the US is concerned. They are happy to fight to the last Ukrainian, as the saying goes.
Which is why I wouldn't be keen on Ireland joining Nato. Why manacle yourself to an outfit like the US who has a warmongering record as long as your arm? Gaddafi expressed disbelief at NATO coming gunning for him - fulfilling as he did the role of cork in a bottle of pent up African desire to migrate to Europe. Now we have immigrants in the 000's drowning in the Med. Gee, thanks America.
It's the same this time round: Europe is the one who will suffer from US hegemony: it is us taking in the refugees, it is us who will be stuck with them for many years to come, given their country is being wrecked. It is the euro economy that will suffer most and it will be us who have to help pay for reconstruction.
-
We'll see how things develop in UKR. My guess is that RU will complete a pincer movement and isolate 60-100K Ukrainian military. That's the end of the game for UKR. It'll either be submit to RU demands (i.e. a chunk of UKR cleaved off for independence / Crimea permanently ceded to RU / no joining NATO + no foreign troops on UKR soil) or have RU pound the UKR army into the dust and then turn to Kiev. The neo Nazi's will be exterminated/sent to gulags in any case.
RU's original mission more or less accomplished?
I disagree that Ukraine is being ‘sold down the river’ by the US. US military intervention would likely lead to a World War. An assertive approach, supporting the Ukrainians but avoiding escalation is the only sensible way forward.
This conflict is destined to grind to a halt in the coming weeks once Russia can withdraw while being allowed to claim a victory of sorts (albeit a pyrrhic one).
I suggest the US / NATO role may be to persuade Zelenski to accept a treaty which concedes Dombass.
Given Ukraine's being sold down the river by the US, I would run a mile from the idea of joining Nato. I don't think our handing a bowl of shamrock to the incumbent POTUS every year would be enough to protect our interests. Although our allowing ourselves to be used as a tax haven for US multinationals might well add a degree of armour to us.
1) At the end of February Germany's defense industry sends Scholz a long list of all available weapons.
2) Scholz doesn't share the list with Ukraine.
3) Scholz says that there are no more weapons left in Germany to give to Ukraine.
4) Germany's defense industry leakes the list to Ukraine's ambassador.
5) Scholz says that the weapons on the list don't work.
6) The defense industry denies this and leakes the list to the press.
7) Scholz states Ukrainians can't master the weapons in the available time.
8 ) German defense experts tell the German press that Ukrainians can master the weapons in 2-3 weeks.
9) Scholz says the weapons are needed by NATO and NATO must approve their transfer.
10) NATO officials and German generals deny this.
11) Scholz says no other NATO/EU ally is delivering heavy weapons to Ukraine.
12) The US, UK, Australia, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Romania, Turkey, Italy, Finland, Denmark, Romania, Netherlands, etc. publish the lists of heavy weapon they deliver to Ukraine.
13) Under pressure Scholz announces €2 billion for Ukraine's military.
14) German parliamentarians find out that it's really just €1 billion, which won't be available for another 2-3 months, and then Scholz can veto or delay indefinitely every item Ukraine wants to buy.
15) The US, France, Poland, Romania, Japan, the UK and Italy, plus the heads of EU and NATO spend an afternoon trying to talk sense into Scholz.
16) Scholz makes a statement and says Ukraine can have the €1 billion now and order whatever it wants from the list.
17) Ukraine's ambassador says that Scholz removed all the items Ukraine actually wants from the list before giving it to Ukraine and what remains on the list is just a fraction of the €1 billion. Scholz isn't incompetent or mendacious... he just works for the russians."
Ireland should have absolutely nothing to do with an EU army now. Nothing.
Go neutral with a decent defence force or go NATO with a decent defence force. Either way we cant skip on this insurance.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared."
- may or may not have been Cicero
On reflection when you put it as you did yes I would have to agree with you that our stance on neutrality is not clear and decisive but rather is a nuanced one and IMHO that is not a good position to be in for us. I would also agree that type of nuanced approach to neutrality is not going to be respected at all by any potential aggressor. I would even take that a step further that it probably irks other European countries from time to time that we refuse to at least develop a military capability to protect ourselves and are thus a wide open weak spot on the west coast of Europe. A weakness from which we should have got our wake up call when those peace and freedom loving Russian's (sarcasm obviously) decided to do some naval "exercises" off our coast prior to the invasion of Ukraine.
I agree with you as well we need to chose now and personally I would go with option 3 first as we build up our defense capabilities till we are spending about 1.5% of gdp on defense. Then afterwards down the road we can assess whether NATO makes sense for us or not.
Ireland is neutral by default and chooses not to pick sides, although clearly leans towards the NATO and general EU side of most matters.
On the Russian war in Ukraine they have decided to pick a side and say Russia is on the wrong side. That's perfectly fine and doesn't mean that Ireland needs to pick a side in every other conflict. It also doesn't make Ireland a target for Russian aggression, other than Putin may include Ireland in their list of nations who are being meanies to him.
Russia are not about to invade Ireland because they get upset about diplomats being expelled. There are about 30 other far more sensible targets for Russia before they get down the list to Ireland, by which point being in NATO or not makes no difference.
I don't understand what you think being neutral is? Being neutral does require being neutral. Removing an Ambassador is a very serious escalation diplomatically. It sends the message that Russia is entirely beyond reproach.
Here is what the Encyclopaedia Britannica says about neutrality under International Law:
neutrality, the legal status arising from the abstention of a state from all participation in a war between other states, the maintenance of an attitude of impartiality toward the belligerents, and the recognition by the belligerents of this abstention and impartiality. Under international law, this legal status gives rise to certain rights and duties between the neutral state and the belligerents.
Being neutral doesn't mean that you can't kick out ambassadors from countries who are carrying out actions that you oppose, like invading another country without reason.
Kicking out diplomats isn't an act of war, it just says that we're currently not happy with what you are doing, and so we're restricting your access to speak with our government under normal procedures.
The fact remains, it is entirely bogus for our politicians (take a bow Mary Lou) to rigorously defend our 'neutrality' while calling for the removal of the Russian Ambassador. Provocative behaviour done under the assumption that the UK/NATO will protect us.
That's not a strategy. That's a mess.
And why should UK/NATO parents have to sacrifice their sons and daughters protecting us while we refuse to protect ourselves?
I am not calling for us to join NATO necessarily. But if we can going to be neutral we need to be neutral!
Stupid Putins stupid brother would think that Ireland presents a useful place to launch an attack from, but since airplanes, long range missiles, satellites and boats that are not powered by wind or oars it doesn't.
To establish an invasion of somewhere like Ireland you first need to have control of the skys, and the entirity of the shipping lanes between there and whatever port you are launching from. Those things didn't matter as much in the days of viking invasion, now it does.
Ireland is a useful place for the US to liberate Europe from, assuming Russia hasn't quite fully taken all of Europe at that point. That's about it.
For a point to start the next war against Europe or NATO though, Ireland is a monumentally stupid place to start.
Quoting you, Ireland could be used as ' a base on which to build up for an attack on NATO.' You then argue that this however would be repelled by UK forces. Which again leads back to my question - are you happy for UK lads and girls to fight to defend us while we watch on?
If an invasion of the UK began with an invasion of Ireland then it would be being done by Putins even more stupid brother. An attack on Ireland would just leave them open to being taken out by the UK before they actually inflict any damage on the UK, and they still have to then launch another amphibious assault across the Irish Sea to get to the UK. It would be one monumentally stupid and difficult attack to carry out across sections of the North Atlantic and around the defenses of Iceland, Norway and UK. Followed by sitting in exposed green fields on the same island as UK NATO forces, followed by another attack on Anglesey and they would still not have got anywhere useful.
Good point. However if an invasion of the UK would start with an attack on Ireland, should we not defend ourselves? Or do we just wait for the boys and girls from Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester etc to do all the fighting for us?
Do we have any reason to believe NATO would defend us from attack at the moment? They are not defending Ukraine, so why would they defend us?
For NATO not to interveen in the event of Ireland being invaded would be stupid on their part as it just gives the invader time to build a base from which to attack NATO.
Unless there is some as yet unknown resource that Ireland has which means that some other country would want to claim Ireland for themselves, and then go no further, then an attack on Ireland is just the build up of an attack on NATO.
There is reason to at least partially belive even a complete surrender of Ukraine to Russia and things might stop there. Ukraine has resources that Russia wants, they have Russian speaking people and there were until a couple of months ago some people in Ukraine who would have wanted to be part of Russia.
There is no reason for any other country to invade Ireland, other than to subsequently invade another NATO country.
Do you see how utterly confused that stance is? We are not neutral in the war but we are neutral 'militarily'? Whats does that mean? We are against you but we wont defend ourselves if you attack us?
That's the same as Putin's "not an invasion, just a special military exercise". Bullsh1t.
We can call it whatever we like but that does not mean anyone will respect our nuanced position, especially any future invader who we can assume will not be nice to us just because we are Irish and everyone's friend.
To my mind we have the following choices:
We need to choose - we just cant pretend we have a strategy when we don't. Do we have any reason to believe NATO would defend us from attack at the moment? They are not defending Ukraine, so why would they defend us?
The fact Finland and particularly Sweden, who are big contributors to the EU battlegroup already, have determined that joining NATO is a better option speaks volumes.
I was originally of the opinion we should join an EU army but the actions of those two have been so disgusting and seeing their actions throughout the financial crisis I no longer think that an EU army is worth joining. Throw our lot in with NATO. I'd certainly expect the yanks would be far faster to assist us if it were needed than the Germans or French.
The attitude both have shown since Russia has invaded Ukraine has been far from what it should be no question. I still support however the idea of having an EU defense force organised and Ireland being part of said forces. Currently we are also being selfish in refusing to contribute in any way at all from a military standpoint to the defense and security of Europe.
Unfortunately Germany and France have shown they have no one else's interests at heart other than their own so relying on either of these to anchor an EU force is pure folly. Both would sell everyone else down the river if it was likely to cost them in any way.
I would say we have been quite clear. We are not neutral in this conflict and An Taoiseach has said so. We are neutral militarily yes but not otherwise. That is the countries current position. Personally I favour dropping our current military neutral status as well but that is not where we are right now.
Our neutrality is poorly defined. Our politicians cannot articulate it accurately. Therefore, how is any potential enemy state supposed to understand it.
For example, we are showing ourselves to be far from neutral in this current conflict. Ask the Russian Ambassador if he considers us neutral.
Switzerland is neutral but armed to the teeth.
I think we should end military neutrality as we are and our future lies as part of the EU and as we have a clear stance and position on being a free and open society that believes in democracy and stands on that side in a wider sense. I believe that as part of the EU that we have obligations and duties to be part of the defense of those beliefs and principles as well as reaping the benefits that we have and continue to accrue due to our EU membership. That is why in terms of joining a military alliance I favour first joining a future EU defense force as well as upping our defense spending gradually until we get to 1.5% of our gdp.
I don't think anybody is talking about ending military neutrality and just going it alone.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/05bfdb0bc9f81b358ccf2f55186422bb.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62b46f6e38eb602cce4522002caf2975.svg)
