If being an unaligned country with a large army is no deterrent to Putin's ambitions is it time for ROI to join Nato?
Just some hot air because you have no actual answers to the list of problems associated with Ireland ever joining nato, which it wont.
The only issue coming up at EU level is more common defense integration.
Me 7-0 Nato cucks.
Those just sound like a random list of disparate factors to provide a “semi-excuse” for just sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the issue - and it’s a foolish policy because this will come up at EU level in the (short term) years to come and we really do need to have some sort of coherent thought through view when that arises.
"Russia's ability to cut cables anywhere in the Atlantic" says you.
Much easier in the relatively shallow waters close to Ireland than in mid-Atlantic. Plus much more embarrassing for the EU.
Aside from the fact there are plenty of alternative broadcasting methods so it would be practically impossible for them to stop pictures being broadcast, if the Russians decide to cut major communication lines between Europe and the USA then the last thing on American minds will be "well this is embarrassing for Ireland". It's also incredibly self important for Irish people to think the Russians would purposely time such an attack to occur when the President is visiting Ireland for maximum damage, rather than when he's visiting a major ally like the UK, Germany or France, or an eastern European nation of strategic importance to Russia.
America doesn't need or expect a country that's smaller than many American cities to defend its interests. If they genuinely think that Russian vessels are a real and credible threat they will handle it themselves regardless of if it happens to be in Irish waters and Ireland isn't going to deny them permission, just like Canada allowed them to send jets to intercept a believed Chinese balloon in Canadian airspace - despite being a nato member Canada itself did nothing and there was no backlash that it didn't either.
What use would we be to NATO when we do not even think it worthwhile to have enough ships available to patrol the sea around us.
@Banzai600 And today i see nato are now urging Sweden to join nato asap - can you see the pattern here, anyone ? they could get finland and Sweden in one swoop to join up this military band of brothers..
Nato aren't urging Sweden to join asap Sweden already have applied for Nato membership and it's currently been held up by Turkey and Hungary for political gain ,
Its just another factor to account for.
- Increased odd of the Irish public being attacked by Islamists.
- Russias ability to cut cables anywhere in the Atlantic. Regardless of nato membership or not.
- Russias depleted naval infantry. Our own proven historic ability to muster up 40,000 uniformed defense personnel. And 100,000 irregulars.
- Britains membership while still occupying the north, and the British Cons/Dup govts association with the murder of Irish citizens and subsequent cover up.
- The unpredictable nature of American politics. And presidents.
- The potential for EU support and increased integration with EU common defense, pesco and csdp.
- Our lack of anything half way significant to offer to nato.
I see no compelling argument for nato membership, and more than one against.
Basing our policies on the views of conservative Islamic circles seems like an outsourcing of sovereignty to them. It isn’t as if most of the countries you mention even pretend to try and adhere to human rights.
Yes. We can join NATO in the morning if the Oireachtas so desires it. It is also free to modify or abolish the triple lock if it so desires for NATO missions.
That would still leaves us in the stupid position that we couldn’t adopt any policy at EU level related to defence (even if that policy was that the member states would not have a joint EU structure on it but would instead leave it to each member state as to how they deal with defence).
like in the past , the UK will patrol our outer waters if needed , british navy are already busy with this type of carry on around us and europe, and you can be sure uncle sam is lukring underneath. UK royal airforce have been busy buzzing off the russians in the air too quite reguarly when they brush british airspace or close to ours. And im sure if Ireland was under a credible threat, there would be intervention from elsewhere like UK, US etc.
Myself, ive no fkcuing idea what good nato serve, but their tag line is: " NATO's fundamental goal is to safeguard the Allies' freedom and security by political and military means " - kinda means they can go in and do what they want, no?
And today i see nato are now urging Sweden to join nato asap - can you see the pattern here, anyone ? they could get finland and Sweden in one swoop to join up this military band of brothers.
maybe we do need WW3 , it'll be like a giant reset and we deserve it ?
histoty is history, but you only have to look at the absolute havoc, misery, and millions of ppl killed , be it terrorism, war etc, since the invading of iraq back in 2002 until present time, its all related - there is no superlative good enough to express what a sh!t show its been since then globally.
To be in nato is to be in a military alliance with America, which in conservative Islamic circles is known as the great satan, the country which has fcked up the Arabic world in numerous ways. The top supporter of Israel. The country which invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and helped depose Ghaddafi. Etc.
Britains alliance with America in these affairs has led to numerous attacks on the public, 7/7, Manchester arena, London bridge. All just a quick cheap flight away.
I can see such a terrorist attack for military association with the US as far more probable than Russia sailing 2500km in its already bruised and battered state to invade a largely uninvolved country.
Would it be possible for the Russians to hit the Republic with a nuke without affecting NI (=UK/NATO)?
Can we still join NATO even with our triple lock system in place to send troops for peace-keeping missions?
Or do we need to get rid of it first? I just heard an independent td on newstalk say we should change the triple lock system for more "sovereignty".
The timing of it would lead me to believe that it's not for sovereignty but to open the doors for NATO membership.
interesting
Ireland to consult public on military neutrality in wake of Ukraine war | Reuters
As an example as a direct result of the Russia dictators invasion of Ukraine we are having to spend large sums of money to house Ukrainian refugees. Plus our tourism industry is going to lose money this summer also as a direct result of the Russia dictators invasion of Ukraine as we lose some hotel bed capacity due to the housing of Ukrainian refugees. So yes while the authoritarian regime in Moscow is not bombing us they are hurting us financially and in a significant way.
Finlands joining nato has no relation to EU defense. Finland was always in a catch 22 with Russia whereby Russia kicking off would lead to Finland joining nato, or inversely where Finland joining nato would cause Russia to kick off.
Also worth mentioning that one of natos founding members (Denmark) recently joined EU common defense, which by the same logic would suggest that they dont put much trust in nato. (Perhaps the whole America first thing is a reason for that).
Finland was brought up in the first place because you said "There is probably no other country in Europe that could have put up such a resistance".
This is proven wrong by a few countries. I chose Finland, since resisting Russia is pretty much part of the culture. Building codes dictate that buildings over a given size be able to double as bunkers, the reserve force is huge and active, the Finnish military does nothing but prepare for a Russian attack, and the terrain is the worst conceivable nightmare for invasion.
Somewhat similar stories for Switzerland and Austria. Greece too. Dont have the time, but yeah .... nope.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/22/how-finland-bunker-mania-made-sense
Thanks, didn't think of it that way (that govt. may be freer to act as regards NATO membership vs some stronger EU collective defence agreement given how the court decisions here constrain their ability to change our relationships with the EU/other members).
Was considering it from view that NATO has US and UK as members, and also a proven track record of intervening in conflicts etc., its members actually fighting in wars (whatever ones' opinions on that).
Yes I think the "EU army" stuff is/was used as a scaremongering tactic. A real EU federal state almost has to arise before some collective EU military potentially "fighting for the EU" (vs member states militaries working together) IMO.
There may be increased military/defence related cooperation happening at the EU level without treaty changes (could govt. of the day decide to participate in or not, without referendums?). Would see joint procurement of ammunition, and the use of the EU budget funds to supply with Ukraine weaponry as examples (or harbingers, probably with more to come?)
I know/you know we are moving to or already in a "multipolar" world. It was your contentions that it is going to be better (an improvement over a US led post WW2 or post Cold war order - you definitely do think that) and your positivity about it all with which I disagreed (+ mocked).
Yes I am "trolling" you as I can't help it. I wonder what kind of individual could look at what is going on in Ukraine as evidence for an improved world that is on the way purely because of their ideology/politics.
On your other points, NATO does not seem to be a dead duck quite yet (maybe Russia thought it was perhaps but misjudged a bit). It's kind of busy at the moment, countries even looking to join it again!
Reckless sanctioning of poor Russia, don't you contradict yourself? Part of this "multipolar" world is going to be opposed poles in conflict (starting wars, invading neighbours to expand a sphere of influence would be a clear sign of this). They are going to disconnect their dependencies on each other and try to use what leverage they can against each other.
With blocs there will be no "global currency", not even a kind of ad hoc or de facto one. The Western sanctions on Russia are part of that process IMO, I'd expect alot more of it to come. I'll leave the "petro dollar" to you if economics professor is another hat you wear.
Well, you "think" wrong then. Either you've a terrible memory, or you're taking paraphrasing to a whole new level with this remark! (or you're just being a big old troll... most likely I'd say)
Yes, I have mentioned that we are going towards a multi polar world. The conflict in Ukraine is a symptom of that shift, but not the main driving force behind it.
Another aspect of this shift, is the pivoting away from the US petro dollar. Which is progressing at a much faster pace now, thanks to the west's reckless and irresponsible use of sanctions. When you hold the global reserve currency, but then wield this like a weapon towards anyone who gets in your way... countries are not going to take this lying down forever. Because they know literally any of them could be next.
NATO is a dead duck, and the US petro dollar might very well start to go in the same direction soon as well.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/brazil-china-strike-trade-deal-agreement-ditch-us-dollar
They want into NATO because they believe they need it to ensure their defence.
If you have the ability to unilaterally defeat your biggest military neighbour and the only one which is likely to attack you as it is being aggressive to its neighbours, it isn’t necessary to join a military alliance. You might choose to do so but there would be no real need to do so.
No one is suggesting Finland is joining NATO because it believes it can unilaterally defeat Russia in a conflict yet wants to join so it can offer protection to the other (weaker) NATO countries.
They do believe it why do you think they went to Nato,if it all kicks off with Nato and Russia maps will definitely getting redrawn and not in Russias favor
Well the Finns obviously don’t believe that since the Finns are in the process of joining NATO. It’s unlikely they would do that if they believed they (acting alone) had the capability to defend their existing territory from an aggressive Russia much less to liberate the territories that Russia previously stole from them.
But maps can we redrew at any stage,if Russia attacked Finland next week, Russia would lose the 10% and more territory than they ever gained over the last few decades
They did indeed but they still lost territory and people on a big scale.
That sort of mass sacrifice of its troops is and always has been acceptable to Russia’s leadership. Their history has been one of near continuous imperial style territorial expansion (with very few temporary setbacks) for centuries.
The difference is that should the government decide Ireland should join NATO, it requires a straightforward vote in the Dáil, and the democratic decision is made either way.
On the other hand, in each and every single ECs/EU referendum we have had, there have been people getting hysterical and scaremongering about an “EU Army”, conscription and fighting in some imaginary war somewhere. That has happened even when there was no mention of defence or security anywhere in the ECs/EU Treaties being adopted or modified at the time.
I believe that the people throwing that sort of stuff around know full well they are talking nonsense and, for most of them, it’s just a convenient tactic to promote a Eurosceptic/anti-membership vote.
Hence, to counter their tactic, I believe we should join NATO so the entire Eurosceptic defence attack is nullified prior to any future referenda on EU matters.
(And, for the record, I amn’t a particular fan of NATO (since it’s too reliant on the US) but we live in an imperfect world).
If we had a drone or a torpedo boat at least.
"NATO ? Can we afford it ? Seeing as we can’t afford to get our shît together to mobilise a single navy ship." you say.
Come on now, its not fair to ask the navy lads to go to sea in this cold weather, it would skin you outside, and anyway are they not on their Easter holidays?
They have been isolating themselves for the last 60 decades , part of the propaganda they have been spoon feeding generations ,Nato have surrounded Russia and are planning to invade Russia and bring democracy to the Masses, having every country bordering Russia cements this Idea and only Strong Russian leaders can prevent this invasion and occupation by nato ,
Despite the fact it's Russia threatening it's neighbors and Nato
Wonder why Russia behaved suspiciously doubling their 2 cable exploration ships back and hovering over the undersea cables just off the Galway coast?
Especially at this time of year, when our navy had no ships at sea at all at all. Fecks sake, them Russians time it just after Paddies day when they know everyone is off having a bit of fun in the pub, and then at a weekend, and then they know the Dail are off on a few weeks Easter holidays. Only for a few eagle eyed bird watchers with binoculars looking out at the sea off Connemara, we would not have had confirmation those ships were there at all, we may have thought it was those enemies in the BBC and Sky playing tricks.
Lets hope it was only them auld undersea cable the Russians were having a gawk at. If they cut them when the US President is here and he cannot show his pictures to the diaspora of himself drinking a pint of Guinness it will be very embarrassing though. I doubt if them Russians were up to anything else like offloading a few crates of AK47s to the lads in the new 'RA, that type of carry on died out a long time ago. Naw, my main worry is Biden, we have to keep them cables connecting us and Europe to America.
It almost seems like Russia wants every non-NATO country to join the NATO... Why is this good for them?
