If being an unaligned country with a large army is no deterrent to Putin's ambitions is it time for ROI to join Nato?
I know exactly what you mean by your definition of it. I don't agree with your definition. This is a pretty basic distinction. Explaining your definition over and over again won't change anything.
"Fighting capacity" is not a well-defined term - which is part of the issue
The issue lies with you. I've explained numerous times and in numerous ways what I mean, which you claim to have understood the first time, yet continue to drag this tangent out with more confusion.
You said "I'm not massively interested in getting into the semantics of what "fighting capacity" actually means though", yet you're doing exactly that. Despite the fact that I've made the point clear in the first place.
Do you really want me to explain it again, because the post above suggests that you DON'T understand the point being made.
It's not a "mission", it's a mandate.
They're permitted to use force in self-defence or defence of their clearly defined mandate. They're impartial, and provide protection and security. So, it's not really that similar to an army, who might be attacking or defending territory/positions. They really are sort of like glorified police units. Not unlike riot police or security detail.
Yet you detail the definition of non-belligerents every single time.
"Fighting capacity" is not a well-defined term - which is part of the issue. I think peacekeepers are deployed in a fighting capacity in the sense that they are tooled and prepped for it, and it is expected they will have to deal with it. This is a difference from deploying specialists specifically in non-combat roles and the distinction is important. Claiming Irish troops are not deployed in a fighting capacity, to me, understates the danger and content of their missions. This does not mean I somehow think they are there to fight for one side or the other. This is all from using a non-specific term that I think doesn't represent the mission fairly. But if you want to disagree fine, I'm happy to leave it there.
This point?
I don't think "non-belligerents" and "non-fighting capacity" are the same thing
Well, I never said they were the "same thing".
You also seem to be labouring under the impression that I think Irish troops aren't allowed take to the gun if and when the circumstance arises. But I haven't said that either.
Because I've made a completely separate point every time and you keep dragging it back to something I'm not arguing.
If you understood the point the first time, why have you dragged this out?
The relevance?
The Invasion of Afghanistan was not a NATO operation. NATO took over command at the request of the UN post-invasion and as part of that operation Irish troops served there anyway.
I don't need it in simpler terms, I understood your point the first time. You are constantly explaining something I didn't ask or reference.
I can't explain it to you in any simpler terms. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But it really isn't difficult to understand.
Thanks for that. Not sure the relevance. But thanks all the same.
Afghanistan is a member of the UN.
I don't know why you keep stating they don't take sides as if I haven't acknowledged that repeatedly.
I don't think "non-belligerents" and "non-fighting capacity" are the same thing because they are clearly geared for fighting and its why we send soldiers and not police. Non-fighting capacity isn't a particularly common or recognised term so it obviously doesn't have a specific definition but for me it refers solely to advisory and training roles. There is obviously a difference between these roles so a distinction is required. So please refrain from explaining their non-belligerent status to me again.
It's limited by the parameters of the UN peace keeping missions that our troops are on. We aren't supposed to be taking sides in a conflict as a combatant in a war. We are there, merely, as peace keeping forces usually involved in the aftermath of someone else's war. That doesn't mean that our troops are immune from getting into skirmishes and fights with other elements in the region, as has happened. But we're not there to seek aggressive action on behalf of a particular side, in the same way as a military force would be in an actual war between two countries, say.
We can't attract people to join our armed forces, due to pay and other nonsense. We would have no hope joining nato as we are not in a position to offer a substantial contribution to manpower or equipment.
They weren't there in an aggressive capacity and fighting on behalf of a particular belligerent
Which is your definition of "fighting capacity". I think it is a far too limited one.
I am aware they are not in country as a belligerent force, but when you are deploying thousands of troops together with at times naval forces and armoured divisions, you are there to engage in fighting if necessary. As far as I am concerned a "non-fighting capacity" means purely an advisory function. Irish and other UN troops fight, and regrettably die, on these missions.
It is for the government of Ireland to decide the best use of Defence Forces, and leaving Russia and China a veto over where we can do so is grotesque.
Irish troops served in Afghanistan under a UN mandate.
sure you russians are so stupid you dont realize that you are draining russia too, for nothing, the Ukraine and Europe has the will to win this one out and resolurces, you don't
were like a cat playing with a little mousey
you had a mercenary army heading to moscow just days ago with no way to defend it
clown shoes stuff
they were doing all the fighting
the whole world was laughing at you
you couldn't even hold on to those territories and had to result to blowing a dam in desperation
you went from a third rate country to a proper turd country
Yes, that's what the propagandists are telling us... but we've been getting this same nonsense for well over a year now.
Russians in disarray, Ukrainian victory any day now. It's garbage.
You've got to seriously be a bit of a simpleton at this stage, to still be swallowing this stuff.
This conflict was over back in September last year, when Russia annexed the four territories. That was the moment the Ukrainians/NATO lost this conflict - and those territories are permanently gone now. Russia will defend those territories for however long it takes, until NATO gives up and goes home. Even if it takes 20 years... and they are more than capable of creating a permanent military dead-lock.
All we've really been witnessing since that point, is Ukraine sacrificing more men and equipment fighting for a lost cause. And that's all we will continue to see, for however long this conflict goes on. Lots of propaganda, but little or no actual tangible progress on the battlefield.
Over 3500 NATO troops killed in Afghanistan alone. You happy to send your son/daughter/grandchildren into a war like that.
In the case of UNMIL, they were they as part of peace keeping efforts in the wake of the Liberian war. They weren't there in an aggressive capacity and fighting on behalf of a particular belligerent. That's the key difference between deployment on a UN peace keeping mission after a conflict has ended and deployment on an active shooting war as part of a NATO led operation against an enemy. The Liberian war had ended and we weren't there as a combatant.
The same goes for EUFOR in Chad, and UNAMET, INTERFET and UNTAET in East Timor.
With ETUM, we're there only as a training element to help the Malian Army, which no longer the case and has moved to an advisory role to HQ instead. This was most likely prompted by allegations of human rights abuses by Malian troops last year alongside the Wagner Group. And our already limited presence has been largely reduced.
That our troops may come under fire during these operations is a given, when the sometimes unstable situations are taken into account. And I never said that either A. they're "rarely in danger" or B. they can "ONLY raise arms when they shot at."
However, they are NOT on any UN peace keeping mission to actively fight a particular enemy as part of particular side. That's simply not their role.
Liberia, Chad, Mali and East Timor were peace enforcement missions.... ET being fully special forces, Mali being Special forces led, with specialist support, then Chad/Liberia being an UNMIL sized deployment.
This idea that the Defence Forces have only been on missions where they are rarely in danger and only have to raise arms when shot at is ridiculous.
No, Never. Ever. Imagine we were involved in WW2? could you want that for your children? Im a 100% resounding no.
The Russian invasion threat to Ireland is overblown and the realm of fantasy but they are a threat to our national security nonetheless
The thought struck me earlier that just as we are living between ice ages( a distant but inevitable concept) we are probably living in a period between invasions from our nearest neighbour. I’m telling ye it will happen again the Brits will be back. We mightn’t see it if we are lucky but our future generations will. It’s only a few short years since 30,000 British soldiers were stationed a few miles up the road. And only 83 years since they last seriously thought about invading. If British needs dictate that Ireland needs to be secured for their interests then that’s what will happen.
They are bigger and more powerful than us and are right beside us have a contiguous land border and they have that imperial mindset baked into their DNA lying latent and somewhat silent at the moment but there nonetheless.
And I don’t hear the RAF complaining about having to patrol our skies. And I don’t hear British military or politicians complaining about us not pulling our weight militarily. On the contrary it suits them to the ground. A strong Irish army and airforce etc would raise more than a few eyebrows across the pond.
I'd say it definitely should go to a referendum, joining NATO would be a huge change in current policy and culture and should definitely not be up to the whims of a government that can change every handful of years.. let the people decide and then you've made your bed and have to stick with it.
They can engage if attacked. In other words they can DEFEND themselves. But they are not there to fight. they are there to patrol hot spots of contention and keep the peace which occurs largely through their presence. But there's nothing in any UN Peace Keeping effort to say that the elements employed on them can't use arms to defend themselves. That would be madness.
And, BTW, the military is all about semantics. The meaning of things become very important when life and death is at stake in a foreign land.
The mere act of joining NATO is not going to condemn Irish soldiers to some meat grinder somewhere as seems to be a common perception
Perhaps not. But, as I said, it will, more than likely, will make us a target for NATO's enemies where we otherwise wouldn't be. Simply put, we have more to be worried about if we join NATO than if we continue on our present policy.
For the record I think the idea that Russian Forces landing anywhere in Ireland is absolute nonsense too, given the fact that they couldn't even handle a campaign in the next door neighbour's backyard. Not to mention the fact that they have absolutely no interest in doing so either.
They may be neutral, but they have and do engage in fighting at times. Being neutral didn't stop 48 Irish members of UNIFIL unfortunately dying. I'm not massively interested in getting into the semantics of what "fighting capacity" actually means though.
And yes, its a very different scenario to boots on the ground as an active participant in a warzone. But again, when have NATO as an organisation actually been involved in that kind of thing? The mere act of joining NATO is not going to condemn Irish soldiers to some meat grinder somewhere as seems to be a common perception. I don't think Russian forces are going to be landing in Bantry Bay, but its equally important to point out the excesses of those who seem to think every member is somehow involved in constant warfare.
Sorry, no. There is no "agree to disagree" here. Irish troops are not involved in an active shooting war over there. They simply aren't there in a fighting capacity at all. They were assigned as part of Peace Keeping efforts along the armistice demarcation line as part of a UN operation which was developed in the settlement between the opposing forces. The troops are not there at the behest of a particular side. They aren't allies to or co-belligerents to either party. They are an entirely neutral element.
This has been the stance of Irish Defence Forces serving abroad since the 50's, whether that was part of UNOGIL, UNTSO, ONUC, UNFICYP, UNEF or UNIFIL.
We do not send Irish troops to these hot zones to fight for a particular side.
Will have to disagree on them not being there in a fighting capacity though indeed they are not there in an active offensive or defensive capacity.
Where have NATO put boots on the ground in an active shooting war? The closest thing is Afghanistan but the invasion was not an Article V mission and did not involve all of NATO, and it was a later UN resolution to ask NATO to take over and Ireland even sent troops there. NATO member states have engaged in other conflicts, but that is not the same thing.
Irish soldiers aren't there in a fighting capacity. They're there as Peace Keeping Forces. There's a very large difference between putting boots on the ground in an uneasy strategic situation and boots on the ground in an active shooting war.
And Ireland's commitments to Peace Keeping efforts are well regarded and renowned.
I don't remember the referendum to send soldiers to UNIFIL.
Nonetheless, Ireland's defence forces (like the majority of NATO) are an entirely volunteer force.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c599644a213e5f18742e0afff85076a6.svg)