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 think I understand what you have been getting at (that in terms of practice or practical actions, cooperating on defence/security through the EU is much less developed than NATO).
I haven't read all of "it" and am no expert, but I thought wording in the EU treaties (i.e. the statement or promise that members will come to aid of each other if one is attacked) is pretty much the same as, or perhaps stronger than NATO Article 5 (of course it also has a weaselly bit at demand of the "neutrals" like us, about it not affecting/conflicting with existing policies)?
As per your other post the promise is "untested", but NATO Article 5 hasn't been fully tested (for what it was designed for) either. We won't really know until (God forbid…!), say Russia attacks a Baltic state, and they look for help. [edit: I suppose both will kick in then. Also may as well link a googled summary of the EU one - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/mutual-defence-clause.html ]
PfP, inclusion in NATO exercises and visitation from leaders of NATO means zero from a collective security standpoint… all it does is show you can integrate with NATO forces… The Irish visit was also on the back of Ireland joining The NATO CCDCOE…
Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia (who joined PfP in 1994, before Ireland in 1999) participated in numerous exercises, particularly in the 90's which started with Co-operative Bridge in 1994, cumulating in Ukraine being considered for NATO membership in 2008, with Georgia being promised accession at the same conference. Belarus had already cosied back up to Russia.
Even as recent as 2022, when Sweden were told you're on your own for the first 48 hrs if Gotland got invaded (something which pushed their accession request to NATO).
All examples of, if you're not in, you have no guarantee of support.
It'll be in the next 5 years, China will have a naval and Air Force base on the west coast of Africa, Russia also have similar ambitions… You immediately lose this buffer of NATO countries you keep mentioning, at that point.
Your thought process is considerably short sighted considering what's going on at the moment.
Like I said, I'm neither for or against joining NATO at the moment. However, I do see it as a cheaper short cut to a security posture potentially required by Ireland when the Atlantic Ocean has considerable un-friendly nations ports 3-4 days sailing away.
Our geographical position within NATO, not quite Switzerland or Austria though.
Our position within US alliances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally Like Taiwan we make a lot of chips. And a lot of pharma. We don't have a military treaty with the US but we have close ties. So Morocco and Egypt probably won't invade us. South Africa ? Israel ??
The Middle East / Asian countries have to travel even further. Logistics are kinda important.
Ireland has been a member of partnership for peace (PfP) since 1999 https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_84336.htm and UN peacekeepers for a lot longer so we've been doing interoperability for a while now.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_218545.htm?selectedLocale=en we were there too.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_223222.htm?selectedLocale=en
“NATO and Ireland have been Partners for 25 years now. Throughout that time, Irish troops have served in NATO's missions in Bosnia and Afghanistan, and today, they still stand shoulder to shoulder with Allied forces in our KFOR mission in Kosovo. By working together, we help project stability and security beyond our borders”,
where did I mention anything about joining? My comment was on the EU Collective defence… which is untested and essentially a strategic talking shop… the onus is on each individual nation on how and where they respond to an immediate threat… there is no NATO article 5 equivalent in the Collective defence agreements.
edit: but I'll throw you a bone so you can come back with some anti-NATO guff….Firstly… I'm neither for or against joining…. However, I am for getting the most bang for your buck… under the new NATO warfare designations (Cyber, R&D, Logistics, supply chain, energy, comms infrastructure)…. with what Ireland are doing at the moment on a day to day basis for various national and multinational entities, it is being looked at that Ireland already contributes circa 1% + of GDP already to security of these elements. Taking this into account, in the long run, it may be cheaper to join NATO, than try an modernise and maintain the Defence Forces to a capability of being able to protect our own back garden in a substantial way.
I fully appreciate the implications from a diplomatic point of view where Ireland's neutrality is eradicated and how that plays out on the world stage, but, these are definitely the discussions that need to take place where in the future, it won't only be Russia that will need to be worried about.
Denmark had to leave the room in Brussels whenever defense in the Union was discussed… them joining changes that… it is more so a political win rather than any significant military win. With their successive staunch anti EU governments, they realised they need to be able to be involved in discussions now, with an issue on their neighbours back door…. EU common defence is more a strategic talking shop with best endeavours (with the onus on each country contributing what they want/can) rather than a mandatory call to arms if something happens. You should read it sometime.
Thats fair. Regardless of joining or not joining NATO we have to significantly overhaul and develop a fit for purpose defense, security and intelligence capability as we currently do not have that.
If I were someone in NATO deciding whether Ireland should join or not, I'd vote no. "Give us a call when you've done something about your own defense first". The discussion is going around in circles anyway - joining NATO could be seen as a way to avoid spending money on defense, except that Ireland would have to spend something in case it wanted to join. This eventually leads to the obvious conclusion that Ireland isn't going to join NATO any time in the near future.
Well first off no country currently in NATO is required to spend 2% of gdp that is a goal not a binding requirement. Secondly clearly like any potential treaty there would be negotiations between us and current NATO members. It is well know that Ireland is unusual in how the vast multi national sector relative to our economies size vastly distorts our gdp figures and does so to such an extent as to make them spurious in regards to accurately measuring economic activity it this country. You yourself acknowledged this above when you said "It is well known regarding the gdp gni point".
I have at no point advocated joining NATO. I have and continue to consistent argue that we need to take our responsibilities to be able to develop a capable and fit for purpose defense, security and intelligence capability for ourselves. We currently do not do so as is show in our current Naval situation with at best 2 and sometimes only 1 vessel patrolling our waters.
The Russian dictatorship is a clear danger to Ireland. They already recently cyber attacked our health service and caused significant disruption to our health service and cost us in the region of 150m. From an economic perspective that number pales when compared to the billions the Russian dictatorships invasion of Ukraine has cost us in terms of the costs of the tens of thousands of Ukrainian refugees now living here that otherwise would not be.
Again I will point out I am not nor have I at any point advocated NATO membership. So I have never attempted to say how much it would cost. What I can say though is that the figure of 10b is inaccurate for the reasons I have articulated in regards to gdp being a spurious barometer of Irish economic activity.
I get that you are confident that GDP should not be used as a measure if we join Nato but that is just your opinion, i havent heard anyone else voicing that opinion. I would be for increasing spending but I don't see the point of joining Nato if we are not going to at least try to meet the goals of being a good member of Nato, which is 2% of GDP.
Russia is not a clear danger to Ireland as much as i dislike ehat Putin is doing in Ukraine. If it goes to the people the costs of Nato membership will be have to spelled out to the voters. And then we can make an informed decision. But you or anyone else can not say for certain now how much Nato expects us to spend if we want to be members.
Well we should and need to be significantly increasing our defense spending regardless of whether we join NATO or do not join NATO. The current fact we have at best only 2 Naval ships on patrol and sometimes this year only 1 is a prime example of how utterly not fit for purpose our defense capabilities are currently.
The reason why NATO countries are being pushed at the moment to spend more on defense is well quite simply the Russian dictatorships invasion of Ukraine and the clear threat that the authoritarian regime in Russia possess to Europe. But again in Ireland's case it is clear that we would never use gdp as a measure to be able to accurately assess any potential defense spending increases and certainly would not be spending anything remotely like 10b given how vastly distorted gdp numbers are in regards to our economy.
It is well known regarding the gdp gni point but for the rest it has to be made clear to the voters how much joining Nato would cost us a year. Nato countries are constantly being pushed to meet the 2% goal so I presume we will drastically have to increase our spending to reach at least close to that number. Then the question becomes what areao f spending should we reduce to increase that spending in defence.
Spending 2% of gdp is a target not a binding goal. Nevertheless it is well know that Irish gdp is pretty much a useless number when it comes to measuring the true economic activity of the country. We would never have to spend anything like 10B not even close.
First off that 2% of gdp number is a goal not a binding requirement. Nonetheless it is well know that using gdp is not realistic in Ireland given how heavily the data is distorted by the large multinationals sector we have in Ireland relative to our economies size. GNI* ( modified gross national income) is the measure the Irish central statistics office uses to now more accurately measure our economy.
And there we have it. The blatant pro Russian dictatorship propaganda. Interesting how so many eastern European countries formerly occupied by the Russian dictatorship joined NATO so quickly after re gaining their independence and now we have Finland and Sweden joining as they witness the current campaign of genocide being waged by the Russian dictatorship in Ukraine. Never mind that there would be nothing to worry about at all if the Russian dictatorship withdrew its invasion force and returned to its own country.
A classic example of projection there comrade given that the fascist dictatorship in Russia is the fundamental problem. I will take the free open and democratic societies that Ireland and our EU partners are over the repressive authoritarian dictatorship that is Russia no question.
PROPHETIC TRUTH:THE WEST COMPRISED OF USA, UK, EU, AND NATO USED DEMOCRACY AS A COVER OF THEIR WICKEDNESS.
I can't see us joing Nato especially because of the 2% of GDP spending required. That is a huge increase given I've seem defence spending of about 0.2% qouted as our 2022 number.
I think the Irish are somewhat suspect of large military alliances and of the military escapades of the two most active Nato countries the USA and UK.
''Citizens of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia have seen how peaceful NATO is.'' Putin.
Disband NATO before the nukes start flying.
The point is that, as demonstrated by what other nations are actually doing, Norway's membership of NATO has not hampered it on the diplomatic stage. Perhaps it's because it's not in the EU, one of the largest economic blocks on the field and so its efforts might not be seen to be tainted by either economic coercion or possible exploitation. More likely, though, it's just because the country has a reputation of being a fair, honest broker. I would observe that the actions in Libya were taken under the "obligation to protect" principle which was developed after the utter failure of UN peacekeeping in Kosovo barely a decade prior and agreed to by the UN in 2005. Srebrenice showed that an unwillingness to use miltary force was just as bad as an inability to use that force in the first place. At least the political problem was easily fixed. Ireland's ability to assist in such a goal remains limited.
Isreal and Palestine went to Oslo, not Dublin, for the 1995 peace accords despite Irish peacekeeping troops having been in the area for two decades. Irish politicians have attributed the fact that it won the vote a couple years back to be on the UN security council (for whatever good that does) to its neutrality, yet Norway was also selected in the same election, so obviously that factor was not a determining one. The two countries selected to be the negotiators of peace in Colombia were Norway and not-Ireland. (Actually, Cuba).
Irish UN troops are indeed excellent. I don't know if they are the most respected in the world, I've not seen any survey saying such, but they are known to be good. So are the Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Finns, Canadians and a number of other countries. Ireland does have diplomatic power in excess of its size... but so does Norway.
Whatever the arguments for or against membership of NATO, and i think the arguments for not are stronger, the diplomatic power arguments are not as strong a one against as many people believe them to be. There is simply no conclusive evidence to support the argument when there is very definitely evidence that NATO membership is not a killer to a nation's international standing nor a detriment to its diplomatic power.
We are 2,000km and two seas crossings further away. Two nuclear powers further away. Three if you count the US bases and subs. To get to us the Russians would have to go through NATO or sail through NATO dominated Baltic and North Seas.
Why pay protection money when we don't need to ?
No, it doesn't.
Norway helped bomb Libya into oblivion.
Irish peacekeepers are the most respected in the world.
That's the fundamental point of NATO. One goes to war, we all go to war.
Stop pretending NATO is this meagre mish-mash of no hopers.
Norway is in NATO and has a reputation on the international diplomatic stage every bit as good as Ireland's, if not better. (I'm trying to think of any peace treaties brokered by Ireland, Norway has a track record). As the Norwegian foreign minister (I think that's who she was) observed when she was speaking during the Public Consultation in Ireland, what other nations look at isn't your declared alliances, but how you act.
https://tacticsinstitute.com/fact-sheets/fact-sheet-norway-as-international-mediator/
Article 42.7 TEU is basically a straight lift of Article 51 of the UN Charter. It doesn’t amount to anything meaningful.
For instance, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, we have an “obligation of aid and assistance” to Israel. I doubt we have sent them a packet of plasters much less anything that could be classified as military aid.
Its just the old 'national shame' angle.
Denmark was so confident in nato that it joined EU common defense.
Sweden and Finland were very confident on Article 42.7 working, that they didn't want to join NATO.
How much is our soft power worth ?
We've been peacekeeping in the Lebanon since 1978. Irish Aid is probably the most cost effective government aid program around. If we joined NATO we'd lose most of our influence with non-aligned, non-OECD countries. ( EU membership is how we deal with the OECD )
What benefits are there to us being in NATO ? Because there are indirect financial costs too.
We export food to countries across the political spectrum. Irish exports to Middle East & Gulf hit €1.46 billion for first half of 2023
Look at the UK's "special relationship" with the US to get an idea how we'd be treated, but worse as we'd have almost no leverage.
So you want us to waste 8bn a year on defence. Where do you want the money to come from?
When we contribute money to the EU I wouldn't characterise countries that receive money as "sponging" from us.
There you go, we are sponging to the extent of around €8 bn a year.
As I keep pointing out Article 42.7 is the EU's mutual defence clause and has been in force since 2009. Most of the countries that would come to our aid are in NATO so you'd have to explain how an adversary wouldn't draw the wrath of NATO in any conflict with the EU.
Our 2022 defence budget was €1.1Bn. Joining NATO means spending 2% of GDP more on an ongoing basis. Based on Q3 2022 that'd be nearly €10Bn a year.
And we'd be giving up a lot of soft power too by joining NATO. What's the DFA's view on this ?
Expanding our navy is a different story. Mainly because it would be self funding just by stopping illegal fishing.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a605da6df673e065ac5a7e976411f425.svg)
