Create a European Defence Force and Disband NATO in a few years

So they agreed to meet and then Zelenskyy realized Ireland was a neutral country? One would think his aids would have flagged that ahead of the meeting?

It's just you mentioned it was cancelled, so there was a meeting agreed. Zelenskyy wasn't speaking off the cuff, he knew what he was going to say and I assume he knew Ireland was neutral and he had a meeting scheduled with Michael Martin.

Maybe he didn't want to die of boredom, but that's absolutely nothing to do with Ireland being fence sitters and more a personal dig at Michael Martin and could be seen as a little insulting to the Irish public.

Maybe you should find out why the meeting was cancelled before commenting on it?

I think we as a country really need to have that discussion around our defense and our neutrality stance.

And in terms of predictable, here's what happens next: A shoddy path to peace is negotiated between the US and Russia, that Ukraine and Europe won't agree to, and then the US walks away and the war continues without further help or aid.

It would be a perfect America First move for Trump to pull.

"FOLKS - NO PEACE! Sleepy Joe? Disaster! I made the most BEAUTIFUL peace deal ever, but Europe, very nasty!, and Zelensky didn't want it. Now it's their problem. SAD! Nobody does peace like Trump."

Even the British declined to impose conscription on Ireland in WW1 & N.I. in WW2, despite introducing it in Britain in January 1916 & September 1939.

So what makes you think an Irish government would even consider introducing conscription? Those that want to fight will volunteer.

The United States is likely to dismantle NATO and leave Europe in the next five to ten years as it becomes embroiled in its own significant problems in its own country and can no longer afford a world empire. Europe needs to prepare for this eventuality.

If we take a very cold look at the war in Ukraine, it has been a very worthwhile investment for Europe. Just taking control of eastern Ukraine has ruined Russia as an offensive force. Without commiting any troops. Like it's an unbelievable win. Those who bore the cost are the Ukrainians and so they are owed a moral debt. Sitting in the comfort of our warm safe homes we have at least delayed a war with Russia by decades and really who knows if they'll ever really recover demographically.

It’s only a matter of time before Iran or China or a bunch of Islamists in a cave somewhere do something stupid and US wakes up to the need of having allies

Been thinking about this a lot and creating a European Defence Force sounds good in theory and Europe needs to be able to defend itself, but how we go about doing it is not going to be simple.

To understand where I am coming from, I truly believe that Europe is on the road towards a global conflict with putins russia. And to be clear, I'm saying we are on the road, NOT that such a conflict is inevitable. My hope is that we can take a off-ramp before reaching the point of no return.

It's easy to ask why Europe should even be worried when putin cannot even handle Ukraine with his 3 day Special Military Operation Invasion having turned into a 3 year slugfest. Well, this is an oversimplification of how putin is playing this though. putin is purposefully keeping to a low tech army because it means that the war is a lot slower, but is also cost effective and now Ukraine is struggling to refill their soldiers and restock their munitions. Something russia isn't struggling with. russian manpower is almost endless and it's well known their military doctrine makes use of human wave tactics to create cracks in a defensive line to be exploited later, as opposed to the West that values human life.

But would putin take a swing at a Baltic NATO member? Well, history is a funny thing and when you look back you can start to see patterns.

russian military exercises with Belarus:

Zapad 2021: September 10-16, 2021

Allied Resolve: February 10-20, 2022

Zapad 2025: Scheduled for September 2025

Zapad 2021 helped prepare russian and Belarusian forces for large-scale joint operations, but it was not immediately before the war.

Allied Resolve 2022 is the most directly linked to the invasion, as it occurred just days before russia launched its full-scale attack on Ukraine, with many russian troops staying in Belarus and later crossing into Ukraine.

Zapad 2025 ???

US diplomatic relations with russia:

1991 - US resets relations with russia
1994 - russia invades Chechnya

1997 - US resets relations with russia
1999 - russia invades Chechnya again

2001 - US resets relations with russia
2008 - russia invades Georgia

2009 - US resets relations with russia
2014 - russia invades Ukraine (Crimea)

2025 - US resets relations with russia
202? - russia invades ???

Which brings me to the US and NATOs Article 5.

Article 5 has only been triggered once (9/11), when NATO supported the war in Afghanistan, and crucially no allies outright refused. Every NATO member delivered in some form, with some nations taking on combat roles, while others focused on logistics, intelligence, or medical efforts.

The fact that the US called its allies, means that NATO provided value to the US. For the US to abandon the European members of NATO when it is facing a potential future threat would not only be a betrayal of longstanding commitments, but also a failure to uphold its diplomatic responsibilities.

If the U.S. sets a precedent where alliance members can point to an external threat as "not my problem" and exempt themselves from article 5, it will no longer guarantee the defence of all members from any external threat, therefore completely defeating the point of the clause.

Given the current state of events, as a member of NATO I would not feel confident that the US would come to our rescue if we are attacked.

And finally the European Defence Force.

We need one. That much is certain. But how it forms cannot be the traditional defence force that we're used to. That being a single defence force across all European countries. The only way a "EDF" works is to build on top of well established procedures for multinational operations under NATO, even if NATO has a problem with America.

The biggest challenge in my opinion is that we need to figure out a way to consolidate each countries defence industry because we cannot go on with multiple companies in different countries producing a variety of incompatible military equipment and also depending on the US. Europe needs to standardize equipment, and invest heavily in its own military industry.

Side note: This is a good time to be an aerospace company.

As for US forces in Europe. I would not be so quick to help America pack their things so they get out of Europe quicker. We all know that saying, "Natures abhors a vacuum" and a sudden withdrawal would create a dangerous power vacuum and will almost certainly embolden putin into taking a swing at Europe. We need a phased transition where over <X> amount of years, the US pulls out of Europe and we fill that vacuum, but slowly!

Where does Ireland sit in all of this? Well, we need to give up our illusion of "neutrality" and contribute to the defense of Europe. I have little confidence in Ireland's combat capability, but there are other ways to contribute something tangible. I think a realistic role for Ireland would be a focus on logistics and medical support that can strengthen a European defense.

I guess my final question to ask is: What is more important? Money or your sons and daughters?

Oh and one last thing: Both times America went into isolationism, it coincided with world wars. While it wasn’t a direct cause, there is a correlation between American isolationism and both world wars.

The issue is European defense companies make 4 different tanks about a dozen different IFV's, about 6 different self propelled artillery.

If they wanted to scale up, they would need to pick a tank that works for all, say the Leopard and have the French make them instead of the Leclerc, same for the UK and the Challengers.

Think of all that R&D money and time that gets wasted.

Of course it would make a difference. Development of a new tank costs money, that adds to the per unit cost. It's the economy of scale. If Europe wanted to rearm fast, they would best choose the most suitable equipment they need and mass produce it under license within Europe. Imagine during Covid if each country wanted to develop their own vaccine rather than finding the most suitable one and ramping up production.

As you mentioned, they have done it before with the Eurofighter program.

TBH I think the differences are a plus, it breeds competition and innovation

The Ukrainians are somehow managing with dozens of disparate systems for three years now

The main aim is to outspend and outproduce (and bury at faster pace) the Russian Nazis next door

There’s talk of an additional 300bn in defence across Europe per year, that’s below what Europe used to spend during cold war still

But way above what Russia can even spend on defence (above their total budget)

EU countries spend as they see fit because they have different requirements.

not sure how you came to that conclusion. Any European defence force would include the uk, Norway, Iceland and maybe Turkey as well.

I’m still not sure what you are getting at.

Personally, I would have no problem with the RAF and the Irish Air Force entering in to a joint agreement where a few Typhoons are based here so that we could start to build up the skills required to own and maintain a small squadron of our own.