Presidential Election 2025

When there's a rush to massively increase defence funding over any meaningful attempt at peaceful, non-aggressive solutions - and I'm not for a second saying those solutions would be 'easy'

It is not a "rush" - it is probably coming about 15 years late. But more to the point, can you suggest even a vague outline of what one of these solutions would be? Even the slightest hint of a direction you might take to achieve them? It is not so much that it is "not easy" it is that there is no path today.

I would argue that Europe has failed to make any meaningful effort to achieve peace or a ceasefire in Ukraine, happy to let the war continue for now despite the ever-mounting human cost.

This simply does not make any sense and is not reflective of reality. Again, if anything, Europe has been too meek in an effort to avoid conflict in Eastern Europe. Up until 2022 every single approach has been to engage in diplomacy, negotiate ceasefires, negotiate peace agreements, engage with Russia diplomatically and economically. Merkel famously approached them believing that increasing economical cooperation and increasing openness towards Russia would limit their revanchist tendencies. Germany let its military fall into tatters at the same time. It didn't work. Sure - for a time it meant that Putin focused on other theatres of war - and we dutifully went down to the negotiate and ceasefire approach to his invasion of Georgia. When they finally turned back West and invaded Ukraine in 2014 Europe focused on ceasefires and negotiations and went through repeated rounds of negotiations and treaties. Europe made sure not to aid Ukraine in any way militarily to take back the conquered land. Russia repaid that by invading in full force an unprepared Ukraine. They have attempted assassinations on European soil. They have engaged in cyber warfare on all of Europe (including quite likely Ireland).

All of this has taken place against the backdrop of a Europe doing everything it possibly could to avoid conflict.

Prior to the latest invasion the US was openly warning the world Russia was going to do it and Europe chose not to believe them (including Ukraine unfortunately). However as it became clear it was being planned Macron invested considerable effort to talk Putin out of it - doing far more to try and avert the conflict than Connolly has ever managed. He kept diplomatic channels open even after the invasion to find some route to a solution. Initially Germany was so reluctant to get involved it sent a few thousand helmets as its "military aid". Latterly Trump has simply rolled over for Russia, and what have we got in return? Every offer of a ceasefire has been responded to by deliberate attacks on civilians. So much so that even Trump seems to have lost patience.

Catherine Connolly can come out as many times as she wants with her soundbite about "what if that money went towards peace instead" and it will remain vapid and meaningless. If the money had gone towards attempts at peace instead, Russia would have laughed as us and pocketed the money, as they have done for 20 years, and far, far more Ukrainians would now lie dead. I believe that she truly believes what she is saying, but she clearly has no understanding of what she is talking about. She dismisses the significant diplomatic efforts actually made, she ignores the frequent previous examples were her proposed path was followed to ruinous effect. And the end result is hundreds of thousands of deaths at the hands of Russia.

"We should be a voice for peace" is vapid and meaningless when people do not want to listen. She never offers any concrete ideas for what this means. She seems to believe by sheer power of pontification from a position of complete isolation from the outcomes, that you can convince the belligerents of the world to see the purity of your truth. I would like someone to ask her exactly what she would do with billions of Euro in order to achieve this peaceful dream of hers.

You can be concerned about a great many things in the current situation, but putting your fingers in your ears and going "la la la, why can't we all just get along" ultimately simply results in more suffering and death. Luckily for us, it is generally not ours.

I'm not dismissing it. I think she made the comparison very much on purpose and knows exactly the connotation she is making. But everyone defending it seems to be suggesting it was just a general comment as if she didn't know exactly what she was saying. If it was a comment on the dangers of increased military spending there are several better and less offensive examples she could use. But despite being given the opportunity she doubles down on using 1930s Germany as the example.

Also, she wasn't equating Putin's war with anything. She was completely ignoring it and acting as if Germany is re-arming in a vacuum. Also calling 5% of GPD "unchecked" is absurd.

highlight how unchecked military spending can spiral and distort priorities.

This was not the problem in the 30s. The distorted priorities are what caused the increased military spending. The spending was very specifically for the purpose of invasion and conquest. The comparison remains ridiculous, which is why every authority who speaks on it says it is ridiculous.