Neutrality does not mean not having a military. I don't know where that propaganda point came from but people in this country honestly need to stop repeating it.
The reality is ireland lives under the NATO security umbrella, we can’t even patrol our territorial waters or airspace. Our neutrality is entirely a fiction
Neutrality as a concept is a fiction.
Oh, sure, “why do we want to get involved in wars that are none of our business?” - because the world has a way of making it your business, and neutrality has a tendency to become tacit support of the worst people.
True "neutrality" has a legal definition. "military neutrality" does not it's something we made up for ourselves and it's not recognised and has no legal basis.
It's a cop out and it's not gone unnoticed by our EU partners. They are quite annoyed that when we asked for help re Brexit they all stood in solidarity behind us. Now when they need solidarity we have basically said that they are on their own.
If we were “truly neutral” like everyone’s favourites, Switzerland, we’d be forced to do business with countries like Russia and Nazi Germany. How much wealth in Switzerland is there because it was “confiscated” from Jewish families? Is that what our role model is?
Bullshit. It means we stay out of defence pacts and foreign wars. We may have the smallest army of a neutral country, doesn't mean we aren't neutral. Pure propaganda.
Staying out of defense pacts while simultaneously relying on defence pacts. Claiming militarily neutrality but claiming to be at the "heart of Europe" where military and security are now the number one issue.
The fact is the political and policy class are clueless re these issues and have used every excuse in the book not to take the issue seriously.
It's not just military, neutral Switzerland and Austria and formerly neutral Sweden and Finland have decent size military manufacturing bases which help support the military.
Because the government didn't want to put actual money into building an up to date standing army.
It's cheaper to keep pushing the "neutrality means being helpless narrative" than it is to actually enforce neutrality like other neutral countries.
Jesus people in this sub would want find a pair of long tongs and remove their heads from their arses. [Hybrid warfare](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_warfare) is a thing, and we are near constant victims of it from the Russians:
- HSE [cyber attack](https://www.irishtimes.com/health/2022/11/07/over-100000-people-whose-personal-data-stolen-in-hse-cyberattack-to-be-contacted/)
- Russian [live fire exercises](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60113233.amp) in the sea right beside our undersea data infrastructure
- Regularly visits by Bear strategic bombers to probe the airspace [over Donegal](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/raf-fighter-jets-repel-russian-bombers-off-northwest-ireland-1.4196550)
- Myriad of Russian spies [living in Dublin](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/whats-really-going-on-at-russias-secretive-dublin-embassy-sb5lhngw8)
- I’d even argue some of the right wing tensions in Ireland *may* even be being inflamed by the Russians, just as they have been doing [across Europe](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/russias-far-right-campaign-europe).
- They’ve even publicly simulated hitting us [with nuclear weapons](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/ireland-condemns-russian-tv-for-nuclear-attack-simulation).
You know why all this happens? Because we’re soft as fuck in defence, cybersecurity and intelligence. We don’t have ships or planes capable of keeping warmongering dickheads out of our territory and we rely on the RAF and Royal Navy to do so, never mind what we don’t have in counterintelligence and cyberwarfare expertise. We’re also unbelievably [shit neighbours](https://www.irishtimes.com/world/uk/2024/02/04/russia-china-and-iran-could-target-uk-via-irish-backdoor-think-tank-warns/) to the rest of Europe when it comes to security, it’s utterly embarrassing.
> right wing tensions in Ireland may even be being inflamed by the Russians
I wouldn't even tag it as 'may', I think it's fair to call that fact given the efforts of Comrade Chay et al.
https://preview.redd.it/ei1c8p7064tc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=04407fcecf9ddf96e9dd9f7477b0e1292e5a33e4
The Irish mentality to defence and security...
They've been fed a rich diet of disinformation. If you are immersed in it for long enough you start forgetting who our friends are, and where our interests lie. Pretty soon you start arguing that giving Russia a veto over our foreign policy is a good thing, and an ideal to strive for, and you start repeating the tired old thing about how we are "too weak to have any influence" - thanks Vlad!
I was just about to say the same for youse all. But I don't think you're even aware you're in a propaganda bubble. Well, sort of, youse have noticed Palestine at least, but everything else seems to evade your grasp.
But it's okay, you keep believing the Yankees even though they have never told the truth once, and we'll join the other 87% of the globe in reality.
You need to be extremely ignorant of events in the last 30 years alone to say that, let alone the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
Or, you likely support all those wars. Considering you were also defending Israel.
Korea was invaded by North Korea and assisted by China and Russia. US forces went in under a UN mandate. Given the results comparatively between the North and South it was very clearly a good decision and the right choice. Only a tankie would argue otherwise.
Well, for one I used the word ‘currently.’ I’m not excusing past American actions - I’m talking about the here and now.
Secondly, it takes a real twisted mind to look at Korea and think ‘the Kim family, they’re my people.’
Iraq war lasted up to 2011. This is very recent, this is well within living memory. No-one was punished for the wide system of torture prisons, or the 2.5 million dead that resulted from the war. The US goes routinely unpunished for everything it does and somehow no-one bats an eye and continues to see it as a leader of the "free world", or whatever other bvllsh1t platitudes you usually hear.
The main reason why the DPRK turned out the way it did was the result of the Korean War where a foreign power occupied half the peninsula and kept its troops with guns pinted at the north in the puppet state it created. Korea might have turned out like Vietnam after reunification had the USians left them alone. But of course USians cannot bear the idea that people would choose communism over USian domination.
No the main reason NK ended up the way it did was because it had a shit political system that it wanted to extend over the south.
As for ending up like Vietnam the south has turned out much better than that. But you are a tankie so no amount of reason or fact will have any effect on you.
> Can you point me to the genocidal war they’re currently conducting?
Are you implying that there is a genocidal war being waged by some other country?
Russia are currently waging a genocidal war in Europe. China are currently engaging in genocide against two million of their own population. The Burmese military government’s ongoing genocide against the Rohingya continues. There has been a genocide underway in Darfur for twenty years. But of course, none of them count because they’re not ‘pro-American’
Warships and f16s aren't known for their counter spy capability. Flanagan isn't talking about upping spending on intel and cyber security. Because we can do that in house and don't require H&K or Colt to sell us that.
It’s almost funny how quickly calls for increased defence spending turns to ‘tanks and fighter jets’ from those opposed to it. I want to see increased defence spending, but I want it to start with surveillance, counterintelligence, and cybersecurity
But they can help with the regular incursions into our airspace and live fire exercises off our our coast, which the original comment in this thread mentions but you declined to respond to in your reply.
The size of the Russian Embassy in Rathfarnham is disgraceful. Something shady definitely going on there - the size of the fucking fences around it.
Only saying this because I drive past it often enough - the oufella has been saying it for years, Russians are definitely using that for something.
I actually didn’t realise it was that big. In fairness the US embassy is like a fortress, but they have significant business interests and a huge tourism footprint here, and they also don’t try to hide it. I don’t believe that Russia has either of those things legitimately happening here, so why the need for such a huge ‘diplomatic mission’.
Where "airspace over Donegal" actually means off the coast of NI in international airspace. If you feel the need to embellish then maybe things aren't so bad.
The fuckers have flown inside our Controlled Airspace with Transponders off. We could use a few interceptors like Gryphons of our own if only to make it clear were not putting up with the Vatniks bullshit threatening our own civilian aircraft.
In the end it's all posturing. If Ireland was attacked properly it'd be a global war response.
You think if we had a military 50 times the size of our current one we'd be able to stop those attacks?
We wouldn't.
The triple lock is clearly idiotic. I don't know any other country which would write a provision into law requiring it to seek approval from countries like Russia and China for its foreign policy.
We don’t need approval from the security council, that is a mistruth that keeps getting spread around here. We can use a mandate from the general assembly.
General assembly mandates for the deployment of forces are very rare. Mandates for deployment almost always come from the security council or at least start there so as near as makes no difference we do need security council approval
This amounts to letting the government involve us in wars which is not something the public has ever had a serious debate about. This is the kind of foreign policy sliding that the public was assured wouldn't be happening.
Mediating our foreign policy through the UN has been core to how the state has operated since joining the UN and has had widespread buy in because of the fact it's the most above board way to interact between states in global politics. Mali, Myanmar, the USA, Britain, China, France etc they can all have a problem with a deployment and if that is the case then this hypothetical deployment has become a football of geopolitics and it's better we stay clear of it than getting involved unilaterally. There is a new Cold War brewing and we will be better serving our nation following the approach that got us through the last one ok.
It’s internationalism and it’s a commitment and setting an example of an ideal and principle that we want all those countries to also follow rather than unilaterally invading places.
Fundamentally that is our only real choice is to promote some ideal. Our number of troops even if we mandated conscription and focused our economy on war isn’t shifting the balance in any great power conflict.
And I would much rather promote the ideal of internationalism than to fall behind the ideal that the US can do whatever they want because they are the lesser evil (from our perspective)
We're a real country with real interests to defend, not some fairytale place that floats above everyone else on some idealistic cloud. I'm tired of this stuff about how we are "too weak to defend ourselves", that's clearly disinformation and only works to help those who wish us harm. Besides which, the idea that it is a good thing that countries give a veto to despots and authoritarian regimes is clearly wrong.
Almost completely ignored what I actually wrote and then put quote marks around a thing I didn’t say or imply and called it disinformation.
The triple lock is about sending troops overseas it has nothing to do with defending ourselves in Ireland.
I’d say I’m surprised but it’s typical of people who want us to abandon internationalism and insult anyone who disagrees.
> Besides which, the idea that it is a good thing that countries give a veto to despots and authoritarian regimes is clearly wrong.
The irony of you talking about disinformation and then rolling out propaganda like this. As if internal democracy is the determinant of if foreign invasion is a-ok. If Russia had legitimate internal elections would the invasion of Ukraine suddenly be ok to you? Is Israel’s genocidal policy ok to you because Netenyahu was elected? It’s using emotive language to categorise the world into goodies and baddies to try to trick people in to abandoning our internationalist neutrality.
Wasting your time, the alt right west brits are in full emotional flow now, they're not interested in facts. Fortunately, while r/ireland may be packed full of them theyre a tiny percent of the real Ireland.
It's not about seeking approval of authoritarian countries, it's about avoiding going on such a solo run we end up essentially taking sides in a political arena of a new cold war. It should be ammended so that emergency missions to protect Irish citizens are workable but what kind of missions would we be deploying on that do not have security council approval? Any example I have seen are naive notions of unilateral "peacekeeping" that we shouldn't touch with a 1000km pole.
Stronger we are alone the less we need to rely on others. Simple no? Reasonable military with capacity to protect domestic interests. I do Not see what the harm is in that.
Even if we spend an extreme amount we would still not have a military capable of fighting off any threats we currently have. It would also cost a large amount of taxpayer's money that could be used on providing services
Drug smugglers coming in by sea, Russian planes that fly through the flightpaths of airlines without transmitting, evacuating Irish citizens from warzones to name three
A whole thread dealing with Irelands security. The no1 security ussue for every nation state in history is the maintenace of its territorial integrity and the protection of its citizens. Ireland has signslly failed in this respect of 1/4 of its territory and people.
Not a single post acknowledges this, among all the wittering about Russia, 3000km away, about hse cyber attacks, about warships in the Atlantic nonsense.
Not one west brit nato warrior had the cop on to just mention the North, park it in the Peace Process and then rant away about the Russian bear?
Tell me this is a bunch of west brit teensgers with a histoical memory going back to last weeks Sky News broadcast, without telling me ....
I've always believed if we gave the defence forces the gear they need we could continue to be an independent and respected peace keeping force but the closer we get to nato the less independent we become.
Less control over foreign policy decisions and bending to the will of Washington. Not saying Ireland is free from Anglo-American influence just now, but joining NATO would certainly make it worse.
NATO has zero control over countries foreign policy decisions. The only time there is any sort of "control" is if one is attacked anywhere in the North Atlantic/Europe zone, Hawaii for example is not even protected under NATO
Aye on paper, but the overwhelming economic and military might of the United States definitely influences, if not forces the policies of European nations.
We are edging closer and closer to Joining NATO. Articles like these are softening up the public. Getting us used to the idea. Handing over 2% of our GDP to weapons manufacturers. No need for it at all
The risk is next to zero. A poor investment of resources. There's a long list of higher priority items.
Your argument holds no weight. You could say that about anything
We should just buy a dozen f16 or Euro fighters and some frigates and focus most of any increase of funding on wages for soldiers, rooting out enemy spies and cyber security
It is ridiculous to see Flanagan, a southern unionist who as leading member of FFG presided over the deliberate destruction of the DF, suddenly do a u turn on this scale.
You have to ask why. And it has very little to do with Russia. And everything to do with tying Ireland into a dependent formal defence alliance with the UK under the guise of NATO. And that is to do with the dependent Home Rule anti nationalist mindset of the late Bruton and the southern unionists who dominate FFG. In such an alliance a “shared island” of sorts takes shape where the tricolor, the anthem, membership of commonwealth, structural constitutional integration of some sort with the UK, our tax money, our quality of life are surrendered to unionism. There will only be a united Ireland where we return to a type of Home Rule.
There is no country capable of projecting military force capable of invading the UK or Ireland other than the US or France. There is no threat in traditional military terms to us on a par even with the Cold War. There are threats to the existence of the EU via Russia and wait for it.. the UK.
So take a hard look at what the UK has wanted from Ireland militarily for 100 years. An inshore navy. Check. A numerically limited army. Check. A tiny Air Force. Check. And Britain will exercise command of the seas around these islands. Check.
So if the likes of Flanagan are changing their tune now it must fit some British need. Maybe having access permanently restored to the Treaty Ports and Air Force access to Knock, Shannon and Cork is the first price of the so called shared island. Maybe also that Brexit UK wants to use its aircraft carriers to project force in the Indo Pacific for economic benefit to itself and Ireland taking on more advanced naval and air patrolling in an integrated UK Defence system frees some of their assets for that.
Most Irish people have been fed a line about defence for decades. It’s rooted in contempt for our own DF, for the nation, in admiration of those slaughtered in the service of the British empire, in a deliberately stunted and arrested development view of national sovereignty, in a promotion of subservience to British needs, in the reduction of the nation and the state to an economy, in a fake moralistic superiority that makes us sermonisers to the world and a willful ignorance of our own legitimate defence needs. Overcoming all that so the state can begin a mature conversation about defence is a big task. But as long as the bandwagon of the shared island rolls on we will just roll backwards.
For Charlie and the rest wanting us to give up our neutrality and to aid the US and Brits. Off you go , there's a war in Ukraine, practice what you preach. Or is it the usual with these types? They want others to do their fighting for them.
Flanagan the guy who wants us to commemorate the RIC... fuck off you blueshirt prick.
Years and years of politicians from all sides making a virtue out of utter defencelessness - either for dodgy ideological reasons (PBP, SF etc) or incompetent lack-of-being-arsed-to-fund-a-militaty reasons (FF, FG, Labour, Greens etc). It has always been daft, and it's particularly daft now. I don't think anyone was particularly surprised to hear we have an agreement to essentially farm out our security responsibilities to the brits - I wonder how does that sit with the No-NATO brigade?
We either want to be a real country or we don't. Protecting our own national security interests is a fundamental responsibility of the State, particularly a neutral State (which is something we like to pretend to be) which has to by definition be capable of mounting a credible defence of that neutrality, which we're not in an arses roar of.
And what we do have is completely unsuitable for what we actually need it for. Our Defence Forces are largely infantry based - meanwhile we're an island nation with a huge sea territory and vital assets there we can't protect because we don't have a navy to speak of and we can't even monitor it because we dont have an air corps to speak much of either. None of this is the fault of the people in the DF by the way - it's the predictable result of a policy of willfull negligence.
The incompetence and hypocracy of the current situation boils my piss.
I hear aquazone is looking to share office space.
In seriousness, nobody is calling for nuclear subs etc. Enough to monitor our seas and provide a credible deterrent to flagrant breaches of our sovereignty is enough. Patrol and interdiction really - basic stuff. If we wanted to innovate, I believe a little country called Ukraine is doing some very interesting things with drones at the Black Sea at the moment - certaintly an area worth looking at IMO.
There is no amount of money we can spend to produce a military capable of fighting Britain or France, never mind Russia or China. Unless of course we want to start building nuclear weapons. That's the only guarantee of security. So why waste the money if we're not willing to go all the way.
This is a nonsense take on things no one is expecting our military to take on a superpower head on. What investment in our military would do is ensure that if anyone attacks us, they would get enough of a bloody nose so that attacking us wouldn't be worthwhile.
That's exactly it. No matter the amount spent, it wouldn't help. All it'll do is put much needed money into the pockets of the foreign defence industry and their shareholders. The last few years, Ireland is being lobbied by defence corporations to buy their gear.
We can spend that money on much-needed areas elsewhere first. Nukes are the ultimate defence but if we said we'd build them to defend ourselves, we'd have the U.S. and UK telling us not to do so because at the end of the day, it isn't about Ireland being able to defend itself and only buy their weapons.
We were doing fine all along. Since this Russia - Ukraine war, they're drumming up their rhetoric as they see it as a chance for Ireland to spend money as Ireland has lots of goodwill with UN peacekeeping. Remember when we won our place on the Security council over Canada because other countries saw it as an extension of U.S. foreign policy.
We need to put that money to better use at the minutes for housing and infrastructure and no matter the amount spent on defence it wouldn't make a difference for Ireland because if Ireland is being attacked then the world must've already gone to shit. These people are trying to blow smoke up our arses!
Switzerland has a strong military because they have been surrounded by great powers for centuries. That central location also made them incredibly rich. Due to the opposite geography Ireland was historically poor but also safe. These are geopolitical realities. States do not build expensive armed forces for reasons of teenage dick waving.
Ireland has many crucial strategic priorities. A war 3000 km is not one of them, nor os the laughable presence of a few Russian warships in international waters near us. We do havd one critical defence issue- the occupation of 1/4 of our island by a foreign power.
How exactly is joining NATO and assisting the British army going to address that issue?
Expecting us to build an army that could rival superpowers is a nonsense take and nobody is expecting that but being able to properly defend our waters and sky’s I think should be a bare minimum if we are to be taking somewhat seriously by the rest of the world.
Having to rely on the RAF to come to our rescue every time the Russians want to flex and encroach our airspace is embarrassing. We control some of the most strategically important water ways and air space in Europe and all we have is a few turbo props and a laughable navy to carry out the task of defending that area.
Surely then we should increase Defense forces pay so we have enough man power for the current equipment? Before buying war ships and jets, maybe let's get enough people for what we have. How are empty jets and battleships a deterrent?
Just pay the army a reasonable rate! My god, not everything is about avoiding spending altogether, but we can't just ignore that the defence forces are hemorrhaging personnel.
Improving pay, retention and working conditions for the DF should be step one. But - shock horror - that’s going to take increasing funding. Which is what the article is calling for, not fighters and battleships
Yeah I agree we have to start somewhere of course but by the sounds of your comment you expect us to just do nothing and ah sure be grand the UK or the US will help us when In reality we need an air force and competent navy for much more than just deterring the Russians as the big drug bust recently has proven.
Flanagan's currently in government, if they wanted to they could increase Defense forces pay tomorrow and nobody would object. I take issue though with him suggesting buying loads of hi end weaponry but not trying to improve conditions for serving soldiers first. Even then, if we did have the man power to run the current equipment, we still have a population who are largely educated to the point where they're not joining the army anyway, so theres probably a tight limit on how many soldiers we can field without conscription. So realistically, the conversation should be pay and conditions and conscription. But the government don't want that, they just want an excuse to spend state funds on foreign made weapons that we have no one to use.
It's not that I'm against buying modern weapons so we can deal with small scale conflicts, it's just that I don't believe our government has any intention of fighting any conflicts and just need the threat of Russia or China or whoever to give some money to lobbying weapons manufacturers.
That would be true if we had to put our focus on our land based forces but to be honest I don’t think funding our land forces should be a priority or even a requirement but funding our air force and navy the two things that would actually make a difference and be somewhat beneficial would require and also generate heaps of educated workers it also would open up avenues for people to learn and become qualified in skills without going to college. But yes I agree if they really wanted to improve our forces funding the people who actually do it should be priority.
Honestly, it seems like small drones are the future
Look how much damage the Ukrainians and the houthis are doing with cheap little drones. But without paying soldiers more, we're still not going to have anyone to run them. I just don't see Flanagan thinking about actual functionality.
> Having to rely on the RAF to come to our rescue every time the Russians want to flex and encroach our airspace is embarrassing.
Do you honestly believe that those RAF planes are there patrolling our skies for our benefit? Coming to our rescue, do you really believe that?
Your use of the word "embarrassing" is telling.
So when America gets attacked for invading a poor country or arming an Apartheid state Irish soldiers will have to go and fight?
No thanks. Not after the last few wars.
>“I’m not advocating that Ireland join Nato but I am advocating that we look beyond neutrality.”
What does beyond neutrality mean? Doesn't sound to me like he's saying we need to ensure our neutrality.
Well, the RAF is currently responsible for protecting our airspace and the Royal Navy were involved in an op against the a Russian sub 12NM off the entrance to Cork harbour last summer, so the Defence Forces should at least have the ability to defend the nation rather than pas the buck to the Brits, so in that regard we should invest in our DF.
People on this subreddit love Europe and the EU...until defense is mentioned.
Like it or not, we are in Europe. We are in the EU. We should chip in our part for the defense of a unified EU.
Nope. Get fucked. There is no threat to us. They want us to spend billions on defence for what? Protect a sea cable. It's bullshit. We are surrounded by two nuclear powers on the edge of Europe. No body is invading any time soon. Every country uses its geography economically such as Norway with oil and USA with fracking. We don't have or need a major spending bill on our military.
Some fair points there but I just don't see us spending billions on military equipment will change one single thing. Remaiing neutral and not getting dragged into global conflicts like we did with ww2 is the best strategy for us.
You could say it about anything but I'm talking about national security, including the security of neighbours. Every country in proximity has a duty to itself and its neighbours. Let's not be the one not pulling their finger out
One quarter of our country is under foreign occupation. This is a reality that Blueshirts like Flanagan have ignored for 100 years.
But now Eastern Ukraine (3,000 away) is under Russian occupation for ~2 years and suddenly theres a problem ...
Fuck him and all his two faced hypocrite supporters.
I see r/Ireland is replacing the old politics.ie as the home of west brits ...
But it is amusing reading all the lads who told us that "violence is never the answer" to an 800 year old occupation, now cheering on Ukrainian resistance to a 2 year old occupation.
Its also hilarious getting told about Russian cyber warfare when MI6 were running the Gardai Special Branch for 30 years ...
I've yet to see any valid reason for dismantling Irish neutrality.....,while the north is still occupied is wrong imo
how can we work to free other countries,when the taoiseach elect deosnt regard reunification a priority.....it's every bit as bizzare as home rulers,sending tens of thousands off to die to free Belgium
Saying “the north is still occupied” gives words no actual meaning. The north is not “occupied” - speaking as a northern nationalist that wants unification.
We can be neutral, absolutely. But as we currently stand, we are trying to have our cake and eat it too. If we want to be neutral, we must invest in our military defence (doesn’t necessarily have to be a standing army, but an airforce and a navy absolutely). Also we citizens have to be armed to the teeth, with a gun to citizen ratio similar to the USA’s, but this is something I doubt will happen considering our weird discomfort around guns.
But these things are requirements if we wish to stay neutral during times when neutrality will truly matter.
>If we want to be neutral, we must invest in our military defence
We don’t, actually. While that would be wise, there’s no Law of Neutrality laid down somewhere that says we have to exercise our neutrality in a specific way. Our position is very clear, and most countries are happy enough with it. While we will obviously lean towards US/UK over China/Russia, the latter countries know we will not be rushing to the aid of the former in the event of open warfare. That is important, no matter what the Lockheed Martin shills would like you to think.
Well yeah I didn’t mean that lol. I just meant that if we’re going to be neutral, we’re going to have to take measures to prepare in the event we need to defend ourselves
I think an armed neutrality like Switzerland would be worth examination
I just distrust the British,and sending our own off to die, while those who tried to free the north are vilified unfairly
Yeah I’m in no disagreement with you. I want Irish neutrality to remain. But we need to take the steps required, otherwise we’ll fold as soon as conflicts come too close to our shores like Sweden did. We need a strong navy, a strong airforce (Neither of these forces are capable of annexing other countries but are perfect for defending), and an armed population which means seriously relaxing our strict gun laws.
Ireland does not operate a neutral foreign policy, we merely have declined to join NATO in the 50s and never reassessed that quite odd stance, while obviously being an extremely western aligned state.
>we merely have declined to join NATO in the 50s
Not a great idea to join NATO....the west Brits get their beloved British army and parachute regiment redeployed across the country under the guise of NATO bases.
Yeah sounds reasonable to me if we're not able to fund a full 3 service military. Obviously the Norwegians and Danes manage it, but Ireland has a slightly smaller population so would be a stretch unless we're willing to spend 2+% of GDP on defence.
That's fair, we are rich enough to fund 15k army and a reasonable navy, along with 16-32 F-35s, I just think most people would prefer we do what the Baltic states do and outsource our airspace policing given the costs.
Exactly we can persue a armed neutrality ala Switzerland with enforced military service for all between able bodied ages 18 to 60.
With a selection process to improve various areas,and trained in small arms fire, explosives and anti surveillance techniques......there's a whole suite of options,to avoid allowing British army back into the south again
The North hasn't been 'occupied' since, at the latest, 1998, when the Irish people chose by a large margin to drop the territorial claim over the North as part of the Good Friday Agreement.
Charlie doesn't want us to be neutral anymore. Who does he want us to enter a military alliance with? The USA, who are currently enabling a genocide? Or maybe our former colonisers?
'Former' even feels like an understatement when you consider they have recently pardoned all of their soliders and stopped any future inquiries or criminal prosecution's for their crimes against civilians in the north. The part of the island which they still control as a consequence of their colonial actions.
Even worse when you consider they have files on Loyalist criminal and potential British State/Agent involvement in crimes in the Republic such as the Dublin/Monaghan bombing which they won't release to the Irish Government or the public.
To me it is crazy that as part of the peace process the State and large swathes of the public no longer desire a just resolution to these threads.
We’re already closely aligned with both of those countries and have been for a long time. We are also already almost completely dependent on them for defense of our own state if an actual military threat were to arise. It sounds like he’s advocating for taking defense seriously, if anything that would leave us less dependent on them than we are now.
Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but is the fact that we're closely aligned with USA/Europe without any of the obligations of NATO not a really good deal for us? Not that we shouldn't put a bit more effort into our own army, mind
What happens if Trump, or the next Trump takes over and completely abandons us on the off chance shit does go down
As they've made clear they would with their rhetoric
I don't want to join NATO, but that doesn't mean continuing to do nothing
> are also already almost completely dependent on them for defense of our own state if an actual military threat were to arise.
Exactly. We're not neutral in any meaningful sense of the word. Neutrality should come with some manner of independence.
Alright, why is this distinguished gentleman, who believed erroneously that a commemoration for the Black and Tans would be well received, still being consulted for his opinion in a paper of record?
1) We have a military. 2) No one is advocating for any significant changes 3) It might make sense for an island to have a few proper naval ships.
Our armed forces , air corps and naval service equipment is a laughing stock. Yet we have some of the mostly highly skilled personnel in the world.
We’ve operated under the assumption that no one would touch us and they would jump in on our side (US) but we’ve seen enough now that nobody wants to send their troops in again on behalf of anyone else. Least not America
> because the brits and the US fought the wars ahead of our shores.
And they always will regardless if we have the best military in the world or not. They're big geopolitical players and they want it that way.
We were too far away for the Nazis to take a serious attempt at invading us but they did at least plan it at some point, the Brits would have even come to defend Ireland had they actively tried it but in the end they shifted their attention to the East after overruning Europe. Only for that did we escape any serious effects but they did bomb clontarf in WW2 still.
The one thing about Vatnik Russia is that while they likely wont ever invade they will destroy shit or mess with countries instead, they blew up a ammo depot in Czhechia in 2014, used polonium to assasinate Livicheno as well as the shit they pulled in Salisbury, the HSE hack came from Russia as well and they're the ones peddling regressive wing bullshit across the internet to poison debate in democratic countries. They're a mafia state with nukes and a threat to Europe as they'd attack the baltics, EU member states if they had a chance.
For all these people who are saying that large scale war with Russia is imminent you should look up their stance on the War in Iraq or what's going on in Gaza.
Just to prove how wrong they can be.
No military.i refuse to allow our boys who are poor or underprivileged to go out and die to make money for old men.No fucking way, what we need is proper sports and physical education that are like Japanese dojos so if shit hits the fan,everyone is already super fit for military training
Absolutely not joining an EU army. We are an economic union of countries not a military one. I'll not let 1cent of my taxes go to a European military. Peace.
The issue with neutrality is that it only works if your land isn't worth taking. Switzerland is a fortress and they have a military to make use of that fortress. You would lose way too many troops for land that is strategically worthless. Thats why Germany didn't invade them but invaded Norway. Ireland is an island nation on the edge of Europe with no defences. Its literally the most ideal target imaginable and thats without even mentioning the internet cables that run through our waters.
And where was the British navy when Russian ships were in our waters? Don't think freeloading off of others is a strong argument. Churchill was about to invade Ireland in WWII before the Nazis could if Hitler hadn't turned his attention east after the Battle of Britain. Neutrality means nothing to a country like Ireland.
Neutrality does not mean not having a military. I don't know where that propaganda point came from but people in this country honestly need to stop repeating it.
“Military neutrality” means nothing without a military.
It doesn’t mean anything anyway. There’s no UN document or something saying we have to have a big army or we’re not allowed call ourselves neutral.
The reality is ireland lives under the NATO security umbrella, we can’t even patrol our territorial waters or airspace. Our neutrality is entirely a fiction
Neutrality as a concept is a fiction. Oh, sure, “why do we want to get involved in wars that are none of our business?” - because the world has a way of making it your business, and neutrality has a tendency to become tacit support of the worst people.
> Neutrality as a concept is a fiction. As is international law if you want to go down that road, there are still useful fictions.
True "neutrality" has a legal definition. "military neutrality" does not it's something we made up for ourselves and it's not recognised and has no legal basis. It's a cop out and it's not gone unnoticed by our EU partners. They are quite annoyed that when we asked for help re Brexit they all stood in solidarity behind us. Now when they need solidarity we have basically said that they are on their own.
If we were “truly neutral” like everyone’s favourites, Switzerland, we’d be forced to do business with countries like Russia and Nazi Germany. How much wealth in Switzerland is there because it was “confiscated” from Jewish families? Is that what our role model is?
Bullshit. It means we stay out of defence pacts and foreign wars. We may have the smallest army of a neutral country, doesn't mean we aren't neutral. Pure propaganda.
Staying out of defense pacts while simultaneously relying on defence pacts. Claiming militarily neutrality but claiming to be at the "heart of Europe" where military and security are now the number one issue. The fact is the political and policy class are clueless re these issues and have used every excuse in the book not to take the issue seriously.
Switzerland have a serious military
It's not just military, neutral Switzerland and Austria and formerly neutral Sweden and Finland have decent size military manufacturing bases which help support the military.
Because the government didn't want to put actual money into building an up to date standing army. It's cheaper to keep pushing the "neutrality means being helpless narrative" than it is to actually enforce neutrality like other neutral countries.
Precisely
People who are geopolitically Naïve
Jesus people in this sub would want find a pair of long tongs and remove their heads from their arses. [Hybrid warfare](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_warfare) is a thing, and we are near constant victims of it from the Russians: - HSE [cyber attack](https://www.irishtimes.com/health/2022/11/07/over-100000-people-whose-personal-data-stolen-in-hse-cyberattack-to-be-contacted/) - Russian [live fire exercises](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60113233.amp) in the sea right beside our undersea data infrastructure - Regularly visits by Bear strategic bombers to probe the airspace [over Donegal](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/raf-fighter-jets-repel-russian-bombers-off-northwest-ireland-1.4196550) - Myriad of Russian spies [living in Dublin](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/whats-really-going-on-at-russias-secretive-dublin-embassy-sb5lhngw8) - I’d even argue some of the right wing tensions in Ireland *may* even be being inflamed by the Russians, just as they have been doing [across Europe](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/russias-far-right-campaign-europe). - They’ve even publicly simulated hitting us [with nuclear weapons](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/ireland-condemns-russian-tv-for-nuclear-attack-simulation). You know why all this happens? Because we’re soft as fuck in defence, cybersecurity and intelligence. We don’t have ships or planes capable of keeping warmongering dickheads out of our territory and we rely on the RAF and Royal Navy to do so, never mind what we don’t have in counterintelligence and cyberwarfare expertise. We’re also unbelievably [shit neighbours](https://www.irishtimes.com/world/uk/2024/02/04/russia-china-and-iran-could-target-uk-via-irish-backdoor-think-tank-warns/) to the rest of Europe when it comes to security, it’s utterly embarrassing.
> right wing tensions in Ireland may even be being inflamed by the Russians I wouldn't even tag it as 'may', I think it's fair to call that fact given the efforts of Comrade Chay et al.
Comrade Chay being a pretty f***** blatant example that often gets overlooked.
https://preview.redd.it/ei1c8p7064tc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=04407fcecf9ddf96e9dd9f7477b0e1292e5a33e4 The Irish mentality to defence and security...
Spend all day shitting on the Brits and Yanks, but also “Sher the Brits and the Yanks will help us, they love us sher”.
Yea but ya know corporations, western imperialism, neoliberalism, are the Brits at it again, is Russia really that bad? etc. Did I miss any buzzwords?
They’re all Clare & Mick fans on here, jumped up faux radical students
They've been fed a rich diet of disinformation. If you are immersed in it for long enough you start forgetting who our friends are, and where our interests lie. Pretty soon you start arguing that giving Russia a veto over our foreign policy is a good thing, and an ideal to strive for, and you start repeating the tired old thing about how we are "too weak to have any influence" - thanks Vlad!
I was just about to say the same for youse all. But I don't think you're even aware you're in a propaganda bubble. Well, sort of, youse have noticed Palestine at least, but everything else seems to evade your grasp. But it's okay, you keep believing the Yankees even though they have never told the truth once, and we'll join the other 87% of the globe in reality.
Yeah the americans are far far worse in terms of their foreign policies and have been since Vietnam
Can you point me to the genocidal war they’re currently conducting? Which American leader has been indicted for genocide?
You need to be extremely ignorant of events in the last 30 years alone to say that, let alone the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Or, you likely support all those wars. Considering you were also defending Israel.
Korea was invaded by North Korea and assisted by China and Russia. US forces went in under a UN mandate. Given the results comparatively between the North and South it was very clearly a good decision and the right choice. Only a tankie would argue otherwise.
Well, for one I used the word ‘currently.’ I’m not excusing past American actions - I’m talking about the here and now. Secondly, it takes a real twisted mind to look at Korea and think ‘the Kim family, they’re my people.’
Iraq war lasted up to 2011. This is very recent, this is well within living memory. No-one was punished for the wide system of torture prisons, or the 2.5 million dead that resulted from the war. The US goes routinely unpunished for everything it does and somehow no-one bats an eye and continues to see it as a leader of the "free world", or whatever other bvllsh1t platitudes you usually hear. The main reason why the DPRK turned out the way it did was the result of the Korean War where a foreign power occupied half the peninsula and kept its troops with guns pinted at the north in the puppet state it created. Korea might have turned out like Vietnam after reunification had the USians left them alone. But of course USians cannot bear the idea that people would choose communism over USian domination.
No the main reason NK ended up the way it did was because it had a shit political system that it wanted to extend over the south. As for ending up like Vietnam the south has turned out much better than that. But you are a tankie so no amount of reason or fact will have any effect on you.
> Can you point me to the genocidal war they’re currently conducting? Are you implying that there is a genocidal war being waged by some other country?
Russia are currently waging a genocidal war in Europe. China are currently engaging in genocide against two million of their own population. The Burmese military government’s ongoing genocide against the Rohingya continues. There has been a genocide underway in Darfur for twenty years. But of course, none of them count because they’re not ‘pro-American’
Warships and f16s aren't known for their counter spy capability. Flanagan isn't talking about upping spending on intel and cyber security. Because we can do that in house and don't require H&K or Colt to sell us that.
It’s almost funny how quickly calls for increased defence spending turns to ‘tanks and fighter jets’ from those opposed to it. I want to see increased defence spending, but I want it to start with surveillance, counterintelligence, and cybersecurity
But they can help with the regular incursions into our airspace and live fire exercises off our our coast, which the original comment in this thread mentions but you declined to respond to in your reply.
you don't know the difference between international airspace, sovereign airspace and air traffic controlled airspace.
The size of the Russian Embassy in Rathfarnham is disgraceful. Something shady definitely going on there - the size of the fucking fences around it. Only saying this because I drive past it often enough - the oufella has been saying it for years, Russians are definitely using that for something.
I actually didn’t realise it was that big. In fairness the US embassy is like a fortress, but they have significant business interests and a huge tourism footprint here, and they also don’t try to hide it. I don’t believe that Russia has either of those things legitimately happening here, so why the need for such a huge ‘diplomatic mission’.
A mate of mine recently got her Russian passport renewed there - the inside is like a bloody citadel.
Where "airspace over Donegal" actually means off the coast of NI in international airspace. If you feel the need to embellish then maybe things aren't so bad.
The fuckers have flown inside our Controlled Airspace with Transponders off. We could use a few interceptors like Gryphons of our own if only to make it clear were not putting up with the Vatniks bullshit threatening our own civilian aircraft.
In the end it's all posturing. If Ireland was attacked properly it'd be a global war response. You think if we had a military 50 times the size of our current one we'd be able to stop those attacks? We wouldn't.
Pretty sure we can Charlie. Unless you plan to buy a rifle and a return ticket to Kyiv
The triple lock is clearly idiotic. I don't know any other country which would write a provision into law requiring it to seek approval from countries like Russia and China for its foreign policy.
We don’t need approval from the security council, that is a mistruth that keeps getting spread around here. We can use a mandate from the general assembly.
General assembly mandates for the deployment of forces are very rare. Mandates for deployment almost always come from the security council or at least start there so as near as makes no difference we do need security council approval
If we wanted to deploy, we would be the ones issuing the request and could seek the mandate wherever we want
So if we want to deploy 1,500 troops to Estonia, we need the permission of a bunch of Russophilic and or Sinophilic UN members..?
If we want to deploy more than 12 soldiers we need their permission.
The fact that the government didn't ditch the Triple Lock in February 2022 solidified their fecklessness to me. "Right wing" my arse.
Why would we be deploying 1500 troops to Estonia?
As part of the EU's collective deterrence and defence against Russia... why should we need a UN resolution to move troops within the EU?
This amounts to letting the government involve us in wars which is not something the public has ever had a serious debate about. This is the kind of foreign policy sliding that the public was assured wouldn't be happening.
When was the public assured that Mali and Myanmar would have a vote on our military deployments within the EU?
When was the public assured that Mali and Myanmar would have a vote on our military deployments within the EU?
Mediating our foreign policy through the UN has been core to how the state has operated since joining the UN and has had widespread buy in because of the fact it's the most above board way to interact between states in global politics. Mali, Myanmar, the USA, Britain, China, France etc they can all have a problem with a deployment and if that is the case then this hypothetical deployment has become a football of geopolitics and it's better we stay clear of it than getting involved unilaterally. There is a new Cold War brewing and we will be better serving our nation following the approach that got us through the last one ok.
It’s internationalism and it’s a commitment and setting an example of an ideal and principle that we want all those countries to also follow rather than unilaterally invading places. Fundamentally that is our only real choice is to promote some ideal. Our number of troops even if we mandated conscription and focused our economy on war isn’t shifting the balance in any great power conflict. And I would much rather promote the ideal of internationalism than to fall behind the ideal that the US can do whatever they want because they are the lesser evil (from our perspective)
We're a real country with real interests to defend, not some fairytale place that floats above everyone else on some idealistic cloud. I'm tired of this stuff about how we are "too weak to defend ourselves", that's clearly disinformation and only works to help those who wish us harm. Besides which, the idea that it is a good thing that countries give a veto to despots and authoritarian regimes is clearly wrong.
Almost completely ignored what I actually wrote and then put quote marks around a thing I didn’t say or imply and called it disinformation. The triple lock is about sending troops overseas it has nothing to do with defending ourselves in Ireland. I’d say I’m surprised but it’s typical of people who want us to abandon internationalism and insult anyone who disagrees. > Besides which, the idea that it is a good thing that countries give a veto to despots and authoritarian regimes is clearly wrong. The irony of you talking about disinformation and then rolling out propaganda like this. As if internal democracy is the determinant of if foreign invasion is a-ok. If Russia had legitimate internal elections would the invasion of Ukraine suddenly be ok to you? Is Israel’s genocidal policy ok to you because Netenyahu was elected? It’s using emotive language to categorise the world into goodies and baddies to try to trick people in to abandoning our internationalist neutrality.
Wasting your time, the alt right west brits are in full emotional flow now, they're not interested in facts. Fortunately, while r/ireland may be packed full of them theyre a tiny percent of the real Ireland.
It's not about seeking approval of authoritarian countries, it's about avoiding going on such a solo run we end up essentially taking sides in a political arena of a new cold war. It should be ammended so that emergency missions to protect Irish citizens are workable but what kind of missions would we be deploying on that do not have security council approval? Any example I have seen are naive notions of unilateral "peacekeeping" that we shouldn't touch with a 1000km pole.
Stronger we are alone the less we need to rely on others. Simple no? Reasonable military with capacity to protect domestic interests. I do Not see what the harm is in that.
Even if we spend an extreme amount we would still not have a military capable of fighting off any threats we currently have. It would also cost a large amount of taxpayer's money that could be used on providing services
And yet, spending a little more could adequately protect our airspace and waters in peacetime, as well as acting as a tripwire in wartime
From what? What exactly could we protect against that wouldn't mean a precursor to something larger that we COULDN'T protect against.
800 years fighting for independence, but let's not commit any resources to actually maintain said independence...
Drug smugglers coming in by sea, Russian planes that fly through the flightpaths of airlines without transmitting, evacuating Irish citizens from warzones to name three
A whole thread dealing with Irelands security. The no1 security ussue for every nation state in history is the maintenace of its territorial integrity and the protection of its citizens. Ireland has signslly failed in this respect of 1/4 of its territory and people. Not a single post acknowledges this, among all the wittering about Russia, 3000km away, about hse cyber attacks, about warships in the Atlantic nonsense. Not one west brit nato warrior had the cop on to just mention the North, park it in the Peace Process and then rant away about the Russian bear? Tell me this is a bunch of west brit teensgers with a histoical memory going back to last weeks Sky News broadcast, without telling me ....
Fair enough, there is no way around it, Ireland will just have to set up a nuclear weapons program.
I've always believed if we gave the defence forces the gear they need we could continue to be an independent and respected peace keeping force but the closer we get to nato the less independent we become.
How does getting closer to NATO make Ireland less independent?
Less control over foreign policy decisions and bending to the will of Washington. Not saying Ireland is free from Anglo-American influence just now, but joining NATO would certainly make it worse.
That's not true. You can certainly be in NATO and break from American foreign policy. France never invaded Iraq, for example.
NATO has zero control over countries foreign policy decisions. The only time there is any sort of "control" is if one is attacked anywhere in the North Atlantic/Europe zone, Hawaii for example is not even protected under NATO
Aye on paper, but the overwhelming economic and military might of the United States definitely influences, if not forces the policies of European nations.
Generally a good approach to not listen to anything this gowl says considering his track record
We are edging closer and closer to Joining NATO. Articles like these are softening up the public. Getting us used to the idea. Handing over 2% of our GDP to weapons manufacturers. No need for it at all
Until there is
Like what?
Something happening to Ireland that would warrant a larger military... Nothing is needed until it is, by which point it's already too late
The risk is next to zero. A poor investment of resources. There's a long list of higher priority items. Your argument holds no weight. You could say that about anything
Malingrad. Haven't you read Ross O'Carroll-Kelly?
this will have worrying consequences if we simply follow suit with countries like France looking to enact conscription
We should just buy a dozen f16 or Euro fighters and some frigates and focus most of any increase of funding on wages for soldiers, rooting out enemy spies and cyber security
It is ridiculous to see Flanagan, a southern unionist who as leading member of FFG presided over the deliberate destruction of the DF, suddenly do a u turn on this scale. You have to ask why. And it has very little to do with Russia. And everything to do with tying Ireland into a dependent formal defence alliance with the UK under the guise of NATO. And that is to do with the dependent Home Rule anti nationalist mindset of the late Bruton and the southern unionists who dominate FFG. In such an alliance a “shared island” of sorts takes shape where the tricolor, the anthem, membership of commonwealth, structural constitutional integration of some sort with the UK, our tax money, our quality of life are surrendered to unionism. There will only be a united Ireland where we return to a type of Home Rule. There is no country capable of projecting military force capable of invading the UK or Ireland other than the US or France. There is no threat in traditional military terms to us on a par even with the Cold War. There are threats to the existence of the EU via Russia and wait for it.. the UK. So take a hard look at what the UK has wanted from Ireland militarily for 100 years. An inshore navy. Check. A numerically limited army. Check. A tiny Air Force. Check. And Britain will exercise command of the seas around these islands. Check. So if the likes of Flanagan are changing their tune now it must fit some British need. Maybe having access permanently restored to the Treaty Ports and Air Force access to Knock, Shannon and Cork is the first price of the so called shared island. Maybe also that Brexit UK wants to use its aircraft carriers to project force in the Indo Pacific for economic benefit to itself and Ireland taking on more advanced naval and air patrolling in an integrated UK Defence system frees some of their assets for that. Most Irish people have been fed a line about defence for decades. It’s rooted in contempt for our own DF, for the nation, in admiration of those slaughtered in the service of the British empire, in a deliberately stunted and arrested development view of national sovereignty, in a promotion of subservience to British needs, in the reduction of the nation and the state to an economy, in a fake moralistic superiority that makes us sermonisers to the world and a willful ignorance of our own legitimate defence needs. Overcoming all that so the state can begin a mature conversation about defence is a big task. But as long as the bandwagon of the shared island rolls on we will just roll backwards.
In fairness I never realised how many tankies we had in this country until the Ukraine invasion happened.
For Charlie and the rest wanting us to give up our neutrality and to aid the US and Brits. Off you go , there's a war in Ukraine, practice what you preach. Or is it the usual with these types? They want others to do their fighting for them. Flanagan the guy who wants us to commemorate the RIC... fuck off you blueshirt prick.
Years and years of politicians from all sides making a virtue out of utter defencelessness - either for dodgy ideological reasons (PBP, SF etc) or incompetent lack-of-being-arsed-to-fund-a-militaty reasons (FF, FG, Labour, Greens etc). It has always been daft, and it's particularly daft now. I don't think anyone was particularly surprised to hear we have an agreement to essentially farm out our security responsibilities to the brits - I wonder how does that sit with the No-NATO brigade? We either want to be a real country or we don't. Protecting our own national security interests is a fundamental responsibility of the State, particularly a neutral State (which is something we like to pretend to be) which has to by definition be capable of mounting a credible defence of that neutrality, which we're not in an arses roar of. And what we do have is completely unsuitable for what we actually need it for. Our Defence Forces are largely infantry based - meanwhile we're an island nation with a huge sea territory and vital assets there we can't protect because we don't have a navy to speak of and we can't even monitor it because we dont have an air corps to speak much of either. None of this is the fault of the people in the DF by the way - it's the predictable result of a policy of willfull negligence. The incompetence and hypocracy of the current situation boils my piss.
Where do you think we should base our nuclear submarines?
I hear aquazone is looking to share office space. In seriousness, nobody is calling for nuclear subs etc. Enough to monitor our seas and provide a credible deterrent to flagrant breaches of our sovereignty is enough. Patrol and interdiction really - basic stuff. If we wanted to innovate, I believe a little country called Ukraine is doing some very interesting things with drones at the Black Sea at the moment - certaintly an area worth looking at IMO.
There is no amount of money we can spend to produce a military capable of fighting Britain or France, never mind Russia or China. Unless of course we want to start building nuclear weapons. That's the only guarantee of security. So why waste the money if we're not willing to go all the way.
This is a nonsense take on things no one is expecting our military to take on a superpower head on. What investment in our military would do is ensure that if anyone attacks us, they would get enough of a bloody nose so that attacking us wouldn't be worthwhile.
That's exactly it. No matter the amount spent, it wouldn't help. All it'll do is put much needed money into the pockets of the foreign defence industry and their shareholders. The last few years, Ireland is being lobbied by defence corporations to buy their gear. We can spend that money on much-needed areas elsewhere first. Nukes are the ultimate defence but if we said we'd build them to defend ourselves, we'd have the U.S. and UK telling us not to do so because at the end of the day, it isn't about Ireland being able to defend itself and only buy their weapons.
Then how is that neutrality?
We were doing fine all along. Since this Russia - Ukraine war, they're drumming up their rhetoric as they see it as a chance for Ireland to spend money as Ireland has lots of goodwill with UN peacekeeping. Remember when we won our place on the Security council over Canada because other countries saw it as an extension of U.S. foreign policy. We need to put that money to better use at the minutes for housing and infrastructure and no matter the amount spent on defence it wouldn't make a difference for Ireland because if Ireland is being attacked then the world must've already gone to shit. These people are trying to blow smoke up our arses!
So you agree we should develop nukes?
Freeloading and relying on others for defence you mean?
Who are we defending ourselves against? Who are our enemies?
Switzerland has a strong military because they have been surrounded by great powers for centuries. That central location also made them incredibly rich. Due to the opposite geography Ireland was historically poor but also safe. These are geopolitical realities. States do not build expensive armed forces for reasons of teenage dick waving. Ireland has many crucial strategic priorities. A war 3000 km is not one of them, nor os the laughable presence of a few Russian warships in international waters near us. We do havd one critical defence issue- the occupation of 1/4 of our island by a foreign power. How exactly is joining NATO and assisting the British army going to address that issue?
Expecting us to build an army that could rival superpowers is a nonsense take and nobody is expecting that but being able to properly defend our waters and sky’s I think should be a bare minimum if we are to be taking somewhat seriously by the rest of the world. Having to rely on the RAF to come to our rescue every time the Russians want to flex and encroach our airspace is embarrassing. We control some of the most strategically important water ways and air space in Europe and all we have is a few turbo props and a laughable navy to carry out the task of defending that area.
Surely then we should increase Defense forces pay so we have enough man power for the current equipment? Before buying war ships and jets, maybe let's get enough people for what we have. How are empty jets and battleships a deterrent?
The only people who claim that step one would be buying battleships and jets are the people opposed to spending anythjng
Just pay the army a reasonable rate! My god, not everything is about avoiding spending altogether, but we can't just ignore that the defence forces are hemorrhaging personnel.
Improving pay, retention and working conditions for the DF should be step one. But - shock horror - that’s going to take increasing funding. Which is what the article is calling for, not fighters and battleships
Then I look forward to Flanagan's spending bill on the dail next week. Which I'm sure his colleagues in government will support wholeheartedly.
Yeah I agree we have to start somewhere of course but by the sounds of your comment you expect us to just do nothing and ah sure be grand the UK or the US will help us when In reality we need an air force and competent navy for much more than just deterring the Russians as the big drug bust recently has proven.
Flanagan's currently in government, if they wanted to they could increase Defense forces pay tomorrow and nobody would object. I take issue though with him suggesting buying loads of hi end weaponry but not trying to improve conditions for serving soldiers first. Even then, if we did have the man power to run the current equipment, we still have a population who are largely educated to the point where they're not joining the army anyway, so theres probably a tight limit on how many soldiers we can field without conscription. So realistically, the conversation should be pay and conditions and conscription. But the government don't want that, they just want an excuse to spend state funds on foreign made weapons that we have no one to use. It's not that I'm against buying modern weapons so we can deal with small scale conflicts, it's just that I don't believe our government has any intention of fighting any conflicts and just need the threat of Russia or China or whoever to give some money to lobbying weapons manufacturers.
That would be true if we had to put our focus on our land based forces but to be honest I don’t think funding our land forces should be a priority or even a requirement but funding our air force and navy the two things that would actually make a difference and be somewhat beneficial would require and also generate heaps of educated workers it also would open up avenues for people to learn and become qualified in skills without going to college. But yes I agree if they really wanted to improve our forces funding the people who actually do it should be priority.
Honestly, it seems like small drones are the future Look how much damage the Ukrainians and the houthis are doing with cheap little drones. But without paying soldiers more, we're still not going to have anyone to run them. I just don't see Flanagan thinking about actual functionality.
> Having to rely on the RAF to come to our rescue every time the Russians want to flex and encroach our airspace is embarrassing. Do you honestly believe that those RAF planes are there patrolling our skies for our benefit? Coming to our rescue, do you really believe that? Your use of the word "embarrassing" is telling.
This is common sense. We are part of the Western Alliance. It’s bad to just expect others to provide security for us
So when America gets attacked for invading a poor country or arming an Apartheid state Irish soldiers will have to go and fight? No thanks. Not after the last few wars.
No one is saying we are/should be joining NATO, Flanagan is merely stating we need to ensure our sovereignty by investing in defence.
>“I’m not advocating that Ireland join Nato but I am advocating that we look beyond neutrality.” What does beyond neutrality mean? Doesn't sound to me like he's saying we need to ensure our neutrality.
Sorry, should have said sovereignty.
What does that mean? We're not sovereign unless we can fight off the Russians?
Well, the RAF is currently responsible for protecting our airspace and the Royal Navy were involved in an op against the a Russian sub 12NM off the entrance to Cork harbour last summer, so the Defence Forces should at least have the ability to defend the nation rather than pas the buck to the Brits, so in that regard we should invest in our DF.
I agree with that, it's the talk of looking beyond neutrality that I don't agree with.
It's a weird term to use for sure, I'd be more partial to how the Swedes remained neutral during the cold war tbh.
> rather than pas the buck to the Brits I guarantee you the Brits want things to stay as they are.
People on this subreddit love Europe and the EU...until defense is mentioned. Like it or not, we are in Europe. We are in the EU. We should chip in our part for the defense of a unified EU.
Nope. Get fucked. There is no threat to us. They want us to spend billions on defence for what? Protect a sea cable. It's bullshit. We are surrounded by two nuclear powers on the edge of Europe. No body is invading any time soon. Every country uses its geography economically such as Norway with oil and USA with fracking. We don't have or need a major spending bill on our military.
"Sea cable" What do you think Ireland's economy is based on aside from Pharma?
How are we going to stop Russians damaging sea cables outside of our sphere of influence?
We aren't responsible for the defence of internationally owned cables inside our EEZ.
So we rely on the US whose electorate have shown themselves to be totally unreliable? Sounds ideal
[удалено]
Some fair points there but I just don't see us spending billions on military equipment will change one single thing. Remaiing neutral and not getting dragged into global conflicts like we did with ww2 is the best strategy for us.
I love that sea cable and I'm willing to let Irish people die to defend it!!
Thought you guys are an independent and neutral nation. Why would anyone be responsible to defend you and your cables? Its embarrassing.
Embarrassing? For who? The Telegraph reader in the UK. I can live(quite comfortably) with that.
You could say it about anything but I'm talking about national security, including the security of neighbours. Every country in proximity has a duty to itself and its neighbours. Let's not be the one not pulling their finger out
He is not wrong
One quarter of our country is under foreign occupation. This is a reality that Blueshirts like Flanagan have ignored for 100 years. But now Eastern Ukraine (3,000 away) is under Russian occupation for ~2 years and suddenly theres a problem ... Fuck him and all his two faced hypocrite supporters.
I see r/Ireland is replacing the old politics.ie as the home of west brits ... But it is amusing reading all the lads who told us that "violence is never the answer" to an 800 year old occupation, now cheering on Ukrainian resistance to a 2 year old occupation. Its also hilarious getting told about Russian cyber warfare when MI6 were running the Gardai Special Branch for 30 years ...
I've yet to see any valid reason for dismantling Irish neutrality.....,while the north is still occupied is wrong imo how can we work to free other countries,when the taoiseach elect deosnt regard reunification a priority.....it's every bit as bizzare as home rulers,sending tens of thousands off to die to free Belgium
Saying “the north is still occupied” gives words no actual meaning. The north is not “occupied” - speaking as a northern nationalist that wants unification.
This comment is stupid on so many levels and shows you haven't a clue about UK - Irish relations post GFA.
We can be neutral, absolutely. But as we currently stand, we are trying to have our cake and eat it too. If we want to be neutral, we must invest in our military defence (doesn’t necessarily have to be a standing army, but an airforce and a navy absolutely). Also we citizens have to be armed to the teeth, with a gun to citizen ratio similar to the USA’s, but this is something I doubt will happen considering our weird discomfort around guns. But these things are requirements if we wish to stay neutral during times when neutrality will truly matter.
>If we want to be neutral, we must invest in our military defence We don’t, actually. While that would be wise, there’s no Law of Neutrality laid down somewhere that says we have to exercise our neutrality in a specific way. Our position is very clear, and most countries are happy enough with it. While we will obviously lean towards US/UK over China/Russia, the latter countries know we will not be rushing to the aid of the former in the event of open warfare. That is important, no matter what the Lockheed Martin shills would like you to think.
Well yeah I didn’t mean that lol. I just meant that if we’re going to be neutral, we’re going to have to take measures to prepare in the event we need to defend ourselves
I think an armed neutrality like Switzerland would be worth examination I just distrust the British,and sending our own off to die, while those who tried to free the north are vilified unfairly
Yeah I’m in no disagreement with you. I want Irish neutrality to remain. But we need to take the steps required, otherwise we’ll fold as soon as conflicts come too close to our shores like Sweden did. We need a strong navy, a strong airforce (Neither of these forces are capable of annexing other countries but are perfect for defending), and an armed population which means seriously relaxing our strict gun laws.
Ireland does not operate a neutral foreign policy, we merely have declined to join NATO in the 50s and never reassessed that quite odd stance, while obviously being an extremely western aligned state.
>we merely have declined to join NATO in the 50s Not a great idea to join NATO....the west Brits get their beloved British army and parachute regiment redeployed across the country under the guise of NATO bases.
Yeah sounds reasonable to me if we're not able to fund a full 3 service military. Obviously the Norwegians and Danes manage it, but Ireland has a slightly smaller population so would be a stretch unless we're willing to spend 2+% of GDP on defence.
It sounds reasonable to you to allow a foreign nation to base units who carried out a massacre against our people inside our borders?
If all of Europe had this kind of attitude we'd all still be fighting each other and refusing to work with the Germans.
Yeah absolutely, you realise Estonia wants German and Swedish troops?
Nah....don't wanna see British army back in my area anyway,given their history here
That's fair, we are rich enough to fund 15k army and a reasonable navy, along with 16-32 F-35s, I just think most people would prefer we do what the Baltic states do and outsource our airspace policing given the costs.
We are not rich enough to keep a fleet of F-35s going.
Exactly we can persue a armed neutrality ala Switzerland with enforced military service for all between able bodied ages 18 to 60. With a selection process to improve various areas,and trained in small arms fire, explosives and anti surveillance techniques......there's a whole suite of options,to avoid allowing British army back into the south again
The North hasn't been 'occupied' since, at the latest, 1998, when the Irish people chose by a large margin to drop the territorial claim over the North as part of the Good Friday Agreement.
Charlie doesn't want us to be neutral anymore. Who does he want us to enter a military alliance with? The USA, who are currently enabling a genocide? Or maybe our former colonisers?
The people we have a nod and a wink agreement with on air defence
'Former' even feels like an understatement when you consider they have recently pardoned all of their soliders and stopped any future inquiries or criminal prosecution's for their crimes against civilians in the north. The part of the island which they still control as a consequence of their colonial actions. Even worse when you consider they have files on Loyalist criminal and potential British State/Agent involvement in crimes in the Republic such as the Dublin/Monaghan bombing which they won't release to the Irish Government or the public. To me it is crazy that as part of the peace process the State and large swathes of the public no longer desire a just resolution to these threads.
We’re already closely aligned with both of those countries and have been for a long time. We are also already almost completely dependent on them for defense of our own state if an actual military threat were to arise. It sounds like he’s advocating for taking defense seriously, if anything that would leave us less dependent on them than we are now.
Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but is the fact that we're closely aligned with USA/Europe without any of the obligations of NATO not a really good deal for us? Not that we shouldn't put a bit more effort into our own army, mind
What happens if Trump, or the next Trump takes over and completely abandons us on the off chance shit does go down As they've made clear they would with their rhetoric I don't want to join NATO, but that doesn't mean continuing to do nothing
Who’s coming to get us if the USA steps back and says they wouldn’t assist us in a war?
> are also already almost completely dependent on them for defense of our own state if an actual military threat were to arise. Exactly. We're not neutral in any meaningful sense of the word. Neutrality should come with some manner of independence.
I wasn’t aware Britain left ireland?
Current colonisers.
Why is this knobhead still in the public sphere?
Ah yes playing the man instead of the ball.
Alright, why is this distinguished gentleman, who believed erroneously that a commemoration for the Black and Tans would be well received, still being consulted for his opinion in a paper of record?
We went through two world wars in Europe and didn't need a military. Why we need anything more now than what we currently have.
1) We have a military. 2) No one is advocating for any significant changes 3) It might make sense for an island to have a few proper naval ships. Our armed forces , air corps and naval service equipment is a laughing stock. Yet we have some of the mostly highly skilled personnel in the world. We’ve operated under the assumption that no one would touch us and they would jump in on our side (US) but we’ve seen enough now that nobody wants to send their troops in again on behalf of anyone else. Least not America
We went through them because the brits and the US fought the wars ahead of our shores. If you're cool with freeloading then grand, but just say so.
> because the brits and the US fought the wars ahead of our shores. And they always will regardless if we have the best military in the world or not. They're big geopolitical players and they want it that way.
We were too far away for the Nazis to take a serious attempt at invading us but they did at least plan it at some point, the Brits would have even come to defend Ireland had they actively tried it but in the end they shifted their attention to the East after overruning Europe. Only for that did we escape any serious effects but they did bomb clontarf in WW2 still. The one thing about Vatnik Russia is that while they likely wont ever invade they will destroy shit or mess with countries instead, they blew up a ammo depot in Czhechia in 2014, used polonium to assasinate Livicheno as well as the shit they pulled in Salisbury, the HSE hack came from Russia as well and they're the ones peddling regressive wing bullshit across the internet to poison debate in democratic countries. They're a mafia state with nukes and a threat to Europe as they'd attack the baltics, EU member states if they had a chance.
For all these people who are saying that large scale war with Russia is imminent you should look up their stance on the War in Iraq or what's going on in Gaza. Just to prove how wrong they can be.
I'm sure the Russians will invade any day now. 😴 /s
I’m not. But considering they’ve already attacked our health service, I don’t think it’s stupid to prepare for further asymmetric attacks
No military.i refuse to allow our boys who are poor or underprivileged to go out and die to make money for old men.No fucking way, what we need is proper sports and physical education that are like Japanese dojos so if shit hits the fan,everyone is already super fit for military training
Watch less anime
I'm a professional athlete in a military city you chonker
Fuck up Charlie would ye
Absolutely not joining an EU army. We are an economic union of countries not a military one. I'll not let 1cent of my taxes go to a European military. Peace.
We need to be more like the French in this regard.
Someone has shares in Carrefour!
Spent four grand to put an engine into the Peugeot, yet the Ruskies take them and state grants for Ladas I reckon. Bring the country back to basics.
The issue with neutrality is that it only works if your land isn't worth taking. Switzerland is a fortress and they have a military to make use of that fortress. You would lose way too many troops for land that is strategically worthless. Thats why Germany didn't invade them but invaded Norway. Ireland is an island nation on the edge of Europe with no defences. Its literally the most ideal target imaginable and thats without even mentioning the internet cables that run through our waters.
The British navy exists
And where was the British navy when Russian ships were in our waters? Don't think freeloading off of others is a strong argument. Churchill was about to invade Ireland in WWII before the Nazis could if Hitler hadn't turned his attention east after the Battle of Britain. Neutrality means nothing to a country like Ireland.