Yes. They are going to help themselves to Castletownbere saying that they need a naval base in the Atlantic to protect their maritime interests.
Cabinet to approve plans for abolition of the triple lock
- Thread starter Purple
- Start date
- Status
Inexpensive
Frequent Poster
- Messages
- 98
If you're talking about nukes, Europe doesn't have to match Russia. Russia would have to nuke London, Paris, Berlin, Rome etc etc etc. Europe would just need one nuke to hit Moscow
Sister Sara
Registered User
- Messages
- 270
Exactly. I don't hear of British politicians or diplomats piping up about how expensive it is for them to protect Ireland.
They don't do it because it is in Britain's interests to have first hand knowledge, control and access over our airspace and sea's. Any military in the world would see the benefits of being in control of a neighbours territorial space.
There is also the sleeping-dog of NI. It is certainly not in the interest of Britain to have Ireland military pumped in the event that, in some decade ahead, a militant Irish Republican party should take power at some point.
None. Certainly not Russia, they are stuck in the mud in Ukraine some 4,000km away.
An Taoiseach, Michéal Martin, has just come back from an official visit to Bejing and Shanghai a couple of weeks ago.
Prior to his departure the The Department of An Taoiseach read "In these meetings, he will discuss Ireland’s bilateral relationship with China, including our important economic and trading relationship; EU-China relations; and shared global challenges. At a time of global turbulence, he will emphasise the importance of effective multilateral institutions to promote peace and security, and to ensure a fair trading environment."
Not a mention of the supposed Chinese military threat to Ireland.
As for the Triple-Lock, on the face of it it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to unlock the UN veto element but I would be wary like @Inexpensive that there is a broader militarisation agenda involved.
So instead of the UN Security Council Veto (a farcical system in the first place), another mechanism through the High Court may be an idea.
Do you seriously think this discussion is about a D-Day style amphibious invasion?
Yes Comrade.
I think you're too deep down a rabbit hole to have a rational conversation with so I'll leave it there.
Inexpensive
Frequent Poster
- Messages
- 98
I'd stick with the UN veto. We should not be getting into any situation that one of the great world powers doesn't want us to.
No good can come from that because we are a classic Thucydidean weak power.
First and foremost we exist in the United States area of influence. We can't go against them no matter how much we might disagree with what they do, we just have to put up with it.
Join an alliance with them though and you just make things worse for yourself.
We might be compelled to go to war on their side, one in which we have no interest, a war with China perhaps.
All that would do would be to put Irish soldiers lives in danger and a target on our backs.
Same goes for an Alliance with Britain or any other of the large European powers.
Does anyone seriously believe that Finland are safer as a result of joining an alliance against Russia?
Does anyone believe that we'd be safer if we did the same?
The correct thing to do is obvious, it's to copy Switzerland, they have been a island of peace while completely surrounded by countries at war in both world wars.
I do believe, dem Ruskies have boats
Sister Sara
Registered User
- Messages
- 270
@Inexpensive some compelling points as to why to keep the UN veto.
Certainly from previous discussions that's the impression I got that after Russia invaded Ukraine the fear-mongering was predicated on Putin taking the Baltic States, then the rest of the former Soviet Union, then the rest of Europe and then ourselves?
And the way the media are hyping up the prospect of more war.
UK 'rapidly developing' plans to prepare for war - 12/12/2025
How the French government is preparing the public for the possibility of war - 28/11/2025
French general sparks uproar with warning of ‘losing children’ in potential Russia conflict - 20/11/2025
Europe wants to ready its citizens for war. Will they listen? - 12/04/25
Germany must be ready for war by 2029, defense minister warns - 05/06/2024
"The shadow of war is knocking on Europe's door once more. That's the reality. We've got to be prepared to deter it."
The comments came after Mark Rutte, the head of NATO, told allies on Thursday that Europe must ready itself for a confrontation with Russia on the kind of scale "our grandparents and great-grandparents endured" - a reference to the First and Second World Wars."
Clearly our European leaders and military experts are gearing up the population for some mass casualty event.
What's alarmingly in those headlines is the absence of voices for peace.
You are suggesting a different type of war or invasion?
Certainly from previous discussions that's the impression I got that after Russia invaded Ukraine the fear-mongering was predicated on Putin taking the Baltic States, then the rest of the former Soviet Union, then the rest of Europe and then ourselves?
And the way the media are hyping up the prospect of more war.
UK 'rapidly developing' plans to prepare for war - 12/12/2025
How the French government is preparing the public for the possibility of war - 28/11/2025
French general sparks uproar with warning of ‘losing children’ in potential Russia conflict - 20/11/2025
Europe wants to ready its citizens for war. Will they listen? - 12/04/25
Germany must be ready for war by 2029, defense minister warns - 05/06/2024
"The shadow of war is knocking on Europe's door once more. That's the reality. We've got to be prepared to deter it."
The comments came after Mark Rutte, the head of NATO, told allies on Thursday that Europe must ready itself for a confrontation with Russia on the kind of scale "our grandparents and great-grandparents endured" - a reference to the First and Second World Wars."
Clearly our European leaders and military experts are gearing up the population for some mass casualty event.
What's alarmingly in those headlines is the absence of voices for peace.
You are suggesting a different type of war or invasion?
We'll have to agree to differ on that.
I didn't hear any fear mongering. If you want to have a serious discussion you'll have to frame you questions ion a serious way. Want to have another go?
You have conflated two different things (again).
Russia has already invaded another European country.
It has already attacked other European countries.
It is waging a low intensity war across Europe and will continue to expand its operations until it is given a reason to stop. This from the liberal/Democrat leaning Atlantic Council gives a good overview. Putin has stated that he want's the old Russian Empire back. He is seeking to weaken the allies of the countries he wished to invade. I think democracy and our liberal values are worth defending from autocratic dictators and those internally on the far right and the far left (I'm not sure what the difference is between the far left and the far right) who seek to undermine and erode those values.
Yes, it's good to be prepared for a highly damaging event even if the probability of it happening is low. It's like spending money on a good home security system; the alarm, locks and strong doors and windows make it less likely that you will be burgled.
If our European leaders and military experts are saying that then why do you think you now better?
Are you simply dismissing their concerns by ascribing a nefarious intent and ideology to them because what they say doesn't tally with your ideology?
What exactly does that mean?
I'm not suggesting the Russia will invade Ireland. I haven't heard anyone do so. I am pointing out that Russia is attacking Ireland and will continue to do so as we are an easy target and a weak access point to get at our stronger EU partners.
Inexpensive
Frequent Poster
- Messages
- 98
Seems pretty low level to me, if true.
But anyway, what do Nato countries expect when they are participating in Ukrainian attacks on Russia, for example the Kursk incursion, the attack on the Russian Nuclear bombers in Siberia and the attack on Putin's residence?
Inexpensive
Frequent Poster
- Messages
- 98
debunked or denied?
Yes, it is reasonable to expect to be attacked by Russia if we are helping Ukraine defend itself from Russia's invasion. If we help our other EU member States defend themselves from further an future attacks by Russia then we can also expect to be attacked. That's the point.
Do you think that we should side with Russia as it attacks our neighbours?
Do you think we should side with totalitarianism rather than democracy?
Before you answer have a think about the concept of right and wrong and what that means in reality.
You should also remember that as a member of the European Union we are legally obliged to help our EU neighbours if they are attacked.
Sure, trying to derail a train full of people is definitely low level.
And parcel bomb, who doesn't love getting a parcel bomb?
Inexpensive
Frequent Poster
- Messages
- 98
This war began in 2014 with the Euromaidan coup in which the democratically elected president of Ukraine was overthrown in an American supported and co-ordinated operation.
This attack on democracy should have been condemned by the US but instead it immediately recognised the new Government and indeed played a major role in selecting its members.
So the USA attacked Ukraine first, not Russia.
The reason for the Russian SMO in 2022 was its concerns about an attack on Donbas and Crimea and especially the fact that no one in the West was willing to talk to Russia about it.
It had become obvious to Russia that Nato and Ukraine were using the drop off in fighting after the Minsk accords to build up Ukraine's army with a view to attacking Donbas and Crimea.
This was later confirmed by Merkel and Hollande.
So what was Russia to do?
Sit around and wait until Ukraine was ready to attack?
This attack on democracy should have been condemned by the US but instead it immediately recognised the new Government and indeed played a major role in selecting its members.
So the USA attacked Ukraine first, not Russia.
The reason for the Russian SMO in 2022 was its concerns about an attack on Donbas and Crimea and especially the fact that no one in the West was willing to talk to Russia about it.
It had become obvious to Russia that Nato and Ukraine were using the drop off in fighting after the Minsk accords to build up Ukraine's army with a view to attacking Donbas and Crimea.
This was later confirmed by Merkel and Hollande.
So what was Russia to do?
Sit around and wait until Ukraine was ready to attack?
Well you're open about you support for Russia. I have to respect that.
Your gross mischaracterisation of the Euromaiden protests is ridiculed and has no credibility. I'm not getting into a discussion about Yanukovych or his utter disregard for the will of the Ukrainian people as expressed through their Parliament but your assertion is nonsense, pure Russian propaganda, and doesn't deserve the time it takes to debunk it.
Okay, so Russia invaded the rest of Ukraine because they feared that Ukraine would try to take back the parts which Russia has previously invaded and occupied. Yea, I'm sure that's part of the reason.
Maybe they were also fearful that Russia would invade and try to take control of the rest of Ukraine because like, Putin has previously said that Ukraine was part of Russia and only exists because of a anti-Russian conspiracy dating back to the 17th Century. Now there's man you can have a reasonable conversation with!
Withdrawing from the land that it had illegally invaded and occupied would have been the best option.
Inexpensive
Frequent Poster
- Messages
- 98
Do you believe that the USA played a role in plotting and supporting the coup in the winter of 2013-2014?
There was no Coup in Ukraine in the winter if 2013-2014.
There were protests and a revolution as a result of the perversion of democracy by Russia leading up to the suspension of the signing of the Ukraine-EU Association agreement by Putin's stooge Yanukovych.
The EU has a role and a moral obligation to nurture and support democracies and freedom in the world. It's a moral obligation which we in Ireland ignore and shy away from but thankfully other countries have a moral backbone and do the right thing. That moral obligation extended to Ukraine and it still does. I don't want Russia or China or America to have a veto over whether we participate in that obligation with our fellow EU citizens.
I don't want us to be part of NATO and we never will be. That's a completely different discussion to whether we remove the Triple Lock.
Inexpensive
Frequent Poster
- Messages
- 98
No agreement there.
No it doesn't, it needs to keep its nose out of other countries politics.
All countries but most especially small ones should hold national sovereignty as the supreme guiding principle of International relations.
What you have there is a recipe in which big countries get to meddle in the affairs of smaller ones, up to and including invasion.
It's what the US and Israel have been using as cover to destroy country after country in the Americas, Europe, Asia and Africa, most recently in Iran.
Cuba is next up, reportedly.
- Status