Does adopting a position of neutrality mean not caring who wins?

[Marsupial]

If we cant agree on a clear definition then we can all argue around in circles.

Isn't that the hallmark of almost every Irish political discourse?

The only thing that "we" currently appear to agree about is the (utterly tokenistic) need to implement the Occupied Territories Bill. (Which, I trust, our current president, being a qualified lawyer, will refer it to the Supreme Court before signing!)

 

[Sister Sara]

I think it would be helpful if everyone could agree on the meaning of 'neutrality', and where Ireland sits with that definition.
Whats its scope? What actions would be considered non-neutral?

I couldn't agree more.

Our elected government and parliament should be free to make decisions in the best interest of the Irish people without being hind-bound by ideologues.

The problem with this is that are examples of governments, and other faceless 'intell' actors that manipulate their populations into going into war, usually on false pretences.

There needs to be other checks in place.

For example, across the Irish political spectrum and demonstrated again in the election of Connolly for President, the views of the Irish people are clearly on the side of 'neutrality'. Its not clear to what extent those views reach but 'military neutral' is at the core of this.

Yet despite this there is this constant push in some corners for Ireland to alter its position on neutrality.

Its starts with trying to demean Irish people as letting other do 'the dirty work'. Then its, 'neutrality' is cowardly. The old tropes of 'Putin's puppet' are called out if in anyway the common narrative is questioned.
When do intell agencies publicise their routine monitoring activities unless its to drum-up a sense of fear in the population?

So while neutrality is a complex and wide-ranging topic it is still firmly the will of the Irish people.
One thing is not the will of the Irish people is becoming another cog in the war-dog, weapons producing, poor-people slaying, industry.

That's what the proponents of the war industry need to define also.

Do they want to get rid of the triple-lock because they don't want Russia or China having a veto over the deployment of our troops? How about the US, UK, France? Do they count?

Will the war industry require us to deploy out troops in wars of aggression on behalf of our 'allies' even though the Irish people would oppose such deployment and engagement?

Does the war industry want to establish an manufacturing base here and partake in an potentially highly lucrative export industry of death and destruction of some of the poorest regions on earth?

Exactly who are the small minority of Irish people with no political representation or public support of any significance that continually push a narrative that Ireland needs to change its position and align with a European Defence force or worse, NATO?

 

[Purple]

Sorry @Sister Sara, but that's just a paranoid rant and not worth commenting on.

 

[Sister Sara]

Sorry @Purple. Nothing paranoid about it all.

Check the OP for "dirty work", check your own post for "cowardly" and "Putin puppet". And check the https://defenceandsecurity.ie/ who have been meeting with government officials.

Those wanting to change the Triple-Lock or wanting Ireland to align Ireland with a military alliance need to set out exactly what they want.

 

[Purple]

Your whole post was based on presupposition. That rendered it meaningless.

 

[PMU]

Michaél Martin - "Ireland must remain military neutral"
Simon Harris - "Ireland is a militarily neutral country and we're proudly militarily neutral and we will remain that."
Mary Lou McD - "Hands off Irish neutrality. Never has it been more crucial for neutral states to stand up and be counted."

And follow this aspirational nonsense and you’ll probably end up dead.

Neutrality doesn’t protect you. In WW1 Belgium a neutral country, the neutrality of which was guaranteed by an internation treaty since 1839, was invaded by the German/Prussian empire, which were a signatories to the treaty. The invaders killed 8,756 civilians in Belgium in the initial attack and caused an estimated 78,665 excess civilian deaths due to famine, disease, and deprivation under German rule. Belgium was still neutral before WW2, having declared so in 1936 and renounced its military alliance with France. That didn’t stop it being invaded by the Nazis in WW2 that resulted in over 40,000 Belgian civilian deaths due to war-related causes, including more than 25,000 Jews murdered in the death camps. This is additional to the estimated 44,000 military causalities.

Austria is the other major EU country whose neutrality is guaranteed by an international treaty, one of the signatories of which is Russia, then the Soviet Union. Austria clearly doesn’t believe this treaty in itself protects it from invasion, and has announced a doubling of its defence expenditure to 2% of GDP, with closer cooperation with EU defence procurement etc.

‘Neutrality’ will not save you from being invaded with appalling consequences. And working together to defend common ideals and each other’s territories resets European politics away from its dark past. Now Belgium and Germany inter alia stand shoulder to shoulder in the defence of Europe through NATO, and we get a free ride of this defence. Even worse because of our lack of expenditure on defence we expose Europe’s Atlantic coast to risk. If you believe is something, i.e. the EU, that has enriched this country, you should also defend it, and that’s through NATO.

 

[Purple]

And follow this aspirational nonsense and you’ll probably end up dead.

Neutrality doesn’t protect you. In WW1 Belgium a neutral country, the neutrality of which was guaranteed by an internation treaty since 1839, was invaded by the German/Prussian empire, which were a signatories to the treaty. The invaders killed 8,756 civilians in Belgium in the initial attack and caused an estimated 78,665 excess civilian deaths due to famine, disease, and deprivation under German rule. Belgium was still neutral before WW2, having declared so in 1936 and renounced its military alliance with France. That didn’t stop it being invaded by the Nazis in WW2 that resulted in over 40,000 Belgian civilian deaths due to war-related causes, including more than 25,000 Jews murdered in the death camps. This is additional to the estimated 44,000 military causalities.

Austria is the other major EU country whose neutrality is guaranteed by an international treaty, one of the signatories of which is Russia, then the Soviet Union. Austria clearly doesn’t believe this treaty in itself protects it from invasion, and has announced a doubling of its defence expenditure to 2% of GDP, with closer cooperation with EU defence procurement etc.

Our new President is anti EU, anti NATO and anti American. She is an apologist for totalitarianism and keeps the company of those who cosy up to the enemies of democracy. That's not hyperbole; Russia and its allies are the enemies of democracy.

Much like the totalitarian dictatorships which formed the Axis Powers during the Second World War their present day counterparts Russia, North Korea and Iran have no respect for international treaties or the neutrality of peaceful democratic countries. We are a democratic country and so we are their enemy.

We have a left wing populist political grouping in this country which has/had anti-democratic terrorist links and now cosies up to and admires terrorists and totalitarians. It is unsurprising that they are sympathetic to Russia and other repressive and murderous regimes and hostile to other democratic countries. They ignore the actual behaviour of their murderous fellow travellers while presupposing and assigning fanciful and nefarious motives to those who seek to defend the democratic would.

That said there is much about NATO and the US to be critical of but they have protected the democratic would from being overwhelmed by totalitarianism for the last 80 years and that aint nothin'.

 

[Marsupial]

[the US] .... have protected the democratic would from being overwhelmed by totalitarianism for the last 80 years and that aint nothin'.

Sadly, Trump's latest attempt to impose Putin's "peace plan" on Ukraine suggests that this is no longer the case.

But fear not, because our much vaunted military neutrality will save us all from what's coming.

 

[Sister Sara]

And follow this aspirational nonsense and you’ll probably end up dead.

Absolute nonsense. Participating in wars is far more hazardous to your health than avoiding them, a proven fact.

Neutrality and self-defense are two different things. I have no issue with Ireland investing in its military and defence capabilities. I'm against aligning our defence forces with others for unknown purposes or unforeseen consequences, or for Ireland to develop a military grade weapons industry for export.

 

[Sister Sara]

Our new President is

overwhelmingly endorsed by the electorate and in tune with the views and wishes of the people of Ireland as reflected across the political spectrum. The idea that 'neutrality' is left-wing ideology is nonsense.

The rest of your post is just an anti-Irish, anti-democratic rant.

That said there is much about NATO and the US to be critical of but they have protected the democratic would from being overwhelmed by totalitarianism for the last 80 years and that aint nothin'.

This is pure fantasy. Tell me, which part of the Eastern bloc of European countries that were under the boot of Soviet totalitarianism for 45years did you forget about?

NATO did absolutely nothing to protect these countries.

 

[losttheplot]

NATO did absolutely nothing to protect these countries.

Those countries weren't NATO memebers, they were in the Warsaw pact. Since the end of the cold war some of those countires have joined NATO as have some of the former Soviet Republics. None of the countries that joined NATO have been invaded by Russia. Some of the former Soviet Republics have been invaded by Russia, but not the ones that have joined NATO. NATO only really has a purpose because of Russia.

NATO may seem pointless to most Irish people because we don't have a border with Russia. For those living next to Russia, it's a different story.

 

[Purple]

This is pure fantasy. Tell me, which part of the Eastern bloc of European countries that were under the boot of Soviet totalitarianism for 45years did you forget about?

More gross misrepresentation of the facts.

NATO was set up in 1949. Those Eastern Block countries were already under communist rule. NATO prevented further Communist aggression and expansion in Europe.

NATO did absolutely nothing to protect these countries.

I don't think going to war with Russia in 1949 was a good idea... unless you are a war monger (like Putin) ... but I like the way you are thinking, that democratic countries should protect each other from invasion and subjugation but totalitarian States... and yet you are against NATO protecting Ukraine and those now freed Eastern European from Russian aggression now. How come?

 

[Sister Sara]

NATO was set up in 1949. Those Eastern Block countries were already under communist rule. NATO prevented further Communist aggression and expansion in Europe.

I will concede to you on that point. My point was that after NATO was established it did nothing to free those countries from USSR.

but I like the way you are thinking, that democratic countries should protect each other from invasion and subjugation but totalitarian States... and yet you are against NATO protecting Ukraine and those now freed Eastern European from Russian aggression now. How come?

I have no issue with democratic countries protecting each other from invasion and aggression!!
I have no issue with Ukraine joining NATO, if that is what Ukrainians want to do!

As for NATO protecting Ukraine, how is that working out? If NATO wants to protect Ukraine why are they not members of NATO? Because according the great and good, if you are member of NATO you will be protected from Russian aggression. So why not admit Ukraine into NATO tomorrow? Sweden and Finland applied in May 2022 and were members by July 2022.

Where is the gallant NATO now to protect Ukraine?

The people of Ireland do not want to join NATO, they do not want to give up our military neutrality, do you accept that that is what the people of Ireland want?

 

[Sister Sara]

Ukraine risks losing US support over Trump peace plan - Zelensky

Not only is NATO not coming to Ukraine's rescue, its chief member is hanging them out to dry.

Prior to Ukraine's push to join NATO it lived in relative peace. Now it is on the verge of collapse and in ruins.

 

[Sister Sara]

NATO may seem pointless to most Irish people because we don't have a border with Russia. For those living next to Russia, it's a different story.

You have hit the nail on the head there. For those living next to Russia NATO serves a purpose. For Ireland, it does not.
Just because Ukraine, Sweden or Finland want to jump into bed with NATO should be of no requirement for Ireland to jump in with them.

 

[Purple]

My point was that after NATO was established it did nothing to free those countries from USSR.

I agree. Short of a third world war what else could they have done?

I have no issue with democratic countries protecting each other from invasion and aggression!!
I have no issue with Ukraine joining NATO, if that is what Ukrainians want to do!

Great. It did and Russia invaded before that could happen. If they had joined first then Russia probably wouldn't have invaded.

As for NATO protecting Ukraine, how is that working out?

Ukraine isn't in NATO.

If NATO wants to protect Ukraine why are they not members of NATO?

Are you serious?

Because according the great and good, if you are member of NATO you will be protected from Russian aggression. So why not admit Ukraine into NATO tomorrow?

You know the answer to that.

Sweden and Finland applied in May 2022 and were members by July 2022.

Where is the gallant NATO now to protect Ukraine?

Why do you think NATO is gallant?

The people of Ireland do not want to join NATO, they do not want to give up our military neutrality,

Those are two completely different things and it is deeply disingenuous to conflate them, as so many on the left do.

do you accept that that is what the people of Ireland want?

Yes. In the past they also didn't want divorce or marriage equality but thankfully they were convinced otherwise.

I'm not really a fan of NATO, certainly not at present while it is dominated by the current US administration. I'd like the EU to be able to defend itself and not be subservient to the US. That requires us to have a defence industry and to coordinate our militaries.

I am a big fan of the EU. I want it to be strong and thrive so that it can continue to be a champion for human rights and individual freedom because for all it's faults and shortcomings in those areas nothing and no one else comes close.

 

[losttheplot]

For those living next to Russia NATO serves a purpose.

Yay for solidarity. Without NATO, Russia could be closer to us. Back to the Iron Curtain days. Iceland think differently.
I'd rather an EU defence force, free of US influence. US wouldn't be reliable. Article 5 requires NATO allies to aid a member if attacked. The current US administration might send some boots. Their proposed peace plan looks good for Putin .

Ireland's current response to threats to democracy.

 

[Dinarius]

With the current US/Russia peace plan (as far as I can ascertain, Ukraine had nothing to do with drafting it) isn’t the future of a very large part of Eastern Europe potentially being decided over the heads of the rest of Europe?

Where is NATO in a situation like this where the US holds an effective veto on its actions?

In addition, one of the many leaked terms of the agreement rules out Ukraine joining NATO.

Where is the “Coalition of the willing” now?

Is it time that Europe form a new defence alliance (which Trump effectively argued for months ago to take the US out of future conflicts) that supersedes NATO, and over which we in Europe have total control over who’s in or out?

I will be surprised, but pleased, if anything self-determining and positive comes of the G20 summit.

D.

 

[Sister Sara]

It did and Russia invaded before that could happen. If they had joined first then Russia probably wouldn't have invaded.

And here we are getting to the crux of the issue. The attitude of the Ukrainian people to ever joining NATO has historically, been unfavourable.

Ukraine and NATO – Evidence from public opinion surveys

In 2010 support to join NATO had fallen to 18% and the Ukranian Parliament adopted a principal of non-military alignment.
In 2013 Ukraine Yanukovych refused to sign an EU Association agreement, an election promise, instead deepening economic ties with Russia that included providing some very cheap energy supplies (shock horror, elected politician does u-turn on election promises).

In democratic countries this would cause a constitutional crisis, and probably a general election. Instead we got the protests leading to clashes with authorities and the ousting of the democratically elected leader. In most democratic countries this would be seen as undemocratic but it suits the narrative of the pro-NATO lobby to describe it as a revolution.

Russia responded annexing Crimea in response to the threat of losing control the strategically important (for Russia) Sevastopol port and the rest is history.
And why Russia never responded in similar fashion to Poland and the Baltic countries joining EU and NATO is probably, for one reason, because they still retain control of the strategically important Baltic port of Kaliningrad.

If Ukrainians want to join NATO that is their right, but the NATO military analysts would have known that it would be seen as highly provocative to Russia. No different if Mexico wanted to align militarily with Russia or China, the US would set about toppling the Mexican administration.

I'd rather see a Europe where relations between EU and Russia were harmonious, and even one day (long after Putin) become part of the EU. NATO and Putin are impediments to that.

 

[Sister Sara]

I'm not really a fan of NATO, certainly not at present while it is dominated by the current US administration

NATO is dominated by every US administration. If the EU is to defend itself militarily then EU nations should break military ties with the US, ie - end NATO.