Time to join Nato

[Purple]

1. Russia's position (my interpretation not endorsement of, the public views expressed) - NATO troops on Ukraine soil equals escalation toward greater, wider war, further in Europe.

2. NATO position (my interpretation not endorsement of, of the public views expressed) - Europe cannot stand idly by and allow Putin dictate to the rest of Europe, so arm-up, get NATO boots ready on the ground to go into Ukraine.

So what option to take?

Personally to me, option 2 is worst.

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. You'd rather see Russia dominate Europe than risk a war with them. You said that you are a firm believer in the principles of democracy, free-speech and human rights. You have now stated that you are Ireland First. Are those principles only worth defending within Ireland? Is Ireland First like America First?

Ireland was a basket case when Ireland First was our official State policy. We were poor and our population dropped each year as more people died or left than were born here. Just about nobody came here. That was the policy of your guys in Sinn Fein until relatively recently (they dropped it around the same time they stopped murdering children).

It was integration into Europe, at first economically through the EEC and then culturally as part of the EU, that has made us an incredibly rich, equal and liberal society. We have problems but nothing like the problems we had when I was a child. As a country we own everything to the EU; being part of the greatest peace project in history which has produced the freest place in history. I think that's worth defending. I think that we have a debt or gratitude and a moral obligation to the other European countries which allowed this basket case of a country to join their club and then nurtured us and helped us to become what we are. One of those debts and obligations includes our shared defence.

You can't complain about the actions and excesses of other countries and then say "Ireland First".
You can't complain about NATO and US dominance over Europe and then shirk our responsibility to be part of a viable alternative.

You can have Ireland First and our EU neighbours can adopt the same policy but that means Russian or US dominance. The US is moving to a version of the Monroe Doctrine where the US has it's own sphere of influence, China has it's sphere and Russia has it's sphere. The EU is not part of that discussion and Europe can be dominated by Russia for all the Americans care. Their attitude is that we we're not willing to help ourselves then why should they do it? It has more than some merit. Putin is, as always, playing the long game. That's why he's willing to throw Venezuela under the bus; Europe is a far bigger prize.

 

[Sister Sara]

Ah bless! @Firefly @Purple. My request made under free-speech, to ignore each others content would appear to have been respectfully declined, as it is the will of everyone to choose in the free world to do so, or not.

I will duly reciprocate.

Hugs all round I say!

 

[cremeegg]

Ireland was a basket case when Ireland First was our official State policy.

Autarky was Irelands economic position until the late 1950s, and it indeed left us economically underdeveloped and people in poverty. I'm not sure it was ever called Ireland First, or had anything to do with modern America First or Ireland First movements or slogans.

While a country's course can rarely be ascribe to 1 or 2 individuals, Sean Lemass and TK Whittaker and a strong claim to have shifted us away from this on their own. Both Lemass and Whittaker were committed Irish cultural nationalists, that is to the promotion of Irish culture, which never required denigration of others. The recent controversy over the proposed renaming of Dublin airport largely missed Lemass' immense moral contribution to the healing of the Civil War rifts.

It was integration into Europe, at first economically through the EEC and then culturally as part of the EU, that has made us an incredibly rich, equal and liberal society.

This is undeniably true. However just because the Ireland of the 1970s benefited from the change in policy, that tells us little about the needs of Ireland in the 2020s

As a country we own everything to the EU

The cultural changes in the 1980s were certainly helped by our membership of the EU, both in terms of EU law and more generally by opening our eyes to a different way of being, and of course the EU facilitated economic prosperity of the 1970s. However ultimately they were driven by Irish people striving to modernise Ireland.

I think that we have a debt or gratitude and a moral obligation to the other European countries

Our membership of the EU has been a 2 way street, we provided markets for German exporters and work for Polish immigrants. To our mutual benefit.

The EU project is now under external pressure. You may feel the need to die, or kill, in a trench on some Eastern front for that, I don't. And unless you are writing from Ukraine, I don't think you do either.

It was John Hume who weaned us away from the idea of the glory of dying for Ireland, dying for the EU is a poor substitute.

The main external threat to the EU comes I suspect from the US rather than Russia. After a hugely costly 4 years achieving very little against Ukraine, Russia is in no position to threaten Poland. We are seeing the tail end of Russian military adventureism, not because Russia has had a change of heart, but because its not working for them

The Donal Trump lawsuit against the BBC however I think is just the start of US political adventureism. That particular case should come to the boil just in time for Trump to be a major player in the next UK election.

 

[Sister Sara]

@Purple, respectfully I see little point in discussing with you as your penchant to automatically categorise, and lable me with intent to apply slurs and demean is wholly at odds the rules of this forum.

I will admit that my use of the phrase 'Ireland First' above was clumsy on my part particularly in the context of the current immigration issues that have arisen in recent times. So to clarify further, what I meant is that every administration in duty bound to put the interests of the nation first before the interests of any other nation. That does not mean applying second-class status to non-Irish, it means fundamentally the survival of the nation which may, or may not, involve mutual co-operation with other nation states and peoples to achieve and sustain that outcome.

What that mutual co-operation entails in the context of Ukraine is where we diverge.

You have your views, I have mine, as it is a tenet of free-speech in a democratic society. I do not attempt to add, imply or infer grotesque slurs and lies on your views as a means to try demean, belittle, ostracise those views. I only go with what you actually say and if your comments are grotesque or lies I will call them out as such.

Ukraine

You have labelled me a 'Putin apologist'. Despite the fact that I have clearly stated that Putin should be in The Hague for war crimes, yet your persist with the narrative. This is a slur and a lie and an attempt to stifle discussion. Others have implied that I have some anti-Western civilisation agenda .

It is a tenet of democratic values, of law and order, due process, that the actions of everyone, particularly those that make and enforce the laws, are adhered to. This involves scrutiny and questioning. Any attempts to stifle debate through slurs, lies and innuendo is anti-democratic, anti-Western and befitting of tyranny.

Putin should be in The Hague for his illegal invasion of Ukraine. I hope that much is clear now?

Reality: As matters stand today it would appear that this is wishful thinking, ditto for the likes of Netenyahu, Blair and Bush for their authorising of illegal invasions and occupations.

Consequence: Deal with the reality.

I have every sympathy and empathy for the civilian population of Ukraine for what they are having to endure and I am proud of Irelands reaction to offer international protection.
This does not mean I have to like the Ukraine government.
What I understand about Ukraine is that it has been repeatedly cited as being one of the most corrupt countries in Europe.

I'm not convinced about the bona fide of Zelensky. I do not know him, his rise to power was very sudden. I know little of his policies (other than defending Ukraine obviously).

In July 2025 he took control of anti-corruption agencies in Ukraine so that he alone would determine who would be the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor. This smacks of authoritarian rule. The people of Ukraine protested and EU protested forcing him to reverse the policy the same month. Following a 12 month investigation it was revealed in November 2025 that close associates of Zelensky were allegedly involved in a $100m fraud scheme.

I don't know about you, but I think Zelensky was trying to cover this up by taking effective control of the anti-corruption agencies?

Before this conflict I do not think I ever met a Ukrainian but am all for the people of Ukraine becoming part of the EU if that is their desire.
If they were to choose not to be part of EU, or cannot abide by standards required to be part of EU I would not lose a moments sleep over it and would rather see them out of it.

I do not subscribe to views that Putin is intent on attacking Europe for the purposes of imposing Russian authoritarian rule. I do not subscribe to views that Ireland should join NATO or beef up its defences in fear of a Russian attack. I subscribe to views that generally say our defences need modernising and upgrading . That is with or without a purported threat from Russia.

I am of the view that Russia invaded Ukraine following what it see's as a coup d'état of a democratically elected Putin-friendly Ukraine President in 2014. This is a Putin viewpoint. Expressing it here does not imply endorsement of it. It does not matter whether you or I or anyone else agree with it, it is a fact that that is how Russia interprets the events of 2014. This and moves towards EU and NATO membership were red lines for Russia. EU and NATO would have known this but still pursued it anyway. And I have stated that Ukraine as a sovereign nation should determine its own future and relations with other countries but the geo-political reality is that Putin will do what he considers is right to protect Russian influence in the same way as US and Britain would never allow Ireland to align with Russia, even if the people endorsed it.

This is the reality to be dealt with. Ignoring this is lunacy.


Russia began its military build up to invade Ukraine in April 2021. I do not believe for one second that Ukraine would have done anything other than come to a peace settlement with Russia rather than risk invasion if it were not for the fact that others actors were giving them assurances of weapons and money to fight Russia - ie, NATO and/or it members, primarily USA and UK.

The whole thing is a sorry mess and cannot be undone. The reality appears to be despite all the reporting otherwise, is that Ukraine is not in a strong position. I could be wrong but if not, this is the reality.

What it the answer? I do not know. Some propose that NATO send boots on the ground to support Ukraine as it cannot be tolerated that Putin dictates what happens to Ukraine.

I think that is insane. I think the Russian position is clear on this. I do think that would trigger a far greater and destructive war in Europe.
Possibly tearing the EU apart, possibly leading to attacks on Irish soil and infrastructure.

Sorry, no thanks.

Ukrainian people may have to face up to the fact that their government, backed by US and UK and now EU have made a sorry mess of their country. Its not what I wanted, but from my perspective it is a reality.
Lets not make it any worse by endorsing military strikes from NATO or EU on Russia.
This is the same consistent way I would not endorse Irish or EU military strikes against the fascist apartheid and genocidal regime of Israel to protect Palestinians.

That is my view.


Sinn Féin.

Your labelling me as a SF'er and by implication an apologist for child murder is factually untrue and grotesque. I am not, or never have been a member of SF. I have voted for them and the reasons I have voted are mine to determine (its my vote), not yours.
I also endorse any party that actively supports a United Ireland by actually providing the electorate in Northern Ireland an option to vote for them, that is People before Profit and the Greens. If the DUP were ever to stand in my constituency I would also give them an endorsement solely on the basis that it would suggest a UI is effectively occurring.
When it comes to social and economic polices I see little difference between parties other than they talk one side in opposition and say other in power. The old adage comes to mind - it doesn't matter who you vote for the government always gets in.

I have repeatedly stated that the IRA (of all hues and times) have been a cancer on Irish society and it is why I admire the principles of 1916 Proclamation for civil and religious liberty and equal rights to all citizens but disown the right for anyone to unilaterly assert the right of national sovereignty through arms.
Despite the people of Ireland overwhelmingly endorsing the peaceful and democratic route in 1998, in 2016 we were subjected to a grotesque series of commemorations and events endorsing the entirety of that document. So much so, the government of the day (supported by the parliament) authorised the naming of a Liffey river bridge, the Thomas Clarke bridge, an actual child-murderer.

The hypocrisy is vile, but there is nothing I can do about it. I have to accept the reality of the situation that if I vote any political party in Ireland that supported the naming of this bridge after Clarke then I am in fact voting for a party that is mostly likely an admirer of Clarke.

You are entitled of course to disagree with that reasoning but unless you provide points of substance to try change my mind then please do not bother to respond. If you do respond please open another thread.

 

[joe sod]

A Ukraine on its knees is what the EU and Ukraine are trying to prevent. If we, the EU, were sufficiently militarily powerful we could do that without cow towing to the Americans. As things stand the most likely outcome is a weakened and divided Ukraine and an emboldened Russia because of a weak EU and America not wanting to have to keep spending billions defending Europe

Looks like Europe is now flexing its muscle now that Trump has effectively abandoned ship. It looks very likely now that the Russian frozen assets are finally being seized in the next week despite Putin and Trump wanting to carve it up for their so called "peace deal". Belgium is not very happy but they have been effectively forced to give the funds up and Orban has been shoved out of the way. Lauhgably Russia wants to bring an international court case against this when they have broken every international rule regarding Ukraine and caused trillions of euros worth of damage. Also the battlefield situation in eastern Ukraine looks much more promising given that Ukraine have taken back Kupiansk (Zelensky was filmed in the city yesterday) even though Putin claimed Russia had taken it weeks ago. The seizing of the russian frozen assets will be a huge boost for Ukraine and will greatly reduce the effect of the Trump antics.

 

[Sister Sara]

Our membership of the EU has been a 2 way street, we provided markets for German exporters and work for Polish immigrants. To our mutual benefit.

The EU project is now under external pressure. You may feel the need to die, or kill, in a trench on some Eastern front for that, I don't. And unless you are writing from Ukraine, I don't think you do either.

It was John Hume who weaned us away from the idea of the glory of dying for Ireland, dying for the EU is a poor substitute.

The main external threat to the EU comes I suspect from the US rather than Russia. After a hugely costly 4 years achieving very little against Ukraine, Russia is in no position to threaten Poland. We are seeing the tail end of Russian military adventureism, not because Russia has had a change of heart, but because its not working for them

The Donal Trump lawsuit against the BBC however I think is just the start of US political adventureism. That particular case should come to the boil just in time for Trump to be a major player in the next UK election.

I would agree all of that. Irelands membership of EU is as much a benefit to the rest of EU as vice-versa - we owe nothing to the EU, as we are the EU every bit as a much as any other EU member. Any suggestion otherwise puts us as subservient, second-class citizens of EU. The laws and principles establishing the EU ensure that is not the case for any nation state.

Ireland was an economic back-water so much so that our valuable fishing stock was being repeatedly thieved by European fishing vessels. Being an economic basket case we had no efficient resources to prevent it.
Now, as part of EU, countries whose vessels were repeatedly stealing can now legally enter the waters under a quota system. Over-fishing is subject to EU laws that Ireland can avail of.

I think US, UK and Russia all pose a threat to the continued existence of EU, that is why I do not subscribe to the predominant narrative around Ukraine. The idea of a militarised EU does not sit well with me. Europe is a melting pot of diverse cultures and communities, militarisation is not what we signed up for.
Russia is stuck in the mud in Ukraine, it does not have the military capability of sweeping through Europe and imposing an authoritarian regime. It does have the capability of being very destructive to Europe.
I do have some concerns over Baltic States Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia over Russian aggression so that is why I favour de-escalating tensions instead of ramping them up.


Regrettably, 'more-weapons' is the talk of the day. And almost everyday with ludicrous stories of Russian navy vessels travelling through international waters of the coast of Scotland as they are perfectly entitled to do.

These stories are to drive an agenda, to put fear in people and push Ireland closer to joining NATO so we can contribute our 'fair share' of weapons and human lives in a conflict that has nothing to do with us, that we didnt start, and from what I can see, gain nothing in return.

 

[Purple]

You have labelled me a 'Putin apologist'. Despite the fact that I have clearly stated that Putin should be in The Hague for war crimes, yet your persist with the narrative.

Because you then consistently attempt to draw a moral equivalence between him and the democratically elected leaders of free democratic countries. As long as you do that people will draw the obvious conclusion.

Russia began its military build up to invade Ukraine in April 2021. I do not believe for one second that Ukraine would have done anything other than come to a peace settlement with Russia rather than risk invasion if it were not for the fact that others actors were giving them assurances of weapons and money to fight Russia - ie, NATO and/or it members, primarily USA and UK.

That's absolute and utter nonsense. As long as you persist with such nonsense then people will draw the obvious conclusion.

Ukrainian people may have to face up to the fact that their government, backed by US and UK and now EU have made a sorry mess of their country.

That's absolute and utter nonsense. As long as you persist with such nonsense then people will draw the obvious conclusion.

Lets not make it any worse by endorsing military strikes from NATO or EU on Russia.
This is the same consistent way I would not endorse Irish or EU military strikes against the fascist apartheid and genocidal regime of Israel to protect Palestinians.

More attempts to draw a moral equivalence between two unrelated and dissimilar things. As long as you persist with such nonsense then people will draw the obvious conclusion.

I have repeatedly stated that the IRA (of all hues and times) have been a cancer on Irish society

No, you've consistently justified the actions of the provisional IRA by attempting to draw moral equivalences between their actions and the actions of Republicans in 1916.

Despite the people of Ireland overwhelmingly endorsing the peaceful and democratic route in 1998, in 2016 we were subjected to a grotesque series of commemorations and events endorsing the entirety of that document. So much so, the government of the day (supported by the parliament) authorised the naming of a Liffey river bridge, the Thomas Clarke bridge, an actual child-murderer.

The hypocrisy is vile, but there is nothing I can do about it. I have to accept the reality of the situation that if I vote any political party in Ireland that supported the naming of this bridge after Clarke then I am in fact voting for a party that is mostly likely an admirer of Clarke.

Moral moral equivalents; it's okay to vote for a Party which was run by child killers, and who according to many are still the real power behind the Party, because a bridge was named after a man who was part of a campaign to blow up bridges and railways in England over a 140 years ago. A man who was arrested with bombs before he had a chance to set any off. There were 38 children killed during the 1916 rising so he could certainly he said to be partially responsible for them but that's not what you accused him of.

All I see is you muddying the waters to justify the actions of terrorists and totalitarians. You talk about principles but your willingness to actually support them ends at the border of this country, or certainly this island. You cite realpolitik but are what I can at best describe as wilfully naive about Russia's intentions in Europe. It's all very A la Carte and utterly inconsistent.

 

[Purple]

Autarky was Irelands economic position until the late 1950s, and it indeed left us economically underdeveloped and people in poverty. I'm not sure it was ever called Ireland First, or had anything to do with modern America First or Ireland First movements or slogans.

It wasn't autarky but it wasn't far off that but I agree with you.

While a country's course can rarely be ascribe to 1 or 2 individuals, Sean Lemass and TK Whittaker and a strong claim to have shifted us away from this on their own. Both Lemass and Whittaker were committed Irish cultural nationalists, that is to the promotion of Irish culture, which never required denigration of others. The recent controversy over the proposed renaming of Dublin airport largely missed Lemass' immense moral contribution to the healing of the Civil War rifts.

Agree 100%

This is undeniably true. However just because the Ireland of the 1970s benefited from the change in policy, that tells us little about the needs of Ireland in the 2020s
The cultural changes in the 1980s were certainly helped by our membership of the EU, both in terms of EU law and more generally by opening our eyes to a different way of being, and of course the EU facilitated economic prosperity of the 1970s. However ultimately they were driven by Irish people striving to modernise Ireland.

It was all driven and facilitated by EU membership and would not have happened otherwise.

Our membership of the EU has been a 2 way street, we provided markets for German exporters and work for Polish immigrants. To our mutual benefit.

It's a motorway in one direction and a grassy lane in the other direction. What we import from the EU is inconsequential, especially if you strip out the imports by multinationals who wouldn't be here otherwise. Polish and other Eastern European immigrants have been a massive net positive for Ireland. We've got far more than we've given in that regard.

The EU project is now under external pressure. You may feel the need to die, or kill, in a trench on some Eastern front for that, I don't. And unless you are writing from Ukraine, I don't think you do either.

Who is suggesting otherwise?

It was John Hume who weaned us away from the idea of the glory of dying for Ireland, dying for the EU is a poor substitute.

Lots of people weaned us away from that and nobody is suggesting we substitute EU Nationalism for Irish Nationalism.

The main external threat to the EU comes I suspect from the US rather than Russia.

How so? America is certainly going back to its isolationist roots but that means it's up to Europe to be able to defend itself. Globally we are back to the 1860's when Empires had their spheres of influence. As America retreats from Europe we will either fall under Russia's influence or resist it on our own.

After a hugely costly 4 years achieving very little against Ukraine, Russia is in no position to threaten Poland. We are seeing the tail end of Russian military adventureism, not because Russia has had a change of heart, but because its not working for them

Russia will continue to attack Poland and the rest of the EU and attempt to fracture it and weaken it as it has done for the past two decades. If the opportunity presents itself it will then attack in a conventional manner.

The Donal Trump lawsuit against the BBC however I think is just the start of US political adventureism. That particular case should come to the boil just in time for Trump to be a major player in the next UK election.

Trump is not America. Putin is Russia.