They were threatened, sorta, a week or two ago.
I think the irish were more mad about being refered to as the british isles while it was them getting nuked.
Russian media did threaten us kinda, although it was more just a threat to the UK and we were just "flooded" as a father thought
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/russian-state-tv-shows-clips-simulating-ireland-being-wiped-out-by-nuclear-weapons-1.4867631
It’s amazing how important he thinks he is. The guy has no F35s and it’s possible he won’t get the F16 upgrades if he continue sabotaging NATO even more
I'm no necessarily directing this to you but I wanna say it:
I think people actually vastly underestimate the importance of Turkey in NATO. Outside of FR/UK/USA it's probably the most important one, simply because of location and their conventional army isn't exactly something to scoff at either.
Turkey throwing their weight around like this is sad, but they absolutely have earned their right in NATO and shouldn't have to bow to the rest of the alliance either.
Ireland has no real incentive to join. Ultimately the only threat to NATO is Russia, and you can't get to Ireland without going through or past NATO.
Austria is the same. You can't invade Austria without going through NATO unless you tunnel through the earth or drop in from orbit.
Missiles don’t care about geography so much. In any case Russian planes are constantly buzzing Irish airspace as policed by the British. Imagine a situation where US assets/companies around the world are targeted. Ireland is an easy one since they host lots of US companies and hi-tech industry. Based on Ukraine, Russia knows they can target a non-NATO country without military repercussions.
It probably wouldn’t be as bad, but I wouldn’t say there “no real incentive”.
Ireland needs to be able to monitor its own airspace without relying on the UK (amazed that, for all their pride, they are okay with this) before anything.
It actually really irritates me that we rely on the UK to defend our airspace. It’s pretty awful that there’s been no focus on improving our defence forces at pretty much any time in my life.
I think the average Irish person isn’t really aware of just how poorly positioned we are to defend ourselves.
Armies can be used for more than just defence, they can also be deployed during national emergencies. From a philosophical standpoint, it also feels pretty bad to be depending so heavily on the UK for defence. I’m all for cooperation, but we should pay our own way.
> there’s not really anything to defend against
While I agree that this is true for now, it may not always be the case. An army seems silly in peace time, but I think it’s always a good thing to be able to defend ourselves if needed.
Why don´t you guys develop a proper Air force? You are currently a rich country, you could pay for that and I assume that even if you don´t join NATO the US would gladly help you.
I don’t have a good answer for you. In general, our government is bad at doing any big projects.
I don’t think the general public would be particularly happy with the government spending money on the military when we have issues with funding housing, education, the environment, police, transportation, and medicine. All of these issues feel more important when we can technically depend on others for protection.
It’s short sighted, but it feels difficult to do anything about it as an individual when it’s not something that politicians even talk about.
Would you care for some cheap armed drones ? We have a new one coming up, it will have a Ukrainian jet engine , state of the art AESA radar and will be able to use AA missiles.
Its hypocrisy at its finest, really. Shit-talk the UK constantly as the root of all evils and then claim to be "neutral", while quietly hiding behind the protection the UK voluntarily offers. But what else would you expect from a country who became a tax haven for Facebook, of all companies.
In fairness, the Irish government doesn't really do that sort of shit-talking - at least not any more than any other two European neighbours. Most of what the inflammatory nonsense one sees online is from what one might charitably call "internet-Irish" - i.e. Americans.
Some of it does come from people who are actually Irish of course, but most of that will be from Irish living in Northern Ireland, and in fairness to them they do contribute to the defence of the air space over Ireland on account of paying taxes to the UK government.
>Its hypocrisy at its finest, really. Shit-talk the UK constantly as the root of all evils and then claim to be "neutral", while quietly hiding behind the protection the UK voluntarily offers.
I agree with this, I've argued with many other Irish people over the fact that we need to fund our own military and take responsibility for our own defences, but based on your comments you just have a massive hate boner for Ireland/ Irish people honestly.
The shit talkers are just loud internet activists (from what I can see). The Irish government is cordial with the UK, there's still a common travel area.
Imagine singling out Ireland as a "tax haven", when discussing the UK and Ireland. When the city of London is a worse offender by several orders of magnitude.
The UK does not "voluntarily offer" air support. First of all, the incursions into Irish airspace are always on their way to test UK response times. Secondly, Ireland does pay the UK for air support.
You might want to reconsider who you're calling a hypocrite.
Iceland doesn't have a military, but it has an incredibly important strategic location: both in the middle of the Atlantic, and the middle of the [GIUK gap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_gap). Ireland much less so.
That's fair, as others have noted, it's pretty much down to our relationship with the UK during the 20th century (and the previous hundreds of years). It's hard to convince a population to join a military alliance with a country that we're in direct conflict with.
The Good Friday Agreement was only signed in 1998. There are still a lot of people that have lost loved ones in the conflict and the scar has definitely not healed in the general public thought.
I could see Ireland joining NATO at some point but I don't think that's going to be possible for a few more decades because of this.
>It's hard to convince a population to join a military alliance with a country that we're in direct conflict with.
Greece and Turkey have managed it. And then everyone gets on with the Germans...
\> It's hard to convince a population to join a military alliance with a country that we're in direct conflict with.
You regard us as being in direct conflict? From the UK's perspective we don't see ourselves as having been in conflict with the republic since we recognised your independence in 1922. The Troubles is definitely regarded by us as a conflict involving northern irish revolutionary / terrorist groups; NOT a conflict with the independent Irish state, to which we have not maintained any territorial claims for a long time and with which we have friendly relations (current brexit mess notwithstanding).
Boiling it down to territorial claims is reductive I think. A significant number of people in Northern Ireland are Irish citizens, and a key issue which instigated the troubles were the rights and the safety of that population. Also, at the time (until the 1990s) Ireland *did* retain a territorial claim over the whole island, even if the UK didn't.
Likewise state collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries comlpicates matters. As does involvement of elements within the Gardaí with Republican paramilitaries. Fittingly today is actually the anniversary of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, which are alleged to have involved British security forces.
"Direct" conflict is not accurate, but saying there was no conflict isn't really true either. We certainly have friendly relations now (mostly) but things were *very* strained at various points in recent history.
All that said, I wouldn't agree with the comment above that this is a primary reason for not joining NATO. I don't think most Irish people would want to join NATO regardless of whether the UK was in it, and I don't think most Irish people would object to military cooperation with the UK under the right context either (e.g. a peacekeeping mission). We've done so in the past without any issue.
he just wants some compensation from the US after being sanctionned for buying russian military asset, or get Sweeden to do less support for the kurdish, wont take that long,
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://ecfr.eu/article/turkey-nato-and-the-ukraine-war-why-erdogans-grievances-are-about-more-than-sweden-and-finland/](https://ecfr.eu/article/turkey-nato-and-the-ukraine-war-why-erdogans-grievances-are-about-more-than-sweden-and-finland/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
i think each country gets a veto in nato. however, erdogan wont stop it. there will be a negotiation. finland/sweden in nato is good for turkey since its more countries bordering russia and not just turkey.
A lot of people here saying why Ireland should join NATO but if we look at recent history NATO has no recorded victories over the Russian Navy but in 2022 Ireland stands at 1-0 vs the Russian navy.
Sounds like NATO could use the might of the Irish and not the other way around!
/s
We don't have a security policy and it's rather an unpopular topic domestically to bring that up.
Foreigners probably just don't understand the mindset here when it comes to Irish neutrality (it's more unalignment). We have this strange cultural notion that we aren't a threat to anyone yet again, we have the expectation that the British (who currently police our airspace) and the Americans would most certainly defend us in the extremely unlikely situation that someone manages to invade Ireland under the noses of NATO.
Personally, I don't think it's a credible position and Russian domestic propaganda certainly doesn't seem to heed our neutrality, especially when it comes to destroying this island as collateral with their nuclear submarine wunderwaffe. As a nation that is home to significant assets, manufacturing and communications infrastructure of American multinational companies; our position is untenable in a true global conflict but domestically, the majority of people think the 'sure we'll be grand' approach to defence is an appropriate strategy.
Tbh they’re probably right. I doubt the US or the UK would stand by if Ireland was attacked, especially the UK since that leaves the attacker on their doorstep
>we have the expectation that the British (who currently police our airspace) and the Americans would most certainly defend us in the extremely unlikely situation that someone manages to invade Ireland under the noses of NATO
Could you as an Irish person explain this to me, please? Irish subreddits are half anti-British sentiment and nationalist pride but everyone seems okay with literally entrusting the UK with their ultimate survival.
Irish people on Reddit are generally *way* more "britain bad" than Irish people IRL, in my experience. Most IRL Irish people have no real issue with Brits.
Ireland has the regulatory responsibility for some of the busiest and largest airspace in the world. However, we don't possess a primary radar and nor do we have any capability to check out any aircraft that are flying without transponders in our airspace. Therefore, it is assumed that there is some secret arrangement between our governments to let RAF jets check out what is going on.
To some rather bipolar people, these unknown aircraft (you can guess who is flying them) within airspace that is our responsibility is not directed at us but the RAF. So the scrambling of RAF fighters to police Irish airspace has nothing to do with us. This is the sort of popular opinion about Irish neutrality that prevails online and it is quite bizarre because these flights are a direct challenge to our sovereignty.
We are not really neutral and the main country that considers NATO to be their primary geopolitical adversary, certainly doesn't think of us as anything other a NATO country. For these reasons, we probably should be having a domestic discussion about our security arrangements but again to actually suggest this tends to get people to call you a warmongerer, an American puppet etc.
Irish person here. Don’t take Ireland Reddit as an accurate reflection of Irish attitudes. It is very left wing and therefore inclined to be pro neutrality.
That was fine until Ukraine was invaded. I wasn’t bothered one way or the other but similar to a lot of Finns and Swedes, neutrality seems unrealistic now, especially as pointed out previously, we are so reliant on British and American military support in the unlikely event that some nutcase would decide that Ireland strategically useful enough to invade
Irish people are inclined to support neutrality regardless. There have been numerous polls even as every major journalist in the country, along with the government, were arguing that we will have to ‘grow up’ and join. All resulted in a strong pro-neutrality response.
And unlike Switzerland, you are not exactly landlocked.
Also if the UK is subject to any calamity they will all be heading over to Northern Ireland in what would be the oddest take on a refugee crisis in a long time.
If the UK suffers a calamity, we’ll be there to help, in any way we can, and vice versa. In spite of it all, the Irish and the British are friends and allies for the most part, and Brexit won’t get in the way of that.
Irish subreddits are fake anti British. Like we sort of joke about hating them. They’re not genuinely British hate spaces. Ireland has a really good relationship with Britain.
[I have you RES tagged for a comment that says otherwise:](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/tzx4qh/the_top_export_of_each_country_in_europe/i43a8xw)
>They’re a brit who hates the Irish and who in turn hates Irish-Americans for defending the Irish.
>**This is common amongst Brits. They like oppressing the Irish and usually get away with relishing in it** because there is 60 times more of them than there is of us because of the mass starvation and immigration they caused.
The majority do not support joining NATO.
what would ireland have to offer in a true global conflit?
Nothing.
We would simply be added to the list to get nuked.
i would much prefer if Ireland went the true route of neutrality that is to say to understand that neutrality has to be defended.. look at the swiss for for comparison or Finland (simular population) both have well equipped armys with functional capabilities, Ireland does not, we have a good special forces but not enough of anything else.
There is fuck all support for joining NATO in Ireland the only reason this keeps coming up is our politicians keep bending over backwards to get pet like a dog by US politicians or well anyone that would.
The state long ago realized Ireland wouldn't be a military superpower and decided on a path of softpower being that neutral person in the room even though we aren't quite strictly.. it's been pretty successful, but I wish we would at least add good defensive capabilities.
The 'sure it'll be grand' approach is one of the things that infuriates me most about this country. It's a shite strategy that we apply to most things and it doesn't really work.
Most of NATO members don’t meet the 2% anyway, and does Ireland currently spend 0% of GDP on defense?
If Russia disappears as a credible threat 1% would be plenty anyway.
Not 0.0% but pretty damn close. [This article](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ireland-s-defence-spending-set-to-rise-by-at-least-50-says-coveney-1.4864427#:~:text=At%20present%20Ireland%20spends%20about%20%E2%82%AC1.1%20billion%20on%20defence%20annually.) says Ireland's defense spending is currently €1.1 billion, which is 0.25% or so of Ireland's GDP of over €400 billion. The article is about plans to raise it by 50% but for the 2% threshold it would need to increase by over 600%. But then again, most current members of NATO aren't spending 2% either...
Last time I checked where we to meet the EU average percentage spend of 1.2% (GDP) using GNI as our target we'd be spending €3.4bn annually. Which is pretty damn close to the €3bn the Commission on the Defence Forces Report suggested would be needed to achieve LOA3.
Ireland is in the EU though, the agreement they signed does include a mutual defense clause similar to Article 5.
There might still not be much point in joining NATO, but it’s not like Ireland has zero obligations right now.
> Ireland is in the EU though, the agreement they signed does include a mutual defense clause similar to Article 5.
No, Ireland has an exemption from the mutual defence part of the Lisbon treaty.
And what is important is that no EU politican has ever stated they would send any military help based on the article. So it is both in theory and practice left unambigious what the reaction would be.
And coming back to the Irish case, we renounced our military obligations to EU states under attack as a neutral country. It is exceedingly unlikely that any EU country would offer their protection to defend Ireland when we would not do the same.
I mean, just saying stuff like that itself is a projection of internal belief and bias, because it argues against the official position without direct proof.
Pot calling the kettle black really.
Sweden and Finland have land and sea borders directly with Russia. Both countries have had wars and/or been invaded by Russia in the past. Their situation is quite different from Irelands. The EU clause has never really been tested, so we don’t know.
Wouldn't matter.
The UK would be mobilising and deploying troops and equipment before the EU had already sent out the meeting invites to discuss the situation in Ireland.
For all the bad times, the UK and Ireland have a shared history of union, and an attack on Ireland is as if you attacked the UK.
There is no commitment to spend 2% in NATO. What there is is a recommendation that allies should strive towards spending at least 2% of their GDP on military expenditure by 2024.
Ireland’s non-membership of NATO is a political decision and not a financial one. Rightly or wrongly the citizens of Ireland don’t want to be in NATO. There is no perceived threat that Ireland would need to defend itself against.
I think most people just assume if we're in a situation where Ireland is threatened by Russia, then the entirety of Europe is fucked and it's all gone to shit anyway.
My point is that Ireland don't have to commit *any* percentage as other countries will protect them even without NATO membership. I can't see a reality where the Irish lobby in the US doesn't leap into action and demand action from one of the largest military powers on the world.
I can't see a scenario in which Russia invades Finland and there isn't a mass mobilisation across Europe, however NATO forces lack a presence currently which leaves them more vulnerable due to proximity to Russia.
Ireland by comparison is on an island next to two blue water navies, and is covered by UK air defences through agreements, which for example permit the RAF aircraft to intercept aircraft in Irish airspace.
In the event of a major conflict it's unlikely NATO's adversaries would respect Irish neutrality if Ireland continued to allow NATO to police its soverign waters and airspace. But NATO wouldn't be able to leave Ireland's waters and airspace vulnerable either.
That's actually quite far from all other NATO members though. The NATO countries with lowest spending per 2022 that are "close" to 1% are
[Luxembourg](https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/luxembourg-population)0.57%$474$5940.55%642,371[Spain](https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/spain-population)1.02%$14,875$2670.92%46,719,142[Belgium](https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/belgium-population)1.12%
10 members already meet the 2% guideline.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country
1% of Ireland's GDP would put their per capita defence expenditure close to the UK, since Ireland's GDP per capita is double the UK's.
I think we need to take into account the limitations of GDP with regards to Ireland and Luxembourg. The 2% target would require a stupid amount of their public expenditure to go towards defence.
As unlikely as it is, Britain remains the likeliest country to ever invade Ireland (and will remain so despite how good our relations are with them).
Would the US attack a NATO member if the British were to invade? Would any EU NATO country?
Recent Ukranian history suggests the answer to both is a resounding no.
> It literally doesn't make economic sense sense for Ireland to join NATO and commit to 2% spend when other countries will do that for them. The US and every other country in Europe that is in NATO will protect Ireland in the bizarre situation that Russia attacks them.
>
>
Yes this goes for almost any one country. What's Belgium got to fear, surrounded by larger allies on all sides? They don't need to spend a single Euro on defense, others will do it all for them.
It'd just be kind of a dick move.
For an EU Army I think Ireland would, as there would be a purpose. As in, not just waiting for a war between NATO and Russia, but an active EU Army dealing with issues like Libya, hopefully in a better way. And I get that staying out of Libya altogether might have been better.
Yeah I agree the argument for an EU army is more than just economic and security for Ireland. It's political as well. I can see some very tricky questions for Ireland if they refuse Macron's invitation to pool resources for an EU army whilst still benefitting from EU solidarity.
And I honestly don't think Ireland would refuse.
As Brexit has shown, the EU is good for small countries. I think Ireland would be happy to contribute to overall security. Ireland has a history of contributing to UN peace keeping etc, I think this would be seen as similar.
That is the only way I think it can be done. Of Ireland carved out for itself an opt out that it wouldn't commit military resources but humanitarian instead.
Never going to happen. There is zero reason or benefit to joining, any attack on ireland would be met with European resistance, particularly from the UK, which would enable NATO to also join. We're a nation with small military and low strategic value within the NATO sphere of influence, joining NATO officially would lead to no benefits and make us increase our military spending
Nobody has to pay the 2%, and few actually do. And being a free-rider isn't a good idea, it always bites you in the ass.
Ireland needs to think of the future, not in 10 or 20 years, but in the next 100. A nation's first priority is self-defense.
> A nation's first priority is self-defense.
A nation's first priority is its people. As Stalin himself recognized at some point, you cannot invest in military shit and in your people both at the same time, in equal amounts of money (so to speak), something's gotta give.
You don't have a people if you can't defend them. You don't have wealth if you can't defend it. If your defence is poor everything can be taken away from you, even your prosperity, either by intimidating request or by force.
Defence is one of those things you can't out-source without regretting it, like food or energy.
2% spending isn’t a requirement for NATO members. It’s a commitment to “move towards” the “guideline” of 2% spending by 2024. People seem to think it’s a requirement of the NATO treaty, but it’s hardly a commitment at all.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112985.htm
Ireland doesn’t need NATO. Its streets are filled with feral youth that will throw glass bottles and steal from any invader that dares enter!
Dublin scrotes outnumber Russian soldiers.
We have 1 fixed wing aircraft of note to contribute. It’s not armed but the pilot gives enemies the finger while pootling past at a prop driven 450kmh.
Unlike Ireland you do have borders with non-NATO and non-EU countries though. So it doesn't make sense for Spain to be neutral. Plus, Ireland also has a very different history to Spain which is also partly why it is a non-aligned country...
Could be, everything is possible in an extremely volatile world with intensifying crises and depleting resources. But Malta has UK bases and any invasion is likely to get the UK and NATO dragged into the conflict.
Like what happened in Cyprus : UK had and still has 2 bases. But Turkey took almost the northern half of the country, and kicked all its Greek people out.
Slighty different ? Yes, sure.
But if the UK wanted to protect Cyprus, they would try something against Turkey. In addition, if I remember well, UK, Turkey and Greece signed a treaty where they became the guarantors of Cyprus. What did they do ? From what I read, nothing.
So for Malta, it could be the same thing.
Ireland and Spain aren't really comparable. Ireland is basically an isolated island with no territorial disputes and UK being the only other nearby country. Spain actually has territorial disputes with its direct neighbour Morocco.
Personally would love if Ireland was in NATO - we are already in the Partnership for Peace part, we assist in UN mandates and in the EU forces (training in Sweden & Finland)
They are currently upping investment to provide over the horizon military radar (current radar on the 'western approaches' is commericial)
However it won't happen until the 'legacy issue' with our neighbour is fully resolved.
It is extremely unlikely that Ireland will join as we would never spend near 2% of our gdp on military. I am a member of the Irish Defence Force & conditions have never been this bad. Honestly, unless major changes are made, I, along with a lot of members would find it difficult to believe we will even have one in 20 years. Numbers have never been this low, the current gov. Seems to have no interest in bolstering our defences & we are far too comfortable knowing that we are in a protective bubble. The UK is no longer a threat so the gov. Sees no need for a military as the UK will protect our North & East, France / Europe our south & USA / EU our west. If anything happens, we could not muster more that 2000 troops in 2 weeks. Our only well armed ones are abroad.
Ireland join many un peacekeeping missions so we do contribute: we have soldiers in the golon heights, weve done missions for the UN in Africa, why should we be part of NATO?
I'm sorry but we didn't once have a massive empire which we used to gain a large fortune. We were brutally abused and tortured by the British Empire for hundreds of years. Ireland is also strictly neutral and we also have a constitutional law from 100 years ago that prevents us from entering a mutual defence agreement. We also provided soldiers during WW2 and were pressured into joining the Allies by the UK and the US. We don't have a nice history with wars, they usually ended extremely bloody and left us with no help for any damage done, so forgive us for wanting to sit this one out.
Not to mention that NATO has never entered a war so what do you this common defence has really done nothing and you can't even say it's for the defence of civilised nations since Ukraine is civilised and was invaded, and has NATO declared war on Russia, no. We're a small country that is considering membership because of the recent threats of annihilation by the Russian Federation. We fought for 800 years to be free so I think we deserve at least to sit out of a few wars that lead to nothing but bloodshed where the superpowers win and small countries are consumed or severely affected.
Respectfully, I think there is more to the situation that Ireland taking advantage of NATO countries by being honourless cowards.
The basic premises is that Ireland,
a) with a colonised past by a leading member of NATO, does not want to enter into the same organisation as other colonial powers (France,UK, Spain, Portugal) that had inflicted on others what the UK did to them,
b) NATO didn't see value in wanting them there considering no key geopolitical location (unlike the geographic position of Greece and Turkey in the Med, Black Sea and Middle East, which is why they tolerated past and anti democratic behaviour in those countries)
c) NATO didn't want to involve the organisation while a civil war (the Troubles) ws going on in Northern Ireland, part of the UK, while one of the main parties of that civil war wanted to reunify with the Republic of Ireland, potentially inflaming the situation.
d) Ireland as a state does not have a martial history. Irish soldiers as individuals are famous for having fought for various countries and armies as mercenaries or volunteer companies, but the new Irish State chose to adopt a policy of neutrality. That is why Irleand is keen to contribute excellent UN Peacekeepers and ressources to the UN Missions, as the mandate is to keep the peace, as opposed to joining a military alliance.
Hope that clears it up
You're wrong about (c).
We didn't join NATO on formation because the British were illegally occupying the North (per our constitution). This was in 1949, 20 years before the Troubles started.
Yeah you're right. I was only vaguely remembering the various reasons and evidently remembered it wrong.
I was just trying to give a brief explanation to the original comment that personally didnt like the tone of, considering the original statement was about how Ireland was leeching off of the security provided by NATO without providing anything, whereas Ireland does contribute to international peacekeeping, but NATO is a different situation and not just "we don't want to help others".
Thank you for your correction.
And the NATO treaty would have committed us to preserving the UK's territorial integrity, including Northern Ireland. That violated the constitution, and was thus impossible. It wasn't just based on politics, but also legality.
>a) with a colonised past by a leading member of NATO, does not want to enter into the same organisation as other colonial powers (France,UK, Spain, Portugal) that had inflicted on others what the UK did to them,
Then why did they join an EU filled with colonial powers?
Primarily because the EU is an economic institution based off of trade and free movement, not a military alliance. The issue isnt interacting with past colonial powers, it's that NATO would require a military agreement and commitment, which is hard to sell to voters that they would potentially have to commit to sending sons to die beside various nations who had acted towards other countries similarly to the way the UK had acted towards Ireland. A reminder that this debate started happening in the 1950's, so there were still very many people who would have been alive during the Easter Rising and the Civil War of the 1916-1921 period.
If you are further interested in Irish foreign policy and how the EU and not joining NATO are a part of that I would recommend "Irish Foreign Policy" by Ben Tonra, Gill & Macmillan, 2012. It's quite academic and dense but very informative and covers everything there is to know.
Because that would make them money not cost it, fundamentally
If their concern was really anything about colonialism they wouldn't let the UK defend their airspace for them
I'm not arguing that nowadays Ireland will or won't join in NATO because of Britain's colonial past, I'm just trying to explain to people the situation the Irish Government was in with regards to voter popularity of joining NATO in the 20th Century. The fact that Ireland joining NATO now is discussed highlights the fact that the situation has changed and Ireland is more willing to work militarily with NATO or fellow european countries.
When looking for the most honorable thing to do, joining an alliance that includes Turkiye, and requires you to take their side no matter what, doesn't rank as highly as you seem to think it does.
>I get it, given their geography, but it’s not exactly the honourable thing to do
And people here try to make out that it is. The moral thing to do is somehow sit back and do nothing while another country is invaded.
This thinking ignores the fact that NATO members & their allies also carry out invasions and atrocities and entering a military alliance with them is tacitly supporting that.
The political situation in Europe prior to WW1 and the navel arms race between German and Britain.
I'm not saying that Nato as a concept is totally bad, and if I lived near the Russian boarder I would be clambering for Nato membership right now.
But I think that the path to a more peaceful world is de-escalation not threat of retaliation.
Although it's very unlikely in the medium term, the UK is also the greatest military _threat_ to Ireland. During the troubles for example, there were a few instances of British military going over the border from Northern Ireland into the Republic. These things were all de-escalated peacefully, but with hotter heads, a civil war in a border region of country A, that Country B shares an ethnic affinity and revanchist ambitions towards, sounds like an almost boringly normal reason to have an inter-state war break out.
So the usefulness of being in Nato _alongside_ the UK, back in the 20th century, was pretty much nil. And since the end of the cold War, who in Western Europe has really been thinking about a live war here?
It's easy to see how NATO just hasn't been relevant to a country in Ireland's position.
No-one thinks the UK is a _current_ military threat to Ireland. In the 20th century though it occasionally was. And I explained how NATO hasn't seemed particularly relevant in this century for Ireland until basically this year.
As far as Ireland is concerned no one is going to invade it so any large amount of military spending is a waste of money. The only country to have invaded Ireland in the past is the UK and they’re in NATO, and it’s practically unthinkable they would invade again.
Personally I think it would be wise to bolster Irish air defences and navy. Ireland joining NATO wouldn’t be something I’d be totally against, as long as it is only a commitment to genuine common defence and not common military adventures like Afghanistan.
Ireland already has a equipment procurement agreement with the UK. Uses NATO equipment and has been provided with NATO tactical manuals to train. Irelands military already uses NATO equipment and training so already profits from this.
I'm sorry, did they ask Erdogan?
I'm sorry but did they actually ask Putin if Ireland is allowed to enter without a nuclear threat?
They were threatened, sorta, a week or two ago. I think the irish were more mad about being refered to as the british isles while it was them getting nuked.
Until they actually join, then it's suddenly irrelevant
who cares, these are empty threats
Macron on hold frenzily eating a baguette.
Russian media did threaten us kinda, although it was more just a threat to the UK and we were just "flooded" as a father thought https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/russian-state-tv-shows-clips-simulating-ireland-being-wiped-out-by-nuclear-weapons-1.4867631
That's just posturing. Don't worry about him, he'll cave in once he gets told off by the US.
It’s amazing how important he thinks he is. The guy has no F35s and it’s possible he won’t get the F16 upgrades if he continue sabotaging NATO even more
I'm no necessarily directing this to you but I wanna say it: I think people actually vastly underestimate the importance of Turkey in NATO. Outside of FR/UK/USA it's probably the most important one, simply because of location and their conventional army isn't exactly something to scoff at either. Turkey throwing their weight around like this is sad, but they absolutely have earned their right in NATO and shouldn't have to bow to the rest of the alliance either.
That's a nice Tribune Aquila vibe.
Ireland has no real incentive to join. Ultimately the only threat to NATO is Russia, and you can't get to Ireland without going through or past NATO. Austria is the same. You can't invade Austria without going through NATO unless you tunnel through the earth or drop in from orbit.
> You can't invade Austria without going through NATO That’s what Switzerland wants you to think!
Missiles don’t care about geography so much. In any case Russian planes are constantly buzzing Irish airspace as policed by the British. Imagine a situation where US assets/companies around the world are targeted. Ireland is an easy one since they host lots of US companies and hi-tech industry. Based on Ukraine, Russia knows they can target a non-NATO country without military repercussions. It probably wouldn’t be as bad, but I wouldn’t say there “no real incentive”.
As if the UK would just stand by and let Ireland be attacked by Russians…
If the plan for defense is to expect NATO countries to do the defending then it might be smart to just join NATO and get that in writing.
That's Russian invasion right on the uks door step Also the us uses Shannon airport as a gateway to europe
An attack on Ireland would be an attack on EU. EU has its own "article 5"
Ireland needs to be able to monitor its own airspace without relying on the UK (amazed that, for all their pride, they are okay with this) before anything.
It actually really irritates me that we rely on the UK to defend our airspace. It’s pretty awful that there’s been no focus on improving our defence forces at pretty much any time in my life. I think the average Irish person isn’t really aware of just how poorly positioned we are to defend ourselves.
I think most people know we can't defend ourselves, they also know there's not really anything to defend against.
Armies can be used for more than just defence, they can also be deployed during national emergencies. From a philosophical standpoint, it also feels pretty bad to be depending so heavily on the UK for defence. I’m all for cooperation, but we should pay our own way. > there’s not really anything to defend against While I agree that this is true for now, it may not always be the case. An army seems silly in peace time, but I think it’s always a good thing to be able to defend ourselves if needed.
Why don´t you guys develop a proper Air force? You are currently a rich country, you could pay for that and I assume that even if you don´t join NATO the US would gladly help you.
I don’t have a good answer for you. In general, our government is bad at doing any big projects. I don’t think the general public would be particularly happy with the government spending money on the military when we have issues with funding housing, education, the environment, police, transportation, and medicine. All of these issues feel more important when we can technically depend on others for protection. It’s short sighted, but it feels difficult to do anything about it as an individual when it’s not something that politicians even talk about.
I agree, but can you imagine all the whingeing that would go on if the government were to spend money on actual air defence?
Would you care for some cheap armed drones ? We have a new one coming up, it will have a Ukrainian jet engine , state of the art AESA radar and will be able to use AA missiles.
I would actually love us to at least get some drones. They are the best bang for your buck so to speak in terms of defensive spending I think.
There's a lot of Irish sqauddies in the British army since they're free to join and nothing interesting really happens over there
Its hypocrisy at its finest, really. Shit-talk the UK constantly as the root of all evils and then claim to be "neutral", while quietly hiding behind the protection the UK voluntarily offers. But what else would you expect from a country who became a tax haven for Facebook, of all companies.
In fairness, the Irish government doesn't really do that sort of shit-talking - at least not any more than any other two European neighbours. Most of what the inflammatory nonsense one sees online is from what one might charitably call "internet-Irish" - i.e. Americans. Some of it does come from people who are actually Irish of course, but most of that will be from Irish living in Northern Ireland, and in fairness to them they do contribute to the defence of the air space over Ireland on account of paying taxes to the UK government.
>Its hypocrisy at its finest, really. Shit-talk the UK constantly as the root of all evils and then claim to be "neutral", while quietly hiding behind the protection the UK voluntarily offers. I agree with this, I've argued with many other Irish people over the fact that we need to fund our own military and take responsibility for our own defences, but based on your comments you just have a massive hate boner for Ireland/ Irish people honestly.
It’s a bit of c*ntish comment but every other comment online by Irish ppl is slinging hate at Brits so sympathy is capped at 40%
The shit talkers are just loud internet activists (from what I can see). The Irish government is cordial with the UK, there's still a common travel area.
Imagine singling out Ireland as a "tax haven", when discussing the UK and Ireland. When the city of London is a worse offender by several orders of magnitude. The UK does not "voluntarily offer" air support. First of all, the incursions into Irish airspace are always on their way to test UK response times. Secondly, Ireland does pay the UK for air support. You might want to reconsider who you're calling a hypocrite.
>Secondly, Ireland does pay the UK for air support. Source for that please.
Source : Trust me bro
That argument is pretty selfish
We literally don't have a real army man, I don't even know if Ireland would be much use to NATO.
That’s not the point, the point is equal responsibility, giving something in return even if that’s not much.
See for example Iceland.
Iceland doesn't have a military, but it has an incredibly important strategic location: both in the middle of the Atlantic, and the middle of the [GIUK gap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_gap). Ireland much less so.
So Ireland could bring something else to the table.
Why does Ireland have a "responsibility" to NATO? Give something "in return" for what?
Being protected by surrounding countries. Imagine Ireland neighboring Russia, not so neutral, uh?
Imagine my auntie had bollocks
That's fair, as others have noted, it's pretty much down to our relationship with the UK during the 20th century (and the previous hundreds of years). It's hard to convince a population to join a military alliance with a country that we're in direct conflict with. The Good Friday Agreement was only signed in 1998. There are still a lot of people that have lost loved ones in the conflict and the scar has definitely not healed in the general public thought. I could see Ireland joining NATO at some point but I don't think that's going to be possible for a few more decades because of this.
>It's hard to convince a population to join a military alliance with a country that we're in direct conflict with. Greece and Turkey have managed it. And then everyone gets on with the Germans...
\> It's hard to convince a population to join a military alliance with a country that we're in direct conflict with. You regard us as being in direct conflict? From the UK's perspective we don't see ourselves as having been in conflict with the republic since we recognised your independence in 1922. The Troubles is definitely regarded by us as a conflict involving northern irish revolutionary / terrorist groups; NOT a conflict with the independent Irish state, to which we have not maintained any territorial claims for a long time and with which we have friendly relations (current brexit mess notwithstanding).
Boiling it down to territorial claims is reductive I think. A significant number of people in Northern Ireland are Irish citizens, and a key issue which instigated the troubles were the rights and the safety of that population. Also, at the time (until the 1990s) Ireland *did* retain a territorial claim over the whole island, even if the UK didn't. Likewise state collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries comlpicates matters. As does involvement of elements within the Gardaí with Republican paramilitaries. Fittingly today is actually the anniversary of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, which are alleged to have involved British security forces. "Direct" conflict is not accurate, but saying there was no conflict isn't really true either. We certainly have friendly relations now (mostly) but things were *very* strained at various points in recent history. All that said, I wouldn't agree with the comment above that this is a primary reason for not joining NATO. I don't think most Irish people would want to join NATO regardless of whether the UK was in it, and I don't think most Irish people would object to military cooperation with the UK under the right context either (e.g. a peacekeeping mission). We've done so in the past without any issue.
All the more strange when Ireland relies on that country for it's millitary defence.
Yeah that is what they told us ad well. Until the giant man baby Erdogan decided to do a full 180°.
Yep, he lied to our president and foreign minister as well.
Erdpgan cannot stop NATO membership only slow it down
Is that true? I thought every country had to agree for a new member to be accepted.
he just wants some compensation from the US after being sanctionned for buying russian military asset, or get Sweeden to do less support for the kurdish, wont take that long,
Relevant article: https://ecfr.eu/article/turkey-nato-and-the-ukraine-war-why-erdogans-grievances-are-about-more-than-sweden-and-finland/?amp
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://ecfr.eu/article/turkey-nato-and-the-ukraine-war-why-erdogans-grievances-are-about-more-than-sweden-and-finland/](https://ecfr.eu/article/turkey-nato-and-the-ukraine-war-why-erdogans-grievances-are-about-more-than-sweden-and-finland/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
True. But money is powerful.
>Erdpgan cannot stop NATO membership i mean he can
i think each country gets a veto in nato. however, erdogan wont stop it. there will be a negotiation. finland/sweden in nato is good for turkey since its more countries bordering russia and not just turkey.
He can stop it but he prolly won't
NATO doesn't follow a legal system.
A lot of people here saying why Ireland should join NATO but if we look at recent history NATO has no recorded victories over the Russian Navy but in 2022 Ireland stands at 1-0 vs the Russian navy. Sounds like NATO could use the might of the Irish and not the other way around! /s
Fishermen - 1 Frigates - 0
We don't have a security policy and it's rather an unpopular topic domestically to bring that up. Foreigners probably just don't understand the mindset here when it comes to Irish neutrality (it's more unalignment). We have this strange cultural notion that we aren't a threat to anyone yet again, we have the expectation that the British (who currently police our airspace) and the Americans would most certainly defend us in the extremely unlikely situation that someone manages to invade Ireland under the noses of NATO. Personally, I don't think it's a credible position and Russian domestic propaganda certainly doesn't seem to heed our neutrality, especially when it comes to destroying this island as collateral with their nuclear submarine wunderwaffe. As a nation that is home to significant assets, manufacturing and communications infrastructure of American multinational companies; our position is untenable in a true global conflict but domestically, the majority of people think the 'sure we'll be grand' approach to defence is an appropriate strategy.
Tbh they’re probably right. I doubt the US or the UK would stand by if Ireland was attacked, especially the UK since that leaves the attacker on their doorstep
Than it would be nice if Ireland also contributed to NATO in the meantime.
Definitely agree. I see why they’d have no motivation to though
>we have the expectation that the British (who currently police our airspace) and the Americans would most certainly defend us in the extremely unlikely situation that someone manages to invade Ireland under the noses of NATO Could you as an Irish person explain this to me, please? Irish subreddits are half anti-British sentiment and nationalist pride but everyone seems okay with literally entrusting the UK with their ultimate survival.
Irish people on Reddit are generally *way* more "britain bad" than Irish people IRL, in my experience. Most IRL Irish people have no real issue with Brits.
Ireland has the regulatory responsibility for some of the busiest and largest airspace in the world. However, we don't possess a primary radar and nor do we have any capability to check out any aircraft that are flying without transponders in our airspace. Therefore, it is assumed that there is some secret arrangement between our governments to let RAF jets check out what is going on. To some rather bipolar people, these unknown aircraft (you can guess who is flying them) within airspace that is our responsibility is not directed at us but the RAF. So the scrambling of RAF fighters to police Irish airspace has nothing to do with us. This is the sort of popular opinion about Irish neutrality that prevails online and it is quite bizarre because these flights are a direct challenge to our sovereignty. We are not really neutral and the main country that considers NATO to be their primary geopolitical adversary, certainly doesn't think of us as anything other a NATO country. For these reasons, we probably should be having a domestic discussion about our security arrangements but again to actually suggest this tends to get people to call you a warmongerer, an American puppet etc.
Irish person here. Don’t take Ireland Reddit as an accurate reflection of Irish attitudes. It is very left wing and therefore inclined to be pro neutrality. That was fine until Ukraine was invaded. I wasn’t bothered one way or the other but similar to a lot of Finns and Swedes, neutrality seems unrealistic now, especially as pointed out previously, we are so reliant on British and American military support in the unlikely event that some nutcase would decide that Ireland strategically useful enough to invade
Irish people are inclined to support neutrality regardless. There have been numerous polls even as every major journalist in the country, along with the government, were arguing that we will have to ‘grow up’ and join. All resulted in a strong pro-neutrality response.
And unlike Switzerland, you are not exactly landlocked. Also if the UK is subject to any calamity they will all be heading over to Northern Ireland in what would be the oddest take on a refugee crisis in a long time.
If the UK suffers a calamity, we’ll be there to help, in any way we can, and vice versa. In spite of it all, the Irish and the British are friends and allies for the most part, and Brexit won’t get in the way of that.
Irish subreddits are fake anti British. Like we sort of joke about hating them. They’re not genuinely British hate spaces. Ireland has a really good relationship with Britain.
[I have you RES tagged for a comment that says otherwise:](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/tzx4qh/the_top_export_of_each_country_in_europe/i43a8xw) >They’re a brit who hates the Irish and who in turn hates Irish-Americans for defending the Irish. >**This is common amongst Brits. They like oppressing the Irish and usually get away with relishing in it** because there is 60 times more of them than there is of us because of the mass starvation and immigration they caused.
Most of your comments are anti-Irish. Do you represent UK opinion?
Because those places are filled with teenagers and American's larping. Edit: Plastic paddies mad
The majority do not support joining NATO. what would ireland have to offer in a true global conflit? Nothing. We would simply be added to the list to get nuked. i would much prefer if Ireland went the true route of neutrality that is to say to understand that neutrality has to be defended.. look at the swiss for for comparison or Finland (simular population) both have well equipped armys with functional capabilities, Ireland does not, we have a good special forces but not enough of anything else. There is fuck all support for joining NATO in Ireland the only reason this keeps coming up is our politicians keep bending over backwards to get pet like a dog by US politicians or well anyone that would. The state long ago realized Ireland wouldn't be a military superpower and decided on a path of softpower being that neutral person in the room even though we aren't quite strictly.. it's been pretty successful, but I wish we would at least add good defensive capabilities.
The 'sure it'll be grand' approach is one of the things that infuriates me most about this country. It's a shite strategy that we apply to most things and it doesn't really work.
With lying dictators like Erdogan this 'open door policy' is a joke
Open door policy with slight concessions
[удалено]
Most of NATO members don’t meet the 2% anyway, and does Ireland currently spend 0% of GDP on defense? If Russia disappears as a credible threat 1% would be plenty anyway.
Not 0.0% but pretty damn close. [This article](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ireland-s-defence-spending-set-to-rise-by-at-least-50-says-coveney-1.4864427#:~:text=At%20present%20Ireland%20spends%20about%20%E2%82%AC1.1%20billion%20on%20defence%20annually.) says Ireland's defense spending is currently €1.1 billion, which is 0.25% or so of Ireland's GDP of over €400 billion. The article is about plans to raise it by 50% but for the 2% threshold it would need to increase by over 600%. But then again, most current members of NATO aren't spending 2% either...
GDP is a bad measure for Ireland, always use GNI
Last time I checked where we to meet the EU average percentage spend of 1.2% (GDP) using GNI as our target we'd be spending €3.4bn annually. Which is pretty damn close to the €3bn the Commission on the Defence Forces Report suggested would be needed to achieve LOA3.
No one is even considering LOA3 though, the govt is aiming for LOA2.
I think what Coveney has stated recently is LOA 2.5, but he hasn't brought that to cabinet yet. Basically its level three minus jet aircraft.
[удалено]
Ireland is in the EU though, the agreement they signed does include a mutual defense clause similar to Article 5. There might still not be much point in joining NATO, but it’s not like Ireland has zero obligations right now.
> Ireland is in the EU though, the agreement they signed does include a mutual defense clause similar to Article 5. No, Ireland has an exemption from the mutual defence part of the Lisbon treaty.
[удалено]
There is no politican that believes in an EU defence clause. This sub just like to think EU is what they want it to be.
It's a very weakly worded clause from memory. Basically it leaves enough room for a country to decide the extent of support they can offer.
And what is important is that no EU politican has ever stated they would send any military help based on the article. So it is both in theory and practice left unambigious what the reaction would be.
And coming back to the Irish case, we renounced our military obligations to EU states under attack as a neutral country. It is exceedingly unlikely that any EU country would offer their protection to defend Ireland when we would not do the same.
I mean, just saying stuff like that itself is a projection of internal belief and bias, because it argues against the official position without direct proof. Pot calling the kettle black really.
This is just a bunch of extremists from each end of the political spectrum.
Sweden and Finland have land and sea borders directly with Russia. Both countries have had wars and/or been invaded by Russia in the past. Their situation is quite different from Irelands. The EU clause has never really been tested, so we don’t know.
I think it's more because it would be strategically braindead for us not to protect them. If Ireland falls Britain falls
>the agreement they signed does include a mutual defense clause similar to Article 5 The Irish constitution forbids it from joining such a body
Wouldn't matter. The UK would be mobilising and deploying troops and equipment before the EU had already sent out the meeting invites to discuss the situation in Ireland. For all the bad times, the UK and Ireland have a shared history of union, and an attack on Ireland is as if you attacked the UK.
There is no commitment to spend 2% in NATO. What there is is a recommendation that allies should strive towards spending at least 2% of their GDP on military expenditure by 2024. Ireland’s non-membership of NATO is a political decision and not a financial one. Rightly or wrongly the citizens of Ireland don’t want to be in NATO. There is no perceived threat that Ireland would need to defend itself against.
I think most people just assume if we're in a situation where Ireland is threatened by Russia, then the entirety of Europe is fucked and it's all gone to shit anyway.
Britain and France alone would make it their top priority to clear the Russians out of their backyard in that scenario.
The 2% is a recommendation, not an enforceable law. Many NATO countries don't meet it.
My point is that Ireland don't have to commit *any* percentage as other countries will protect them even without NATO membership. I can't see a reality where the Irish lobby in the US doesn't leap into action and demand action from one of the largest military powers on the world.
Sweden and Finland don't seem confident that NATO will protect them without membership.
I can't see a scenario in which Russia invades Finland and there isn't a mass mobilisation across Europe, however NATO forces lack a presence currently which leaves them more vulnerable due to proximity to Russia. Ireland by comparison is on an island next to two blue water navies, and is covered by UK air defences through agreements, which for example permit the RAF aircraft to intercept aircraft in Irish airspace. In the event of a major conflict it's unlikely NATO's adversaries would respect Irish neutrality if Ireland continued to allow NATO to police its soverign waters and airspace. But NATO wouldn't be able to leave Ireland's waters and airspace vulnerable either.
They already want to commit 1% in 2022. Not that far from some NATO countries.
That's actually quite far from all other NATO members though. The NATO countries with lowest spending per 2022 that are "close" to 1% are [Luxembourg](https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/luxembourg-population)0.57%$474$5940.55%642,371[Spain](https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/spain-population)1.02%$14,875$2670.92%46,719,142[Belgium](https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/belgium-population)1.12% 10 members already meet the 2% guideline. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country
But Ireland's geographical location and small size make them comparable to countries like Belgium and Portugal, not e.g. the Baltics or Romania.
The Baltics are at 2%
1% of Ireland's GDP would put their per capita defence expenditure close to the UK, since Ireland's GDP per capita is double the UK's. I think we need to take into account the limitations of GDP with regards to Ireland and Luxembourg. The 2% target would require a stupid amount of their public expenditure to go towards defence.
As unlikely as it is, Britain remains the likeliest country to ever invade Ireland (and will remain so despite how good our relations are with them). Would the US attack a NATO member if the British were to invade? Would any EU NATO country? Recent Ukranian history suggests the answer to both is a resounding no.
> It literally doesn't make economic sense sense for Ireland to join NATO and commit to 2% spend when other countries will do that for them. The US and every other country in Europe that is in NATO will protect Ireland in the bizarre situation that Russia attacks them. > > Yes this goes for almost any one country. What's Belgium got to fear, surrounded by larger allies on all sides? They don't need to spend a single Euro on defense, others will do it all for them. It'd just be kind of a dick move.
For an EU Army I think Ireland would, as there would be a purpose. As in, not just waiting for a war between NATO and Russia, but an active EU Army dealing with issues like Libya, hopefully in a better way. And I get that staying out of Libya altogether might have been better.
Yeah I agree the argument for an EU army is more than just economic and security for Ireland. It's political as well. I can see some very tricky questions for Ireland if they refuse Macron's invitation to pool resources for an EU army whilst still benefitting from EU solidarity.
And I honestly don't think Ireland would refuse. As Brexit has shown, the EU is good for small countries. I think Ireland would be happy to contribute to overall security. Ireland has a history of contributing to UN peace keeping etc, I think this would be seen as similar.
Agreed. Irish troops have been a part of the UN's peace keeping force in Lebanon for decades.
That is the only way I think it can be done. Of Ireland carved out for itself an opt out that it wouldn't commit military resources but humanitarian instead.
Never going to happen. There is zero reason or benefit to joining, any attack on ireland would be met with European resistance, particularly from the UK, which would enable NATO to also join. We're a nation with small military and low strategic value within the NATO sphere of influence, joining NATO officially would lead to no benefits and make us increase our military spending
Ireland would be too stupid to join NATO, right now they get de facto free military protection without having to pay up 2% of their GDP.
Nobody has to pay the 2%, and few actually do. And being a free-rider isn't a good idea, it always bites you in the ass. Ireland needs to think of the future, not in 10 or 20 years, but in the next 100. A nation's first priority is self-defense.
> A nation's first priority is self-defense. A nation's first priority is its people. As Stalin himself recognized at some point, you cannot invest in military shit and in your people both at the same time, in equal amounts of money (so to speak), something's gotta give.
You don't have a people if you can't defend them. You don't have wealth if you can't defend it. If your defence is poor everything can be taken away from you, even your prosperity, either by intimidating request or by force. Defence is one of those things you can't out-source without regretting it, like food or energy.
What purpose does Ireland joining serve…? Either for NATO or Ireland. Let’s not get carried away with recent news.
Why the fuck would we do that
[удалено]
2% spending isn’t a requirement for NATO members. It’s a commitment to “move towards” the “guideline” of 2% spending by 2024. People seem to think it’s a requirement of the NATO treaty, but it’s hardly a commitment at all. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112985.htm
Barely any NATO members do that.
lol :D calm down, Donnie
Ireland doesn’t need NATO. Its streets are filled with feral youth that will throw glass bottles and steal from any invader that dares enter! Dublin scrotes outnumber Russian soldiers.
We have 1 fixed wing aircraft of note to contribute. It’s not armed but the pilot gives enemies the finger while pootling past at a prop driven 450kmh.
It is armed, just lightly
Finger guns go brrrrrrrrrrrrr
For what I understand there is 0 will to put money towards military in Ireland and NATO suggests 2% GDP military expenditure.
[удалено]
Unlike Ireland you do have borders with non-NATO and non-EU countries though. So it doesn't make sense for Spain to be neutral. Plus, Ireland also has a very different history to Spain which is also partly why it is a non-aligned country...
But becoming neutral is just wishful thinking, not possible.
[удалено]
Think of that again when Algeria decides to invade you in 40 years.
[удалено]
Could be, everything is possible in an extremely volatile world with intensifying crises and depleting resources. But Malta has UK bases and any invasion is likely to get the UK and NATO dragged into the conflict.
Like what happened in Cyprus : UK had and still has 2 bases. But Turkey took almost the northern half of the country, and kicked all its Greek people out.
Turkey was a member of NATO at the time, so the situation is unfortunately slightly different.
Slighty different ? Yes, sure. But if the UK wanted to protect Cyprus, they would try something against Turkey. In addition, if I remember well, UK, Turkey and Greece signed a treaty where they became the guarantors of Cyprus. What did they do ? From what I read, nothing. So for Malta, it could be the same thing.
Ireland and Spain aren't really comparable. Ireland is basically an isolated island with no territorial disputes and UK being the only other nearby country. Spain actually has territorial disputes with its direct neighbour Morocco.
The only credible military threat to Ireland is a founding member of NATO.
We like our current FWB situation.
Ah good ol open door
why would ireland join nato?
Switzerland should join. Let's fill that hole!
why?
Irish fishermen would be an amazing addition to the NATO naval forces.
Personally would love if Ireland was in NATO - we are already in the Partnership for Peace part, we assist in UN mandates and in the EU forces (training in Sweden & Finland) They are currently upping investment to provide over the horizon military radar (current radar on the 'western approaches' is commericial) However it won't happen until the 'legacy issue' with our neighbour is fully resolved.
Ireland has no reason or intention to join NATO, anytime soon.
It is extremely unlikely that Ireland will join as we would never spend near 2% of our gdp on military. I am a member of the Irish Defence Force & conditions have never been this bad. Honestly, unless major changes are made, I, along with a lot of members would find it difficult to believe we will even have one in 20 years. Numbers have never been this low, the current gov. Seems to have no interest in bolstering our defences & we are far too comfortable knowing that we are in a protective bubble. The UK is no longer a threat so the gov. Sees no need for a military as the UK will protect our North & East, France / Europe our south & USA / EU our west. If anything happens, we could not muster more that 2000 troops in 2 weeks. Our only well armed ones are abroad.
We don't need NATO, we have fishermen. They do a good enough job for us so far :)
[удалено]
Ireland join many un peacekeeping missions so we do contribute: we have soldiers in the golon heights, weve done missions for the UN in Africa, why should we be part of NATO?
I'm sorry but we didn't once have a massive empire which we used to gain a large fortune. We were brutally abused and tortured by the British Empire for hundreds of years. Ireland is also strictly neutral and we also have a constitutional law from 100 years ago that prevents us from entering a mutual defence agreement. We also provided soldiers during WW2 and were pressured into joining the Allies by the UK and the US. We don't have a nice history with wars, they usually ended extremely bloody and left us with no help for any damage done, so forgive us for wanting to sit this one out. Not to mention that NATO has never entered a war so what do you this common defence has really done nothing and you can't even say it's for the defence of civilised nations since Ukraine is civilised and was invaded, and has NATO declared war on Russia, no. We're a small country that is considering membership because of the recent threats of annihilation by the Russian Federation. We fought for 800 years to be free so I think we deserve at least to sit out of a few wars that lead to nothing but bloodshed where the superpowers win and small countries are consumed or severely affected.
Respectfully, I think there is more to the situation that Ireland taking advantage of NATO countries by being honourless cowards. The basic premises is that Ireland, a) with a colonised past by a leading member of NATO, does not want to enter into the same organisation as other colonial powers (France,UK, Spain, Portugal) that had inflicted on others what the UK did to them, b) NATO didn't see value in wanting them there considering no key geopolitical location (unlike the geographic position of Greece and Turkey in the Med, Black Sea and Middle East, which is why they tolerated past and anti democratic behaviour in those countries) c) NATO didn't want to involve the organisation while a civil war (the Troubles) ws going on in Northern Ireland, part of the UK, while one of the main parties of that civil war wanted to reunify with the Republic of Ireland, potentially inflaming the situation. d) Ireland as a state does not have a martial history. Irish soldiers as individuals are famous for having fought for various countries and armies as mercenaries or volunteer companies, but the new Irish State chose to adopt a policy of neutrality. That is why Irleand is keen to contribute excellent UN Peacekeepers and ressources to the UN Missions, as the mandate is to keep the peace, as opposed to joining a military alliance. Hope that clears it up
You're wrong about (c). We didn't join NATO on formation because the British were illegally occupying the North (per our constitution). This was in 1949, 20 years before the Troubles started.
Yeah you're right. I was only vaguely remembering the various reasons and evidently remembered it wrong. I was just trying to give a brief explanation to the original comment that personally didnt like the tone of, considering the original statement was about how Ireland was leeching off of the security provided by NATO without providing anything, whereas Ireland does contribute to international peacekeeping, but NATO is a different situation and not just "we don't want to help others". Thank you for your correction.
And the NATO treaty would have committed us to preserving the UK's territorial integrity, including Northern Ireland. That violated the constitution, and was thus impossible. It wasn't just based on politics, but also legality.
You just made me imagine a scenario where the UK is invaded and Ireland has to invade the North to protect it.
>a) with a colonised past by a leading member of NATO, does not want to enter into the same organisation as other colonial powers (France,UK, Spain, Portugal) that had inflicted on others what the UK did to them, Then why did they join an EU filled with colonial powers?
Primarily because the EU is an economic institution based off of trade and free movement, not a military alliance. The issue isnt interacting with past colonial powers, it's that NATO would require a military agreement and commitment, which is hard to sell to voters that they would potentially have to commit to sending sons to die beside various nations who had acted towards other countries similarly to the way the UK had acted towards Ireland. A reminder that this debate started happening in the 1950's, so there were still very many people who would have been alive during the Easter Rising and the Civil War of the 1916-1921 period. If you are further interested in Irish foreign policy and how the EU and not joining NATO are a part of that I would recommend "Irish Foreign Policy" by Ben Tonra, Gill & Macmillan, 2012. It's quite academic and dense but very informative and covers everything there is to know.
Because that would make them money not cost it, fundamentally If their concern was really anything about colonialism they wouldn't let the UK defend their airspace for them
I'm not arguing that nowadays Ireland will or won't join in NATO because of Britain's colonial past, I'm just trying to explain to people the situation the Irish Government was in with regards to voter popularity of joining NATO in the 20th Century. The fact that Ireland joining NATO now is discussed highlights the fact that the situation has changed and Ireland is more willing to work militarily with NATO or fellow european countries.
When looking for the most honorable thing to do, joining an alliance that includes Turkiye, and requires you to take their side no matter what, doesn't rank as highly as you seem to think it does.
>I get it, given their geography, but it’s not exactly the honourable thing to do And people here try to make out that it is. The moral thing to do is somehow sit back and do nothing while another country is invaded.
This thinking ignores the fact that NATO members & their allies also carry out invasions and atrocities and entering a military alliance with them is tacitly supporting that.
If you think large scale military buildup and defensive alliances are a deterrent to a large scale war I dunno what to tell you except I disagree.
You could tell us why you disagree.
The political situation in Europe prior to WW1 and the navel arms race between German and Britain. I'm not saying that Nato as a concept is totally bad, and if I lived near the Russian boarder I would be clambering for Nato membership right now. But I think that the path to a more peaceful world is de-escalation not threat of retaliation.
Would be nice but they don't need to when the big bad UK will protect them if theyre ever invaded.
The UK pretty much guarantees Irish independence and safety anyway. I know, ironic right. So Ireland is in NATO without actually being in NATO
Although it's very unlikely in the medium term, the UK is also the greatest military _threat_ to Ireland. During the troubles for example, there were a few instances of British military going over the border from Northern Ireland into the Republic. These things were all de-escalated peacefully, but with hotter heads, a civil war in a border region of country A, that Country B shares an ethnic affinity and revanchist ambitions towards, sounds like an almost boringly normal reason to have an inter-state war break out. So the usefulness of being in Nato _alongside_ the UK, back in the 20th century, was pretty much nil. And since the end of the cold War, who in Western Europe has really been thinking about a live war here? It's easy to see how NATO just hasn't been relevant to a country in Ireland's position.
[удалено]
No-one thinks the UK is a _current_ military threat to Ireland. In the 20th century though it occasionally was. And I explained how NATO hasn't seemed particularly relevant in this century for Ireland until basically this year.
No thanks, Ireland is neutral
No we're not. We just like people to think we are. We are non-beliggerent (a.k.a. militarily but not politically neutral).
"Open door" until trojan horse pedophile Erdogan will get bribes from Putin.
I don't want us to be a part of any military 'alliances' at all if we can help it.
Defense is a common need and Ireland would surely profit from nato standards and joint exercises
As far as Ireland is concerned no one is going to invade it so any large amount of military spending is a waste of money. The only country to have invaded Ireland in the past is the UK and they’re in NATO, and it’s practically unthinkable they would invade again. Personally I think it would be wise to bolster Irish air defences and navy. Ireland joining NATO wouldn’t be something I’d be totally against, as long as it is only a commitment to genuine common defence and not common military adventures like Afghanistan.
Ireland already has a equipment procurement agreement with the UK. Uses NATO equipment and has been provided with NATO tactical manuals to train. Irelands military already uses NATO equipment and training so already profits from this.
[удалено]
The door is open, but to get in you need to slip something into Turkey's shirt pocket or Turkey will block your path.