Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ireland and the EU: Defending our common European home

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by The Connaught Ranger View Post
    Defend ourselves against whom exactly?

    We can't compare ourselves to the Swiss - we have two big neighbours who would indeed look after our interests. That's why the "peacekniks" don't want money spent on defence as for it to be of any real use it'd be huge

    Threat to our security comes from internal sources such as terrorism, political and/or religious, or lone attackers so our defence needs to be based around that. Get intercept fighters that can take down rogue planes, and enough to patrol our waters from air and sea, but we don't need large infantry and artillery formations as there is no onus on us to defend anyone other than the Indian nation that came to our aid and possibly France based on their small historical aid.

    Also note to me, Europe is a continent, not my home.
    Agree with some of the above, however last comment is - in my own opinion- somewhat insular. Europe has become entwined in the very fabric of irish society and culture in many ways, yes we are Irish first, but we are also European. Its intrinsic to our way of life and decisions made in European parliament have become laws that we in Ireland live by. Europe is so much closer these days and the UK decision over Brexit is a horrific step in the wrong direction and shouldnt be seen as an optional path for us here in the republic. We are too small and weak on our own, we need our trade deals, neghbours, tourism, common currency and allies.
    The attitude that you mention: "we have two big neighbours who would indeed look after our interests." is one of the laziest forms of defence for a paltry spend on military capability and many countries in the past have suffered for believing the same.

    Again, just my own opinion, i fully respect your viewpoint.
    Last edited by morpheus; 20 March 2018, 16:32.
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by The Connaught Ranger View Post
      Defend ourselves against whom exactly?

      We can't compare ourselves to the Swiss - we have two big neighbours who would indeed look after our interests. That's why the "peacekniks" don't want money spent on defence as for it to be of any real use it'd be huge

      Threat to our security comes from internal sources such as terrorism, political and/or religious, or lone attackers so our defence needs to be based around that. Get intercept fighters that can take down rogue planes, and enough to patrol our waters from air and sea, but we don't need large infantry and artillery formations as there is no onus on us to defend anyone other than the Indian nation that came to our aid and possibly France based on their small historical aid.

      Also note to me, Europe is a continent, not my home.
      Better to fight the hoard up the street then wait till he is standing in the family home, It is in our interest that Britain keeps surviving.
      We are at the very end of a gas pipe line starting in Putan land
      Last edited by sofa; 20 March 2018, 20:17.

      Comment


      • #18
        Defend ourselves against whom exactly?
        Whom indeed? Unless you have a crystal ball and can see the future than all you can do is speculate.But I know I would rather we prepare for the worst case and not ever have to experience it,than adopt your attitude and be caught with our pants down 'cos all we trained and equipped for is the best case scenario.
        Better to have and not need than to need and not have.It takes longer to develop a capability than it does to loose it.
        We can't compare ourselves to the Swiss - we have two big neighbours who would indeed look after our interests.
        Ironic that people whinged like fcuk about "loosing" our sovereignty when we were bailed out by the ECB but some have no problem giving ours away when it comes to being able to defend ourselves. A cowardly,mealy mouthed position if ever there was one.

        That's why the "peacekniks" don't want money spent on defence as for it to be of any real use it'd be huge
        Most lefties havent the faintest fcuking clue about what defence really means.I am sure the lefties in Ukraine were all agast at their Government spending money on Defence BEFORE Russia invaded.Love to know what they are saying now.
        Threat to our security comes from internal sources such as terrorism, political and/or religious, or lone attackers so our defence needs to be based around that.
        Are you currently serving in J2 or any other Intelligence Department?? No?? If not than what you are saying is opinion and not fact. Threats change and Europe is currently the most unstable it has been in decades. It would be a a very foolish Country who discounts ANY potential threat just because it hasn't happened before.It only takes once.
        Get intercept fighters that can take down rogue planes, and enough to patrol our waters from air and sea, but we don't need large infantry and artillery formations as there is no onus on us to defend anyone other than the Indian nation that came to our aid and possibly France based on their small historical aid.
        Love it. No probs accepting billions in European money but will turn tale if asked to help in a crisis.
        Also note to me, Europe is a continent, not my home.
        Coming from a guy living in Romania??That's rich.
        Last edited by apod; 22 March 2018, 19:11.
        "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by The Connaught Ranger View Post
          we have two big neighbours who would indeed look after our interests.
          If our interests are not at odds with their own.

          Sitting on our hands won't suffice now; the insular poor man of Europe routine has been thoroughly worn out.

          It would not have sufficed had the Cold War turned hot, either, but that's another discussion.

          Comment


          • #20
            While a debate might be a nice optic, unless there is a significant shift in policy, especially the "Triple lock", I doubt much will change. The triple lock essentially surrenders Irish military policy to the UN and gives the UN veto power over how & where Ireland choses to deploy forces. I don't foresee such a shift, as it gains Ireland little on the world stage. We have no strategic need to project power, no interests to protect, so why bother? (playing devils advocate here). Having said that, I think Ireland could be a better member of the community of nations in peacekeeping/enforcement, post conflict reconstruction, etc. That is not as concrete as protecting vital national interests, more of a "for the good of humanity", along the lines of what the Danes & Swedes do. It's politically popular in their countries and serves to maintain the "edge" of their forces. But that would cost money, and lots of it...circular argument time again.

            Geographically, Ireland is becoming less relevant with ever increasing range of aircraft, ships & subs, so while basing in Ireland would be convenient for say NATO or the EU, it is not nearly as important as it used to be. SO, what is there to defend against? Again, politically, how does one justify (by Irish standards) a dramatic shift in resources to defense in the absence of an articulable threat. I generally agree with the "be a good neighbour in the community of nations" concept and support greater European integration, I just see that as a hard sell politically in Ireland. Integration into European collective intelligence, ADA radar systems, naval patrols, 24/7 SAR coverage would be where I would invest.

            The neutrality thing is old and as a concept about as useful as a chocolate teapot. It really has no meaning in world affairs but the Irish cling to it as if it some magical status that will protect us. Bollocks, if someone wanted to attack Ireland (God knows why), the nations with the capability to do so will. Shouting "but we're neutral" does little to stop and ICBM in case anyone's wondering :-) Ask the Ukrainians how that all worked out. Non-aligned is more accurate, this "neutrality must be in the constitution" business demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of international relations.

            Here is a scenario: a Russian air cargo company concludes a big contract with Shannon for fuel, maintenance, etc. Anatovs come & go, life is good. Company claims they need to expand operations, claim security at Shannon is a problem. Some public to & fro, Russians not happy, don't want Irish customs or whatever looking at their stuff. "Too much" the comrades say, this is unsafe, we need help. Overnight more Anatovs land with "security volunteers and personnel", key parts of Shannon are secured to include the tower & as much real estate is needed. Think wheeled armoured vehicles and some UAV's to "protect our people because the Irish can't". Defacto Russian base in Ireland. DF mobilized, surround Shannon, Russians shout "belligerent acts against our security personnel", more Anatov's arrive with slightly heavier weapons. Who is going to stop that? Not the DF, they don't have the capability, Russians own the airspace therefore control the battlefield. UN, NATO & the EU will bluster, accusations fly, but would they be willing to fight over it? I'd bet not, they have other issues and the Russians will just say "we are only protecting our people, we're not invading, we love the Irish, we just need to protect our bases, that's all. Besides, they are not military personnel, it's a private security matter". (like the little green men in Ukraine).


            Theorists call this forth generation warfare, a messy, blurry line with unclear lines. Granted, this is an unlikely scenario, as I said earlier, the Russians have no real need to do this, it would come at a political & economic cost, and other than power projection in the North Atlantic and a big "fcuk off" to the west I don't know that it would serve a greater end. Point being, given our small size, collective defense & alliances can benefit smaller countries like Ireland. And I submit it's time for Ireland to get on board with reality and be a partner, even a very junior one, but better inside the club than outside. After the fact is too late....but if it did happen, would could form a commission to investigate....it's the Irish way...A

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by apod View Post

              Coming from a guy living in Romania??That's rich.
              I'm not so sure this is the same user.
              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by irishrgr View Post
                While a debate might be a nice optic, unless there is a significant shift in policy, especially the "Triple lock", I doubt much will change. The triple lock essentially surrenders Irish military policy to the UN and gives the UN veto power over how & where Ireland choses to deploy forces. I don't foresee such a shift, as it gains Ireland little on the world stage. We have no strategic need to project power, no interests to protect, so why bother? (playing devils advocate here). Having said that, I think Ireland could be a better member of the community of nations in peacekeeping/enforcement, post conflict reconstruction, etc. That is not as concrete as protecting vital national interests, more of a "for the good of humanity", along the lines of what the Danes & Swedes do. It's politically popular in their countries and serves to maintain the "edge" of their forces. But that would cost money, and lots of it...circular argument time again.
                there is no real the desire to change the status quo. The Government have attempted to have the discussion without major engagement.

                Geographically, Ireland is becoming less relevant with ever increasing range of aircraft, ships & subs, so while basing in Ireland would be convenient for say NATO or the EU, it is not nearly as important as it used to be. SO, what is there to defend against? Again, politically, how does one justify (by Irish standards) a dramatic shift in resources to defense in the absence of an articulable threat. I generally agree with the "be a good neighbour in the community of nations" concept and support greater European integration, I just see that as a hard sell politically in Ireland. Integration into European collective intelligence, ADA radar systems, naval patrols, 24/7 SAR coverage would be where I would invest.
                I disagree, while range is increasing numbers are decreasing. And Russian military aircraft have to get past a lot of countries to get to the approaches to the European mainland currently.

                The neutrality thing is old and as a concept about as useful as a chocolate teapot. It really has no meaning in world affairs but the Irish cling to it as if it some magical status that will protect us. Bollocks, if someone wanted to attack Ireland (God knows why), the nations with the capability to do so will. Shouting "but we're neutral" does little to stop and ICBM in case anyone's wondering :-) Ask the Ukrainians how that all worked out. Non-aligned is more accurate, this "neutrality must be in the constitution" business demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of international relations.
                i don’t even think we are “non-aligned”, we are members of the EU (including the CFSP), PfP etc. The West’s interests are ours.

                Here is a scenario: a Russian air cargo company concludes a big contract with Shannon for fuel, maintenance, etc. Anatovs come & go, life is good. Company claims they need to expand operations, claim security at Shannon is a problem. Some public to & fro, Russians not happy, don't want Irish customs or whatever looking at their stuff. "Too much" the comrades say, this is unsafe, we need help. Overnight more Anatovs land with "security volunteers and personnel", key parts of Shannon are secured to include the tower & as much real estate is needed. Think wheeled armoured vehicles and some UAV's to "protect our people because the Irish can't". Defacto Russian base in Ireland. DF mobilized, surround Shannon, Russians shout "belligerent acts against our security personnel", more Anatov's arrive with slightly heavier weapons. Who is going to stop that? Not the DF, they don't have the capability, Russians own the airspace therefore control the battlefield. UN, NATO & the EU will bluster, accusations fly, but would they be willing to fight over it? I'd bet not, they have other issues and the Russians will just say "we are only protecting our people, we're not invading, we love the Irish, we just need to protect our bases, that's all. Besides, they are not military personnel, it's a private security matter". (like the little green men in Ukraine).


                Theorists call this forth generation warfare, a messy, blurry line with unclear lines. Granted, this is an unlikely scenario, as I said earlier, the Russians have no real need to do this, it would come at a political & economic cost, and other than power projection in the North Atlantic and a big "fcuk off" to the west I don't know that it would serve a greater end. Point being, given our small size, collective defense & alliances can benefit smaller countries like Ireland. And I submit it's time for Ireland to get on board with reality and be a partner, even a very junior one, but better inside the club than outside. After the fact is too late....but if it did happen, would could form a commission to investigate....it's the Irish way...A
                I tried to have a debate on IMO on likely Irish defence scenarios a while back.

                To me the seizure of Shannon by a major Power (not necessarily Russian) is the most likely State actor “conventional” threat that we face on land (after crime, terrorism and cyber). It is the most likely threat so that is what we should orient towards.

                I hadn’t thought of the little green men but it equally valid.

                Comment


                • #23
                  My point on Europe is this:
                  1. The EU is not a union of equals in the way the US has been constructed and the back door Federalism witnessed through increased integration bears this out, as when the crisis hit this state was made to carry the can for bad lending decisions, not only by our own, but foreign based banks. The treatment of other smaller states during the crisis mirrored this - if this is what our friends do then I'd hate to see what they do if they didn't like us. The double standards of the EU are always evident in its treatment of the smaller states, in good or bad times, over the past 20 years.

                  2. The integration of Europe is also being pushed not at the behest of the people - when it has been voted upon it has been rejected - the EU constitution being a prime example which became a treaty so people wouldn't vote on it after France and the Netherlands rejected it, though I suspect the Dutch would have voted again had France said yes, in the same manner as we had to here. The Euro is another example of this. It's a political idea not an economic one as the old ERM allowed states to adjust their currencies with bands. I'd argue the devaluation in 92/93 is what kick started this country's first boom.

                  3. I do appreciate how intertwined we are with Europe but why is this good. Why was the common market and free trade not enough as I never saw the clear argument for the centralisation of power to the centre, indeed in the US this is seen as big government which is not what was intended there either. free trade and common market is what prevented war in Europe and it would continue to do so.

                  4. I think it important the Brexit succeeds to show a country can leave if it so wishes, all the reasona we are told "it's complex to do so" and "why they should remain" would apply to any country. Was it not complex for us to leave the UK? for the Soviet Union to dissolve? Finland to leave Russia? Slovakia to strike out on its own? If they leave, and make a success of it, more may follow - so what? we'll all trade and peace will reign still. Those that are left can unite to their heart's content.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I am Irish and living in South Tipperary

                    In proffering an opinion on why people are averse to military spending I was not necessarily agreeing with it - did a straw poll at break and again people see no merit in it. People believe, rightly or wrongly that the US and UK will look after our interests from an external threat to our borders.

                    Lt. Gen. Gerry McMahon argued many years ago for an honest neutrality or formal alignment such as NATO. I think he was right but that I see as different from further EU integration. join NATO but not a federal superstate.

                    As someone who tried, but failed at medical, for the cadets many years ago I can't believe how far the DF has come in certain areas and would encourage that. The tax payer as a whole don't seem to agree.
                    Last edited by The Connaught Ranger; 21 March 2018, 15:49.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Stranger

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by DeV View Post
                        there is no real the desire to change the status quo. The Government have attempted to have the discussion without major engagement.


                        I disagree, while range is increasing numbers are decreasing. And Russian military aircraft have to get past a lot of countries to get to the approaches to the European mainland currently.

                        i don’t even think we are “non-aligned”, we are members of the EU (including the CFSP), PfP etc. The West’s interests are ours.


                        I tried to have a debate on IMO on likely Irish defence scenarios a while back.

                        To me the seizure of Shannon by a major Power (not necessarily Russian) is the most likely State actor “conventional” threat that we face on land (after crime, terrorism and cyber). It is the most likely threat so that is what we should orient towards.

                        I hadn’t thought of the little green men but it equally valid.
                        Number of years back 80s I think, Our old Congo foe the Belgium's caught a Irish priest red handed with detonators for supply to your own terrorist. For some reason the Belgium's wanted rid of him fast, so they stuck him in the back of a C130 with a number of troops (Think in case of a British intercept ) With the intension of dumping him back here. We did not have the ability to detect or stop them doing it.
                        Not sure what happened in the end.?
                        Last edited by sofa; 21 March 2018, 22:51.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I am Irish and living in South Tipperary
                          My bad.There is another member here who goes by a very similar user name.
                          In proffering an opinion on why people are averse to military spending I was not necessarily agreeing with it - did a straw poll at break and again people see no merit in it. People believe, rightly or wrongly that the US and UK will look after our interests from an external threat to our borders.
                          Good to know you don't agree with it as that point of view is a disgrace. Military capability does not come for free.It requires investment.A fact the lefties refuse to accept.We can spend as much as we like on everything else but it is all for naught if you don't have security.Foreign direct investment depends on it, and as we know FDI is the largest creator of jobs here. As for the US and UK looking after our interests.(Why should they?)Go back and ask your buddies how many of them had a problem with our sovereignty being surrendered to Germany etc during the crash.If they had no problem with that but are adverse to Ireland being able to defend itself then they are Hypocrites of the highest order.
                          Lt. Gen. Gerry McMahon argued many years ago for an honest neutrality or formal alignment such as NATO. I think he was right but that I see as different from further EU integration. join NATO but not a federal superstate.
                          What is actually wrong with being part of a federal system? If it brought about better management of our health system for example I dare say nobody would have a crib.
                          As someone who tried, but failed at medical, for the cadets many years ago I can't believe how far the DF has come in certain areas and would encourage that. The tax payer as a whole don't seem to agree.
                          So.Have you any Military experience?? If not what is the basis of your knowledge on what the state should or should not be doing with regards Defence?
                          "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            "i don’t even think we are “non-aligned”, we are members of the EU (including the CFSP), PfP etc. The West’s interests are ours. "

                            28th Amendment ... We are not, sadly.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              This article sums it up perfectly, especially the "we're naive" part, no real foundation or understanding of the strategic realities of the world. I agree with the other posters who argue the public wouldn't care to see defense spending increased. The usual "sure we're neutral" and "ah sure the neighbours'll look after us" are typical of what I call "small thinking". Neutrality doesn't really mean anything any more and it hasn't since the early 20th century. And as for the neighbours, no, they'll look after THEIR interests, not our. Yes, we'd be supported if it suits a neighbour, but if it doesn't, oh well. As another example, the British invaded and occupied Iceland during WWII. Iceland declared neutrality at the outset of WWII, and the "good guys" sailed right on in. And of further note, the Brits handed the occupation off to the Canadians, who then passed it on to the Americans. SO much for neutrality, right?

                              At this point, Irelands best bet would be to start greater integration into the EU, embrace compatible intel, cyber, ADA radars nested with the Europeans and generally act like a grown up and stop moaning on about neutrality. The opportunity to join NATO and have meaningful defense is past, politically and fiscally it's a non starter, there is no public support ergo no money. And while jets and weapons are sexy, Ireland needs to start with the foundations.

                              A former senior Military Intelligence officer has questioned Ireland's readiness to deal with the fallout of the current tensions between European countries and Russia and the commitment at political level to strengthening the State's defences against hostile espionage activity.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                The debate should not be just about do we join NATO but what role can we play and do we need to play in EU Defence.

                                Within the EU27, there are 5 other non-aligned countries and this should be seen as a major asset to the EU and it ability to operate in certain situations independent from NATO. While we should continue to support the PfP it must be recognised that by many NATO is seen as being just a US puppet. This can lead to some limitation on how the EU can use any military forces. An example would be if ever a multi-nation peace-keeping forces was to be deployed to eastern Ukraine. If this force contained units from NATO members it would not take long for Russia to cry foul, that NATO was deploying to its borders even if these forces were not under NATO command. An force on non-aligned EU troops would gain more acceptance. As luck would have it we have a long military partnership with the larger of these nations both through UN operations and EU Battlegroups: Sweden, Finland and Austria.

                                But we have to act fast, both Sweden and Finland have already committed to increasing their defence co-operation and this is only likely to accelerate. Being able to build upon our involvement in the Un and the EU Battlegroups we could give a much clearer focus to the role we play in the defence of the EU. Like it or not it is our membership of the EU that has made the country what it is today. It was only after 1973 that we began to develop as a truly independent nation, and one that is accepted as an equal in a "Union" of nations.

                                We need to move our defence horizon away from just "standing on the beach looking inland" to looking at what can cause us harm. There is the direct terrorist threat but also the damage large numbers of the victims of war can do to the EU. The crisis of 2015 has been very damaging to the EU and the shared ideals it once had. Preventing humanitarian crisis in areas such as the Middle East and Africa has a direct affect on the security of this nation even if most decide to ignore this. Being able to provide security for people in their homeland is essential for the stability of the EU and our well being.

                                Looking towards the UN, it is dearly in need of reform with the biggest need being the removal of the permanent members of the security council and their associated veto. This makes it more and more difficult for the UN to be the force for world peace that was envisioned back in 1945 in San Francisco. But looking at our contribution we need to recognise that the majority of the UN troops come from poor countries. That the contribution in term of troop numbers is going to be dominated by countries such as the Philippines, Bangladesh, Nepal and other large population countries with little money for training or equipment. Therefore if we are to play a part we need to be providing the higher end military capability.

                                What it all means is that we need to look away from a "tradition" force design to provide only defence once an enemy has landed on our shores to one that can be integrated into larger PSO and Peace-keeping operations.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X