The debate over Irish neutrality is fascinating. It differs from the other debates I have covered, for example, in Switzerland and Austria or Finland and Sweden. So, do you think that Ireland will give up its neutrality? And, if so, can you see it joining NATO? Alternatively, should it instead keep it in place? Or consider closer EU defence integration. As ever, I look forward to your thoughts and comments below.
Thx Prof. Once again shedding light on a situation in the world I had no idea was even going on. As always though, I am an observer of International Relations and Statehoods, I don't do outcomes, it's their decision. Have a wonderful weekend. That isn't exactly true is it, I do support Ukraine. lol 99% of the time I don't do outcomes, unless it's something as obvious as an unprovoked attack. Cheers. 🍺
I have a question. Ireland is an EU state and has supported the EU sanctions on Russia as well as given financial aid to Ukraine via the EU to buy weapons to defend itself from Russia. To what extent is that neutrality? For a layman like myself it doesn't seem to be.
@@AB-zl4nh yea that’s the funny thing. Any country that joined the EU has a indented neutrality already. The only difference a political and economical alliance instead of a military alliance. So it’s like they get all the benefits, except for being protected. Leaving them open to being messed with even if know everyone knows Ireland is already a EU Ally’s. It’s like going half way. Notably Ireland, unlike austra and Switzerland, does not have “neutrally” from the constitution. So Ireland can just vote to join and that’s it, while Austria would have to change their constitution, or atleast allow themselves to be sued and go through a supreme court decision.
Ireland doesn’t tiptoe around the UK like Canada does around the US, probably because of the historical context and the UK wanting to improve its image. Corporation tax in Ireland is 12%, massively undercutting the UK’s 19% (about to be raised to 25%), which hasn’t been received very well
@@alexanderkowal5710 i wasn't suggesting Ireland spoke softly because its afraid of the UK. Nor Canada afraid of the USA, just that both can be softer on the world stage because they know the UK, USA and EU would never allow them to be harmed. Neutrality and peace etc are a privilege that would be reconsidered if it weren't for powerful friends.
@@xanderreyno Yeah... we like to make fun of Canada, but Americans view Canada like a little sister who's precious and perfect. I pity the individual that messes with Canada lol.
There was no famine , famine is when there is no food . 40 Thousand ships left here in the 1840s laden with Chickens , Cattle , butter , cheese , corn , and plenty more for Liverpool and other English ports." Genocide" is what it was.
@@jennyomalley7634 The Fake Historical Narrative as the Grievance Culture of the Faiche Repoblichaine movement, the Erse Lickers of European Genocide is a deliberate policy of one race against another. There is no racial difference between the British and the Irish. Ireland was a fully integrated as part of the same democratic structures as England, Wales and Scotland,.
Ireland's main political reason for neutrality is too spend as little as possible on national defence and this can also be achieved by Ireland's geographical location.
It doesn't hurt that the main excuse given for Irish Neutrality are the same people you have a secret pact with to protect your airspace and help monitor your waters. Just don't tell your people, coz you know - you have an image to uphold 'n stuff.
@@wolf6543211 am complete outsider from mexico, but as far as I see it, it has a sea around it. Which is the best thing. You should spend the money you spend joining nato helping the people in your own nation. Education, healthcare, affordable housing and etc.
Really well done. Here's the thing: as an Irish person I hope and pray that there will be an informed debate. I THINK we have a relatively educated population but I'm never sure.
Thank you so much. I have faith that it will. Ireland has set the international standard for informed and intelligent public debate on difficult issues in recent years. It really is a lesson for other countries.
@@JamesKerLindsay No offence- it doesn’t feel like that in Dublin. My my humble perspective our population seems to be slipping into silos of internet mind viruses. The rise of an extreme right wing, and the growing colourful tyranny of the extreme left are terrifying. I deeply wish Facebook and Twitter did not exist.
@@JamesKerLindsay NO reason for Ireland to join NATO. The whole reason NATO was created was because of the Soviet Union. The whole reason it exists in 2023 is because of Putin's Russia which is headed to defeat. Ireland has no enemies and has no need to waste their money on the 2% GDP towards defense. They are in the same position as Austria who also opted out of joining NATO. There would be zero benefit to joining NATO at this time.
@@JamesKerLindsay Proud Irish man here, guessing your English? Thus your opinion or attempt to understand Ireland 🇮🇪 or the Irish. We are world leaders in many things! First country in the world not only with a opening gay and Polish immigrate leader ( not surprisingly his allegiance is not reflective off Irish people! 1st country in world to bar Cigarettes 🚬 in public building also 1st in 🌎 to legalised gay 💑 marriage. But the Irish are and always will will hate the English first and foremost. Especially Unfortunately 😕 due to people like yourself ! Abit of "research" on the famine your figures were off by MILLIONS and the effects on population figures etc INEPT RESEARCH AND UNDERSTANDING
Sea defense from who? Russia is at a huge naval disadvantage. Russian surface vessels can be denied entry to all major oceans by the US or it's allies. To the Atlantic, at the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap. To the Pacific, at the Kuril Islands, and Korea strait/Strait of Tsushima. And to the Mediterranean, at the the Turkish straits
The purpose of the Irish Armed Forces has always been, since the Civil War, to protect the State from internal enemies. The IRA faction that fought and lost the Civil War was never reconciled to the Free State and its evolution. There have been some noted peace-keeping missions, but that is really just window-dressing and a puff for the political class.
I have a question. Ireland is an EU state and has supported the EU sanctions on Russia as well as given financial aid to Ukraine via the EU to buy weapons to defend itself from Russia. To what extent is that neutrality? Doesn't seem to be.
@@AB-zl4nh The Professor mentions this, there is 'military neutrality', which is Ireland's position, of not being in alliance with with any country, and not taking sides military in any way in a conflict, and the looser (lack of) political neutrality, where Ireland can give help that is not 'lethal' to a country such as diplomatic support, sanctions against the aggressor, providing money, food, fuel, clothing, medical supplies even vehicles, which is not aiding a belligerent. Ireland is not 'politically neutral' in the war, but militarily it is.
@@AB-zl4nh as far as I am aware we haven't given any weapons and all financial aid given was for non military use. We may have given uniforms and Armour but nothing lethal.
The senior partner would be the US. NATO countries co-operate militarily so that everyone can be defended. There is no political manoeuvrings in NATO. The armed forces of all members become brothers in arms.
Since Eire has become much more socially liberal, many open minded people in the North would be willing to at least consider joining Ireland, particularly after the dogs dinner of Brexit.
I'm a retired service member from NATO member Canada and during my career, I had the opportunity to work alongside and train with, soldiers from a great many other nations; mostly NATO but not exclusively. We used to talk about the European "Big 4", in other words, the 4 major European powers which were not NATO members.... Sweden, Finland, Austria and Ireland. What was firmly understood by all of us in uniform at the time but by very few civilians was that all of these nations were, to one degree or another, NATO members in all but name. While not official members, they were closely enough aligned, politically at least, that they may as well have been. This was particularly true of Sweden and Finland who we worked with very frequently and were for all practical purposes, fully interoperable with NATO but kept enough official distance to satisfy their populaces who still wanted to be "near but not in" the big club. We all knew that if the day ever came that if either or both made the decision to join, each could hit the ground running and would be a very valuable contributors. I worked with Austrian and Irish troops to a somewhat lesser degree but was nonetheless impressed with both when I did have the opportunity to do so. As each is somewhat more removed from the actual threat, it's not surprising that they find seeking membership to be a less pressing matter than Sweden and Finland did but nevertheless, I have full confidence that should the day ever come when decisions have to be made, each will be firmly in our corner as they've always been. I would warmly welcome both Austria and Ireland into the alliance as "official" members but I respect their decisions to keep things the way they are if that's what they prefer. I have never had a concern about either and I see no problem with them continuing as "partners."
Don't touch our 'neutrality', don't even think about it. The World needs countries where mediation of conflicts and diplomatic dialogues can take place. Also, a place where anyone from any side of a conflict can go without fear.
@@SpiritHigh_bottled_kind Not actually being in the EU myself, I would have no knowledge of that. I can only speak for what I do know which in Austria's case, is their military.
The Irish have benefitted a long time from spending basically nothing on defence. Any attempt to move cash from schools and hospitals to tanks would be opposed by the public. And in fairness its understandable.
The average Irish person has only benefited marginally. Wealthy US corporations and a small minority of Irish ultra-wealthy have benefited massively. But I agree, to the average Irish person, moving money from public services to tanks would be understandably opposed, even if it makes some degree of sense from a national security perspective.
Every country who values freedom should be playing a role in maintaining it, and that should include defence. What we see happening in Ukraine should be a wake up call for anyone who thinks orherwise.
@@Gary-bz1rf , Your statement is idiotic. NATO is a terrorist organization. A "hit" man for the globalist war mongers and international oligarchs. All wars are created by war profiteers. The "war" in Ukraine is a proxy war which is used by the international money men to break Russia into regions to be looted by the oligarchs. All the rest is a lie. You should look up Colonel Douglas MacGregor US Army and others in the US who tell the truth about what's going on in Ukraine.
To be honest, I don't think that Celtic Tiger ever moved enough enough cash into healthcare, public transport, social service and other stuff. Even though, there is enough money. Look at Germany. Do they have completely private, always-charging-patients healthcare? Do they need events to raise money for Mountain Rescue Service? I know, it is stuff of right or left approach but when Ireland said we don't have enough money for healtcare that is not quite true. If Greece, Spain and Bulgaria are in, Ireland can afford membership. There are few good reasons. First, being neutral now is like being neutral when seing brutal violent murder. Second, Ireland belongs to Western political and cultural space. Russia wants to desintegrate and weaken this space for years. They lead campaign of lies and manipulation. Behind every stupid conspiration that devide society and creating hoaxers' bubbles is this vile dwarf.
Thanks James that was very interesting and as as Irish citizen seemed to sum things up as they currently stand. I have to take you up on one point that is VERY close to our hearts over here, Approximately 1,000,000 Irish people died of hunger and disease during the great famine and between 1and 2 million left the country in an effort to survive. Perhaps you have access to figures that our historian s don't but what I can say is that in 1841 there was over 8 million living here and in 1851 there was 5 million according to the census papers. Perhaps you could tell me your source s of " tens if thousands" or was "hundreds of thousands " either way these figures are incorrect and refer to human beings not ramdom numbers quickly chosen for UA-cam. I apologise if I sound a little harsh but such a huge trauma cannot be allowed to belittled in any way.
Thank you, Eamonn. I understand the sensitivities over the figure. Many apologies. It should have been higher. In contrition, I hope Irish viewers will acknowledge that I felt it necessary to explicitly mention these horrific events in the video.
@@JamesKerLindsay no research was done for this video and it is click bait and nothing more. I will never watch another video made by this uneducated man speaking about things he clearly knows nothing about!
I agree Eamonn, and the population kept falling for the next century almost reaching a low of 4 million ( The whole island of Ireland ) in the early 1960s.. That is 50% of the population , apply these metrics to another country like China , that would be 168 million dead and another half billion scattered to the four winds over the century
My Irish side of my family originate from Listowel Kerry. and most supported the Allies during WW2 and came to the UK ,during the late 30s ,and some were in uniform. .The most frustrating aspect of the IRA was that it determined that a United Physical, one country Territory (United Ireland) was the critical issue and NOT the Democratic will of the People of NI. Without EIRE joining NATO I cannot see how the IRA and it's sympathisers in the North can achieve their objective of a Forced Union with EIRE. . Maybe Russia submarines and Electronic surveillance fishing boats sheltering of the West Atlantic Coast, similar to the 3rd Reich, may make EIRE think again.. !!!
To be truly neutral a country must be able to defend its neutrality, that’s why during the cold war, Sweden had an air force that was capable of defending its airspace from intruders from NATO and the Soviets at the same time if required. If Ireland wishes to remain neutral it needs to at least be able to defend its home waters and airspace.
I’ve been to Switzerland and it has a lot of soldiers and I’ve seen them practising in the woods. Keeping out of wars does not mean sitting on your backside. Switzerland even has a navy, just for lakes.
True. Ireland isn't truly neutral. It is happy to piggyback off of UK and US protection without actually having to 'pay' for that by joining NATO. Much like Iceland, they got a great deal
It was an open secret that when combatant nations' planes went down over Ireland during WW2, Axis prisoners were held far inland under tight guard while Allied ones were put in "POW camps" close to the border (possibly directly on it and close to a town in NI, places like just south of Aughnacloy?) with only the most token security so they *could* easily get back to Allied territory and rejoin the fight.
@@michaelamos4651 We provided weather forecasts as well to the Allies from our weather stations along the Atlantic Coast. No German ever instituted a 'tyrannical and genocidal regime' over Ireland that was Britain.
@@michaelamos4651 You joke, but thats more then USSR did to protect their own supply routes. The USSR refused to even share weather data with Britain and America in the North Sea
The poll you quoted on joining NATO was from a behavioural science perspective and after 2/3rds had read influencing literature. The same poll showed 60% wanted to maintain neutrality. An honest broker would quote the statistic from the poll result with the same question of the earlier poll it was being compared to that showed a 70% result.
Irish person here. Excellent summation. Also, part of the reason originally for not joining NATO I understood was that having just left the British Union, Ireland was quite impoverished. We were almost completely economically dependent on Britain before/after independence and struggled to develop a less reliant economy for decades. So we could not easily afford to equip and train a decent sized force that could be contributed to NATO. A minor factor perhaps.
I’m a historian of Irish history and that also applied to why the Catholic Church also had so much power inside of the country for so long. Due to the nature of British colonialism, they wanted Ireland to be a breadbasket in a similar way Russia used Ukraine historically. Meaning that they did not have any sort of infrastructure or industrialization, this can be seen with social safety nets. In Ireland after independence relied on the Catholic Church to take care of things like welfare, education, healthcare, and family services as seen with the Magdalene Laundries.
An excellent, balanced presentation of Ireland military position. It's important for Irish people to hear the position been outlined from someome outside of the country. Thank you - Regards, Irish 60 year old man
Thank you so much, David. I really appreciate it. It is such an interesting and important debate. I have been following the discussion closely for the past year and had wanted to make a video on it for ages. I am glad it came across as fair.
1 - Russia can cut the cables at any point in the Atlantic. Ireland needn't be a factor in Russias calculations. 2 - During WW2 Ireland managed to deploy 40,000 uniformed troops in defense. Plus 60k local defense force armed partisans. 3 - Ireland is a member of CSDP, the EUs mutual defense, which is by law bound to help. 4 - Russias marine force is relatively small, its unlikely that Russia could successfully invade. 5 - Russias only aircraft carrier, the admiral kuznetsov, is inoperable.
NATO members seem to be targeted by elements from the countries bombed or invaded as in retaliation .. neutral states like Ireland haven't been subjected to retaliation attacks (AKA) terror attacks.
@@Pinkpanther100x No need. There is a peace agreement in place that clearly sets out the terms of Irish unification when the people of Northern Ireland express a democratic wish to see this happen.
I think there are advantages for Europe in having Ireland neutral, but better armed and capable of seriously effective surveillance of its sea and air. In co operation with NATO. Take for instance the invasion of Iraq. Why the hell would the Irish, who have a great and respected understanding of the world and are respected by Arabs and Africans and others be expected to fight in some oil war with the USA and some token former great powers? Better to have an influential small country to call on in the United Nations. Don’t think NATO needs full Irish membership.
Ireland would become one of the biggest naval and airbases contributing to the military support to NATO as it is stationed on the Atlantic. Iraq was run by a terrorist at the time, invading it was the best conclusion considering the threats iraq posed to its neighboring countries. Fighting for the right cause is always better than supporting terrosists
We don't want any of that, so Idk why you're thinking up crafty ways to trick Africans into thinking we're on their side; we are, or at least our people are
@@lorcansnow2111 When were Africans mentioned?! Joining NATO is an exellent way to modernise our military and boost NATO with an atlantic base. You need to realise that fighting for the right cause will always be better than sitting back and watching terrorists, or communists take over the world.
Greetings from Ireland, the current funding of the Irish Defence Force has left it not fit for purpose, very low pay with a high number people leaving, the Navy has a lack of sailors, no rapid intercept jets, no radar, the list carry's on
Quite a few nations, including those who could actually afford one, still forgo having an air force as it's cost/effectiveness ratio is very low at the small end, and doesn't become worth it until you attain and maintain a high number of warplanes. For example, obtaining a mix of 50 various aircraft including interceptors and multirole fighter-bombers and their support infrastructure is still enormously expensive, yet is practically useless in its impact against anyone with a similar size force or greater. Likewise, against and adversary with zero aircraft, but equipped with ManPads and Mobile AA, those 50 aircraft won't make an impact. Mexico have a large military but no aircraft because, although there's no bilateral treaty covering it, it's assumed that the USA would likely intervene if Mexico was ever attacked by a nation with significant airpower. Éire has a similar assumption with the UK and much of the EU, and already allows the UK to do RRA interceptions over Irish airspace. Éire doesn't need an air force, don't waste your money when there are allies who can cover that. You do need an army though; the world's not as stable as it appears on the surface and things can change very quickly. No excuse for low wages in the Irish army, you can afford that, so I hope you guys get that sorted out along with the Navy... just don't be using them against us ☺️
Hopefully Ireland will never abandon its neutrality. The political class have sold the country out to the EUSSR. It would be a tragedy if they sold out to NATO too.
That comment is pure stupidity. Sold out? Ireland wouldn't stand a chance in a real conflict without the support if those countries your supposedly sold out to.
Comparing the EU to the USSR is particularly aggregious during a war of agression waged by Russia. It's not cool. Even the Daily Mail has stopped doing it.
@murphaph I think it's a fair comparison as the EU is encouraging the Irish government to pass a draconian Hate Speech Act (passed by the Dail & now going through the Seanad) that is clearly unconstitutional: (to convict a person of "hate" , it removes the presumption of innocence till proven guilty - the state deems you guilty automatically). I don't know about you but that is legislation that Russia passes to suppress its citizens of their right to free speech, not that of a free democratic country.
Ireland presently has the best of both worlds. Although neutral, it can also rely completely on the fact that the USA, NATO, the EU (and the UK) would certainly rush to its defence if ever needed, which looks unlikely..
No, there is a diplonatic difference. Like ukraine, west want to help, but ukraine was neutral and the west cant send troops without war escalation. Western country only can help externaly. Nato is a protection system to avoid war with alliances.
That's a funny way of saying that they are neutral freeloaders like Austria. Nobody can attack them without going through NATO countries, and therefore they can claim neutrality without actually contributing to their defence.
I have been desperate for news like this. You post exactly what I need to be seeing. I’ve been searching for a long time for someone like you.. Discovered you through the Ethiopian/Egyptian tensions video and I’m so grateful to be here.
Thank you so much Megan. That is so lovely of you to let me know. I really and truly appreciate the support! :-) I’m taking a couple of weeks off for a bit of a holiday, but good to be back with more videos at the end of August. (And might pop in a sneaky one before then.)
@Prof James Ker- Lindsay: Norwegian person here. First, thank you for these very informative videos! During the Cold War Norway constituted NATO’s Northern Flank alone. The northern parts of the country were most of the fighting was expected to take place in the event of a Soviet invasion, was seen as most vulnerable. Among others it was feared that a second Soviet strike force across the Finnish border. With Finland in NATO and Sweden granted security guarantees from the organization’s most important members (i.e., not Turkey & Hungary). With Finland and Sweden within NATO, Norway is not alone anymore, nor would we get to keep all the attention from Washington or Brussels alone for that matter. Could quickly become a double-bladed sword. During the Cold War Norway was an importer of help from NATO. Now Norway has ground forces stationed in Lituania and do air policing in Iceland. Ireland is an EU-member, and as far as I know the EU has something like NATO’s article 5 but does not really have military force on its own or willingness to back this policy. The policy has certainly not been tested for real, and that may also be said about NATO’s article 5. Yes, I know it was invoked after 9/11- 2001, but what if there’s a real enemy facing NATO in the future like China or Russia? As the video says, Irelands strategic environment and geostrategic location is changing. Just like Norway did after 1940. I mean, that’s why the Germans invaded and occupied my country during World War 2, and with an aggressive Soviet Union on the rise why we joined NATO. But has Ireland’s geostrategic importance changed just now? I think not. It has in my view been there for decades already since the country is located quite close to French and British nuclear sea based nuclear deterrence. Located in western France, and western Scotland. I’m a bit surprised the video do not bring this up. What kind of military capacity would in my view Irland need? - A navy and air force with surface & ASW capabilities to amongst others help protect French and British SSBNs, so Russia can’t snoop on them from Irish waters. - An air force with fast jets to aid in the defence of the British Islands and the North Atlantic Sea lanes to North America, alongside the RAF & Royal Navy. Both organizations being historically small now.
-Long range air defence, and truck based coastal artillery with surface-to surface cruise missiles. Comments?
Thanks. Great points. Yes, Norway was a key NATO actor during the Cold War. Along with Turkey, they were the only two direct routes into the Soviet Union. More generally, as you note, Ireland would need to focus on those areas where it could deliver the greatest contribution.
@@JamesKerLindsay Personally I think Ireland should join NATO for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Two world wars illustrated that everything needed in war except strategic air power will travel on ships past Ireland. Just as it will in Norway's case in a defence of the Baltics, Sweden and Finland. Irish membership will also fill in the blank that Swedish and Finnish absence in Scandinavia constituted during the cold war.
Crazy talk lads Irish person here we have always been and always will be neutral why should we send our boys off to murder people who never did a thing to us Only realistic threats are far far away and would never be able to maintain a supply line also we are next door to Britain who im sure would not take kindly to potential enemies in the back yard. We have been invaded twice in the last 2000 years by Normans and Vikings so its been a while plus our military infrastructure is almost non existent and the 2 per cent of gdp required would be far less than the level required to modernise. If the russians are gonna do anything they have t get thru nato and from what ive seennin ukraine they couldnt organize a piss up in a brewry...
Feck off is what comes to mind as my initial comment. Could you PLEASE explain why you believe Ireland should join in to defend 'the British Isles' and work along side the British armed forces who occupy our Island still after hundreds of years of oppression which is still occuring due to their colonialist occupation of 6 of out Irish counties , are you right in the head ?!!!
One historical fact to note regarding Ireland not fighting in WW2 - In less than 30 years prior to the beginning of WW2, Ireland had fought three wars: WW1, the Irish war of independence, and the Irish civil war. I don't think it should be overlooked that Ireland war extremely war-weary, and joining the allies in WW2 would mean fighting alongside it's former colonizer less than 20 years after it gained (partial) independence. With that perspective, I think staying neutral seems understandable.
We actually provided 50,000 volunteer troops to the British army in WW2. Even the British openly state that. We're just kidding ourselves that we're neutral.
@@2112jonr Irish troops who fought in WW 2 were treated badly by the Irish state when they returned. It was a matter of conscience for them to volunteer and not due to any actions on the part of the Irish state.
The reason why the populace are so split and the polling so contradictory, is because every person I've met defines neutrality differently. There are those who define it as strict military neutrality while being politically active. Some as complete neutrality, some as vague non-engagement while letting the Americans use Shannon for example. And the government's contradictory actions over the years doesn't help. So that's why this debate can be so difficult to publicly debate, because we each believe neutrality means different thing's. Honestly given how stingy FG and FF are, I can't see it happening, and given SF don't think we're neutral enough and are lapdogs and apologists for Putin, don't expect it to change anytime soon.
For others like me who don't know the acronyms: *FF:* Fianna Fáil (Soldiers of Destiny - The Republican Party), center-right party *FG:* Fine Gael (Family of the Irish), center-right party *SF:* Sinn Féin (We Ourselves), left-wing
Why are Sinn Féin apologists and lapdogs for Putin? Is there no Irish nationalist sense of solidarity with the many small nations that lost their freedom and homelands to Russian imperialist domination over the centuries? What Putin has been doing in Crimea and Donbas regions of Ukraine amounts to a crude Russian modern-day version of the Plantation of Ulster. Except if Moscow ruled Norn Iron, the Kremlin would have settled troubles long ago by deporting the entire population to slave gulags in Siberia-and lay desolate all that remains, so the original inhabitants won’t even want their national land back (like what Stalin did to historic Finnish territories stolen by Russia in the Winter War-where today close to 0% Finns remain).
Yeah I doubt it will chance simply because most people are not politically engaged and to such people the prospect of "abandoning out neutrality" seems like a bad idea.
I don't think there is an appetite amongst the majority of irish people. Also, given the many other crises in Ireland in need of government attention and resources, a massive increase in military spending would be deeply unpopular.
@@sharingsharedudebro1236 Yeah, Russia is going to invade Ireland any day now. By the same token. And being in the EU is another example of why Ireland joining NATO isn't necessary.
So if you give huge breaks to tech companies to offshore their profits and have low numbers of employees on huge wages within a tax haven would that not throw the figures? Averages are not really representative are they?
Ireland should remain neutral . Ireland should continue to facilitate dialogue and peace talks between warring parties . It should invite Ukraine, USA , and other countries involved in the present war in Ukraine to come to Ireland and meet the Russians and find a solution to this awful war . Unfortunately , the present Taoiseach and Tanaiste are more of the warmongering type and will be doing their best to make sure that future young Irish men and women will be sent as cannon fodder in the inevitable wars of the future .
Ireland has no tradition of brokering peace between warring parties, countries like Norway, Sweden and Switzerland have that particular market cornered.
@@fitzstv8506 Ireland has for many years sent peacekeepers all over the world , negotiating with warring factions and indeed suffering losses . Irish diplomats are well received all over the world and do a huge amount of behind the scenes diplomatic work . Real negotiating and diplomacy is always best kept low profile , it’s the end result that counts .
@@Dannydantimpat I absolutely agree with you but my point was that Ireland does not traditionally host peace conferences and negotiations in the way the mentioned countries do which is a pity given as you said the respect that most around the globe have for Ireland.
@@fitzstv8506 Yes, I suppose that was really what I meant , which is that there needs to be neutral nonaligned countries that can facilitate dialogue between warring countries .. Unfortunately , the present right of center government in Ireland are hell bent on just adding fuel to the fire by joining NATO or some other European war machine.
@@Dannydantimpat More pressure should be brought on Irish politicians to promote Ireland's position as a global peacemaker, make Ireland a centre for peace and conflict resolution, perhaps this topic could become an election issue but that can only happen if enough people propose and support it. I will for my part say it to canvassers when the come around at the next election.
Ireland is not neutral. Ireland is completely committed to the European political project. Completely aligned with the a west. Remember that the concept of neutrality is a political one. The military assets follow that , they do not lead it. So, politically Ireland is not neutral. The truth is simple. Ireland does not do defence. This will change.
Ireland doesn't make money from stirring up wars in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Libya etc. 'Defense' is half the budget in the US. We don't manipulate world energy markets (and physical supply) like the US. Nor do we have an arms industry. We can't even print our own money to inflate away our debts. Armies and military hardware would cost a fortune while making us a target for enemies & victims of NATO wars. Neutrality is the most sensible option.
Amazing assessment! I believe the cultural dynamics of Ireland would preclude it from wanting to join NATO. Given Ireland's historical & cultural dynamics, these would seem not to blend well with NATO being an American lead defense alliance, with the UK constituting as one of the larger political players in this alliance. Finland & Sweden changing their perspective is logical & is a rational political decision, but culturally, historically & politically, it does not seem to be the case for Ireland. But if the people of Ireland want to make the choice to join, a military alliance requires committments which result in both positive & negative effects. Article V might prove to be difficult to support given the United States has soverign territory in the Pacific, which is so far removed from Ireland's areas of concern. So Irish politicians might see joining NATO as a "Pandora's Box" so pragmatism would lead them to avoid that box.. Ireland like every other country in Europe know France's artificial political dream of EU defense is hollow, and would be a complete waste of their political capital. Thanks for your excellent content!!👍
The Pacific is not an area of concern for NATO. Article 5 can only be invoked if one of the partners is attacked in Europe, the North Atlantic or North America. If French territories in the Pacific such as New Caledonia were attacked, France couldn't invoke article 5, and neither could the USA if attacked in Guam, for example.
@@adrien5834 - like us in the Falklands. You're right but when it comes to the Americans they always bend the rules to suit themselves think Iraq and Afghanistan mind you well over a hundred British citizens died in that 9/11 terror attack so we had every right to fight side by side with our American cousins. I was led to believe that we had a clause that if anyone invaded Ireland then we would have to come to Irelands defence. But personally I think that it's a smart move for Ireland to join NATO. PUTIN is a fool he invaded The Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO and instead Finland, Sweden and it looks like Ireland are joining! Russia is no more! 🇬🇧🤝🇨🇮👍🇺🇦
@@shihtzu291 Sorry to tell you that we here in Ireland will Not be joining NATO. NATO is seen as a Warmongering institution. Ireland will continue to serve within the United Nations Peace Keeping missions.
@@gerardflynn7382 - NATO ain't no war monger at all if anything it's a safety net for the smaller weaker countries think Latvia and Iceland. It's security for all but with American, British and French nuclear weapons. No offence but your military is a bit of a joke (no fighter jets) your airforce is made up with planes with propellers! Hardly any decent navy ships and a army that's tiny.🇬🇧🤝🇨🇮
As an American, I heartily agree! The United States should never have been involved in WWI, WWII or the Cold War. Let the world sort out it's own problems. We should take out military and naval forces home with us.
Irish neutrality in WW2 is not at all controversial to the average Irish person, as far as i can tell its viewed as one of the more sensible decisions of Irish government
@@JohnLester-be8nv while that is true, ireland essentially had no air defence and would have been devastated by the blitz, with the choice between the certain deaths of thousands of civilians in an irish blitz or strained foreign relations with the allies the choice to remain neutral makes sense
Plenty of Irish men fought in WW1 & WW2 . Like my father. That’s enough. What thanks did they get from Britain. Irish need not apply. No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish! Maintain neutrality, but assist humanitarian efforts with other countries forces, Ireland already wear the blue beret of NATO
Yeah but i think they took neutrality too far when the prime minster expressed sorrow at hitlers death. Not saying he represents Ireland as a whole but it was absolutely diplomatic suicide
The argument that Ireland takes and does not give in terms of global/EU defense is lost when you consider that a trusted neutral party can be worth far more than military threat in peace negotiations. It may not be helpful for the world to lose yet another such actor.
Valid. An alternative view is that in it's 100 year existence, the Republic has never actually acted as a neutral peace intermediary in any global conflict or peace treaty. Political neutrality is one of those wonderful things you can proclaim with pride without ever having to actually prove. And before anyone says it: contributing UN peacekeeping forces is not the same as being a sought after interlocutor in peace negotiations.
I think Ireland could have a lot to offer as one of the West's foremost neutral representatives, but as an island they are quite exposed compared to Switzerland and Austria, and their location on the shortest route from North America to northern Europe is strategically important. Not to mention all the intercontinental undersea cables. Anyone willing to make enemies with heavyweights like the US and EU is going to be completely unconcerned about upsetting Ireland. Once you're already in a conflict with NATO, there are no additional consequences for violating Irish waters or territory.
Honestly, I think Ireland's general proximity - or lack thereof, relatively speaking - from historically aggressive nations, puts it in a fairly safe position already. Edit: False equivalences notwithstanding, Ireland's fairly far from aggressive nations.
Is this a joke? Ireland is separated from England by the Irish Sea and Wales… Ireland was invaded and colonized first by the Anglo Normans then English and then British… The reason there are still tensions in Northern Ireland is because of English ethnic cleansing through the Ulster Plantations. Pretty sure that could be considered aggressive…. The Irish Great Hunger could have had a vastly different outcome had she not been a British Colony. Maybe do some research on British Rule in Ireland…
@@johnnybravo9096 You don't though. Ever hear of the Western Approaches? Google it. You might learn something. The UK is protecting the UK. These overflights have been well-documented for decades and it is not an "explosive" revelation as the Prof suggests. If Irish airspace is guarded as a result, call it reparations for the damage done to Ireland for 800 years. Cheap
You’ve got to be joking for 70 years british have patrolled over Ireland and increased patrols during wartime i.e. Cold War and now when Russia is trying to bully Ireland and your saying it’s for Britains own benefit shut up
Before I get reprimanded, I know Irish soldiers serve as peacekeepers, but that is different from outright contribution on a battlefield as a defender/attacker.
@@stiofain88 I stand by my claim. Peacekeepers are completely useless. They do no get involved in conflicts. I'm not sure what civilians you are referring but regardless, peacekeepers very rarely do anything simply because they do not have the authority to do anything.
Hundreds of thousands died or emigrated during the famine? Alas, you may have missed a few zeros here. Almost uniquely in the world, Ireland's population is still noticeably less now than in 1850 after the catastrophe that was The Great Hunger
Yes, but today there are about 50 million people of Irish descent, of whom 90% live in the UK or its former colonies. If everybody of Irish descent went back to Ireland, the population would be at least six times as large as it was before the famine. The story of Irish demographics is not entirely confined to the island of Ireland. Far from it.
As an Irish person, i would hate to see Ireland join nato. I disagree with a lot that nato do and have done. I have no issue with Ireland increasing ots military but im very against joining nato. Just look at what nato did to Libya or Afghanistan. I don't want Irish men dying for US wars.
We are total freeloaders on the back of other European nations when it comes to defence. Even if we don't join Nato we should have the capacity to defend our land, sea and air but we don't. Especially on the latter we have no radar capable of detecting planes in our airspace and no planes of our own capable of intercepting them. We literally have propeller planes with machine guns like something from world war 2. A total embarrassment and it's been known for decades that if we ever needed this ability it would be provided by the RAF as there is simply no one else. So much for being neutral so we can stay free from the British!
Your air defence is our air defence, given we currently have a land border as well as the island of Ireland being less than 5mintutes flying time from the UK across the Irish Sea. If Russian long range bombers did penetrate Irish airspace their long range missiles would still be in range of UK potential targets. Guess if it happened at the moment, the RAF would fly over Irish airspace and we could argue about having 'foreign' aircraft over Ireland later.
Didn't the uk use the excuse of the french and germans would use ireland as a bac door to england for years? Also ireland isn't exactly the frontline in europe is it?
Ireland has one of the largest sea area to patrol in Europe granted we can't do it but lots of oil reserves and multi billion cables and pipelines if the cables are cut it would leave most of europe offline imaging what that could imply financially and cause havoc I'm a digital society
Great analysis, James. Abandoning neutrality would mean Ireland could go to war without the legislature's consent. Here in the US , Truman got us involved in Korea, etc, without Congress.
No, it wouldn't. Irish person here. Ireland is considering codifying a new 'double lock' system of Government decision AND parliamentary majority requirement to deploy any Irish forces (over units of 12) outside of Irish territory and EEZ.
I simply love Ireland. I'm not IRISH myself, but have had many Ireland borne Friends. I also took an Irish History course that started with Ireland's first High King, Brian Boru, and ended with PM Sean Lemass, "The Great Industrializer" The Irish are indeed a great People on every level. Their History is phenomenal, and today they are a economically strong, modern, and highly educated People. The Republic Of Ireland's Military is of moderate size, but technologically advanced. They have several top tier Elite Units that compare favorable to the American Army Special Forces, Navy SEAL Teams, USMC MARSOC, or Air Force CCT. Ireland would make a very strong and trustworthy member of NATO. I'd love to welcome them aboard. ERIN GO BRAGH!
@@ianbolton5403 Yes they are great peacekeepers with decades of very valuable experience. But they are also tiny, and tremendously unlikely to ever grow to a point where they could offer even a medium challenge to a small European country, let alone provide use in a large war effort. I support Irish neutrality for this reason.
@@ianbolton5403 THEIR RANGER TEAMS IN EXERCISES OFTEN BEAT OUT THE BRITS AND YANKS. THOSE BOYS DONT FUCK ABOUT LAD. GOOGLE WITH A CUPPA TAY FOR A WEE BITTA ENTERTAINMENT . . . ;)
Why would Ireland want to join NATO? As far as I know, they have no enemies world wide, their peace keepers, some of the best in the world. No pressure to be put on Ireland, from outside nations, it is for the Irish to decide, and only the Irish.
Ireland isn't really neutral though, and rightfully so in the case of Ukraine. Also, it benefits massively from EU membership - If something were to happen to eg. Poland, could we really stay "neutral" on that? It would project an awful image. Happy to reap Europe's rewards, but too "enlightened" to defend it. Ireland's neutrality is guaranteed by geography and Britain. We get to free-ride because times are good - But if they go bad, we will need to decide whether we're in Europe because of shared values, or simply because we want the money.
@@UNSKIALzPSN Ireland will hopefully never join NATO or any military alliance. All it will do is create enemies that will actually attack us. Just because we are in Europe does not mean we have to get entangled every time something happens. I'm not going to fight and die in a pointless war. Are you?
@@UNSKIALzPSN we’ll always be Europe man that’s simple geography but in terms of us being EU the answer is yes our government is greedy and corrupt as fuck, money money money, the people see none of it.
@@cagliari5984 I agree inequality has gotten worse since the financial crash - Particularly with housing. *However*, we as a people are so much better off now as a result of EU membership. The living standards rise has been dramatic. Before that, we were the poorest nation in Western Europe by quite a margin. People would complain very quickly if we walked out.
It's easy to be neutral in practice when someone else is footing the bill. The question is whether it's morally correct to be on the dole for defense when principles align. This also applies to NATO members on the continent who avoid security responsibilities, e.g., Germany.
Not mentioned is that Irish citizens are also free to become serving members of the UK armed forces, and many do. An anomaly that is brushed over, but they are in their own way a contribution to NATO, and much valued for that contribution.
@@hkonhelgesen Bravo, for the most uneducated made up comment. Russia does not have any colonies, so the second part of your comment is meaningless. Or if you are trying to be a smart ass, suggesting Ireland will become a Russian colony, because we refuse to join a alliance that has illegally Invaded other countries, I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself. Ireland will never join NATO.
Iris neutrality in WW2 'Highly controversial decision'. Where, in Ireland it wasn't controversial in the least. Prof, try reading Fisk's In Time of War.
Its true we were neutral on World War 2, but I would add that perhaps 50,000 southern Irish joined the British armed forces anyway. There was also some secret cooperation described in the Cranbourne Report, including sharing intercepted German coded messages with the UK, plans for a submarine-detection post in the southwest, not enforcing the internment policy against Allied servicemen who ended up in Ireland while Axis soldiers were interned (they were sometimes even transported to the border).
@@cagliari5984 They were not well treated if they had left the Irish Army eg denied army pensions. But I don't think they were considered "traitors" as such by most people. The late broadcaster Cathal O'Shannon served in the RAF.
@@cagliari5984 Absolute rubbish, and you're basically implying that the Irish are nazi supporters. The "traitors" were the approximately 5,000 deserters from the Irish Defence Forces during WW2. They were recently pardoned.
@@DFMSelfprotection Joining the British army and invading Ireland would be an act of treachery. Joining them and fighting a danger to Ireland is not an act of treachery.
Unlike Austria and Switzerland, Ireland is subject to Russian provocations with the use of force. It makes sense to have this debate. I as a Swiss person, however, think that Ireland's membership in NATO would not be possible without a stance of armed neutrality in a similar vein to Switzerland. It makes no sense to add members to the alliance which are not going to respect a 2% spending on their respective militaries and contribute more to the alliance than just by virtue of geographic position (although one could argue so for Iceland, but that's a separate case).
@badofi Thank you for contributing to the discussion. I think the main issue here with Taiwan is that, comparatively to Ireland, they're different cases. Mainland China considers Taiwan to be a domestic concern, while Western powers view it as an issue on the international level. Taiwan views itself as an independent nation. Ireland is a fully independent country, with representation in almost every international institution. A said provocation in Ireland wouldn't be regarded in the same way or at the same level as a military provocation in Taiwan. Since Taiwan is a de facto country, the US seeks to protect it with all the geopolitical implications that come with it (i.e. protecting the first island chain). There's more than enough evidence that China is getting more confident in infringing on other countries' territories, may it be Taiwan or recognised nations.
@badofi That wasn't a side note, more of an unsolicited pro Chinese rant about America. What has the US done since 1947? You mean apart from making the seas and Oceans safe for global trade that holds up the entire world economy and ensured that the technology you are now using could arrive in your country? The world economy which China is now threatening by trying to dominate its sea and shut out anyone it doesn't like? Tell me more about how you know absolutely nothing about how the world works.
While Ireland's joining NATO could be framed as largely symbolic, it doesn't mean it's less valuable. I'm just a guy, for example, doing his small part for the war in Ukraine where there are so many doing more than I am. Still, you put enough people together doing their small part and the aggregate is no longer small. Ireland can be a role model for many nations looking for guidance on many issues from economic growth to maintaining cultural identity in a globalised anglo-speaking world. I think joining NATO would be that one-more-step for Ireland to say, look what we've made of ourselves. They should be proud of that. Thank you to the people of Ireland for their generous support of Ukraine.
"I think joining NATO would be that one-more-step for Ireland to say, look what we've made of ourselves." Are you for real? Ireland does not need a pat on the head from anyone and certainly not from NATO. Ireland is already a leader in global affairs and has achieved that precisely because it embraced neutrality. Keep your guns and tanks
@@bogbay [touches self] It would seem, yes, I am real (and for real). You however sound like a Russian bot, because an Irishman would have a hard time saying that without laughing.
Thanks. Ireland and the UK don’t officially have a territorial dispute. Under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, Ireland gave up its constitutional claim to the North in return for Britain accepting the democratic right to Irish unification if and when a majority wants it.
It is not a territorial dispute, UK as the colonial power in Ireland decided to remain with certain parts of Ireland because they were bigger and more powerful and because they were a nuclear armed P5 member with powerful friends no one could do anything about it. In fact much like the Russians they refused to call the Northern Irish independence struggle a war and classified it as "the troubles"
@@michaelotieno6524 This is fantasy stuff Michael. The UK partitioned Ireland to suit NI unionists who threatened the UK Gov with insurrection if it gave Home Rule to the island. Churchill offered Ireland reunification if our deep water ports were made available to the ALlies during WW2 There were no nukes in 1921. The last sentence is accurate and saved you from a completely dead post
Ireland join nato will be bad idea for them , usa would drag them in war like there do with other countries, uk and Ireland should be great allies together and best training with each other military
No way! No change ever. We are a neutral country and wish to stay that way. Our history as an oppressed colonly makes our make up different world view.
In all honesty, the only real threat Ireland realistically faces is if the UK or NATO was the aggressor. So, they might as well stay neutral. It's the safest neutral nation in Europe. I think it's pretty clear, despite their neutrality, that the UK wouldn't tolerate any kind of belligerent attacking or even threatening Ireland. That's way too close to their border. (and yes, we all know the US is going to get very involved too)
This way also Russia and USA act in their borders too. What could happen if a militarist Cuba and Mexico let and install military bases near the US to treathen them?
China has been sending it's fishing fleet around the world to fish in water claimed by other nations. Any reason they shouldn't send their fleet to fish in waters claimed by Ireland? Recently the United States Coast Guard boarded Chinese fishing boat near the Galapagos Islands. But I'm sure Ireland would not want American warmongers doing something like THAT!
I am an American, I think it is wise these days for any country that can stay neutral to do so. I can't imagine NATO allowing anyone to attack Ireland, no way GB would want what would likely be an enemy to be in control of land that close to their coast. It would make me uncomfortable to depend on others for my defense, but I understand that is not an issue for citizens of other countries. My family left Ireland in the 18th century so I am not sure I have a full understanding of current conditions, but I would think spending a little more on defense might be wise, and ensuring a solid relationship outside of an actual treaty with NATO would be the right way to go. Being a member of NATO puts one in a position to have to deal with the actions of the current leadership of countries like Hungary or Turkey, no need for that headache and risk, IMO.
Irish lad here. While it is true that due to our geographical location we enjoy the protection of NATO, however the only countries who are capable of invading Ireland are all NATO members. So the question ultimately boils down to do we in Ireland view NATO as a threat or do NATO view Ireland as a threat? It should also be borne in mind that the British Army actively recruits in Ireland, it always has done.
Keep in mind that Russia "the Soviet Union" was the first to recognize Ireland's independence. It would be wise for Ireland to stay out of this conflict going on. Its soldiers will be decimated. On the other hand, I would argue that Ireland is no longer a sovereign country. It is living under tyranny by traitors, domestic and foreign, who want to incorporate it into the World Government. It has also been betrayed by the hierarchy of Catholic Church. This is the sad situation.
Thanks as always for the video professor! This is definitely something to watch closely. I like how you contrasted Ireland’s neutrality with that of say Austria, where constitutional neutrality is dictated by international treaty. That said, even if legally easier to do than in other neutral states, it remains to be seen if those poll numbers move any further, at least while the status quo in Ukraine continues (I think predicting anything in geopolitics beyond the end of the Ukraine War seems impossible, because how it ends will have such major ramifications on the world) Glad you mentioned the cables as well, that’s a huge component that we will see if a littoral war breaks out; of course just a couple of months ago we saw the cables cut (allegedly by a CCP merchant marine boat) between Taipei and its Matsu possessions near the mainland coast, knocking out virtually all communications with the outside world. Taiwan seems to view it as an inevitability that the main island’s undersea cables will be severed in the event of war; I’d say the same should definitely not be overlooked when it comes to the North Atlantic, and Ireland as you said is a huge piece of that. Thanks as always professor for a measured look at the topic!
Thanks as ever, LocalLt. I had been looking forward to making this video for a while. (And it was also one of the most enjoyable to make, for some reason!?) It’s certainly provoked a lot of debate in the comments. These have been fascinating to read. It’s interesting how countries form their approaches to neutrality, and how it seems to become so deeply entrenched in the national psyche.
He misrepresented the poll data with the 52% result 1) It was a behavioural science study not a poll. 2) Candidates read influencing material as part of the behavioural science aspect before voting. 3) He didnt use the results from the direct comparison question that was also in the same study that showed 60% wanting to retain neutrality even though his commentary was about making a comparison. Why would he avoid the direct comparison ? The cables are not Irish owned but it is cheaper to lay them through Ireland. Should Ireland give up neutrality because of this accommodation or should the vested interests protect their own property. If it comes to it, the Irish people will say move the cables because giving up neutrality was never part of the deal . Part of Ireland is currently occupied. I dont hear any NATO member demanding the British get out unlike Russia and Ukraine.
Times change, what may have been a suitable policy before might not be the best answer these days. They are doing the right thing, by reconsidering and reviewing their position but ultimately Ireland has to decide for themselves what they believe the best course of action for their future is.
I'm torn on the issue, as an American especially. I'm glad to see NATO mattering more since these sorts of alliances are, I think, the best way to deter conflicts from authoritarian states. However, Ireland is an important peacekeeper and mediator in the same vein as Switzerland, and may become even more important than the Swiss in that vein sooner than later. If they join NATO would that ability of pure neutrality and peacekeeping disappear? Then again, Ireland is the de facto protector of those undersea cables, plus Article 5 is such an enticing carrot on a stick for any nation to join. Much more would be expected from Ireland though. To some degree, I feel like the idea of neutrality is dying, and rightfully so in MOST cases. Neutrality in the past has really... never worked as a form of deterrence, I'd accept an argument against that in the case of Switzerland in WW2, but at the same time, the Germans mostly used them to get past trade restrictions, and the Swiss benefitted off that, which they have been sorry for. It didn't work for Finland as deterrence against the Soviets, it didn't work as deterrence for Yugoslavia, it didn't work for Vietnam, the Ottomans, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the list goes on. So what works as deterrence? If I had to say? Probably the largest military alliance on earth ready to turn anyone who attacks your country into a parking lot. Just my opinion. Check out the Kraut video Neutrality in Europe after 2022 to see what I'm talking about, I agree with many of his points.
When talking about deterrence, it's also important to note that I do not mean nuclear deterrence, I mean conventional war deterrence, I hope we never have to talk about nuclear deterrence in a "some place just got nuked and now we have to deter more nukes from going off" way.
@@4Usuality "Neutrality in the past has really... never worked as a form of deterrence" I think that claim is rather overreaching. Besides Switzerland, Spain was also not attacked in WWII nor was Sweden. In WWI the Netherlands and Denmark weren't attacked. I'd say depending on the case neutrality *can* make you avoid joining a war that breaks out. However, how successful it is depends a lot on the situation.
@@seneca983 The WWII examples are interesting. It's a fine line between _neutrality_ and _"divide and conquer's"_ little cousin _"playing both sides."_ There was a lot a shady behind the scenes dealing in WWII.
I think you’ll find that most NATO members have also carried out peacekeeping duties - and are very good at it. NATO members Italy, Spain, Germany and France all supply more peacekeepers than Ireland at the moment (although on a per capita basis, Ireland is certainly the largest contributor of the group). peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/01_contributions_to_un_peacekeeping_operations_by_country_and_post_60_march_2023.pdf Anyway, this is just to say that UN peacekeeping is wholly compatible with NATO membership, and always has been.
Why? It is part of a political community. It isn’t politically neutral. Why shouldn’t it go that step further and say that if it’s friends and partners are attacked, it will be right there with them? And in the meantime it will help those friends and partners, who haven’t been blessed with such fortuitous geography, feel safer. There may be good reasons to stay out, but from a political point of view, I’m certainly not sure I would call the debate ridiculous.
@@JamesKerLindsay Because NATO is an evil entity who starts wars the gets rich producing weapons to kill innocent people. You can go fight your own war! Send your own children off to die for nothing just like they leaders did in WW1 AND 11.
We the people of Ireland are neutral. Our corporate government might want to join ,however we the people will never bow down to evil war mongering. No thanks.
Yes! It was similarly a mistake for the United States to get involved in WWI, WWII or the Cold War! It was only that evil war mongering that has caused the United States to get involved in the world. The United States should have retained the same neutrality as that of Ireland ---- "No entangling foreign alliances" was the foreign policy of George Washington, the first American President. Or "America First" as stated by a more recent American President. Let the world sort out it's own problems.
That's not for you to say, it's for democracy to say. NATO is nowhere near a "evil war mongering" faction. You pulled that out your arse there. Nothing evil about democracy. I'd love to see you try name one instance NATO has supported the wrong side, or mongered a war wrongly.
@@johnhnangle My post: > Well. You'll notice that I never mentioned NATO. I was talking about the United States, and the United States has been involved in plenty of questionable wars beginning with the 1898 war with Spain. And my post was ironic in nature, with the prideful advocate of "We, the people of Ireland so proud of not getting it's skirts dirty with WWII, the Cold War and the current Ukraine war, among others. I was suggesting that if Ireland was so proud of it's neutrality, perhaps it was a mistake for the United States not to adopt the same policies. For example, the United States DID stay out of WWI until 1917 --- "Too proud to fight" as Woodrow Wilson said. That sounds like our Irish friend, does it not? And while the Brits declared War on Germany in September 1939, the United States was neutral until GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES in December, 1941, after the Brits had been at war for two years. Should the United States have made a point of avoiding WWII altogether, like Ireland did? Would our Irish friend REALLY have been glad had that war mongering United States avoided war like, say, Argentina? In short, what would Europe look like had that "war mongering United States" left Europe to settle it's own problems in WWI, WWII, the Cold War and the current war in Ukraine ---just for openers?
What do you suppose the Irish people and government would do and say if the Chinese fishing fleet, recently expelled from fishing around the Galapagos Islands, should move into Irish waters as the "soft underbelly" of Europe?
It was not undisputably under one monarch until either Elisabeth I following battle of kinsale or James I after flight of the earls. Previously it was under a patchwork of clan chiefs
Here’s my two pence worth,the Irish would be insane even to joke about joining NATO, because there is a bigger picture here and I hope my country and my people will say no to this proposal,we are and always will be a neutral country.Please don’t allow this to happen.
Many criticize the U.S. as a meddling country, whereas in times of world crisis it's predominantly American blood and treasure that is primarily called upon to come in and rescue. Countries who feel no need to arm themselves are the main benefactors, regardless of intentions. As an American taxpayer, I simply say: "You're welcome"
Can't see it happening - our "neutrality" (such as it is) is a pretty deeply held principle in our culture. What I do think might (and should) happen is that we begin to take our own responsibilities to secure our national security seriously and invest in the currently hollowed out institutions that would allow us to do that. The narrative around this is changing - if we (apparently one of the richest countries in the world) value our neutrality, what is that neutrality worth if we can't even police our own waters or airspace and depend on our former colonial masters (and by extension, NATO) to do so for us? It's probably going to be at least a decade long project, largely depending on factors such as whether Sinn Fein is going to be leading the next government as they look set to.
If Ireland doesn't want to join NATO, it has to learn to arm itself, just like what Switzerland did. Armed neutrality is better than be like Belgium in 1914.
I mean, in fairness, the USA is the big daddy in NATO, and I think the US and Ireland have a pretty close relationship. For example, Ireland allowed the US to use it as a base for refueling and repair in WW2. The US also has a MASSIVE population of Irish descent (St Patty's day, anyone?). The Brits may get wily sometimes, but we've got your back ;)
@@jeffmorris5802 Oh man - please don't call it St. Patty's day! It's St. Paddy's day if anything! Other than that, yeah our "neutrality" has always (at least since WW2 ended) been a sham used by successive governments here to underfund our defence and security agencies and largely fob off their responsibilities in that area to NATO. Even closer to the example you mention; we allowed the US military to use Shannon Airport as a stopover on the way to the middle east and apparently during extraordinary rendition flights during the War on Terror - what neutral country that takes itself seriously does that? It's a total cop-out and it's getting embarassing at this stage. If we want to be neutral (and all polls suggest that we do) then the reality is that we need at the very least a naval and air deterrent.
As an American I have never seen any desire on the part of Ireland to join NATO. From a practical point of view they have such a small military, they would bring nothing to the table.
Thanks. Agreed. The debate was never there in the past. Neutrality was taken as given, as in Finland and Sweden. But Ukraine has changed this. I’d say that NATO is the sum of its parts. On its own, it doesn’t do much. But within the alliance it does two key things. First, it is another psychological boost. It says this is the organisation protecting Europe and that all European countries are showing solidarity with each other. Ireland is telling Poland, the Baltic states, and others that it stands with them. This is a powerful message. Secondly, Ireland is in a strategic spot. Iceland is a key NATO member, but doesn’t even have an armed force! But it provides a vital intelligence role monitoring the North Atlantic. Ireland could do the same. On top of this, counties often find a way to make a specialist contribution once in NATO. It might not be a big military power, but it could take the lead on one thing and do it brilliantly!
It makes sense to take into account what the remaining non-NATO European countries could actually contribute to the alliance. With so many NATO members already falling so dramatically short of military spending and readiness goals it seems to make little sense to add more states that wouldn’t be capable to being full participants. Particularly when it seems that issues like under sea cables could potentially be handled through agreements or partnerships, as was mentioned. As an outsiderI suppose I could see value to Ireland joining NATO, but I just don’t necessarily see what NATO stands to gain that couldn’t already be achieved with the current status quo. Regardless, another great video!
Most NATO countries, and even west-aligned non-NATO members like Japan, are drastically increasing spending as a response to the changing security environment. I would point out 2 things. 1. This is really about admitting that Ireland was never actually neutral to begin with. Ireland has always been pro-democracy, pro-civil rights, etc. And the new cold war is shaping into the global west (democracy, civil rights) vs the global east (authoritarianism, conformity). We both know which side Ireland is really on. 2. Ireland actually has a lot it can provide! Ireland is well positioned to provide naval support to areas that need it; including, as the video mentioned, protecting undersea infrastructure from hostile actors (Russia, China)
Several things. NATO does not fund countries. More member costs NATO nothing, in fact there is a official fee to the organization of NATO, but not their military. Each member nations builds up their military for their own goals and ambitions. They are not building it up because of NATO. Only for their own ends. In fact I’d say it’s the reverse. All those smaller NATO countries would be spending even less on their military if not part of NATO. Ireland spends, rounded up, 0.3% of GDP on their military. So all those smaller NATO countries, instead of spending 1-1.5 GDP, would instead being spending 0.5 if they were not part of NATO. Ireland would be forced to spend way more on their military if they were part of NATO. You do not get to join NATO for free. Also NATO is not just numbers. It’s a political alliance as much as a military one. That is the reason all the European countries not part of NATO only send none lethal aid to Ukraine while all NATO countries send lethal aid in addition to non lethal. It also means that those counties can’t support the opposite side of a conflict that there member fight. Like Sweden supporting, in various degrees, the opposite said of the US in every war the US has fought. Literally took support desk calls during the Iraq war. Sweden will not be allowed to act contrarian like that after joining NATO. You could go on and on like resources of the nation, and political power, there is a lot any nations that can benefit NATO by joining.
What NATO stands to gain? I think it’s always been a pretty straight forward trade since it’s inception. Countries trade their land and political power to America in return for protection. America gets forward basis, silos, refuelling stations, votes backing/justifying anything it wants, it’s private enterprise guaranteed support abroad, etc. Old colonial empires may try their best to put in a facade to sit on the big boy table but it’s really just America calling the shots and ordering them where to go and what to do. That’s always been the trade. The 2% gag was never expected to be upheld by the poorest members. It’s about control.
@@jeffmorris5802 Fair points! It’s hard not to agree that Ireland is clearly a part of the west. I just don’t think NATO membership is necessary to further prove it (not that you said it was). I also have no doubt that Ireland has a ton it could contribute, but it can contribute that without NATO membership through existing fora. I’m not against the idea of Ireland joining NATO, but there is a political value to neutrality even if a country is only paying it lip service. It makes sense to run a cost benefit analysis before making big chances, that’s all I’m thinking.
@@AL-lh2ht the point of NATO's 2% defense spending commitment is to eliminate the free-rider problem. Since most members blatantly ignore that commitment, there's really no evidence that joining NATO would result in an increase in defense spending rather than becoming another free-rider. The natural consequence of joining an alliance is that you are less worried about defense and domestic pressure to shift spending to "more urgent" matters goes up. Granted, in the current environment that might be the case, but people forget... I mean check out defense spending graphs after 2014, last time Russia invaded... even countries that had a strong reaction like Poland didn't necessarily persist. In 2014, they increased spending a lot and it was 1.87% of GDP. Then in 2015, it jumped again to 2.22%. But guess what... time heals all wounds... in 2016 it dropped to 2.00%, and then down to 1.89% in 2017. It fell in absolute terms too.. Poland's 2014 spending was $10.1 billion, by 2017 it fell to $9.9 billion. Imagine that... just a couple of years after Russia invades a country out of the blue, and they're like "eh, well, I guess that's over we can relax!" And they're right next to Russia. Ireland is going to have a much harder time staying focused. And while you're right that NATO doesn't fund members, it does defend them, and that costs money for the countries that take their commitment seriously. As a thought experiment, to make the point clearer, imagine that the 20 poorest countries on Earth all join NATO. It costs us nothing, as you say... and yet... if one of them is attacked it will cost us a lot. And if there is a looming threat that we, as a defensive alliance, decide to prepare for, that will cost a lot. And the poor countries would contribute very little, so clearly it's a cost to the existing members. Of course Ireland is not poor. Also, when looking at its abysmal defense spending as a percentage of GDP, you have to keep in mind that their GDP is rather inflated due to the weird tax games that a lot of international corporations play in Ireland. So Ireland's GDP per capita is about 50% higher than the US's, but very few people would consider them to be a richer country than the US. But I really think it would be good for NATO's long-term survival to get a more serious commitment from potential new members to increase defense spending to a certain level rather than the "trust me bro hahaha" that it works on now. When countries don't pull their weight it not only causes resentment among those who do, it creates serious gaps in mission readiness.
As a Canadian, I would say the geopolitical realities making up the North Atlantic is in dire need of a rethink in terms of security. As the Western-most point of Europe and as the Eastern-most point of North America respectively, Ireland and Canada are absolutely integral to blocking and deterring Russian aggression towards our incredibly valuable electronic connections to our allies across the Atlantic. I'm not Irish and have never visit Ireland (yet 😊), so I can't speak to the political relations with the UK, but it seems to me that the debate over Northern Ireland between the two as an argument against joining NATO is very topical and superficial; this is for the sake of international peace, not bilateral relations. Ireland's reputation as a peacekeeping UN member won't decrease if they decide to abandon neutrality in my opinion. In fact, joining the fight to deter Russia and their aggression will only be praised by NATO, the EU and most of the world and their integrated intelligence sharing systems within the alliance will only increase, including our ability to protect our valuable connections in the Atlantic. Their efforts that have already made have already received praise and an overall warm reception, as you outlined, James. I support Ireland joining NATO. The era of neutrality, at least as it pertains to the Russo-Ukrainian war, is over. Finland and Sweden proved it, it's time for Ireland to follow suit, in my opinion. We hope to see you working even closer with our alliance. Love to Ireland from Canada! 🇮🇪🤍🇨🇦
The debate over Irish neutrality is fascinating. It differs from the other debates I have covered, for example, in Switzerland and Austria or Finland and Sweden. So, do you think that Ireland will give up its neutrality? And, if so, can you see it joining NATO? Alternatively, should it instead keep it in place? Or consider closer EU defence integration. As ever, I look forward to your thoughts and comments below.
Love it when someone turns out to be brave after all.
Good work. Reposting.
Thx Prof. Once again shedding light on a situation in the world I had no idea was even going on. As always though, I am an observer of International Relations and Statehoods, I don't do outcomes, it's their decision. Have a wonderful weekend.
That isn't exactly true is it, I do support Ukraine. lol 99% of the time I don't do outcomes, unless it's something as obvious as an unprovoked attack. Cheers. 🍺
I have a question. Ireland is an EU state and has supported the EU sanctions on Russia as well as given financial aid to Ukraine via the EU to buy weapons to defend itself from Russia. To what extent is that neutrality? For a layman like myself it doesn't seem to be.
@@AB-zl4nh yea that’s the funny thing. Any country that joined the EU has a indented neutrality already. The only difference a political and economical alliance instead of a military alliance.
So it’s like they get all the benefits, except for being protected. Leaving them open to being messed with even if know everyone knows Ireland is already a EU Ally’s. It’s like going half way.
Notably Ireland, unlike austra and Switzerland, does not have “neutrally” from the constitution.
So Ireland can just vote to join and that’s it, while Austria would have to change their constitution, or atleast allow themselves to be sued and go through a supreme court decision.
I don't know if they will, but maybe.
The phrase "Canada can speak softly because America carries a big stick." comes to mind.
Ireland doesn’t tiptoe around the UK like Canada does around the US, probably because of the historical context and the UK wanting to improve its image.
Corporation tax in Ireland is 12%, massively undercutting the UK’s 19% (about to be raised to 25%), which hasn’t been received very well
@@alexanderkowal5710 The corporation tax issue is the UK's fault, not Ireland's fault.
@@alexanderkowal5710 i wasn't suggesting Ireland spoke softly because its afraid of the UK.
Nor Canada afraid of the USA, just that both can be softer on the world stage because they know the UK, USA and EU would never allow them to be harmed.
Neutrality and peace etc are a privilege that would be reconsidered if it weren't for powerful friends.
@@EdMcF1 I think you meant to respond to the other guy... Also how does the UK control Irelands tax rates?
@@xanderreyno Yeah... we like to make fun of Canada, but Americans view Canada like a little sister who's precious and perfect. I pity the individual that messes with Canada lol.
Millions dies or emigrated during the famine, not hundreds of thousands, in fact some numbers put it around 25% of the population !
There was no famine , famine is when there is no food . 40 Thousand ships left here in the 1840s laden with Chickens , Cattle , butter , cheese , corn , and plenty more for Liverpool and other English ports." Genocide" is what it was.
@@jennyomalley7634 The Fake Historical Narrative as the Grievance Culture of the Faiche Repoblichaine movement, the Erse Lickers of European Genocide is a deliberate policy of one race against another. There is no racial difference between the British and the Irish. Ireland was a fully integrated as part of the same democratic structures as England, Wales and Scotland,.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 Michael Portillo ex-Tory politician did a documentary on this. That lady is correct, the documentation is there to see.
@@jennyomalley7634 wrong you can look it up
@@24hrs365 No she isn’t correct
Ireland's main political reason for neutrality is too spend as little as possible on national defence and this can also be achieved by Ireland's geographical location.
It doesn't hurt that the main excuse given for Irish Neutrality are the same people you have a secret pact with to protect your airspace and help monitor your waters. Just don't tell your people, coz you know - you have an image to uphold 'n stuff.
@@saundyuk spot on mark
Same goes for Switzerland
@@dannydonnelly8198 the difference is the Swiss are armed to the teeth. What does Ireland have, a tactical kite.
@@wolf6543211 am complete outsider from mexico, but as far as I see it, it has a sea around it.
Which is the best thing.
You should spend the money you spend joining nato helping the people in your own nation. Education, healthcare, affordable housing and etc.
Really well done. Here's the thing: as an Irish person I hope and pray that there will be an informed debate. I THINK we have a relatively educated population but I'm never sure.
Thank you so much. I have faith that it will. Ireland has set the international standard for informed and intelligent public debate on difficult issues in recent years. It really is a lesson for other countries.
Weather you choose to join or not, NATO supports you through and through
@@JamesKerLindsay No offence- it doesn’t feel like that in Dublin. My my humble perspective our population seems to be slipping into silos of internet mind viruses. The rise of an extreme right wing, and the growing colourful tyranny of the extreme left are terrifying. I deeply wish Facebook and Twitter did not exist.
@@fiacmar Thanks. I know exactly what you mean. As a natural centrist who believes in moderation and balance, I worry about it too!
🆘 we ask advice 💥 but we mean approbation 🏴☠️ 🌊’s… in OUR LAND 🏴 lads n lassies 🎩 …….
Whatever about joining NATO , we should definitely take our defense more seriously ,especially sea defence
Thanks. Great point. Yes, regardless of whether it joins NATO, it's clear that there is a growing debate about Irish defence.
@@JamesKerLindsay NO reason for Ireland to join NATO. The whole reason NATO was created was because of the Soviet Union. The whole reason it exists in 2023 is because of Putin's Russia which is headed to defeat. Ireland has no enemies and has no need to waste their money on the 2% GDP towards defense. They are in the same position as Austria who also opted out of joining NATO. There would be zero benefit to joining NATO at this time.
@@JamesKerLindsay Proud Irish man here, guessing your English?
Thus your opinion or attempt to understand Ireland 🇮🇪 or the Irish. We are world leaders in many things!
First country in the world not only with a opening gay and Polish immigrate leader ( not surprisingly his allegiance is not reflective off Irish people!
1st country in world to bar Cigarettes 🚬 in public building also 1st in 🌎 to legalised gay 💑 marriage.
But the Irish are and always will will hate the English first and foremost.
Especially Unfortunately 😕 due to people like yourself ! Abit of "research" on the famine your figures were off by MILLIONS and the effects on population figures etc
INEPT RESEARCH AND UNDERSTANDING
Sea defense from who? Russia is at a huge naval disadvantage. Russian surface vessels can be denied entry to all major oceans by the US or it's allies. To the Atlantic, at the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap. To the Pacific, at the Kuril Islands, and Korea strait/Strait of Tsushima. And to the Mediterranean, at the the Turkish straits
@@Mullet-ZubazPants In other words the Nato countries are subsidising Irelands defence
The purpose of the Irish Armed Forces has always been, since the Civil War, to protect the State from internal enemies. The IRA faction that fought and lost the Civil War was never reconciled to the Free State and its evolution. There have been some noted peace-keeping missions, but that is really just window-dressing and a puff for the political class.
I have a question. Ireland is an EU state and has supported the EU sanctions on Russia as well as given financial aid to Ukraine via the EU to buy weapons to defend itself from Russia. To what extent is that neutrality? Doesn't seem to be.
@@AB-zl4nh The Professor mentions this, there is 'military neutrality', which is Ireland's position, of not being in alliance with with any country, and not taking sides military in any way in a conflict, and the looser (lack of) political neutrality, where Ireland can give help that is not 'lethal' to a country such as diplomatic support, sanctions against the aggressor, providing money, food, fuel, clothing, medical supplies even vehicles, which is not aiding a belligerent. Ireland is not 'politically neutral' in the war, but militarily it is.
@@EdMcF1 so they are contrarian.
@@AL-lh2ht Always a winning policy for any state in Irelands position !.
@@AB-zl4nh as far as I am aware we haven't given any weapons and all financial aid given was for non military use. We may have given uniforms and Armour but nothing lethal.
The idea of Ireland being in a miliatry alliance with the UK as a senior parter is unappealing to many Irish. To say the very least.
The senior partner would be the US. NATO countries co-operate militarily so that everyone can be defended. There is no political manoeuvrings in NATO. The armed forces of all members become brothers in arms.
As an Irish person there wouldn't be as many holding that opinion now as 20 years ago
Since Eire has become much more socially liberal, many open minded people in the North would be willing to at least consider joining Ireland, particularly after the dogs dinner of Brexit.
I'm a retired service member from NATO member Canada and during my career, I had the opportunity to work alongside and train with, soldiers from a great many other nations; mostly NATO but not exclusively. We used to talk about the European "Big 4", in other words, the 4 major European powers which were not NATO members.... Sweden, Finland, Austria and Ireland.
What was firmly understood by all of us in uniform at the time but by very few civilians was that all of these nations were, to one degree or another, NATO members in all but name. While not official members, they were closely enough aligned, politically at least, that they may as well have been. This was particularly true of Sweden and Finland who we worked with very frequently and were for all practical purposes, fully interoperable with NATO but kept enough official distance to satisfy their populaces who still wanted to be "near but not in" the big club. We all knew that if the day ever came that if either or both made the decision to join, each could hit the ground running and would be a very valuable contributors.
I worked with Austrian and Irish troops to a somewhat lesser degree but was nonetheless impressed with both when I did have the opportunity to do so. As each is somewhat more removed from the actual threat, it's not surprising that they find seeking membership to be a less pressing matter than Sweden and Finland did but nevertheless, I have full confidence that should the day ever come when decisions have to be made, each will be firmly in our corner as they've always been.
I would warmly welcome both Austria and Ireland into the alliance as "official" members but I respect their decisions to keep things the way they are if that's what they prefer. I have never had a concern about either and I see no problem with them continuing as "partners."
You defend money printing power
Austria? it is enough to think how it behaves in the EU, to realize what Austria would be like in NATO.
Don't touch our 'neutrality', don't even think about it. The World needs countries where mediation of conflicts and diplomatic dialogues can take place. Also, a place where anyone from any side of a conflict can go without fear.
@@j.jwhitty5861 Anyone from any side? Really? You'd welcome Putin? Or Prigozhin? How magnanimous of you.
@@SpiritHigh_bottled_kind Not actually being in the EU myself, I would have no knowledge of that. I can only speak for what I do know which in Austria's case, is their military.
The Irish have benefitted a long time from spending basically nothing on defence. Any attempt to move cash from schools and hospitals to tanks would be opposed by the public. And in fairness its understandable.
The average Irish person has only benefited marginally. Wealthy US corporations and a small minority of Irish ultra-wealthy have benefited massively.
But I agree, to the average Irish person, moving money from public services to tanks would be understandably opposed, even if it makes some degree of sense from a national security perspective.
Every country who values freedom should be playing a role in maintaining it, and that should include defence. What we see happening in Ukraine should be a wake up call for anyone who thinks orherwise.
We can just let The Black and Tans defend us I suppose🤣😂
@@Gary-bz1rf , Your statement is idiotic. NATO is a terrorist organization. A "hit" man for the globalist war mongers and international oligarchs. All wars are created by war profiteers. The "war" in Ukraine is a proxy war which is used by the international money men to break Russia into regions to be looted by the oligarchs. All the rest is a lie. You should look up Colonel Douglas MacGregor US Army and others in the US who tell the truth about what's going on in Ukraine.
To be honest, I don't think that Celtic Tiger ever moved enough enough cash into healthcare, public transport, social service and other stuff. Even though, there is enough money. Look at Germany. Do they have completely private, always-charging-patients healthcare? Do they need events to raise money for Mountain Rescue Service? I know, it is stuff of right or left approach but when Ireland said we don't have enough money for healtcare that is not quite true. If Greece, Spain and Bulgaria are in, Ireland can afford membership. There are few good reasons. First, being neutral now is like being neutral when seing brutal violent murder. Second, Ireland belongs to Western political and cultural space. Russia wants to desintegrate and weaken this space for years. They lead campaign of lies and manipulation. Behind every stupid conspiration that devide society and creating hoaxers' bubbles is this vile dwarf.
Thanks James that was very interesting and as as Irish citizen seemed to sum things up as they currently stand.
I have to take you up on one point that is VERY close to our hearts over here, Approximately 1,000,000 Irish people died of hunger and disease during the great famine and between 1and 2 million left the country in an effort to survive.
Perhaps you have access to figures that our historian s don't but what I can say is that in 1841 there was over 8 million living here and in 1851 there was 5 million according to the census papers.
Perhaps you could tell me your source s of " tens if thousands" or was "hundreds of thousands " either way these figures are incorrect and refer to human beings not ramdom numbers quickly chosen for UA-cam.
I apologise if I sound a little harsh but such a huge trauma cannot be allowed to belittled in any way.
Thank you, Eamonn. I understand the sensitivities over the figure. Many apologies. It should have been higher. In contrition, I hope Irish viewers will acknowledge that I felt it necessary to explicitly mention these horrific events in the video.
@@JamesKerLindsay no research was done for this video and it is click bait and nothing more. I will never watch another video made by this uneducated man speaking about things he clearly knows nothing about!
I agree Eamonn, and the population kept falling for the next century almost reaching a low of 4 million ( The whole island of Ireland ) in the early 1960s.. That is 50% of the population , apply these metrics to another country like China , that would be 168 million dead and another half billion scattered to the four winds over the century
Other than that Professor I believe your assessment, was very fair and accurate.
My Irish side of my family originate from Listowel Kerry. and most supported the Allies during WW2 and came to the UK ,during the late 30s ,and some were in uniform. .The most frustrating aspect of the IRA was that it determined that a United Physical, one country Territory (United Ireland) was the critical issue and NOT the Democratic will of the People of NI. Without EIRE joining NATO I cannot see how the IRA and it's sympathisers in the North can achieve their objective of a Forced Union with EIRE. .
Maybe Russia submarines and Electronic surveillance fishing boats sheltering of the West Atlantic Coast, similar to the 3rd Reich, may make EIRE think again.. !!!
To be truly neutral a country must be able to defend its neutrality, that’s why during the cold war, Sweden had an air force that was capable of defending its airspace from intruders from NATO and the Soviets at the same time if required. If Ireland wishes to remain neutral it needs to at least be able to defend its home waters and airspace.
I’ve been to Switzerland and it has a lot of soldiers and I’ve seen them practising in the woods. Keeping out of wars does not mean sitting on your backside. Switzerland even has a navy, just for lakes.
@@Joanna-il2ur They also have a very well armed civilian population.
Sweden would have opened its airspace for NATO on day one of the conflict. There were several informal agreements.
True. Ireland isn't truly neutral. It is happy to piggyback off of UK and US protection without actually having to 'pay' for that by joining NATO. Much like Iceland, they got a great deal
@@silverhost9782 but all deals come at a price...
stay neutral, stay alive.
It was an open secret that when combatant nations' planes went down over Ireland during WW2, Axis prisoners were held far inland under tight guard while Allied ones were put in "POW camps" close to the border (possibly directly on it and close to a town in NI, places like just south of Aughnacloy?) with only the most token security so they *could* easily get back to Allied territory and rejoin the fight.
The axis pilots were quite happy there too.
Wow thanks for that massive effort in the world war against a tyrannical and genocidal regime
@@michaelamos4651
Heh, heh! Yes. Not really too surprising that Ireland has endeavored to keep that secret!
@@michaelamos4651 We provided weather forecasts as well to the Allies from our weather stations along the Atlantic Coast. No German ever instituted a 'tyrannical and genocidal regime' over Ireland that was Britain.
@@michaelamos4651 You joke, but thats more then USSR did to protect their own supply routes. The USSR refused to even share weather data with Britain and America in the North Sea
The poll you quoted on joining NATO was from a behavioural science perspective and after 2/3rds had read influencing literature. The same poll showed 60% wanted to maintain neutrality. An honest broker would quote the statistic from the poll result with the same question of the earlier poll it was being compared to that showed a 70% result.
Irish person here. Excellent summation. Also, part of the reason originally for not joining NATO I understood was that having just left the British Union, Ireland was quite impoverished. We were almost completely economically dependent on Britain before/after independence and struggled to develop a less reliant economy for decades. So we could not easily afford to equip and train a decent sized force that could be contributed to NATO. A minor factor perhaps.
I’m a historian of Irish history and that also applied to why the Catholic Church also had so much power inside of the country for so long. Due to the nature of British colonialism, they wanted Ireland to be a breadbasket in a similar way Russia used Ukraine historically. Meaning that they did not have any sort of infrastructure or industrialization, this can be seen with social safety nets. In Ireland after independence relied on the Catholic Church to take care of things like welfare, education, healthcare, and family services as seen with the Magdalene Laundries.
Ireland should not join NATO. No need.
@@MCKevin289 True, but Ireland does not need to join NATO.
Still not a reason for joining NATO. No need.
Bet the RA would love to see Brits training on Irish soil.
An excellent, balanced presentation of Ireland military position. It's important for Irish people to hear the position been outlined from someome outside of the country. Thank you - Regards, Irish 60 year old man
Thank you so much, David. I really appreciate it. It is such an interesting and important debate. I have been following the discussion closely for the past year and had wanted to make a video on it for ages. I am glad it came across as fair.
1 - Russia can cut the cables at any point in the Atlantic. Ireland needn't be a factor in Russias calculations.
2 - During WW2 Ireland managed to deploy 40,000 uniformed troops in defense. Plus 60k local defense force armed partisans.
3 - Ireland is a member of CSDP, the EUs mutual defense, which is by law bound to help.
4 - Russias marine force is relatively small, its unlikely that Russia could successfully invade.
5 - Russias only aircraft carrier, the admiral kuznetsov, is inoperable.
Joining nato is like signing a Sioux aside pact.
NATO members seem to be targeted by elements from the countries bombed or invaded as in retaliation .. neutral states like Ireland haven't been subjected to retaliation attacks (AKA) terror attacks.
where have you been boy?
As always Prof. James a fascinating and clear explanation. Thank you!
Thanks so much. I had wanted to cover this for ages. It’s so interesting seeing how and why different countries have formulated neutrality.
@@JamesKerLindsay Maintain your neutrality as much as possible at all times. Otherwise-God be merciful to you all.
Russia never invaded Ireland will nato help kick the British out of their country
@@Pinkpanther100x No need. There is a peace agreement in place that clearly sets out the terms of Irish unification when the people of Northern Ireland express a democratic wish to see this happen.
@@JamesKerLindsay 🎉🎉
Split NI into 6 parts.
Return to RoI one by one
Over the span of 18 years
I think there are advantages for Europe in having Ireland neutral, but better armed and capable of seriously effective surveillance of its sea and air. In co operation with NATO. Take for instance the invasion of Iraq. Why the hell would the Irish, who have a great and respected understanding of the world and are respected by Arabs and Africans and others be expected to fight in some oil war with the USA and some token former great powers? Better to have an influential small country to call on in the United Nations. Don’t think NATO needs full Irish membership.
Can’t think of any advantage. Austria, Malta and Cypress are also neutral.
Iraq was not NATO.
Ireland would become one of the biggest naval and airbases contributing to the military support to NATO as it is stationed on the Atlantic. Iraq was run by a terrorist at the time, invading it was the best conclusion considering the threats iraq posed to its neighboring countries.
Fighting for the right cause is always better than supporting terrosists
We don't want any of that, so Idk why you're thinking up crafty ways to trick Africans into thinking we're on their side; we are, or at least our people are
@@lorcansnow2111 When were Africans mentioned?! Joining NATO is an exellent way to modernise our military and boost NATO with an atlantic base.
You need to realise that fighting for the right cause will always be better than sitting back and watching terrorists, or communists take over the world.
Greetings from Ireland, the current funding of the Irish Defence Force has left it not fit for purpose, very low pay with a high number people leaving, the Navy has a lack of sailors, no rapid intercept jets, no radar, the list carry's on
Man, someone should invade ireland. Sounds like easy-pickins. I guess no country wants boat loads of potatoes as the spoils of victory.
So true . its embarrassing ? No?!
@@johnnywhite58 Very, not even an airplane for the Rangers Wing
Quite a few nations, including those who could actually afford one, still forgo having an air force as it's cost/effectiveness ratio is very low at the small end, and doesn't become worth it until you attain and maintain a high number of warplanes. For example, obtaining a mix of 50 various aircraft including interceptors and multirole fighter-bombers and their support infrastructure is still enormously expensive, yet is practically useless in its impact against anyone with a similar size force or greater. Likewise, against and adversary with zero aircraft, but equipped with ManPads and Mobile AA, those 50 aircraft won't make an impact.
Mexico have a large military but no aircraft because, although there's no bilateral treaty covering it, it's assumed that the USA would likely intervene if Mexico was ever attacked by a nation with significant airpower.
Éire has a similar assumption with the UK and much of the EU, and already allows the UK to do RRA interceptions over Irish airspace.
Éire doesn't need an air force, don't waste your money when there are allies who can cover that. You do need an army though; the world's not as stable as it appears on the surface and things can change very quickly. No excuse for low wages in the Irish army, you can afford that, so I hope you guys get that sorted out along with the Navy... just don't be using them against us ☺️
@@johnnywhite58 Is it? I'd rather the money is spent on education and healthcare than jets
Hopefully Ireland will never abandon its neutrality. The political class have sold the country out to the EUSSR. It would be a tragedy if they sold out to NATO too.
That comment is pure stupidity. Sold out? Ireland wouldn't stand a chance in a real conflict without the support if those countries your supposedly sold out to.
Comparing the EU to the USSR is particularly aggregious during a war of agression waged by Russia. It's not cool. Even the Daily Mail has stopped doing it.
@murphaph I think it's a fair comparison as the EU is encouraging the Irish government to pass a draconian Hate Speech Act (passed by the Dail & now going through the Seanad) that is clearly unconstitutional: (to convict a person of "hate" , it removes the presumption of innocence till proven guilty - the state deems you guilty automatically). I don't know about you but that is legislation that Russia passes to suppress its citizens of their right to free speech, not that of a free democratic country.
@@murphaph The Daily Mail supports Biden's war. Russia and the USSR are not the same thing.
Ireland presently has the best of both worlds. Although neutral, it can also rely completely on the fact that the USA, NATO, the EU (and the UK) would certainly rush to its defence if ever needed, which looks unlikely..
DID YOU RUSH TO OUR DEFENCE...IN NI, FOR THIRTY YEARS.....???
@@jjbiggmann5576 NI is not part of Republic of Ireland for now.
No, there is a diplonatic difference. Like ukraine, west want to help, but ukraine was neutral and the west cant send troops without war escalation. Western country only can help externaly. Nato is a protection system to avoid war with alliances.
@@jjbiggmann5576 NI isn't in the Republic. Even if the Republic was in an alliance, that would not be a triggering event.
That's a funny way of saying that they are neutral freeloaders like Austria. Nobody can attack them without going through NATO countries, and therefore they can claim neutrality without actually contributing to their defence.
I have been desperate for news like this. You post exactly what I need to be seeing. I’ve been searching for a long time for someone like you.. Discovered you through the Ethiopian/Egyptian tensions video and I’m so grateful to be here.
Thank you so much Megan. That is so lovely of you to let me know. I really and truly appreciate the support! :-) I’m taking a couple of weeks off for a bit of a holiday, but good to be back with more videos at the end of August. (And might pop in a sneaky one before then.)
@Prof James Ker- Lindsay:
Norwegian person here. First, thank you for these very informative videos! During the Cold War Norway constituted NATO’s Northern Flank alone. The northern parts of the country were most of the fighting was expected to take place in the event of a Soviet invasion, was seen as most vulnerable. Among others it was feared that a second Soviet strike force across the Finnish border. With Finland in NATO and Sweden granted security guarantees from the organization’s most important members (i.e., not Turkey & Hungary). With Finland and Sweden within NATO, Norway is not alone anymore, nor would we get to keep all the attention from Washington or Brussels alone for that matter. Could quickly become a double-bladed sword. During the Cold War Norway was an importer of help from NATO. Now Norway has ground forces stationed in Lituania and do air policing in Iceland.
Ireland is an EU-member, and as far as I know the EU has something like NATO’s article 5 but does not really have military force on its own or willingness to back this policy. The policy has certainly not been tested for real, and that may also be said about NATO’s article 5. Yes, I know it was invoked after 9/11- 2001, but what if there’s a real enemy facing NATO in the future like China or Russia?
As the video says, Irelands strategic environment and geostrategic location is changing. Just like Norway did after 1940. I mean, that’s why the Germans invaded and occupied my country during World War 2, and with an aggressive Soviet Union on the rise why we joined NATO. But has Ireland’s geostrategic importance changed just now? I think not. It has in my view been there for decades already since the country is located quite close to French and British nuclear sea based nuclear deterrence. Located in western France, and western Scotland. I’m a bit surprised the video do not bring this up.
What kind of military capacity would in my view Irland need?
- A navy and air force with surface & ASW capabilities to amongst others help protect French and British SSBNs, so Russia can’t snoop on them from Irish waters.
- An air force with fast jets to aid in the defence of the British Islands and the North Atlantic Sea lanes to North America, alongside the RAF & Royal Navy. Both organizations being historically small now.
-Long range air defence, and truck based coastal artillery with surface-to surface cruise missiles.
Comments?
Thanks. Great points. Yes, Norway was a key NATO actor during the Cold War. Along with Turkey, they were the only two direct routes into the Soviet Union. More generally, as you note, Ireland would need to focus on those areas where it could deliver the greatest contribution.
@@JamesKerLindsay Personally I think Ireland should join NATO for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Two world wars illustrated that everything needed in war except strategic air power will travel on ships past Ireland. Just as it will in Norway's case in a defence of the Baltics, Sweden and Finland. Irish membership will also fill in the blank that Swedish and Finnish absence in Scandinavia constituted during the cold war.
Crazy talk lads Irish person here we have always been and always will be neutral why should we send our boys off to murder people who never did a thing to us
Only realistic threats are far far away and would never be able to maintain a supply line also we are next door to Britain who im sure would not take kindly to potential enemies in the back yard.
We have been invaded twice in the last 2000 years by Normans and Vikings so its been a while plus our military infrastructure is almost non existent and the 2 per cent of gdp required would be far less than the level required to modernise. If the russians are gonna do anything they have t get thru nato and from what ive seennin ukraine they couldnt organize a piss up in a brewry...
Feck off is what comes to mind as my initial comment.
Could you PLEASE explain why you believe Ireland should join in to defend 'the British Isles' and work along side the British armed forces who occupy our Island still after hundreds of years of oppression which is still occuring due to their colonialist occupation of 6 of out Irish counties , are you right in the head ?!!!
@@hantykje3005not gonna happen pal
Prof. Ker-Lindsay - I appreciate how you always articulate an issue briefly, clearly, and with nuance.
Thank you.
On the contrary; Ireland's pitiful 'armed forces' are utterly incapable of defending Ireland against air attacks or a naval blockade.
One historical fact to note regarding Ireland not fighting in WW2 - In less than 30 years prior to the beginning of WW2, Ireland had fought three wars: WW1, the Irish war of independence, and the Irish civil war. I don't think it should be overlooked that Ireland war extremely war-weary, and joining the allies in WW2 would mean fighting alongside it's former colonizer less than 20 years after it gained (partial) independence. With that perspective, I think staying neutral seems understandable.
We actually provided 50,000 volunteer troops to the British army in WW2. Even the British openly state that.
We're just kidding ourselves that we're neutral.
@@2112jonr Irish troops who fought in WW 2 were treated badly by the Irish state when they returned. It was a matter of conscience for them to volunteer and not due to any actions on the part of the Irish state.
Viva Ireland from Ukraine
2million died and 2million left the country
The reason why the populace are so split and the polling so contradictory, is because every person I've met defines neutrality differently.
There are those who define it as strict military neutrality while being politically active. Some as complete neutrality, some as vague non-engagement while letting the Americans use Shannon for example. And the government's contradictory actions over the years doesn't help. So that's why this debate can be so difficult to publicly debate, because we each believe neutrality means different thing's.
Honestly given how stingy FG and FF are, I can't see it happening, and given SF don't think we're neutral enough and are lapdogs and apologists for Putin, don't expect it to change anytime soon.
For others like me who don't know the acronyms:
*FF:* Fianna Fáil (Soldiers of Destiny - The Republican Party), center-right party
*FG:* Fine Gael (Family of the Irish), center-right party
*SF:* Sinn Féin (We Ourselves), left-wing
ITS A BIT LIKE BREXTIT...HAHAHA.
Why are Sinn Féin apologists and lapdogs for Putin? Is there no Irish nationalist sense of solidarity with the many small nations that lost their freedom and homelands to Russian imperialist domination over the centuries? What Putin has been doing in Crimea and Donbas regions of Ukraine amounts to a crude Russian modern-day version of the Plantation of Ulster. Except if Moscow ruled Norn Iron, the Kremlin would have settled troubles long ago by deporting the entire population to slave gulags in Siberia-and lay desolate all that remains, so the original inhabitants won’t even want their national land back (like what Stalin did to historic Finnish territories stolen by Russia in the Winter War-where today close to 0% Finns remain).
Yeah I doubt it will chance simply because most people are not politically engaged and to such people the prospect of "abandoning out neutrality" seems like a bad idea.
Like neutrality everyone understands isbselfish thing to be so either you openly acceot as being selfish and self interested or you join the forces ;)
I don't think there is an appetite amongst the majority of irish people. Also, given the many other crises in Ireland in need of government attention and resources, a massive increase in military spending would be deeply unpopular.
Of course not. They don't have an appetite for coughing up instead of freeloading of the Brits that they slag off 24/7!
because Ireland hasn't a neighbor like russia, imagine if Ireland have neighbors like russia then they will think about military spendings more deeply
@@sharingsharedudebro1236 Think about Irelands relationship with its nearest neighbour and try that comment again.
@@Ricky_Baldy yeah britain will invade ireland anyday now ireland need to join Russia federation ASAP, also ireland is in the EU.
@@sharingsharedudebro1236 Yeah, Russia is going to invade Ireland any day now. By the same token. And being in the EU is another example of why Ireland joining NATO isn't necessary.
So if you give huge breaks to tech companies to offshore their profits and have low numbers of employees on huge wages within a tax haven would that not throw the figures? Averages are not really representative are they?
Great video Prof. Ker-Lindsay, thanks
Thanks so much. I have been following this debate closely for the past year. I had been waiting for an opportunity to make a video on it.
Ireland should remain neutral .
Ireland should continue to facilitate dialogue and peace talks between warring parties .
It should invite Ukraine, USA , and other countries involved in the present war in Ukraine to come to Ireland and meet the Russians and find a solution to this awful war .
Unfortunately , the present Taoiseach and Tanaiste are more of the warmongering type and will be doing their best to make sure that future young Irish men and women will be sent as cannon fodder in the inevitable wars of the future .
Ireland has no tradition of brokering peace between warring parties, countries like Norway, Sweden and Switzerland have that particular market cornered.
@@fitzstv8506
Ireland has for many years sent peacekeepers all over the world , negotiating with warring factions and indeed suffering losses .
Irish diplomats are well received all over the world and do a huge amount of behind the scenes diplomatic work .
Real negotiating and diplomacy is always best kept low profile , it’s the end result that counts .
@@Dannydantimpat I absolutely agree with you but my point was that Ireland does not traditionally host peace conferences and negotiations in the way the mentioned countries do which is a pity given as you said the respect that most around the globe have for Ireland.
@@fitzstv8506
Yes,
I suppose that was really what I meant , which is that there needs to be neutral nonaligned countries that can facilitate dialogue between warring countries ..
Unfortunately , the present right of center government in Ireland are hell bent on just adding fuel to the fire by joining NATO or some other European war machine.
@@Dannydantimpat More pressure should be brought on Irish politicians to promote Ireland's position as a global peacemaker, make Ireland a centre for peace and conflict resolution, perhaps this topic could become an election issue but that can only happen if enough people propose and support it. I will for my part say it to canvassers when the come around at the next election.
Ireland is not neutral. Ireland is completely committed to the European political project. Completely aligned with the a west. Remember that the concept of neutrality is a political one. The military assets follow that , they do not lead it. So, politically Ireland is not neutral. The truth is simple. Ireland does not do defence. This will change.
Its about the action in the end isnt it?
You may not be politically neutral but it does not mean you cannot be military neutral, against war and the war economies.
Mr Kaggan, are you serious? Grow up. How do you deal with the evil people in the world?
@@davidmccarter9479 That's everybody. 🤣
@@davidmccarter9479 stop creating them.
Yes Absolutely.
Barry from Dublin South, IRELAND
Ireland doesn't make money from stirring up wars in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Libya etc. 'Defense' is half the budget in the US. We don't manipulate world energy markets (and physical supply) like the US. Nor do we have an arms industry. We can't even print our own money to inflate away our debts.
Armies and military hardware would cost a fortune while making us a target for enemies & victims of NATO wars.
Neutrality is the most sensible option.
China's high seas fishing fleet should make a beeline to fish in Irish waters!
@@SeattlePioneerthen they get feckin rammed and if sunk the life boats will come for their own, they'll have to swim back to Asia...
Amazing assessment! I believe the cultural dynamics of Ireland would preclude it from wanting to join NATO. Given Ireland's historical & cultural dynamics, these would seem not to blend well with NATO being an American lead defense alliance, with the UK constituting as one of the larger political players in this alliance. Finland & Sweden changing their perspective is logical & is a rational political decision, but culturally, historically & politically, it does not seem to be the case for Ireland. But if the people of Ireland want to make the choice to join, a military alliance requires committments which result in both positive & negative effects. Article V might prove to be difficult to support given the United States has soverign territory in the Pacific, which is so far removed from Ireland's areas of concern. So Irish politicians might see joining NATO as a "Pandora's Box" so pragmatism would lead them to avoid that box.. Ireland like every other country in Europe know France's artificial political dream of EU defense is hollow, and would be a complete waste of their political capital. Thanks for your excellent content!!👍
The Pacific is not an area of concern for NATO. Article 5 can only be invoked if one of the partners is attacked in Europe, the North Atlantic or North America. If French territories in the Pacific such as New Caledonia were attacked, France couldn't invoke article 5, and neither could the USA if attacked in Guam, for example.
@@adrien5834 - like us in the Falklands. You're right but when it comes to the Americans they always bend the rules to suit themselves think Iraq and Afghanistan mind you well over a hundred British citizens died in that 9/11 terror attack so we had every right to fight side by side with our American cousins. I was led to believe that we had a clause that if anyone invaded Ireland then we would have to come to Irelands defence. But personally I think that it's a smart move for Ireland to join NATO. PUTIN is a fool he invaded The Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO and instead Finland, Sweden and it looks like Ireland are joining! Russia is no more! 🇬🇧🤝🇨🇮👍🇺🇦
@@shihtzu291 Sorry to tell you that we here in Ireland will Not be joining NATO.
NATO is seen as a Warmongering institution.
Ireland will continue to serve within the United Nations Peace Keeping missions.
@@gerardflynn7382 - NATO ain't no war monger at all if anything it's a safety net for the smaller weaker countries think Latvia and Iceland. It's security for all but with American, British and French nuclear weapons. No offence but your military is a bit of a joke (no fighter jets) your airforce is made up with planes with propellers! Hardly any decent navy ships and a army that's tiny.🇬🇧🤝🇨🇮
@@gerardflynn7382 That's unfair. The only reason NATO is seen as a warmongering institution is that it is constantly pushing for expansion and war. 😉
NO to NATO!
dont get conned by usa !
As an American, I heartily agree! The United States should never have been involved in WWI, WWII or the Cold War. Let the world sort out it's own problems.
We should take out military and naval forces home with us.
Irish neutrality in WW2 is not at all controversial to the average Irish person, as far as i can tell its viewed as one of the more sensible decisions of Irish government
true
It did not make them pupular with the allies after the war and Ireland suffered as a result - politics is important
@@JohnLester-be8nv while that is true, ireland essentially had no air defence and would have been devastated by the blitz, with the choice between the certain deaths of thousands of civilians in an irish blitz or strained foreign relations with the allies the choice to remain neutral makes sense
Plenty of Irish men fought in WW1 & WW2 . Like my father. That’s enough. What thanks did they get from Britain. Irish need not apply. No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish! Maintain neutrality, but assist humanitarian efforts with other countries forces, Ireland already wear the blue beret of NATO
Yeah but i think they took neutrality too far when the prime minster expressed sorrow at hitlers death. Not saying he represents Ireland as a whole but it was absolutely diplomatic suicide
Really enjoyed this. Lots of arguments either way presented in a calm manner.
The argument that Ireland takes and does not give in terms of global/EU defense is lost when you consider that a trusted neutral party can be worth far more than military threat in peace negotiations.
It may not be helpful for the world to lose yet another such actor.
Valid. An alternative view is that in it's 100 year existence, the Republic has never actually acted as a neutral peace intermediary in any global conflict or peace treaty. Political neutrality is one of those wonderful things you can proclaim with pride without ever having to actually prove.
And before anyone says it: contributing UN peacekeeping forces is not the same as being a sought after interlocutor in peace negotiations.
I think Ireland could have a lot to offer as one of the West's foremost neutral representatives, but as an island they are quite exposed compared to Switzerland and Austria, and their location on the shortest route from North America to northern Europe is strategically important. Not to mention all the intercontinental undersea cables. Anyone willing to make enemies with heavyweights like the US and EU is going to be completely unconcerned about upsetting Ireland. Once you're already in a conflict with NATO, there are no additional consequences for violating Irish waters or territory.
Honestly, I think Ireland's general proximity - or lack thereof, relatively speaking - from historically aggressive nations, puts it in a fairly safe position already.
Edit: False equivalences notwithstanding, Ireland's fairly far from aggressive nations.
@@DickNiaz26 Dunno, I recon Britain is pretty close...
@@DickNiaz26Have you never heard of the British Empire or something?
Is this a joke? Ireland is separated from England by the Irish Sea and Wales… Ireland was invaded and colonized first by the Anglo Normans then English and then British…
The reason there are still tensions in Northern Ireland is because of English ethnic cleansing through the Ulster Plantations. Pretty sure that could be considered aggressive….
The Irish Great Hunger could have had a vastly different outcome had she not been a British Colony.
Maybe do some research on British Rule in Ireland…
@@DickNiaz26 Britain? Most historically aggressive nation on earth.
Britain doesn't monitor Irish airspace or territory for Ireland's benefit more watching its own back door.
Its not really a benefit for us to have to watch your airspace for you.
@@johnnybravo9096
It does both, but unfortunately there is a gap in the defenses, because Ireland can't/won't build radar stations.
@@johnnybravo9096 You don't though. Ever hear of the Western Approaches? Google it. You might learn something.
The UK is protecting the UK. These overflights have been well-documented for decades and it is not an "explosive" revelation as the Prof suggests.
If Irish airspace is guarded as a result, call it reparations for the damage done to Ireland for 800 years. Cheap
You’ve got to be joking for 70 years british have patrolled over Ireland and increased patrols during wartime i.e. Cold War and now when Russia is trying to bully Ireland and your saying it’s for Britains own benefit shut up
@@johnnybravo9096 7}}ll
11 7.
You tube brought me here. This topic was very interesting. Great video, good presenting, great video footage. Subscibed.
Thank you so much! A very warm welcome. :-)
Before I get reprimanded, I know Irish soldiers serve as peacekeepers, but that is different from outright contribution on a battlefield as a defender/attacker.
Yeah especially since peacekeepers are completely useless. They just sit around doing nothing until some of them get killed and then they leave.
Have you ever tried reading any books about Irish soldiers in foreign service. Give it a try and educate yourself.
@@stiofain88 I stand by my claim. Peacekeepers are completely useless. They do no get involved in conflicts. I'm not sure what civilians you are referring but regardless, peacekeepers very rarely do anything simply because they do not have the authority to do anything.
@@paulsmith4467 Any suggestions Paul?
@@paulsmith4467 Sorry Paul. History of Ireland is not high on my list of priorities.
Hard to imagine that Ireland would cooperate with UK(NATO member)on anything.
We do on a daily basis all our seas and skies are protected by the UK and Nato even joined naval exercises happen yearly
IRL cooperates with UK daily.
Hundreds of thousands died or emigrated during the famine? Alas, you may have missed a few zeros here. Almost uniquely in the world, Ireland's population is still noticeably less now than in 1850 after the catastrophe that was The Great Hunger
The UK always displayed a great ability to cause famine
@@yogikarl suffering in general
Yes, but today there are about 50 million people of Irish descent, of whom 90% live in the UK or its former colonies. If everybody of Irish descent went back to Ireland, the population would be at least six times as large as it was before the famine. The story of Irish demographics is not entirely confined to the island of Ireland. Far from it.
@@markaxworthy2508 90%..???....NO, ABOUT 20%.....MOST LIVE IN THE USA.
Yes millions died or emigrated
As an Irish person, i would hate to see Ireland join nato. I disagree with a lot that nato do and have done. I have no issue with Ireland increasing ots military but im very against joining nato. Just look at what nato did to Libya or Afghanistan. I don't want Irish men dying for US wars.
We are total freeloaders on the back of other European nations when it comes to defence. Even if we don't join Nato we should have the capacity to defend our land, sea and air but we don't. Especially on the latter we have no radar capable of detecting planes in our airspace and no planes of our own capable of intercepting them. We literally have propeller planes with machine guns like something from world war 2. A total embarrassment and it's been known for decades that if we ever needed this ability it would be provided by the RAF as there is simply no one else. So much for being neutral so we can stay free from the British!
Your air defence is our air defence, given we currently have a land border as well as the island of Ireland being less than 5mintutes flying time from the UK across the Irish Sea. If Russian long range bombers did penetrate Irish airspace their long range missiles would still be in range of UK potential targets.
Guess if it happened at the moment, the RAF would fly over Irish airspace and we could argue about having 'foreign' aircraft over Ireland later.
Complete inappropiate for Ireland. There Irish speak softly because the English left them alone.
@@joem0088 But you wouldn't object to the RAF giving you air defence, I'll bet on that.
@@jjsmallpiece9234 AD against who, the birds and 🐝 ?
@@joem0088 If it chooses to do so, Ireland is in range of Russian Bear bombers that carry cruise missiles.
Didn't the uk use the excuse of the french and germans would use ireland as a bac door to england for years? Also ireland isn't exactly the frontline in europe is it?
What?
Who cares which country is on the frontline?? We shall stand united as Europe, the frontline is for ALL of us to defend!!
well ireland kinda was catholic so it WAS a backdoor for France for many years although it's compkicated of course
Ireland has one of the largest sea area to patrol in Europe granted we can't do it but lots of oil reserves and multi billion cables and pipelines if the cables are cut it would leave most of europe offline imaging what that could imply financially and cause havoc I'm a digital society
Great analysis, James. Abandoning neutrality would mean Ireland could go to war without the legislature's consent. Here in the US , Truman got us involved in Korea, etc, without Congress.
No, it wouldn't. Irish person here. Ireland is considering codifying a new 'double lock' system of Government decision AND parliamentary majority requirement to deploy any Irish forces (over units of 12) outside of Irish territory and EEZ.
Ted even though nam wasn't sanctioned by the us legislative branches this was illegal and could have been stopped!
I simply love Ireland. I'm not IRISH myself, but have had many Ireland borne Friends. I also took an Irish History course that started with Ireland's first High King, Brian Boru, and ended with PM Sean Lemass, "The Great Industrializer" The Irish are indeed a great People on every level. Their History is phenomenal, and today they are a economically strong, modern, and highly educated People. The Republic Of Ireland's Military is of moderate size, but technologically advanced. They have several top tier Elite Units that compare favorable to the American Army Special Forces, Navy SEAL Teams, USMC MARSOC, or Air Force CCT.
Ireland would make a very strong and trustworthy member of NATO. I'd love to welcome them aboard. ERIN GO BRAGH!
Not sure about the elite units and the military is clearly too small but they have done some great work as Nato peacekeepers
@@ianbolton5403 Yes they are great peacekeepers with decades of very valuable experience. But they are also tiny, and tremendously unlikely to ever grow to a point where they could offer even a medium challenge to a small European country, let alone provide use in a large war effort. I support Irish neutrality for this reason.
@@ianbolton5403 THEIR RANGER TEAMS IN EXERCISES OFTEN BEAT OUT THE BRITS AND YANKS. THOSE BOYS DONT FUCK ABOUT LAD. GOOGLE WITH A CUPPA TAY FOR A WEE BITTA ENTERTAINMENT . . . ;)
Bye
Why would Ireland want to join NATO? As far as I know, they have no enemies world wide, their peace keepers, some of the best in the world. No pressure to be put on Ireland, from outside nations, it is for the Irish to decide, and only the Irish.
As an Irishman I will be voting to preserve our neutrality.
Ireland isn't really neutral though, and rightfully so in the case of Ukraine.
Also, it benefits massively from EU membership - If something were to happen to eg. Poland, could we really stay "neutral" on that? It would project an awful image. Happy to reap Europe's rewards, but too "enlightened" to defend it.
Ireland's neutrality is guaranteed by geography and Britain. We get to free-ride because times are good - But if they go bad, we will need to decide whether we're in Europe because of shared values, or simply because we want the money.
@@UNSKIALzPSN
Ireland will hopefully never join NATO or any military alliance.
All it will do is create enemies that will actually attack us.
Just because we are in Europe does not mean we have to get entangled every time something happens.
I'm not going to fight and die in a pointless war.
Are you?
@@UNSKIALzPSN we’ll always be Europe man that’s simple geography but in terms of us being EU the answer is yes our government is greedy and corrupt as fuck, money money money, the people see none of it.
@@cagliari5984 I agree inequality has gotten worse since the financial crash - Particularly with housing. *However*, we as a people are so much better off now as a result of EU membership. The living standards rise has been dramatic.
Before that, we were the poorest nation in Western Europe by quite a margin. People would complain very quickly if we walked out.
@@kingofcards9 we’re not neutral, we in the EU and the British protect our airspace and territorial waters. How the hell are we neutral?
It's easy to be neutral in practice when someone else is footing the bill.
The question is whether it's morally correct to be on the dole for defense when principles align.
This also applies to NATO members on the continent who avoid security responsibilities, e.g., Germany.
Interesting points.
Not mentioned is that Irish citizens are also free to become serving members of the UK armed forces, and many do. An anomaly that is brushed over, but they are in their own way a contribution to NATO, and much valued for that contribution.
Thank, Tim. Great point. Many Irish have indeed served in the British armed forces and made an enormous contribution.
Yep, served alongside quite a few lads who hailed from south of the border.
any Irishman who joins the British army is a traitor
They need to commit to increasing their Military Budget.
WHY...IS ENGLAND, GOING TO INVADE US AGAIN..??
Would rather we built homes than tanks.
Why is that then. Who exactly is Ireland protecting itself against.
NATO members spend 2% on the military. Russian colonies spend 60% on the military. I know what is cheapest.
@@hkonhelgesen Bravo, for the most uneducated made up comment. Russia does not have any colonies, so the second part of your comment is meaningless. Or if you are trying to be a smart ass, suggesting Ireland will become a Russian colony, because we refuse to join a alliance that has illegally Invaded other countries, I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself. Ireland will never join NATO.
Iris neutrality in WW2 'Highly controversial decision'. Where, in Ireland it wasn't controversial in the least. Prof, try reading Fisk's In Time of War.
Its true we were neutral on World War 2, but I would add that perhaps 50,000 southern Irish joined the British armed forces anyway. There was also some secret cooperation described in the Cranbourne Report, including sharing intercepted German coded messages with the UK, plans for a submarine-detection post in the southwest, not enforcing the internment policy against Allied servicemen who ended up in Ireland while Axis soldiers were interned (they were sometimes even transported to the border).
Those 50,000 were and mainly still are remembered as traitors
@@cagliari5984 They were not well treated if they had left the Irish Army eg denied army pensions. But I don't think they were considered "traitors" as such by most people. The late broadcaster Cathal O'Shannon served in the RAF.
@@cagliari5984 Absolute rubbish, and you're basically implying that the Irish are nazi supporters. The "traitors" were the approximately 5,000 deserters from the Irish Defence Forces during WW2. They were recently pardoned.
@@mango2005 Yeah they were! It's a disgraceful period in Irish history.
@@DFMSelfprotection Joining the British army and invading Ireland would be an act of treachery. Joining them and fighting a danger to Ireland is not an act of treachery.
Thank you for your work! I love your channel and the topics of the videos
Unlike Austria and Switzerland, Ireland is subject to Russian provocations with the use of force. It makes sense to have this debate.
I as a Swiss person, however, think that Ireland's membership in NATO would not be possible without a stance of armed neutrality in a similar vein to Switzerland. It makes no sense to add members to the alliance which are not going to respect a 2% spending on their respective militaries and contribute more to the alliance than just by virtue of geographic position (although one could argue so for Iceland, but that's a separate case).
@badofi Thank you for contributing to the discussion.
I think the main issue here with Taiwan is that, comparatively to Ireland, they're different cases.
Mainland China considers Taiwan to be a domestic concern, while Western powers view it as an issue on the international level. Taiwan views itself as an independent nation.
Ireland is a fully independent country, with representation in almost every international institution. A said provocation in Ireland wouldn't be regarded in the same way or at the same level as a military provocation in Taiwan.
Since Taiwan is a de facto country, the US seeks to protect it with all the geopolitical implications that come with it (i.e. protecting the first island chain). There's more than enough evidence that China is getting more confident in infringing on other countries' territories, may it be Taiwan or recognised nations.
@badofi That wasn't a side note, more of an unsolicited pro Chinese rant about America.
What has the US done since 1947? You mean apart from making the seas and Oceans safe for global trade that holds up the entire world economy and ensured that the technology you are now using could arrive in your country? The world economy which China is now threatening by trying to dominate its sea and shut out anyone it doesn't like? Tell me more about how you know absolutely nothing about how the world works.
NATO shouldn't defend Switzerland either!
Ireland will join NATO when Britain hands back our territory
Really, when has Russia ever threatened Ireland with force?
I think it will join only when Ireland is re unified
Which won’t be too long now
@@hugmc Sorry - polls show that even a large minority of Catholics in NI don't want reunification.
@@hugmc We can all hope.
I agree, hopefully Ireland will finally rejoin the UK and have all this shit dropped
While Ireland's joining NATO could be framed as largely symbolic, it doesn't mean it's less valuable. I'm just a guy, for example, doing his small part for the war in Ukraine where there are so many doing more than I am. Still, you put enough people together doing their small part and the aggregate is no longer small.
Ireland can be a role model for many nations looking for guidance on many issues from economic growth to maintaining cultural identity in a globalised anglo-speaking world. I think joining NATO would be that one-more-step for Ireland to say, look what we've made of ourselves. They should be proud of that.
Thank you to the people of Ireland for their generous support of Ukraine.
"I think joining NATO would be that one-more-step for Ireland to say, look what we've made of ourselves."
Are you for real?
Ireland does not need a pat on the head from anyone and certainly not from NATO.
Ireland is already a leader in global affairs and has achieved that precisely because it embraced neutrality.
Keep your guns and tanks
@@bogbay [touches self] It would seem, yes, I am real (and for real). You however sound like a Russian bot, because an Irishman would have a hard time saying that without laughing.
I bet you aint there though aye?..
I am impressed how you analyzed Ireland 🇮🇪 and it's neutrality,,nice one man,,,,,,,,South Africa
I thought a nation couldn’t joint if it had territorial disputes.
Thanks. Ireland and the UK don’t officially have a territorial dispute. Under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, Ireland gave up its constitutional claim to the North in return for Britain accepting the democratic right to Irish unification if and when a majority wants it.
It is not a territorial dispute, UK as the colonial power in Ireland decided to remain with certain parts of Ireland because they were bigger and more powerful and because they were a nuclear armed P5 member with powerful friends no one could do anything about it. In fact much like the Russians they refused to call the Northern Irish independence struggle a war and classified it as "the troubles"
@@michaelotieno6524🎉🎉
Split NI into 6 parts.
Return to RoI one by one
Over the span of 18 years
@@michaelotieno6524 This is fantasy stuff Michael. The UK partitioned Ireland to suit NI unionists who threatened the UK Gov with insurrection if it gave Home Rule to the island. Churchill offered Ireland reunification if our deep water ports were made available to the ALlies during WW2
There were no nukes in 1921.
The last sentence is accurate and saved you from a completely dead post
Great, thorough, fair-minded piece. Thank you.
Thank you very much indeed!
Ireland join nato will be bad idea for them , usa would drag them in war like there do with other countries, uk and Ireland should be great allies together and best training with each other military
If we have a referendum on this Ireland giving up neutrality and joining NATO, I vote no to it, full stop
No thanks .We don;t want to be part of the problem.
The new realities are more of a reason not to join
Ireland should "no way" join NATO.
The United States should get out of NATO and take our military and Navy home with us. Let Europe sort out it's own problems. Take a page from Ireland!
@@SeattlePioneersee ya then😂😂😂😂😂
@@lizm4580 Why ? and I'm irish and don't think we should expect the UK and other to protect us !
No way! No change ever. We are a neutral country and wish to stay that way. Our history as an oppressed colonly makes our make up different world view.
Fighting for freedom to be told? To go to war again for some one to get $$$ . Think again
In all honesty, the only real threat Ireland realistically faces is if the UK or NATO was the aggressor.
So, they might as well stay neutral. It's the safest neutral nation in Europe.
I think it's pretty clear, despite their neutrality, that the UK wouldn't tolerate any kind of belligerent attacking or even threatening Ireland. That's way too close to their border. (and yes, we all know the US is going to get very involved too)
This way also Russia and USA act in their borders too. What could happen if a militarist Cuba and Mexico let and install military bases near the US to treathen them?
China has been sending it's fishing fleet around the world to fish in water claimed by other nations. Any reason they shouldn't send their fleet to fish in waters claimed by Ireland?
Recently the United States Coast Guard boarded Chinese fishing boat near the Galapagos Islands. But I'm sure Ireland would not want American warmongers doing something like THAT!
@@SeattlePioneer The Americans believe that the white European allies are their property and must defend them at all costs from boat invassors.
I am an American, I think it is wise these days for any country that can stay neutral to do so. I can't imagine NATO allowing anyone to attack Ireland, no way GB would want what would likely be an enemy to be in control of land that close to their coast. It would make me uncomfortable to depend on others for my defense, but I understand that is not an issue for citizens of other countries. My family left Ireland in the 18th century so I am not sure I have a full understanding of current conditions, but I would think spending a little more on defense might be wise, and ensuring a solid relationship outside of an actual treaty with NATO would be the right way to go. Being a member of NATO puts one in a position to have to deal with the actions of the current leadership of countries like Hungary or Turkey, no need for that headache and risk, IMO.
I think Ireland are better off being Neutral. They have implicit security guarantees from NATO, simply by virtue of their geographical location
Irish lad here. While it is true that due to our geographical location we enjoy the protection of NATO, however the only countries who are capable of invading Ireland are all NATO members. So the question ultimately boils down to do we in Ireland view NATO as a threat or do NATO view Ireland as a threat? It should also be borne in mind that the British Army actively recruits in Ireland, it always has done.
Free democracy's don't go at war with each other so don't worry about NATO vs Ireland conflict.
Keep in mind that Russia "the Soviet Union" was the first to recognize Ireland's independence. It would be wise for Ireland to stay out of this conflict going on. Its soldiers will be decimated. On the other hand, I would argue that Ireland is no longer a sovereign country. It is living under tyranny by traitors, domestic and foreign, who want to incorporate it into the World Government. It has also been betrayed by the hierarchy of Catholic Church. This is the sad situation.
Thank you Prof. Ker-Lindsay. Such an engaging, well constructed and interesting video. Very much appreciated.
Thanks as always for the video professor!
This is definitely something to watch closely. I like how you contrasted Ireland’s neutrality with that of say Austria, where constitutional neutrality is dictated by international treaty.
That said, even if legally easier to do than in other neutral states, it remains to be seen if those poll numbers move any further, at least while the status quo in Ukraine continues (I think predicting anything in geopolitics beyond the end of the Ukraine War seems impossible, because how it ends will have such major ramifications on the world)
Glad you mentioned the cables as well, that’s a huge component that we will see if a littoral war breaks out; of course just a couple of months ago we saw the cables cut (allegedly by a CCP merchant marine boat) between Taipei and its Matsu possessions near the mainland coast, knocking out virtually all communications with the outside world. Taiwan seems to view it as an inevitability that the main island’s undersea cables will be severed in the event of war; I’d say the same should definitely not be overlooked when it comes to the North Atlantic, and Ireland as you said is a huge piece of that.
Thanks as always professor for a measured look at the topic!
Thanks as ever, LocalLt. I had been looking forward to making this video for a while. (And it was also one of the most enjoyable to make, for some reason!?) It’s certainly provoked a lot of debate in the comments. These have been fascinating to read. It’s interesting how countries form their approaches to neutrality, and how it seems to become so deeply entrenched in the national psyche.
China and Taiwan are as distinct as Russia and Belarus.
He misrepresented the poll data with the 52% result 1) It was a behavioural science study not a poll. 2) Candidates read influencing material as part of the behavioural science aspect before voting. 3) He didnt use the results from the direct comparison question that was also in the same study that showed 60% wanting to retain neutrality even though his commentary was about making a comparison. Why would he avoid the direct comparison ?
The cables are not Irish owned but it is cheaper to lay them through Ireland. Should Ireland give up neutrality because of this accommodation or should the vested interests protect their own property. If it comes to it, the Irish people will say move the cables because giving up neutrality was never part of the deal . Part of Ireland is currently occupied. I dont hear any NATO member demanding the British get out unlike Russia and Ukraine.
@@Finderskeepers. Britain's occupation of Ulster is illegal and should be considered an act of war against the Irish race.
Hitler came from Austria.... what's your excuse?
Times change, what may have been a suitable policy before might not be the best answer these days.
They are doing the right thing, by reconsidering and reviewing their position but ultimately Ireland has to decide for themselves what they believe the best course of action for their future is.
I'm torn on the issue, as an American especially. I'm glad to see NATO mattering more since these sorts of alliances are, I think, the best way to deter conflicts from authoritarian states. However, Ireland is an important peacekeeper and mediator in the same vein as Switzerland, and may become even more important than the Swiss in that vein sooner than later. If they join NATO would that ability of pure neutrality and peacekeeping disappear?
Then again, Ireland is the de facto protector of those undersea cables, plus Article 5 is such an enticing carrot on a stick for any nation to join. Much more would be expected from Ireland though.
To some degree, I feel like the idea of neutrality is dying, and rightfully so in MOST cases. Neutrality in the past has really... never worked as a form of deterrence, I'd accept an argument against that in the case of Switzerland in WW2, but at the same time, the Germans mostly used them to get past trade restrictions, and the Swiss benefitted off that, which they have been sorry for.
It didn't work for Finland as deterrence against the Soviets, it didn't work as deterrence for Yugoslavia, it didn't work for Vietnam, the Ottomans, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the list goes on. So what works as deterrence? If I had to say? Probably the largest military alliance on earth ready to turn anyone who attacks your country into a parking lot. Just my opinion.
Check out the Kraut video Neutrality in Europe after 2022 to see what I'm talking about, I agree with many of his points.
When talking about deterrence, it's also important to note that I do not mean nuclear deterrence, I mean conventional war deterrence, I hope we never have to talk about nuclear deterrence in a "some place just got nuked and now we have to deter more nukes from going off" way.
Jup Kraut is the goat I agree with you
@@4Usuality "Neutrality in the past has really... never worked as a form of deterrence"
I think that claim is rather overreaching. Besides Switzerland, Spain was also not attacked in WWII nor was Sweden. In WWI the Netherlands and Denmark weren't attacked. I'd say depending on the case neutrality *can* make you avoid joining a war that breaks out. However, how successful it is depends a lot on the situation.
What has Ireland down successfully as a “mediator or peacekeeper”?
You also assume NATO member can’t join UN missions.
@@seneca983 The WWII examples are interesting. It's a fine line between _neutrality_ and _"divide and conquer's"_ little cousin _"playing both sides."_ There was a lot a shady behind the scenes dealing in WWII.
As a person of part Irish decent it would be better if Ireland joined BRICS.
Thank you sir for a very informative video on Ireland.
Thank you very much indeed!
Why should we in Ireland join NATO??
We have a long standing relationship with the UN on peacekeeping missions.
I think you’ll find that most NATO members have also carried out peacekeeping duties - and are very good at it. NATO members Italy, Spain, Germany and France all supply more peacekeepers than Ireland at the moment (although on a per capita basis, Ireland is certainly the largest contributor of the group). peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/01_contributions_to_un_peacekeeping_operations_by_country_and_post_60_march_2023.pdf Anyway, this is just to say that UN peacekeeping is wholly compatible with NATO membership, and always has been.
It is beyond ridiculous to say that Ireland needs to join NATO
Why? It is part of a political community. It isn’t politically neutral. Why shouldn’t it go that step further and say that if it’s friends and partners are attacked, it will be right there with them? And in the meantime it will help those friends and partners, who haven’t been blessed with such fortuitous geography, feel safer. There may be good reasons to stay out, but from a political point of view, I’m certainly not sure I would call the debate ridiculous.
@@JamesKerLindsay IT IS, IF YOU ARE IRISH...@HAUGHT, IS CORRECT...
@@JamesKerLindsay Because NATO is an evil entity who starts wars the gets rich producing weapons to kill innocent people.
You can go fight your own war! Send your own children off to die for nothing just like they leaders did in WW1 AND 11.
Russia does not differentiate Ireland from their enemy "The West". In fact it views Ireland as an opportunity to attack. Or am I wrong?
Ireland should leave the EU
We the people of Ireland are neutral. Our corporate government might want to join ,however we the people will never bow down to evil war mongering. No thanks.
Respectfully you are already protected by NATO by geographic location.
@@captainamerica6525 ..and what did that do for us in 2020 ..when we were attacked by american biological warfare and ludicrous w.h.o. directives ?
Yes! It was similarly a mistake for the United States to get involved in WWI, WWII or the Cold War! It was only that evil war mongering that has caused the United States to get involved in the world.
The United States should have retained the same neutrality as that of Ireland ---- "No entangling foreign alliances" was the foreign policy of George Washington, the first American President.
Or "America First" as stated by a more recent American President.
Let the world sort out it's own problems.
That's not for you to say, it's for democracy to say. NATO is nowhere near a "evil war mongering" faction. You pulled that out your arse there. Nothing evil about democracy. I'd love to see you try name one instance NATO has supported the wrong side, or mongered a war wrongly.
@@johnhnangle My post:
>
Well. You'll notice that I never mentioned NATO. I was talking about the United States, and the United States has been involved in plenty of questionable wars beginning with the 1898 war with Spain.
And my post was ironic in nature, with the prideful advocate of "We, the people of Ireland so proud of not getting it's skirts dirty with WWII, the Cold War and the current Ukraine war, among others.
I was suggesting that if Ireland was so proud of it's neutrality, perhaps it was a mistake for the United States not to adopt the same policies.
For example, the United States DID stay out of WWI until 1917 --- "Too proud to fight" as Woodrow Wilson said. That sounds like our Irish friend, does it not?
And while the Brits declared War on Germany in September 1939, the United States was neutral until GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES in December, 1941, after the Brits had been at war for two years. Should the United States have made a point of avoiding WWII altogether, like Ireland did?
Would our Irish friend REALLY have been glad had that war mongering United States avoided war like, say, Argentina?
In short, what would Europe look like had that "war mongering United States" left Europe to settle it's own problems in WWI, WWII, the Cold War and the current war in Ukraine ---just for openers?
We are Irish that is why. liked by so many for that reason and never will take up arms to get what we want unlike our neighbors !
Put more money into the education, science, inovative technologies and especially environment protection. Not into the armed forces.
What do you suppose the Irish people and government would do and say if the Chinese fishing fleet, recently expelled from fishing around the Galapagos Islands, should move into Irish waters as the "soft underbelly" of Europe?
The EU control Irish fishing, so, the question is mute
By joining NATO you are basically signing your country over to the US, when their fiddle plays, the dancing begins.
It was not undisputably under one monarch until either Elisabeth I following battle of kinsale or James I after flight of the earls.
Previously it was under a patchwork of clan chiefs
Ireland was divided into 4 lesser kingdoms, and a high king ruling over all of them. Ever hear of Brian Boru? The O’Brien clan is named after him.
Here’s my two pence worth,the Irish would be insane even to joke about joining NATO, because there is a bigger picture here and I hope my country and my people will say no to this proposal,we are and always will be a neutral country.Please don’t allow this to happen.
Many criticize the U.S. as a meddling country, whereas in times of world crisis it's predominantly American blood and treasure that is primarily called upon to come in and rescue. Countries who feel no need to arm themselves are the main benefactors, regardless of intentions. As an American taxpayer, I simply say: "You're welcome"
Can't see it happening - our "neutrality" (such as it is) is a pretty deeply held principle in our culture. What I do think might (and should) happen is that we begin to take our own responsibilities to secure our national security seriously and invest in the currently hollowed out institutions that would allow us to do that. The narrative around this is changing - if we (apparently one of the richest countries in the world) value our neutrality, what is that neutrality worth if we can't even police our own waters or airspace and depend on our former colonial masters (and by extension, NATO) to do so for us? It's probably going to be at least a decade long project, largely depending on factors such as whether Sinn Fein is going to be leading the next government as they look set to.
If Ireland doesn't want to join NATO, it has to learn to arm itself, just like what Switzerland did. Armed neutrality is better than be like Belgium in 1914.
I mean, in fairness, the USA is the big daddy in NATO, and I think the US and Ireland have a pretty close relationship. For example, Ireland allowed the US to use it as a base for refueling and repair in WW2. The US also has a MASSIVE population of Irish descent (St Patty's day, anyone?). The Brits may get wily sometimes, but we've got your back ;)
@@jeffmorris5802 Oh man - please don't call it St. Patty's day! It's St. Paddy's day if anything! Other than that, yeah our "neutrality" has always (at least since WW2 ended) been a sham used by successive governments here to underfund our defence and security agencies and largely fob off their responsibilities in that area to NATO. Even closer to the example you mention; we allowed the US military to use Shannon Airport as a stopover on the way to the middle east and apparently during extraordinary rendition flights during the War on Terror - what neutral country that takes itself seriously does that? It's a total cop-out and it's getting embarassing at this stage. If we want to be neutral (and all polls suggest that we do) then the reality is that we need at the very least a naval and air deterrent.
@@jeffmorris5802 did the US have ukraines back when Russia invaded? No, unless they join NATO they don’t get protected.
@@jeffmorris5802 St Paddy's Day not patty's the saint of Ireland is a person not a burger.
The irony is they survive on British protection so long as they don’t join NATO
OUR ONLY ENEMY EVER....HAS BEEN ENGLAND.....FUNNY HOW YOU VIEW US....BIT LIKE PUTINS CONTORTIONS.
That serves British and Irish interest, smart move by Ireland because they know that.
The relationship between the two is a bit nuanced
we need nor want anything from your country, calm down you british subjects calm down
Protection from who? The British are protecting themselves
There is no point now for Ireland to join- it is a ploy to empty Irish pockets. What benefit would Ireland get for joining NATO?
As an American I have never seen any desire on the part of Ireland to join NATO. From a practical point of view they have such a small military, they would bring nothing to the table.
Thanks. Agreed. The debate was never there in the past. Neutrality was taken as given, as in Finland and Sweden. But Ukraine has changed this. I’d say that NATO is the sum of its parts. On its own, it doesn’t do much. But within the alliance it does two key things. First, it is another psychological boost. It says this is the organisation protecting Europe and that all European countries are showing solidarity with each other. Ireland is telling Poland, the Baltic states, and others that it stands with them. This is a powerful message. Secondly, Ireland is in a strategic spot. Iceland is a key NATO member, but doesn’t even have an armed force! But it provides a vital intelligence role monitoring the North Atlantic. Ireland could do the same. On top of this, counties often find a way to make a specialist contribution once in NATO. It might not be a big military power, but it could take the lead on one thing and do it brilliantly!
That's kind of the point of NATO, to increase the strength of small countries. But I don't care if Ireland gets attacked unless they want to be NATO.
We are not just opposed ,but violently so.
It makes sense to take into account what the remaining non-NATO European countries could actually contribute to the alliance. With so many NATO members already falling so dramatically short of military spending and readiness goals it seems to make little sense to add more states that wouldn’t be capable to being full participants. Particularly when it seems that issues like under sea cables could potentially be handled through agreements or partnerships, as was mentioned.
As an outsiderI suppose I could see value to Ireland joining NATO, but I just don’t necessarily see what NATO stands to gain that couldn’t already be achieved with the current status quo. Regardless, another great video!
Most NATO countries, and even west-aligned non-NATO members like Japan, are drastically increasing spending as a response to the changing security environment. I would point out 2 things.
1. This is really about admitting that Ireland was never actually neutral to begin with. Ireland has always been pro-democracy, pro-civil rights, etc. And the new cold war is shaping into the global west (democracy, civil rights) vs the global east (authoritarianism, conformity). We both know which side Ireland is really on.
2. Ireland actually has a lot it can provide! Ireland is well positioned to provide naval support to areas that need it; including, as the video mentioned, protecting undersea infrastructure from hostile actors (Russia, China)
Several things.
NATO does not fund countries. More member costs NATO nothing, in fact there is a official fee to the organization of NATO, but not their military.
Each member nations builds up their military for their own goals and ambitions. They are not building it up because of NATO. Only for their own ends.
In fact I’d say it’s the reverse. All those smaller NATO countries would be spending even less on their military if not part of NATO. Ireland spends, rounded up, 0.3% of GDP on their military. So all those smaller NATO countries, instead of spending 1-1.5 GDP, would instead being spending 0.5 if they were not part of NATO. Ireland would be forced to spend way more on their military if they were part of NATO. You do not get to join NATO for free.
Also NATO is not just numbers. It’s a political alliance as much as a military one. That is the reason all the European countries not part of NATO only send none lethal aid to Ukraine while all NATO countries send lethal aid in addition to non lethal.
It also means that those counties can’t support the opposite side of a conflict that there member fight.
Like Sweden supporting, in various degrees, the opposite said of the US in every war the US has fought. Literally took support desk calls during the Iraq war. Sweden will not be allowed to act contrarian like that after joining NATO.
You could go on and on like resources of the nation, and political power, there is a lot any nations that can benefit NATO by joining.
What NATO stands to gain? I think it’s always been a pretty straight forward trade since it’s inception. Countries trade their land and political power to America in return for protection. America gets forward basis, silos, refuelling stations, votes backing/justifying anything it wants, it’s private enterprise guaranteed support abroad, etc.
Old colonial empires may try their best to put in a facade to sit on the big boy table but it’s really just America calling the shots and ordering them where to go and what to do. That’s always been the trade. The 2% gag was never expected to be upheld by the poorest members. It’s about control.
@@jeffmorris5802 Fair points! It’s hard not to agree that Ireland is clearly a part of the west. I just don’t think NATO membership is necessary to further prove it (not that you said it was). I also have no doubt that Ireland has a ton it could contribute, but it can contribute that without NATO membership through existing fora.
I’m not against the idea of Ireland joining NATO, but there is a political value to neutrality even if a country is only paying it lip service. It makes sense to run a cost benefit analysis before making big chances, that’s all I’m thinking.
@@AL-lh2ht the point of NATO's 2% defense spending commitment is to eliminate the free-rider problem. Since most members blatantly ignore that commitment, there's really no evidence that joining NATO would result in an increase in defense spending rather than becoming another free-rider. The natural consequence of joining an alliance is that you are less worried about defense and domestic pressure to shift spending to "more urgent" matters goes up. Granted, in the current environment that might be the case, but people forget... I mean check out defense spending graphs after 2014, last time Russia invaded... even countries that had a strong reaction like Poland didn't necessarily persist. In 2014, they increased spending a lot and it was 1.87% of GDP. Then in 2015, it jumped again to 2.22%. But guess what... time heals all wounds... in 2016 it dropped to 2.00%, and then down to 1.89% in 2017. It fell in absolute terms too.. Poland's 2014 spending was $10.1 billion, by 2017 it fell to $9.9 billion. Imagine that... just a couple of years after Russia invades a country out of the blue, and they're like "eh, well, I guess that's over we can relax!" And they're right next to Russia. Ireland is going to have a much harder time staying focused.
And while you're right that NATO doesn't fund members, it does defend them, and that costs money for the countries that take their commitment seriously. As a thought experiment, to make the point clearer, imagine that the 20 poorest countries on Earth all join NATO. It costs us nothing, as you say... and yet... if one of them is attacked it will cost us a lot. And if there is a looming threat that we, as a defensive alliance, decide to prepare for, that will cost a lot. And the poor countries would contribute very little, so clearly it's a cost to the existing members.
Of course Ireland is not poor. Also, when looking at its abysmal defense spending as a percentage of GDP, you have to keep in mind that their GDP is rather inflated due to the weird tax games that a lot of international corporations play in Ireland. So Ireland's GDP per capita is about 50% higher than the US's, but very few people would consider them to be a richer country than the US.
But I really think it would be good for NATO's long-term survival to get a more serious commitment from potential new members to increase defense spending to a certain level rather than the "trust me bro hahaha" that it works on now. When countries don't pull their weight it not only causes resentment among those who do, it creates serious gaps in mission readiness.
As a Canadian, I would say the geopolitical realities making up the North Atlantic is in dire need of a rethink in terms of security. As the Western-most point of Europe and as the Eastern-most point of North America respectively, Ireland and Canada are absolutely integral to blocking and deterring Russian aggression towards our incredibly valuable electronic connections to our allies across the Atlantic.
I'm not Irish and have never visit Ireland (yet 😊), so I can't speak to the political relations with the UK, but it seems to me that the debate over Northern Ireland between the two as an argument against joining NATO is very topical and superficial; this is for the sake of international peace, not bilateral relations. Ireland's reputation as a peacekeeping UN member won't decrease if they decide to abandon neutrality in my opinion. In fact, joining the fight to deter Russia and their aggression will only be praised by NATO, the EU and most of the world and their integrated intelligence sharing systems within the alliance will only increase, including our ability to protect our valuable connections in the Atlantic. Their efforts that have already made have already received praise and an overall warm reception, as you outlined, James.
I support Ireland joining NATO. The era of neutrality, at least as it pertains to the Russo-Ukrainian war, is over. Finland and Sweden proved it, it's time for Ireland to follow suit, in my opinion.
We hope to see you working even closer with our alliance. Love to Ireland from Canada! 🇮🇪🤍🇨🇦