• Pommes_für_dein_Balg@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    21 days ago

    What is she actually trying to say?
    Ireland isn’t a neutral country, it’s a EU member state and the EU has a common defense agreement.
    The article also mentions Ireland is stepping up defense spending and makes maritime defense a priority during its EU presidency.
    So why does Kallas (who is not representing NATO but the EU) call Ireland out for not being a NATO member?

    • khannie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      21 days ago

      Ireland isn’t a neutral country

      It is yeah. I’m not necessarily a fan of it myself but that’s where we are. We have a defence force, not an army. We have never been involved in a war (directly) though we do take sides, Ukraine being an example where we delivered non lethal aid for the first time in our history.

      it’s a EU member state and the EU has a common defense agreement.

      The wording in that clause is partly to accommodate our neutrality.

      So why does Kallas (who is not representing NATO but the EU) call Ireland out for not being a NATO member?

      I didn’t see that anywhere. Our defence spending has been tiny compared to other nations and with hybrid attacks on the rise across Europe we can’t afford to rely on our larger neighbours any more, especially with many transatlantic internet cables coming aground in Ireland.

      • Coleslaw4145@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        21 days ago

        We have a defence force, not an army.

        The Irish Defence Forces consists of three branches:

        1. The Air Corps
        2. The Naval Service
        3. The ARMY

        though we do take sides

        That means we’re not neutral.

        The Irish governments stance on neutrality is a farce. They say things like “we’re militarily neutral, not politically neutral” which is total nonsense. They have basically made up their own definition of neutrality.

        Neutral is neutral. Theres no picking to be militarily neutral over politically neutral. There’s already a name for that. Its called being a “non-belligerent” country.

        Theres a reason why the government have opposed defining neutrality in our constitution over and over again because it will ruin their bullshit narrative.

        On top of that, most Irish people also seem to have no idea what neutrality requires and if they ever figured out what it would really mean then they wouldnt support it because it would involve things like not taking a stance on things like Gaza.

      • Tarambor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 days ago

        United Kingdom actually. May I suggest you go look at a map of where all the undersea cables go?

        • khannie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 days ago

          Seems you’re correct. There are 6 Transatlantic to Ireland and lots from Ireland to the UK but more transatlantic go to the UK which is news to me.

  • Tarambor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    21 days ago

    It doesn’t need to as Ireland has a defence pact with the United Kingdom. The UK protects both Ireland’s airspace and waters due to how close it is to our own. Due to the size of Ireland it would never be able to field a military large enough to be of any use operating on it’s own.

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      20 days ago

      Yeah but we hide behind neutrality as if it is some greater moral position meanwhile we underfund and train our military.

      We could be doing a lot more.

  • plyth@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    21 days ago

    Why would Russia conquer Europe when they can expand their cities in the east where the future center of the world will be?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeriepieris_circle

    This war is distracting Europe from the even bigger danger that major innovations will happen there and Europe will have to follow.

    Once Asia has the same level of education, the 500 million Europeans will become much less relevant.

    • khannie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      21 days ago

      Why would Russia conquer Europe

      What? They’re obviously in the thick of attempting it right now.

      when they can expand their cities in the east where the future center of the world will be?

      What? Have you seen the geography of Russia?

      • Tarambor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 days ago

        No they’re not in the thick of attempting it now. Putin is in the thick of attempting to rebuild the Soviet Empire and failing miserably now 5 years into his 3 day “special military operation”.

      • plyth@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        21 days ago

        What? They’re obviously in the thick of attempting it right now.

        All of Europe or just Ukraine and maybe the Baltics? Without Boris Johnson, Russia was willing to settle for east Ukraine. Why should they want more now?

        What? Have you seen the geography of Russia?

        I have. Their country stretches till North Korea.

        • khannie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          21 days ago

          All of Europe or just Ukraine and maybe the Baltics?

          Ah sure that’s grand so.

          Russia was willing to settle for east Ukraine

          Yeah that’s why they made a grab for the whole country. The state of you trying to defend their imperialist bullshit.

          Their country stretches till North Korea.

          Yeah and there’s a reason nobody lives there in the 21st century. It’s shit land.

          • plyth@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            21 days ago

            Yeah that’s why they made a grab for the whole country.

            That doesn’t matter for this argument. They were willing to settle for less which means they are not hell-bent on conquering Europe.

            there’s a reason nobody lives there

            Historically. There is no need to have farming close-by. Any terrain will do if it allows them to participate in the Asian economy.

            • khannie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              21 days ago

              They were willing to settle for less

              Why? Their goal was total capture of Ukraine. What stopped them? Only armed resistance that they were unable to overcome. They would happily be in full control of Ukraine if they were able to so it’s entirely relevant to the discussion. That was their aim. They just failed.

              Any terrain will do if it allows them to participate in the Asian economy.

              Again I don’t think you have any idea how shit that land is. Population density in the bulk of Russia is under ten people per square kilometer. There’s a reason for that and it’s not lack of desire to be closer to the east.

              • plyth@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                21 days ago

                They just failed.

                Which means they must at least have realized that they can’t conquer Europe now, if they had planned to do so.

                It’s wise to keep a strong army but I cannot imagine that Russia aims at Europe.

                There’s a reason for that and it’s not lack of desire to be closer to the east.

                Why not? There was no reason to move close to North Korea so far. But it is kind of South Russia, so with a better outlook it makes sense to grow the cities there now.