Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Barrister]

Wouldn't the problem be that Ireland would not want to be allied with the UK?

Well, obviously yes.

But it's not the 1920s any more.  I think those fault lines have largely healed have they not?  Ireland's interests in the 21st century are perhaps better served by being in the world's largest and most powerful military alliance.

And as I look into it it has been debated in Ireland after the invasion of Ukraine, so it's not impossible to imagine.  Looking at it though Ireland would need to seriously increase it's military spending to be anywhere close to the NATO 2% "requirement". 

[Hamilcar]

Swiss neutrality is like the second amendment in the US. Stupid, self destructive but so deeply engrained in the national psyche that it won't be abandoned for a long time. Maybe after the boomers are dead.

More likely than neutrality going is it morphs into a unarmed neutrality.
The army is a pointless joke that exists purely to make boomers hard at the thought of young people suffering afterall

What?

Conscription and the army is stupid and pointless. But it's a big deal to conservatives, a symbol of the nation and all that crap, and they don't like the idea of kids getting out of it when they had to do it.

Switzerland is all about profits. Most sensible thing for them to do would not be to join nato but to stop conscription and massively cut back the military - they can hide behind their neighbours.

I'm not going to engage since you don't know the first thing about Switzerland.

[crazy canuck]

Sheilbh, thanks for the explanation 

and BB

[Sheilbh]

But it's not the 1920s any more.  I think those fault lines have largely healed have they not?  Ireland's interests in the 21st century are perhaps better served by being in the world's largest and most powerful military alliance.

To play devil's advcoate slightly - how does it serve Ireland's interests better? They're not really in a risky location (unlike, say, Finland) and practically already benefit from the protection of that alliance through the UK and US because of Ireland's strategic importance. It's not a particularly noble position but I think there is an argument that they status quo serves Ireland's interests perfectly well.

FWIW I agree on the not the 1920s point - and I think it is notable that the two parties most likely to support a move from neutrality are Fine Gael and Fianna Fail who are the inheritors of the civil war politics of the 20s and the struggle to move from Free Statehood to statehood.

But I think modern Sinn Fein emerges from the specific context of factional infighting between their (Northern) desire to focus on physical force Republicanism v a (Southern) turn to Marxism in the existing IRA/Sinn Fein. I think it is really important for their worldview that they emerge in the North with the aim of re-starting armed struggle in the late 60s/early 70s. On their own terms they would say it is the same fight as the 1920s, but I think it is different in quite important ways. Not least that the South has been substantially at peace since the 1920s, while they emerge in the context of the Troubles (of which they are a significant driver). It's not the 1920s and it's also not 1969-1998, but that is significantly closer.

They're not a full blown Third Worldist, national liberation movement party but that is the context in which they emerged and I think it does still shape their worldview and I think it is a legacy they would claim as much as Republicanism back to 1916.

Edit: And you see this across Northern politics in the 60s and 70s. The peaceful nationalist movement is absolutely inspired by Martin Luther King and Gandhi, to the extent of describing their campaign as "civil rights"; at the same time you have IRA figures making common cause and publishing lots of pamphlets etc about the struggle of the Black Panthers, of the ANC, of Angela Davis. It is a legacy of and connected to the 1920s, but it's also very much shaped by its own times.

You arguably even see it in on the Unionist side with their increasingly strong identification with Israel.

[HVC]

Wouldn't the problem be that Ireland would not want to be allied with the UK?

Well, obviously yes.

But it's not the 1920s any more.  I think those fault lines have largely healed have they not?  Ireland's interests in the 21st century are perhaps better served by being in the world's largest and most powerful military alliance.

And as I look into it it has been debated in Ireland after the invasion of Ukraine, so it's not impossible to imagine.  Looking at it though Ireland would need to seriously increase it's military spending to be anywhere close to the NATO 2% "requirement". 

Don't underestimate Europeans ability to hold multi generational grudges.

[OttoVonBismarck]

In re NATO expansion--if we can find a way to get Ukraine in I think that would be huge for the future of Europe. Ukraine if it comes out in some semblance of "on top" and gets help economically rebuilding will be set, with help from the U.S. modernizing in peacetime, to be one of the most powerful NATO powers in Eastern Europe (I could even see it eventually being clearly the preeminent power in the East of NATO even moreso than Turkey or Poland.)

Austria / Switzerland / Ireland are all exactly the same--NATO would happily take any of them if they wanted to join. They add nothing meaningful to the alliance strategically or operationally whatsoever, so none of the big players in NATO are going to do anything meaningful to court them because again--why? If they want to join they would be accepted, but they are all quite safe from external threat due to geography, and are small enough that they don't really do much in a strategic sense. It isn't like Turkey was in 1952 where America really wanted to bring them in because they were amazingly important due to their strategic location. (The reality is despite the mercurial relationship, Turkey's strategic location remains super important--the simple reality is just like 2000 years ago control of the crossroads of the Near East end up being really important.)

[grumbler]

Who's Donitz? Heil Donitz!

That was the exact skit I thought of, as well.

[Zanza]

Let's remember that Hungary is still a holdout on Sweden.

Everybody assumes that Orban can be bought if necessary. 

[Josquius]

uote author=Josqu]

I'm not going to engage since you don't know the first thing about Switzerland.

 
Great kop out. You know I lived there and my kids are Swiss yeah?
It's far more likely Switzerland goes pacifist than joins NATO

[Tamas]

Re. Sweden, a week or so ago the Hungarian "Parliament" decided to postpone their "vote" on Swedish NATO membership to September, so unless Orban shows himself being urged around by the Evil Incarnate West, that's the earliest when that's happening.

[Habbaku]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1678496220677828608

[Legbiter]

Re. Sweden, a week or so ago the Hungarian "Parliament" decided to postpone their "vote" on Swedish NATO membership to September, so unless Orban shows himself being urged around by the Evil Incarnate West, that's the earliest when that's happening.

If Hungary is the only holdout there's many ways to work around them. Like Sweden could decide it unfortunately needs all it's Gripen fighters back for national defense and revoke the Gripen lease deal it has with Hungary.

[Legbiter]

What a limp declaration that NATO communique was...

It simply restated the status quo.

[The Minsky Moment]

. . . communique . . .

 . . . restated the status quo.

redundant

[crazy canuck]