Neutrality

cremeegg said:

(Living Standards) Yes they were.


I have never heard anyone say this before, what are you basing it on.


I never said there was nothing noble about Poles wanting their freedom from that system.

What I said was that I would not give my children's lives for freedom from that system.

In the Polish election the Social Democrat candidate and former communist Alexander Kwasniewski was chosen by 52% of the electorate over Walensa. That would suggest that many people who lived under the Soviet system didn't see it as tyranny. Indeed they didn't move to overthrow the system because of its tyranny but because it was failing to deliver prosperity. Now I am in danger of changing the topic, my basic point is that nothing is worth having your children's lives lost in the mud of some battlefield.

Click to expand...

The Soviet system was setup to plunder Eastern Europe in the sense of directing its economic output to serve its ends - including so called Warsaw Pact and so called Soviet republics which were just colonies of Russia. We can see that Russia was plundering Poland etc by the collapse in Russian living standards when these countries became independent, and Poland etc prospered. Russian living standards were inflated by plundering the economic output of Poland et al.
Its military strength was inflated by directing the manpower, technical resources, physical resources, economic output of Poland etc also. That is also plunder.

He was not running on a platform of a return to the previous system. In fact, according to Wikipedia:
His political course resembled that of Wałęsa's in several key respects, such as the pursuit of closer ties to the European Union and NATO. Kwaśniewski also continued the transition to a market economy and the privatization of state-owned enterprises, although with less energy than his predecessor.

So your claims about the Polish election are highly dubious and without foundation.

Nothing is worth having your children's lives lost in the mud of some battlefield? So surrender no matter what, even to Nazis? A policy of abject moral bankruptcy and surrender which would lead to slavery and tyranny and gulags and deaths camps worldwide.

And in relation to the USSR etc it means if your child does grow up to see it as tyranny... their lives lost to the Gulag. It was a tyrannical, totalitarian society.

odyssey06 said:

So your claims about the Polish election are highly dubious and without foundation.

Click to expand...

Ok, you are right Walensa beat Kwasniewski in the 1995 presidential election, and Russian living standards were inflated by plundering the economic output of Poland et al. Meanwhile back in the real world.

cremeegg said:

I put up Pearse's poem the fool previously, a man prepared to fight for his ideals, his version of 'Fundamental freedoms worth fighting for, but not I think yours.

Click to expand...

I agree with James Connelly when he said that Pearse was a blithering idiot. I've no time for him or his weird version of what Ireland should have become.

Anyway, back on topic; the bottom line is that if everyone took our stance then Russian tanks would roll across Europe. Thankfully other countries have foreign and defence policies which are not based on some fanciful, bombastic, delusional and self aggrandising version of their place in the world.

odyssey06 said:

And in relation to the USSR etc it means if your child does grow up to see it as tyranny... their lives lost to the Gulag. It was a tyrannical, totalitarian society.

Click to expand...

Poland, or specifically the Second Polish Republic which was established at the end of the First World War, was invaded by Lenin's Red Army in 1920 in his first attempt to obliterate Poland from the map. The Polish fought them off bravely.

During the period up to the Second World War its per capita GDP grew by more than 60%. That all changed in 1939 when it was invaded by Germany, their ally Slovakia, and the USSR. That ushered in a period of unparalleled destruction followed by the atrophy and oppression of communism.

If my children were facing that future in 1939 I'd have fought to try to stop it.

Purple said:

Poland, or specifically the Second Polish Republic which was established at the end of the First World War, was invaded by Lenin's Red Army in 1920 in his first attempt to obliterate Poland from the map. The Polish fought them off bravely.

During the period up to the Second World War its per capita GDP grew by more than 60%. That all changed in 1939 when it was invaded by Germany, their ally Slovakia, and the USSR. That ushered in a period of unparalleled destruction followed by the atrophy and oppression of communism.

If my children were facing that future in 1939 I'd have fought to try to stop it.

Click to expand...

And this was one of the ways the Russians \ communists went about securing their tyranny over Poland... and no doubt Russia has similar plans for Ukraine if it falls. And others if it gets to them.

odyssey06 said:

And this was one of the ways the Russians \ communists went about securing their tyranny over Poland... and no doubt Russia has similar plans for Ukraine if it falls. And others if it gets to them.

Katyn massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

Yep, not forgetting what was called the second Katyn massacre in 1945.

Purple said:

The Second Katyn was the mass murder of over a thousand such prisoners in 1945 (the first Katyn massacre was the mass murder of almost 22,000 Polish officers by the Russians in 1940).

Click to expand...

Russia had attacked Poland in 1920 and again in 1939. In 1945 they were an army of occupation, not liberation.

cremeegg said:

Ok, you are right Walensa beat Kwasniewski in the 1995 presidential election, and Russian living standards were inflated by plundering the economic output of Poland et al. Meanwhile back in the real world.

Click to expand...

Colonies are always run for the economic benefit of the colonising power and make no mistake, Russia was the colonising power in Poland. It was the Russian Empire by another name. What Russia is doing now in Ukraine is the same thing.

Leo Varadkar warned against "excessive caution".
"The majority of officials advisory bodies and academics will recommend caution - playing and safe conservative with a small 'c'."
But he said that this is "not always the best advice".

Click to expand...

In his speech, he warned that the EU needs to prepare for an attack.
"We have to be prepared for the consequences of an attack on an EU country, and how we would respond to that."
"Our geography and neutrality do not protect us as in the past."

Click to expand...

Itchy said:

As it happened: Simon Harris elected Taoiseach

Follow developments as they happened as Simon Harris was elected Taoiseach, with new members appointed to Cabinet.

www.rte.ie

Click to expand...

That's a welcome dose of reality.

Purple said:

That's a welcome dose of reality.

Click to expand...

A day late and a dollar short, unfortunately.

Obviously the message is loud and clear at EU Council.

Macron has rearranged the chess board in any case. https://apnews.com/article/france-u...hat-it-means-06175e3b80bb17b369e4acba1bbc87b1

NATO veto on Western action is removed/diminished at least. Necessary measure given the political positions of the US and Germany. Putin only responds to strength so that will necessarily involve raising the risks, unfortunately. It would be better to support Ukraine militarily, but unfortunately, we have chosen the sanctimonious path.

It's 30 years this week since the start of the Rwandan Genocide.
Nearly a million Tutsis and thousands of moderate Hutus were murdered in 100 days in a country slightly larger than Leinster. It took three months for the Rwandan Patriotic Front to beat the French backed genocidal forces. The outside world did nothing to help, despite the clear knowledge that a real genocide was taking place. A truly shameful failure which showed the racism of the West and the utter powerlessness, deep corruption and total ineptitude of the UN.

That genocide led directly to what is referrer to as the Congolese Civil War but was in fact a war fought in Congo (Zaire at the time) between up to 14 countries over the next 2 decades. It was the deadliest war since the Second World War, resulting in the deaths of around 5 million people and the displacement of 2 million more.

We, or course, were neutral.

Anyway, the protagonists weren't white or Jewish so nobody here cared.

“That is not to say – and this is distorted time and time again at home – in any manner of means a move away from military neutrality, which Ireland is intends to absolutely keep,” he said.

Click to expand...

Which is absolutely true, in fairness.

Itchy said:

Ireland seeking to abandon ‘triple lock’ restriction on troop deployment

‘Absurd that Russia would effectively have veto’ on Irish peacekeeping deployments, Taoiseach says

www.irishtimes.com

Which is absolutely true, in fairness.

Click to expand...

I'm delighted that we are taking the veto over our decision to deploy our military away from Putin and Jinping. I think of it as restoring our sovereignty.

Purple said:

It's 30 years this week since the start of the Rwandan Genocide.
Nearly a million Tutsis and thousands of moderate Hutus were murdered in 100 days in a country slightly larger than Leinster. It took three months for the Rwandan Patriotic Front to beat the French backed genocidal forces. The outside world did nothing to help, despite the clear knowledge that a real genocide was taking place. A truly shameful failure which showed the racism of the West and the utter powerlessness, deep corruption and total ineptitude of the UN.

That genocide led directly to what is referrer to as the Congolese Civil War but was in fact a war fought in Congo (Zaire at the time) between up to 14 countries over the next 2 decades. It was the deadliest war since the Second World War, resulting in the deaths of around 5 million people and the displacement of 2 million more.

We, or course, were neutral.

Anyway, the protagonists weren't white or Jewish so nobody here cared.

Click to expand...

Saying 'it was awful' and 'we did nothing' is one thing, and so far no one would disagree.

Yet what could we have done about it, even if we had a military at the ready to intervene.

Although I am deeply cynical about military intervention, its a genuine question.

cremeegg said:

Saying 'it was awful' and 'we did nothing' is one thing, and so far no one would disagree.

Yet what could we have done about it, even if we had a military at the ready to intervene.

Although I am deeply cynical about military intervention, its a genuine question.

Click to expand...

Our stance means we have no credibility when we speak on these matters. We are essentially lecturing others about their duty to do something while we make it clear that no matter the circumstance we will do nothing ourselves.

Purple said:

Our stance means we have no credibility when we speak on these matters. We are essentially lecturing others about their duty to do something while we make it clear that no matter the circumstance we will do nothing ourselves.

Click to expand...

I would accept that we have no enforcement credibility on a civil war/massacre in Rwanda, nor should we have.

We have some credibility on long term conflict resolution, if others wish to learn from that.

cremeegg said:

I would accept that we have no enforcement credibility on a civil war/massacre in Rwanda, nor should we have.

Click to expand...

We've no credibility in any context. Neutrality is a position of cowardice and amorality. We've opted out of the game so we don't get to tell others how to play.

cremeegg said:

We have some credibility on long term conflict resolution, if others wish to learn from that.

Click to expand...

How so? It took the Americans to get the Peace Process in Northern Ireland moving. The Brits had been talking to the IRA since they flew Gerry and Martin to London in 1972 and they'd all been talking to each other at various stages and in various guises for decades.

Should we wait for 25 or 30 years, and millions of dead, until the Russians want to start talking to Ukraine about peace and help facilitate it and then try to take credit as peacemakers?

Is the Government's participation in the EU PESCO Framework to defend our territorial waters, and the cables which run through it, an erosion of our neutrality?
If it is an erosion is that a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing then what's the alternative?

Purple said:

Is the Government's participation in the EU PESCO Framework to defend our territorial waters, and the cables which run through it, an erosion of our neutrality?
If it is an erosion is that a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing then what's the alternative?

Click to expand...

Uncomfortable questions for those of us who believe we should be neutral.

Purple said:

Is the Government's participation in the EU PESCO Framework to defend our territorial waters, and the cables which run through it, an erosion of our neutrality?

Click to expand...

Of course those of us who suspect that there are elements in the Irish establishment who would like to abandon our neutrality and join NATO but are afraid to say so publicly because they realise how unpopular that would be, see initiatives such as this as a surreptitious way to erode neutrality.

There was no realistic military threat to Ireland from a foreign power since long before any of us were born. In that context neutrality was the correct option for Ireland. I deeply suspect the motives of those who tried to align us with the NATO powers over the last 75 years. They are now behind baby-steps toward NATO.

It would be unrealistic not to recognise that the context is changing.

Our membership of the EU has been hugely beneficial for us economically and socially.

Russia has invaded a European country, one which gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees. That is a whole new situation.

Our response to this new situation is not easy. Will we frame our own response or will we join an alliance which will dictate to us. It may make no difference, if Russia attacks the cables, the US won't ask our opinion before they respond.

cremeegg said:

Uncomfortable questions for those of us who believe we should be neutral.

Click to expand...

Care to offer an answer to any of them?

cremeegg said:

Of course those of us who suspect that there are elements in the Irish establishment who would like to abandon our neutrality and join NATO but are afraid to say so publicly because they realise how unpopular that would be, see initiatives such as this as a surreptitious way to erode neutrality.

Click to expand...

The Irish establishment is overwhelmingly left wing and anti American so I don't see that being a factor.

cremeegg said:

There was no realistic military threat to Ireland from a foreign power since long before any of us were born. In that context neutrality was the correct option for Ireland. I deeply suspect the motives of those who tried to align us with the NATO powers over the last 75 years. They are now behind baby-steps toward NATO.

Click to expand...

There is no threat of Military invasion but there is a real and current and ongoing threat to us from malign foreign interests. You acknowledge that below.

cremeegg said:

It would be unrealistic not to recognise that the context is changing.

Our membership of the EU has been hugely beneficial for us economically and socially.

Russia has invaded a European country, one which gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees. That is a whole new situation.

Our response to this new situation is not easy. Will we frame our own response or will we join an alliance which will dictate to us. It may make no difference, if Russia attacks the cables, the US won't ask our opinion before they respond.

Click to expand...

We can try to do it ourselves at the cost of tens of billions and human resources we don't have or we can get help from our fellow EU States and other liberal democracies.