Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Russian threat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russian threat. Show all posts
Jim Duffy ✍ The silence of almost all the devoted pro-neutrality activists, on the issue of Aughinish Alumina actively aiding Russia's military in its war in Ukraine, is striking.

Other than Senator Tom Clonan, who repeatedly condemns it, the silence is deafening - despite it being an unambiguous breach of Irish neutrality.

Not a word from Sinn Féin. Not a word from People Before Profit. Not a word from the Peace and Neutrality Alliance. Not a word from Catherine Connolly or Michael D Higgins. Their press releases draw a complete blank.

Yet the same people are always out giving interviews about non-existent plots to get Ireland into NATO - something that has no chance of occurring.

So why then the total silence on a Real live breach of Irish neutrality by an Irish company enabling Russia's illegal war, a war that breaches the UN charter and international law? Could it be that many of the Irish neutrality devotees are simply motivated by their end hate of The West, of NATO and everything else, but couldn't care less if neutrality breaches help Russia, and anti-Western countries?

Getting them to ever criticise Russia, or the USSR, or the Warsaw Pact, is like plucking hens' teeth. They will always bend over backwards to make excuses for Putin, or Stalin.

Some even justify the USSR's illegal occupation and annexation of the independent sovereign Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1940 - an annexation that flowed from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany. They then say that "to secure peace" the three states should be handed back to Russian control, irrespective of the wishes of the peoples there.

The same people justify the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, just as they will justify the Russian invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 - always of course twisting the facts to inevitably blame The West and NATO. Even when citizens stage revolutions, some Irish neutrality devotees invariably blame The West for engineering a supposed coup - as if citizens have no right to control their own destiny.

Those same Irish neutrality devotees proclaim themselves "anti-imperialists" while cheering on and excusing the most imperialist state in Europe-Asia: Russia. It is a country that has spent attacking its neighbours repeatedly. There is hardly a single one of its neighbours it has not at some stage invaded.

Finland finally declared its independent from Russia in 1917 after the fall of the Tsar - after decades of brutal Russianisation policies under Tsars Alexander III and Nicholas II. It has been recognised internationally as independent since 1918. Russia invaded it twice: in the Winter War and Continuation War. In 1948 it was forced to agree to a policy later named "Finlandization" (the process by which one powerful country makes a smaller neighbouring country refrain from opposing the former's foreign policy rules, while allowing it to keep its nominal independence and its own political system.)

Under it, the Soviet Union took effective control of its foreign and security policy - a period known in Finland as the 'period of national shame' or the 'period of national humiliation.' It finally regained its sovereignty in foreign and security policy in 1991 - and warns countries internationally never ever to repeat the mistake they made.

And yet, one hears some Irish neutrality advocates say that Russia has a "right" to enforce that again on Finland. I wonder would they say Britain has the right to take control of Irish foreign and security policy, or the US has a right to take control of Mexican and Cuban foreign and security policy, or is it only their beloved imperialist Russia that has that right?

When Putin after a century of independence asserted that Finland no right to be independent of Russia, I heard a number of Irish neutrality devotees actually justify his stance and say that the Finns had no right to their own sovereignty!!!

I have come to be cynical of so-called Irish neutrality, as so many of its most fanatical adherents are really just anti-wWestern pro-Russian apologists. I don't have a problem with real genuine neutrality, of the sort believed in by Senator Clonan - though some of the arguments he has made on the triple lock are factually wrong. He at least has a real concept of objective neutrality, not simply a neutrality that is anti-Western and pro-Russian.

That said, factually, the concept of being neutral as a means to stay out of war doesn't work. As neutrals all over found to their cost, if someone wants to attack you they will. Belgium discovered that twice, as did Luxembourg. So did the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in World War II. Sweden only avoided Nazi invasion by effectively collaborating with the Nazis and supplying them with critical minerals and a right to use its territory.

Of the other three neutrals in Europe - two, Ireland and the Vatican, were scheduled for invasion by the Nazis, but weren't invaded for reasons unconnected to their neutrality. Switzerland was protected by its geography as it was exceptionally difficult to conquer. No country in Europe avoided invasion by being neutral.

The 1907 Second Hague Convention supposedly protected neutrals who were signatories from attack by signatories in Article 1, which states "The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable." In fact it quickly turned out not to be worth the paper it was written on, and was just an unenforceable gentleman's promise. The convention was negotiated from 1904, signed in 1907, and came into force in 1910. It was broken in 1914, when one signatory, the German Second Reich, invaded two neutral signatories: Luxembourg on 2nd August 1914, and Belgium on 4th August 1914. There was no come back, other than the complaint "but you promised you wouldn't do that!" It had no enforcement mechanism.

Its weakness can be seen that countries invading neutrals have never even bothered formally leaving the convention before breaking it. It is that meaningless.

I am not arguing that Ireland should join NATO, or that it shouldn't. I am not arguing that Ireland should or should not be neutral. However it is important to know what neutrality is and what it isn't. Firstly, many of the loudest proponents of neutrality are really just the proverbial "useful idiots" who are supremely anti-West and pro-Moscow. They are not the spokespeople, much less the guardians, of real neutrality.

Secondly, history shows that neutrality is no protection from attack, as almost neutral in Europe, bar three, were attacked. Those three weren't attacked for reasons unconnected with their neutrality. All those attacked joined NATO when it was created, most at the beginning, a few later on.

Thirdly, contrary to myth, being neutral does not give a country a special independent status that makes it a centre for peace talks and negotiations. One of the most popular place for such negotiations is Norway. Norway was a founding member of NATO in 1949.

One negative with neutrality is that it gives countries a delusion of safety - where they think "we are neutral. No-one will attack us." Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all found that that is not the case. Ireland found out that it was potential target for invasion by the Nazis when it began intercepting Nazi communications in May 1940, and quickly made plans in Plan W for Britain to come to its aid if it was attacked. As soon as the Taoiseach requested aid, the British ambassador would send the code word 'pumpkins'. The Royal Navy and RAF would attack the Nazi troops landing between Wexford and Waterford by sea and air, while British troops would cross the border and travel south to attack Nazi troops on land, aiding Irish soldiers.

That delusion of safety may be why Ireland has a tiny spend on defence - despite defence being a core duty of every sovereign state. The average spend among neutrals in Europe on defence is 0.9% of GDP. Neutral Cyprus spends 1.8% of GDP. Austria aims to reach 1% of GDP by this year. Switzerland aims to reach 1% by 2030. Ireland spends a miniscule 0.2%. It isn't just the lowest among neutrals, and by far the lowest in Europe, its is third worst in the world. Only Mauritius and Haiti are lower.

Yes, GDP is an unhelpful measurement for Ireland. However, it is the standard one used internationally for defence comparisons. Even using others, Ireland is way off the minimum target it should be at, as a sovereign state.

And yes Ireland is a target. You cannot have critical underwater infrastructure that all of Europe depends on just off your coast and not be. You cannot have just three interconnectors, and face rolling nationwide power cuts if they are cut, and not be. And you cannot be a net contributor to the EU budget, where Putin has made clear the EU is a target, and you not be.

Whether it is neutral or in NATO is not the point (In reality there is no likelihood of Ireland, Austria or Switzerland joining NATO.) It is that if neutral, know what neutrality is and is not. It is not a protection from attack, as if a country wants to attack a neutral they always do. As a sovereign country you need to take your defence seriously, and you should be spending at least the average spend of neutrals on defence. Anything else is reckless.

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

Aughinish Alumina 🪶 Not A Word

Jim Duffy ✍ An interesting report from Channel 4 News. 

It isn't anything new to those of us aware of what is happening, but something that, as the Taoiseach admits, the Irish are "blissfully unaware of" as they live in their neutrality fantasy that "sure we're grand!" He made the point that the Irish really live in their deluded bubble.
 
Part of that bubble is of course due to geography. Ireland perpetually is unaware of things outside its inward-looking society. After World War II, international leaders were flabbergasted at how much Ireland lived in its own bubble. International leaders would meet Irish leaders and find them off in their own reality. The world was worried about the prospect of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, and the risk of mass starvation, yet when they'd meet the Irish Minister for External Affairs he would want to talk about nothing but partition, the Irish border, the treaty, and being good Catholics showing loyalty to the Pope.
 
That was demonstrated when the Atlantic Treaty was signed creating NATO. Ireland wanted to join NATO, a point Minister for External Affairs Sean MacBride made clear in the Dáil and Seanad in February 1949. But all MacBride and the First Inter-Party Government wanted to talk about in order to join NATO was . . . partition!!! Seriously! The government, a bit like some in Ireland today, thought other countries were desperate to get Ireland to join NATO - and so all they had to do is get other members joining NATO to gang up on Britain and force it to withdraw from Northern Ireland and so end partition as a quid pro quo to get Ireland into NATO.
 
In fact, then as now, other countries weren't fixated on getting Ireland into NATO, and they couldn't give a damn about some 'silly squabble' over partition in Ireland. They had far bigger issues on their plate, like the status of Berlin, millions of refugees, the risk of war, the fact that many countries were bankrupt, to worry about the "dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone emerging once again", to use Churchill's famous phrase from 1922 once again.
 
It didn't help that Ireland's reputation had been catastrophically damaged by de Valera's crass condolences on Hitler's death.
 
The very idea that NATO members were going to gang up against Britain on behalf of Ireland was deluded in the extreme, but typical of how out-of-touch the Irish were. The war to the Irish was just 'the Emergency', where the main problems were no petrol and rationing food. To the other countries planning to join NATO, the war involved Nazi armies, Blitzkrieg, the bombing of cities, concentration camps and gas chambers, with millions dead. The Irish were entirely on a different wavelength to everyone else and living in a different reality.

Ireland's plot to use NATO membership to force British withdraw from the North failed abysmally.
Ireland's tendency to live in its own bubble has long been an issue. It remains an issue alive today in Ireland's neutrality delusions. Real neutrality is expensive, involves a large armed forces, and usually involves conscription (Sixty-six percent of remaining neutrals in Europe have conscription. Only one-third of NATO members do). It involves having a significant size of navy and air force. Irish neutrality however involves little defence spending, a two-ship navy, an air force with no means to intercept anything, and a tiny military incapable of fulfilling the elementary duties of a military due to chronic lack of defence spending. Whenever a problem arose, we play the 'beal bocht', even though richer than many NATO members, and look to get NATO to protect us for free with taxpayers in other countries paying our bills.
 
The reality is that continental Europe knows full well that it is being targeted by Putin's Russia, that efforts are being made to destabilise their states, that fundamental infrastructure is being targeted, that a full cyber war is being waged against them. The closer a country is to Russia, the more brutally they are being targeted and the more worried their citizens are.
 
Some countries in Southern Europe are less nervous than those in Central and Eastern Europe. However none is as much in its bubble of denial as Ireland. Part of that was due to World War II. Lots of neutrals naively thought the Second Hague Convention's declaration that "The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable" - even though that was broken by Germany in 1914 in invading Luxembourg and Belgium. World War II shattered them of that illusion - as neutrals Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Finland were invaded. It showed that the 'guarantee' in Hague II Title V Article I is worthless. If a country wants to attack a neutral it will. Hague is nothing more than an unenforceable gentlemen's agreement. That was why Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway abandoned neutrality after World War II and joined NATO. Finland and Sweden have since joined.
 
Ireland may well have been one of those neutrals Hitler planned to invade, though historians are uncertain if Operation Green, invading Ireland, was a real plan or a dummy one. If it had been invaded, that would have woken the Irish pretty quickly to the uselessness of Hague II's protection. The fact that it wasn't allows devotees of neutrality to cling to the delusion that it is protected by Hague II - despite Hague II not having protected any single country in its one hundred and fifteen years in force.
The extent to which the Irish remain "blissfully unaware" of how dangerous the situation is can be seen in the fact that Ireland has no full-time stand alone Defence Minister, has barely functioning defence, a laughably low defence budget, and the fact that neither RTÉ nor Virgin Media even bothers to have a Defence Correspondent.
 
The delusion was summed up by a typically crass intervention by Michael D Higgins where he lashed out at Estonia for taking defence seriously by increasing its defence spending as if it were acting aggressively. Typically he ignored that Russia has explicitly threatened it, that Russia spends 7.5% of GDP on defence, had been massing soldiers at its borders and had tried to provocatively steal part of its waters in breach of international waters. Then again, Higgins like many on the left is oblivious to the behaviour of Russia while always being in a rush to cast the first stone against democracies.
He is being replaced by an even more clueless nutter on the issue - a hard left woman who equates limited German rearmament in 2025, that it has to do to repair decades of underfunding, with the extreme and illegal aggressive rearmament of Hitler in the 1930s.
 
The Irish have no idea that not alone is Europe in a highly dangerous state, but it is in particular danger. 97% of the most vital data cables that Europe depend on are in Irish waters and the Irish waters are where they are most vulnerable. All Putin would have to do to throw Europe into chaos, including shutting its banks, emptying its ATMs, stopping its cards from working, etc would be to attack those cables in Irish waters.
 
Ireland is rated as one of the top three targets for Putin in any war: the Suwalki Gap; Gotland; cables in Ireland's waters.
 
Add to that Ireland is exceptionally vulnerable because it is dependent of underwater connectors to literally keep the lights on. Cut those interconnectors, and Ireland would lose 50% of its electricity generation capacity. If that happened, the government's own analysis makes it clear it would take six months minimum to fix the interconnectors. In the meantime there would be national electricity rationing. Major industrial users would be cut off indefinitely to give priority to homes, hospitals, schools, etc.
 
No other country is as vulnerable as Ireland is heavily reliant on electricity generation using gas but in an act of monumental stupidity has no gas storage facility. Add to that the Corrib gas supply is almost gone and for ideological reasons no other gas fields were opened.
 
A core aim of Russia is to destabilise the EU - which is why targeting vital data cables is central to his tactics. Destabilise states by things like throwing the electricity supply into chaos and again you make world headlines. Ireland, an isolated island with no gas storage and a demand that almost matches supply, and dependency on a limited number of interconnectors and just a two-ship navy to protect them, is a perfect target. Everyone else in Europe knows it.
 
Maybe it will take the lights going out to wake up their Irish from their blissful ignorance and realise just how dangerous the situation is internationally right now, and how its chronically underfunded defence is plain reckless and stupid.
 
It may be Ireland's Rotterdam moment. One prominent Dutch politician from Rotterdam was a pacifist who was convinced in World War II that the Netherlands was safe thanks to the Second Hague Convention. He was adamant. Then on 10th May 1940 the Nazis attacked the Netherlands, Hague or no Hague. On the 14th May, Rotterdam was bombed severely by the Nazis. Only then did he finally realise what Luxembourg and Belgium learned in 1914 - that Hague as protection is worthless. He wrote "I believed we were protected. I was wrong." His city, and his family, were destroyed in the invasion. He later went on to campaign for the Netherlands to join the new NATO being created, saying his country must never make the same mistake again.

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

Rotterdam Moment

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)