I know this will be unpopular here, but give the man some credit: This is not the popular position. Ask people in an opinion poll whether they would rather spend taxpayer money on the HSE or fighter jets, and you’ll get a very clear answer: Health and Housing, please, and stuff your spending on weaponry. And yet, here’s Varadkar, handing Sinn Fein a stick to beat him with because, presumably, he believes it:
Video of Varadkar's comments for people to see for themselves… pic.twitter.com/OqboIeWkJR
— Gavan Reilly (@gavreilly) March 3, 2022
The problem for him here really isn’t the principled argument: Sure, we’re all in favour, broadly speaking, of defending our values and our freedom from external threats. The problem is the practical argument. He says he wants to increase defence spending and improve our equipment, but not to, say, €3bn per year.
The issue here is that, well, even a substantial increase in Irish military spending would not make much meaningful difference were we to be competently invaded by a superior military power. Indeed, the long history of this island is that any time Irish forces engaged in an open, battlefield war with enemy forces, they got tonked. Our freedom was eventually won by a civilian-led insurgency that made us more trouble than we were worth.
In terms of defending the country, there is a very limited amount that the Irish defence forces could do against a determined and well equipped invader, whether that be the Russians, the Chinese(!!), or anybody else. We might last a week or two, but that’s about it.
Increasing our defensive capabilities, then, can only really be militarily worthwhile in the context of abandoning neutrality, to position us as a useful part of a wider military alliance. No, Irish forces could not defend Ireland from an invader. But we certainly could – if we chose to – provide a useful combat battalion and air wing to NATO or to a European defence force to be used in a wider conflict. It’s not hard to imagine, for example, 2000 Irish troops stationed in Estonia or Eastern Poland, backed up by 10 or 20 modern fighters, and equipped with modern APC’s and tanks. As a stand alone force? Next to useless. But as part of a wider alliance? Very useful indeed.
One, really, does not make much strategic sense without the other. And therefore Varadkar’s comments should be read in the context of what is very likely to emerge in the wake of the war in Ukraine – a renewed push for a common European Defence.
This, to be honest, is where the case for neutrality starts to stutter quite badly, because it is increasingly an Irish fantasy, more than an Irish policy. The fact is that the existence of a common EU defence is not something Ireland can really control. If we opt out, it is likely that a sufficient number of countries will proceed without us as to make our objections irrelevant. And here’s the rub: If the EU ever becomes a combatant, it is ridiculous to think that its enemies would ever think of Ireland as neutral. If, say, Russia ended up in a general conflict with the EU (a proposition much less fanciful this week than it was last) it is stretching credibility to believe that Ireland would not be considered a combatant just because we had not contributed forces directly to the battlefield. We are an EU centre of trade and finance and business and diplomacy. In a war against Europe, Dublin would be a legitimate military target.
In other words, whether we like it or not, our neutrality has already been stripped away, no matter how much the Peace and Neutrality Alliance types, or Dr. Anthony Coughlan, or the far left, might protest to the contrary.
The only remaining choices, then, are whether we admit this to ourselves, or choose not to, in the first instance; and whether we choose to spend more on the military in reaction to it in the second instance.
The truth is that from a purely nationalist perspective, the calculations do not change much whether an aggressor considers us neutral or not. Our military capabilities would be so limited, either as a neutral or as part of an alliance, that in either scenario we would rely on the EU and NATO for defence.
The real debate is this: If, say, Estonia or Latvia were invaded, not Ukraine, would Ireland be willing to send troops to defend an EU country?
That’s the question, and the only relevant one here. Defence spending, and everything else, is bluster. The real question is what “EU membership” means. Certainly, other EU countries would expect us to come to Estonia, or Latvia’s, aid.
That’s the question we won’t ask, though, because our politicians are terrified of the answer to it. All this bluster about defending Ireland is just that: Irish forces would only really be deployed in any useful way to defend someone else.
And the answer, of course, is likely to be “no”. We’re perfectly happy, here in Ireland, to be a part of the EU. But if it ever comes to actually fighting and dying for the EU, well, we’ll leave that up to the Americans and the British. Neither of whom, of course, are actually members of the bloody thing.
We’re an odd people. And while we’ll talk day and night about neutrality, we won’t ask ourselves that question. Because we know what the answer would be, and we’re sort of embarrassed about it.