Book Offer
This will close in 10 seconds
Tánaiste and Minister for Defence Simon Harris has committed Ireland to sending €700m in “non-lethal aid” to Ukraine as part of a wider package of assistance to the beleaguered country in an attempt to salvage the proxy conflict even as its principal Washington seemingly backs away following a spat between Zelensky and Trump in the Oval Office.
Speaking on the heels of the emergency defence summit at Lancaster House in London led by British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, Harris mentioned that the package would assist Ukrainian defences against hybrid threats and other vulnerabilities: “That would basically involve providing money that will be used to purchase things like armoured vehicles that can assist in demining and cyber protection measures, non-lethal use of military equipment.”
Fancying himself as Charlemagne seeking continental cohesion as opposed to the provincial onlooker that he is, Mr Harris highlighted the need to protect Europe as a whole including those outside the realm of the European Union (EU) trading bloc: “Whatever the cost is, the cost of not paying it is much more significant in terms of the security of the European Union, in terms of the defence of a sovereign country, the largest country on the continent, in Europe.”
This is part of a push by Starmer as well as French president Emmanuel Macron to project peace through strength through vast military spending despite the Trump administration’s public protestations about where such expenditure is going.
However, underneath the surface, the joint plan, particularly that of Britain, seems to be an attempt to continue egging on the Russo-Ukrainian conflict as opposed to resolving it.
Bearing all the hallmarks of the events that led up to the Iraq War in 2003, Starmer announced a “coalition of the willing” to deploy troops if necessary.
The push for some sort of resolution comes amid gruelling battlefield realities facing Ukraine.
For months now, the outlook for Kiev in its fight against Russian aggression has been, to put it mildly, grim – with Moscow making significant gains in the east around the Donbas region where most of the fighting is confined.
In February of last year, Moscow was able to capture Avdiivka, a miniature but strategically important city in the middle of the Donetsk Oblast that acted as a holding ground to attack Russian separatists and troops.
This was the greatest morale boost since the fall of Bakmut the previous May and acted as a harbinger for a more militarily shrewd strategy for Moscow.
Having always had the population advantage of 140 million vs Ukraine’s over 30 million, the ability of Moscow to replenish its defensive stockpiles stands in stark contrast to Ukraine who rationed bullets on the battlefield in Avdiivka.
Indeed, the capture of Velyka Novosilka, another strategically important town in the same Oblast in late January of this year has all but confirmed that Ukraine simply does not have the capabilities to retake land on its eastern flank.
Ukraine also faces a severe shortage of manpower hence moves to enforce conscription via mandatory military training for youths alongside attempts to pull individuals for service in public places such as shopping centres, gyms and villages often forcibly and violently.
That’s not to say Ukraine has had no military success. They have managed to prevent the entire country from being overwhelmed by Russian forces in the west and to hold on to vital areas such as Kharkiv. Throughout the conflict, Ukraine has exhibited tremendous strength and perseverance.
Aside from the battlefield minutiae, Russia’s economy has remained resilient as it decisively manages to extract oil and natural gas revenue despite a dearth in exports to Europe by transitioning its market towards the Global South. Despite initial economic pain the country has placed its economy on a war footing by redirecting its energy exports as part of a wider effort to realign its strategic partnerships.
According to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, China, India and Turkey were responsible for over 70pc of Russia’s total revenues from fossil fuels in the third year of the invasion.
Indeed, Russia’s crude oil imports to India went from 1pc at the start of the conflict to a whopping 40pc as the war has progressed.
These revenues have meant that the sanctions regime, which sought to alienate Russia from its main markets, has not been as effective as envisioned given the country’s room for manoeuvre to call upon strategic allies ushering in a multipolar reality in which the West no longer holds all the cards.
In late 2024, Russia reported a current account surplus of over $50bn.
Those same allies, including Iran, have also provided Russia with drones that have been used to strike at Ukrainian targets.
Indeed, having deprived itself of Russian energy, Europe, in particular the hitherto economic powerhouse of the continent Germany, has cut its nose to spite its face with a resultant massive industrial decline making efforts at rearming a pipe dream.
Before the invasion, Germany relied on Russia for over half of its natural gas needs to power many of its industries including steel making. According to the Federal Statistical Office, energy-intensive industries are producing less than a fifth than they were before the war with chemical producer BASF slashing jobs and closing plants.
Overall, the German steel and chemical industry accounts for 60pc of total consumption.
Last year, over 10,000 jobs were lost among German car suppliers with Volkswagen announcing plans to shut three of its factories and lay off thousands of workers.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s biggest provider, the United States, who have so far forked over $100bn in aid, has paused all military aid with the tetchy Oval Office meeting all but confirming the mutual ill-will between the new administration in Washington and Kiev over the terms of the war’s cessation.
While not directly committing to security guarantees, America is hoping Ukraine is convinced by an indirect guarantee by embedding itself economically in the country with the minerals deal which will see the peace and security of Ukraine promoted via the proceeds of state-owned mineral resources as well as oil and gas into a dedicated fund.
This deal has been put on hold amid Zelesnky’s public row with President Trump.
But as deputy editor of this publication, Gary Kavanagh wrote recently, “There is no clear path for Ukraine to win this war.”
Given the crippling reality facing the country, one must ask why Dublin is following London in maintaining the facade of an eventual Ukrainian victory?
Up until now, the war in Ukraine has been, for all intents and purposes, a proxy war. Never shy in letting the cat out of the bag, late last year Boris Johnson said as much in an interview with the Telegraph when he said, “We’re waging a proxy war, but we’re not giving our proxies the ability to do the job. For years now, we’ve been allowing them to fight with one hand tied behind their backs and it has been cruel.”
Johnson’s stunning admission coupled with his move in April 2022 to force Kiev to abandon Turkish attempts to mediate peace by telling them they “shouldn’t sign anything with them at all—and let’s just fight”, contextualises just how much this war has the fingerprints of a war-hungry Whitehall all over it.
To that end, Britain has been involved in training over 50,000 Ukrainian soldiers and providing some £7.8bn in military assistance. Some have speculated that London’s enthusiasm for the war is part of an attempt to assert itself globally post-Brexit, but now that the U.S. has slowly but surely backed out Britain is left isolated and too deep in the conflict to abandon Kiev any time soon.
In the same interview, Johnson prophesied what his successor Starmer is now considering: “I don’t think we should be sending in combat troops to take on the Russians. But I think as part of the solution, as part of the end state, you’re going to want to have multinational European peace-keeping forces monitoring the border [and] helping the Ukrainians… I cannot see that such a European operation could possibly happen without the British.”
While this may sound like a resolution to end the war, recent moves by the U.K. suggest this could just be the beginning of another phase to the conflict. Indeed, the U.K.’s public rebuttal of Macron’s one-month truce hints they don’t view the war as over yet.
At the recent London summit, Starmer announced a £1.6bn missile deal for Ukraine to purchase 5,000 air defence missiles as part of a wider package to reboot the U.K. economy on a war footing. The artillery is set to be made in Northern Ireland in Belfast which will see 200 jobs created to make lightweight-multirode missiles (LMM). Defence spending is also set to rise to 2.5pc of national income by 2027 and by a further 3pc by 2034. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is expected to direct spending towards SMEs specialising in defence supply chains.
All this, coupled with a commitment to deploy “boots on the ground” if necessary, essentially confirms that Britain is readying itself for yet more geopolitical friction in the region.
Just before his trip to London and Washington, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky made a pit stop in Dublin where he was greeted by Taoiseach Micheál Martin. During their discussions, Martin did not rule out sending Irish peacekeepers alongside Britain and France to Ukraine.
This commitment comes against the backdrop of attempts by the Irish government to end the so-called triple lock system which prevents the State from deploying 12 or more members of the Irish Defence Forces abroad unless it is given the expressed approval of the Irish Government, the Dáil and the United Nations (UN). The tertiary element of the lock is what has members of the cabinet perturbed who fear that the UN security council, comprised of Russia and China among others, could ‘veto’ Irish peacekeeping operations.
Indeed, given the stark realities facing the British military which is expected to number 73,000 this year, far lower than comparable countries such as Spain and France, it is inevitable they will call on other countries to supplement their manpower with Ireland already heeding that call.
While the war drum is reminiscent of the same beat that preceded the invasion of Baghdad in 2003, the historical parallels between World War 1 and today are stark.
The push to get Ireland involved in World War 1 was no easy task. Seeing men die in the trenches in a war of attrition with no end in sight saw a two-pronged attempt by civic Irish nationalism and British statecraft to involve Irishmen in the conflict.
Attempts by the Irish Parliamentary Party’s John Redmond to enlist Irishmen into the British Army were achieved by appealing to their sense of civic duty namely to ensure Home Rule with over 200,000 taking up the call with over 30,000 dying on the battlefield. Westminster’s appeal to fight for “the freedom of small nations” such as Catholic Belgium also imbibed in the public a sense of moral duty to partake in the onslaught.
The 1915 strategic blunder that was the Battle of Gallipoli saw 4,000 Irishmen die and turned public opinion against the conflict with many asking was their involvement worth it.
Meanwhile, more hardline nationalists raised the battle cry in the song Foggy Dew that it was ‘better to die underneath an Irish sky than at Suvla or Sud el Bar.’ Such a potent sentiment led men within the Military Council of the Irish Volunteers to stage an uprising in central Dublin at the GPO in 1916 as they would rather die for Ireland than for an empire they felt detached and estranged from.
In 1918, when Britain was struggling with reinforcements and manpower they implemented the Military Services Bill which would have expanded conscription to those on the island of Ireland. During the general election that followed, Sinn Féin benefited from a groundswell of opposition to the enforced conscription managing to acquire over 40pc of the vote securing 73 out of 105 Irish seats in parliament thus eclipsing the IPP’s popularity.
But in 2025, 100 years after independence, a sovereign Irish government feels compelled to get behind Britain in a war of attrition with virtually no national interest at stake.
While Ireland must take its defence more seriously and begin to move away from reliance on the RAF to defend our skies and the French navy to defend our seas, getting enmeshed in a conflict that has no end in sight would be foolish.
This will close in 10 seconds