Ex-Irish taoiseach says he's 'never been so glad' Ireland out of Nato
Writing in The Times, Varadkar said: 'European Nato members have finally agreed to pay for their own security and the protective shield America provides them.
'To put that in context, 5% of GDP in Ireland works out at about €25 billion in defence spending a year. That's more than we spend on health, more than double what we spend on education.
'Put another way, it would mean a quarter of all government spending being allocated to defence or the cost of a new national children's hospital every month. As taoiseach, I increased defence spending and I brought Ireland into Europe's common security and defence (Pesco) pact in 2017, but I have never been so glad that we are not a member of Nato.'
He added: 'If implemented, European countries will spend a fortune on missiles, bombs and drones that are never used and fighter jets and aircraft carriers used mostly for training. Meanwhile, pensioners, schools, hospitals, care homes and children's services will struggle to get by.'
Varadkar said that the 'Russian threat' was real – but 'looks weaker' as the war in Ukraine grinds on.
READ MORE: David Lammy describes Israeli concentration camp plans as 'sticking point'
He added: 'Its economy is no bigger than that of Italy and depends heavily on a few commodities. After three years of war, it has failed to subjugate Ukraine, could not save the Assad regime in Syria or support its Armenian or Iranian allies when they needed it.'
Noting that only 3.5% of Trump's military spend target must be spent on 'hard military spending', Varadkar said some of this figure could instead go on other policies should Russia 'seek a rapprochement with Europe'.
(Image: Sergey Bobylev via REUTERS)
He added: 'Imagine if half of that could be spent on other forms of security
'For example, programmes that deal with some of the underlying causes of political instability, such as eliminating extreme poverty in the global south, climate action to avoid severe droughts and floods and ensuing mass migration, democracy and institution-building so that people can change their governments in a peaceful and orderly manner instead of coups and civil wars, public health, educating women and girls, building roads, telecommunications and inter-connectors to bring consumer goods and cheap solar power from Africa to Europe.'
The UK Government at the beginning of last month published its 'strategic defence review' which argued that Britain should be ready to 'fight and win' a full-scale war.
Varadkar said: 'All things come full circle. All arms races end. Sometimes in war. But always, eventually, in peace.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
26 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Nutriband CEO Gareth Sheridan, 35, enters presidential race
A 35-year-old businessman is aiming to become the youngest ever Irish president. Gareth Sheridan, founder and former CEO of US-based company Nutriband, announced his candidancy on social media on Sunday. Advertisement The multi-millionaire is seeking the nomination from local authorities. Mr Sheridan said he has been speaking to local authorities over the last number of months. He told Newstalk: "Right now I'm very confident that we have at least the necessary four local authorities to contest the upcoming election. "We're in a situation now where the country has just become so divided. I think the overwhelming sense of division there is that there's a feeling of under-representation for a whole segment of the population. Advertisement "That's really people under the age of 40 who are condemned to a life of exorbitant rents of emigration." Nutriban is quoted on the Nasdaq exchange in New York with a valuation of some $80 million. In a statement, Mr Sheridan confirmed he would step down from his role with the company to seek a presidential nomination. 'I confirm that I am seeking a nomination to contest this October's Presidential Election, hoping to be the youngest ever candidate for that office, turning 36 in two weeks,' his statement said. Advertisement 'I believe there has never been a time in our country's history where the choice of a younger candidate being on the ballot paper has been more relevant or important than today. Ireland I do not think McGregor is fit to be president of... Read More 'There have been suggestions recently that some political parties may try to block candidates seeking such local authority nominations,' Mr Sheridan said in his statement. 'I expect the main parties to respect Article 12.2.2. of Bunreacht na hÉireann and to allow their duly elected local authority councillors to fulfil their obligation under the Constitution. 'Remember, it is the people of Ireland who elect their President, and not the people of Leinster House. The purpose of Article 12.2.2, as enshrined in our Constitution, is that a candidate from outside the political establishment can seek a nomination – as I am doing.' Mr Sheridan will outline his platform at a press conference in Dublin on Sunday.
Reuters
27 minutes ago
- Reuters
Rupee ends flat as importer dollar demand offsets early gains
MUMBAI, Aug 11 (Reuters) - The Indian rupee closed unchanged on Monday, as dollar demand from importers offset early gains driven by a softer greenback and recovery in the non-deliverable forward (NDF) market. The rupee opened at 87.5050 but failed to extend gains, ending flat at 87.6600 against Friday's close of 87.6600. Traders said private sector banks stepped in to buy dollars, largely on behalf of importer clients hedging positions amid heightened market volatility, after U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to impose 50% tariffs on Indian goods. Over the past two weeks, the rupee has come close to breaching its all-time low of 87.95, but intervention by the Reserve Bank of India in both the NDF and onshore spot markets helped prevent a new low. Analysts warned that the steep tariffs — among the highest imposed by the U.S. on any trading partner — could weigh on exports and dampen capital flows into India. "Banks are vigilant on creating positions due to the volatility from tariff uncertainty and the corresponding interventions being made by the central bank," said Dilip Parmar, forex analyst at HDFC Securities. Meanwhile, Asian currencies held largely steady against a softer dollar, as investors stayed cautious ahead of the U.S. July inflation report and the expiry of a U.S. tariff deadline on China. The Philippine peso and South Korean won slipped between 0.1% and 0.3%, while most other regional units were little changed. The dollar index (.DXY), opens new tab was largely flat at 98.254 at 1018 GMT, and has been volatile through the day, on growing expectations of a Federal Reserve rate cut next month. The U.S. inflation data for July, due Tuesday, will be key to gauge the Fed's rate-cut expectations and the dollar's direction.
Spectator
27 minutes ago
- Spectator
Could the Arctic be key to ending the Ukraine war?
'It is in Alaska and in the Arctic that the economic interests of our countries converge and prospects for implementing large-scale mutually beneficial projects arise,' said Yuri Ushakov, Vladimir Putin's long-time foreign policy adviser and former Russian ambassador to the United States, at a Friday press conference in Moscow. His words pointed to Arctic economic cooperation being firmly on the agenda when Donald Trump meets Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. For Trump, a massively important commercial deal of this kind is his typical negotiating strategy. It's the 'Art of the Deal' – offer something big, lucrative and tangible, then leverage it to unlock political concessions. It's the template Trump just used to broker a peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where economic incentives were bound up with resolving a long-running security dispute. An Arctic agreement between the US and Russia could revive energy collaboration between the two countries on a breathtaking scale. A deal would be massively lucrative for both sides. The Arctic contains an estimated 13 per cent of the world's undiscovered oil, roughly 90 billion barrels, and 30 per cent of its undiscovered natural gas. Russia controls around half of that, with explorers pointing to 2,300 million metric tons of oil and condensate, and 35,700 billion cubic metres of gas. It's a bonanza tailor-made for Trump's America First. Parlay US expertise and capital into these frozen assets and the pay-off would be staggering. The shipping upside is no less compelling. The Northern Sea Route offers the promise of slashing shipping times between Asia and Europe by up to 50 per cent. As melting ice slowly opens the Arctic lanes, that cut becomes ever more real: less fuel burned, no queueing at chokepoints, and avoidance of piracy hotspots. Pair that with a fleet of US oil champions and Arctic logistics savvy, and Trump suddenly holds a commercial deal that has the feel of an irresistible boardroom trophy. The US and Russia have been here before. In 2011 ExxonMobil struck a landmark deal with Russia's Rosneft to explore and drill in the Russian Arctic, including the Kara Sea. It was a project worth tens of billions, giving Exxon access to vast untapped reserves and giving the Russians US technology and expertise. Drilling began, but the partnership was suspended in 2014 when western sanctions were imposed after Russia's annexation of Crimea. Bringing it back to life, or using it as the template for new ventures, would be straightforward in commercial terms. The infrastructure, geological data and corporate relationships already exist. A revived Arctic partnership could go beyond oil and gas to include liquefied natural gas terminals, port upgrades, and joint development of the Northern Sea Route, binding the two economies together in one of the last great frontiers for energy extraction. There is no confirmation that the Arctic and Ukraine will be explicitly linked. Yet the logic is obvious enough and the hints coming from Moscow cannot be ignored. For Putin, the Arctic could be the sweetener that secures US agreement to a settlement on his terms in Ukraine. Moscow is unlikely to shift on the fundamentals: Crimea and the Donbas are written into Russia's constitution as part of its territory. Any deal would lock in those gains, demand Ukraine's demilitarisation and secure a buffer against Nato. Trump could claim an Arctic deal as a massive commercial win for the US and the end of a war which he insists was caused by Biden. Putin could gain Washington's help in pushing Kyiv to accept the deal. Trump's leverage is blunt. Kyiv's very survival depends on American weapons and cash. By threatening to cut them off, Trump can force Zelensky to the table on terms Kyiv has long rejected. For Trump, this is straight from his negotiating playbook: create a crisis point, hold the most valuable card, and make sure everyone knows you are prepared to walk away. For Zelensky, the choice would be between accepting a peace agreement that leaves Ukraine truncated, or facing a war without US backing. Ukraine's position is fragile. Its army is drained, its economy battered, and its war effort hinges on western aid. European and UK promises mean little without US firepower and financing. If Trump decides to pivot towards an Arctic bargain with Putin, Kyiv may need to fall in line or face the battlefield more or less alone. Zelensky can draw red lines, but without American support they'll count for little. The EU and Britain would protest loudly, but they lack the leverage to block an American/Russian deal. Brussels, London, Paris and Berlin have all made clear that no settlement should be struck over Ukraine's head, yet moral objections are no substitute for raw power. British, French and German support for Ukraine may not make much of a difference to the Russian advance if the war were to drag on without full US support. Kyiv would be furious about a deal on the Arctic linked to Ukraine. Zelensky has built his presidency on reclaiming occupied land and has vowed never to cede Crimea or the Donbas. A deal that locks in those losses would be denounced as a betrayal. London would echo the outrage, while Brussels would convene summits and issue condemnations. Yet despite the rhetoric, the Europeans would be powerless to change the outcome. The settlement would already be signed and control of US financing of the war firmly in Trump's hands. Beyond the western alliance, the reaction would be far warmer. Much of the global south sees the war in Ukraine less as a clash over borders, and more as a drag on global trade and growth. For China, India and Brazil, an end to the war, even entirely on Russia's terms, would be hailed as pragmatic diplomacy. Trump could present the Arctic bargain as proof that US-Russia cooperation can solve global problems, and this would help blunt criticism from Europe and the UK. The incentives for both Trump and Putin line up neatly. For Trump, it would be another Trump 'deal' in which commercial muscle underwrites a political settlement. Putin would keep his territorial gains and reopen the Arctic to US investment, and Ukraine would be left to make the best of a settlement it didn't shape. Britain and the EU would be reduced to a role of bystanders.
