Sir, – The demand from Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy that the European Union should form its own army is concerning, but hardly a surprise (“Taoiseach rejects Zelenskiy’s call for ‘an armed forces of Europe’”, News, February 15th). This is not the first time that those directly engaged in the war in Ukraine have urged a fundamental shift in purpose for the EU.
In late February 2024, Dmytro Kuleba, then Ukrainian foreign minister, was quoted as saying that “a common European defence industry space must be created” and “all red tape must be removed” because, in his opinion, “the era of neutrality is over, as well as the era of peace in Europe” (“Europe’s era of peace and neutrality is over, says Ukraine’s foreign minister”, News, February 27th, 2024). These are bleak words, but the motives of Mr Kuleba and Mr Zelenskiy are entirely understandable, mired as their country is in an intractable war with Russian imperialist invaders. However, militarism rooted in despair cannot be allowed to shape the future of Europe. The last thing the world needs is another military superpower and the citizens of the EU have never endorsed such a radical development.
Taoiseach Micheál Martin quickly, and correctly, rejected President Zelenskiy’s call for a European army, but he may need to be more definitive in his response. “A European army isn’t on the agenda in that sense,” Mr Martin asserted in Munich. But what exactly does “in that sense” signify? Or was this simply a hasty choice of words? One hopes so because the EU has no democratic mandate from anywhere to develop an army of any sort. – Yours, etc,
FINTAN LANE,
New homes: comprehensive guide to what’s for sale in Dublin, Wicklow, Kildare, Meath, Cork and around the State
What the science says about how the food we eat affects our mood and mental health
The company of wolves: should large predators be reintroduced to Ireland?
With car prices surging, where can budget-conscious drivers turn? The answer may surprise you
Lucan,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – I can understand why European leaders can’t work out why Donald Trump is conceding to Vladimir Putin before this illegal invasion has been stopped. Is Mr Trump “the deal maker” just not actually very good at making deals? One wonders has he profoundly given up on the West and its defence? – Yours, etc,
JOHN O’BRIEN,
Clonmel,
Co Tipperary.
Sir, – The recent developments in US foreign policy under President Trump have left many of us in Europe deeply concerned and alarmed. The extraordinary situation unfolding, where the US president is directly negotiating with Russia – a nation that has blatantly violated international law by invading Ukraine – is nothing short of unbelievable.
Reports suggesting that President Trump is open to allowing Russia to retain control of the territories it has seized in Ukraine are not only shocking but also a betrayal of the principles of sovereignty and justice. Equally troubling is the suggestion that Ukraine should be excluded from Nato, a move that undermines the aspirations of a sovereign nation and weakens the collective security of Europe.
These actions make it abundantly clear that Europe can no longer rely on the United States as a steadfast ally. Under the current regime, the US cannot be trusted.
President Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he is capable of tearing up any agreement that does not suit his interests, leaving allies in the lurch and undermining the stability of international relations.
Furthermore, we must not ignore the broader implications of these negotiations. Vladimir Putin’s ambitions extend far beyond Ukraine. His ultimate goal may well be to reassert control over the former Soviet sphere, including Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltic states. By appeasing Russia and suggesting the easing of sanctions, the US is not only rewarding aggression but also emboldening a regime with expansionist ambitions.
Adding to these concerns are reports that the US is seeking to reopen trade with Russia and ease sanctions, prioritising economic interests over the security and sovereignty of Europe. This approach sends a dangerous message: that the US is willing to compromise the principles of international law and the security of its allies for short-term gains.
While we must leave the door open for future co-operation with the US, the bottom line is clear: the United States is not the ally Europe thought it was. The time has come for Europe to take its destiny into its own hands.
To achieve true independence, Europe must invest heavily in its own defence capabilities. It is imperative that we develop and manufacture our own weapon systems, ensuring that we are not reliant on external powers for our security. The nature of warfare has evolved – boots on the ground are no longer the only form of conflict. We must prioritise cutting-edge technologies, particularly in drone warfare and other advanced systems, to safeguard our continent.
However, it is not necessary for Europe to invest in nuclear weapons. We all know the devastating impact these weapons would have if ever activated. Instead, we should focus on conventional and technologically advanced defences that can deter aggression without escalating the risk of catastrophic destruction.
Equally important is the need for energy self-sufficiency. Europe must accelerate the transition to renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, reducing our dependence on oil and gas. This is not just an environmental imperative but a strategic one. By investing in renewable energy infrastructure now, we can shield ourselves from the geopolitical vulnerabilities associated with energy imports.
The time for action is now. We cannot afford to wait another decade. European leaders must create the necessary legislation to support these initiatives, fostering collaboration across nations to establish manufacturing hubs for drones and other critical technologies. Let us unite to build a Europe that is resilient, self-reliant, and capable of defending its interests in an increasingly uncertain world.
Ukraine’s future, and indeed the future of Europe, must be central to any negotiations with Russia. We cannot allow external powers to dictate terms that compromise our values and security. It is imperative that Europe asserts itself as a unified and independent force, capable of defending its interests and standing up for what is right.
The events of recent days have been a wake-up call. Let us seize this moment to strengthen our bonds, build new alliances, and ensure that Europe remains a beacon of stability and justice in an increasingly uncertain world. – Yours, etc,
PETER MALBASHA,
Booterstown,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – While many in Europe may be surprised by his lecturing of European leaders, JD Vance is to be thanked for his directness. He has made it plain that he and the US president he serves do not share with Europeans what he regards as their undemocratic values. It is easy to react to his statements as if they are a gross and perhaps deliberate distortion of what Europe, and particularly the EU, stands for. It would also be easy to counter his statements with facts. It is much more difficult, though, to accept that the world has changed.
The liberal values that much of Europe has assumed to be the norm and the rules-based foreign policy that arises from those values is dead. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, US support for Israeli actions in Gaza (and those actions themselves), President Trump’s desire to assume control of Canada, Greenland, the Panama Canal and Gaza, and China’s activities in the South China Sea are clear indicators that foreign policy is based on force and that force being used to enhance one’s own nation’s wellbeing at the expense of others. US policy under the Trump administration of America First is no different from the similar policies of Russia and China. Mr Vance’s speech makes that clear.
Europeans now know that US support is conditional on obeying the US in both foreign and domestic policies. They also know that the US is now pursuing a purely transactional foreign policy in which it will do its utmost to determine the nature of the transactions. They know, too, that they are not seen as equal partners by the US, their exclusion from the Ukrainian peace talks in Saudi Arabia being the most obvious example. Put at its simplest, Europe must do what the US tells it to do in so far a the US is concerned.
It is time for the EU and the wider European community to recognise that it must now make a choice between its own values and those of more predatory nations. If it chooses to follow US wishes, it will become even more of a subordinate than it has been in the past. I would hope that it would chose the opposite, that it chooses its own path which values diversity, equality and inclusion but does not extend its tolerance to nations and activities that would undermine those values.
Refusing to tolerate being undermined will involve developing the strength to do so. In today’s circumstances, this would include the development of an armed force that can guarantee independence. Predatory nations do not understand any other methodology. President Zelenskiy is correct when he calls for the establishment of a European army. It would obviously take time to develop and it would not be to everyone’s liking. But it nonetheless is a necessity. And it would also be necessary for Ireland to join any alliance that is created. It is, unfortunately, no longer possible for us to maintain the pretence of neutrality and spend 0.20 per cent of GDP on defence. – Yours, etc,
GREG CROWLEY,
Wellpark,
Galway.
Sir, – Assuming Mr Trump agrees a deal with Mr Putin to hand over any of Ukraine to Russia, then surely China’s president Xi Jinping must be fairly confident that Taiwan or part of it will experience a similar fate? After all, isn’t Taiwan more Chinese than Ukraine is Russian?
Time will tell how balanced Mr Trump actually is. – Yours, etc,
PAT O’REILLY,
Clonakilty,
Co Cork.
Sir, – Pat Leahy reports that Taoiseach Micheál Martin last week stated that “we have to get serious about defending our critical interests” (‘Time is short for Martin, the Taoiseach in a hurry’, Opinion & Analysis, February 15th).
As an island, our economy is critically dependent on both underwater data cables linking us with the US and gas an electricity interconnectors with neighbouring states. It makes no sense that we now have a Naval Service that can only put one vessel to sea at a time. Not only has that vessel no working main gun but it can’t detect or monitor submarines off our coasts. Not one Air Corps aircraft can detect submarines either.
In 2023, the Irish Defence Forces had to call on a Royal Navy anti-submarine frigate to chase off a Russian sub lurking off Cork Harbour.
If Mr Martin is serious about Irish defence he should ask why a small island nation on the edge of Europe has an army that on paper is over four times the size of our air force and navy. Before we set about bringing peace to Ukraine and other distant conflicts, let’s get our own seas and coastline protected first. – Yours, etc,
KARL MARTIN,
Bayside,
Dublin 13.
Sir, – The Government argues that its air defence arrangement with the UK – the existence of which it will neither confirm nor deny– cannot be scrutinised because it does not meet the legalistic definition of an “international agreement” (“State may rely on executive privilege to prevent disclosure of secret UK air defence agreement”, News, February 14th).
As we have zero capability to monitor, let alone defend, our sovereign air space, it is 100 per cent certain that there is such an agreement.
Whether it is called an instrument, a treaty, an agreement, a convention, a charter, a protocol, a declaration, a memorandum of understanding, a modus vivendi or an exchange of notes is semantic hair-splitting. – Yours, etc,
Dr JOHN DOHERTY,
Gaoth Dobhair,
Co Dhún na nGall.
Housing crisis and taxation
Sir, – In her article on housing, Jennifer Bray says there is a feeling in Government that “something big needs to be done on the tax side” (“Housing: Back to the drawing board for the Government or more of the same?”, Analysis, February 15th).
If that is the case, we might expect the Government at least to mention the local property tax (LPT). When LPT was introduced in 2013, we were told that it would help to moderate inflationary house prices. Higher-priced houses would also carry a higher annual charge, so buyers would be more inclined to go for more modest dwellings. This might have been the case if LPT was, as intended, linked to house prices. But the rate was determined politically, and has been reduced so as to nullify any downward pressure LPT might have had on house prices. The result is that average house prices have increased by a factor of 2.5 since 2013 yet my LPT is now lower than it was 10 years ago.
Local authorities can vary the LPT up or down by 15 per cent, but this does not account for the emasculation of this instrument in housing policy. It would be interesting to see this source of revenue, one that was meant to help build more affordable houses, included in the debate by both Government and Opposition, but I’m not holding my breath – who wants to be associated with a proposal that would properly index LPT? – Yours, etc,
MIKE NORRIS,
Dublin 18.
Sir, – David McWilliams (“We should declare war on dereliction and a tax amnesty is our best weapon”, Opinion & Analysis, February 15th) is mistaken if he believes a register of tax defaulters names and shames anyone. It is a badge of honour to be included in this country.
It is the closest we have to an honours system for the nod-and-wink brigade. – Yours, etc,
ULTAN Ó BROIN,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
Social media and the wellness game
Sir, – Writing in frustration at the inconsistency of health advice she encounters, I would suggest that Laura Kennedy is setting herself up for disappointment and reaching a clearly incorrect conclusion by trawling the most useless sources of evidence (“Women can’t win in the wellness game”, Unthinkable, February 17th). Wasting one’s limited time on earth by watching a “random Instagram video on one woman’s experience of taking semaglutide” may seem like misfortune. However “reading the comments section underneath” looks like carelessness.
That some views expressed might not represent sound advice or could even be deemed insulting will surely surprise nobody.
Wellness is indeed a huge and cynical industry, with much of its messaging targeted at women. But ultimately they usually do in fact win, with the prize in most societies and cultures being two to three years of extra life. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN O’BRIEN,
Kinsale,
Co Cork.
Ageing – know the signs
Sir, – I realised that I was getting on when a shop assistant said to me “ You could order online”, then did a double-take and said “Or you could get someone to do it for you.” – Yours, etc,
MARY DALY,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.
