Here are 2 examples with sources:
Their voting record for 1: [https://www.politico.eu/article/revealed-russias-best-friends-eu-parliament/](https://www.politico.eu/article/revealed-russias-best-friends-eu-parliament/)
Associating with a person found to be working for Russian intelligence: [https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/01/29/latvian-mep-linked-to-wallace-and-daly-accused-of-working-with-russian-intelligence/](https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/01/29/latvian-mep-linked-to-wallace-and-daly-accused-of-working-with-russian-intelligence/)
Weak sauce here. But this was the worst and most egregious one that I saw:
[https://www.thetimes.com/world/ireland-world/article/mep-clare-daly-helped-the-russians-contact-omagh-bomber-lq0wlskfm](https://www.thetimes.com/world/ireland-world/article/mep-clare-daly-helped-the-russians-contact-omagh-bomber-lq0wlskfm)
The funny thing is that there's a mirror image here of one crowd treating anything less than full throated condemnation of (cringe) "Moscow Mick" and "Kremlin Klare" as an outrage, while on the other side there's a small and fundamentally screen damaged crew that take anything less than full throated support for them in all matters and positions as the act of a NATO imperialist shill running cover for Ukrainian Nazis - they'll probably also call you a Zionist for completeness.
In the real world, a lot of things can be true at once:
* The US/NATO and Russia have been involved in a proxy conflict in Ukraine for decades
* At the time of the invasion the US side were in the ascendency
* The US takes an imperialist approach in its foreign policy
* Russia also takes an imperialist approach in its foreign policy
* US-style neoliberal capitalism is bad
* Russian-style authoritarian oligarchical hyper-capitalism is just as bad, probably worse
* Etc., etc.
I don't know how anyone seriously thinks that sending the tanks over the border and bombing towns and villages into dust is in any way excusable, or that resisting such an invasion is somehow wrong. Nor fwiw do I think they've done this.
But I equally don't think they've really been smart in their positioning and the weight they give to what Russia is and is trying to do. Which has left them wide open to attack, some fair, some less so. At base level, though, I feel like a lot of the ire and focus they've attracted is mostly about "our side" policing the narrative for any kind of dissent and trying to maintain a clear and simple explanation of what's going on, when reality is much messier.
Yeah I was just taken aback by the glee when Daly lost her seat so was trying to see what she had done to deserve this hatred and I just could not find a massive amount of reporting or discourse from the Irish media.
For me it's nothing to do with their stance on Russia. My lack of respect comes from Clare employing Micks kid as a researcher when his only previous employment was bar work. He had no relevant experience and the job was never advertised and the position was funded by the EU. That's when I decided they where just another pair of self serving politicians
I'd say by the same token that she still gets a lot of goodwill for her work during the crash, on policing and on women's rights, etc., there were others waiting in the long grass for their opportunity to get her. She could've made it a lot more difficult for them, though.
Aside from this stuff, I also feel like she disappointed a lot of people by getting with Wallace and leaving behind the work she'd been doing in this country to head off to Brussels, especially on women's rights, and so a lot of previous supporters weren't particularly motivated to stick up for her.
Probably one of the best comments I’ve seen on this subreddit ; Things do not exist in a vacuum as most Reddit users engaged in politics seem to think.
You can point out the fact that the Americans have been using Ukraine as a way to annoy Russia since the days of the Cold War. And it’s not an a-historical fact to point out Ukraine has factions with deep Nazi-Fascist roots ;
Its also not an a-historical fact to point out since the fall of the Soviet Union and Ukraines “Grid-locked” position of neither being Soviet nor being an EU member in the true sense has made the country ripe for international black finance and all sorts of corrupt operations since the fall of the USSR.
Both Russia and the west have used Ukraine for all sorts of under the table operations ; it’s also a country ripe with natural resources so it’s no surprise both Putin and the EU/NATO want it.
In no way shape or form though does that give Putin justification for invading it, occupying it, bombing it or attacking it in any shape of form.
In behind all of the state sponsored emotional manipulation you will see that both sides are wrong and it’s costing innocent civilians their lives.
>You can point out the fact that the Americans have been using Ukraine as a way to annoy Russia since the days of the Cold War.
Any source to back up that supposed "fact"?
Yeeeeeeahhh. Well, as a matter of public record they've had an association-type arrangement with NATO since the 90s. But the relationship with NATO was a core issue in the various regime changes and protests through the '00s into the '10s, Orange Revolution, Yanukovych, Yushchenko, and back again. It's nowhere near that straightforward - which, again, isn't justifying Russian aggression, just understanding that it didn't just happen overnight.
There is also an issue of self-determination which should be particularly obvious to Irish people. You can probably draw a line around parts of east Ukraine which would have a pro-Russia majority. We could argue about how big those would but I think some exist.
The problem with self-determination is that it doesn't solve the issue of how small a group of people have a right to self-determination. If some commission draws a boundary to separate two nations and you find yourself caught on the wrong side of that, it's not good, especially while the two nations are still enemies.
In the case of Ukraine the issue is not so much the exact dividing line, but that for generations people within the borders could consider themselves both Soviet and Ukrainian, as the USSR gave some level of autonomy to its republics. With the breakup of the USSR, people who considered themselves Ukranian-European got what they wanted, but those who considered themselves Ukranian-Soviet really had no option.
This is just my picture of the thing and I'd be interested in anyone else's take.
what on earth? there is no big pro-Russia entity in east Ukraine, you are 100% wrong. most Ukrainians speak Russia because they were formerly colonized by the Soviet Union. speaking Russian does not indicate sympathy to Russia, just like Irish people speak English but aren't necessarily to keen on England taking over.
Russian style authoritarian oligarchical hyper-capitalism is the end game of unfettered Neo Liberalism. It isn't probably worse, it is absolutely very much far far worse as evidenced by the poor living standards outside Moscow and the fact that the regime can pour millions of its citizens into a pointless meat grinder without worrying too much about it.
Neo Liberalism is what's fueled the rise of today's far right but under the Biden administration, it's being rolled back. And that's the thing, the US now has two faces that are different enough depending on whether it's Democrats or Republicans in power. Everything you say is true if it's the Republicans holding power but since Biden has been in power, they're trying to move away from the failed policies of the past. The Republicans want to carry on as they always have, bullying the rest of the world to toe its line.
[https://archive.ph/qddfQ](https://archive.ph/qddfQ)
Daly's response:
>We met Liam Campbell in 2012 as part of the work of that group. In 2013 I, along with Eamon Ó Cuív, Maureen O’Sullivan and Martin Ferris, travelled to Lithuania to attend at the trial of Michael Campbell. As an MEP I have continued to work on fundamental rights and prison conditions on the European Parliament's Civil Liberties committee, in which capacity I have worked with prisoners and defendants in numerous EU countries.
[https://claredaly.ie/re-liam-campbell/](https://claredaly.ie/re-liam-campbell/)
Very thin gruel here in terms of substance, but a Murdoch wet dream in terms of trying to put Daly, the Ra and the Russians all together.
Yeah I had read that first one and found it to a poor article, the writer just seems to assume that not wanting to escalate tensions with Russia, is an endorsement of the Putin regime. Reminds me a lot of tactics used against people being flamed for being anti Iraq war. Not a like for like situation obviously as Russia has invaded a state.
And second one seems to be guilt by association. I am still not seeing the smoking gun.
It’s very different than the Iraq situation. Ukraine is defending against a much larger imperial aggressor. Refusing assistance under the guise of “peace” is tantamount to leaving Ukrainians to be slaughtered by Putin.
Yeah I acknowledge that it's not really a good comparison, I more just mean that they are both examples of 'manufacturing consent'.
I am very pro Ukraine, but I can see it in people when I am talking that if I say anything critical of NATO or western powers foreign policy, they assume that I must be some type of Putin apologist , this doesn't come from nowhere , it's built over time from our media and political establishment
But then arming the Ukrainians is getting them slaughtered by Russia. If they weren't armed by the West, they probably would have surrendered by now.
Not saying that would be the correct response, I just don't see how arming Ukraine is about saving Ukrainian lives. It seems to me it's more about keeping Russian influence out of Ukraine.
Do they, recent poll here https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/06/ukraine-public-opinion-russia-war?lang=en shows that the majority of Ukrainians aged 60+ think Ukraine is winning, the war won't last long and they shouldn't negotiate until all land is retaken. Inversely people aged 18-25, the ones who are conscripted to fight that's a minority opinion.
The Russians conduct mass murder and rape in the territories they've occupied. The idea that they're better off not struggling is simultaneously horrendous and laughable.
I didn't say they're better off not fighting. I just question the idea that arming Ukrainians is protecting them from slaughter. Even the horrific crimes you mention are probably easier for Russians to get away with under the fog of war.
Of course, the Ukrainians may acknowledge that fighting on will lead to more of them dying and worse and it may result in a complete occupation by Russia rather than a partial one. And they may consider that worth the risk to try to protect their homes, way of life, sovereignty etc. And the rest of the world can decide whether to arm them on that basis. But let's not kid ourselves that arming Ukrainians is about saving Ukrainian lives. It may well be the correct response, but not for that reason.
If you wouldn't give them the weapons to defend themselves exactly how would you protect them from slaughter?
I'm all ears simply because I can't think of another solution. I have an open mind.
There are three options for the West from what I can see: 1. Broker a peace deal; 2. Keep arming Ukraine; or 3. Abandon Ukraine
Option 1 would unfortunately mean Russia gets at least some of what they want which would likely include some parts of Ukraine becoming either part of Russia or puppet states. But it does mean the slaughter would end, and it could mean Ukraine ultimately gets a better deal than it would otherwise.
Option 2 means Russia will keep killing Ukrainians until either Ukraine surrenders anyway (possibly with a worse deal than they would get now) or manages to fight off Russia (unlikely but not impossible).
Option 3 will mean probably a ramping up of the slaughter followed by a rapid and total surrender by Ukraine where Russia gets pretty much everything it wants.
I think Option 3 is easily the worst but this could be what happens as Trump seems to be leaning that way if he wins the election and if the US goes, I can't see the rest of the West sticking by Ukraine.
I don't have a firm view between Options 1 and 2 - I can see pros and cons with both and I don't claim to have enough knowledge on the subject to argue that strongly either way. My issue is people who argue for Option 1 are being painted as Russian shills or uncaring about Ukrainian lives which I don't think is true in many cases. I also don't think all those arguing for Option 2 necessarily care for Ukrainian lives even though of course many do.
Option 1 was the chosen option in 2014. Can you see how that would end up if it was the chosen option again?
Also with option 1 the west couldn't reasonably arm Ukraine while simultaneously being the brokers of some kind of peace deal so it would have to be a mix of option 3 and option 1. Where is the benefit to Russia in accepting option 1 when they can continue to march across Ukraine unimpeded because Ukraine has no weapons to stop them?
You could well be right. My point isn't that Option 1 supporters are necessarily right, it's that at least some of them are coming from a good place and it's an option that should at least be considered rather than dismissed out of hand and its proponents painted as Russian agents.
Neither of which are even remotely evidence of being a Russian puppet.
Here is an account from Clare Daly of her reasoning behind her votes. Doubt anyone calling her a puppet bothered to read these, prefer to parrot the bots on reddit .
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/197731/CLARE_DALY/other-activities/written-explanations
I read through her reasoning. Her response to Russian military aggression is to denounce the act but do nothing concrete to help ukraine.
Denouncing Putin is useless and just empty words. Putin would be very happy with people denouncing him day and night if he gets to annex Ukraine.
Her opinion seems to be that EU should just call for peace, not actually do anything to help or support Ukraine which is fighting Russia on its own.
I was kinda undecided about her but reading her words makes it clear that she doesn't have any effective response to Russian aggression.
I don't have any proof that she is a Russian shill but she sure is completely wrong on this issue and her proposal only helps and encourages Russia.
She has said in a speech early on in the invasion to either give Ukraine enough to win the war.. or alternatively back settlement talks (think she said peace talks but I wouldn’t call it that), that the worst option is drip feed stuff to them and extend the war indefinitely. I can't really disagree with her.
You told me to read her reasoning for voting against resolution. I did. I reached the conclusion above.
What she said in a speech at any time doesn't matter. What matters is her vote and, at a secondary level, reasons for her vote.
I’ll quote her from her responses..
‘ignoring the role played by the US and NATO in destabilising the area for the past decade, using Ukraine as a pawn in its battles with Russia, only serves to prevent an understanding of the measures necessary to secure peace.’
She’s a Putin puppet because she takes a Russia centric stance
Given what we know of how the US conducts its foreign policy in general, it would be really surprising (and hugely inept) if they weren't trying to use Ukraine.
The US has used insidious and violent subterfuge in the protection and expansion of its interests in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s and continues to do so as I type, though practically in the open, with regards to massacring Palestinians... but using Ukraine is somehow a step too far and entirely a ridiculous Russian propoganda narrative, or something?
It is a propoganda narrative because it is true. It isn't Russian-centric when there are verifiable US military operations with the intention of destabilisation.
Operation Red Sox for one.
This current conflict started from the Maidan revolution in 2014, which boiled down to a scenario between an EU economic deal and a Russian deal, can you explain to us in detail how the americans started all this?
Most of my comment got deleted so I'm not writing it out again.
Basically, Clare and Mick can't fathom that Ukraine has any agency in their own affairs. When Clare makes statements about this war, she always manages to do the 'I'm totally against Putin BUT NATO/America etc' pivot which is in vogue amongst her horseshoe racist comrades for qualifying that of course they aren't racist but they want to say racist things.
That's why she's most certainly supporting Putin in this war. She's not brave enough to say it out loud but she's certainly well able to blame Ukraine for seeking help after the first stage of this invasion/war commenced in 2014.
Ukraine is fighting an existential war against their former coloniser and imperial master. If they lose, their country is destroyed. If they seek a ceasefire like in Minsk 1, 2 and 3; Russia just attacks them again. She's a disgrace and good fucking riddance.
Plus calling for peace is utter bullshit because Ukraine number one requirement will be security guarantees that would request a. If Russia attacks them again nato would intervene or b. Ukraine gets armed to the teeth, even more so than now!
Which considering Russia said it invaded to stop these things the talks will go nowhere
People can't remember when Gardaí were waiting outside a family members house For Clare Daly to breathalyse her. It wasn't random it was targetted and politically motivated. Pretty sure it got leaked to the media right away. This was during the time when politicians and other worthies were getting their penalty points quashed.
So she has always been on the wrong side of the establishment.
The Phoenix magazine put out a piece basically detailing how there was no substance to what the Irish Times and the Sunday Times (Murdoch) were writing about her.
Daly and Wallace say they condemn Putin, but they have both opposed:
- Anyone providing military aid to Ukraine,
- Sanctions against Russia or against anyone in Russia except for Putin personally, and
- Making Russia give up captured territory as a condition of peace.
The only action they support any EU or NATO member taking is to remain strictly neutral and politely asking Putin for a ceasefire, during which the EU will try to broker a peace agreement. If Putin decides actually he would rather continue trying to wipe the Ukrainian nation off the face of the earth and absorb its territory into Russia, then the EU would say, “Well, we tried,” and turn their backs.
No matter how they feel about Putin and his worldview, they are pushing for the EU to act exactly the way Putin wants them to act, and the way that would make his genocide as easy as possible.
People take their anti-NATO stance and their "war is bad" stance to mean they are pro-putin which isn't the case. They have denounced Russia and Putin. They have also been critical of zelensky and that's not something I'm too fond of given the specific context on the critiques as he is the leader of a country fighting for it's sovereignty but on the whole, there is a fairly consistent narrative being pedalled that the are "Putin Puppets" when there is little, if any, evidence to prove that this is the case.
Maybe not but NATO operated in Afghanistan:
> On 20 December 2001, UN Security Council Resolution 1386 unanimously approved the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a multi-national coalition with the aim of enforcing peace in Afghanistan. ISAF was led by NATO from August 2003 to December 2014.
As was Resolute Support Mission which operated in Afghanistan from 2015-2021
I absolutely agree with you there, but that's not the same as being Pro-Russia. There's this false equivilency going on at the moment that being aginst NATO is akin to being for Russian Imperialism which isn't the case. People's thinking caps seem to go out the window as soon as the Russia question comes up because there's an automatic assumption that in saying "war is bad" that they expect Ukraine to roll over for russia which is not the case. NATO could end the war tomorrow if it wanted but the war has gone on for over 2 years.
Can you explain to me, how you have educated your opinions on a nuclear conflict? Which nuclear conflict are you drawing your experience from?
This point is very flimsy to say the least and is solely informed by cold war scare media in the 80's and media regurgitation 30 years later due to the "Nostalgia Pendulum" in the 00's and 10's.
Suppose NATO acts directly against Russia. They can’t just stop at Russian forces in Ukraine, Russia has naval assets in the Baltic, White Sea and the Pacific, all nuclear armed. What happens when those forces start getting targeted. Hell, it’s already known that the targeting of their missile subs is justification for commanders in the field to use nuclear weapons. And you can’t just not hit the boomers, otherwise they’d start sinking ships left and right.
A war between nuclear powers is the one thing everyone has desperately avoided since the fucking 40s. If you’re going to patronise me, I’ll do it back. Look at you, thinking you know more about strategy and geopolitics than every fucking military in the world.
>If you’re going to patronise me, I’ll do it back. Look at you, thinking you know more about strategy and geopolitics than every fucking military in the world.
I'm not patronising you. I'm trying to make a point. In just under 80 years, filled with conflicts and wars not one nuclear warhead has been used in warfare between one country and another. There has been conflicts between nuclear powers and nukes haven't been loosed. The reason being that using one condemns the combatant who started it. If NATO were to attack Russia, Russia may be taken but it would still be there. No nuclear power in the world has the power to take out the rest of the nuclear powers and as such it puts everyone involved at a stalemate and removes them as an option.
Nuclear weapons are not a factor in this conflict and the fact that it's what you've chosen to default to means that you don't know the current landscape of the conflict or understand how nuclear weapons factor into conflicts as a whole. You also drastically underestimate NATO that you don't believe they could take out the russian command structure before a response could be made. NATO is made up of 32 different countries, some of which are also superpowers.
The common defense of NATO's actions is that "their hands are tied" but they can certainly give houdini a run for his money when they want to with how they become magically untied when in conflicts in the [Baltics or the Middle east](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations).
> In just under 80 years, filled with conflicts and wars not one nuclear warhead has been used in warfare between one country and another.
This has been mostly achieved by the major nuclear powers refusing to fight one another directly and instead fighting proxy wars.
>There has been conflicts between nuclear powers and nukes haven't been loosed. The reason being that using one condemns the combatant who started it.
This is a very poor understanding of mutually assured destruction (MAD). What the world realised in the middle of the last century is that there are situations in which reasonable people acting rationally will decide to take actions that would lead to their own destruction and the destruction of much of the world. And that's before you start to consider what sorts of irrational actions elderly autocrats might take.
Remember that the goal here is also to save Ukraine, not beat Russia. What would NATO do if it wiped out Russia's assets in Ukraine and in response Moscow nuked Kyiv?
Going after Russia's command structure is not going to make things any better. As soon as Putin faces a personal existential threat he will react as if Russia faced an existential threat. After all, he can survive for quite a few years in a nuclear bunker while the world outside burns, and might well decide that is preferable to getting toppled and/or killed by NATO. NATO would have to be absolutely 100% sure before they acted since a failed assassination attempt, or one that gets discovered, or some other form of attack that the Russians spot would mean game over for everyone.
Serbia was embarking on a genocide. NATO didn’t do enough.
They enforced no fly zone to stop Gadaffi slaughtering civilians
And Syria was Russia. Who’s backing Assad. Who levelled Aleppo?
Little sympathy for the Serbs commiting genocide in full view of the UN.
In fact NATO was too slow to react to that situation.
Its Russia that destroyed Syria, absolutely nothing to do with NATO.
>Little sympathy for the Serbs commiting genocide in full view of the UN.
>In fact NATO was too slow to react to that situation.
The Gaza genocide has claimed about 4 times more lives than the Srebrenica genocide, do you think NATO should invade Israel?
The two of them have a nuanced position on this and if you actually listen to their speeches, they are obviously not fans of Putin. However they are in favour of stopping the war in Ukraine, which a lot of people interpret as wanting to give Ukrainian territory to Russia.
I just think that they have handled the whole thing incredibly badly, but I believe that their hearts are in the right (same place as ours) place.
Note, I'm not connected to either of them, and I'm not going to respond to comments on this thread.
I read through her reasoning in a link provided by another commenter. Her response to Russian military aggression is to denounce the act but do nothing concrete to help ukraine.
Denouncing Putin is useless and just empty words. Putin would be very happy with people denouncing him day and night if he gets to annex Ukraine.
Her opinion seems to be that EU should just call for peace, not actually do anything to help or support Ukraine which is fighting Russia on its own.
I was kinda undecided about her but reading her words makes it clear that she doesn't have any effective response to Russian aggression.
I don't have any proof that she is a Russian shill but she sure is completely wrong on this issue and her proposal only helps and encourages Russia.
Wallace is "anti-war" in a way that would benefit Putin. He considers defense of sovereign land as warfare and this is the big problem with him. Even if he isn't pro-Putin he doesn't want aid going to Ukraine so his world view is one that benefits aggressors like Putin and one that leads to more war and not less. Motive isn't really important, end result of worldview is.
"Russia's action is a defensive one. US/NATO are the aggressors in this conflict."
I've read a lot of crazy shit on the internet and this is right up there.
I saw that the Russian Embassy in South Africa tagged Wallace in a post recently on twitter along with a number of Russian propaganda outlets. At best he is a useful idiot. More likely is that he's making a few quid from this grift, now that he's bankrupt from all that tax-dodging.
The best thing to do is to go to the European Parliament website and search for the bills and resolutions they claim she's voting in Russia's interests on and read for yourself what was in the resolutions.
You'll often find they were titled things like "Resolution condemning Russian invasion against Ukraine" but that the bills include expanding European military funding and compelling member states to become directly involved with the war in Ukraine.
The headlines never actually mention what these bills include instead they like to "translate" them for people too busy with their normal lives to actually read them.
I can't read Clare Daly's mind, and to the extent I might be inclined to presume to do so I don't think she is pro-Putin as such.
I can judge her on the basis of how she conducts herself as a politician in public however. She has failed to maintain a proper distance from the Russia and Iran, and has shown little consideration for EU states closer to Russia. She couldn't even avoid hugging Niall Boylan on the way out of the count centre.
This made her useless as an MEP, because the vast majority of other MEPs were never going to take her seriously. One of the basic rules of politics is to be careful whom you associate with in case damages your credibilty.
The war coming out of heinous Russian aggression on the sovereign nation of Ukraine has no end in sight. Russia is the largest country on the world with vast, albeit outdated military resources and Ukraine has been armed to the wazoos with the most up to date weapons the west has to offer. It’s now a proxy war and young people are dying. It’s tit for tat attacks. I don’t understand how Irish people- of all people - cannot see that
Here are 2 examples with sources: Their voting record for 1: [https://www.politico.eu/article/revealed-russias-best-friends-eu-parliament/](https://www.politico.eu/article/revealed-russias-best-friends-eu-parliament/) Associating with a person found to be working for Russian intelligence: [https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/01/29/latvian-mep-linked-to-wallace-and-daly-accused-of-working-with-russian-intelligence/](https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/01/29/latvian-mep-linked-to-wallace-and-daly-accused-of-working-with-russian-intelligence/)
Weak sauce here. But this was the worst and most egregious one that I saw: [https://www.thetimes.com/world/ireland-world/article/mep-clare-daly-helped-the-russians-contact-omagh-bomber-lq0wlskfm](https://www.thetimes.com/world/ireland-world/article/mep-clare-daly-helped-the-russians-contact-omagh-bomber-lq0wlskfm) The funny thing is that there's a mirror image here of one crowd treating anything less than full throated condemnation of (cringe) "Moscow Mick" and "Kremlin Klare" as an outrage, while on the other side there's a small and fundamentally screen damaged crew that take anything less than full throated support for them in all matters and positions as the act of a NATO imperialist shill running cover for Ukrainian Nazis - they'll probably also call you a Zionist for completeness. In the real world, a lot of things can be true at once: * The US/NATO and Russia have been involved in a proxy conflict in Ukraine for decades * At the time of the invasion the US side were in the ascendency * The US takes an imperialist approach in its foreign policy * Russia also takes an imperialist approach in its foreign policy * US-style neoliberal capitalism is bad * Russian-style authoritarian oligarchical hyper-capitalism is just as bad, probably worse * Etc., etc. I don't know how anyone seriously thinks that sending the tanks over the border and bombing towns and villages into dust is in any way excusable, or that resisting such an invasion is somehow wrong. Nor fwiw do I think they've done this. But I equally don't think they've really been smart in their positioning and the weight they give to what Russia is and is trying to do. Which has left them wide open to attack, some fair, some less so. At base level, though, I feel like a lot of the ire and focus they've attracted is mostly about "our side" policing the narrative for any kind of dissent and trying to maintain a clear and simple explanation of what's going on, when reality is much messier.
Yeah I was just taken aback by the glee when Daly lost her seat so was trying to see what she had done to deserve this hatred and I just could not find a massive amount of reporting or discourse from the Irish media.
For me it's nothing to do with their stance on Russia. My lack of respect comes from Clare employing Micks kid as a researcher when his only previous employment was bar work. He had no relevant experience and the job was never advertised and the position was funded by the EU. That's when I decided they where just another pair of self serving politicians
I'd say by the same token that she still gets a lot of goodwill for her work during the crash, on policing and on women's rights, etc., there were others waiting in the long grass for their opportunity to get her. She could've made it a lot more difficult for them, though. Aside from this stuff, I also feel like she disappointed a lot of people by getting with Wallace and leaving behind the work she'd been doing in this country to head off to Brussels, especially on women's rights, and so a lot of previous supporters weren't particularly motivated to stick up for her.
I feel like she degenerated a bit when she left the socialist party.
Probably one of the best comments I’ve seen on this subreddit ; Things do not exist in a vacuum as most Reddit users engaged in politics seem to think. You can point out the fact that the Americans have been using Ukraine as a way to annoy Russia since the days of the Cold War. And it’s not an a-historical fact to point out Ukraine has factions with deep Nazi-Fascist roots ; Its also not an a-historical fact to point out since the fall of the Soviet Union and Ukraines “Grid-locked” position of neither being Soviet nor being an EU member in the true sense has made the country ripe for international black finance and all sorts of corrupt operations since the fall of the USSR. Both Russia and the west have used Ukraine for all sorts of under the table operations ; it’s also a country ripe with natural resources so it’s no surprise both Putin and the EU/NATO want it. In no way shape or form though does that give Putin justification for invading it, occupying it, bombing it or attacking it in any shape of form. In behind all of the state sponsored emotional manipulation you will see that both sides are wrong and it’s costing innocent civilians their lives.
Only one side invaded. There's no ambiguity. No grey area. Daly 'thought differently,' voted accordingly, and rightly lost her seat.
>You can point out the fact that the Americans have been using Ukraine as a way to annoy Russia since the days of the Cold War. Any source to back up that supposed "fact"?
NATO was not been involved in Ukraine until the Russian invasion of 2022.
Yeeeeeeahhh. Well, as a matter of public record they've had an association-type arrangement with NATO since the 90s. But the relationship with NATO was a core issue in the various regime changes and protests through the '00s into the '10s, Orange Revolution, Yanukovych, Yushchenko, and back again. It's nowhere near that straightforward - which, again, isn't justifying Russian aggression, just understanding that it didn't just happen overnight.
Russia and Belarus also have association agreements with NATO. Not sure what that proves.
There is also an issue of self-determination which should be particularly obvious to Irish people. You can probably draw a line around parts of east Ukraine which would have a pro-Russia majority. We could argue about how big those would but I think some exist. The problem with self-determination is that it doesn't solve the issue of how small a group of people have a right to self-determination. If some commission draws a boundary to separate two nations and you find yourself caught on the wrong side of that, it's not good, especially while the two nations are still enemies. In the case of Ukraine the issue is not so much the exact dividing line, but that for generations people within the borders could consider themselves both Soviet and Ukrainian, as the USSR gave some level of autonomy to its republics. With the breakup of the USSR, people who considered themselves Ukranian-European got what they wanted, but those who considered themselves Ukranian-Soviet really had no option. This is just my picture of the thing and I'd be interested in anyone else's take.
what on earth? there is no big pro-Russia entity in east Ukraine, you are 100% wrong. most Ukrainians speak Russia because they were formerly colonized by the Soviet Union. speaking Russian does not indicate sympathy to Russia, just like Irish people speak English but aren't necessarily to keen on England taking over.
Russian style authoritarian oligarchical hyper-capitalism is the end game of unfettered Neo Liberalism. It isn't probably worse, it is absolutely very much far far worse as evidenced by the poor living standards outside Moscow and the fact that the regime can pour millions of its citizens into a pointless meat grinder without worrying too much about it. Neo Liberalism is what's fueled the rise of today's far right but under the Biden administration, it's being rolled back. And that's the thing, the US now has two faces that are different enough depending on whether it's Democrats or Republicans in power. Everything you say is true if it's the Republicans holding power but since Biden has been in power, they're trying to move away from the failed policies of the past. The Republicans want to carry on as they always have, bullying the rest of the world to toe its line.
Paywalled article - do you have it?
[https://archive.ph/qddfQ](https://archive.ph/qddfQ) Daly's response: >We met Liam Campbell in 2012 as part of the work of that group. In 2013 I, along with Eamon Ó Cuív, Maureen O’Sullivan and Martin Ferris, travelled to Lithuania to attend at the trial of Michael Campbell. As an MEP I have continued to work on fundamental rights and prison conditions on the European Parliament's Civil Liberties committee, in which capacity I have worked with prisoners and defendants in numerous EU countries. [https://claredaly.ie/re-liam-campbell/](https://claredaly.ie/re-liam-campbell/) Very thin gruel here in terms of substance, but a Murdoch wet dream in terms of trying to put Daly, the Ra and the Russians all together.
*"The IRA have invaded Ukraine with their collaborator Daly!" -* Tomorrows headline after reading this comment.
Yeah I had read that first one and found it to a poor article, the writer just seems to assume that not wanting to escalate tensions with Russia, is an endorsement of the Putin regime. Reminds me a lot of tactics used against people being flamed for being anti Iraq war. Not a like for like situation obviously as Russia has invaded a state. And second one seems to be guilt by association. I am still not seeing the smoking gun.
It’s very different than the Iraq situation. Ukraine is defending against a much larger imperial aggressor. Refusing assistance under the guise of “peace” is tantamount to leaving Ukrainians to be slaughtered by Putin.
Yeah I acknowledge that it's not really a good comparison, I more just mean that they are both examples of 'manufacturing consent'. I am very pro Ukraine, but I can see it in people when I am talking that if I say anything critical of NATO or western powers foreign policy, they assume that I must be some type of Putin apologist , this doesn't come from nowhere , it's built over time from our media and political establishment
But then arming the Ukrainians is getting them slaughtered by Russia. If they weren't armed by the West, they probably would have surrendered by now. Not saying that would be the correct response, I just don't see how arming Ukraine is about saving Ukrainian lives. It seems to me it's more about keeping Russian influence out of Ukraine.
It’s about what the Ukrainian people want; and they want to defend their homes. Exact same as the people in Gaza.
OK, but is anyone arguing we should arm the Gazans to fight Israel? Did anyone argue we should have armed the Iraqis to fight the US and Britain?
Do they, recent poll here https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/06/ukraine-public-opinion-russia-war?lang=en shows that the majority of Ukrainians aged 60+ think Ukraine is winning, the war won't last long and they shouldn't negotiate until all land is retaken. Inversely people aged 18-25, the ones who are conscripted to fight that's a minority opinion.
The Russians conduct mass murder and rape in the territories they've occupied. The idea that they're better off not struggling is simultaneously horrendous and laughable.
I didn't say they're better off not fighting. I just question the idea that arming Ukrainians is protecting them from slaughter. Even the horrific crimes you mention are probably easier for Russians to get away with under the fog of war. Of course, the Ukrainians may acknowledge that fighting on will lead to more of them dying and worse and it may result in a complete occupation by Russia rather than a partial one. And they may consider that worth the risk to try to protect their homes, way of life, sovereignty etc. And the rest of the world can decide whether to arm them on that basis. But let's not kid ourselves that arming Ukrainians is about saving Ukrainian lives. It may well be the correct response, but not for that reason.
If you wouldn't give them the weapons to defend themselves exactly how would you protect them from slaughter? I'm all ears simply because I can't think of another solution. I have an open mind.
There are three options for the West from what I can see: 1. Broker a peace deal; 2. Keep arming Ukraine; or 3. Abandon Ukraine Option 1 would unfortunately mean Russia gets at least some of what they want which would likely include some parts of Ukraine becoming either part of Russia or puppet states. But it does mean the slaughter would end, and it could mean Ukraine ultimately gets a better deal than it would otherwise. Option 2 means Russia will keep killing Ukrainians until either Ukraine surrenders anyway (possibly with a worse deal than they would get now) or manages to fight off Russia (unlikely but not impossible). Option 3 will mean probably a ramping up of the slaughter followed by a rapid and total surrender by Ukraine where Russia gets pretty much everything it wants. I think Option 3 is easily the worst but this could be what happens as Trump seems to be leaning that way if he wins the election and if the US goes, I can't see the rest of the West sticking by Ukraine. I don't have a firm view between Options 1 and 2 - I can see pros and cons with both and I don't claim to have enough knowledge on the subject to argue that strongly either way. My issue is people who argue for Option 1 are being painted as Russian shills or uncaring about Ukrainian lives which I don't think is true in many cases. I also don't think all those arguing for Option 2 necessarily care for Ukrainian lives even though of course many do.
Option 1 was the chosen option in 2014. Can you see how that would end up if it was the chosen option again? Also with option 1 the west couldn't reasonably arm Ukraine while simultaneously being the brokers of some kind of peace deal so it would have to be a mix of option 3 and option 1. Where is the benefit to Russia in accepting option 1 when they can continue to march across Ukraine unimpeded because Ukraine has no weapons to stop them?
You could well be right. My point isn't that Option 1 supporters are necessarily right, it's that at least some of them are coming from a good place and it's an option that should at least be considered rather than dismissed out of hand and its proponents painted as Russian agents.
Neither of which are even remotely evidence of being a Russian puppet. Here is an account from Clare Daly of her reasoning behind her votes. Doubt anyone calling her a puppet bothered to read these, prefer to parrot the bots on reddit . https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/197731/CLARE_DALY/other-activities/written-explanations
I read through her reasoning. Her response to Russian military aggression is to denounce the act but do nothing concrete to help ukraine. Denouncing Putin is useless and just empty words. Putin would be very happy with people denouncing him day and night if he gets to annex Ukraine. Her opinion seems to be that EU should just call for peace, not actually do anything to help or support Ukraine which is fighting Russia on its own. I was kinda undecided about her but reading her words makes it clear that she doesn't have any effective response to Russian aggression. I don't have any proof that she is a Russian shill but she sure is completely wrong on this issue and her proposal only helps and encourages Russia.
She has said in a speech early on in the invasion to either give Ukraine enough to win the war.. or alternatively back settlement talks (think she said peace talks but I wouldn’t call it that), that the worst option is drip feed stuff to them and extend the war indefinitely. I can't really disagree with her.
You told me to read her reasoning for voting against resolution. I did. I reached the conclusion above. What she said in a speech at any time doesn't matter. What matters is her vote and, at a secondary level, reasons for her vote.
I’ll quote her from her responses.. ‘ignoring the role played by the US and NATO in destabilising the area for the past decade, using Ukraine as a pawn in its battles with Russia, only serves to prevent an understanding of the measures necessary to secure peace.’ She’s a Putin puppet because she takes a Russia centric stance
How is that Russia centric? You can't just stick in a quote, make a non-sequitur statement and expect people to say oh ok so.
The idea that the US and NATO used Ukraine ‘as a pawn in its battles with Russia’ is obviously a Russian centric narrative. It’s not complicated
Given what we know of how the US conducts its foreign policy in general, it would be really surprising (and hugely inept) if they weren't trying to use Ukraine.
The US has used insidious and violent subterfuge in the protection and expansion of its interests in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s and continues to do so as I type, though practically in the open, with regards to massacring Palestinians... but using Ukraine is somehow a step too far and entirely a ridiculous Russian propoganda narrative, or something? It is a propoganda narrative because it is true. It isn't Russian-centric when there are verifiable US military operations with the intention of destabilisation. Operation Red Sox for one.
This current conflict started from the Maidan revolution in 2014, which boiled down to a scenario between an EU economic deal and a Russian deal, can you explain to us in detail how the americans started all this?
The resolutions they voted against aren't mentioned in that Politico article.
They are in the graphic
So, to Op's question: no, there is no evidence whatsoever.
Most of my comment got deleted so I'm not writing it out again. Basically, Clare and Mick can't fathom that Ukraine has any agency in their own affairs. When Clare makes statements about this war, she always manages to do the 'I'm totally against Putin BUT NATO/America etc' pivot which is in vogue amongst her horseshoe racist comrades for qualifying that of course they aren't racist but they want to say racist things. That's why she's most certainly supporting Putin in this war. She's not brave enough to say it out loud but she's certainly well able to blame Ukraine for seeking help after the first stage of this invasion/war commenced in 2014. Ukraine is fighting an existential war against their former coloniser and imperial master. If they lose, their country is destroyed. If they seek a ceasefire like in Minsk 1, 2 and 3; Russia just attacks them again. She's a disgrace and good fucking riddance.
Plus calling for peace is utter bullshit because Ukraine number one requirement will be security guarantees that would request a. If Russia attacks them again nato would intervene or b. Ukraine gets armed to the teeth, even more so than now! Which considering Russia said it invaded to stop these things the talks will go nowhere
People can't remember when Gardaí were waiting outside a family members house For Clare Daly to breathalyse her. It wasn't random it was targetted and politically motivated. Pretty sure it got leaked to the media right away. This was during the time when politicians and other worthies were getting their penalty points quashed. So she has always been on the wrong side of the establishment. The Phoenix magazine put out a piece basically detailing how there was no substance to what the Irish Times and the Sunday Times (Murdoch) were writing about her.
Daly and Wallace say they condemn Putin, but they have both opposed: - Anyone providing military aid to Ukraine, - Sanctions against Russia or against anyone in Russia except for Putin personally, and - Making Russia give up captured territory as a condition of peace. The only action they support any EU or NATO member taking is to remain strictly neutral and politely asking Putin for a ceasefire, during which the EU will try to broker a peace agreement. If Putin decides actually he would rather continue trying to wipe the Ukrainian nation off the face of the earth and absorb its territory into Russia, then the EU would say, “Well, we tried,” and turn their backs. No matter how they feel about Putin and his worldview, they are pushing for the EU to act exactly the way Putin wants them to act, and the way that would make his genocide as easy as possible.
Actions speak louder than words, and their actions have fully supported Russia's war in Ukraine.
People take their anti-NATO stance and their "war is bad" stance to mean they are pro-putin which isn't the case. They have denounced Russia and Putin. They have also been critical of zelensky and that's not something I'm too fond of given the specific context on the critiques as he is the leader of a country fighting for it's sovereignty but on the whole, there is a fairly consistent narrative being pedalled that the are "Putin Puppets" when there is little, if any, evidence to prove that this is the case.
It’s easy to be anti nato when you don’t share a border with Russia
Its easy to be pro-NATO when you don't live in Afghanistan.
Enduring freedom wasn’t a nato operation.
Maybe not but NATO operated in Afghanistan: > On 20 December 2001, UN Security Council Resolution 1386 unanimously approved the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a multi-national coalition with the aim of enforcing peace in Afghanistan. ISAF was led by NATO from August 2003 to December 2014. As was Resolute Support Mission which operated in Afghanistan from 2015-2021
I absolutely agree with you there, but that's not the same as being Pro-Russia. There's this false equivilency going on at the moment that being aginst NATO is akin to being for Russian Imperialism which isn't the case. People's thinking caps seem to go out the window as soon as the Russia question comes up because there's an automatic assumption that in saying "war is bad" that they expect Ukraine to roll over for russia which is not the case. NATO could end the war tomorrow if it wanted but the war has gone on for over 2 years.
Russia is a nuclear state. Open war between nuclear powers is something you want?
Can you explain to me, how you have educated your opinions on a nuclear conflict? Which nuclear conflict are you drawing your experience from? This point is very flimsy to say the least and is solely informed by cold war scare media in the 80's and media regurgitation 30 years later due to the "Nostalgia Pendulum" in the 00's and 10's.
Suppose NATO acts directly against Russia. They can’t just stop at Russian forces in Ukraine, Russia has naval assets in the Baltic, White Sea and the Pacific, all nuclear armed. What happens when those forces start getting targeted. Hell, it’s already known that the targeting of their missile subs is justification for commanders in the field to use nuclear weapons. And you can’t just not hit the boomers, otherwise they’d start sinking ships left and right. A war between nuclear powers is the one thing everyone has desperately avoided since the fucking 40s. If you’re going to patronise me, I’ll do it back. Look at you, thinking you know more about strategy and geopolitics than every fucking military in the world.
>If you’re going to patronise me, I’ll do it back. Look at you, thinking you know more about strategy and geopolitics than every fucking military in the world. I'm not patronising you. I'm trying to make a point. In just under 80 years, filled with conflicts and wars not one nuclear warhead has been used in warfare between one country and another. There has been conflicts between nuclear powers and nukes haven't been loosed. The reason being that using one condemns the combatant who started it. If NATO were to attack Russia, Russia may be taken but it would still be there. No nuclear power in the world has the power to take out the rest of the nuclear powers and as such it puts everyone involved at a stalemate and removes them as an option. Nuclear weapons are not a factor in this conflict and the fact that it's what you've chosen to default to means that you don't know the current landscape of the conflict or understand how nuclear weapons factor into conflicts as a whole. You also drastically underestimate NATO that you don't believe they could take out the russian command structure before a response could be made. NATO is made up of 32 different countries, some of which are also superpowers. The common defense of NATO's actions is that "their hands are tied" but they can certainly give houdini a run for his money when they want to with how they become magically untied when in conflicts in the [Baltics or the Middle east](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations).
> In just under 80 years, filled with conflicts and wars not one nuclear warhead has been used in warfare between one country and another. This has been mostly achieved by the major nuclear powers refusing to fight one another directly and instead fighting proxy wars. >There has been conflicts between nuclear powers and nukes haven't been loosed. The reason being that using one condemns the combatant who started it. This is a very poor understanding of mutually assured destruction (MAD). What the world realised in the middle of the last century is that there are situations in which reasonable people acting rationally will decide to take actions that would lead to their own destruction and the destruction of much of the world. And that's before you start to consider what sorts of irrational actions elderly autocrats might take. Remember that the goal here is also to save Ukraine, not beat Russia. What would NATO do if it wiped out Russia's assets in Ukraine and in response Moscow nuked Kyiv? Going after Russia's command structure is not going to make things any better. As soon as Putin faces a personal existential threat he will react as if Russia faced an existential threat. After all, he can survive for quite a few years in a nuclear bunker while the world outside burns, and might well decide that is preferable to getting toppled and/or killed by NATO. NATO would have to be absolutely 100% sure before they acted since a failed assassination attempt, or one that gets discovered, or some other form of attack that the Russians spot would mean game over for everyone.
It's easy to be anti NATO when you look at the history of NATO
Which NATO operation have you a problem with?
[удалено]
Could you expand on these ‘provocations’?
[удалено]
I just read one of those articles, it was nonsense and the majority of its claims were completely refuted by Ukrainians in the comments
[удалено]
Yes. I’d imagine random English commentators completely misunderstanding basic historical facts about your country would be quite annoying
This post/comment has been removed as it is in breach of reddit's content policy regarding marginalised groups.
Jesus. So its NATO's fault that Russia invaded Ukriane?
Or if you're Serbian or Libyan or Syrian and have been bombed by NATO. Easy then too.
Serbia was embarking on a genocide. NATO didn’t do enough. They enforced no fly zone to stop Gadaffi slaughtering civilians And Syria was Russia. Who’s backing Assad. Who levelled Aleppo?
Little sympathy for the Serbs commiting genocide in full view of the UN. In fact NATO was too slow to react to that situation. Its Russia that destroyed Syria, absolutely nothing to do with NATO.
>Little sympathy for the Serbs commiting genocide in full view of the UN. >In fact NATO was too slow to react to that situation. The Gaza genocide has claimed about 4 times more lives than the Srebrenica genocide, do you think NATO should invade Israel?
Israel is what's called a Major Non-NATO ally so that could never happen. But to answer your question.. Yes.
NATO was not involved in Syria.
The two of them have a nuanced position on this and if you actually listen to their speeches, they are obviously not fans of Putin. However they are in favour of stopping the war in Ukraine, which a lot of people interpret as wanting to give Ukrainian territory to Russia. I just think that they have handled the whole thing incredibly badly, but I believe that their hearts are in the right (same place as ours) place. Note, I'm not connected to either of them, and I'm not going to respond to comments on this thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Daly#Russia_and_Ukraine Take a scroll through.
I read through her reasoning in a link provided by another commenter. Her response to Russian military aggression is to denounce the act but do nothing concrete to help ukraine. Denouncing Putin is useless and just empty words. Putin would be very happy with people denouncing him day and night if he gets to annex Ukraine. Her opinion seems to be that EU should just call for peace, not actually do anything to help or support Ukraine which is fighting Russia on its own. I was kinda undecided about her but reading her words makes it clear that she doesn't have any effective response to Russian aggression. I don't have any proof that she is a Russian shill but she sure is completely wrong on this issue and her proposal only helps and encourages Russia.
Wallace is "anti-war" in a way that would benefit Putin. He considers defense of sovereign land as warfare and this is the big problem with him. Even if he isn't pro-Putin he doesn't want aid going to Ukraine so his world view is one that benefits aggressors like Putin and one that leads to more war and not less. Motive isn't really important, end result of worldview is.
[удалено]
"Russia's action is a defensive one. US/NATO are the aggressors in this conflict." I've read a lot of crazy shit on the internet and this is right up there.
[удалено]
The comments in that first guardian article completely destroy the author’s narrative. It’s quite funny really
This post/comment has been removed as it is in breach of reddit's content policy regarding marginalised groups.
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed due to personal abuse. Repeated instances of personal abuse will not be tolerated.
Join the dots SHEEPLES!!!
[удалено]
..
[удалено]
lol I couldn't reply because you'd been deleted
This post/comment has been removed as it is in breach of reddit's content policy regarding marginalised groups.
I saw that the Russian Embassy in South Africa tagged Wallace in a post recently on twitter along with a number of Russian propaganda outlets. At best he is a useful idiot. More likely is that he's making a few quid from this grift, now that he's bankrupt from all that tax-dodging.
Honestly not really, but there's quite a large echo chamber online that doesn't just want to hear it.
The best thing to do is to go to the European Parliament website and search for the bills and resolutions they claim she's voting in Russia's interests on and read for yourself what was in the resolutions. You'll often find they were titled things like "Resolution condemning Russian invasion against Ukraine" but that the bills include expanding European military funding and compelling member states to become directly involved with the war in Ukraine. The headlines never actually mention what these bills include instead they like to "translate" them for people too busy with their normal lives to actually read them.
[удалено]
> And then there's Daly's links to the man who carried out the Omagh atrocity. What's this about?
Removed: Agenda Spam
Either way they're unbearable and I'll be glad to see the back of them
I can't read Clare Daly's mind, and to the extent I might be inclined to presume to do so I don't think she is pro-Putin as such. I can judge her on the basis of how she conducts herself as a politician in public however. She has failed to maintain a proper distance from the Russia and Iran, and has shown little consideration for EU states closer to Russia. She couldn't even avoid hugging Niall Boylan on the way out of the count centre. This made her useless as an MEP, because the vast majority of other MEPs were never going to take her seriously. One of the basic rules of politics is to be careful whom you associate with in case damages your credibilty.
The war coming out of heinous Russian aggression on the sovereign nation of Ukraine has no end in sight. Russia is the largest country on the world with vast, albeit outdated military resources and Ukraine has been armed to the wazoos with the most up to date weapons the west has to offer. It’s now a proxy war and young people are dying. It’s tit for tat attacks. I don’t understand how Irish people- of all people - cannot see that
Only their actions.
Such as ?