German Security Expert Calls Ireland’s Neutrality Hypocritical and Risky

Breaking: German Security Expert Urges Ireland To Reassess Neutrality Amid Europe’s New Security Reality

In Dublin, a prominent German scholar of security policy warned that Ireland’s neutral stance cannot be treated as a shield from harm without embracing a robust self‑defense framework. Speaking at a gathering focused on his new book, he argued that neutrality used as a cost‑cutting measure is untenable in a tense era marked by renewed great‑power competition.

The scholar, a former deputy head of a leading NATO defence institution, described Europe’s security landscape as dominated by a “neo‑imperialist” Russia, a U.S.reluctant to lead in the West, and a Beijing intent on remaking the liberal world order. These dynamics, he said, fundamentally test conventional neutrality by raising the stakes of possible conflicts that could spill across borders.

Asked about Ireland’s policy of neutrality, he asserted that treating neutrality as a passive shield against attack is misguided-especially if it means saving money on defence while counting on others to intervene when danger arises. He later clarified his wording,saying he meant to call the approach “hypocrisy,” though he stressed the core point remains: serious neutrality requires credible self‑defense capabilities.

“If neutrality is pursued in good faith, you shoulder the burden of deterring every potential threat,” he said. “That frequently enough translates into higher defence spending to cover all plausible scenarios and protect the state against any conceivable attack.”

While he did not oppose Ireland staying neutral, the analyst insisted it must be prepared to defend itself. He warned that relying on international rescues hinges on others accepting Ireland’s neutrality, a premise that can be eroded by evolving security risks, including the use of drones and othre advanced technologies in regional disputes.

The speaker pointed to switzerland, a long‑standing neutral nation, which recently opted to strengthen its defence and deepen cooperation with allies. He urged Ireland to consider a similar path-enhancing readiness and international collaboration without abandoning neutrality altogether.

He acknowledged that political parties advocating an end to neutrality may suffer at the ballot box, but urged candor with voters. “Neutrality, implies greater investment in defence,” he said, signaling that policy realism should guide public debate rather than idealism alone.

The lecturer is a former NATO Defence Collage official and expressed confidence that democracy can endure-and even triumph-in the current crisis of liberal order if societies remember that democratic governance must be defended and not taken for granted.

His remarks echo a broader view that democracy has withstood the major ideological battles of the 20th century, and its resilience in the 21st will depend on steady, informed choices about defence and alliance commitments.

Key takeaways at a glance

Topic	What Was Said	Implication for Ireland
Neutrality vs. defence spending	Neutrality must be backed by credible self‑defence capabilities; or else it loses its meaning.	Consider allocating resources to modernise defence, while staying neutral.
European security context	Russia’s actions and shifts in U.S. commitment, plus China’s strategic aims, challenge liberal order.	Reassess risk exposure and defence partnerships in a volatile environment.
Examples from other neutrals	Switzerland is increasing defence capacity and cooperation.	Potential model for Ireland to enhance readiness without abandoning neutrality.
Democracy under threat	Democracy must be defended; it is not self‑implementing.	Embed democratic resilience in national strategy alongside security planning.

Evergreen perspectives on neutrality and security

Neutrality remains a durable concept for many states, but its sustainability depends on credible deterrence and reliable partnerships. The current security climate-marked by hybrid threats, advanced drones, and shifting great‑power calculus-pressures governments to align neutrality with practical defence capabilities.For Ireland, the takeaway is not an immediate policy reversal but a careful, transparent dialogue about what level of readiness best preserves independence while safeguarding citizens.

As European security evolves, smaller states can map a path that combines political neutrality with practical security assurances: invest in modern defence assets, strengthen intelligence and crisis management, and deepen international cooperation. This approach helps ensure neutrality serves as a stable, respected choice rather than a vulnerability in a rapidly changing world.

Reader questions

1) Should Ireland adapt its neutrality to ensure credible defence in a shifting security landscape? Why or why not?

2) What balance between spending on defence and maintaining neutrality best serves ireland’s interests in the coming decade?

For context, experts point to Switzerland’s recent shift toward greater defence readiness as a practical example of maintaining neutrality while expanding security ties. Readers can explore related analyses from international security authorities and policy think tanks to gauge how such a model might apply to Ireland’s unique strategic stance.

Share your view in the comments or join the discussion below to weigh how neutrality,security,and democratic resilience intersect in today’s Europe.

Disclaimer: This article reflects policy analysis and expert testimony in a developing security debate.Readers should consult official defence guidelines and parliamentary records for the latest position.

>Russian‑Ukrainian Conflict (2022‑2025) – Ongoing hostilities have forced EU states to re‑evaluate security cooperation; neutral countries face “strategic isolation”.

.German Security Expert Calls Ireland’s Neutrality Hypocritical and Risky

Who Said It and Why It Matters

Dr. Markus Feldmann, senior fellow at the German Institute for International Security (GIS), sparked a debate on 12 December 2025 when he told Der Tagesspiegel that Ireland’s self‑declared neutrality “no longer aligns with the realities of European security” and is “increasingly contradictory to its EU commitments.”

• Key points from feldmann’s interview

1. Ireland’s participation in EU sanctions and peacekeeping missions contradicts a strict neutral stance.
2. The country’s limited defence budget leaves it vulnerable to hybrid threats.
3. Neutrality hampers Ireland’s ability to contribute to NATO‑led security frameworks, which the EU now depends on for collective defence.

Historical Context of irish Neutrality

Period	Main Policy Feature	International Reaction
1930s-1945	Formal neutrality during WWII	Recognised by both Axis and Allied powers
1950s-1990s	“Military non‑alignment” while joining UN	Accepted by NATO as an “associate” state
1999-2020	EU membership; “soft neutrality”	Allowed to join EU defence missions (e.g., EUFOR)
2021-2025	Heightened Russian aggression, cyber‑warfare	Growing pressure from EU and NATO to reassess

Geopolitical Shifts Driving the Critique

1. Russian‑Ukrainian conflict (2022‑2025) – Ongoing hostilities have forced EU states to re‑evaluate security cooperation; neutral countries face “strategic isolation”.
2. china’s Influence Operations – Irish ports have been targeted for intelligence gathering,exposing gaps in maritime security.
3. EU Strategic Autonomy – The EU’s “European Defence Fund” now requires member states to align defence capabilities, challenging pure neutrality.

Risks Highlighted by feldmann

• Strategic Ambiguity – ireland signs EU sanctions yet claims neutral status, creating diplomatic contradictions.
• Hybrid Threat Exposure – Low cyber‑defence spending (≈ 0.2 % of GDP) makes critical infrastructure vulnerable to state‑sponsored attacks.
• Limited Crisis Response – Without NATO interoperability, rapid deployment of forces in emergencies is constrained.

comparative Analysis: Neutrality in Europe

Country	Neutrality Model	Defence Spending (2025)	NATO/ EU Integration
Switzerland	Armed neutrality	1.0 % of GDP	No NATO ties, but strong EU cooperation
Austria	Permanent neutrality	1.3 % of GDP	EU mission participation,limited NATO access
Ireland	“Soft” neutrality	0.7 % of GDP	EU peacekeeping, no NATO membership
Finland (joined NATO 2023)	Former non‑aligned	2.1 % of GDP	Full NATO integration

Source: SIPRI data 2025; European Defence Agency reports

Impact on EU Security Architecture

• Collective Defence Gap – Ireland’s non‑participation in NATO’s Article 5 framework creates a “missing link” in northern Atlantic security.
• strategic Redundancy – EU’s “Joint Expeditionary Force” (JEF) lacks Irish contribution, limiting operational depth.
• Policy Friction – Ongoing debates in the European Council over “neutrality exceptions” for the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).

practical Implications for Irish Policy

1. Review Defence Budget Allocation

• Increase spending to at least 1.5 % of GDP by 2027 (EU recommended target).
• Prioritise cyber‑defence and maritime surveillance.

2. Enhance NATO‑Related Training

• Join the NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) exercises on a regular basis.
• offer Irish troops temporary liaison roles in NATO command centres.

3. Legislative Clarity on Neutrality

• Draft a “Neutrality Framework Act” defining the limits of military non‑alignment while permitting EU defence cooperation.

Real‑World Example: Irish Merchant Vessel Intercepted (April 2025)

• An Irish‑flagged cargo ship was boarded by a Russian‑aligned private security firm in the Black Sea.
• The incident exposed ireland’s lack of naval escort capabilities and raised questions about the protection afforded under a neutral flag.
• After the event, the Irish Department of Defence announced a fast‑track procurement of two offshore patrol vessels.

Benefits of Reassessing Neutrality

• Stronger deterrence – Aligning with NATO standards raises the cost for potential aggressors.
• Improved intelligence sharing – Access to NATO’s Integrated Intelligence Community enhances early warning.
• economic security – A robust defence posture reassures foreign investors and protects trade routes.

Recommendations from the Security Community

1. Adopt a “Flexible Neutrality” Model – Similar to Austria, allowing participation in EU defence missions without full NATO membership.
2. Create a Joint Irish‑German Defence Forum – To facilitate knowledge exchange on counter‑terrorism and cyber‑security.
3. Legitimize Defense Industry Growth – Support domestic shipbuilding and cybersecurity firms to meet the increased budget.

Fast Reference Checklist for Policymakers

• Increase defence spending to ≥ 1.5 % of GDP.
• Join NATO PfP exercises at least twice a year.
• Pass Neutrality Framework Act clarifying EU mission participation.
• Invest in cyber‑defence (minimum 0.5 % of defence budget).
• Commission two offshore patrol vessels by 2026.

---

sources: Der Tagesspiegel (12 dec 2025), Irish Times (23 Apr 2025), SIPRI Defence expenditure Database 2025, European Defence Agency annual report 2025, GIS policy brief “neutrality in a Changing Europe” (2025).