Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Regarding what Deputy Howlin has just said, I am going to go off on a slight tangent. He has put on the table the conversation about possible US involvement or non-involvement in the future. That brings up the wider question of possible Russian involvement in elections in Europe and other places, but that is for another day. Putting European militarisation on the agenda and making moves on it at the minute probably only reflect the reality concerning European battlegroups and arrangements made under previous European treaties, etc. However, considering that we want to make room for Ukraine to enter the EU, does putting these matters on the agenda make negotiation more difficult? I hope Mr. Vladamir Putin will want a way out at some point and that there will be a negotiation. I am not going to determine what that negotiation will entail, but we have all probably heard people state off the record at European gigs that we have a general idea where this could go. It is on the agenda that the Russians will not accept Ukraine joining NATO. Is there a difficulty in putting on the agenda the question of the EU setting itself up as, or highlighting the point of, a military alliance in that its doing so would become part of a negotiating gambit, just creating difficulties for Ukraine in the future? I am not saying we should make things easy, because there is ultimately only one person at fault, namely, Vladimir Putin. The big fear is that he is not looking for a negotiation or way out. I hope he is, however. Could we just be creating a difficulty by doing what I have described?