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

We are in very much changed circumstances. We could see this at the Conference on the Future of Europe. We saw how the language and some of the recommendations changed. How could it be any other way? The Minister talked about the commentary around the war and the fact that most of the expert commentators got it wrong. Vladimir Putin must have been listening to the same level of commentary because there has been an illegal invasion, a huge level of war crimes and a huge level of bravery on the part of the Ukrainian people. It is now being said by commentators that in the initial period, he had insufficient forces that were too spread out and he lost a huge amount of tanks that cannot be replaced in the short term. I think a number of commentators have stated that Chinese tyres are not necessarily as good as ones that can be sourced throughout Europe or the US. All these things have created their own difficulties but on some level, Russia has got its act together from a military point of view. We have seen what it has done in the Donbas, which is that you bring superior force to bear and batter away until you win. The question for the Ukrainians is what they can do in this set of circumstances.

We all agree that sanctions are what we can and must do but there is probably an element of reorganisation of supply chains and people falling into different brackets. Russia probably had to do an element of this from 2014. It is used to sanctions - perhaps not at this level - so there is now an element of selling to India, China or wherever. With certain materials such as gas, it is not as easy to shift partners but an element of that is happening. It is about what we do in that context. Russia may end up being far more resilient no matter how much we pressure it. It is one of those weapons we have to bear so we need to put it in play as much as possible.

I will follow up on some of what Deputy Haughey said about our trip to Georgia. He spoke specifically about the chairperson of the foreign affairs committee of the Georgian Parliament. Most other people said they were not happy, but saw it relatively positively that there was a roadmap towards accession. He said we could be dealing with a different situation when we are back in six months time. He said that to a degree, the Russians are in a better position militarily than they were and could be in a better position again within six months and that the impact across the western world in particular has been significant. He mentioned the cost-of-living crisis and his fears that people will just be worried about ending their own pain and that whatever solidarity that exists may dissipate to a degree. His point echoed the points made earlier by Deputy Haughey, namely, that you cannot necessarily quantify some of the moves, particularly as regards what is an adequate level of non-polarisation of politics or de-oligarchisation. I knew that was going to be a struggle to pronounce.

In saying that, we had some very straight conversations. I think there is an acceptance that Georgia has a hell of a lot of steps to take to be able to meet certain criteria. That is where we are and where Georgia is. We talk about the strategic economy. If we talk about gas and oil, and we are talking about ourselves here, we have the Corrib gas field, the supply chain through Great Britain, North Sea oil and Norwegian and Danish involvement in that, so we believe we are alight. Am I right in thinking, because it has been put out there previously, that we are all signed up to some sort of European rationing which ensures that if there is pain in Poland, there is pain throughout the EU? I am right in thinking there is a requirement on us to put the pony up? I have heard it in a number of places but I have not been able to get a definitive answer. If I could get that, I would be very happy.

We have heard commentary from Emmanuel Macron and the likes of Henry Kissinger. In Georgia, they remembered when he spoke about it being a different geopolitical place. Europe has to make a determination regarding where the EU stops and starts geographically. The Minister spoke about the difficulties of the eastward trend. We all know about the rule-of-law issues that have existed. It is a question of where we mesh all those things together. The argument the Georgians and others would make is that if we went back to the time when this State joined the EU, we probably would not be as progressive as we are now. An awful lot of people would say that the EU was probably beneficial in the sense that it facilitated social progress.

The Minister spoke about hybrid threats. He mentioned two things. One was the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats while the other was the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence in Tallinn. We got some sort of briefing on it previously but am I right in thinking that one of them is NATO-affiliated but not necessarily run by NATO? Could the Minister provide some detail on that?