28 ms·
I wish the EU was more ... united. Most of the nations were woefully slow to act with Ukraine (hey let's send some token helmets). They've got a totalitarian
by duxup 2y ago
I wish the EU was more ... united.
Most of the nations were woefully slow to act with Ukraine (hey let's send some token helmets). They've got a totalitarian regime invading democracies in their back yard but don't seem all that united about it ....
- jahnu 2y agoYes me too. Europe needs to get its act together and do _more_ but let’s also not adopt Trump’s descriptions of what has been given. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukra...
- teaearlgraycold 2y agoThe dark humor in me really wants Russia to be colored dark blue in that map.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago[flagged]
- aeim 2y agoand law (or justice), international or otherwise, doesn't really exist without money (or collateral) what a web
- quacked 2y ago^ people downvoting your comment are wrong; it's completely true. The nation-state is a martial construct; the difference between it and its neighbors is a line of demarcation upheld by an external-facing military, and its own legitimacy, economy, and system of laws and conflict resolution is enforced on the populace via an internal-facing "military" (police force). (Edit: when I wrote this the parent comment was light grey, but now it's back to black. Perhaps it's a controversial comment.)
- Izikiel43 2y agoA tale as old as man, might makes right. What good are rules if you don't have the power to enforce them?
- fifilura 2y agoEurope has a military. Combined, the second military power in the world if you look at military budget. It is as people totally forgot about it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highe...
- gjsman-1000 2y agoIf Europe's military were so strong, why does the US need any involvement? There's a reason even Zelensky described the EU militaries as weak, and believes a European army to be necessary. Don't confuse spending with strength either: The UK, on paper, spends 2.3% of GDP on the military. That sounds good - until you realize they have only 136,000 personnel total. That's not going to defend the UK from anything - it can't even defend Ukraine for a year.
- fifilura 2y ago> If Europe's military were so strong, why does the US need any involvement? Because Putin is all-in, willing to sacrife the lives of big parts of his population for this purpose. And this makes him a formidable enemy. Does it have to be more complicated than that? If that is the first question you ask when someone needs help, I guess you will not have that many friends.
- jimnotgym 2y agoIt is not a lot, but I reckon once Russia has got through Ukraine, Slovakia, Poland, Czechia, Germany, and France they would be pretty softened up.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoOkay, best case scenario then if Ukraine falls. Slovakia military: 25,000 people. Polish military: 300,000 people. Czechia military: 30,000 people. German military: 183,000 people. French military: 270,000 people. Basically, don't piss off Poland, you'll need to defeat about 500,000 soldiers, though do you really need to march on to France if you win against Germany? Even if you did, that's about 1/3 the US military, and nowhere near as well armed, or well trained, or well psychologically prepared. If you're Russia, about 1 million soldiers should do the trick; and that's not hard when you don't have moral qualms and 21 million military age men to throw at the problem; and (edit) possibly an additional few million from North Korea for purchase. As for nuclear weapons; Russia can probably bet that using a nuclear weapon from inside France, or inside the UK, as a first strike, would be too controversial to even do. The government would probably be sued by human rights lawyers from inside itself for even trying; convinced that it's better to take the loss while remaining on the moral high ground. What's even the point, when NATO predicts they have less than 5% of the defenses required for the inevitable retaliation? https://www.ft.com/content/5953405f-d91a-4598-8b6b-6345452ca328 https://www.ft.com/content/5953405f-d91a-4598-8b6b-6345452ca... > (edit to reply): Russia isn't winning against Ukraine. Yet.
- pclmulqdq 2y agoThe core problem with the EU is that the EU was never a nation. We saw this with Grexit 10 years ago. There was a common currency with no common fiscal policy. A military is yet another thing that the EU does not have because the EU is not a nation. Making the EU a nation (the way the US is) seems to be a project of very few people in Europe. They like their nations the way they are.
- jimnotgym 2y agoHang on. The EU doesn't pretend to protect it's members militarily. However it's members can muster far more military force than Ukraine had. Modern tanks, modern aircraft, modern ships, modern submarines, modern artillery, more professional soldiers. NATO without the US is still a formidable force.
- vitali 2y agoIt does as part of the Lisbon Treaty, and the obligation is binding. More here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/mutual-defence-clause.html https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/mutual-d... And I would expect the call to be answered (with the exception of the already-compromised countries).
- overstay8930 2y agoRussia is basically calling the West's bluff that they won't use nukes to enforce their ideology and Russia won. Everyone wants to talk big until it comes time to actually enforce words.
- DennisP 2y agoI don't think the West ever threatened a nuclear response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Russia, however, repeatedly threatened a nuclear response to the West's military assistance to Ukraine. Those were the bluffs that got called.
- Someone 2y ago> I don't think the West ever threatened a nuclear response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I think so, too, but I also think it’s likely that, through silent diplomacy, there was a clear message “if you nuke the Ukraine, there will be a response in kind”. Without the USA, it’s hard to keep that message, though. Neither England nor France can respond in kind to a tactical nuclear weapon, as they don’t have any.
- m4rtink 2y agoum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sol_moyenne_port%C3%A9e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sol_moyenne_port%C3%A9e
- doctorpangloss 2y agoI think it's more complicated than that, no? Ironic too, that when you look at the things this site's moderator permits to be discussed, it's a hot reaction to a television performance. Not one person here is like, citing an expert source, or discussing the history, or talking about forecasts based on something interesting or new. It's all bloviating.
- fsckboy 2y ago>I wish the EU was more ... united. it's not Europe United, it's Europe Unionized.
- overstay8930 2y agoEU is united until it comes time to pay the bill
- alephnerd 2y agoWithin the EU, it's mostly Germany's fault because their political leadership is too chickenshit to remove the debt limit and the ban on expeditionary forces from their constitution. 30 years ago, West+East Germany had world class armed forces, yet the current German military posture is ridiculous. The US should keep its commitments, but there is no reason Germany cannot step up to the plate - especially given that France has a similar defense budget as Germany yet has an outsized impact on global security. German political leadership needs to either stop blocking France+UK and defer to their security policy or build it's own domestic capacity.
- smw 2y agoThe EU has donated more to Ukraine's war effort than the US, despite coverage suggesting otherwise.
- nickthegreek 2y agoThis is false. The EU has put up more money than the US but they have not _donated_ more money than the US. A large form of the payment from the EU has been in low interest loans. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o
- earthnail 2y agoLoans which have no security guarantees and will almost certainly be written off, unless you can make Russia pay for them - i.e. they will never be paid back by the Ukraine. It's the standard money giving structure in the EU. Make a loan, write it off later without repayment.
- eastbound 2y agoI’m not sure it will help if we disclose taxpayers that the loan won’t be paid back. The idea was to sweep it under the rug, not boast about the EU’s lost money.
- vuln 2y ago[flagged]
- skirmish 2y agoOh, you mean their children would be so much happier under Russia's rule once it invades more European countries? Those people may argue with that.
- flir 2y agoBetter than Russia salami-slicing its way into Europe. Ukranians are dying. We're donating cash and materiel. We're getting the better end of the deal there, and then some.
- jimnotgym 2y agoI agree, but they have still sent more aid than the US
- Nathanba 2y agoThe EU was united, namely in not bothering to help Ukraine. The US decided to want to help Ukraine and send weapons and set the tone and (slow) pace of the weapons that they sent. Only for them to pull the rug away later anyway. This is really terrible leadership, leaders who don't care about the results that they cause are poison. You can argue all day that it's sad and terrible that the EU wouldn't have helped at all. But under Germany's leadership at least this farce wouldn't have played out. You can argue then that it might cause problems later because Russia would be emboldened by a quick win in Ukraine. Fine but this is better now?
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y agoThat's an interesting take on a recent history that I did not live through.
- __d 2y agoThe US signed the treaty promising defence support to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine handing over their nukes. Where is that now?
- orbifold 2y ago[flagged]
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y agoSo what is your actual preference? That Russia simply be allowed to invade and take over Ukraine "because Ukraine was pretty damn corrupt anyway" ? What does that accomplish?
- randomcatuser 2y agoHaha yeah I recently learned this too.
- ajross 2y agoThe point isn't to pick the "best democracy" as if it were a beauty pageant. It was to oppose unilateral military invasion as an instrument of national policy, which is bad regardless of the form of government of the victim. Ukraine might have been corrupt, but it was a peaceful neighbor and evolving in the right directions. Russia is (literally) throwing bombs around, cutting internet cables, and generally being a terrorist asshole. And at some point, yes, an emboldened Putin will decide to invade a "good democracy". It's happened before.
- jiriknesl 2y agoYou assume EU united would act strongly in favour of Ukraine. But there's no guarantee of that. There are significant differences in how for example, Poland approaches Ukraine with how Germany does it. I think, nations with bad historic experience with Russia support Ukraine significantly more.
- etc-hosts 2y agoI think that is generally true. But Poland had an AWFUL experience with the residents of western Ukraine during the 1940s.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- kevin_thibedeau 2y agoThey're running the same playbook they did with Yugoslavia. Sit around and do nothing until the US takes control. Not going to work out this time with the felon operating in chaos monkey mode.
- selimthegrim 2y agoExactly what I said to alephnerd above.
- unethical_ban 2y agohttps://youtu.be/IwYVKptqH_o?si=wkGH8i_gY-_AfaK2&t=54 https://youtu.be/IwYVKptqH_o?si=wkGH8i_gY-_AfaK2&t=54 (Edit, this is from late 90s and the NATO action in Yugoslavia) I thought this was an interesting take. And it's sad that the US has a man giving away our leadership. The world is in a dangerous place.
- LAC-Tech 2y agoA democracy has been invaded? I thought it was just Ukraine.
- krageon 2y ago[flagged]
- throaway2501 2y agothis is not true. There was Svoboda and Azov, and very little else.
- goatlover 2y agoThat's blatant Russian propaganda.
- krageon 2y agoI get my information from actual european reports, which is pretty far from russian propaganda. It's a little tedious to be told every time this is the case, and no amount of proof (signed and sourced from websites belonging to EU institutions no less) will change people's minds. That is what blatant propaganda looks like. Folks cannot contend with facts anymore in their rabid need to seem against whatever the demon of the month is. Sometimes in a conflict everyone is just garbage and that's okay.
- 127 2y agoHere's what Nazism means for Putin: anything and everything done to defend against Russian aggression.
- wkat4242 2y agoDon't forget that Russia has been doing this for a long time. Chechnya, Georgia. Always the civilian population was brutely oppressed and murdered. He's always got some former USSR republic to exterminate. If anything it would be weird if he hadn't picked on the next one. The only difference is that Ukraine is a little bit closer to Europe than the others. I'm not saying this means we shouldn't defend Ukraine. We should. But I am saying the outrage from the international community is a little hypocritical considering what Putin has been doing for decades. It's either because it's a little closer to our borders (and thus Europe is more worried about itself) or because they have valuable resources that our politicians suddenly care. I find that very sad. We should have cared before. Then we'd have saved many lives and this wouldn't have happened. It's really got a very strong smell of "let's bring freedom to the middle east! Of course only where they've got lots of oil for us".
- atlintots 2y agoBut it has always been like this, and people from the global south and former USSR republics have always recognized this. It's only now starting to become apparent to naive and propagandized Americans/Westerners.
- rasz 2y agoEU was plenty united when US cried NATO article 5.