9 ms·
EU is in a very tough spot right now. They're getting squeezed on all sides economically by USA and China while simultaneously facing a Russian invasion on the
by petcat 1y ago
EU is in a very tough spot right now. They're getting squeezed on all sides economically by USA and China while simultaneously facing a Russian invasion on their eastern borders. The relationship with the American administration has deteriorated badly and any action seen as "retaliation", such as this policy blockade, would almost definitely result in USA withdrawing even more support for Ukraine in the war. I think, unfortunately, that will lead to a quick victory for Russia unless EU nations want to put boots on the ground.
It's a bad situation.
- jdibs 1y agoA referendum about whether the EU should "put boots on the ground" seems like a good idea to me as long as only those who vote yes get deployed.
- eru 1y ago> A referendum about whether the EU should "put boots on the ground" seems like a good idea to me as long as only those who vote yes get deployed. Politics (almost) never works like this. In a secret vote, you don't even know who voted yes or no or at all.
- jdibs 1y agoGiven the demographics of Europe, what this means is that old people will vote for young people to be fed into a meat mincer just so they can keep collecting their pensions for a couple decades more. Let's call a spade a spade then. This guy is doing just that: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2025/11/20/outcry-after-french-army-chief-s-prepared-to-lose-children-warning_6747661_7.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2025/11/20/outcry-a...
- ArnoVW 1y agoI think you are misreading the article. The general is warning that if we do not show preparedness and willingness now, in the long run it will cost more. Si vis pacem para bellum
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Forgeties79 1y agoThat sounds to me like a bunch of individual countries deciding to independently put boots on the ground. At that point what are they voting on as a group? (Though maybe that’s just what you’re suggesting should be done and I’m missing it) I also wonder what good any sort of military/defensive pact is if any country can unilaterally decide when or when not to participate. It means you can’t depend on it and you may as well not have it then right? To be clear I am not saying military pacts are a good thing, but they do currently exist and participating counties can’t (at least shouldn’t) just pretend they aren’t part of one when it’s inconvenient.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mothballed 1y agoAnd the people who vote yes should have to actually go themselves and lead from the front, not pull a Putin and simply declare war (er, special operation) while hiding under a bunker.
- weregiraffe 1y agoAnd all those who vote no get sold into slavery to Russia.
- VWWHFSfQ 1y ago> unless EU nations want to put boots on the ground. Is such a thing even possible in the EU? I understand that it's an economic and policy bloc. Does Brussels have the authority to raise an army from EU members?
- Stranger43 1y agoNo nor does it have logistical capability to deliver even half of the equipment currently being promised/discussed within a time-frame of less then 5-10year. It's all dependent on the national government voluntarily following the advice of Brussels, and in most cases they don't really have the resources the EU wants them to commit to "The Ukrainian nationalist Cause".
- general1465 1y agoEU has enough logistical capacity, but Russian nationalists like to dismiss EU like some kind of temporary group while they are riding donkeys to battle.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Stranger43 1y agoLets talk numbers, rather then just sling cheap unfounded allegations The problem with the way they talk at the big conferences is that there is almost no link between the rhetoric of existential crisis and the bills being passed at the national level. The last numbers from Ukraine was a army of maybe 900k uniformed troops(thats up there with America) and as a response to that army's failure to drive Russia back Germany is talking about raising their armed forces less then a 3rd of that by 2030 thats just not real mobilization and thats my point about not taking the logistics serious. Were the EU to mobilize as if it mattered to the actual population of the EU it could raise several time the army Ukraine have but nobody is actually suggesting that because the people in charge of the actual policy making don't really believe that Russia is a threat to any of the NATO member states.
- hardlianotion 1y agoIt’s kind of hard to see how much more support the US could withdraw from Ukraine, judging by the last article I read that gave Ukraine until Thursday to accept the latest peace deal negotiated between USA and Russia. If we are in the world you describe, EU might as well do as it wants - its downside has been capped.
- delichon 1y ago> It’s kind of hard to see how much more support the US could withdraw from Ukraine It would be a major blow to Ukraine if the US stops selling weapons to them via European buyers. There is a real threat of this if Trump feels the need to coerce Ukraine into supporting his peace plan.
- hardlianotion 1y agoI believe this is what is implied by the Thursday deadline. Article certainly implies this.
- sfifs 1y agoI'm very surprised the US doesn't seem to be taking the risk of Ukraine becoming a Nuclear Weapons state seriously. By now, they surely would have had time to develop get to the brink of weaponization as a backup plan - they've after all always had a nuclear industry. If they do so and offer cover to their neighbors who realize NATO may not be sufficient, we are in for interesting times.
- immibis 1y agoUkraine WAS a nuclear weapons state, until the US agreed to protect them from Russia with the US's nuclear weapons, if they gave up their own.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoWhat actually happened to the nukes the Ukrainians had? Were they transferred to the US? Destroyed?
- lukan 1y agoDepends on the point of view. I see it as a great opportunity, that we in the EU get our shit together, to not be dependant on the US anymore. Nor russia. Nor china. So far we still can afford the luxory of moving the european parliament around once a month, because we cannot agree on one place. Lots of nationalistic idiotic things going on and yes, if those forces win, the EU will fall apart. If russia graps most of Ukraine, this would be really bad(see the annexion of chzech republic 1938, that gave Hitler lots of weapons he did not had), but it is totally preventable without boots on the ground (russia struggles hard as well). Just not if too many people fall for the russian fueled nationalistic propaganda.
- watwut 1y ago> USA withdrawing even more support for Ukraine in the war USA all but openly support Russia by now.
- RyJones 1y agoI've been to Kyiv five times to deliver aid via help99.co, and I've spent many, many hours with Europeans driving trucks from Tallinn to Kyiv. The people volunteering and driving know Europe is at war. They all say nobody else where they live realizes this. It's frustrating.
- NooneAtAll3 1y agoEU got itself a Cuba too bad that Cuba is right on its own border :)
- embedding-shape 1y agoSo literally just like Cuba? The distance between US and Cuba is like 150km, if you're in Donetsk you can't even leave Donetsk Oblast if you travel 150km, and the shortest distance you can take from Ukraine<>Russia to closest EU/NATO member would be something like 600km if you don't take shortcuts via Belarus. For all intents and purposes, Ukraine's border with Russia is way further away (like magnitude) from EU/NATO than US<>Russia (who are neighbors) or US<>Cuba (who are also neighbors).
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- wang_li 1y agoRomania shares a border with Ukraine and is a member of both NATO and the EU.
- embedding-shape 1y agoIndeed, and how far would you wager it is between the border of Ukraine<>Romania and Ukraine<>Russia, at the shortest point? I'd wager around a lot longer than US<>Cuba.
- wang_li 1y ago
- anal_reactor 1y ago>and China That's the biggest question of the century. Imagine that EU and China make a deal, and they backstab US and Russia respectively. EU and China are physically so far away from each other that there's no way they'd actually run into direct conflict, meanwhile by backstabbing, both of them could easily get what they want. What I'm trying to say is that if you flipped the alliances and aligned EU with China and US with Russia, Russia would collapse within one battle maximum while EU's support would be just enough to push the 50/50 chance of Taiwan invasion towards decisive Chinese victory. Everyone happy - China becomes the world's #1 superpower, while EU remains undisputable #2 and US gets sent back to lick its wounds. Sure, EU might suffer from severing its ties with the US, but if the alternative scenario is US abandoning EU and the latter facing Russia alone, then this stops being such a crazy idea.
- petcat 1y ago> China becomes the world's #1 superpower, while EU remains undisputable #2 How does EU even remotely benefit from this bizarre fantasy scenario where it flips alliances toward China? The fundamentals don't change. EU has no tech and doesn't produce anything. China would only exploit the partnership even more than they already do.
- immibis 1y ago[flagged]
- GJim 1y ago> EU has no tech and doesn't produce anything. What a poor attempt at trolling!
- petcat 1y agoYes it was an exaggeration. Withdrawn. But the point is still that the economic fundamentals don't change by shifting alliances. EU would still be under the same pressure.
- mystraline 1y ago
- PeterStuer 1y agoAs a European I can agree with the US and China stuff. But a Russian Invasion? Seriously?
- atoav 1y agoAs another European: Yes? Invasion doesn't have to mean they plan to roll tanks all the way to Paris. Have you realized Russian agents blew up a train in Poland this week, after some weeks prior flying planes and drones into NATO airspace and disrupting air travel in Denmark with drones started from shadow fleet tankers. The grounds for further action are being tested as we speak. Invasion just means Russian soldiers enter Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finnland. Countries parts of which Putin painted rightfully Russian territories in his speeches. I wouldn't bet a lot on that not happening, especially if the geopolitical situation deteriorates in favor of Putin.
- PeterStuer 1y agoWhat would Russia hope to gain? How does this compare to alternative naratives? Assuming we both lack real insider infirmatiin, whixh reasonably is more credible?
- mopsi 1y ago> What would Russia hope to gain? Reversal of what Russia sees as a great injustice. The 2021 ultimatum[1] issued on the eve of the war can be summed up as a return to the Europe of 1989 with everything that it entails. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_ultimatum_to_NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_ultimatum_to_NATO
- dmix 1y ago> Invasion just means Russian soldiers enter Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finnland. So invasion means a full war with NATO?
- trzy 1y agoGiven the pained debate here by Western Europeans over the semantics of “Europe” and Ukraine’s relationship therewith, it’s very unlikely NATO would act and that’s precisely what the Russians would bet on.
- aubanel 1y agoUkraine is not and was never part of EU, FWIW
- trzy 1y agoUkrainians voted to align themselves more closely with the EU and are now effectively a march. Ukraine is very much within the sphere of EU concern.
- general1465 1y agoRussians would like to have Ukraine in their sphere of influence, but after bungled invasion in 2022 and subsequent grinding war, Ukrainians will go out of their way to be outside of this Russian world. I think we are talking about decades before normalization of relationship between Ukraine and Russia.
- isodev 1y agoBy the way, most material support by the US is actually purchased by other NATO members. The US recycles the facade of support, there is very little actionable support.
- tokai 1y agoBoth USA and China are having much worse systemic economical issues than EU.
- bambax 1y agoIt's a bad situation allright, but sucking up to Trump even more isn't going to make things better. Europe needs to grow a pair, help Ukraine way more, and be prepared to fight Russia sooner rather than later. In France recently the army chief-of-staff declared that we must be prepared to "lose its children" in a war, if it wants to avoid it. Of course we should. The resulting outcry may be a sign we've already lost.
- Exoristos 1y agoThis is quite a romantic way to describe EU shooting itself in the foot with corrupt politicians and myopic policies.
- mfuzzey 1y agoIt's more the US that has corrupt politicians and myopic policies. Trump changes his mind every few days He takes bribes from the Swiss. The sooner the EU rids itself of the US the better
- pbhjpbhj 1y ago>USA withdrawing even more support for Ukraine in the war I thought the only way USA was supporting Ukraine was by no longer refusing to sell them extraordinarily expensive weapons. So, no longer [openly] hampering them.
- einpoklum 1y agoThe EU is not facing a Russian invasion on their Eastern border. It (or perhaps we should say NATO) is participating in a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine.
- Detrytus 1y agoSharing intel is another big thing. Without US satellite imagery and gps coordinates Ukraine soldiers would not know what to shoot at.
- grafmax 1y agoFrom the Russia POV invading Ukraine was a response to NATO expanding there. An imminent invasion of Europe seems outside of Russia’s geopolitical goals. But Europe’s leaders on the other hand do seem invested in escalating this conflict, a lack of finances notwithstanding.
- general1465 1y agoAnd NATO is expanding because Russia keeps attacking its neighbors. It is not like it expands on its own, countries are literally begging to be let in.
- cthe 1y agoThis is a fake news from Russia... Both Germany and France said no for Ukraine to join NATO several times, exactly to avoid poking the bear and starting a war.
- grafmax 1y agoFirst off, what I stated is a view held by reputable scholars such as Noam Chomsky, Jeffrey Sachs, and John Mearsheimer, not just a view you (also) can find in Russian propaganda. Second my point is understanding the Russian POV, regardless of the correctness of that POV. Third, your comment is off base historically. The timeline is: 2007 Putin’s Munich speech warning against NATO expansion to Eastern Europe. Feb 2008 US ambassador warning that NATO expansion to Ukraine was a red line for Russia. April 2008 Bucharest summit Ukraine and Georgia were not given MAPs due to France and Germany objections but were promised NATO accession over their objections. August 2008 invasion of Georgia. Nov 2013-Feb 2014 Euromaidan protests overthrowing Russia-sympathetic Yanukovych 2014 invasion of Crimea Feb 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Besides this Putin has argued for the invasion of Ukraine as restoration of historical Russia as part of his nationalist ideology. And other examples of NATO expansion such as Baltics, Poland and Finland have not led to Russian attacks. Overall the concerns many European leaders have about Russia need to be tempered by a better understanding of Russia’s actual perspective (as I said not the same as advocating for that perspective).