Russian invasion of Ukraine

[David]

Can’t we separate discussion of the EU from NATO? I think joining the former is far more likely than not a good thing for Ukraine, and need not require territorial concessions. I don’t necessarily oppose them joining NATO either, but I think it goes without saying that the question of weapons and defence pacts is more heightened than trading and migration zones. It doesn’t need to be a package deal.

[pietillidie]

^On Ukraine, the differences between the EU and NATO are trivial, and they're not that great much of the time, so I think that's a distinction in your head and one that exercises the far left, but not much of a distinction on the ground in Europe.

The US still goes on its own benders, and Turkey and members like Hungary are a worry, but to think the EU doesn't influence the US and Turkey through NATO is false, while it can't be a bad thing to have some leverage over recalcitrants through NATO. It also provides a route for coordination with Canada and now the UK, while even in conflict, such as Hungary and Turkey blocking Swedish accession, better formal dispute than far-right internet rage without answerability and leverage.

Or would you rather, say, Anglo-America go rogue in a new alliance with no external influence being brought to bear on their far-right nutcases?

And the EU-NATO overlap is only increasing given Finland's accession and Sweden being set to join, not to mention new EU members.

What's your problem with NATO apart from the obvious in the US and Turkey, and power per se? As I say, I don't see the advantage of less association, even if or especially if the US loses the plot again. Also, don't forget, NATO was formed mostly in response to European wars, not American wars.

It's always about better, not ideal. And it's better that powers and rogues have to at least answer to someone rather than no one, or aren't left solely to the whims of internet crazies and troll farms infuencing local elections one at a time.

[David]

[pietillidie]

^No, that is off base. Of course superpower is superpower, but you've got it framed wrong because you're underrating the rapid rise of EU influence and stature.

E.g., NATO had a very specific advisory and defensive role in Afghanistan which differed greatly from American interests and activities, while it did not vote to support the Iraq War because many member states supported opposing UN resolutions. And that was a mere decade into the EU as we know it.

But in this case, the EU, NATO and Ukraine are very aligned on Ukraine because it's a mutual win as Russia is now nothing but a menace that can't offer even a fraction of the wealth, quality of life, stability, future and esteem of the EU. Don't be conned by Anglo-American EU envy.

As I say, a lot of the misunderstanding comes from things leftists learned about the world in 1980, long before the EU reached this level of coherence and influence. Not to mention the dominance of UK and American media and TV, and the Anglo-American denial of the rise of the EU.

The trajectory of the EU simply cannot be understood through an American Cold War lens. The Europe of the Cold War was weak and recovering from the complete devastation of two world wars, and under duress from the Soviet Union on its doorstep. That's not the EU narrow or the Europe broad of 2023. The changes to EU defence budgets just this year are an even further historical step.

Don't forget, the Maastricht Treaty was signed by a mere 12 members in 1993, while the Eurozone went live in 1999 with about the same number of members. You simply can't understand the EU as it is today before the 2000s. This is really poorly understood outside Europe, probably because no one of age learned it at school because it's such recent history, while as I say, the Anglosphere dominates global media.

Ireland is a great example; it was a really poor country with very little influence not that long ago. It's simply unrecognisable today, a mere 2-3 decades later, with every second multinational setting up an office in Dublin, which is a gateway to the EU. That means influence, even for a very small country.

[think positive]

I don't need all this shit, I just need to know who is going to stop damn Israel from killing any more babies?

Oops I just realised posted this in the wrong thread!

[Kingsofclutch]

I don't need all this shit, I just need to know who is going to stop $$%^%%$ Israel from killing any more babies?

Babies are being killed all over the world in numerous conflicts, stop letting far right billionaire media moguls decide which ones you feel sympathy for.

[pietillidie]

The only people who can stop it, TP, are on the American right, which controls US politics. But unless the American right starts caring more about children than foetuses, and more about the greater good than 'winning', I can't see that happening.

[Magpietothemax]

I don't need all this shit, I just need to know who is going to stop $$%^%%$ Israel from killing any more babies?

The international working class. See my post in the Gaza thread

[think positive]

The only people who can stop it, TP, are on the American right, which controls US politics. But unless the American right starts caring more about children than foetuses, and more about the greater good than 'winning', I can't see that happening.

your right, its the winning thing, they just cant let it go

no one is winning

[pietillidie]

^Briefly checked things he's said before and my interpretation seems right, while he ensured there was no misunderstanding on Twitter. Have a fish around and see if you can get a better sense of what he's saying. It also looks like Rasmussen has worked far more closely with Ukraine than you might realise. (I've only had a cursory look admittedly, but nothing immediately jumped out).

And be sure to get the direction of incentives right. The EU is incentivised to bring the whole of Ukraine into the fold, including it's Eastern food belt, which is exactly what Ukraine wants. If you've been reading, you'll see that NATO and thd EU are actually fighting against parochial rural and far-right opposition in countries like Poland and Hungary which fear Ukraine's agriculture competing with their own. Moreover, the EU wants to penalise autocratic regimes like Azerbaijan, in addition to Belarus, which further benefits Ukraine.

In other words, the suspicion ought to be running in the complete opposite direction because Ukraine and the EU are naturally economically aligned, hence the tantrum from Russia, unless you think Russia's Eurasian Economic Union trade bloc is preferable for Ukraine, which is obviously nonsense.

That misunderstanding of incentives, and the alignment of both Ukrainian and EU desire, is subject to massive propaganda drives from the Putin and his allies, the backward far left and far right.

This article is in line with my hunch, but adds an interesting aspect of the strategy:

The former NATO chief, however, was not saying Ukraine should cede those territories, and he emphasized that allowing Ukraine to join now with part of its land "would deter Russia from mounting attacks inside the Ukrainian territory inside NATO and so free up Ukrainian forces to go to the frontline."

Also, as suggested, it's Russia that's pushing the misreading. As warned, they play our far right and far left like a fiddle:

Medvedev said in his Telegram message that a proposal of partial NATO membership amounted to an admission about what land Russia can claim as its own.

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-offici ... ea-1843334

[pietillidie]

There's now overwhelming support for EU and NATO accession in Ukraine, as expected, which is of course the very opposite outcome Vlad the Fruitbat was trying to engineer.

69% in Ukraine expect to join NATO in the next decade
73% expect to join European Union in the same period

Even if the how and when are still murky, the message from NATO and the EU to Ukraine is clear: Both believe Ukraine’s future lies with them. Nearly all Ukrainians firmly share this belief -- no more than one in 10 think it will never happen.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/512360/ukr ... -west.aspx

[pietillidie]

An update from a Ukrainian journo in the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/16/opin ... e-war.html

[Culprit]

IF Trump becomes President again, Ukraine will become part of Russia as the USA under the Republicans will pull all support, military and financial.

[David]

[stui magpie]

^

Putin will keep going, he has no choice. To back off without achieving anything would likely spell his end. It will take big concessions from Ukraine to stop the whole thing, which really they shouldn't have to do if the CIA or someone could just put a fkn bullet in Putin's head.