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]

The premise in much of the above seems to be that Europe holds any sway over US foreign policy through NATO. Is there any evidence of that ever having been the case, or is it fair to presume that the US will continue to do as they please, as they seemingly always have done in recent history?

What NATO does do as distinct from the EU is to extend America's imperial shadow over Europe. Ironically, those who conflate the two organisations are essentially buying into Putin's propaganda campaign – because he too paints the EU as a mere front for NATO and thus for America, which of course was an argument exploited as far as possible before and after Maidan. One of the key reasons I see benefit in the EU is its independence from the US and capacity to act as a mediator between belligerent world powers (of which the US is unquestionably one). For that reason alone, I would welcome the dissolution of NATO and the formation of a purely European defence bloc in its place.

My position that Putin's opposition to NATO was mere crocodile tears – and that Ukraine had and has a realpolitik justification for joining – is not an unqualified thumbs up to NATO expansion. I remain of the opinion that all international military power blocs need to be treated with wariness, and anything less than a Pollyanna attitude regarding America's role in the world makes that essential here too.

[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 $£$%^%%$ Israel from killing any more babies?

Oops I just realised posted this in the wrong thread!

[Kingsofclutch]

[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]

[think positive]

[pietillidie]

[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.

[pietillidie]

An update from a Ukrainian journo in the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/16/opinion/putin-ukraine-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]

I’m actually sceptical that there’ll be much difference either way regardless of who gets in. It’s true that Trump will pull support more quickly, but it’s also likely true that the Biden administration are keen to ghost Ukraine gradually and quietly (particularly given the war will have been going for nearly three years by next inauguration day). At this point, Ukraine is a huge millstone around their necks – and, to be honest, I think Zelenskyy and his government need to be looking for an exit strategy from the war too, because an eternal stalemate is in no-one’s interests.

Whatever Trump might have in store, the gap between an election win and him taking office would be two months. That’s ample time for Ukraine and its European allies to decide what to do next, and sadly it may well involve conceding territorial losses (at least in practice, if they don’t renounce their claims to them).

[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.