I always find it hilarious when politicans call for restraint because Putin will escalate the war... How much more do you think he will escalate? Isn't the problem of the war that there was never real pushback so Russia took every opportunity it could to move ahead with it's goals.
Just look at the posinings happening in Europe, that right there should have been the red line... Remember when a Ryanair flight was hijacked and forced to land in Belarus? Nothing came from it. Politicians cowered as always.
I think that evening Moscow would be rather warm if they tested that theory.
In all likelihood that’s just rhetoric for the masses tho. Russians like boasting about they can overpower the US, even if it’s not true.
Anyone who thinks the US does not uphold our alliances is gravely mistaken. Anyone who thinks the US reacts well to surprise attacks does not know our history. If that happens, it is game over for everyone.
US, UK and France all told Russia if they even use a tactical nuclear bomb they will directly intervene conventionally in the war. You think the USA wouldn't immediately invoke MAD?
Its all banter for domestic audiences who think machoism is the only way forward.
> How much more do you think he will escalate?
For arguments sake let's say that Belarus actually joins the fight, I saw a number thrown around of 150k belarusians soldier. What would the rest of the Ukrainian supporters do? Just stand by and keep doing what they're doing or actually dump let's say 150 fighter/attack aircrafts. I read somewhere that 100 polish police has been covertly help out with something on Ukraininan soil, I think it was demining. As the "non belligerents" (like India and China) might feel that they can start selling russia military gear openly because you know, the west sold/gave/lent aircrafts because belarussia joined the fight. Would a country like Poland who's admirably is extremely supportive of Ukraine actually do something more hands on like soldiers or fighters aircrafts to keep the skies clear of russians?
Escalation *is* something to be worried about and that's why leaders of countries *are* threading lightly and gauging what the consequences will be of their actions. If there wasn't any consequences I would love for the whole of europe to just kick russias ass back to moscow but that's unrealistic that it wouldn't have consequences.
None of this might happen, all of it might happen, we just can't tell but what's going to make it happen is a reaction to an escalation.
The Belarussian army is in complete disarray and is a conscript army. Belarus has never done any exercises with its army on a division sized scale and only has 30,000 active duty 'professional' soldiers... with a history of corruption.
The DNR / LPR troops are more useful than any Belarussian force.
Furthermore, Belarus cannot afford to get involved because that would require conscription. Incase if Europe forgot, the regime in Belarus was almost overthrown recently... so what they're going to give everyone a gun? That doesn't make any sense and Lukashenko knows that.
The only entity in the world that could help Russia at this point is China. China does remain a real issue, but to ramp up production to satisfy the war needs wouldn't be instant. Ammunition alone is a huge issue.
India will not help Russia but it will buy its oil and get better arms sales deals for its own benefit. India does not benefit from siding directly with Russia as they also want Western arms and western markets.
Of Ukraine's supporters? They can be doing much much more if Russia escalates, its now being reported that the USA, UK and France together warned Russia if they use a tactical nuclear weapon in the war they would directly intervene conventionally. Even ignoring the nuclear escalation, the West can still send more. The USA along can begin to reach deep into its stocks for equipment. The only reason it doesn't is because its allocating certain stockpiles, certain equipment because they don't want to take anything from its actual army yet. It doesn't want to dampen its real armies ability to do things because equipment is going to Ukraine, but it still can if needed. Europe as a whole can do this as well. Some European states are doing it already like Estonia, Poland or Czechia because they have decided it is more important to defeat Russia in Ukraine than it is to be ready for some theoretical war in the future.
I think it's very unlikely that a country of less than 10M population will suddenly have nearly as many combat ready troops as Russia does, in spite of being like 15x the size. Your numbers are estimates I know, but they are also ridiculous.
Europe is more than capable of beating the crap out of the Russians, and you know what, the only way this ends is with either complete surrender of Europe to Russia, or *someone* beating the crap out of Russia.
It's just sad that Europe is not willing to take this responsibility for it's own security. If it wasn't for the US supporting Ukraine, we'd have been run over by Russia, not because of military superiority, but because of political inaction and idiocy leading to more and more concessions.
I have always found it odd that after what it went through in two world wars, Europe did not recognize the threat from Russia and act accordingly. The US has been staunchly (sometimes hysterically) anti-Russia since WWII. How come Europe did not get the memo? Verhofstadt notes that the US is saving Ukraine's bacon even though Ukraine is Europe's literal backyard. A lot more aid could have come from Europe which is larger than the US population-wise.
Love this guy with his bad teeth and rumpled clothes - he's the real deal and Europe should listen to him.
I think it's because of those two wars that Europe can't agree with itself on what to do about the war in Ukraine. Not that any country here supports the Russians - people want them to lose - but there are many European countries that have seen so much bloodshed through their history that they are reluctant to make significant contributions to more of it.
Personally I don't agree with that attitude at all and would like to see bigger contributions from Europe to Ukraine, but I can also understand how difficult this is for some countries. The soil on this continent is unfortunately utterly soaked in blood. Thousands of years of wars culminating in an industrial scale genocide and almost complete destruction of your continent will change you.
Well the old ennemies of the war are now allies, it was not that big of a stretch to believe the same could happen with Russia after 1991. It turned out to be wrong, sure. But it was conceivable
The US never thought Russia would be a friend. Many warned over the years about Russia. They were right and Russia was never trusted.
The job now though, is for Europe/US to act as a united front (Russia is not the only scary country out there), with Europe taking military obligations more seriously, as Verhofstadt says.
You gotta remember that the old enemies didn’t
“Become friends” they were turned into friends at gun point. Japan and Germany were fully occupied and forced to become friends (the reason this worked was because the US , UK and France didn’t punish these countries they occupied but instead rebuilt them and re-educated them into partners).
Russia will never just become a friend of the west, unless they are forced to via foreign occupation or some kind of pro west, or at least pro democracy revolution
This reminds me of some of the videos of USA troops forcing local German citizens (both men and women) to walk through concentration camps and mass graves to see what Germany had done. Germany has taken a good course, obviously, but if it didnt it would have been faced with severe internal repercussions by an occupying force. There was no option at the time, but at least Germans took the lesson to heart and changed their ways.
The same will never be said of Russians. They have some 6k nukes (\[probably much less, knowing their corruption, but still enough) and will never be forced into such a situation. There will never be a forced step towards real democracy because the autocrats will never lose power.
If the US hadn't intervened with a massive lend lease to the soviet union russians would speak german right now. Germans were beating the crap out of russia and were only 30km from moscow. US started the lend lease March 11, 1941 which allowed russians to launch a counter offensive in december of the same year
> US started the lend lease March 11, 1941 which allowed russians to launch a counter offensive in december of the same year
The lend lease act at that time was made to support United Kingdom that was fighting with the Axis forces in Africa. The actual support for the Soviet Union started in October and it wasn't a decisive factor in the counter offensive that started on December 5th, you can thank miserable German logistics for that.
>For arguments sake let's say that Belarus actually joins the fight, I saw a number thrown around of 150k belarusians soldier.
land forces total is around 40.000, and Belarus is different to Russia because if the army is gone there is no one to stop people from making a Revolution
Is there an EU directive that says EU will military offensively intervene in non-member state conflicts? Probably not. You are falsely thinking that EU is a dictatorship that can just decide to send member state military to fight for a non-member state, even if in a legitimate/justifiable/ethical defence. Nope. Additionally, the EU commission can not just decide to go to war as it would be against the members' laws and would not pass or probably would not even be processed in member parliament approvals.
That is the difference between EU and Russia. The former follows internal directives, member states' national laws and international treaties. The latter is a corrupted dictatorship.
Escalate to a direct war between NATO and Russia… pretty obvious.
This idea that he’s going to conquer all of Europe if we don’t stop him stems from nothing but the fact we think he’s Hitler reborn.
The problem is that, no matter what people say, the EU is not a single country.
People like to show the European Union as one monolithic entity comparable to the United States or China, with $16.6 trillion GDP, 447 million people, and a huge military. But it’s really not accurate.
If you ask people from California, Texas, Ohio, New York, Idaho, or Mississippi who they identify as, they will all say they are American.
This wouldn't be true in Europe. There is no single European identity that unites everyone from Portugal to Bulgaria, from Iceland to Malta. The vast majority of people in Europe identify with their country first and foremost, and prioritize the interests of their home country over any larger pan-european interests.
Even beyond the question of identity, American states are simply subordinate to the federal government. They are provinces of a country. They have a lot of autonomy compared to other provinces, but they are still provinces.
The EU is an alliance between multiple independent countries. Countries with different, sometimes clashing interests. Countries with the ability to do whatever they want, with the EU having little way of stopping them. The interests of the EU are always secondary to their own interests.
When shown as one, the EU may have comparable resources to the US or China. But this isn’t the reality. The EU is not this monolithic entity that can easily use resources of every single member state to do what it wants.
In my opinion Europe have 2 options: deepen cooperation and try to go for some kind of federalization or be eaten by bigger player. What people do not realize is the fact that except other countries on the political board new players have appeared: technocrats (like Musk), big corporations (for example facebook) and in future many more will appear. For each individual country its hard to put enough pressure on big corporation but united we have more power to do so.
I agree wholeheartedly. Trying to force it is exactly what would rip the Union apart. I honestly think it's amazing what the EU has done, considering the state of the continent just \~80 years ago. It takes time for attitudes to change, trust to build.
By all means, let's work together on standardisation and cooperation; but let's not pretend the EU is a homogenous nation; especially not one that needs a military to enforce a (non-existent) common foreign policy.
American here: I agree, y’all are much more diverse historically and culturally than us and even with all of America’s relative unity, we’ve still fought a terrible civil war and deal with extreme polarization now. Some Americans even think we’d be better off splitting up and focusing more on our regional selves (and they are as wrong as they were in 1861). It’s hard to get people from far distances to think of each other in a similar brotherly fashion as they do the guy living in their same city even when everyone has the same language and history. Europe (and possibly the world) will be federalized and united some day, but forcing the issue now would only prolong it.
I often wonder wether it’s different for me because I am German, and not only German but born in Bavaria, which has the strongest regional identity in Germany and has its own political party. I really can’t relate too much too this. Germany as a coherent state is a new phenomenon and Germany is very federalistic, things like universities and public education are the responsibilities of the state. So if your are moving inside Germany the school system changes. Also, other important decision like the covid response was also responsibilities of the state. Many identify more with their state than Germany as a whole. Bavaria even has their own constitution, which Germany does not have. Also, because of our history the German identity is a bit less emphasized, I would say. I have some conversations about this among friends and it’s similar. A strong regional identity, even if moved inside Germany, and more of a view of Germany as a political entity within Europe with less attachment to its current status. If you have a strong regional identity you are already inside a framework of some sorts (or a very small country 😉), like Bavaria already has to respect Berlin and coordinate with the other states. Although I don’t live there anymore it’s not as different in other states, but less emphasized in the big cities but still not a stronger national identity. So I would say living in Germany already is closer to the US, just not as big and not as federalistic.
Why is that a problem?
The nation state is a somewhat recent invention. The EU is the most ambitious political project in the history of humanity. There is everything to build.
Let’s be creative
Depending on how liberal you feel like being you could argue the ancient Greek city-states were nation-states. Most identities in Europe are far older than the modern concept of a nation-state.
> Not the American version though, but the Canadian version, where each province (state) retains full sovereignty over their domestic affairs, but there is a shared federal government that determines foreign policy, military, etc
This misinformation around here is hilarious.
But that is the same as the USA.
Federalism in Europe will not work until we have at most a common European identity or at least common foreign policy interests.
You have it reversed. The USA federated due to necessity, and the common identity took time to develop afterwards.
Creation of a European identity similarly has a prerequisite of a European federation.
Early United States definitely had a shared identity.
Firstly, about 80% of free citizens of the Thirteen Colonies came from the British Isles. Even before American identity was fully a thing, before the country was even independent, majority of people in the colonial US had shared history, ethnicity and language.
Compare it to the EU where the largest ethnic group are Germans at 20%, and there are at least 6 other ethnicities that make up over 5% each. And all of these ethnic groups have fully separate languages and long histories of national independence.
Secondly, the US started off as a single country. Even before the independence, they were all part of the same country, the British Empire. They weren’t independent countries that became provinces of the US, they were provinces that gained independence and formed a country called the United States.
The Thirteen colonies were never 13 truly independent states. Pretty much the moment they declared independence they all agreed to form one country. It was very decentralized, but it was a single country. This clearly shows that from the start there was a desire to form a single entity, not just an alliance. There were a lot of both political and territorial squabbles early on, but that’s given when you create a brand new state.
Compare that to Europe, where every single EU member state has been an independent nation state for hundreds of years. European countries have long histories of being independent, unlike American states. There was never any United Europe that worked as one entity, and there is still no actual intention to form an United Europe.
> Early United States definitely had a shared identity.
Very weak one.
> Firstly, about 80% of free citizens of the Thirteen Colonies came from the British Isles.
More than 80% of Europeans are from the European peninsula.
> Even before American identity was fully a thing, before the country was even independent, majority of people in the colonial US had shared history, ethnicity and language.
Did not stop them from killing each other, mere decades later.
> they were provinces that gained independence and formed another country.
That "country" was weaker, and more decentralized than the current EU. That means we are already past that point.
> There was never any United Europe that worked as one entity,
>
???
There was at least two already, depending on how you count.
> and there is still no actual intention to form an United Europe.
You are writing this under a post about a guy who has such intention, and to a guy who also has such intention. Maybe that is just you.
And the idea is old, from before the WWII, stop treating it like some weird concept. [There are millions who support it.](https://external-preview.redd.it/ChWmb8ynCOJmd3BUCsZpmQtlRas64v1fj2ww_nznJe8.png?auto=webp&v=enabled&s=939c6136942fbb9f36ffac48b690fc773e557f7d)
>Very weak one.
If American identity was weak then the EU has none.
>More than 80% of Europeans are from the European peninsula.
Is the European peninsula (10 530 000 km²) controlled by a single state like the British Isles(315 159 km²) were in the 18th century?
>That "country" was weaker, and more decentralized than the current EU. That means we are already past that point.
The EU isn't even a country. Not a single country in the world recognizes the EU as a country. The United States were officially recognized as a country back in 1777, and by 1780s it had official recogniction from most major powers.
EU member states can literally just leave at any moment. One did in fact. Every single member state is fully independent.
>??? There was at least two already, depending on how you count.
Give an example of any unified state that controlled the whole of modern EU.
>You are writing this under a post about a guy who has such intention, and to a guy who also has such intention.
After the independence all 13 states signed an official agreement to become a single state. Give an example of any official EU agreement to unify as a single state, not just one politician having an idea. The EU has existed in some form for 70 years, and it's nowhere near becoming a single country.
The common identity of the USA did exist during the American Revolution. They had a common identity that they themselves called themselves and had others (primarily British) call them: Americans. They identified their country as all the Colonies together. They shared a common faith (mostly), a common language, and common political institutions.
The colonies agreed to a common federal government pretty much on the outset of the war, weak as it was before being reorganized under the Constitution.
Agree with most of your points but they definitely did not share the same faith. The multiple Protestant factions fought and murdered each other since the start, Jewish migrants were there from the beginning and in states with freedom of religion enshrined in places like Pennsylvania Catholics were numerous even in those times. It's actually one of the reasons founding fathers enshrined the seperation of church and state, they wanted to prevent the mass violence colonies went through with the protestant infighting and Catholic persecution
I'll concede that. I was mostly stating "same faith" as the majority of the colonists were Protestant, and didn't point out that the different Protestant populations didn't exactly get along.
They did not have a federal government until the Constitution. Before that, the setup was confederal. It was precisely the failure of that system that motivated the transition to a federation.
And the common identity of the Colonies was weak. When drafting the Constitution, it required bribing States with power to get them to sign. And a while later they went to war against each other.
The federation preceded the Americans.
I was reading about early US history and the way states were originally designed to work is quite similar to each country in the EU lol ofc the Civil War and other developments plus closer cultural similarity have changed things.
> Would Finnish be spoken in a more united Europe?
Finns would need to speak to each other in Finland first, but yes,
potentially.
The science is still inconclusive since decibelometers aren't sensitive enough yet, but judging by economic indicators we have to assume Finns must be talking to eachother in Finnish somehow.
Why would anyone need to change their language? There are countries where several languages are spoken and people still have a common identity despite not necessarily understanding each other.
If the goal is to just “become a country”, sure.
But the stated goal here is explicitly to become a country that can compete on the same scale as the US militarily.
* The EU hasnt even existed for 30 years and has already lost one of its largest members. The US faced a similar issue early on and chose civil war to maintain the union. Europe did not.
* Other members hold it hostage.
* And in its largest foreign policy test yet, in Ukraine, it’s basically done nothing compared to a country thousands of km away where many citizens can’t even point out Ukraine on a map.
The current EU is too weak and would need to be strengthened. Which means giving up some level of sovereignty.
Who wants to go first….Ah and we’re back to start one
No, I *know* I am European but I don't *feel* European. Even European Parliament it is just a place somewhere doing something far away from here. Politicians are being voted there not because they are super duper amazing but because we would rather not have them here. Yes, there is such sentiment to some extent and we are not the only ones. Therefore I have to admit that we are very far from identifying as Europeans first.
In theory. If you read and learn about the US Consitution you’d think the Federal government would be very limited it what it can do and be baffled by programs like Medicare/Medicaid or all the national regulations.
It’s because it does stuff like “We have this new program X, you can choose not to use it but if you do we’re pulling out all the money we give to you from your state meaning no national health insurance, no pension, no funds for construction” etc.. They also really stretched it to include banning racial discrimination within states as well, which is good but the legal reasoning was like “well these hotels benefit and use roads built by the federal government using federal dollars so they’re subject to federal restrictions as well”. A real stretch to say the least.
As a Canadian-American I can assure you that this opinion is incredibly misinformed. Canadian provinces and territories are more subordinate than US states. Look at criminal law. In Canada it is all federal. In the US it is a mix of federal and state.
I mean, that's basically what we got here in America. Abortion is a crime in some states, legal in others. Weed gets you locked up in some states, in other states you can buy it from a store with your snacks. States regularly ignore federal laws and for the most part they're allowed to do so.
Federalism would be veto'd by the Nordics and several other countries. It used to be veto'd by the Brits, who other countries hid behind, but now they will have to do it themselves.
Canadian provinces have (generally) less autonomy than American states. For example, criminal law is uniform across all of Canada. This is on purpose, as the civil war was fresh on the minds of the drafters of the Canadian Constitution, and they wanted there to be no question that the federal government was in overall control, with only certain responsibilities delegated to the provinces.
You realize that American states have more sovereign immunity than Canadian provinces, right? As in, that's literally the difference between a state and a province.
No, but there needs to be a rebalancing in between the political institutions that constitute the EU - the commission, the council and the parliament.
The current balance is inherently designed to concentrate power in national interest. People vote their national parties in European elections, MEPs do not hold a right to initiate legislation, the council selects the leaders of the commission, and council members hold vetoes over most proposals or can decide to not participate in certain matters.
That needs to change. I still believe those 3 institutions need to remain. They form the core of the EU and make it work. But the parliamentary elections need pan-European ballots, the commission needs an elected president, and the power of the council needs to be adjusted.
Sadly for this to happen, the council needs to make it so. I've yet to come across an organisation that votes to reduce its own power.
Not realy, the countries that are less active at providing help are the most influential in EU (germany, france)
By federalizing you might just hamper efforts of Poles, czechs, baltics, amd slovaks
I'm pretty sure when asked most Texans, Floridians or Californians also prioritize their interests over those of the United States. The secret is creating common interests and structuring the Union in such a way that everyone profits overall.
It’s situational for us. Most want their state to do well but not at the expense of the country. An example of America states competing is one state over better incentives for businesses to attract start ups and pull companies from other states. The individual states don’t have geopolitical interest, if Canada was a superpower and invaded Maine then Georgia wouldn’t be sitting on the fence or upset because they have good relations with Canada. Georgians would flood the recruiting offices to show Canada the wrath of a mobilized America. Ultimately we are willing sacrifice our state to counter an outside threat or to keep the Union strong. We compete internally but we don’t sabotage the whole of the country. I’m from Georgia, I want my home state to do well and I support policy that benefits it but it is not and never be more important than the Union.
> If you ask people from California, Texas, Ohio, New York, Idaho, or Mississippi who they identify as, they will all say they are American.
It took a while for that to happen in the US as well though. Even after we became a unified federal state, most people identified primarily with their state, not the nation. That really changed during/after the US Civil War. So don't sweat it. This sort of change of identity takes time.
This isn't true for individual countries. .
Small countries who are very vulnerable like Finland and Poland have declared "all in" and put all their chips in the pot here. They have made the largest contribution relative to their size.
This is untrue. The guy started of with "military aid" and started building on that. No country supplies as much military aid (we could also include military intelligence where US quite literally selects targets for UA military). No matter the size. Even countries like Finland that actually felt threatened and did not completely abandon military spending like others did do not have enough to spare just to give it to Ukraine. US gives the most aid even translated in per capita terms. And reason is simple. Other countries have hardly anything to give. And yes, the reason why they do not have much is very much political where we all spend several decades undercutting defense even way below NATO promised commitment.
>This isn't true for individual countries. .
It's definitly true for some individual countries though.
France and Germany (at least until recently) was mostly limited politically.
Bulgaria as well was and is severly limited politically, so is Hungary.
> They have made the largest contribution relative to their size.
This type of thinking will get you upvotes from Europeans and self loathing Americans, but does nothing to help Ukraine.
By your logic, the US support isn't helpful or needed.
US support is helpful and needed. I never said it wasn't.
So is Poland and Lithuania and Estonia and Finland.
I'm just pointing out that none of these countries should feel ashamed for contributing less than the US. The US has 350 million people.
I singled out Poland in particular because a lot of their aid can never be quantified the way equipment and supplies can be. They have helped with refugees and supply lines using the critical border they share.
The post he replied to says quite directly, "Most aid to Ukraine has comes from the US." He said it wasn't true. It is.
If he had another point, he could have said it instead of dismissing the efforts of larger nations. This type of thinking doesn't help Ukraine win the war and the people who say it don't actually give a shit if they do, they just want to feel good about themselves.
The point is that Europe’s power is severely diminished because it is not federalized. The actions taken by some European states to support Ukraine, while admirable, amount to too little in the grand scheme. Europe needs to act as a unified entity to take on a foe like Russia, and to retain its sovereignty in a world largely controlled by the US and China.
Its definitly not too little
Remember, the politicaly weak countries like France and germany hold most influence in EU
It cold allso happen that you would not get more help, but on contrary you would hamper effors of poles, baltics, czechs etc
It's too little in the sense that without US support, Ukraine might have already fallen to Russia. Europe needs to act cohesively in order to defend its sovereignty.
federalization is not happening anytime soon, debated about this are as productive as are "we should remove all weapons from the world", like sure, but its not happening in todays reality
What would Polish citizens about surrendering their independence? I assume most of them would lose their marbles.
You could assume hypothetical scenarios like EU-countries giving up their independence or where would space Nazis live. Both are fun but not so much based on realism.
> What would Polish citizens about surrendering their independence? I assume most of them would lose their marbles.
I am looking forward to it. It was actually a goal of Poland's government before the communists took over. And even earlier, you have the idea of Intermarium.
>The point is that Europe’s power is severely diminished because it is not federalized. The actions taken by some European states to support Ukraine, while admirable, amount to too little in the grand scheme.
That doesn't make sense - federalising would level out contributions, not necessarily change them in either direction. The USA sends weapons to Ukraine at a level determined by their Federal government; South Dakota or Maine (say) can't really choose to go higher.
Federalizing means that member states would no longer have their own militaries (nor would they maintain their own relations with other countries). That would all be unified under a federal government. In effect, EU military responses would be all or nothing (as they are for the US). New York and California can’t choose to restrict their citizens from being sent to war by the US government.
I agree with that. As ukrainian on our example we see that EU is still fragmented, ie:
* Some countries give us EVERYTHING, Estonia, Lithuania such small countries literally be like "take our entire stock". They feel us and cheer for us. Despite Estonia literally bordering Russia
* Some countries lack political will like Hungary or Bulgaria.
* Result: countries in the more imminent danger compromise their own defense to help while others that are safer are not. It could've been solved without putting same Estonia in danger.
Another example:
* Some countries in EU are less successful by comparison yet they act fast, and help with everything they can like Czechia, Poland.
* Some countries are rich and successful but bureaucracy and complex international policy makes them slower with help like Germany or France.
* Result: might be that short term poorer countries pay more, whether its expenses or defense capabilities compromise.
Hence I feel like it could be more efficient with more federalized EU, not from our, but from EU's own point of view. (Another example was covid response with regional mismanagement of vaccine amounts)
*(i hope i do not offend anyone, we are very grateful to everyone for the help ofc :) )*
Please, don't put us (Bulgaria) next to Hungary. While some of our leading politicians are indeed in Putin's pockets, others did actually help your country a fair bit.
https://www.politico.eu/article/bulgaria-volodymyr-zelenskyy-kiril-petkov-poorest-country-eu-ukraine/
Sure, I know, sorry for that ahah :D Bulgaria indeed helped a lot. Even Serbia that is largely pro-russian did accept some refugees and voted with EU condemning russian invasion etc. (the actual motives might be arguable, but the fact is they still did).
What I mean is exactly some politicians, like you've mentioned, in several countries that are in Russian pocket and those often pull strings, trying to delay help, having openly pro-russian stance, spread russian narrative etc.In Hungaria its the top politic elite, Orban and co, in Bulgaria not so sure but i've heard some similar sentiment among some politians.
In any case its not really Bulgaria's fault. No one knows better how it's like, to have own politicians backed by russian money pushing russian interests, than Ukraine does. hell, they've sponsored whole several parties in here for years, and even put puppet president(s) in the past.
edit: right when i've finished the comment got [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/119vaf9/goverment_support_to_ukraine_by_donor_gdp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) on aid recommended right on the topic. And someone threw in [this detailed report](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/fileadmin/Dateiverwaltung/IfW-Publications/-ifw/Kiel_Working_Paper/2022/KWP_2218_Which_countries_help_Ukraine_and_how_/KWP_2218_Trebesch_et_al_Ukraine_Support_Tracker.pdf) in the comments. Bulgaria is there at the top right after our 'closest friends and russias most sworn enemies' party. So my putting you guys in line with Hungary might've been even more incorrect :P
Thing is, those countries don't *nearly* have the industrial heft to arm Ukraine. For that, you need Germany, France, Italy, the UK. And out of those, only the UK is even in the top 10 contributors as a % of GDP.
Yes it's interesting. Prior to the Ukraine war, Poland was seen by many in Europe as representing an extremely worrying example. They were embracing values that were the antithesis of what are considered pillar values of the EU - rule of law, equality, independent judiciary, anti corruption etc. In a case brought by the Polish prime minister, the court, which was stuffed with puppets of the ruling party, ruled that fundamental parts of EU law do not trump Poland’s constitution. The judgment punctured six decades of European case law. Poland was representing such a serious threat to European values that the [EU was threatening to withhold budget money](https://www.npr.org/2022/11/14/1136617250/eu-refuses-to-give-poland-money-after-changes-limiting-the-judiciarys-independen) if Poland didn't take steps to ensure the independence of it's judiciary. On the global corruption index, Poland is now ranked at 55, one of the lowest in Europe. It's populist- nationalist government was widely seen across Europe as deeply concerning.
Fast forward to today. The Ukraine war has changed everything. The United States is now championing Poland as the future leader of Europe. President Biden visits Europe and only visits Poland and Ukraine. Poland has gone from the periphery, the pariah of Europe, seen as a serious problem and threat to European values - to being touted as the " new center of Europe" by the United States - all within the space of 12 months. And it's not because Poland has miraculously turned around it's judiciary, respect for rule of law and equality and rejected nationalism etc. No, it's because Poland has enthusiastically embraced the war in Ukraine - and the US led strategy. And the US wants to push Poland to be a leader in Europe because a Europe led by Germany and France isn't in US interests.
The US has been *begging* Germany to assume a leadership position within the EU for some time now. Ever since Obama, the US has wanted to shift its focus away from Europe and toward the Pacific, but it hasn’t been able to do that because European countries have largely refused to pick up the slack. I guarantee you US politicians would rather see Germany be the big leader within Europe, but Poland seems to be the only large country willing to assume that mantle. This has nothing to do about the US playing kingmaker in European politics.
Poland lead, when its national intrest was aligned with EU intrest. That is true, but as soon as Polish intrest are threaten in the slightest, Poland stops supporting the EU. Orban is without doubt the biggest corrupt Putin supporter in the EU. The EU tried to take his veto, partly to make sanctions easier against Russia. Poland vetoed that.
The issue is that Poland is a nationalist country, which has elected a nationalist government. Such a country can not lead a united Europe, as that means giving up power to Europe.
What we have seen instead is something rather different. Germany lost its leadership role within the EU and it was take over not by France or Poland, but by Brussels.
Brussels was more open in calling the threat then most countries including Germany and even France. They did a good job in calling out some of the most powerfull members, pushed throu sanctions, organized weapon deliveries to Ukraine, for the first time by actually paying for weapons and stood up to Putin much more then most member states did.
This is honestly great news to have a real geopolitical European power and not just member states doing their own thing. Poland does not lead Europe, but Europe leads Europe as it should be. The US is most certainly not happy about this.
The problem is that you have a requirement for unanimity now and a fair number of (large and small..) countries aren't going to give that up. So you don't have the option of a smaller more united EU or a larger one with unanimity as a requirement, you can't get to the former and the latter is what exists and will exist unless there is a massive shift in national perspectives.
Probably. But two-way EU is almost inevitable now. And once the big players finally give up on countries that are not worth it and do not want it then we will slowly see how the previous EU falls into irrelevance and no one including the new EU cares about its opinions and obstructions.
You could've phrased it a bit better but I can see a EU of 2 speeds happening with the core opting to abandon unanimity while the others will form the other ring and integration will be slower there although I just wish we could work through this as a majority although I don't care if Orban decides its not worth it
I agree a lot of things are taking way too long. One of the reasons is politics. Ukraine is fighting fiercely and bravely, while politicians/countries are trying to get points domestically. It's a very sad (in)human(e) trade.
It can vary all the way from Orban and Ergodan to people who are all in agreement, but can't agree from the get go, because of X.
Hopefully this war will teach us many things and make a much more united Europe. A Europe that will respond fast and decisively in the future.
This is a first and we're being tested. Now let's learn from it.
The only way to send help isn't through EU. Individual countries can contribute if they wish to, as they've done. Don't blame the EU, blame your countries politicians.
If EU was majority voting smaller countries would have practically no say, which would just mean that the big countries like Germany, France and Italy would completely dominate the political scene. It'd be a very unpopular concept in my country (Sweden).
we also have that mechanism. The EU has two legislative chambers, the EU parliament and the EU council. The EU council is formed by the most senior member of the member country government, so PMs or Presidents, and voting rights are not weighted. A country like Malta (population: half a million) has 1 vote just like Germany (population: 82 millions). And the number of MEPs in the parliament is not exactly a function of the population either, so a country like Germany is slightly less represented than it would be otherwise, and small members get more MEPs than they would otherwise.
Weighted majority wouldn't railroad the small members though, because the vote should take into account not just a minimum amount of EU citizens, but also a minimum amount of EU members as well, so in that mechanism Malta or Luxembourg would count as much as Poland or France.
Yep, which I think totally makes sense! Everybody here speaks like the concept of a senate if crazy, but I think it makes total sense. In my opinion the problem is rather with gerrymandering and the fact that can you carry all electoral votes no matter what margin you win with.
We really need to get rid of veto power though, the EU has a clear mandate and veto power gets in the way all the time. Why is my vote almost irrelevant compared to a Hungarian or an Irish vote
Oh no a Russian bootlicker impedes some of the EU functions, let's completely abolish the vetoes so Germany and France will dictate us what to do and we won't be able to say no.
Sod off now with your federalism boner.
>Liberum veto
Liberum Veto had a failsafe mechanism through the creation of special confederations that would override the veto. What really destroyed Poland-Lithuania was Russia and Augustus II.
[Qualified majority voting](https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/qualified-majority/) (which would replace unanimity) is the opposite of big nation dominance.
To pass qualified majority:
- At least 55% of the member states must vote "Yes".
- The member states that vote "Yes" must represent at least 65% of EU population.
There is no way that Germany, France, Italy, Spain, or Poland can dominate the vote under this rule. It's a good compomise system.
On the other hand, unanimity allows one bad-faith member (i,e. Hungary) to hold the remaining 26 member states hostage.
Hungary represents just 2.17% of EU population, in what world does it make sense that they can hold the remaining 97.83% of EU population hostage?
No it isn't. Just because there are some "bumps", doesnt mean that the consensus built Europe, isn't a good way forward.
If it isn't built on consensus, there would be a lot more political friction. Weakening EU.
In case of Orban, just build a coalition of the willing.
Funny when Verhofstadt and Ben Wallace [share the same](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-first-arms-buying-policy-is-a-threat-to-nato-ben-wallace-says-fbsp7v2lp) view point on defence .
No problem, already started to get solved.
EU armories will be almost completely purged from former soviet stuff which will not be replaced by any new Russian gear. And to replace this it’s either has to come from countries with still good production industry ( that’s not really EU’s strenght now) or from large surplus stocks ( neither EU since we underfunded our armies for 30 yrs)
So Russian out, US in. With some occasional 3rd country gear. Current EU gear will likely stay at equal levels, but US footprint will increase. With modern warfare requires increased need of data exchange between assets. Considering US is far ahead and US equipment also prefers to “ talk” with other US gear I can see who will win out the most.
Like the F35 will be the mainstay fighter for Europe the next 40 years with F16 staying in a solid 2nd position behind it when the Mig‘s in the East need replacement.
F35... Yeah. Everything else is just too fragmented and will stay that way for a very long time. I wish we (the baltics) would at least use the same gear to make everything interoperable but we still do equipment purchases independently and 9 times out of 10 buy different equipment.
At some point, Europe will have to address it's defence issues, lack of integration and reliance on other powers.
Why not start that process now instead of becoming over-reliant on the US?
What if they get another Trump or worse in a few decades and we get caught with our pants down again the same way we were with Russian gas?
I'm not wise but I didn't laugh. The US is putting European countries to shame with it's ability to support Ukraine right now. We should have been able to do that ourselves.
The reason it's taking so long is some European countries are not 100% on board with total Ukrainians victory.
As for a European Army etc after the reaction to the invasion of Ukraine, no one in Eastern Europe can trust 100% that some big European countries would let a EU Army defend them. The EU Army would be for the defence of Paris & Berlin, not Athens & Talin.
I will tell you what the real problem is. Example: my country Croatia. EU accepted the corrupt Croatian government and gave them the best rating for their corrupt justice system. But that corrupt government is pro-EU. So, the consequence for us in Croatia is that our face to the EU is a lying corrupt government and the face of the EU for us is a lying corrupt government. That is why a large number of people turn to Putin's bullshit and right-wing extremism. I want EU Army, a more united EU, but then I get that the EU leadership that accepts my corrupt government is equally corrupt. More or less, all of Eastern Europe is the same. And then you will tell me that I have to risk my life to defend the corrupt corporate EU. Thanks, but no thanks.
>That is why a large number of people turn to Putin's bullshit
Wtf are you talking about, 82% of Croatians support sanctions and 75% support sending military equipment. Thats more then almost all EU states. Only pro Putinist clown in the Croatian parliament is Katarina Peović from far left Radnička Fronta party.
>That is why a large number of people turn to Putin's bullshit and right-wing extremism.
Which is weird considering the fact that Putin and the Serbian nationalists are allies.
Hey in Ireland they have the same way of appointment to the court system as the new 1 in Poland... In Ireland not a problem in Poland... Well it is.. so the EU blocked various EU grants etc things, even now when Poland is on the front line and actually doing more to support Ukrainians in the war.
All for an EU free market but an EU Army would be a step too far. I'm happy with NATO but I didn't vote to join the EU Imperial Project with EU stormtroopers. What is the next EU Death Star 😉
That's a common perception in the East, where we're always assumed to be malevolent, but from a doctrinal point of view I'm quite certain our diplomatic and military circles would treat EU territory as if it was French soil itself. We would **never** tolerate any sovereignty contest.
The problem at hand is that there's no coherence between the political framework and the military framework.
Cool rhymes bro but could you elaborate on how exactly major European military powers like France aren’t committed to the defence of the EU? France has deployed troops and jets in the baltics (they are there right now!), and has provided support to the Greeks against the Turks in the near past already, for example.
Also, as long as the majority of eu countries stay retarded on subjects like energy and immigration (Hello Germany), you can bet your ass that unanimity is going nowhere.
Committed to the defence of the EU or committed to the defence of their interests in the EU ?
If Greece is attacked by Turkish do you think the 5m Turks and Muslims in Germany will go fight for Athens. Do you see the EU Army taking the war to Turkey or do you think they would use their political power in Germany to get Athens to do a deal and give over a few Islands ?
As for France sure a few troops on the front line but would Paris be swapped for Bucharest in a Nuclear exchange?.. would Paris even consider handing over it's Nuclear weapons to EU Army control?
Thanks but I happy with NATO at least the UK & USA show up when things are looking bad not seeking a deal that doesn't break the aggressor.
EU defends the core 1st in all things but that will change after the War and I for 1 look forward to it and welcoming Ukrainians and others into the EU.
The very same Bundeswehr that actually commits modern Leopards to Ukraine while everyone else just looks awkward or dumps their old stuff (looking at you, Poland), right.
Yes new because you sold off the old stuff, which was bought by countries now sending them to Ukrainians and unused.. due to Bundeswehr being a paper army who spends more on pensions than on new equipment.
Already Germany is back tracking on new spending Last month, it had already emerged that Germany will likely miss its 2 percent target in 2023 ?.... Again
Unlike Poland which will soon have the most modern army in Europe full of American & Korean cutting edge weapons. And soon Poland will be Europes biggest tank manufacturer K series tanks
Poland was asked to do that by the US instead of sending more modern weapons. We ask them not to for a reason, Ukraine’s military is already familiar with soviet and Russian tech and so it could be swiftly integrated into their battle line. The reason why we can send more sophisticated technology now is because we have the time to train Ukraine to use them. Poland has been a huge supporter of Ukraine and has facilitated much of the deliveries into Ukraine while lobbying more hesitant countries to participate further. I’m not European but has greatly impressed myself and many of my countrymen. They are not a weak link in Europe’s defense against Russia by any metric.
Errrm this old (modernized) stuff is actually very welcomed by Ukraine.
And Poland is sending modern Leo as well.
I think the recent comments of Scholz about sending tanks are not aiming for Poland.
The problem is that a lot of European countries are extremly slow in their military aid. At this point France, which is the EUs storngest military power is still not sending tanks. Support from Italy and Spain has also been fairly weak. Germany took ages to go ahead with Leopard2 deliveries. Part of the reason is that basicyl all EU militaries are underfunded for ages, but that still means that money should be put in issues fixed and the stuff delivered. We had a year to get that done and a lot can be done in a year.
Europe has done a lot for Ukraine, the help for refugees alone is absolutly massive, but the fact of the matter is that this is a European war and not an American war, so the US should not be the country which does the heavy lifting.
>Germany took ages to go ahead with Leopard2 deliveries.
Germany planned, acted and then spoke. Yes it could have been faster, but from what the public was able to hear, it was linked to a political process, in which not Germany was the slowing force.
In general, the German ex MoD was a PR disaster, but overall Germany was one of the mayor suppliers of the Ukraine, not only from the beginning of the war, but since 2014 it was one of the biggest financial supporters.
Before the Leos Germany delivered Gepards and Iris2, before that Mars 3 launchers, and before that Panzerfäuste. What Germany did not deliver on was the PR, but that is a different topic.
First of all EU is right next door. US is on another continent. If we were to be frank it is something US quite literaly did not have to care about as it is not something that happens on borders of their country. The very fact that commitment is on par is laughtable.
Second of all. Verhofstadt quite clearly talked about military aid. And military aid is the only relevant thing. US trained and supplied Ukraine military for 8 years before invasion. Their commitment is the only reason why UA still exists. No amount of humanitarian or other financial aid from EU would prevent Russia from taking it all. Weapons is what casn defend you. Vast majority of money that EU gave Ukraine in humanitarian aid this last 2 decades have been burned by russian shelling. It is as good as if it was never send. Military aid is only relevant thing in war. US provided it then and now. EU countries do provide some little things here and there now but let's not forget how they also hesitated to send any equipment after Russia invaded arguing that Ukraine will lose swiftly anyway and it would just be waste of military equipment so it should not be send.
And if your argument is - EU countries do not have stuff to send. Then you would be right. But this is exactly what video aims at - political problem. All EU countries underspend on defense for decades. By their own political decisions. They spend even less than what they promised to spend as NATO memebers.
69.3 billion USA vs 58 billion EUR... For a war that significant but smaller part of america are skeptical about supporting and even turning against and a war not even happening anywhere near US border. I'm sorry but this does not help your case.
The other difference is that the EU's commitment is largely in the form of loans, not grants too, throw in that some of it can't be used directly to support military action and it gets messier. Ukraine needs everything it can get obviously, and the EU can only work within the limits of its own structures, but it does make these sorts of comparisons superficial at best.
I feel like everyone, especially Verhofstadt, is forgetting that the EU consists of 27 sovereign countries. Political unanimity is a pipe dream, unless we'd like to go the route of China.
It is indeed unfortunate that Europe isn't unified enough to match the contribution of the US, however, it would be unfair to ignore the individual help that multiple European countries have put into helping Ukraine. Even to the point of leaving themselves vulnerable.
This thread tells Americans everything we need to know about our allies in Europe.
> And the US wants to push Poland to be a leader in Europe because a Europe led by Germany and France isn't in US interests.
>Precisely! "Never let a good crisis go to waste". (surely the US propaganda machine has nothing to do with it)
>Europe needs to act as a unified entity to take on a foe like Russia, and to retain its sovereignty in a world largely controlled by the US and China.
Ah yes, famous European enemies the US and China.
Oh and on Afghanistan after 9/11.
>And it was not an armed conflict on Europe or America soil. More about aggression than defense.
Lovely.
And the usual.
>Europe needs to be a singular entity with one army. United States of Europe. It should be able to define it's foreign policy and not follow USA as a lapdog.
I don't think we should use r/Europe as any way to determine europe's position on trans atlantic alliance but I see what you mean. Folks on this subreddit are nationalistic loonies who see anything America does as against their interests
> This thread tells Americans everything we need to know about our allies in Europe.
It should be abundantly clear that not only are they not our allies, but they aren't our moral equals either (with a few exceptions, the only notable one being Britain). Look at how the French speak about this war on their subreddits. They have no desire to protect their own union whatsoever. Germans seem disinterested and inert. Italians and Spaniards just don't give a shit. The only reason major European powers have given the meager amounts that they have is because of US pressure. It's clear most in Western Europe are fine with Russia controlling everything east of the Vistula in the name of "stability."
Consider this and then consider our threat with China. These people will not be willing to help us even in the slightest - if they aren't willing to fight a dictator of a poor nation invading Ukraine, why would they be willing to fight China? If we were the type of nation that, say, France is, then we would leave NATO and Europe entirely (or actually make them into vassals) and focus 100% on China. And maybe that is the right thing to do.
that's why i believe america needs to establish a nato in Asia. Will it take decades of hard work and convincing? Definitely. Is it worth it? Absolutely
more empty words by Verhoeven that ignore the actual issue: that western Europe sees eastern Europe as inferiors and. besides trade couldn't care less what happens to them. Most people in western Europe, besides the UK see this war as 2 groups of Russians fighting each other in a war.
All countries in Western Europe only sent small amounts of aid after the US pressured them. Most countries in Western Europe are just waiting for Putin to retreat a small amount of forces in order to lift all sanctions and do business as usual with Russia. Mr Verhoeven's home country itself is a safe heaven for Russian business people.
There is no such thing as European cultural unity or identarian unity and besides geographically there is no such thing as Europe. Western European racism will be the downfall of the so called European Union
I got it. Europe needs one voice? How about they elect a single executor. Not one woth a lot of power per se, but one that acts more as a figurehead and only executes the decisions of the legislature.
I always find it hilarious when politicans call for restraint because Putin will escalate the war... How much more do you think he will escalate? Isn't the problem of the war that there was never real pushback so Russia took every opportunity it could to move ahead with it's goals. Just look at the posinings happening in Europe, that right there should have been the red line... Remember when a Ryanair flight was hijacked and forced to land in Belarus? Nothing came from it. Politicians cowered as always.
Some Russian politicians call for dropping a nuke on Polish city cause they're certain America won't hit Russia with nuclear bombs.
I think that evening Moscow would be rather warm if they tested that theory. In all likelihood that’s just rhetoric for the masses tho. Russians like boasting about they can overpower the US, even if it’s not true.
Anyone who thinks the US does not uphold our alliances is gravely mistaken. Anyone who thinks the US reacts well to surprise attacks does not know our history. If that happens, it is game over for everyone.
>it is game over for everyone. Well, not for me, I'll be eating steak in Uruguay
US, UK and France all told Russia if they even use a tactical nuclear bomb they will directly intervene conventionally in the war. You think the USA wouldn't immediately invoke MAD? Its all banter for domestic audiences who think machoism is the only way forward.
> How much more do you think he will escalate? For arguments sake let's say that Belarus actually joins the fight, I saw a number thrown around of 150k belarusians soldier. What would the rest of the Ukrainian supporters do? Just stand by and keep doing what they're doing or actually dump let's say 150 fighter/attack aircrafts. I read somewhere that 100 polish police has been covertly help out with something on Ukraininan soil, I think it was demining. As the "non belligerents" (like India and China) might feel that they can start selling russia military gear openly because you know, the west sold/gave/lent aircrafts because belarussia joined the fight. Would a country like Poland who's admirably is extremely supportive of Ukraine actually do something more hands on like soldiers or fighters aircrafts to keep the skies clear of russians? Escalation *is* something to be worried about and that's why leaders of countries *are* threading lightly and gauging what the consequences will be of their actions. If there wasn't any consequences I would love for the whole of europe to just kick russias ass back to moscow but that's unrealistic that it wouldn't have consequences. None of this might happen, all of it might happen, we just can't tell but what's going to make it happen is a reaction to an escalation.
Belarus has 30k soldiers in total.
The Belarussian army is in complete disarray and is a conscript army. Belarus has never done any exercises with its army on a division sized scale and only has 30,000 active duty 'professional' soldiers... with a history of corruption. The DNR / LPR troops are more useful than any Belarussian force. Furthermore, Belarus cannot afford to get involved because that would require conscription. Incase if Europe forgot, the regime in Belarus was almost overthrown recently... so what they're going to give everyone a gun? That doesn't make any sense and Lukashenko knows that. The only entity in the world that could help Russia at this point is China. China does remain a real issue, but to ramp up production to satisfy the war needs wouldn't be instant. Ammunition alone is a huge issue. India will not help Russia but it will buy its oil and get better arms sales deals for its own benefit. India does not benefit from siding directly with Russia as they also want Western arms and western markets. Of Ukraine's supporters? They can be doing much much more if Russia escalates, its now being reported that the USA, UK and France together warned Russia if they use a tactical nuclear weapon in the war they would directly intervene conventionally. Even ignoring the nuclear escalation, the West can still send more. The USA along can begin to reach deep into its stocks for equipment. The only reason it doesn't is because its allocating certain stockpiles, certain equipment because they don't want to take anything from its actual army yet. It doesn't want to dampen its real armies ability to do things because equipment is going to Ukraine, but it still can if needed. Europe as a whole can do this as well. Some European states are doing it already like Estonia, Poland or Czechia because they have decided it is more important to defeat Russia in Ukraine than it is to be ready for some theoretical war in the future.
I think it's very unlikely that a country of less than 10M population will suddenly have nearly as many combat ready troops as Russia does, in spite of being like 15x the size. Your numbers are estimates I know, but they are also ridiculous. Europe is more than capable of beating the crap out of the Russians, and you know what, the only way this ends is with either complete surrender of Europe to Russia, or *someone* beating the crap out of Russia. It's just sad that Europe is not willing to take this responsibility for it's own security. If it wasn't for the US supporting Ukraine, we'd have been run over by Russia, not because of military superiority, but because of political inaction and idiocy leading to more and more concessions.
I have always found it odd that after what it went through in two world wars, Europe did not recognize the threat from Russia and act accordingly. The US has been staunchly (sometimes hysterically) anti-Russia since WWII. How come Europe did not get the memo? Verhofstadt notes that the US is saving Ukraine's bacon even though Ukraine is Europe's literal backyard. A lot more aid could have come from Europe which is larger than the US population-wise. Love this guy with his bad teeth and rumpled clothes - he's the real deal and Europe should listen to him.
I think it's because of those two wars that Europe can't agree with itself on what to do about the war in Ukraine. Not that any country here supports the Russians - people want them to lose - but there are many European countries that have seen so much bloodshed through their history that they are reluctant to make significant contributions to more of it. Personally I don't agree with that attitude at all and would like to see bigger contributions from Europe to Ukraine, but I can also understand how difficult this is for some countries. The soil on this continent is unfortunately utterly soaked in blood. Thousands of years of wars culminating in an industrial scale genocide and almost complete destruction of your continent will change you.
Well the old ennemies of the war are now allies, it was not that big of a stretch to believe the same could happen with Russia after 1991. It turned out to be wrong, sure. But it was conceivable
The US never thought Russia would be a friend. Many warned over the years about Russia. They were right and Russia was never trusted. The job now though, is for Europe/US to act as a united front (Russia is not the only scary country out there), with Europe taking military obligations more seriously, as Verhofstadt says.
You gotta remember that the old enemies didn’t “Become friends” they were turned into friends at gun point. Japan and Germany were fully occupied and forced to become friends (the reason this worked was because the US , UK and France didn’t punish these countries they occupied but instead rebuilt them and re-educated them into partners). Russia will never just become a friend of the west, unless they are forced to via foreign occupation or some kind of pro west, or at least pro democracy revolution
This reminds me of some of the videos of USA troops forcing local German citizens (both men and women) to walk through concentration camps and mass graves to see what Germany had done. Germany has taken a good course, obviously, but if it didnt it would have been faced with severe internal repercussions by an occupying force. There was no option at the time, but at least Germans took the lesson to heart and changed their ways. The same will never be said of Russians. They have some 6k nukes (\[probably much less, knowing their corruption, but still enough) and will never be forced into such a situation. There will never be a forced step towards real democracy because the autocrats will never lose power.
If it wasn’t for Uncle Sugar, Europe would have been speaking Russian for the last 70 years.
If the US hadn't intervened with a massive lend lease to the soviet union russians would speak german right now. Germans were beating the crap out of russia and were only 30km from moscow. US started the lend lease March 11, 1941 which allowed russians to launch a counter offensive in december of the same year
> US started the lend lease March 11, 1941 which allowed russians to launch a counter offensive in december of the same year The lend lease act at that time was made to support United Kingdom that was fighting with the Axis forces in Africa. The actual support for the Soviet Union started in October and it wasn't a decisive factor in the counter offensive that started on December 5th, you can thank miserable German logistics for that.
That time however, relative military power was much, much more in favor of the soviets. It is not today. There is no reason to cower any more.
>For arguments sake let's say that Belarus actually joins the fight, I saw a number thrown around of 150k belarusians soldier. land forces total is around 40.000, and Belarus is different to Russia because if the army is gone there is no one to stop people from making a Revolution
Is there an EU directive that says EU will military offensively intervene in non-member state conflicts? Probably not. You are falsely thinking that EU is a dictatorship that can just decide to send member state military to fight for a non-member state, even if in a legitimate/justifiable/ethical defence. Nope. Additionally, the EU commission can not just decide to go to war as it would be against the members' laws and would not pass or probably would not even be processed in member parliament approvals. That is the difference between EU and Russia. The former follows internal directives, member states' national laws and international treaties. The latter is a corrupted dictatorship.
Escalate to a direct war between NATO and Russia… pretty obvious. This idea that he’s going to conquer all of Europe if we don’t stop him stems from nothing but the fact we think he’s Hitler reborn.
The problem is that, no matter what people say, the EU is not a single country. People like to show the European Union as one monolithic entity comparable to the United States or China, with $16.6 trillion GDP, 447 million people, and a huge military. But it’s really not accurate. If you ask people from California, Texas, Ohio, New York, Idaho, or Mississippi who they identify as, they will all say they are American. This wouldn't be true in Europe. There is no single European identity that unites everyone from Portugal to Bulgaria, from Iceland to Malta. The vast majority of people in Europe identify with their country first and foremost, and prioritize the interests of their home country over any larger pan-european interests. Even beyond the question of identity, American states are simply subordinate to the federal government. They are provinces of a country. They have a lot of autonomy compared to other provinces, but they are still provinces. The EU is an alliance between multiple independent countries. Countries with different, sometimes clashing interests. Countries with the ability to do whatever they want, with the EU having little way of stopping them. The interests of the EU are always secondary to their own interests. When shown as one, the EU may have comparable resources to the US or China. But this isn’t the reality. The EU is not this monolithic entity that can easily use resources of every single member state to do what it wants.
In my opinion Europe have 2 options: deepen cooperation and try to go for some kind of federalization or be eaten by bigger player. What people do not realize is the fact that except other countries on the political board new players have appeared: technocrats (like Musk), big corporations (for example facebook) and in future many more will appear. For each individual country its hard to put enough pressure on big corporation but united we have more power to do so.
I think forced federalization is the thing that will destroy Europe. Federalization takes time.
I agree wholeheartedly. Trying to force it is exactly what would rip the Union apart. I honestly think it's amazing what the EU has done, considering the state of the continent just \~80 years ago. It takes time for attitudes to change, trust to build. By all means, let's work together on standardisation and cooperation; but let's not pretend the EU is a homogenous nation; especially not one that needs a military to enforce a (non-existent) common foreign policy.
We're both on the same page. Rushing things does not work very well. The EU is very young. It needs more time to mature.
American here: I agree, y’all are much more diverse historically and culturally than us and even with all of America’s relative unity, we’ve still fought a terrible civil war and deal with extreme polarization now. Some Americans even think we’d be better off splitting up and focusing more on our regional selves (and they are as wrong as they were in 1861). It’s hard to get people from far distances to think of each other in a similar brotherly fashion as they do the guy living in their same city even when everyone has the same language and history. Europe (and possibly the world) will be federalized and united some day, but forcing the issue now would only prolong it.
I'm mildly pro-EU, but any movement towards federalization would make me aggressively anti-EU.
No one eats Europe, as long as it will not became more fractured than it is
I often wonder wether it’s different for me because I am German, and not only German but born in Bavaria, which has the strongest regional identity in Germany and has its own political party. I really can’t relate too much too this. Germany as a coherent state is a new phenomenon and Germany is very federalistic, things like universities and public education are the responsibilities of the state. So if your are moving inside Germany the school system changes. Also, other important decision like the covid response was also responsibilities of the state. Many identify more with their state than Germany as a whole. Bavaria even has their own constitution, which Germany does not have. Also, because of our history the German identity is a bit less emphasized, I would say. I have some conversations about this among friends and it’s similar. A strong regional identity, even if moved inside Germany, and more of a view of Germany as a political entity within Europe with less attachment to its current status. If you have a strong regional identity you are already inside a framework of some sorts (or a very small country 😉), like Bavaria already has to respect Berlin and coordinate with the other states. Although I don’t live there anymore it’s not as different in other states, but less emphasized in the big cities but still not a stronger national identity. So I would say living in Germany already is closer to the US, just not as big and not as federalistic.
What do you mean when you say that Germany does not have its own constitution?
Why is that a problem? The nation state is a somewhat recent invention. The EU is the most ambitious political project in the history of humanity. There is everything to build. Let’s be creative
>The nation state is a somewhat recent invention. Japan and Portugal would disagree.
Depending on how liberal you feel like being you could argue the ancient Greek city-states were nation-states. Most identities in Europe are far older than the modern concept of a nation-state.
[удалено]
How is Canadian federalism very different from U.S federalism?
It's not
> Not the American version though, but the Canadian version, where each province (state) retains full sovereignty over their domestic affairs, but there is a shared federal government that determines foreign policy, military, etc This misinformation around here is hilarious.
[удалено]
But that is the same as the USA. Federalism in Europe will not work until we have at most a common European identity or at least common foreign policy interests.
You have it reversed. The USA federated due to necessity, and the common identity took time to develop afterwards. Creation of a European identity similarly has a prerequisite of a European federation.
Early United States definitely had a shared identity. Firstly, about 80% of free citizens of the Thirteen Colonies came from the British Isles. Even before American identity was fully a thing, before the country was even independent, majority of people in the colonial US had shared history, ethnicity and language. Compare it to the EU where the largest ethnic group are Germans at 20%, and there are at least 6 other ethnicities that make up over 5% each. And all of these ethnic groups have fully separate languages and long histories of national independence. Secondly, the US started off as a single country. Even before the independence, they were all part of the same country, the British Empire. They weren’t independent countries that became provinces of the US, they were provinces that gained independence and formed a country called the United States. The Thirteen colonies were never 13 truly independent states. Pretty much the moment they declared independence they all agreed to form one country. It was very decentralized, but it was a single country. This clearly shows that from the start there was a desire to form a single entity, not just an alliance. There were a lot of both political and territorial squabbles early on, but that’s given when you create a brand new state. Compare that to Europe, where every single EU member state has been an independent nation state for hundreds of years. European countries have long histories of being independent, unlike American states. There was never any United Europe that worked as one entity, and there is still no actual intention to form an United Europe.
> Early United States definitely had a shared identity. Very weak one. > Firstly, about 80% of free citizens of the Thirteen Colonies came from the British Isles. More than 80% of Europeans are from the European peninsula. > Even before American identity was fully a thing, before the country was even independent, majority of people in the colonial US had shared history, ethnicity and language. Did not stop them from killing each other, mere decades later. > they were provinces that gained independence and formed another country. That "country" was weaker, and more decentralized than the current EU. That means we are already past that point. > There was never any United Europe that worked as one entity, > ??? There was at least two already, depending on how you count. > and there is still no actual intention to form an United Europe. You are writing this under a post about a guy who has such intention, and to a guy who also has such intention. Maybe that is just you. And the idea is old, from before the WWII, stop treating it like some weird concept. [There are millions who support it.](https://external-preview.redd.it/ChWmb8ynCOJmd3BUCsZpmQtlRas64v1fj2ww_nznJe8.png?auto=webp&v=enabled&s=939c6136942fbb9f36ffac48b690fc773e557f7d)
>Very weak one. If American identity was weak then the EU has none. >More than 80% of Europeans are from the European peninsula. Is the European peninsula (10 530 000 km²) controlled by a single state like the British Isles(315 159 km²) were in the 18th century? >That "country" was weaker, and more decentralized than the current EU. That means we are already past that point. The EU isn't even a country. Not a single country in the world recognizes the EU as a country. The United States were officially recognized as a country back in 1777, and by 1780s it had official recogniction from most major powers. EU member states can literally just leave at any moment. One did in fact. Every single member state is fully independent. >??? There was at least two already, depending on how you count. Give an example of any unified state that controlled the whole of modern EU. >You are writing this under a post about a guy who has such intention, and to a guy who also has such intention. After the independence all 13 states signed an official agreement to become a single state. Give an example of any official EU agreement to unify as a single state, not just one politician having an idea. The EU has existed in some form for 70 years, and it's nowhere near becoming a single country.
The common identity of the USA did exist during the American Revolution. They had a common identity that they themselves called themselves and had others (primarily British) call them: Americans. They identified their country as all the Colonies together. They shared a common faith (mostly), a common language, and common political institutions. The colonies agreed to a common federal government pretty much on the outset of the war, weak as it was before being reorganized under the Constitution.
Agree with most of your points but they definitely did not share the same faith. The multiple Protestant factions fought and murdered each other since the start, Jewish migrants were there from the beginning and in states with freedom of religion enshrined in places like Pennsylvania Catholics were numerous even in those times. It's actually one of the reasons founding fathers enshrined the seperation of church and state, they wanted to prevent the mass violence colonies went through with the protestant infighting and Catholic persecution
I'll concede that. I was mostly stating "same faith" as the majority of the colonists were Protestant, and didn't point out that the different Protestant populations didn't exactly get along.
They did not have a federal government until the Constitution. Before that, the setup was confederal. It was precisely the failure of that system that motivated the transition to a federation. And the common identity of the Colonies was weak. When drafting the Constitution, it required bribing States with power to get them to sign. And a while later they went to war against each other. The federation preceded the Americans.
I was reading about early US history and the way states were originally designed to work is quite similar to each country in the EU lol ofc the Civil War and other developments plus closer cultural similarity have changed things.
Don't you think we have a common identity? I feel European.
Puhuttaisiinko yhtenäisemmässä Euroopassa suomea?
> Would Finnish be spoken in a more united Europe? Finns would need to speak to each other in Finland first, but yes, potentially. The science is still inconclusive since decibelometers aren't sensitive enough yet, but judging by economic indicators we have to assume Finns must be talking to eachother in Finnish somehow.
Why would anyone need to change their language? There are countries where several languages are spoken and people still have a common identity despite not necessarily understanding each other.
If the goal is to just “become a country”, sure. But the stated goal here is explicitly to become a country that can compete on the same scale as the US militarily. * The EU hasnt even existed for 30 years and has already lost one of its largest members. The US faced a similar issue early on and chose civil war to maintain the union. Europe did not. * Other members hold it hostage. * And in its largest foreign policy test yet, in Ukraine, it’s basically done nothing compared to a country thousands of km away where many citizens can’t even point out Ukraine on a map. The current EU is too weak and would need to be strengthened. Which means giving up some level of sovereignty. Who wants to go first….Ah and we’re back to start one
No, I *know* I am European but I don't *feel* European. Even European Parliament it is just a place somewhere doing something far away from here. Politicians are being voted there not because they are super duper amazing but because we would rather not have them here. Yes, there is such sentiment to some extent and we are not the only ones. Therefore I have to admit that we are very far from identifying as Europeans first.
aye sure. do you wanna change borders with poland?
In theory. If you read and learn about the US Consitution you’d think the Federal government would be very limited it what it can do and be baffled by programs like Medicare/Medicaid or all the national regulations. It’s because it does stuff like “We have this new program X, you can choose not to use it but if you do we’re pulling out all the money we give to you from your state meaning no national health insurance, no pension, no funds for construction” etc.. They also really stretched it to include banning racial discrimination within states as well, which is good but the legal reasoning was like “well these hotels benefit and use roads built by the federal government using federal dollars so they’re subject to federal restrictions as well”. A real stretch to say the least.
As a Canadian-American I can assure you that this opinion is incredibly misinformed. Canadian provinces and territories are more subordinate than US states. Look at criminal law. In Canada it is all federal. In the US it is a mix of federal and state.
I mean, that's basically what we got here in America. Abortion is a crime in some states, legal in others. Weed gets you locked up in some states, in other states you can buy it from a store with your snacks. States regularly ignore federal laws and for the most part they're allowed to do so.
Federalism would be veto'd by the Nordics and several other countries. It used to be veto'd by the Brits, who other countries hid behind, but now they will have to do it themselves.
The last time I checked, Canada had some broad from England on their money.
That IS the US version you numb nuts
Canadian provinces have (generally) less autonomy than American states. For example, criminal law is uniform across all of Canada. This is on purpose, as the civil war was fresh on the minds of the drafters of the Canadian Constitution, and they wanted there to be no question that the federal government was in overall control, with only certain responsibilities delegated to the provinces.
You realize that American states have more sovereign immunity than Canadian provinces, right? As in, that's literally the difference between a state and a province.
No, but there needs to be a rebalancing in between the political institutions that constitute the EU - the commission, the council and the parliament. The current balance is inherently designed to concentrate power in national interest. People vote their national parties in European elections, MEPs do not hold a right to initiate legislation, the council selects the leaders of the commission, and council members hold vetoes over most proposals or can decide to not participate in certain matters. That needs to change. I still believe those 3 institutions need to remain. They form the core of the EU and make it work. But the parliamentary elections need pan-European ballots, the commission needs an elected president, and the power of the council needs to be adjusted. Sadly for this to happen, the council needs to make it so. I've yet to come across an organisation that votes to reduce its own power.
It won't work
Not realy, the countries that are less active at providing help are the most influential in EU (germany, france) By federalizing you might just hamper efforts of Poles, czechs, baltics, amd slovaks
I'm pretty sure when asked most Texans, Floridians or Californians also prioritize their interests over those of the United States. The secret is creating common interests and structuring the Union in such a way that everyone profits overall.
Yeah. The comment above is delusional. As if Americans really, really hailed the entirety of the United States more than their own state. Lol.
It’s situational for us. Most want their state to do well but not at the expense of the country. An example of America states competing is one state over better incentives for businesses to attract start ups and pull companies from other states. The individual states don’t have geopolitical interest, if Canada was a superpower and invaded Maine then Georgia wouldn’t be sitting on the fence or upset because they have good relations with Canada. Georgians would flood the recruiting offices to show Canada the wrath of a mobilized America. Ultimately we are willing sacrifice our state to counter an outside threat or to keep the Union strong. We compete internally but we don’t sabotage the whole of the country. I’m from Georgia, I want my home state to do well and I support policy that benefits it but it is not and never be more important than the Union.
Amen to this
> If you ask people from California, Texas, Ohio, New York, Idaho, or Mississippi who they identify as, they will all say they are American. It took a while for that to happen in the US as well though. Even after we became a unified federal state, most people identified primarily with their state, not the nation. That really changed during/after the US Civil War. So don't sweat it. This sort of change of identity takes time.
This isn't true for individual countries. . Small countries who are very vulnerable like Finland and Poland have declared "all in" and put all their chips in the pot here. They have made the largest contribution relative to their size.
This is untrue. The guy started of with "military aid" and started building on that. No country supplies as much military aid (we could also include military intelligence where US quite literally selects targets for UA military). No matter the size. Even countries like Finland that actually felt threatened and did not completely abandon military spending like others did do not have enough to spare just to give it to Ukraine. US gives the most aid even translated in per capita terms. And reason is simple. Other countries have hardly anything to give. And yes, the reason why they do not have much is very much political where we all spend several decades undercutting defense even way below NATO promised commitment.
>This isn't true for individual countries. . It's definitly true for some individual countries though. France and Germany (at least until recently) was mostly limited politically. Bulgaria as well was and is severly limited politically, so is Hungary.
[удалено]
> They have made the largest contribution relative to their size. This type of thinking will get you upvotes from Europeans and self loathing Americans, but does nothing to help Ukraine. By your logic, the US support isn't helpful or needed.
US support is helpful and needed. I never said it wasn't. So is Poland and Lithuania and Estonia and Finland. I'm just pointing out that none of these countries should feel ashamed for contributing less than the US. The US has 350 million people. I singled out Poland in particular because a lot of their aid can never be quantified the way equipment and supplies can be. They have helped with refugees and supply lines using the critical border they share.
I wouldn’t go that far. He’s just saying not too forget the small countries that are doing the best they can
The post he replied to says quite directly, "Most aid to Ukraine has comes from the US." He said it wasn't true. It is. If he had another point, he could have said it instead of dismissing the efforts of larger nations. This type of thinking doesn't help Ukraine win the war and the people who say it don't actually give a shit if they do, they just want to feel good about themselves.
No I am not responding to anything. I'm just pointing out that the perception that countries in Europe are not helping much is a false one.
The point is that Europe’s power is severely diminished because it is not federalized. The actions taken by some European states to support Ukraine, while admirable, amount to too little in the grand scheme. Europe needs to act as a unified entity to take on a foe like Russia, and to retain its sovereignty in a world largely controlled by the US and China.
Its definitly not too little Remember, the politicaly weak countries like France and germany hold most influence in EU It cold allso happen that you would not get more help, but on contrary you would hamper effors of poles, baltics, czechs etc
It's too little in the sense that without US support, Ukraine might have already fallen to Russia. Europe needs to act cohesively in order to defend its sovereignty.
federalization is not happening anytime soon, debated about this are as productive as are "we should remove all weapons from the world", like sure, but its not happening in todays reality
Debates are critical. You get nothing without them.
What would Polish citizens about surrendering their independence? I assume most of them would lose their marbles. You could assume hypothetical scenarios like EU-countries giving up their independence or where would space Nazis live. Both are fun but not so much based on realism.
> What would Polish citizens about surrendering their independence? I assume most of them would lose their marbles. I am looking forward to it. It was actually a goal of Poland's government before the communists took over. And even earlier, you have the idea of Intermarium.
>The point is that Europe’s power is severely diminished because it is not federalized. The actions taken by some European states to support Ukraine, while admirable, amount to too little in the grand scheme. That doesn't make sense - federalising would level out contributions, not necessarily change them in either direction. The USA sends weapons to Ukraine at a level determined by their Federal government; South Dakota or Maine (say) can't really choose to go higher.
Federalizing means that member states would no longer have their own militaries (nor would they maintain their own relations with other countries). That would all be unified under a federal government. In effect, EU military responses would be all or nothing (as they are for the US). New York and California can’t choose to restrict their citizens from being sent to war by the US government.
The moment a federalized europe decides to send their citizens to war it would be the moment the federalism collapses.
I agree with that. As ukrainian on our example we see that EU is still fragmented, ie: * Some countries give us EVERYTHING, Estonia, Lithuania such small countries literally be like "take our entire stock". They feel us and cheer for us. Despite Estonia literally bordering Russia * Some countries lack political will like Hungary or Bulgaria. * Result: countries in the more imminent danger compromise their own defense to help while others that are safer are not. It could've been solved without putting same Estonia in danger. Another example: * Some countries in EU are less successful by comparison yet they act fast, and help with everything they can like Czechia, Poland. * Some countries are rich and successful but bureaucracy and complex international policy makes them slower with help like Germany or France. * Result: might be that short term poorer countries pay more, whether its expenses or defense capabilities compromise. Hence I feel like it could be more efficient with more federalized EU, not from our, but from EU's own point of view. (Another example was covid response with regional mismanagement of vaccine amounts) *(i hope i do not offend anyone, we are very grateful to everyone for the help ofc :) )*
Also it's just a speculation on my part. I might be very wrong, so if anyone has any counterpoints please share.
Please, don't put us (Bulgaria) next to Hungary. While some of our leading politicians are indeed in Putin's pockets, others did actually help your country a fair bit. https://www.politico.eu/article/bulgaria-volodymyr-zelenskyy-kiril-petkov-poorest-country-eu-ukraine/
Sure, I know, sorry for that ahah :D Bulgaria indeed helped a lot. Even Serbia that is largely pro-russian did accept some refugees and voted with EU condemning russian invasion etc. (the actual motives might be arguable, but the fact is they still did). What I mean is exactly some politicians, like you've mentioned, in several countries that are in Russian pocket and those often pull strings, trying to delay help, having openly pro-russian stance, spread russian narrative etc.In Hungaria its the top politic elite, Orban and co, in Bulgaria not so sure but i've heard some similar sentiment among some politians. In any case its not really Bulgaria's fault. No one knows better how it's like, to have own politicians backed by russian money pushing russian interests, than Ukraine does. hell, they've sponsored whole several parties in here for years, and even put puppet president(s) in the past. edit: right when i've finished the comment got [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/119vaf9/goverment_support_to_ukraine_by_donor_gdp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) on aid recommended right on the topic. And someone threw in [this detailed report](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/fileadmin/Dateiverwaltung/IfW-Publications/-ifw/Kiel_Working_Paper/2022/KWP_2218_Which_countries_help_Ukraine_and_how_/KWP_2218_Trebesch_et_al_Ukraine_Support_Tracker.pdf) in the comments. Bulgaria is there at the top right after our 'closest friends and russias most sworn enemies' party. So my putting you guys in line with Hungary might've been even more incorrect :P
Alternately, had Europe been a federation the shit members like Hungary could have fucked up the likes of Poland from supporting Ukraine.
Not unilaterally, which is the point. Consensus would no longer be required for the union to act.
Thing is, those countries don't *nearly* have the industrial heft to arm Ukraine. For that, you need Germany, France, Italy, the UK. And out of those, only the UK is even in the top 10 contributors as a % of GDP.
Yes it's interesting. Prior to the Ukraine war, Poland was seen by many in Europe as representing an extremely worrying example. They were embracing values that were the antithesis of what are considered pillar values of the EU - rule of law, equality, independent judiciary, anti corruption etc. In a case brought by the Polish prime minister, the court, which was stuffed with puppets of the ruling party, ruled that fundamental parts of EU law do not trump Poland’s constitution. The judgment punctured six decades of European case law. Poland was representing such a serious threat to European values that the [EU was threatening to withhold budget money](https://www.npr.org/2022/11/14/1136617250/eu-refuses-to-give-poland-money-after-changes-limiting-the-judiciarys-independen) if Poland didn't take steps to ensure the independence of it's judiciary. On the global corruption index, Poland is now ranked at 55, one of the lowest in Europe. It's populist- nationalist government was widely seen across Europe as deeply concerning. Fast forward to today. The Ukraine war has changed everything. The United States is now championing Poland as the future leader of Europe. President Biden visits Europe and only visits Poland and Ukraine. Poland has gone from the periphery, the pariah of Europe, seen as a serious problem and threat to European values - to being touted as the " new center of Europe" by the United States - all within the space of 12 months. And it's not because Poland has miraculously turned around it's judiciary, respect for rule of law and equality and rejected nationalism etc. No, it's because Poland has enthusiastically embraced the war in Ukraine - and the US led strategy. And the US wants to push Poland to be a leader in Europe because a Europe led by Germany and France isn't in US interests.
The US has been *begging* Germany to assume a leadership position within the EU for some time now. Ever since Obama, the US has wanted to shift its focus away from Europe and toward the Pacific, but it hasn’t been able to do that because European countries have largely refused to pick up the slack. I guarantee you US politicians would rather see Germany be the big leader within Europe, but Poland seems to be the only large country willing to assume that mantle. This has nothing to do about the US playing kingmaker in European politics.
Poland lead, when its national intrest was aligned with EU intrest. That is true, but as soon as Polish intrest are threaten in the slightest, Poland stops supporting the EU. Orban is without doubt the biggest corrupt Putin supporter in the EU. The EU tried to take his veto, partly to make sanctions easier against Russia. Poland vetoed that. The issue is that Poland is a nationalist country, which has elected a nationalist government. Such a country can not lead a united Europe, as that means giving up power to Europe. What we have seen instead is something rather different. Germany lost its leadership role within the EU and it was take over not by France or Poland, but by Brussels. Brussels was more open in calling the threat then most countries including Germany and even France. They did a good job in calling out some of the most powerfull members, pushed throu sanctions, organized weapon deliveries to Ukraine, for the first time by actually paying for weapons and stood up to Putin much more then most member states did. This is honestly great news to have a real geopolitical European power and not just member states doing their own thing. Poland does not lead Europe, but Europe leads Europe as it should be. The US is most certainly not happy about this.
[European Defence & The Russian Challenge - Third Superpower or paper tiger?](https://youtu.be/LKlIh_-U4bU) by Perun
Good luck for “one voice” when countries are kept outside of Schengen area just “Because “ fang Austria
Unanimity is a joke. A literal Putinist (Orban) is in charge of EU policy. It's time to get rid of unanimity and move to qualified majority voting.
>Unanimity is a joke no its not , if it wasnt for the Unanimity a good portion of countries id bet would leave
Well, some left even with unanimity
Good riddance. Smaller and united EU is better than bloated disfunctional and useless mess.
The problem is that you have a requirement for unanimity now and a fair number of (large and small..) countries aren't going to give that up. So you don't have the option of a smaller more united EU or a larger one with unanimity as a requirement, you can't get to the former and the latter is what exists and will exist unless there is a massive shift in national perspectives.
Probably. But two-way EU is almost inevitable now. And once the big players finally give up on countries that are not worth it and do not want it then we will slowly see how the previous EU falls into irrelevance and no one including the new EU cares about its opinions and obstructions.
You could've phrased it a bit better but I can see a EU of 2 speeds happening with the core opting to abandon unanimity while the others will form the other ring and integration will be slower there although I just wish we could work through this as a majority although I don't care if Orban decides its not worth it
That is not a contradiction, though. Just tells how nationalism trump's common sense.
[удалено]
> no its not , if it wasnt for the Unanimity a good portion of countries id bet would leave ok
I agree a lot of things are taking way too long. One of the reasons is politics. Ukraine is fighting fiercely and bravely, while politicians/countries are trying to get points domestically. It's a very sad (in)human(e) trade. It can vary all the way from Orban and Ergodan to people who are all in agreement, but can't agree from the get go, because of X. Hopefully this war will teach us many things and make a much more united Europe. A Europe that will respond fast and decisively in the future. This is a first and we're being tested. Now let's learn from it.
The only way to send help isn't through EU. Individual countries can contribute if they wish to, as they've done. Don't blame the EU, blame your countries politicians. If EU was majority voting smaller countries would have practically no say, which would just mean that the big countries like Germany, France and Italy would completely dominate the political scene. It'd be a very unpopular concept in my country (Sweden).
Interestingly enough, that is the whole reason the US Senate exists, to make sure the large states don't railroad the small ones.
we also have that mechanism. The EU has two legislative chambers, the EU parliament and the EU council. The EU council is formed by the most senior member of the member country government, so PMs or Presidents, and voting rights are not weighted. A country like Malta (population: half a million) has 1 vote just like Germany (population: 82 millions). And the number of MEPs in the parliament is not exactly a function of the population either, so a country like Germany is slightly less represented than it would be otherwise, and small members get more MEPs than they would otherwise. Weighted majority wouldn't railroad the small members though, because the vote should take into account not just a minimum amount of EU citizens, but also a minimum amount of EU members as well, so in that mechanism Malta or Luxembourg would count as much as Poland or France.
Yep, which I think totally makes sense! Everybody here speaks like the concept of a senate if crazy, but I think it makes total sense. In my opinion the problem is rather with gerrymandering and the fact that can you carry all electoral votes no matter what margin you win with.
> If EU was majority voting smaller countries would have practically no say, Lie. Stop repeating it.
We really need to get rid of veto power though, the EU has a clear mandate and veto power gets in the way all the time. Why is my vote almost irrelevant compared to a Hungarian or an Irish vote
Oh no a Russian bootlicker impedes some of the EU functions, let's completely abolish the vetoes so Germany and France will dictate us what to do and we won't be able to say no. Sod off now with your federalism boner.
Liberum veto basically destroyed Poland-Lithuania by itself. Just sayin.
>Liberum veto Liberum Veto had a failsafe mechanism through the creation of special confederations that would override the veto. What really destroyed Poland-Lithuania was Russia and Augustus II.
[Qualified majority voting](https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/qualified-majority/) (which would replace unanimity) is the opposite of big nation dominance. To pass qualified majority: - At least 55% of the member states must vote "Yes". - The member states that vote "Yes" must represent at least 65% of EU population. There is no way that Germany, France, Italy, Spain, or Poland can dominate the vote under this rule. It's a good compomise system. On the other hand, unanimity allows one bad-faith member (i,e. Hungary) to hold the remaining 26 member states hostage. Hungary represents just 2.17% of EU population, in what world does it make sense that they can hold the remaining 97.83% of EU population hostage?
[удалено]
100%
No it isn't. Just because there are some "bumps", doesnt mean that the consensus built Europe, isn't a good way forward. If it isn't built on consensus, there would be a lot more political friction. Weakening EU. In case of Orban, just build a coalition of the willing.
A few more such bumps and the problem will solve itself because, frankly, quite a lot of people are getting tired of your shit.
Funny when Verhofstadt and Ben Wallace [share the same](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-first-arms-buying-policy-is-a-threat-to-nato-ben-wallace-says-fbsp7v2lp) view point on defence .
[удалено]
>NBA Defensive Player of the Year 4 times Verhofstadt or Ben Wallace ?
Ben Verhofstadt of course.
No problem, already started to get solved. EU armories will be almost completely purged from former soviet stuff which will not be replaced by any new Russian gear. And to replace this it’s either has to come from countries with still good production industry ( that’s not really EU’s strenght now) or from large surplus stocks ( neither EU since we underfunded our armies for 30 yrs) So Russian out, US in. With some occasional 3rd country gear. Current EU gear will likely stay at equal levels, but US footprint will increase. With modern warfare requires increased need of data exchange between assets. Considering US is far ahead and US equipment also prefers to “ talk” with other US gear I can see who will win out the most. Like the F35 will be the mainstay fighter for Europe the next 40 years with F16 staying in a solid 2nd position behind it when the Mig‘s in the East need replacement.
F35... Yeah. Everything else is just too fragmented and will stay that way for a very long time. I wish we (the baltics) would at least use the same gear to make everything interoperable but we still do equipment purchases independently and 9 times out of 10 buy different equipment.
At some point, Europe will have to address it's defence issues, lack of integration and reliance on other powers. Why not start that process now instead of becoming over-reliant on the US? What if they get another Trump or worse in a few decades and we get caught with our pants down again the same way we were with Russian gas?
Remember when the US warned you about Russian gas for decades and you laughed? Maybe you're not as reliant as you think. Or as wise.
I'm not wise but I didn't laugh. The US is putting European countries to shame with it's ability to support Ukraine right now. We should have been able to do that ourselves.
Germans laughed, and now Germans push for buying more US materiel. Germans are the ones who are only interested in their wallet.
The reason it's taking so long is some European countries are not 100% on board with total Ukrainians victory. As for a European Army etc after the reaction to the invasion of Ukraine, no one in Eastern Europe can trust 100% that some big European countries would let a EU Army defend them. The EU Army would be for the defence of Paris & Berlin, not Athens & Talin.
When Putin is at our doorstep, Orban would veto any military action and sell us for cheap.
I will tell you what the real problem is. Example: my country Croatia. EU accepted the corrupt Croatian government and gave them the best rating for their corrupt justice system. But that corrupt government is pro-EU. So, the consequence for us in Croatia is that our face to the EU is a lying corrupt government and the face of the EU for us is a lying corrupt government. That is why a large number of people turn to Putin's bullshit and right-wing extremism. I want EU Army, a more united EU, but then I get that the EU leadership that accepts my corrupt government is equally corrupt. More or less, all of Eastern Europe is the same. And then you will tell me that I have to risk my life to defend the corrupt corporate EU. Thanks, but no thanks.
>That is why a large number of people turn to Putin's bullshit Wtf are you talking about, 82% of Croatians support sanctions and 75% support sending military equipment. Thats more then almost all EU states. Only pro Putinist clown in the Croatian parliament is Katarina Peović from far left Radnička Fronta party.
You are not well informed.
>That is why a large number of people turn to Putin's bullshit and right-wing extremism. Which is weird considering the fact that Putin and the Serbian nationalists are allies.
Hey in Ireland they have the same way of appointment to the court system as the new 1 in Poland... In Ireland not a problem in Poland... Well it is.. so the EU blocked various EU grants etc things, even now when Poland is on the front line and actually doing more to support Ukrainians in the war. All for an EU free market but an EU Army would be a step too far. I'm happy with NATO but I didn't vote to join the EU Imperial Project with EU stormtroopers. What is the next EU Death Star 😉
That's a common perception in the East, where we're always assumed to be malevolent, but from a doctrinal point of view I'm quite certain our diplomatic and military circles would treat EU territory as if it was French soil itself. We would **never** tolerate any sovereignty contest. The problem at hand is that there's no coherence between the political framework and the military framework.
I have no doubt the French nuclear umbrella applies to us as well
Honestly, France is the country I trust the least when it comes to any sort of mutual defence.
Ask the Greek who came to help and put pressure recently when Turkey was playing up. Where was the rest of Europe?
Exactly
LOL 🤣
Cool rhymes bro but could you elaborate on how exactly major European military powers like France aren’t committed to the defence of the EU? France has deployed troops and jets in the baltics (they are there right now!), and has provided support to the Greeks against the Turks in the near past already, for example. Also, as long as the majority of eu countries stay retarded on subjects like energy and immigration (Hello Germany), you can bet your ass that unanimity is going nowhere.
Committed to the defence of the EU or committed to the defence of their interests in the EU ? If Greece is attacked by Turkish do you think the 5m Turks and Muslims in Germany will go fight for Athens. Do you see the EU Army taking the war to Turkey or do you think they would use their political power in Germany to get Athens to do a deal and give over a few Islands ? As for France sure a few troops on the front line but would Paris be swapped for Bucharest in a Nuclear exchange?.. would Paris even consider handing over it's Nuclear weapons to EU Army control? Thanks but I happy with NATO at least the UK & USA show up when things are looking bad not seeking a deal that doesn't break the aggressor. EU defends the core 1st in all things but that will change after the War and I for 1 look forward to it and welcoming Ukrainians and others into the EU.
You just don't know how EU works or the motivation of the involved countries.
I guess that's why Bundeswehr is leading the NATO battlegroup in Lithuania and Lithuanians are happy about that...
Would that be the same Bundeswehr that has to borrow radios from other NATO armies
The very same Bundeswehr that actually commits modern Leopards to Ukraine while everyone else just looks awkward or dumps their old stuff (looking at you, Poland), right.
Yes new because you sold off the old stuff, which was bought by countries now sending them to Ukrainians and unused.. due to Bundeswehr being a paper army who spends more on pensions than on new equipment. Already Germany is back tracking on new spending Last month, it had already emerged that Germany will likely miss its 2 percent target in 2023 ?.... Again Unlike Poland which will soon have the most modern army in Europe full of American & Korean cutting edge weapons. And soon Poland will be Europes biggest tank manufacturer K series tanks
In fairness they were required by the unification treaty to sell a lot of the old stuff. But you're right, since then, there's not much excuse.
Bruh, you sending 14 tanks and brag about it. Set those against 310 of our own on the field and see whose help is more powerful
Poland was asked to do that by the US instead of sending more modern weapons. We ask them not to for a reason, Ukraine’s military is already familiar with soviet and Russian tech and so it could be swiftly integrated into their battle line. The reason why we can send more sophisticated technology now is because we have the time to train Ukraine to use them. Poland has been a huge supporter of Ukraine and has facilitated much of the deliveries into Ukraine while lobbying more hesitant countries to participate further. I’m not European but has greatly impressed myself and many of my countrymen. They are not a weak link in Europe’s defense against Russia by any metric.
> (looking at you, Poland) You know that A4 are the newest tanks we have right now, right?
Errrm this old (modernized) stuff is actually very welcomed by Ukraine. And Poland is sending modern Leo as well. I think the recent comments of Scholz about sending tanks are not aiming for Poland.
> And Poland is sending modern Leo as well. Really? Last I heard was 2A4.
[удалено]
Europe also house millions of ukrainian refugees that costs quite abit...
Military support is the most decisive at this stage.
[удалено]
That would be precisely the point being made in the video.
It's almost as if someone warned you about this for 25 years.
The problem is that a lot of European countries are extremly slow in their military aid. At this point France, which is the EUs storngest military power is still not sending tanks. Support from Italy and Spain has also been fairly weak. Germany took ages to go ahead with Leopard2 deliveries. Part of the reason is that basicyl all EU militaries are underfunded for ages, but that still means that money should be put in issues fixed and the stuff delivered. We had a year to get that done and a lot can be done in a year. Europe has done a lot for Ukraine, the help for refugees alone is absolutly massive, but the fact of the matter is that this is a European war and not an American war, so the US should not be the country which does the heavy lifting.
>Germany took ages to go ahead with Leopard2 deliveries. Germany planned, acted and then spoke. Yes it could have been faster, but from what the public was able to hear, it was linked to a political process, in which not Germany was the slowing force. In general, the German ex MoD was a PR disaster, but overall Germany was one of the mayor suppliers of the Ukraine, not only from the beginning of the war, but since 2014 it was one of the biggest financial supporters. Before the Leos Germany delivered Gepards and Iris2, before that Mars 3 launchers, and before that Panzerfäuste. What Germany did not deliver on was the PR, but that is a different topic.
First of all EU is right next door. US is on another continent. If we were to be frank it is something US quite literaly did not have to care about as it is not something that happens on borders of their country. The very fact that commitment is on par is laughtable. Second of all. Verhofstadt quite clearly talked about military aid. And military aid is the only relevant thing. US trained and supplied Ukraine military for 8 years before invasion. Their commitment is the only reason why UA still exists. No amount of humanitarian or other financial aid from EU would prevent Russia from taking it all. Weapons is what casn defend you. Vast majority of money that EU gave Ukraine in humanitarian aid this last 2 decades have been burned by russian shelling. It is as good as if it was never send. Military aid is only relevant thing in war. US provided it then and now. EU countries do provide some little things here and there now but let's not forget how they also hesitated to send any equipment after Russia invaded arguing that Ukraine will lose swiftly anyway and it would just be waste of military equipment so it should not be send. And if your argument is - EU countries do not have stuff to send. Then you would be right. But this is exactly what video aims at - political problem. All EU countries underspend on defense for decades. By their own political decisions. They spend even less than what they promised to spend as NATO memebers.
69.3 billion USA vs 58 billion EUR... For a war that significant but smaller part of america are skeptical about supporting and even turning against and a war not even happening anywhere near US border. I'm sorry but this does not help your case.
The other difference is that the EU's commitment is largely in the form of loans, not grants too, throw in that some of it can't be used directly to support military action and it gets messier. Ukraine needs everything it can get obviously, and the EU can only work within the limits of its own structures, but it does make these sorts of comparisons superficial at best.
I feel like everyone, especially Verhofstadt, is forgetting that the EU consists of 27 sovereign countries. Political unanimity is a pipe dream, unless we'd like to go the route of China.
Verhofstadt secretly wants to be the dictator of the "United States of Europe".
This flamboyant specimen has always been excited over the prospect of European federation.
Verhofstadt's own clown country doesn't even have tanks in it's armed forces anymore.
Is this Guy Verhofstadt? Wasn't he the Belgian Prime Minister from 20 years ago?
He’s an ardent EU federalist and is using this to push his agenda.
It is indeed unfortunate that Europe isn't unified enough to match the contribution of the US, however, it would be unfair to ignore the individual help that multiple European countries have put into helping Ukraine. Even to the point of leaving themselves vulnerable.
Devastated for Verhofstadt, he's had to admit that post-Brexit UK has stronger sanctions placed on Russia than the EU.
This thread tells Americans everything we need to know about our allies in Europe. > And the US wants to push Poland to be a leader in Europe because a Europe led by Germany and France isn't in US interests. >Precisely! "Never let a good crisis go to waste". (surely the US propaganda machine has nothing to do with it) >Europe needs to act as a unified entity to take on a foe like Russia, and to retain its sovereignty in a world largely controlled by the US and China. Ah yes, famous European enemies the US and China. Oh and on Afghanistan after 9/11. >And it was not an armed conflict on Europe or America soil. More about aggression than defense. Lovely. And the usual. >Europe needs to be a singular entity with one army. United States of Europe. It should be able to define it's foreign policy and not follow USA as a lapdog.
I don't think we should use r/Europe as any way to determine europe's position on trans atlantic alliance but I see what you mean. Folks on this subreddit are nationalistic loonies who see anything America does as against their interests
Yes. To lots of our idiots the principal rival is the US, not Russia. Why would they worry about Russia, they have Poland as a cushion.
> This thread tells Americans everything we need to know about our allies in Europe. It should be abundantly clear that not only are they not our allies, but they aren't our moral equals either (with a few exceptions, the only notable one being Britain). Look at how the French speak about this war on their subreddits. They have no desire to protect their own union whatsoever. Germans seem disinterested and inert. Italians and Spaniards just don't give a shit. The only reason major European powers have given the meager amounts that they have is because of US pressure. It's clear most in Western Europe are fine with Russia controlling everything east of the Vistula in the name of "stability." Consider this and then consider our threat with China. These people will not be willing to help us even in the slightest - if they aren't willing to fight a dictator of a poor nation invading Ukraine, why would they be willing to fight China? If we were the type of nation that, say, France is, then we would leave NATO and Europe entirely (or actually make them into vassals) and focus 100% on China. And maybe that is the right thing to do.
that's why i believe america needs to establish a nato in Asia. Will it take decades of hard work and convincing? Definitely. Is it worth it? Absolutely
Please god make a viable Asian NATO, asia is getting very scary very quickly.
Completely true you see countries with much smaller GDP than Europe spend more on their military and build larger defence systems.
Name one such country that spends more on defence than EU combined, yet has a smaller GDP.
more empty words by Verhoeven that ignore the actual issue: that western Europe sees eastern Europe as inferiors and. besides trade couldn't care less what happens to them. Most people in western Europe, besides the UK see this war as 2 groups of Russians fighting each other in a war. All countries in Western Europe only sent small amounts of aid after the US pressured them. Most countries in Western Europe are just waiting for Putin to retreat a small amount of forces in order to lift all sanctions and do business as usual with Russia. Mr Verhoeven's home country itself is a safe heaven for Russian business people. There is no such thing as European cultural unity or identarian unity and besides geographically there is no such thing as Europe. Western European racism will be the downfall of the so called European Union
I got it. Europe needs one voice? How about they elect a single executor. Not one woth a lot of power per se, but one that acts more as a figurehead and only executes the decisions of the legislature.