Awesome. Canada next.
Maybe Trump shitting on everything and making Europe realize they don’t need the approval of the US to breathe was the best thing that could have happened to Ukraine.
I think we’re in for some rocky times over the next few years, but I think the world will be better off with the USA knocked down a few pegs. They are too large and their general population is too easily swayed by nonsense.
The question is, will the population learn anything by being starved out or will they continue to blame anything but their own hubris?
we are, today, russia 15 years ago. i’m putting in as much work as i can to not be russia as it is now in 15 years.
UK is still coming to terms with Brexit, which happened in 2020, and many will still argue it was a good idea, just badly executed.
And the rest of the world, particularly the EU, needs to realize that if they don’t pull close together they’re going to be squeezed out by large forces in the world. I mean look at the influence it already has as a bloc - if they’d cooperate more closely they could be an equal power to contrast China and the USA. Which is why there are forces working overtime to keep EU nations apart.
I fear we are well on the path as was described by Robert Heinlein a while back:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/"If_This_Goes_On—"
Unfortunately I don’t expect things to go well I’m the states. I really hope I’m wrong in that…
Good question. Germany only “learned” by being forced to change after military defeat (and even so, the AfD has been making progress). That’s not going to happen here - it will have to be the harder way, total societal collapse.
Trump does shake shit up and sometimes, good things come out of it. It’s not worth the cost of the bad things though, because it’s usually everyone below the 1% that suffer.
I 100% agree that the changes our former allies are making to be more independent from the US are good for them and probably the world as a whole. I do think the the parallel weakening of the US as a world power is what Putin wants for Trump and his ilk to do. My hope is that the economy is hit so hard and people suffer so much that it spurs change before we’re past the point of relatively short term recovery (5-10 years, not 20+).
We just need a handful of Republican reps to decide that they don’t actually want to give up all of their power to a dictator and his gang, or that maybe they don’t want to be associated with the Nazi party. Just a few change their mind, impeach, and remove. Maybe the first time a member of Congress eats a bullet outside of their residence because someone reached the end of their rope, others will act out of fear. I’ve got my fingers crossed for who I hope it is.
Just one? My list is far longer.
Intentional word choice to not get banned for calling for violence. But yea, I’ve got 3 house reps, a governor, and two senators that I wouldn’t lose sleep over if I saw their names in the obits.
the best thing that could have happened to Ukraine.
And therefore the world
Yeah now when the ukrainian kids will be kidnapped and sent to the frontline they will have brand new FAL.
Less talking and more acting.
It might actually happen more now after the results of the recent German election. They formed a two-way coalition which makes it much easier to do anything.
No coalition has been formed as of today. Germany was supportive of a Ukrainian EU membership before the elections as well. Nothing has changed on a European level after Germany’s elections.
You’re right that it’s not formed yet, however it would be pretty ignorant not to see the pieces on the board. To say that CDU and SPD are being handed an opportunity on a golden platter is an understatement. Not only that, but they both very aware of the direness of their situation. There is simply no world where this coalition isn’t formed, mark my words. Plus, you’re so, so, so wrong about nothing changing in Europe. To not understand the power a two party coalition has versus a three party coalition is like intentionally burying your head in the sand.
Plus, you’re so, so, so wrong about nothing changing in Europe. To not understand the power a two party coalition has versus a three party coalition is like intentionally burying your head in the sand.
The makeup and coalitions in the parliament of the European Union are completely unaffected by the German election.
Not true. Germany and France have the more influence over the other members of the European Union than any other country. To say they have an equal say is like saying the US has an equal say in UN resolution voting. Sure, they have one vote, but many other members will lockstep vote in line with that country for multiple reasons. It’s called soft power… I’m sorry but how is anyone this dense?
I’m sorry but how is anyone this dense?
Yeah… asking myself the same question here.
The position of the German state on EU topics has not changed significantly through this election. The Ampel-Coalition, CDU, and SPD each have roughly the same position on Ukraine. The fact that Germany will most likely have a 2-party coalition going forward does not change ANYTHING in the European Parliament. Those elections took place in June 2024, and will not be held again until 2029.
That’s like saying “Oh, Oregon just had elections for their state government and the makeup of dems vs reps slightly shifted; this is huge for US foreign policy!”
Sure, it can be a mood indicator, but as stated above, the actual positions are more or less the same, and the German state being a bit more swift to act thanks to a 2-party coalition is irrelevant for the day-to-day business and direction of the EU, which is governed by supra-national institutions unaffected by Germany’s elections.
That’s just messaging from leadership on future direction.
Unfortunately, Orban has not magically stopped being Putin’s toadie.
I think Ukraine should definitely join, but right now we desperately need to reform the veto system before taking any more members
Ukraine first and hopefully Canada soon after.
And US, in the end, we need to help them. We should write down a list of reforms for them, they got people shooting at themselves, living in tents along the streets, they’re full of drugs addicted, obesity, low quality education, and so on. Let them apply too
It’s so funny that even the altruistic Americans don’t ever see the benefits of support deals, only that they’re either helping or taking.
It’s funny that in the end it’s a question of oil and gas
So um… what happens if a EU country who is not in NATO gets invaded? 🤔
The EU defense clause gets triggered, which is basically a weak obligation to provide “assistance”. It’s not an automatic call to arms like NATO’s A5.
I think it’s generally agreed upon that Art. 42 (7) of the EU-Treaty is stronger than Art. 5.
EU: If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
“an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power”
vs
NATO: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
“as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force” means direct military support isn’t a guarantee.
I think it’s generally agreed upon that Art. 42 (7) of the EU-Treaty is stronger than Art. 5.
That’s absolutely not the consensus. This is what the EU themselves say about article 42:
Substantial uncertainty remains over the interpretation of Article 42(7). Following its first and only invocation in 2015, after the November terrorist attacks in Paris, debate intensified on how it works in practice, its scope, the definitions of ‘armed aggression’ and ‘territory’, and which forms of aggression it applies to (e.g. whether those include hybrid threats). Experts note that Article 42(7) ‘leaves more room for interpretation than one might expect from a clause in a legally binding text’. Many experts hoped that the Strategic Compass would deliver clarification, however that did not occur.
The problem is that through precedent we know that A5 invocations can (and almost certainly will) trigger military aid. With A42, you at best get “aid and assistance”, which the EU notes is super vague. The “by all means in their power” is also very vague legally speaking. Suppose Russia invades Estonia, and Latvia says “intervening militarily would invite a Russian invasion of Latvia, so intervening is outside of our power”. This consistent vagueness at every level of A42 makes it so it’s generally assumed that A42 could very well be weaker than A5, even if the wording appears stronger. It’s a political choice how to interpret A42, but with A5 the scopes are defined a bit more clearly, and there’s far less wiggle room due to the collective action, rather than the individual actions EU member states would take.
through precedent we know that A5 invocations can (and almost certainly will) trigger military aid.
I don’t see why this is ‘almost certain’. You rightfully point out that the EU clause leaves wiggle room, but I don’t see why you think that room is not there with NATO. I don’t know if the current US president cares much about any precedents. If he can wiggle he will wiggle. I don’t think Europe trusts US to honor A5 any more.
There is of course wiggle room in the NATO clause, but there’s less of it. Additionally, the fact that the collective decides if military action is needed then individual members don’t get an opt-out of that.
Of course, ultimately nothing is ironclad, but given the established precedent for A5 and the excessive amount of individual wiggle room in A42, as far as I know A5 is considered to be more likely to be successfully invoked than A42 is.
I think you’re putting too much weight on established precedent. The precedent you’re citing were attacks made by non-state actors, and fighting back was easy since they didn’t have air superiority. Precedent is going out the window if a more serious threat attacks a member state.
Time to protect yourselves from Putin and his puppet.
Going to be blocked by multiple countries.
The mark of Ukraine Rada looks so cool
I think you mean the Ukrainian coat of arms. Or the tryzub in general, very common in Ukrainian heraldry and branding.
oh, thanks for the correction!
Ursula Von Der Leyen, head of the UE commission, have been indicted in multiple case of corruption and is notoriously in bed with the weapons industry and big pharma. She’s as rotten as Putin.
I know the jingoists will hate me, but hey, you’re just some big bombs shill. Germans pretending to care about Ukraine must be the biggest hypocrisy ever lmao. We all know who’s paying for the bombs. This war is just subsidy to thales and airbus.
Will Ukraine take the bait again?
