It's (e). They're getting intelligence from NATO countries.
I thought that was publically acknowledged? Could be wrong.
I thought that was publically acknowledged? Could be wrong.
Are we supposed to believe that if the EU invaded Belarus, that Russia wouldn’t pass any intelligence to the Belarusian government?
It's a double-edged sword for the EU leaders in the middle to long-term, because once a great part of the European population will start realising that they have been in effect disenfranchised then said population will have no qualms in following new political leaders that will leave "democracy" at the side, and thus leaving the concept of the EU for dead.
That was in fact Mitterand's goal in late 1989 - early 1990, the other way round, that is, until the Americans (well, the honorable James Baker) freaked out and nothing came out of it. I still think from time to time what could have been if "from Lisbon to Vladivostok" had become real, just as Mitterand had wanted it. [1]
And second, it may sound as a paradox, but those authoritarian leaders are more connected with the masses and their needs (and vice-versa) compared to a pseudo-democratic and very opaque assembly composed of some hundreds of members (what are now called “parliaments”) of which no-one knows all that much, for that matter.
So a switch to an authoritarian leader would in effect, and comparatively speaking, mean a return of effective power to the masses, because it is on those masses that the legitimacy of said leader depends. Today’s parliamentarian regimes have long lost their legitimacy (notice senile 90+ years old ladies being parliament members in the most “democratic” country on Earth), it’s all a Glasperlenspiel [1] at this point, following prior moves blindly while the reason behind those moves has long been lost.
You can vote for your country's elections. You can also vote for the EU parliament.
And ever EU nation supports Ukraine, with the exception of Hungary. In this case the policy of the EU is very much aligned with the policy of ... pretty much the entire EU.
Because why should we waste hundreds of thousands of lives on protecting "just some land".
Ah, yes, when it is a Western border at risk it is totally fine, it's not fine if that is a Russian border.
Hypocrisy.
> Beginning with the reign of Ivan the Terrible in the sixteenth century, Russia managed to expand at an average rate of 50 square miles per day for hundreds of years, eventually covering one-sixth of the earth’s landmass.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2016-04-18/r...
Has EU, or more aptly the comprising countries thereof, declared war?
The only thing I hate more than warmongering are proxy wars.
I'm all for Ukraine winning, because if they lose then Putin and Russia are vindicated in warmongering as a proper form of diplomacy, but I'm sick and tired of proxy wars.
As an aside: Yes, as an American I stand with the Republicans in denying further aid to Ukraine if we're going to continue doing the same thing. If we're going to lend more aid, either we punt the money figures up a few orders of magnitudes or we send in American boots to settle it ourselves. No more halfassed "aid" that only prolongs the war indefinitely and enlarges the suffering of civilians.
And he is using a website made for the smarter kids. This election is going to be golden.
Being in a group that accepts people that say "this group is smart" annoys me to no end as the lowest form of circle jerk. Specially when it's not even true.
There's no IQ test to access this site, there's no merit on the part of the users, the merit is on the part of the moderation, since the user pool is the same as any public website written in english.
Regardless of the scale or nature of the aid, since Russia is directly involved, the Ukraine war can only be a "proxy war" if you believe it was instigated by the EU/NATO/the US, which is essentially assuming the Russian talking point that it was somehow forced to invade Ukraine because it felt threatened.
I disagree with that position and if you do to please do not describe it as a "proxy war" even if you think that other countries providing a limited amount of aid rather than getting actively involved will cause the war to be prolonged.
It makes sense, helping an ally who is attacked doesn't sound like a proxy war to me.
Furthermore, I’m having a hard time understanding your reasoning regarding US aid.
Currently, Russia is paying an enormous price while the US risks no lifes and gets to send its old weapons to Ukraine. This might not be a winning strategy for Ukraine, but it sure sounds better than an open war between 2 major nuclear powers which puts billions of lifes at risk or draconian Russian occupation of large parts of Ukraine.
But the west is interested in depleting and weakening Russia, which we can accomplish by prolonging this war as long as we can by supplying just enough aid to keep Ukraine from losing but not so much that Ukraine would win.
>Furthermore, I’m having a hard time understanding your reasoning regarding US aid.
You know what is worse than war? An unnecessarily protracted war. The longer a war goes on, the exponentially worse the civilians caught in the crossfire suffer.
I want Ukraine to win for reasons already stated, but I also do not want to see this war go on any longer than it has to. The west is more than opulent enough to supply enough equipment to end this war sooner, and if we go as far as to send in our own boots we can end this war overnight.
But we don't. Instead we provide just enough aid to keep Ukraine afloat. It's now over 2 years since Russia began its invasion.
As an aside, the military industrial complex is making a killing (pun intended) selling new gear to replace the ones donated to Ukraine.
What the fuck.
So no, no more aid unless enough is provided to end this war in Ukraine's favor as soon as fucking possible. I do not agree to aid that is any less and would keep prolonging this war at great cost to civilians.
I still don't see how letting Russia conquer half of Ukraine minimizes civilian cost. Russia has a long history of deadly deportations and it has already established systematic torture in occupied Ukranian territory. A landlocked Ukraine will be very hard to stabilize. And will Russia stop or will it continue in Moldova, Georgia or Kazakhstan?
There's also the question if the link between Western aid and warmongering holds up. All aggression comes from Russia and it alone is responsible for this destruction. As long as the victims, the Ukraine people, ask for help to defend themselves the West should deliver. The current aid is not enough but it surely is better than fighting Russia alone.
The US has consistently advocated for a different strategy than what Zelensky is doing. If anything, it is Zelensky who is still trying to figure out how to fight this war.
[0]https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/politics/ukraine-war-u...
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/22/us/politics/ukraine-count...
[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/22/us/politics/zelensky-bide...
[3]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/11/us/politics/us-ukraine-wa...
[4]https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/us/politics/ukraine-us-mi...
Syria was a proxy war. Ukraine is not. Invading a neighboring country is a direct threat to the EU’s security, as evidenced by the large number of Ukrainian refugees that the EU now has to support. Had Putin succeeded in installing a figurehead regime in Kyiv, what is to say he wouldn’t have started marching on Moldova as well? Europe has seen this before.
Declaring war is a bit passé nowadays anyway.
Meanwhile, the UK has opened to Ukrainian refugees (3 families in our street have accommodated refugees) and has pledged unconditional support.
We learnt our lesson that appeasing dictators, like Putin, does not work.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
At the time everyone was very nervous about proliferation of nuclear weapons and it seemed a sensible promise. But when push comes to shove it seems more complicated.