What would you rather join an economic union or defence union while your cities are being bombed.
On the other hand even EU membership would lead to interesting question. No EU member was involved in war yet and I wonder if EU would react as one in defence, or not. Importantly there is no EU joined comand of forces, but that is covered under NATO as most EU members are alse NATO members. Except Austria that is EU but not NATO. And Norway that is NATO but not EU.
It’s worthwhile to note that there is an EU mutual defense clause. Read about it here:
However, it is basically untested and there are reasons that it may be suspect.
A great outcome of this war will be if ukraine is afforded article 5 protection. This will allow it to rebuild its economy slowly and steadily in peace. This may not necessarily require full NATO membership immediately (please, nobody start with those nonsense ideas of fixed nato joining rules – there are none – they are all basically guidelines). EU membership is not likely to come soon anyway, unless it’s at some new shit-tier EU level–european farming interests just won’t allow it. however, if offered, Ukraine should jump at a shit-tier EU pathway offer. A 10-20 year timeline to full EU membership under rules-based EU criteria is not unreasonable.
Whatever the outcome, it is essentially a dead certainty that once the active hostilities end, no matter how they end, there will be exactly what putin claims he was against: nato troops and bases on Ukraine soil. There simply are no other realistic options to guarantee the post-war peace that Ukraine deserves. And, while larger permanent nato bases may be further back in central or western ukraine, this will require an armed border or line of conflict – not a buffer demilitarized border zone as nobody but nobody will trust the russians to stick to it.
NATO objectively solves more of Ukraine’s immediate problems so this just shows that they’re rational
There’s probably some awareness in Ukraine that other Eastern European countries with a non competitive agricultural sector will work hard against Ukraine’s membership, most notably Hungary.
Also, the “old EU” wants assurance from Ukraine on corruption and maintaining a liberal democracy – to avoid Poland’s and Hungary’s adventures into populism – that will be arduous and costly and cause internal disruptions.
It’s not going to be an easy ride.
Why should Ukrainians fight so hard for their right to rule their own country only to give it up to the EU, they’re not dumb?
5 comments
Not suprised.
What would you rather join an economic union or defence union while your cities are being bombed.
On the other hand even EU membership would lead to interesting question. No EU member was involved in war yet and I wonder if EU would react as one in defence, or not. Importantly there is no EU joined comand of forces, but that is covered under NATO as most EU members are alse NATO members. Except Austria that is EU but not NATO. And Norway that is NATO but not EU.
It’s worthwhile to note that there is an EU mutual defense clause. Read about it here:
[https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/mutual-defence-clause.html](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/mutual-defence-clause.html)
However, it is basically untested and there are reasons that it may be suspect.
A great outcome of this war will be if ukraine is afforded article 5 protection. This will allow it to rebuild its economy slowly and steadily in peace. This may not necessarily require full NATO membership immediately (please, nobody start with those nonsense ideas of fixed nato joining rules – there are none – they are all basically guidelines). EU membership is not likely to come soon anyway, unless it’s at some new shit-tier EU level–european farming interests just won’t allow it. however, if offered, Ukraine should jump at a shit-tier EU pathway offer. A 10-20 year timeline to full EU membership under rules-based EU criteria is not unreasonable.
Whatever the outcome, it is essentially a dead certainty that once the active hostilities end, no matter how they end, there will be exactly what putin claims he was against: nato troops and bases on Ukraine soil. There simply are no other realistic options to guarantee the post-war peace that Ukraine deserves. And, while larger permanent nato bases may be further back in central or western ukraine, this will require an armed border or line of conflict – not a buffer demilitarized border zone as nobody but nobody will trust the russians to stick to it.
NATO objectively solves more of Ukraine’s immediate problems so this just shows that they’re rational
There’s probably some awareness in Ukraine that other Eastern European countries with a non competitive agricultural sector will work hard against Ukraine’s membership, most notably Hungary.
Also, the “old EU” wants assurance from Ukraine on corruption and maintaining a liberal democracy – to avoid Poland’s and Hungary’s adventures into populism – that will be arduous and costly and cause internal disruptions.
It’s not going to be an easy ride.
Why should Ukrainians fight so hard for their right to rule their own country only to give it up to the EU, they’re not dumb?