The ultimate European Union expansion

[DrP]

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

Are we talking about the same Russia?

I suppose it depends which news channel or paper you listen to watch or read. :-).   I don't trust them either, but there is/has been corruption in every country and I have to believe it will improve. A step to improving their abuses would be to include them and work and grow with them. They have been allies with the UK in many wars throughout history against other countries in Europe.  

 

 

Anyway - I'm off - Merry Christmas.x  

 

Edited December 20, 2018 by DrP

[jajrussel]

8 minutes ago, DrP said:

I suppose it depends which news channel or paper you listen to watch or read. :-).   I don't trust them either, but there is/has been corruption in every country and I have to believe it will improve. A step to improving their abuses would be to include them and work and grow with them. They have been allies with the UK in many wars throughout history against other countries in Europe.  

 

 

Anyway - I'm off - Merry Christmas.x  

 

Have a good Christmas...

[MigL]

Using DrP's logic, NATO has been around more than twice as long as the EU and none of its member states have gone to war against each other.

Should we let Russia join NATO ?
The country that prompted the formation of NATO, to stop aggressive Russian expansion into Eastern Europe ( happened ) and Western Europe (nearly happened for 50 yrs of cold war )

Don't know if anyone noticed, but Russia has started expanding westward again.
Ask any Ukranian.

[Kennytek00]

So you're suggesting to allow Russia into NATO, which was designed mainly for North Atlantic countries (I don't know if Russia qualifies as a North Atlantic country, and if it is this makes perfect sense), but there is also SEATO (South East Asian Treaty Organisation) that could also be a viable option. I do not know if SEATO has been as successful as NATO, but it could also be an option. My main question though is what should be done with the current land the Russians have taken from Ukraine, because I highly doubt they will willingly give up land that gives them access to warm water ports. It will harm their economy, and limit their trading options again. Yet at the same time allowing the Russians to keep the land sets a precedence very similar to what was done with Germany prior to World War II, so only telling them to not do something and then not follow through with what was said allows them to continuously keep toeing the line and getting away with more. This is quite obviously a case of  where if you give the Russians an inch, they'll take a mile. So if you could suggest a method of where both parties benefit, without causing a war, that would help with clarification.

[MigL]

No, I wasn't suggesting that at all.

[jajrussel]

2 hours ago, Kennytek00 said:

So you're suggesting to allow Russia into NATO, which was designed mainly for North Atlantic countries (I don't know if Russia qualifies as a North Atlantic country, and if it is this makes perfect sense), but there is also SEATO (South East Asian Treaty Organisation) that could also be a viable option. I do not know if SEATO has been as successful as NATO, but it could also be an option. My main question though is what should be done with the current land the Russians have taken from Ukraine, because I highly doubt they will willingly give up land that gives them access to warm water ports. It will harm their economy, and limit their trading options again. Yet at the same time allowing the Russians to keep the land sets a precedence very similar to what was done with Germany prior to World War II, so only telling them to not do something and then not follow through with what was said allows them to continuously keep toeing the line and getting away with more. This is quite obviously a case of  where if you give the Russians an inch, they'll take a mile. So if you could suggest a method of where both parties benefit, without causing a war, that would help with clarification.

Using DrP’s logic had the Ukraine been a member of the EU it would have been the duty of the EU to give the Ukraine the same defensive protection that would have been due France should someone attack the French. I can’t see it. I’m thinking that someone would have reiterated once again that they were mostly Russians anyway, and because it’s the EU there would have been a call for sanctions and a shrug of the shoulders by Russia after indicating that they would be slightly bothered.

 I doubt that being a member of the EU would stop Russia from doing what it wants to do. Right now those countries act as a buffer between Russia and the EU. Instead of asking the Ukraine, Moldova, and  Belarus to join the EU. It might be better to help the smaller to become financially stable through trade then see if Russia reacts with another annexation. If they don’t, that would be a good thing. If they do, it might give the other two countries something to think about.

[MigL]

As Silvestru has explained, the EU is strictly an economic ( and monetary ) union, it has nothing to do with mutual defense.
You may have it confused with NATO, which is a common defense alliance.

So you're willing to sacrifice whole countries to the Russians ?
I wonder how Ukranians, Moldovans and the Belarus feel about that ?

[John Cuthber]

22 hours ago, DrP said:

allot which would be sorted out if they engaged in talks to join the EU.  They would be given a list of things to comply to.  If they did that then again, I say, why not? 

In the same way that they were sorted out when Russia joined the UN.

How well did that work out?

 

5 hours ago, MigL said:

As Silvestru has explained, the EU is strictly an economic ( and monetary ) union, it has nothing to do with mutual defense.
You may have it confused with NATO, which is a common defense alliance.

I suspect that, in this case the confusion is between the EU and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe

 

[jajrussel]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

As Silvestru has explained, the EU is strictly an economic ( and monetary ) union, it has nothing to do with mutual defense.
You may have it confused with NATO, which is a common defense alliance.

So you're willing to sacrifice whole countries to the Russians ?
I wonder how Ukranians, Moldovans and the Belarus feel about that ?

Ah, so they simply agree to use the same central bank, otherwise it is every country for them self? So, when Russia decides to annex its neighbors is it the rest of the world and not the locals who are responsible? It’s a region where the biggest and baddest has always done exactly what it wants. Generally when someone bigger than you takes something from you and no one can stop them you are the one  expected to make the sacrifice. You can’t take it back. Your neighbors don’t seem inclined, nor are they apparently legally bound to take it back for you. So, who’s the one willingly making a sacrifice? Is it NATO for not running in arms blazing? Is to the UK for wanting out of the EU? I’m guessing that the original post question was asked in the hopes of scaring the UK into staying because now the EU has to make a move for stability, and what would be the scariest thing that could happen.

Do you consider helping them through trade  the sacrifice or is it standing by while the other two countries consider their opinions after the possible annex as the sacrifice? The fact that the EU formed without a big stick is in my opinion, when the sacrifice was made. 

When it comes to China or Russia we are all toothless. Unless we are really ready to make a monumental sacrifice all we can do is posture. They have been trying to take us down economically for years it hasn’t worked. It will never work.

China slammed its economic doors in the rest of the worlds face. Not only are they still around, but they have returned economically stable. They are living proof that a large enough economy  can be self sufficient.

I’m perfectly willing to listen to what they think...

[Raider5678]

6 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Do you consider helping them through trade  the sacrifice or is it standing by while the other two countries consider their opinions after the possible annex as the sacrifice? The fact that the EU formed without a big stick is in my opinion, when the sacrifice was made. 

2

Pretty sure that big stick is Nato. 

This is Nato:

This is the EU:

 

You'll notice there is a significant overlap.

[dimreepr]

24 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Pretty sure that big stick is Nato. 

why?

[Raider5678]

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

why?

Most of the EU countries are also in NATO. The EU isn't some sitting duck without any support.

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Most of the EU countries are also in NATO. The EU isn't some sitting duck without any support.

who said it was?

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

who said it was?

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

The fact that the EU formed without a big stick is in my opinion, when the sacrifice was made. 

 

 

[dimreepr]

nope

[jajrussel]

35 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Pretty sure that big stick is Nato. 

This is Nato:

This is the EU:

 

You'll notice there is a significant overlap.

It is am impressive big stick, but I’m guessing it is only for self defense. I’m curious do they have to take a vote? I don’t recall reading that when the EU formed they intended to use NATO as a big stick. Is that the real reason the UK wants out of the EU? After all one of the buffer countries has to do  is attack. Then in self defense the big stick would have to swing, or break. If either should happen would you want your country financially tied directly to the event? How much do you sacrifice when the only sane effect you can produce is a shrug of the shoulders, and an attitude of indifference? It’s the face that is presented on the news every day from both China, an Russia, and hell, now even Kim is shrugging his shoulders saying what big stick?

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, jajrussel said:

If either should happen would you want your country financially tied directly to the event? How much do you sacrifice when the only sane effect you can produce is a shrug of the shoulders, and an attitude of indifference? It’s the face that is presented on the news every day from both China, an Russia, and hell, now even Kim is shrugging his shoulders saying what big stick?

2

Either my country does it then, or it'll do it later.

Expansionist countries continue to push the limit, build up, and, surprisingly, expand.

Russia will keep doing so, and eventually, if they keep annexing countries and we don't draw the line somewhere and then refuse to back down, it'll get to the point where they're threatening major powers.

[jajrussel]

22 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Most of the EU countries are also in NATO. The EU isn't some sitting duck without any support.

I guess you could use the stick as a crutch?

So, honestly you are now saying that NATO was the military foundation upon which the EU was founded. Seriously, no one who wants to be taken seriously theses days waves a big stick.

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

Either my country does it then, or it'll do it later.

Expansionist countries continue to push the limit, build up, and, surprisingly, expand.

Russia will keep doing so, and eventually, if they keep annexing countries and we don't draw the line somewhere and then refuse to back down, it'll get to the point where they're threatening major powers.

This I agree with...

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, jajrussel said:

So, honestly you are now saying that NATO was the military foundation upon which the EU was founded. Seriously, no one who wants to be taken seriously theses days waves a big stick.

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

First you said it was a mistake the that the EU formed without a big stick.

Now it's a mistake that they have one?

[jajrussel]

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

First you said it was a mistake the that the EU formed without a big stick.

Now it's a mistake that they have one?

Nothing has changed in what I said. You are the one calling NATO a stick. I’m just not arguing against your opinion of what The EU was depending on as a big stick. I’m using the label you gave it.

Edited December 21, 2018 by jajrussel

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

Nothing has changed in what I said. You are the one calling NATO a stick. I’m just not arguing against your opinion of what The EU was depending on as a big stick. I’m using the label you gave it.

Then what are you arguing about?

[jajrussel]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Then what are you arguing about?

I don’t really know. I kind of got annoyed when my understanding was that I was being accused of being willing to sacrifice whole counties by letting one of them get plump through trade then basically waiting to see what happens when or if Russia gets annex happy. Then it was pointed out that the EU was basically just a central bank with no real military powers. Which I found to be a foolish thing to do in that area if one would want to remain a stable central bank.

it was pointed out that NATO was supposed to be the big stick. And really I have no problem with that analogy, except for the fact that we are being threatened with nuclear missiles and nuclear hellfire, and without regard to what was being thought by The forming EU when it was founded NATO is not likely to do anything to stop that but posture.

It has been made perfectly clear that sanctions and posturing are useless gestures. The threat of a nonnuclear response is a useless gesture. The truth is Russia and China does what they want when they want. As an analogy if the response is just going to be to swat at  them with American and NATO troops then hold the troops and progressively hit them with everything we have and when that’s gone then use the troops. I’m assuming that sometime in the conflict we may have to respond to their threat, then there will be one choice respond in kind.

I'm guessing that we wil be the ones to throw the first nuke, cause we are kind of out numbered. We will run out of bodies long before they do.

And every bit of this whole foolish thought  scenario can be avoided if the countries involved will just pick up the guns they have available when invaded and just use the damn things without waiting for us or NATO to come to the rescue, or we can do business as usual. I got no problem with a rescue, but I wouldn’t want to fight their damn war...This is just my opinion it’s not an argument. I still find it incredulous that NATO was supposed to be the military foundation of the EU. We should have got the hell out of NATO as soon as it was implied, or suggested.

Edited December 21, 2018 by jajrussel

[MigL]

NATO is not a big stick.
It is not an offensive alliance.
It is a defensive alliance.
Its charter states that an attack on any individual member is an attack on all of them, and it formed the defensive backbone against Russian/Communist expansion into Western Europe through the Cold War.
The European Common Market ( an economic alliance ) came a decade later ( even later for England because of deGaulle's pettiness ), and its latest incarnation, several decades later, the EU, includes a common currency.

@jarussel
China is NOT an autonomous economy; when the US stops buying, China's economy, based on cheap manufacturing, suffers big time, and its happened a few times already.
China has the most billionaires of any country in the world. They also have over a billion ( out of 1.7 Bill ) people living on $5 per day. One of these days, those billion people are going to demand their share of the economic pie, and China will either suppress it by military force and become a pariah again, or they'll have a major revolution on their hands.

 

[Raider5678]

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

NATO is not a big stick.
It is not an offensive alliance.
It is a defensive alliance.
Its charter states that an attack on any individual member is an attack on all of them, and it formed the defensive backbone against Russian/Communist expansion into Western Europe through the Cold War.
The European Common Market ( an economic alliance ) came a decade later ( even later for England because of deGaulle's pettiness ), and its latest incarnation, several decades later, the EU, includes a common currency.

Defensive or offensive, I categorized that as having a big stick, which seemed to relate to the topic if my understanding of it is correct.

Edited December 22, 2018 by Raider5678

[Kennytek00]

On 12/20/2018 at 7:49 PM, MigL said:

No, I wasn't suggesting that at all.

Sorry for the delayed response, I got to busy to find time to come respond. Out of curiosity what do you think is the best method of solving the problem, while trying to avoid war?