EU surprisingly did take strong position when Ukraine crisis started. Only way EU countries can stand against Russia is if they have backing of NATO. Without this noone will take the risk.
Ok, so Europe should put more effort into taming RF and protect Ukraine. As I see, Germany, at least, doing the opposite, so it looks like EU ignores this scenario.
France, Britain and Germany have a combined budget of $167 billion, and even if China's military budget turns out to exceed that figure, that's only 3 of the EU's member states.
China's military is also severely lacking in combat experience. The US is one of the most battle-tested military forces in the world, has relatively little corruption compared to China, and yet it still suffers from projects like the F-35. It's hard to estimate how effectively that Chinese budget is being employed.
The EU isn't sending a military force into Ukraine, but then neither is the US. The EU does have problematic energy ties to Russia, but that works both ways; just as Europe has an unhealthy dependency on Russian gas, Russia has an even greater dependency on Europe.
Putin's playing a dangerous game with the EU. On the one hand, the EU relies on Russia for about a third of its gas and petroleum. On the other hand, Russia depends on the EU for the majority its energy exports, and virtually all its gas exports. The EU doesn't need to go to war with Russia to cripple it; Russia's economy currently depends on the EU accepting its imports.
Ukraine is a difficult problem to solve. Sure, the EU could march in and reclaim Ukrainian territory without much resistance. The Russian army may have a lot of equipment, but most of it is outdated, and the first Iraq war proved how overwhelming an advantage a technology gap can be. But the EU has also seen what's happened to Iraq and Afghanistan, and knows that the east of Ukraine has strong Russian ties. It doesn't want to find itself in embroiled in a decades-long guerrilla war, which is what would happen if it used force.
Putin knows this, but he also knows that his country's economy is dependent on the EU. He's trying to edge Russia into a better strategic position without provoking the EU into action.
I see some indications that EU will in fact try to swallow that hot potato, i.e. the Ukraine. Just my two eurocents, from looking at the Polish media for some years and talking to many Ukrainians.
>The combined defence budget of the EU is about 4 times larger than Russia's. Since the end of the cold war, the EU has been prosperous, peaceful, and happy. We've invested in our defence and grown stronger over the last thirty years, while Russia has declined.
Simple. The EU is not military united but it's pretty much a "every man for himself" kind of thing outside of NATO or a direct attack, but the EU or NATO is currently not under attack so some people see Ukraine as "more of you problem than a me problem"… so other than sending some aid to Ukraine most people don't want to go to war with Russia or suffer crippling energy shortages for Ukraine.
EU leaders are also not immune from kleptocratic greed and external and internal corruption.
Austria is more than happy to keep pumping money into Russia in exchange for cheap gas, as that gas runs 80% of their industry, and several elite Austrian politicians were given top jobs on boards of Russian oil and gas companies to lobby for them and against nuclear or other alternatives, or have straight up offered their support to Russian oligarchs in under-the-table business deals ( the infamous "Ibiza scandal").
Good luck replacing that gas on a whim after several decades of Russian lobbying that lead to the current status quo.
It is a military superpower; one shouldn't expect them to address their security in terms of charity and human rights.
As for security of Europe, the status quo was already changed when they successfully took Crimea, and I think EU leaders like Germans and France have admitted as much in practical terms.
The energy situation in western Europe is comical and mostly a self own. I can't even take seriously when they keep being hostile to Russia and act surprised when they get squeezed by Russia. Also Ukraine and Belarus can coerce countries downstream from them wrt. gas.
It works both ways you know. Europe cannot afford to lose face either.
Imagine EU can be blackmailed by Russia! Wouldn't stand a chance against the US or China.
The EU clearly believes they can win this fight so why should it withdraw support to Ukraine?
The EU just told Zelensky not to touch the pipelines, otherwise Ukraine would loose support of many European countries.
Since the start of Putin's criminal invasion of Ukraine, the EU has paid 35 billion euros to Russia and send about 1 billion € of weapons.
The UK sent plenty of weapons, certainly because the Tories had to prove that they have not been corrupted by Russian oligarchs' money - which they were. London has been nicknamed "the Laundry" by Russian oligarchs.
The US has sent plenty as well.
Stopping the imports of oil and gas would be a huge blow for the Russian economy. The EU is working on it, but the dependency is very high.
So the EU ought to act more decently towards Ukraine and provide all the weapons and training they need. I consider that volunteers among professional soldiers should be allowed to take a sabbatical and go - by their owns means and without weapons - to Ukraine. In the end, they will retrieve the weapons they are used to.
We need to do more for Ukraine. The dependency on the Russian has and oil makes that need even more pressing.
Tens of thousand professional soldiers from the EU would make a difference.
Note: The volunteers going on their own, it implies that they won't be paid. So private citizens would have to compensate them: they have families to sustain. I'm pretty sure that money wouldn't be a problem. But it has to remain a private decision, nothing involving the states.
By the way, OTAN is a defensive alliance. It doesn't forbid a member to decide to send troops on the Ukrainian front. The US won't and shouldn't. That's an European war. Having the US support (weapons, logistics, intelligence) is already a huge help.
As a French citizen, I feel that our duty as a democracy is to officially sends troops to Ukraine. Putin needs to be stopped.
I don't believe in a second of a nuclear escalation, escape on one matter: Crimea. It's an Ukrainian territory but Russians may go bersek if we retake it. But let's kick Putin out of Dombass and Transnistria.
But, if reelected, Macron is far too concerned by French large investments in Russia ; and its far-right opponent, Le Pen, share many views with Putin (and has yet to reimburse 12 millions of euros lent by a Russian bank for her 2017 campaign).
Yes, completely right. EU, and NATO will have a problem almost on the same scale if Russia collapses on them, as if it will launch an attack on them.
Russia has 8 times the population of Syria, and people can't live on a big part of its territory without artificial heating (and thus fuel supplies; your heating bill is pretty much a live or die price in a lot of places there,) or completely reliant for on long range freight for essential supplies.
reply