• Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      2 days ago

      Have you met russia?

      They’re corrupt oligarchs inside crime syndicates wrapped by insane dictators. We should probably take notes, our demented rapist will want us to follow suit in a few months no doubt.

    • FortyTwo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      Of course you’re right morally, but it’s still an interesting change in tone. This whole thing started when Russia threw a fit about Ukraine wanting closer ties to the EU instead of Russia. Now their official position is that even EU membership is totally fine. Seems like their position weakened quite a bit since 2014.

      On the other hand, maybe this means Russia wants to fight the entire EU with their mutual defence pact when they attack again after recovering for a few years through a ceasefire. Or maybe they’re gambling that the EU’s requirements are too strict for Ukraine to join.

      Or maybe it’s just all lies again, of course. But still, an interesting weaker flavour of lies, in that case.

      • dreugeworst@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        it’s certainly a change from their declaration that Ukraine isn’t a country and Ukrainians are actually Russians

        • remotelove@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          I don’t think that bit hasn’t changed either. I think Putin made another one of those “Ukraine is historically Russian” statements, while completely ignoring the time when it wasn’t Russia.

          Part of the game is to put out many conflicting statements attached to as many opinions from state funded talking heads as possible.

          I believe that when I researched last, the statement about Russia being able to take Ukraine “in three days” actually came from propagandists and I never found an official statement about it. Regardless, the point is that is gives the government plausible deniability with any statement if it was “accidentally taken out of context” by the state media.

          • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            completely ignoring the time when it wasn’t Russia.

            or the more hilarious: when russia was ukraine

            (though i haven’t done much research; that could be a funny little “kinda but it’s more complex” quirk to history)

      • varyingExpertise@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Seems like their position weakened quite a bit since 2014.

        Seems like they need a breather and none of those things are going to be finished in the time they need for their breather.

    • iamnotme@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      2 days ago

      Russia and America seemingly. Not sure who voted America in as Ukraine’s proxy

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        probably a couple hundred billion dollars got 'em in the door.

        Why they think they can negitoate without the country they’re talking about, though - well that’s just demented and incompetent idiots freshly elected by stuipd, mouth-breathing, cloven-hooved, morons and their entire families.

        It’s undoubtedly part of some sleazy plan to screw over Ukraine for the demented rapist’s BFF.

  • LordR@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    2 days ago

    Big words coming from the country that can’t finish a three day military operation in three years…

  • Meldrik@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 days ago

    Am I remembering wrong or isn’t there something like NATO’s article 5 in the EU?

    • Foni@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yes, but it doesn’t apply to the USA, and the rest of us don’t scare Russia. Our priority should be to change this.

      • otterpop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Please do, the EU scaring Russia and being able to stand on its own without NATO would be a good thing for democracies everywhere

        • Foni@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          My thoughts on this have not changed over the past twenty years, only my sense of urgency. I hope all of this will help push these ideas and policies forward.

      • Don_alForno@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        Russia’s economy is smaller than Italy’s. If we wanted to defend ourselves, we very well could.

        • Foni@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          I am convinced of it, but I also believe that only GDP is not a sufficient indicator, things such as industrial production or R&D in the subject can be factors that complicate the thing.

          In any case I am sure that a united European army would give Moscow cold sweats

    • Ksin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It does and the actual wording is in my opinion a bit stronger in the EU guarantee, but I believe politically it’s viewed as much weaker since the EU is fundamentally a economic/trade union and not a military one like NATO. That is to say, the EU could still exist without such a clause, but for NATO it’s the entire reason for the organization to be.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        EU: “obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in [the member state’s] power”

        NATO: “such action as [the member state] deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”

        Thing is though EU membership for Ukraine is still a ways off because there’s still quite a lot of homework to do. A solution is needed now (better, five years ago), and that would mean a European defence treaty not limited to the EU. Also we want the UK to be part of it, anyway and, right now, while we’re at it, let’s make sure Canada is in.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          until it’s tested, i’d guess states could say that “all the means” could be read with relation to trade and economics and other things governed by the EU

    • albert180@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s even more explicit than Article 5 of NATO saying that the other members must do everything possible to support the attacked state

    • 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      NATO’s power lies not solely in its codified defense assurances, but in its integration. It might be a defense pact, but at its height of power, it is/was more than the sum of its members assistance.

  • Ksin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    That’s a rather odd change of tone since the statement not only definitively states that Ukraine is a sovereign nation but it also outright encourages EU membership for Ukraine which comes with a similar military defense guaranty to NATO, though importantly it of course does not come with US backing. At a guess I would say that they are trying to preemptively position themselves as the “reasonable” party in the upcoming (on-going?) negotiations.

  • Zahtu@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    Easy, then lets Take Ukraine in and forge a european defense pact. Sounds good to me, should be for the other NATO members as well. We mighty try to fix some Things while we are at it…

    • Tiptopit@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      The EU already has a very NATO like defense pack.

      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.

      Article 42.7 TEU

    • albert180@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Do a European Defense Part, but Ukraine is not ready yet for EU. We don’t want another Hungary with Veto rights. It’s not only Homework for EU, but the EU itself needs to do some Homework before growing again

    • suoko@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      Ukraine does not meet BASIC requirements, it’s as corrupted as Russia as far as EU used to say during the past 2 years…