I wonder whether EU has the capacity to pull up itself. After all it is not really an EU state. And do ordinary EU people really want that? I mean double the defence budget (or triple in certain cases), double the standing army and etc.
Peace in Europe benefits everyone—not just the EU, but also the U.S., Asia, and even Russia itself. If we fail to invest in defense, we risk more death and suffering from unchecked Russian expansion and bullying.
It’s hard to see where you stand here. You seem unconcerned about Russia taking Ukraine and then the Baltic states, as if that would be a positive outcome.
Is the full surrender and merging of Ukraine into Russia something you desire?
> What happens if Ukraine is given sufficient support to start winning and Putin decides to go nuclear?
That is a possibility. But there is a large cost associated with going nuclear. And that is why he hasn't done it, even after losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers.
Also, if you give Putin what he wants, because he might go nuclear, then the race to develop nukes will really heat up by all non-nuclear nations.
US signed Budapest memorandum. We promised to help defend Ukraine, if it gave up its nukes. Now we are trying to shake them down like a mafia. And also asking them to give in to Putin's demands, without asking Putin to give up anything.
Even if Ukraine starts winning, a nuclear strike by Putin would trigger a catastrophic response from NATO and the international community, causing mutual destruction.
Furthermore, with your logic there is nothing stopping Russia from keep chipping away at Europe because everyone is afraid that Russia will use nuclear weapons.
With that rational, you might as well annex the entirety of Europe and call it Russia because Europe wants peace.
Which is why we can't give in and establish that nuclear powers can do whatever they want. That way just leads to getting closer and closer to nuclear war with every country now having to have their own nukes, not further from the risk of nuclear annihilation.
I guess I'm more interested in the how rather than the why. The why is kind of a given.
After Ukraine runs out of fodder for the meat-grinder (already on the verge of this now) who's children get sent to Ukraine? If we are not going to give Ukraine sufficient support to win the war, only prolong it, what is the timeline and the actual endgame?
To be clear, I'm not supporting Russia, I'm asking in clear terms, what exactly should the response be?
Why are you moving the goalposts? I responded to your comment asking what if things go too good for Ukraine. Not sure how 'but what if things go bad' is a reasoned follow up on your part. :
"What happens if Ukraine is given sufficient support to start winning and Putin decides to go nuclear?
I don't want Russia to win either but we also have to operate in reality."
This has been the excuse for inaction since the invasion of Crimea. Clearly, Russia has no intention of stopping its westward expansion. Eventually we are going to have to bite the bullet.
> I mean double the defence budget (or triple in certain cases), double the standing army and etc.
If we would actually do defense at the EU level, we could use that money a lot more efficiently through economies of scale and 2-4% of GDP would probably be enough to defeat russia.
That would make a lot of sense. Also, if done in smart way, a significant part of the budget could be used in the service of the society during peace time.
I'd be wary of doing that, because that would mean you'd be unprepared if the peace time ends quickly.
But if we move some of those "services of the society" to the EU level, we could more efficiently run them (against, through economies of scale) and make them better at the same expanse.
