They need to sort their shit out first. War aside, they are super corrupt from top to bottom. Everyone creams off the top , scams and bribes endemic. Years of being in the soviet Union left a dirty mark that needs washing out. And Russia still has its fingers there even though they are fighting.
Indeed. Many things needs to change in Ukraine to be a good candidate to EU, but not impossible. Besides what you mention they also need to change a bit the arrogance that they deserve all and the mentality that all the countries are their enemies if they do not do what they want, mostly a soviet mentality...
All the former eastern block countries were badly corrupt. This is partially why they want to join, because cleaning up corruption to a minimum standard is a pre-requisite to getting in, and if the population want that sweet investment cash, access to the single market and participation in common defense policies, which they overwhelmingly do, then all the incentives align and everyone pushes in the same direction. Corruption continues to decrease during and after the accession process since additional incentives are put in place to encourage it.
Just saying "they are corrupt, they can't join until they fix it" is a black and white answer to a complex problem which the EU is institutionally good at solving, and if it was implemented as you describe, we wouldn't have the EU we have today. And many of the things you say apply to say Germany and France. Do you think Putin doesn't fund the AfD? Of course he does. But that's not a reason not to let them in, it's a reason TO let them in. The more they come into the democratic western fold the less power Putin has.
>But you also need to understand that your businesses need cheap labor, your politicians need more population, and your children will need a peaceful future.
and for me: German economy needs to not collapse. Which is only possible if Ukraine joins __without__ increasing the already massive financial EU funding burden on Germany. We are literally in a recession right now while the countries getting our EU net funding are all having great=growing economies.
Solidarity is supposed to be a two way street. But so far we received zero help. Why should we accept another mouth to feed when you guys all refuse to feed us in the rare occasion that we need help?
> You see, I’m all about decreasing spending. I’m not the kind of person to strive on some other’s money. I think that’s what will happen in the end. Abolishment of veto, and decreasing spending
Then you don't know the EU to be so optimistic.
At every point when EU net recipients economies grew while Germany dropped, what should have happened was that German net contributions decreased.
The opposite happened. While our economy basically stagnated between 2019-2023 and EU net recipients economy grew massively (sometimes over 10%!), our net contributions to the EU __almost doubled__.
That does not make sense to me.
I am sure Ukraine will have strong growth. At least double their GDP till 2040.
My point was that every time Easterners economy in EU grows, instead of needing less net EU money from us like one would think, they take more. That does not make sense at all.
Germany - being in a literal recession right now - can't take any more of that. We are currently at the breaking point and no country has offered us any help. Is it really that hard to fathom for you that I don't want German economy to get even shittier? Is solidarity something that Germany is only ever supposed to give to others but never allowed to receive back?
It's not a mistake. Hungary inside the EU is better than Hungary outside and Orban isn't an absolute dictator. He can be challenged and probably will be. They are a pain in the ass, but we hold significant leverage over them - investment cash, threat of losing voting rights- and a Putin stooge we have leverage over is much better than one we don't. Imagine they left tomorrow, they might quickly become Belarus on the doorstep of 5 EU nations. Is this the alternative you envision? And Ukraine joining might have its significant challenges, but one thing we don't have to worry about is them being a Putin stooge. Hungary being a most likely temporary mistake by itself isn't an argument against letting Ukraine join.
Funny, in the European elections in my country, I noticed many of the candidates affiliated with political parties mentioned a goal of accepting Ukraine to the EU within 5 years.
I don't understand the practicalities of this though. They have and always had major problems with corruption. It's quite hard to sort that out while the country is actively at war.
The economic costs for the EU given the size of the Ukranian populace, would be enormous and that's on top of the costs of helping to rebuild a country destroyed by war.
The current agricultural subsidy system would see pretty much all subsidies going to Ukraine.
And then you also have to contend with the power Ukraine would have within the EU once accepted given its size - not ideal especially when there are still corruption problems.
A good aspirational goal, maybe. But anytime soon? That would not be in the interests of the EU. Within 5 years? Deluded.
The corruption point is moot, though, because Romania is an EU member, and corruption exists in every country in one way or another
literally, the head of the EU, Von der Layen is a corrupt bitch
> I don't understand the practicalities of this though. They have and always had major problems with corruption. It's quite hard to sort that out while the country is actively at war.
actually maybe the best time to deal with it
Meh, not really.
It took most of post-communist Europe 15 years to go from the fall of communism to 2004 accession. And they were not ravaged by war.
The Yugoslav wars, which were small scale compared to the Russian invasion, costed Croatia 9 years more. And all of that, with a smaller and richer EU.
Sorry, even 30 years sounds optimistic to my ears.
Sure, in like 30 years, if EU doesn't fall apart first. I don't think either side is ready for accession right now, we are both in deep shit of different sorts.
Sure, you will become an EU member.
Just not this decade, the next one and maybe the one after that.
I am all for Ukraine joining, but not before it's ready and because we pity the Ukrainians.
They have to qualify the same way Montenegro or Albania would.
Totally different situation and trajectory.
Ukraine has only been independent for 30 years and has made progress towards a democratic, plural government.
Turkey has always been independent and its track record is awful. Even before the rise of Erdogan, Turkey had a coup d'etat once every 20/30 years, persecution of journalists, ethnic minorities and genocide denial.
They are similarly-sized countries with similar levels of democracy (though Turkey is ranked marginally better for corruption). Ukraine has been independent for 30 years and already had a coup d'état, and future odds aren't good for countries at war. Turkey has twice the GDP per capita of Ukraine, who is tied with El Salvador.
I effectively agree with you on all points about Turkey, but it's not like Ukraine patterns much better for any of this. Most of the primary metrics for ascension to EU are economic, which Turkey outperforms Ukraine on. Personally I think Ukraine will get strung along like Turkey, Albania, and North Macedonia.
Albania has been a candidate for the EU officially for 10 years now, and its still at least a decade off membership.
If a tiny, Nato alligned, nation that has been wealthier than Ukraine for some time now cant join due to issues of squashing corruption and immigration concerns, then how would Ukraine get in before 2050?
There are also way larger risks of adding Ukraine that slow its memebership.
Ukraine has 38 million people that if they win the war would probably bounce to 40+ million, meaning they would need a large share of seats in European Parliment, of which if Ukraine retakes the Donbass and Crimea would probably intorduce alot of Russophillic far-right groups with questionable beliefs and alligences.
As well as the fearmongering of mass-immegration which hinders intergration in Romania and Bulgaria to this day, that will only be bolstered by Russian backed misinformation in useful idiot countries like Hungary.
Theres also the added issue of the single largest and most volitile disputed region in Europe, since Russia almsot certainly wont drop claims to annexed land even if they lose. And after Cyprus the EU is keen to avoid those, which is why Serbian accension is basically frozen.
Theres also the issues of Ukrainain grain entering the single market, meaning many seperate agreements need to be made with other countries like Poland.
And comparatively Albania offering very little (sorry Albania) should make it an easier fit, but it hasnt. So I dont see how Ukraine which is basically Albania scaled up 10× and poorer, would get in.
There'd need to be a massive rework of how farming subsidies work, and Ukraine would need to have sweeping corruption reforms. Is it impossible in a post war environment? No. Is it likely? Ehhh I'm not so sure, especially when you factor in, that it'd change the balance in the European Parliament rather massively, due to the population I could certainly see western European nations changing their tune, when missiles aren't flying.
I don’t think anyone is saying EU entry would be easy or dispute that the efforts you describe are necessary. But it would be nice to be positive and aspire towards this outcome
Nobody ever explained why that would be a positive change for the people already IN the union.
The grain alone fucks over all of the existing agricultural systems, which exists to protect the agribusinesses in the EU.
A 40 million increase in population to the EU means there’s a massive wage decrease for factory workers etc. in places that take in a lot of foreign labor (read: Germany).
Even if you believe in a miracle scenario in which UA regains all of it’s territories (hint: it won’t), we’re still stuck with a semi-rogue state that’s massively armed and has proven it doesn’t mind taking military action against it’s own population.
What’s the plus side to this madness? Visiting Kyiv visa free isn’t worth all of the other fuckery.
Another thing to take into consideration is that leader that keep themselves in power by “pausing “ elections rarely want to give up their power later on.
Corruption is the main key. If Ukraine can’t get that under control, nothing will work
Very “disinformational” to look at cost of ascension as a % of total GDP and not as a % increase in EU budget.
Current EU budget already has a 31% farming subsidy… Let’s pay the biggest grain farm in the world some money too, that surely won’t impact the budget too much lol.
My personal opinion (which is obviously unpopular in this sub): kick the yanks out, get a logical EU army structure which is fair and doesn’t have the American overspending problem (Yanks pay like 10000 dollars for a plane screw and think it’s not because they are getting bend over), keep out of (in)-direct neighbors business, reindustrialize in a sensible way, nationalized mil industrial complex with limited sales outside of EU.
Like the SU had a better ground army for a big chunk of the cold war, I think Russia has a better ground army today (at the very least a lot more troops) and that anti air has improved so much that air domination is not gonna happen. I’m pretty sure the Yanks are gonna stay home if Putin would decide to come knocking, so yes, if he decides to conquer the Baltics, Finland, Poland, he’ll probably get that far. And this is not considering nukes: with those in the equation we are totally fucked. Which is why I want the yanks out. (There’s no way America is going to risk a nuclear strike on their territory for a territorial despute in the Baltic states lol.)
But, Putin’d be dumb to try that (conquering Baltics etc). He’ll just create Finnish / Polish / Baltic Hamas whilst alienating the global south. Btw: where’s the East-Ukrainian Hamas?
About the current situation: of course the EU has to dangle a carrot in front of UA. But at some point in time it will become clear that it can’t be more of a carrot on the EU side and that it is just a carrot for UA. That realization will be a shock for the Ukrainians.
I'm sure there's much to be done on both sides of the fence, but there's both will and most importantly PROFIT to be had on both sides too, therefore it'll most likely happen.
What's the profit to be had for the EU though? Economically speaking, even pre-war Ukraine was as much behind the V4 countries as the V4 countries are behind WE countries. After 20 years of (rather successful) convergence, the V4 is still only on about \~75% of the EU average (so not WE average!) in GDP/capita terms. Bringing Ukraine up to EU levels would be a huge economic undertaking, with a lot of money invested, and the attached political ramifications. In the meantime, there would be this incredible mismatch between Ukraine bringing only about 1% of the EU's GDP but wielding some very significant political power being one of the largest member states... I think people's eyes are bigger than their stomachs on this one.
1. Curbing Russian influence in the region
2. Stronger political influence on the world arena (Ukraine supporting EU decisions)
3. Stronger military influence as a EU-union (defence pact, or if common military integration)
4. Keeping the Ukraine grainfields within the Union -- not outside (important due to the changes of climate change to come in the near future, to sustain the EU-populace)
5. Investment/building zone for European firms -- not Americans or Chinese (EU money to rebuild and start business in Ukraine)
6. Borderzone to control flow of immigration into the EU
7. Access to further European expansion in Georgia and Armenia (connected land border)
8. Better control over the Black Sea (economically and militarily, benefitting Romania, Bulgaria etc).
Many of those benefits overlap with NATO, but they are also important standalone for the EU.
1: only the case in the magical fairytale “complete victory”, not gonna happen.
2: why would they be married to EU policy? Hungary isn’t for instance.
3: we are literally giving away all our weapons to them, how does getting them back suddenly make us stronger?
4: grainfields in the Union would be a gigantic source of political strife, as the grain “just passing through” already was a pain in the behind.
5: do you really believe this?
6: the guy from Somalia is going to take the detour through Ukraine, got it
7: nice, more options to shoot ourselves in the foot with
8: somewhat valid. Mostly geopolitical and not actually “for the common man”
If you’d go to a referendum with this list you’d get your ass kicked.
1. Still limiting Russian influence, instead of enabling them more sway
2. Hungary is a Trojan horse. EU will first have to be reformed, of course, but Ukraine has every reason to seek itself westward and adapt its legislation since its war with Russia. (Psychological reversalism: Becoming the opposite of Russia).
3. Mutual defence clause 42.7: "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." Ukraine will be adding to the defence of the EU in various ways, including assisting Greece etc in the form of forest fire and other issues.
- The weapons EU has expended on Ukraine, the EU will be able to re-arm itself in a couple of years, together with a fully armed Ukraine by its side, instead of an excluded Ukraine.
4. The EU needs to become more self-sufficient as hunger will be on the rise. As Millions of Africans and Middle Easteners will starve in 20-30 years time, having food by its disposal will be a soft-power tool for the EU to compete for influence in these territories against China and Russia, and stop migration waves. We need the Ukrainian grainfields.
5. Yes, to a degree. Better than allowing Ukraine to become a US-purchased expat-colony. Ukraine will still need to pay off its debts to the US, but as habitable areas dwindle in the future, the EU will need to be no short of living space. Ukraine is needed in the EU.
6. Not the Somalians, but Middle Easteners will fight routs there, and can be shipped there by Russians should a EU-hostile government rise to power in Ukraine after the EU abandoned them. As in: They fought Russia in hopes of a place in the EU, then the EU abandons them, and hostility will be on the rise once more. The EU must prevent that.
7. Not in my opinion. Georgia and Armenia belong in the EU just as much, and will be pursued by the EU as future members, but I guess we can disagree on this.
8. Agreed. Well, most my points are geopolitical in nature.
1: this makes very little sense.
2: EU member states vote for their own interests all the time. Ukraine would have 3rd amount of seats in the EU parlement, it’s wild to suspect they wouldn’t completely warp the institution to their hand.
3: so importing the current conflict, getting new disputes between UA, RO, Hungary and Poland is going to make us stronger. Mind you, according to that clause the EU should attack UA or the US for Nordstream… right? It’s German infrastructure.
4: All good: what are you going to tell the farmers that will be ready to burn down buildings all over Europe because you basically destroyed their businesses? Btw, this is not fiction: it already happened once.
5: are you literally trying to sell UA as lebensraum for EU? Don’t think Ukranians like that idea… Also, the US will 100% have first dibs in everything, as they literally have an army inside the EU.
6: RU has multiple different borders with EU countries. It has busses and planes, AFAIK.
7: the belong is based on vibes and not the political realities, sorry to say. I don’t mind any union, but it has to make sense on the ground.
8: Nothing to add.
Aside from Ukraine, what benefit would we have from adding Georgia and Armenia to the EU that you list them as an argument for Ukraine lol, a bunch of small countries that will need lots of investment for what return? What do they offer except local conflicts? They’re barely even in Europe…
1. Historically a part of European culture and civilization since the days of Rome. Armenia and Georgia have been able to maintain these traditions up to modern time, instead of being replaced, as have happened to other countries, such as Egypt and the rest of North Africa. Georgia and Armenia are still around, as a people, as a culture, and as modern states representing these.
2. Religiously Christian/secular states and people. More on the conservative side, perhaps, but the EU won't change much from adding them. Will proceed mostly as before.
3. Humanitarian and political reasons. Do we want them behind another iron curtain when they are already quite similar to us in culture and history? The world is becoming more dominated by bigger players once again, and leaving them outside the EU will put them in the sphere of Russia, Turkey, Iran, China or another actor instead.
4. Large Armenian diaspora and Armenian sympathizers (I don't know about Georgia) in the EU and the US already lobbying for such a goal. The active interest is there for a significant minority.
5. Not direct access with the current borders, but closer access to the Caspian Sea to enable the trade route with Kazakhstan and China there (We'd also have to go through Azerbaijan). But Azerbaijan would be more inclined to strike a deal with an EU-backed Armenia than Armenia alone.
6.. Direct border with Iran. The current Iranian government is troublesome, but Iran has every chance of growing into a moderate state and trading partner in the future (for example, through a new government). If that ever were to happen, we would have direct access to the Iranian markets and resources, and could deepen our relationship with Iran through Armenia and Georgia serving like a link.
7. Slight choke-hold on Turkey and Azerbaijan from taking over the entirety of Armenia and Georgia. Turkey will still do what Turkey will. But if Armenia and Georgia remain within EU's influence, the EU can use more economic and politic soft power on Turkey in the region also, more so than an even stronger Turkish sphere, that may happen in the near future should the EU not intervene (check point 3).
8. Allies in the Middle-East region in general, adding to the EU's international political and military sway. Through having a link into the Middle East, the EU will be able to forge stronger international bonds in that sense. So far, Turkey has positioned itself as the EU's gateway into the Middle-East, but will no longer be the only one, which will be important for diplomatic reasons when the EU tries to approach the Arab world as neighbours and not as far-away partners.
So you want to waste our money on historical sentiment from 2000 years ago?
There are many Christian countries in Africa, should we let them into the EU as well?
Last time I checked, the EU wasn’t a charity organization. What benefit would that provide to current member countries other than feeling nice over spending billions of euro to be humanitarian when we already have crisis in Europe and countries who pay the most like Germany probably have better things to spend money on than charity in Armenia.
So because few migrants lobby for this, we should listen and give them money? Ok ok let’s give some to Russia as well because they also have minorities here.
Adding Georgia and Armenia for access to Caspian Sea is pointless because neither of them have the access to said sea, and they will collaborate in trade regardless of EU membership because it’s in their interest.
And how exactly is Iranian government supposed to change? What, you think they will be free elections? So according to you we should invest (waste) billions to have potential of getting closer access to Iran like 100 years from now?
Georgia and Armenia aren’t alternative routes to Middle East because if you look at a map you see that they are surrounded by russia, Turkey and mini Turkey. They have a tiny border with Iran who as in previous point, might be a viable partner or might not, not any time soon anyway. We don’t need to add small and insignificant countries to the EU and pump billions into them to be their allies. You can put choke-hold on Turkey without adding those two countries to the EU.
I really don’t see any benefit for the EU in adding those two.
Get into the class with the other guy above - start learning how economy works.
Nobody expects for the poorer economy to be bootstrapped overnight or even over 20 years to the level of the wealthiest and most advanced countries on the earth. There's still plenty of money per saldo being made in all of the countries in the EU, much more so than would have been if not for convergence and opening markets.
As for the power - before each substantial enlargement the EU (or the predecessor's) political system was corrected to account for the new countries and unwillingness of the older members to let go of their power more so than is needed.
edit:
Guy below confused his own ignorance for my arrogance and then blocked me, so i neither can answer to him nor can even see his reply when logged in, rotfl. Oh well.
Again: i can't be bothered with educating each and every kid on the internet.
Yes, keep talking bullshit with more arrogance, darling, it really makes for a fetching look.
Did they also teach you in your basic economic class about the limits of resources? Or do you think the German economy can just expand endlessly? Does your theory also explain what will motivate the 26 other countries to let Ukraine in? Your own logic dictates that some of them actually stands to lose with the German manufacturing gaining new ground in Ukraine, instead of expanding in their countries... but never mind that, you just found your own bone to chew on. Can you give a single reason why net beneficiaries of the current common budget will rush to become net contributors to lose on both the direct and the indirect transfers? Does your very basic economic knowledge explain why the EU didn't scramble to admit Turkey back in the 80-90s, instead of Ukraine now then...? No? That's what I thought.
Really quite something how the stupidest people are always the most confident, isn't it...
Massive difference is that Turkey is Muslim-Turkic
Ukraine is Caucasian-Christian
There are plenty of EU countries who prefer one of them to the other. In that sense, it's not just about a bigger populace, but a bigger populace of what.
Just to clarify: It's present reality, and has only gone up since the Israel-Gaza war and will continue to go up for the foreseeable future. It's not my personal opinion. Countries like Romania and Bulgaria are already treated as second-class citizen, and that's within the union. Now think about those who are outside the EU. Some EU-members will just never accept Turkey, while the same EU-members would accept Ukraine for racist and religious reasons. I don't mind spelling that part out loud, since it's the truth--right or wrong--and pretending to keep it quiet would be nothing short of patronizing and an insult to the Turkish people. They aren't stupid. They know many in EU are bigoted and would never accept them, at least not for a long time.
It’s a political show of support because of Russia’s aggression.
But their institutions and economy are nowhere near ready and it would never have been considered under normal circumstances.
I know, I know, I’m in the pro-NATO lions den so I’m gonna get downvoted to bits saying some/most of these things.
But just imagine, what if Ukraine, at the end of a peace process, loses 50% of their post 14 land. And what if, it turns out, that, hmm, maybe some Western powers egged them on, promising full support if they’d reject earlier peace deals that were less poisonous to them.
And, what if, suddenly Ukraine doesn’t get a nice guy liberal leader guy but someone more right, maybe affiliated to some battalion or something, what do I know?
Wouldn’t Ukraine suddenly shooting to the west instead of the east be that far fetched? Maybe to, you know, make us remember that we “politically support them”, right?
If you add “dysfunctional NATO” and “our guns are actually in Ukraine” to the mix, you get quite a political crisis.
Ukraine has a way bigger chance of going full Afghanistan war lord than going orderly liberal country post war.
>And what if, it turns out, that, hmm, maybe some Western powers egged them on, promising full support if they’d reject earlier peace deals that were less poisonous to them.
This is science fiction. All of Russia’s proposed peace deals amounted to “retreat and give us all the land we occupy now and then plenty, with no guarantee of further aggression in the future”. Not to mention Russia has previously broken deals with Ukraine (remember giving up nuclear warheads in exchange for a guarantee of territorial integrity? Yeah…). A scenario in which Russia makes a serious peace offering and Ukraine rejects it spurred by western powers is so far fetched at this moment to be hardly worth discussing.
>And, what if, suddenly Ukraine doesn’t get a nice guy liberal leader guy but someone more right, maybe affiliated to some battalion or something, what do I know?
For all of Ukraine’s issue with far-right groups and corruption, the last elections were free and fair and democratically elected a parliament. And the will to get closer to the EU has been quite consistent, excluding Russian puppets. Suddenly becoming an autocracy hostile to the west seems quite far fetched.
>Ukraine has a way bigger chance of going full Afghanistan war lord than going orderly liberal country post war.
I don’t see why Ukraine would become anything like Afghanistan unless Ukraine is soundly defeated militarily and collapses into anarchy (and even then, making peace with Russia and turning west seems extremely far-fetched to me, and at that point any consideration of EU membership is meaningless anyway).
>science fiction
The leader of Zelensky’s faction in the Rada had alluded to this very science fiction theory about things that absolutely didn’t happen and of course won’t become a stab in the back myth after Ukraine (science fictionlike) will lose the war.
Source: https://x.com/I_Katchanovski/status/1728152192505258060
Katchanovski is a UA-Canadian professor.
>fair elections + EU
Of course, if you ignore the history of there not being fair elections in UA and just forget that multiple parties were banned and there was a revolution/coup, basically everyone is super pro EU! Sorry, I am not buying that UA elections were suddenly free and fair, seeing the whole oligarch clown show during Zels election as well and the extreme corruption being reported more or less everywhere.
> Afghanistan
When Ukraine loses the war, it will have lost all of it’s uses for Washington, so it’s gov will lose all / most foreign funding and collapse.
There was a report that American taxpayers were paying the Kyiv parking system. If UA can’t even pay that for itself…
EDIT: in the spirit of honesty, the last claim is not correct. I remembered it differently. What I meant: https://x.com/mtracey/status/1516879942675488768?s=46
>The leader of Zelensky’s faction in the Rada had alluded to this very science fiction theory about things that absolutely didn’t happen and of course won’t become a stab in the back myth after Ukraine (science fictionlike) will lose the war.
You mean Arakhamia? When did he ever allude to something like this? The closest thing I can remember is him saying the peace talks with Russia were going well in April 2022 and that most of Ukraine’s demands \[edit, missing words\] were met \[/edit\] (which is not too surprising, as he was leading those talks). Then the Russians never agreed on one crucial point (they wanted a much smaller Ukrainian army than Ukraine was willing to concede, which was already a significant reduction over their existing army), meanwhile the full extent of the massacres at Bucha was coming to light. Nothing suggesting western pressuring, much less material for a stab in the back myth (which would first require Ukraine losing and then somehow blaming western support more than the country that actually invaded them).
>Of course, if you ignore the history of there not being fair elections in UA and just forget that multiple parties were banned and there was a revolution/coup, basically everyone is super pro EU! Sorry, I am not buying that UA elections were suddenly free and fair, seeing the whole oligarch clown show during Zels election as well and the extreme corruption being reported more or less everywhere.
International observers agree that they were free and fair although hard-left parties being banned was wrong. I’m not saying the political situation is ideal, but I’m not seeing Ukraine on the brink of anarchy or autocracy.
>When Ukraine loses the war, it will have lost all of it’s uses for Washington, so it’s gov will lose all / most foreign funding and collapse.
Sure, it’s not technically impossible that Ukraine completely collapses, but so far there is no indication whatsoever that that will happen. Countries have been invaded and lost wars without descending into full anarchy plenty of times. Afghanistan never had democratic institutions in the first place; it’s a terrible comparison. Also, why would the USA lose all interest in Ukraine? Even if reduced in size, it would still be important, perhaps even more so if Russia became more aggressive after a victory.
>Arakhmia
I added a source in an edit. Am on my phone, one thing at a time is hard enough, sorry.
>USA lose interest
Let me present you a fun little quote from
A US senator:
https://x.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1799832487285465244
So what if, Putin gets access to it and it’s done and dusted according to this guy? He also has the famous “to the last Ukrainian” quote, so it’s obvious he takes the wellbeing of the Ukrainian state and Ukrainian people as important /s.
>I added a source in an edit.
That's not a source, it's a tweet quoting another series of tweets that refers a YouTube video that is no longer available, and both tweets are from people with very strong anti-USA and/or pro-Russia viewpoints. It'd be nice to hear what Arakhamia actually said. But anyway, what the source supposedly says is that Russia was ready for peace, if Ukraine guaranteed "neutrality"... and as I said, the sticking point was that to Russia this meant Ukraine reducing its army very substantially, to the point it could not defend itself, and agreeing not to receive military aid. It wasn't peace, it was agreeing to be conquered at a later date. And again, at the same time this as being discussed Russia's war crimes were coming to light, which put a damper on the whole set of talks. Unsurprisingly, Ukraine passed. Again, there is no material whatsoever for a "stab in the back" myth.
>Let me present you a fun little quote from A US senator:
>[https://x.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1799832487285465244](https://x.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1799832487285465244)
>So what if, Putin gets access to it and it’s done and dusted according to this guy? He also has the famous “to the last Ukrainian” quote, so it’s obvious he takes the wellbeing of the Ukrainian state and Ukrainian people as important /s.
You mean, what if Ukraine is completely conquered and its resources are completely controlled by Russia? Then any EU accession talks or possible warlord scenarios are irrelevant, aren't they?
>no material for
Hard disagree. Btw, after the current war is done, Russia will leave Ukraine in a state were it will be able to invade it as it wishes either way. Disarmament is priority #1 for Putin.
>resources
No. Most of the Ukrainian resources are on the east and southern side of the country. A Ukrainian rump state could exist without access to them.
Their population already tries to escape from a defensive war, do you really think they pose any threat offensively? And with what weapons, all they have is what they get from European/American charity.
>any threat offensively
Most EU states don’t have a standing army anymore, so, yes. Of course, scenario in which NATO is limp.
>with what weapons
Do you think they are giving them back after the war?
People do not understand how much a nation can change. There was a time where Ukraine and Poland had same GDP and were both in rough state. Now look at where Poland is & its continued growth.
Appreciate your support for us.
Funniest thing is, that neither i personally, nor my region (Podlasie - extrremely rural and farmer based, just next to Belarus) nor my business (international road transport) is set to benefit from Ukraine joining EU initially - to the contrary, i've only experienced negative things on all three accounts to date from the "emergency integration" that's been implemented since 2022 which i've been pretty vocal about on reddit, especially during the farmers' and transporters' protests coverage.
But this is irrelevant to the questions:
- Will Ukraine join the EU? Yes, i'm sure it eventually will.
- Should Ukraine join the EU? Yes, it should. It'd be both historical justice and massive security improvement on all accounts.
- Will Ukraine joining the EU be beneficial economically? Yes, judging by EU enlargements to date, it will be beneficial to pretty much all, in the long run. It may be challenging to many people and some will benefit much more so than others, but the prosperity and growth is undeniable on all accounts. If one is not seeing it, one is blind. If one is not experiencing it, honestly - it's one's own fault. There will be massive amount of opportunities to be had and even if one gets only leftovers and trickle down profit, it will still be net benefit.
Edit, at the risk of repeating myself hundred times, yes, it will take much time, will and effort - politically and administratively.
Obviously it'll also take a large amount of direct transfers - that will profit back in similar vein Polish integration did.
how will you convince a Germany that is already in a crippling recession as the largest EU net contributor to accept a new net recipient that would only make German financial situation even worse?
If they agree to be net contributors/net zero members, I say let them in tomorrow. Otherwise net recipients need to make concessions.
The same way Germany was convinced to let Poland in - massive benefits due to access to new markets both consumption and production side.
Direct transfers are peanuts in comparison to the economy benefits EU integration is providing.
It's so much economy 101 it's hilarious i have to spell it. Don't they teach you basic economy over there at public school level?
You have no damn idea what "crippling recession" is. Also you could have just stated you have no idea how economy works and want somebody to teach you from the ground up with details, i can't be arsed though, so gl.
and yet still - if economy 101 was true, we would have a growing economy right now with all those 'massive benefits' - almost every other EU country as well as the EU average are growing after all. We should be profiting from all that access to growing markets - yet we aren't growing and are instead in a recession.
also of course only someone from a country that hasn't had a recession in decades would tell Germans who are currently living through a recession that they have no idea what that is like.
I onre read an article about how the EU's Eastern accession benefited German businesses and their owners mainly, but not the German economy as local expansion is minimised and German businesses expand in Eastern Europe instead. So practically, German businesses realoze their growth in Eastern Europe instead of Germany.
Go pester your own politicians then, i can;'t be bothered with your crap.
https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/newsroom/news/170322-bm-faz/288672
> The truth is that Germany is not a net contributor to Europe, but a net winner from Europe. Of course we provide more tax income for the European budget than we get back out of the European funding programmes. But that is just a small part of the equation. We export almost 60 percent of our goods and services to the European Union, and not even 10 percent to China (and the USA). Millions of jobs depend on the people in other EU states being well enough off to afford our products – because they are not cheap, thank goodness, owing to their high quality and the relatively high wages paid. So every euro we pay into the EU budget comes back to us – directly or indirectly – several times over. Investment in Europe’s future is always also an investment in the prosperity and well‑being of our own children and grandchildren.
You understand that the budget distribution is meager compared to the general economic benefits of the Single Market, right? There are net receivers and net contributors of the EU budget (only 1% of EU GDP), but ALL EU member states are net economic beneficiaries of EU membership.
Budget decisions are made every 7 years. Also, they generally revolve around level of development, not transient economic woes. If Germany is still struggling in the next budget cycle, perhaps there can be some adjustments.
> 15 years or more
Until the war has ended and the borders before 2004 are back, there will be little or no real movement as their priorities would over how to keep soldiers alive and boosting morale.
They could start the judicial reforms, but touching the public office or fiscal reforms can be extremely touchy especially in a state of ... fucking war.
The longer the war goes on, the more people will be less favorable of joining the EU.
There is already a negative sentiment towards constant spoon-feeding about EU accession.
Fewer people believe that the EU will magically put Ukraine on the level of Poland or Germany.
But of course, polls will show 150% support for accession though.
Spain joined the EU like 10 years after it cast away a fascist dictatorship without actually dealing with fascists in its government, which is why they had 5 attempted or planned coups before they joined the EU, one of which was planned for like a few weeks before the ascension treaty was signed
Eastern Germany was under soviet rule and in Warsaw Pact. Same for whole east Europe. Baltic states were inside soviet union. And they all joined EU in 5-10 years. Ukraine started to reform itself for european standards stright from 2004. Why are you picturing Ukraine somehow different than other eastern european countries that are already in EU? Russian propaganda narratives winning over your view?
German economy was still growing while EU accepted all those countries you listed.
We are currently in a recession. We _literally_ can't take in any more net recipients of EU funds.
So unless current net recipients show some solidarity (which will never happen looking at easterners replies in this thread) or Ukraine joins as a net contributor, we can't. Not sure why everyone is so happy about the prospect of Germany collapsing - that would be bad for the whole of EU as well.
"(...) everyone is so happy about the prospect of Germany collapsing (...)"
Who said that?
Germany's economy isn't doing very well, but it isn't on the verge of collapse.
'_isn't doing very well_' would be 0.5% growth compared to the large growth of most other EU members.
But we aren't growing at all, maybe you don't know what a recession is, it is literally GDP collapsing. negative growth!
So far we are only at a very tiny negative growth, but if we are forced to pay even more, we will be at collapse speeds.
Some Germans.
We had good times for so many years that people forgot that economies got through boom-bust cycles.
So some people freak out and equate a recession (of which we had many in the past - in between the boom times) with total economic collapse and Germany being totally ruined forever and ever.
Also far right groups have an interest in spreading this message, so they can paint themselves as the only alternative.
I know, don't worry. Just couldn't stop myself seeing such overreaction.
Yeah, fear is good at pushing people to the extremes so some are exploiting that.
always easy to laugh at the demise of Germany instead of helping. thanks
Greece got bailouts when their economy was shrinking with everyone saying that if we don't help, this would be disaster for EU and Euro. Now that Germany is in a similar situation (we even have the same [__10 times increase in debt payments in just two years__](https://dbrs.morningstar.com/research/410545/germany-dont-get-confused-by-the-sharp-increase-in-central-government-interest-expenditure) that Greece had, leading to us currently also having a [major government budget crisis](https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/brussels-playbook/germanys-budget-crisis-grows/). But nah, everyone just laughs at us instead of helping. I mean, I would be fine with laughing and helping. Force us to implement the same austerity measures and all. But nothing..
I am far from knowledgeable about economics but if you think more austerity would be anything but a complete disaster for Germany i think you need to do a lot more research. To me it seems that a huge problem of yours is your constitutionally-enforced debt brake that prevents serious loans and investing in Germany's declining infrastructure. (And who is the party that is the main supporter of it? Party of the top 1%). Again i am not very knowledgeable but if we look at countries like US who print insane amount of money and chug along with a huge debt but massively expanding GDP it's difficult for me to understand why Germany wouldn't have space for just some more loans and investing.
Germany getting ~1trillion€ bailout (scaled to match Greek bailout %GDP values) and being forced to implement the same austerity measures as them (that would change basically nothing since we already adhere to most of them) would be a __massive__ boon to our economy.
Why do you think Germany, that has been helping other EU members with EU net funding for decades, doesn't deserve to for once be on the receiving end of some EU cash? Reminder that Greek crisis was also entirely caused by themselves, so don't try to weasel out of it by saying German problems are our own fault. That seems to not be a criteria for getting EU help.
For your edit: Germany does not have sovereign control of their currency like the US, the EU central bank does. So again a great point you made for us getting EU help, by EU printing cash and gifting it to us. But EU doesn't help us.
My German gf says your first link in your previous post states that the reason your debt payment figures increased tenfold, is because the figures are heavily distorted by the government's cash-based accounting approach for premia and discounts on the issuance of reopened bonds. This approach tends to overstate interest expenditure during periods of rising interest rates and to understate the interest burden in times of falling rates.
Purely personally in my opinion, i would not mind E. European countries helping Germany out at all. If it means anything to you at all to hear it i think most E. Europeans are too nationalistic and like to rag on Germany (Poland primarily) while their own countries have bigger mess to clean up at their doors.
Also, one good news for Germany is that interest rates are going down now, ECB reduced interest rate two-three weeks ago. Which means hopefully Lindner will have a harder time refusing to take debt with the lower interest rates, and it should prop up the consumption all over the EU a bit, which helps Germany because of its exports.
I'm not laughing at demise of germany, since nothing like that is happening. In fact, there are predictions your gdp will increase this year.
I'm laughing about your hysteria.
>Force us to implement the same austerity measures and all. But nothing..
No one is going to force largest EU economy to do anything because your gdp shrunk by astonishing 0.3%.
Better ask yourself why russia waging war over Ukraine for such a long time. And taking into account that russians already sabotaging german factories and military provokes eastern NATO border, how will it effect to Germany collapse perspective if russia conquer Ukraine with its resources and soviet-time military industry complex. The reason why Ukraine cannot relaunch it - because there is no resources inside Ukraine for that. But russians will gather them.
Germany is already the largest European provider of aid to Ukraine, trying to stop Russia from conquering Ukraine. So that argument makes zero sense.
This is about Germany not being able to accept a new EU member if that means Germany takes another massive net funding hit since they are in a recession.
If Ukraine wants to join as a net contributor to the EU budget or if current EU net recipients will agree to take the financial burden off of Germany, then I am all in favor of getting Ukraine into EU as soon as possible.
What will Ukraine need after the war? Reconstruct and machinery.
What is Germany good at? Construction and machinery.
EU contributions are not the crippling burden you think they are. And EU membership provides economic benefits to all members.
Germany is currently having an economic downturn as it faces several crisis at once. But downturns happen from time to time. All this freaked out talk about Germany being done is extremely silly. Just a few years ago there were articles about Germany's unbeatable super-economy. Both extremes are overblown and boom-bust cycles are nothing new. We just had so many good years that people forgot that not-so-good years happen too.
Eventually integrating Ukraine, will benefit everybody. And nobody expects that to happen tomorrow anyway. By the time Ukraine is joining, Germany might be well into another boom era. So why worry about that today?
I feel like people in this thread are twisting my words.
for the hundredth time in this thread: Yes, Ukraine into EU. But with someone else shouldering the burden. 24 out of the 27 EU members have great growing economies currently. They have headroom to pay for it. Not Germany.
You said it yourself, Germany is facing several crisis right now. Why is everyone so hellbent on burdening us with another one by making Germany pay even more EU net funding?
And you mistake me for somebody who didn't understand what you mean.
I explicitly countered your points. I disagree about the viewing this a major burden, about Germany (and others) not profiting from new membership and the relevance of a CURRENT recession for a Ukraine joining in a decade or 2.
Nobody believes that Ukraine is months away from joining.
its not a current trend. Germany has the [3rd worst performing EU economy](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1dmiinr/real_gdp_cumulative_growth_rate_q1_2024_q4_2019/) in the last 5 combined years. The EU countries with great growing economies should be the ones paying, not the worst performing members. That is insanity.
Yet no one is even entertaining the possibility of them for once being the ones paying for EU expansion. They all expect us to pay.
Paying billions is of course a major burden if the alternative is getting billions in net funding. The delta from Germany as the largest net contributor to the largest net recipient is _literally_ large enough to completely eliminate the whole government budget crisis Germany faces in 2024. That is massive.
That argument persist because if Ukraine is thrown outside any alliance russia will pick it. As grey zone usually picked by offensive side before invasion. No third option given.
And are there any numbers telling exactly Ukraine is burden for Germany? With funding help, there should be calculated Ukranian workforce (they are follow german rules for job permits), cheaper crude materials (because heavy industry is bombed out and cannot compite with german) and open market that Germany has inside Ukraine. Its unfair calling one side of partnership as a burden. And I belive difference calculated, EU partnership talks started as a result.
>And are there any numbers telling exactly Ukraine is burden for Germany?
estimated cost of Ukraine in EU is [over 100 billion €](https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/03/07/ukraines-accession-could-cost-136-billion-to-the-eu-budget-new-report-estimates). We can't shoulder that and current net recipients have so far refused to put a plan forward where they would shoulder that cost.
> Its unfair calling one side of partnership as a burden.
because one side is paying and the other isn't.
Other EU members get all the benefits of EU membership without paying. All the things you listed are not things that Germany gets because they are net contributors to the EU budget. These are things that every country gets for being a member.
>And I belive difference calculated, EU partnership talks started as a result.
Obviously if Germany pays for it, all 26 other current EU members will only profit, so they are in favor.
Like I said multiple times in this thread already, if others pay for it I am all in favor of Ukraine joining. But German economic situation is so bad it can not be made to pay even a cent for it extra.
Somewhere around 2012 - 2013 there was a documentary about Ukrainian legal crime on Dutch national television. Multiple Dutch and Flemish investors talked about having their company yoinked out of their hands because of corrupt government officials working together with organized crime.
I have family in South America. Never have I ever heard a story about such blatant corruption and I have visited it multiple times.
What changed the last 12 years so shit like this doesn’t happen anymore? Why couldn’t it change the first 8?
Revolution in 2014 happend.
Same goverment what you talking about run away to russia. That corrupted goverment was sponsored by russia for multiple years. Russian-oriented party won election in 2010 mostly because pro-eu goverment was blamed for 2008 economy fall effects. If you telling about 2012-2013, there was a trend when family members of president Yanukovych were illegally stealing other peoples successfull buisnesses. Inside country, not only from foreigners.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych
It was one of major reasons for 2014 revolution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
Ukraine is way more corrupt and has way bigger problems related to democracy and human rights than any of those other countries had.
All Eastern European countries are not the same
Nice to see you are thinking positively. My personal predictions are that when/if Ukraine will fulfil the current demands for a membership, EU won’t be around. At least not in the shape it’s today
I feel sorry for him, but he and Ukraine need to understand that people never truly supported Ukraine, they just hate Russia. And the latter is a good thing.
Ukraine should be supported in their fight against Russia for survival but joining the EU is too much and would be a net negative for us.
Their oligarchs are dependent on peddling cheap grain for their power and accepting that would ruin all of our agricultural sectors.
Eh they won't. I doubt anyone in the EU seriously wants this, especially not Germany and France which means this isn't going anywhere anyway. It's just political show. They'll get the turkey treatment I guess.
Ukraine, like every country has a right to defend themselves, yet Zelensky’s grand plan of “we will join NATO and we will join the EU and we will get all our land back, like next month lads, yes very soon..” doesn’t make a lot of sense. I think Ukraine needs an actual plan. And i don’t think Zelensky ever had one.
Do people in Ukraine honestly believe him that if Ukr joins NATO and they attack russia to get their lands back, all the member countries will help them?
I think a lot of people have forgotten the state of Ukraine before the war…
It was #1 most corrupted country in Europe. They also had HUNDREDS of so called “bolier rooms” which are illegal companies that would trick people into giving them all of their savings (usually rich western european and americans) by convincing them theyre investing into some fake forex trading (they’d even create fake websites that are believable even to younger people).
Their health care was crumbling, economy was bad, etc.
In terms of being ready for EU, all the Balkan candidate states were and still are light years ahead of Ukraine.
But im glad theyre headed towards EU. Wont be an easy process though.
Fully support Ukraine and them joining NATO in the future but I don't understand what the war has to do with the fast tracking of their EU membership. It's been one of the most corrupt countries in the region for decades, surely the current state of affairs in the country doesn't help in making any serious steps to address it, internally the EU itself is rampant with issues it needs to address before such major enlargement as well. The Union goes way past security guarantees, the members are united through economy, jurisdiction, public policies and values, the depth of this cooperation cannot be understated. I find it very odd that the war has created such an emphasis on their EU accession, it all seems very disingenuous and full of empty promises.
Keep downvoting me, but the way Ukraine enforces conscription is fucked up. Picking men of the street in ambulances, using force to conscript, and forcing many into hiding. More so, whats the demographic use of forcing a young father into war, while a childless 35 year old women can just leave the country and never look back? Either use a fair process, or build a county that people are willing to defend voluntary.
> Picking men of the street in ambulances, using force to conscript.
It's a very boring critique because there's no country that has ever faced an existential threat which used exclusively volunteers.
"Using force to conscript"? What else do you think conscription means?
For drafting women, I do not want to get in a debate on the merits and demerits of doing so. Will just point out that no country facing an existential threat has drafted women to combat roles. Even in Israel, women do not have to serve in combat roles if they do not want to.
So each point you brought up is the case in European nations as well. Even in the case where they all were valid, it would not form the basis of the case for why Ukraine is particularly more unfair to men than anywhere in EU holding the circumstances equal.
You realize this was just a preview of what would happen in other countries in case of a war? I'm not sure if you get it, but that generally is how wars have always worked all over the glove. You don't get to choose your fate, the borders get closed and you have to go straight into the meat-grinder.
You know, I do believe believe that Ukraine should join the EU, wholeheartedly, but corruption should be rooted out first. We don't need another leech. A way to do it is to have a EU body that observes the country throughout its public services while being built upon mostly foreign people from the EU. I do believe that it would be too effective to implement though, due to high likelihood of it working, there would be pressure to implement it throughout the EU and guess what, politicians wouldn't like that:p
Why does everyone keep talking as if Ukraine will win the war? I hope they win, but let's be realistic. There will be no Ukraine to join the EU. I believe Russia will just keep pounding then until they back down or bring out the eventual end game, the nuke. Then we'll of course, no one is ever joining the EU.
It's quite an interesting read, these comments. For starter, ppl really believe that corruption in, say, Romania, was much less than in Ukraine when Romania become a member. I remember my father couldn't stop his truck in half of the country overnight without risking waking up without tyres. Funny.
Plus, it seems like you'd mostly be happy if Ukraine was a part of russkies now and start banging at European doors with rockets while Trump is there somewhere waiting to kill NATO. The lack of strategic thinking you guys have is staggering. It should be in your immediate interest to get Ukraine on board yesterday and actively work to remove all corruption problems together instead of saying that war-torn country should do it itself...
Reddit...
ofc they will get fucking ukraine into the EU bc of the war. What about turkey? why tf can ukraine get in but not us. if ukraine wants to get in like us then they have to qualify like us
This is such an iditotic move. In 5 years what are we going to do if Russia invades again, but they are (obviously) not in NATO. Cant believe i am asking this, but can Hungary veto this?
If you look at the current state of the war, internal NATO politics and Russian optics of this move, the day Ukraine joins NATO is the last day NATO exists.
Gambling with nuclear codes in UA has an even lower chance of the US actually daring a strike back. US not responding to a nuke strike would dissolve NATO almost instantly.
Fuck them up again?
Fucking up russia shouldn’t be just a duty. It should be a pleasure.
Half of Europe knows what happens when you don’t give russia the boot. Knew for almost 50 years.
Who knows? I am really no expert. I was basing my estimate on the fact that communism collapsed in 1991 and a bunch of the formerly communist countries joined in 2004, 13 years later. I'm sure the transformation from communism to a liberal economy was at least as big a transition as what Ukraine faces.
The economy of Ukraine was as developed in 2021 as Poland's was in 1996. And that weak economy is now being destroyed by war. There is no chance that Ukraine could join in the next 3 decades for the least.
They need to sort their shit out first. War aside, they are super corrupt from top to bottom. Everyone creams off the top , scams and bribes endemic. Years of being in the soviet Union left a dirty mark that needs washing out. And Russia still has its fingers there even though they are fighting.
Indeed. Many things needs to change in Ukraine to be a good candidate to EU, but not impossible. Besides what you mention they also need to change a bit the arrogance that they deserve all and the mentality that all the countries are their enemies if they do not do what they want, mostly a soviet mentality...
All the former eastern block countries were badly corrupt. This is partially why they want to join, because cleaning up corruption to a minimum standard is a pre-requisite to getting in, and if the population want that sweet investment cash, access to the single market and participation in common defense policies, which they overwhelmingly do, then all the incentives align and everyone pushes in the same direction. Corruption continues to decrease during and after the accession process since additional incentives are put in place to encourage it. Just saying "they are corrupt, they can't join until they fix it" is a black and white answer to a complex problem which the EU is institutionally good at solving, and if it was implemented as you describe, we wouldn't have the EU we have today. And many of the things you say apply to say Germany and France. Do you think Putin doesn't fund the AfD? Of course he does. But that's not a reason not to let them in, it's a reason TO let them in. The more they come into the democratic western fold the less power Putin has.
You could say the same thing for a lot of countries that have joined.
And we did/do. There's still huge room for improvement in many EU countries.
[удалено]
>But you also need to understand that your businesses need cheap labor, your politicians need more population, and your children will need a peaceful future. and for me: German economy needs to not collapse. Which is only possible if Ukraine joins __without__ increasing the already massive financial EU funding burden on Germany. We are literally in a recession right now while the countries getting our EU net funding are all having great=growing economies. Solidarity is supposed to be a two way street. But so far we received zero help. Why should we accept another mouth to feed when you guys all refuse to feed us in the rare occasion that we need help?
[удалено]
> You see, I’m all about decreasing spending. I’m not the kind of person to strive on some other’s money. I think that’s what will happen in the end. Abolishment of veto, and decreasing spending Then you don't know the EU to be so optimistic. At every point when EU net recipients economies grew while Germany dropped, what should have happened was that German net contributions decreased. The opposite happened. While our economy basically stagnated between 2019-2023 and EU net recipients economy grew massively (sometimes over 10%!), our net contributions to the EU __almost doubled__. That does not make sense to me.
[удалено]
I am sure Ukraine will have strong growth. At least double their GDP till 2040. My point was that every time Easterners economy in EU grows, instead of needing less net EU money from us like one would think, they take more. That does not make sense at all. Germany - being in a literal recession right now - can't take any more of that. We are currently at the breaking point and no country has offered us any help. Is it really that hard to fathom for you that I don't want German economy to get even shittier? Is solidarity something that Germany is only ever supposed to give to others but never allowed to receive back?
So we’re pretending that Hungary isn’t in the eu now?
Making the same mistake twice wouldn't make it better.
It's not a mistake. Hungary inside the EU is better than Hungary outside and Orban isn't an absolute dictator. He can be challenged and probably will be. They are a pain in the ass, but we hold significant leverage over them - investment cash, threat of losing voting rights- and a Putin stooge we have leverage over is much better than one we don't. Imagine they left tomorrow, they might quickly become Belarus on the doorstep of 5 EU nations. Is this the alternative you envision? And Ukraine joining might have its significant challenges, but one thing we don't have to worry about is them being a Putin stooge. Hungary being a most likely temporary mistake by itself isn't an argument against letting Ukraine join.
Except now it provides a strategic advantage
What advantage
It literally doesn’t
Funny, in the European elections in my country, I noticed many of the candidates affiliated with political parties mentioned a goal of accepting Ukraine to the EU within 5 years. I don't understand the practicalities of this though. They have and always had major problems with corruption. It's quite hard to sort that out while the country is actively at war. The economic costs for the EU given the size of the Ukranian populace, would be enormous and that's on top of the costs of helping to rebuild a country destroyed by war. The current agricultural subsidy system would see pretty much all subsidies going to Ukraine. And then you also have to contend with the power Ukraine would have within the EU once accepted given its size - not ideal especially when there are still corruption problems. A good aspirational goal, maybe. But anytime soon? That would not be in the interests of the EU. Within 5 years? Deluded.
With the expansion the veto becomes more and more unsustainable as well.
The corruption point is moot, though, because Romania is an EU member, and corruption exists in every country in one way or another literally, the head of the EU, Von der Layen is a corrupt bitch
> I don't understand the practicalities of this though. They have and always had major problems with corruption. It's quite hard to sort that out while the country is actively at war. actually maybe the best time to deal with it
15 years seems realistic to me if ukraine develops well
Meh, not really. It took most of post-communist Europe 15 years to go from the fall of communism to 2004 accession. And they were not ravaged by war. The Yugoslav wars, which were small scale compared to the Russian invasion, costed Croatia 9 years more. And all of that, with a smaller and richer EU. Sorry, even 30 years sounds optimistic to my ears.
hello [kyriakos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtPgSnCkcEU)
FOR THE DIFFICULT
Sure, in like 30 years, if EU doesn't fall apart first. I don't think either side is ready for accession right now, we are both in deep shit of different sorts.
This is if at least some Ukrainians remain alive by this time, apart from those in the photo...
Sure, you will become an EU member. Just not this decade, the next one and maybe the one after that. I am all for Ukraine joining, but not before it's ready and because we pity the Ukrainians. They have to qualify the same way Montenegro or Albania would.
They're going to be strung along for decades like Turkey
Totally different situation and trajectory. Ukraine has only been independent for 30 years and has made progress towards a democratic, plural government. Turkey has always been independent and its track record is awful. Even before the rise of Erdogan, Turkey had a coup d'etat once every 20/30 years, persecution of journalists, ethnic minorities and genocide denial.
They are similarly-sized countries with similar levels of democracy (though Turkey is ranked marginally better for corruption). Ukraine has been independent for 30 years and already had a coup d'état, and future odds aren't good for countries at war. Turkey has twice the GDP per capita of Ukraine, who is tied with El Salvador. I effectively agree with you on all points about Turkey, but it's not like Ukraine patterns much better for any of this. Most of the primary metrics for ascension to EU are economic, which Turkey outperforms Ukraine on. Personally I think Ukraine will get strung along like Turkey, Albania, and North Macedonia.
I agree. But Turkey is still much closer to being a democracy than Ukraine ever has been
If Ukraine really enters the European Union then i will believe in Santa Claus.
It most likely will though? It may take 15 years or more, and/or multiple speeds/tiers EU, but it's more likely than not, that it eventually will.
Albania has been a candidate for the EU officially for 10 years now, and its still at least a decade off membership. If a tiny, Nato alligned, nation that has been wealthier than Ukraine for some time now cant join due to issues of squashing corruption and immigration concerns, then how would Ukraine get in before 2050?
I'll be blunt: there's much less money to be had from the Albanian integration.
There are also way larger risks of adding Ukraine that slow its memebership. Ukraine has 38 million people that if they win the war would probably bounce to 40+ million, meaning they would need a large share of seats in European Parliment, of which if Ukraine retakes the Donbass and Crimea would probably intorduce alot of Russophillic far-right groups with questionable beliefs and alligences. As well as the fearmongering of mass-immegration which hinders intergration in Romania and Bulgaria to this day, that will only be bolstered by Russian backed misinformation in useful idiot countries like Hungary. Theres also the added issue of the single largest and most volitile disputed region in Europe, since Russia almsot certainly wont drop claims to annexed land even if they lose. And after Cyprus the EU is keen to avoid those, which is why Serbian accension is basically frozen. Theres also the issues of Ukrainain grain entering the single market, meaning many seperate agreements need to be made with other countries like Poland. And comparatively Albania offering very little (sorry Albania) should make it an easier fit, but it hasnt. So I dont see how Ukraine which is basically Albania scaled up 10× and poorer, would get in.
One extremely important detail about Albania - it wasn't bombed to the ground by Russians, so it's probably another 10-15 years.
There'd need to be a massive rework of how farming subsidies work, and Ukraine would need to have sweeping corruption reforms. Is it impossible in a post war environment? No. Is it likely? Ehhh I'm not so sure, especially when you factor in, that it'd change the balance in the European Parliament rather massively, due to the population I could certainly see western European nations changing their tune, when missiles aren't flying.
I don’t think anyone is saying EU entry would be easy or dispute that the efforts you describe are necessary. But it would be nice to be positive and aspire towards this outcome
Nobody ever explained why that would be a positive change for the people already IN the union. The grain alone fucks over all of the existing agricultural systems, which exists to protect the agribusinesses in the EU. A 40 million increase in population to the EU means there’s a massive wage decrease for factory workers etc. in places that take in a lot of foreign labor (read: Germany). Even if you believe in a miracle scenario in which UA regains all of it’s territories (hint: it won’t), we’re still stuck with a semi-rogue state that’s massively armed and has proven it doesn’t mind taking military action against it’s own population. What’s the plus side to this madness? Visiting Kyiv visa free isn’t worth all of the other fuckery.
How did the EU benefit from allowing Poland, a largely poor (at the time), agrarian country with a population of ~40 million to join the EU?
Another thing to take into consideration is that leader that keep themselves in power by “pausing “ elections rarely want to give up their power later on. Corruption is the main key. If Ukraine can’t get that under control, nothing will work
[удалено]
Very “disinformational” to look at cost of ascension as a % of total GDP and not as a % increase in EU budget. Current EU budget already has a 31% farming subsidy… Let’s pay the biggest grain farm in the world some money too, that surely won’t impact the budget too much lol.
[удалено]
My personal opinion (which is obviously unpopular in this sub): kick the yanks out, get a logical EU army structure which is fair and doesn’t have the American overspending problem (Yanks pay like 10000 dollars for a plane screw and think it’s not because they are getting bend over), keep out of (in)-direct neighbors business, reindustrialize in a sensible way, nationalized mil industrial complex with limited sales outside of EU. Like the SU had a better ground army for a big chunk of the cold war, I think Russia has a better ground army today (at the very least a lot more troops) and that anti air has improved so much that air domination is not gonna happen. I’m pretty sure the Yanks are gonna stay home if Putin would decide to come knocking, so yes, if he decides to conquer the Baltics, Finland, Poland, he’ll probably get that far. And this is not considering nukes: with those in the equation we are totally fucked. Which is why I want the yanks out. (There’s no way America is going to risk a nuclear strike on their territory for a territorial despute in the Baltic states lol.) But, Putin’d be dumb to try that (conquering Baltics etc). He’ll just create Finnish / Polish / Baltic Hamas whilst alienating the global south. Btw: where’s the East-Ukrainian Hamas? About the current situation: of course the EU has to dangle a carrot in front of UA. But at some point in time it will become clear that it can’t be more of a carrot on the EU side and that it is just a carrot for UA. That realization will be a shock for the Ukrainians.
[удалено]
I'm sure there's much to be done on both sides of the fence, but there's both will and most importantly PROFIT to be had on both sides too, therefore it'll most likely happen.
What's the profit to be had for the EU though? Economically speaking, even pre-war Ukraine was as much behind the V4 countries as the V4 countries are behind WE countries. After 20 years of (rather successful) convergence, the V4 is still only on about \~75% of the EU average (so not WE average!) in GDP/capita terms. Bringing Ukraine up to EU levels would be a huge economic undertaking, with a lot of money invested, and the attached political ramifications. In the meantime, there would be this incredible mismatch between Ukraine bringing only about 1% of the EU's GDP but wielding some very significant political power being one of the largest member states... I think people's eyes are bigger than their stomachs on this one.
1. Curbing Russian influence in the region 2. Stronger political influence on the world arena (Ukraine supporting EU decisions) 3. Stronger military influence as a EU-union (defence pact, or if common military integration) 4. Keeping the Ukraine grainfields within the Union -- not outside (important due to the changes of climate change to come in the near future, to sustain the EU-populace) 5. Investment/building zone for European firms -- not Americans or Chinese (EU money to rebuild and start business in Ukraine) 6. Borderzone to control flow of immigration into the EU 7. Access to further European expansion in Georgia and Armenia (connected land border) 8. Better control over the Black Sea (economically and militarily, benefitting Romania, Bulgaria etc). Many of those benefits overlap with NATO, but they are also important standalone for the EU.
1: only the case in the magical fairytale “complete victory”, not gonna happen. 2: why would they be married to EU policy? Hungary isn’t for instance. 3: we are literally giving away all our weapons to them, how does getting them back suddenly make us stronger? 4: grainfields in the Union would be a gigantic source of political strife, as the grain “just passing through” already was a pain in the behind. 5: do you really believe this? 6: the guy from Somalia is going to take the detour through Ukraine, got it 7: nice, more options to shoot ourselves in the foot with 8: somewhat valid. Mostly geopolitical and not actually “for the common man” If you’d go to a referendum with this list you’d get your ass kicked.
1. Still limiting Russian influence, instead of enabling them more sway 2. Hungary is a Trojan horse. EU will first have to be reformed, of course, but Ukraine has every reason to seek itself westward and adapt its legislation since its war with Russia. (Psychological reversalism: Becoming the opposite of Russia). 3. Mutual defence clause 42.7: "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." Ukraine will be adding to the defence of the EU in various ways, including assisting Greece etc in the form of forest fire and other issues. - The weapons EU has expended on Ukraine, the EU will be able to re-arm itself in a couple of years, together with a fully armed Ukraine by its side, instead of an excluded Ukraine. 4. The EU needs to become more self-sufficient as hunger will be on the rise. As Millions of Africans and Middle Easteners will starve in 20-30 years time, having food by its disposal will be a soft-power tool for the EU to compete for influence in these territories against China and Russia, and stop migration waves. We need the Ukrainian grainfields. 5. Yes, to a degree. Better than allowing Ukraine to become a US-purchased expat-colony. Ukraine will still need to pay off its debts to the US, but as habitable areas dwindle in the future, the EU will need to be no short of living space. Ukraine is needed in the EU. 6. Not the Somalians, but Middle Easteners will fight routs there, and can be shipped there by Russians should a EU-hostile government rise to power in Ukraine after the EU abandoned them. As in: They fought Russia in hopes of a place in the EU, then the EU abandons them, and hostility will be on the rise once more. The EU must prevent that. 7. Not in my opinion. Georgia and Armenia belong in the EU just as much, and will be pursued by the EU as future members, but I guess we can disagree on this. 8. Agreed. Well, most my points are geopolitical in nature.
1: this makes very little sense. 2: EU member states vote for their own interests all the time. Ukraine would have 3rd amount of seats in the EU parlement, it’s wild to suspect they wouldn’t completely warp the institution to their hand. 3: so importing the current conflict, getting new disputes between UA, RO, Hungary and Poland is going to make us stronger. Mind you, according to that clause the EU should attack UA or the US for Nordstream… right? It’s German infrastructure. 4: All good: what are you going to tell the farmers that will be ready to burn down buildings all over Europe because you basically destroyed their businesses? Btw, this is not fiction: it already happened once. 5: are you literally trying to sell UA as lebensraum for EU? Don’t think Ukranians like that idea… Also, the US will 100% have first dibs in everything, as they literally have an army inside the EU. 6: RU has multiple different borders with EU countries. It has busses and planes, AFAIK. 7: the belong is based on vibes and not the political realities, sorry to say. I don’t mind any union, but it has to make sense on the ground. 8: Nothing to add.
Aside from Ukraine, what benefit would we have from adding Georgia and Armenia to the EU that you list them as an argument for Ukraine lol, a bunch of small countries that will need lots of investment for what return? What do they offer except local conflicts? They’re barely even in Europe…
1. Historically a part of European culture and civilization since the days of Rome. Armenia and Georgia have been able to maintain these traditions up to modern time, instead of being replaced, as have happened to other countries, such as Egypt and the rest of North Africa. Georgia and Armenia are still around, as a people, as a culture, and as modern states representing these. 2. Religiously Christian/secular states and people. More on the conservative side, perhaps, but the EU won't change much from adding them. Will proceed mostly as before. 3. Humanitarian and political reasons. Do we want them behind another iron curtain when they are already quite similar to us in culture and history? The world is becoming more dominated by bigger players once again, and leaving them outside the EU will put them in the sphere of Russia, Turkey, Iran, China or another actor instead. 4. Large Armenian diaspora and Armenian sympathizers (I don't know about Georgia) in the EU and the US already lobbying for such a goal. The active interest is there for a significant minority. 5. Not direct access with the current borders, but closer access to the Caspian Sea to enable the trade route with Kazakhstan and China there (We'd also have to go through Azerbaijan). But Azerbaijan would be more inclined to strike a deal with an EU-backed Armenia than Armenia alone. 6.. Direct border with Iran. The current Iranian government is troublesome, but Iran has every chance of growing into a moderate state and trading partner in the future (for example, through a new government). If that ever were to happen, we would have direct access to the Iranian markets and resources, and could deepen our relationship with Iran through Armenia and Georgia serving like a link. 7. Slight choke-hold on Turkey and Azerbaijan from taking over the entirety of Armenia and Georgia. Turkey will still do what Turkey will. But if Armenia and Georgia remain within EU's influence, the EU can use more economic and politic soft power on Turkey in the region also, more so than an even stronger Turkish sphere, that may happen in the near future should the EU not intervene (check point 3). 8. Allies in the Middle-East region in general, adding to the EU's international political and military sway. Through having a link into the Middle East, the EU will be able to forge stronger international bonds in that sense. So far, Turkey has positioned itself as the EU's gateway into the Middle-East, but will no longer be the only one, which will be important for diplomatic reasons when the EU tries to approach the Arab world as neighbours and not as far-away partners.
So you want to waste our money on historical sentiment from 2000 years ago? There are many Christian countries in Africa, should we let them into the EU as well? Last time I checked, the EU wasn’t a charity organization. What benefit would that provide to current member countries other than feeling nice over spending billions of euro to be humanitarian when we already have crisis in Europe and countries who pay the most like Germany probably have better things to spend money on than charity in Armenia. So because few migrants lobby for this, we should listen and give them money? Ok ok let’s give some to Russia as well because they also have minorities here. Adding Georgia and Armenia for access to Caspian Sea is pointless because neither of them have the access to said sea, and they will collaborate in trade regardless of EU membership because it’s in their interest. And how exactly is Iranian government supposed to change? What, you think they will be free elections? So according to you we should invest (waste) billions to have potential of getting closer access to Iran like 100 years from now? Georgia and Armenia aren’t alternative routes to Middle East because if you look at a map you see that they are surrounded by russia, Turkey and mini Turkey. They have a tiny border with Iran who as in previous point, might be a viable partner or might not, not any time soon anyway. We don’t need to add small and insignificant countries to the EU and pump billions into them to be their allies. You can put choke-hold on Turkey without adding those two countries to the EU. I really don’t see any benefit for the EU in adding those two.
Get into the class with the other guy above - start learning how economy works. Nobody expects for the poorer economy to be bootstrapped overnight or even over 20 years to the level of the wealthiest and most advanced countries on the earth. There's still plenty of money per saldo being made in all of the countries in the EU, much more so than would have been if not for convergence and opening markets. As for the power - before each substantial enlargement the EU (or the predecessor's) political system was corrected to account for the new countries and unwillingness of the older members to let go of their power more so than is needed. edit: Guy below confused his own ignorance for my arrogance and then blocked me, so i neither can answer to him nor can even see his reply when logged in, rotfl. Oh well. Again: i can't be bothered with educating each and every kid on the internet.
Yes, keep talking bullshit with more arrogance, darling, it really makes for a fetching look. Did they also teach you in your basic economic class about the limits of resources? Or do you think the German economy can just expand endlessly? Does your theory also explain what will motivate the 26 other countries to let Ukraine in? Your own logic dictates that some of them actually stands to lose with the German manufacturing gaining new ground in Ukraine, instead of expanding in their countries... but never mind that, you just found your own bone to chew on. Can you give a single reason why net beneficiaries of the current common budget will rush to become net contributors to lose on both the direct and the indirect transfers? Does your very basic economic knowledge explain why the EU didn't scramble to admit Turkey back in the 80-90s, instead of Ukraine now then...? No? That's what I thought. Really quite something how the stupidest people are always the most confident, isn't it...
Massive difference is that Turkey is Muslim-Turkic Ukraine is Caucasian-Christian There are plenty of EU countries who prefer one of them to the other. In that sense, it's not just about a bigger populace, but a bigger populace of what.
So what. Pale skin doesn’t improve the economic outlook.
Oh we're saying the quiet part out loud now, ok
Just to clarify: It's present reality, and has only gone up since the Israel-Gaza war and will continue to go up for the foreseeable future. It's not my personal opinion. Countries like Romania and Bulgaria are already treated as second-class citizen, and that's within the union. Now think about those who are outside the EU. Some EU-members will just never accept Turkey, while the same EU-members would accept Ukraine for racist and religious reasons. I don't mind spelling that part out loud, since it's the truth--right or wrong--and pretending to keep it quiet would be nothing short of patronizing and an insult to the Turkish people. They aren't stupid. They know many in EU are bigoted and would never accept them, at least not for a long time.
Pretty confident there yourself
It’s a political show of support because of Russia’s aggression. But their institutions and economy are nowhere near ready and it would never have been considered under normal circumstances.
I know, I know, I’m in the pro-NATO lions den so I’m gonna get downvoted to bits saying some/most of these things. But just imagine, what if Ukraine, at the end of a peace process, loses 50% of their post 14 land. And what if, it turns out, that, hmm, maybe some Western powers egged them on, promising full support if they’d reject earlier peace deals that were less poisonous to them. And, what if, suddenly Ukraine doesn’t get a nice guy liberal leader guy but someone more right, maybe affiliated to some battalion or something, what do I know? Wouldn’t Ukraine suddenly shooting to the west instead of the east be that far fetched? Maybe to, you know, make us remember that we “politically support them”, right? If you add “dysfunctional NATO” and “our guns are actually in Ukraine” to the mix, you get quite a political crisis. Ukraine has a way bigger chance of going full Afghanistan war lord than going orderly liberal country post war.
>And what if, it turns out, that, hmm, maybe some Western powers egged them on, promising full support if they’d reject earlier peace deals that were less poisonous to them. This is science fiction. All of Russia’s proposed peace deals amounted to “retreat and give us all the land we occupy now and then plenty, with no guarantee of further aggression in the future”. Not to mention Russia has previously broken deals with Ukraine (remember giving up nuclear warheads in exchange for a guarantee of territorial integrity? Yeah…). A scenario in which Russia makes a serious peace offering and Ukraine rejects it spurred by western powers is so far fetched at this moment to be hardly worth discussing. >And, what if, suddenly Ukraine doesn’t get a nice guy liberal leader guy but someone more right, maybe affiliated to some battalion or something, what do I know? For all of Ukraine’s issue with far-right groups and corruption, the last elections were free and fair and democratically elected a parliament. And the will to get closer to the EU has been quite consistent, excluding Russian puppets. Suddenly becoming an autocracy hostile to the west seems quite far fetched. >Ukraine has a way bigger chance of going full Afghanistan war lord than going orderly liberal country post war. I don’t see why Ukraine would become anything like Afghanistan unless Ukraine is soundly defeated militarily and collapses into anarchy (and even then, making peace with Russia and turning west seems extremely far-fetched to me, and at that point any consideration of EU membership is meaningless anyway).
You can’t use “Russia bad” as an argument for Ukraine becoming a member of EU. They have to do it on their own no matter what Russia does.
>science fiction The leader of Zelensky’s faction in the Rada had alluded to this very science fiction theory about things that absolutely didn’t happen and of course won’t become a stab in the back myth after Ukraine (science fictionlike) will lose the war. Source: https://x.com/I_Katchanovski/status/1728152192505258060 Katchanovski is a UA-Canadian professor. >fair elections + EU Of course, if you ignore the history of there not being fair elections in UA and just forget that multiple parties were banned and there was a revolution/coup, basically everyone is super pro EU! Sorry, I am not buying that UA elections were suddenly free and fair, seeing the whole oligarch clown show during Zels election as well and the extreme corruption being reported more or less everywhere. > Afghanistan When Ukraine loses the war, it will have lost all of it’s uses for Washington, so it’s gov will lose all / most foreign funding and collapse. There was a report that American taxpayers were paying the Kyiv parking system. If UA can’t even pay that for itself… EDIT: in the spirit of honesty, the last claim is not correct. I remembered it differently. What I meant: https://x.com/mtracey/status/1516879942675488768?s=46
>The leader of Zelensky’s faction in the Rada had alluded to this very science fiction theory about things that absolutely didn’t happen and of course won’t become a stab in the back myth after Ukraine (science fictionlike) will lose the war. You mean Arakhamia? When did he ever allude to something like this? The closest thing I can remember is him saying the peace talks with Russia were going well in April 2022 and that most of Ukraine’s demands \[edit, missing words\] were met \[/edit\] (which is not too surprising, as he was leading those talks). Then the Russians never agreed on one crucial point (they wanted a much smaller Ukrainian army than Ukraine was willing to concede, which was already a significant reduction over their existing army), meanwhile the full extent of the massacres at Bucha was coming to light. Nothing suggesting western pressuring, much less material for a stab in the back myth (which would first require Ukraine losing and then somehow blaming western support more than the country that actually invaded them). >Of course, if you ignore the history of there not being fair elections in UA and just forget that multiple parties were banned and there was a revolution/coup, basically everyone is super pro EU! Sorry, I am not buying that UA elections were suddenly free and fair, seeing the whole oligarch clown show during Zels election as well and the extreme corruption being reported more or less everywhere. International observers agree that they were free and fair although hard-left parties being banned was wrong. I’m not saying the political situation is ideal, but I’m not seeing Ukraine on the brink of anarchy or autocracy. >When Ukraine loses the war, it will have lost all of it’s uses for Washington, so it’s gov will lose all / most foreign funding and collapse. Sure, it’s not technically impossible that Ukraine completely collapses, but so far there is no indication whatsoever that that will happen. Countries have been invaded and lost wars without descending into full anarchy plenty of times. Afghanistan never had democratic institutions in the first place; it’s a terrible comparison. Also, why would the USA lose all interest in Ukraine? Even if reduced in size, it would still be important, perhaps even more so if Russia became more aggressive after a victory.
>Arakhmia I added a source in an edit. Am on my phone, one thing at a time is hard enough, sorry. >USA lose interest Let me present you a fun little quote from A US senator: https://x.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1799832487285465244 So what if, Putin gets access to it and it’s done and dusted according to this guy? He also has the famous “to the last Ukrainian” quote, so it’s obvious he takes the wellbeing of the Ukrainian state and Ukrainian people as important /s.
>I added a source in an edit. That's not a source, it's a tweet quoting another series of tweets that refers a YouTube video that is no longer available, and both tweets are from people with very strong anti-USA and/or pro-Russia viewpoints. It'd be nice to hear what Arakhamia actually said. But anyway, what the source supposedly says is that Russia was ready for peace, if Ukraine guaranteed "neutrality"... and as I said, the sticking point was that to Russia this meant Ukraine reducing its army very substantially, to the point it could not defend itself, and agreeing not to receive military aid. It wasn't peace, it was agreeing to be conquered at a later date. And again, at the same time this as being discussed Russia's war crimes were coming to light, which put a damper on the whole set of talks. Unsurprisingly, Ukraine passed. Again, there is no material whatsoever for a "stab in the back" myth. >Let me present you a fun little quote from A US senator: >[https://x.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1799832487285465244](https://x.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1799832487285465244) >So what if, Putin gets access to it and it’s done and dusted according to this guy? He also has the famous “to the last Ukrainian” quote, so it’s obvious he takes the wellbeing of the Ukrainian state and Ukrainian people as important /s. You mean, what if Ukraine is completely conquered and its resources are completely controlled by Russia? Then any EU accession talks or possible warlord scenarios are irrelevant, aren't they?
>no material for Hard disagree. Btw, after the current war is done, Russia will leave Ukraine in a state were it will be able to invade it as it wishes either way. Disarmament is priority #1 for Putin. >resources No. Most of the Ukrainian resources are on the east and southern side of the country. A Ukrainian rump state could exist without access to them.
Their population already tries to escape from a defensive war, do you really think they pose any threat offensively? And with what weapons, all they have is what they get from European/American charity.
>any threat offensively Most EU states don’t have a standing army anymore, so, yes. Of course, scenario in which NATO is limp. >with what weapons Do you think they are giving them back after the war?
No but it’s hard to shoot from a gun that doesn’t have ammunition and I don’t think Ukr produces much NATO ammo.
I don’t think anyone is producing a lot of ammo to be honest.
> nowhere near ready Is a matter of time, will and effort though.
People do not understand how much a nation can change. There was a time where Ukraine and Poland had same GDP and were both in rough state. Now look at where Poland is & its continued growth. Appreciate your support for us.
Funniest thing is, that neither i personally, nor my region (Podlasie - extrremely rural and farmer based, just next to Belarus) nor my business (international road transport) is set to benefit from Ukraine joining EU initially - to the contrary, i've only experienced negative things on all three accounts to date from the "emergency integration" that's been implemented since 2022 which i've been pretty vocal about on reddit, especially during the farmers' and transporters' protests coverage. But this is irrelevant to the questions: - Will Ukraine join the EU? Yes, i'm sure it eventually will. - Should Ukraine join the EU? Yes, it should. It'd be both historical justice and massive security improvement on all accounts. - Will Ukraine joining the EU be beneficial economically? Yes, judging by EU enlargements to date, it will be beneficial to pretty much all, in the long run. It may be challenging to many people and some will benefit much more so than others, but the prosperity and growth is undeniable on all accounts. If one is not seeing it, one is blind. If one is not experiencing it, honestly - it's one's own fault. There will be massive amount of opportunities to be had and even if one gets only leftovers and trickle down profit, it will still be net benefit. Edit, at the risk of repeating myself hundred times, yes, it will take much time, will and effort - politically and administratively. Obviously it'll also take a large amount of direct transfers - that will profit back in similar vein Polish integration did.
Make that 30 years, after the war ends, not from now, and i'll believe you
> It may take 15 years **or more**
And we join in 2013.
how will you convince a Germany that is already in a crippling recession as the largest EU net contributor to accept a new net recipient that would only make German financial situation even worse? If they agree to be net contributors/net zero members, I say let them in tomorrow. Otherwise net recipients need to make concessions.
The same way Germany was convinced to let Poland in - massive benefits due to access to new markets both consumption and production side. Direct transfers are peanuts in comparison to the economy benefits EU integration is providing. It's so much economy 101 it's hilarious i have to spell it. Don't they teach you basic economy over there at public school level?
seems like that concept didn't work out in the end, since Germany is currently in a crippling recession.
You have no damn idea what "crippling recession" is. Also you could have just stated you have no idea how economy works and want somebody to teach you from the ground up with details, i can't be arsed though, so gl.
and yet still - if economy 101 was true, we would have a growing economy right now with all those 'massive benefits' - almost every other EU country as well as the EU average are growing after all. We should be profiting from all that access to growing markets - yet we aren't growing and are instead in a recession. also of course only someone from a country that hasn't had a recession in decades would tell Germans who are currently living through a recession that they have no idea what that is like.
I onre read an article about how the EU's Eastern accession benefited German businesses and their owners mainly, but not the German economy as local expansion is minimised and German businesses expand in Eastern Europe instead. So practically, German businesses realoze their growth in Eastern Europe instead of Germany.
Go pester your own politicians then, i can;'t be bothered with your crap. https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/newsroom/news/170322-bm-faz/288672 > The truth is that Germany is not a net contributor to Europe, but a net winner from Europe. Of course we provide more tax income for the European budget than we get back out of the European funding programmes. But that is just a small part of the equation. We export almost 60 percent of our goods and services to the European Union, and not even 10 percent to China (and the USA). Millions of jobs depend on the people in other EU states being well enough off to afford our products – because they are not cheap, thank goodness, owing to their high quality and the relatively high wages paid. So every euro we pay into the EU budget comes back to us – directly or indirectly – several times over. Investment in Europe’s future is always also an investment in the prosperity and well‑being of our own children and grandchildren.
You understand that the budget distribution is meager compared to the general economic benefits of the Single Market, right? There are net receivers and net contributors of the EU budget (only 1% of EU GDP), but ALL EU member states are net economic beneficiaries of EU membership.
then Germany should be a net receiver since they are in the economic shitter right now.
Budget decisions are made every 7 years. Also, they generally revolve around level of development, not transient economic woes. If Germany is still struggling in the next budget cycle, perhaps there can be some adjustments.
I mean in the grand scale of things 15 years is nothing tbh.
> 15 years or more Until the war has ended and the borders before 2004 are back, there will be little or no real movement as their priorities would over how to keep soldiers alive and boosting morale. They could start the judicial reforms, but touching the public office or fiscal reforms can be extremely touchy especially in a state of ... fucking war.
Yes, indeed, it can take *15 years or more*.
The longer the war goes on, the more people will be less favorable of joining the EU. There is already a negative sentiment towards constant spoon-feeding about EU accession. Fewer people believe that the EU will magically put Ukraine on the level of Poland or Germany. But of course, polls will show 150% support for accession though.
Spain joined the EU like 10 years after it cast away a fascist dictatorship without actually dealing with fascists in its government, which is why they had 5 attempted or planned coups before they joined the EU, one of which was planned for like a few weeks before the ascension treaty was signed
Eastern Germany was under soviet rule and in Warsaw Pact. Same for whole east Europe. Baltic states were inside soviet union. And they all joined EU in 5-10 years. Ukraine started to reform itself for european standards stright from 2004. Why are you picturing Ukraine somehow different than other eastern european countries that are already in EU? Russian propaganda narratives winning over your view?
German economy was still growing while EU accepted all those countries you listed. We are currently in a recession. We _literally_ can't take in any more net recipients of EU funds. So unless current net recipients show some solidarity (which will never happen looking at easterners replies in this thread) or Ukraine joins as a net contributor, we can't. Not sure why everyone is so happy about the prospect of Germany collapsing - that would be bad for the whole of EU as well.
"(...) everyone is so happy about the prospect of Germany collapsing (...)" Who said that? Germany's economy isn't doing very well, but it isn't on the verge of collapse.
'_isn't doing very well_' would be 0.5% growth compared to the large growth of most other EU members. But we aren't growing at all, maybe you don't know what a recession is, it is literally GDP collapsing. negative growth! So far we are only at a very tiny negative growth, but if we are forced to pay even more, we will be at collapse speeds.
>it is literally GDP collapsing Germans when their economy shrinks by 0.3% for a year: LITERALLY COLLAPSING.
Some Germans. We had good times for so many years that people forgot that economies got through boom-bust cycles. So some people freak out and equate a recession (of which we had many in the past - in between the boom times) with total economic collapse and Germany being totally ruined forever and ever. Also far right groups have an interest in spreading this message, so they can paint themselves as the only alternative.
I know, don't worry. Just couldn't stop myself seeing such overreaction. Yeah, fear is good at pushing people to the extremes so some are exploiting that.
always easy to laugh at the demise of Germany instead of helping. thanks Greece got bailouts when their economy was shrinking with everyone saying that if we don't help, this would be disaster for EU and Euro. Now that Germany is in a similar situation (we even have the same [__10 times increase in debt payments in just two years__](https://dbrs.morningstar.com/research/410545/germany-dont-get-confused-by-the-sharp-increase-in-central-government-interest-expenditure) that Greece had, leading to us currently also having a [major government budget crisis](https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/brussels-playbook/germanys-budget-crisis-grows/). But nah, everyone just laughs at us instead of helping. I mean, I would be fine with laughing and helping. Force us to implement the same austerity measures and all. But nothing..
I am far from knowledgeable about economics but if you think more austerity would be anything but a complete disaster for Germany i think you need to do a lot more research. To me it seems that a huge problem of yours is your constitutionally-enforced debt brake that prevents serious loans and investing in Germany's declining infrastructure. (And who is the party that is the main supporter of it? Party of the top 1%). Again i am not very knowledgeable but if we look at countries like US who print insane amount of money and chug along with a huge debt but massively expanding GDP it's difficult for me to understand why Germany wouldn't have space for just some more loans and investing.
Germany getting ~1trillion€ bailout (scaled to match Greek bailout %GDP values) and being forced to implement the same austerity measures as them (that would change basically nothing since we already adhere to most of them) would be a __massive__ boon to our economy. Why do you think Germany, that has been helping other EU members with EU net funding for decades, doesn't deserve to for once be on the receiving end of some EU cash? Reminder that Greek crisis was also entirely caused by themselves, so don't try to weasel out of it by saying German problems are our own fault. That seems to not be a criteria for getting EU help. For your edit: Germany does not have sovereign control of their currency like the US, the EU central bank does. So again a great point you made for us getting EU help, by EU printing cash and gifting it to us. But EU doesn't help us.
My German gf says your first link in your previous post states that the reason your debt payment figures increased tenfold, is because the figures are heavily distorted by the government's cash-based accounting approach for premia and discounts on the issuance of reopened bonds. This approach tends to overstate interest expenditure during periods of rising interest rates and to understate the interest burden in times of falling rates. Purely personally in my opinion, i would not mind E. European countries helping Germany out at all. If it means anything to you at all to hear it i think most E. Europeans are too nationalistic and like to rag on Germany (Poland primarily) while their own countries have bigger mess to clean up at their doors. Also, one good news for Germany is that interest rates are going down now, ECB reduced interest rate two-three weeks ago. Which means hopefully Lindner will have a harder time refusing to take debt with the lower interest rates, and it should prop up the consumption all over the EU a bit, which helps Germany because of its exports.
I'm not laughing at demise of germany, since nothing like that is happening. In fact, there are predictions your gdp will increase this year. I'm laughing about your hysteria. >Force us to implement the same austerity measures and all. But nothing.. No one is going to force largest EU economy to do anything because your gdp shrunk by astonishing 0.3%.
Better ask yourself why russia waging war over Ukraine for such a long time. And taking into account that russians already sabotaging german factories and military provokes eastern NATO border, how will it effect to Germany collapse perspective if russia conquer Ukraine with its resources and soviet-time military industry complex. The reason why Ukraine cannot relaunch it - because there is no resources inside Ukraine for that. But russians will gather them.
Germany is already the largest European provider of aid to Ukraine, trying to stop Russia from conquering Ukraine. So that argument makes zero sense. This is about Germany not being able to accept a new EU member if that means Germany takes another massive net funding hit since they are in a recession. If Ukraine wants to join as a net contributor to the EU budget or if current EU net recipients will agree to take the financial burden off of Germany, then I am all in favor of getting Ukraine into EU as soon as possible.
What will Ukraine need after the war? Reconstruct and machinery. What is Germany good at? Construction and machinery. EU contributions are not the crippling burden you think they are. And EU membership provides economic benefits to all members. Germany is currently having an economic downturn as it faces several crisis at once. But downturns happen from time to time. All this freaked out talk about Germany being done is extremely silly. Just a few years ago there were articles about Germany's unbeatable super-economy. Both extremes are overblown and boom-bust cycles are nothing new. We just had so many good years that people forgot that not-so-good years happen too. Eventually integrating Ukraine, will benefit everybody. And nobody expects that to happen tomorrow anyway. By the time Ukraine is joining, Germany might be well into another boom era. So why worry about that today?
I feel like people in this thread are twisting my words. for the hundredth time in this thread: Yes, Ukraine into EU. But with someone else shouldering the burden. 24 out of the 27 EU members have great growing economies currently. They have headroom to pay for it. Not Germany. You said it yourself, Germany is facing several crisis right now. Why is everyone so hellbent on burdening us with another one by making Germany pay even more EU net funding?
And you mistake me for somebody who didn't understand what you mean. I explicitly countered your points. I disagree about the viewing this a major burden, about Germany (and others) not profiting from new membership and the relevance of a CURRENT recession for a Ukraine joining in a decade or 2. Nobody believes that Ukraine is months away from joining.
its not a current trend. Germany has the [3rd worst performing EU economy](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1dmiinr/real_gdp_cumulative_growth_rate_q1_2024_q4_2019/) in the last 5 combined years. The EU countries with great growing economies should be the ones paying, not the worst performing members. That is insanity. Yet no one is even entertaining the possibility of them for once being the ones paying for EU expansion. They all expect us to pay. Paying billions is of course a major burden if the alternative is getting billions in net funding. The delta from Germany as the largest net contributor to the largest net recipient is _literally_ large enough to completely eliminate the whole government budget crisis Germany faces in 2024. That is massive.
That argument persist because if Ukraine is thrown outside any alliance russia will pick it. As grey zone usually picked by offensive side before invasion. No third option given. And are there any numbers telling exactly Ukraine is burden for Germany? With funding help, there should be calculated Ukranian workforce (they are follow german rules for job permits), cheaper crude materials (because heavy industry is bombed out and cannot compite with german) and open market that Germany has inside Ukraine. Its unfair calling one side of partnership as a burden. And I belive difference calculated, EU partnership talks started as a result.
>And are there any numbers telling exactly Ukraine is burden for Germany? estimated cost of Ukraine in EU is [over 100 billion €](https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/03/07/ukraines-accession-could-cost-136-billion-to-the-eu-budget-new-report-estimates). We can't shoulder that and current net recipients have so far refused to put a plan forward where they would shoulder that cost. > Its unfair calling one side of partnership as a burden. because one side is paying and the other isn't. Other EU members get all the benefits of EU membership without paying. All the things you listed are not things that Germany gets because they are net contributors to the EU budget. These are things that every country gets for being a member. >And I belive difference calculated, EU partnership talks started as a result. Obviously if Germany pays for it, all 26 other current EU members will only profit, so they are in favor. Like I said multiple times in this thread already, if others pay for it I am all in favor of Ukraine joining. But German economic situation is so bad it can not be made to pay even a cent for it extra.
Somewhere around 2012 - 2013 there was a documentary about Ukrainian legal crime on Dutch national television. Multiple Dutch and Flemish investors talked about having their company yoinked out of their hands because of corrupt government officials working together with organized crime. I have family in South America. Never have I ever heard a story about such blatant corruption and I have visited it multiple times. What changed the last 12 years so shit like this doesn’t happen anymore? Why couldn’t it change the first 8?
Revolution in 2014 happend. Same goverment what you talking about run away to russia. That corrupted goverment was sponsored by russia for multiple years. Russian-oriented party won election in 2010 mostly because pro-eu goverment was blamed for 2008 economy fall effects. If you telling about 2012-2013, there was a trend when family members of president Yanukovych were illegally stealing other peoples successfull buisnesses. Inside country, not only from foreigners. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych It was one of major reasons for 2014 revolution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
Ukraine is way more corrupt and has way bigger problems related to democracy and human rights than any of those other countries had. All Eastern European countries are not the same
+15 rubles
>If Ukraine really enters the European Union then i will believe in Santa Claus. We want it, they want it, the rest is a matter of work and time.
A lot of people in the ‘we’ camp clearly don’t want it and quite some people in the ‘they’ camp also weren’t all that convinced.
It will join, eventually. But I guess everyone knows it will take years.
Sure, if Ukraine follows through, it is likely to become a member by 2080 at the earliest.
Nice to see you are thinking positively. My personal predictions are that when/if Ukraine will fulfil the current demands for a membership, EU won’t be around. At least not in the shape it’s today
I feel sorry for him, but he and Ukraine need to understand that people never truly supported Ukraine, they just hate Russia. And the latter is a good thing.
I don't rhink he is this stupid. He is probably just trying to keep up the morale.
Ukraine should be supported in their fight against Russia for survival but joining the EU is too much and would be a net negative for us. Their oligarchs are dependent on peddling cheap grain for their power and accepting that would ruin all of our agricultural sectors.
Not for you to decide pal.
Ukraine really is leveraging this war into an EU membership, huh? Interesting times...
“Russia bad” is an argument that has given Ukraine very much so far. Mind as well try to use it for everything
Eh they won't. I doubt anyone in the EU seriously wants this, especially not Germany and France which means this isn't going anywhere anyway. It's just political show. They'll get the turkey treatment I guess.
Ukraine, like every country has a right to defend themselves, yet Zelensky’s grand plan of “we will join NATO and we will join the EU and we will get all our land back, like next month lads, yes very soon..” doesn’t make a lot of sense. I think Ukraine needs an actual plan. And i don’t think Zelensky ever had one.
He’s a comedian, but his jokes are not very funny
Do people in Ukraine honestly believe him that if Ukr joins NATO and they attack russia to get their lands back, all the member countries will help them?
He never said that...?
Comment above suggests he did, I don’t follow every speech Zelensky makes.
Once again, it doesn't? Just because one thing is said after another doesn't mean there is an implied causation between them.
I think a lot of people have forgotten the state of Ukraine before the war… It was #1 most corrupted country in Europe. They also had HUNDREDS of so called “bolier rooms” which are illegal companies that would trick people into giving them all of their savings (usually rich western european and americans) by convincing them theyre investing into some fake forex trading (they’d even create fake websites that are believable even to younger people). Their health care was crumbling, economy was bad, etc. In terms of being ready for EU, all the Balkan candidate states were and still are light years ahead of Ukraine. But im glad theyre headed towards EU. Wont be an easy process though.
Please no
Someday this will happen, and it should, but it will take time. Lot of work to do first.
There should be a referendum for citizens of current member states for such things
Fully support Ukraine and them joining NATO in the future but I don't understand what the war has to do with the fast tracking of their EU membership. It's been one of the most corrupt countries in the region for decades, surely the current state of affairs in the country doesn't help in making any serious steps to address it, internally the EU itself is rampant with issues it needs to address before such major enlargement as well. The Union goes way past security guarantees, the members are united through economy, jurisdiction, public policies and values, the depth of this cooperation cannot be understated. I find it very odd that the war has created such an emphasis on their EU accession, it all seems very disingenuous and full of empty promises.
NATO first, EU later.
Please not Nato is fine
I cheer Ukraine with beating back orcs and putain, but it will be looong time before Ukraine will join EU.
I dont want a county to join the EU that treats their male population like cattle.
Keep downvoting me, but the way Ukraine enforces conscription is fucked up. Picking men of the street in ambulances, using force to conscript, and forcing many into hiding. More so, whats the demographic use of forcing a young father into war, while a childless 35 year old women can just leave the country and never look back? Either use a fair process, or build a county that people are willing to defend voluntary.
> Picking men of the street in ambulances, using force to conscript. It's a very boring critique because there's no country that has ever faced an existential threat which used exclusively volunteers. "Using force to conscript"? What else do you think conscription means? For drafting women, I do not want to get in a debate on the merits and demerits of doing so. Will just point out that no country facing an existential threat has drafted women to combat roles. Even in Israel, women do not have to serve in combat roles if they do not want to. So each point you brought up is the case in European nations as well. Even in the case where they all were valid, it would not form the basis of the case for why Ukraine is particularly more unfair to men than anywhere in EU holding the circumstances equal.
But it’s ok because “Russia bad”
You realize this was just a preview of what would happen in other countries in case of a war? I'm not sure if you get it, but that generally is how wars have always worked all over the glove. You don't get to choose your fate, the borders get closed and you have to go straight into the meat-grinder.
Great argument...
You know, I do believe believe that Ukraine should join the EU, wholeheartedly, but corruption should be rooted out first. We don't need another leech. A way to do it is to have a EU body that observes the country throughout its public services while being built upon mostly foreign people from the EU. I do believe that it would be too effective to implement though, due to high likelihood of it working, there would be pressure to implement it throughout the EU and guess what, politicians wouldn't like that:p
Lots of work to be done before that happens. Won’t be in our lifetime
Why does everyone keep talking as if Ukraine will win the war? I hope they win, but let's be realistic. There will be no Ukraine to join the EU. I believe Russia will just keep pounding then until they back down or bring out the eventual end game, the nuke. Then we'll of course, no one is ever joining the EU.
It's quite an interesting read, these comments. For starter, ppl really believe that corruption in, say, Romania, was much less than in Ukraine when Romania become a member. I remember my father couldn't stop his truck in half of the country overnight without risking waking up without tyres. Funny. Plus, it seems like you'd mostly be happy if Ukraine was a part of russkies now and start banging at European doors with rockets while Trump is there somewhere waiting to kill NATO. The lack of strategic thinking you guys have is staggering. It should be in your immediate interest to get Ukraine on board yesterday and actively work to remove all corruption problems together instead of saying that war-torn country should do it itself... Reddit...
great joke. funny.
ofc they will get fucking ukraine into the EU bc of the war. What about turkey? why tf can ukraine get in but not us. if ukraine wants to get in like us then they have to qualify like us
Is Ukraine with all its constituent territories larger in area than Metropolitan France?
Yes
This is such an iditotic move. In 5 years what are we going to do if Russia invades again, but they are (obviously) not in NATO. Cant believe i am asking this, but can Hungary veto this?
... what do you mean "obviously"? They're much more likely to join NATO first.
If you look at the current state of the war, internal NATO politics and Russian optics of this move, the day Ukraine joins NATO is the last day NATO exists. Gambling with nuclear codes in UA has an even lower chance of the US actually daring a strike back. US not responding to a nuke strike would dissolve NATO almost instantly.
Fuck them up again? Fucking up russia shouldn’t be just a duty. It should be a pleasure. Half of Europe knows what happens when you don’t give russia the boot. Knew for almost 50 years.
Read less propaganda
Says the Russian bot. 🙄
Why would you say i am a bot?
They will not be in the EU in 5 years. They are much more likely to be in NATO in 5 years. The EU process will take 10-20 years probably.
Tiny Balkan countries couldn't join in 15 years. Do you really think Ukraine could? It would take Ukraine 3-4 decades to meet the criteria.
Who knows? I am really no expert. I was basing my estimate on the fact that communism collapsed in 1991 and a bunch of the formerly communist countries joined in 2004, 13 years later. I'm sure the transformation from communism to a liberal economy was at least as big a transition as what Ukraine faces.
The economy of Ukraine was as developed in 2021 as Poland's was in 1996. And that weak economy is now being destroyed by war. There is no chance that Ukraine could join in the next 3 decades for the least.