Cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/10013170
The war in Ukraine is “existential for our Europe and for France”, Mr Macron said in the interview on France 2 and TF1.
“Do you think that the Poles, the Lithuanians, the Estonians, the Romanians and the Bulgarians could remain at peace for a second [in the event of a Russian victory in Ukraine]?” he asked. “If Russia wins this war, Europe’s credibility would be reduced to zero.”
It feels like the cited statement actually lacks causality. If Ukraine falls, nobody will remain at peace, that’s true. But how does that change the credibility of Europe except for showing that maybe help was not large enough (even that might be a wrong assumption) is what I fail to see.
If anything, the credibility of Europe could be questioned over the efficiency of sanctions and over how those sanctions actually affect Putin’s war
I think that’s exactly it tbh. The amount of decent hardware delivered hasn’t been even nearly enough and the ramp up of artillery production has been shamefully slow. Why is Ukraine being heavily outgunned with the collective might of the West behind it?
We should have given Ukraine everything they needed on day one. It’s so painfully obvious that if they lose we’re all going to war. All of us.
The appeasement attempted by not giving the really good kit and honestly fuck all air defence (the US has something like 1100 patriot systems) was utter folly.
“Oh, we’d better not escalate”. FUCK. THAT. He tried hard to take Kyiv and kill Zelensky and only absolutely laughable logistics prevented it. That goal is still there.
Putin’s “logic” for Ukraine being part of Russia already applies to the Baltics. If Ukraine falls, he’ll bide his time, rebuild with their new war economy then trundle into all 3 of them via Kaliningrad, Northwest Russia and Belarus all while claiming that if anyone sets foot in Kaliningrad he’ll press the red button causing untold pearl clutching in the West. Unless NATO has significantly built up their presence in the Baltics, they will fall and he’ll lob in a load of defensive positions before you have time to take a piss then be off down south towards what he probably sees as “softer” targets in Moldova, Slovakia etc.
In that case the credibility of Europe is long gone because nothing will change the history of how poor the response was. Well, except for writing history books about how Ukraine only prevailed because of Europe’s immediate and plentiful help, but those will take some time to overwrite what people actually saw
Yeah, I fully agree. The dithering response has already done untold damage to future credibility.
It’s the credibility as an ally. If the EU fails to supply Ukraine, even though the EU shares a land border with Ukraine, Taiwan, Armenia and other nations currently threatened will not rely on the EU’s support, but rather just surrender to aggressors. Especially with Taiwan, any conflict there would blow up world-wide trade, as everyone and everything is dependent on taiwanese microchips. It would also mean that many Ukrainians feeling betrayed by the West would flood into the EU (or are already here), which would lead to a lot of strife. Lastly, every dictator will feel emboldened, as precedent shows that you only have to keep your offensive going until the public loses interest. When the current world order is upset, many conflicts will form and grow. Any power vacuum left by a retreating power will be fought over and filled.
I’d argue that nobody relied on the EU for defense in the first place. Prior to the war in Ukraine, Europe was not exactly known for getting militarily involved in conflicts or as a defensive ally, quite the opposite. See all the “strongly worded letter” jokes. I don’t think Taiwan is under any illusions about getting major military support from Europe, no European country (except Vatican) even recognizes it. The EU and Ukraine were never formally allied prior to the war, so if anything, the amount of support was/is larger than expected.
Noone relied on the EU for protection, because the EU was largely unaffected by wars in the past. However with the war in Ukraine, the EU is directly affected. And a war over Taiwan would affect the EU in a similar gravity. A war over Albania less so, but a NATO member and a (former) candidate to join the EU, Turkey, is likely to be directly involved in such a war. If the EU shows that it is unwilling to push back against aggression, even if the EU is directly affected, then the EU will lose a lot ofinfluence with other regional powers.
I’d say the Chinese salivated a bit then aggresively moved up their Taiwan timeframe after looking at the shit show of a response that Ukraine got.
Armenia never relied on the EU’s support lol - the West has always supported Turkey (even back in the Cold War), which supports Azerbaijan.
That is why Armenia is in CSTO.
No-one in Europe is going to war over Taiwan, it’s thousands of kilometres away. Whereas Russia has carried out multiple attacks in the UK, and shot down a civilian airliner full of Dutch nationals, and borders many EU nations to which it is hostile.
Armenia was in CSTO, they are no longer. And if Taiwan is attacked, the US and Europe will be affected above all others, as both economies are highly industrialized and thus highly dependent on the microchips coming out of Taiwan and South Korea.
Given that the purpose of the EU was to dramatically reduce the conflicts that plagued Europe for thousands of years, culminating in WWII, through ever greater cooperation, the credibility of the project may come into question if Europe is unable to cooperate enough to see off Russian aggression in neighbouring terrain.
Relative to many of the issues which the EU & closely aligned neighbours must agree upon if they are to act, responses to a military threat ought to be easier to arrive at, and yet here we are.