Nato allows to say “fuck it”, because Nato article 5 only requires some support.

But EU article 42 requires support by all means.

However, because of the implication, nothing military will happen.

Question remains: would such an act be enough motivation for Congress to impeach Trump?

That must have been accounted for since the situation was the same during the time of the SU. Finland was neutral, but the SU would have learned from Belgium and France.

I am always this gullible.

Good argument. Is it strategically the same to defend? My impression is that the border to the Baltics is much smaller and without looking it up, could it be that historically, armies didn’t take that route for some reasons?

In any case, the additional length of the border could be the problem.

Good thing that only Congress can declare war

Yes, I know that it’s not socially advantagious to have these arguments. The good thing about lemmy is that it is nevertheless possible to have them.

I only know of one reason for imperial conquest: that there is gas at the Krim and Ukraine would threaten the Russian monopoly on energy supply for Europe.

To me, that is not motivation enough for the war.

Removed by mod

Which strategic advantage lies in conquering Ukraine? Russia doesn’t need land. The future center of civilisation lies in Eastasia. Why waste resources in the west?

Conquering Kyiv for nostalgic reasons is stupid. I don’t think that Putin thinks like that.

That’s very interesting. I didn’t know this text, just a smilar one.

This doesn’t convince me that Putin is a history fanatic. For sure, there is some myth building, and Russia is not good at it. But it seems to be a tool to support the war, and not the other way round.

Why has Putin waited so long? Russia is not using new weapons. They could have conquered Ukraine more easily twenty years ago.

Removed by mod

This would require to accept that Putin is stupid. I don’t see that.

Europe doesn’t have to push.

Trump is doing the tariffs to stop the Dollar from being world currency according to Yanis Varoufakis

Removed by mod

an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power

Article 42 leaves no space for selling out.

The promise of the EU is mutual support while remaining independent. There are enough citizens who don’t want to become another united states. With too much push for unity, there is a risk that the EU breaks apart.

The joint investment response is not necessary since the EU is stronger than Russia. Given van der Leyen’s vaccine history, there is a big risk that the money will not be spent wisely.

Which war does the EU face? The military of the EU is already bigger than the Russian military. European air superiority will destroy any Russian attack.

“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.”

This is not new. Even England had a shakedown before WW2 support.

How does this pen out? If those weapons are meant to be used defencively, they have to be second-strike weapons.

This means that Germany needs nuclear submarines because everything else could be hit by Russian nuclear bombs in the assumed Russian attack.

Preparing nuclear weapons on fighter jets only helps to make Germany a target.

France and UK rightfully ask for support for their nuclear weapons program but there is no need to be further involved than financing it.

Yanis Varoufakis’ theory of what is happening

According to Yanis Varoufakis, to end the tade imbalances so that the US don’t lose their production capabilities

The point is having a common language and thus economic and cultural advantages. English is a secondary language for most people. In the US, it’s probably replaced with Spanish.

With Arabic, you have many more primary language speakers. Thanks to immigration, the transition to Arabic can be made easy. Then it’s possible to sell products in one packaging from Portugal to India.

I am not arguing that this should happen. It’s just an opportunity that is not obvious because Arabic is not a traditional European language. Though I would assume that there are now more Arabic than Basque speakers.

The point of speaking Arabic would be to have the same language as North Africa and Arabia. And once Europe speaks Arabic, neighboring countries like Turkye, Iran or Pakistan and India could see the benefit in joining.

This doesn’t mean that those countries become part of the EU. It would just create a huge zone with a single language which has its own advantages.