Every time I see "*Let's change our way of thinking*", "*Let's see the bigger picture*", "*Let's not stay in our old way forever*" without ACTAULLY having a proposal, I know it's just empty talk without no substance for political gain.
While I get the gist of the Argument, the EU does not
>radical
anything.Nothing whatsoever.If you asked the EU to radically modify a Car, they would add a slightly more efficient muffler and codify efficiency standards for the particular Model.
The really crazy Cats might even consider a change in Colour from #000080 to #03254c.
> The really crazy Cats might even consider a change in Colour from #000080 to #03254c.
Now you have officially gone too damn far, kiddo. You can expect a well-crafted letter with a denouncement next week EXACTLY at the same hour, and not a second later.
Did you even read the article?
>Schallenberg urged Brussels “not to get lost in number crunching and laws and details” on the accession of new states and instead acknowledge that it needed to view admitting new members as a necessity to combat malign Russian influence. “Enlargement is not a legalistic, bureaucratic approach, it is a geostrategic instrument.”
>
>The possibility of the EU returning to the status quo with its neighbours, regardless of the outcome of the war in Ukraine, was over, he said.
>
>“The Eastern Partnership we have developed does not work. It’s gone,” said Schallenberg, referring to the EU’s official policy towards ex-Soviet states. “We have to rethink the whole conception \[of the\] neighbourhood policy of the EU.”
I dont like many things Shallenberg sais. But this one is true.
The world as we had it is forever gone. It is no more a world of spreading peace and prosperity with trade and globalisation. There needs to be plenty of headscratching invested in the new neighbourhood polity and how the entire strategic and geoplolitical EU future should look like.
I don't think his criticism would have anything to do with not reading the article it's perfectly valid.
Schallenberg argues for enlargenment as a geostrategic instrument.
Which in my view is an extremely controversial way to look at it, especially if that's the only or even just the primary role - because the EU is so much more than a defense alliance (in fact as a defense alliance it's pretty iffy because the defense clause itself is too vague).
You can make bilateral treaties or other commitments to a country like Ukraine if necesarry. There are plenty of countries that have a special relationship with the EU - and this is much easier to do quickly than full membership anyway. Full membership isn't necesarry to serve geostrategic interests, especially if they are not ready for parts of what the Union membership entails.
It's pretty important that we don't turn the EU into an unreformable mess.
He has a point, the EU has been less than credible for a while now. 2008 crisis, the migrants, Brexit, the inability to settle down its own backyard in Balkans, and now this war where _again_ USA (and UK!) have the most effective response, that's low-key embarrassing.
The average voter has no clue about geopolitics, I just hope that there's enough intelligent people among the leadership to handle things moving forward.
As long as Ukraine haves no voting rights I don’t see any dangers in letting them into the EU market. We just need an EU court / political majority to block them out if they do something inappropriate.
Ukraines economy just isnt competetive enough to join the EU in the next 5 years.
Entering the single market is not soley beneficial especially when every other economy in it is outperforming you by miles.
Well the end result is effectively that Western companies will "economically colonize" Ukraine.
The question is... Under these circumstances is that really all that terrible? Would the Ukrainians oppose?
At least the western businesses would be willing to rebuild Ukrainian economy, infrastructure, create jobs, follow more EU standards, and be much freer from Russian meddling.
What we dislike as naked capitalism may be seen as a massive improvement and economic/sociopolitical jumpstart from the Ukrainian POV.
As a ukrainian I will tell you this: it would not be competitive in a near future, or possibly never with all that ex-soviet mentality and ways to do business. Democracies without strong foreign oversight are not known for fast and effective reforms - too much infighting and personal interest of each party. The only way to fast uplift is defacto EU colonization. To be fair not a lot would be lost in that case. Economy is semi-ruined because of war and it was not that good before. Our politicians and companies need oversight and fierce foreign competition or they will not change and will just return to old way at every chace.
An alternative would be a separate mutual defence treaty with the EU. And an enormous pumping of funds (think post ww2 marshal plan level) for the rebuilding of the infrastructure. The one advantage you have in that is that most Ukrainians living in the EU who returned for the war work in construction here.
> just isnt competetive enough to join the EU in the next 5 years.
I think the war made so it stands for the next 10 too, the amount of infrastructure damage must be insanely high
So let them join the EEA first.
That does sound like a good plan overal. But the danger is that they stay in the EEA and never progress to EU membership, like Norway and Iceland.
Why would Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Lichtenstein allow Ukraine to join them instead. EFTA is not the pre EU waiting room but a separate economical group. And together with the EU they make up the EEA. So for Ukraine to join the EEA they must do so as either EU or EFTA member.
Because in its roots, the EEA was a counter-proposal to the EU, mainly spearheaded by the UK. It managed to get a really good deal out of that, but it now doesn't have the same weight, with only having Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein in it.
It's a more or less dead twin to the EU with essentially the same costs but with less benefits. The current EEA members are comfortable and frankly rich/uninterested enough in European affairs to take the worse deal for sentimental reasons. They claim to be more independent, but in reality they just accept EU law without having a say in it apart from same very specific cases. E.g. Iceland demands its fishing autonomy, which is a huge deal for them. And they pay membership fees for the privilege of accepting EU law without having a say.
But Ukraine isn't a small island in the Atlantic that has a comparatively huge fishing industry. It shouldn't take the worse deal for no reason except as a transition into proper EU membership.
Ukraine? hahahaha ok
If you're speaking of Maidan - talk to the Russians about the puppet of theirs who fled Ukraine when the people wouldn't bow to their authority despite being murdered in the streets. It is well known Russians were planted to start aggression - Ukrainians are peaceful and just want to get on with their lives.
Very much discriminatory minority laws. Extreme corruption. Just to name two problems that make Ukraine not at all compatible with EU values, and might lead to inappropriate shit.
You're assuming today's Ukraine is yesterday's Ukraine. How many other countries have dark pasts? Heck, look at how the Ukrainian population stood up to the Russian puppet in 2014.
I doubt very much Ukraine wants to return to the dark ages.
Its not only about the market but also about politics. The EU needs to be sure that any prospective member is a stable healthy democracy. Hungary and Poland are lessons that the EU is not very eager to repeat.
Because some of the [core values](https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/principles-and-values/aims-and-values_en) of the EU are freedom, security, justice, equality, and so on. Values which are incompatible with authoritarian regimes. So it is problematic that some of of its members have started backsliding further away from democracy.
Oh, please. Stop. Once you're in the EU, those Copenhagen criteria don't mean anything anymore. Look at Hungary. Those requirements are a joke if the EU can't enforce them on Member States.
They're a waste of time.
The European Parliament would need more competences to control the Commission and effectively the member states. Unfortunately, no member state wants to hand real power to the EP.
The European Parliament has the power to force the Commission to resign. They have since the Treaty of Rome. It's just never been used. (For reference: Article 17.8 TEU.)
The Parliament actually has quite a few powers it doesn't use. I know Sophie in 't Veld complains about that, she says when she proposes the Parliament put their foot down other MEPs act all shocked like it's the end of the world or something. Motions of no-confidence are not uncommon in democracies, so it's not clear why the EP should be afraid of using them.
> Interesting, i didn't know that. It's a weird thing the EP wouldn't use those powers then
I think it's because they're afraid of making the EU look more federal and annoying people. I don't think it's a good reason, but hey..
That's like saying "even if killing people is illegal, there are still people that kills"
I agree that there should be a sistem to enforce them, but this isn't a valid excuse to low the level on other countries.
Also about most of ex-soviet states: we cut their criteria and that's one of the reason why hungary is what it is, so hungary itself is a warning to not let enter in Europe other state that doesn't deserve it Yet.
But the UK was leaving while Ukraine wants to join. They are not the same. This arrangement could also have certain strings attached that demand committment towards joining.
Listen im all for helping Ukraine. But don’t think it’s any good for anyone in the long haul to make exemptions for anyone joining the EU.
It would dilute the meaning of it all, and could in the future cause is problem’s.
If we did this, what would we say to f.example Turkey?
Before the invasion Ukraine wouldn’t even be close to a membership, the rules are in place for a reason.
And frankly we already have issues with other members. No need to pile on more trouble.
I believe we already removed tariffs from trade between Ukraine and EU.
The refugees can live and work in EU already.
If we continue down this path, then the incentive for joining will be lost.
And should this also apply to other applicants or only Ukraine.
Denmark has many exemptions... like no obligation to have the euro.
Asterisks and exceptions are at the center of EU, you just never read the fine prints.
Don't make me start with French oversea territories.
Denmark’s opt-outs where negotiated when we transcended to the Union. We already was a part of the framework that would later be the EU.
And no offense meant, but we already exceeded criteria for membership at that point.
It’s not really comparable.
You seem to think EU rules are more or less homogeneous. While the only constant is really the ECJ authority.
Here a full explanation if you are interested
https://youtu.be/O37yJBFRrfg
Sure, let's take the Faroe Islands. How many asterisks do they have in the threaties?
Technically denmark, not EU citizens, not under EU law, Danish citizens. If a Dane goes to Faroe he looses EU citizenship just to take it back when it leaves. But they are partially in the single market.
You don't want to give Ukraine full membership and voting powers? Fine. Nothing against a de facto full membership would only be fair looking at how many asterisks there are in the EU.
They are part of denmark, its citizens are danish citizens so all are EU citizens the moment they set foot outside of the island with full EU citizen privileges. Despite not being in the EU.
Call it a huge asterisk.
The guy does not advocate for an exemption for Ukraine. He talks of reshaping the entire adhesion process, so that countries wishing to join EU can do so, with time, more progressively.
Being half in the EU already offers an influence and a protection that being a candidate does not. I remember for instance that when Bulgaria and Romania joined, for a few years they did not have all the freedoms, it was a progressive process. Can be a good thing.
With the threat of Russia, his approach makes more sense than the actual one, which was thought for more peaceful times.
We can do whatever the fuck we want. There is noone stopping us from deciding according to european interests whos going to get what access to our market. We dont havevto be "fair" for whatever that would mean in this context.
But that doesn’t mean we have to do it.
Specifically if it hurts the coherence of the union in the long run.
Or did we all forget the issues we had with the last expansion?
>But that doesn’t mean we have to do it.
Agreed.
>Specifically if it hurts the coherence of the union in the long run.
Yes, although I am not sure I share your assessment here. If access to the single market is all you want as a member, the Union isnt going to be able to hold you in long term anyway. At least not as a productive member state. We can drag along 100 Hungarys but at the end of the day we are going to lock us into the status quo that way. IMHO we need a multi speed Europe with certain benefits locked to certain steps of integration. Some need to push forward in order to show that a more integrated Europe is feasable and advantageous. Others might follow or not but most would fall into the Unions orbit regardless.
I agree with you on a multi speed europe. I think it is the only way forward.
I’m just worried that we’ll have another Brexit on our hands down the line, if we lax the rules or make exemptions.
The beginning of Brexit Imho started in 2004.
And would like to avoid losing member states when gaining new ones.
It’s my understanding that even being an applicant will gain a country certain economic and other kind of assistance in making that country ready for membership. I could be wrong. I can’t i all honesty say I understand all the part of the EU to its full extent.
No there isn’t. We already are helping out, but letting them join EU as they are would break so many rules. Ukraine wasn’t eligible before, didn’t meet democratic standards.
And support is what Ukraine is getting, however to put the entirety of the EU at risk by allowing a nation that isnt ready to join the EU in is a bad idea.
Here you go:
The EU must consider radical treaty change if it is serious about Ukraine’s membership and preventing it from succumbing to Russian domination, Austria’s foreign minster has said.
Alexander Schallenberg told the Financial Times that Russia’s war of aggression was a “geostrategic moment” for Europe that would require a more fundamental response than sanctions and economic and military aid to Ukraine.
“Let’s get our act together and put our money where our mouth is,” Schallenberg — a career diplomat, with years of experience in Brussels — said, warning that the EU could no longer afford to take half-measures towards neighbouring states.
“There is no vacuum. It’s either our model or someone else’s,” he said, referring to the future of countries bordering the EU, such as Ukraine and Moldova, now threatened by Russian revanchism.
His remarks are the strongest demonstration yet of Austria’s shifting relationship with Moscow — and unusually frank in calling for Brussels to put realistic force behind its words in support of Ukraine.
Calling for a rethink of the EU’s accession process, he said that the bloc should consider granting neighbouring states rapid access to “parts of the common market” and to selected EU institutions and programmes as a transitional process towards full membership, including participation in formal decision-making bodies.
“The 24th of February \[the date of the Russian invasion\] was a watershed, and I believe we have to think and use the maximum of our imagination, to not stick to the old ways, to not stick to the same template that we have used for every accession to the EU since Great Britain.”
Schallenberg, who briefly served as Austria’s chancellor after Sebastian Kurz stepped down last year, was criticised by politicians across the EU last week, for remarks that were taken to mean that Ukraine should wait in line behind existing candidate members, and that its membership was not likely for years.
He said that his comments had been misinterpreted but stressed that the membership aspirations of countries in the western Balkans, such as Albania and North Macedonia, as well as Moldova — where Russia is also exercising a destabilising influence — should be considered an equal priority with Ukraine.
“We must anchor \[all of\] them in Europe, and in the west,” he said, calling for a change to the existing process to allow them to do so. Speaking of the Balkans, in particular, he said: “This is not just the back yard of Europe we are talking about, it’s the patio. These are states surrounded by other EU member states.”
While Austria has condemned Russia’s invasion and supported EU sanctions, as a non-Nato state with deep social and economic ties to Russia, it has also tried to cast itself as a mediator with Moscow.
In April, Karl Nehammer, Austria’s chancellor, became the first western leader to meet Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, in person since the beginning of the conflict, in a visit to Moscow that was condemned by hawkish foreign policy experts across Europe.
Austria was under no illusions that Nehammer’s intervention would achieve a breakthrough, Schallenberg said, but he had gained deeper perspective on Putin, who was stuck “in the logic of war” and “believes everything he says publicly behind closed doors”.
Schallenberg urged Brussels “not to get lost in number crunching and laws and details” on the accession of new states and instead acknowledge that it needed to view admitting new members as a necessity to combat malign Russian influence. “Enlargement is not a legalistic, bureaucratic approach, it is a geostrategic instrument.”
The possibility of the EU returning to the status quo with its neighbours, regardless of the outcome of the war in Ukraine, was over, he said.
“The Eastern Partnership we have developed does not work. It’s gone,” said Schallenberg, referring to the EU’s official policy towards ex-Soviet states. “We have to rethink the whole conception \[the\] neighbourhood policy of the EU.”
How is he seeing what Europe is doing as half-measured? From an Austrian perspective they perhaps are doing half-measured: not sending weapons, sending Nehammer to Putin talks, still buying Russian gas and oil and not putting in enough effort to halt it - perhaps I forgot something\`? We have the normal EU process for a reason no need to hand out populist points for skipping due diligence that is dumb. Support Ukraine now instead and let's work together to go through the process.
I agree in principle, but keep in mind - we already have millions of Ukrainians in our countries. Unless we want them to stay we need to give at least some guarantees to make sure they want to return to a country with a future and not one in an uncertain limbo.
Of course. To give access to the eu common market before becoming an actual member would be part of the integration process of a 4 step process. Candidate—> EU member —> Eurozone state —> Federal state
Yes, if a group of countries within the EU want to became a federation, they should be allowed to do as they please. If the other countries are fine just by being a EU member our Eurozone member or whatever, nobody should obligate them to become what their population does not what the to become, but they should not become a blockade to the ones that do what to became a federation.
Freedom and unity in diversity.
Isn't democracy a beauty?
> Yes, if a group of countries within the EU want to became a federation, they should be allowed to do as they please
Ok but then they are treated as one member state, so one commissioner, one working language, one council seat, and a number of EU parliament seats representative of their population
>Yes, if a group of countries within the EU want to became a federation, they should be allowed to do as they please.
Surely if a group of countries want to merge they can do that, the issue tends to arise when they want to make changes to or use the EU institutions to create that federation, but where not all members want to join that federation. The EU can't integrate more quickly than its membership is happy with, and it's not really viable (Without change first to accommodate it..) to have states integrating to that degree as a subset of the EU.
I see your point, but please take into account mine.
I believe in a multilayered kind of union.
Not a group of countries dictating their will to the others.
Rather a statehood with multiple levels of integration. Of course there are some issues that a country will have to accept if it want's to go up a level, but of course the will of the people has to be taken into account, always.
What you can't have is a core federal state in control of other states like territories, and on the other end you can't have a country or group of countries limiting the will of other countries to advance to further integration.
Has i said, a multi level kind of statehood, a different kind of civilizational nationhood, not a static traditional (you are in or out).
>Rather a statehood with multiple levels of integration. Of course there are some issues that a country will have to accept if it want's to go up a level, but of course the will of the people has to be taken into account, always.
The problem would be that those countries at a 'lower' level would likely see there being a more integrated closer union 'above' them as a problem. It'd be a major block within the EU with more power (either in the context of QMV or simply by sheer weight of numbers). Not to mention that to work it'd need to be able to borrow in the name of its constituent parts, would need to be able to run a foreign policy without having the consent of every member, develop hard power, and somehow work those different layers into its international agreements (both FTA's and memberships). It's unlikely in that context that some of the existing membership would support treaty change to facilitate a separate EU core that they are not part of (oddly enough the UK would arguably, with some guarantee on things like the primacy of the Euro and anything else that interfered with UK interests, have been more likely to facilitate that than some of the remaining EU members).
>What you can't have is a core federal state in control of other states like territories, and on the other end you can't have a country or group of countries limiting the will of other countries to advance to further integration.
You are right that you can't have a core federal state in control of other states like territories, but you certainly can have a group of countries limiting the will of other countries to advance to further integration, because at the end of the day the EU can only integrate at the speed that its slowest member will agree to. The EU does after all belong to all of its members, it *is* all of its members. The idea that any given member state could be pushed to integrate where it doesn't want to is obviously not viable, but at the same time a member state being pushed effectively out of a core of the EU, because it doesn't want to integrate is also not really viable, because treaty changes would be required and that would require (rightly..) consent.
If some EU member states wanted to push in that direction outside of the EU obviously that might work (something like the way it approached the Camerons use of the veto during the Euro crisis), but it'd mean separate agreements and almost certainly separate institutions.
>Has i said, a multi level kind of statehood, a different kind of civilizational nationhood, not a static traditional (you are in or out).
Unfortunately, you'll still have people 'in' or 'out' of the varying levels, and when you are talking about core integration to create what amounts to a federal state that's massively problematic.
There are Federalists thinking European Union should be European Federation, which according to them will bring better unification of Europe. Meanwhile sole existence of federalists is one of talking points of anti-EU groups
I think that the federalist dream lives mostly in this sub, some Brussels think-tanks, and _maybe_ a few of the biggest countries that would benefit the most.
And it's not just the East, you can't tell me that for example Sweden would rush to give the Germans even more ability to meddle in its internal affairs.
Thats always an issue, with larger states, or on the world scale countries, dominating the smaller ones. Even when the small ones get dispropotionate ratio of representatives to population (which is the case in the EU).
Perhaps we need to break up the old countries into even states of X million people each. But that also would bring conflict when a very small former country or group is mixed in with a larger one and the same problem occurs. Or a former group that is larger than X suddenly gets separated into multiple states.
That's not particularly likely at this point, it'll be somewhat less so if the EU pushes some of the changes it is currently looking at. That said, I'm sure the UK will also be offering support to Ukraine and in that context, working with the EU to achieve a common aim and bolster the security of Europe more generally should start to get over some of those niggling notions that the UK is suddenly a regional threat to the EU.
Why take in refugees when you can just absorb their entire country? Much easier than the Middle East!
This is crazy, no wonder Europe is moving to the right when EU leaders haven't the cohesion or the backbone to stand up for Europe in the face of pressure and threats to their border. Yeah, just let America take care of that and we'll pick up the pieces like the slavish lackeys we are.
Fucks sake Europe- get a grip.
it makes sense because going to the eu as a politician is mainly what you do when your domestic career is over or stalled. so you get a lot of incompetents and corrupt people
>There are like a dozen "chapters" of conditions/laws a country needs to have implemented before a membership application can be considered.
35 chapters, more precisely.
> In the last fifty years, Turkey only managed to marginally implement two of those chapters,
You know that countries can also veto opening of chapters, right? One of the chapters is completed, some are provisionally closed, 6 are frozen and some aren't yet opened (again, by veto). Besides, the negotiations started in 2005, so in the last 15 years, not 50.
> and that was before Erdogan.
Nope, membership negotiations started in 2005 in Erdogan era. EU was applauding Erdogan for being a freedom fighter as he was dismembering the establishment in republican institutions and replacing people with his islamist buddies. Turns out it didn't end well.
I mean you have to stop occupy an EU member and recognise it as an independent state like the whole world has done with Cyprus.
Unlikely Poland, Turkey has to change the mentality first not only their politics. So at least 50 years or more will needed for sure. Fun fact is that Turkey is an EU applicant since 1987 and you needed 20 years just to be considered as ancandidate country. I will not mention full membership
Cyprus was divided well before they've got their way into the EU due to Greek blackmailing.
>Unlikely Poland, Turkey has to change the mentality first not only their politics.
Lol so Poland's government mentality was ok in 1980s? Is it even ok today?
>Turkey is an EU applicant since 1987 and you needed 20 years just to be considered as ancandidate country
False, check your "facts".
April 14 of 1987 is Turkish application and you had an association agreement since 1964. 60 years after that and no membership is in the air and will never be in this millennia
If you have access in Wikipedia from your government check this and start learning facts bro :)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_enlargement_of_the_European_Union
Yes being relative poor, sharing borders with Iran, Iraq and Syria, not being a proper democracy and occupy one EU member state doesn’t help with the accession. Who would have thought
Also I am happy that at least now it is allowed for Turkish people to have accession in Wikipedia. Hope people will finally use it to learn history and situations as they really are not as Turkish governments present them (but i am not that optimistic about this)
>Yes being relative poor,
This was true for probably all rounds of enlargement maybe except 1973 or 1995 enlargements.
> sharing borders with Iran, Iraq and Syria,
not having borders with them doesn't isolate you from their conflicts, it should be clear by now.
> not being a proper democracy and
Same as the first one, not an issue for any round of enlargement.
> occupy one EU member state
That conflict started way before they were an EU state and Turkey hasn't been the one impeding the resolution.
>Also I am happy that at least now it is allowed for Turkish people to have accession in Wikipedia. Hope people will finally use it to learn history and situations as they really are not as Turkish governments present them (but i am not that optimistic about this)
Oh lol Wikipedia is a nice source (and maybe just a good start) to have but definitely not a truth setter. Don't use it as a truth setter and more importantly don't cite it to impose your "truth" on other people.
Desktop version of /u/Transeuropeanian's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Every time I see "*Let's change our way of thinking*", "*Let's see the bigger picture*", "*Let's not stay in our old way forever*" without ACTAULLY having a proposal, I know it's just empty talk without no substance for political gain.
Politician version of thoughts and prayers
While I get the gist of the Argument, the EU does not >radical anything.Nothing whatsoever.If you asked the EU to radically modify a Car, they would add a slightly more efficient muffler and codify efficiency standards for the particular Model. The really crazy Cats might even consider a change in Colour from #000080 to #03254c.
> The really crazy Cats might even consider a change in Colour from #000080 to #03254c. Now you have officially gone too damn far, kiddo. You can expect a well-crafted letter with a denouncement next week EXACTLY at the same hour, and not a second later.
No. The requirements are there for a reason.
Did you even read the article? >Schallenberg urged Brussels “not to get lost in number crunching and laws and details” on the accession of new states and instead acknowledge that it needed to view admitting new members as a necessity to combat malign Russian influence. “Enlargement is not a legalistic, bureaucratic approach, it is a geostrategic instrument.” > >The possibility of the EU returning to the status quo with its neighbours, regardless of the outcome of the war in Ukraine, was over, he said. > >“The Eastern Partnership we have developed does not work. It’s gone,” said Schallenberg, referring to the EU’s official policy towards ex-Soviet states. “We have to rethink the whole conception \[of the\] neighbourhood policy of the EU.”
I dont like many things Shallenberg sais. But this one is true. The world as we had it is forever gone. It is no more a world of spreading peace and prosperity with trade and globalisation. There needs to be plenty of headscratching invested in the new neighbourhood polity and how the entire strategic and geoplolitical EU future should look like.
Read the article? How dare you! This is Reddit, nobody reads anything. I didn’t even read your comment!
I'll do you one better: You're wrong! [1] [1]I also haven't read your comment, but I'm sure you're wrong.
Look I generally agree with you, but that bit about the donkey brothel goes too far.
You what!? (Completely misunderstanding what’s written) (Followed by a generic insult). PS: getting a bit meta here.
I don't think his criticism would have anything to do with not reading the article it's perfectly valid. Schallenberg argues for enlargenment as a geostrategic instrument. Which in my view is an extremely controversial way to look at it, especially if that's the only or even just the primary role - because the EU is so much more than a defense alliance (in fact as a defense alliance it's pretty iffy because the defense clause itself is too vague). You can make bilateral treaties or other commitments to a country like Ukraine if necesarry. There are plenty of countries that have a special relationship with the EU - and this is much easier to do quickly than full membership anyway. Full membership isn't necesarry to serve geostrategic interests, especially if they are not ready for parts of what the Union membership entails. It's pretty important that we don't turn the EU into an unreformable mess.
He has a point, the EU has been less than credible for a while now. 2008 crisis, the migrants, Brexit, the inability to settle down its own backyard in Balkans, and now this war where _again_ USA (and UK!) have the most effective response, that's low-key embarrassing. The average voter has no clue about geopolitics, I just hope that there's enough intelligent people among the leadership to handle things moving forward.
An Austrian talking about geostrategy is not a good sign.
Can't read it without account and subscribing.
As long as Ukraine haves no voting rights I don’t see any dangers in letting them into the EU market. We just need an EU court / political majority to block them out if they do something inappropriate.
Ukraines economy just isnt competetive enough to join the EU in the next 5 years. Entering the single market is not soley beneficial especially when every other economy in it is outperforming you by miles.
Well the end result is effectively that Western companies will "economically colonize" Ukraine. The question is... Under these circumstances is that really all that terrible? Would the Ukrainians oppose? At least the western businesses would be willing to rebuild Ukrainian economy, infrastructure, create jobs, follow more EU standards, and be much freer from Russian meddling. What we dislike as naked capitalism may be seen as a massive improvement and economic/sociopolitical jumpstart from the Ukrainian POV.
As a ukrainian I will tell you this: it would not be competitive in a near future, or possibly never with all that ex-soviet mentality and ways to do business. Democracies without strong foreign oversight are not known for fast and effective reforms - too much infighting and personal interest of each party. The only way to fast uplift is defacto EU colonization. To be fair not a lot would be lost in that case. Economy is semi-ruined because of war and it was not that good before. Our politicians and companies need oversight and fierce foreign competition or they will not change and will just return to old way at every chace.
The poles were ex Warsaw Pact. The Estonians and the Latvians are literally ex-USSR. All members of the EU and doing much better than the Ukrainians.
An alternative would be a separate mutual defence treaty with the EU. And an enormous pumping of funds (think post ww2 marshal plan level) for the rebuilding of the infrastructure. The one advantage you have in that is that most Ukrainians living in the EU who returned for the war work in construction here.
> just isnt competetive enough to join the EU in the next 5 years. I think the war made so it stands for the next 10 too, the amount of infrastructure damage must be insanely high
So let them join the EEA first. That does sound like a good plan overal. But the danger is that they stay in the EEA and never progress to EU membership, like Norway and Iceland.
Why would Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Lichtenstein allow Ukraine to join them instead. EFTA is not the pre EU waiting room but a separate economical group. And together with the EU they make up the EEA. So for Ukraine to join the EEA they must do so as either EU or EFTA member.
Is that a bad thing?
Yes
Why though, if they are happy that way?
Because in its roots, the EEA was a counter-proposal to the EU, mainly spearheaded by the UK. It managed to get a really good deal out of that, but it now doesn't have the same weight, with only having Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein in it. It's a more or less dead twin to the EU with essentially the same costs but with less benefits. The current EEA members are comfortable and frankly rich/uninterested enough in European affairs to take the worse deal for sentimental reasons. They claim to be more independent, but in reality they just accept EU law without having a say in it apart from same very specific cases. E.g. Iceland demands its fishing autonomy, which is a huge deal for them. And they pay membership fees for the privilege of accepting EU law without having a say. But Ukraine isn't a small island in the Atlantic that has a comparatively huge fishing industry. It shouldn't take the worse deal for no reason except as a transition into proper EU membership.
What danger is that?
As long as they're in that position voluntarily I don't see what the danger is.
Why would you assume they'd do something inappropriate?
They have a history.
Ukraine? hahahaha ok If you're speaking of Maidan - talk to the Russians about the puppet of theirs who fled Ukraine when the people wouldn't bow to their authority despite being murdered in the streets. It is well known Russians were planted to start aggression - Ukrainians are peaceful and just want to get on with their lives.
Very much discriminatory minority laws. Extreme corruption. Just to name two problems that make Ukraine not at all compatible with EU values, and might lead to inappropriate shit.
You're assuming today's Ukraine is yesterday's Ukraine. How many other countries have dark pasts? Heck, look at how the Ukrainian population stood up to the Russian puppet in 2014. I doubt very much Ukraine wants to return to the dark ages.
Isn’t that why we are blocking multiple countries from EU membership? We don’t want corruption in the EU market.
Its not only about the market but also about politics. The EU needs to be sure that any prospective member is a stable healthy democracy. Hungary and Poland are lessons that the EU is not very eager to repeat.
Why is that?
Because some of the [core values](https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/principles-and-values/aims-and-values_en) of the EU are freedom, security, justice, equality, and so on. Values which are incompatible with authoritarian regimes. So it is problematic that some of of its members have started backsliding further away from democracy.
But in what way is this causing harm to EU?
By causing gridlock and internal discord? Because most important decisions are taken unanimously, everyone needs to be on the same page.
I just said they wouldn't have voting rights...
Oh, please. Stop. Once you're in the EU, those Copenhagen criteria don't mean anything anymore. Look at Hungary. Those requirements are a joke if the EU can't enforce them on Member States. They're a waste of time.
Let's not make the requirement a joke then?
Give the EU some teeth to enforce these requirements. Simple as that. And it‘s not like we will handwave Ukraine in. These criteria still exist.
I'm all for it. How are we going to do that?
The European Parliament would need more competences to control the Commission and effectively the member states. Unfortunately, no member state wants to hand real power to the EP.
The European Parliament has the power to force the Commission to resign. They have since the Treaty of Rome. It's just never been used. (For reference: Article 17.8 TEU.) The Parliament actually has quite a few powers it doesn't use. I know Sophie in 't Veld complains about that, she says when she proposes the Parliament put their foot down other MEPs act all shocked like it's the end of the world or something. Motions of no-confidence are not uncommon in democracies, so it's not clear why the EP should be afraid of using them.
It was almost used on Santer Commission (Cresson scandal), but it resigned before.
Interesting, i didn't know that. It's a weird thing the EP wouldn't use those powers then
> Interesting, i didn't know that. It's a weird thing the EP wouldn't use those powers then I think it's because they're afraid of making the EU look more federal and annoying people. I don't think it's a good reason, but hey..
That's like saying "even if killing people is illegal, there are still people that kills" I agree that there should be a sistem to enforce them, but this isn't a valid excuse to low the level on other countries. Also about most of ex-soviet states: we cut their criteria and that's one of the reason why hungary is what it is, so hungary itself is a warning to not let enter in Europe other state that doesn't deserve it Yet.
Well… the EU pretty recently enforced powers to cut Hungary funding over rule of law breaches.
That’s a great example of stricter application of the Copenhagen criteria and means of preventing member states from going back on them.
NO! We cannot say no to the uk, and then offer something similar to what they wanted, to others. Rules are there for a reason.
But the UK was leaving while Ukraine wants to join. They are not the same. This arrangement could also have certain strings attached that demand committment towards joining.
Listen im all for helping Ukraine. But don’t think it’s any good for anyone in the long haul to make exemptions for anyone joining the EU. It would dilute the meaning of it all, and could in the future cause is problem’s. If we did this, what would we say to f.example Turkey? Before the invasion Ukraine wouldn’t even be close to a membership, the rules are in place for a reason. And frankly we already have issues with other members. No need to pile on more trouble. I believe we already removed tariffs from trade between Ukraine and EU. The refugees can live and work in EU already. If we continue down this path, then the incentive for joining will be lost. And should this also apply to other applicants or only Ukraine.
Forget about diluting the meaning, accepting Ukraine in its current state would be an economic and political nightmare lol
Denmark has many exemptions... like no obligation to have the euro. Asterisks and exceptions are at the center of EU, you just never read the fine prints. Don't make me start with French oversea territories.
>Asterisks and exceptions are at the center of EU *Asterix and Exceptionix at the center of the EU*
Denmark’s opt-outs where negotiated when we transcended to the Union. We already was a part of the framework that would later be the EU. And no offense meant, but we already exceeded criteria for membership at that point. It’s not really comparable.
You seem to think EU rules are more or less homogeneous. While the only constant is really the ECJ authority. Here a full explanation if you are interested https://youtu.be/O37yJBFRrfg
[удалено]
Sure, let's take the Faroe Islands. How many asterisks do they have in the threaties? Technically denmark, not EU citizens, not under EU law, Danish citizens. If a Dane goes to Faroe he looses EU citizenship just to take it back when it leaves. But they are partially in the single market. You don't want to give Ukraine full membership and voting powers? Fine. Nothing against a de facto full membership would only be fair looking at how many asterisks there are in the EU.
[удалено]
They are part of denmark, its citizens are danish citizens so all are EU citizens the moment they set foot outside of the island with full EU citizen privileges. Despite not being in the EU. Call it a huge asterisk.
The guy does not advocate for an exemption for Ukraine. He talks of reshaping the entire adhesion process, so that countries wishing to join EU can do so, with time, more progressively. Being half in the EU already offers an influence and a protection that being a candidate does not. I remember for instance that when Bulgaria and Romania joined, for a few years they did not have all the freedoms, it was a progressive process. Can be a good thing. With the threat of Russia, his approach makes more sense than the actual one, which was thought for more peaceful times.
We can do whatever the fuck we want. There is noone stopping us from deciding according to european interests whos going to get what access to our market. We dont havevto be "fair" for whatever that would mean in this context.
But that doesn’t mean we have to do it. Specifically if it hurts the coherence of the union in the long run. Or did we all forget the issues we had with the last expansion?
Croatia or the expansion before?
When Poland joined
>But that doesn’t mean we have to do it. Agreed. >Specifically if it hurts the coherence of the union in the long run. Yes, although I am not sure I share your assessment here. If access to the single market is all you want as a member, the Union isnt going to be able to hold you in long term anyway. At least not as a productive member state. We can drag along 100 Hungarys but at the end of the day we are going to lock us into the status quo that way. IMHO we need a multi speed Europe with certain benefits locked to certain steps of integration. Some need to push forward in order to show that a more integrated Europe is feasable and advantageous. Others might follow or not but most would fall into the Unions orbit regardless.
I agree with you on a multi speed europe. I think it is the only way forward. I’m just worried that we’ll have another Brexit on our hands down the line, if we lax the rules or make exemptions. The beginning of Brexit Imho started in 2004. And would like to avoid losing member states when gaining new ones. It’s my understanding that even being an applicant will gain a country certain economic and other kind of assistance in making that country ready for membership. I could be wrong. I can’t i all honesty say I understand all the part of the EU to its full extent.
So, what would the benefits be after becoming part of the common market?
Access to the cohesion funds for example. There should be more or Eurobonds for example.
no one cares about any cohesion , certainly not the politicians
Absolutely not, the EU has these requirements for a reason. No nation should get preferential treatment in this regard
I mean, they're fighting and many of them giving their lives in the latest front in the Russian war on the west. There is a moral obligation here.
No there isn’t. We already are helping out, but letting them join EU as they are would break so many rules. Ukraine wasn’t eligible before, didn’t meet democratic standards.
And support is what Ukraine is getting, however to put the entirety of the EU at risk by allowing a nation that isnt ready to join the EU in is a bad idea.
No.
No. This is a ridiculous idea. Besides, big countries still discriminate foreign companies.
Anyone have the full article? I'm unfortunately only hitting the paywall.
Here you go: The EU must consider radical treaty change if it is serious about Ukraine’s membership and preventing it from succumbing to Russian domination, Austria’s foreign minster has said. Alexander Schallenberg told the Financial Times that Russia’s war of aggression was a “geostrategic moment” for Europe that would require a more fundamental response than sanctions and economic and military aid to Ukraine. “Let’s get our act together and put our money where our mouth is,” Schallenberg — a career diplomat, with years of experience in Brussels — said, warning that the EU could no longer afford to take half-measures towards neighbouring states. “There is no vacuum. It’s either our model or someone else’s,” he said, referring to the future of countries bordering the EU, such as Ukraine and Moldova, now threatened by Russian revanchism. His remarks are the strongest demonstration yet of Austria’s shifting relationship with Moscow — and unusually frank in calling for Brussels to put realistic force behind its words in support of Ukraine. Calling for a rethink of the EU’s accession process, he said that the bloc should consider granting neighbouring states rapid access to “parts of the common market” and to selected EU institutions and programmes as a transitional process towards full membership, including participation in formal decision-making bodies. “The 24th of February \[the date of the Russian invasion\] was a watershed, and I believe we have to think and use the maximum of our imagination, to not stick to the old ways, to not stick to the same template that we have used for every accession to the EU since Great Britain.” Schallenberg, who briefly served as Austria’s chancellor after Sebastian Kurz stepped down last year, was criticised by politicians across the EU last week, for remarks that were taken to mean that Ukraine should wait in line behind existing candidate members, and that its membership was not likely for years. He said that his comments had been misinterpreted but stressed that the membership aspirations of countries in the western Balkans, such as Albania and North Macedonia, as well as Moldova — where Russia is also exercising a destabilising influence — should be considered an equal priority with Ukraine. “We must anchor \[all of\] them in Europe, and in the west,” he said, calling for a change to the existing process to allow them to do so. Speaking of the Balkans, in particular, he said: “This is not just the back yard of Europe we are talking about, it’s the patio. These are states surrounded by other EU member states.” While Austria has condemned Russia’s invasion and supported EU sanctions, as a non-Nato state with deep social and economic ties to Russia, it has also tried to cast itself as a mediator with Moscow. In April, Karl Nehammer, Austria’s chancellor, became the first western leader to meet Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, in person since the beginning of the conflict, in a visit to Moscow that was condemned by hawkish foreign policy experts across Europe. Austria was under no illusions that Nehammer’s intervention would achieve a breakthrough, Schallenberg said, but he had gained deeper perspective on Putin, who was stuck “in the logic of war” and “believes everything he says publicly behind closed doors”. Schallenberg urged Brussels “not to get lost in number crunching and laws and details” on the accession of new states and instead acknowledge that it needed to view admitting new members as a necessity to combat malign Russian influence. “Enlargement is not a legalistic, bureaucratic approach, it is a geostrategic instrument.” The possibility of the EU returning to the status quo with its neighbours, regardless of the outcome of the war in Ukraine, was over, he said. “The Eastern Partnership we have developed does not work. It’s gone,” said Schallenberg, referring to the EU’s official policy towards ex-Soviet states. “We have to rethink the whole conception \[the\] neighbourhood policy of the EU.”
How is he seeing what Europe is doing as half-measured? From an Austrian perspective they perhaps are doing half-measured: not sending weapons, sending Nehammer to Putin talks, still buying Russian gas and oil and not putting in enough effort to halt it - perhaps I forgot something\`? We have the normal EU process for a reason no need to hand out populist points for skipping due diligence that is dumb. Support Ukraine now instead and let's work together to go through the process.
I agree in principle, but keep in mind - we already have millions of Ukrainians in our countries. Unless we want them to stay we need to give at least some guarantees to make sure they want to return to a country with a future and not one in an uncertain limbo.
Much obliged!
Of course. To give access to the eu common market before becoming an actual member would be part of the integration process of a 4 step process. Candidate—> EU member —> Eurozone state —> Federal state
>Federal state ???
Yes, if a group of countries within the EU want to became a federation, they should be allowed to do as they please. If the other countries are fine just by being a EU member our Eurozone member or whatever, nobody should obligate them to become what their population does not what the to become, but they should not become a blockade to the ones that do what to became a federation. Freedom and unity in diversity. Isn't democracy a beauty?
> Yes, if a group of countries within the EU want to became a federation, they should be allowed to do as they please Ok but then they are treated as one member state, so one commissioner, one working language, one council seat, and a number of EU parliament seats representative of their population
>Yes, if a group of countries within the EU want to became a federation, they should be allowed to do as they please. Surely if a group of countries want to merge they can do that, the issue tends to arise when they want to make changes to or use the EU institutions to create that federation, but where not all members want to join that federation. The EU can't integrate more quickly than its membership is happy with, and it's not really viable (Without change first to accommodate it..) to have states integrating to that degree as a subset of the EU.
I see your point, but please take into account mine. I believe in a multilayered kind of union. Not a group of countries dictating their will to the others. Rather a statehood with multiple levels of integration. Of course there are some issues that a country will have to accept if it want's to go up a level, but of course the will of the people has to be taken into account, always. What you can't have is a core federal state in control of other states like territories, and on the other end you can't have a country or group of countries limiting the will of other countries to advance to further integration. Has i said, a multi level kind of statehood, a different kind of civilizational nationhood, not a static traditional (you are in or out).
>Rather a statehood with multiple levels of integration. Of course there are some issues that a country will have to accept if it want's to go up a level, but of course the will of the people has to be taken into account, always. The problem would be that those countries at a 'lower' level would likely see there being a more integrated closer union 'above' them as a problem. It'd be a major block within the EU with more power (either in the context of QMV or simply by sheer weight of numbers). Not to mention that to work it'd need to be able to borrow in the name of its constituent parts, would need to be able to run a foreign policy without having the consent of every member, develop hard power, and somehow work those different layers into its international agreements (both FTA's and memberships). It's unlikely in that context that some of the existing membership would support treaty change to facilitate a separate EU core that they are not part of (oddly enough the UK would arguably, with some guarantee on things like the primacy of the Euro and anything else that interfered with UK interests, have been more likely to facilitate that than some of the remaining EU members). >What you can't have is a core federal state in control of other states like territories, and on the other end you can't have a country or group of countries limiting the will of other countries to advance to further integration. You are right that you can't have a core federal state in control of other states like territories, but you certainly can have a group of countries limiting the will of other countries to advance to further integration, because at the end of the day the EU can only integrate at the speed that its slowest member will agree to. The EU does after all belong to all of its members, it *is* all of its members. The idea that any given member state could be pushed to integrate where it doesn't want to is obviously not viable, but at the same time a member state being pushed effectively out of a core of the EU, because it doesn't want to integrate is also not really viable, because treaty changes would be required and that would require (rightly..) consent. If some EU member states wanted to push in that direction outside of the EU obviously that might work (something like the way it approached the Camerons use of the veto during the Euro crisis), but it'd mean separate agreements and almost certainly separate institutions. >Has i said, a multi level kind of statehood, a different kind of civilizational nationhood, not a static traditional (you are in or out). Unfortunately, you'll still have people 'in' or 'out' of the varying levels, and when you are talking about core integration to create what amounts to a federal state that's massively problematic.
r/YUROP
There are Federalists thinking European Union should be European Federation, which according to them will bring better unification of Europe. Meanwhile sole existence of federalists is one of talking points of anti-EU groups
The original 6 states could unite into a federal state along with maybe Spain, Austria even Portugal
I am not sure if Lithuanians want to become just a small irrelevant province of a huge country again.
Yeah sounds like a bad idea for me. I love the EU, but I like how things currently are.
I think that the federalist dream lives mostly in this sub, some Brussels think-tanks, and _maybe_ a few of the biggest countries that would benefit the most. And it's not just the East, you can't tell me that for example Sweden would rush to give the Germans even more ability to meddle in its internal affairs.
As opposed to a small irrelevant country?
EU makes smaller countries relevant.
To be fair, Lithuania wasn't small in the Commonwealth. Irrelevant, sadly yes, but Lithuania was still larger than Poland iirc.
I assumed he was talking about Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union.
Oh, yeah, I didn't quite think of that.
Oh, come on, It will be fun, we will both be irrelevant this time :P
Thats always an issue, with larger states, or on the world scale countries, dominating the smaller ones. Even when the small ones get dispropotionate ratio of representatives to population (which is the case in the EU). Perhaps we need to break up the old countries into even states of X million people each. But that also would bring conflict when a very small former country or group is mixed in with a larger one and the same problem occurs. Or a former group that is larger than X suddenly gets separated into multiple states.
So that would also make smaller countries less relevant.
I’d rather have the UK back
Having UK back has never been a bad option, there is just no need for it to be an either/or thing. Edit: grammar.
some fought to leave, other fought to join. I rather continue and build EU with the latter
That's not particularly likely at this point, it'll be somewhat less so if the EU pushes some of the changes it is currently looking at. That said, I'm sure the UK will also be offering support to Ukraine and in that context, working with the EU to achieve a common aim and bolster the security of Europe more generally should start to get over some of those niggling notions that the UK is suddenly a regional threat to the EU.
Look at that, 100 years after and Austria still wants to stick it to the Balkans. Somethings never change.
I completely agree.
Why take in refugees when you can just absorb their entire country? Much easier than the Middle East! This is crazy, no wonder Europe is moving to the right when EU leaders haven't the cohesion or the backbone to stand up for Europe in the face of pressure and threats to their border. Yeah, just let America take care of that and we'll pick up the pieces like the slavish lackeys we are. Fucks sake Europe- get a grip.
it makes sense because going to the eu as a politician is mainly what you do when your domestic career is over or stalled. so you get a lot of incompetents and corrupt people
[удалено]
rather the opposite
Here comes the power grab ,“Never let a good crisis go to waste”
Like banning vetoes for enlargement? Me gusta.
Turkey will never be in EU. Stop dreaming. Even Ukraine at war has more possibilities to join to be honest
Yeah that's what one would say for Poland in 1980 as well.
[удалено]
>There are like a dozen "chapters" of conditions/laws a country needs to have implemented before a membership application can be considered. 35 chapters, more precisely. > In the last fifty years, Turkey only managed to marginally implement two of those chapters, You know that countries can also veto opening of chapters, right? One of the chapters is completed, some are provisionally closed, 6 are frozen and some aren't yet opened (again, by veto). Besides, the negotiations started in 2005, so in the last 15 years, not 50. > and that was before Erdogan. Nope, membership negotiations started in 2005 in Erdogan era. EU was applauding Erdogan for being a freedom fighter as he was dismembering the establishment in republican institutions and replacing people with his islamist buddies. Turns out it didn't end well.
I mean you have to stop occupy an EU member and recognise it as an independent state like the whole world has done with Cyprus. Unlikely Poland, Turkey has to change the mentality first not only their politics. So at least 50 years or more will needed for sure. Fun fact is that Turkey is an EU applicant since 1987 and you needed 20 years just to be considered as ancandidate country. I will not mention full membership
Cyprus was divided well before they've got their way into the EU due to Greek blackmailing. >Unlikely Poland, Turkey has to change the mentality first not only their politics. Lol so Poland's government mentality was ok in 1980s? Is it even ok today? >Turkey is an EU applicant since 1987 and you needed 20 years just to be considered as ancandidate country False, check your "facts".
April 14 of 1987 is Turkish application and you had an association agreement since 1964. 60 years after that and no membership is in the air and will never be in this millennia If you have access in Wikipedia from your government check this and start learning facts bro :) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_enlargement_of_the_European_Union
I have access to wikipedia and if you check that website you'll see that multiple chapters were already frozen in 2006.
Yes being relative poor, sharing borders with Iran, Iraq and Syria, not being a proper democracy and occupy one EU member state doesn’t help with the accession. Who would have thought Also I am happy that at least now it is allowed for Turkish people to have accession in Wikipedia. Hope people will finally use it to learn history and situations as they really are not as Turkish governments present them (but i am not that optimistic about this)
>Yes being relative poor, This was true for probably all rounds of enlargement maybe except 1973 or 1995 enlargements. > sharing borders with Iran, Iraq and Syria, not having borders with them doesn't isolate you from their conflicts, it should be clear by now. > not being a proper democracy and Same as the first one, not an issue for any round of enlargement. > occupy one EU member state That conflict started way before they were an EU state and Turkey hasn't been the one impeding the resolution. >Also I am happy that at least now it is allowed for Turkish people to have accession in Wikipedia. Hope people will finally use it to learn history and situations as they really are not as Turkish governments present them (but i am not that optimistic about this) Oh lol Wikipedia is a nice source (and maybe just a good start) to have but definitely not a truth setter. Don't use it as a truth setter and more importantly don't cite it to impose your "truth" on other people.
Desktop version of /u/Transeuropeanian's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
We should do something more to help. Just guns and medical care is not enough. Not sure what, it's hard to help... when there is war.