United States of Europe vs. Stalinland: Ukraine, pt. II

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned


Yeah, but that powerful neighbor has a veto at the UN.

It is interesting, isn't it, that a state like the EU would not and could not defend against an attack on one of its members.

maybe we should wait until Ukraine becomes a member of EU before we jump to conclusions - if they join EU, they probably also join NATO.

Theoretically you may have a point, there are not a defence part in EU, but that is taken care of by NATO.

I certainly prefer NATO against some EU traty because NATO goes much further than EU.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned


There seem to be some in the EU who would oppose Ukrainian membership in the EU if the Ukraine were to also join NATO.

Do you have any references ?

[Ned]

Originally posted by BlackCat


maybe we should wait until Ukraine becomes a member of EU before we jump to conclusions - if they join EU, they probably also join NATO.

Theoretically you may have a point, there are not a defence part in EU, but that is taken care of by NATO.

I certainly prefer NATO against some EU traty because NATO goes much further than EU.

Yeah, you have that superpower Canada in NATO to help out.

But seriously, the Ukraine cannot join the EU without joining NATO, IMHO.

As to whom is against the Ukraine joining NATO, there was a piece in the Guardian about this. Apparently many in Europe are still into appeasing the Bear.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned


Yeah, you have that superpower Canada in NATO to help out.

But seriously, the Ukraine cannot join the EU without joining NATO, IMHO.

As to whom is against the Ukraine joining NATO, there was a piece in the Guardian about this. Apparently many in Europe are still into appeasing the Bear.

Yup, you can always rely on the Canadian Mounted Police.

Actually, there are no reason that Ukraine has to join NATO if it joins EU. Both Sweden and Finland are not members, but yes, there are a trend.

I can't find anything supporting your claim that there are a serious trend to aviod Ukranian membership in EU to appease Russia except some unsupported claims in a Guardian article, but who cares. Actually, people are thinking that Ukraine is a more natural part of EU than Turkey.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Heresson
Hey, my grandparents come from Ukraine, so does one Serb's grandparent.

But weren't they Poles living in the Ukraine before WW2?

[el freako]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Actually, there are no reason that Ukraine has to join NATO if it joins EU. Both Sweden and Finland are not members, but yes, there are a trend.

Ireland and Austria are also members of the EU but not members of NATO, aslo Norway and Turkey are in NATO but not in the EU.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
But seriously, the Ukraine cannot join the EU without joining NATO, IMHO.

Malta and Cyprus are no members of NATO, yet they belong to the EU. True, Malta and Cyprus are small members of lower geopolitical importance than Ukraine, but NATO membership is not a prerequisite to entrance in the EU.

The EU's foreign policy is strongly intertwined with NATO's, but it is made clear that a EU-member can be a non-member of NATO:

From the European Constitution (Art. I-41):

The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States, it shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, under the North Atlantic Treaty, and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.

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. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BlackCat
I certainly prefer NATO against some EU traty because NATO goes much further than EU.

Huh?

The EU by itself is a defensive alliance. The treaties clearly state that, should a Member-State be under attack, all other member States should aid it with all means available.

NATO goes further in military matters, as there is an integration of the military command. But in all other matters (economic and political integration), the EU is lightyears beyond NATO, and for a good reason: NATO is a military alliance, and nothing more than that. The EU is an economic and political union.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The EU by itself is a defensive alliance. The treaties clearly state that, should a Member-State be under attack, all other member States should aid it with all means available.

Do they?

However that may be, the Swedish government still feels free to assert it has not signed away our right to remain neutral should any other country be attacked, and that the EU isn't a defensive alliance.

[Spiffor]

TLC:

quote:
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.

That's in the Constitution project. It was signed by all Heads of State, and is now to be ratified via referendum or parliamentary vote (I don't know how Sweden will ratify)

[kronic]

Then, they are talking BS. Since the WEU was integrated in the EU treaties, there is automatically a duty to assist EU members when they are attacked.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
TLC:

quote:
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.

That's in the Constitution project. It was signed by all Heads of State, and is now to be ratified via referendum or parliamentary vote (I don't know how Sweden will ratify)

In accordance with Article 51. IE everyone should aid vicitims of aggression. Not quite the same as "an attack upon one is an attack upon all" Sweden isnt the only neutral. Ireland has always been unwilling to enter a pledge to go to war for the UK. You also seem to be confusing the NATO organization with the Atlantic Alliance. The former is the military organization, the latter is the pledge to mutual self defence. IIUC, France NEVER withdrew from the latter, even when it was outside NATO.



" After its new formulation, Article 40.7 is no longer a simple clause on military security guarantees. Its reference to the UN Charter is in a way self-evident and involves no problems if it is specifically stated that the provisions of the Charter are also applied among the Union's Member States. The draft articles will still need careful analysis and formulation. It is also justified to expect that all Member States are included in this process. Thus, a more appropriate solution might be to incorporate this article in the general solidarity clause of the draft treaty.

Finland will take an active part in the formulation of proposals concerning co-operation in defence issues. In this respect, it is highly possible to reach a conclusion that will take Finland's premises into account and will be satisfactory to all parties"

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In accordance with Article 51. IE everyone should aid vicitims of aggression. Not quite the same as "an attack upon one is an attack upon all"

Err, Article 51 merely states that the current charter doesn't prevent collective defense.

Sweden isnt the only neutral. Ireland has always been unwilling to enter a pledge to go to war for the UK.

In the EU, Member-States agree to do plenty of things they're unwilling to. I suppose this wording was chosen in the constitution, in order to be vague enough so that the Neutral countries can decide only to choose civilian aid rather than military aid.

You also seem to be confusing the NATO organization with the Atlantic Alliance. The former is the military organization, the latter is the pledge to mutual self defence. IIUC, France NEVER withdrew from the latter, even when it was outside NATO.

I am aware of the distinction between the two, but I don't see where I confused them in this thread. I also don't see why the distinction would be relevant in this thread: we are discussing about collective defense, not about the specifics of the military organization of the allies.

" After its new formulation, Article 40.7 is no longer a simple clause on military security guarantees. Its reference to the UN Charter is in a way self-evident and involves no problems if it is specifically stated that the provisions of the Charter are also applied among the Union's Member States. The draft articles will still need careful analysis and formulation. It is also justified to expect that all Member States are included in this process. Thus, a more appropriate solution might be to incorporate this article in the general solidarity clause of the draft treaty.

Finland will take an active part in the formulation of proposals concerning co-operation in defence issues. In this respect, it is highly possible to reach a conclusion that will take Finland's premises into account and will be satisfactory to all parties"

Do you know when this quote has been written? The way it is said, it is likely to come from before the Constitution was signed (last October IIRC), when we were still in the negociations about the final wording.

The wording is now definitive, and the treaty is awaiting ratification. There is no way to impact this Constitution now, save for accepting or rejecting it as a whole.

[Kuciwalker]

In the EU, Member-States agree to do plenty of things they're unwilling to. I suppose this wording was chosen in the constitution, in order to be vague enough so that the Neutral countries can decide only to choose civilian aid rather than military aid.

Which means it's not collective defense.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Which means it's not collective defense.

Which means it's about as precise as the "grave consequences" for Iraq if it didn't comply to resolution 1441.

The Neutral countries would probably give only civilian aid to an attacked EU member, while all other countries would scream, saying the Neutrals don't aid with "all means in their power".

This imprecise wording is what you make out of it. We can only hope that this article will never have to be implemented.