Russia may have repeated Ukraine scenario in Baltic states, warns Europe President
11 replies, posted
[url]http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/35710/#.VFRRXzSUeSo[/url]
[QUOTE]Russia would have repeated a Ukraine style scenario in the Baltic states were in not for EU enlargement, outgoing European Union President Jose Manuel Barroso has said.
Asked if the enlargement of Bulgaria and Romania, which are still monitored by the Commissions seven years after their accession for deficiencies in their law-enforcement systems, was credible enough, Barroso strongly defended the decisions taken.
“For a minute, imagine that those countries had not joined the European Union. In that case, we would not probably be discussing only about Ukraine. We would probably be discussing now about Bulgaria, or about the Baltic states,” Barroso told journalists at his last press conference yesterday.
“So it was the right thing to do. Of course it was not perfect. But let me tell you very frankly – the problems we have in European integration in these years, were they because of Bulgaria and Romania? Of course not,” Barroso said.
One of the achievements of Barroso's time in office was EU enlargement, with 10 countries joining in 2004. They include Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Cyprus and Malta. Bulgaria and Romania joined in 2007 whilst Croatia joined in 2013.
[/QUOTE]
no crap russia tried to dissuade anyone that they can use from joining the EU because it means thats one less pawn for their own union
I had a dream this night. Alarms going on and I rushed to my battalion. Luckily we are in NATO and EU.
I understand his sentiment, but NATO membership is really more serious security argument than EU membership.
European union president? whaaa
he's president of the european commision, what a shit writer
[QUOTE=Vlevs;46383088]I understand his sentiment, but NATO membership is really more serious security argument than EU membership.[/QUOTE]
They are equally important. A EU member has the protection of all the european countries, meaning of NATO members. It really depends from the situation a country is in: for Turkey was easier to join NATO then the union.
While I think Putin is pretty bold, he's also a smart man. You sort of have to be a little smart to lead ANY sort of nation, I figure. He got a LOT of flak for going into the Ukraine. I don't think he would have pushed the envelope that far so fast.
[QUOTE=Keys;46384084]While I think Putin is pretty bold, he's also a smart man. You sort of have to be a little smart to lead ANY sort of nation, I figure. He got a LOT of flak for going into the Ukraine. I don't think he would have pushed the envelope that far so fast.[/QUOTE]
He's smart because he knows nobody had the balls to do anything. His own country believed that Ukraine was full of nazis and still does. It's only until now that some people are getting upset.
Yeah he got falk for going into Ukraine but that really has not stopped him from pissing people off.
The EU offers little when it comes to actual defense of member states (Cyprus e.g.). In the case of such a scenario in the Baltic, only NATO would be able to offer any actual assistance in such a case.
The EU would only send angry letters, perhaps with red lettering. Besides that they would just go 'putin pls stop, pls this is not nice'
Barosso is just talking out of it's arse and he feels like he's an imporant figure.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;46384426]Do you suggest EU should choose one NATO member over another
Russia is not in NATO, the choice is obvious when it comes to baltic
I doubt NATO won't do anything if Russia did something, [I]anything [/I]in Baltic[/QUOTE]
Sorry for being unclear. I was implying that being a member in the EU does not protect you in the slightest from hostile foreign agression, I named the situation in Cyprus as an example. Barrosso said that the situation in the Baltic could be the same as in Eastern-Ukraine, if it weren't for EU membership of the baltic states.
After that I said that only NATO would be able to offer real assistance to the baltic states in case of an attack. NATO has significantly better military capabilities than the EU does, even with Eurofor. Apart from a military perspective, the EU isn't a good example when it comes to decision making, as it is very decentralised and nearly completely relies on the willingness of member states.
[QUOTE=PatrickT;46384802]Sorry for being unclear. I was implying that being a member in the EU does not protect you in the slightest from hostile foreign agression, I named the situation in Cyprus as an example. Barrosso said that the situation in the Baltic could be the same as in Eastern-Ukraine, if it weren't for EU membership of the baltic states.
After that I said that only NATO would be able to offer real assistance to the baltic states in case of an attack. NATO has significantly better military capabilities than the EU does, even with Eurofor. Apart from a military perspective, the EU isn't a good example when it comes to decision making, as it is very decentralised and nearly completely relies on the willingness of member states.[/QUOTE]
If an EU state gets attacked and EU does nothing it will destabilize the union and make countries doubt its worth. EU is not just an open border and law treaty. So unless EU wants to suffer negative rep, they will do something. Of course they're not as powerful as NATO but doing nothing will be really bad for them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.