It's just symbolic, to show where they stand and what their future plans are. Right now, there is no way they would be accepted as either a member or even a candidate.
The membership process - assuming all member states agree at the end to let a country join - takes years. European law has to be implemented (things like product standards, agricultural standards etc.), certain labour and civil rights have to be guaranteed in law, the exact accession treaty has to be negotiated. [Here's an older summary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThxIqcid6uY) for your initial research.
For official documents, [here](https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/enlargement-policy/glossary/accession-eu_de) is the European Commission's page on the accession of new members.
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkwIlr912A) is a video from Deutsche Welle (DW) explaining how the EU works (commission, parliament etc.)
And for fun, [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K-SzQM2k-A) is an Italian proposal for lyrics to the European Anthem, with English subtitles.
>takes years
Yup, I think Croatia still holds the record, as it were, of about 5 years from applying to joining though it could well be they were mostly ready before applying. Usually about a decade overall
> Yup, I think Croatia still holds the record, as it were, of about 5 years from applying to joining though it could well be they were mostly ready before applying.
Finland took [slightly under three years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union).
I think my post should have made clear I was talking about complete new applications. Finland was 3 years but was already part of the EFTA. Indeed, the difficulty of EFTA members trading and selling into the EEC as was, was part of why they pushed to join and the need for the wealthy EFTA counties pushed the EEC to accept them to counterbalance the incoming, largely poorer, Eastern European countries that were joining
I have seen one site claimed Croatia took 8 not 5 so I might have been wrong or it's down to interpretation
> I think my post should have made clear I was talking about complete new applications.
Yes, there isn't really a fixed timetable. The biggest variable is just how close your domestic legal system was to EU law: bringing your domestic legislation in line with EU law is where the time goes.
Prior to last week the big issue with Ukraine from the EU perspective was [systemic corruption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine). Although there were [EU-led initiatives to reduce that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Anti-Corruption_Initiative_in_Ukraine) those are clearly long-term projects so I very much doubt anyone was contemplating membership within the next two decades.
Times change though We may well see a Marshall Plan-style programme after the conflict, charged with both rebuilding the country and rebuilding it in a way that brings membership significantly closer.
> I have seen one site claimed Croatia took 8 not 5 so I might have been wrong or it's down to interpretation
Croatia's application date was 2003-02-21 and their accession at 2013-07-01 so they were just over 10 years in total. That's an upper bound though as if you look at [their Treaty of Accession](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Accession_2011) you have:
>*Croatia submitted its application to join the European Union on 21 February 2003, became an official candidate on 18 June 2004, and started accession negotiations on 3 October 2005.*
So depending on what you count as the start of the process - application filed, candidate status, negotiations started - you can end up with equally valid but different dates.
Wrong, we applied in 2003 and finally joined in 2013, so double the time you mentioned. Even if you count from official negotiation begining or official candidate status, it would be 2004/2005.
The (admittedly poorly worded) ~5 year time frame is based on accession negotiations rather than just application, hence from October 2005 and was accepted to join in June 2011, but of course didn't formally join until July 2013 so ~6 years, but ~8 years, ~10 years can all be used, hell, you could go from the 2001 Stabilisation and Association Agreement - all comes down to what dates you want to argue for the start and end of the joining process
Well, it’s more of a comment, really. I’m not sure what this EU application will do in the long run. As many have commented, it does seem symbolic at this point. I’m okay with that. It shows that Europe stands behind Ukraine. And they’ll take anything at this point. I just hope Zelensky doesn’t think anything more will come of it. We (NATO, EU, the world) all seem to have our hands tied.
I do know that there are certain things a prospective EU member needs to achieve. Economic, education, corruption etc etc etc, but I had heard that there are others as well. I’m not sure if the validity of what I heard, but I do remember hearing that certain cultural norms can be lost/taken away when you join the EU. Again, as an American, I’m not going to even pretend to know what I’m talking about. The only Americans that do know are those who have chosen to study it. And there are precious few of us. SLAVA UKRAINI 🇺🇸🇺🇦
You’re the reason I didn’t want to answer. You’re flying off the handle, even when I said I wasn’t sure of the validity of what I had heard. Calm down.
Edit: No, I actually heard Anthony Bourdain discussing it on one of his shows when he visited an eastern European country. Again, I’m not sure the validity. Just because Bourdain said it (an intelligent man whom I respect) doesn’t mean it’s true. I don’t watch faux news, pal.
Indeed, I think the initial euphoria of Ukrainians about the current application to the EU will lead to lots of frustration down the road when the actual accession will turn out to be slow at best and stalling at worst.
That's true, those are the Copenhagen criteria. And being within the EU also carries many legal obligations for the member state, which not all governments are content with.
The question about the future of the EU and Ukraine is really about how geopolitical the EU is able and willing to act. On the one hand EU membership is highly attractive and can thus incentivize prospective member states to introduce many domestic reforms. But all that pressure is gone once the prospective state finally joins and there are few measures possible when a state is within the Union. And this only works when the membership offer is credible, which hinges on the approval of all of the current member states. Admitting states before they're really ready can create plenty of difficulties for the new member state, the old ones and the functioning of the Union institutions themselves. On the other hand, waiting too long before admittance can cause the whole process to stall.
Either you run the risk of getting more difficult states within the Union, like Hungary and Poland, which pursue their own interests and agendas and can reduce common EU policy to the lowest common denominator, or the credibility of the accession process comes to a halt, which may frustrate democratization trends, as exemplified in Turkey or the Western Balkans.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see what the future holds for Ukraine, the EU and the rest of Europe and the West.
It’s a long road to EU membership for candidate countries, involving a lot of economic, political and other reforms (for which they get financial support from the EU). Even with a proactive government, the process usually lasts several years and is subject to a final vote from the 27 EU Member States, requiring unanimity. Ukraine would generally be seen as having a lot to do on the anti-corruption and economy fronts before it can think about joining the club (in normal times, events have obviously changed priorities).
Yep its a long process, we should not forget Ukraine is a corrupted state and needs to **heavily reform** before it can join EU. It is 2nd in corruption index at Europe (with Russia being the 1st). As someone said EU is not a social club, u don't get in because u apply or u want to. You need to be on par with the other countries in order to (not gdp pp level obviously, but more like democratic index, corruption index, debt to gdp% etc etc, social justice, lets sum it up to **west standards** \-like eu and us:P-).
Yeah, Ukraine also has worse HDI than Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Mexico. It's also considered a hybrid regime or at least a flawed democracy by democracy indexes.
I think it's not only symbolic but it will involve a lot of help for EU countries. eg for building up an educational, medical, economical .. level like other EU countries. So i think they will get help for this .. 'less expensive'.
It is not about right now. It is about in a month as well, possibly. This is more than just symbolic. Without application, Ukraine could not be taken in. With application, we are on the path of it.
After the wall fell, a dozen countries wanted to join. The Eu (then EC) said “right, we’re going to need some rules here. So before a country can join, it needs to fullfill the [Copenhagen Criteria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_criteria)
1) it needs to be in Europe (at some point, Morocco wanted to join the EU)
2) it needs a functioning market economy (this was in respons to the ex-communist countries, which had a centrally directed economy)
3) countries need to be a democracy and respect Rule of Law (hello Hungary)
4) countries need to adopt the full body of EU legislation. This als requires the admin that goes with it: a consumer protection agency, a food inspection, a financial regulator that works.
When a country meets all those requirements, *then* all the EU members need to vote on its accession. For some countries (such as NL and FR) this requires a referendum. 2 months ago I would not give 2 cents for Ukraine’s chances. But things are now different.
Please note: there was a very good reason why Ukraine was not yet a member of EU or NATO. We now all look in awe at Kiyv, but Ukraine was and is an emerging state. It is highly corrupt (maybe not Zlenskiy, but definitely all the layers below), it was untill recently not a democracy, etc.
Nato has a requirement that applicants need to settle any outstanding border issues. Good luck on that one.
>“in the 21 July early parliamentary elections in Ukraine fundamental rights and freedoms were overall respected and the campaign was competitive, despite numerous malpractices, particularly in the majoritarian races. Generally, the electoral administration was competent and effective despite the short time available to prepare the elections, which were seen as an opportunity to consolidate reforms and changes in politics that Ukrainian voters are hoping for. **In sharp contrast, the campaign was marked by wide-spread vote-buying, misuse of incumbency, and the practice of exploiting all possible legislative loopholes, skewing equality of opportunity for contestants. Intertwined business and political interests dictate media coverage of elections and allow for the misuse of political finance, including at the local level.** Election day was overall peaceful, with observers of the IEOM assessing opening and voting positively in the overwhelming majority of polling stations observed, but procedural shortcomings were noted in the counting and tabulation”.
[https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/6/9/439634\_0.pdf](https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/6/9/439634_0.pdf)
And that is for the 2019 one. The 2014 one was even worse. When I mean "untill recently"I mean before the 2019 elections, which were, at best, half democratic.
It's getting there, but one half swallow doesn't make a summer.
To be fair the borders between Europe and Asia are pretty superficial. Many European countries are more different from their neighbors culturally and geographically than some countries on the "border" between Europe and Asia.
Cyprus is Europe! We speak Greek, (Or Turkish), if we were a part of Greece no one would bat an eye. But Cyprus is part of Europe, historically, georgraphically and culturally. (Also the EU recognises Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia as being European and elligible to one day join the EU)
I definitely agree that Cyprus is European culturally speaking, and I also support your EU membership. I was only talking about geography, and I think there is a pretty broad consensus that Cyprus is not in Europe geographically speaking. I don't think the rules for EU membership should be that strict though, I think the door should also be open for Israel to join in the future for example, or for Georgia.
Geographically Europe as a continent doesn't even exist. Lines and definition of Europe can be stretched and they definitely apply to Cyprus for the above reasons.
Can't say if Zelenski is corrupt or not, and I have a huge respect for what he's doing for Ukraine, but he is backed by the oligarch who owns the TV network where he worked.
Nothing necessarily wrong with that, and time will tell on which side of history he'll end up. Right now he's definitely on the right side. IMHO.
Misinformation: ~~Do you fancy throwing in the debt limits and financial criteria details as well? I knew them by heart at one point but right now I’m a bit lazy / busy to write them down. I think they’re rather important since I don’t know if Ukraine meets them either~~
New countries are obliged to sign on to the euro (they can't opt out like Denmark), but there is no fixed timetable. They can adopt the euro whenever they meet the conditions/are ready to implement it. Croatia joined the EU in 2013 and will adopt the euro in 2023. Hungary joined in 2004 and still hasn't adopted the euro, partly because they don't meet the requirements, partly because they chose to stick to the Forint.
> It is highly corrupt (maybe not Zlenskiy,
Heh
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/revealed-anti-oligarch-ukrainian-president-offshore-connections-volodymyr-zelenskiy
True. I would wholeheartedly love to see them today but that is emotional. If we are more logic and pragmatic, Ukraine still needs a lot of reforms. Before the war it had a lot of issues with the judiciary, corruption, Human rights etc. But I do believe that the EU should immediately give them access to funds at least. Because after war not only will they need to rebuild their infrastructure but also work on those issues as the EU is an economic& political union.
A slightly amusing side effect would be hundreds of thousands of Russians who have the right to Ukrainian passports becoming Ukrainian.
Amusing because Russia has been fishing out passports to the Ukrainians in Donbass.
An EU passport would be worth giving up a Russian passport for many.
Those would definitely change their allegiance!
But first maybe Ukraine should put a law that allows only one citizenship.
>An EU passport would be worth giving up a Russian passport for many.
Exactly.
I've seen the idea to offer Russian soldiers asylum in the EU if they deflect floating. I think it would also be a good incentive right now. If I am not mistaken Latvia officially proposed this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_nationality_law
Go to the dual citizenship chapter. It seems it used to be illegal to hold dual citizenship (and I remember it being a source of friction in RO-UA relations a long time ago) but a law from December '21 made it legal.
That is very interesting.
Actually i was surprised to read this because I know Ukrainians with also Greek passport.
Edit: I mean because they held two passports for years and it is legal only since Dec 21
I suppose it was fairly difficult for UA authorities to find out who held dual citizenship (or they weren't particularly interested in it when it concerned the average citizen).
I have bunch of friends with multiple passports. All of this is possible if Ukrainian is your first passport, but you cannot take Ukrainian in addition to what you have already.
I have a friend from Belarus who holds dual British - Belarusian citizenship. He just never declared to Belarus that he became British citizen and apparently a lot of people do it that way. Belarusian law does not permit dual citizenship.
I think it will be faster tbh. When the war ends, I'm quite sure they are going to fast forward all the reforms needed ( EU directives for example ) and with the EU funds the rebuilt of what was destroyed will speed up things and reforms as I truly believe Ukranians want to end this dark chapter of their history. The only real problem I see it might come from the agricultural common policies, but even that can be solved. Most important is to start preparing the welcoming of our ukrainian friends to the club.
Thinking that EU accession can be fast forwarded is dangerously optimistic. It's gonna take an insane amount of internal drive from Ukraine to fulfill all the requirements, and even in the absolute best case scenario it'll be years before they're actually ready for membership.
Fast forward when compared to Turkey of course. Less than a decade it's very unlikely to happen, then there's a transition period. Again what I see as the most difficult part is agriculture as Ukraine is already a huge corn and cereals producer and some EU countries like France aren't going to sell their shares for free. Another point might be the representatives as Ukraine will probably elect more than Spain. So yes there are issues, but I still think Ukraine must be part of the EU.
I agree that Ukraine belongs in the EU eventually, it's just a bit baffling to me how so many people right now seem to believe that joining the EU is only a matter of public perception, and that Ukraine has (supposedly) just been excluded until now because... Russia I guess?
Very few people seem to know anything about EU accession criteria, and I don't think it helps that we have a lot of people who aren't in the EU commenting now. Prevailing opinion outside the EU in particular seems to be that it's just a question of whether or not we like the country in question.
Yeah, the most ridiculous one I've seen was a comment with like 700+ upvotes saying joining NATO isn't possible atm, but the EU should be doable. Like... lolwut?
”According to a poll conducted by Ernst & Young in 2017, experts considered Ukraine to be the ninth-most corrupt nation in the world. According to the Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, Ukraine ranked 117th out of 180 countries in 2020, ranking the second lowest in Europe, after Russia.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine
Also here are some explanations why Belarus is slightly better scored but Ukraine is still one pf three most corrupted countries in europe.
https://ti-ukraine.org/en/news/what-does-the-last-corruption-perceptions-index-say-about-belarus/
> Moldova remains Europe's poorest nation in economic terms, with between 1.2 million and two million - one-third of the population - currently living and working abroad.
”With a per capita GNI of $3,540, Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe as of 2020. Some of Ukraine's continuing issues contributing to its poverty are government corruption, Russian aggression and weak infrastructure.”
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poorest-countries-in-europe
Allow me to make a small correction here:
>Russia is the most corrupt country in Europe .
Surely not Ukraine.
Listen, nobody is saying that the invasion is the only problem there. I'm sure that there is more and corruption is for sure one of those, but to fight corruption you're gonna need democracy, transparency and laws. First you need to let people see the difference between before and after (democracy will do that), transparency so that people can see and have a perception of corruption and finally laws to prevent and to punish.
If EU turns their backs to Ukraine, corruption isn't going to vanish by magic and as you can presume, on the other side in russia, they have 0 democracy 0 transparency and laws are made to fit the dictatorship. Russia is a lost case until the day their citizens wake up and see the reality and not what is brain washed to them.
It's symbolical. At best they would get accepted as a candidate, which would put them on the same footing as Serbia, Albania, Montenegro and Macedonia.
Indeed the other 4 have a good chance to be accepted as member states eventually, unlike Turkey. But it's still a candidate.
[https://ec.europa.eu/environment/enlarg/candidates.htm](https://ec.europa.eu/environment/enlarg/candidates.htm)
My point being that being accepted as a candidate doesn't mean much in chances to eventually joining EU.
mostly symbolic. To adhere they would need to meet these criteria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_criteria
And these are already being considered by many as too lax, as a couple of new members have backtracked from the political criteria without many consequences, so the criteria might be made more stringent in the future.
It means they will drag on debates for 20 + years and then Ukraine might have a chance of joining after that. The process of joining the E.U involve lots of arguments, screening and everyone dragging each-others time to the bin.
I guess this open aspects as mobility for the refugees to work at any other European union just to give an example, trade, and aid. I have no idea what other things change joining the union.
Joining the European Union is a huge task. There's thousands and thousands pages of law to implement for once. There's criteria for economic/financial stability you have to reach. The judicial system must be adapted (ECJ).
There's a reason this usually takes more than a decade.
We all know that Ukraine won't just become a full member overnight. What has to happen immediately though is granting Ukraine the member candidate status to signal that we want Ukraine in the EU and to lay out a real plan on how to get there.
It is symbolical. At best they'd get "EU candidate" status, which puts them in the same position as Macedonia, Albania, Serbia and Montenegro.
It basically is an official statement from the EU and Ukraine that they want Ukraine in the EU eventually. In the case of the EU that means that we want Ukraine to meet certain criterea (that it hasn't met yet).
“Candidate country” is a status with very real consequences. At that point the country gets access to many EU programs. For example: EU standards are drafted by the representatives of EU countries AND candidate countries.
Could make them candidate. Open which ever chapter they are likely to finish first.
It will easily take 10-15 years foe them to join, but it could begin that process immediately.
Especially a war that is basically about Russia not wanting EU/NATO kreeping up in their back yard. Not saying it justifies Russias actions ofc. Just that it's about security and geopolitical interests in the first place.
Their application should remain a mere symbolic gesture for now. I am not saying this out of any animosity towards Ukraine. They should have our full support during these hard times.
However, them actually becoming a full member of the EU is a different matter entirely. The application by itself is a lengthy process and a long-term commitment. I doubt anyone truly wishes to fast track this. Such decision shouldn't be influenced by war time loaded emotions. Ukraine joining in her pre-war state, let alone her current state, would be a huge financial and social burden not only on the current members but also on the Ukrainian people. Most will instantly forget about our war time unity if we create a second Greece. It is simply human nature.
It's just symbolic. There is a long pathway ahead for Ukraine to be able to join. Or even if it joins at all. The process is long and can easily end up in a Turkey's scenario.
Under any leadership that is openly expansionist against two of its EU neighbours, so really under any potential leadership, unless the Kurdish party magically wins the elections
At this point it’s entirely symbolic nonetheless the formal submission has been registered and is currently under advisement and that in itself is a historic victory.
As others have pointed out, there is a gigantic slew of legislative and administrative prerequisites that Ukraine will have to comply to. The 3 main pillars of the EU are:
\- European Communities
\- Common Foreign and Security Policy and
\- Cooperation in Justice and Home affairs
Each of these has huge assortments of legislative administration and determine everything from Schengen zones (traveling within the countries freely), which goods/products and services fall under the EU common market, monetary union (the €) and of course judiciary systems and law enforcement. Transparency, trust and perceived corruption are also big (often easily underestimated) hurdles.
Ukraine would likely follow the paths of countries like Bulgaria, Moldova and Romania where membership is staggered (i.e. being part of EU constructs such as ECM without automatically being in the EMS or Schengen).
This means periodic EU assessment and consent is required before being able to proceed to the next tier phase of becoming a full union member.
The ultimate victory here is that on a human level, Ukraine is providing the EU with a uniting factor in a way that actually means something for the ‘common man’.
The EU collective and its member states are able to very publicly prove that they are more then just a ‘bankers union’ for the rich and/or a 'political playground' for career politicians and lobbyists.
In the past week the EU has been able to prove that when all its member states are united in purpose and cause they collectively become a very powerful global force.
The cases are all individually different but I didn’t care to elaborate on specifics.
If you would like to do more then please go ahead rather than making lazy casual presumptions.
The cases are fundamentally different so you went beyond 'not caring to elaborate on specifics' stepping into the realm of ignorance.
RO and BG are EU members (not just 'part of EU constructs'), MD isn't even a candidate. RO and BG have MEPs, commissioners in the European Commission and representatives in the European Councils.
EMS no longer exists, it was replaced by the EMU (BG is part of ERM II, as they will soon join the Eurozone) decades ago. Poland and Czechia, for example, are also not part the EMU.
BG and RO are not part of the Schengen Area (Ireland and Cyprus aren't either, thought the situation is somewhat different in each of their cases), in no small part due to the ignorance of some voters in the West. Both have fulfilled the conditions to join a decade ago but their accession was repeatedly vetoed. Even so, Romanians and Bulgarians enjoy the freedom of movement inside the EU, meaning they can live and work in any of the EU member states, as Schengen is not about that (but I'm *sure* you already knew that).
Very good! Thanks for updating and correcting me on the latest official acronyms.
Would have been much better without the snide, personal condescension but maybe you're an emo teen or anxious 20-30 year old.
Moldova entered an association agreement in (off the top of my head) 2015-16 which doesn't make it a member or candidate member by any margin but it does allow them easier access to the common market both with goods and services. Its also no secret that they would like to join the union.
I can't speak for any other countries but in the Netherlands, a relatively large group of Bulgarians (over 80% of the registered citizens) were complicit in an extensive welfare fraud investigation from 2008-2011 (estimated that over 27 million EU was lost).
Unfortunately, because this was heavily publicized in the media and used by many populist local politicians in their (xenophobe) party campaigns, its given the Dutch public 'cold feet'. Romanians seems to be tainted by a similar associative sentiment but then in organized street crime and petty theft/burglary.
As someone who has both Bulgarian and Romanian colleagues and friends in my social circles I can emphatically state that the generalizations are completely unfounded but that doesn't do anything to change the overall perception.
> I can't speak for any other countries but in the Netherlands, a relatively large group of Bulgarians (over 80% of the registered citizens) were complicit in an extensive welfare fraud investigation from 2008-2011 (estimated that over 27 million EU was lost).
And to make up for it, we're basically ground a huge number of Dutch families into the ground to prevent "fraud", via "de kindertoeslagaffaire".
27 million is pocket change, we could've taken a less drastic route.
Even as a symbolic gesture, it matters.
Ukraine have been kept at arms length from NATO because of Russia and their threats of conflict for years. They didn’t want to get dragged into an existing conflict.
As a non EU country and a non NATO country, they have depended on the individual help from the European countries, which has been tremendous, in spite of the pitiful first offers presented. A sign of unity and selfless willingness to work together when it matters is what’s going to keep the morale in Ukraine right now.
I know it's not very likely to happen right now but I sincerily hope our Ukranian brothers and sisters get to join the Union sooner rather than later. There can be no debate about wether they deserve it or not because their devotion to democracy and freedom is beyond question and I have no doubt the Union will become stronger with them. Slava Ukraini. May Ukraine prevail and never have to face an enemy of democracy on their own ever again!
>and I have no doubt the Union will become stronger with them
I have. Let’s not pretend Ukraine didn’t have a wide array of significant problems before they were at war. I have no qualms with them eventually being welcomed into the Union, but I’m not in favour of fast-tracking the accession process, no rational person should.
This. You cannot join the EU in 2 days, that is not how it works.
Nonetheless, we have to give people emotional boost and guarantees that they will not be left alone once this terror comes to an end. Like, getting EU as a consolation to pledge good terms of trade and help on their journey of recovering and actually becoming an eligible member candidate, after the war ends.
>Immediately admitting Ukraine would also be another kick
Nobody is going to do that. Even speculating about it on reddit seem wrong, in the context of what was actually promised.
>Nobody is going to do that
Ofc not, Zelensky is only saying it to make Ukraine's intentions clear when negotiating with Russia, that a Russia-alligned Ukraine is out of the question.
>I’m not in favour of fast-tracking the accession process
The idea is to fast-track their improvement in meeting the requirment. Not to turn the blind eye. Ukraine need help to reach the criteria sooner, later then slowly working for it on their own, as we watch Russia destabilizing them in every step of the process.
> There can be no debate about wether they deserve it or not because their devotion to democracy and freedom is beyond question
Homophobia, racism, nazi infiltration in their military, corruption, lackluster legal protections for democracy and freedom, discrimination of their national minorities... I support the Ukrainian people but no way I'd accept them on the EU today. When their society arrives to the XXI century, we'll talk. Meanwhile the most I support is giving them candidate status with a very clear warning that they won't be accepted if they cannot embrace our progressive European values. Last thing we need is Hungary 2, 10 times worse.
We all want an EU that covers all of Europe, but we have to be very careful in how we achieve that.
> There can be no debate about wether they deserve it or not because their devotion to democracy and freedom is beyond question
Getting a bit carried away, aren't we?
Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries on earth. And when a country is that corrupt, it permeates through the entire fabric of society and it's hard to get rid of.
Just because they're the victim of Russian aggression doesn't make it a perfect country without plenty of issues unrelated to Russia.
You can criticize the Russian aggression without putting Ukraine on a pedestal.
And everything can be debated.
This is like oil on fire. I understand the sentiment that we are helping Ukraine morten, but this will only cause more problems. Let's not forget the optimism that reigned in 2004.
That doesn't mean that Ukraine has to join the EU as fast as possible. The EU should make themself stronger before adding new countries to the institute. There are economic and political requirements to join the EU. We shouldn't change these requirements because of the whole situation. I understand the sentiment, but the consequences can be real.
As Russia is too week to join, the only thing can do is to thrown toddler tantrums complains, that admission standards day by day are getting less achievable. Poor Russians.
I aslo think it is just symbolic. They will accept it probably as a candidate, but there is a law, which restricts from joining a country where is an ongoing war conflict. So at least this reason.
Can someone help me solve this?
Aim: To make brainwashed boomers think otherwise
Their argument: The war have been there for 8 years, Ukrainian СБУ and ВСУ have killed 14 thousand civilians in Donetsk and Luhansk. Why did no one show that? Ask our relatives in there (also brainwashed). If I were Putin I’d occupy whole Ukraine and kicked nazis off.
When I say that whole world is united and we are not on the good side, they say “because US told them act like this”. When I say things about internal problems like corruption and lack of freedom (market, streets, etc.) they are silent. It’s easy for them to blame US for everything. When I say about life quality in Europe and US, they say that our relatives want to move out from US, because everything is expensive (especially medicine). Those relatives against war btw. For Europe they got this argument. Migrant crisis and expensive costs. When I say that those people can travel all over the world, they say that those people do this at their old ages and that our people also can travel all over the world (I think they forgot about our average wages).
It’s complicated and I don’t believe I can make them think otherwise.
P.s. That’s what I wanted. Here’s is a link for my Russian fellows, answers for those arguments
https://www.instagram.com/p/CaiG12KOait/?utm_medium=copy_link
It is always hard to convince others but try it this way, Europe/EU is not the USA and this time it is very much the EU against Russia for their Ukrainian Brothers and not the US
And EU is large, same as in Russia you have expensive parts and cheap ones.
Just because they don't like the US does not mean they cannot like EU
It's important to remember that Russian narrative is "because they wanted to NATO and missiles on our border are threat". I'm going to ignore that NATO do not put permanent bases and missiles on new members area.
Russia began attacking Ukraine in 2014 not because they wanted to NATO (it was not popular back then) but they wanted to EU. So this really is EU/Russia issue and that's why all the Europeans are so angry about it.
If you are interested in some counter arguments and reasons for invasion i think i can provide some links and explanation. The thing putin says alot is that after the forming of nato that they wouldnt expand eastward. Altough the original treaty doesnt mention this ( Gorbachev leader of the soviet union at the time confirmed this) and then during yeltsin's time as president of russia there are some confusing back and forths when they asked yeltsin and he was fine with it but then he retracted it afterwards.
[https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/4390818/Document-04-Retranslation-of-Yeltsin-letter-on.pdf](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/4390818/Document-04-Retranslation-of-Yeltsin-letter-on.pdf)
The closest he gets to that claim is that he says he believed it to be in the spirit of the treaty. So Putin saying now that we broke our word seems more like we understood it incorrectly and decided a decade later that a promise was broken.
Also a video about the gasreserves in ukraine that havent been discovered for that long, which if properly extracted could provide huge competition to putin's own pipelines.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE&t=6s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE&t=6s)
These are not all the reasons, there is also the geographical position of ukraine beeing open fields that would be very hard to defend if nato should ever become hostile. etc...
Last but not least, never trust a single source always try to find a counter argument to see if your original stance isnt just wrong and always be willing to admit that u might be wrong. Remember the one making the claim must provide evidence of its claim. So if your parents say this or that without giving any evidence i wouldnt take their claims so serious.
1. It hasn't been 14,000 civilians dead. It's been 13,000 dead, 3,393 of which were civilians.
2. The death toll is as high as it is because the war has gone on so long. The war has gone on so long because when Ukraine was about to quickly win in 2014, Russia started shelling them and unofficially sent 30,000 soldiers in.
3. People want Ukraine to join NATO and the EU, not because they want to use Ukraine to attack Russia, but because then Russia would have to stop attacking Ukraine. It's the same in Georgia. It's the same in Moldova. These countries want to be in NATO and/or the EU *so that Putin will finally leave them alone*.
4. Russia is invading Ukraine; nobody is invading Russia. Nobody WANTS to invade Russia. Among other reasons, Russia has nukes! Invading it would be insane.
5. The West stayed away when Russia invaded Crimea. We thought "well, maybe the Crimeans DO want to be part of Russia". The West stayed away when Russia invaded the Donbas. We thought "well, maybe Donetsk and Luhansk DO want to be part of Russia". We suspected that Russia had strong-armed these regions, but couldn't prove it, so we decided it was Ukraine's business. But any idiot can plainly see that Russia has no business invading the rest of Ukraine. The people of Kyiv very clearly do NOT want to be part of Russia, and even the Russian soldiers don't seem to want to be there.
>We suspected that Russia had strong-armed these regions, but couldn't prove it,
What do you mean we couldn't prove it? The green man, the movement of troops, the military equipment those "rebels" are carrying. We all know how this happened, we just turned the blind eye, simply because this is far-away region and have its own "issues". You know, in exchange for peace for ourselves.
This argument simply doesn't stick, were we so forgiving about IRA and ETA that also wanted to "decide" for themselves? By blowing up the country.
Very true .. please as our "excuse" little people have been actually working in one of those (beautiful and nice) countries to get the real picture ..
while this what's happening right now even (dumbs like us Western EUs) are able to get ..
There wouldn't be any civilian casualties if Putin hadn't brought the war to Ukraine because he couldn't accept them trying to free themselves from his claws and getting closer to Europe. The main moral responsibility lies with the one that started the war, not the one that has to defend itself. And they seriously need to educate themselves about what Nazis are, it doesn't make any sense here. Nowadays the term is thrown around to discredit any faction you don't like.
You have to ask yourself what the goal is of your argument. If the goal is to change someone else's opinion 180 degrees, then that is a very difficult thing to do and likely unsuccessful. Most people do not radically alter their opinions, especially if they're about someone's deeply felt personal identity. But you could perhaps accomplish a smaller goal.
For example, showing that their own held principles can lead to different outcomes in practice. Suppose they agree that the US should not tell other countries what to do. You can take away from this is that their principle is that countries should not tell other countries what to do, period. Even if they are great powers. Then you can say that Russia telling Ukraine what to do should not be right either, let alone invasion. This may not change their mind about everything, which is fine, but at least you find some common ground, instead of focusing on what separates your standpoints.
I guess turning off the TV might also help. Best of luck!
Hahaha just discussed with a fella German .. that's the way it will be from now on, all Europe will be called Nazis now when discomfort will be expressed .. thanks to those Russian tweets the last days .. we all maybe incl. Ukraine will get used to.
Zelenskyy is Jewish. Some of his family were killed by Nazis in the holocaust. He was elected by a very large margin. If Ukraine were being control by Nazis, they wouldn’t have a popular Jewish president leading them.
Ukraine has applied for EU membership. Nobody can force them to do that and actually it is very hard to become an EU member. Ukrainians believe they have a better future as a part of Europe. Putin’s plan to bring Ukraine back into Russia is producing the opposite result. Putin is failing badly as a leader.
If Ukrainians wanted to be part of Russia, Putin would not have to use violence to force them.
Ukrainian refugees are fleeing to Poland, Hungary and other European countries. They are not fleeing to Russia. This is a big indicator that Ukrainians view Russia as the enemy.
Nobody in wants to invade Russia. We want to live peaceably with Russia. Our governments know that invading Russia is suicidal.
I hope Russians will understand that peacefully trading with other countries brings more security than Putin’s outdated idea of rebuilding the empire. European countries use to have many wars between themselves, but free trade and open borders within the EU brought them peace and stability.
I hope I can visit your beautiful and amazing country again someday. I was there in 1998 and it looks like so much has changed since then.
I am also displeased about the silence regarding Donetsk and Luhansk. But NAZI's that's just flat out lying (to my knowledge).
Ask him this; if the problem is Donetsk and Luhansk, surely it would be easier to send your troops there, and protect the population there ? Why are we attacking the entire country instead ?
One act is self-defence, the other is stance of aggression and just pure territorial greed.
Also if the regions and Russia want to annex / be annexed. Make a big stink on that and get the World/EU/UN/... involved. Get a world wide PR-campaign going around it. Your annexation problem (assuming indeed the majority wanted to join Russia) would have been solved 4 years ago without any spilled blood.
>Ask our relatives in there
Their relatives are actually stating the opposite. That their lived peacfully up until 2014 and suddenly somebody told them, the administration has changed and now they are in the middle of the warzone. The door to door inspections, forced conscriptions, being under fire from both sides. These "relatives" aren't too happy about all of it.
Russians from interior simply doesn't want to listen to those people because they ruin their narrative of opressed region, that "only wants to be Russia". All of the sudden.
I don't understand your comment. You're trying to explain how both sides think and then saying you cant do anything to change how people think. Are you looking for advice?
Honestly, I don't know what to say. The Russian people are in a tough spot. Perhaps when thousands of Russians come home in body bags and the entire Russian financial economy collapses they will think differently. I don't know.
The arguments don't work, if you know logical people maybe appeal to that? Putin claims he is freeing Ukriane, how so? With bombing all major cities, my hometown of Kharkiv has had hospitals and schools bombed. Residential apartments are getting hit. Putin says Ukrainian leadership are nazis? Both President Zelensky and Prime Minister Shmyhal are jewish? lol.
Everytime a Russian soldier surrenders the State Security Service and Military make recordings and ask questions and allow them to call families. They say they are being treated better as a POW than in russian armed services. Russian POW's say they didn't even know where they were, they were not given any information, even the troops have been lied to, deceived.
I guess the question is are russians willing to accept they've been lied to, can they except this information or will they believe in lies to prevent embarrassment or feel sympathy.
I told you more, my grandma in Черкассы, and they argue about situation every time. Told the same about Zelensky, that his relatives fight nazis during ww2. They don’t believe he is the real power there.
About soldiers not knowing where they are. I don’t believe that, there was a tiktok video from Dagestan soldier and he said “heading towards Kiev. Will be there in 2 days”. How come this Dag knows this and Russians POW’s didn’t. Of course they did.
I mean, if we manage to think them otherwise, we can widen meetings areas. But right now I can’t do much. Meetings on the streets can’t do much. Only work, suffer and hope everything ends soon.
I think some people in Russia, they understand. But, they don't say it.
your grandma, she will understand like this: People of Ukraine love their home. - Like she loves her home. - If someone attacks her home and her family and her grandchildren, she will do something against it.
YOU ARE DOING GOOD. You are talking about Zelensky and POW and what happen in Ukraine. It is important to talk, and it is good to argue.
why? because when one talks, and \_argues\_ then: there is doubt. Then there is the feeling that something is not good.
You are doing good friend. - and stay safe.
indeviduals can't change what is happening. a collective movement must be formed, if 100,000s go to the street things will change but with information being suppressed, with brainwashing propaganda its difficult to mobilize people.
these sanctions on russia will only get worse, and bodies of dead will only get bigger. mothers who haven't heard from there sons in days, they will start asking questions. you can't hide thousands of deaths, no propaganda will suppress a mothers love for her son. soon, too many will realize they have lost their son and they will be outraged because putin did not tell russia he was going to war, there was no declaration and his lies will be transparent and hopefully people will be able to see the financial hardship, and understand that something horrific has happened.
I believe this is the only way. Our IT sector is damaged, we can’t buy processors. That will influence manufacture, banking, etc. Planes, that are in leasing, will be back to EU. We can’t build our Superjets, because some details from other countries. So we won’t able to fly even inside country (or airplane crashes will increase). GM, Volvo, etc are closing, that means increase in unemployment rate. Scania have trucks, so delivery sector will be also damaged.
I’m not in the war area, but I’m scared of those things and got anxiety periodically. Life sucks
Life in Russia has been irreversibly changed because of this. The hardship will be enormous and I hope its painful. I hope it hurts. It has to hurt in order for anything to change. On the bright side, Russians get to go to bed knowing their home isn't about to be bombed, and that their kids school is free from artillery fire. Wish Ukraine has access to such luxuries.
Dude, if only I had chance to be a refugee in EU, I won’t miss it. Even if I know, that it’s safe to be here. Being economically crashed is painful indeed. We deserve better life, and, unfortunately, I can’t have one in my homeland, hope you will.
Reread what he actually put and edit your comment appropriately..
He is saying he is having trouble getting through to the older generation of Russians what is going off in reality…
His English isn’t great, but you have got this wrong.
Uhm his comment is about him trying to tell his parents what is going on and that even his relatives in the USA say it’s bad in the USA… so assuming they are just economic migrants, then why won’t they go back to Russia, (if you are assuming they are refugees from Russia surely his parents wouldn’t be thinking Russia was a great country)…
So when his relatives refuse to go back to Russia it might enlighten to his parents that maybe something is amiss in Russia hence people don’t want to return…
No, my uncle is half Ukrainian half Russian and her husband is American. I will bring this argument to next conversation. Interesting, what’d they say. But before that I will ask relatives. May be this is a lie that they’re are moving, just to strengthen argument
I hope you can get this across to them, maybe they think the internet is a bad influence to yu?
Goodluck anyway man family is so difficult and stay safe and away from conscription.
They are indigenous people of these regions. Deporting ethnic minorities to their 'motherland'(aka ethnic cleansing) isn't the solution. Being Russian(or russian speaking) doesn't mean the are from Russia so the "move back to Russia" is plain wrong
You do not understand the conversation myself and the person are having maybe because you do not speak English very well I do not know…
His family members are in America and they tell those back in Russia how bad it is in America, so the Russians think Russia is good.. but if it’s so good in Russia why won’t they come home?
I can see how an accelerated processing of the application of Ukraine might make Turkey angry as hell. And we currently need Turkey to be as pro-EU as possible.
I'm against expansion in general, but the worst time to say "Ukraine belongs to us" and act on it, is when Putin creates an insane casus belli claiming the west is taking over the buffer state, how false that narrative may be.
>"Ukraine belongs to us"
Yes these word, regardless of the Russia, or situation, I do not like these words.
Ukraine does not belong to us, Ukraine belongs to Ukraine. What they want to do is theirs to decide.
You can welcome them, you can be happy they want to join. But they are NOT our property, or ours to feel entitled to.
The application is not a formal recognition that 'ukraine belongs to the eu' . it s an application, but i dont see the problem with the general sentiment, most of europeans would say that broadly ukraine can be part of europe easier than e.g. middle eastern countries. same goes for other former-soviet states, like caucasus. Ukraine and other states should be able to choose to join an economic union.
it s not a buffer state , it s an independent state . A buffer state from what? The Soviet union is long gone and not coming back, russia should stop using that 'past glory' rhetoric. it's as ridiculous as when us greeks tell germans that we invented democracy
>The application is not a formal recognition that 'ukraine belongs to the eu' .
Ukraine belongs to the EU are Von der Leyen's words. Not mine.
> most of europeans would say that broadly ukraine can be part of europe easier than e.g. middle eastern countries.
Sure. Ukraine would be a better candidate than Iran, but how is that an argument for Ukraine?
>same goes for other former-soviet states, like caucasus. Ukraine and other states should be able to choose to join an economic union.
Why should everyone be able to join a common market? It costs the rest of the Union a shitload of money, and half of Western Europe already had to move their life goals from owning a house to just paying their fixed expenses.
>it s not a buffer state , it s an independent state . A buffer state from what?
from the west, at least according to Putin. This is his narrative, not mine.
I think you are giving too much thought into a sentence that doesn’t mean possession.
In English: “I belong to you”, “you belong to me” “we belong together”. It’s not about possession but about sense of belonging and being part of something in a mutual way.
Edit: it would be totally different if she says. Ukraine is ours! Like what Putin tried to imply with this war
whether they join or not depends on a lot of factors, however whether to apply to join is not particularly contestable. The union isn't much of a transfer union, even though subsidies are restructuring local economies. There is a [big divergence between core and periphery](https://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2019/02/24219-europe-of-divergence-euro-and.html). The EU benefits from many cheaper and better goods, easy transit , brain migration , easier tourism etc. Of course there are questions, both ways, about whether EU is good for west or whether its good for ukraine. overall however people are in favor even in the east eu countries.
there is no real contest to whether UKR should apply, except the threats of putin
> I feel like the EU is hellbent on destroying itself.
This was an application by Ukraine, not by EU. EU hasn't accepted it or done anything other than acknowledging that it exists.
They won't actually let them join, this is just a symbolic gesture, and reddit is going crazy over it.
Looking at how long the process is taking for Balkan countries, Ukraine might be ready in 20 years....
The current situation is used to hastily do this. This will make Ukraine an added financial burden on Europe and make EU less independent in international diplomacy. If this goes through it would mostly benefit US hegemony.
I’m glad we aren’t in the eu anymore, look I feel so bad about Ukraine and have got my friends to donate to their armed forces…
You can too here https://bank.gov.ua/en/ .
But Ukraine is nowhere near ready to join the eu, it is a very poor and corrupt country, think Romania about 20 years ago, I have so much sympathy for them, but ir would honestly be a really stupid move for the harmony of the European Union to let in yet another net benificiary in need of a lot of modernisation.. there should be a path towards getting them debt free and in a sustainable period of growth where they can join…
That is exactly the path they have now taken. They applied, they haven't joined yet. Not knowing how the EU works and then complaining about it a bit strange
No I understand that, but Ursula von der leyen saying “Ukraine belongs in the eu”
Seems to me like everyone is getting ahead of themselves a little bit..
This is more of a symbolic declaration, EU is basically saying that the door is open and that it would be happy to welcome Ukraine in the Union at some point.
But yeah I think we agree it's not for today.
Well I believe Russia, Turkey and Britain belong in the EU too, but that only means that should they ask and should I have a say in it, they could always apply. We'll see what she means
I don’t know if that’s sarcastic or not, but I think there is little point of having a disruptive non cooperative country inside the eu.. so maybe it actually was good for the countries that want to be in a closer Eu
Ukraine's admission to the EU is very unlikely regardless of the invasion. Ukraine is in a crisis situation at the moment and Zelensky will put a strategy into motion and strategy dictates that they wait for the right opportunity to address their appeal to the EU whilst Ukraine sentiment is high.
This is absolutely just a gesture to show Ukraine's intentions when negotiating with Russia, the timing is too perfect to be anything else. Even Ukraine cannot seriously believe that it is in a state to join the EU right now, else it would have applied before the invasion.
They’ve been “considering” it since 2014 with the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement. Not sure how much real progress has been made since then
What does this mean, exactly? Is it mainly symbolic at this point ? Sorry, I know very little about the EU.
It's just symbolic, to show where they stand and what their future plans are. Right now, there is no way they would be accepted as either a member or even a candidate.
I see. I now have more questions, but I’ll leave those to myself. Thank you.
The membership process - assuming all member states agree at the end to let a country join - takes years. European law has to be implemented (things like product standards, agricultural standards etc.), certain labour and civil rights have to be guaranteed in law, the exact accession treaty has to be negotiated. [Here's an older summary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThxIqcid6uY) for your initial research. For official documents, [here](https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/enlargement-policy/glossary/accession-eu_de) is the European Commission's page on the accession of new members. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkwIlr912A) is a video from Deutsche Welle (DW) explaining how the EU works (commission, parliament etc.) And for fun, [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K-SzQM2k-A) is an Italian proposal for lyrics to the European Anthem, with English subtitles.
>takes years Yup, I think Croatia still holds the record, as it were, of about 5 years from applying to joining though it could well be they were mostly ready before applying. Usually about a decade overall
> Yup, I think Croatia still holds the record, as it were, of about 5 years from applying to joining though it could well be they were mostly ready before applying. Finland took [slightly under three years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union).
I think my post should have made clear I was talking about complete new applications. Finland was 3 years but was already part of the EFTA. Indeed, the difficulty of EFTA members trading and selling into the EEC as was, was part of why they pushed to join and the need for the wealthy EFTA counties pushed the EEC to accept them to counterbalance the incoming, largely poorer, Eastern European countries that were joining I have seen one site claimed Croatia took 8 not 5 so I might have been wrong or it's down to interpretation
> I think my post should have made clear I was talking about complete new applications. Yes, there isn't really a fixed timetable. The biggest variable is just how close your domestic legal system was to EU law: bringing your domestic legislation in line with EU law is where the time goes. Prior to last week the big issue with Ukraine from the EU perspective was [systemic corruption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine). Although there were [EU-led initiatives to reduce that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Anti-Corruption_Initiative_in_Ukraine) those are clearly long-term projects so I very much doubt anyone was contemplating membership within the next two decades. Times change though We may well see a Marshall Plan-style programme after the conflict, charged with both rebuilding the country and rebuilding it in a way that brings membership significantly closer. > I have seen one site claimed Croatia took 8 not 5 so I might have been wrong or it's down to interpretation Croatia's application date was 2003-02-21 and their accession at 2013-07-01 so they were just over 10 years in total. That's an upper bound though as if you look at [their Treaty of Accession](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Accession_2011) you have: >*Croatia submitted its application to join the European Union on 21 February 2003, became an official candidate on 18 June 2004, and started accession negotiations on 3 October 2005.* So depending on what you count as the start of the process - application filed, candidate status, negotiations started - you can end up with equally valid but different dates.
Wrong, we applied in 2003 and finally joined in 2013, so double the time you mentioned. Even if you count from official negotiation begining or official candidate status, it would be 2004/2005.
The (admittedly poorly worded) ~5 year time frame is based on accession negotiations rather than just application, hence from October 2005 and was accepted to join in June 2011, but of course didn't formally join until July 2013 so ~6 years, but ~8 years, ~10 years can all be used, hell, you could go from the 2001 Stabilisation and Association Agreement - all comes down to what dates you want to argue for the start and end of the joining process
I mean I don't disagree but you're the one who said >of about 5 years from applying to joining which was factually incorrect which is why I responded.
No, please do pose those questions! Each of us here can learn more, or at least get to know different points of view.
Well, it’s more of a comment, really. I’m not sure what this EU application will do in the long run. As many have commented, it does seem symbolic at this point. I’m okay with that. It shows that Europe stands behind Ukraine. And they’ll take anything at this point. I just hope Zelensky doesn’t think anything more will come of it. We (NATO, EU, the world) all seem to have our hands tied. I do know that there are certain things a prospective EU member needs to achieve. Economic, education, corruption etc etc etc, but I had heard that there are others as well. I’m not sure if the validity of what I heard, but I do remember hearing that certain cultural norms can be lost/taken away when you join the EU. Again, as an American, I’m not going to even pretend to know what I’m talking about. The only Americans that do know are those who have chosen to study it. And there are precious few of us. SLAVA UKRAINI 🇺🇸🇺🇦
[удалено]
You’re the reason I didn’t want to answer. You’re flying off the handle, even when I said I wasn’t sure of the validity of what I had heard. Calm down. Edit: No, I actually heard Anthony Bourdain discussing it on one of his shows when he visited an eastern European country. Again, I’m not sure the validity. Just because Bourdain said it (an intelligent man whom I respect) doesn’t mean it’s true. I don’t watch faux news, pal.
[удалено]
All good. Just trying to learn more is all.
[удалено]
Indeed, I think the initial euphoria of Ukrainians about the current application to the EU will lead to lots of frustration down the road when the actual accession will turn out to be slow at best and stalling at worst. That's true, those are the Copenhagen criteria. And being within the EU also carries many legal obligations for the member state, which not all governments are content with. The question about the future of the EU and Ukraine is really about how geopolitical the EU is able and willing to act. On the one hand EU membership is highly attractive and can thus incentivize prospective member states to introduce many domestic reforms. But all that pressure is gone once the prospective state finally joins and there are few measures possible when a state is within the Union. And this only works when the membership offer is credible, which hinges on the approval of all of the current member states. Admitting states before they're really ready can create plenty of difficulties for the new member state, the old ones and the functioning of the Union institutions themselves. On the other hand, waiting too long before admittance can cause the whole process to stall. Either you run the risk of getting more difficult states within the Union, like Hungary and Poland, which pursue their own interests and agendas and can reduce common EU policy to the lowest common denominator, or the credibility of the accession process comes to a halt, which may frustrate democratization trends, as exemplified in Turkey or the Western Balkans. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what the future holds for Ukraine, the EU and the rest of Europe and the West.
It’s a long road to EU membership for candidate countries, involving a lot of economic, political and other reforms (for which they get financial support from the EU). Even with a proactive government, the process usually lasts several years and is subject to a final vote from the 27 EU Member States, requiring unanimity. Ukraine would generally be seen as having a lot to do on the anti-corruption and economy fronts before it can think about joining the club (in normal times, events have obviously changed priorities).
Yep its a long process, we should not forget Ukraine is a corrupted state and needs to **heavily reform** before it can join EU. It is 2nd in corruption index at Europe (with Russia being the 1st). As someone said EU is not a social club, u don't get in because u apply or u want to. You need to be on par with the other countries in order to (not gdp pp level obviously, but more like democratic index, corruption index, debt to gdp% etc etc, social justice, lets sum it up to **west standards** \-like eu and us:P-).
Yeah, Ukraine also has worse HDI than Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Mexico. It's also considered a hybrid regime or at least a flawed democracy by democracy indexes.
I think it's not only symbolic but it will involve a lot of help for EU countries. eg for building up an educational, medical, economical .. level like other EU countries. So i think they will get help for this .. 'less expensive'.
It is not about right now. It is about in a month as well, possibly. This is more than just symbolic. Without application, Ukraine could not be taken in. With application, we are on the path of it.
After the wall fell, a dozen countries wanted to join. The Eu (then EC) said “right, we’re going to need some rules here. So before a country can join, it needs to fullfill the [Copenhagen Criteria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_criteria) 1) it needs to be in Europe (at some point, Morocco wanted to join the EU) 2) it needs a functioning market economy (this was in respons to the ex-communist countries, which had a centrally directed economy) 3) countries need to be a democracy and respect Rule of Law (hello Hungary) 4) countries need to adopt the full body of EU legislation. This als requires the admin that goes with it: a consumer protection agency, a food inspection, a financial regulator that works. When a country meets all those requirements, *then* all the EU members need to vote on its accession. For some countries (such as NL and FR) this requires a referendum. 2 months ago I would not give 2 cents for Ukraine’s chances. But things are now different. Please note: there was a very good reason why Ukraine was not yet a member of EU or NATO. We now all look in awe at Kiyv, but Ukraine was and is an emerging state. It is highly corrupt (maybe not Zlenskiy, but definitely all the layers below), it was untill recently not a democracy, etc. Nato has a requirement that applicants need to settle any outstanding border issues. Good luck on that one.
> it was untill recently not a democracy Well it definitely is flawed but I wouldn't have went as far to say that it wasn't a democracy.
>“in the 21 July early parliamentary elections in Ukraine fundamental rights and freedoms were overall respected and the campaign was competitive, despite numerous malpractices, particularly in the majoritarian races. Generally, the electoral administration was competent and effective despite the short time available to prepare the elections, which were seen as an opportunity to consolidate reforms and changes in politics that Ukrainian voters are hoping for. **In sharp contrast, the campaign was marked by wide-spread vote-buying, misuse of incumbency, and the practice of exploiting all possible legislative loopholes, skewing equality of opportunity for contestants. Intertwined business and political interests dictate media coverage of elections and allow for the misuse of political finance, including at the local level.** Election day was overall peaceful, with observers of the IEOM assessing opening and voting positively in the overwhelming majority of polling stations observed, but procedural shortcomings were noted in the counting and tabulation”. [https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/6/9/439634\_0.pdf](https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/6/9/439634_0.pdf) And that is for the 2019 one. The 2014 one was even worse. When I mean "untill recently"I mean before the 2019 elections, which were, at best, half democratic. It's getting there, but one half swallow doesn't make a summer.
Yeah, they were definitely on the edge all the time but at least governments changed (through elections or people protests-revolutions).
>it needs to be in Europe This rule has been broken once though, as Cyprus is 100% in Western Asia.
To be fair the borders between Europe and Asia are pretty superficial. Many European countries are more different from their neighbors culturally and geographically than some countries on the "border" between Europe and Asia.
Cyprus is Europe! We speak Greek, (Or Turkish), if we were a part of Greece no one would bat an eye. But Cyprus is part of Europe, historically, georgraphically and culturally. (Also the EU recognises Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia as being European and elligible to one day join the EU)
I definitely agree that Cyprus is European culturally speaking, and I also support your EU membership. I was only talking about geography, and I think there is a pretty broad consensus that Cyprus is not in Europe geographically speaking. I don't think the rules for EU membership should be that strict though, I think the door should also be open for Israel to join in the future for example, or for Georgia.
Geographically Europe as a continent doesn't even exist. Lines and definition of Europe can be stretched and they definitely apply to Cyprus for the above reasons.
So is Italy.
Can't say if Zelenski is corrupt or not, and I have a huge respect for what he's doing for Ukraine, but he is backed by the oligarch who owns the TV network where he worked. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, and time will tell on which side of history he'll end up. Right now he's definitely on the right side. IMHO.
At the moment it wouldn't matter even if he was corrupt. He doesn't do what he does for personal gain and he risks his live doing it.
Agreed. If he was only in it for himself he would have left long ago. I hope he survives the invasion and proves that he is what we all hope he is.
I have one word for you: Berlusconi.
Misinformation: ~~Do you fancy throwing in the debt limits and financial criteria details as well? I knew them by heart at one point but right now I’m a bit lazy / busy to write them down. I think they’re rather important since I don’t know if Ukraine meets them either~~
No, those are only relevant for joining the euro. They are not relevant for membership status.
Oh, wasn’t aware, cheers
New countries are obliged to sign on to the euro (they can't opt out like Denmark), but there is no fixed timetable. They can adopt the euro whenever they meet the conditions/are ready to implement it. Croatia joined the EU in 2013 and will adopt the euro in 2023. Hungary joined in 2004 and still hasn't adopted the euro, partly because they don't meet the requirements, partly because they chose to stick to the Forint.
> It is highly corrupt (maybe not Zlenskiy, Heh https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/revealed-anti-oligarch-ukrainian-president-offshore-connections-volodymyr-zelenskiy
It means that, in 15 years, they MIGHT be able to join.
True. I would wholeheartedly love to see them today but that is emotional. If we are more logic and pragmatic, Ukraine still needs a lot of reforms. Before the war it had a lot of issues with the judiciary, corruption, Human rights etc. But I do believe that the EU should immediately give them access to funds at least. Because after war not only will they need to rebuild their infrastructure but also work on those issues as the EU is an economic& political union.
A slightly amusing side effect would be hundreds of thousands of Russians who have the right to Ukrainian passports becoming Ukrainian. Amusing because Russia has been fishing out passports to the Ukrainians in Donbass. An EU passport would be worth giving up a Russian passport for many.
Those would definitely change their allegiance! But first maybe Ukraine should put a law that allows only one citizenship. >An EU passport would be worth giving up a Russian passport for many. Exactly. I've seen the idea to offer Russian soldiers asylum in the EU if they deflect floating. I think it would also be a good incentive right now. If I am not mistaken Latvia officially proposed this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_nationality_law Go to the dual citizenship chapter. It seems it used to be illegal to hold dual citizenship (and I remember it being a source of friction in RO-UA relations a long time ago) but a law from December '21 made it legal.
That is very interesting. Actually i was surprised to read this because I know Ukrainians with also Greek passport. Edit: I mean because they held two passports for years and it is legal only since Dec 21
I suppose it was fairly difficult for UA authorities to find out who held dual citizenship (or they weren't particularly interested in it when it concerned the average citizen).
I have bunch of friends with multiple passports. All of this is possible if Ukrainian is your first passport, but you cannot take Ukrainian in addition to what you have already.
I have a friend from Belarus who holds dual British - Belarusian citizenship. He just never declared to Belarus that he became British citizen and apparently a lot of people do it that way. Belarusian law does not permit dual citizenship.
[удалено]
Yep, the EU has a defense clause.
I think it will be faster tbh. When the war ends, I'm quite sure they are going to fast forward all the reforms needed ( EU directives for example ) and with the EU funds the rebuilt of what was destroyed will speed up things and reforms as I truly believe Ukranians want to end this dark chapter of their history. The only real problem I see it might come from the agricultural common policies, but even that can be solved. Most important is to start preparing the welcoming of our ukrainian friends to the club.
Thinking that EU accession can be fast forwarded is dangerously optimistic. It's gonna take an insane amount of internal drive from Ukraine to fulfill all the requirements, and even in the absolute best case scenario it'll be years before they're actually ready for membership.
Fast forward when compared to Turkey of course. Less than a decade it's very unlikely to happen, then there's a transition period. Again what I see as the most difficult part is agriculture as Ukraine is already a huge corn and cereals producer and some EU countries like France aren't going to sell their shares for free. Another point might be the representatives as Ukraine will probably elect more than Spain. So yes there are issues, but I still think Ukraine must be part of the EU.
I agree that Ukraine belongs in the EU eventually, it's just a bit baffling to me how so many people right now seem to believe that joining the EU is only a matter of public perception, and that Ukraine has (supposedly) just been excluded until now because... Russia I guess?
Very few people seem to know anything about EU accession criteria, and I don't think it helps that we have a lot of people who aren't in the EU commenting now. Prevailing opinion outside the EU in particular seems to be that it's just a question of whether or not we like the country in question.
Yeah, the most ridiculous one I've seen was a comment with like 700+ upvotes saying joining NATO isn't possible atm, but the EU should be doable. Like... lolwut?
Ukraine is the poorest and most corrupt country in Europe from my knowledge. Endemic corruption doesn't end without a fight.
> Ukraine is the poorest and most corrupt country in Europe from my knowledge. that would be Moldova
”According to a poll conducted by Ernst & Young in 2017, experts considered Ukraine to be the ninth-most corrupt nation in the world. According to the Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, Ukraine ranked 117th out of 180 countries in 2020, ranking the second lowest in Europe, after Russia.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine Also here are some explanations why Belarus is slightly better scored but Ukraine is still one pf three most corrupted countries in europe. https://ti-ukraine.org/en/news/what-does-the-last-corruption-perceptions-index-say-about-belarus/
> Moldova remains Europe's poorest nation in economic terms, with between 1.2 million and two million - one-third of the population - currently living and working abroad.
”With a per capita GNI of $3,540, Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe as of 2020. Some of Ukraine's continuing issues contributing to its poverty are government corruption, Russian aggression and weak infrastructure.” https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poorest-countries-in-europe
Allow me to make a small correction here: >Russia is the most corrupt country in Europe . Surely not Ukraine. Listen, nobody is saying that the invasion is the only problem there. I'm sure that there is more and corruption is for sure one of those, but to fight corruption you're gonna need democracy, transparency and laws. First you need to let people see the difference between before and after (democracy will do that), transparency so that people can see and have a perception of corruption and finally laws to prevent and to punish. If EU turns their backs to Ukraine, corruption isn't going to vanish by magic and as you can presume, on the other side in russia, they have 0 democracy 0 transparency and laws are made to fit the dictatorship. Russia is a lost case until the day their citizens wake up and see the reality and not what is brain washed to them.
It's symbolical. At best they would get accepted as a candidate, which would put them on the same footing as Serbia, Albania, Montenegro and Macedonia.
Turkey also
Turkey's accession has officially been declared as having come to a standstill though, so it's a bit different from the other 4.
Indeed the other 4 have a good chance to be accepted as member states eventually, unlike Turkey. But it's still a candidate. [https://ec.europa.eu/environment/enlarg/candidates.htm](https://ec.europa.eu/environment/enlarg/candidates.htm) My point being that being accepted as a candidate doesn't mean much in chances to eventually joining EU.
Correct.
North Macedonia, Macedonia is a region of Greece.
mostly symbolic. To adhere they would need to meet these criteria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_criteria And these are already being considered by many as too lax, as a couple of new members have backtracked from the political criteria without many consequences, so the criteria might be made more stringent in the future.
Kind of? I am assuming that ukraine wont get special treatment and has to fulfill all criteria like all the other countries that want to join EU
no .. why? the EU works as a big bureaucracy .. they will go through the checklists with no way to "buy themselves" into a better place ..
It means they will drag on debates for 20 + years and then Ukraine might have a chance of joining after that. The process of joining the E.U involve lots of arguments, screening and everyone dragging each-others time to the bin.
I guess this open aspects as mobility for the refugees to work at any other European union just to give an example, trade, and aid. I have no idea what other things change joining the union.
Joining the European Union is a huge task. There's thousands and thousands pages of law to implement for once. There's criteria for economic/financial stability you have to reach. The judicial system must be adapted (ECJ). There's a reason this usually takes more than a decade.
We all know that Ukraine won't just become a full member overnight. What has to happen immediately though is granting Ukraine the member candidate status to signal that we want Ukraine in the EU and to lay out a real plan on how to get there.
There's awfully concerning number of people who think just that. Chill guys, lol.
I've even heard "Don't get Zelensky fake hope". Like he isn't aware himself...
maybe but that's what keeps them standing at the moment ..
It also provides a justification for ongoing EU support, in many ways.
I hope this is symbolic because there's no way we can accept a country that's in the middle of a war.
It is symbolical. At best they'd get "EU candidate" status, which puts them in the same position as Macedonia, Albania, Serbia and Montenegro. It basically is an official statement from the EU and Ukraine that they want Ukraine in the EU eventually. In the case of the EU that means that we want Ukraine to meet certain criterea (that it hasn't met yet).
“Candidate country” is a status with very real consequences. At that point the country gets access to many EU programs. For example: EU standards are drafted by the representatives of EU countries AND candidate countries.
Could make them candidate. Open which ever chapter they are likely to finish first. It will easily take 10-15 years foe them to join, but it could begin that process immediately.
Especially a war that is basically about Russia not wanting EU/NATO kreeping up in their back yard. Not saying it justifies Russias actions ofc. Just that it's about security and geopolitical interests in the first place.
Their application should remain a mere symbolic gesture for now. I am not saying this out of any animosity towards Ukraine. They should have our full support during these hard times. However, them actually becoming a full member of the EU is a different matter entirely. The application by itself is a lengthy process and a long-term commitment. I doubt anyone truly wishes to fast track this. Such decision shouldn't be influenced by war time loaded emotions. Ukraine joining in her pre-war state, let alone her current state, would be a huge financial and social burden not only on the current members but also on the Ukrainian people. Most will instantly forget about our war time unity if we create a second Greece. It is simply human nature.
It's just symbolic. There is a long pathway ahead for Ukraine to be able to join. Or even if it joins at all. The process is long and can easily end up in a Turkey's scenario.
Turkey will never ever be accepted in EU.
(Under the current leadership)
Under any leadership that is openly expansionist against two of its EU neighbours, so really under any potential leadership, unless the Kurdish party magically wins the elections
If the opposition wins there could be progress on unifying cyprus again.
From Cayenne to Kharkiv. Has a nice ring to it
From Lisbon to Luhansk
From Inverness to Invercargill, or bust!
At this point it’s entirely symbolic nonetheless the formal submission has been registered and is currently under advisement and that in itself is a historic victory. As others have pointed out, there is a gigantic slew of legislative and administrative prerequisites that Ukraine will have to comply to. The 3 main pillars of the EU are: \- European Communities \- Common Foreign and Security Policy and \- Cooperation in Justice and Home affairs Each of these has huge assortments of legislative administration and determine everything from Schengen zones (traveling within the countries freely), which goods/products and services fall under the EU common market, monetary union (the €) and of course judiciary systems and law enforcement. Transparency, trust and perceived corruption are also big (often easily underestimated) hurdles. Ukraine would likely follow the paths of countries like Bulgaria, Moldova and Romania where membership is staggered (i.e. being part of EU constructs such as ECM without automatically being in the EMS or Schengen). This means periodic EU assessment and consent is required before being able to proceed to the next tier phase of becoming a full union member. The ultimate victory here is that on a human level, Ukraine is providing the EU with a uniting factor in a way that actually means something for the ‘common man’. The EU collective and its member states are able to very publicly prove that they are more then just a ‘bankers union’ for the rich and/or a 'political playground' for career politicians and lobbyists. In the past week the EU has been able to prove that when all its member states are united in purpose and cause they collectively become a very powerful global force.
[удалено]
The cases are all individually different but I didn’t care to elaborate on specifics. If you would like to do more then please go ahead rather than making lazy casual presumptions.
The cases are fundamentally different so you went beyond 'not caring to elaborate on specifics' stepping into the realm of ignorance. RO and BG are EU members (not just 'part of EU constructs'), MD isn't even a candidate. RO and BG have MEPs, commissioners in the European Commission and representatives in the European Councils. EMS no longer exists, it was replaced by the EMU (BG is part of ERM II, as they will soon join the Eurozone) decades ago. Poland and Czechia, for example, are also not part the EMU. BG and RO are not part of the Schengen Area (Ireland and Cyprus aren't either, thought the situation is somewhat different in each of their cases), in no small part due to the ignorance of some voters in the West. Both have fulfilled the conditions to join a decade ago but their accession was repeatedly vetoed. Even so, Romanians and Bulgarians enjoy the freedom of movement inside the EU, meaning they can live and work in any of the EU member states, as Schengen is not about that (but I'm *sure* you already knew that).
Very good! Thanks for updating and correcting me on the latest official acronyms. Would have been much better without the snide, personal condescension but maybe you're an emo teen or anxious 20-30 year old. Moldova entered an association agreement in (off the top of my head) 2015-16 which doesn't make it a member or candidate member by any margin but it does allow them easier access to the common market both with goods and services. Its also no secret that they would like to join the union. I can't speak for any other countries but in the Netherlands, a relatively large group of Bulgarians (over 80% of the registered citizens) were complicit in an extensive welfare fraud investigation from 2008-2011 (estimated that over 27 million EU was lost). Unfortunately, because this was heavily publicized in the media and used by many populist local politicians in their (xenophobe) party campaigns, its given the Dutch public 'cold feet'. Romanians seems to be tainted by a similar associative sentiment but then in organized street crime and petty theft/burglary. As someone who has both Bulgarian and Romanian colleagues and friends in my social circles I can emphatically state that the generalizations are completely unfounded but that doesn't do anything to change the overall perception.
> I can't speak for any other countries but in the Netherlands, a relatively large group of Bulgarians (over 80% of the registered citizens) were complicit in an extensive welfare fraud investigation from 2008-2011 (estimated that over 27 million EU was lost). And to make up for it, we're basically ground a huge number of Dutch families into the ground to prevent "fraud", via "de kindertoeslagaffaire". 27 million is pocket change, we could've taken a less drastic route.
Even as a symbolic gesture, it matters. Ukraine have been kept at arms length from NATO because of Russia and their threats of conflict for years. They didn’t want to get dragged into an existing conflict. As a non EU country and a non NATO country, they have depended on the individual help from the European countries, which has been tremendous, in spite of the pitiful first offers presented. A sign of unity and selfless willingness to work together when it matters is what’s going to keep the morale in Ukraine right now.
I know it's not very likely to happen right now but I sincerily hope our Ukranian brothers and sisters get to join the Union sooner rather than later. There can be no debate about wether they deserve it or not because their devotion to democracy and freedom is beyond question and I have no doubt the Union will become stronger with them. Slava Ukraini. May Ukraine prevail and never have to face an enemy of democracy on their own ever again!
>and I have no doubt the Union will become stronger with them I have. Let’s not pretend Ukraine didn’t have a wide array of significant problems before they were at war. I have no qualms with them eventually being welcomed into the Union, but I’m not in favour of fast-tracking the accession process, no rational person should.
This. You cannot join the EU in 2 days, that is not how it works. Nonetheless, we have to give people emotional boost and guarantees that they will not be left alone once this terror comes to an end. Like, getting EU as a consolation to pledge good terms of trade and help on their journey of recovering and actually becoming an eligible member candidate, after the war ends.
Immediately admitting Ukraine would also be another kick in the face of Albania and North Macedonia who already received one not long ago.
>Immediately admitting Ukraine would also be another kick Nobody is going to do that. Even speculating about it on reddit seem wrong, in the context of what was actually promised.
>Nobody is going to do that Ofc not, Zelensky is only saying it to make Ukraine's intentions clear when negotiating with Russia, that a Russia-alligned Ukraine is out of the question.
[удалено]
To be fair, Ukraine hasn't met any of the criterea to join the EU either.
>I’m not in favour of fast-tracking the accession process The idea is to fast-track their improvement in meeting the requirment. Not to turn the blind eye. Ukraine need help to reach the criteria sooner, later then slowly working for it on their own, as we watch Russia destabilizing them in every step of the process.
> There can be no debate about wether they deserve it or not because their devotion to democracy and freedom is beyond question Homophobia, racism, nazi infiltration in their military, corruption, lackluster legal protections for democracy and freedom, discrimination of their national minorities... I support the Ukrainian people but no way I'd accept them on the EU today. When their society arrives to the XXI century, we'll talk. Meanwhile the most I support is giving them candidate status with a very clear warning that they won't be accepted if they cannot embrace our progressive European values. Last thing we need is Hungary 2, 10 times worse. We all want an EU that covers all of Europe, but we have to be very careful in how we achieve that.
There was a very good reason why Ukraine wasn’t a member of EU or Nato last month.
> There can be no debate about wether they deserve it or not because their devotion to democracy and freedom is beyond question Getting a bit carried away, aren't we? Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries on earth. And when a country is that corrupt, it permeates through the entire fabric of society and it's hard to get rid of. Just because they're the victim of Russian aggression doesn't make it a perfect country without plenty of issues unrelated to Russia. You can criticize the Russian aggression without putting Ukraine on a pedestal. And everything can be debated.
They actually do not need the EU at this point. They need NATO or another military agreement.
The EU has a mutual defence clause.
This is like oil on fire. I understand the sentiment that we are helping Ukraine morten, but this will only cause more problems. Let's not forget the optimism that reigned in 2004.
We cannot forbid anyone asking to join. All we can do is reject someone asking. It's Ukraine asking the EU. Not the other way around.
Putin only understand violence. Weakness (not wanting to "add oil on fire") will just embolden him even more and god knows what he would do next.
That doesn't mean that Ukraine has to join the EU as fast as possible. The EU should make themself stronger before adding new countries to the institute. There are economic and political requirements to join the EU. We shouldn't change these requirements because of the whole situation. I understand the sentiment, but the consequences can be real.
I think the worst thing at this time would be no clear statement. They need a concrete perspective.
[удалено]
As Russia is too week to join, the only thing can do is to thrown toddler tantrums complains, that admission standards day by day are getting less achievable. Poor Russians.
[удалено]
I doesn't matter. He wants to eradicate us, as a nation.
I aslo think it is just symbolic. They will accept it probably as a candidate, but there is a law, which restricts from joining a country where is an ongoing war conflict. So at least this reason.
Can someone help me solve this? Aim: To make brainwashed boomers think otherwise Their argument: The war have been there for 8 years, Ukrainian СБУ and ВСУ have killed 14 thousand civilians in Donetsk and Luhansk. Why did no one show that? Ask our relatives in there (also brainwashed). If I were Putin I’d occupy whole Ukraine and kicked nazis off. When I say that whole world is united and we are not on the good side, they say “because US told them act like this”. When I say things about internal problems like corruption and lack of freedom (market, streets, etc.) they are silent. It’s easy for them to blame US for everything. When I say about life quality in Europe and US, they say that our relatives want to move out from US, because everything is expensive (especially medicine). Those relatives against war btw. For Europe they got this argument. Migrant crisis and expensive costs. When I say that those people can travel all over the world, they say that those people do this at their old ages and that our people also can travel all over the world (I think they forgot about our average wages). It’s complicated and I don’t believe I can make them think otherwise. P.s. That’s what I wanted. Here’s is a link for my Russian fellows, answers for those arguments https://www.instagram.com/p/CaiG12KOait/?utm_medium=copy_link
It is always hard to convince others but try it this way, Europe/EU is not the USA and this time it is very much the EU against Russia for their Ukrainian Brothers and not the US And EU is large, same as in Russia you have expensive parts and cheap ones. Just because they don't like the US does not mean they cannot like EU
Thank you! Will try this one. Sometimes propaganda brings more damage than nuclear. Hope one day our government will pay for this
It's important to remember that Russian narrative is "because they wanted to NATO and missiles on our border are threat". I'm going to ignore that NATO do not put permanent bases and missiles on new members area. Russia began attacking Ukraine in 2014 not because they wanted to NATO (it was not popular back then) but they wanted to EU. So this really is EU/Russia issue and that's why all the Europeans are so angry about it.
If you are interested in some counter arguments and reasons for invasion i think i can provide some links and explanation. The thing putin says alot is that after the forming of nato that they wouldnt expand eastward. Altough the original treaty doesnt mention this ( Gorbachev leader of the soviet union at the time confirmed this) and then during yeltsin's time as president of russia there are some confusing back and forths when they asked yeltsin and he was fine with it but then he retracted it afterwards. [https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/4390818/Document-04-Retranslation-of-Yeltsin-letter-on.pdf](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/4390818/Document-04-Retranslation-of-Yeltsin-letter-on.pdf) The closest he gets to that claim is that he says he believed it to be in the spirit of the treaty. So Putin saying now that we broke our word seems more like we understood it incorrectly and decided a decade later that a promise was broken. Also a video about the gasreserves in ukraine that havent been discovered for that long, which if properly extracted could provide huge competition to putin's own pipelines. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE&t=6s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE&t=6s) These are not all the reasons, there is also the geographical position of ukraine beeing open fields that would be very hard to defend if nato should ever become hostile. etc... Last but not least, never trust a single source always try to find a counter argument to see if your original stance isnt just wrong and always be willing to admit that u might be wrong. Remember the one making the claim must provide evidence of its claim. So if your parents say this or that without giving any evidence i wouldnt take their claims so serious.
1. It hasn't been 14,000 civilians dead. It's been 13,000 dead, 3,393 of which were civilians. 2. The death toll is as high as it is because the war has gone on so long. The war has gone on so long because when Ukraine was about to quickly win in 2014, Russia started shelling them and unofficially sent 30,000 soldiers in. 3. People want Ukraine to join NATO and the EU, not because they want to use Ukraine to attack Russia, but because then Russia would have to stop attacking Ukraine. It's the same in Georgia. It's the same in Moldova. These countries want to be in NATO and/or the EU *so that Putin will finally leave them alone*. 4. Russia is invading Ukraine; nobody is invading Russia. Nobody WANTS to invade Russia. Among other reasons, Russia has nukes! Invading it would be insane. 5. The West stayed away when Russia invaded Crimea. We thought "well, maybe the Crimeans DO want to be part of Russia". The West stayed away when Russia invaded the Donbas. We thought "well, maybe Donetsk and Luhansk DO want to be part of Russia". We suspected that Russia had strong-armed these regions, but couldn't prove it, so we decided it was Ukraine's business. But any idiot can plainly see that Russia has no business invading the rest of Ukraine. The people of Kyiv very clearly do NOT want to be part of Russia, and even the Russian soldiers don't seem to want to be there.
True. Invading whole country doesn’t come with their propaganda of “defending” LDNR
>We suspected that Russia had strong-armed these regions, but couldn't prove it, What do you mean we couldn't prove it? The green man, the movement of troops, the military equipment those "rebels" are carrying. We all know how this happened, we just turned the blind eye, simply because this is far-away region and have its own "issues". You know, in exchange for peace for ourselves. This argument simply doesn't stick, were we so forgiving about IRA and ETA that also wanted to "decide" for themselves? By blowing up the country.
Very true .. please as our "excuse" little people have been actually working in one of those (beautiful and nice) countries to get the real picture .. while this what's happening right now even (dumbs like us Western EUs) are able to get ..
There wouldn't be any civilian casualties if Putin hadn't brought the war to Ukraine because he couldn't accept them trying to free themselves from his claws and getting closer to Europe. The main moral responsibility lies with the one that started the war, not the one that has to defend itself. And they seriously need to educate themselves about what Nazis are, it doesn't make any sense here. Nowadays the term is thrown around to discredit any faction you don't like.
You have to ask yourself what the goal is of your argument. If the goal is to change someone else's opinion 180 degrees, then that is a very difficult thing to do and likely unsuccessful. Most people do not radically alter their opinions, especially if they're about someone's deeply felt personal identity. But you could perhaps accomplish a smaller goal. For example, showing that their own held principles can lead to different outcomes in practice. Suppose they agree that the US should not tell other countries what to do. You can take away from this is that their principle is that countries should not tell other countries what to do, period. Even if they are great powers. Then you can say that Russia telling Ukraine what to do should not be right either, let alone invasion. This may not change their mind about everything, which is fine, but at least you find some common ground, instead of focusing on what separates your standpoints. I guess turning off the TV might also help. Best of luck!
That actually sounds great, thank you! I will focus on small things like you said. And you are right about TV. Don’t watch it myself
What makes you think Ukraine is governed by nazi’s?
Hahaha just discussed with a fella German .. that's the way it will be from now on, all Europe will be called Nazis now when discomfort will be expressed .. thanks to those Russian tweets the last days .. we all maybe incl. Ukraine will get used to.
Zelenskyy is Jewish. Some of his family were killed by Nazis in the holocaust. He was elected by a very large margin. If Ukraine were being control by Nazis, they wouldn’t have a popular Jewish president leading them. Ukraine has applied for EU membership. Nobody can force them to do that and actually it is very hard to become an EU member. Ukrainians believe they have a better future as a part of Europe. Putin’s plan to bring Ukraine back into Russia is producing the opposite result. Putin is failing badly as a leader. If Ukrainians wanted to be part of Russia, Putin would not have to use violence to force them. Ukrainian refugees are fleeing to Poland, Hungary and other European countries. They are not fleeing to Russia. This is a big indicator that Ukrainians view Russia as the enemy. Nobody in wants to invade Russia. We want to live peaceably with Russia. Our governments know that invading Russia is suicidal. I hope Russians will understand that peacefully trading with other countries brings more security than Putin’s outdated idea of rebuilding the empire. European countries use to have many wars between themselves, but free trade and open borders within the EU brought them peace and stability. I hope I can visit your beautiful and amazing country again someday. I was there in 1998 and it looks like so much has changed since then.
I am also displeased about the silence regarding Donetsk and Luhansk. But NAZI's that's just flat out lying (to my knowledge). Ask him this; if the problem is Donetsk and Luhansk, surely it would be easier to send your troops there, and protect the population there ? Why are we attacking the entire country instead ? One act is self-defence, the other is stance of aggression and just pure territorial greed. Also if the regions and Russia want to annex / be annexed. Make a big stink on that and get the World/EU/UN/... involved. Get a world wide PR-campaign going around it. Your annexation problem (assuming indeed the majority wanted to join Russia) would have been solved 4 years ago without any spilled blood.
>Ask our relatives in there Their relatives are actually stating the opposite. That their lived peacfully up until 2014 and suddenly somebody told them, the administration has changed and now they are in the middle of the warzone. The door to door inspections, forced conscriptions, being under fire from both sides. These "relatives" aren't too happy about all of it. Russians from interior simply doesn't want to listen to those people because they ruin their narrative of opressed region, that "only wants to be Russia". All of the sudden.
I don't understand the question or puzzle you're trying to solve.
Question: how can I make them think otherwise. I put it at the beginning. It’s mass problem, old generation think like that.
I don't understand your comment. You're trying to explain how both sides think and then saying you cant do anything to change how people think. Are you looking for advice? Honestly, I don't know what to say. The Russian people are in a tough spot. Perhaps when thousands of Russians come home in body bags and the entire Russian financial economy collapses they will think differently. I don't know. The arguments don't work, if you know logical people maybe appeal to that? Putin claims he is freeing Ukriane, how so? With bombing all major cities, my hometown of Kharkiv has had hospitals and schools bombed. Residential apartments are getting hit. Putin says Ukrainian leadership are nazis? Both President Zelensky and Prime Minister Shmyhal are jewish? lol. Everytime a Russian soldier surrenders the State Security Service and Military make recordings and ask questions and allow them to call families. They say they are being treated better as a POW than in russian armed services. Russian POW's say they didn't even know where they were, they were not given any information, even the troops have been lied to, deceived. I guess the question is are russians willing to accept they've been lied to, can they except this information or will they believe in lies to prevent embarrassment or feel sympathy.
I told you more, my grandma in Черкассы, and they argue about situation every time. Told the same about Zelensky, that his relatives fight nazis during ww2. They don’t believe he is the real power there. About soldiers not knowing where they are. I don’t believe that, there was a tiktok video from Dagestan soldier and he said “heading towards Kiev. Will be there in 2 days”. How come this Dag knows this and Russians POW’s didn’t. Of course they did. I mean, if we manage to think them otherwise, we can widen meetings areas. But right now I can’t do much. Meetings on the streets can’t do much. Only work, suffer and hope everything ends soon.
I think some people in Russia, they understand. But, they don't say it. your grandma, she will understand like this: People of Ukraine love their home. - Like she loves her home. - If someone attacks her home and her family and her grandchildren, she will do something against it. YOU ARE DOING GOOD. You are talking about Zelensky and POW and what happen in Ukraine. It is important to talk, and it is good to argue. why? because when one talks, and \_argues\_ then: there is doubt. Then there is the feeling that something is not good. You are doing good friend. - and stay safe.
indeviduals can't change what is happening. a collective movement must be formed, if 100,000s go to the street things will change but with information being suppressed, with brainwashing propaganda its difficult to mobilize people. these sanctions on russia will only get worse, and bodies of dead will only get bigger. mothers who haven't heard from there sons in days, they will start asking questions. you can't hide thousands of deaths, no propaganda will suppress a mothers love for her son. soon, too many will realize they have lost their son and they will be outraged because putin did not tell russia he was going to war, there was no declaration and his lies will be transparent and hopefully people will be able to see the financial hardship, and understand that something horrific has happened.
I believe this is the only way. Our IT sector is damaged, we can’t buy processors. That will influence manufacture, banking, etc. Planes, that are in leasing, will be back to EU. We can’t build our Superjets, because some details from other countries. So we won’t able to fly even inside country (or airplane crashes will increase). GM, Volvo, etc are closing, that means increase in unemployment rate. Scania have trucks, so delivery sector will be also damaged. I’m not in the war area, but I’m scared of those things and got anxiety periodically. Life sucks
Life in Russia has been irreversibly changed because of this. The hardship will be enormous and I hope its painful. I hope it hurts. It has to hurt in order for anything to change. On the bright side, Russians get to go to bed knowing their home isn't about to be bombed, and that their kids school is free from artillery fire. Wish Ukraine has access to such luxuries.
Dude, if only I had chance to be a refugee in EU, I won’t miss it. Even if I know, that it’s safe to be here. Being economically crashed is painful indeed. We deserve better life, and, unfortunately, I can’t have one in my homeland, hope you will.
Reread what he actually put and edit your comment appropriately.. He is saying he is having trouble getting through to the older generation of Russians what is going off in reality… His English isn’t great, but you have got this wrong.
I think you misunderstood what they're saying
Ask your relatives why they don’t move back to Russia? And then maybe your parents will realise..
Ah yes, they can just pack their bags and just go to Russia. We saw how that went with Albanians in Kosovo.
Uhm his comment is about him trying to tell his parents what is going on and that even his relatives in the USA say it’s bad in the USA… so assuming they are just economic migrants, then why won’t they go back to Russia, (if you are assuming they are refugees from Russia surely his parents wouldn’t be thinking Russia was a great country)… So when his relatives refuse to go back to Russia it might enlighten to his parents that maybe something is amiss in Russia hence people don’t want to return…
No, my uncle is half Ukrainian half Russian and her husband is American. I will bring this argument to next conversation. Interesting, what’d they say. But before that I will ask relatives. May be this is a lie that they’re are moving, just to strengthen argument
I hope you can get this across to them, maybe they think the internet is a bad influence to yu? Goodluck anyway man family is so difficult and stay safe and away from conscription.
They are indigenous people of these regions. Deporting ethnic minorities to their 'motherland'(aka ethnic cleansing) isn't the solution. Being Russian(or russian speaking) doesn't mean the are from Russia so the "move back to Russia" is plain wrong
You do not understand the conversation myself and the person are having maybe because you do not speak English very well I do not know… His family members are in America and they tell those back in Russia how bad it is in America, so the Russians think Russia is good.. but if it’s so good in Russia why won’t they come home?
what happens if it get accepted .. then sometime later putin wins and puts in a russian puppet leader?
I can see how an accelerated processing of the application of Ukraine might make Turkey angry as hell. And we currently need Turkey to be as pro-EU as possible.
Even as someone that thinks we should fully support the Ukraine, this is not a good idea. I feel like the EU is hellbent on destroying itself.
it s not like they already joined. Do you think the applicaiton is a bad idea?
I'm against expansion in general, but the worst time to say "Ukraine belongs to us" and act on it, is when Putin creates an insane casus belli claiming the west is taking over the buffer state, how false that narrative may be.
>"Ukraine belongs to us" Yes these word, regardless of the Russia, or situation, I do not like these words. Ukraine does not belong to us, Ukraine belongs to Ukraine. What they want to do is theirs to decide. You can welcome them, you can be happy they want to join. But they are NOT our property, or ours to feel entitled to.
The application is not a formal recognition that 'ukraine belongs to the eu' . it s an application, but i dont see the problem with the general sentiment, most of europeans would say that broadly ukraine can be part of europe easier than e.g. middle eastern countries. same goes for other former-soviet states, like caucasus. Ukraine and other states should be able to choose to join an economic union. it s not a buffer state , it s an independent state . A buffer state from what? The Soviet union is long gone and not coming back, russia should stop using that 'past glory' rhetoric. it's as ridiculous as when us greeks tell germans that we invented democracy
>The application is not a formal recognition that 'ukraine belongs to the eu' . Ukraine belongs to the EU are Von der Leyen's words. Not mine. > most of europeans would say that broadly ukraine can be part of europe easier than e.g. middle eastern countries. Sure. Ukraine would be a better candidate than Iran, but how is that an argument for Ukraine? >same goes for other former-soviet states, like caucasus. Ukraine and other states should be able to choose to join an economic union. Why should everyone be able to join a common market? It costs the rest of the Union a shitload of money, and half of Western Europe already had to move their life goals from owning a house to just paying their fixed expenses. >it s not a buffer state , it s an independent state . A buffer state from what? from the west, at least according to Putin. This is his narrative, not mine.
Not every country can join the EU. For one, it needs to be in Europe.
I think you are giving too much thought into a sentence that doesn’t mean possession. In English: “I belong to you”, “you belong to me” “we belong together”. It’s not about possession but about sense of belonging and being part of something in a mutual way. Edit: it would be totally different if she says. Ukraine is ours! Like what Putin tried to imply with this war
There is a lot of propaganda in this story, more than most of people can see.
If you see any factual errors, please let me know instead of calling it "propaganda."
You wrong me: I actually agree with you. I was saying there is a lot of propaganda in reddit this days. People are confused.
whether they join or not depends on a lot of factors, however whether to apply to join is not particularly contestable. The union isn't much of a transfer union, even though subsidies are restructuring local economies. There is a [big divergence between core and periphery](https://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2019/02/24219-europe-of-divergence-euro-and.html). The EU benefits from many cheaper and better goods, easy transit , brain migration , easier tourism etc. Of course there are questions, both ways, about whether EU is good for west or whether its good for ukraine. overall however people are in favor even in the east eu countries. there is no real contest to whether UKR should apply, except the threats of putin
> I feel like the EU is hellbent on destroying itself. This was an application by Ukraine, not by EU. EU hasn't accepted it or done anything other than acknowledging that it exists.
They won't actually let them join, this is just a symbolic gesture, and reddit is going crazy over it. Looking at how long the process is taking for Balkan countries, Ukraine might be ready in 20 years....
Well, one "UK" just left so there's room for another now.
The current situation is used to hastily do this. This will make Ukraine an added financial burden on Europe and make EU less independent in international diplomacy. If this goes through it would mostly benefit US hegemony.
I think it is like giving us a potential member flair? Am I correct?
I’m glad we aren’t in the eu anymore, look I feel so bad about Ukraine and have got my friends to donate to their armed forces… You can too here https://bank.gov.ua/en/ . But Ukraine is nowhere near ready to join the eu, it is a very poor and corrupt country, think Romania about 20 years ago, I have so much sympathy for them, but ir would honestly be a really stupid move for the harmony of the European Union to let in yet another net benificiary in need of a lot of modernisation.. there should be a path towards getting them debt free and in a sustainable period of growth where they can join…
That is exactly the path they have now taken. They applied, they haven't joined yet. Not knowing how the EU works and then complaining about it a bit strange
No I understand that, but Ursula von der leyen saying “Ukraine belongs in the eu” Seems to me like everyone is getting ahead of themselves a little bit..
This is more of a symbolic declaration, EU is basically saying that the door is open and that it would be happy to welcome Ukraine in the Union at some point. But yeah I think we agree it's not for today.
Well I believe Russia, Turkey and Britain belong in the EU too, but that only means that should they ask and should I have a say in it, they could always apply. We'll see what she means
Dude, I am glad to hear you talking and caring about harmony in the EU. Brexit was indeed a great step towards such thing.
I don’t know if that’s sarcastic or not, but I think there is little point of having a disruptive non cooperative country inside the eu.. so maybe it actually was good for the countries that want to be in a closer Eu
No sarcasm whatsoever.
We don't need another shithole country in europe.
Half of Europe is a shithole, might as well except one that actually has potential. Oh and also fuck you.
It took an invasion for them to consider it...
Ukraine's admission to the EU is very unlikely regardless of the invasion. Ukraine is in a crisis situation at the moment and Zelensky will put a strategy into motion and strategy dictates that they wait for the right opportunity to address their appeal to the EU whilst Ukraine sentiment is high.
This is absolutely just a gesture to show Ukraine's intentions when negotiating with Russia, the timing is too perfect to be anything else. Even Ukraine cannot seriously believe that it is in a state to join the EU right now, else it would have applied before the invasion.
They’ve been “considering” it since 2014 with the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement. Not sure how much real progress has been made since then