So the Head of the European Union comes out yesterday saying that the EU members want Ukraine to be part of the EU.

https://www.reuters.com/world/...e-one-us-2022-02-28/

Today, the President of Ukraine sings an emergency application for EU membership.

https://www.reuters.com/world/...mbership-2022-02-28/

https://twitter.com/voicesbela...330625304051720?s=21



So, what happens if the EU admits Ukraine during this invasion? Would that pull all EU members into the war? With many also being Nato members, would that also pull Nato into the war?

The 2009 Treaty of Lisbon (which was basically an amendment of the previous two treaties that founded the EU) has a mutual defense clause.

It is similar to NATO's mutual defense clause except that a few "neutral" or "non-aligned" member states are exempted from mutual defense obligations.

https://ecfr.eu/publication/am...eir%20power%E2%80%9D.

The way I understand things, both the mutual defense clause of the Treaty of Lisbon and the mutual defense article of the North Atlantic Treaty are very much mutual DEFENSE clauses. They obligate other members to respond to territorial attacks on member states.

So (again, as I understand things) if Ukraine were a member of the EU, but not of NATO, the EU member states would have treaty obligations to fight on Ukraine's behalf. There doesn't seem to be much room for interpretation here. The mutual defense clause of the Treaty of Lisbon starts with "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power..."

If that were to happen, the question of NATO involvement is a little less clear to me. I *think*, based on history and the intent behind NATO, that NATO member states sending troops to a non-NATO country and those troops being attacked would not invoke the mutual defense obligations of the North Atlantic Treaty. (Unless the other NATO member states just wanted to use it as an excuse to get involved.)

The mutual defense article of the North Atlantic Treaty starts with "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all..." I think this would be interpreted as applying to attacks to the actual territory of the member state, not troops deployed somewhere else. ESPECIALLY given the troops would be being deployed to fight (in effect, being the attackers rather than the attacked) rather than troops that were just sitting around somewhere not in a war that were attacked out of the blue.

If Europe want to be embroiled in a war...

It will be worse than they think.
The Russians are using their B team along with their super old Soviet era war equipment for the most part.

Do they really want the A team to come out for the party?

^^^The problem with that is we (the United States) are NATO. It is nothing without the US.

The West's politicians seem to looking real hard for a way to enter the fray, bad plan.

Ukraine has been a cash cow for kickbacks to Western politicians from the foreign aid they give to the Ukraine.

That's ended for now.
It's about the only positive thing coming out of this war.

I am not on anyone's side in the war, but I understand it's roots.

^^^

I think Europe relizes the last time they were embroiled in war, they reacted to it.

Maybe this time they are being proactive.

Even the Swiss are pushing their neutrality aside and joining in sanctions. So, I thiink Europe is taking a very hard and collective stand on this.

Listening to the UN members speaking for the past week shows a pretty strong amount of rhetoric and the actions of the countries shows some teeth.

I certainly hope the Duma reels Putin back from the craps table.

Is it possible to do an EU thing without invoking NATO?

I think you are all touching on my concern. If the EU admits Ukraine in the middle of this invasion, Putin would surely consider this an act of war by the whole EU. The resulting attacks by Russia on Nato members who are also EU members would draw the US into it.

I think you're wondering if the US is going to get dragged into this thing via the "An attack on one" clause.

Lets hope this is not their plan though I don't think it's a good one. If the EU gives Ukraine EU status and then claims mutual support, effectively declaring war, then I don't think that enacts the clause as they're instigating all this.

At least that's my hope.

The world's leadership anymore is a Ship of Fools.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
^^^

I think Europe relizes the last time they were embroiled in war, they reacted to it.

Maybe this time they are being proactive.

Even the Swiss are pushing their neutrality aside and joining in sanctions. So, I thiink Europe is taking a very hard and collective stand on this.

Listening to the UN members speaking for the past week shows a pretty strong amount of rhetoric and the actions of the countries shows some teeth.

I certainly hope the Duma reels Putin back from the craps table.

That's an enlightening perspective. May it be from your lips to G-d's ears.

From what I recall, the EU force could barely manage to muster 30K troops for an emergency response exercise and with most member states don't contribute. 30K troops is a drop in the bucket.

Without the US massive military infrastructure brought to bear for NATO, EU force is nothing really.

EU admittance is a very drawn-out process of aligning legal and economic standards and proving financial and political stability. After some bad experiences with new members which weren't looked at too hard for the sake of getting them into the European family (remember the Euro crisis triggered by unreported debts in Greece and elsewhere) and a general sense that the Union has grown too quick as decisionmaking structures have not kept up with the increase in different national interests, it has become even more thorough; Turkey has been an official candidate since 1999 but will probably never be admitted the way things have been going under Erdogan. I guess you could admit Ukraine overnight for show, but in practice you would still integrate a completely unsynchronized political, legal and economic system of 40-plus million people.

Moreover you would piss off some longstanding candidates, particularly in the Balkans where some have been promised membership for years but not let in yet due to abovementioned concerns and divergent national interests. That would in turn drive them towards Russia - and some say the Balkans are the real aim of the Russian push into Ukraine, towards Moldavia which has its own breakaway region with a Russian troop presence, and beyond through traditionally russophile EU member Bulgaria to Serbia. Just declaring Ukraine a membership candidate would probably serve the same purpose of showing political support. And as others have said, EU common security and defense politics have never really gotten off the ground for lack of the cohesion provided in NATO by the US as a domineering lead nation.

The current crisis has proven that again; the EU may have taken a remarkable step by buying Pact-vintage equipment including fighter planes from its Eastern members and supplying it to Ukraine, and has actually been supporting NATO reassurance to the same members by building up strategic lines of communications (roads, railways, bridges) so they can take modern Western systems deploying there, but don't look for any actual military action. The EU level of ambition has been maintaining two quick-reaction formations of reinforced battalion strength which have however never been deployed due to lack of agreement on missions, have been increasingly hard to fill with troops supposed to be provided by members, and seem to have died in their sleep over the last year.

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
EU common security and defense politics have never really gotten off the ground for lack of the cohesion provided in NATO by the US as an overbearing lead nation.

The logical action would then be for the EU nations to step up and provide for their own protection. Then people like you would no longer need to deal with the “overbearing lead nation”.

It’s simple, really.

Sorry, that was the wrong word - looking it up what I wanted to express was "domineering". Will correct.

Decision making at NATO is done by consensus. Military decision making is done by the NATO military committee. The Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) answers to the NATO military committee. All NATO military operations are under the command of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. The commander of US European Command (USEUCOM) is the combatant commander and wears two hats-SACEUR Commander and USEUCOM Commander. As structured, any NATO military operations are under the ultimate command of a US General officer, so we are inextricably linked to whatever happens with NATO forces.

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
Sorry, that was the wrong word - looking it up what I wanted to express was "domineering". Will correct.

Are you sure you don't mean dominate? Domineering has a negative connotation just like overbearing.

quote:

Originally posted by Herkdriver:

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
Sorry, that was the wrong word - looking it up what I wanted to express was "domineering". Will correct.

Are you sure you don't mean dominate? Domineering has a negative connotation just like overbearing.

Dominant?

The EU is an economic and political union and less of a defense alliance. Had things continued to progress, Ukraine would likely have been admitted into the EU, however it usually takes about a decade for new countries to re-focus their economies and allow time for their domestic industries to shift, adjust and learn the regulations which they'll be operating under prior to full membership.

If Ukraine was to join a defensive alliance, the Visegrad Group (Poland, Czech, Slovakia & Hungary) would a more attainable and reasonable association. These former Warsaw Pact nations have all worked to distance themselves from their former overlords in Moscow and looked Westward in re-orienting their culture, and economies. As a defensive alliance, all four still have remnants of old Soviet equipment still in use, while not as deep and sophisticated as NATO, the member nations still hold exercises, maintain commitments and mutual aid agreements. While a handful of Western European nations seem to waffle and dither over Russian threats and their seriousness as a NATO partner, Central and Eastern NATO nations have been much more serious in their allocation of resources to their security. Expansion and further development of Visegrad Group may be in the future for these nations and a few others not apart of NATO.

quote:

Originally posted by Herkdriver:

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
Sorry, that was the wrong word - looking it up what I wanted to express was "domineering". Will correct.

Are you sure you don't mean dominate? Domineering has a negative connotation just like overbearing.

Hm, I was looking for a translation of "überragend". My usual online dictionary gives me all sorts of suggestions, some of which are clearly not conveying my thought, like divine, transcendent, runaway ... sorry, English is still my second language. Anyway, I think everyone realizes that the US is what makes NATO act in a cohesive, effective manner, as opposed to the EU.