*Op-ed by Apostolos Thomadakis, Research Fellow and Head of the Financial Markets and Institutions Unit at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), and Head of Research at the European Capital Markets Institute (ECMI). *

Archived

[…]

Europe [must design a] European security framework for Ukraine, anchored in EU and NATO commitments, with American support but not American primacy. It means pursuing trade policy from a position of strength, resisting coercion and diversifying energy and technology partnerships so Europe cannot be held hostage.

[…]

The Ukrainian document itself notes that “lasting peace shall be based not on concessions and free gifts to Putin, but on a strong security framework that will prevent future aggression”. Europe must ensure that framework is European-led – otherwise, it risks financing an American-designed settlement that leaves its own security fragile.

[…]

At stake is not only Ukraine’s sovereignty but Europe’s credibility as a geopolitical actor. The time has come for the Union to stop paying for other people’s strategies and start writing its own.

  • Dagwood_Sanwich@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    If western leaders were not spineless cowards who spend their time wringing their hands over their reelection chances, the Russia/Ukrainian war would have never started.

    All the US and Europe would have had to do is say, “If Russia invades Ukraine, we’re declaring war on Russia and if Russia deploys a nuclear weapon, every major Russian city will immediately become a glowing crater.”

    Putin would have back off immediately because that would be a fight even HE knows that Russia has absolutely no chance of winning.

    • Anonymaus@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Usa and eu would have a chance of winning nuclear war, is that what you’re saying, have you never heard of mutual assured destruction

      • CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think you’re reading the comment wrong - mutually assured destruction is the threat western leaders should have answered a nuclear threat from Russia with.

      • Dagwood_Sanwich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        There would be no nuclear war because it’s doubtful that Russia’s nuclear arsenal even works. you should look at what goes into maintaining nuclear weapons and consider the absolute state of Russia’s government. Odds are those in charge of maintaining the nuclear arsenal would sell the tritium because of how valuable it is, then claim the nuke works.

        Also, Putin wouldn’t be foolish enough to risk his own demise. He’s more than willing to kill others and sacrifice his own people, if he launched a nuclear weapon, the entire western world would be after his head. Putin know this and is why he hasn’t tried dropping a tactical nuke on Kyiv or exploded one in the atmosphere to fry the power grid. He either can’t or knows he’ll spark a much larger conflict if he does.

        This is why countries like Russia, China, etc walk all over the west. The people are too scared to stand up to them. The Russian military is pathetically weak. The Chinese military is no better.

        • Anonymaus@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Even if just half of russia’s nuclear arsenal works thats still enough to cover whole western world a few times over.