It's great in the early stages to dissuade that sort of thing, but ultimately you need weaponry and manpower to counter military threats.
If you are being punched, you are done arguing with the bully. Hit them back.
And it was Russia that invaded Ukraine. Obviously military buildup is the correct response to that incredibly callous action. Russia has to lose this war, there is no alternative.
This is a bit of a strange perspective.. The EU was the largest buyer of LNG from Russia, Russia had everything to gain economically.
There are a wealth of issues involved, one of those is the Russian paranoia surrounding the "Big Bad NATO" when last I checked, NATO never annexed anywhere. In fact they go out of their way to AVOID conflicts.
Putin and co's claims that Russia was under threat is just nonsense.
Obviously every euro that's moved away represents a loss of mutual interest with Russia.
If the EU guaranteed they would send X billions every month forever, on the condition of no military invasion, then I highly doubt the Kremlin would have been as aggressive.
> If the EU guaranteed they would send X billions every month forever, on the condition of no military invasion, then I highly doubt the Kremlin would have been as aggressive.
I'm sure you mean this facetiously but it's worth pointing out how ridiculous this sounds, like being extorted by Russia ?
Edit : Decades not generations.
It probably would have been smarter for the EU to just pay up instead of paying 2x or 3x more for less than nothing, since all the money spent instead on military equipment, soldiers, ammunition, etc., is just turned into scrap and body bags on the battlefield. Which the EU will likely have to pay to clean up and restore in the future.
So moral compass doesn't matter for you. "Pay the shake down" is your take.
> Which the EU will likely have to pay to clean up and restore in the future.
You say clean up, but forgetting that Ukraine has an incredible amount of highly skilled/educated population. They're not some 3rd world lost country as you imagine.
Investment in Ukraine when things finish up might actually be beneficial.
Since the usual standard of modern day western society is that a soldier's life, including Ukranian soldiers, is worth quite a bit.
Nor was there any movement in the direction of Ukraine joining NATO, so that’s no analogue.
In a sense you're defending oppression and lack of independence.
We see a mature grown up approach from Europe, diplomatic, although slow.. Means that a lot less people die in the decision. If they decide to leave the EU, go ahead. If they decide to join, it's decided my all members based on criteria.
Nowhere along the line does someone say : "Well, we're claiming Ukraine as our because it's close to your border."
Even though Russia is clearly worse on this front, you can't really say this about NATO either. While technically they haven't annexed anywhere, NATO itself did invade the sovereign territory of a country, in Kosovo (for very good reasons - to stop a genocide), and NATO countries have collaborated on invading Afghanistan and Iraq (even though this was not officially done through NATO itself, the difference seems more technical than real).
So, without excusing Russia's behavior in any way (to be clear, they are currently engaging in a monstrous war of conquest in Ukraine, and are guilty of many war crimes, including the war crime of Aggression, which got the leaders of Nazi Germany hanged at Nurenberg), I don't think we should pretend their concerns about NATO are entirely absurd.
For example, if Ramzan Kadyrov started committing genocide in Chechnya, and if Georgia had joined NATO (which was raised as a possibility in the aftermath of the Bucharest summit of 2004, along with Ukraine), would it be unthinkable that NATO may use their close-by position to covertly support separatist rebels seeking to depose Kadyrov and declare Chechnya independent of the Russian Federation? I don't think it's at all absurd (and of course, if a genocide was taking place, I think it would in fact be a moral act to do so - balancing with the increased risk of global nuclear war).