Sanctions will not work because russia is getting help from china, india. EU, USA and the west needs to put embargo, heavy sanctions and even threat of attack to india to stop it trading with russia. Otherwise putting sanctions is of no use.
India refines the oil and sends oil products to the West. They are very vulnerable to sanctions actually.
China though, I don't even know what kind of leverage the united West could have on it, and the West is far from being united right now.
They would have to stop arming Taiwan. The Chinese are backing Russia because their leaders believe powerful nations should have a right to eliminate "threats" near their borders. But I think it is also more likely that China received secret promises and material concessions from Russia over Taiwan and other nations.
So to sacrifice Taiwan to a hungry dictatorship? This is not the leverage, this is capitulation. And it won't stop russian-chinese relations, because powerful nations also have a right to trade with whoever they want to trade with.
I agree that's not a good idea but it would cut russia off from overt trade with China which would collapse their economy. But that would probably lead to russia threatening nuclear war. Sanctions dont work well against larger nations.
Lol. 19th package. Meaning the other 18 were ineffective. Also meaning they are afraid to go all in.
It sucks to have an economy fully dependent on your enemy
These packages should've come all at once right from the start. Why is the EU still pulling its punches?
Yes, and they should have started in 2014 already.
Some countries and their business sector managed to get themselves tied to Russia and aren't keen to lose that money
Fuck all of them. If you choose to do business with fascists and dictators you deserve to lose everything.
Because EU cannot afford high inflation with stagnating growth
Sanctions should be expanded, but I think boots on the ground should be started, not as a NATO action, but as individual countries, with autonomous command.
Not that it matters but the EU had insisted that it's up to Ukraine to negotiate. The meeting ended with Trump saying that it's up to Zelenskyy to negotiate a ceasefire.
“He left Anchorage without making any commitment to stop the killing,” the official added.
Why should there be one at that point? It would question Zelenskyyk's authority.
Trump said it's up to Zelensky because this idiot achieved nothing for Ukraine. Russia offers capitulation to Ukraine - exchange territory Ukraine controls for a ceasefire. It puts Ukraine in a worse position than before and makes it easier for russia to take Ukraine later.
Ceasefire, because "long lasting peace" being based on agreement with russia, and either this agreement gonna be unique agreement, the one they aren't gonna break unilaterally as they did with all agreements before, or, more likely, it's a waste of paper.
Without Ukraine being in some military alliance that requires boots on the ground means russia will break it. Military assurances Trump is proposing to Ukraine are basically the same level of help we took for granted from Biden admin. And again, not like USA has a history of being fair in promises given to Ukraine, see Budapest memorandum.
USA has a history of being fair in promises given to Ukraine, see Budapest memorandum.
It, *meaning Budapest, was assurance, not guarantee, with explicit notes that stressed that the English meaning was relevant. No diplomat could have expected more.
The sad thing is that the public was kept in the dark.
But even if you look at Nato, there is no requirement for boots on the ground.
*edit
It says guarantees in each version but English, and it states nowhere that English is the main document and the rest are translations. All the versions have equal strength.
Besides, even if there are no guarantees, it doesn't make USA look better for forcing Ukraine to sign off a deal that left Ukraine defenseless under the threats of global isolation.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-ukraine-give-nukes-russia-us-security-guarantees-1765048
The interesting part is that Ukraine kept pushing forward after they found out. Which shows that it doesn't matter how the USA looks.
Literally from your article:
That decision caused some consternation in Kyiv, which was initially reluctant to sign but backed down after U.S. President Bill Clinton implied that such refusal could damage bilateral Ukraine-U.S. relations, according to those involved in the negotiations.
USA actions in the 90s caused this war today. If those politicians didn't try to "reset the relationships with russia" at the cost of Ukraine, russians wouldn't dare to launch the full scale invasion.
Kallas was apparently referring to Putin. He (Putin) left Anchorage without making any commitment to stop the killing.
This has nothing to do with Zelenskyyk or his authority.
Yes, she was referring to Putin. Why should Putin make that commitment after meeting Trump?
She's saying Putin isn't going to stop so we need to prepare for Russia to continue the war.
Yes, no question about that. The strange part is that she justifies it by the lack of Putin making a commitment.
Why should Putin make that commitment after meeting Trump and not after meeting Zelenskyy?
Nobody is saying he should've done it but rather just says aloud the *expected fact that he didn't commit to it.
I think that sends the wrong signal. By bringing it up it suggests that it was a possible outcome.
I mean it was possible, just very unlikely.
unexpected
~~Who had expected the commitment?~~
~~Why should Putin commit to anything before a negotiation? If Putin is supposed to negotiate with Zelenskyy then the EU cannot have that expectation. If they do then they undermine their previous position.~~
I don't think anyone had that expectation.
the unexpected fact that he didn’t commit to it
The expected fact would be a commitment.
You're right, I wrote incorrectly. I meant to say the expected fact.
Because that's what trump wants. Are you paying any attention to this?
That's the US perspective whereas EU says that Russia and US cannot negotiate about Ukraine without Ukraine.
Now the meeting has ended with the US leaving the negotiation up to Russia and Ukraine. Why hold that up against Russia?
There is no "the US perspective" or "EU perspective" here, it's Ukraine's sovereign power to do as they see fit, you seem to either be completely unknowing of the russian invasion or just trolling.
That's why the EU shouldn't make statements that suggest otherwise.
What about taking your own advice and shut it?
Soon. So you don't have a counter argument?
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org