But Ukraine is not part of nato

They had security guaranties from the US and UK after giving up their nuclear weapons inherited from the Soviet Union.

nato members were not happy, they risked a larger scale war by attacking directly. The

They did and do not risk anything.

It became very clear early on, that Russia was all bark and no bite. Russia couldn’t have escalated to an all out European war if they wanted to, while their main psuh was being shredded on a highway towards Kiv. The only option to do so would have been the nuclear one but Putin wants to be Tsar, not dead.

Also even by standards of international law (as if that would account to anything anymore) supplying all sorts of weapons to Ukraine is legal. Any so called red line Moscow drew in the sand has been crossed so far and nothing has happened.

Do you really expect Putin to pull the trigger if European troops enter the battle with the clear communication that they would restore Ukraine to its borders before 2014?

They would very much be willing to conquer the Baltic nations if the opportunity shows itself.

I very much understand that but there is no such opportunity for an all out conquest until NATO is no more.

The author that you referred to, does he speak russian? Estonian? Ukrainian?

I don’t know.

How so?

There is zero chance Russia is ever getting away with that

Is there? Given the rather reluctant support of Ukraine, which is about just enough to keep them in the fight, I’m afraid that at least some NATO members would rather give away a symbolic chunk of land than start a military confrontation. And yes, that would be the end of NATO.

An active fight? Yeah, that’s not going to happen. A passive one, though? Might be an option. Carlo Masala recently published his new book If Russia wins: a scenario (No English translation yet). In it, he draws up a scenario where Russia, after defeating Ukraine, annexes a small Estonian town to test NATO’s resolve in the face of a limited Russian aggression. He bases this scenario on the German Re-occupation of the Rhineland, during which German troops had they faced any serious resistance by allied forces would have had to retreat. In the book NATO members are divided and dismiss the Estonians request for help under Article 5.

Well, we might find out soon enough.

Historical? Maybe. That depends on how you define “historical”. Israel was founded almost 80 years ago. Is that already history? Personally I’d argue yes.

But what legitimizes a state anyway? IMHO it’s not because there has been some vague entity there for X years. Typing this response I came more and more to the conclusion for myself that states have no legitimacy in and of themselves: Why is this border here and not 5 meters further? Especially in Africa and oftentimes in the middle east this is a question that can be answered by “because some old white guys drew lines on a map”. Legitimacy of a state I think, derives mostly from it’s government and whether or not this government can execute their core functions: Representing and providing for it’s people.

When Copenhagen signed […] in December 2023, the idea […] was quite a different proposition to what it is today.

It’s a deal from 2023 not today.

It’d be really interesting to know when and how Orbán flipped from a moderate progressive mindset to autocratic dictator.

The only time I ever had to take a drug test was while crossing into Switzerland.

Or they only get in at all if they commit to providing said nukes for defence of the EU. Can be a double edged sword. As far as I can see the UK has been considerably worse of in terms of their economy without the EU than the EU without the UK. The nukes might very well be the requirement, not the cherry on top.

Oh for fucks sake, I thought we dodged at least this bullet …

I mean, every country has some sort of racially/ethnically motived violence. Humans in general are stupid.

That and he doesn’t want to lose the option of a coalition partner in the future.

Well, then why not put all that money into technology that helps people in a couple of months already?

Yeah, but that was under a woman! A WOMAN! Bless the Lord, we have proper leadership again! /s

Rookies! Our (Germany) bootlickers poll second or first, depending on which surveyor you ask.

Well, this guy (German article) was hellbent on selling his fancy car to a Georgian despite the customs office objection to the export. Turns out customs was right and his car ended up in Russia. Now he is paying.

Why should Orban leave the EU if he benefits from it on multiple fronts?

1. There is the financial aspect: Not every type of funding can be stopped.
2. The EU is an easy target to deflect blame to: Everything bad happening is due to regulations from Brussels, and everything good is of course your own success.
3. The EU gives Hungary a basic standing in international politics: When Hungary received the Presidency of the Council of the European Union which rotates between member states, so it was bound to happen, Orban basically went on a road trip across the world posing as big boss of the EU without talking to any other member states.
4. The EU internally gives Hungary a lot more power than it would have on its own: Technically, every member state is equal. Yes, in practice, some are more equal than others. For example, have you ever wondered why MEPs can get cash reimbursements for travel costs below 800 km without showing receipts?

Some companies however see the directive as adding excessive requirements that would impose bureaucratic burdens and reduce Europe’s competitiveness.

Everyone else is being mean to their workers, so we want too! /s