Because, firstly, EU is not a country, I'm a EU citizen and I certainly do not approve of this policy but there's no way for me (or for other people who think the same as me) to vote out the people that make those decisions (I'm also not a French citizen, maybe that way I could have had an effect on Macron holding power or not).
It's a double-edged sword for the EU leaders in the middle to long-term, because once a great part of the European population will start realising that they have been in effect disenfranchised then said population will have no qualms in following new political leaders that will leave "democracy" at the side, and thus leaving the concept of the EU for dead.
The US has already effectively conquered parts of Syria and is busy looting oil from the oil fields. The world stands idly by. Israel is busy reducing Gaza to rubble. The world stands idly by.
> The only message that this position would send is that wars of conquest are acceptable
If the only thing that makes a war bad in your eyes is the goal of conquest, than that seems rather hypocritical in my eyes. Whether land is taken or not, what really makes a country independent is who governs it. Who cares about land, it's just soil and it's not worth human lives.
At least the citizens of eastern UA had referenda to decide if they wanted to be with Russia. I don't think we granted Iraqis or Afghans the same privilege.
> You’re basically describing the start of WWII.
This is such an absurd statement I won't waste my time debating it.
Before the attack on Ukraine people said the same about Russia attacking Ukraine. There is no reason why Russia would do that, and look where we are now.
As the farmer said, "I'm not greedy, all I want is the land next to mine.
> There is also no reason to believe Russia will go any further than Ukraine
It's exactly the opposite: Russia has no reason to stop. Arms industry is ramping up, domestic population has been beaten into submission and can't even organize a single major protest, and governments in the west are under complacent illusion that Putin will stop any moment now. Why stop at Ukraine? You say NATO and nuclear weapons. Are you going to press the button if you are afraid of sending long-range conventional missiles? Of course not.
Long shots like flirting with MAGA to delay tens of billions worth of military aid have also paid off spectacularly.
Russia is punching way above their weight because of foolish illusions about their intentions.
This is very reminiscent of the Phony War phase of WWII. Poland had been invaded, but international support for Poland was much weaker than it could've been, because UK, France and others were irrationally afraid of Germany. They had 110 divisions in the west against German 23, but did not put them into action. After the war, multiple German generals (Alfred Jodl, for example, chief of operations at German high command) said that had allied forces attacked them from the west, Germany would've held on for only 2 weeks at best. Hesitation gave the initiative to Germans and we all know how that went.
If it was about your own home would you frame it the same way of „some land“? If it was your own family shelled or your own country would you argue the same way?
That was in fact Mitterand's goal in late 1989 - early 1990, the other way round, that is, until the Americans (well, the honorable James Baker) freaked out and nothing came out of it. I still think from time to time what could have been if "from Lisbon to Vladivostok" had become real, just as Mitterand had wanted it. [1]
> there's no way for me (or for other people who think the same as me) to vote out the people that make those decisions
You can vote for your country's elections. You can also vote for the EU parliament.
And ever EU nation supports Ukraine, with the exception of Hungary. In this case the policy of the EU is very much aligned with the policy of ... pretty much the entire EU.
My country, Romania, has no effective say in this matter at the EU level. As for the European Parliament and its democratic legitimacy, the lesser said the better. We also used to have “elected” representatives under Ceausescu’s Romania, with the same effective results.
Your country is going to be invaded and reoccupied by Russia if Putin gets his way in Ukraine and Trump delays article 5 just long enough for it to be "not worth it".
Because why should we waste hundreds of thousands of lives on protecting "just some land".
Let us care for ourselves, we did just fine before (we actually fought the Soviets/Russians on their home turf before, unlike the majority of the Western countries), and use those troops you mention for the defense of your own realms, we don’t need them here.
The russian border was last challenged by hitler and before that by napoleon. Anything after that is just been being pissy about everything.
> Beginning with the reign of Ivan the Terrible in the sixteenth century, Russia managed to expand at an average rate of 50 square miles per day for hundreds of years, eventually covering one-sixth of the earth’s landmass.
And second, it may sound as a paradox, but those authoritarian leaders are more connected with the masses and their needs (and vice-versa) compared to a pseudo-democratic and very opaque assembly composed of some hundreds of members (what are now called “parliaments”) of which no-one knows all that much, for that matter.
So a switch to an authoritarian leader would in effect, and comparatively speaking, mean a return of effective power to the masses, because it is on those masses that the legitimacy of said leader depends. Today’s parliamentarian regimes have long lost their legitimacy (notice senile 90+ years old ladies being parliament members in the most “democratic” country on Earth), it’s all a Glasperlenspiel [1] at this point, following prior moves blindly while the reason behind those moves has long been lost.
It's a double-edged sword for the EU leaders in the middle to long-term, because once a great part of the European population will start realising that they have been in effect disenfranchised then said population will have no qualms in following new political leaders that will leave "democracy" at the side, and thus leaving the concept of the EU for dead.