When will Europe act in its own interest

[NotHardUp1]

As the worry increasingly swirls over the nuclear reactor in Zaporizhzhia, it brings the question of how long will Europe's great powers tolerate the war on their doorstep, which threatens to boil over with a nuclear cloud if the plant is allowed to be a casualty.

Europe is afraid to provoke Russia, but at what point does it become in Europe's self-interest to intervene, collectively, possibly militarily, in the conflict? Surely Europe cannot just sit by and let a nuclear cloud blow their way -- AGAIN.

Maybe Europe declares the no-fly zone, a sort of enforced stand-down or cease-fire.

After all, Russia must calculate what it is worth to shoot down European fighter jets patrolling Ukraine to enforce a cease fire. Althought it's easy rhetoric to say they will risk it, I don't think that is so credible.

Imagine fighters from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Spain, Greece, the UK and others acting simultaneously. It only sounds like WWIII on paper. If announced and enacted in tandem, it would be a first, but IN Europe's interest.

Hoping the Ukrainian invasion just magically resolves isn't going to happen.

What is the solution?

 

[LeicsDom]

I think that long term Europe and the West need to isolate Russia economically. That is the only solution
Threats and aggression will only provoke a nuclear reaction

 

[NotHardUp1]

So, you advocate that Europe stand by and watch a 2nd nuclear disaster possibly contaminate it?

And you characterize a peacekeeping effort as "threats and acts of aggression"?

Is this not a more contemporary version of Lord Chamberlain's "plan"?

It sounds all very passive with a war on your doorstep and clear signs of it escalating right now.

Does anyone really think Russia will lob a nuclear weapon short of it being violated territorially by a credible threatening force?

 

[rareboy]

NATO is both a blessing and a curse.

With most European nations belonging to NATO, there are limitations to their involvement without ramping up to Article 5.

And Europe allowed itself to become WHOLLY dependent on RuZZIan gas and oil.

But I have the sense that all of Europe is just on tenterhooks waiting for that moment when the line is crossed and they are able to throw everything they have against the evil Kremlin oligarchy.

But they have to have ALL of NATO behind them.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Not wanting WWIII is a legitimate concern for Europe with war by a superpower on its doorstep, but it's a bit like the hawk and the chicken yard. It's really not enough to cluck about and clamor each day as another chicken disappears from your midst.

Just as in the invasion of Ukraine, NATO is falling short of adequate preparation and response. A no-fly zone could have been declared as a deterrent WHEN Russia invaded by land, as a pre-emptive declaration by neighbory NATO that it viewed such aggression as an imminent threat to NATO security in Europe. It did not, and seeing Russia mass troops before invading was plenty of time for emergency action.

Further, NATO isn't Europe. Pacts could have been signed with Ukraine prior too, or during the crisis, pre-invasion, to protect a European country, non-NATO, facing invasion. That said, I think Zelensky avoided those actions out of a fear that making such a pact might trigger an invasion they did not believe would happen before it happened.

Now, the nuclear plant is in jeopardy, and Europed appears willing to deal with the fallout, pun intended, rather than do anything to prevent it.

Is there something NOT like WWII or WWI about this that I'm overlooking? Europe's acting like some bumbling baby, and not behaving as a self-determined entity, ready to be only reactionary by design. The EU isn't supposed to be a shield from acting for national sovereignty in alliances.

 

[DepravedMuscleFTL]

it seems to me that Europe is acting like Europe - just like during both I and II - then half of the ones that do get involved decide after they determine who is winning....

but nuclear is an entirely different beast - no one stands to win - and the biggest loser would actually be the closest to the fallout - which is Russia itself - that is the only good thing about nuclear is that it checks itself - no one locally wants nuclear including the aggressor - it's a lose/lose - the threat of nuclear is just that - it is evident that Russia is NOT really a world power and pretty damn weak strategically - they have world power weapons but idiots at the helm with no game plan - this is not a dominant military engagement - it is sloppy and aimlessly - the shells that hit Zap were unintentional - or they are bigger idiots than it appears -

as Leics suggested the keys to victory are fierce economic sanctions - basically if you want the war to end you just starve the bastards to death

 

[NotHardUp1]

it seems to me that Europe is acting like Europe - just like during both I and II - then half of the ones that do get involved decide after they determine who is winning....

QFT

It's a shame we don't have our Italian, French, German, or native Spanish members still posting here. We're mostly down to North America and UK. But we still have Harke, so some voice.

 

[unloadonme]

it seems to me that Europe is acting like Europe - just like during both I and II - then half of the ones that do get involved decide after they determine who is winning....

I disagree. Even if it were ever to appear that Russia was winning, I can't see half of Europe ever siding with them. That risks encouraging them to try the same tactics somewhere else.

but nuclear is an entirely different beast - no one stands to win - and the biggest loser would actually be the closest to the fallout - which is Russia itself - that is the only good thing about nuclear is that it checks itself - no one locally wants nuclear including the aggressor - it's a lose/lose - the threat of nuclear is just that - it is evident that Russia is NOT really a world power and pretty damn weak strategically - they have world power weapons but idiots at the helm with no game plan - this is not a dominant military engagement - it is sloppy and aimlessly - the shells that hit Zap were unintentional - or they are bigger idiots than it appears

It's precisely (and obviously) because of the nuclear threat that NATO won't engage Russia directly over Ukraine.

As Leics suggested the keys to victory are fierce economic sanctions - basically if you want the war to end you just starve the bastards to death.

Exactly. Don't sell them anything, don't buy anything from them. Don't go there, don't allow Russian passport holders to come here and expel those who are here already. Freeze Russian assets; in fact sell them and use the proceeds to compensate Ukraine.

The UK still has diplomatic relations with Russia. I can't see the point of that. I would have sent their ambassador and his staff packing on the day Russia invaded Ukraine.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Avoiding nuclear missiles is one thing, but I'm really talking about the passive aspect of allowing the nuclear plant to possibly go Chernobyl. Surely the potential is enough to prompt some sort of prevention by the great powers.

 

[unloadonme]

Avoiding nuclear missiles is one thing, but I'm really talking about the passive aspect of allowing the nuclear plant to possibly go Chernobyl. Surely the potential is enough to prompt some sort of prevention by the great powers.

The United Nations is supposedly going to do something about that, although what and when remains unclear.

 

[DepravedMuscleFTL]

the key word was "the ones that DO get involved" - I wasn't insinuating that half of Europe would join the Russians - I insinuated that you can't trust the ones that do actually get involved - in II we saw that 7 other countries joined the Axis knowing the atrocities of the Germans - there were 21 countries that fought in II - that means 1/3 supported evil - all of which joined the bandwagon after they gauged what they thought was a winning German campaign - the rest of Europe sat idle with blinders

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

NATO is both a blessing and a curse.

With most European nations belonging to NATO, there are limitations to their involvement without ramping up to Article 5.

And Europe allowed itself to become WHOLLY dependent on RuZZIan gas and oil.

But I have the sense that all of Europe is just on tenterhooks waiting for that moment when the line is crossed and they are able to throw everything they have against the evil Kremlin oligarchy.

But they have to have ALL of NATO behind them.

Where on God's green Earth is the line?

 

[NotHardUp1]

The United Nations is supposedly going to do something about that, although what and when remains unclear.

 

[rareboy]

Well, the EU is apparently going to restrict visas now...after a number of front-line countries said they would do it unilaterally.

The last thing Europe needs are RuZZianz fleeing to the west on holiday in order to tell everyone why they approve RuZzia's invasion and Ruski-mir fascism.

 

[NotHardUp1]

On NBC's Meet the Press today, a guest said the UN commission or an IAEA delegation was going to Ukraine this week to inspect, and in the panel discussion on the show, the question was raised about how long before the UN made a decision to go in with a peacekeeping force and take control of the plant.

I think Russia will play hardline and threaten to widen the war if they are pushed out of the plant.

As in the invasion and the air zone, I think Europe will be bamboozled rather than call Russia's bluff. Although the leaders all too readily sacrifice Russian blood and make them martyrs, they truly won't risk a full-scale war with the West for just Ukraine. It's a bluff, and Europe should call the bluff and go in with a purely defensive mission to protect Ukraine's cities and certainly the nuclear plant and power grid.

It's time the European voices led the demands to enforce a cease fire.

 

[belamyi]

It always does, like everybody... but, like everybody, not in its own BEST interest.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Today President Zelensky announced a counteroffensive. Not sure they have enough force to do it, but I wish them success, and hope all the allied powers will help them regain the ground.

It would be so sweet if they were to actually push Russia out of the Crimea or the east.

The news said the UN delegation would recommend shutting the plant down. Not sure that is the right solution. That punishes Ukraine with massive power shortage.