nato... jpeg
(540.55 KB, 1200x2251)
us military... png
(246.86 KB, 1100x1205)
>>/48056/
> But if Western Euro multis can own a bit more lands, farms, factories, and workers without restrictive borders and regulations that come with that. Besides maybe they can muscle out some local oligarchs this way and take over their shit.
I see your point. Yes, capital would surely push for more cheap-labour immigrants, privatisation of whatever public industries or services remain in the Ukraine, and the foreign investment and development projects that would surely be created for a potential new member (as was done with other EE states), this coupled with "corruption proves" to clear ground may open clear opportunities for companies to take over existing assets or resources. In fact, Sad Liverwurst also said something about supporting a "Marshall plan" for the Ukraine.
> The EU won't be an independent country (when she turns into a country) because the foreign policy is subordinated to NATO and US will.
There is a potential silver lining to be found: US had been demanding hikes for Nato military budget for years and finally got it now. Most significantly from germany which has allocated ~$100B (this alone is significantly more than russia spends) and vowed to create the strongest european army, but also france and poland. Now, all this is supposed to be subject to the "nato integrated command", i.e. mostly USMIL, but, while a country that doesn't rely on itself for defense is not fully sovereign, a country that funds its own military is most of the way to full sovereignty. So it is possible we might see in the future europe being increasingly able to meaningfully push against decisions made across the atlantic, since the counterweight of military reliance-cross-imposition would become progressively weaker.
Similar developments may take place elsewhere too: There has been repeated talk of japan amending its pacifist constitution to allow development of more serious attack capabilities (which the usa might allow, as long as they are directed against china; yes, washington wrote tokyo's constitution and gets to decides if they can change it) or, if not that, at least significantly increasing its military budget.
On the other hand, it is only a potentiality. We have also seen very official buffoons (mainly from US and UK [plus the Baltosluts who just ape whatever comes from those two places]) talking about "partnerships" and "global missions" that effectively amount to expanding nato into east-asia (e.g. worst korea, japan) or the pacific (maybe singapore?). Will NATO be changed to GAETO? Also, through the Auukus, Australia has already committed itself to serve as spring-board for US's military jumps into the Asia-Pacific region. So, another possibility is that these developments, which basically amount to military build-ups in Europe and perhaps in east-Asia/Pacific, are instead heading towards a WW3-type conflict some years down the road: pushing russia and china together was (probably) an undesired outcome that they nonetheless greatly helped to bring about, through sheer power of witlessness and ideological zealotry, and which now looks a pretty solid trend. So perhaps TPTB have accepted that as a fait accompli and instead of changing course decided to prepare to take them on in the not-too-distant future. The proclamations by the british army staff chief are quite explicit in that regard.
>>/48059/
It's not just "uncomfortable" (Btw, the "uncomfortability" comes from the fact that this is a partial/selective blockade, and a full blockade is a clear-cut casus belli), it is, in addition, a violation of a decades-old trilateral agreement between russia, eu, and lithuania that stipulates that lithuania must provide a route to supply kaliningrad. The agreement requires a 6-months warning notice before a party withdraws, but lithuania gave maybe 2 days of notice.
It is true though that not all supplies are blockaded, so it's an "uncomfortable" and dangerous gray area. Apparently eu will be reconsidering this