Or maybe Russia is upholding the premise that a country can't join a free trade area with one trade block and expect to receive preferential treatment from a rival trade block. In fact, that pretty much what Barroso said earlier this year, though he meant it the other way around. And while an association with the far richer EU would be beneficial to the Ukraine, would it offset damages from worsened trade relations with Russia. Add the kind of conditions that Ukraine would probably have to accept from the IMF for a loan and the choice doesn't seem nearly as clearcut.
The long-term political situation makes alignment with the EU much better for Ukraine IMHO. Better to become part of the integrating European Community then a vassal of anachronistic and authoritarian Russia.
In a country as polarized as Ukraine, statements such as these are about as meaningful as "America stood behind Bush in 2004", ie not at all.
You know what I mean, stop hairsplitting.
As for Georgia, "standing up" against Russia resulted in hundreds of casualties and tens of thousands of people permanently expelled, so perhaps such actions, however brave they may seem viewed from 10 thousand km away, shouldn't be emulated so rashly.
Well I guess if the Russians are going to use force then everyone should just give them what they want. Not. Also it's highly unlikely Russia would invade Ukraine because doing so would almost certainly lead to open war with the EU nations.
And when Georgia demands that NATO fulfills their treaty obligations and remove the Russian occupying troops (in Georgia's view) from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, what will happen then?
They won't, that's just silly. The obligation to use force would only apply if Russia renewed offensive action. Technically speaking we would be obligated to retake South Ossetia but in real life it's a more complicated situation. The idea is that it would be a defensive alliance. The United States would be the senior partner and the Georgians would know better then to make ridiculous requests.
Also, Lukashenko being removed doesn't mean that Belarus will suddenly become a pro-Western country. Belarus is overwhelmingly Russian speaking, has little cultural differences with Russia and their national consciousness is fairly weak. So it's quite possible that Belarus might become even closer to Russia if Lukashenko is removed.
Good point. Perhaps Belarus is a good buffer state.
And Romney was right in the sense that if you want a country to be your foe, it will eventually become so. Why the US would want this to happen with Russia is another matter.
It's not a matter of "want". It's a matter of competing geo-political interests.