The pervasive issues with corruption in pre-war Ukraine were universally recognized, not in the last place by Ukrainian officials.
In fact, you might remember US ambassador Yovanovitch, who was a staunch supporter of Ukraine’s anti corruption efforts, but had to go when it started interfering with President Trump’s own corruption. It was a whole thing. There was an impeachment and everything.
Anyway, two things can be true at once. Ukraine is the victim of a horrific war of aggression by its much larger neighbor and deserves our unwavering support. Ukraine has a serious corruption problem that needs to be at least partially addressed before it can be integrated fully into the western systems.
It’s not a slight to Ukraine to say this. It’s a recognition that we have work to do. Together.
People are obsessed with Ukraine. Getting tiring. No one gave a crap about that corrupt nation just a few years ago. Now I guess the TV told them they’re important so people literally worship them now.
Or, it’s the first major conflict in 75 years in Europe and people have immense compassion for a country that’s been invaded on a whim by a right cunt, just because they’d like to become more democratic.
So, let me turn this around: should the EU be structured so that it is resistant to corruption in member states? I mean, I’m not saying that corruption doesn’t create a problem for Ukraine – it does, and there are people with good reason to go after it. But does it make sense to precondition EU membership on it, if the EU as an institution is resistant to corruption problems in member states? I mean, Ukraine is not the only country with corruption issues; all EU members see some degree of corruption. And being outside the EU creates a number of other problems for Ukraine and probably other countries; now they’re trying to deal with corruption issues concurrently with economic challenges created by not being in the EU.
Corruption can increase; if a member country starts having increasing problems with corruption, it seems to me that the EU shouldn’t run into problems with that, and the only way it can do that is if it’s resistant to corruption in individual members.
Yes, the EU should consist of democratic and non-corrupt nations, with being a healthy democracy as the bare minimum requirement. You mentioned corruption in Ukraine as if its level were similar to that in other EU countries, but it isn't. From my perspective, Ukraine's Euromaidan was a significant step in the right direction, albeit just one of many needed.
The European Union already has nations grappling with issues related to the rule of law and democracy. The goal should be to promote these values and expect them from both current member nations and aspiring candidates. To be considered a part of the European Union, countries should embody these values.
I wish Ukraine and Georgia the best, but it's not unfounded for people to point out the challenges these states face in those aspects.
The guy that was prime minister of a sovereign money laundromat doesn’t have that much moral ground to speak. At least Ukraine is trying to clean up their act while fighting a war for their very survival as a nation.
I might sound like a centrist, but so what. Ukraine has a problem with corruption, stood with nazi during WW2, and might still have problem with neo-nazi today.
But how is that a reason for a full scale invasion by Russia, especially considering that Russia also has problem with corruption and neo-nazi.
Ukraine did not exist during WW2, it could not have stood with Nazis. While some of the people probably did, so did some of everyone else. We had Americans, Brits, French, Poles and even some Russians who were traitors.
The fact that this Russian propaganda that Ukraine is somehow Nazi actually spreads is sad…
We had Americans, Brits, French, Poles and even some Russians who were traitors.
Not just that but there were also Nazi-like parties in most of the other countries at the time. Germany was mostly unique in that they came to power but it is not as if that type of political movement didn’t exist elsewhere in the 1930s.
It’d be hard for Ukraine to invite anyone to the Canadian Parliament when Ukraine is not part of the Canadian Parliament. They’re the invitee, not the inviter.
Like, I can’t just invite myself into your house, that’s just not how invitation works.
So I looked into it more. At first I thought that the Nazi was Zelenski's +1 and it was Zelenski who didn't know who he was, but it turns out the Nazi was invited by the speaker of Canada's House of Commons as a fighter of the First Ukrainian Division, not knowing that the division was a volunteer Nazi unit
That is. It’s been blaring from their media for a solid year now, and is the stated casus belli of their invasion. It is 100% Russian-produced misinformation, leveraging the fact that people don’t know anything about Ukrainian history to attack them with false stories.
It’s an old trick. The Nazis tried to convince the world Poles were stupid and needed to be ruled by overlords, by misrepresenting and twisting stories with their propaganda. Poles never actually charged tanks with their cavalry, there are no records of that ever happening, from Nazi or Polish sources.
So, Ukraine didn’t invite dude to Canadian Parliament. People think they did, even though that’s not really even feasible. Where do you think that unnatural idea most likely came from?
Russian propaganda exists. It’s out there. People listen to it sometimes.
Just elsewhere in this thread there’s an example. Are you, perhaps, a Russian propagandist? I can’t think of why else someone would try to downplay Russian propaganda, when it’s so clearly and obviously being pumped out. As we would expect, since there’s a war ongoing.
Obviously it’s not, but he’s speaking in the context of Ukraine’s EU candidacy, not whether the war is justified. I do also think that we shouldn’t give EU membership to Ukraine before they fully got their act together on topics like corruption and fulfill all criteria of membership. They’re working towards that but it’ll take many years. Giving them some kind of fast track, or acting like they could join in 2-3 years, is IMO a terrible idea.
Imho he has valid points regarding Ukraine’s chances of EU membership, in its pre-war state Ukraine was very far from ready. There’s a chance the war will help with reducing corruptions, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
They've been pushing several anti corruption laws but that's obviously still a slow process to actually root the people who are corrupt out. Though, it still might work as a preventive measure too. Either way, as the other commenter stated, that's not really any sort of excuse for Russia's invasion (which are also even more corrupt than Ukraine). And Juncker has always been a hypocritical piece of shit.
Obviously there is corruption in the EU and its member states and it is causing issues for the people and the operation of the EU itself. In this situation the last thing the EU needs is a large country, with even bigger corruption issues, joining.
Add comment