We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11882467 and marked it off-topic.
However I think that effort has stalled in recent past and relations with Russia got a tiny bit cosier, so you might not actually be so wrong after all :)
I actually had no idea anyone had trouble with those countries until I visited Vienna and the tourist shops had a bunch of ironic t-shirts with Kangaroos and boomerangs on them and stuff.
Maybe it was because I was in "speaking German" mode, so Austria is "Österriech" vs Australia is "Australien".
I know the EU doesn't have a history of coordinated military action. But if tanks crossed EU borders France, Germany, Britain and Italy couldn't ignore that.
You can't really judge how an alliance will respond to conflict crossing their borders on the basis of how they've responded to conflict outside their borders. Governments and militaries think borders are a pretty big deal!
More generally, there are some people in "the European project" who would like to see a United States of Europe with its own foreign policy and military. But this is pretty unpopular with voters in most member states, so everyone involved is happy to keep that level of integration on the back burner, leaving member states to respond how they like to foreign military conflicts while the EU maintains "We're a pacifist trading union, not a belligerent military alliance or a superstate, shucks we don't even have a military"
Politicians are happy to keep kicking the can down the road on EU military coordination for as long as it's politically convenient. But if an EU member state was invaded, they couldn't do that any more; they would have no chance but to make a decision.
And public opinion is far more likely to support (and may even demand) a tough, belligerent stance if Russian tanks have are invading our allies.
Crimea was part of Russia longer than the US has existed. While its previous host, Ukraine, has only existed as a country for 20-some odd years.
Once the government of Ukraine was overthrown, the people of Crimea had every right to decide to stay or leave. And you will not find a single poll before-or-after not showing an overwhelming support for the latter.
> it was Ukraine snuggling up to the EU that provoked Russia into intervening...
A foreign-lead coup of a twice elected democratic government that put in a puppet regime for the sole purpose of creating problems for Russia is what lead things to the way they went.
Right now, what is happening in the eastern parts of Ukraine is a civil war - resulting from ethnic cleansing, neocon agenda, etc. And what is happening in the west of Ukraine is a total economic collapse from the so called free-trade deals with the EU.
Let me remember that whole military operation in Ukraine is done by Russia to stop Shell from mining of natural gas in Eastern Ukraine.
Had they not been so warhungry in the 90s, they could be a part of EU and NATO now, like Croatia.
1) its economy is far too screwed up for the EU to include
2) there's still the Kosovo problem, that won't go away soon
3) Croatia and Slovenia will veto an EU membership of Serbia.
It is more than likely that Serbia will turn to Putin instead - and when Putin says "shut them down", Serbia will comply.
Could say the same about Ukraine
Transistria is at border of Ukraine and Moldova, owned by both, with roughly equal populations, but both Moldovans and large part of Ukrainians were at same side. For example, leader of separatists was captured by Moldovan police in Ukraine capital city. Why "conflict" happen if both native nations were at same side?
2. Invest hundreds of millions in mine
3. Have mine taken off you by Putin one day when he's pissed off at the US State Department and wants to strut to the Russian electorate
4. Cry
Seriously, you would be utterly insane to invest in Russia at the moment with money from US, UK or EU. The reason Rio Tinto are so reluctant to invest might well be because they know it could be taken off them tomorrow.