Topic: Baltic - Black Sea Union as an alternative to the EU. - page 2. (Read 215 times)

I have a positive attitude to the creation of such a union, perhaps not in this particular format, but this is not yet significant. The Baltic states, Ukraine and Poland are already creating joint military units and cooperating in the defense sphere amid growing aggression from Russia. After the pro-European Sandu became the president of Moldova and Russia's influence there weakened significantly, it became possible and real to join such an alliance and this state. Taking into account the fact that in 2008 Georgia already suffered from a direct military invasion of the Russian army, this state should also be interested in such an alliance. Turkey, in its own way, is interested in such an alliance, since Russia is now oppressing the Crimean Tatars, capturing Crimea with the help of military force in Ukraine, and the Crimean Tatars with Turkey have common historical roots.
That is, the Baltic-Black Sea Regional Union may well function primarily to resist the growing military aggression on the part of Russia, which began to attack its neighbors one by one. Economic and other ties can grow depending on the economic benefits for each member of such an alliance.
I just can't understand this is just our discussion of such a possibility, or are these states really already discussing the possibility of such a union?

As an american who doesn't pay much attention to politics or economics in that region of the world.

Wouldn't the natural alliance be composed of nation states who are not currently a part of the EU.

Russia the UK, hungary, iceland and asian states not currently affiliated might gain economic and trade benefits by allying together.

Hong kong, japan, taiwan, philippines and similar countries in the path of chinese expansionism could be another format for future alliances.

Demographic lines and aligned values could pave the way to future alliances in terms of socialism vs populism.

It is clear to me back room deals are being made, behind the scenes, affecting whether or not alliances are made.

And absolutely zero power by any measure, whether military or economic to act as counterbalance of the massive pressure of Russia, EU and even of USA and China. The geography of this union would make it an impossible feat, but you would also need to account for the countries themselves, located around permanent conflict areas.

Just as a reminder, building the EU as it is now took several decades and counted with the commitment of several of the strongest economies on Earth. It would be very rare for these countries to find any common ground or make it work.

It is not a question of figures or data, is just that it lacks the basic elements of strategy, geopolitics and mere common sense.

Turkey and Erdogan, who else.


And do you have some numbers about the people fleeing, Japan for example?


You misunderstood this, I was just making a comparison of what will happen when these countries will secede from the western world. Romanians, Bulgarians, Baltic nations will run just like refugees from Syria.


And it will take a hundred years, I have friends even at work from those countries, they all mention corruption and poverty on why they run away. If ask them what they see as a problem here probably one in a hundred will say corruption. There is no scale on which you can compare eastern Europe with the West, trust me, I'm in the middle and I can see it so damn clear, the difference is outrageous.


There is no model, it's a free economy, goods go where they are in demand, the ports of Greece and Romania and Bulgaria are not used not because of the "model" but because there is no point sending them there. Do you want to carry barges through the Danube through 5 countries rather than having a cargo ship sail cheap and easily to its destination? The goods go where they are needed, goods that are needed in Romania will go to Romania, goods that are needed in Finland will go to Finland, through the cheapest route possible, and that ain't the Danube.

Trust me, those countries allying themselves like a refit of the Warsaw pact will just bring once more misery to all of Eastern Europe, and nobody wants it.
I know there are a few users from the mentioned countries that are now part of the EU that are reading this section, I'm really anxious to see their opinion.

Thanks for your detailed answer and your thoughts on the topic!

1. I do not quite understand who hates whom and who do you consider, among the potential members of the union, a "Muslim country headed by a radical"? Please clarify...

2. "People are fleeing from these countries" - I will disappoint you - they are fleeing from Germany, fleeing from Britain and Japan, and fleeing from the States. This is a natural process. This is called labor migration and this is a normal process, although I agree, not very useful for donor countries of "workers".

3. "The first thing you will have is people who left countries such as Syria, Germany, France, and so on." - this is a consequence of European softness, and even stupidity, playing with "tolerance". The new union may have much stricter legislation for such persons and risks close to zero.

4. "Ukraine, Moldova, Romania and Bulgaria will become the pillars of a union free from corruption." - I do not deny this as long as there is corruption, but this is a systemic problem that must be eliminated. Now I pin a lot of hopes on the new President of Moldova, and the continuation of its course towards the fight against corruption. Which can be a wonderful experience for others. But you will not deny the existence of systemic, high-level, not so "funny" corruption in Germany, Italy, France, .. And also "the top of non-level interaction" for your own benefit, with criminal regimes?

5. "Rotterdam handles more tonnage than all the ports of Greece and Turkey" - well, with the model that has been implemented now, it will be so. But if the new union offers more favorable conditions, why doesn't the system change? There would be a desire - you can change everything!

6. "to unite several countries and think that they will all get along well, and this axis is riddled with a lot of problems" - I partially agree! But sometimes common problems unite much better than common interests.

ZERO!

First, from the start, it's far worse than the Three Seas initiative simply for purely geographical reasons. Second, it's made out of the poorest of the poor in Europe, who will support the cost when Germany is gone, Poland? With what when Poland is itself relying a lot on EU funds for infrastructure?
But the third and most important thing, this would be a union of people who really hate each other, I'm not racist or anything, nothing against religion but if you think Catholic countries will cooperate with one of the most Orthodox ones and on top of that have a Muslim country led by a radical in an alliance and everything will go smoothly you're deeply mistaken. I can see how people in Poland will react when it's time to give Turkey money for infrastructure or negotiate taxes on vegetables and fruits.
Do you think Brexit was bad? Wait for this one.

And the cherry on the cake, don't you see where the trend is, people are fleeing those countries for the west, you think that breaking right now from it will make it better? The first thing you're going to have is people fleeing those countries like Syria and heading for Germany and France and the rest.


Seriously? Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, and Bulgaria will be the pillars of a corruption-free union. I'm willing to bet that even the users from those countries are going to come and laugh reading this.


Nope, it isn't. That's why Rotterdam does more tonnage than all the ports in Greece and Turkey, nobody wants to pay transit fees everyone wants their goods delivered directly to the consumer, and the preferred consumer is one with the money and that's not Ukraine nor Georgia nor Moldova.
Sorry but this Union has the same chances of being successful as BRICS had. I honestly see more chances in bringing back Yugoslavia than this union.

This is exactly what the Europeans did with Africa, they draw some lines on the map and decided that these people should live together because the map looks nice, we all know the outcome. You can't simply stick some countries together and think they will all come along perfectly, and this Axis is riddled with more problems than the EU itself. 

It's no secret that the EU is going through hard times. From financial "imbalance" to internal tensions and global contradictions among the members of the union. I will not go deep into the topic of who and how "helps" to shake the EU, this is their problem, it is for them to solve it.
So, given that the EU's prospects are far from ideal, there are some regional problems at the EU's borders (such as violation of international treaties and attempts to "reshape" the modern map of Europe), how would you assess the idea of ​​creating a new union?
Baltic - Black Sea Union, consisting of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Ukraine, possibly Belarus (after the change of LUkashenko's illegitimate government), Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria (questionable), Turkey and Georgia!

The essence of the union is economic, defense, competing with the EU. A union of "young" persons on the world map, with great internal potential, but to whom the same EU treats with "suspicion" and many restrictions. This alliance will have a clear position of a security alliance, from the systemic, spreading throughout the world, aggression from Russia (Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine have already suffered from this, from the Kremlin they constantly sound threats towards Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland), and will form more concrete responses and measures than the position of the same EU, which is stricken with corruption and long-standing political ties with Kremlin criminals.
Today, the EU, as the leading union in this territory, cannot create comfortable conditions for the development of the above countries, it puts many restrictions, forces them to fulfill, often, stupid / contradictory / unprofitable directives coming from the EU.
 
The geographical position of the Baltic-Black Sea Union gives it a huge benefit - a global transit area between east and west, between Asian countries (Russia, China, India, ...) and the EU. This position allows you to earn huge amounts of money in the coming centuries, provide a huge number of services - autobahns, railway networks, gas / oil pipelines, airports and air hubs, sea and river services, and much more. .. These countries are not burdened with the heavy formalism of the EU, complex economic contradictions, extreme competition.

And so - your opinion, how viable is such a union, relevant and possible for implementation?