Ukrainians expect EU to protect country's 'independence and territorial integrity'

[dipsydoodle]

Editor's note: Here is the full text of the speech given by Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko at the ceremony of signing the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union held at the EU Council building in Brussels on June 27, as published on the president's official website.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/poroshenko-ukrainians-expect-eu-to-protect-countrys-independence-and-territorial-integrity-353811.html

Not sure if he's on something.


Ukraine has got an association agreement the same as have


Albania SAA (2009)[5]
Algeria EMAA (2005)[6]
Chile AA (2005)[7]
Egypt EMAA (2004)[8]
Iceland EEA (1994)[9]
Israel EMAA (2000)[10]
Jordan EMAA (2002)[11]
Lebanon EMAA (2006)[12]
Liechtenstein EEA (1994)[9]
Macedonia[13] SAA (2004)[14]
Montenegro SAA (2010)[15]
Morocco EMAA (2000)[16]
Norway EEA (1994)[9]
Serbia SAA (2013)[17]
South Africa ATDC (2004)[18]
Syria CA (1978)[19]
Tunisia EMAA (1998)[20]
Turkey AA (1964),[21] the framework for a CU (1995)
ACP PA (2003)[22]

Currently undergoing ratification

Bosnia and Herzegovina SAA (signed in 2008, interim agreement in force)[23]
Central America AA (signed in 2012)[24]
Georgia AA & DCFTA (signed in 2014)[25]
Moldova AA and DCFTA (signed in 2014)[25]
Ukraine AA & DCFTA (political provisions of the AA signed on 21 March 2014,[26] remaining provisions and DCFTA signed on 27 June 2014[25])[27]

Currently in negotiations


Armenia AA[28]
Azerbaijan AA[29]
Kosovo* SAA (negotiations completed in 2014[30])
Mercosur AA[31][32][33]
Syria EMAA (initialled in 2008,[34] but ratification has been stalled by the EU due to concerns over the Syrian Civil War[35])

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Association_Agreement

I'm not aware of the EU Association agreements serving the purpose he describes even with current EU member states.

[The Magistrate]

1. It Is An Appeal For Diplomatic Support, Sir

Nothing more.

[stevenleser]

2. Interesting what that one will twist into a pretext to criticize Ukraine.

As if we don't all see the extreme bias clearly.

[Igel]

3. As he says, "In solidarity."

Not "as part of this agreement."

It's part of a larger discourse. The inference otherwise is entirely yours; please keep it leashed and clean up after it until it's trained--and don't let it near the carpet.

[dipsydoodle]

6. Not my inference - Kiev Post's headline.

I think their local readers will assume exactly what they are meant to assume.

[KoKo]

4. Not sure if it's a bid for expediting NATO protection going forward....

Seems to be, though, from this part of the speech:

Of course, all of us would have wished to sign up the Agreement under different, more comfortable circumstances. On the other hand, the external aggression faced by Ukraine gives another strong reason for this crucial step.

By signing this Agreement, Ukraine takes enormous commitment in terms of reforms. But it is also a document of joint responsibility.

So, in the spirit of the political association, we also expect that the EU will make everything to support our sovereign choice and protect Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity.

A lot will depend on the European solidarity with these three countries that paid a high price to be in Europe and with Europe. Will Europe be free or partly free? Will it have to worry about more wars and annexation? Or will it be confident in future? These aren't idle questions. And the answer will depend on success or failure of the documents that we will sign today.

[KoKo]

5. His including Moldova and Georgia as "the three" who paid a price

leads me to believe he is pointing out that there are Russian supporters in both countries. Particularly one section of Moldova and he is warning that "protections" will be necessary.
Don't think that's exclusively economic...but, military. So...shot across the bow to Russia while sending a feeler out for expedited NATO support.

[dipsydoodle]

7. The EU itself has no provision for military responses.

Its an economic union.

[KoKo]

8. Now they work together: NATO-EU: a strategic partnership

NATO-EU: a strategic partnership

Sharing strategic interests, NATO and the European Union (EU) cooperate on issues of common interest and are working side by side in crisis-management, capability development and political consultations. At the Lisbon Summit in November 2010, the Allies underlined their determination to improve the NATO-EU strategic partnership.

NATO’s new Strategic Concept, adopted at Lisbon, commits the Alliance to prevent crises, manage conflicts and stabilize post-conflict situations, including by working more closely with NATO’s international partners, most importantly the United Nations and its strategic partner, the European Union.

The Strategic Concept clearly states that an active and effective European Union contributes to the overall security of the Euro-Atlantic area. Therefore the EU is a unique and essential partner for NATO. The two organizations share a majority of members (21), and all members of both organizations share common values.

NATO recognizes the importance of a stronger and more capable European defence. The Allies welcome the entry into force of the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty, which provides a framework for strengthening the EU’s capacities to address common security challenges. Non-EU European Allies make a significant contribution to these efforts. For the strategic partnership between NATO and the EU, their fullest involvement in these efforts is essential.

NATO and the EU can and should play complementary and mutually reinforcing roles in supporting international peace and security. The Allies are determined to make their contribution to create more favourable circumstances through which they will:

fully strengthen the strategic partnership with the EU, in the spirit of full mutual openness, transparency, complementarity and respect for the autonomy and institutional integrity of both organizations;
enhance practical cooperation in operations throughout the crisis spectrum, from coordinated planning to mutual support in the field;
broaden political consultations to include all issues of common concern, in order to share assessments and perspectives;
cooperate more fully in capability development, to minimise duplication and maximise cost-effectiveness.

Close cooperation between NATO and the European Union is an important element in the development of an international “Comprehensive Approach” to crisis management and operations, which requires the effective application of both military and civilian means.

The Chicago Summit in May 2012 reiterated these principles by underlining that NATO and the EU share common values and strategic interests. The EU is a unique and essential partner for NATO. Fully strengthening this strategic partnership, as agreed by the two organisations and enshrined in the Strategic Concept, is particularly important in the current environment of austerity.

In this context, the Secretary General has engaged actively with his EU counterparts, including the President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy, the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Durao Barroso, the President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz, as well as the High Representative/Vice President of the Commission, Baroness Ashton. He has addressed the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee in joint session with the sub-committee on Security and Defence on numerous occasions.Institutionalized relations between NATO and the European Union were launched in 2001, building on steps taken during the 1990s to promote greater European responsibility in defence matters (NATO-WEU cooperation¹). The political principles underlying the relationship were set out in the December 2002 NATO-EU Declaration on ESDP.

With the enlargement of both organizations in 2004 followed by the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union in 2007, NATO and the European Union now have 21 member countries in common².

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49217.htm

[KoKo]

9. A bit more about current news of discussion between them...

http://www.nato.int/docu/review/topics/EN/EU-NATO.htm
9 May 2014
Russian-Ukrainian-EU gas conflict: who stands to lose most?
A possible energy standoff between Russia and the EU would be playing for high stakes. Europe could lose around a third of its energy supplies. Russia could lose about half of its state budget. Who should blink first - and why?


9 May 2014
Transatlantic energy security and the Ukraine-crisis: A blessing in disguise?
The Ukraine-crisis has once again underlined Europe’s vulnerability due to its overdependence on Russian energy supplies. Europe is vulnerable in the short-term, but Russia has more to lose in the medium- and long-term. Could the crisis be an opportunity to further weaken Russia’s stranglehold over Europe’s energy sector?
US Europe bond


5 August 2013
Europe and the US: how strong is the bond?
In the shadow of the US' pivot to Asia, Europe clearly needed to step up its own role in international security. And it has, argues Tomáš Valášek. European efforts in Libya and Mali have already been appreciated in Washington and strengthened the Transatlantic bond.


23 April 2013
Ashton and Paloméros: why the EU and NATO need partners
NATO Review asks two of NATO and the EU's top officials how they see partnerships. And whether they could see a way to partnering with each other more.

http://www.nato.int/docu/review/topics/EN/EU-NATO.htm

[dipsydoodle]

10. Its not really a matter of who blinks first.

Outside of the current situation with uncertainy of supplies through Ukraine there are no significant Russian EU issues on gas least of all with Nord Stream.

The fly in the ointment remains Ukraine as was the case 2008/2009 and hence the importance of Sud Steam.

The long term alternative of LNG shipped by container is foreseen be that of doubling the price to Europe. Whilst that might be in the interests of the US et al regarding the economics of delivery by sea to Europe such an increase might not go down too well with our populations.

[KoKo]

12. I would hope not...

but, then, nothing leaves me to believe that anyone knows about this because they are too distracted by Reality Shows, Sports, Celebrity Pimping, Outrage of the Day..and what not. Plus the promise of jobs, jobs and "energy independence" while we and Canada sell off our hardest to get and last "under the ground" natural resources. But, no worry...! By then (when it's all gone) we will be a total Solar, Wind and other Discoveries...Fossil Fuel Free North America. Let them SUCK OIL..We are Free of It! (Dreamed up by the clueless who've governed us for quite awhile now)....

(sorry...quite a bit of hyperbole, rant there...BUT the ACTIONS of POWER speak louder than the comforting "Diplomatic" words to the masses).

Quote from you:

Whilst that might be in the interests of the US et al regarding the economics of delivery by sea to Europe such an increase might not go down too well with our populations.

[The Magistrate]

11. Of Course They Are, Ma'am

And in the long run it is probably a good thing.

Europe is feeling its way towards a genuine federation. Most of the problems at present, particularly the economic ones, result from 'imperfect union', from local jurisdictions having responsibility for economic matters but no longer full sovereign authority in economic matters, while the embryonic central authority cannot levy on one portion of the whole to assist other portions of the whole.

At present several supra-national authorities are providing some framework for genuine exercise of central authority, though these still fall far short of doing so fully. The European Central Bank and the Euro approach a genuine 'national' or continental economic authority, analogous to, say, the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve. NATO approaches a genuine 'national' or continental military authority, with elements of a 'national' or continental diplomatic authority as well, sort of a combined Department of Defense and State Department. The European Parliament provides an embryonic 'national' or continental political body through which democratic will could be exercised on a genuine federated government, just as two European Courts provide an embryonic 'national' or continental legal authority available for a genuine federated government. In a sense, all the various branches of government exist independently, but are not fused into a whole, rather like some associative creatures in which individual cells or organism come together to form a greater composite organism without being truly multi-cellular creatures.

[KoKo]

13. And.....What COULD GO WRONG....with that?

I hear you....and it almost writes a script for Giganto Sci-Fi Movie...which crept into my mind as I read your post....

"In a sense, all the various branches of government exist independently, but are not fused into a whole, rather like some associative creatures in which individual cells or organism come together to form a greater composite organism without being truly multi-cellular creatures."

Makes me wonder if those "One World Government" CT Types might have a thing or two we could reflect upon. Not, that future thinking writers haven't been foreseeing this here and there in bits and pieces in their writing from previous decades.

If I were one of the more clever DU'ers who do Graphics with expertise....I might find a way to depict what you say. Sadly....I have no such skills...but, a great imagination to inner visualize. I'm sure you will find my last sentence amusing...

My last point though is that I don't think for one moment that Putin a Fascist. And, we will never agree on that. 's

BTW...Putin had to Deal with Larry Summers and others from Wall Street Fucking with Russian Economy in the 90's. Much has been written about it... If you read Financial Sites...which I do.

[The Magistrate]

14. Putin, Ma'am, Is a Flat Fascist, Bred To the Bone

There is not one definition of the term he, and his government, do not meet. Putin did not 'deal' with the persons you mention, unless by that you mean he and his associates profited from them immensely.

I am a supporter of an integrated Europe, functioning as a single nation. It would then be an economy comparable to the United States, with much better norms of governance and social welfare. Unity would magnify its influence on the world, including on our country.

[KoKo]

15. With Nato Striking in Accordance with EU and USA...and on our Taxpayers Dime as we live

with Banking accounts earning Zero PerCent on our SAVINGS.

Okay....but, Integrated Europe is STILL under our THUMB for WAR AND NATO INTERVENTION.

Sorry to shout at you ....but we differ so greatly on this...that I'm driven to EXPRESSING my VIEW...Vociferously!

You are for "Global World Government" thinking that THAT is the better alternative for the Future?

If So... Explain in more Detail how that will work...given that Citizens of Nations GIVE UP their sovereignty to Global NATO and Governing Bodies without our US Congress Control and Input from the PEOPLE?

Seriously...I'd like to have links and discussion from you on this as to where and how you have reached your conclusion.

[The Magistrate]

18. NATO Is Not A Global Body, Ma'am

It is the vehicle by which European nations co-operate in military matters. As Europe comes closer to genuine federation, it will be an agency of, or the model for an agency of, that government to exercise executive military authority. They would be wise to make it a solely European body by that time; the United States certainly has no role to play in a Federated States of Europe, particularly not in its military arm. They will have to provide themselves with an adequate military capacity, but Europe as a whole is quite capable of that.

I do not see how Europe coming to a federation of European states amounts to global world government, or to any nefarious or dangerous thing. I view it as the completion of an evolution to peaceable co-existence among themselves the nations of Europe have embarked on since the harsh lessons of the two world wars showed the dangers and folly of their previous condition of anarchic rivalry. This is a political and economic development which has been in train for at least sixty years, and will doubtless need a couple more decades to complete.

[KoKo]

19. You seem to have faith in a Peaceful Outcome of what you say has been

in the works for "at least sixty years."

Have you taken time to read the details of our "TPP's" agreements? You think this is Peaceful European efforts since WWII or our American Continuation of Dominance with our Tax Payers Dollars in collusion with the 1% Oligarchs of nations well out of the EU that we deal with?

Whatever....yours is an altruistic viewpoint...which time has proven doesn't always work out...even when the best minds "dream."

Hey....it's whatever .... But, the "Fools" are always at work with the Global Financial System... Not going to happen ...the way you see it. But, then...it's differing viewpoints.

[KoKo]

16. Your attack on Putin get's more and more OTT....

What is going on. Give me some links about Fascist Putin? He has a Huge Country to Govern with attacks on all his borders.

He should be working closely with Obama since the ME is a huge problem for both.

I really can't understand your problems with Putin.

[The Magistrate]

17. Putin's Govrnment Meets Every Criteria Of Fascism As Classically Defined

Ultra-nationalist, chauvinistic, reactionary, intolerant of dissent, close mingling of government and economic interests for private profit, appeal to traditional morality against the decadence of the modern world, appeal to restoration of past glories, of which the nation has been cheated by foreigners and traitors --- there is not one of the standard indicators of fascism absent in Putin's Russia.

[KoKo]

20. It is your opinion....

No links no justification to argue back when you are asked.

It's your opinion... and you are entitled to it...but, sad that you don't give reason to sway one to your opinion...even though I've asked.

It seems you have a grudge against Putin that doesn't even allow you to post an article verifying your thoughts or to engage in any discussion about him. It must be something personal ...so I will let it go and not question you further about it.

Peace!