|
|
|
|
|
by gumby
1138 days ago
|
|
The EU is in origin and execution a political entity in which trade is one of its tools. The value of adding, say, Romania to the EU was hardly economic, but important for the anti-war mission. The integration of Turkey would be economically quite significant and valuable, but (sadly) lacks impetus on the political side. It is a NATO member. Likewise, Ukraine’s prewar economy was so small (midway between Hungary and Slovakia) that it would have been economically irrelevant to the EU but, as we have seen, important in the anti war basis. The economic size of the Eurasian Economic Union is quite small and I doubt it plays into the planning of anyone but its members and some of its immediate neighbors. I am from a small country with an economy roughly the size of Russia’s (Australia) and it’s clear that the EU has little interest, positive or negative with trade with Australia. Conversely I have literally never seen mention of the Eurasian version in an Australian newspaper. |
|
If the situation is that you can't invite everybody in, then the plan is defective from the start.