Baltic - Black Sea Union as an alternative to the EU.

[DrBeer]

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?

[1715593222]

1715593222

[1715593222]

1715593222

[1715593222]

1715593222

[1715593222]

1715593222

[stompix]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

[DrBeer]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

[stompix]

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...

Turkey and Erdogan, who else.

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".

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

About 663,300 Japanese were living abroad,

In 2015/16, around 3.6 million people born in Romania were living in OECD countries, of which 54% were women. Between 2000/01 and 2015/16, the number of Romanian emigrants rose by 2.3 million, with most of the increase occurring between 2005/06 and 2010/11.

Japan has 126 million ....Romania ...had 20 million. Is there even a comparison?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

[paxmao]

...
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.
...

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.

[Hydrogen]

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.

[Ozero]

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?

[Lucius]

I honestly see more chances in bringing back Yugoslavia than this union.

This creation never ceased to exist in the literal sense, although it disintegrated into independent republics, the ties between those who had previously been the rulers of Yugoslavia (UDBA), are still strong, and the children of communists actually hold key political positions in all the countries of the former Yugoslavia.

Their goal is actually to create a new Yugoslavia within the EU, and the unofficial name for the creation is Euroslavia - which is actually the worst thing that can happen to the EU - because it will get a Trojan horse in the form of Serbia, which is actually the westernmost Russian base for all operations. In addition, there is the issue of the Serbian Republic in Bosnia (ethnically clean territory - legally recognized entity) which openly wants to become part of Serbia, and has the support of Russia and Serbia to do so. In case this happens, we have a new war in the Balkans because Muslims in Bosnia have said it publicly several times, and Turkey is standing by them.

Pushing all these people into some kind of community has always resulted in a bloody war, and this time it will not be any different because Serbia has not given up on the Greater Serbia project even today.

[just_Alice]

Interesting idea, such a union would have its pros and cons. I’ll start with the pros:

1. United against the mutual enemy to make real decisions. Granted, Kremlin power is claimed to be enemy for the EU as well, but the thing is that the Russia isn’t such a great enemy to the EU as it is to the countries you’ve mentioned. They claim to help, and they do help, but the situation for EU countries isn’t that serious, as for Ukraine, for instance, so some things they do for their own profit and postpone certain decisions, while countries that are closer to the enemy can’t wait. Baltic Sea Union would help to act faster on this matter.

2. No need to follow someone else’s rules and regulations, ability to create rules of their own.

That’s about it, I’m afraid. And now to the cons:

1. Financial support. All these countries are extremely poor, high corruption level, many people in power are absolutely incapable of proper regulation of such difficult situations. How can such a union ever compete with EU with basically no means of support? And fight a dangerous country like Russia?

2. Mutual principles. These countries have different cultures and, while countries within EU also were different someday, with each day they’re more and more becoming one single strong entity that can move towards a mutual goal. I’m not saying such a consensus couldn’t ever be reached in the Baltic Sea Union, of course it can, but it will take a lot of time. And, right now, at the heights of the conflict, it’s not the best time to resolve such issues.

3. Full loss of EU support. If you’re not with them - you’re against them. Fair enough. Why on Earth would EU spend time and money on someone who wants to compete, rather than join? And without that support, I’m afraid, these countries could find themselves in a difficult economic position.

Overall, I think it would be better to unite, rather than create own union and try to compete with someone who has provided so much help. These are difficult times for many countries, and the last thing we need right now - is fight against each other. We’d only be doing Russia a favour.

[zanezane]

Forming their own union means that they have to get out of EU too as @just_Alice pointed out, it seems pretty good of a deal since you decision making will be much easier since you will have less countries to decide and debate with, but these Union could also meant the slow dissolution of EU as the biggest congregation of countries in Europe meaning that when things go down for EU, the countries that was once united will have to adjust and I am sure that adjustment will probably chaotic at worst.

[Sterbens]

The trade war is getting tighter and what the EU is doing with several other countries is to have additional power in terms of production in the economy, or even in managing natural resources. In order to have an ideal position what the EU is doing at all will seem quite difficult, some of the countries that join are not very large in their export and import production except for now Poland and Ukraine.

Furthermore, traditional geopolitics is a geographical factor that determines the political needs of the EU. I think the Baltics are a project to dominate the Post-Soviet countries and a symbol of the success of European values ​​against Soviet values. We still remember when the 2003 Crossborder Corporation to establish relations with several countries, including Israel, Algeria, Tunisia to Armenia, then followed by Jordan and Azerbeijan even though the cultural lines of these countries are not of European cultural heritage. Then for the EU the issue of security is still a topic that often haunts for almost 25 years.

Imagine all this time the Baltic is still one of the countries that has an important role for Russia, so will this be a solution that can solve the problem that the EU has been avoiding for several years? why? because there are historical values ​​in the Baltic that Russia will defend, the population of Russian citizens, economic strategy, and of course political interests. Meanwhile, Russia-EU relations are even more fractured with their respective interests in the Baltic. Moreover, Russia has geoeconomic interests in the warm waters of the Baltic. Thus, Russia will maintain its political stability in the EU by any means necessary to restore its dominance in the Baltic countries.

[dkbit98]

Baltic Black Sea Union would be just one more globalist project even worse than European Union, all those countries you mentioned can never unite in any other way except with corruption and with Nato.
If you really think that Nato is some peace operation than you are deluded and most of this countrioes are already in Nato, or should I say they are Nato colonies.
Just look what happened recently in one Bulgarian village when Nato soldiers made a ''mistake'' storming in some private property.
It is more likely that we see creation of some union of slavic people, and I don't know why would you exclude Russia that is evil only in eyes of mainstream propaganda media.
Let's think who made most wars and destruction in recent history with excuse of ''bringing peace'' but instead making profit from control of oil and other resources. Not Russia.
Maybe it's time to make more free states based on more freedom and less government parasite crap that is corrupted dead concept of ruling.
We don't need more bs state unions. We need union of free people.

[Fesatmas]

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

In my opinion, this will be a fairly serious event as a form of crazy breakthrough by the EU in dealing with economic recovery in a better direction. With regard to whether or not the union of the EU countries is feasible, I see it will be the same unity as it has been when several years ago the EU did the same thing in order to become a competitor in the world economy. The Baltic region is indeed strategic enough to be used as a cross-border trade route where it can be seen that NATO countries are paying attention to the development of the routes they pass along the Baltic route. I'm not too sure, maybe the EU has a plan that we don't know so far.

[Sithara007]

I completely agree with the points listed by stompix. The European Union itself exists only because Germany subsidizes the other smaller nations. The German tax payers have to deal with some of the highest tax rates in the world, to make this possible. The so called "Baltic-Black Sea" union represents a dozen or so countries which are heavily dependent on EU (i.e German) subsidies. And I don't think that existing EU members like Poland, Estonia or Latvia have any reason to break away from the EU and join the new bloc.

[DrBeer]

....

Hey ! Sorry, I dropped out of the dialogue a little!

1. Radically Islamic state TURKEY Are you seriously Turkey is a secular state with a very "calm" religious situation. So, some statistics:

The majority of the country's population professes Sunni Islam: the Hanafi madhhab and Maturidism.
There are 321 registered communities of various Christian denominations and trends, 36 Jewish synagogues. Christian communities include 90 parishes of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople, 60 communities of Assyrian Nestorians, Orthodox Bulgarians, Arabs and Catholic Armenians, 52 communities of various Protestant trends. In addition, some of the Kurds in the east of the country profess a syncretic religion.

2. "And do you have some numbers about the people fleeing, Japan for example?" - I will absolutely honestly say that I wasn’t looking, and honestly, the scale will be incommensurable. Understandably for people from a country with a high standard of living, migration is possible only if the situation is more interesting or if there are any problems in the territory of residence. Accordingly, this is not such a massive process as, for example, refugees from Syria to the EU, or from Ukraine to the EU. But there is also migration, labor / legislative, in countries with a high standard of living, and this is a process that clearly did not begin yesterday.

update: I dug a little on the Internet. According to polls, from 10 to 11% of the population WOULD LIKE to leave the United States, this is under the last 2 presidents. But this is not factual data, but intentions, so the information is more for speculation than for assessment.

3. "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." - yes, it's clearer, thanks for the clarification. It seems to me that today, most of those who wish have already gone. And perhaps there will be a temporary surge, from the area of ​​"catching the last pass", but it is unlikely that it will be noticeable against the background of the total previous volume of migration.

4. "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. " - It is possible to break a corruption scheme in 3-5 years. This is not fiction, this is reality. But we really have one nuance that complicates this process - a very strong influence from outside and very strong ties of our oligarchy with the eastern neighbor, for whom a free, law-abiding Ukraine is a global problem. Therefore, it will likely be more difficult for us to implement such changes. And we need to wage a "war" against corruption on 2 fronts, in the truest sense of the word.
The second is poverty, this is a specific indicator, and it takes into account, according to generally accepted European or world standards, official income. In our country, there is still a "gray" component of income, which is not taken into account anywhere. The official salary can be at the level of 5,600 hryvnia ($ 200), but in fact - 60,000 ($ 2,500). If we talk about retirees - yes, the pension is low. But we have a system of compensation, for example, utilities, and partially free provision of medicines. My parents and mother-in-law receive social assistance for public utilities for retirement, in fact, the state pays for them (the system of subsidies for pensioners and low-income citizens)
Although there is nothing to hide, high incomes are in large cities, but the population of large cities in Ukraine is more than 50% of the total population. Let's just say - in my environment (60% of IT, the rest are other areas) there is no one whose income would be below $ 1000 per month, and the average is probably in the range of $ 1800-2500 per month. I am talking about this as a citizen of the country who has not gone anywhere

5. "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. " - you forgot about Poland and the Baltic states - this is the gateway to Europe!

6. "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 don't agree with you here! You can remember the Warsaw Pact only from the fact that some countries were part of this bloc. Let's say the Roman Empire - almost all countries were once part of it As well as about suffering - to change for the better, and to take your place in the world system - this is not suffering, this is an achievement!

[fiulpro]

Well I do think that there are many difficulties that the EU is facing but at the same time they are doing okay. I do think that the black sea union might be beneficial for some countries which are outside the EU as well, as you said that the trading benefits will be there for countries like India, which would mean that there would be better deals available for them to choose from and there are companies like Apple which are also focusing on India and other small developing countries.

I completely agree with the points listed by stompix. The European Union itself exists only because Germany subsidizes the other smaller nations. The German tax payers have to deal with some of the highest tax rates in the world, to make this possible. The so called "Baltic-Black Sea" union represents a dozen or so countries which are heavily dependent on EU (i.e German) subsidies. And I don't think that existing EU members like Poland, Estonia or Latvia have any reason to break away from the EU and join the new bloc.

Exactly they are doing great and even during the pandemic I do think that they are able to hold down their fort therefore it would take a while for them to get into this union for sure. But they would need reasonable explanations which I do think is something the union might have to work on.

[stompix]

1. Radically Islamic state TURKEY Are you seriously Turkey is a secular state with a very "calm" religious situation. So, some statistics:
The majority of the country's population professes Sunni Islam: the Hanafi madhhab and Maturidism.
There are 321 registered communities of various Christian denominations and trends, 36 Jewish synagogues. Christian communities include

Let's stop here...
In theory, North Korea is called the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"
Kemalism is dead in Turkey, so is secularism, Erdogan still plays possum because he needs this moderate persona to deal with the EU, in reality just look at his pat outbursts like the one against France and Macron, he plays the same games the Arabian states are, trying to look moderate when inside they can't wait to unleash their "teachings".

And seriously how the hell can you talk about Christian communities when Erdogan is the one who has turned the Church Sophia into a Grand Mosque reversing Ataturk decision?

update: I dug a little on the Internet. According to polls, from 10 to 11% of the population WOULD LIKE to leave the United States, this is under the last 2 presidents. But this is not factual data, but intentions, so the information is more for speculation than for assessment.

Yeah, remember when Trump was president? 1750% of the population was going to move to Canada.
The difference between 10% then would and 25% that have already done so is impossible to compare.

3. "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." - yes, it's clearer, thanks for the clarification. It seems to me that today, most of those who wish have already gone. And perhaps there will be a temporary surge, from the area of ​​"catching the last pass", but it is unlikely that it will be noticeable against the background of the total previous volume of migration.

I've read your reply earlier while I was at work and I asked my colleague what he will do if his country exists in the EU (he is Hungarian). He said the first thing he will do is rent a small bus, drive back home, grab as many relatives and pets as he can and come back here before the borders are closed and there is no legal emigration possible anymore. Probably Romania and Moldavia and Poland will lose another 10-15% in a week.

It is possible to break a corruption scheme in 3-5 years. This is not fiction, this is reality.

Show me a country that has got rid of corruption in 3-5 years. To actually give you a chance make it 30-50. If not 300-500. 

you forgot about Poland and the Baltic states - this is the gateway to Europe!

The is no such thing.
The Baltic Sea is not a gateway to anything since the only access is through the Northern Sea. Shipping through the north route, unloading, transporting over land, loading back onto ships makes no sense. Check out the Europan history, from the Huns to the Mongols, Polish and Lithuanian wars, Napoleon and ww1 and 2, nobody bothered about the Baltic route and nobody does now.

Let's say the Roman Empire - almost all countries were once part of it

Actually not!
The Romans never crossed the central Carpathians and never conquered Poland, Lithuania, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova and retreated from Romania barely 100 years after the conquest. So rather than almost is more like 4 out of 11. And probably this proves once again how impossible this alliance would be since it's a stretch of land that has never been united, and more importantly it has been at war between its people for like 90% of their existence. Especially Romania and Hungary have been a killing field between Polish and Lithuanian armies, Cossacks and Tatars, Turks and Albanian soldiers, with Bulgary and the Romanians taking sides as the wind blew.

It's a Union with no foundation and no clear objective.
There is little to gain and a lot to lose, nobody will be thrilled about it.

[sana54210]

I would say that this would not be as great as people imagine, I mean it looks to be a prime way for these nations to actually visit each other and all, but there are too many political problems in many of them to make it work. These nations getting together could make a strong case for building each other up, which would help them out a lot, however the political rulers of these nations would make it a lot horrible.

Think about it, there are over 4 million! Syrians in Turkey and now millions from Afghanistan are coming as well, you think every other nation would be glad to open up their borders to that? Or Ukraine having problems with Russia, will others face Russia easily as well? I can name few with others but mostly these type of political turmoils could make this a no show, that is why I doubt it could ever happen.

[DrBeer]

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?

No, it's just that such a thought slipped through my mind, looking at what is happening in "old Europe", and in the open spaces around. It seemed to me that such an alliance is quite logical both from the point of view of economic expediency and from the point of view of a certain military-political alliance aimed at real ensuring the security of the participating countries. As the practice of recent years has shown, in fact, all international treaties and obligations on inviolability and integrity are a dummy, but a "powerful, direct blow to the jaw" of the aggressor is a really good deterrent, sobering up the brain and knocking out "imperial crap" or "new brown plague "out of my head

PS Although I agree with some of the participants in the topic - the creation of such a union is not an easy process ...

[DrBeer]

I would say that this would not be as great as people imagine, I mean it looks to be a prime way for these nations to actually visit each other and all, but there are too many political problems in many of them to make it work. These nations getting together could make a strong case for building each other up, which would help them out a lot, however the political rulers of these nations would make it a lot horrible.

Think about it, there are over 4 million! Syrians in Turkey and now millions from Afghanistan are coming as well, you think every other nation would be glad to open up their borders to that? Or Ukraine having problems with Russia, will others face Russia easily as well? I can name few with others but mostly these type of political turmoils could make this a no show, that is why I doubt it could ever happen.

As a resident of Ukraine, I will explain - so that other countries (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, ..) do not face Russian aggression (and the Kremlin no longer hesitates to openly threaten such things), and it is necessary to create, if not a full-fledged union, by analogy with the EU, then at least the organization of the economic community and regional security. Russia is "strong" only against the guaranteed weaker, and will never risk fighting with anyone who can give an answer. Even in Ukraine, there were brave, heroic statements like "we will reach Kiev in 3 days", but it turned out that in the absence of an army (at that time in Ukraine there were only a little more than 10,000 staff of the day-to-day army), ordinary, hastily formed from citizens of Ukraine, self-defense battalions, managed to give a worthy response to the "invincible Russian army", and return more than 50% of the territories previously occupied by Russia and separatists in eastern Ukraine.
And I pointed out Turkey here for a reason - it is the strongest regional player who has repeatedly slapped Russia in the face, after which the maximum response from Russia was actions like "crush Turkish tomatoes"