With Trump wanting to support Russia over Ukraine and his talk about leaving NATO, yeah.
With Trump wanting to support Russia over Ukraine and his talk about leaving NATO, yeah.
That being said I don't see EU being able to develop a consensus on this - even if just because of Orban and Fico being Trump allies.
Can't mess with them or Trump will raise hell.
Ukraine send well trained troops there while they were needed in the east. Now they are loosing the ground there but cant really pull out. While loosing trained soldiers as well.
If anything this played quite well for Russia.
No, the fact that Russia didn't use nukes in response to Kursk incursion says nothing about his willingness to use nukes when the security of the state is actually at risk. Nuclear weapons will change the complexion of this war in ways that neither side can fully predict. It is rational to avoid moving the war to an unpredictable stage when the current stage is manageable in your favor. Not every border skirmish is created equal. They do not all rationally warrant the use of nuclear weapons.
Blowing some shit up in the grey zone (or even Kursk) is one thing - his state hasn’t been threatened in any real way (which is their nuke threshold policy).
However, lobbing western made (and make no mistake, western operated) weapons into their internationally recognized territory is an entirely different ballgame.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/has-putin-threatened-us...
If the EU declines to do this then the Polish government and possibly the Swedes will do it. It's a toss up whether Germany will in my estimation.
Nuclear proliferation incoming.
The EU has no army. NATO (which UK is part of) is still in effect and it is not going to change.
If you want security can you really rely on someone who may or may not have your back, especially if they have a policy of transactionalism?
So, the EU needs to look to their own security, and the ultimate deterrence is nuclear weapons. And if the EU doesn't take up the mantle then the Poles will definitely do it, and probably Sweden, and possibly Finland / Germany. And so the EU needs to figure out if they are happy with a fragmented nuclear policy or not.
Nothing is going to happen to NATO.
Hollywood's opinion has been proven worthless and have no influence on elections.
In 2014, nothing was going to threaten the UK's membership of the EU.
In 1989, the Berlin Wall was going to stay put for another 50-100 years.
In 1938, the UK Prime Minister waved paper promising peace in our time.
Nobody saw the Great Depression coming in January 1929.
The mesh of treaties including the Triple Entente was supposed to prevent WW1.
The southern states were convinced they had both legal right to secede and the economic support and military power that the north wouldn't try to keep them.
The British were convinced that democracy was a stupid idea and that the 13 colonies would come crawling back when they realised they needed some proper aristocrats to govern.
The world doesn't much care about things like this, pro or con.
With that said, NATO members (France, UK) have nukes. That's a line Putin can't cross.
In mainland Europe, France with La-Penne and Germany with AfD and now Sarah Wagenknecht[1] have far-right problems of their own and don't have political will for anti Russia stance so they won't be able do much either, rest of Europe are minor players or far-right governments like in Hungary under Orbàn.
[1] I refuse to call her party far left, now matter how she is described in media.
I really hope I'm just not seeing all the pieces, and that such option is not even remotely viable, but it would be bad.
I'm quite sure the US will see a military coup, in the event that Trump tries to ally with Russia and become enemies with NATO countries. I mean, I don't think it is possible for Trump to pull out of NATO. Worst case is he simply decides to shut off all funding.
Politicians are short term, military officers are life-long and ideological.