Also, france has a first-strike policy.
So even without US troops, europe will be fine.
A sizable part of the population has wanted the US out of especially germany for a looong time now, so those movements have become pretty popular again. I haven't heard "ami go home" in a long time, but right now it's common.
It's served us well having a member of NATO saying they'll go full-on nuts. One of the best deterrents ever. Thanks France, with love, USA.
Can you provide a source for this? It would be big if true, in particular the Germany claim. I've not heard it and couldn't find things with a quick google search.
Germany is currently already doing nuclear weapons sharing with the US, i.e. they have access to US nuclear weapons though of course with some restrictions.
What you wrote sounds like Germany would be working towards having new nuclear weapons to be produced in Europe without US involvement and shared without US restrictions.
The political work for it is being done right now. However, I reread my comment and realized, it could be interpreted as "actively working at the weapons" instead of the political framework. My apologies in that case.
[1] https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/nuklearwa...
I think that's quite an important difference from your original wording.
Edit: seen your other comment, that clarifies: https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/merz-consider... -- this is already a surprise to me, even though it is well short of self-made nukes.
France (and the UK) having an independent nuclear deterrent is because they (/we) didn't want to risk someone like Trump when the USSR was still around:
“The General himself had asked whether we would be ready to trade New York for Paris.” - https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v14...
A powerful conventional army capable of proportional response is the only realistic deterrent.
The entire point of the doctrine is that any sane person in charge of a country('s military) would never risk getting their own country nuked just to attack another country, so having nukes on your side means that no one else will attack you.
This...does somewhat break down when we end up with people in charge of nuclear countries who are not sane.
Certainly something for the invader to think about, isn't it.
If push came to shove, the only ally Ukraine needs to equal Russia (as it is today) is Poland.
They'd rather not have to as it would be expensive, but Poland could match 100% of current outside assistance for Ukraine[0] for a smaller fraction of their GDP than Ukraine itself is currently spending on the war[1].
The USA and Russia agreeing with each other to carve up Ukraine would be a much harder battle.
Well, it would be harder unless DOGE actually does make good on the claim of $2T cuts, because the only way of reaching $2T without touching the "mandatory" budget (mandatory = social security etc.) is to delete the entire armed forces and the CIA (and basically everything else) and just under half the interest payments on the loans, which in turn means they'd have no power to carve anything up.
[0] $380bn over the first 2 years according to Wikipedia, so lets say $190bn/year
[1] Ukraine plans to spend ~$53.7 billion in 2025, about 26% GDP
Poland's GDP is $915, 26% of that would be $237.9 billion / year.
I don't even know how Europe would respond to that, and I live in Berlin.
Canada… not so much. For all the talk, he'd be absolutely screwed if he tried. If you think Fentanyl is a problem now, wait until it's supplied for free by drones sent by Canadian civilians paying for it out of pocket because they've never heard of the Geneva Convention or the Chemical Weapons Convention.
(Harder done than said, of course; if it was that easy to mess with populations, western Russia would be high as a kite right now).
Even if the sanctions would include, e.g. all Trump assets (like the Scottish golf course) being seized.
So I guess my question is aren’t Europe already by themselves?