Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies | Hacker News Reader

Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

reuters.com

188 pointsJumpCrisscross286 comments

For several reasons, France is uniquely positioned to be the leader of Europe. Nuclear arms, a lot of nuclear energy, defense industry, food independence. All of this thanks to Charles De Gaulle, who insisted that France must be autonomous in most important domains.

With hindsight, this was extremely important. Without France's nuclear energy and arms, Europe would be in a very very bad position right now.

Ain't it the truth.

The UK also has a nuclear arsenal [0]. A bit smaller than France's, but the reality is both pale in comparison to the US and Russia. Europe has no natural leader, it's an ensemble of what some would now call random countries that only have relevance when considered together.

But that doesn't need to be an issue imho. Decentralized systems are generally messier but also more resilient than centralized ones. If this situation leads to an arms race of individual countries, the outcome may well be that the combined total force is the strongest on the planet. The question is whether they're willing to go there. They would have the engineering and industrial footprint, but they would completely need to change their political DNA. Avoiding armament of European nations is literally the EU's original raison d'être. On a more practical level, they would need to ditch the Maastricht rules on fiscal discipline, something that is also deeply enshrined in the EU's institutional mindset, as well as its laws. Or they would need to issue collective debt, but that runs against the political DNA of some member states. Everything is doable, the question is whether the sense of urgency is strong enough. Given how keen European leaders currently are to let everyone who wasn't asking know that they're helpless without the US, it seems that there's still a long way to go.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we...

Without in any way indulging in the delusion of a united Europe, in which Germany is willing to subordinate itself to France, one thing is worth saying:

The UK does have a nuclear arsenal, but it's essentially leased from the US.

> in the delusion of a united Europe, in which Germany is willing to subordinate itself to France

The Haudenosaunee a/k/a Iroquois had a unique confederacy consisting of two dominant and a few lesser powers [1][2]. And the Roman Republic had two consuls, including on campaign. Maybe a nuclear command inspired by both is the answer: any launch requires codes from each of Paris, Berlin and the head of state of the country actually launching.

(Practically, the Germans are sort of irrelevant given they not only have no nuclear weapons, they’re also dismantling their civil nuclear expertise. I’m assuming they grow up and reärm. Otherwise, centralising nuclear power in Paris doesn’t depend on Germany agreement.)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois

[2] https://youtu.be/S4gU2Tsv6hY

The Germans have the money, the largest GDP in the EU and France is a distant second (would be third if you counted the UK though).

At the end of the day there is no EU without Germany, and as we've seen with Ukraine, waging a war without funds is like trying to breathe in a vacuum.

> Germans have the money, the largest GDP in the EU and France is a distant second

For nuclear purposes Germany is irrelevant. For martial purposes, it’s a distant second to France.

It obviously should be part of mutual-defence discussions. But it doesn’t need to be and doesn’t bring that much to the table in the short term. (Absent a hypothetical land war.)

Again, when we're talking about warfare, there is a strong economic and industrial dimension. Unless the scope of your warfare is limited to extremely fatalistic worst-case scenarios.

Russia was on the ropes in many ways because of the cost of the war they're waging, while Ukraine was in a stronger position because of aid and promises of future rebuilding investment. If push comes to shove and there's a European conflict, Germany has a (horrifically) proven track record of war production.

I'm also baffled by the claim that Germany is a distant second to France in terms of military. Germany doesn't have any need for a carrier because they don't have colonies/former colonies they want to "work with". Germany does however spend more than twice what France does on their military budget, although in GDP terms France spends more... alas France has a much smaller GDP. Germany has a slightly smaller military force, but only about 19k or so.

> Unless the scope of your warfare is limited to extremely fatalistic worst-case scenarios

Within the context of the French nuclear umbrella there are two questions: strategic nuclear deterrence and everything else. Germany is useless for the former. It's important, but not critical, for the latter.

> baffled by the claim that Germany is a distant second to France in terms of military

Their force projection is limited. They're absolutely going to strengthen any alliance they join. But outside a conventional proxy war of attrition with the U.S. or China, they're not strictly necessary. (And could be a net negative due to their politics.)

Don't matter if they spend twice the money on military if that money don't return, France has aircraft programs nuclear programs etc while spending half what Germany do

Exactly. And in these wild times, one realize that being dependent on the US, is no longer a viable path forward.

It's quite similar actually to Germany's dependence on Russian gas. It was all self inflicted (nobody seem to remember the corrupt German politicians, that all went to work for Gazprom and co...).

Without knowing anything about the arrangement, I would assume that as far as these matters are concerned, whoever controls the launch button effectively owns the thing. Those things are made exactly for the kind of situations where treaties aren't enough.

In the short term, that's true.

If they can't independently maintain the weapons, it ceases to be true beyond the short term, though.

OTOH, my understanding is that that is not a problem for the UK; they don't “essentially lease” their arsenal from the US; they use domestically developed and maintained warheads on purchased-from-the-US but locally-maintained Trident missiles carried by UK-built-and-maintained subs.

They might have some uphill work if they wanted major delivery system upgrades, but their existing arsenal is, AFAIK, functionally independent of an ongoing dependence on the US.

I wonder how it works in practice.

I share the scepticism that the UK can fire these independently. But then, from a purely technical PoV, you'd imagine these missiles can be fired:

- from underwater, away from radio reception

- as a second strike weapon, i.e. with command centres destroyed

So here's the dichotomy. If these assumptions hold, then the UK must be able to fire the missiles independently - they seem to work offline. And if they don't, then they are even more useless than I thought. Essentially they would only be good for a first strike, approved by the US, or second strike in a sub-global conflict, not even for a NATO-wide defence in an all-out war.

I can't see a third way. Maybe US satellites which would diffuse a Trident in-flight if the US says so?

You make a good point about them being underwater and having to function offline.

I could see them having some sort of DRM "license key" that only gives, say, a 90 day window before it has to be renewed for the missiles to function.

> On a more practical level, they would need to ditch the Maastricht rules on fiscal discipline

I think this has been suggested by Ursula von der Leyen. Europe has to get united and get to the point where it can defend itself. The US has definitely proven that they are unreliable, so it has to be done. But it will take some time, and in the meantime Europe has to rely on the US. If not as allies, then as partners.

The US have been threatening to become enemies, but that's not (yet) the case, which is why the EU is still considering relying on a partner.

Almost nothing of relevance can be done overnight, but the first step is always the most important one. I haven't heard of that comment by vdL yet, maybe they're ready to take it, but the proof is in the pudding.

"Von der Leyen outlined the five-point plan at a critical time for the future of Europe's security.

One of them is a proposal to suspend strict budget rules to allow member states to ramp up "their defence expenditures without triggering the excessive deficit procedure," Von der Leyen said.[1]"

[1] https://www.dw.com/en/eus-von-der-leyen-proposes-800-billion...

Thanks. That does sound like it could be a pragmatic solution, if they go through with it.

France depends on Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Niger for uranium. At least it depended on Niger until there was a military coup that stopped further exports. If there is a large scale conflict, I would not bet on those reactors accomplishing much. Not to mention that they did not accomplish much three years ago during the biggest energy crisis in decades, and that they need humongous investments just to keep running, so that they can get retired for further enormous costs. I'm not sure you can lead where your allegedly biggest asset is barely holding its head above water and is long term s huge liability.

That's interesting. In case of large scale conflict, for how long could French reactors run ? I assumed for quite long, am I completely wrong here ?

> ? I assumed for quite long, am I completely wrong here ?

France has more of 10y of Uranium stockpile for it's own consumption.

While not being very actively mined, Czech Republic has large Uranium reserves & provided a lot of the initial soviet uranium after the soviet sponsored comunist coup:

https://english.radio.cz/czech-radioactive-dillema-8109837 https://www.suro.cz/files/2021-03/Uranium%20mining%20history...

I guess lots of this could be restarted if there is demand ?

Uranium is common, it's just not profitable to mine at current prices. But fuel costs are just a few percentage points of the total.

If there were a shortage, it's no problem to pay even 5x more. Then you'll see suppliers pop up everywhere.

It's a theory that makes sense, but in reality e.g. during the crisis in 2022, one of the solutions 6 months in was to fly in welders from the US. Which might be a point that a solution can be found in a crisis, except the Edf had lost billions up to that point, after countless delays, finishing the year over 15 billion in the red. Overall, that industry has been incapable of delivering anything in a reasonable timeframe for decades now, especially in France.

So I would not take theories for granted, even if they make sense.

This fantastic speech points in that direction. This is the type of rhetoric that can rally Europeans behind France

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1j46edt/we_are_figh...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j51HZncBvEI

YouTube link for easier sharing.

Also, crucially, France has no US military bases

This was always obvious and my native Sweden was doing the same thing.

Unfortunately, our competent leadership was gradually replaced with charlatans and imposters and we are now in a terrible situation.

Some folks are arguing even further, "Japan, South Korea, and Poland need nuclear weapons immediately":

> The modern world is a place where nuclear-armed great powers, led by authoritarian leaders, often feel the impulse to bully smaller nations. If those smaller nations lack nuclear weapons, they lie prostrate and vulnerable at the feet of the bullies. But if they have nukes, they are much harder to push around. This doesn’t mean they’re impervious to attack — Israel has been struck by Iran and its proxies — but having nukes dramatically improves a small country’s security.

* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/japan-south-korea-and-poland-n...

I think the collapse of the US as "The World's Policeman", will result in the most nuclear proliferation since the 50s. That alone will make the world a much, much more dangerous place.

Maybe if Trump keeps beating his chest saying "peace" and "denuclearization" then it'll happen.

For sure. My understanding is that this is the main reason why US foreign policy in relation to Europe and NATO was steadfast for 75 years - that it provided this stability. It helped in the quest to avoid nuclear proliferation - many countries could say : Look, we don't have nukes either!

And the proof is in the pudding, during these 75 years not a single bomb exploded with intent to kill. The forecast for the next 75 years surely is more dire.

Makes me wonder if I should get the hell out of New York.

Seriously, if someone decides to nuke the US, where would they start? Almost certainly Washington DC and NYC. The US is too big to bomb in its entirety.

Maybe I should move to Boise, Idaho or something. I don't think they're going to get bombed, and it seems nice.

Just avoid any rural areas east of Kansas or wherever there are minuteman silos!

You won't want to live anywhere after nukes start flying. Even if your location isn't hit directly, you're dealing with a complete collapse of society as we know it. Not to mention things like nuclear winter.

> The US is too big to bomb in its entirety.

Russia has ~5500 warheads, so maybe not every square inch but certainly several cities and other locations in each state.

You know, those underground bomb shelters from the 50's and 60's always did seem kind of cool...

If more than 10% of their warheads still work, I'd be (hopefully metaphorically) blown away.

Soon to be more after trump gives them american ones

Similarly there are Europeans considering a move to rural France or the Iberian peninsula.

I know you're half joking but if someone were to give an honest answer i think you need to take into consideration resources in the region, water supply, rivers that could carry radioactive material and so on. I would assume (they) would've already thought about this kind of thing where you would map what's the most damaging areas to nuke that would affect the most area.

Grim times ahead for sure but i'm not that stressed considering that something like 70% of russia's population is in the west of the country, very, very close to europe

> if someone decides to nuke the US, where would they start?

First, nuclear forces: ICBM and IRBM silos and their C2, nuclear weapons storage, strategic airfields and ballistic-missile submarine bases. (This is why nuclear arsenals escalate against each other. The defensive role of missile silos is both deference and to soak up the enemy’s nukes.)

Second, leadership: command posts and communication.

Third, other military: barracks, supply depots, marshalling points, airfields, ammunition storage, tank and vehicle storage.

Fourth, military industry: ammo, tank, APC factories; refineries; railyards and repair facilities. Steel, aluminum and power generation.

Fifth, population centres. (You don’t want to nuke New York if that could have taken out a silo that will flatten a dozen of your cities.)

In summary, somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere :).

https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-91-319fs.pdf page 22

That’s a nice theory but nuking empty silo’s is pointless.

So, attacking them just means they launch everything at you while also wasting your nukes.

You don't know where the enemy ICBM warheads will land until it is too late. So you have to assume that they will target the silos

The B part of ICBM means ballistic, and they are. Thus you can get a useful approximation of where it’s going to land based on the initial trajectory.

By useful I mean you can do significantly better than saying if it’s targeting the middle of the US, east, or west coast. Though it’s quite a large area.

> you can get a useful approximation of where it’s going to land based on the initial trajectory

If you’re doing a first strike and aren’t a moron, you conventionally strike the early-warning radars first. Ideally in a plausibly-deniable way.

First strike detection isn’t limited to early warning radar or ground based systems except in the very early days of the Cold War.

There’s no plausibility deniable way to take these systems down in practice.

And they have to assume you will assume this, so they would expect your silos will already be emptied in a retaliatory strike. Of course you have to trust early-warning systems and the ability to react decisively and quickly.

> nuking empty silo’s is pointless

Nuking full siloes is the point of a first strike. So yes, you’re relatively safe near a silo field if America is launching first and the adversary assumes or knows that every silo launched perfectly.

The fact first strike didn’t look like it would work has a lot to do with why we’ve avoid nuclear war.

I’m not saying nobody would ever target a missile silo, just that they aren’t particularly high on this list of targets.

> they aren’t particularly high on this list of targets

The target list is obviously conditional on a nuclear war happening. Unless your position is the U.S. is invulnerable to a first strike, then the silos should stay at the top of the list. (Even in a second strike you hit them and hit them fast. If there was a launch error you get a tremendous defensive ROI in taking them out.)

My position is first strikes vs US, Russia, or China are almost completely useless.

Even France and the UK has 4 nuclear subs, the US has what 14 ballistic missile submarines?

> My position is first strikes vs US, Russia, or China are almost completely useless

That’s incoherent with this thread, which started with someone asking what would happen “if someone decides to nuke the US.” Not if France launched a suicidal first strike on America.

The realistic scenarios for America getting nuked are a first strike from a rogue state, first strike from Russia or China, and second strike from Russia or China.

First strike from a rogue state is basically nuclear terrorism; it will probably target a population centre or something close and hittable, e.g. Guam for Pyongyang. First strikes from Russia or China would target silos. (Unless theatre-based, e.g. hitting Guam and our Japanese airbases ahead of an invasion of Taiwan.) Second strike would mean silos are probably empty, though not necessarily, these are hundreds of decades-old mechanisms in who knows what condition of readiness, but sure, if the American first strike is comprehensive and flawless, and the enemy omnipotent, we’d probably not see too many nukes go at silos. (You would at other nuclear infrastructure.)

So in general, no, if we’re in wide-scale nuclear war the planners who thought about this for decades in the Cold War may not have missed that launched tubes that have launched are now empty.

> First strike from a rogue state is basically nuclear terrorism

Obviously by definition someone can attack first, however:

“First strike capability is a country's ability to defeat another nuclear power by destroying its arsenal to the point where the attacking country can survive the weakened retaliation while the opposing side is left unable to continue war.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_strike_(nuclear_strategy...

So yes in theory sure a first strike would take out nuclear silos, but neither side believed they could preform a successful first strike. It’s a theoretical goal, not something that seems to have been possible barring the very early days of the Cold War before ICBM’s existed.

Which then brings up the question of what exactly you target if you assume thousands of nukes will hit you regardless of what you aim for.

Why do you think France or Britain would nuke New York? And there isn't that much point for Russia to nuke their new ally either.

I don't think it's super likely, though if our president decides to declare war to try reignite American imperialism, then it seems like it could happen.

He's already talked about invading Greenland, what's to stop him from trying to invade somewhere else, somewhere with more firepower to fight back? All it would take is Fox News or OAN to start running stories about how the US is actually entitled to the land of France. It's not like it matters if there's any truth to it.

Isn't US military well independent? So they would just refuse in contrast with authoritarian militaries like russia where they don't have that power

> Isn't US military well independent?

Is it? I mean I don't think they could legally refuse (if use of force was authorized by the president and congress)? So it would still effectively be a military "coup" and those can obviously still happen in authoritarian countries.

Do you think us Brits just calmly accepted our loss in the war of independence?

New Yorker here. Last year one of my meditation teachers here in the city casually mentioned that in some sects of Tibetan Buddhism there's a prophecy of some sort of catastrophic global event between 2026 and 2032, and a former monk friend of his advised him to leave NYC by 2030. From some casual googling it seems like the text is "The Light That Makes Things Clear: A Prophecy of Things to Come".

I'm a non-believer when it comes to these sorts of things, but if anything was to convince me otherwise it'd be watching Trump speed run us towards another World War these past few weeks.

How is trump speed running towards another world war? To me– a non-us citizen– it does seem like quite the opposite.

Well he has talked repeatedly about taking Greenland "by force", which in itself wouldn't be a world war, but of course is still terrible.

I think the concern is that telling Ukraine to surrender their land after they were invaded by Russia will give Russia the confidence to start attacking other European countries. Traditionally, NATO would have protected us from that happening, but with Trump upsetting all our NATO partners, I'm kind of concerned that that won't help this time.

Well, this is how yout tell anynone feeling like fixing like they might be in a position of fixing old grudges or grabbing some land - go for it! :P Not very safe and can get out of hand very very quickly...

This, basically. He's said that we're going to take Greenland one way or another, is talking about taking the Panama Canal, is basically telling Russia we're on their side and Europe can deal with it themselves, and China is ramping up activities around taking Taiwan [1]. He's also classified the cartels as terrorist organizations and has talked about sending in elite US forces to take them out, which Mexico has said they would view as a violation of their sovereignty.

I've been listening to a lot of French news lately and France is already talking about needing to build more nuclear weapons and to extend nuclear protections across Europe, as the US has in a short few weeks completely alienated all of our allies from the past 80 years [2].

So, I don't know, seems like we're closer to everything going to shit globally than in any other time in my 40+ years.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-will-work-firmly-a...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/how-realistic-is-france...

My personal 'unknown wisdom' conspiracy is that there's some knowledge about UAPs which is why politicians are being so weird. Rubio/Vance going from calling Trump a nazi to joining him. I know it's just they're shitty people, but part of me would rather it's some secret UAP knowledge.

And what UAP has with Trump? Remember US is going crazy others Democratic countries aren't and russia is being russia, don't confuse USA going downhill because of their shit politics as the world is going under, cold war was a lot worse

I sometimes heard vague theories of rich people on the east coast having their jets ready to fly to New Zealand, but I'm not sure how realistic that would be in such a scenario.

> fly to New Zealand

It's a 7700nmi trip:

* http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?MS=wls&DU=nm&P=KJFK-NZAA

Not many private jets (or even commercial ones) can do non-stop:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Global_7500

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G650/G700/G800

That is why those models are in high demand. Not only for a doomsday scenario, but as a general convenience to fly non-stop.

Billionaires such as Zuckerberg are also building luxury bunkers [1]. Kinda wish they tried to prevent apocalypse instead...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prep...

All they’re doing is making rich, delicious oysters for those left on the surface to shuck.

Idaho National Lab (the leading center for nuclear energy research and development) is 200 miles from Boise. Not a direct hit but still not fun.

https://inl.gov/

> Maybe I should move to Boise, Idaho or something. I don't think they're going to get bombed, and it seems nice.

There's a handy map in this article:

* https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/who-would-take-th...

* https://www.newsweek.com/safest-us-states-nuclear-war-attack...

In the US, the west coast and Florida seem to be the best candidates from fallout. See also perhaps:

* https://www.mirasafety.com/blogs/news/nuclear-attack-map

* https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/yc0ho2/us_cities_a...

The patriot missiles have been quite effective at taking out Russian missiles. I'd wait till that stuff happens before packing up and driving west. Typing this from central London which also gets Russian threats.

I think it's unlikely the Russians would nuke somewhere like that as they only have two decent cities which would be hit in retaliation. It's more likely if they went nuclear that they'd hit troops in Ukraine. Biden issued a lot of threats to Putin if they did that but under Trump I'm not sure much US retaliation would happen.

It's one thing to want to withdraw orderly, it's another to treacherously backstab your allies.

Why more dangerous? I am worried about religious fanatics armed with nuclear weapons. I am not really worried about Germany, South Korea, Japan or Taiwan armed with them. The more deterence, the less likely there will be a war. You go to war when you think you can get away with it, not when you think there is even a 10% chance all you major cities will be nuked.

The more independent entities with Nuclear weapons, the more avenues for one to be used. Simple as that. Every country has potential to move towards national fanaticism over time.

That's just not the case. Look at every conflict of the past 50 years. Major powers trade very carefully against a nuclear armed nation. Which by the way largely explained Biden's tepid military support to Ukraine, giving them just enough weapons for them not to collapse but not enough to make any serious dent to Russia. And basically maximising casualties by making the conflict last.

That's not an argument against my statement, IMHO. If I were a nation without Nuclear arms, I would absolutely be racing to get them. That's independent of whether or not I think the aggregate risk increases. The US and Russia have deep levels of communication that have evolved over time in responses to near misses with Nuclear weapon firings. The more countries that enter in to that territory, the more need to have that communication and the more chances and avenues there are for mis cues. One mis cue results in at least one nuke being fired, and where one flies several have the chance to. And that's ignoring the fact that fanatical / suicidal regimes do in fact come to power from time to time.

I too hope that more nuclear arms will result in reduced conflicts and a reduced risk model overall. But if I were to bet, I'd bet that if we 10x the number of players with Nuke's, we 10x the number of chances for some to be used.

> I am not really worried about Germany, South Korea, Japan or Taiwan armed with them.

You should be. The more small states with nuclear weapons, the more chances there are that any one country feels like a nuclear assault could be "worth it". Heck, just look at India and Pakistan. I can't remember which Indian government minister said it, but years ago he essentially said that India could "absorb" a nuclear strike from Pakistan, because since India is bigger with a lot more people, any nuclear volley would mean the complete annihilation of Pakistan while India would "only" lose a couple hundred million people...

The more proliferation there is, the higher the chance any one government will move away from MAD theory to "well, guess we've got nothing left to lose".

> That alone will make the world a much, much more dangerous place.

It will make the world a safer place. That's why Macron is opening up this discussion at all.

I was under the impression from things I've read (though I don't remember where) that Japan has for a long time been everything but nuclear ready. As in they wanted to be able to say they didn't have nuclear weapons but in reality they'd done everything but final assembly of devices (or similar 95% complete kind of status). Perhaps even similar to Israel's assumed but never publicly acknowledged full nuclear capability.

It's called nuclear latency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency

  Japan is considered a "paranuclear" state, with complete technical prowess to develop a nuclear weapon quickly, and is sometimes called being "one screwdriver's turn" from the bomb, as it is considered to have the materials and technical capacity to make a nuclear weapon at will.

Also the solid fueled orbital launch rockets Japan has are totally not ICBMs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-V#Potential_as_an_interconti...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsilon_(rocket)#Vehicle_descr...

"The Epsilon is expected to have a shorter launch preparation time than its predecessors;[11][12][13] a function called "mobile launch control" greatly shortens the launch preparation time, and needs only eight people at the launch site,[14] compared with 150 people for earlier systems.[15]"

All this is just a coincidence. ^_-

> Also the solid fueled orbital launch rockets Japan has are totally not ICBMs:

The biggest threats to Japan are China and North Korea: you do not need ICBMs for them.

Cruise missiles have ranges of >1500km:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile_family)

And with that, a missile launched from the north of Japan (e.g., Sapporo) can hit NK:

* http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=1500km@RJCC

Southern Japan (e.g., Nagasaki) can reach Beijing and Shanghai:

* http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=1500km@RJFU

Japan doesn't currently have any, but perhaps Taiwan and/or SK would be willing to sell them some existing design:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyunmoo-3

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsiung_Feng_IIE

Though they seem to be working on updating their own design:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_12_surface-to-ship_missil...

Ukraine does too…

It's an absolute necessity. The US has lost all credibility as a deterrent.

There have been some South Koreans arguing for developing nukes, and until about two months ago, I was staunchly in the camp of "What a bunch of airheads, what purpose would nukes serve in our situation, when we already have our nuclear umbrella?"

Now I'm not so sure.

These are nuclear capable countries but actually fielding them requires strong political will and a supply chain that is untouchable to adversaries. Given the amount of sabotage the Chinese routinely do to Taiwanese, Japanese and Korean systems, I don't have much faith in that.

Small nuclear armed states will never have a credible deterrent because unfortunately due to their countries' small size they will always be at risk of a first strike. Chinese leaders believed they were in this position vis-a-vis the United States until about a decade and a half ago.

For example, we hear about North Korea a lot but they don't have a credible deterrent. Their stockpiles are easily destroyed in a surprise attack by a couple of JASSMs because they don't have the luxury of a large landmass like Russia and China to move their mobile launchers around.

That's why you usually base nuclear missile in submarines for smaller contries, the idea being that if the country itself gets attacked, the hidden submarine will figure it out & launch the nukes while playing "god save the queen"/"sakura sakura"/"Gangam style" on the PA system. The last one possibly being a worse crime on humanity than the nukes.

I think the French discussions of extending nuclear deterrence over Europe are meant to dissuade nuclear proliferation vis a vis Poland and maybe Germany. The US nuclear umbrella via the NATO alliance once served that purpose. Now, France is trying to contain nuclear proliferation.

I’m simple on that notion: Russia is our adversary.

They have assassinated people in the EU and UK. Sabotaged our pipelines. Paid anti EU politicians. Threatened EU powers. Shot down civilian flights. Made plans to invade the Baltics.

They are an adversary. We have weapons and an army. We should neutralize that adversary.

Russia has currently lost momentum in Ukraine. So they are seeking a temporary peace, to rebuild. Logic dictates that we start behaving as their adversary. To not give them any benefit, and build on that momentum to keep them diminished.

The argument to rebuild don't work because Ukraine can rebuild too, and russia is advancing at snail speed but still, and a Ukraine rebuild would complete derail that advance with better defenses

The argument to rebuild absolutely works. It allows Russia to recover their frozen assets, partner with China and Iran, and work with the US leadership. Understand that NATO will be diminished if Russia claims they are peaceful.

That's only if Ukraine continues to get massive outside investments. Otherwise Russia has a bigger revenue stream and weapon factories.

I was listening to an interview with the Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson about this. He said it's good that Europe has nuclear weapons capacity. Then he says something like "it's not relevant to us right now but could be in the future".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_progra...

Full speech with transcript and translations https://app.fluentsubs.com/stream?v=cm7wc02s201x3zgxl5v85c6b...

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is the main cause. Countries can't count on agreements or treaties to keep them safe. Russia would have never invaded if Ukraine had its ICBMs and hundreds of nuclear warheads.

Yes, under the Budpest memorandum Ukraine should have been protected by the USA from Russian aggression in exchnage for giving up its nuclear arsenal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

Given how that played out, not one will ever get ridd of nuclear weapons they have & many more will logically now need to have them as well to assure basic security for their country.

yeah, they're going to have to build a new NATO-like alliance and go it alone. Seems like it would be a good thing if the EU had some military teeth of their own to give them more leverage in all the Bad Things going on now.

Some countries have already started. JEF can operate as part of NATO, or separately. The organisation is also nuclear armed, thanks to the UK.

...and before you know it the old rivalries flare up again on who is to be the leader of this fourth iteration of a European empire. Germany versus France, France versus the UK, Germany versus Poland, Italy versus France, a combination of some of these versus one of the others.

A 'European army' would be under the control of... the EU? Some new organisation to be specifically created for this purpose? Some committee-designed scheme of rotating leadership between the main powers in Europe?

These are not spurious questions. Europe is a large and diverse place, far more diverse than e.g. the USA. Would such an army serve to protect Hungary as well as Spain, Sweden as well as the Czech republic, Poland as well as Germany? Even if some of those countries do not care to fall in line with the agenda set by the Eurocrats in Brussels?

Not as long as there is an adversary I.e. the new US-Russia alliance.

Hungary and Slovakia are pro-russia currently, so not really. But nothing unites people as much as common threat and both US and Russia are currently providing that.

Not much more diverse than the US. Yes, a melting pot, but Europe is now a big melting pot too. The most important axes is City versus rural communities which boils down to rich vs poor. And the USA and Europe are very similar in this way.

I can't speak for the US, but in Europe it's less rich/poor (though some country folk would like you to think so), and more rural conservative values vs city progressive values (which weirdly harbour some very religious-conservative people from immigrant/minority communities).

You can ask these questions about NATO as well, and while USA has been the greatest contributor, in a confrontation with China, it wouldn't stand a chance without its NATO allies.

I know that many like to complain of Europe's bureaucracy, but we're talking about half a billion educated people, with enough resources and with an existential crisis, which we're surely facing, the EU+UK, joined by allies, can be a force to be reckoned with.

The problems EU is facing come from within. We have far right movements as well, aided by propaganda, the pandemic and the immigration waves. The far right are more contained than in the US apparently (due to US having just 2 parties), but it can lead to government paralysis. Seeing the US administration ally itself with Russia to dismember the EU wasn't in my cards.

So, it's going to be an interesting year.

I think it's realistically only Germany v. France, with U.K. meddling (powerfully) from the sidelines. And I don't think either Germany or France has the fortitude to establish any real hegemony. So I predict that, with or without expressed U.S. support, Europe will continue to be satellites in the U.S. orbit.

The EU already also has a mutual defense clause extremely similar to NATO though

> EU already also has a mutual defense clause extremely similar to NATO

Is it explicitly nuclear?

Well, there is still NATO. Because the US are unreliable doesn't mean that the other members of NATO are? Genuinely asking.

> there is still NATO

For conventional war, probably. For nuclear, will Paris risk its homeland for Latvia?

Right. So the question is: given that NATO is now a lot weaker because of the US, it's not clear whether the promises of mutual defence still hold. Do I understand that correctly?

We saw the EU's commitment to Article 42(7) when France invoked it in response to the Bataclan attacks.

To say it was underwhelming would be an understatement.

Macron has been advocating for a European Army for around a decade. With the recent EU defence spending announcements the idea of a unified command structure in Europe is becoming likely.

The French offer to extend their nuclear umbrella seems to me to have two purposes:

1. Deal with the immediate vulnerability opened by questions over U.S. Article 5 commitments to NATO

2. Try to get ahead of potential nuclear weapons proliferation among other EU states

Also selling weapons. What this idiot of Trump seems to have missed is that countries have been purchasing weapons to the US to actually purchase US protection (like Australia did when they cancelled the submarine purchase they did to France to purchase US ones instead). Now that the US has announced being an unreliable protector, there is probably good business opportunities for all the countries that are nuclear powers and big arm dealers (such as France).

Depends on the weapons.

Certainly France is competitive when it comes to ships and many expendable munitions, but they aren't selling F-35s and the US is, and so far it seems that the juice is worth the substantial squeeze when it comes to that jet. The race is largely for second, because first place (the Lightning) is so far in front of the pack.

That juice is poisonous. The plane may be alright, but it is no longer a wise strategy to build security using US equipment, unless you are the US.

We have ITAR-free Rafale. And for better or worse, we don't "vendor lock-in" our planes.

European countries like Germany have been purchasing F-35 for the main reason that it's the only plane which can carry US nuclear weapons, which is mandatory for Germany to carry its obligations to participate to NATO nuclear defense [1]

They will hopefully purchase Eurofighter or Rafale or whatever else in the future.

[1] (fr) https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2022/03/15/la-d...

The F-35 is an expensive, very criticised (even inside the US) plane and the US notoriously have some kind of backdoor to it. It makes no sense to me that the EU would buy F-35 other than as a way to give money to the US ("buying protection").

F-35 is cheaper than the f14 converting, so not a good argument, the high selling numbers of it help drive the price down

My point was that the F-35 is more expensive than European planes which don't have a US backdoor.

In fact I think it was the US army that complained about the F-35 being way too expensive.

3. Repair the French economy with "defense" industry $pending.

I don't think (2) would really work out in practice. I have hard time believing that France would use nuclear weapons if one of the smaller states gets attacked. At the end of the day, when SHTF, you're on your own and Putin or some other aggressor might well call their bluff.

It would be nice to have a substantive discussion of the topic without falling into the well worn rhetorical traps.

In that sprit, I'm curious what advantages Euro-nukes offer relative to the existing French arsenal. What is the current status and limitation of French nuclear protection through NATO and European Union security guarantees, and how do these limitations compare to what nuclear protections the USA has historically provided?

Given that the Trump administration aligns itself with Russia and North Korea, the EU will need it. The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promised they would come to Ukraine's aid if needed. Trump is basically exploiting the situation to gain access to their natural resources. He's also telling them to let Russia keep the territory they stole when they Invaded Ukraine. Yes imagine that, Russia starting a war. Our country is so gaslit, our own citizens don't know right from wrong; fact from fiction. Protect your networks ppl. It's only going to get worse.

The war has been going on for three years with no end in sight. What's the next move? What are your ideas to defeat Russia and take back the areas they've gained since 2014?

The thoughts are to NOT allow them to have time to rearm, get ready for another invasion, get another territory. And then again and again. That is all the peace right now would be - strategic pause so that Russia can get stronger for the next attack.

Also, Trump is supporting Russia while attacking Europe, Canada, Mexico, Greenland ... . Trump talks about annexing parts of Europe (Greenland) and annexing Canada.

More than a maniac.

So by continuing to send more cash and weapons, it will eventually force Russia to retreat? I'm trying to understand what would secure victory.

Prevent further expansion and besides, yes, they are attritioning. Or were before they found new supporter and ally in the form of America.

Like common, Trump is not just stoping to send arms. He is doing everything he can to weaken west and empowers Russia.

> What's the next move?

Let the Ukrainians decide. The war could have been over if Biden and Musk hadn’t meddled in Kyiv’s strategy.

There is no peace with a Moscow that believes it can gain resources and mollify its population with wars of expansion. Pausing in Ukraine just allows for build-up for another wave. Maybe in Ukraine. Maybe elsewhere.

The war could have been over if Biden and Musk hadn’t meddled in Kyiv’s strategy.

This is the exact line of thinking that Hitler used to justify WW2. Surely we can all see this logic for the farce that it is. Ukraine never had a shot at winning this war and it’s only with massive international support that they’re able to maintain the fragile stalemate they now find themselves in.

> is the exact line of thinking that Hitler used to justify WW2

Hitler argued that he lost WWII because external powers were limiting the Nazis through diplomatic channels?! (Also, since when do we care about how Hitler justified things?)

> Ukraine never had a shot at winning this war

A significant amount of Russia’s naval and air assets were vulnerable to Ukrainian drone and missile fire in ‘22.

> it’s only with massive international support

You mean like the American Revolution, WWI for the Allies, WWII for the Allies and the Cold War for Europe?

> This is the exact line of thinking that Hitler used to justify WW2.

Hitlers literal claim was that Germany needs a living space, that Germans do not fit into German. Plus he claimed that the world is a war of races. Like, these were his literal justications.

Well yes. But he also claimed that Poland had attacked first.

The equivalent there would be Russian claims about Ukraine attacking them right before invasion. As of now, the Russian invasion itself is provably existing.

It is about zero paralel with "The war could have been over if Biden and Musk hadn’t meddled in Kyiv’s strategy."

Oh for sure, I agree, OP's take was nonsensical.

They never had a shot so they used black magic to drive russia out of Kyiv in the first days of the wars?

> Let the Ukrainians decide.

With money and military/economic tensions for EU and US ? EU might have some interest in stabilizing the border and preventing future threats, but US literally has no interest there. And the only EU member that possibly had to worry about Russia is Finland, but they are in NATO now.

What motivation? russia is US sworn enemy, always was and always will be. Only fools don't take chance to make your enemy weaker, especially when its causing it to itself by their own stupidity and greed. US waged wars for less, far less.

I think from Trumps POV Russia is not that relevant and China is the rival. US has spats with Russia when they play globalist games, but Trump does not seem to be that interested in playing and Chinese are way stronger than Russia recently since they are growing their presence in Africa and SA.

Good thing US integritiy has no value anymore and US word is apparently worthless nowadays - otherwise I guess honoring the Budapest memorandum would make sense:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

You know, that one thing that certainly prevented a lot of nuclear proliferation so far.

What part of that has the US not honored?

Did we (1) fail to respect their borders? (2) Threaten to use force, invade them or use those nukes against them? (3) Wage an economic war against them? (4) Fail to seek UN Security Council action in response to Ukraine being nuked? (5) Nuke them? (6) Refuse to talk to them about the agreement?

Because that's basically the entire agreement.

Give them the tools they need to finish the job.

This whole thing started when they willingly disarmed in return for security assurances that didn't turn out to be worth the paper they were written on. It progressed when Obama failed to help them stop Putin in 2014, and now it's metastasized due to Biden's half-assed support and Trump's active antipathy.

That's exactly what I'm asking: what tools? The only thing I see is endless supply of money and ammo which means attrition. Russia will win in manpower but maybe not economically. I'm kindly asking to be educated with more than talking points we've all heard from politicians.

Not arbitrarily stopping intel sharing and - reportedly - remotely disabling supplied wepons (!!) would be a good first step.

Like if you ever want anyone to give you a single dolar for your weapons in the future.

The most critical need is air defense: anti-air missiles and cannons capable of shooting down Russian missiles and drones. Long-range missiles are important too, because it is better to shoot the archer than to try take down every arrow. Long-range missiles can blow up the bombers that launch cruise missiles against Ukraine. This protects Ukrainian cities, factories, and military sites from further destruction.

Next, they need artillery to halt the slow advance of Russian ground forces. With the new unjammable wire-guided drones that were introduced early this year, Ukrainians have already successfully halted Russian advances in most sectors, but ample artillery support is even more effective. They need lots of artillery to blow up with a big bang everything that the Russians throw at them.

Finally, Ukraine must be equipped for counteroffensives. They need a large supply of planes, tanks, IFVs, and other vehicles to go from defense to attack and liberate occupied territories. Once Ukraine has the means to counterattack, it is up to them to decide how far they want to go before sitting down with the Russians to negotiate peace. Strong enough pushes by Ukraine may force the Russians to concede some areas without a fight, just as they previously withdrew from Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson, and Sumy.

The current approach has been a slow trickle of aid in a naive hope that Putin might back down. That strategy has clearly failed. Ukraine needs full support, everything we can provide. This is both the moral choice, and the cheapest option in terms of money and lives.

It is really important to stress that Ukrainians do not expect others to fight for them. They are only asking for material support: weapons, ammo, vehicles. The rest they can handle on their own.

Surrendering is not known to be a good negotiating position.

They were building into a good position with russia very depleted and economically on the ropes. Despite hold ups in US aid over the Biden admin. Pressing more aid and strengthening their position would be better for negotiating a peace. But quite simply Trump/Vance/Musk don’t want that.

what do they get by supporting russia? would love some data

If I remember correctly Trump promised to stop the war in 24 hours. The only way to do negotiate this fast is to totally diminish one side's position. When there no discussion, there is nothing to negotiate. The goal is not long standing peace, it is a plain populism and potential "peacemaker" title, and likely even a Nobel prize, if this wasn't derailed by Zelensky who refuses take words as a guarantee.

Help them win it. Like we did in two world wars in the 20th century. Here in the 21st century we get off easy and just provide material support, and intelligence; not blood. Hell of a deal to defend democracy.

why not lead the way and go join the fight? you never know you might inspire people to join voluntarily

Ah the we should improve society somewhat meme in the flesh.

US helped Russia win in the second world war. You want them to do that again?

We've been doing that. What more do you suggest we do?

Letting Russia keep the territories they control now is a great way to ensure that in few years when they rebuild their military potential they will attack again.

It also signals wars of conquest are back. That’s a message that will also be heard by revanchists in Beijing and New Delhi and expansionists in Tel Aviv, Riyadh and D.C.

The US funded wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for 20 years with no idea what the next move was, no tangible end in sight, and stakes far lower. The so-called threat of weapons of mass destruction was enough to swiftly defeat Iraq's army, topple its government, and start an unprecedented manhunt for its leader.

Russia has invaded a neighboring country twice and spent the first two years of the war they started threatening nuclear weapons. They disregard all negotiated agreements and treaties, poison dissidents in countries the US is allied with, with impunity, engage in asymmetric warfare against Europe and the US, meddle in elections. The Russian government has nothing but contempt for a rules based world order.

Why, suddenly, is the US cowering back when the stakes are much higher and its direct involvement much lower?

I don't need a lecture on Russia's character. What I was curious to learn from you, or anyone, what could be done differently to defeat them? How would Russia respond if we send more advanced weaponry? Does Ukraine have the men to fight?

I'm getting downvoted but honestly looking for answers.

It’s a war of attrition now, which is a war of will and logistics. Can anything be done differently? I don’t know, but I don’t think so. Isn’t victory under these circumstances making the war so costly that your opponent must find a way out?

The US was doing that. Russia’s will has won out over the US’s, that is a defeat, and we can only hope next time it isn’t the same.

War of attrition. I thought we'd be further along after three years of sanctions and weapons but I wonder if Ukraine has the manpower to keep it up. From what I understand, Ukraine is drafting men ages 25-60 which may signal they need boots on the ground soon.

Ukraine probably does not. Is Russia willing to risk the possibility of US/EU troops ending up on the other side of the trenches? Probably we’ll never know now, and maybe that’s better. But is it better that Russia knows maybe three years and the US might call it quits?

My country, Norway, shares a border with Russia. We have 5.5 million people. Would the US abandon us because we’re running out of troops? That’s the question we’re asking ourselves.

The realistic answer is to say that Ukraine is going to be supplied with weapons for as long as needed, case closed. The whole Russian strategy after the initial blitz failure was to wait for Trump to get into power, who telegraphed to anyone with the brain, that he doesn't care about Ukraine and loves Putin very much. Russia can't do it forever, but it focused on appearing "strong" until the elections, the bet that paid off for them. Now imagine they were facing a prospect of non-friendly US administrations for decades, they would've already stopped.

Except Putin doesn’t need to outrun America — he just needs to outrun Ukraine.

There’s a finite number of Ukrainians, and an even smaller number of Ukrainian men actually willing — or physically able — to fight.

20% of the population already left, and around 1.5 million of them went to Russia. Another 15% are stuck under occupation.

Ukraine’s demographics were already a disaster after the WW2 wipe-out, the Soviet collapse, and 30 years of economic decline and emigration. Now they’re drafting 18 to 60-year-olds just to keep units filled - at 40%.

So what happens in a year or two, when there’s no one left to draft?

The Poles aren’t volunteering to die en masse, and they’re the only EU country with anything resembling a real army — and even that is one-fifth the size of Russia’s.

So who’s holding the line then?

The US Army? The Marine Corps?

Is anyone actually ready to send Americans to die in the Donbas?

Russian economy doesn't have enough juice to "outrun Ukraine" under the sanctions regime and the war intensity they maintain to impress the Westerners. It's not a "year or two", it's a decade at least.

So what’s the plan here, exactly?

Keep Ukraine on life support for a decade, hoping Russia collapses under sanctions?

Cuba’s still standing after 60 years. Iran after 40. The USSR took decades to fall — and none of them had China bankrolling their survival.

Russia’s economy bleeds, but it’s not cut off. China sends tech and machines, India buys the oil, and Europe keeps quietly paying top dollar for gas through backdoors.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s population shrinks, its economy is wrecked, and its army can’t fight without Western money, Western weapons — and soon, Western bodies.

Because if you actually want to push Russia back — not even collapse it, just push it back — that means European and American troops on the front line. Conscription, mobilized economies, the whole package.

Without a sustained meat grinder to chew up Russian forces, Russia just consolidates and digs in — with China keeping the whole thing afloat.

And if the West isn’t ready for that, who exactly do you think will still be standing in 10 years?

The only guaranteed winner? China — with Russia as a client state, Europe as a deindustrialized theme park, and America too exhausted to stop them.

If this is a game of who bleeds out last, Ukraine’s already done, Europe bleeds out first, Russia bleeds to its usual stupid level — and China walks away without a scratch.

The Westerners have been tirelessly making excuses about how it's impossible to defeat Russia for a while now, so forgive me for not being impressed, but the proposition is quite simple really — if you don't want to support Ukrainians fighting for themselves against Russia today, Ukrainians will be sent to fight poles and others for Russia tomorrow. Of course as it's clear now, the US wouldn't defend Poland either, fighting Canada is the new geopolitical priority, so there's that.

Agree that China is a winner of it all simply by virtue of not being mad, but as they like to say in Russia — it's not the evening yet.

Funnily enough, this is exactly Putin’s own logic — just flipped.

“We had to support those rebel Ukrainian states so Ukrainians fight them, not us.” “We had to preemptively disarm Ukraine, or we’d be fighting Ukrainians inside Russia within five years.”

As for China — surely they’d be nervous if Taiwan was one-third of their population and shared a land border.

Ukraine isn’t just a border state, it’s alt-Russia, as Taiwan is alt-China (and so was Hong-Kong). A competing civilizational project trying to jump off the imperial train and build a Polish-style normal nation-state — and that makes it an existential threat. Not because Ukraine is strong, but because it offers Russians a dangerous glimpse of an alternative path — a Russian identity without the empire.

> Funnily enough, this is exactly Putin’s own logic — just flipped

Except Ukrainians ask the West for support to fight for themselves, so the West is given a rarest opportunity to do a morally right thing while furthering its own interests.

> they’re the only EU country with anything resembling a real army

??????

guess France is out of EU or... ?

French land army is 77k total, with maybe 30k actually combat-capable — the rest are admin, logistics, and training. Add 9k Foreign Legion, but only a fraction of that is high-intensity capable.

With rotations, France can probably field about 15k troops on an actual frontline — and after that, it’s draft time.

For comparison:

* Russian armed forces: 1.1 million. * 500k deployed in Ukraine. * ~300k on the active frontline right now.

In terms of real land warfare capacity, France is in the same weight class as Belarus or Romania — and about 20 times behind Russia.

Even if you argue technical edge (better equipment per soldier), France has zero industrial mobilization capacity and no modern large-scale combat experience.

Realistically, does Ukraine have the manpower to sustain this tempo for years? If not, what countries should put boots on the ground?

Ukraine needs to sustain significantly lower tempo than Russia and there are other options than boots on the ground. Simply flying in and shooting down slow-flying drones inside the Ukrainian airspace would probably give Ukrainian economy years of "runway". And any breathing room in the economy translates into more available manpower in the military and Ukraine still has millions available.

> I was curious to learn from you, or anyone, what could be done differently to defeat them

Russia doesn't have infinite capacity, their primary strategy was to take as much as possible at all costs as fast as possible, while waging info campaigns against the far right, in the hopes that Trump would come to power and cement a deal with them. If that option goes away, it strictly reduces Russias exit strategies. They can't escalate, because the west has more leverage and more options, it would be zero sum at _best_ for Russia. The West would likely hand them Crimea for peace, but giving them all of Donbas is too large a victory for Russia. The post WW2 orders foundational principle is that appeasement of land grabs leads to stronger positions for the grabber - see Hitler's numerous escalations before his full on attack as an example. Ideally you don't wait until the attacker is on your door step before fighting back, that's what this whole debacle is about.

Some of the options could have been:

    - Continue on, but with aligned support from the left and right (read: Russian psyops campaign vs the US right failed). Probably enough on its own.
    - Pressure China (tariffs) to pressure Russia
    - Pressure Europe to increase commitments
    - Offer Russia Crimea (already done ages ago, when their position was stronger)
    - Setup an increasing schedule of more advanced weaponry

> How would Russia respond if we send more advanced weaponry?

AFAIK they haven't responded to the last several increases; what would they respond with? The Nuke is their last card, and in addition to pulling in more Western support would alienate the other players (India, China) who have their own leverage on Russia. IDK overall it seems like the only major limitation here was the psychology of Trump's party.

> the only major limitation here was the psychology of Trump's party.

The party that has 50/50 chance of winning the elections has been communicating to Putin all this entire time that they will hand him Ukraine when they win. Now they conclude that this strategy didn't help Ukraine and therefore it's time to hand Ukraine to Putin. Brilliant strategy, I wish them to enjoy their Russian friends who will definitely not screw them over very soon.

And what exactly is "The West" these days? A glorified open-air Continental museum, a failed British Empire with an army the size of Belarus, and a bickering hegemon half-convinced it should retreat to regional power status, house divided and all.

Europeans are still high on their own supply, fantasizing they’re global players, when in reality they’ve got no money, no energy, no industry, no credible army, no unity, and no diplomatic weight — not even within their own borders.

Europe spent decades as an American piggy bank and a strategic liability. Now the bill’s come due — and Uncle Vlad is doing Uncle Donald a favor, playing the bogeyman just well enough to scare Europe’s capital and industry back into the safe harbor of the New World.

And if Russian pressure helps deliver "MAGA in four years" by triggering capital flight from Europe to the US — is Ukraine really too steep a price for such a valuable service?

You can’t fully defeat a nuclear power. You can, at best, drive it back — if you’re willing to pay the price.

And that price means Europe will have to absorb a dramatic, sustained drop in quality of life — plus forced mobilisation.

Even the Poles - the most serious player in Europe right now — only have about 200,000 troops.

The British and French combined have maybe 40,000 soldiers actually capable of high-intensity combat. That’s enough for, what - four weeks of real war?

After that, there will be no volunteers. That means a draft.

So the real question is: Are you ready to be drafted to “defeat Russia”?

Because this President campaigned on ending the long wars, which he opposed. I'm not sure where the confusion lies because Trump has been very clear about getting the US out of what he views as foreign entanglements.

I'm not passing judgement on it, just noting that what we're seeing is consistent with his campaign messaging.

> getting the US out of what he views as foreign entanglements

The point is our alliances are also foreign entanglements. These idiots didn’t think through that withdrawing from those means fewer weapons (and other) orders from America, more nukes pointed at America and less strategic depth between our adversaries and our shores.

The US hasn't withdrawn from any of its military alliances, and thus far has expressed no plans to do so.

I feel like this is where a lot of NATO commentary gets bogged down. There's a large group of people, conventionally referred to in US media as "the blob" (https://www.vox.com/22153765/joe-biden-foreign-policy-team-r...), who believe that the United States has an affirmative duty to engage in lots of global military interventions above and beyond the actual commitments it's made. I don't think they're lying - people seem to genuinely believe, for example, that the US is betraying NATO by cutting off support for Ukraine when most NATO members would prefer to expand support. But the North Atlantic Treaty simply does not contain a promise to align foreign policy in this way.

> people seem to genuinely believe, for example, that the US is betraying NATO by not supporting Ukraine

You’re correct in this being incorrect.

The informed concern is in Trump and Musk’s coziness towards Putin. That brings up questions around what, if anything, Trump would do if Putin annexed Latvia.

It does, and it would be wise for the US to take steps to defuse those questions. This is why US troops often (and have continued in the new administration) engage in various celebrations and joint drills with NATO allies; there was a detachment of US troops in an Estonian Independence Day parade late last month, which I'm quite confident will not be happening for Russia Day in June no matter how much US-Russia relations warm.

But reasonable questions about the strength of an alliance aren't the same at all as withdrawal from or betrayal of the alliance.

The NATO treaty doesn't imply in his wording any obligation for a military reaction to an invasion of a member of NATO. There's no penalty to just respond with a strongly worded letter, but there's an expectation an ally will react militarly.

Will your allies trust you any longer if you just follow the letter of the treaty? I don't think they will. More critically, nor will anyone else.

The US have historically positioned themselves as "defenders of democracy" and have multiple times used that positioning actively. It's inevitable for an expectation to be there for them to do just that. The US is free to violate expectations and just follow the letter of the treaties it has, it is a sovereign nation after all, but the surprised and frankly childish "we have no obligation!" reaction to the blowback is more unreasonable than the expectations for its support of Ukraine, particularly in how it has been handled politically.

One of the US's most recent foreign deployments is the Iraq War, which was based on a lie and extraordinarily unpopular among NATO members. I think abandoning Ukraine is very bad, and I agree it's unreasonable to expect Europe to be OK with it, but the US's current position in NATO was never based on a foundation of good behavior or uniform foreign policy alignment.

There was effectively uniform foreign policy between the US and its allies for the last thirty years, even under the first Trump presidency, and this included at least a certain degree of interventionism (first Iraq war, Yugoslavia...) which solidified international institutions (differently from the second Iraq war and Afghanistan, which weakened them).

Even if they didn't agree, EU nations and Canada at least sent their soldiers to die in Iraq and Afghanistan anyway.

Why are you surprised people expect such policy alignment after thirty years of it?

Why are you surprised people consider this a betrayal of what NATO stood for in the past, as a proxy of the democracies of the west? Just because there is no violation of the letter of the treaty?

I'm not sure why you keep saying "surprised". I'm not surprised. But it's not the case that EU nations and Canada sent their soldiers to die in Iraq; France in particular sided with Russia to block the Security Council from authorizing military action, leading to substantial tensions with the US and widespread disapproval from the public on both sides. European demonstrations against the war remain one of the largest mass movements in history.

I don't think it was surprising that the Iraq War led to anti-American sentiment, I don't think it's surprising that the current about-face on Ukraine is leading to anti-American sentiment, and I won't be surprised when it happens again in the 2040s.

> But it's not the case that EU nations and Canada sent their soldiers to die in Iraq

They did, not all of them but many did. On Canada I may be wrong, sure. I believe even Ukraine has KIAs in Iraq.

> France in particular sided with Russia to block the Security Council from authorizing military action, leading to substantial tensions with the US and widespread disapproval from the public on both sides. European demonstrations against the war remain one of the largest mass movements in history.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars broke the model the US and EU had been trying to push until that moment, alienating the south of the world from it and providing certain countries with a justification for their future actions. France had the right of it in the UN assembly.

People were angry back then for similar reasons they're angry and shocked now, and once again it has to do with expectations.

I also don't believe the Iraq war alone is not really enough to deny the alignment between EU and US foreign policy in the last 30 years or so anyway. You won't have complete agreement with 30 nations involved ever.

> But the North Atlantic Treaty simply does not contain a promise to align foreign policy in this way.

I think this in your original comment highlights your surprise at what those people believe, or at least your not understanding it?

Yeah, agree that's what is happening. My original question wasn't rhetorical in nature. I would really like to know what would secure victory without escalating it to involve American troops on the ground and/or potentially a nuclear exchange.

I would as well. It's unclear to me what would change the picture there. Do they just need more of the same (155mm artillery shells, drones, tanks, etc.) or are there qualitative things that need to change?

This speaks to the fact that I haven't seen any clear "this is how we win it" proposals. I could understand why the details would be classified, but I've not seen broad strokes, either. Has anyone else?

Not just a large fraction of US citizens, but essential all Republican “leaders”.

> The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promised they would come to Ukraine's aid if needed.

Glad this video of Rubio making an impassioned speech about how "the credibility of America is on the line" when it comes to defending Ukraine has resurfaced: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

The complete collapse of the Republican party into one man's personality cult, any scintilla of principle be damned, is definitely not something I wouldn't have predicted 25 years ago.

hmm what does game theory say about the situation?

right from wrong is not applicable to this situation not even one bit

> The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promised they would come to Ukraine's aid if needed

No they didn't. There was never any promise like that.

Yes they did (with Russia)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_de...

> ... In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia ... in exchange for economic compensation and assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders....

And yes there is this point but this is irrelevant. Ukraine played by the rules and got played. Nobody would have invaded Ukraine in 1994 if they had refused, especially given the state of the Russian army at this time

> While all these weapons were located on Ukrainian territory, they were not under Ukraine's control.[4]

> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Which they did. Please tell me which exact aspect of the Budapest Memorandum did US not follow through?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

Which they did. Please tell me which exact aspect of the Budapest Memorandum did US not follow through?

> There was never any promise like that

There wasn’t a treaty obligation. But there was a promise.

Similarly, there is no treaty obligation for America to respond to Russia nuking Paris with even harsh words. Just promises around the treaty obligation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force” [1].

Let there be no doubt: the United States is defaulting on its promises in Ukraine.

[1] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

Technically the Budapest Memorandum was a "political agreement" between the governments of US/UK/Russia at the time. It wasn't an actual treaty like NATO that was ratified by congress. Of course you do have a point about the "such action as it deems necessary" part.

The Budapest Memorandum did not promise any defense.

Which they did.

§ 4 only applies "if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used" [1].

Russia is violating § 2. But Trump, Musk and Vance, by directly negotiating with Putin in respect of Ukraine's borders, are failing "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" (§ 1).

[1] https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/files/policymemos/files/...

4 is a bit ambigious if the nuclear part applies to the threat or to both.

Russia violates 2, but not US. Negotiating with Putin does not violate "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" because it's not enforced. Ultimately it is up to Ukraine if they want to accept the deal negotiated by Trump

> Negotiating with Putin does not violate "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" because it's not enforced

America negotiating with Putin on the future borders of Ukraine absolutely disrespects its sovereignty (by not including them) and borders. The proper role, if we wanted to directly mediate, would have been making it clear to Kyiv that the resource roll was done while informing Russia that if they come to the negotiating table then sanctions relief will be on the table. Then step back.

Again, it doesn't because America is not deciding for Ukraine. America negotiates a deal with Russia, then sends the deal to Ukraine and it's up to them to take it or leave it. Just because you don't like how the negotiating is done does not mean that US is disrespecting Ukraine's sovereignty.

> America negotiates a deal with Russia, then sends the deal to Ukraine and it's up to them to take it or leave it

Come on.

> because you don't like how the negotiating is done does not mean that US is disrespecting Ukraine's sovereignty

We're treating their borders as violable in the negotations. That violates the deal. The fact that many Americans have jumped the shark when it comes to honest dealing sort of underwrites why we're no longer a reliable partner--we don't even know when we're lying.

US does not force any of the deal onto Ukraine, thus not violating the deal. US has negotiated a deal and offered it to Ukraine, who, in their full right, have not signed on.

US is still a reliable partner - which is why many countries continue to be in partnership with it. Fact is, US had made no promise to protect Ukraine.

> US has negotiated a deal

That challenges its borders! If I agree not to steal your stuff and you find me hiring someone to steal your stuff, and I start arguing around the technicalities of our agreement, I’m a dishonourable liar!

> US is still a reliable partner

Are you watching the markets? Are you seeing the trade barriers go up? Our export companies are crashing. Our allies are writing separate security agreements, agreements that not only duplicate our own but balance American power.

I swear to god modern America is half made up of Calvin Coolidges. I’m not quite with Thiel on revisiting universal suffrage. But obviously the law of large numbers isn’t working when so correlated by social media.

https://bsky.app/profile/igorsushko.bsky.social/post/3ljnqjm...

'to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;'

The US is making any support contingent on a peace agreement that Ukraine doesn't want because it doesn't want to give up it's land.

This seems like a sideways trade and in the same spirit. Military defense guarantees, not on the table according to 4 presidents now, could become a possibility for that subset of land which does not require entry into a currently ongoing war. The prior tactic (mere 100's of billions of aid, plus some sanctions) has resulted in the same outcome via a stalemate anyway.

> Military defense guarantees, not on the table according to 4 presidents now, could become a possibility

If someone trades territory for a U.S. security guarantee--absent a U.S. base that would have to be bombed by anyone trying to take more of the country--they're an idiot.

The current United States Secretary of State disagrees with you:

https://bsky.app/profile/dittie.bsky.social/post/3lji5yzf5ns...

> Protect your networks ppl. It's only going to get worse.

Most important piece here, don't despair, protect your people, build mutual aid communities with your neighbors and friends, there is no one coming to save us but ourselves.

Ukrainian nukes were about as Ukrainian as Texas-based US nukes are Texan — they were Soviet weapons targeting US cities, with launch authority and maintenance cycles controlled from Moscow.

After independence, Ukraine had physical possession of a huge nuclear arsenal but lacked the codes and infrastructure to operate or maintain it long-term. The only practical options were to dismantle them, bargain them away, or possibly sell off some nuclear material or technology to third parties — though they ultimately chose to denuclearize under the Budapest Memorandum in exchange for security assurances.

What could have truly deterred Russia was Ukraine’s enormous conventional military inherited from the USSR (actually, the size of Russia's), but it was steadily gutted over the decades through underfunding, corruption, and arms sales.

> though they ultimately chose to denuclearize under the Budapest Memorandum in exchange for security assurances.

That the US and the UK (and obviously Russia) did not honour, did they?

It had been honoured — or at least not directly violated — for 20 years. And in international affairs, 20 years is "forever."

Between 1918 and 1938, how many treaties were signed, broken, rewritten, and ignored by how many powers?

I'll keep that in mind next time I sign a contract: "I commit to honouring it until I don't".

Man so many American's about to be relieved they can stop honoring their 30 year mortgagee.

It has been honored by the US and UK.

The only obligations it imposes, besides not attacking Ukraine, is to seek UN Security Council action should Ukraine be nuked. I don't know why people keep trotting it out like it's a comprehensive defense pact.

That isn't the American Secretary of States opinion:

https://bsky.app/profile/dittie.bsky.social/post/3lji5yzf5ns...

Nor is the US currently 'honoring it' clear from a direct reading of the langauge:

https://bsky.app/profile/igorsushko.bsky.social/post/3ljnqjm...

> The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes

To be fair Ukraine didn't really have nukes. I mean they technically had nukes in their territory and maybe could have kept them if they really wanted to but it's a bit like e.g. Scotland trying to keep British nukes after declaring independence. Wouldn't make a lot sense.

Economically Ukraine was in a horrible state. Nuclear weapons have extremely high cost and I'm not sure if they even had any delivery vehicles? Also the the political repercussions, trade relations with Russia were very important etc.

Last but not least Russia and Ukraine were certainly not adversaries back in those days. After all Ukraine was on Russia's side when they attacked Moldova to establish Tranistria. Them going to war back in the 90s would have been almost as absurd as US invading Canada...

You forget that development and nuclear power knowledge comes from Ukraine, so they had nukes and were direct involved on it's creation if wasn't created by them

You forget that Britain and Canada also directly participated in the Manhattan project. Then they were locked out by Truman in 1945 and it took them another 7 years to develop their own nukes. It's just not that simple or straightforward.

Ukraine might have been in much better spot in some ways (they actually had functioning nukes) but in other ways it was simply infeasible politically (Russia was closer to being an "ally" than and adversary back in those days) and obviously economically unjustifiable.

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/japan-south-korea-and-poland-n...

Related read that we need more nuclear proliferation as a deterrent.

If Ukraine had nukes, Russia wouldn’t touch it.

Just wondering what Australia might think now after having rejected the French nuclear sub deal for a US one. Perhaps DJT might consider "buying" Australia soon? Lots more minerals than Ukraine.

Sitting between an antagonistic USA and China must be uncomfortable.

...to say the least...

It is obvious that Sweden, Denmark and Norway and Germany, Poland and of course Ukraine need nuclear weapons now.

They had been threatened by Russia with nuclear weapons and it looks like when push comes to shove the US is not going to defend them(go to ww3) using nuclear weapons.

Trump's actions about WW3 means that countries that have nukes are first class, and the rest are third class. It looks like a Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in which nuclear countries divide the non nuclear's territories.

When Russia invaded Ukraine it had almost nobody defending the border, that was the reason of Kursk offensive success.

The official story was that "Russia had to defend itself from NATO invasion". In reality they knew nobody was going to invade a nuclear power not having nukes, while they could invade freely.

Why these specifically? Why Poland and not Slovakia, Romania or Moldova that also neighbor Ukraine? These countries have much weaker conventional defenses than Poland, further increasing the importance of something like nuclear weapons.

I would go even further. All countries that used to be part of the USSR and got violated by USSR for decades without any external help would be wise to develop at least the capability. In secret if need be.

I think it's interesting that the Trump administration hasn't breathed a word about the nuclear-sharing arrangements currently in place. It's low-hanging fruit, sends an extremely clear message, and relatively straightforward to accomplish, yet he hasn't made a move towards emptying the WS3 vaults in places like Kleine Brogel and Aviano.

I suspect right now we're seeing a lot of public noise designed largely to get Europe to spend more on both internal defense and their NATO commitments, while privately the attaches continue to conduct business as usual, at least when it comes to the American-supplied nuclear deterrent.

Can someone clarify if this applies to Ukraine as well?

The speed at which EU defense integration precedes is dizzying. In only:

- one month after the US openly said it won't be the primary security guarantor of Europe

- a month and a half after the second inauguration of a NATO sceptical president

- three years after the start of a major european land war bordering the EU

- 14 years after another US administration formally announced it's "Pivot to Asia"

... a European country has announced it's "open to discussion" about extending its nuclear umbrella. Not that it's offering the umbrella. Not that it has discussed offering the umbrella. But that it's open to start those discussions.

Tbf, nuclear proliferation really sucks for a number of reasons, and shifting priorities in democratically elected non-authoritarian regimes with checks and balances typically means pushing such an unpopular policy forward is going to take a while.

I really think too many people inside America do not properly understand how much the world now thinks it’s at risk from the US. The world sees what has happened as us turning into an autocracy that is now adversarial to democratic countries.

Words are actions in politics. They aren’t jokes or memes. We are threatening our neighbors. And for actions we have flipped on Ukraine and now withdrawn all aid, including intelligence, and just reported turned off their ability to target with GMLRS. We have even turned off our cybersecurity activities as it relates to Russia. Writing is very clear to people outside the US.

I think you might have meant to respond to another comment.

To say it bluntly, everybody hates the US right now. I think that too many people inside the US do not really understand that.

A few days ago the press secretary of the White House closed the session by commenting on a hockey game to be played that night between the US and "our soon-to-be 51st state", whilst grinning.

A declaration of war packaged as a prank.

Yep, ridiculously slow to reach the melting temperature on decision making. But the transition could now be quick.

You know the more I think about it, the more I consider that even without US support, their primary adversary has already demonstrated their impotence as an offensive military power. Maybe they simply don't need to do much more than they're already doing.

> their primary adversary has already demonstrated their impotence

…the call is coming from inside the house. Europe’s existential risk has shifted from Russia to a Russo-American alliance.

A slight thawing of relations is a long way away from an alliance. Even then, would Russia take it? They might see more value in their current arrangement with China.

Still, long term maybe you're right. It does make geopolitical sense for the US to be more closely aligned with Russia. In a pivot to Asia it's much more useful to sow-discord in the Sino-Russian relationship, than it is to prop up the EU.

> It does make geopolitical sense for the US to be more closely aligned with Russia. In a pivot to Asia it's much more useful to sow-discord in the Sino-Russian relationship, than it is to prop up the EU

The EU have been loyal allies. Their defence production is also nothing to be sneezed at. If we found ourselves in a war of attrition with China and either Japan or Korea stood neutral, an America with Europe has a much higher chance of succeeding than an America alone.

And if we surrender to Xi the way Trump has to Putin, that puts the American homeland at direct risk in the next conflict from both sides.

This entire enterprise comes down to some Silicon Valley types not liking the EU. It's personal and irrational and unfortunately, with Trump an ersatz monarch for two years, an example of why extreme power concentration sacrifices the immortal goals of a nation for the personal whims of a mortal leader.

I think if we take the recency bias, emotion and partisanship out of this, we can see that the United States has been trying to pivot away from Europe, under both democratic and republican administrations, for over a decade now.

The fact is Europe can afford to defend itself. This isn't the cold war were the soviet military was 800km from Paris. It's 2025, where the shell of the Russian army is struggling to capture territory 2,400km from Paris.

If the USA in the 70s was willing to thaw relations with China to offset the USSR, it will surely thaw relations was the Russian Federation now to offset China. I do not think European arms production is a significant factor in any US/China conflict; any "Taiwan Emergency" will just by a factor of geography not be a long protracted conflict, and has much more potential to flair up into alarming levels than even this one.

Macron has been advocating for tighter European collaboration for years, insisting that there should be an integrated European army in 2018 and calling NATO "brain-dead" in 2019. The question is whether other European countries want to be integrated, and thus far the answer has been that they do not.

This is what people outside of Europe do not understand. We are not one country. We are 27 sovereign countries with their own parliament and their own final decisions that must coin a common European policy. This is an immense effort.

It makes it slow, but it also means that the EU cannot turn authoritarian with one election, like the US did.

I think this is rapidly changing, now that the US is essentially a hostile foreign nation.

Even if you grant that perception of the US (which UK at least has explicitly stated it doesn't agree with), it doesn't resolve the practical obstacles where different member states don't necessarily agree on military action. One good example came up just today; France and the UK want to deploy peacekeeping troops to Ukraine to enforce a ceasefire, but Italy does not. In a unified European military, does Italy get a veto, or does the command structure somehow require Italian divisions to deploy somewhere the Italian government doesn't want them to go?

Well, the UK does not belong to the EU. So it really doesn't matter in this conversation all that much.

As for the EU, I imagine it will eventually create more integration tiers above the ones that currently exist. If I am not terribly mistaken Macron advocates for such a thing. Not a bad idea to be frank.

Absolutely fair points. He's at least trying. But it's the tragic comedy of the point at which he has to start from, and the date on the calendar...

I suspect EU leaders started drawing up plans in 2017, and dusted them off in November.

I see we've had hours of the European echo chamber here.

I'm an American but I obviously don't represent my country. I just want to say one thing...

You Europeans don't need to worry. We will not abandon you in case Russia shows up in NATO territory because we have too long of a history together and strong commercial relations. We are a large country and you can bet we have shared values. It's in our strongest interest to ensure that you don't become part of a Russian Empire. We'd go there again as we've done multiple times in the past. Even Trump would do it. Don't take our renewed relationship with Russia as indication that we trust Putin. We just decided it's not worth pushing them against a corner. Disrespecting Russia is a mistake and leads to bad and dangerous outcomes.

But one thing we will no longer do is bail you out on every little crisis in your continent. We are not your private security. YES, let France be your nuclear shield. YES, have the UK and its ships protecting you. German tanks. Italian airplanes. Polish artillery. Make sure you are armed to the teeth and Russian dictators won't dare to invade you.

"You Europeans don't need to worry. We will not abandon you in case Russia shows up in NATO territory because we have too long of a history together and strong commercial relations."

This history has been wiped out in a month's time. Trump has threatened to annex EU territory, plays with economic destruction on the daily, constantly lies about Europe and mocks and humiliates us.

America is now a threat and an enemy. "Don't worry" will not cut it.

Your mind must be truly warped when you think supporting a sovereign country that is ruthlessly destroyed by Russia is "disrespecting Russia".

We do not have shared values. Yesterday Trump decided to cut sharing intelligence so that Russian missiles and drones can go through without Ukraine being able to prepare for them. Trading human lives for a better mineral deal, like picking a corpse.

Demonic "values".

If you are right and Europe has so many enemies, the solution is to buy more weapons to defend against Russia and the "demonic" country that "mocks and humiliates" yours. Deal?

A two front war is tough. Trump has also said the he'll get Greenland, "one way or the other":

https://www.politico.eu/article/us-will-take-greenland-one-w...

The last time a US president has used that phrase Nord Stream was blown up.

There is a high chance that all of this is political theater designed to get the EU to spend more on its military and take over the Ukraine war so the EU will be the culprit while the US can trade with Russia and China. Playing off continental powers against each other has historically been the hallmark of Britain and now the US, both of whom live in splendid isolation.

The EU should hedge against this scenario and seek better relations with Russia.

If Trump is serious and none of this is theater, the EU should also seek better relations with Russia, otherwise it will have a two front war against the two superpowers.

Every now and then, a French president floats the idea of Euronukes:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09662839.2020.1...

Viva la France

Have one comment for that: LOL

Ah, the formation of German-lead coalition to oppose Russia AND US, how fresh. Surely third time will be the charm.

> German-lead coalition to oppose Russia AND US

Macron isn’t German.

He hasn’t managed to lead much of anything so far. The British will happily switch sides the moment they can play those Continental fools against each other again — it’s practically a national sport, and it always works.

When the real trouble starts, it’ll come down to the Germans and the Poles, as it usually does.

On the bright side, all that capital fleeing France and Germany will go a long way toward reindustrializing the US and giving Britain’s economy a much-needed shot in the arm — so, it’s not all bad.

Power comes from the barrel of a gun. Once again the Chinese were right but we didn't listen...

> France and Britain are Europe's only two nuclear powers.

What about the European power with the worlds largest nuclear arsenal?

As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia says:

> Russia is the most populous country in Europe

but it's only partly in Europe:

> is a country spanning Eastern Europe and North Asia.

> What about the European power with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal?

If we’re being pedantic to the point of silliness, we could argue that a significant fraction of Russia’s nuclear assets are outside European Russia [1][2]. And that Muscovite Russia retains significant elements of its Mongol roots relative to the Kievan Rus [3].

[1] https://npolicy.org/interactive-nuclear-atlas/russias-nuclea...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Russia

[3] https://geohistory.today/mongol-empire-effects-russia/

It's not pedantic, Russia is part of Europe and according to your link has 80% of its population in Europe [1]. The exclusion from the list of European Nuclear powers is incorrect and politically motivated.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Russia

> Russia is part of Europe…politically motivated

The Europe-Asia boundary is a political boundary [1].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tectonic_plates

Sure, maybe "political" + "boundary" was redundant.

But clearly missed the announcement that declared Eurasia to always having been Asia.

> Eurasia to always having been Asia

Nothing in the text you’re referring to implies that. It just suggests Russian isn’t fully European. Which has never been in doubt. Within a security context where Russia is the aggressor, it makes sense to exclude them.

No country will risk its own annihilation to defend the borders of another country. That's why de Gaulle left NATO in the first place, he didn't want anyone else's finger on the french nuclear button than his own, he didn't trust the US would go nuclear with the USSR over France. Third party nuclear protections are little more than warm reassurances, but will amount to nothing when the day comes.

And to be honest I am not even sure first party nuclear protection is worth that much. French president Giscard d'Estaing famously said he would probably not have used nukes if France had been invaded under his presidency. What a moronic thing to say (it massively undermines French nuclear deterrence).

> That's why de Gaulle left NATO in the first place,

De Gaulle did not leave NATO, the alliance; France has been a member of NATO since its founding without interruption.

France left NATO’s integrated military command from 1966 to 2009, and also did not join the NATO nuclear planning group when it rejoined to integrated military command.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com