Finally. I view this as a much bigger deterrent against a Russian invasion than tanks and boots on the ground.
Let's not forget that it was the US that didn't want much nuclear capability in Europe so they offered to protect us with their nuclear umbrella. They strongly objected to Italy's nuclear program for example.
Now that the US umbrella can't be relied upon, we will need our own. I do think it's the main reason Europe has been safe since WWII.
It's noteworthy that President Macron is less of a suck-up than other world leaders when he discusses Trump. When your nation has nuclear warheads, there's a limit to how far another nation can bully you.
Starmer likely worries about endangering trade with the US, post-Brexit, and about giving political ammunition to the conservative press and to populists like Farage. I agree that having nukes isn't all that matters.
I'm tired of this scaremongering of Russian invasion.
Unless we live on another planet Russia can barely fight a war against Ukraine and their military capabilities have been further eroded for decades with insane losses to their personnel, economy and equipment.
There is one, and only one country in the world in the position to threaten Europe in any way, and it's our most important ally.
Not sure how to take this. While your statements are objectively true, there are a lot of reasons the US won't attack the EU, even if the reasons are mainly economic.
Russia on the other hand is shit at waging their war in Ukraine but they achieved their objectives (land bridge to Sevastopol, etc.).
So the worry is not that Russia will wage a well fought war, but some war at all, even if they are shit at it, because it will do extensive damage either way. And we know for a fact that they don't shy away from it.
Some people wanted a multi-polar world, well, this is what a multi-polar world looks like: the poles start competing, including arms races. "History may not repeat itself but it often rhymes." as they say.
Any world configuration that consists of large groupings of fear driven people(nations, etc) will includes nukes. That is the world we live in. Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar, makes no difference.
The only thing that matters is that all people rise up and demand an end to nuclear weapons.
The nuclear arms re-proliferation that comes along with a multi-polar world raises the risk of use of nuclear weapons considerably. Even in traditionally anti-nuclear Japan, some politicians are broaching the idea of acquiring nuclear arms. That very much makes a difference.
To be honest the world is likely safer because of the nuclear deterrent.
If Pakistan and India both didn't have nuclear weapons you can rest assured they would've long fought an endless stream of wars with tens and tens of millions. They hate each other.
Perhaps we didn't realize how much stability the "two powers" model generated. It caused inevitable arms races as the two powers vied to stay competitive, but there were only two. And the USSR was able to de-escalate on its own. If you have three powers, each of them wants the ability to eliminate not one, but both of the others. Could lead to not just incremental, but polynomial expansion of forces. And de-escalation involves multiple parties coordinating, not just one great power.
Based on my rather limited knowledge of French politics, isn’t Macron and his coalition supremely unpopular and just one election away from losing the country to factions that have a distinctly different vision of Europe and France’s role within? Including distancing itself from any pan-European entities and presenting a friendlier face to Russia?
Seems like the current French government and many decisions they make between now and then would be lame-ducky and be taken with a grain of salt.
There are naive people with good intentions that feel that war is absolutely never justified and it would be better for everyone if Ukraine just rolled over and surrendered. Nevermind who the aggressor is. Note, this is not my own opinion.
Others that think a nation should turn isolationist and focus on domestic problems instead of helping other European countries.
Regarding Meloni, yes, people feared how she’d end up like, and many vilified her leading up to the election. But not to the degree that say, the National Rally or the Le Pens have always been. Or at least, that is what I observed as an outsider who is neither French, Italian, or European.
Plus, you can argue that many people believed “oh, Trump couldn’t possibly really be like that”, and, well, here we are.
He is unpopular because he did the right thing on many topics such as rising the age of pensions in a country that cannot sustain the current system anymore, especially with the demographic downfall.
Honestly, Macron is one of the few politicians in Europe that has consistently understood the importance of pan-Europeanism and has called for strengthening of European armies or giving birth to an EU army for a long time.
I understand he's unpopular, but as a non-French I cannot see how he's been wrong on so many topics, especially when it comes to international relations.
And to finish, with the recent world events I highly doubt that Trump-like politicians can win elections, especially in countries like France. Sadly, a Trumpist did win elections in Poland just recently though.
All eastern European countries are plagued by this insanity of electing presidents, which makes it very easy to fall into this anti democratic insanities we see from Russia to Belarus and now US.
> isn’t Macron and his coalition supremely unpopular and just one election away from losing the country to factions that have a distinctly different vision of Europe and France’s role within
That's been just as true of all their politicians for as long as I can remember. Multiparty system, after a few rounds the vote for president comes down to someone sane but unpopular vs. some equivalent of the Tea Party, the French population put clothespegs on their noses and votes for the sane option.
(Dunno about the rest of their electoral system besides president).
So far yes. But hasn’t it been the trend that the not-so-sane factions been getting closer and closer every election, to the point that they’re realistically on the cusp of siezing victory?
I remember the last election Macron’s coalition had to use some kind of creative trickery to keep National Rally and their friends from winning; after which the latter called foul.
Edit: digging deeper, said “trickery” appears to be a tactic that has been used in the past like you said. But it also seems like it’s never been this close down to the wire too.
Internally maybe, but Trump has a way to trigger large political movements within countries.
Canada was supposed to have a large (historically large) conservative government 3 months before the latest elections, but with Trump in the white house people suddenly want to move away from the right, it's a very interesting effect.
As recently reported on politico.eu, the absolute stupidity of Trump's desire for Canada, Greenland, Venezuela play, his foul ignorant mouth on NATO, and criticism of Euro countries has made him too risky to be associated with. He's becoming radioactive skank on parade bad.
For those in the US like me: Trump will be the single largest reason for the rise of popularist left politics here, which we don't need either.
Granted like the Marshal Tucker song "I heard it in a love song" ... "can't be wrong" Trump isn't actually popular right. Trump is about vanity and self enrichment.
Ukraine needs nukes. It's the only way to hold the eastern flank of Europe against a madman who only understands 1 language, especially when the world is unable or unwilling to do enough to help them reach a favorable cessation of hostilities deal.
In positive developments, Ukraine obliterated over $4.3 billion in air defense assets in the past two weeks and is producing more than 1:1 unjammable fiber optic drones faster for each Z contract-taker mobilized as meat assault fodder.
They have many questions to answer. How do they skirt the NPT? If they rely on the UK --which is not an EU country, or even if they rely on France, who makes the call, who has authority and what happens when some country tells France "launch" but France doesn't agree. Do those other countries have guys with the launch codes in assigned siloes?
"Withdrawal Clause: Countries may withdraw with three months' notice if "extraordinary events" jeopardize their supreme interests. "
Doesn't seem that hard to leave it.
You just don't ratify it, simple. The US does not ratify treaties all the time, especially now.
Coming under the French nuclear umbrella explicitly means that if a country is under extreme threat of nuclear attack, France will 100% retaliate. Unlike the current scenario where even if the country is an EU ally, France can still choose to refuse.
Later down the line, France could even choose to delegate nuclear hosting to those countries, like the US does with Turkey and the like. Obviously those nations don't get access to the codes.
At the end of the day, everything works on the basis of trust, and while the US has broken its covenant, the EU countries have not, especially not with each other.
I would not be so sure with the 100%. France had a mutual defence treaty with Czechoslovakia in 1938. They not only chose not to honor it but U turned all the way and explicitly let Hitler occupy it.
Would you trust them in crunch time mere 90 years later?
France will not risk Paris, but if Moscow launches a nuke on Tallinn and Estonia is in the French nuclear umbrella, then France will retaliate by launching its own nuke. That's what being under a nuclear umbrella means.
Of course, Russia won't waste its first strike on Tallinn. Their first strike will be aimed at French nuclear facilities if it comes to that. Again, that's what offering a nuclear umbrella entails.
That's the difference between having a supranational organization like the EU and NATO vs mere treaties. Also backstabbing was much more common back then, not so much now. The US is now uniquely upending the current regime by taking actions against allies and betraying their trust.
Finally. I view this as a much bigger deterrent against a Russian invasion than tanks and boots on the ground.
Let's not forget that it was the US that didn't want much nuclear capability in Europe so they offered to protect us with their nuclear umbrella. They strongly objected to Italy's nuclear program for example.
Now that the US umbrella can't be relied upon, we will need our own. I do think it's the main reason Europe has been safe since WWII.
It's noteworthy that President Macron is less of a suck-up than other world leaders when he discusses Trump. When your nation has nuclear warheads, there's a limit to how far another nation can bully you.
The UK has nukes and sucks up to trump. I think it’s the personality of the leader that matters.
Starmer likely worries about endangering trade with the US, post-Brexit, and about giving political ammunition to the conservative press and to populists like Farage. I agree that having nukes isn't all that matters.
I'm tired of this scaremongering of Russian invasion.
Unless we live on another planet Russia can barely fight a war against Ukraine and their military capabilities have been further eroded for decades with insane losses to their personnel, economy and equipment.
There is one, and only one country in the world in the position to threaten Europe in any way, and it's our most important ally.
It's more about the fact that Russia has one of the world's largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons and claims they aren't afraid to use them.
Not sure how to take this. While your statements are objectively true, there are a lot of reasons the US won't attack the EU, even if the reasons are mainly economic.
Russia on the other hand is shit at waging their war in Ukraine but they achieved their objectives (land bridge to Sevastopol, etc.).
So the worry is not that Russia will wage a well fought war, but some war at all, even if they are shit at it, because it will do extensive damage either way. And we know for a fact that they don't shy away from it.
>Unless we live on another planet Russia can barely fight a war against Ukraine*
*Ukraine with very significant support from various countries
Some people wanted a multi-polar world, well, this is what a multi-polar world looks like: the poles start competing, including arms races. "History may not repeat itself but it often rhymes." as they say.
Any world configuration that consists of large groupings of fear driven people(nations, etc) will includes nukes. That is the world we live in. Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar, makes no difference.
The only thing that matters is that all people rise up and demand an end to nuclear weapons.
The nuclear arms re-proliferation that comes along with a multi-polar world raises the risk of use of nuclear weapons considerably. Even in traditionally anti-nuclear Japan, some politicians are broaching the idea of acquiring nuclear arms. That very much makes a difference.
To be honest the world is likely safer because of the nuclear deterrent.
If Pakistan and India both didn't have nuclear weapons you can rest assured they would've long fought an endless stream of wars with tens and tens of millions. They hate each other.
Perhaps we didn't realize how much stability the "two powers" model generated. It caused inevitable arms races as the two powers vied to stay competitive, but there were only two. And the USSR was able to de-escalate on its own. If you have three powers, each of them wants the ability to eliminate not one, but both of the others. Could lead to not just incremental, but polynomial expansion of forces. And de-escalation involves multiple parties coordinating, not just one great power.
>Some people wanted a multi-polar world
Specifically, the people who are not part of the American mono-pole.
Oh? By and large the move to a multi-polar world so far and to be driven by the US.
going to need to spend a lot more money than currently to support that...
Based on my rather limited knowledge of French politics, isn’t Macron and his coalition supremely unpopular and just one election away from losing the country to factions that have a distinctly different vision of Europe and France’s role within? Including distancing itself from any pan-European entities and presenting a friendlier face to Russia?
Seems like the current French government and many decisions they make between now and then would be lame-ducky and be taken with a grain of salt.
In this time, would the population really want to switch to pro-russian policies?
Also comparing with Italy, did Meloni really turn out the way people (including myself) thought?
Her government is a half disaster, but at least it's stable.
The only reason she didn't turn worse is because her government highly depends on more moderate parties like Forza Italia.
There are naive people with good intentions that feel that war is absolutely never justified and it would be better for everyone if Ukraine just rolled over and surrendered. Nevermind who the aggressor is. Note, this is not my own opinion.
Others that think a nation should turn isolationist and focus on domestic problems instead of helping other European countries.
Regarding Meloni, yes, people feared how she’d end up like, and many vilified her leading up to the election. But not to the degree that say, the National Rally or the Le Pens have always been. Or at least, that is what I observed as an outsider who is neither French, Italian, or European.
Plus, you can argue that many people believed “oh, Trump couldn’t possibly really be like that”, and, well, here we are.
He is unpopular because he did the right thing on many topics such as rising the age of pensions in a country that cannot sustain the current system anymore, especially with the demographic downfall.
Honestly, Macron is one of the few politicians in Europe that has consistently understood the importance of pan-Europeanism and has called for strengthening of European armies or giving birth to an EU army for a long time.
I understand he's unpopular, but as a non-French I cannot see how he's been wrong on so many topics, especially when it comes to international relations.
And to finish, with the recent world events I highly doubt that Trump-like politicians can win elections, especially in countries like France. Sadly, a Trumpist did win elections in Poland just recently though.
All eastern European countries are plagued by this insanity of electing presidents, which makes it very easy to fall into this anti democratic insanities we see from Russia to Belarus and now US.
> isn’t Macron and his coalition supremely unpopular and just one election away from losing the country to factions that have a distinctly different vision of Europe and France’s role within
That's been just as true of all their politicians for as long as I can remember. Multiparty system, after a few rounds the vote for president comes down to someone sane but unpopular vs. some equivalent of the Tea Party, the French population put clothespegs on their noses and votes for the sane option.
(Dunno about the rest of their electoral system besides president).
So far yes. But hasn’t it been the trend that the not-so-sane factions been getting closer and closer every election, to the point that they’re realistically on the cusp of siezing victory?
I remember the last election Macron’s coalition had to use some kind of creative trickery to keep National Rally and their friends from winning; after which the latter called foul.
Edit: digging deeper, said “trickery” appears to be a tactic that has been used in the past like you said. But it also seems like it’s never been this close down to the wire too.
Internally maybe, but Trump has a way to trigger large political movements within countries.
Canada was supposed to have a large (historically large) conservative government 3 months before the latest elections, but with Trump in the white house people suddenly want to move away from the right, it's a very interesting effect.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/04/world/canada/global-elect...
It's not impossible that we will see something similar happen across Europe.
As recently reported on politico.eu, the absolute stupidity of Trump's desire for Canada, Greenland, Venezuela play, his foul ignorant mouth on NATO, and criticism of Euro countries has made him too risky to be associated with. He's becoming radioactive skank on parade bad.
For those in the US like me: Trump will be the single largest reason for the rise of popularist left politics here, which we don't need either.
Granted like the Marshal Tucker song "I heard it in a love song" ... "can't be wrong" Trump isn't actually popular right. Trump is about vanity and self enrichment.
There has always been doubt about America's resolve. And not just from Europe also from the Pentagon.
The solution was to stage US soldiers and tactical nukes in Western Europe as a living tripwire to force any US president to push the button.
Ukraine needs nukes. It's the only way to hold the eastern flank of Europe against a madman who only understands 1 language, especially when the world is unable or unwilling to do enough to help them reach a favorable cessation of hostilities deal.
In positive developments, Ukraine obliterated over $4.3 billion in air defense assets in the past two weeks and is producing more than 1:1 unjammable fiber optic drones faster for each Z contract-taker mobilized as meat assault fodder.
I'd give them to Taiwan as well.
They have many questions to answer. How do they skirt the NPT? If they rely on the UK --which is not an EU country, or even if they rely on France, who makes the call, who has authority and what happens when some country tells France "launch" but France doesn't agree. Do those other countries have guys with the launch codes in assigned siloes?
"Withdrawal Clause: Countries may withdraw with three months' notice if "extraordinary events" jeopardize their supreme interests. " Doesn't seem that hard to leave it.
You just don't ratify it, simple. The US does not ratify treaties all the time, especially now.
Coming under the French nuclear umbrella explicitly means that if a country is under extreme threat of nuclear attack, France will 100% retaliate. Unlike the current scenario where even if the country is an EU ally, France can still choose to refuse.
Later down the line, France could even choose to delegate nuclear hosting to those countries, like the US does with Turkey and the like. Obviously those nations don't get access to the codes.
At the end of the day, everything works on the basis of trust, and while the US has broken its covenant, the EU countries have not, especially not with each other.
I would not be so sure with the 100%. France had a mutual defence treaty with Czechoslovakia in 1938. They not only chose not to honor it but U turned all the way and explicitly let Hitler occupy it.
Would you trust them in crunch time mere 90 years later?
I think Estonia would be mad to think France will risk Paris to save Tallinn from being occupied.
France will not risk Paris, but if Moscow launches a nuke on Tallinn and Estonia is in the French nuclear umbrella, then France will retaliate by launching its own nuke. That's what being under a nuclear umbrella means.
Of course, Russia won't waste its first strike on Tallinn. Their first strike will be aimed at French nuclear facilities if it comes to that. Again, that's what offering a nuclear umbrella entails.
That's the difference between having a supranational organization like the EU and NATO vs mere treaties. Also backstabbing was much more common back then, not so much now. The US is now uniquely upending the current regime by taking actions against allies and betraying their trust.
Everyone else is breaking treaties left and right - who cares at this point?