Hard truth. Also it would entail Europe getting caught in between Russia and US at a time when there’s a real threat of the right wing nutcases taking over the majority of the European countries.
As they say , if I were countries like Canada / EU / UK , I would have pushed harder for free trade deals with India (with reciprocal tariffs as I’ve mentioned in the other thread as a threat if need be) and other so called non aligned countries.
This needed to be done 3-4 years ago at the very least. The principle is to get fiscal independence. Sure , it might not be a win deal for the EU as far as negotiating with India goes , but a no lose-lose deal is better than hurriedly getting into negotiation with an India now.
Relations with India is something I know very little about. I just sit in wonderment at how they deteriorared to the point they are.
For me if you have something you called the ‘jewel in the crown’ you polish it from time to time.
They haven’t deteriorated. It’s just that they haven’t improved.
1 Like
Unless it’s with Canada. Which I’ve been on record as saying it’s a huge mis-step for Trudeau.
The EU / UK don’t have that baggage.
The current US administration has made abundantly clear that its relationship with Europe is way down its list of priorities.
Europe has to finally wake up from its slumber and mobilise itself. Form an united front in the face of aggression, pool its resources in support of Ukraine, increase substantially its defence budget, and last but not least align itself with China. The problem is that by now even doing all of this will be too little, too late.
3 Likes
That’s the problem. A fundamental misalignment whilst concurrently being taken for granted. The stark reality Europe must recognise that its security cannot rely upon whim of the US president who has little regard for rule of law, democracy or historic relationships.
It’s currently too one sided with the US dictating terms. Using protection as its lever, no different to Russia using energy dependence.
It’s unsustainable. The assumption that the US will always step in when needed is now a liability.
At best the US is an unreliable partner and at worst indifferent to European security.
The US dominates militarily, but Europe still has leverage. The implicit agreement has always been that the US provides security, and in return, Europe aligns on trade, diplomacy, and military cooperation etc. If Washington is now indifferent, it must be reminded of what it stands to lose economic ties, strategic military access, and diplomatic backing. Much of which reinforces its global dominance. Europes support should not be automatic; it should be a choice. However after so many years of alignment. I do wonder if its become so ingrained we have forgotten that.
But like I said doing that requires a backbone, I am not sure Europe has.
5 Likes
I don’t think there will be any other choice. Trump is clearly disinterested in European security, and looking for an alliance with Russia. Faced with that situation between the hammer and the anvil, what other choice is there to grow some balls? It’s not as if Europe is a poor third-world continent. It can be done, we have leverage as you say.
3 Likes
Also, there’s no chance of EU totally aligning with China. Issue based support, sure. Investment opportunities, sure.
People like @RedArmada who are calling for total alignment with China are way too optimistic (if that’s a word). There’s a reason why regime changes happen. That’s mostly with the tacit approval of US and in some cases very overt.
I don’t think that is a real option at this point. What possible damage could the US do to the relationship with Europe? NATO died last week. Tariffs are likely to be announced in detail this week.
What Europe has to decide is what it can do to support Ukraine anyway, whether or not that is coherent in the short-term, and what to do in the immediate aftermath. The US presented Ukraine with a version of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
3 Likes
It isn’t an arms race. It is simple deterrence. The Ukraine should never have acceded to the NPT by agreeing to the Budapest Memorandum. The US assurances were worthless, as is any treaty with the US now.
3 Likes
Ukraine didn’t have the codes for those nukes. For most intents, those nukes were worthless.
If it’s deterrence, Countries in Europe have those nukes. Not nearly to the scale as what Russia has but enough to be a deterrence.
The estimation at the time was that they could be operational in about two years. Faster if the codes could be purchased directly from some ex-Soviet officer, at a time when Russian criminals were selling just about everything.
1 Like
What was that alliance of commonwealth countries a few years ago being bandied about , initaially uk canada, Australia & nz…chuck in india and maybe south African…it could be a gane changer especially over time and the replacement of nato that really has been defunct for 30-40 years imo
And then you would have one more country who would sell those nukes.
Sure, but the lesson of today’s world is that the NPT is a con game passed off by the great powers to make sure they can bully the rest of the world.
2 Likes
India called that bluff. But so did other countries like Pakistan , North Korea.
Having a nuke in some ways is the best deterrence. But imagine a radical islamic entity getting hold of those ?
From the Ukrainian point of view, radical Islamic entities are not much of a problem.
1 Like
Sure. But from a world security point of view , they are very much the problem.
Imagine the shit that happens when a Pak develops a icbm to the extent that it reaches UK. Forget India , that’s just a stone’s throw away.
And that basketcase of a country is only two steps away from being a fundamentalist rogue nation.
I would argue that non-proliferation is now no longer a ‘collective good’ in the interest of most countries. From where I sit, radical Islam is not much of a threat to world security, it is a regional issue.
Pakistan and India have both had nuclear capability pointing at each other for over a generation. Seems to work.
1 Like