• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Europe

Kirkhill

Puggled and Wabbit Scot.
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
9,597
Points
1,160
The Trump Effect


... as Donald Trump’s diplomacy with Russia sends shockwaves through Europe, Britain and its allies may have to develop a modern V-force to carry so-called tactical nuclear weapons.

Friedrich Merz, leader of Germany’s CDU party and the frontrunner to become the country’s next chancellor in elections on Sunday, was clear about the risks ahead in a TV interview on Friday.

“We need to have discussions with both the British and the French – the two European nuclear powers – about whether nuclear sharing, or at least nuclear security from the UK and France, could also apply to us,” he said.

Western officials are concerned that an American pull-back from the Continent – long viewed as unthinkable, but now frighteningly plausible – would leave Nato with a “deterrence gap”.


One idea that has been floating around since the 1960s, and could be dusted off in Whitehall, is a British proposal for an “Atlantic nuclear force”.

This would see Nato allies in Europe pay towards an expansion of the UK’s nuclear capabilities, so the burden would not fall on London alone.

In return, Britain would align its nuclear planning with Nato and be willing to launch tactical nuclear strikes to defend the alliance’s borders.

Last year, Christian Lindner, a former German finance minister, echoed this idea when he suggested Britain and France could expand their capabilities to provide a “nuclear shield” for Europe.

Crucially, argues Alberque, this would not violate non-proliferation treaties – as only the UK would control the capability – and it would also allow France to retain its long-held stance of operational independence.

France’s policy is “not as cooperative”, leaving some allies unsure of whether it can truly be relied on, he adds.

“Macron will say, ‘You can rely on France.’ But then Berlin sends representatives to Paris and says, ‘OK, do we get a vote on whether or not you use nuclear weapons in a conflict?’

“And France says, ‘Well, no – that’s up to Macron.’”

The simplest kind of tactical nuclear weapon for Britain to develop would probably be warheads placed on an air-launched cruise missile, fired from a Typhoon or F-35 jet, says Rusi’s Kulesa.

This would give Nato’s European members a credible answer to Russian own tactical nukes.

“The idea would be to make a warhead that is compatible with the UK delivery platforms such as the Storm Shadow [cruise missile],” he adds.

I would also add this to the mix....

 
The effects in the Black Sea of a cease fire and possible RN contributions.


The next point is what Turkey will decide regarding the Montreux Convention’s Article 19 restrictions on the transit of warships through the Bosporus. Although the Turks will want to maintain their political and economic balancing act they will most likely revoke Article 19 and revert to “peacetime rules” some weeks after the ceasefire is established and held. These rules allow Black Sea states to send warships through with eight days notice while non-Black sea states are limited to 15,000 tons (so no aircraft carriers) and a 21 day stay limit.

In this case it’s hard not to expect a queue of Russian warships lining up to replace – and more than replace – those sunk by Ukraine. The loss of the Tartus naval base in Syria will make the Russians even keener to do this. How many ships the Kremlin has to spare given what’s going on in the Baltic and further North remains to be seen but a fresh force of submarines and ships armed with the powerful Kalibr cruise missile would quickly negate Ukraine’s years of hard-won naval victories and swing the maritime balance of power back in Russia’s favour. A probable return by the Black Sea Fleet to Sevastopol and a more secure Crimea changes the whole operating picture in the region: and from the wider world perspective, renewed access to the Mediterranean for Russian warships would be equally bad news.

A new, strong Russian presence in the Black Sea would be a problem even if the ceasefire holds because these forces would now be free to conduct grey zone operations, at which they are proficient, with near impunity.

RN/RAF contributions? Not much.

Russia likely to move its Tartus flotilla to Sevastopol.

 
 
Europe's declining birth rate isn't looking good...


Ranked: Europe’s Population Change by Country​

For the last few decades Europe’s birth rates have fallen below replacement rate (which keeps population levels the same), and this will only accelerate going into the future.

As a result, most European countries will see their population fall between now and the year 2100.

 
Dust is settling in the German election, and soon to be former chancellor Scholz has conceded defeat.


Reassuring Jimmy Fallon GIF by The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon
 
big story today in Romania is the arrest of the pro russian presidential candidate, Guns, a grenade launcher, millions in cash, and plane tickets to moscow were seized in an early morning raid on multiple locations across the country.

More from Euronews:

 
Europe is being licked out of Mom's basement and it's time to start adulting, like getting their own nuclear deterrent...

Europe Without America​



In defence, energy security and other realms, Europe must wean itself off its dependence on the United States since World War II. Quickly.

Once again, US President Donald Trump has caught Europe with its pants down. On 13 February, he announced that the United States would negotiate directly with Russia to end the Ukraine War, without European or Ukrainian participation. A day later, his Vice-President told the world’s security elite that a lack of Trump-style “democracy” in Europe was a bigger security threat to the continent than China or Russia. Europeans were left wondering whether the US had merely abandoned them or had turned from ally to rival.

A rational explanation for US policy?

Some ascribed this twin shock to Trumpian flair for chaos, others suggested that they were consistent with the notion that Trump and his team may be Russian operatives who have captured the US executive. Still others interpreted them as an attempt to split Russia from China and to get Europe to take care of itself so the US can focus on its rivalry with China (though overlooking that this may push Europe and others closer to China).

In the end, the explanation may be fairly simple. Trump’s averred aim is to “Make American Great Again”, not “Make the West Great Again.” Trump seems to view the world as a zero-sum game, emphasising wins for the US vis-à-vis all other countries, including allies and friends like Canada. That these wins may in the end make the US poorer does not seem to matter; the key is to beat the other guy.

The United States thus may have mentally reverted to a worldview described by the realist school of international relations: nation states exist in an international context of anarchy and must struggle against each other to survive; the only thing that matters is the economic and military power of your own country relative to that of others. International rules are meaningless, and alliances are temporary arrangements of convenience that shift as needed.

Of course, realism also assumes rational decision-making. And this is apparently in short supply in Washington.

Internally, Trump and his team seem intent on destroying the administrative capacity of the American state (accidentally firing nuclear weapons engineers being a special highlight). Externally, they are alienating the very countries whose help they need if the United States, with a GDP that is now down to about 80 percent that of China’s, wants to prevail.

Singapore’s defence chief Ng Eng Hen evocatively described perceptions of America as having gone “from liberator to great disruptor to a landlord seeking rent.”

Implications for Europe

Europe cannot afford to be passive in the face of these developments. While it is possible that the US may return to a more cooperative foreign policy, hope is not a strategy. Europe must take proactive steps to prepare for a future where it may be forced to defend itself without American support.

In the words of Friedrich Merz, likely the next German Chancellor, Germany and Europe “must be prepared for the fact that Donald Trump will no longer fully accept the promise of assistance under the Nato treaty.”

Europe’s major challenge is that Russia remains a clear and immediate threat. Under Trump’s peace initiative, Russia may retain control of Ukrainian territories it has conquered. A peace thus engineered by the US would not really end the conflict; it would merely temporarily freeze it. After rearming, Moscow would likely direct its attention towards conquering the rest of Ukraine and potentially other neighbouring countries, such as the Baltics.

To check Russian expansion in an age of US indifference or antagonism, Europe must take decisive action, in many respects. Most urgent are efforts to strengthen its military deterrence. Current discussions about increasing conventional military forces, though important, fall short. A conventionally armed Europe remains vulnerable to blackmail by both Russia and the United States: Russia can threaten to use nuclear weapons to win a conventional conflict with Europe; the US can threaten to withhold its nuclear protection against Russia to force European compliance.

Europe must urgently pursue a credible nuclear deterrent. The simplest and most effective route to achieving this goal is to build on the French offer to extend its nuclear protection to Germany and, ideally, the rest of Europe. (The problem with the United Kingdom is not only its issues with anything Continental, but also the fact that UK nuclear missiles are leased from the US.)

 
The World when the US complains about the burden of being policeman: "Hey, you did that to yourself."

The World when the US decides to unburden itself: "You're awful people if you do that."
Pretty sure the world is absorbing that the world has become transactional to the extreme, and that they’re just getting on with things to prepare for no American doing anything with Europe.
 
Would appear the topic of this weekends emergency summit was to create a coalition of the willing to go into Ukraine as a peacekeeping op to enforce any ceasefire

I don’t see the Russians ever agreeing to this.
I can’t imagine German or Polish troops being within 2-5km of the Russian border.
Same goes with British troops.
 
Pretty sure the world is absorbing that the world has become transactional to the extreme, and that they’re just getting on with things to prepare for no American doing anything with Europe.
So let's unpack that. The world has become more transactional. That means the world was less transactional, which suggests some countries were contributing more than others, and some were free riding more than others. Why would that state of affairs be more defensible than one in which countries bear burdens more commensurate with their means?

The complaints about "transactional" politics are hard to distinguish from whinging about having to bear a fair share of costs for the RBIO.
 
I don’t see the Russians ever agreeing to this.
I can’t imagine German or Polish troops being within 2-5km of the Russian border.
Same goes with British troops.
Russia has already said no to euro troops in Ukraine so either this is just some maneuver ro show Europe is ready to aid in a post war Ukraine, or Europe just grew a very big pair of brass ones and is preparing to give Russia the middle finger and push troops into ukraine
 
Back
Top