Good essay, thanks. It does occur to me, though, that having a nuclear deterrent and not much else is a terminally dangerous position. Pressing the big red button means THE END. Yes, yes smaller-yield tactical weapons can be used but we all know that that will escalate until cities and then countries are erased. And the Russians have a huge arsenal of nukes.
When the only option is certain death there are, in fact, no options.
One reason the post war American security policy makers set NATO up was to keep Europe subservient to the USA. they feared a recovered Europe would become a peer militarily and would not be our friends. They only play our game so as to keep them supporting social programs it could not otherwise afford. Europe will rearm and they won't be old friends. Europe does not share our values anymore. Also, to state the obvious!!! Threatening to include Ukraine in NATO is what led Russia to attack. Imagine what they would do if Poland got the bomb? They won't allow it for the same reasons we blockaded Cuba. Americans are seriously myopic when it comes to understanding our opponents. When I see the typical comment Russias invasion " was unprovoked" it tells me they are clueless as to the history and strategic realities of those countries. Puleeze! We would preemptively strike if China gave Mexico nukes or allowed Chinese armies to be in bases along the border.
In many ways this step is sadly logical. With Hypersonic missiles being capable of delivering nuclear warheads, having retaliatory missiles in Poland isn't that bad of an idea. During the Cold War the Soviet Union and the USA had several basses with such capableabity. Fortunately nothing happened.
As a member of NATO, France has the same options under Article 5 as the US.
At least at present, it is inherently in French interest to deter a Russian war in either of Italy or Germany, both of which it is highly integrated (more so than the US).
But your point is more salient about other members. Would France extend its umbrella to Estonia? Romania? Hungary?
As I explained, the Force ds Frappe was France's deterrent in case it was attacked. The French strike force was never integrated with NATO and the French won't defend anyone but themselves.
France has defended others in the recent past, so on what do base your claim that it will not do so again?
France is acting in increased concert with the UK as the US recedes. Also, why would France not act to defend others when it is in its own interest to do so, such as the invasion of continental neighbours?
It turns out European countries were smart not to load up on what American defense contractors were peddling over the last twenty years because the war in Ukraine shows their wares are chintzy and are only suited for long range bombing of people who make their shoes out of old tires. Now that Europeans have decided to stock up their warehouses by upping their defense budgets to two or three or four percent of GDP, they'll make their money go farther by doing their buying in Moscow. If Moscow is not lying about wanting to invade Europe, then they will be happy to sell as much as they can to the Europeans. Almost everybody wins.
I am skeptical that most of the countries in Europe will up their defense spending (and spend it at home and not on US goods). European defense companies are typically very cost ineffective, even worse than here. The Germans will never reach 2%. Let's see what happens for real, not rhetoric.
Notably, a dozen of the above have placed orders to replace older Leopards sent to Ukraine.
That's most everybody that counts, but it doesn't mean many will do much more than token, ineffective increases.
Eastern and Nordic states were already generally spending more than 2% (plus the UK), and they typically have been expanding the most (with Poland in the lead).
The important changes since 2022 are Finland accession to NATO, and the new UK pact with the Nordics, especially if it gets extended to Poland.
Once defense spending gets to a certain % of GDP, you get a military-industrial complex that self perpetuates by finding wars to fight.
The smart move in the modern world is to have a small military for internal peacekeeping and special operations abroad, with nukes as the bedrock of conventional defense against an aggressor. At least if your goal is providing the best possible lives to your citizens.
The Europeans have generally been smarter then us on this front.
As far as Ukraine is clearly a proxy war, it looks to me that all of this "elite" are playing the role they were assigned for the latest theater play "How to weaken Europe, without they could realize it".
Evidences show that since 2014 and even before it was a US plan. US needs wars to feed its huge Industrial Military Complex and its huge amount of americans that work for it or for the various Armies. It's as clear as water... After the trillions spent and gained (the art of tricks) with Afghani and Iraqi wars, there wasn't that much to collect around...
Polish are not that kind of innocent angels as depicted by a fake pope as Wojtila or his good friend of Solidarnosc, and right after US did sabotage North Streams they inaugurated a new Stream from Norway through Poland. Sure, it was a coincidence. No planning at all...
But to those students that were asking those silly questions, I don't have an answer but a serious Question:
" Are you that silly and uninformed to believe that Hiroshima/Nagasaki nuclear bombs were vital to sign a peace with Japan?"...
Absolutely all of those countries should have nukes.
Nukes are why we haven't had a third world war. They allow countries to choose butter over guns.
They were a cornerstone of our Cold War defense plan in Europe.
What's the alternative to nukes? That we try to match China ship for ship, missile for missile? Can they not escalate every time we escalate? It's pretty clear from recent events that PPP is real and it doesn't much matter what your GDP is when everything costs you 10x what it costs the enemy.
Thanks for the update. Should nuclear missiles from the US be stationed in Poland might Russia then give nuclear missiles to Iran or another proxy state? Are we seeing another Cuban Missile Crisis unfolding the way it did back in the 1960's with a disagreement over nuclear weapons in Turkey and Cuba?
Good essay, thanks. It does occur to me, though, that having a nuclear deterrent and not much else is a terminally dangerous position. Pressing the big red button means THE END. Yes, yes smaller-yield tactical weapons can be used but we all know that that will escalate until cities and then countries are erased. And the Russians have a huge arsenal of nukes.
When the only option is certain death there are, in fact, no options.
I don't disagree. I am following the debate in Poland, Germany and elsewhere in Europe (including the UK)
One reason the post war American security policy makers set NATO up was to keep Europe subservient to the USA. they feared a recovered Europe would become a peer militarily and would not be our friends. They only play our game so as to keep them supporting social programs it could not otherwise afford. Europe will rearm and they won't be old friends. Europe does not share our values anymore. Also, to state the obvious!!! Threatening to include Ukraine in NATO is what led Russia to attack. Imagine what they would do if Poland got the bomb? They won't allow it for the same reasons we blockaded Cuba. Americans are seriously myopic when it comes to understanding our opponents. When I see the typical comment Russias invasion " was unprovoked" it tells me they are clueless as to the history and strategic realities of those countries. Puleeze! We would preemptively strike if China gave Mexico nukes or allowed Chinese armies to be in bases along the border.
In many ways this step is sadly logical. With Hypersonic missiles being capable of delivering nuclear warheads, having retaliatory missiles in Poland isn't that bad of an idea. During the Cold War the Soviet Union and the USA had several basses with such capableabity. Fortunately nothing happened.
Loath as I am to say this is a good idea,.
It will probably not be the start of WW3.
At least not yet.
The EU already has its own nuclear umbrella. It's called France.
I doubt the French see it that way. Would France actually try and protect the Germans or Italians? They are under no obligation to do so.
As a member of NATO, France has the same options under Article 5 as the US.
At least at present, it is inherently in French interest to deter a Russian war in either of Italy or Germany, both of which it is highly integrated (more so than the US).
But your point is more salient about other members. Would France extend its umbrella to Estonia? Romania? Hungary?
As I explained, the Force ds Frappe was France's deterrent in case it was attacked. The French strike force was never integrated with NATO and the French won't defend anyone but themselves.
France has defended others in the recent past, so on what do base your claim that it will not do so again?
France is acting in increased concert with the UK as the US recedes. Also, why would France not act to defend others when it is in its own interest to do so, such as the invasion of continental neighbours?
It turns out European countries were smart not to load up on what American defense contractors were peddling over the last twenty years because the war in Ukraine shows their wares are chintzy and are only suited for long range bombing of people who make their shoes out of old tires. Now that Europeans have decided to stock up their warehouses by upping their defense budgets to two or three or four percent of GDP, they'll make their money go farther by doing their buying in Moscow. If Moscow is not lying about wanting to invade Europe, then they will be happy to sell as much as they can to the Europeans. Almost everybody wins.
I am skeptical that most of the countries in Europe will up their defense spending (and spend it at home and not on US goods). European defense companies are typically very cost ineffective, even worse than here. The Germans will never reach 2%. Let's see what happens for real, not rhetoric.
European countries which have increased their defense spending since 24 Feb 2022 on non-US goods include:
Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Germany, UK, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, France, Italy, Switzerland, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain.
Notably, a dozen of the above have placed orders to replace older Leopards sent to Ukraine.
That's most everybody that counts, but it doesn't mean many will do much more than token, ineffective increases.
Eastern and Nordic states were already generally spending more than 2% (plus the UK), and they typically have been expanding the most (with Poland in the lead).
The important changes since 2022 are Finland accession to NATO, and the new UK pact with the Nordics, especially if it gets extended to Poland.
Once defense spending gets to a certain % of GDP, you get a military-industrial complex that self perpetuates by finding wars to fight.
The smart move in the modern world is to have a small military for internal peacekeeping and special operations abroad, with nukes as the bedrock of conventional defense against an aggressor. At least if your goal is providing the best possible lives to your citizens.
The Europeans have generally been smarter then us on this front.
Interesting data.
As far as Ukraine is clearly a proxy war, it looks to me that all of this "elite" are playing the role they were assigned for the latest theater play "How to weaken Europe, without they could realize it".
Evidences show that since 2014 and even before it was a US plan. US needs wars to feed its huge Industrial Military Complex and its huge amount of americans that work for it or for the various Armies. It's as clear as water... After the trillions spent and gained (the art of tricks) with Afghani and Iraqi wars, there wasn't that much to collect around...
Polish are not that kind of innocent angels as depicted by a fake pope as Wojtila or his good friend of Solidarnosc, and right after US did sabotage North Streams they inaugurated a new Stream from Norway through Poland. Sure, it was a coincidence. No planning at all...
But to those students that were asking those silly questions, I don't have an answer but a serious Question:
" Are you that silly and uninformed to believe that Hiroshima/Nagasaki nuclear bombs were vital to sign a peace with Japan?"...
Absolutely all of those countries should have nukes.
Nukes are why we haven't had a third world war. They allow countries to choose butter over guns.
They were a cornerstone of our Cold War defense plan in Europe.
What's the alternative to nukes? That we try to match China ship for ship, missile for missile? Can they not escalate every time we escalate? It's pretty clear from recent events that PPP is real and it doesn't much matter what your GDP is when everything costs you 10x what it costs the enemy.
Thanks for the update. Should nuclear missiles from the US be stationed in Poland might Russia then give nuclear missiles to Iran or another proxy state? Are we seeing another Cuban Missile Crisis unfolding the way it did back in the 1960's with a disagreement over nuclear weapons in Turkey and Cuba?
Regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis: that ship (a sub-surface-launching nuclear armed submarine) sailed a long time ago.
Dear Mr. Malevich,
You don't hear very well. I don't want people on this site calling anyone for any reason an idiot. So I will block your comment.
Sure, I will not.
But at the same time you did invite me to explain a comment and I did, but didn't receive any feedback. Let me know. Txs
I am going to censor your comment because it is intentionally antisemitic.