5 ms·

It’s pretty clear from Macron’s speech that we’re heading into a massive nuclear escalation over the next few years, he has as much as said so. Since the Cold

It’s pretty clear from Macron’s speech that we’re heading into a massive nuclear escalation over the next few years, he has as much as said so. Since the Cold War, nuclear non-proliferation has been based entirely on the idea that NATO would balance Russia and vice versa. Given that NATO as it has been understood is now effectively dead, the non-proliferation treaty is essentially dead too. Europe needs to rapidly increase it’s nuclear weapons stockpile (and realises this), but this also gives other countries around the world an incentive/excuse to do the same. Canada has no nuclear umbrella of its own, is not part of a mutual defence alliance beyond NATO, and they are being actively threatened with annexation by a Russia-controlled US. They’ll clearly need to build or agree by pact their own nuclear defence as a matter of national emergency. It’s hard to see how anyone will place much trust in such pacts ever again though. It’s a scarier world we’re entering, and is significantly more dangerous than even the Cuban missile crisis.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
It’s not just Trump. Look at Biden’s deference to Russia over Ukraine and Israel over its neighbours. (Or Bush and Obama with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya versus North Korea.) There is a nuclear sovereignty subtly expressed by decades of American Presidents. In part due to realism. But in part because triggering a nuclear war, even a limited one, is presumed punsihable heavily diplomatically and electorally. Trump, of course, has accelerated this shift. But Le Monde Diplomatique wrote elegantly about it in ‘22 [1]. [1] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2022/11/18/the-war-in-ukraine-a-major-third-nuclear-age-crisis_6004714_23.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2022/11/18/the-war...
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Pakistan, which some may not realize is a nuclear power, is also one of the best examples. We invaded and occupied Afghanistan for decades under the pretext of it being Bin Laden safe haven. It turns out Bin Laden was in Pakistan directly adjacent to the premises of Pakistan's top military academy. So we do the most minimal in and out operation imaginable, and then shortly thereafter got back to shipping Pakistan billions of dollars in "aid." The world going nuclear is only a danger when one nation begins to think they could win a nuclear conflict, or are enticed to play chicken with another nuclear power. Outside of that nukes are almost certainly the reason that the window from ~1945 to today has been, by far, one of the safest in the developed world. Without nukes the Cold War would, with complete certainty, have ended up as WW3.
  - addicted 2y ago
    Those are some huge claims. Any references or explanations for why those might be the case?
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden It's because Pakistan has nukes. Nukes essentially make wars unwinnable. This [1] describes the effect of a tiny 0.15Mt nuke going off in NYC. The largest nuke ever detonated was 50+Mt, so more than 300x the yield of what's described there. And that's one nuke. Pakistan is believed to have hundreds of nukes, and nuclear weapons are also designed such that a single missile will have multiple warheads that will splinter off not only increasing the destruction but also making any sort of missile defense even less viable. [1] - https://www.atomicarchive.com/science/scenarios/newyork/index.html https://www.atomicarchive.com/science/scenarios/newyork/inde...
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > It's because Pakistan has nukes. Nukes essentially make wars unwinnable There is no world in which Pakistan could nuke America. I agree on the effect—nukes gave Islamabad cover it wouldn’t have had without them. But the mechanism isn’t military strategic, but something deeper.
        somenameforme 2y ago
        There are many ways to deliver nukes other than ICBMs. Nukes are also the ultimate defensive weapon. Any forces, ships, etc deployed on or near their territory would be toast. One of the many reasons that naval forces are largely obsolete. Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks worth tens of billions of dollars. Pakistan's known nuclear capable missiles have a range of 2750km which means even long distance aerial bombardment is not an answer.
  - cjbgkagh 2y ago
    That works until it doesn’t. Nukes still allow for proxy wars and that’s what we’ve been having, it’s not like the conflicts will go away when you can’t use proxies because they now have nukes of their own. Trading a lower frequency of war for a more devastating consequence has worked thus far, but when people start to act like such consequences are an impossibility they’ll push risk right up to the edge - and someday someone will eventually go over it. Ironically triggering the thing that was supposed to be impossible.
somenameforme 2y ago
I'm far from an expert on French politics, but I decided to do some cursory investigation there because of Macron's often rather radical rhetoric. And I think it comes down to him being a sort of lame duck President. He'll be out of office in 2027 (term limits) and his approval rating is in the 20s-30s, with his party losing its majority in parliament after the 2024 elections. So he can't do that much. The French President oddly enough does have the power to independently appoint the Prime Minister though which has led to weird things like him (the appointed Prime Minister, after the last one was kicked out by a vote of no confidence) passing things in an undemocratic fashion and then managing to survive multiple votes of confidence thanks to the support of a motley crew of right wing nationalists and left wing socialists. His Presidency has been generally negative and so I think he's trying to lay out some legacy as framing himself as a sort of hard ass, but it's like a dark barking loudly behind a fence - in large part because there is a fence. Nothing he's proposed will ever happen (and he is well aware of this), so he can be as radical as he wants. It could also be longer term angling to try to eventually play broader role in EU politics, NATO, or whatever else - perhaps especially if the EU does eventually form a multinational military.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > could also be longer term angling to try to eventually play broader role in EU politics, NATO, or whatever else He’s trying to preserve the non-proliferation status quo. Either Poland, Finland and Estonia each have nukes or they swap trust from Washington to Paris.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  That's a pretty good analysis for someone not expert in French politics!
- kergonath 2y ago
  > So he can't do that much. You are analysing this from the point of view of the personality of the president. What Macron says is not different from what Sarkozy said, or Chirac, or pretty much all presidents since De Gaulle. The delivery changed, not really the substance. That position is unlikely to change significantly over the long term because it fits the geopolitical interests of the country (and of the EU). There is no significant political movement that is pushing for subservience to a foreign country like there used to be up until the 1990s.
_1tem 2y ago
> Russia-controlled US This sentiment is ridiculous and needs to stop. Just because a person's anti-globalist policy choices happen to align with Russia doesn't mean that Russia controls that person.
- brianbest101 2y ago
  [dead]
- somenameforme 2y ago
  One of the reasons freedom of speech is a good thing is because idiots tend to readily expose themselves as such.
- throwaway589842 2y ago
  [dead]
- TinkersW 2y ago
  He has given Russia everything they could ever want in return for nothing, and attacks our allies at every opportunity, if he isn't Russian controlled, he might as well be, for makes no difference. 250% Tariffs on Canada now, does that sound reasonable? Can you think of a single sane reason to even have tarrifs on our close ally Canada? The reason is obvious, to drive a wedge between Canada and the US, and to make both countries poorer for it.
  - _1tem 2y ago
    > He has given Russia everything they could ever want in return for nothing Says someone who doesn't understand anything about Russia. If you actually watched Russian mainstream media you would understand how much they dislike Trump and disagree with him. This sudden overture over Ukraine has even caught them by surprise and they are suspicious, though welcome, of this new development. To suggest that Trump is Russia-controlled is to expose your complete ignorance of how Russians think. The Russians hated Trump's first term and consider it to be a disaster.
mytailorisrich 2y ago
Macron likes grand speeches but rarely delivers anything. France is the only European country with an independent, working nuclear deterrent. That's a very valuable asset. So I see thee points for a sensible French policy (big question mark): 1. They can use it to their advantage and offer to protect EU countries. What would they gain and what can they ask for in exchange? 2. They should not 'share' control of their nukes 3. They would not want that another European country develop its own nukes.
- the_duke 2y ago
  I've heard similar cynical takes on Frances effort, but I don't share them at all. The US just rug-pulled the framework on which Europe has based it's security guarantees, and European countries have been quietly scrambling for a way to restore a credible deterrence for weeks. Frances push is essential. To be fair, European countries have been asleep at the wheel, they should have started preparing after Trumps first term.
  - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
    They did start preparing after Trump's first term. Efforts were delayed because of Putin sleepers like Scholz.
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    That's not cynical, it's realistic. France has a credible deterrent that is a valuable asset. It should use it to its advantage. The US never "protected" Europe out of kindness. France should not, either. It's already given up a lot of things in defense and space in the name of "European unity". This is how it works. It's just that usually the public is fed nice speeches while the real play happens behind closed door, while Trump has been very undiplomatic and "in your face".
  - throwaind29k 2y ago
    But still it is only grand speeches we are getting from Europe. And is any one in Europe not skeptical of any increase in defense spending? Things have costs, that money is having to come from somewhere. Is increasing traditional military spending the way to go in the 21st century? If the decision is left to military leaders,they might spend massive amounts of money preparing to fight yesterday's war. If you set aside alarmist positions, it may very well possible that Russia has no interests in military conflict with rest of Europe beyond Ukraine. In that case what is the best thing Europeans could do? But in general, there is lot of fear mongering and fatalism in European leadership. Secondarily, the concept that history can repeat itself is very dubious, the circumstances and events are far too complex for such a simple interpretation.
roenxi 2y ago
I think it is actually a bit worse than that - there are currently troops hostile to Russia in Kursk. So say what you like, it has been demonstrated that it is possible to put hostile troops in a major nuclear power's territory without provoking a nuclear response. Unless we assume that the Russians are substantially more pacifistic than the rest of the world, that suggests that the concept of a nuclear umbrella doesn't exist. If Kursk appears not to be covered by the Russian nuclear umbrella in practice, what realistically will cause any country to fire off nuclear missiles? It is reasonable to say more than an invasion of a close ally. The entire MAD principle seems to have partially broken down over the last few years. Executing a land invasion of Russia, however symbolic, crossed a major line. A lot of rhetoric now looks decidedly like bluff and bluster.
- hoseyor 2y ago
  I don’t see it that way. MAD does not really come into play here and no, Russia is not pacifist, albeit reluctant, reserved, and level headed; arguably to a fault. And then there’s the reality that Kursk has only played into the Russian’s hands in many different ways, including, that it split already inferior forces in an attrition war and on the geopolitical level where it caused Chinese caution and reluctance about the whole Russian operation to essentially immediately fall away due to the insanity and recklessness if the Kursk operation, which only has gotten more solidified due to the atrocities against civilians committed by the Ukrainians. You appear to see things in a very narrow scope that is predominated by propagandistic perspectives. If land invasion were some kind of cause for launching nukes, then the wholesale invasion and infiltration by Mexico and its cartels that have killed around 1M Americans would have been cause to, e.g., nuke southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Do you want nuclear exchanges? Would you have preferred for Russia to have nuked its own territory instead of just using it to their advantage to draw in immense resources in a Ukrainian self created kettle? The fundamental misunderstanding of all the Ukie cheer leaders is that they think this is one type of war, when it’s actually a whole different type of war where Russia is intentionally going it slow. “Russia Is losing their shock and awe, blitz war” they tell you, not knowing Russia is fighting more of a millstone war, grinding up all the Ukrainian men Downing Street and Biden fed into it. This is simply not a scenario where something as reckless as using nuclear weapons is yet warranted even though the West and people like you keep trying to edge us closer to it in the belief that you can just feet away with these kinds of provocations forever … until humanity finds out that there was a line … and life on earth ends because of recklessness of narcissistic psychopaths with god-complexes.
enaaem 2y ago
On the other hand. The current world benefits countries like US, Russia and China. A world order where any country cannot be pressured by any super power is interesting.
Tycho 2y ago
What do you mean NATO is effectively dead?
- sebazzz 2y ago
  Trump has no interest of enforcing article 5.
  - tim333 2y ago
    Though there are also the other 31 members.
    - sebazzz 2y ago
      It is not possible remove a member from the NATO. And we also have for instance Hungary which also acts like a Trump puppet. Each has veto rights. The NATO is broken in more than one way.
thq12318231278 2y ago
Well, a French nuclear umbrella that can only be used at the direct orders of the French president is quite useless. If Warsaw is nuked, I do not believe the French would nuke back. DeGaulle believed the same about the US (and I agree), therefore France has nuclear weapons. Macron makes grand speeches, but could not even keep the French presence in Niger (African country, in case someone misreads).
- consumer451 2y ago
  I agree with your assessment. This is the biggest long-term issue with the less than full support of Ukraine, after they gave up the world's third largest nuke arsenal. Now, the USA signalling that they are not a reliable NATO partner, in general. In my opinion, this will all lead to nuclear proliferation at levels not seen for decades. This has been my main argument to US folks who don't really care about Ukraine, since 2022. Their argument has been "you are playing with WWIII!" My argument has been that inaction on Ukraine will lead to increased chances of some nuclear exchange in the long-term.
- coffeebeqn 2y ago
  With the winding down of globalism I don’t think anyone in France really believes Niger to be core to their interests. Violently moving EU and NATO borders would be very much attacking their very core interests so I don’t think it’s quite the same situation
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  France were sort of guests and Niger asked them to leave. You can't easily maintain that presence. He may not nuke Russia because Warsaw is occupied, but that's a different kettle of fish.
whoitwas 2y ago
I agree that NATO is practically dead since USA is now acting on behalf of Russia. It might be easier to remove the MAGAs than rework everything, but in that scenario USA is still untrustworthy and Russia wins. Yikes. Trump has really fucked the entire world and set us in motion toward WWIII ... and we're part of the AXIS. Double yikes.
wakawaka28 2y ago
>It’s pretty clear from Macron’s speech that we’re heading into a massive nuclear escalation over the next few years, he has as much as said so. The only reason to expect escalation is that they insist on supporting a war right up to Russia's border. They do need to be prepared to defend themselves but I think they only have to worry if they keep instigating wars with other nuclear powers. Don't you think Russia is similarly concerned about getting nuked? That's why they won't suffer hostile forces putting missile bases only a few miles from their border. That is in fact half of what the Ukraine war is about. >Canada has no nuclear umbrella of its own, is not part of a mutual defence alliance beyond NATO, and they are being actively threatened with annexation by a Russia-controlled US. They’ll clearly need to build or agree by pact their own nuclear defence as a matter of national emergency. It’s hard to see how anyone will place much trust in such pacts ever again though. If you think the US is actually going to allow Canada or Mexico to be invaded, you're really out of touch. It's akin to how Russia won't allow Ukraine to become a hostile neighbor without intervening to stop it. >It’s a scarier world we’re entering, and is significantly more dangerous than even the Cuban missile crisis. It's not in fact more dangerous than the Cuban missile crisis. Cuba had 1500 Soviet nukes (if I recall correctly) on their soil unbeknownst to JFK. War was only averted because the Soviets decided to pull out rather than launch all the nukes. The only sense in which things are more dangerous now is that we've got actual warmongers in charge of some NATO countries who think that they can strategically defeat the most heavily-armed country in the world in its own backyard.
- mopsi 2y ago
  > That's why they won't suffer hostile forces putting missile bases only a few miles from their border. Nobody put any missiles in Eastern Europe. That's a worn-out Russian talking point that lacks any substance. And the Cuban missile crisis proves exactly the opposite of what you are trying to argue. I stress the name: MISSILE crisis. After nuclear missiles were removed, Cuba remained an ally of the USSR until its very end and continued to host conventional Soviet forces. The USSR equipped Cuba with weapons such as Koni-class frigates and SA-8 surface-to-air missile systems, gave them hundreds of T-55 and T-62 tanks, stationed Soviet bombers and fighter jets in Cuba, and used Cuban ports to conduct exercises such as sailing missile cruisers like Admiral Isakov within 50 miles of the Mississippi coast in the 1980s. The cooperation, including visits by Russian warships to Cuban ports with exercises 30 miles off the Florida coast, continues to this day: https://www.tampabay.com/life-culture/history/2024/06/12/russian-fleet-ships-submarine-south-florida-us-navy-warships-tampa-cuba/ https://www.tampabay.com/life-culture/history/2024/06/12/rus... If Cuba is a blueprint for you, then you have nothing to complain about. Even full members of NATO do not receive this level of support from the alliance.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

It’s not just Trump. Look at Biden’s deference to Russia over Ukraine and Israel over its neighbours. (Or Bush and Obama with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya versus North Korea.) There is a nuclear sovereignty subtly expressed by decades of American Presidents. In part due to realism. But in part because triggering a nuclear war, even a limited one, is presumed punsihable heavily diplomatically and electorally. Trump, of course, has accelerated this shift. But Le Monde Diplomatique wrote elegantly about it in ‘22 [1]. [1] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2022/11/18/the-war-in-ukraine-a-major-third-nuclear-age-crisis_6004714_23.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2022/11/18/the-war...

somenameforme 2y ago
Pakistan, which some may not realize is a nuclear power, is also one of the best examples. We invaded and occupied Afghanistan for decades under the pretext of it being Bin Laden safe haven. It turns out Bin Laden was in Pakistan directly adjacent to the premises of Pakistan's top military academy. So we do the most minimal in and out operation imaginable, and then shortly thereafter got back to shipping Pakistan billions of dollars in "aid." The world going nuclear is only a danger when one nation begins to think they could win a nuclear conflict, or are enticed to play chicken with another nuclear power. Outside of that nukes are almost certainly the reason that the window from ~1945 to today has been, by far, one of the safest in the developed world. Without nukes the Cold War would, with complete certainty, have ended up as WW3.
- addicted 2y ago
  Those are some huge claims. Any references or explanations for why those might be the case?
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden It's because Pakistan has nukes. Nukes essentially make wars unwinnable. This [1] describes the effect of a tiny 0.15Mt nuke going off in NYC. The largest nuke ever detonated was 50+Mt, so more than 300x the yield of what's described there. And that's one nuke. Pakistan is believed to have hundreds of nukes, and nuclear weapons are also designed such that a single missile will have multiple warheads that will splinter off not only increasing the destruction but also making any sort of missile defense even less viable. [1] - https://www.atomicarchive.com/science/scenarios/newyork/index.html https://www.atomicarchive.com/science/scenarios/newyork/inde...
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > It's because Pakistan has nukes. Nukes essentially make wars unwinnable There is no world in which Pakistan could nuke America. I agree on the effect—nukes gave Islamabad cover it wouldn’t have had without them. But the mechanism isn’t military strategic, but something deeper.
      - somenameforme 2y ago
        There are many ways to deliver nukes other than ICBMs. Nukes are also the ultimate defensive weapon. Any forces, ships, etc deployed on or near their territory would be toast. One of the many reasons that naval forces are largely obsolete. Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks worth tens of billions of dollars. Pakistan's known nuclear capable missiles have a range of 2750km which means even long distance aerial bombardment is not an answer.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  That works until it doesn’t. Nukes still allow for proxy wars and that’s what we’ve been having, it’s not like the conflicts will go away when you can’t use proxies because they now have nukes of their own. Trading a lower frequency of war for a more devastating consequence has worked thus far, but when people start to act like such consequences are an impossibility they’ll push risk right up to the edge - and someday someone will eventually go over it. Ironically triggering the thing that was supposed to be impossible.

somenameforme 2y ago

I'm far from an expert on French politics, but I decided to do some cursory investigation there because of Macron's often rather radical rhetoric. And I think it comes down to him being a sort of lame duck President. He'll be out of office in 2027 (term limits) and his approval rating is in the 20s-30s, with his party losing its majority in parliament after the 2024 elections. So he can't do that much. The French President oddly enough does have the power to independently appoint the Prime Minister though which has led to weird things like him (the appointed Prime Minister, after the last one was kicked out by a vote of no confidence) passing things in an undemocratic fashion and then managing to survive multiple votes of confidence thanks to the support of a motley crew of right wing nationalists and left wing socialists. His Presidency has been generally negative and so I think he's trying to lay out some legacy as framing himself as a sort of hard ass, but it's like a dark barking loudly behind a fence - in large part because there is a fence. Nothing he's proposed will ever happen (and he is well aware of this), so he can be as radical as he wants. It could also be longer term angling to try to eventually play broader role in EU politics, NATO, or whatever else - perhaps especially if the EU does eventually form a multinational military.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> could also be longer term angling to try to eventually play broader role in EU politics, NATO, or whatever else He’s trying to preserve the non-proliferation status quo. Either Poland, Finland and Estonia each have nukes or they swap trust from Washington to Paris.
mytailorisrich 2y ago
That's a pretty good analysis for someone not expert in French politics!
kergonath 2y ago
> So he can't do that much. You are analysing this from the point of view of the personality of the president. What Macron says is not different from what Sarkozy said, or Chirac, or pretty much all presidents since De Gaulle. The delivery changed, not really the substance. That position is unlikely to change significantly over the long term because it fits the geopolitical interests of the country (and of the EU). There is no significant political movement that is pushing for subservience to a foreign country like there used to be up until the 1990s.

_1tem 2y ago

> Russia-controlled US This sentiment is ridiculous and needs to stop. Just because a person's anti-globalist policy choices happen to align with Russia doesn't mean that Russia controls that person.

brianbest101 2y ago
[dead]
somenameforme 2y ago
One of the reasons freedom of speech is a good thing is because idiots tend to readily expose themselves as such.
throwaway589842 2y ago
[dead]
TinkersW 2y ago
He has given Russia everything they could ever want in return for nothing, and attacks our allies at every opportunity, if he isn't Russian controlled, he might as well be, for makes no difference. 250% Tariffs on Canada now, does that sound reasonable? Can you think of a single sane reason to even have tarrifs on our close ally Canada? The reason is obvious, to drive a wedge between Canada and the US, and to make both countries poorer for it.
- _1tem 2y ago
  > He has given Russia everything they could ever want in return for nothing Says someone who doesn't understand anything about Russia. If you actually watched Russian mainstream media you would understand how much they dislike Trump and disagree with him. This sudden overture over Ukraine has even caught them by surprise and they are suspicious, though welcome, of this new development. To suggest that Trump is Russia-controlled is to expose your complete ignorance of how Russians think. The Russians hated Trump's first term and consider it to be a disaster.

mytailorisrich 2y ago

Macron likes grand speeches but rarely delivers anything. France is the only European country with an independent, working nuclear deterrent. That's a very valuable asset. So I see thee points for a sensible French policy (big question mark): 1. They can use it to their advantage and offer to protect EU countries. What would they gain and what can they ask for in exchange? 2. They should not 'share' control of their nukes 3. They would not want that another European country develop its own nukes.

the_duke 2y ago
I've heard similar cynical takes on Frances effort, but I don't share them at all. The US just rug-pulled the framework on which Europe has based it's security guarantees, and European countries have been quietly scrambling for a way to restore a credible deterrence for weeks. Frances push is essential. To be fair, European countries have been asleep at the wheel, they should have started preparing after Trumps first term.
- TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
  They did start preparing after Trump's first term. Efforts were delayed because of Putin sleepers like Scholz.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  That's not cynical, it's realistic. France has a credible deterrent that is a valuable asset. It should use it to its advantage. The US never "protected" Europe out of kindness. France should not, either. It's already given up a lot of things in defense and space in the name of "European unity". This is how it works. It's just that usually the public is fed nice speeches while the real play happens behind closed door, while Trump has been very undiplomatic and "in your face".
- throwaind29k 2y ago
  But still it is only grand speeches we are getting from Europe. And is any one in Europe not skeptical of any increase in defense spending? Things have costs, that money is having to come from somewhere. Is increasing traditional military spending the way to go in the 21st century? If the decision is left to military leaders,they might spend massive amounts of money preparing to fight yesterday's war. If you set aside alarmist positions, it may very well possible that Russia has no interests in military conflict with rest of Europe beyond Ukraine. In that case what is the best thing Europeans could do? But in general, there is lot of fear mongering and fatalism in European leadership. Secondarily, the concept that history can repeat itself is very dubious, the circumstances and events are far too complex for such a simple interpretation.

roenxi 2y ago

I think it is actually a bit worse than that - there are currently troops hostile to Russia in Kursk. So say what you like, it has been demonstrated that it is possible to put hostile troops in a major nuclear power's territory without provoking a nuclear response. Unless we assume that the Russians are substantially more pacifistic than the rest of the world, that suggests that the concept of a nuclear umbrella doesn't exist. If Kursk appears not to be covered by the Russian nuclear umbrella in practice, what realistically will cause any country to fire off nuclear missiles? It is reasonable to say more than an invasion of a close ally. The entire MAD principle seems to have partially broken down over the last few years. Executing a land invasion of Russia, however symbolic, crossed a major line. A lot of rhetoric now looks decidedly like bluff and bluster.

hoseyor 2y ago
I don’t see it that way. MAD does not really come into play here and no, Russia is not pacifist, albeit reluctant, reserved, and level headed; arguably to a fault. And then there’s the reality that Kursk has only played into the Russian’s hands in many different ways, including, that it split already inferior forces in an attrition war and on the geopolitical level where it caused Chinese caution and reluctance about the whole Russian operation to essentially immediately fall away due to the insanity and recklessness if the Kursk operation, which only has gotten more solidified due to the atrocities against civilians committed by the Ukrainians. You appear to see things in a very narrow scope that is predominated by propagandistic perspectives. If land invasion were some kind of cause for launching nukes, then the wholesale invasion and infiltration by Mexico and its cartels that have killed around 1M Americans would have been cause to, e.g., nuke southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Do you want nuclear exchanges? Would you have preferred for Russia to have nuked its own territory instead of just using it to their advantage to draw in immense resources in a Ukrainian self created kettle? The fundamental misunderstanding of all the Ukie cheer leaders is that they think this is one type of war, when it’s actually a whole different type of war where Russia is intentionally going it slow. “Russia Is losing their shock and awe, blitz war” they tell you, not knowing Russia is fighting more of a millstone war, grinding up all the Ukrainian men Downing Street and Biden fed into it. This is simply not a scenario where something as reckless as using nuclear weapons is yet warranted even though the West and people like you keep trying to edge us closer to it in the belief that you can just feet away with these kinds of provocations forever … until humanity finds out that there was a line … and life on earth ends because of recklessness of narcissistic psychopaths with god-complexes.

enaaem 2y ago

On the other hand. The current world benefits countries like US, Russia and China. A world order where any country cannot be pressured by any super power is interesting.

Tycho 2y ago

What do you mean NATO is effectively dead?

sebazzz 2y ago
Trump has no interest of enforcing article 5.
- tim333 2y ago
  Though there are also the other 31 members.
  - sebazzz 2y ago
    It is not possible remove a member from the NATO. And we also have for instance Hungary which also acts like a Trump puppet. Each has veto rights. The NATO is broken in more than one way.

thq12318231278 2y ago

Well, a French nuclear umbrella that can only be used at the direct orders of the French president is quite useless. If Warsaw is nuked, I do not believe the French would nuke back. DeGaulle believed the same about the US (and I agree), therefore France has nuclear weapons. Macron makes grand speeches, but could not even keep the French presence in Niger (African country, in case someone misreads).

consumer451 2y ago
I agree with your assessment. This is the biggest long-term issue with the less than full support of Ukraine, after they gave up the world's third largest nuke arsenal. Now, the USA signalling that they are not a reliable NATO partner, in general. In my opinion, this will all lead to nuclear proliferation at levels not seen for decades. This has been my main argument to US folks who don't really care about Ukraine, since 2022. Their argument has been "you are playing with WWIII!" My argument has been that inaction on Ukraine will lead to increased chances of some nuclear exchange in the long-term.
coffeebeqn 2y ago
With the winding down of globalism I don’t think anyone in France really believes Niger to be core to their interests. Violently moving EU and NATO borders would be very much attacking their very core interests so I don’t think it’s quite the same situation
rich_sasha 2y ago
France were sort of guests and Niger asked them to leave. You can't easily maintain that presence. He may not nuke Russia because Warsaw is occupied, but that's a different kettle of fish.

whoitwas 2y ago

I agree that NATO is practically dead since USA is now acting on behalf of Russia. It might be easier to remove the MAGAs than rework everything, but in that scenario USA is still untrustworthy and Russia wins. Yikes. Trump has really fucked the entire world and set us in motion toward WWIII ... and we're part of the AXIS. Double yikes.

wakawaka28 2y ago

>It’s pretty clear from Macron’s speech that we’re heading into a massive nuclear escalation over the next few years, he has as much as said so. The only reason to expect escalation is that they insist on supporting a war right up to Russia's border. They do need to be prepared to defend themselves but I think they only have to worry if they keep instigating wars with other nuclear powers. Don't you think Russia is similarly concerned about getting nuked? That's why they won't suffer hostile forces putting missile bases only a few miles from their border. That is in fact half of what the Ukraine war is about. >Canada has no nuclear umbrella of its own, is not part of a mutual defence alliance beyond NATO, and they are being actively threatened with annexation by a Russia-controlled US. They’ll clearly need to build or agree by pact their own nuclear defence as a matter of national emergency. It’s hard to see how anyone will place much trust in such pacts ever again though. If you think the US is actually going to allow Canada or Mexico to be invaded, you're really out of touch. It's akin to how Russia won't allow Ukraine to become a hostile neighbor without intervening to stop it. >It’s a scarier world we’re entering, and is significantly more dangerous than even the Cuban missile crisis. It's not in fact more dangerous than the Cuban missile crisis. Cuba had 1500 Soviet nukes (if I recall correctly) on their soil unbeknownst to JFK. War was only averted because the Soviets decided to pull out rather than launch all the nukes. The only sense in which things are more dangerous now is that we've got actual warmongers in charge of some NATO countries who think that they can strategically defeat the most heavily-armed country in the world in its own backyard.

mopsi 2y ago
> That's why they won't suffer hostile forces putting missile bases only a few miles from their border. Nobody put any missiles in Eastern Europe. That's a worn-out Russian talking point that lacks any substance. And the Cuban missile crisis proves exactly the opposite of what you are trying to argue. I stress the name: MISSILE crisis. After nuclear missiles were removed, Cuba remained an ally of the USSR until its very end and continued to host conventional Soviet forces. The USSR equipped Cuba with weapons such as Koni-class frigates and SA-8 surface-to-air missile systems, gave them hundreds of T-55 and T-62 tanks, stationed Soviet bombers and fighter jets in Cuba, and used Cuban ports to conduct exercises such as sailing missile cruisers like Admiral Isakov within 50 miles of the Mississippi coast in the 1980s. The cooperation, including visits by Russian warships to Cuban ports with exercises 30 miles off the Florida coast, continues to this day: https://www.tampabay.com/life-culture/history/2024/06/12/russian-fleet-ships-submarine-south-florida-us-navy-warships-tampa-cuba/ https://www.tampabay.com/life-culture/history/2024/06/12/rus... If Cuba is a blueprint for you, then you have nothing to complain about. Even full members of NATO do not receive this level of support from the alliance.