3 ms·

Macron likes grand speeches but rarely delivers anything. France is the only European country with an independent, working nuclear deterrent. That's a very val

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.
- kergonath 2y ago
  > they should have started preparing after Trumps first term. They should have started preparing in the 1970s. It takes time to develop an industrial base and a coherent strategy. It was always obvious how relying on a foreign power for sovereignty was short-sighted.
euroderf 2y ago
Europe needs some kind of unified conventional forces command that does not let the US gum up the works. But I guess I'll believe it when I see it.

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.
kergonath 2y ago
> they should have started preparing after Trumps first term. They should have started preparing in the 1970s. It takes time to develop an industrial base and a coherent strategy. It was always obvious how relying on a foreign power for sovereignty was short-sighted.

euroderf 2y ago

Europe needs some kind of unified conventional forces command that does not let the US gum up the works. But I guess I'll believe it when I see it.