"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (2 Viewers)

[Thumpalumpacus]

It sounds like a lot of hand wringing because the US is adopting a more pragmatic approach in Ukraine. As Louis XVI found out, bankrupting your country bankrolling a foreign war has consequences.

We're not "bankrupting" America. Our aid to Ukraine is not only a miniscule proportion of our national budget, it is largely spent here keeping our own arms-factories afloat, giving good jobs to Americans, and allowing us to update our own kit.

And it's not just an investment in the American arms sector, it's also an investment in global order which aids our status and prestige in the oncoming confrontation with China. But now that's going down the shitter.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

You are forgetting the first question.

Where will they get nukes?

US will not provide them because they may be used to target the US or Russia

Russia will not provide them because they may be used to target Russia or the US

Pretty sure they can build their own by now.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ok, everyone, there are several posts here getting way too politically off-topic. Reign it in…

 

[MiTasol]

Pretty sure they can build their own by now.

But how soon?

 

[MiTasol]

There are a number of things that it appears that most Americans are ignoring in relation to the Ukrainian war and the so called peace talks.

Firstly Ukraine will not accept any peace plan that does not include European peace keepers because they know that any ceasefire will be a farce unless several NATO nations provide thousands of peace keeping and border personnel. Putin and Trump say that will never happen.

Ukraine knows that without those border and peace keeping troops Putin will flood the country with Russian troops who will claim to be fleeing Putin but who are in fact waiting for the orders to resume hostilities with extreme prejudice against Kiev and key installations. Europe knows that Putin will use the breather to regroup and that he has no reservations about putting Russians through the meat grinder.

So what is going to happen to Americas standing in the world when Putin and Trump announce their wonderful peace plan and not only Ukraine but also a number of NATO members tell them go sit on it and keep supporting Ukraine?

Britain, France and others would all like to increase their standing in the world again and if they and all the Scandinavian countries (who are all likely to reject the plan) say no Americas political might ceases to exist.

Instantly America is no longer a world power.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

But how soon?

Probably sooner than the Russians can rebuild their shattered army to invade, you know, an entire continent.

Seriously, they're catching a beat-down from a country with 1/5 of its population upon which they border a few hundred miles. It'll take a lot longer to reconstitute the Russian army into a useful fighting force than it will to make sure British and French nukes are tied into EU policy.

This dread of Russia is unwarranted.

 

[MiTasol]

Probably sooner than the Russians can rebuild their shattered army to invade, you know, an entire continent.

This dread of Russia is unwarranted.

I seem to recall that was the message to the world after the Munich conference of 1938.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I seem to recall that was the message to the world after the Munich conference of 1938.

Dread of Nazis in 1938 too was unwarranted, given spine in opposing leaders.

Zelenskyy has shown spine and the Ukrainian armed forces have shown the Russian army to be a paper tiger. Your comparison is in my mind inapt.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Dread of Nazis in 1938 too was unwarranted, given spine in opposing leaders.

Zelenskyy has shown spine and the Ukrainian armed forces have shown the Russian army to be a paper tiger. Your comparison is in my mind inapt.

Zelenskyy has shown spine, far more than any of his allies. But he is not strong enough to eject the Russians. So unless his cheerleaders are ready to commit large numbers of troops to force Russia back to the pre 2014 borders, you got nothin'.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Zelenskyy has shown spine, far more than any of his allies. But he is not strong enough to eject the Russians. So unless his cheerleaders are ready to commit large numbers of troops to force Russia back to the pre 2014 borders, you got nothin'.

That doesn't answer my point, that Russia simply doesn't have the manpower or resources to invade Europe. Unless Russia can invade Europe with a reasonable chance of success (protip -- there is none, they don't have either the manpower nor the tech) it's not going to happen. Logistics alone puts paid to that.

Worrying about Russia invading Europe when they're bogged down in Ukraine is the actual hand-wringing. And make no mistake: Russia will be bogged down in Ukraine even if this American switch results in a Ukrainian defeat on the field. It will make Afghanistan look like a walk in the park.

But we will be left holding the blame, and who will trust us after this?

 

[Marcel]

It sounds like a lot of hand wringing because the US is adopting a more pragmatic approach in Ukraine. As Louis XVI found out, bankrupting your country bankrolling a foreign war has consequences.

That's a very naive statement. Your country is doing a Neville Chamberlain's "peace for our time". We, Europeans still know what that will lead to, maybe you don't? Next to that, your highest-in-charge is blindly following Russian propaganda, already twisting the facts about who started the war. Doing peace talks without the important players like theUkraine and Europe is also a stab in the back.

Your "pragmatic" approach is plain treason. So yeah, people start "handwringing" because of it.

I should really shut up here. As an admin I should not get into these discussions. I now really need to remove me from this thread, as I cannot be impartial in this.

 

[Greg Boeser]

How many Dutch divisions are you willing to commit to force Russia out of the occupied territories?

 

[Marcel]

How many Dutch divisions are you willing to commit to force Russia out of the occupied territories?

bad tactic my friend, you are changing the subject. We were talking about financial and political support, both of which the US is not willing to give.
We are also a very small country compared to you. In percentage wise, we did quite a bit more than you.
How is your Russian by the way?

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Thread shutdown in 3, 2, 1

 

[Marcel]

Thread shutdown in 3, 2, 1

Don't worry, I'm out of the thread now. I've got better things to do and actually shouldn't post here anyway.

 

[ThomasP]

re

In Europe the Greens (another shade of red) have successfully shamed everyone into abandoning nuclear.

There are currently 113 nuclear reactors used for generating electrical power in Europe (not counting Russia at 36, Belarus at 2, or Ukraine at 15) with a further 9 units under construction in 4 European countries.
Belgium____________4
Bulgaria____________2
Czech Republic_____6
Finland____________ 5
France____________57 (+6 under refurbishment?)
Hungary___________ 4
Netherlands________1
Romania___________2
Slovakia___________ 5
Slovenia___________ 1
Spain______________7
Sweden____________6
Switzerland________ 4
United Kingdom____ 9

The United State currently has 93 nuclear reactors used for generating electrical power, with 3(?, might be 4) under construction.

Note that France sells their electricity to at least 8 other European countries - including Germany, who shut down their last reactor in 2023 partly due to politics and a push for alternate power generation and partly due to it being cheaper to get electricity from France while the push for the 'green' renewable energy is implemented. See "Q&A - Germany's nuclear exit: One year after." for a summary of the results.

Italy shut down its last nuclear reactor in 1990, partly as a reaction to the Chernobyl accident, and partly due to costs.

Lithuania shut down their last of 2 nuclear reactors (built under Soviet occupation) in 2009, primarily to reduce dependance on Russia.

 

[ThomasP]

re UK and French nuclear weapons

France has its nuclear warheads in its submarine launched ICBMs and in air launched cruise missiles.

The UK has its nuclear warheads in its submarine launched ICBMs (as mentioned above, their ICBMs use the US made Trident launch vehicle - however, unless it has changed in the last 10 years or so, their warheads, warhead re-entry vehicles, and warhead targeting & guidance systems are of UK design and manufacture).

France and the UK both have a small number of 'specialty' nuclear weapons available.

Both countries have enough operational delivery platforms and warheads to destroy every major city in Russia, China, or the US.

 

[Denniss]

Let the weather get hot, water level in rivers dropping and the french reactors have to massively reduce output due to limited cooling water. Under such conditions they actually have to import energy. Not everything is as easy as it looks. Much of their infrastructure is adapted to use electrical energy (heating in houses) instead of having a good mix of different energy sources.
Plus their nuclear recycling factories are dumping contaminated water into the Atlantic. Don't know where they deposit their nuclear waste, hope they have a safe place for it.

 

[RogerdeLluria]

R RogerdeLluria

That is good news but I feel far too optimistic.

You say It is said Spain could potentially develop a nuke in a very short time. but the question is how long is this short time. Five years?

We have seen that it has taken the best part of three years for most EU countries to ramp up non nuke production and they are way behind Russia on production growth.

Britain and France have not built nukes for ages and all the experienced staff and facilities are no longer available so again how quick could they restart. Again 5 years might be optimistic. It is not just throwing up the buildings and training the staff. Much of the tooling might be specialist and no longer available.

France performed nuclear tests until 1996 and its modernizing its nuclear deterrent. I'm sure there is some expertise left.

The Manhattan project took 4 years starting from zero. Yes, it was a colossal project costing 2 billion dollars (around 30 billion in 2025 dollars). But 30 billion is only about 1/10th the annual European defense expense, and most of the work is already done. Europe has enrichment plants and plenty of "civilian" reactors (more then the US).

Of course it would take decades to get to US/URSS level in terms of warhead count. But having a "Eurobomb" with a modest amount of warheads is only a matter of political will, unfortunately this is where I'm deeply pessimist. Compared with that, the technical, economical and material issues are almost irrelevant.

 

[ThomasP]

re

Let the weather get hot, water level in rivers dropping and the french reactors have to massively reduce output due to limited cooling water. Under such conditions they actually have to import energy. Not everything is as easy as it looks. Much of their infrastructure is adapted to use electrical energy (heating in houses) instead of having a good mix of different energy sources. . .

?

France has been exporting an average of ~60 TWh for the past 10 years (the highest was 70 TWh), mostly to the UK and Italy.