>As Donald Trump marches towards the Republican nomination, a question hangs over Europe: how should the continent prepare for a world in which Nato becomes dead letters? For some, the answer is ‘strategic autonomy’; for others, it lies in procuring as much US-made kit as possible to buy goodwill with the future administration.One obvious response, however, has been left by the wayside: nuclear deterrence. When it comes to Trump-proofing the security of Eastern Europe, few measures would be as effective as arming the largest country of the region – Poland – with nuclear weapons.
>
>Even centrist EU politicians, such as Manfred Weber – the current leader of the European People’s party – are thinking about nuclear deterrence as a possible answer to Mr Trump’s return. Weber proposes that France, with its large nuclear capabilities, lead European deterrent efforts. His scheme could include the United Kingdom, with the purpose of collectively turning the EU and its closest European partners into a nuclear power.
>
>The basic rationale is sound, whether or not Mr Trump will decide to remove US nukes from Germany, Belgium, and Italy. Many Ukrainians will admit that giving up the country’s nuclear arsenal in the 1990s was a tragic mistake, setting the stage for Russian interference and aggression in the years to come.
>
>There is no sugarcoating the situation for the Europe: Mr Trump will not be ‘tough’ on Russia, nor will he be interested in strengthening Nato. The former president called the alliance obsolete and has mused about leaving it. Forget ‘adults in the room’ – the prospective Trump administration will be staffed far more heavily by sycophants and Trump loyalists than by traditional Republicans.
>
>The bipartisan bill passed last year that supposedly prevents US presidents from withdrawing from the alliance without either the Senate’s approval or an act of Congress is legally hollow. The threat to the alliance is not America’s formal withdrawal but rather the possibility that a future president would simply choose not to come to the defence of an ally under attack and invoking Article 5.
>
>Europeans should be doing much more to strengthen their military capabilities – including their nuclear ones. Yet, Weber’s scheme is completely unrealistic. Under the existing system of unanimity, it is equivalent of asking France to acquiesce to, say, a prospective Hungarian veto over the use of its nuclear arsenal. And if the European federalist pipe dreams were to come true, Paris would face the prospect of being outvoted on the matter by the Council’s qualified majority – a politically unpalatable proposition to any French leader.
>
>Currently there simply isn’t enough trust or a sufficiently shared understanding of geopolitical threats to ‘Europeanise’ any lethal power, much less France’s nuclear force. Furthermore, seen from Warsaw or Tallinn, a European nuclear force that is controlled primarily by a Franco-German tandem would look largely useless given the track record of both countries in misreading and accommodating Russia.
>
>But that doesn’t mean that Europe, and particularly Eastern Europe, is helpless. For one, there is a sizeable contingent of countries that do trust each other, have a shared view of Russia and who could easily acquire and sustain their own nuclear deterrent – Poland, the Baltic states, and the Nordics. In fact, it would be enough for just one of those countries to move ahead and absorb the fixed cost, and then offer a nuke-sharing arrangement to other parties that might be interested.
>
>Poland, heavily investing both in its military and its nuclear energy, would be an obvious first mover. The cost may be surprisingly modest. The UK’s Trident system, acquired in the 1980s, cost around £21 billion in today’s prices. Expenses were spread over more than a decade with annual maintenance coming in at around £3 billion. Simply announcing such as intention may prompt France and/or the UK to offer a bilateral nuke-sharing deal to Warsaw, which may also do the trick. But, ultimately, for deterrence to be credible, the weapons ought to be controlled by the party that bears the most risk of a direct Russian attack: Poland itself.
>
>In a post-American world, a Polish nuclear umbrella could help secure Europe’s Eastern flank. It would also provide an alternative way of guaranteeing Ukraine’s security once the fighting stops, especially if Nato membership were no longer an option. Fundamentally, however, a nuclear Poland would provide an answer to a perennial problem of Europe’s geopolitics: how to prevent Germany and Russia from seeking to dominate the Eurasian landmass.
It’s time the EU became the USE – United States of Europe. Too much bullshit going on and individual European countries are not strong enough to face the coming challenges.
Pierdole
Calm the fuck down
Before you guys jump into discussion, this is bascially Trump idea for Eastern European Security. As the article states:
>When it comes to Trump-proofing the security of Eastern Europe, few measures would be as effective as arming the largest country of the region – Poland – with nuclear weapons.
(…)There is no sugarcoating the situation for the Europe: Mr Trump will not be ‘tough’ on Russia, nor will he be interested in strengthening Nato. The former president called the alliance obsolete and has mused about leaving it. Forget ‘adults in the room’ – the prospective Trump administration will be staffed far more heavily by sycophants and Trump loyalists than by traditional Republicans.
Ah yes Trump and his obvious attempt to buy Polish-American votes by saying Poland should get Nukes as if he can go like Oprah :
“You get a nuke, and you get a nuke and you get a nuke”.
I don’t think Polish governement would even humour this. Poland was and still is conservative in regards to Nuclear Plants for Energy but apparently convincing population to have nukes will go super easy. “It’s a good deal trust me”
Sad part is Polish-Americans love Trump and they love their fetishised version of Poland so this kind of comments will be seen as very thoughtful eventho it probably, well basically most likely goes against whatever Polish people and it’s Governemt wants.
The most complicit major Politician when it comes to Russia says Poland should just get nukes.
What? No.
Right, of course it’s the British sharing more war propaganda. Let’s not be naive, fellow Europeans. A nuclear war will mean end of us all. Let’s calm the fuck down.
C’mon!
Hungary is a much better candidate
/s
Insert anakin and padme meme ‘to use as deterrent method, right?’
Well, I’m game.
No its not
Wait, this isn’t NCD… they’re breaching containment again
No no no
Least warmongering r/europe redditor
Cuba
Poland fears a Trump-ribbenputler pact after gopsters abandoned Ukraine.
Chill.
US endless support to Ukraine apparently ended.
100 billion euro extra budget for German army is being spend too slowly, according to dw news.
Poland gave Ukraine more than 300 tanks, in compare germany have 300 tanks and according to der Spiegel half of them are in working condition. Polish 1000 tanks from Korea are not here yet and it will take few years to produce them.
Meanwhile Russia is pumping roughly around 100 tanks per month!
I know tanks are just small piece of much bigger picture, and I used them as an example.
Now somebody wrote that France have nukes. Let’s be honest. If Russia nuke Warsaw, no one in France will risk Paris to defend what is left of Poland. If you think otherwise you are naive at best.
I don’t see any other option if USA would leave us alone with Russian troops on our border.
What other choice do we have if we want to be alive?
Nope
Why not skip a step and give Ukraine nukes?
No.
It’s time to chill the fuck out
We got enough nuke countries, no fucking thanks
You know…Ukraine had nuclear weapons. They gave it away for security guarantees. We know what happened next.
If Poland gets nuclear weapons and later on gives it away for security guarantee…we know whats coming.
LET’S FUCKING GOOOOO
UNITED STATES OF EUROPE, CAPITAL IN WARSAW
ZEMSTA NA WROGA
Absolutely give the Polish nukes it’s the only way to deter Russia.
Russia proved this when they went back on their peace treaty with Ukraine.
Belarus has them now. Putin moved them in. So you know, since he only understands shows of force.
It is extremely clear that our enemies are playing divide and conquer. We need a unified strategic European nuclear defence. It can’t be that we just hope that the UK or France decide to ship a nuke off if Vilnius or Warsaw are hit.
*Poland settles some scores*
Its time to restore Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
I like the idea. It will stop war to be spreed all over central Europe.
32 comments
>As Donald Trump marches towards the Republican nomination, a question hangs over Europe: how should the continent prepare for a world in which Nato becomes dead letters? For some, the answer is ‘strategic autonomy’; for others, it lies in procuring as much US-made kit as possible to buy goodwill with the future administration.One obvious response, however, has been left by the wayside: nuclear deterrence. When it comes to Trump-proofing the security of Eastern Europe, few measures would be as effective as arming the largest country of the region – Poland – with nuclear weapons.
>
>Even centrist EU politicians, such as Manfred Weber – the current leader of the European People’s party – are thinking about nuclear deterrence as a possible answer to Mr Trump’s return. Weber proposes that France, with its large nuclear capabilities, lead European deterrent efforts. His scheme could include the United Kingdom, with the purpose of collectively turning the EU and its closest European partners into a nuclear power.
>
>The basic rationale is sound, whether or not Mr Trump will decide to remove US nukes from Germany, Belgium, and Italy. Many Ukrainians will admit that giving up the country’s nuclear arsenal in the 1990s was a tragic mistake, setting the stage for Russian interference and aggression in the years to come.
>
>There is no sugarcoating the situation for the Europe: Mr Trump will not be ‘tough’ on Russia, nor will he be interested in strengthening Nato. The former president called the alliance obsolete and has mused about leaving it. Forget ‘adults in the room’ – the prospective Trump administration will be staffed far more heavily by sycophants and Trump loyalists than by traditional Republicans.
>
>The bipartisan bill passed last year that supposedly prevents US presidents from withdrawing from the alliance without either the Senate’s approval or an act of Congress is legally hollow. The threat to the alliance is not America’s formal withdrawal but rather the possibility that a future president would simply choose not to come to the defence of an ally under attack and invoking Article 5.
>
>Europeans should be doing much more to strengthen their military capabilities – including their nuclear ones. Yet, Weber’s scheme is completely unrealistic. Under the existing system of unanimity, it is equivalent of asking France to acquiesce to, say, a prospective Hungarian veto over the use of its nuclear arsenal. And if the European federalist pipe dreams were to come true, Paris would face the prospect of being outvoted on the matter by the Council’s qualified majority – a politically unpalatable proposition to any French leader.
>
>Currently there simply isn’t enough trust or a sufficiently shared understanding of geopolitical threats to ‘Europeanise’ any lethal power, much less France’s nuclear force. Furthermore, seen from Warsaw or Tallinn, a European nuclear force that is controlled primarily by a Franco-German tandem would look largely useless given the track record of both countries in misreading and accommodating Russia.
>
>But that doesn’t mean that Europe, and particularly Eastern Europe, is helpless. For one, there is a sizeable contingent of countries that do trust each other, have a shared view of Russia and who could easily acquire and sustain their own nuclear deterrent – Poland, the Baltic states, and the Nordics. In fact, it would be enough for just one of those countries to move ahead and absorb the fixed cost, and then offer a nuke-sharing arrangement to other parties that might be interested.
>
>Poland, heavily investing both in its military and its nuclear energy, would be an obvious first mover. The cost may be surprisingly modest. The UK’s Trident system, acquired in the 1980s, cost around £21 billion in today’s prices. Expenses were spread over more than a decade with annual maintenance coming in at around £3 billion. Simply announcing such as intention may prompt France and/or the UK to offer a bilateral nuke-sharing deal to Warsaw, which may also do the trick. But, ultimately, for deterrence to be credible, the weapons ought to be controlled by the party that bears the most risk of a direct Russian attack: Poland itself.
>
>In a post-American world, a Polish nuclear umbrella could help secure Europe’s Eastern flank. It would also provide an alternative way of guaranteeing Ukraine’s security once the fighting stops, especially if Nato membership were no longer an option. Fundamentally, however, a nuclear Poland would provide an answer to a perennial problem of Europe’s geopolitics: how to prevent Germany and Russia from seeking to dominate the Eurasian landmass.
It’s time the EU became the USE – United States of Europe. Too much bullshit going on and individual European countries are not strong enough to face the coming challenges.
Pierdole
Calm the fuck down
Before you guys jump into discussion, this is bascially Trump idea for Eastern European Security. As the article states:
>When it comes to Trump-proofing the security of Eastern Europe, few measures would be as effective as arming the largest country of the region – Poland – with nuclear weapons.
(…)There is no sugarcoating the situation for the Europe: Mr Trump will not be ‘tough’ on Russia, nor will he be interested in strengthening Nato. The former president called the alliance obsolete and has mused about leaving it. Forget ‘adults in the room’ – the prospective Trump administration will be staffed far more heavily by sycophants and Trump loyalists than by traditional Republicans.
Ah yes Trump and his obvious attempt to buy Polish-American votes by saying Poland should get Nukes as if he can go like Oprah :
“You get a nuke, and you get a nuke and you get a nuke”.
I don’t think Polish governement would even humour this. Poland was and still is conservative in regards to Nuclear Plants for Energy but apparently convincing population to have nukes will go super easy. “It’s a good deal trust me”
Sad part is Polish-Americans love Trump and they love their fetishised version of Poland so this kind of comments will be seen as very thoughtful eventho it probably, well basically most likely goes against whatever Polish people and it’s Governemt wants.
The most complicit major Politician when it comes to Russia says Poland should just get nukes.
What? No.
Right, of course it’s the British sharing more war propaganda. Let’s not be naive, fellow Europeans. A nuclear war will mean end of us all. Let’s calm the fuck down.
C’mon!
Hungary is a much better candidate
/s
Insert anakin and padme meme ‘to use as deterrent method, right?’
Well, I’m game.
No its not
Wait, this isn’t NCD… they’re breaching containment again
No no no
Least warmongering r/europe redditor
Cuba
Poland fears a Trump-ribbenputler pact after gopsters abandoned Ukraine.
Chill.
US endless support to Ukraine apparently ended.
100 billion euro extra budget for German army is being spend too slowly, according to dw news.
Poland gave Ukraine more than 300 tanks, in compare germany have 300 tanks and according to der Spiegel half of them are in working condition. Polish 1000 tanks from Korea are not here yet and it will take few years to produce them.
Meanwhile Russia is pumping roughly around 100 tanks per month!
I know tanks are just small piece of much bigger picture, and I used them as an example.
Now somebody wrote that France have nukes. Let’s be honest. If Russia nuke Warsaw, no one in France will risk Paris to defend what is left of Poland. If you think otherwise you are naive at best.
I don’t see any other option if USA would leave us alone with Russian troops on our border.
What other choice do we have if we want to be alive?
Nope
Why not skip a step and give Ukraine nukes?
No.
It’s time to chill the fuck out
We got enough nuke countries, no fucking thanks
You know…Ukraine had nuclear weapons. They gave it away for security guarantees. We know what happened next.
If Poland gets nuclear weapons and later on gives it away for security guarantee…we know whats coming.
LET’S FUCKING GOOOOO
UNITED STATES OF EUROPE, CAPITAL IN WARSAW
ZEMSTA NA WROGA
Absolutely give the Polish nukes it’s the only way to deter Russia.
Russia proved this when they went back on their peace treaty with Ukraine.
Belarus has them now. Putin moved them in. So you know, since he only understands shows of force.
It is extremely clear that our enemies are playing divide and conquer. We need a unified strategic European nuclear defence. It can’t be that we just hope that the UK or France decide to ship a nuke off if Vilnius or Warsaw are hit.
*Poland settles some scores*
Its time to restore Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
I like the idea. It will stop war to be spreed all over central Europe.
[we have delivery methods already.](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusualVideos/s/W9XldzSTip)