Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 302 posts

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#211

Post by JumpCrisscross »

EA-3167 wrote: post #191
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Germans have the money, the largest GDP in the EU and France is a distant second For nuclear purposes Germany is irrelevant. For martial purposes, it’s a distant second to France. It obviously should be part of mutual-defence discussions. But it doesn’t need to be and doesn’t bring that much to the table in the short term. (Absent a hypothetical land war.)

Again, when we're talking about warfare, there is a strong economic and industrial dimension. Unless the scope of your warfare is limited to extremely fatalistic worst-case scenarios. Russia was on the ropes in many ways because of the cost of the war they're waging, while Ukraine was in a stronger position because of aid and promises of future rebuilding investment. If push comes to shove and there's a European conf…

> Unless the scope of your warfare is limited to extremely fatalistic worst-case scenarios

Within the context of the French nuclear umbrella there are two questions: strategic nuclear deterrence and everything else. Germany is useless for the former. It's important, but not critical, for the latter.

> baffled by the claim that Germany is a distant second to France in terms of military

Their force projection is limited. They're absolutely going to strengthen any alliance they join. But outside a conventional proxy war of attrition with the U.S. or China, they're not strictly necessary. (And could be a net negative due to their politics.)

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#212

Post by ssssvd »

yks wrote: post #156
clivestaples wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't need a lecture on Russia's character. What I was curious to learn from you, or anyone, what could be done differently to defeat them? How would Russia respond if we send more advanced weaponry? Does Ukraine have the men to fight? I'm getting downvoted but honestly looking for answers.

The realistic answer is to say that Ukraine is going to be supplied with weapons for as long as needed, case closed. The whole Russian strategy after the initial blitz failure was to wait for Trump to get into power, who telegraphed to anyone with the brain, that he doesn't care about Ukraine and loves Putin very much. Russia can't do it forever, but it focused on appearing "strong" until the elections, the bet that…

Except Putin doesn’t need to outrun America — he just needs to outrun Ukraine.

There’s a finite number of Ukrainians, and an even smaller number of Ukrainian men actually willing — or physically able — to fight.

20% of the population already left, and around 1.5 million of them went to Russia. Another 15% are stuck under occupation.

Ukraine’s demographics were already a disaster after the WW2 wipe-out, the Soviet collapse, and 30 years of economic decline and emigration. Now they’re drafting 18 to 60-year-olds just to keep units filled - at 40%.

So what happens in a year or two, when there’s no one left to draft?

The Poles aren’t volunteering to die en masse, and they’re the only EU country with anything resembling a real army — and even that is one-fifth the size of Russia’s.

So who’s holding the line then?

The US Army? The Marine Corps?

Is anyone actually ready to send Americans to die in the Donbas?

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#213

Post by JumpCrisscross »

arandomusername wrote: post #206
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was never any promise like that There wasn’t a treaty obligation. But there was a promise. Similarly, there is no treaty obligation for America to respond to Russia nuking Paris with even harsh words. Just promises around the treaty obligation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force” [1]. Let there be no doubt: the United States is defaulting on its promises in Ukraine. [1…

The Budapest Memorandum did not promise any defense. > Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Which they did.

§ 4 only applies "if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used" [1].

Russia is violating § 2. But Trump, Musk and Vance, by directly negotiating with Putin in respect of Ukraine's borders, are failing "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" (§ 1).

[1] https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/files/policymemos/files/...

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#214

Post by cjbenedikt »

morkalork wrote: post #79
cjbenedikt wrote: post #40

Just wondering what Australia might think now after having rejected the French nuclear sub deal for a US one. Perhaps DJT might consider "buying" Australia soon? Lots more minerals than Ukraine.

Sitting between an antagonistic USA and China must be uncomfortable.

...to say the least...

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#215

Post by mopsi »

clivestaples wrote: post #102
CamperBob2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give them the tools they need to finish the job. This whole thing started when they willingly disarmed in return for security assurances that didn't turn out to be worth the paper they were written on. It progressed when Obama failed to help them stop Putin in 2014, and now it's metastasized due to Biden's half-assed support and Trump's active antipathy.

That's exactly what I'm asking: what tools? The only thing I see is endless supply of money and ammo which means attrition. Russia will win in manpower but maybe not economically. I'm kindly asking to be educated with more than talking points we've all heard from politicians.

The most critical need is air defense: anti-air missiles and cannons capable of shooting down Russian missiles and drones. Long-range missiles are important too, because it is better to shoot the archer than to try take down every arrow. Long-range missiles can blow up the bombers that launch cruise missiles against Ukraine. This protects Ukrainian cities, factories, and military sites from further destruction.

Next, they need artillery to halt the slow advance of Russian ground forces. With the new unjammable wire-guided drones that were introduced early this year, Ukrainians have already successfully halted Russian advances in most sectors, but ample artillery support is even more effective. They need lots of artillery to blow up with a big bang everything that the Russians throw at them.

Finally, Ukraine must be equipped for counteroffensives. They need a large supply of planes, tanks, IFVs, and other vehicles to go from defense to attack and liberate occupied territories. Once Ukraine has the means to counterattack, it is up to them to decide how far they want to go before sitting down with the Russians to negotiate peace. Strong enough pushes by Ukraine may force the Russians to concede some areas without a fight, just as they previously withdrew from Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson, and Sumy.

The current approach has been a slow trickle of aid in a naive hope that Putin might back down. That strategy has clearly failed. Ukraine needs full support, everything we can provide. This is both the moral choice, and the cheapest option in terms of money and lives.

It is really important to stress that Ukrainians do not expect others to fight for them. They are only asking for material support: weapons, ammo, vehicles. The rest they can handle on their own.

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#216

Post by JumpCrisscross »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #135
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their primary adversary has already demonstrated their impotence …the call is coming from inside the house. Europe’s existential risk has shifted from Russia to a Russo-American alliance.

A slight thawing of relations is a long way away from an alliance. Even then, would Russia take it? They might see more value in their current arrangement with China. Still, long term maybe you're right. It does make geopolitical sense for the US to be more closely aligned with Russia. In a pivot to Asia it's much more useful to sow-discord in the Sino-Russian relationship, than it is to prop up the EU.

> It does make geopolitical sense for the US to be more closely aligned with Russia. In a pivot to Asia it's much more useful to sow-discord in the Sino-Russian relationship, than it is to prop up the EU

The EU have been loyal allies. Their defence production is also nothing to be sneezed at. If we found ourselves in a war of attrition with China and either Japan or Korea stood neutral, an America with Europe has a much higher chance of succeeding than an America alone.

And if we surrender to Xi the way Trump has to Putin, that puts the American homeland at direct risk in the next conflict from both sides.

This entire enterprise comes down to some Silicon Valley types not liking the EU. It's personal and irrational and unfortunately, with Trump an ersatz monarch for two years, an example of why extreme power concentration sacrifices the immortal goals of a nation for the personal whims of a mortal leader.

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#217

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

chronid wrote: post #186
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US hasn't withdrawn from any of its military alliances, and thus far has expressed no plans to do so. I feel like this is where a lot of NATO commentary gets bogged down. There's a large group of people, conventionally referred to in US media as "the blob" ( https://www.vox.com/22153765/joe-biden-foreign-policy-team-r... ), who believe that the United States has an affirmative duty to engage in lots of global mil…

The NATO treaty doesn't imply in his wording any obligation for a military reaction to an invasion of a member of NATO. There's no penalty to just respond with a strongly worded letter, but there's an expectation an ally will react militarly. Will your allies trust you any longer if you just follow the letter of the treaty? I don't think they will. More critically, nor will anyone else. The US have historically posit…

One of the US's most recent foreign deployments is the Iraq War, which was based on a lie and extraordinarily unpopular among NATO members. I think abandoning Ukraine is very bad, and I agree it's unreasonable to expect Europe to be OK with it, but the US's current position in NATO was never based on a foundation of good behavior or uniform foreign policy alignment.

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#218

Post by Retric »

StrauXX wrote: post #146
Retric wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a nice theory but nuking empty silo’s is pointless. So, attacking them just means they launch everything at you while also wasting your nukes.

You don't know where the enemy ICBM warheads will land until it is too late. So you have to assume that they will target the silos

The B part of ICBM means ballistic, and they are. Thus you can get a useful approximation of where it’s going to land based on the initial trajectory.

By useful I mean you can do significantly better than saying if it’s targeting the middle of the US, east, or west coast. Though it’s quite a large area.

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#219

Post by arandomusername »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #213
arandomusername wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Budapest Memorandum did not promise any defense. > Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Which they did.

§ 4 only applies "if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used" [1]. Russia is violating § 2. But Trump, Musk and Vance, by directly negotiating with Putin in respect of Ukraine's borders, are failing "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" (§ 1). [1] https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/file…

4 is a bit ambigious if the nuclear part applies to the threat or to both.

Russia violates 2, but not US. Negotiating with Putin does not violate "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" because it's not enforced. Ultimately it is up to Ukraine if they want to accept the deal negotiated by Trump

Re: Macron to open debate on extending French nuclear protection to European allies

#220

Post by absolutelastone »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #213
arandomusername wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Budapest Memorandum did not promise any defense. > Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Which they did.

§ 4 only applies "if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used" [1]. Russia is violating § 2. But Trump, Musk and Vance, by directly negotiating with Putin in respect of Ukraine's borders, are failing "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" (§ 1). [1] https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/file…

This seems like a sideways trade and in the same spirit. Military defense guarantees, not on the table according to 4 presidents now, could become a possibility for that subset of land which does not require entry into a currently ongoing war. The prior tactic (mere 100's of billions of aid, plus some sanctions) has resulted in the same outcome via a stalemate anyway.
Post reply on HN