I thought the Monnet analysis spot on in spirit and vision. Skeptical realism yes; defeat him now. Deterrent can defend Europe, nuclear deterrence can defend Ukraine. Within the EU, a coalition of the willing may be necessary. We must demonstrate that we will stand firm about our security. Our pensioners are not gonna let their grandchildren die or live under the Russian rule for an extra hour in the garden. There is a tough Europe, be beneath all of this chat. We did not invent the modern world for nothing but we must have a peace that endures, and this piece must be of our making. Moscow and Washington are going to have to learn to live with us just as we have lived so long with them. Too long.
Not sure why this has got no comments back but I'm afraid Mr. Verhofstadt seems to have caught a case of Putin derangement syndrome.
Up to now, NATO has quite rightly refused to go to war with Russia on behalf of Ukraine. That war has every chance of turning nuclear given that both parties have nuclear deterrence. For that same reason Russia cannot lose its current war with Ukraine; it can always drop a nuclear bomb to stop an otherwise victorious Ukrainian army.
So how does the EU mutual defence agreement stack up against this. The EU has a nuclear armed state - France. Is France prepared to enter a potential nuclear war with Russia for Ukraine's 'freedom' whatever thats supposed to mean? Given that it's unlikely that this mutual defence will go forward without Britain, is Britain prepared for the same? I'd suggest that there is zero public and political appetite for this from the extremes (Le Pen, Farage) to the arch-liberal centrists (Starmer, Macron). There is also the practical matter of vetoes in the EU council - how does this one get past Hungary and Slovakia?
The nuclear deterrence also means that Russian tanks are not likely to roll into NATO any time soon.
I think Mr. V has misjudged Ukraine's geographical position as a buffer state between NATO and Russia. Ukraine's leadership may be in denial about geography, but like Britain with Brexit a painful lesson is being learned.
The reality is the best thing the EU could do for Ukraine is to continue (what is de facto) free movement right now. This could even be put into place with restrictions on use of social welfare systems to further reduce costs to the EU states.
No Ukraine does not have a lot to offer Europe. It's 'most experienced' military is a bunch of conscripts getting bloodied by the Russian army. It's producing low tech arms - drones, small munitions. The EU doesn't need Ukraine in it to obtain these.
Where I do agree with the post is that Trumps planned de facto withdrawl from NATO is an excellent opportunity for Britain to reverse Brexit on national security grounds.
1) "Russia cannot lose its current war with Ukraine; it can always drop a nuclear bomb".
Of course, Russia can lose. Your defeatism has no justification other than your prejudices. In fact, Russia started this war with the strategic objective of controlling all of Ukraine and its people, a goal it has already lost. It has suffered numerous defeats, endured enormous costs, and seen all the “red lines” it successively set being crossed without a nuclear war occurring. No one is suggesting invading Moscow. They are the first to know that using atomic bombs in a war they started would come at an extremely high cost (not even China would support them, fearful that its neighbors might take note), and it would also bring NATO closer to intervening.
2) "So how does the EU mutual defense agreement stack up against this".
The authors are precisely proposing a rearmament of the European armies. Read.
3) "Is France prepared to enter a potential nuclear war with Russia for Ukraine's 'freedom' whatever that's supposed to mean?"
It is naive to think that only a nuclear war can stop the Russian army. Ukraine is proof of that. And although European armies are currently not up to the task (nor is there enough political will), it is also naive to think that Russia’s calculations wouldn’t change if, instead of facing Ukraine alone, it had to face all of Europe. Furthermore, I repeat: they are proposing rearmament precisely for this.
4) "The nuclear deterrence also means that Russian tanks are not likely to roll into NATO any time soon".
They have explained why they believe NATO's Article 5 has lost its deterrent power. Again, read. And remember that the U.S. does not actually need to abandon Europe: Putin only needs to think it has. Many wars start due to a miscalculation by the aggressor (including Ukraine’s war, where Putin believed the Ukrainian state would barely defend itself and that it would be a walkover; or WWII, where Hitler believed Britain and France would abandon Poland). The authors are warning that such a miscalculation is now more likely. In fact, you yourself end your comment by saying that Trump has de facto withdrawn from NATO.
5) What the heck you mean by "denial about geography." Do you think the authors don’t know where Ukraine is? In any case, Ukraine’s position on a map does not condemn its people to be left without aid in the face of an invasion.
6) "No Ukraine does not have a lot to offer Europe. It's 'most experienced' military is a bunch of conscripts getting bloodied by the Russian army."
It is incredible to see how "a bunch of conscripts getting bloodied" have held out for three years, barely giving up ground (except in the first weeks in the land corridor) and inflicting far more casualties than they have suffered.
If nuclear weapons are never to be used why would any nation ever have them? I don’t think you understand what nuclear deterrence means Russia has the means to nuke London and new york. if NATO enters the war and Russia is about to lose thats where the bombs will fall, not on insignificant Kiev 🙄
The stated goal of the Kiev regime and its NATO allies is to defeat Russia, regain its lost territory and get Russia to pay reparations. How is that going to happen without tanks rolling into Moscow? 🙄
Art 5 most definitely has a deterrence effect which is why NATO forces in Ukraine don’t operate under their national flags and Russia has been very careful to not attack outside the territory of Ukraine.
The Russian army is winning this war. They have not been stopped, the frontline moves relentlessly forward. Think you need to support your statement about casualties with evidence. Unless you believe the Kiev/ NATO propaganda. This is despite Ukraine getting $200b of armaments from NATO.
Ukraines position on the map does condemn it to being a neutral state. Russia achieved its goal of stopping nato expansion on day one of the war when nato states did not send in troops under the nato flag to defend ukraine.
2) I do understand nuclear deterrence, you are the one who doesn't. You seem to think it only works in favor of Russia. Many nuclear powers have fought (even loose) wars since 1945 (even Russia itself loose the Afghan war) without it causing them to resort to nuclear bombs.
3) Your statements about casualties, propaganda and the condemnation to be neutral (the Baltic and Finland as well?) are just bullshit.
You are wasting my time, I will not answer you back anymore. Have a nice day.
Nuclear deterrence works only in interstate wars such as Russia Ukraine. It doesn’t work against insurgencies, guerrilla groups, civil wars etc. hence why your Afghan example doesn’t work.
Great essay.
I thought the Monnet analysis spot on in spirit and vision. Skeptical realism yes; defeat him now. Deterrent can defend Europe, nuclear deterrence can defend Ukraine. Within the EU, a coalition of the willing may be necessary. We must demonstrate that we will stand firm about our security. Our pensioners are not gonna let their grandchildren die or live under the Russian rule for an extra hour in the garden. There is a tough Europe, be beneath all of this chat. We did not invent the modern world for nothing but we must have a peace that endures, and this piece must be of our making. Moscow and Washington are going to have to learn to live with us just as we have lived so long with them. Too long.
absolutely disengaged from reality 🤣
Not sure why this has got no comments back but I'm afraid Mr. Verhofstadt seems to have caught a case of Putin derangement syndrome.
Up to now, NATO has quite rightly refused to go to war with Russia on behalf of Ukraine. That war has every chance of turning nuclear given that both parties have nuclear deterrence. For that same reason Russia cannot lose its current war with Ukraine; it can always drop a nuclear bomb to stop an otherwise victorious Ukrainian army.
So how does the EU mutual defence agreement stack up against this. The EU has a nuclear armed state - France. Is France prepared to enter a potential nuclear war with Russia for Ukraine's 'freedom' whatever thats supposed to mean? Given that it's unlikely that this mutual defence will go forward without Britain, is Britain prepared for the same? I'd suggest that there is zero public and political appetite for this from the extremes (Le Pen, Farage) to the arch-liberal centrists (Starmer, Macron). There is also the practical matter of vetoes in the EU council - how does this one get past Hungary and Slovakia?
The nuclear deterrence also means that Russian tanks are not likely to roll into NATO any time soon.
I think Mr. V has misjudged Ukraine's geographical position as a buffer state between NATO and Russia. Ukraine's leadership may be in denial about geography, but like Britain with Brexit a painful lesson is being learned.
The reality is the best thing the EU could do for Ukraine is to continue (what is de facto) free movement right now. This could even be put into place with restrictions on use of social welfare systems to further reduce costs to the EU states.
No Ukraine does not have a lot to offer Europe. It's 'most experienced' military is a bunch of conscripts getting bloodied by the Russian army. It's producing low tech arms - drones, small munitions. The EU doesn't need Ukraine in it to obtain these.
Where I do agree with the post is that Trumps planned de facto withdrawl from NATO is an excellent opportunity for Britain to reverse Brexit on national security grounds.
1) "Russia cannot lose its current war with Ukraine; it can always drop a nuclear bomb".
Of course, Russia can lose. Your defeatism has no justification other than your prejudices. In fact, Russia started this war with the strategic objective of controlling all of Ukraine and its people, a goal it has already lost. It has suffered numerous defeats, endured enormous costs, and seen all the “red lines” it successively set being crossed without a nuclear war occurring. No one is suggesting invading Moscow. They are the first to know that using atomic bombs in a war they started would come at an extremely high cost (not even China would support them, fearful that its neighbors might take note), and it would also bring NATO closer to intervening.
2) "So how does the EU mutual defense agreement stack up against this".
The authors are precisely proposing a rearmament of the European armies. Read.
3) "Is France prepared to enter a potential nuclear war with Russia for Ukraine's 'freedom' whatever that's supposed to mean?"
It is naive to think that only a nuclear war can stop the Russian army. Ukraine is proof of that. And although European armies are currently not up to the task (nor is there enough political will), it is also naive to think that Russia’s calculations wouldn’t change if, instead of facing Ukraine alone, it had to face all of Europe. Furthermore, I repeat: they are proposing rearmament precisely for this.
4) "The nuclear deterrence also means that Russian tanks are not likely to roll into NATO any time soon".
They have explained why they believe NATO's Article 5 has lost its deterrent power. Again, read. And remember that the U.S. does not actually need to abandon Europe: Putin only needs to think it has. Many wars start due to a miscalculation by the aggressor (including Ukraine’s war, where Putin believed the Ukrainian state would barely defend itself and that it would be a walkover; or WWII, where Hitler believed Britain and France would abandon Poland). The authors are warning that such a miscalculation is now more likely. In fact, you yourself end your comment by saying that Trump has de facto withdrawn from NATO.
5) What the heck you mean by "denial about geography." Do you think the authors don’t know where Ukraine is? In any case, Ukraine’s position on a map does not condemn its people to be left without aid in the face of an invasion.
6) "No Ukraine does not have a lot to offer Europe. It's 'most experienced' military is a bunch of conscripts getting bloodied by the Russian army."
It is incredible to see how "a bunch of conscripts getting bloodied" have held out for three years, barely giving up ground (except in the first weeks in the land corridor) and inflicting far more casualties than they have suffered.
If nuclear weapons are never to be used why would any nation ever have them? I don’t think you understand what nuclear deterrence means Russia has the means to nuke London and new york. if NATO enters the war and Russia is about to lose thats where the bombs will fall, not on insignificant Kiev 🙄
The stated goal of the Kiev regime and its NATO allies is to defeat Russia, regain its lost territory and get Russia to pay reparations. How is that going to happen without tanks rolling into Moscow? 🙄
Art 5 most definitely has a deterrence effect which is why NATO forces in Ukraine don’t operate under their national flags and Russia has been very careful to not attack outside the territory of Ukraine.
The Russian army is winning this war. They have not been stopped, the frontline moves relentlessly forward. Think you need to support your statement about casualties with evidence. Unless you believe the Kiev/ NATO propaganda. This is despite Ukraine getting $200b of armaments from NATO.
Ukraines position on the map does condemn it to being a neutral state. Russia achieved its goal of stopping nato expansion on day one of the war when nato states did not send in troops under the nato flag to defend ukraine.
1) Who said nuclear weapons are never to be used?
2) I do understand nuclear deterrence, you are the one who doesn't. You seem to think it only works in favor of Russia. Many nuclear powers have fought (even loose) wars since 1945 (even Russia itself loose the Afghan war) without it causing them to resort to nuclear bombs.
3) Your statements about casualties, propaganda and the condemnation to be neutral (the Baltic and Finland as well?) are just bullshit.
You are wasting my time, I will not answer you back anymore. Have a nice day.
Nuclear deterrence works only in interstate wars such as Russia Ukraine. It doesn’t work against insurgencies, guerrilla groups, civil wars etc. hence why your Afghan example doesn’t work.