“Friends, China has always seen in Europe an important pole in the multipolar world. The two sides are partners, not rivals. This year marks the 50th anniversary of China-EU diplomatic relations. China is willing to work with the European side to deepen strategic communication and mutually beneficial cooperation and steer the world to a bright future of peace, security, prosperity, and progress.”
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi at the Munich Security Conference
China could send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine to help preserve any negotiated ceasefire in its war with Russia – as long as they worked with non-Nato countries like India, a former Chinese colonel has suggested. In an interview on the sidelines of last week’s Munich Security Conference, Zhou Bo, a senior fellow at the Centre for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University, said China had “sufficient troops and military strength” to contribute to an international post-war effort. “However, if peacekeeping operations are conducted along with European countries, Russia might see it as another form of Nato presence, wouldn’t they?” Zhou said.
As the three-year war in Ukraine moves quickly into a new stage, China’s role in peace negotiations and in the post-conflict situation came into sharp focus at the forum – Europe’s biggest security gathering – which ended on Sunday. The United States is insisting on a quick end to the war and officials from the Donald Trump administration are set to meet their Russian counterparts in Saudi Arabia this week to start thrashing out the rough contours of a settlement. In Munich, officials and experts were doubtful that China would be involved in the early stages of the discussions but most were convinced that Beijing would play a role eventually.
According to Sun Chenghao, a specialist in the European Union and the US at Tsinghua University, China’s role in the negotiations is likely to be limited, because of European and Ukrainian demands that a settlement comes with robust security guarantees. “Given this context, what substantial role could China possibly play? China is not in a position to offer much at the current stage,” Sun said.
Zhou disagreed, saying that China could also be part of security guarantees, alongside other powers. He noted Beijing’s involvement in the 1990s, when Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons and all five permanent members of the UN Security Council, including China, provided it with security assurances. “Without collective security guarantees, Ukraine will not feel at ease – what if they [Russia] attack again at any time?”
In Ukraine, officials have long suspected that China will play a role eventually and have adjusted their rhetoric accordingly, asking EU officials to stop lumping Beijing with Iran and North Korea in terms of support for Russia, according to sources. When top EU diplomat Kaja Kallas and European Council President António Costa visited Kyiv in December, they were asked to stop talking about an alleged drone factory in China making military-grade craft for Russia, the sources said. When asked if China would play a major role in securing an end to the war, former Ukrainian foreign minister Pavlo Klimkin said: “My short answer is yes, and it’s going to be a game changer for Europe, the US and China.”
“It is going to be the first time ever for China to start creatively and seriously talking about the European security architecture, about an eventual Chinese role in upholding it,” he said. According to Klimkin, China will play a “fundamental role” at the United Nations in ensuring that there is backing from non-Western countries for any resolutions on ending the war.
Kyiv has long viewed Beijing as the leader of the Global South and has avoided alienating it over the course of the war, partly in the hope of keeping those countries engaged. “The Chinese don’t need a meeting organised in Beijing. They need to show their role in organising a meeting somewhere else. It could be Saudi Arabia or wherever,” said Klimkin, referring to reports that China had offered to host US-Russia talks. The former official said that he hoped to see Beijing’s top diplomat Wang Yi or even President Xi Jinping visit Kyiv – a step that could help earn China some trust in Ukraine, after the battering to its reputation in recent years. Klimkin said he could imagine Xi visiting Kyiv either before or after his planned attendance at World War II commemorations in Moscow on May 9. “[Indian Prime Minister Narendra] Modi has been there, so why not?”
According to people who met the Chinese delegation at the Munich security forum, there was a noticeable shift in rhetoric on Ukraine, which they interpreted as an acknowledgement that things were changing. In his meetings at the Munich conference with ministers from Ukraine and the European Union, Wang made it clear that Beijing supported Kyiv’s representation – and Europe’s – in peace talks, after US officials cast doubt on the involvement of both.
Li Cheng, founding director of the Centre on Contemporary China and the World at the University of Hong Kong, said China’s interests were not fundamentally different from the Trump administration’s. He added that neither the war in Ukraine nor the conflict in Gaza were in China’s interests. “Without the Ukraine war, China’s European relations would probably be much, much better. So when the war is finally ended, China could least improve relations with some European countries,” Li said. In addition, Beijing could play a “positive role in the economic recovery of Ukraine”, according to Li, who also noted that China would be keen to ensure Russia’s survival. “China does not want Russia to collapse or to be completely defeated, that’s obvious. Because if that’s the case, the next one would be you. It’s not a secret. It’s in American doctrines,” he said.
Comment: The title I chose refers to the void created by the Trump administration’s recent words on both Ukraine and Europe. Beyond wanting the carnage of the war to end, the US appears to have lost interest in Europe and Ukraine and is more eager to renew normal relations with Russia. China has surely picked up on this shift as has Ukraine and now maybe even Europe. It’s easy to forget how close China and Ukraine were becoming prior to Russia’s invasion. The short CNA report linked below is a concise reminder of the state of Sino-Ukrainian relations back in February 2022. Ukraine’s Black Sea ports were to be an important part of China’s BRI, a gateway to Europe that bypassed Russia. I think both China and Ukraine want to resume that relationship. And China may now be open to offering some kind of security guarantee to the relationship.
China has consistently maintained that Ukraine’s borders as “guaranteed” in the Budapest Memorandum are indeed Ukraine’s borders. In spite of the friendship without limits, China has not recognized Russia’s claims on Ukrainian territory nor the independence of the breakaway republics in the Donbas. Military aid to Russia has been surprisingly limited. China refuses to help Russia build a larger gas pipeline from the biggest Russian gas fields to China preferring to develop stronger energy relations with Central Asia. China still buys Russian gas. It’s an economic necessity. But at the same time Chinese state banks are shutting down transactions with Russia “en masse” and billions of yuan worth of payments are being held up. So there are limits to the Sino-Russian friendship.
Europe’s possible acceptance of a much larger Chinese role in Ukraine may be a “running to the devil” kind of scenario. Given Trump’s ambivalence, at best, to continuing the transatlantic alliance, Europe may have to do just that.
TTG
https://www.cna.org/our-media/indepth/2022/02/ukraine-chinas-burning-bridge-to-europe
It’s not just Ukraine. China is taking advantage globally due to Trump’s foreign policy blunders in Europe and the southern hemisphere.
He should sell MACA hats and teeshirts.
leith,
Paul Kennedy wrote a book called ‘The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers’ in which he posited that empires collapse because they extend themselves beyond their military-economic capabilities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_overstretch
I think that Trump might be trying to address this by “pulling America’s reach back in”.
the manner in which he is treating civil servants, the staff he has surrounded himself with, his treatment of long time allies… + numerous other acts … is not very good evidence for what you think he may be trying to address. rather more like wishful thinking.
Today Trump accused the Ukrainians of starting the war. If a fiction writer wrote this stuff they’d be laughed out of the business.
You’re right, it was much more the efforts of the US, Germany and the EU. Ukraine was just a convenient proxy.
Stefan – I think Trump might merely have been referring to the failure of Minsk II. I read that into the BBC report I’ve just seen:-
‘You could have made a deal’: Trump blames Ukraine after US-Russia talks
(“I hear that they’re upset about not having a seat, well, they’ve had a seat for three years and a long time before that. This could have been settled very easily,” he said.
“You should have never started it. You could have made a deal,” he later added.
“I could have made a deal for Ukraine,” he said. “That would have given them almost all of the land, everything, almost all of the land – and no people would have killed, and no city would have been demolished.”)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0n5e1pdz9o
On China, Wang Yi’s speech at the MSC was significant. I believe the most important speech of all at this year’s MSC.
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjbzhd/202502/t20250215_11555665.html
He’s arguing for multipolarity. Not that far away from the Secretary of State’s keynote remarks on a multipolar world.
(So it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was not – that was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet.)
https://www.state.gov/secretary-marco-rubio-with-megyn-kelly-of-the-megyn-kelly-show/
There’s the makings of a deal there between Presidents Trump and Xi. One that will dwarf any deal that might be made on Ukraine. A deal that will retain the dollar as reserve currency and thus allow a non-disruptive shift to multipolarity.
Stefan
He is not wrong. When you are Ukraine (or Georgia, Belarus, Kazakhstan etc) you can do whatever you want just don’t seek NATO membership.
Putin’s the rabid tail wagging a Nasty doge. Long ago, China moved on from Long March to Long View. Until Russia dumps Putinism (or otherwise gets its shit together – faint hope of history), the remaining players at the grown-ups table will work around the head-cases – literally. Meanwhile, the formerly united states will wallow in executive orders, ketamine junkies, funny money & bad attitudes all-around. Who Would Jesus Sit With?
an intriguing interview w/ Sarah Paine of the Naval War College (author / specialist in Russia & China). a friend sent this to me a few weeks ago. it appeals given her depth of experience, scholarship & grand strategic pov … & she presents her thoughts clearly. A bit long, so to cut to the chase (most relevant to These Days), one can start at 1:33 in (Soviet Proxies) to the finish (Cruelty in Russia). enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com:watch?v=LbkO84MsmyM&t=3741
maybe this link will work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbkO84MsmyM&t=372s
Ked –
Thanks for that link. Watched the whole thing. Prof Sarah is right. I like her superglue and boomerang analogies.
Have you seen this other interview of her:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcVSgYz5SJ8
that’s a great one too. in the midst of the Petulant Revenge Tour I find it comforting to visit sources of Grand Strategic thinking past & present.
I think Zelensky should agree to the Nasty Regime extortion demands. when the Regime collapses, no one will blame Ukraine for pointing out “no contract entered upon under duress is valid”.
Meanwhile, we see The Long Night of the Knaves ripping through the Executive Branch in such an ugly, ham-fisted manner that blowback across the states may even awaken Congress… or the Society of the Cincinnati.
ked –
George Washington learned a lot from Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus. We now appear to have forgotten it.
China probably would not deal with European Union, an illegal troublesome bloc. For example when Ursula and Macron visited China, on the same airplane, Macron was given the red carpet and review the troops, whereas Ursula was shooed over to customs.
Don Bacon,
China most definitely reached out to the EU during this MSC as well as the leaders of Germany and the UK. Probably others.
It may seem that China is rising in the east, but it is by producing low margin goods. Which is a desperate effort to mitigate the effects of their prior focus on real estate, which is in serious trouble. They also have a serious demographic problem, so China has peaked. Unfortunately, so has the US and DOGE (pronounced Douche) is hastening the process. Unfortunately, this is creating several vacuums that we know nature abhors. No doubt, all these missteps will add and the big question is for how long the public will go along? Another problem for the high and mighty is that there are plenty of potential Luigis out there with easy access to firearms. Trump, in addition, has the problem that many of the people in the federal government as former military. If the veterans groups turn on him, life will soon become dismal to say the least for him.
Lars,
China has not peaked.
Ford CEO Jim Farley: “I drive a Xiaomi (SU7). We flew it from Shanghai to Chicago. I’ve been driving it for 6 month now, and I don’t want to give it up”.
There is an deep dive interview with Farley here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGx7AyD9okg
China has very much peaked. They have reached the end with their beggar-thy-neighbour policies. They are simply to big economically.
Shut down all access to US/EU markets and China will crash as hard as the US did in the 1930’s. China is totally dependent on foreign demand. Keep them out and their industries collapse.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:aday7msfnpqba7psqpjq3pij/post/3lidzz56a7m2f
Just look at the debt increase.
https://bsky.app/profile/michaelpettis.bsky.social/post/3li6x2dayjc2p
James,
Henry Ford II would have fired him for that statement alone. William Clay needs to be pushed aside, again, so someone can straighten that company out.
but it is by producing low margin goods.
You don’t seem to pay much attention. Would the US be obsessed about its Eastern competitor if it was only producing ‘low margin goods’?
As you note, China was heading closer to Ukraine prior to the war. China is a ravenous beast – and, unfortunately, its hunger is not relegated to pangolins and bats. It wants rare earth minerals, the Belt & Road trade routes, markets – everything. Trump’s policies re; Ukraine have no impact on the Chinese plan to take over the globe, which has been in place for years and, according to their own writings and speeches, is to be implemented in multiple decades long phases.
The fight against Han domination cannot be won in Ukraine. IT must be won by making the USA as strong as independent as possible + reviving the Monroe Doctrine in the most uncompromising form possible.
Ukraine, den of corruption that it is, would merely play both sides so as to enrich its oligarchs and government officials. It’s waste of money that the US needs to make itself and its hemisphere strong again. Unless we can capture Ukraine’s rare earth minerals, fossil fuels and other valuables.
Europe is a lost cause. They will always be crazy inbred children seeking royal titles and playing game of thrones; on a perpetual trajectory towards mass murder suicide. On top of that, they have allowed themselves to be overrun by muslims and may become a de facto caliphate in a generation or two.
You wrote earlier that Trump will be a peace wanting president. To this moment he’s trying it. I wish him luck in his endevaour. What’s your impression?
Jovan,
My impression is that Trump is still a peace loving POTUS. I think, as a human being, he has a particularly deeply visceral reaction to war as a filthy, ugly, hell. As a businessman, he sees it as a huge waste of money; money that could be used to build beautiful things, like a shining society, with shining cities and shining, well educated, well grounded, happy families. Trump is all about success and living among beauty/opulence and contributing to it, for himself, and for everyone who participates in adding to it. That is reflected in everything he has done and his family. Jealous haters, freaks and handout seeking slackers refuse to see him that way because they’re jealous, hating, freaks and handout seeking slackers – or because they they are the corrupt targets of MAGA efforts. I digress.
That said, he does recognize that there is a time to send the armed forces into a fight, but the fight must be righteous and it must be for the USA, not, for example, some corrupt slavs, led by oligarchs and the CIA/MI6, on the other side of the world. He also sees terrorists and drug/human trafficking cartels as unmitigated evil that must be erased from existence ( a perspective with which I agree).
Trump fully recognizes that there are a lot of scammers as leaders out there who want to use the USA to protect their weak countries, when those leaders actually have the ability to defend themselves (e.g. Europe), but don’t due to kooky policies, minor league quasi-cleverness and learned helplessness. Trump also sees the rotten bastards in our own country who build for war because they get money, in various ways, from the scammer leaders of foreign countries. All of that has been a consistent theme from Trump, even well before the 2016 election cycle.
Yes, he supports Israel (another position with which I agree) as a moral issue (where else can Jews exist in a world of perpetual antisemitism?) and as a practical strategic issue, i.e. a solid base of sanity in a crazy, violent, corrupt region replete with religious maniacs who perennially seek to conquer western civilization. I know lots of woke BS artists propagating an upside down, twisted history, and a 180 of reality, don’t agree with that view of Israel and the region, but who has time to dedicate to the stupid arguments that psychopaths and the delusional swallow?
China has been very good at balancing short- and long-term goals. Short-term it’s beneficial to China to buy Russian oil and gas at discounted prices, but their long-term goal has been and still is energy independence.
This is why China is building large amounts of renewable energy, with most of the growth being wind and solar, and some nuclear. Their share of renewable energy production (hydro, nuclear, solar and wind) has increased to 30%, up from 20% ten years ago. Their solar and wind production is up 10-fold, nuclear is up 4-fold (for comparison hydro is up 30%, fossil is up 50%).
Even with its large growth in energy consumption, China may achieve energy independence in 10-20 years, which is insane. Chinese energy independence will reduce leverage US has over Chinese seaborne trade or sanctions on coal imports which still play a major role in Chinese energy production. And because their renewable energy buildup is done at a massive scale, it has economic benefits (lower cost) and gives China a further economic advantage. We’ve seen what increase in energy costs has done to European manufacturing, so this is not a small consideration.
So in 10 years or so, China will be sitting on a modern power network, consisting largely of local, cheap energy production, while both US and Europe will be stuck with a decaying system relying on old power plants and still largely dependent on imported fossil fuels. My reading is that China is aware of its growing advantage and is exploiting current situation to buy more development time, up until its advantage is insurmountable and unquestionable.
There is zero mechanism in the Budapest Memorandum to obligate the US to come to Ukraine’s defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#cite_note-vasylenko-20091215-2
“China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[2]”
Details:
” The only specific obligation that the three nuclear states – the US, Russia, and the UK – took was that they “will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20210821102247/https://day.kyiv.ua/en/article/close/assurances-without-guarantees-shelved-document
Trump consulted. FU is what he is ‘politely’ telling Zelensky. The US will no longer fund his government, and by extension everyone in Europe who obligated themselves to pay off the now defaulted Ukrainian government bonds. Sucks to be them. Still not America’s problem. Make peace, stop the killing, bitch to your own politicians about all the dead on both sides.
Fred,
Just like Article 5 in the NATO treaty, it just promises consultations. The Budapest Memorandum says the signatories will respect and guarantee the borders of Ukraine. So, as Lavrov put it, Russia is agreement incapable.
TTG,
Sure. It was an agreement for the US to go to war for Ukraine’s borders as established by Khrushchev in the ’50s. Believe that if you wish. This is the same recycled regime change rhetoric we’ve been hearing since before the Ghost of Kiev so bravely annihilated the Russian Federation air force.
Fred,
What’s wrong with you, Fred? You first say the Memorandum only calls for consultations. I agree with you. Then you say it was “agreement for the US to go to war for Ukraine’s borders.”
TTG – I believe the Russians are in breach of the Budapest Memorandum. I base that belief on the weakness of the arguments advanced to the contrary. But I also believe there was no choice in the matter.
This one’s for the lawyers; but I’ve been looking around and can find no document that shows that the Russians formally repudiated the Budapest Memorandum. And wouldn’t they be in breach of it even if they had?
The argument that the post-2014 Ukraine was not the pre-2014 Ukraine and therefore the agreement doesn’t apply any more is also weak. Even if that argument were to be accepted, post-2014 Ukraine is the successor state and therefore inherits all the old treaties and guarantees. (And boundaries.)
Also invalid is the argument from the fact that Ukraine never had usable nuclear weapons in the first place. They didn’t, true. Though given that the Ukrainians have the requisite skills, they’d probably be in possession of usable nuclear weapons by now if the Russian nukes had remained in their hands.
The Ukrainians did, however, have physical possession of the radioactive material in those weapons and it was the urgency of getting those radioactive materials out of the hands of a corrupt and unstable administration that led both the Americans and the Russians to push so hard for the agreement. But isn’t that also beside the point? Whatever the occasion of the agreement that agreement was made and that is the sole point that matters.
With his legal expertise Mr Willman could maybe find holes in that reasoning but it does seem that failing formal repudiation or even if there were formal repudiation the Russians are in breach of that agreement.
……………………….
Similarly with Crimea. The Kosovo argument the Russians put forward there doesn’t work. Two wrongs don’t make a right. International law doesn’t say you can walk into someone else’s country and take some of it. The fact that an argument as shaky as the Kosovo argument is put forward itself demonstrates that the Russians are on weak legal ground there too and they know it.
Of course they know it. That’s why they go on so much about it. You don’t find the Americans, for instance, devoting acres of print to show they own Virginia fair and square. No need. (Actually, it’s British. The Americans never paid us for it. But let’s not complicate matters.)
That reasoning must also apply to the taking of the Donbass and of whatever other regions the Russians might decide to take.
Here the Article 51 argument also falls down. The fact that the Russians rushed through the recognition of the self-declared republics as independent countries (that later voted, big surprise, to be incorporated into Russia) and that therefore Article 51 could apply takes no account of the fact that international law did not recognise the self-declared republics as independent in the first place.
Minsk II is also relevant here. Although the Russians were not a party to that agreement, by accepting it and pushing for its implementation they showed that they recognised the Donbass was part of Ukraine by law and should remain so.
Hence also the leaving of the Donbass as part of Ukraine in the aborted Istanbul agreement. Offering to do that in the Istanbul agreement, and even leaving the status of Crimea up in the air (!), shows that the Russians themselves, when they initialled that Istanbul agreement, recognised that those regions were still Ukrainian by law.
So in both the case of the Budapest Memorandum and in the case of annexation of regions that were previously Ukrainian the Russians must be legally in the wrong and know it. It would be much better if all accepted that and let the argument of Force Majeure apply.
Had the Russians not taken Crimea there would have been atrocities and ethnic cleansing. Had they not taken the Donbass the same. The necessity of stopping that over-rode legal considerations.
If I break the speed limit taking a child to hospital in an emergency I can’t resort to dubious legal arguments to show that I did not break the speed limit, nor argue that others broke the limit and got away with it and therefore I should. I could only argue, yes I did break the speed limit but I was justified in doing so by the urgency of the circumstances.
The Russians, and those who argue on their behalf, should adopt a similar approach. Yes, an agreement was breached in the first case and international law in the others. In all those cases the breach was justified by the circumstances. There was no other way of saving lives.
…………………………………….
It’s not merely a debating point, this. The Ukrainians were in legal possession of regions the inhabitants of which would now prefer not to be Ukrainian. The Chinese and Indians are also in possession of territories whose inhabitants would now prefer not to be Chinese or Indian. The Chinese and Indians have no intention of relinquishing possession of those territories and are therefore uneasy about what’s happening in Ukraine.
There are similar cases in Africa and the Middle East. This is not a can of worms anyone in the Brics countries or Brics associated countries is at all eager to open. I believe this is one of the reasons, though only one and by no means the most important, for the Russians slow walking their SMO. The Brics countries needed time to grasp that the Ukrainian case is a special case, very much so, and need not apply to them.
…………………………
As a postscript, I noticed that Lavrov recently said that Russia had no intention of giving any of the annexed regions back because if it did so the inhabitants would again be persecuted by the Ukrainians.
There, at least, the Russians show that they don’t seek to build their case on dubious legal argument but go straight for the argument from necessity. Whatever the law says the Russians aren’t going to leave the people of the Donbass at the mercy of the pure-blood zealots again and that’s that.
EO,
I had a close up seat to the Ukrainian efforts to unlock the Soviet nuclear weapons in their possession. There was a serious effort to unlock them and there was genuine concern in the IC that they could do it. Fortunately, Soviet security measures proved sufficient. To this day, I’m not sure how much the technical inability to unlock those weapons played into the Ukrainian decision to give them up. The political pressure on them was enormous.
I don’t buy Moscow’s version of “responsibility to protect” to justify their desire to keep Ukrainian territory. So much of the supposedly Russian parts of Ukraine have been resisting the Russian invasion tooth and nail. Although Moscow did invest in Crimea, she let those parts of the Donbas under her control whither into a Stalinesque hellscape. Moscow has no qualms striking apartment blocks in Kharkiv, Odesa and Kherson occupied by Russian speaking Ukrainians. Even most of the destruction in Donetsk and Luhansk is due to Russian bombardment. The people of Donbas have far more to fear from further Russian aggression than from the now mythical “pure-blood zealots”. The Russian speaking populations of Kharkiv and Odesa don’t fear the “pure-blood zealots.” It’s another Kremlin lie bolstered only by the slightest glimmer of historical truth.
TTG – the problem there is that this will be a stumbling block in the Trump/Putin negotiations. Most in the West believe the ultras are a Russian propaganda artefact. Most in Russia, and certainly the Russian negotiators, believe otherwise.
So the Russians will be insisting on measures for “denazification” and the Americans will be insisting there’s no need for them. That problem alone will make the Trump/Putin negotiations difficult.
On the question of nuclear weapons in the hands of minor powers, that’s come to the forefront again. One sees suggestions that the French and British independent nuclear deterrents could be pooled to provide the independent deterrent the EU is currently lacking.
We and the French have together as many warheads as China, it’s been said, so we don’t need the Americans to provide that ultimate deterrent for us.
That’s dumb, isn’t it? If a covey of nuclear missiles, MIRV’d and all, were to suddenly emerge from some remote spot in the ocean they won’t have labels on them saying “This lot’s from the Brits.” Nor, should this pooling idea be more that hot air, “From Brussels with love.”
Nor would it be any good the Americans using the hot line and saying to the Russians “It’s not us, honest!” Seeing nukes heading for their cities, the Russians would go full MAD no matter who they came from.
I don’t therefore believe the British and French nuclear weapons are independent. The major powers don’t want the decision to go nuclear taken out of their hands and left to their allies. That would be the tail wagging the dog with a vengeance.
So the suggestion that the British and French should pool their nukes to give the EU an independent deterrent has to be nonsense, surely. Chest-beating talk so Brussels can claim it’s a major power too.
When I and my fellow citizens voted for getting out of the EU it wasn’t with the intention of putting our nukes at the disposal of the Eurocrats. As more and more in Europe itself are beginning to say, those Eurocrats are nuisance enough without giving them toys like that to play with.
EO,
I agree with the notion that a UK-French nuclear umbrella is of little use. Much like the Israeli nuclear weapons, it would be a revenge weapon at best.
Here is a photo of one of Musk’s DOGE-Dorks, the one that fired workers at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Looks kind of gender neutral doesn’t he/she/what?
https://bsky.app/profile/waitmanwbeorn.com/post/3lihtn5yvfc24
Guess the dork did not know or didn’t care to find out that the NNSA:
– keeps nuclear weapons safe and secure;
– does nuclear nonproliferation research, global nuclear security assistance & radiological emergency response;
– checks to make sure no one plants a dirty bomb at the Super Bowl or anywhere else:
– supports the infrastructure preventing further spread of nuclear weapons;
– prepares for future arms control;
– helps keep other nuclear materials (energy, agriculture, medicine etc) safe and secure in the US and around the world;
– and works to recover orphaned radiological sources before civilians are hurt by them and before terrorists can find them.
leith,
So the USAF does not guard nuclear weapons in its charge; neither Marines nor Navy personnel those assigned to our ships? NNSA has some special detachment? Shocking to me as I never saw nor heard of these people when I was on active duty. Not that I can confirm or deny any nuclear weapons anywhere at any time.
“checks to make sure no one plants a dirty bomb at the Super Bowl or anywhere else:”
WOW Planetary responsibility. Must be impressive in Paris or Port Au Prince. and places in-between. How do they do that, call the local police to see if there are people planting bombs, like say outside the DNC on J6?
“helps keep other nuclear materials (energy, agriculture, medicine etc) safe and secure in the US and around the world;”
So they track every cobalt-60 source for radiation treatment used in every hospital in the US, or on the planet? Or is that actually handled by others and they just have an excuse for a bigger budget? Does that include all that stuff used to irradiate spices that was discussed on SST a decade or so ago? https://www.nordion.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/GT_History-of-Food-Irradiation.pdf
” Here is a photo of one of …”
Can you get us a picture of suitcase thief definitely not gay boy who Biden has as a “American nuclear waste disposal expert”? It can used in our kindergarten show and tell on which admin had the gender neutralist nuclear expert.
Fred – I don’t have a picture of your ‘suitcase thief definitely not gay boy who Biden has as a “American nuclear waste disposal expert” ‘. Sorry.
But I can get you pictures of Trump’s gay-boy good buddies:
Donor Peter Thiel,
Special Envoy Richard Grenell,
Scott Bessent at DoT,
Vince Micone at DoL,
Tammy Bruce at DoS,
Jacon Helberg at DoS,
Assorted ambassadors.
Plus his cross-dressing friends Eyeliner Boy and Rudy Giuliani.
Makes you wonder; maybe Trump made all those trips to Epstein Isle so he could get closely acquainted with a teenage male intern?
Patrick Armstrong stopped contributing to the Colonel’s site just after the SMO started. He was subjected to pressure from the Canadian authorities. He’s now back in action, has been for a while. Very realistic, as ever, also prophetic. Here he puts his finger on the difference between the two approaches, American and Russian/Chinese, and gives what I regard as a warning against too much euphoria over the new atmosphere of détente Trump’s election looks like promising:-
“What is the Trump team’s idea of a new world? My guess at the moment is that it envisions a future world of three Great Powers each with its own sphere of interest (I would further guess that it sees Europe in the US sphere and not on its own). This is very far from what the Chinese Foreign Minister spoke of at Munich which would be a world of many countries, big and small, rich and poor, all with a voice deserving of a listen and that is the future Moscow envisions also. See the joint statement and bear in mind that both Russia and China were exceptionalist powers before they learned that that’s a dead end. So, if I’m reading these tea leaves aright, there is still much to be worked out between Washington and Moscow-Beijing. The talks that start tomorrow are the first step in a long and painful road.”
https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2025/02/17/europe-gets-an-anatomy-lesson/
Yes. There’s a world of difference between a multipolar threesome, which Rubio envisages, and the Westphalian multipolar world that the Brics countries are putting on the tin for us Westphalians to look to.
I’ll believe what’s on that tin when I get to sample the contents. Xi and Putin are plugging a loose association of countries in which sovereign countries are left alone to develop their own way but are linked for trade purposes. Sounds good.
Except that we’ve been there before. The EU was supposed to be that, with the bonus that it would ensure peace in a hitherto war-torn Europe. Turned into a supra-national disaster for all concerned. And as for ensuring peace, well. It turned into a mini White Tiger at the drop of a hat and, as Vance recently pointed out, headed just as fast as it could down the authoritarian and repressive road trodden earlier by its totalitarian forbears.
So we want to see what’s inside the Brics/SCO tin before heralding it as the start of a new era. Also to see what’s inside the Trump/Rubio tin before getting too optimistic there. For all the talk, no one seems in too much of a hurry to stop the bloodletting either. And the Europeans still industriously digging their own graves while the world moves on without them.
Even so, and taking account of Armstrong’s warning, with the change in Washington this really does look like the start of a more hopeful era. Merely the halt in the grim self-destructive course the Biden administration was locked into has to be welcome.
EO,
I’m glad Patrick is writing again. I hope he realizes he is more than welcome here. This article of his is insightful. I think he is right that China is comfortable with a multipolar world with big and small countries interacting respectfully. He is also right that Trump sees the world as a few superpowers controlling their respective spheres of influence. I’m surprised he considers Russia’s world view as akin to China’s. I guess that’s in line with his tendency to view Russia through rose colored glasses. It should be obvious to him that Moscow has no intention of respecting the smaller countries surrounding Russia. Moscow has made it clear that what she considers her near abroad must tow the Moscow line.
TTG – if it’s the case that Moscow has no intention of respecting the smaller countries surrounding Russia then those smaller countries are in trouble.
Only a few years back they were snug under American protection. If necessary, under the protection of the America nuclear umbrella. And though even back then the European militaries weren’t heavyweights, they’d do as tripwire forces. So the Balts and the Poles were safe.
They’re not as safe now. That, I suppose, also applies to the other European countries including my own. Without American protection Europe as a whole is vulnerable, the more so since the Euros are still intent on poking the Bear far more than they used to.
Me, I’m not at all worried, on that score anyway, because I don’t believe the Russians want to come our way. But for those who do worry about that, and particularly for the border countries, they’re a lot more insecure than they were.
You can see why the Americans would rather not have the Europeans sitting at the negotiating table. The Europeans’d only insist on keeping the war going. It’s going to be difficult enough for the Russians and Americans to hammer out some sort of deal to end the war, without having the Euros sitting at the table determined to keep it going but lacking by themselves the means to do so.
This is why the Europeans are freaking out. The only real muscle they’d have to bring to the negotiating table would be American muscle. That was at their disposal during the Biden Presidency. It doesn’t seem to be now. It’ll take them a while to get used to that. Trump’s a hard-nosed bastard underneath all the bonhomie. He doesn’t want to be trying to cut a deal with the Russians with a load of resentful no-hopers around.
I hope Trump can cut a deal. There are well over a thousand men a day dying or getting permanently maimed in Ukraine, most of them our proxies. The main objective, and never mind all the geopolitical stuff, is stopping that. The danger is that the negotiations will drag on so long that the Russians will have achieved their objectives in Ukraine and all that’s left to do is rubber stamp them. Maybe that’s the intention.
That’s why I wish the Europeans would pipe down, particularly Starmer and Kallas and UvdL. They’re only trying to save face anyway. They don’t give a tinker’s cuss about the casualties. Rubbish the lot of them. The Balts and the Poles are fools to look to them for security. We English too, for that matter.
If Trump abandons Europe, it will have to come together and for awhile, it will. Ukraine will become a priority, since they all know that Putin will not stop there, should he prevail. I also think there are plenty of Republicans in Congress who would not be happy with this outcome. Which may very well end up with nuclear weapons in Ukraine, to ensure their safety. The iDJiT has no clue about what he is doing, but the line that he should not step over is probably very close. You would think that with the US a fiscal basket case, they efforts should be focused on that and Musk is not the answer.
Lars wrote:
“Ukraine will become a priority, since they all know that Putin will not stop there, should he prevail.”
Absolutely not.
Russia is having enough trouble with its SMO in Ukraine.
Why would Russia want to, or need to, go further?
You are just scaremongering.
If I am, I am not alone. There is now plenty of discussions in Europe what to do about Putin’s imperial designs and the reality that the US is no longer a reliable partner. As I longtime remodeling contractor I know that the demo phase is the easy one. What Trump misses is that the Pottery Barn Rules are in effect and the US could pay a stiff price for making mistakes. The US has been degraded since 2003, when Bush made the first ones and now that is being accelerated by Trump and his mental midgets.
Lars,
Yeah sure because the Euros are so smart and rational and never have ulterior motives.
Lars,
Maybe Zelensky can hire Blinken and Sullivan to advise him on negotiations. They both worked for Barack and Biden. Where they fixed “mission accomplished” and victoriously withdrew from Kabul. Hilary is available too. She didn’t bring slavery back to Libya, that was Barack, but boy Benghazi. He can even get the folks who managed to get HTS put in charge of Syria. What an accomplishment!
As to Putin’s imperial designs, the Ghost of Kiev shattered them in the first days of the war Ukraine has already won. Just read the latest from ISW. They didn’t lose their funding, did they?
Big changes proposed for DoD spending:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/19/pete-hegseth-orders-pentagon-spending-cuts-00205073
Keith Harbaugh – just a note in reply to your comment (Keith Harbaugh says:
February 18, 2025 at 1:10 pm, “Munich Security conference in the shadow of Donald Trump”). The list of constraints on Putin I submitted to “b’s” site is the same as that submitted here.
I had replied to that effect at the time, or so I thought. Unfortunately I moved away from the site too fast after I’d pressed “comment”. Access to WordPress is slow here so by the time it was ready to receive the comment there’d have been no comment to receive. Apologies for the delay in re-submitting.
That cleared up, I hope, your link above (Politico, defence cuts) shows a direct assault on the pork barrel. That is, Congressmen insisting on this or that item of defence spending because it safeguards jobs in their respective constituencies – “During the budgeting process, lawmakers often refuse to curtail or cut some programs the services insist they no longer want, but which have constituencies on the Hill because there are local jobs at stake.”
Will Congress accept the cuts?
If so, there’s an interesting parallel with Russian intentions on defence spending. They also want to cut defence spending when the present crisis is over. When Belousov took over from Shoigu the Russian emphasis shifted away from just going hell for leather on armaments production. They’re still doing that but are now more intent on ensuring that the factories built for arms production are suitable for dual use.
After the war some of those factories, and the work force, can move to producing goods for civilian use. Producing railway trains and tractors instead of tanks, as it were, and the factories and work force able to switch over without disruption.
That’s the Russian story. Have to see whether it becomes reality. One assumes the Trump administration is hoping for an equivalent shift here. Jobs lost in arms production made up by a switch to the civilian work that’ll be available if Trump gets the re-industrialising of America he’s after.
Explains Trump’s love affair with tariffs. He won’t re-industrialise America without them. Also explains why he’s hoping for a mutual reduction in arms spending in concert with the Chinese and the Russians.
Your President talks big and acts big. I do hope he’s not cut down to size by a myopic Congress still thinking no further than the pork barrel.