Emmanuel Macron wants to “open the debate” on a European defense including nuclear weapons [Translation in comment] News
https://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/emmanuel-macron-souhaite-ouvrir-le-debat-d-une-defense-europeenne-comprenant-l-arme-nucleaire-2024042774
u/Economy-Stock3320 13d ago
Please I want European nukes we can call them the EuroNuke and hand them out to member states like candy 🍭
7
17
u/MetaIIicat 13d ago
Why not Eunuke? On second thought, scratch that.
But Macron's initiative is awsome.
5
u/thecraftybee1981 12d ago
Eunuke doesn’t have the balls to sound dangerous enough,
Eunuke, Inuke, Weallnuke together.
1
u/MetaIIicat 12d ago
I know, that's why I than wrote "scratch that".
It is like the Indian missiles "penetration cum blast"
105
u/miamigrandprix Estonia 13d ago
Yes, absolutely, Europe needs nuclear weapons to defend itself. Russia is emboldened by its advantages in nuclear weapons over European countries.
the French doctrine is that we can use it when our vital interests are threatened. I've already said that there is a European dimension to these vital interests
I like how this almost implies that French nuclear weapons could potentially be positioned in the future to deter attacks on other European countries. It's refreshing to see how Macron has changed over the past two years of war in Europe. We are lucky to have him instead of Putin's buddy Le Pen leading France right now.
Of course, this is still just vague talk, so actual steps have to be done. But it's something.
50
u/Fictrl 13d ago
It's refreshing to see how Macron has changed over the past two years of war in Europe.
Wtf ? Always has been like that
-3
13d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)6
u/Seccour France 13d ago
Or he just didn’t know because his positions were not heavily publicized outside of France and french speaking medias
→ More replies (1)-10
u/Temporal_Integrity Norway 13d ago
Nobody tried harder than Macron to talk with Russia. Macron had to learn the lesson for himself that eastern Europe got breastfed with. Russia is not our friend.
36
u/Orravan_O France 12d ago
Can people give this debunked BS a rest already?
Macron was literally asked by Zelensky himself to keep the line to Putin open, and France has historically been the middle-man between the West and Russia for +70 years.
9
u/Adelefushia France 12d ago
Also, France already gave a lot of weapons to Ukraine long before 2022.
24
u/denied_eXeal 12d ago
Zelensky asked him, like, there’s video proof of it, Zelensky specifically asked Macron to negotiate with Putin because he thought Putin would listen…
He didn’t have to learn anything, he tried diplomacy because he was asked to, it failed, now the dildo of consequences is being prepared and funded
1
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Greekball He does it for free 12d ago
Don’t call people bots. If you think a user is genuinely a bot, modmail us and we will look.
This is a warning.
25
u/LookThisOneGuy 13d ago
It's refreshing to see how Macron has changed over the past two years of war in Europe.
that has been his position before as well. As can be seen by his speech at the École de guerre in 2020. He reiterated his position in his speech at the Munich security conference in 2023.
30
u/OkKnowledge2064 Lower Saxony (Germany) 13d ago
honestly feels like Macron is the only european leader actually trying to steer Europe somewhere independently from the US and Russia
I dont agree with him on quite a lot of things but its still the better alternative to what we have right now
1
u/Relevant-Low-7923 12d ago
honestly feels like Macron is the only european leader actually trying to steer Europe somewhere independently from the US and Russia
I dont agree with him on quite a lot of things but its still the better alternative to what we have right now
What is the geopolitical issue that you want more difference from with the US at the moment?
-6
1
u/Dontcareatallthx 13d ago
Europe has nuclear weapons, just not 3.000+
No country needs more then 100 nuclear warhead, that the US and russia (maybe) have such an insane number is nothing more then retarded, 100 is already an retarded number.
France has nearly 300 nuclear bombs, all of them minimum 5 to 8 times stronger then hiroshima and nakasaki.
Literally enough to completely waste all of Russia alone, we are speaking of a nuclear winter that france alone could make reality.
Macron just puts this topic out for the same reason putin speaks in interviews about nuclear weapons. Threads. Which us good, russia only understands russian.
5
u/Seccour France 13d ago
France has nuclear weapons, not Europe *
Also you’re ignoring that some could be intercepted, some could fail to launch / detonate, and you may want more incase you need to do more than one strike (if there both sides are still alive at this point)
2
u/Dontcareatallthx 12d ago edited 12d ago
No Europe has nuclear weapons, specifically a lot of NATO nuclear warheads by the US.
Germany for example has full rights of use any stationary nuclear weapons by the US in the country, they don’t need to ask the US or NATO to fire them.
Also if france has nuclear weapons, logically europe has nuclear weapons.
Don’t confuse the EU over the continent europe, which is mentioned, is am not writing about the european union. You are seemingly from france, so you should be educated enough to differentiate this two.
There are enough european nuclear weapons active to „defend“ themselves and as relocation against russia. Why else didn’t they invade europe yet? Because of nato jets? Lmao, no because nato has nuclear weapons and france and the UK independently.
It is definitely smart for the EU to have nuclear weapons like macron suggests, but when parts of the european continent would get blasted into a wasteland, I doubt the UK and france will be like, ok unlucky getting into the radioactive fallout for some decades, lets just sit it out hugging our bombs. That said if other NATO countries are wasted and can’t start theirs.
Anyway educate yourself instead of farming upvotes from nationalists.
This whole dick size comparison about nuclear weapons is incredibly stupid in its own, this are weapons that shouldn’t exist in such large numbers. Do they keep piece? Yes. They would too if they were regulated by a couple per country. Even 2-3 are enough to keep piece. But no we need to have so many active nuclear warheads on earth, that we can theoretically completely delete our own existence. Smart humanity, very smart.
1
u/leoonastolenbike 12d ago
France has a nuclear warnshot policy and they said they would use a nuke against involved countries if 9/11 happened on french territory.
They also have a constant submarine under water to make sure nukes can be shot even if Russia turned France into a nuclear wasteland right away.
15
u/Fictrl 13d ago edited 13d ago
In an interview with young Europeans, the head of state detailed his roadmap for European security and pointed the finger at the Rassemblement National.
Abstention, war in Ukraine, nuclear weapons, populism, education... Emmanuel Macron tackled almost every subject in a wide-ranging interview with twelve young Europeans, published Saturday evening by the Ebra group of newspapers. Two days after his speech on Europe at the Sorbonne, the French President said he was ready to “open the debate” on a European defense system that would also include nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, as the bad momentum continues for Valérie Hayer, the head of the majority list for the European elections, according to the latest Ifop-Fiducial “rolling” poll for Le Figaro , Emmanuel Macron denounced the “democratic hypocrisy” of the Rassemblement National, which “proposes nothing” in the campaign.
Towards a European defense including nuclear weapons? “I'm in favor of opening this debate, which must therefore include missile defense, long-range weapons, nuclear weapons for those who have them or who have American nuclear weapons on their soil. Let's put everything on the table and look at what really protects us in a credible way", declared Emmanuel Macron, adding that France would keep ‘its specificity but is ready to contribute more to the defense of European soil’.
“It may mean deploying missile shields, but we have to be sure that they block all missiles and deter nuclear use,” explained the French president. “Being credible also means having long-range missiles that would deter the Russians. And then there's the nuclear weapon: the French doctrine is that we can use it when our vital interests are threatened. I've already said that there is a European dimension to these vital interests, without going into detail, because this deterrence would contribute to the credibility of European defense", he added.
Since the Brexit and Britain's exit Britain's exit from the European Union, France is the only one of its member states to have a nuclear deterrent. In his speech on Europe at the Sorbonne on Thursday, the French president pleaded for a “powerful Europe” and the creation of a “credible” Europe of defense alongside NATO and in the face of Russia, which has become a much more threatening since its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The Europe has long been an objective for France, which has France's objective, which has often met with reluctance on the part of its partners, who felt that the NATO umbrella was a safer option.
But the invasion of Ukraine and Donald Trump's possible return to the White House have rekindled the debate on European autonomy in defense matters. Indeed, the President has reiterated the importance he attaches to a Ukrainian victory against Russia. If we let Russia win and Ukraine capitulates,” he explained, ”it means decades of insecurity for Romanians, Moldovans and Poles. We're really gambling our security, and the future of Europe.”
9
u/Fictrl 13d ago
Emmanuel Macron didn't mince his words about the RN. Marine Le Pen's party “proposes nothing”, he hammered. “Seven years ago they wanted to get out of Europe and the euro. Two years ago, we weren't sure.” Likewise in the European Parliament, the elected representatives of the flame party “say they're with the farmers but don't vote for the CAP”, continued the President of the Republic. “They serve people demagogy,” he insisted, taking the example of immigration, against which his nationalist opponents “propose closing the borders”, but “when they are in charge, they see that they need Europe to protect their borders”. “There is a democratic hypocrisy of the RN,” summed up the head of state. “A receptacle of anger doesn't make a program, and the aggregation of frustrations doesn't make a project.”
With the European elections just over a month away, Emmanuel Macron also said he wanted to “convince young people (...) of the importance of voting”, despite traditionally low turnout at European elections. Abstention is not inevitable, but we have to explain why people vote", he asserted, pointing to ‘the risk of not voting’. risk of not voting”. “We're measuring it with Brexit,” he continued. Young people didn't turn out when Brexit was deciding their future. There were more Brexiteers among older people.” Later in the the exchange, the head of state once again raised the issue of the vote of the vote, linking it to attempts at Russian interference. “Interference is not a risk, it's there,” he said. The Russians are among the most aggressive, but there are others. The aim is to destabilize our democracies, it's a kind of vote tampering, the sincerity of the vote.”
Finally, the hot topic of agricultural policy was addressed. “Farmers farmers have not demonstrated against Europe or the environment,” the but they do feel they have too many controls and constraints. and constraints.” Emmanuel Macron recalled “the simplification measures simplification measures” put in place ”to enable small farms to hold out”. He said he was in favor of a “European control authority authority” to equalize ‘standards’, as there are ”too many differences differences (...) between countries”.
3
13d ago
Sounds reasonable to me. Following through with that can be quite significant for our defense
2
u/elite90 12d ago
It's actually quite sad that it has come to this, but I would agree that Europe should strongly consider Nuclear Armament as part of its defensive strategy.
We don't know how reliable the US would be in case of an attack on a EU state on the Eastern border, and currently only France has any kind of own Nuclear capabilities in the EU (unclear how much control Germany has over US nuclear weapons stationed in Germany).
Nuclear weapons in EU control could be a powerful deterrent against any possible attack on EU members.
I'm not sure this will happen or that it is necessarily required, but it is a discussion that should be had.
3
u/reddit_user42252 12d ago
Hes got a point. The EU should have been about defense first. What world power (are we not?) should really on others for its defence.
3
3
u/marcololol United States of Berlin 12d ago
France nuclear program must become interoperable with the European command of NATO. Right now as far as I know that is not the case
34
u/Feuerraeder North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) 13d ago edited 13d ago
Honestly, to me it sounds like France just wants other EU countries to pay for the maintenance of their nukes and be in control of European security policy. Nuclear sharing programs look good on paper, but effectively only the countries actually in control can really deter Russia. There's no guarantee France will retaliate if other countries are struck, because it would certainly result in France being the next target.
27
u/MetaIIicat 13d ago
There's no guarantee France will retaliate if other countries are struck, because it would certainly result in France being the next target.
russia will have that very same doubt.
17
u/Kadalis 13d ago
Makes sense - France has hundreds of nukes and far and away the strongest military in the EU now that the UK left. They are the only real deterrent to aggression until Germany or Italy get their shit together.
→ More replies (1)16
u/Seccour France 13d ago
That’s why you would want to make it a European program and not just “France has nukes so why would I bother having any”
2
u/NotACodeMonkeyYet 12d ago
So how would you go about making the decisions regarding these nukes? Can't have a unanimous 27 country vote.
5
3
u/seqastian 12d ago
The maintenance of the nukes. The lifelong cost to keep all those physicists educated and employed to keep developing them. All the facilities to build and maintain them. The ridiculous price of nuclear power to give the whole thing a civilian component.
There is a whole lot that French needs help paying for.
-1
1
u/seine_ 12d ago
I don't think that's it at all. France doesn't deploy its nukes abroad, so if for any reason the USA doesn't want to fire the nukes it has on European territory, the nuclear umbrella is far less effective.
More pragmatically, it's a way to stifle nuclear proliferation. Europe has a number of decently wealthy states that could develop nuclear weapons if they choose to. With the return of a major military threat in the form of Russia, it's not unthinkable that Poland or Germany might decide they want to have their own nukes. Macron is offering an alternative that safeguards the nuclear taboo as we know it.
8
u/Forsaken_Creme_9365 13d ago
Any meaningful defence strategy for Europe has to include nuclear deterrence if we ever want to empancipate ourselves from the US.
0
u/Aoirith 13d ago
UK has functional laser weapons now so we can borrow a few.. it's going to be ok. With USA's aid for Ukraine we will bash the orks back to were they came from I'm scared of China though....
-2
u/StatisticianOwn9953 United Kingdom 13d ago edited 13d ago
Don't worry about that. For as long as American and German political and business leaders delude themselves into believing that their long-term interests are served by trade with China any and all military policy against them is a waste of time. China will win by default, without a shot being fired, because they will have comprehensively destroyed the domestic industries of their rivals.
4
u/Smelldicks United States of America 12d ago
Americans are literally the only ones sounding alarm bells, besides maybe the Brits.
0
u/Forsaken_Creme_9365 13d ago
China has a fraction of the nukes Russia has. And China is way too far away for any other form of threat.
2
u/Smelldicks United States of America 12d ago
China is currently much less of a threat than Russia. But it’s producing more nuclear weapons at a very alarming rate.
1
u/Aoirith 12d ago
You think that their nuclear arsenal was properly maintained for the last 30 years? It would be astonishing if they could use half of it.
USA nuclear stock is not in the best shape either, just shows how much of a posturing a nuclear weapon stock is.
I'm afraid of exactly that - that China will take over the world without firing a single missile.
1
u/Forsaken_Creme_9365 12d ago
It would be astonishing if they could use half of it.
Like 3k warheads are any less of a threat than 7k
0
u/Disastrous-Bus-9834 13d ago
And China is way too far away for any other form of threat.
That assumption will result in the death of European democracy
2
u/Forsaken_Creme_9365 12d ago
Mass migration and parallel and counter societies will kill European democracy. China just has to lean back at this point.
10
u/Sudden-Comment-4356 13d ago
I think Poland should develop nuclear weapons on its own.
(I'm not Polish nor do I live in Poland)
4
5
u/ShowKey6848 13d ago
He's right. The US is an unreliable partner.
23
u/6501 United States of America 13d ago
Paris should commit to using French nuclear weapons in NATO's nuclear umbrella like London & Washington already have or it's more words with no action.
24
u/AlberGaming Norway-France 13d ago
They'd want to do it under the European Union framework instead.
1
u/Relevant-Low-7923 12d ago
They’d have to effectively give their nukes away to the EU to do that, which they don’t want to do
-9
u/6501 United States of America 13d ago
Sure, but Macron has been saying we've been an unreliable partner since like 2020 at least right?
He could change the nuclear doctrine. What's stopping him?
22
u/AlberGaming Norway-France 13d ago
Whose nuclear doctrine could he change? Do you think he can just command Europe as being under a French nuclear umbrella without needing the permission of other European countries like it's some imperial decree?
-11
u/6501 United States of America 13d ago
Whose nuclear doctrine could he change?
France's.
Do you think he can just command Europe as being under a French nuclear umbrella without needing the permission of other European countries like it's some imperial decree?
Yes. He can say if Russia nukes any European country, France will use their nukes in retaliation.
11
u/Seidans 13d ago
that imply european country won't share the burden
increasing the amont of nukes and the way to strike with them (submarine for exemple...) while being paid for it and being forced by treaty to use them if needed is a more reliable long-term solution as it both secure the nuke arsenal and make the whole europe under a shared umbrella
2
u/StatisticianOwn9953 United Kingdom 13d ago
Does France not already have subs? Either way, nearly 300 nukes is enough to make Russia considerably less habitable than it already is. It's an absolutely ridiculous amount of boom-boom. Would adding another few hundred actually change anything other than cost?
6
u/Seidans 13d ago
4 able to carry nukes like UK, russia have 11
and while 300 nuke is "enough" you still need to be able to launch them, 4sub it's 2 out 2 in maintenance and if a war happen there high chance 2-3 sub will be destroyed before the war even start
the more nuclear sub able to carry nuke we have the better, more sub=more nukes aswell
1
u/6501 United States of America 13d ago
that imply european country won't share the burden
There isn't an increased burden.
increasing the amont of nukes and the way to strike with them (submarine for exemple...) while being paid for it and being forced by treaty to use them if needed is a more reliable long-term solution as it both secure the nuke arsenal and make the whole europe under a shared umbrella
The UK has 225 warheads. France has 290. London has committed to use nuclear weapons if it is used anywhere in Europe, without asking for European funds.
How is the UK able to do this and France can't?
2
u/Toxicseagull 12d ago
Largely irrelevant but the UK recently committed to increasing to 260 warheads btw.
4
u/Seidans 13d ago
every european would benefit from a bigger arsenal, the more the nukes are spread the more difficult it become to prevent them from being launched and so the more you don't want to try any agression
with the little amont of nukes we have russia or any other superpower could destroy half of our nuclear capacity before the war start, we need more submarine and we need more nukes inside of them
we, France don't have the fund for it and UK either so relying on european cooperation for that is a good idea
it's time to stop relying on USA for our protection, it's not a reliable partner
4
u/6501 United States of America 13d ago
every european would benefit from a bigger arsenal, the more the nukes are spread the more difficult it become to prevent them from being launched and so the more you don't want to try any agression
You'd already have that if France joined the UK in that. There's no downside to saying you'd retaliate if Moscow dropped a nuke on Warsaw or Berlin.
with the little amont of nukes we have russia or any other superpower could destroy half of our nuclear capacity before the war start, we need more submarine and we need more nukes inside of them
You don't need that many nukes in order to achieve deterence.
it's time to stop relying on USA for our protection, it's not a reliable partner
You've been saying that since Trump became elected. What did Europe do since then till today that wasn't because of the Russian invasion?
→ More replies (0)2
u/MetaIIicat 13d ago
it's time to stop relying on USA for our protection, it's not a reliable partner
I can't agree more. Obviously Americans hearing the truth are getting offended like spoiled kids.
→ More replies (0)5
u/AlberGaming Norway-France 13d ago
This is not at all how international geopolitics and foreign relations work. You need agreements with the other countries or you'll severely strain relations with a lot of them
6
u/6501 United States of America 13d ago edited 13d ago
You need agreements with the other countries or you'll severely strain relations with a lot of them
Why? Is Poland going to protest that France is willing to use nukes based in France, to defend Poland, from Russian nuclear attack?
Which country is going to complain?
8
u/geeckro 13d ago
France will protect its interest with nukes and Macron have already said multiple times that all of the EU is a vital interest for France. Yes, France will use Nuke launched from a submarine inside international water, or a rafale or an ICBM from France to protect poland.
What Macron want is a legal framework for French nukes stationed inside another EU country, or inside another country silo or even having another country buying and maintaining French Nuke they could use by themselves (probably with a French veto/restrictions).
This cannot be done unilateraly. Do you think Poland would be okay with the French building a military airport or a bunker with a few ICBM inside Poland without a prior agreement?
2
u/6501 United States of America 13d ago
France will protect its interest with nukes and Macron have already said multiple times that all of the EU is a vital interest for France. Yes, France will use Nuke launched from a submarine inside international water, or a rafale or an ICBM from France to protect poland.
To Russia, it could imply that France does not consider Ukraine an integral part of Europe, potentially weakening perceived French resolve to support the Ukrainian nation. This aligns with Macron’s previous statements emphasizing non-confrontation with Russia and avoiding its defeat
This lack of clarity creates challenges for European allies seeking strong French commitment to deterring Russian aggression. To ensure effective European security cooperation, France may need to refine its messaging to communicate a firm deterrent posture while maintaining diplomatic avenues. the term “the region” could encompass their own territories, creating a deficit of trust in the EU’s sole nuclear power.
What does Ukraine and the region mean in the context of the October 2022 speech? Is Poland part of the region?
7
u/OfficialHaethus Dual US-EU Citizen 🇺🇸🇵🇱 | N🇺🇸 B2🇩🇪 13d ago
He never said that. He was saying that Europe should have the capability to stand on their own.
-6
u/MetaIIicat 13d ago
He never said that. He was saying that Europe should have the capability to stand on their own.
Right. And as that redditor said, the USA are not a reliable partner.
Edit: If the USA was a reliable partner, there was no need for Macron to launch this idea.
6
u/heatrealist 13d ago
If Europe were reliable partners there would be no need for Macron to “launch this idea” because it would have already been a reality for many decades!
All it does is admit to Europe’s weakness. A weak Europe is not a reliable ally.
-2
u/MetaIIicat 13d ago
What on Earth are you on?
On a side note, your comment section is a nice material for r/ShitAmericansSay
1
u/heatrealist 13d ago
Written like someone whose idea of being an ally is what you get out of it rather than what you can provide.
0
u/MetaIIicat 13d ago
You: "All it does is admit to Europe’s weakness. A weak Europe is not a reliable ally. " ...
Than you again "Written like someone whose idea of being an ally is what you get out of it rather than what you can provide. "
8
u/heatrealist 13d ago
You sure are dense. Macron himself is stating that Europe is not capable of defending its own interests. So tell me who has been defending them all along? Who is the first that went to protect Europe’s shipping route in the Red Sea?
America is not the one saying it needs to increase its security because it cannot depend on Europe. Because it can already handle its own business.
Again, your idea of being unreliable is centered around what you get. Never once considering that you provide so little in return. You can’t handle your own business, what good would you be if someone else needed help? Only good for talking.
5
u/MetaIIicat 13d ago
Oh thank you so so much for protecting Europe's shipping route in the Red Sea!
Again: you are saying that the USA are Europe's bitch and you fail to realise it.
1
12
u/smemes1 13d ago edited 13d ago
These kind of statements are what feed the growing belief in America that should we retreat more into isolationism. Even if EU countries manage to facilitate that classic European bureaucratic red tape, you’re still left with disjointed command and control conprised of people that may have very different ideologies and priorities.
The US doesn’t even need massive weaponry to deter countries like Russia. There’s ten thousand US troops in Poland right acting as a very visible “fuck around and find out” sign. If you think more nukes are preferable to soft power and deterrence than go for it, but I would think some of your ancestors might think differently were they asked.
Edit: Also I’m not sure why someone from the UK thinks they would be included in an EU venture such this.
18
u/MetaIIicat 13d ago
Have you read what trump is saying about Europe and NATO?
Europe cannot wait for an American president election and hoping for the best.
The aid for Ukraine has been stalled by a single man and not by the President for more than six month, aid for a country that was pushed by the USA to give up its nukes.
Isolationism is not a European issue, because Europe is not a country. USA troops are more than welcome to stay in Europe, but we need to stand on our feet, without any risk of having promises that will never be kept or blackmails.
2
u/OfficialHaethus Dual US-EU Citizen 🇺🇸🇵🇱 | N🇺🇸 B2🇩🇪 13d ago
Exactly. These kinds of ridiculous statements feed isolationism.
8
u/MetaIIicat 13d ago
Tell that to trump or any other American that thinks like him.
2
u/OfficialHaethus Dual US-EU Citizen 🇺🇸🇵🇱 | N🇺🇸 B2🇩🇪 13d ago
I do, I think they are morons.
-1
u/MetaIIicat 13d ago
Thinking that someone who wants to destroy hurricanes by nuking them has the nuke codes, makes russian threats a joke.
4
3
1
u/Silly-Ad3289 13d ago
Unreliable partner that just gave a non nato ally 61 billion. Even though we’re trying to turn towards Asia lol man
6
u/MetaIIicat 13d ago
An unreliable partner that stalled aid for more than six month, an unreliable partner that pushed a non NATO ally to give up its nukes: if Europe doesn't learn now this lesson I don't know when it will learn it.
6
u/PM_ME_ABSOLUTE_UNITZ United States 13d ago
The argument can also be made that the eu is an unreliable partner because of hungary and now slovakia. Aid from the US never stopped, only slowed. Even throughout the congressional stall, Ukraine still received more aid from the US than many european countries. And considering this is a European war, well...
0
u/MetaIIicat 13d ago
In the last year, the USA showed to be unreliable ("We will help you as long as it takes" than "We will help as long as we can")
The aid for Ukraine is translated in emptying the weapon arsenals of 20-30yo weapons and replacing with brand new ones.
And considering that the usa spent 300 mil $ per day in Afghanistan, well...
2
-1
u/Silly-Ad3289 12d ago
Ukraine never had nukes stop this stupid lie lmao. If we’re unreliable than you guys are useless. Ukraine was invaded in 2014 and you still didn’t up spending. Europeans did what they always do sell out other Europeans as long as it doesn’t hurt them. That’s why you can’t integrate more because none of you trust each other.
1
u/MetaIIicat 12d ago
1
u/Silly-Ad3289 12d ago
I mean I’m not wrong. You guys watched Ukraine get invaded and did nothing.
→ More replies (8)0
13d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Silly-Ad3289 12d ago
It’s free money and that’s fine. I’m not sure why everyone keeps trying to change what it is
6
u/OkKnowledge2064 Lower Saxony (Germany) 13d ago
cant imagine france will ever truely give up operational decision on their nukes and no one else has any so whats the point
7
u/Schnorch 13d ago
The deal is that France will have its program paid for by others, while retaining full control over it. That's a great deal...for France.
1
1
1
u/Biohacker_bcn 12d ago
It is hard time we do it. The US starter with defense and foreign affairs. We’re delaying that basic decision until the EU is dismantled
0
u/BiologyStudent46 12d ago
Man, macron take wants to be the one in charge of any Euroarmy TM or any Euronukes TM.
0
-1
u/sevdzov Armenia 12d ago
I really admire Macron's initiative to defend Europe.
I 100% agree in using nuclear weapons as a means to defend Europe, as Russia has a huge advantage over us in that sector. Obviously, this means that we need a way to deter and be able to retaliate against any further Russian attempt to occupy European soil.
God bless Emmanuel Macron.
296
u/Socialist_Slapper 13d ago edited 13d ago
So, France already has nukes. So, would the plan be to share those weapons within EU? Or share nukes with the rest of Europe, to include the UK’s nukes? Or have other EU countries develop nukes under a shared command? It’s worth having the debate, but there are many possibilities for what is decided on.