UK 'extremely dependent' on US for space security The current rhetoric coming from the US is "alarming" for the UK, which depends on a continuation of their long-standing co-operation around space and military tech for the future, the UK's second parliamentary chamber heard this week. Dr Bleddyn Bowen, Associate Professor of Astropolitics at Durham University, told a …
But not really clear what the message was.
Sure, I agree that a level of independence from one singular supplier, or one with such a level of criticality, is a good thing.
But the USA is a Military Industrial economy, it spends vast amounts of it's GDP on Defence, when there is limited need to spend at the level they are, except to keep up with the other global superpower, China.
This doesn't mean we all need to spend at this level, nor can some countries spend at this level.
If leadership of one country, can impact the stability of others, like we're seeing currently, then there needs to be significant thought on how to maintain a level of autonomy, independence and resilience that allows for a significant reduction in the impact of events like this in the future.
I do agree that Europe needs to become more independent from the USA's military capability, but that means decades of reinvestment.
Likely a good thing for Europe in the longer term I think.
The message is that the UK in particular is hugely dependant on the US for many types of defence technology. That was OK (with caveats) when the US were a reliable and trustworthy ally. Now it isn't. Nobody is suggesting the UK or Europe need to spend at the frankly ludicrous levels of the US, but both need to re-evaluate their priorities. For the UK this means being more self-reliant, and/or buying more European, doing more through multi-European nation pacts, and spending more overall. For Europe the themes are similar but with more emphasis on spend levels, less on weaning themselves off US tech.
UK cooperation with European allies, in relation to aircraft programmes, has had mixed success.
The Anglo-French Jaguar project that was supposed to produce an advanced trainer instead produced a successful ground attack aircraft. The UK and French companies involved then divided the world up for marketing purposes. Unfortunately, the French company then got taken over by Dassault, who viewed the Jaguar as a competitor to their own Mirage F1, so made no attempt to market the Jaguar in 'their' bit of the world, and put the F1 up against the Jaguar in the 'UK bit'.
The Anglo-Italian-German Tornado project seems to have involved effective cooperation between all parties (There may have been an issue with the Germans at one point - I've never dug into the development history enough to pin that down)
The Anglo-Italian-German-French Eurofighter project ran into difficulties due to the fundamental different requirements that the French had relative to everyone else, leading to the French dropping out and the Spanish joining. The resulting Anglo-Italian-German-Spanish Eurofighter/Typhoon project then delivered an exceptionally good aeroplane, though was significantly disrupted by the Germans trying to change their minds.
So will France and Germany be reliable partners? Good question, possibly not, on past performance.
Will Italy be a reliable partner? - on past performance, yes, they are an excellent partner.
Agreed that occasionally cooperation can be a bit rocky, but you've also given 2 examples of where cooperation provided great aircraft, and I can draw you a long list of purely domestic procurement schemes that have gone far, far worse - politics, ever-changing requirements, infighting etc. are endemic to *all* kinds of complex procurement programmes - as IT professionals will be only too aware. You really can't look at a couple of rocky but ultimately successful programmes and draw the conclusion that the French and Germans are unreliable. Remember, it's the British who left the Horizon destroyer and Boxer vehicle programmes (only to rejoin). Does that make the British 'unreliable' partners?
Cooperation with European allies has produced Meteor, Storm Shadow, Sea Viper, A400M, Typhoon and NLAW amongst many others. European allies are far more likely to be stategically aligned with the UK in the future because they face the same geopolitical situation and have largely the same geopolitical outlook. And, anyway 'Europeans' don't come as a lump - there are super-reliable allies like the Scandinavians, Poles, Dutch and Baltic states, the occasionally woolly but usually reliable Germans, French and Italians, and then we have the Ukrainians to look forward to in future, who will have amazing expertise and will be fast friends. I'm not sure that alignment with the US is there now, or will be in future, although they are always likely to be allies (until they invade Greenland anyway).
AMerican equipment is hardly that wonderful either.
Costly yes, wonderful there are many examples of how much the claim doesnt match the reality.
Today in UKR for example the Ukrainians have basically refunded the Abrams because they are nothing more than sitting ducks.
Ospreys are basically useless, every few months theres a major failure and they are grounded or limited to 30 minute flights.
Did someone mention Houthis ? They dont even have an airforce and yet they WON, they havent been destroyed like Trump said. Its just as embarrassing as the Russian navy in the Black sea.
WHt most people dont want to accept is America has SOME good equipment, but it has a lot of crap as well, just like Russia. Nobody would believe the performance of Russia against Ukraine if you predicted it 10 years ago. The Russians cant even luanch their Satan missiles, they keep failing.
Forgot to mention the F117, and how it got shot down over serbia by the Serbians using old Russian equipment.
Today Ukraine is winning against the same Russian SAMS and yet the F117 only did a handful of missions and for all its advantages it got shot down and basically retired. If returning a plane after such a shot duty is a loss. There are many other older planes in the USAF that are still working today, from F15/16/B52 and more and yet the supposedly superior F117 got retired because it is so advanced ?
Was America ever trustworthy ?
America really screwed the UK over lend lease.
It not really honourable to charge for material. Each side had to contribute something to the effort, i dont see America paying for British or Soviet deaths who used tht equipment. No they only value the equipment and not the person, and tahts morally broken.
I think that the replacement for Eurofighter/F35 is the Global Combat Air Programme, which will fly for the first time at about the same point as the US F47 does.
Hence why the UK has only bought F35B's for their carriers, and doesn't operate the F35A.
If we had to replace Trident II (which there is no obvious reason to do) then the obvious replacement would be a license built version of the French M51 SLBM to benefit from some economies of scale; a programme like this is expensive for a small number of missiles and spreading the costs with partners is only sensible.
THe replacement for the F35 is not to build a plane but to build a lot of drones.
F35s and fighter planes are only effective in Hollywood. No plane even a stelath F35 cant beat 100 drones. Only an idiot would spend hundreds of millions to have a F35 fly when you can spam your enemy with hundreds of missiles or drones.
"Bowen explained that in the early part of the Cold War, the UK decided not to pursue its efforts at being a satellite-launching state and also decided against pursuing a complete nuclear weapons capability, unlike the French and other Western European states."
While Dr Bowen's overall message seems quite prescient should the US become more isolationist, this claim seems to be a bit off, in regards to the details of the comparisons he makes.
I'm not sure what sovereign space capacity existed in Western Europe - most space launch capability seems to be the ESA as far as I am aware, and that only formed in the mid-1970's I think.
In terms of nuclear weapons capability, it is only the UK and France that have that capability. Moreover suggesting that the UK decided "in the early part of the cold war" not to pursue a complete nuclear weapon capability doesn't seem quite right.
It was Ernest Bevan that said while part of Atlee's 1945 government:
"We’ve got to have this thing {the atomic bomb} over here, whatever it costs. We’ve got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it."
Thereafter we had the V-bombers, Blue Steel, WE177, etc. As comprehensive a range of capability as anyone else was trying to develop.
It wasn't until the late 1960's that we switched the strategic nuclear deterrent to SLBM and to US made missiles, which is hardly the early part of the cold war.
That said, I suspect the most important of his reported statements may be:
"he had not heard of any scaling back of the day-to-day military to military cooperation."
The US doesn't share with the UK out of the goodness of their heart, they do so because they get something of value back from that cooperation.
Hopefully, enough people (on both sides of the pond) will realise that, and restrict the damage that others may do to that cooperation.
"also decided against pursuing a complete nuclear weapons capability, unlike the French and other Western European states."
So there is an issue with his claim because we continued with our nuclear weapons programme after the US started sharing their designs with us. Our first 'American' H-bombs were made in the UK with locally produced fissile material. We were not buying fully built bombs from the USA. The UK Trident missiles have UK designed(?) and built warheads.
One of the BIG reasons for moving over to using US equipment in the 60s was the cost. The AIM9 missile was 1/4 the cost of the UK designed and build red top missile. Technically red top was superior at the time.
But do you know why?
IN the early 70's the French wanted to build a comms sat called IIRC Symfonie and launch it on a US launcher.
"No" said the USG. That would compete with US industry.
Over the decades ESA developed Ariane through stunningly-dangerous hypergolic stages to the (mostly) clean LO2/LH2 Ariane 5 and levereaged the SRB technology (mostly built in Italy) to their ICBM programme.
That's why Europe has independent space launch in the multi tonne range.
Sadly now that Reaction Engines has shut down there is no real change of a true step change by the use of full reusability enabling a true buy-your-own-launch-on-demand for profit RLV.. If Leon does get SS working it's be at their prices and his profits.
Im not joking google "un charter space weapons"
There are plenty of treaties, you are teh fool who assumes that American gov doesnt lie or honours all UN charters even the ones they sponsor.
>>>
The UN Charter, particularly the Outer Space Treaty, prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in outer space. It also mandates the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies exclusively for peaceful purposes. While the treaty doesn't explicitly ban all military activities in space, it does restrict the establishment of military bases or installations, weapon testing, and military maneuvers on celestial bodies, according to the Arms Control Association.
Key Provisions and Interpretations:
Outer Space Treaty (1967):
This treaty is the cornerstone of international space law, prohibiting nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in space. It also mandates that space exploration and use be for the benefit of all countries and prohibits claiming sovereignty over outer space or celestial bodies.
Peaceful Use:
The treaty emphasizes that space is to be used for peaceful purposes. This has led to interpretations that the treaty could broadly prohibit all types of weapons systems, not just WMD, in outer space, according to the Arms Control Association.
No Claims of Sovereignty:
The treaty prohibits any nation from claiming sovereignty over outer space or any celestial body.
No Weapons on Celestial Bodies:
The treaty prohibits establishing military bases, testing weapons, or conducting military maneuvers on the Moon and other celestial bodies.
Launch Liability:
The treaty also establishes liability for damage caused by space objects
“…dispel the notion that there ever was a special relationship between America and Britain”
I gag every time I have heard a British politician mention the “special relationship” with the US. Thatcher used to say it a lot.
There isn’t and never was any such thing - it’s a childish hopeful notion of UK governments through the ages. The US has always done what’s best in the interests of the US - which they are perfectly entitled to do. If the UK happens to think the same (or fall into line with what the US wants) then (as far as America is concerned) fine. But that’s as far as any relationship goes. Long before the Orange Fuckwit came along, successive American governments have acted like bullies; they have only ever acted in their own self-interest
But that’s as far as any relationship goes. Long before the Orange Fuckwit came along, successive American governments have acted like bullies; they have only ever acted in their own self-interest.
Therein lies the problem. The US doesn't have allies, only interests, and it was ever thus. Trump has just said the quiet part out loud. Buy more American defence products because the MIC needs you! But then the US might not be the most reliable partner, and their products might not be the best. But with pressure to boost defence spending, there will also be pressure to buy US rather than build European. Plus there's the current political challenges driving defence spending, either directly or indirectly.
Team Trump have been ranting that the US shouldn't have been dragged into the Ukraine conflict, even though it was the US regime change operation that started it. Trump seems likely to abandon Ukraine and dump the problem on Europe, which will be good for the US given we'd still need to spend on US weapons until the EU can build up our own defence industry, which is quite a chalenge for the European economy. So helped along by people like Rutte saying we should cut benefits and social spending to buy bombs instead. That's not exactly a popular idea. But then our 'leaders' seem determined to prolong the Ukraine conflict rather than getting serious about stopping it. But stopping it would mean we don't need to spend as much as it does prolonging it.
There isn’t and never was any such thing
I am inclined to argue there was; that we could play our Best Friends Forever card which others couldn't. We could exploit that to get things America wouldn't give others or to allow us what she wouldn't allow of others. If America chose a path which would be damaging for Britain we could always insist "but not us, right?" and usually get special treatment.
But the ability to get that has reduced over the years as "never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down" has been replaced by "why the fuck are we giving them special treatment?" and especially in the era of Trump and MAGA who have no understanding of the value of soft power, who think spending money which buys loyalty and subservience is being ripped off, treated badly.
The one with the "Coping with Divorce" pamphlet in the pocket.
Never say never.
Arguably, there was a Special relationship in 1942-1943.
Your comment that the US acts in its own best interested should probably still apply even here - except that it would be more correct to say that the US always acts in what it's leaders think are the US best interests (even if the leaders are wrong).
There were loud voices in the US to fight World War II against the Japanese, and not get involved in the European war, or at least to prioritise the war against Japan, not Germany.
However, US war strategy was largely set to conform to the UK's strategy. The UK was actually able to significantly influence US government decision making, in a way that probably has never happened since.
From 1944 onwards, UK strategy (just like everyone else's that are US allies) largely had to conform to the US's, and nothing much has changed since then.
Yes but Churchill had been asking the Americans for help for a very long time before they finally did help. And they didn’t do it because it was “the right thing to do”. They did it because their supply ships to Europe were getting torpedoed by the Germans and it was …yep …. costing them money.
And remember that the UK only completed paying back its wartime debt (literally a debt - as in money) to the US in the early 2000’s. Yep - they certainly didn’t help because of some altruistic belief. They did it because it was in their own interest. And, of course, America did very well thank you very much after the war when it came to mopping up the spoils - rocket scientists, political influence, etc etc
"And they didn’t do it because it was “the right thing to do”. They did it because their supply ships to Europe were getting torpedoed by the Germans and it was …yep …. costing them money."
That's...an interesting interpretation. Maybe they did it because they had declared war against Germany, which happened because Germany declared war against them, which happened because they declared war against Japan, which happened because Japan bombed them about which they were quite angry. Are you really suggesting that they only did this because ships were being attacked. How, in your interpretation, do you explain the decision, much earlier, to give the UK and its allies weapons at US expense?
In reality, there were a lot of people in the US who wanted to stay out of the war because it was a war and those things are not much fun to be in, without putting much more thought into it. That did not apply to those running the military at the time, who, when they got the public support they needed, were quite enthusiastic about joining with the UK to fight, and they did. This is not the only time the US has had almost exactly the same reaction to a possible war, nor is it the only country to have done it. I could, for example, rewind a few years and describe the UK's reaction to German actions that looked very similar. Doing anything they could to avoid war, which of course didn't work, and when war was declared, not being very effective for several months. To explain why would take a lot of paragraphs, and almost any single-clause explanation would be virtually guaranteed to be wrong.
America had every right to be very angry at Japan - that’s not the issue I was addressing. America was under no serious threat from Germany though, except for collateral damage (like sinking their ships).
And no, it wasn’t JUST ships being sunk that brought the US into fighting Germany. But despite Churchill asking for help for quite some time, it was only offered when their arm was twisted.
"America had every right to be very angry at Japan - that’s not the issue I was addressing."
Of course it wasn't. It was the point I was making to correct your incorrect summary about why the US declared war on and then fought Germany. Which didn't have to do with Germany torpedoing ships. Germany did torpedo some ships, but that was after the war had started, because moving submarines into position to strike US shipping was faster than planning and executing a land offensive from North America to Europe or Africa.
Similarly, "despite Churchill asking for help for quite some time, it was only offered when their arm was twisted" is wrong. Help was offered. Less than the UK wanted or needed, definitely. But you suggest that the US offered nothing until they had no other option, when in reality, the US president did everything he could do to give the UK preferential treatment and assistance, at US expense, well before the war. Had he had the public support, he would likely have joined in the war more actively, but he didn't. Attempting to do it regardless would have been illegal and a guaranteed way to get a different leader who might have had different opinions. A lot of Americans were antiwar for various self-serving or cowardly reasons, as were many UK residents before they too, lost the choice due to unquestionable aggression, but you are ignoring plenty of history to make your allegation.
And you would explain the Marshall Plan how? Look the USA is no bastion of virtue, and current events certainly align with your thinking, but the US government hasn't always been this self-centered and even today not everyone in the US is supportive of the current government (although the majority sadly are). There is a spectrum, and historically both Britain AND the US have benefited from the unique relationship between these two countries. Just because the current Orange Idiot wants to blow everything up doesn't mean it was always so.
"Arguably, there was a Special relationship in 1942-1943."
No. There was a temporary alliance because co-operation was mutually beneficial under the circumstances.
As soon as WWII in Europe ended, the game changed. The US needed a Europe in a good enough shape so that Russia couldn't simply waltz in unopposed, so the US provided "aid" to ensure that. The sooner Europe was back on its feet, the sooner it could keep Stalin out the door all by itself. Hence the Marshall plan which, as an added bonus, could also be used (and always has been) to lay a guilt trip on Europe for "owing" the US for all that kind, selfless aid.
In order to use Europe as a buffer against the Eastern bloc the US proceeded to have a hand in Europe's military matters under the guise of co-operation and military assistance so that Europe could be used as a military proxy if that should become necessary.
Think about it. US military bases all over Europe. During the cold war US nukes stationed in Europe. Echelon, anyone? Where does all "Five Eyes" intelligence go first before some of it is redistributed back to other 5E countries (or not)?
And while we're on the subject: how many British soldiers got themselves shot to bits in Afghanistan? The only reason they were there in the first place was as part of a NATO response to the 9/11 attacks against the US, which in turn was a direct result of the CIA's Operation Cyclone, followed by policy changes that alienated the CIA's "assets". Yes: 911 was a mess created by the US, and many British soldiers paid the price. That is how the US/UK relationship works.
No matter what the UK (or any other European country for that matter) may think, the "relationship" with the US is and always has been defined exclusively in terms of what is good for the US. When the US whistles NATO comes running but whenever another NATO country needs anything the US responds with a veto. Where was America during the Falklands war? OK, there was Operation Display Deterrence in 2003, which involved the defense of Turkey, a NATO member, but that just happened to be during the lead-up to the War in Iraq. In 2016 on the other hand there was nothing in it for the US so Turkey was no longer considered a good cause for the US military to spend taxpayer's dollars on.
America's commitment to NATO is entirely situational and opportunistic, but wait until America needs anything, and the UK leads the pack that comes running.
There are only two parties here: the US on the one hand, and their assets on the other. A very special relationship indeed.
America had a very stark choice in WWII. Either throw their lot in with the allies, or face the unarguable consequence that the whole of Europe would end up being "liberated" by Russia, and likely a tasty wedge of Africa and the Middle East with it.
That was the quiet whisper that Churchill put in the President's ear. It was nothing at all to do with defeating Nazi Germany. It was about denying Russia strategic gains that would have made it invulnerable to any subsequent Cold War threat.
America has been abusing its allies since WW1.
The only reason it arrived late was because it wanted the other powers to bleed each other. In recent weeks, Biden has said the same about American support for Ukraine, tney are only helping them just enough to bleed Russia and never to win. Ameica did the same in WW1 and WW2 and they also charged their allies while they sent their sons to die. Naturally America never paid for the deaths of those people, they only charged for the weapons they were carrying.
Who else could we rely on for defence ability? European NATO has chickened out of the Ukraine war and a coalition of the unwilling will only do anything if the US backs them up. While Europe provides some good military gear their actual abilities are very variable and the desire to fund the armed forces has often been lacking until recently.
We aint going to align with China or Russia which leaves the only real option the US.
We aint going to align with China or Russia which leaves the only real option the US.
Well.. we could, and arguably it would make more sense. So prior to the SMO, there was a lot of trade between Europe and Russia, benefitting both economies and the EU economy had grown larger than the US. Then as Ass Sec Nuland famously said "fsck the EU!", and she did. So the US ended up with a twofer with the proxy war against Russia harming both the EU, and Russia. That's kind of backfiring a little because sanctions, or the threat of sanctions tend to end up with the sanctioned becoming more self-sufficient, or developing new alliances outside of the sanctioners sphere of influence.
It's also something that's been written about in SF with the rise of EUrasia and the US declining because Europe-Russia-China trade, with spurs into India makes a lot of economic sense. If you're isolated by the Atlantic and Pacific, it also makes sense that you'd not want that to happen.. But it is happening with things like the BRICS alliance displacing a lot of traditionally Western dominated systems.
You know you're talking with an ill-informed person if they use a phrase like "BRICS alliance". BRICS is a grouping of countries because they're sort of similar: large countries that aren't in a traditional alliance with similar levels of economic development. That's all it is. India and China are two members of those five, and they're not likely to ally with each other on military matters any time soon, what with the recent military disagreement (at least a hundred deaths). Brazil and Russia have no military alliance, don't generally agree on diplomatic issues, and have little significant economic relationship other than the normal one you'd have between two largish economies that produce different things. But that grouping for categorization and the occasional conferences between them, marred only by the fact that Putin wouldn't go to the one held in South Africa because that member of the alliance was liable to arrest him, can be used to imply that there's some powerful group where there are five mostly unaligned countries, and five sounds much more powerful than your favorite one.
You know you're talking with an ill-informed person if they use a phrase like "BRICS alliance". BRICS is a grouping of countries because they're sort of similar: large countries that aren't in a traditional alliance with similar levels of economic development. That's all it is.
Well, there's a lot of ill-informed people in these parts. Like it or not, it is an alliance, much the same way as the Common Market was before it metastasised into the federal EU. One of the first entities created was their 'New Development Bank', mirroring a lot of the functions of the ECB. Then there's BRICS Pay, developed as an alternative to SWIFT. Or the big one, a BRICS reserve currency system less dependent on dollars and the whims of the US. A certain nation of course hates the idea of de-dollarisation and has been threatening sanctions against anyone who dares to trade in alternative currencies, because if nations stop buying dollars, that will be just a tad inflationary for the US.
But as BRICS develops work-arounds to Western systems, sanctions options become more limited. Sanctioned from using SWIFT? No problem, use BRICS Pay instead. Visa card stops working? Use MIR. Ships turned into 'ghosts' because you can't buy insurance? Buy that from China, who already have a larger market share than Lloyds, or Russia. Problems getting flagged? Flag with a BRICS member instead. Which is a funny one given the number of flag states currently controlled by the US. Flag with Liberia and avoid the Jones Act costs of flying a US flag. Convenient, huh?
And there's co-operation in other areas, eg space-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS
In 2021 BRICS formally agreed to work together to build a satellite constellation and share remote sensing satellite data from this. The constellation will have six existing satellites from China, Russia and India. In 2023, Russia proposed that the other BRICS members could build a joint research station on its space station.
...marred only by the fact that Putin wouldn't go to the one held in South Africa because that member of the alliance was liable to arrest him
Talk about ill-informed. South Africa offered Putin diplomatic immunity so that he could attend their summit. But also part of why BRICS is growing, and somewhat Ironic that a state demanding Putin's arrest on an ICC warrant isn't actually an ICC member. Geopolitics gets weird like that.
"Like it or not, it is an alliance, much the same way as the Common Market was before it metastasised into the federal EU."
BRICS is not even close to what the Common Market was even when it was first formed, let alone as it evolved and changed over time. At the very least there are no signs of free movement of people and goods between any of the BRICS group. Even the original ECSC at the very inception what what is now the EU back in 1951 was far more integration an alliance than BRICS is now,
Even the original ECSC at the very inception what what is now the EU back in 1951 was far more integration an alliance than BRICS is now,
Be informed, be slightly more informed.. Especially regarding why BRICS is making entities like the EU and US nervous-
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2024)760368
On 1 January 2024, BRICS – the intergovernmental organisation comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – admitted four new members: Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates. The group's decision to open the door to new members was taken at its Johannesburg summit in August 2023, sparking a debate about its growing international influence. According to estimates, BRICS+, as the organisation has been informally called since its expansion, now accounts for 37.3 % of world GDP, or more than half as much as the EU (14.5 %)...
...The European Parliament has stressed that further political dialogue with the BRICS countries is needed, including on an individual basis. In an exchange of views with European Commission representatives in October 2023, Members of the Parliament's Committee on International Trade (INTA) underlined the need to keep an eye on the group's expansion, especially considering the effect of a potential BRICS+ currency and the consequences for EU trade policy.
Along with BRICS having the majority of the world's population. Although BRICS doesn't have formal FTAs, membership does have some trade related aspects, ie alt-SWIFT, alt-ECB and promises not to sanction each other. Developing a BRICS currency would be interesting, although perhaps unneccessary and would probably lead to issues like China maybe having undue influence on it, much as Germany's economy does with the Euro. But there are already currency-related issues, like agreements to trade oil & gas in local currencies rather than dollars.
Plus defence related agreements that have happened as a result of EU sanctions policies, like stronger technology sharing between Russia, China, Iran, India etc that will complicate Western defence plans, and export sales opportunities. Don't buy THUD.. I mean THAAD or IRIS-T air defences, buy cheaper, battle proven stuff like S-400 or S-500 instead. Or military aircraft, or civil airliners. And of course political dialogue between BRICS and the EU is somewhat hampered by their chief diplomat, Kaia Kallas, not being very diplomatic.. And as a German MEP, Martin Sonneborn saying-
https://x.com/DagnyTaggart963/status/1925208991686103460
You have no idea about the affairs in Cuba. Or in Europe. Or in the world. And you know as much about diplomacy and foreign policy as you do about brain surgery. I would have a more meaningful conversation with my pet hamster about black holes in dwarf galaxies.
In a rather harsh book review of Kallas's autobiography. But he's not wrong, and she's certainly no Lavrov. But such is politics. As the EU and US lash out at the world, the more likely it'll encourage nations to join BRICS as a potentially saner alternative.
USA as the only ally is a short term option.
Why does Europe need to ally with Russia or China?
Why not ally with the most local neighbours, on a more local footing, in relation to global footprint?
I appreciate creating a reliable industrial machine to support Europe may seem hard, without the US, but there's enough talent and capability available in Europe, if you look!
@Guy de Loimbard
"Why does Europe need to ally with Russia or China?"
Alternatively it could look after its own defence except Europe is highly fragmented and so used to hiding behind the US. The EU (and US) was happy to push into Ukraine but once it went tits up the EU hid behind the US. Only with Trump expecting participation has Europe seemingly woke up to needing to fund defence.
"Why not ally with the most local neighbours, on a more local footing, in relation to global footprint?"
If you mean the continent we have been at war with for a large chunk of history and also not the most capable group (collectively) I would ask why? As Europe looks to the US for defence then that by default leaves us back to relying on the US. The EU is not the global might it dreams about. Militarily it has France and it had the UK.
"I appreciate creating a reliable industrial machine to support Europe may seem hard, without the US, but there's enough talent and capability available in Europe, if you look!"
If you are talking about trade I am all for trade with Europe, and the world pretty much. But for military might there is the US, China and Russia. We could go independent but that would mean funding our military even more and accepting our much smaller capability. Our aircraft carriers operate in cooperation with France so we have planes to put on them, I cant see independence working for us.
"Our aircraft carriers operate in cooperation with France so we have planes to put on them,"
Huh?
We have VSTOL carriers that can operate F35B (and helicopters, and in due course, drones of some variety).
QE and PoW cannot operate Rafale, and France doesn't have F35B.
Did you mean to write that our carriers operate in cooperation with the US?
Procurement of F35B was specifically to provide a Harrier replacement (for RAF/RN but also for USMC), and it was largely because F35B is a Harrier replacement that the UK got to be the only Tier 1 partner on the F35 programme. It has also been claimed that the only reason the USMC got their F35Bs was because of the British input into F35 programme, requiring the VSTOL capable '-B' variant.
The day of the carrier and planes is over.
Buying those carriers and f35s has been shown to be totally useless, just look at the recent Red Sea and Houthis. American might cant even defeat those nobodies. America is too scared to even move any forces into the Gulf against Iran.
The UK should have invested in other more modern systems like missiles and drones. A 1000 drones and 1000s of missiles are always going to win where an AC and F35 will fail.
The UK should have invested in other more modern systems like missiles and drones. A 1000 drones and 1000s of missiles are always going to win where an AC and F35 will fail.
But looking on the bright side, a carrier is still a carrier, even if it might be launching drones rather than manned aircraft. Drones will have to be large though given the need for carriers to stay out of range. But both Ukraine and Russia are doing interesting things in that respect with err.. carrier drones that can carry 4 or more smaller drones further. Which includes some neat tricks, like a fibre controlled 'mother' drone that can fly maybe 10-20km, launch smaller drones, then land and act as a repeater. No idea if the QE carriers have wet docks or could be converted, but presumably same idea could work with a sea drone carrier that can sneak closer inshore and launch attack or surveillance drones. I suspect that would be easier to do from existing ambphibious assault ships though.
The fact that Jelly Eel the well known Russian troll and supporter states that AC are great, prove my point. He is actively wishing for UK the waste resources on those sitting ducks ather than investing in significantly more effective weaponry as i mentioned previously.
The fact that Jelly Eel the well known Russian troll and supporter states that AC are great, prove my point.
Nope, it really doesn't, and the 'fact' that you believe I'm a Russian troll or supporter is evidence for this. I'm simply a pragmatist and realist.
He is actively wishing for UK the waste resources on those sitting ducks ather than investing in significantly more effective weaponry as i mentioned previously.
We've already wasted resources, so it might be a sunk cost fallacy. But carriers are, well, carriers. Currently they're carrying F-35s, but they're expected to last a few decades and could potentially carry something else. If there's going to be a Pan-European Defence Organisation that competes with, or is less dependent on 'NATO', ie the US, then that will need aircraft. So maybe that will be a Euro alternative to F-35s that could operate from land, or British or French carriers.. Which might be UAVs.
Then there's pragmatism. Like who are we planning to fight? If the UK is intending to go solo, so maybe a repeat of the Falklands campaign, we might be ok I guess and could put together a task force. But anything bigger becomes the kind of warm-body problem Ukraine is facing. Sure, we can build lots of wunderwaffe, but they're rather useless unless we have personnel to use them. After decades of underinvestment and cuts, we don't exactly have a large armed force, and even though volunteers can learn useful skills & trades, we're struggling to recruit... Which is the same problem across the EU.
And it's especially a problem for Ukraine. After independence, a lot of their best & brightest emigrated. Once the SMO started, a lot more fled to either avoid the conflict, or conscription. So Poland for example has over 1m Ukrainian refugees, which is creating some social unrest. Or employees, or wives & girlfriend for Polish business, or Poles in general. The longer the conflict continues, the less likely it will be that those emigrees will want to return. Depending on the eventual outcome, they still might not want to return. The Donbas has a similar problem with over 1m leaving for Russia, some of whom have returned. Which might be more promising for reconstruction and the Donbas economy, but obviously less good for 'Ukraine'. Especially given the territories claimed or controlled by Russia were Ukraine's industrial heartland.
Why not ally with the most local neighbours, on a more local footing, in relation to global footprint?
Well, that's geopolitics for you. You can walk across the border between European states and Russia, give or take fences & minefields. There's a big moat between Europe and the US though. Going further, there's China's Belt & Road strategy, which is really just an extension of ancient Silk Road trading routes. Road and rail spurs let you access around 2/3rds of the world's population and markets pretty easily. And better yet, those markets are still developing while the West kind of stagnates.
I appreciate creating a reliable industrial machine to support Europe may seem hard, without the US, but there's enough talent and capability available in Europe, if you look!
Sure, especially if you widen that to Eurasia, but that's what a lot of the geopolitical shenanigans are about. Spaff $2,000 on the latest iPhone that's made in India. Don't spend $200 on a Chinese equivalent. Or an Indian one. They produce their own phones, and Apple is helping them make better ones. Which is a bit like China. Originally their designs were.. quirky, but their designers quickly got the hang of producing handsets that suit Western tastes. Apple may have pioneered rounded corners, Huawei can make those as well. Plus err.. teeny phones with rounded corners, presumably for comfort as the French are finding out with those phones being smuggled into prisons.
And China, India etc can also do software. Go to China, watch Chinese people doing pretty much everything via their phone, from actually talking to each other to ordering goods & services. Then look at our (or the US) trillion dollar tech titans.. and what do they actually produce that can't (or isn't) being replicated elsewhere? Don't buy Apple, buy Huawei. Don't buy Microsoft, buy a flavour of Linux. Don't give Amazon 30% of your sale, pay 10% with.. err.. some other online marketplace.
Or there's cars. Don't buy a BMW or a Tesla, buy a BYO instead. Save a big chunk of change and don't get charged a monthly fee for heated seats.. Which is kind of the BRICS problem and dealing with protectionism & sanctions, especially when those end up harming our own economies. Defence is much the same and there could be wider collaboration. Plus if we're doing good business with our neighbors, there's less incentive to keep starting wars.
The only reason for this was so that the US military could station their nuclear weapons closer to the enemy territory to reduce flight time and consequently intercept time.
Also, the US didn't station troops in W. Germany to defend Europe, it was to defend the US by stopping CCCP forces getting to the channel.
> station their nuclear weapons closer to the enemy territory to reduce flight time and consequently intercept time.
And provide a "European Theater" aka target zone aka future big glass bowl to be the destination of choice for any preemptive or retaliatory strikes.
Otherwise they'd *all* have been pointing at the US and that just couldn't be allowed.
WRONG.
I would suggest that you go look at a map and learn about Russian and Soviet borders. When you do you will also have the answer for Putins invasion of Ukraine.
Russia for all its size has terrible climate, and terrible access to the sea.
Almost the entire northern area is not open to the sea, because its frozen most of the year. Their only ice free ports are Kalingingrad and thats isolated from the mother land, and the Kola peninsula and Vladivostok in the East.
The blacksea is another prison, that is easily shutdown by Turkey, nobody is ever going to be able to move Black Sea ships out in a hot war, Russia cant even manage that today against Ukraine who doesnt even have a navy.
Kalingingrad is also trapped for the same reason and the same is true of St Petersburg.
Today Russia is more trapped than ever, and tahts why it feels it must fight and get back those old USSR countries.
America was only in West Germany to keep Russia trapped in its cage of frozen sea borders, and West Germany is a convenient place because of the mountains of Austria, Carpathia and the sea. borders mentioned above.
Today Russia is more trapped than ever, and tahts why it feels it must fight and get back those old USSR countries.
I don't think that's true, and most of the noise about 'expansionist Russia' is pretty much propaganda and fear-mongering. The last thing Russia really needs is more territory, especially hostile territory. I do agree that the policy of containment is backfiring, ie the regime change in Ukraine to grab Crimea as a NATO base. Or noise about the Baltic becoming a 'NATO Lake' rather than water where IMO rules about trade can be ignored. Estonia seems determined to poke the bear on that one with their attempts to arrest and detain ships heading for (or from) Russia. Blockades, or attempted blockades have always had a nasty tendency to escalate into conflicts.
The Black Sea also gets interesting with suggestions that 'peace' or a 'ceasfire' would mean NATO vessels patrolling the Black Sea, or escorting arms shipments. The Montreux Convention currently places limits on miltary vessels, but there has been constant pressure to revise or repeal that convention. Plus Turkiye hasn't always been a reliable partner when it comes to NATO or EU interests. Plus there's also this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartus_naval_base
On 20 January 2025, the new Syrian government terminated a contract with a Russian company that had managed the port of Tartus (in which the naval base is located) since 2019.
Which is kinda fun given that was Russia's only base in the Med. And now the West has installed an Al-Qaeda terrorist who previously had a $10m bounty in charge of Syria, Russia is losing that base. But then it seems questionable how long al-Julani might remain in power. At least he wears a suit and looks presentable for the cameras when meeting our 'leaders', who can pretend he wasn't really a terrorist.
Jelly: The Black Sea also gets interesting with suggestions that 'peace' or a 'ceasfire' would mean NATO vessels patrolling the Black Sea, or escorting arms shipments. The Montreux Convention currently places limits on miltary vessels, but there has been constant pressure to revise or repeal that convention. Plus Turkiye hasn't always been a reliable partner when it comes to NATO or EU interests. Plus there's also this-
cow: The weakness of Russian ships exiting the Blacksea still remains even if Turkey is not hostile. Such a narrow strait is a major problem especially given todays modern weapon systems. Ships attempting to travel during any hot war will be lost, and that w/out Turkey.
~
Jelly: The last thing Russia really needs is more territory, especially hostile territory. I do agree that the policy of containment is backfiring, ie the regime change in Ukraine to grab Crimea as a NATO base. Or noise about the Baltic becoming a 'NATO Lake' rather than water where IMO rules about trade can be ignored.
cow: You are completing ignoring the geographic military problems o exiting the Baltic. Allied forces only have to wait at numerous points to hit Russian ships again because its narrow and surrounded.
cow: The weakness of Russian ships exiting the Blacksea still remains even if Turkey is not hostile. Such a narrow strait is a major problem especially given todays modern weapon systems. Ships attempting to travel during any hot war will be lost, and that w/out Turkey.cow: You are completing ignoring the geographic military problems o exiting the Baltic. Allied forces only have to wait at numerous points to hit Russian ships again because its narrow and surrounded.
Nope, I'm not because that was an issue during WW2, or further back, conflicts with the Ottomans or the Crimean War. Plus in that kind of conflict, maybe Russia could break out into the Med, but breaking out of the Med would need transiting another choke point, ie Gibraltar. But that isn't likely to be a problem because a hot war between NATO and Russia would probably also mean NATO ships being destroyed in port by Russia's long-range missiles. Maybe that would be a few Oreshniks raining down on Portsmouth, or maybe it would be a nuclear first strike. Either way, that kind of hot war would mean many of us die.
Which is why escalation by our 'leaders' is dangerous, along with attempts to regime change and Balkanise Russia. Their doctrine is pretty clear, so an existential threat to Russia invites a nuclear response. But this doesn't stop assorted idiots like Lindsey Graham and his threat of grape-crushing 500% secondary sanctions agains Russia. Guessing he isn't big on US history given embargos and blockades once lead to another SMO when Great Britain blockaded the US because they were trading with our usual enemy, France. Plus of course a bit of an expansionist US attempting to grab chunks of Canada, So that lead to the US declaring war on Great Britain, a bit of an expeditionary force, the sacking of Washington and 3yrs later, the US seeking terms. Funnily enough, that lil SMO doesn't seem to be taught much in the US.
Which is a bit of a shame because trade disputes, blockades and embargoes have lead to hot wars many, many times throughout history. Mutually beneficial trade and diplomacy, and there's less incentive to start conflicts, which means less need to spend money on 'defence', which given the number of conflicts the West has started over the last few decades really means offence. Either way, for future defence spending, it's back to defining enemies and objectives. Geopolitics is making that complicated, ie there seems a determination to have a go at Iran, but Iran knows this. And thanks to sanctions, Iran now has technology sharing with Russia and China. And back to carriers, the US has lost more aircraft fighting the Houthis than Russia has fighting Ukraine and it's suppliers. Iran is a much more capable opponent.
@DS999
"Would have worked out differently if they knew America was going to stab its allies in the back and start friending dictators a decade later. Being close with the EU sure would come in handy for the UK right about now!"
At no point does that seem correct. The EU is taking longer to 'fix' its trade situation with the US because all the different members have different demands, the UK got one sorted out and thats with Starmer running the UK!
Starmer is selling out the UK again to the EU to which our prices are set to rise again, because the EU protectionist block costs more than trading with the rest of the world. In return it seems Starmer got little to nothing (on X they bragged about E-travel gates but factually nothing has changed, its at the EU members discretion as before).
With the Ukraine situation the EU firmly and strongly stands behind the US, hiding. Different members having different levels of support for Ukraine or even Russia.
The UK hasn't "sorted" anything trade wise with the US. It basically a deal that agrees to talk more, that's it. There is zero guarantee from the US that Trump won't get a bug up his ass and decide to tariff them 100% tomorrow, and given that he has ignored all current trade treaties they'd be stupid to trust him to keep to one he agreed to. After all he slapped Canada and Mexico with tariffs and talked about how they are "taking advantage of us" conveniently forgetting that MCA that governs trade with those countries was HIS TREATY from his first term!
Trump is a completely unreliable counterparty in negotiations, so the EU is better off trying to reduce their trade with the US as much as possible. Short term pain but long term gain having as little as possible that Trump and possible future US presidents in his moron image could hold over them unless he fucks things up so badly in the next few years that the MAGA cult fever finally breaks.
Best option all around. If you can do without them , do so. If you can't work out new ways that don't include them. You can't rely on the Trump circus for anytthing. If security is concerned , would it be only your goldfish in a bowl on your shelf , don't trust the USA they will stab you in the back first chance they get. Really , a world without the US center stage is a worlf going in the right direction.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
