President Trump once asked: “If some small NATO country from former Soviet bloc will attack Russia, then what – WWIII with nuclear weapons?” Are nuclear protection treaties just fake posturing?
Donald Trump, both during his presidency and as a presidential hopeful, has indeed questioned the nature of NATO's Article 5 and the implications of its collective defense commitment, particularly in hypothetical scenarios involving smaller members and Russia.
.
Regarding a hypothetical attack by a small NATO country from the former Soviet bloc against Russia and the potential for a wider conflict involving nuclear weapons, Trump has expressed sentiments like:
Questioning the obligation to defend NATO members who he perceived as not fulfilling their financial obligations to the alliance.
Stating that he would encourage Russia to "do whatever the hell they want" to countries not meeting their spending targets.
These statements have generated concern amongst European allies and foreign-policy experts, raising doubts about the reliability of the U.S. commitment to NATO's Article 5.
Regarding the question about nuclear protection treaties being "fake posturing"
His broader stance on arms control, have led to discussions about the future of nuclear non-proliferation and the effectiveness of such agreements, according to the German Council on Foreign Relations.
In conclusion, Trump's statements and actions have indeed raised questions and generated discussion surrounding the implementation of NATO's Article 5 and the efficacy of nuclear protection treaties. The ambiguity within Article 5 and Trump's past statements continue to fuel discussions on the future of the Alliance and international security.
Warmongers in Western Europe still are playing these games no matter what. They are just pitiful. Will London and Paris be sacrificed for Riga in Latvia?
“LONDON -- France and the U.K., Western Europe's two nuclear powers, said Wednesday they will coordinate the use of their nuclear weapons and respond to any major threat to Europe together, a step seen as an effort to reassure allies who are nervous about Washington's commitment to the continent's security.
The move, announced during a state visit to the U.K. by French President Emmanuel Macron, appears to offer both countries' nuclear weapons as a deterrent for all of Europe, while establishing greater independence from any safety net provided by the U.S.'s much larger arsenal.
While both countries are part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, where an attack on one member triggers a collective defense, their nuclear weapons were considered independent of this obligation.
Both countries increasingly are referring publicly to their nuclear arsenals amid concerns about Russian aggression, and as President Trump has questioned the U.S.'s post World War II commitment to the defense of Western Europe.
"It's decoupling from the U.S. without saying it," said Phillips O'Brien, a professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.
France and Britain have a combined estimated 515 nuclear warheads, a fraction of the over 5,000 held each by the U.S. and Russia. Still, the devastating power of even one nuclear warhead means that Britain and France's stockpile is a credible deterrent.
Several European nations have called for the U.K. and France's deterrent to be extended to more of the region. Those calls have been particularly loud since 2022 Ukraine events.
The U.K. said on Wednesday that a signed declaration with France states for the first time that the respective deterrents of both countries, though independent, can be coordinated.
"Any adversary threatening the vital interests of Britain or France could be confronted by the strength of the nuclear forces of both nations," the Ministry of Defense said.
The pact goes further in suggesting their so-called nuclear umbrella will be extended across the region. "There is no extreme threat to Europe that would not prompt a response by both nations," it said.
For the first time, the two countries will establish a military and political group that can coordinate nuclear response. While a sudden nuclear attack would allow little time for coordination, this could happen amid any build up of nuclear tension.
Macron has for years pushed European leaders to develop strategic autonomy and reduce their reliance on the U.S. This move marks more of a shift for the U.K., whose defense establishment has a particularly close relationship with the U.S., and where politicians are wary of European military coordination.
What has changed is Trump, who has questioned whether the U.S. would defend allies who don't pay their way, making some European countries feel exposed.
At a recent NATO summit, European nations pledged to raise military spending to 5% of GDP within 10 years, and Trump declared the alliance was no longer "a rip-off." Still, European allies increasingly are aware that they might not be able to count on the U.S., especially if Washington shifts its focus to Asia and the threat from a more aggressive China.
"This marks a major evolution in the (military) relationship between France and the U.K., and for European defense," said Jean-Louis Lozier, a former French Navy officer who commanded ballistic missile submarines and headed the army's nuclear forces division.
Still, France and Britain, as Europe's most significant military powers, often have made announcements of increased cooperation which rarely appear to lead to much collaboration. They also have agreed to nuclear collaboration before, in researching new warheads.
Nick Cunningham, a defense analyst at Agency Partners LLP, said the new pact could be significant. "But is it just warm words, or will it have a practical expression?"” [1]
It is to cover their political and economic catastrophe in their own countries with foreign policy empty posturing.
1. World News: France, U.K. Extend Nuclear Protection. MacDonald, Alistair; Bisserbe, Noemie. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 10 July 2025: A16.
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą