Europe without America? If the United States turns off the lights, we’ll keep working

Italy, together with Great Britain and Japan, is working on the construction of a sixth-generation fighter plane that will surpass the American F-35 and the Russian Sukhoi Su-57 or T-50. This is not just about hypotheticals or war games. Christophe Gomart, former head of French military intelligence and now an EPP MEP, has sounded a very real alarm: “If the U.S. were to attack Greenland, no European country would be able to send its F-35s to defend it because these jets are equipped with a blocking system that would prevent them from flying unless the flight plan was approved by the Pentagon.” Donald Trump’s allies feel like subjects and want to emancipate themselves. France is working with Germany and Spain on the superplane of the near future. Gomart has highlighted the dilemmas and defense projects in the era of America First. And they also reveal the other side of the moon: on the one hand, two planes that are, all things considered, similar, one Anglo-Italian-Japanese and one French, each costing billions of euros that fall on the taxpayers of four national budgets; on the other hand, instead, a single flying machine, a single budget and the richest taxpayers in the world. This is the thread that leads us on our tortuous journey through the labyrinth of the waged war, which today is no longer a war game. A dark war also because the friends of the past can even become new enemies. Those who say “yes to the common defense, no to national rearmament” are right in theory, but in the meantime, unfortunately, we can’t ignore rearmament until there is (if there ever is) a United States of Europe. An army of the Old Continent, without Americans, can only be composed of national contingents, just like the Atlantic Alliance, which has no armies, but 18,000 officers at all levels and from all member countries; What unites them is a clear chain of command and, above all, the definition of the common enemy, of the objective to be achieved, of the strategy to be adopted, in short, the “politics by other means” of General Carl von Clausewitz, whose teachings the Russians and the Ukrainians, both great-grandchildren of Lenin, have drunk, the former with their wasteful offensive war and the latter with an effective defensive war.

The new strategic doctrine

The invasion of Ukraine came as a shock even to the military high command. After the end of the Cold War, any manual of good military practice would have stated that ground combat with men sent to their deaths, tanks, guns, ambushes, sieges, carpet bombing, the destruction of cities, in short, as in the Second World War, was a thing of the past. Take battle tanks: it was believed that there was no longer any need for them, and production was stopped, at least until the Russian annexation of Crimea awoke the military elites from their long sleep, while the politicians continued to sleep and deceive their electorates. Today, Donald Trump mocks Europe and NATO because they don’t have offensive military forces. But who wanted that if not the United States?  Those who did military service in Europe, even at a low level, were indoctrinated with a very simple principle: in the event of a Soviet attack (at that time the USSR was still aggressive and preparing to invade Afghanistan), one must resist for a few hours until the NATO counteroffensive began and the warheads hidden in the belly of the Alps were armed. Italy, a defeated country, could do nothing else. But the same was true for West Germany, which was even more exposed because it was divided by the Warsaw Pact with a real Iron Curtain. Well, all this no longer applies, so the strategists with stars and stripes went back to writing manuals, and even the Americans had to revise their doctrine based on asymmetric conflicts. After all, after their defeat in Vietnam, they only had to flex their muscles in Grenada (a small Caribbean island), Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq (twice), countries that certainly weren’t military powers, and yet Uncle Sam suffered resounding defeats.

On September 11, 2001, with the attack on the Twin Towers (successful) and the White House (failed), the United States discovered that it was neither invulnerable nor safe between two great oceans (whatever Trump may say), but its enemy was obscure, hidden in the desert sands or in the Casbah, no longer in Moscow and not yet in Beijing. Therefore, the art of war must be revised, partly by looking at history, partly by imagining the future realistically and without illusions. Even those who want a universal cosmopolitan peace need to take a reality check. Where do we start? With what we have. 

One command, many armies

The European Union is certainly not short of documents, acronyms and abbreviations. The ESDP (European Security and Defense Policy) was born with a solemn declaration in 2002 and gradually generated the strategic compass that intersects with NATO’s Strategic Concept, both in 2022 after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the most serious threat to Euro-Atlantic security in decades. The EU has its own military apparatus and summits, but the doctrine is that European defense is complementary to that of the Atlantic Alliance. Madeline Albright, then Secretary of State under Bill Clinton (between 1997 and 2001), came up with the principle of the “three Ds”. The first is discrimination, in the sense that any behavior by a country or group of countries that is not shared by the other allies must be avoided. The second D is duplication of commands and structures. The third, decoupling, refers to the strategic autonomy of a European army. This is the knot that needs to be untied today in order to defend Ukraine and the whole of Europe, because strategic priorities no longer coincide since Trump has been in the White House. It is not even true that the EU needs unanimity to move forward. The Lisbon Treaty provides for enhanced cooperation. Moreover, a union of concentric circles already exists, and the euro area can be flanked by a defense area even more open than the monetary one; nine countries say they are ready, starting with France, Germany, the Netherlands, the Baltic and Scandinavian countries. Europe, that is all the countries united under the banner of the Union, must be able to defend itself and face the threats that may appear on its doorstep: a responsibility that can no longer be delegated to others. Today, the NATO summit is composed of an Italian, Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, who presides over the military committee, an American, who, as always, is the supreme commander, General Christopher Cavoli, and a Frenchman as his deputy, Admiral Pierre Vandier. In the case of a European command, rotation will be necessary, as it is at the top of the EU. According to those who have worked in NATO commands, there is no shortage of disagreements and tensions between officers with many stars, but the diatribes have always been more political than military. The armies of European countries have already conducted their own operations, alone or with others, especially in Africa, the Middle East or the Balkans (France and Italy in Mali come to mind), and the armed forces of the various states are by no means unprepared.  The five big players in European defense (the E5 group, in Brussels jargon) are the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Poland.

The return of the conscripts

A hypothetical Baltic war following a Russian invasion would require 1,400 tanks, 2,000 infantry fighting vehicles, 700 artillery pieces, one million 155-millimeter shells for the first three months, and 2,000 long-range drones per day, more than the French, British, Italian, and German forces combined. Another 300,000 troops would be needed, according to the report by the Brugel Think Tank and the Kiehl Institute, especially if Washington withdraws its troops. The report’s co-author, Alexandr Burilkov, told Euronews that these would be recruited in part through “compulsory conscription and supported by large and well-trained reserves,” similar to the American National Guard.

It won’t be easy; the aging of the population has also aged the armies, and conscription doesn’t attract young people. Germany has enormous problems, and Italy is not far behind. All this talk of peace can change in the heat of danger, as Ukraine teaches us. The illusion of universal peace, or at least peace in a “flat” post-Cold War world, has accelerated the partial dismantling of armies and the end of conscription. Things are better in the Scandinavian countries, where there is mostly permanent training and where Russian invasion is a constant danger, as in Finland, Poland, the Czech Republic, the countries with the largest armies, especially in relation to the population. The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies stresses that European militaries are under stress. The shortage of personnel at all levels threatens to prevent normal administration, let alone emergency situations. The armies are preparing, but in many cases it will be necessary to reintroduce conscription. And it’s not just a question of quantity, but also of preparation and morale, the human factors that are always fundamental and today more than ever.

Butter and cannons

An increase in defense capabilities is destined to absorb enormous public and private resources. A change has already taken place in the last two years: in 2024, spending by European NATO countries has increased and is now 50% higher than in 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and alarm bells rang that the United States and the European Union did not want to hear. Today, according to the London Institute, the Old Continent has become the driving force behind the growth in defense spending. Who pays? Debt is a serious problem, it is also a problem for the United States (its high level of indebtedness to the rest of the world was a consequence of its hegemonic role, today it is an Achilles’ heel), not to mention countries like France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Greece, Malta, etc. … One could say that the debt is greater than the Russian heel. Every war has been fought on the basis of debt, either because we think we shouldn’t fight to defend our values, or because we should rack our brains to figure out how to pay for peace. Meanwhile, it’s not just a question of spending; defense is an economic and industrial driver, it can give a boost to stagnant production and help sectors in crisis, such as the automobile industry. In Germany, there is talk of converting a Volkswagen plant for defense purposes. The same could happen in Italy with the Stellantis factories, which will not be saturated even with the return of the internal combustion engine. Research and development now accounts for a third of total defense spending, up from 15 percent a decade ago. But we are only filling the hole left by the cuts since 2009. Much more needs to be done. There are countries like Germany that can spend without creating inflation and without compromising the welfare state. But national budgets and the meager EU budget are not enough. Mario Draghi has revived the idea of issuing European bonds to be placed on a financial market that is still huge and looking for profitable investments. Ukraine is also a dramatic financial test case. The EU, together with the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, has provided 134 billion euros, more than the United States (119 billion euros), 49 billion went to the Ukrainian armed forces (but the commitments made amount to 72.2 billion); Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign and security policy chief, has asked for another 40 billion from “willing” countries.

The new military-industrial complex

The European defense industry is neither small nor backward, but above all it is fragmented and divided along national lines. In the ranking of the main groups, BAE Systems (formerly British Aerospace) ranks first, sixth in the world after the American Big Five (Lockheed Martin, RTX, Northrop, Boeing, General Dynamics), with a turnover about half that of Lockheed. Then there are three Chinese companies.

Leonardo (Italian), thirteenth in the world, leads the EU patrol, followed by Airbus (Franco-German-Spanish), Thales (French), Rheinmetall (German), Dassault (French), Naval and Safran (also French), Saab (Swedish), KNDS (Dutch) and Fincantieri (Italian). Italy also has a key position because Leonardo has formed joint ventures and collaborations that extend as far as the United States, where it owns Drs (information technology). To create a continental system, it is necessary to promote “industrial synergies by concentrating developments on common military platforms (aircraft, ships, land vehicles, satellites),” according to Draghi. European countries are still too dependent on the United States for important aspects of their military capabilities: anti-aircraft artillery, missiles, air cover, intelligence. Although they have invested heavily since 2022 to close the gap: 52% of these combat systems are now supplied by European companies, only 34% by American companies, which have concentrated on vehicles, long-range surface-to-air missiles, intelligence, surveillance, aircraft and guided missiles. The British are even talking about excluding the Americans from Five Eyes, the Western surveillance system that also includes Australia, Canada and New Zealand, but the retaliation is purely emotional. On the contrary, European access must be guaranteed on an equal footing; despite Trump, the US is a “fellow human being who makes mistakes”. Draghi recalled that between 2020 and 2024, the United States will supply two-thirds of the defense systems imported by European NATO members. Drones, but also artificial intelligence, data processing, electronic warfare, space and satellites: the old continent’s groups are there, but they are playing catch-up. The most sensitive issue is nuclear deterrence. Emmanuel Macron has come out in favor of making the force de frappe available, the British have moved closer to the EU but remain on the outside. Here, too, there is a need to unite without knowing how.

Heaven, earth and sea

Europe has a long way to go to ensure its security. There are several satellite systems, most notably those of Eutelsat (which acquired OneWeb in 2022) and SES, which is acquiring Intelsat. They are mostly based on reliable geostationary satellites, but they travel at 36,000 kilometers and have a higher latency compared to low-orbit satellites (400 kilometers) like Starlink: the signal arrives after a third of a second, which can be an eternity in combat. The EU has launched the IRIS 2 program, which will not be operational until around 2030. In addition to Eutelsat and SES, Airbus Defense & Space, Thales Alenia Space, Telespazio, Hispasat and Hisdesat are also competing. Although it has the technology, such as the Franco-Italian Samp T, which is as good as the Patriot, Europe doesn’t have adequate protection against missile attacks. We’ve already mentioned the pointless competition for the sixth-generation fighter-bomber. Today, the F-35 (American, even if European industries contribute to its production for about a third) is the most effective aircraft, superior to the French Rafale and the Eurofighter (Anglo-Italian-German). Russia has always focused on submarine warfare, where Germany once excelled. Europe has some excellent submarines, such as the British Vanguard armed with ballistic missiles, but only 4 nuclear submarines compared to Russia’s 11. Fincantieri, after a long period of cooperation with Germany, is now involved in the construction of the fourth new-generation submarine. Italy’s real specialty (shared with France) is in multi-mission frigates, the real protagonists of surface combat. This is an example of virtuous cooperation as in missiles, in the production of chips with STM, in electronics where Leonardo is in a triangle with the British BAE and the French Thales. The Italian group has signed an agreement with Rheinmetall for new armored vehicles for the Italian army. Germany has returned to the production of tanks, war machines that had made it famous and now seemed useless.

Cycles and recurrences, let’s re-read Giambattista Vico, including his anticipatory intuition on the role of technology and knowledge. At this point, we can only turn the question around: can Europe win without America? Obviously not. But can America win without Europe, or rather, can it win without the Old Continent, to which it has sold not only its products and its debts, but also its culture? This is a rhetorical question for us, and the answer is no, but we’ll leave it open for readers attracted by the allure of a new Yalta. Then US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt returned to Washington and said it had been a success, but the real winner was Stalin. History could repeat itself, and not as a farce.

L'articolo The Old Continent is divided between reluctant rearmers and confused pacifists. We have technology and soldiers, but without unified planning we remain geopolitical dwarfs. Europe lacks many ingredients to be strong, such as a unified command, a comprehensive and effective information system at all levels, a missile defense system like Israel’s Iron Dome, and an industrial chain that combines competition and convergence. But most importantly, it lacks the will to change the treaties to a fixed common debt and to increase democratic representation with a European constitution that allows for the direct election of the Commission President and more powers for the Parliament, including the right of initiative and the motions of confidence and censure. Of course, Europe and America will always be two sides of the same coin proviene da Bubble report.

The company founded by Musk in 2002 dominates the so-called “space economy”. This term, in vogue among international institutions and investment banks, refers to the growth of space as a market, beyond its traditional functions as a service for governments. A space economy is made possible by the realization of Musk’s theses. Which are? First, Musk recognized that the opportunities of space are tied to the reduction of launch costs and thus to the reusability of launch vehicles. Once SpaceX achieved reusability, it was able to achieve economies of scale that no other player in the history of space exploration has come close to achieving, an overwhelming advantage over competitors. Second, SpaceX is an integrated manufacturing company, where production responds to efficiency needs, not political balances where one component has to come from a company in one area and one component from another to please another area. In this sense, SpaceX is a less “political” company than others in the United States and Europe. Space funding has historically come from public money, but SpaceX has been awarded lavish contracts to do things that others cannot do, in timeframes that others cannot guarantee, and thus using proportionately less public money.

SpaceX’s success has combined Musk’s insights with the execution skills of President and Chief Operating Officer Gwynne Shotwell, who has been with the company since 2002 and is one of the most capable managers in the world. According to the latest valuations, SpaceX is worth about $350 billion and more than any other defense company in the world, despite the growth of the entire war-fighting industry in recent years. Some numbers. According to Shotwell, in 2024, about 90 percent of the mass put into orbit by humanity went through SpaceX. The company made more than 130 orbital launches in 2024 and aims to grow to 180 in 2025. China launched 68 times in 2024, while Europe stopped at 3: the operation of Ariane 6 and Vega C will lead to growth in the latter, painful, number, but with no chance to compete with the Chinese and SpaceX.

The enormous capacity of Musk’s company leads to three processes: 1) the expansion of its manufacturing base, with increasing investment in Texas; 2) the commercial development of Starlink: space economy as a service for customers to make more money and have a growing role in global communications; and 3) national security, an essential issue: Starlink’s evolution into Starshield, a connectivity service aimed at meeting the needs of governments, primarily that of the United States, and the very consideration of SpaceX’s development as a national security issue because it carries on its ever-widening shoulders Washington’s primacy over Beijing in the space arena.

The bet Musk won with his support for Trump reinforces these three points: easier construction and launch, with control of the approval system; giving Starlink and Starshield a kind of US “political stamp” and not just as a private company. Technology companies close to Trumpism, such as Palantir and Anduril, say they serve the West. Therefore, SpaceX itself will increasingly offer itself to various configurations (first and foremost the Five Eyes espionage alliance and NATO) in which the U.S. is already the undisputed security anchor.

Any reflection on the role of SpaceX in various countries must be based on this context, otherwise it risks becoming idle chatter. From Europe’s point of view, the gap with the US system is enormous.

Consider two events in 2024: the European Galileo system was launched with SpaceX rockets because the European launchers were not available; the U.S. KKR fund bought just under 30 percent of Ohb, the leading German space company (the majority shareholder is the Fuchs family). Episodes that hardly anyone considered because Trump had not yet been elected. But if the Europeans do not have the launch capabilities and the finances to sustain their companies, they cannot be “sovereign”, except in talk. Given the overlapping jurisdictions and differing interests between states (such as the disputes between Paris and Berlin in recent years), it is almost certain that the timeline for the European Iris2 constellation will be longer than the optimistic end of the decade. SpaceX is in a different position: its products do not exist only in theory.

Musk’s company is not afraid of unlikely European competition, but it sees Europe as a market where it can aggressively grow revenues, and sooner rather than later, given the expectations of those who invested in SpaceX at a huge valuation. The company’s path to a sharper monopoly will depend on the home front: on Bezos, on Boeing’s difficult relaunch, on any new players, on its own mistakes. Moreover, as the Astrospace website notes, Musk’s very political influence in the Trump era will prevent SpaceX from using approval delays as an excuse for project delays in the future.

Of course, the situation for Europeans could improve with a revolution in European space governance, which is full of redundancies and overlaps, with the reduction of geographical imbalances, with the entry of real European private financial capacity. 

L'articolo Where do you go if you don’t have the technology? Here’s why it will be hard for Europe to do without SpaceX. In 2024, SpaceX had more than 130 orbital launches, China 68, and Europe stopped at 3. The European Galileo system was launched with Space X rockets because the European launchers were not there. Instead of transforming the EU into a serious and democratic political entity, time was lost behind the green follies of the European caviar left.  proviene da Bubble report.

The Commission’s number one, the candidate of the European People’s Party to succeed herself at the helm of the EU executive, mentioned the air defense shield, speaking of the fact that “we need to improve our defense industry, we need to make sure that fragmentation in the European Union ends, and we need European common interest projects,” including “for example, an air defense shield for all of Europe, as proposed by Mītsotakīs and Tusk.” The reference to European common interest projects fits within the same von der Leyen cabinet proposal that arrived in early March on the first EU common defense strategy. More specifically in the new legal framework—the European Armament Program Structure (SEAP)—that will be made available by the European Defense Industrial Program (EDIP) to increase member states’ cooperation on equipment with potential financial support from the Union.

“Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has shaken our continent’s security and defense architecture to its core,” and “recent tragic events in the Middle East have further reminded us of how volatile our neighbourhood is,” warn Mītsotakīs and Tusk in the letter sent just yesterday to President von der Leyen: “Geopolitical rivalries are rife, and the fundamental principles of international law are being challenged by a worryingly growing number of revisionist actors around the world.” This is why “the EU and its member states must do more and better on security and defense because the current fragmented landscape is simply not up to today’s needs and requirements.” In addition to a “swift and concrete follow-up” in the Council to the Commission’s proposals, the EU executive’s “forthcoming” report on “financing options for our ambitious projects” in the field of security and defense is expected.

But there is more; it is precisely the heart of the letter addressed to von der Leyen. “Europe will be safe as long as the skies above it are safe, which is why the EU needs a new ‘flagship’programme,” intending that European air defense shield which is also looked upon with interest by the outgoing Commission president: “A comprehensive air defense system to protect our EU common airspace from all incoming threats, including aircraft, missiles, drones and more.” In the view of the two premiers belonging to the European political family of the EPP, this would be a “highly capable” tool and a “credible deterrent against all possible aggressors,” should diplomatic deterrence fail. The European air defense shield should be “a program that addresses this major vulnerability in our security” and that “incentivises European companies in the field to develop cutting-edge technologies and become world leaders in their fields,” acting on the one hand as a “facilitating catalyst for further upgrading” industry and demonstrating on the other hand that “the EU is a global power whose economic strength is enhanced by military power.”

L'articolo Anything but relying on the French and the Italians – One of the most pressing problems for the European Union is air defense, which is currently provided by Germany, which in turn chooses to depend on two actors: Israel and the United States, which supply the Arrows 3 and Patriot respectively. But what happens if for some reason the said supply should be interrupted? It seems that from the Russian energy problems, the Germans have learnt nothing… proviene da Bubble report.

An Ipsos survey of 26,000 of the EU electorate showed nearly half favour pooling military powers – a result that will likely come as a comfort to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who’s made defence a central plank of her re-election campaign.

The poll, which probed views in countries representing 96% of the EU population ahead of bloc-wide elections due in June, showed voters are most concerned about inflation, inequality and migration.

But strengthening defences would still be more popular than sending aid to war-torn Ukraine, or protecting minorities, the survey showed.

Many EU states are starting to build up their militaries after full-scale war broke out in Ukraine, and given signs that a Donald Trump-led US might show less commitment to NATO.

While more of an economic and regulatory superpower than a military one, the EU has started looking to make arms procurement more efficient, and EU Single Market Commissioner Thierry Breton has even mooted a €100bn defence fund. 

Stronger EU defence is particularly popular in countries such as Finland and Poland, the survey said – perhaps because Russia’s neighbours are worried about its increased belligerence.

But there’s far lower support in Hungary, whose government has repeatedly blocked sanctions on Russia and support for Ukraine – and in Austria, whose constitution safeguards neutrality.

Support is highest among voters older than 50, and in the centrist parties that are likely to support von der Leyen’s candidacy for a second term in office.

But it’s also surprisingly strong among those normally wary of handing powers to Brussels. Nearly half (45%) of European Conservatives and Reformist (ECR) voters and more than one in three supporters of the more nationalist Identity and Democracy (ID) group favour heightened military policies.

“Common defence of European borders and interests is one of the few things the European Union is useful for,” lawmaker Nicola Procaccini (Italy/ECR) said during a February debate.

But von der Leyen’s promises to Europeanise defence spending could face headwinds, as in the past it’s always been member states that raise armies.

Europe becoming a defence superpower is a “direct attack on the sovereignty of our nations”, said Jean-Paul Garraud (France/ID) during the same debate, adding: “Soldiers aren’t ready to die for Europe.”

That scepticism is shared by those planning to vote for the far left, whose 2024 manifesto – for an alliance that includes numerous Communist parties and Germany’s Die Linke – commits to reducing military expenditure and freeing Europe of nuclear weapons.

L'articolo If you want peace, prepare for war – According to an IPSOS poll conducted for Euronews, common European defence is a priority for about half of EU citizens. A total of 83% consider it a desirable objective. Among the most ‘bellicose’ are Portugal, Finland, Sweden and Germany, while the least enthusiastic are Hungary, Italy and the Netherlands. The news is that this is a transversal consensus, uniting even Eurosceptics proviene da Bubble report.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz welcomed French President Emmanuel Macron and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk for a hastily arranged summit of the so-called “Weimar Triangle” of the three countries. The meeting came as Russia votes in an election that is all but certain to extend President Vladimir Putin’s rule.

Scholz said he discussed what support is needed now with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Thursday.

“He knows that he can rely on us, and we are renewing this signal for support for Kyiv from here today,” he said after the meeting. “But a crystal-clear signal also goes to Moscow — the Russian president should know that we won’t let up in our support for Ukraine.”

Kyiv’s forces are hoping for more military supplies from Ukraine’s Western partners, but in the meantime, they are struggling against a bigger and better-provisioned Russian army that is pressing hard at some front-line points in Ukraine. The European Union’s plans to produce 1 million artillery rounds for Ukraine have fallen well short, while aid for Ukraine is being held up in the United States by political differences.

The German leader said that “starting immediately, we will procure even more weapons for Ukraine, on the overall world market.”

“Secondly, the production of military equipment will be expanded, including though cooperation with partners in Ukraine,” Scholz added. And he said that a new “coalition for long-range rocket artillery” will be set up, underlining a pledge made at a conference in Paris last month.

Scholz gave no details, and the three leaders took no questions. Macron reaffirmed France’s support for a Czech-initiated plan to buy ammunition and shells outside the European Union, but also gave no details.

“We want to spend our money, we want to help in every possible way … here and now, so that the situation of Ukraine in the coming weeks and months gets better, not worse,” Tusk said.

Kyiv’s forces are hoping for more military supplies from Ukraine’s Western partners, but in the meantime, they are struggling against a bigger and better-provisioned Russian army that is pressing hard at some front-line points in Ukraine. The European Union’s plans to produce 1 million artillery rounds for Ukraine have fallen well short, while aid for Ukraine is being held up in the United States by political differences.

“This is a serious moment,” Macron said. “A new era is dawning, and we’ll be there. And the fact that the three of us are united on this day, determined with the same lucidity about the situation in Ukraine and determined never to let Russia win and to support the Ukrainian people to the end, is a strength for us, our peoples, our security and our Europe.”

Germany, France and Poland are among Ukraine’s key allies. Germany has become Ukraine’s second-biggest supplier of military aid after the United States and is stepping up support this year, although Scholz has faced criticism for refusing to send Taurus long-range cruise missiles.

The leaders’ remarks didn’t address differences between Scholz and Macron after the French leader said at last month’s conference that sending in Western ground troops should not be ruled out in the future. Scholz said then that participants had agreed there will be “no ground troops” on Ukrainian soil sent by European countries.

On Thursday, Macron reiterated his position, though he said the current situation doesn’t require sending ground troops. Scholz’s spokesperson, Steffen Hebestreit, made clear Friday that the chancellor hasn’t changed his views.

In Brussels, the EU’s executive branch on Friday allocated 500 million euros ($545 million) to a project to reduce bottlenecks slowing the production of explosives and other materials used to manufacture artillery shells for the bloc and its allies. The European Commission estimates that the plan will allow industry to produce 1.7 million shells annually by the end of the year, and 2 million by late 2025.

Scholz and Tusk have both visited Washington recently and pressed for the U.S. to release aid for Ukraine.

L'articolo The farce of the Weimar Triangle – There could not have been a better place for the meeting between Macron, Scholz and Tusk: a show designed to project unity where there is only division. Scholz rules out an escalation, preferring the idea of supplying the Ukrainians with arms and ammunition; Poland is a protagonist in the war, and it could not be otherwise. Finally, Petit-Napoleon considers Putin to be an ‘existential threat’, but only because Le Pen (the next president according to the polls) has joined the allied positions proviene da Bubble report.

Speaking during a conference commemorating Poland’s 25th anniversary of joining the NATO alliance, Sikorski refrained from disclosing the specific countries involved but expressed gratitude to those nations for their participation.

“NATO soldiers are already present in Ukraine. And I would like to thank the ambassadors of those countries who have taken that risk. These countries know who they are, but I can’t disclose them. Contrary to other politicians, I will not list those countries,” Sikorski said.

In response to Sikorski’s statement, Maria Zakharova, spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, suggested that further denial of NATO involvement would be futile.

The statement comes amidst growing discussions following French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent remarks regarding the potential deployment of Western troops in Ukraine.

Speaking at a conference in Paris on Feb. 26, he did not rule out the possibility of sending NATO troops to Ukraine, stirring controversy within the Western diplomatic sphere.

“Currently, there is no consensus on sending troops. But in this matter, nothing should be ruled out in the future,” Macron said at a conference in Paris.

However, subsequent statements from other Western leaders, including the United States, rejected this possibility, with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg asserting that the alliance has no such plans.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned of the inevitability of direct conflict between Russia and NATO if foreign troops were to appear in Ukraine.

Macron later clarified France’s position, stating that while the country was exploring avenues to support Ukraine, it was not currently considering sending its military contingent to the region.

L'articolo In the open society, secrets are open as well – Radosław Sikorski, whom we spoke about a few days ago as a potential new defence commissioner after the elections of next June, is already stepping into the role: ‘NATO military personnel are already present in Ukraine’. In fact, this is the revelation of a secret that everyone already knew, but the fact that there is now open talk of ground troops seems to indicate the beginning of a new phase in European Defence. We shall see where it leads… proviene da Bubble report.

The French leader said that “we will do everything needed so Russia cannot win the war” after the meeting of over 20 European heads of state and government and other Western officials.

“There’s no consensus today to send in an official, endorsed manner troops on the ground. But in terms of dynamics, nothing can be ruled out,” Macron said in a news conference at the Elysee presidential palace.

Macron declined to provide details about which nations were considering sending troops, saying he prefers to maintain some “strategic ambiguity.”

The meeting included German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Poland’s President Andrzej Duda as well as leaders from the Baltic nations. The United States was represented by its top diplomat for Europe, James O’Brien, and the UK by Foreign Secretary David Cameron.

Duda said the most heated discussion was about whether to send troops to Ukraine and “there was no agreement on the matter. Opinions differ here, but there are no such decisions.”

Poland’s president said he hopes that “in the nearest future, we will jointly be able to prepare substantial shipments of ammunition to Ukraine. This is most important now. This is something that Ukraine really needs.”

Macron earlier called on European leaders to ensure the continent’s “collective security” by providing unwavering support to Ukraine in the face of tougher Russian offensives on the battlefield in recent months.

“In recent months particularly, we have seen Russia getting tougher,” Macron said.

Macron cited the need to solidify security to head off any Russian attacks on additional countries in the future. Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia as well as much larger Poland have been considered among possible targets of future Russian expansionism. All four countries are staunch supporters of Ukraine.

Estonia’s foreign minister said earlier this month that NATO has about three or four years to strengthen its defenses.

In a video speech, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called on the leaders gathered in Paris to “ensure that Putin cannot destroy our achievements and cannot expand his aggression to other nations.”

Several European countries, including France, expressed their support for an initiative launched by the Czech Republic to buy ammunition and shells outside the EU, participants to the meeting said.

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said his country decided to provide over €100 million for that purpose.

In addition, a new coalition is to be launched to further “mobilise” nations with capabilities to deliver medium and long-range missiles, Macron said, as France announced last month the delivery of 40 additional long-range Scalp cruise missiles.

European nations are worried that the US will dial back support as aid for Kyiv is teetering in Congress. They also have concerns that former US President Donald Trump might return to the White House and change the course of US policy on the continent.

The Paris conference comes after France, Germany and the UK recently signed 10-year bilateral agreements with Ukraine to send a strong signal of long-term backing as Kyiv works to shore up Western support.

L'articolo Abandon all hope, European allies – Emmanuel Macron launches into one of the typical contradictions that have made him famous: ‘Russia cannot win in Ukraine’, he says, but at the same time Western governments have no intention of sending troops to fight the war. All that will be done is to send ammunition to allow Kiev to buy time, perhaps a few months. But still there is no sign of a winning strategy at the moment proviene da Bubble report.

L'articolo In Brussels there’s a new stone guest – After his controversial words about Nato and Russia, the defence ministers meeting in Brussels could only think of Donald Trump. But maybe a Europe left alone could be the best shock therapy against its possible disintegration. His words are an aid to the sleepwalkers living in the bubble proviene da Bubble report.

The Russian president appealed to the US to stop the fighting in Ukraine and push for peace, telling US TV personality Tucker Carlson: “We have to look for a way out of this situation.”

Speaking in his first interview with a Western media figure since invading Ukraine in February 2022, Putin appeared to signal for the first time that Washington and Moscow were involved in back-channel peace talks on the war.

“Certain contacts are being maintained,” Putin told Carlson, but declined to go into further detail.

However, the Russian president added: “If somebody has the desire to send regular troops, that would certainly bring humanity to the brink of a very serious global conflict.”

Putin accuses Boris Johnson of sabotaging peace deal

Putin, 71, also accused Boris Johnson of sabotaging a peace deal with Ukraine in the spring of 2022.

Carlson asked Putin about reports that Ukraine was “prevented from negotiating a peace settlement by the former British prime minister acting on behalf of the Biden administration”.

The claim first surfaced after David Arahamiya, Ukraine’s chief negotiator in the peace talks, cited Mr Johnson’s surprise trip to Kyiv in 2022 among the reasons the talks stalled.

Mr Arahamiya told a journalist that while talks between Kyiv and Moscow were under way in Istanbul, Mr Johnson told leaders in Kyiv that Ukraine “shouldn’t sign anything with them at all – and let’s just fight”.

The former prime minister has previously vehemently denied the claims as “total nonsense” and “Russian propaganda”.

Mr Johnson said he merely “expressed concerns” about the nature of the potential agreement during a conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

He added that he had assured Mr Zelensky of the UK’s unwavering support for Ukraine, stating that Britain would back Kyiv “a thousand per cent”.

Raising the issue, Carlson asked Putin whether Ukraine was merely a “satellite” for the West.

Putin replied: “If the Zelensky administration in Ukraine refused to negotiate, I assume they did it under instruction from Washington.”

The Russian leader went on to claim a peace deal was settled in Istanbul with Ukraine’s chief negotiator but scuppered by Mr Johnson, prolonging the war by another 18 months.

Putin said: “Prime Minister Johnson came to talk us out of it and we missed that chance. Well, you missed it.”

Discussing a potential path to peace, Putin added: “If Washington believes it to be the wrong decision, let it abandon it. Let it find the delicate excuse so that no one is insulted. Let it come up with a way out. It was not us who made this decision. It was them. So let them go back on it.”

He added: “And now we have to look for a way out of this situation to correct their mistakes. They did it, so let them correct it themselves. We support this.”

Release of Evan Gershkovich possible

Elsewhere in the more than two-hour interview, Putin hinted that he could be open to releasing Evan Gershkovich, the Wall Street Journal reporter who has been held in a Russian prison for almost a year.

Putin signalled back-channel conversations were ongoing with Washington over Mr Gershkovich’s release, as he said:

“Special services are in contact with one another.

“They are talking about the matter in question,” he said, adding: “I believe an agreement can be reached.”

Putin believes Russia has historic claims to Ukrainian territory

Putin spent the first half an hour of the interview giving a centuries-long historical account of Russian territory which he claimed justified his claims on Ukrainian territory.

More than once, Carlson pressed the Russian leader on how his response was “relevant” to the invasion.

Putin replied: “Are we going to have a serious talk or a show?”

He went on to argue that Romania and Hungary “had some of their lands taken away… and they still remain part of Ukraine”.

The Right-wing American commentator asked: “Do you believe Hungary has a right to take its land back from Ukraine, and that other nations have a right to go back to their 1654 borders?”

Putin replied: “I’m not sure whether they should go back to their 1654 borders. But … one can say that they could claim back those lands of theirs while having no right to do that. It is at least understandable.”

No interest in expanding war

The Russian president also said it was “out of the question” for Russia to invade Poland or Latvia, telling Carlson: “We simply don’t have any interest” in expanding the war in Ukraine.

“Can you imagine a scenario where you send Russian troops to Poland?” Carlson asked in the interview.

“Only in one case, if Poland attacks Russia,” Putin responded, adding: “We have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply don’t have any interest… It is absolutely out of the question.”

But he said defeating Russia in Ukraine is “impossible” and Nato must accept Moscow’s territorial gains there.

“There has been the uproar and screaming about inflicting a strategic defeat to Russia on the battlefield,” Mr Putin said.

“In my opinion, it is impossible by definition. It is never going to happen.”

L'articolo Not even a casual mention – Europe is not named at all in Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin. A sign that it is seen internationally only as an emanation of the United States in the Old Continent, especially by the Deep State entrenched in the Pentagon, which now seems ready to return to dialogue with the Kremlin in the face of the possible election of Donald Trump proviene da Bubble report.

China and America do not want confrontation. They will continue the battle for influence over the global South. So, the prevailing macro probability concerns an increase in globalized conflicts. But China, while pushing some confrontations, has no interest in them going over the threshold because that would put a weakened domestic economy in trouble. America has limits in presiding over the planet but has no interest in giving this function up.

Even in the event of Trump’s election?

Yes. His Americanism is more vocal than Biden’s, but the latter has continued the former’s line, a sign that it is a systematic trend urged by trends in the electorate. So, the EU will not lose its alliance with Washington, but it will incur more security costs. Will general and national elections destabilize the EEU? No. In summary, the answer for the biennium is many hotbeds of instability, but manageable by keeping the system close.

L'articolo Eu will have to pay more to guarantee its own security with many hotbeds of instability around proviene da Bubble report.