I'm a long way away here in Australia but the thought of Putin starting a war in Europe makes my stomach turn. I'd like to believe he's taken too much of a beating in Ukraine to risk it but this man now needs war for political survival. Over a million cheesed off veterans coming home is something he very likely couldn't withstand....I almost hope to keep hearing of continued (ineffective) russian offensives in Ukraine. I'd be worried if he ordered the troops to dig in and prepared fortifactions. Could be a sign he's reducing the need for manpower in Ukraine for offensives elsewhere.
Whatever the case I reckon Minna (if I read her right) is correct. Europe can't rely on the USA and the sooner it adjusts to that reality the better - including upping readiness RIGHT NOW. Now is the time of maximum vulnerability. I reckon russia will be too enfeebled in the not to distant future but at the moment it's wounded but still dangerous.
Thank you. So well written and informative fir this American. So disappointing what this administration has done to our friends and allies. The majority of Americans stand with you.
I was surprised that I didn’t see many “no war” signs at the most recent nationwide protests. I’m willing to believe that most Americans don’t approve of Trump’s reckless foreign policy but they’re not making a full-throated condemnation of it so far. Perhaps when Americans see more of their own casualties, they’ll dust off the old signs from the days of Vietnam.
We live next door to a superpowered lunatic that’s actively attacking our economy, and threatens both our sovereignty and world peace. Reason enough for me.
I would love to think Carney is six steps ahead on every detail, but is he pushing forward on any drone deals with Ukraine? I see it as vital to both countries.
Ukraine can use Canadian components, materials, research, and investment. Canada can use Ukrainian drones and know how as an economical extension of modern military preparedness.
What about joint (or not) investments in technology, within the armies and also defense industries? At the end of the day this can give smaller armies the advantage over larger less modern ones.
Yes, particularly Estonia. But for the most part, they would rather produce expensive subpar drones domestically rather than purchase low-cost battle-tested drones from Ukraine. Politics trumps defense.
What is a conventional worst case scenario in the Barents Sea, assuming the US would not care? A hybrid invasion of Svalbard, Jan Mayen and Bjørnøya? Approximately 1,000 km from mainland Norway to Northern Svalbard. Some 120 km from Eastern Norway to Russia main nuclear naval base in Severomorsk.
Given the current development in long range capabilities, it would not be easy for anyone to maintain a military presence on those territories I suppose. Hard to imagine Russia opening such a scenario, without Chinese backing? And why would the Chinese do such a thing?
I agree with your recommendations and appreciate the update. But how do we interpret the support of Mark Rutte as Secretary General of NATO? His positions are the polar opposite of yours. It's not just tactics to keep Trump engaged as many have hoped. His comments are quite critical of any hint of European independence. He even indulges MAGA's harsh criticism of Europe.
How are we to believe that European opinion is moving your direction when Rutte is acceptable as a leader of NATO? It seems that majority opinion is with Rutte: wait out Trump and carry on as before.
“EU Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas did not outline a fourth scenario in her presentation to the prime ministers last night. She cannot even contemplate the possibility that the American security umbrella is no longer there. Even though she herself has said “there is no NATO without the US”. So our leaders, other than Pedro Sanchez and (less so) Emmanuel Macron and Rob Jetten, continue to obey Rutte’s diktat that “there is no alternative to NATO” - echoing the US Defence Secretary’s command to Europe 25 years ago.
Our European leaders continue to leave us all vulnerable to extortion by Trump. Because they do not have the courage or imagination to envision a world in which Europe is not dependent.”
The three Nordics alone cannot withstand a China-supported Russia. The integration of the NB8 with Poland and Ukraine seems far more likely to deter Russia than a continued bet on NATO.
The article concerns itself primarily with a threatening Russia, although anxiety about a threatening United States lurks in the background as well. The American threat, however, is arguably transitory: when the crackpot occupying the White House is finally gone, the danger goes with him. Russia is a different matter. Or is it? Given the catastrophic performance of Russian forces in their War of Aggression against Ukraine, how seriously should Europe really take the Russian military threat? Russia is a fifth-rate economic power fielding a third-rate military. When Ukraine — a nation of somewhere between 25 and 40 million people — can consistently humiliate a country of 140 million on the battlefield, Europe's rushed military buildup deserves a harder look. Are European taxpayers pouring billions into defense against a paper tiger?
Ukraine is holding Russia at bay at a terrible cost to the Ukrainian people. In the rest of Europe we need to build up our defences so that Putin doesn't attack us or, if he does, he is swiftly defeated. We don't want to endure the same hell as Ukraine.
I'm not sure that the US or Russia are so easily tamed. Around a third of Americans still approve of the current administration. I would suspect that number to be the same or even higher in Russia. Are both regimes obviously corrupt and not on the right path, yes. A little disinformation goes a long way in both cultures. The US will definitely change the heads of state and government, but the courts are polluted and that third of Americans are not going anywhere. I don't think the Russian people have a culture that can exist without grievance. Their culture virtually demands wanting back the old USSR. One of the best things that comes out of rearmament is that China has no illusions about what is going on and will think twice about any territorial ambitions it might be thinking about. I think that this rearmament may be one where the world finally wakes up and realizes wars are wasteful and that we can and will work to the betterment of humanity. But there is work to do to convince us to do that.
So should the US mobilise to fight NATO partners and Ukraine or Russia? If they don't clean up their act quickly in the Middle East, both fighting spirit, equipment and home support will be seriously weakened.
Thank you for pointing out something I havd been saying for a while. Far from being the end of NATO if Trump decides to quit, it should actually herald the rejuvenation and restructuring of the alliance which will be needed by the remaining members in the face of an even greater threat to their collective security.
It will not be only the Nordic+Baltic to fight in the North theater. Ukraine will also in some form be invited to join the fight. There are strong bonds between Nordic+Baltic and Ukraine. This means that drones and missiles from Ukraine will be fired at Russia from more directions. This will threat Murmansk, St Pete, Köningsberg (aka Kaliningrad) and more. All Russian shipping in the Baltic Sea will be cut off. Gripens will attack Russia from Ukraine. Add to this the rest of Europeean Nato and Russia will be completly cut off.
In one breath, you'll make the claim that Russia would NEVER have invaded Ukraine if it had NATO Article 5 protections, and yet also claim that as soon as Russia has finished off Ukraine, it will attack NATO, regardless of Article 5 protections.
On your left hand, Russia is badly mauled from 4 years of fighting in Ukraine, and Putin is on his knees..with your right hand you offer, Russia need not wait 5 years for NATO to get it's shit together, Russia may attack TOMORROW!
This kind mindless, insipid rabble-rousing and fear-mongering isnungelpful to anyone but "defence" contractor executives and their fund managers.
Good you are back. I have missed the Flank Notes
I'm a long way away here in Australia but the thought of Putin starting a war in Europe makes my stomach turn. I'd like to believe he's taken too much of a beating in Ukraine to risk it but this man now needs war for political survival. Over a million cheesed off veterans coming home is something he very likely couldn't withstand....I almost hope to keep hearing of continued (ineffective) russian offensives in Ukraine. I'd be worried if he ordered the troops to dig in and prepared fortifactions. Could be a sign he's reducing the need for manpower in Ukraine for offensives elsewhere.
Whatever the case I reckon Minna (if I read her right) is correct. Europe can't rely on the USA and the sooner it adjusts to that reality the better - including upping readiness RIGHT NOW. Now is the time of maximum vulnerability. I reckon russia will be too enfeebled in the not to distant future but at the moment it's wounded but still dangerous.
Thank you. So well written and informative fir this American. So disappointing what this administration has done to our friends and allies. The majority of Americans stand with you.
I was surprised that I didn’t see many “no war” signs at the most recent nationwide protests. I’m willing to believe that most Americans don’t approve of Trump’s reckless foreign policy but they’re not making a full-throated condemnation of it so far. Perhaps when Americans see more of their own casualties, they’ll dust off the old signs from the days of Vietnam.
As one who was drafted during Vietnam, my signs are always about how Trump's war is a repeat of Vietnam.
Good summaries. I just just keep thinking - more, faster. Especially for my home, Canada.
What threat does Canada face? Be realistic.
We live next door to a superpowered lunatic that’s actively attacking our economy, and threatens both our sovereignty and world peace. Reason enough for me.
I would love to think Carney is six steps ahead on every detail, but is he pushing forward on any drone deals with Ukraine? I see it as vital to both countries.
Ukraine needs more drones? What for?
Ukraine can use Canadian components, materials, research, and investment. Canada can use Ukrainian drones and know how as an economical extension of modern military preparedness.
Why would Canadians invest in a Neo-Nazi kleptocracy?
Canadians, like my ancestors, used to have a fine tradition of KILLING Nazis..now you wish to arm them?
Canada isn't arming Russia, they're arming Ukraine. Russia are the Nazi scum.
Russia isn't the only Nazi scum. There are lots in the US too. (But they call themselves 'MAGA' these days.)
Thanks a lot, very interesting.
What about joint (or not) investments in technology, within the armies and also defense industries? At the end of the day this can give smaller armies the advantage over larger less modern ones.
Thank you
Happening quite a bit, especially with new technologies. I can write something about it soon !
Looking forward to it. Thank you.
Have any of the NB8 made individual drone production partnership agreements for Ukraine?
Seems it would be ideal for both to lease Ukrainian tech and share the produced drones. Especially for the Baltic states.
Yes, more or less all of them :)
Yes, particularly Estonia. But for the most part, they would rather produce expensive subpar drones domestically rather than purchase low-cost battle-tested drones from Ukraine. Politics trumps defense.
Glad to hear a strong Nordic voice Minna.
What is a conventional worst case scenario in the Barents Sea, assuming the US would not care? A hybrid invasion of Svalbard, Jan Mayen and Bjørnøya? Approximately 1,000 km from mainland Norway to Northern Svalbard. Some 120 km from Eastern Norway to Russia main nuclear naval base in Severomorsk.
Given the current development in long range capabilities, it would not be easy for anyone to maintain a military presence on those territories I suppose. Hard to imagine Russia opening such a scenario, without Chinese backing? And why would the Chinese do such a thing?
Thanks for the question, the difficulty of Arctic warfare is one of my favourite topics… will write about it sometime soon :)
I agree with your recommendations and appreciate the update. But how do we interpret the support of Mark Rutte as Secretary General of NATO? His positions are the polar opposite of yours. It's not just tactics to keep Trump engaged as many have hoped. His comments are quite critical of any hint of European independence. He even indulges MAGA's harsh criticism of Europe.
How are we to believe that European opinion is moving your direction when Rutte is acceptable as a leader of NATO? It seems that majority opinion is with Rutte: wait out Trump and carry on as before.
Europeans didn’t vote for him… I get why he was chosen but he’s overdoing it by a wide margin
Dave Keating is a relentless identifier of European paralysis in his substack. https://substack.com/home/post/p-195323219
“EU Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas did not outline a fourth scenario in her presentation to the prime ministers last night. She cannot even contemplate the possibility that the American security umbrella is no longer there. Even though she herself has said “there is no NATO without the US”. So our leaders, other than Pedro Sanchez and (less so) Emmanuel Macron and Rob Jetten, continue to obey Rutte’s diktat that “there is no alternative to NATO” - echoing the US Defence Secretary’s command to Europe 25 years ago.
Our European leaders continue to leave us all vulnerable to extortion by Trump. Because they do not have the courage or imagination to envision a world in which Europe is not dependent.”
Nous devons y parvenir! Il ne faut plus compter sur la solidarité transatlantique.
Et la vaillante Ukraine donne l’exemple!
Indeed, hopefully Stockholm welcomes you
The three Nordics alone cannot withstand a China-supported Russia. The integration of the NB8 with Poland and Ukraine seems far more likely to deter Russia than a continued bet on NATO.
The article concerns itself primarily with a threatening Russia, although anxiety about a threatening United States lurks in the background as well. The American threat, however, is arguably transitory: when the crackpot occupying the White House is finally gone, the danger goes with him. Russia is a different matter. Or is it? Given the catastrophic performance of Russian forces in their War of Aggression against Ukraine, how seriously should Europe really take the Russian military threat? Russia is a fifth-rate economic power fielding a third-rate military. When Ukraine — a nation of somewhere between 25 and 40 million people — can consistently humiliate a country of 140 million on the battlefield, Europe's rushed military buildup deserves a harder look. Are European taxpayers pouring billions into defense against a paper tiger?
Ukraine is holding Russia at bay at a terrible cost to the Ukrainian people. In the rest of Europe we need to build up our defences so that Putin doesn't attack us or, if he does, he is swiftly defeated. We don't want to endure the same hell as Ukraine.
What confounds me is why no European leader will speak of defeating Russia in Ukraine. Why is that? They don't want to offend the US?
Totally agree!
I'm not sure that the US or Russia are so easily tamed. Around a third of Americans still approve of the current administration. I would suspect that number to be the same or even higher in Russia. Are both regimes obviously corrupt and not on the right path, yes. A little disinformation goes a long way in both cultures. The US will definitely change the heads of state and government, but the courts are polluted and that third of Americans are not going anywhere. I don't think the Russian people have a culture that can exist without grievance. Their culture virtually demands wanting back the old USSR. One of the best things that comes out of rearmament is that China has no illusions about what is going on and will think twice about any territorial ambitions it might be thinking about. I think that this rearmament may be one where the world finally wakes up and realizes wars are wasteful and that we can and will work to the betterment of humanity. But there is work to do to convince us to do that.
So should the US mobilise to fight NATO partners and Ukraine or Russia? If they don't clean up their act quickly in the Middle East, both fighting spirit, equipment and home support will be seriously weakened.
Thank you for pointing out something I havd been saying for a while. Far from being the end of NATO if Trump decides to quit, it should actually herald the rejuvenation and restructuring of the alliance which will be needed by the remaining members in the face of an even greater threat to their collective security.
It will not be only the Nordic+Baltic to fight in the North theater. Ukraine will also in some form be invited to join the fight. There are strong bonds between Nordic+Baltic and Ukraine. This means that drones and missiles from Ukraine will be fired at Russia from more directions. This will threat Murmansk, St Pete, Köningsberg (aka Kaliningrad) and more. All Russian shipping in the Baltic Sea will be cut off. Gripens will attack Russia from Ukraine. Add to this the rest of Europeean Nato and Russia will be completly cut off.
I doubt that China will allow this.
But what is the "threat"?
In one breath, you'll make the claim that Russia would NEVER have invaded Ukraine if it had NATO Article 5 protections, and yet also claim that as soon as Russia has finished off Ukraine, it will attack NATO, regardless of Article 5 protections.
On your left hand, Russia is badly mauled from 4 years of fighting in Ukraine, and Putin is on his knees..with your right hand you offer, Russia need not wait 5 years for NATO to get it's shit together, Russia may attack TOMORROW!
This kind mindless, insipid rabble-rousing and fear-mongering isnungelpful to anyone but "defence" contractor executives and their fund managers.