The EU thread

[crazy canuck]

Spain has drawn the Eye of Sauron.

US President Donald Trump has threatened to halt all trade with Spain, after the country barred the US from using its military bases as part of its operation in Iran.

In comments at the White House, Trump said Spain had been "terrible" and suggested "we're going to cut off all trade". "We don't want anything to do with Spain," he told reporters.

Can someone give me TLDR on Spanish politics. I pay more attention to weather forecasts and the menu when over there.

It was virtue signalling that has spectacularly escalated.

The Spanish gov is inmersed in a quagmire of corruption, plus the lack of an actual majority to govern, and is trailing in the polls by quite a big margin. But Spanish public opinion has always been very anti-Middle East excursions - our deployments in Irak were wildly unpopular - so he saw it as a way to score points.

Note that I think the attacks are an awful idea, but this is more a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Virtue signaling or just plain old politics?

[mongers]

Meanwhile Finland begins to clears internal legal barriers to it hosting and even possessing nuclear weapons.   

edit:
BBC article here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14m5llnrlpo

[Sheilbh]

Indication from Tusk too that Poland will pursue nukes, and who can blame them.

[Jacob]

I do wonder how much the various "we should build nuclear power for energy independence" in various EU countries has a subtext of "and coincidentally, it'll put us in a better position to build nuclear weapons should we decide to do so in the future".

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, in the case of Poland I'm not sure it's even subtext - Tusk earlier this week:

"We �are investing heavily in future nuclear power plants, and �Poland will not want to be passive when it comes to nuclear security in a military context," the prime �minister said before the start of Tuesday's government �meeting.

"We will cooperate with our allies... as our capabilities increase, ‌we ⁠will try to prepare Poland for autonomous action in this matter."

[mongers]

I do wonder how much the various "we should build nuclear power for energy independence" in various EU countries has a subtext of "and coincidentally, it'll put us in a better position to build nuclear weapons should we decide to do so in the future".

Well the first Western nuclear power plant, Calder Hall, was just an elaborate cover for the British to produce plutonium for bombs; they even roped in the Queen to open it, to give the civilian electricity ruse some credence.

[Duque de Bragança]

I do wonder how much the various "we should build nuclear power for energy independence" in various EU countries has a subtext of "and coincidentally, it'll put us in a better position to build nuclear weapons should we decide to do so in the future".

Well the first Western nuclear power plant, Calder Hall, was just an elaborate cover for the British to produce plutonium for bombs; they even roped in the Queen to open it, to give the civilian electricity ruse some credence.

Linked as well in France. Hardly a surprise or a revelation.

[Legbiter]

The Greenland shitshow was...6 weeks ago. Damn, every month of this year is like a decade, anyway, and I agree with the premise of the video. This is what ideal arctic security looks like, you may not like it but this is what peak arctic security looks like.

 

[Sheilbh]

Interesting update on the JEF - I saw in Bloomberg that Canada is apparently considering joining (I think they have participated in some joint exercise before). I think it would make a lot of sense and be good for everyone involved. Another slightly bigger country would be welcome - but also building that interoperability as Jake says with a shared regional/strategic focus (rather than everyone trying to do everything everywhere etc).

[Norgy]

You do know the Nordic nations and Canada signed a deal about the Arctic region some days ago?

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/whats-new/nordic-countries-and-canada-to-strengthen-cooperation/id3152294/

It is probably one of the larger middle fingers to Washington since Olof Palme went to anti-war demonstrations.

Not that Trump is in Washington, with the renovations going on and all.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, I was surprised the Americans didn't react more strongly to that. We have basically said we are no longer going to be collaborating with the United States in the north.  Mainly because they are now our greatest threat there.

[The Minsky Moment]

No one wants to give the bad news to the King . . .

[Jacob]

I don't think Trump understands the concept of collaborating, nor on the implications of a long term collaboration (or the ending of same).

He only understands snapping fingers and having minions scurry to obey, and asserting something to be true with sufficient vehemence for his social spheres (online and physical) to agree that's how it is.

The practicalities and logistics of exerting power in the arctic - and the advantages of collaborating - is so far from that mindset that honestly, I don't think this registers as having much significance to Trump.

[Legbiter]

Back in the Precambrian era of six weeks ago during the Greenland standoff, a neat little summary by Shashank Joshi the Economist defense journalist.

Remarkable story from Denmark's nat'l broadcaster. "When Danish soldiers were flown to Greenland in January...they brought explosives so they could destroy, among other things, the runways in Nuuk & Kangerlussuaq [to] prevent US mil aircraft from landing"

"The cargo also included blood from Danish blood banks, so that the wounded could receive treatment if it had come to battle" a/c to 'sources in the Danish gov't, top officers, as well as high-ranking officials & intel sources in Denmark, France & Germany"

"The goal of having soldiers on land in Greenland – with as many different flags on their shoulders as possible – was, according to six of the sources, so that the Americans would be forced to take a major hostile action...to occupy Greenland militarily."

France—"Would you like more soldiers? You could have them. Would you like more naval support? You could have that. Would you like more air support? You could have that too. A number of other allies also offered their support early on – including Germany."

   

Link.
https://x.com/shashj/status/2034586309499523166

[Sheilbh]

Although - again on the robbing Peter to pay Paul/fragility of European defence - France was sending the navy to Greenland and the High North. Partly against Russia but also as a reassurance force for Denmark. That has now been deployed in the Eastern Med to protect French interests in the region and help protect Cyprus.

It is the problem of to a point just needing more of everything. Russia on one side, America on the other, the Middle East and North Africa as our near-neighbourhood means there may be more that challengse to European security will not always have the manners of queuing up.

I went to a defence thing years ago with an MoD navy person talking about how incredibly effective and multi-functional modern ships were. That's part of what enabled cutbacks etc (see the US Navy now without standalone minesweepers - that functionality has been integrated into other ships). Which was all very convincing but he didn't really have an answer when someone from the audience made the point that however powerful they, they can still only be in one place at a time. I think one thing that keeps coming up for me in recent years is that quantity - with all its redundancies and inefficiencies and other sins against the market - has a quality all of its own.