213
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2026
213 points (99.1% liked)
Europe
11293 readers
877 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
An own nuclear deterrent unfortunately is a necessary evil in the face of hostile nuclear powers. The alternative is to become vassals or, even worse, colonies to those hostile nuclear powers.
This is not a given outcome. Ukraine is not a nuclear power and are not becoming a vassal of Russia.
UK has vowed to retaliate proportionally if Russia attack Ukraine with nuclear weapons.
So Ukraine is somewhat protected by allies. Otherwise who knows what that maniac Putin could do?
Also your example proves the point, be cause Russia attacked Ukraine because they thought it would be easy, because the Russian military was supposed to be superior to Ukraine.
If Ukraine had an obviously strong defense it would have been unlikely that Russia would have attacked Ukraine.
Having a strong defense is unfortunately necessary because of how the global situation is. And that includes the ability to retaliate with nukes.
First time I've heard of that, where did you hear this? Searching the web yields nothing.
My example contradicts your point. You don't have to have nuclear weapons to avoid being a vassal or colony. Ukraine is managing without, and what's more interesting is that Russia can't even use nukes against Ukraine to win the war. So in a sense not being a nuclear power gives some protection.
I have to admit I can't find it myself, all I get is stories about "unpreparedness by the UK" and Russian threats against NATO and EU and UK.
But this came out years ago it may have been while Boris Johnson was still PM.
Boris Johnson was also out with very early warning to Russia about devastating effect to the Russian economy from sanctions.
[The closest I can find is this:
https://youtu.be/38wK5l80TS4?t=37
Clearly Putin has been send some sort of warning, where Boris states We send a message to Putin on nuclear, and he heard that message.
Maybe the statements about proportional response is an interpretation?
I still disagree, because the reason Ukraine can do that, is that Ukraine has multiple allies that have nuclear weapons.
With strong allies you obviously don't need to be a vassal of anybody.
Ukraine is getting really really strong on their own accord now, but still it can never be a match to nuclear weapons. And without the backing from nuclear powers of Ukraine, who knows if Putin could get the idea to use nukes against Ukraine?
I think Putin could be crazy enough to do it, and I definitely think Trump could too. Trump has no moral limitation. The only limitation for him is what he thinks he can get away with. And I think Putin is very similar.
Unfortunately Norway has become a vassal of France. And that's possibly worse.
I can't even imagine how deranged a person would have to be to actually believe that.
You must absolutely be trolling.
You believe Norway has nuclear capabilities and can independently act militarily as a nation against a nuclear power?
Which one of us is 'deranged'?
You. 100% you.
OK I take that as a statement you actually believe it, which is very far out there.
Of course I know they don't have nukes. And so do everybody else. It has been Norwegian policy, and this is actually a change of that policy.
But having an ally is not being a vasal. Is France being a vassal to Norway for doing what Norway want? Or for buying oil from Norway? Am I a vassal of Germany for driving a German car.
Where does you logic start on being a vassal, and where does it end?
I seriously doubt you have the slightest clue on that yourself.
How is that worse than being a vassal of the US?
That's irrelevant, because of course no European country is a vassal of France.
And not of Germany or UK either.
It can be argued that we were voluntary vassals of USA in some regards, because we trusted USA. But that trust has been so thoroughly broken, that all European countries are now clearly breaking free of American dominance.
But for more than half a century the Pax Americana was mutually beneficial. USA has now broken that, and prefer to go it alone instead of having strong allies.
Of course, I was still curious as to what the rationale was.
Have you seen french people?
Yes, I have worked with them, talked with them, etc. Great people. As a Norwegian I have a lot more culturally and politically in common with the French. I'd rather live in a vassal state to a modern liberal democracy over the underdeveloped turd reich.
Removed for civility
According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway because bees don't care what humans think is impossible. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Ooh, black and yellow! Let's shake it up a little. Barry! Breakfast is ready! Ooming! Hang on a second. Hello?You were not talking about nuclear proliferation in the comment I was responding to, but made the ridiculous claim that Norway turned itself into a vassal of France. Following up towards another poster with a smear against "French people". That said, I take back my comment towards you in respect of the rules. Maybe you should take back yours too.
I am not sure how arguing for nuclear proliferation means being a Russian bot. Is there a "not" missing? In that case how is nuclear proliferation when it does not change the number of nuclear war heads, does not spread nuclear war heads to another nation nor does it give any additional government control over nuclear warheads.
I was, you assumed otherwise. Norway submitting to France's 'protection,' means they must always agree with France, they cannot ever go against France, otherwise they'd lose protection.
That's being a vassal state. Vassal states are and were states not powerful enough to defend themselves, so they sought protection from Empires that felt it would be too costly to conquer them but still needed some of their resources.
Nuclear proliferation is the solution to prevent vassal states, and have an actually independent Norway. Unless you're a nuclear power, you do not have an army. You do not have any form of defense. It does not matter what you do, you are under the vassalage of a nuclear power. Picking France over Russia is fine, I guess, but the effect will always be the same.
I see, I did indeed misunderstand you.
So you are arguing really for proper nuclear proliferation with Norway getting its own independent nuclear capabilities like France. The only small country having nuclear capabilities is Israel, and they surely pay a hefty price for it and are extremely dependend on the support of another major power nonetheless, probably more than Norway is dependent on France, even after this deal.
If France renegades on that deal, the worst thing that happens to Norway is being in the situation form before that deal.
Ukraine has no nuclear warheads and is bombing a nuclear power heavily (defending against its aggression), damaging a lot of its strategically important oil and gas industry btw. A nuclear deterrent is a strong power but it is not the only way to exert hard power, nor does the lack of having nuclear weapons make a country necessarily easy prey.
Ukraine has essentially received materials and nuclear protection from the entire western world. The US has explicitly stated they will retaliate (well Biden did) if nuclear weapons are used. They are lucky they are white enough. They also just genuinely surprised the western world in the first two weeks, as it was assumed they would fall, given the country's history of extreme corruption and multiple intelligence agencies presuming their lack of military capability would fail them long before Russia ran out of steam.
While e.g. Norway is white, and notably less corrupt, there's only so many times the entire western world can rally behind a country being attacked. If any multi-polar attack were to be launched but not turned nuclear, there's very little that could be done for some of the victims. Some country would fail to be protected, and they would fail.
Nuclear protection for Ukraine, do you have any credible source for that claim? Materials and arms from other countries, hardly makes a case against your point that you have no army unless you have nuclear arms.
Even if Biden said anything. Biden isn't in power anymore and even with him it was far fetched to believe the US would risk nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. This whole premise has become entirely absurd under Trump. Yet, the counter attacks against Russia have vastly intensified since Biden is out of office.
Your racist classifications are not necessarily as central to foreign policy as you might believe.