top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 116 points 2 years ago (14 children)

He said a lot of other good stuff too IMO.

Finally someone taking the russian and slso the american threat seriously.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    UK has typically bowed to US.

    France may our only Security Council Veto hope.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 years ago

    Bowed? I think its more of a strategy, to try to win the Americans back, act as a bridge. IMO it is too late. But even if it is only a 1% chance, its worth it. Meanwhile UK is investing in defense, standing by allies and being unwavering in its support for Ukraine.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (11 children)
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [–] 66 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    I know he did some shitty stuff domestically, but hes one of the biggest eurobros.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Agreed. I'd like to see him in Von der Leyen's job once she's out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I can't take her seriously, the EU needs a strong face and she's not doing it for me. This isn't a woman VS man thing, I thought Merkel was tougher than Scholz to be fair.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    VdL was the Defense Minister in charge when the German military lost several subs to lack of maintenance from their ultimately not so big fleet in the first place.

    She is definitely not the person who should be there, as she seems more interested in pushing through Chat Control than doing any kind of serious policy on Russia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 58 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    I would definitely be in favor of France taking the US's place on the world stage. They're a more appropriate leader of the free world anyway

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 59 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Hm, I don’t think there’s such a thing as an “appropriate leader of the free world”. (Not even talking about how problematic the notion of “the free world” is.) We’re in this mess because one country has this much power over the rest of us. Replacing it with another (I’m saying this hypothetically, because France is in no position to gain as much power as the US anyway) doesn’t solve the problem.

    Also, and I’m saying this as a French person, France has its issues, even though they’re not as cataclysmically bad as the United States’s problems right now. The far right is getting a lot stronger here too (as in many other countries) and I’m frankly worried about the future. Many people here are fighting against this, and I hope we can turn the tide somehow, but... never depend on one country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (12 replies)
    [–] 47 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    They should oopsie whoopsie give Ukraine one. Seems fair since Ukraine only gave theirs up in exchange for American protection.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Just having one would be more dangerous then having none. It's not enough for actual deterrence but it is enough for Russia to "justify" using its arsenal against them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago*

    Nothing has to change as long as France is willing to end the world for Finland and Russia believes they'll do it.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago

    Frogs being based as always.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (7 children)

    Us too plz?

    I'm sure we'll give you guys whatever you want in return, shit's getting really scary here in Canada.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    We have a good chunk of the technology. We should eventually build our own. After all, India built their nuclear weapons from Canadian tech.

    On May 18, 1974, India shocked the world by conducting a test A-Bomb explosion it called 'Smiling Buddha. ' The nuclear explosive was plutonium, obtained from a 'peaceful' research reactor – a gift from the Canadian government in 1956.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Yeah, but proliferation is bad, basically. The more nations have nukes the harder it is to not use them.

    That being said, we already have the CANDU reactors in Ontario churning out plutonium that we just bury. I've heard it estimated we could have bombs in like 3 months if we wanted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Not as big an ask as you're probably thinking. In the end, they've always (just barely) voted to stay for the convenience. If we were to join the Schengen area and the single market going forward, and maybe even the EU itself, it wouldn't really be a problem if they were technically a separate nation within it.

    It was a "shotgun marriage" by the colonial British in the first place, and as far as I can tell enthusiasm for the arrangement was never that high among ordinary Anglo Canadians, either. I hear "they should just leave so we never have to talk about it again" semi-often IRL.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    Provide cover to Greenland.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I thought they already had a warning shot doctrine.

    https://youtu.be/gFmuj7E5GwA

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    All these tuff guys had 3 years to do something and they just sat back and counted their money.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›