[wolvesechoes]

Well, Macron is probably the only European leader that, declaratively at least, would like to push for more agency for Europe. Issue is that, for now, he offers only words. He already is trying to back down from the idea of sending troops to Ukraine (and number that was proposed was pathetic, considering intensity of this conflict).

Nukes are but a one thing, useful only in specific circumstances, but not sufficient. It is unrealistic to expect France using nukes if Russia attacks Lithuania, for example. Stakes are not justifying such escalation.

European countries lack conventional means: UAV, artillery, missiles. And soldiers.

[actionfromafar]

At this moment, the Russian military is very weakened. Europe doesn't have overwhelming force but could easily kick Russia out of Ukraine. (Except it won't for political reasons.)

[dmix]

Nothing in war is easy. It would be very dangerous and costly even if winning is likely.

[actionfromafar]

Not easy path. Easy outcome. If you think winning will dangerous and costly, guess how dangerous and costly losing will be.

[wolvesechoes]

Yes, it is very weakened, but the rest of your post... Sorry, but it is the same kind of hopium that people keep overdosing since 2022.

[pastage]

It is easy to talk about war, Europe would win the battle for Ukraine if they entered the war, no doubt about it. What that means for the EU politically makes an intervention in Ukraine a pipedream.

[wolvesechoes]

https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/defending-europe-without-us...

Well, seems like some in Europe have doubts about it.

[pastage]

I lived when the defense industry got money during the cold war, of course they need more money to win and obviously they will do everything they can to get more funding.