• We are implementing a new rule regarding the posting of social media links and Youtube videos, the rule is simple if you are posting these links please say something about it rather than just dropping what we call a "drive by Link", a comment on your thoughts about the content must be included. Thank you

Politics EU Politics and News

Its Germany related but also EU because of the shitty 2+4 treary we signed with contract breaking Russia.
Russia having violated its own commitments, the 2+4-Treaty can be considered null and void at this point.

As a matter of fact, Berlin has indicated holding such a view; the government's plans to expand Germany's armed forces to 460,000 troops violates the treaty's manpower limit of 370,000 imposed on us.

And frankly, who's to protest?

Washington can't credibly protest a German arms buildup after demanding one in the strongest of terms.

Paris or London could not credibly protest a German nuclear arsenal if the decision to create one follows their refusal to give reliable guarantees in the sense of a nuclear umbrella.

Politically, the biggest obstacle to a German nuclear weapon is the German voter.

Having said that, I suspect that what Merz is really after is a nuclear sharing model like the Two-Keys-Agreement Germany (still) has with the United States, perhaps a bit more robust (i.e. with actual ownership of the weapon). For example, Germany could buy French nuclear warheads for a native cruise missile (like Taurus Neo) and strike a deal to the effect that their use requires French consent.
 
Poland is the first EU contry who banned Chinese cars from military bases:

Poland has long been considered a backward country, but one really needs to be backward or plainly retarded NOT to ban Chinese cars from military bases.

The other countries that have done it so far are Israel and the UK.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
I'd take the money then vote against him.
 
Russia having violated its own commitments, the 2+4-Treaty can be considered null and void at this point.

As a matter of fact, Berlin has indicated holding such a view; the government's plans to expand Germany's armed forces to 460,000 troops violates the treaty's manpower limit of 370,000 imposed on us.

And frankly, who's to protest?

Washington can't credibly protest a German arms buildup after demanding one in the strongest of terms.

Paris or London could not credibly protest a German nuclear arsenal if the decision to create one follows their refusal to give reliable guarantees in the sense of a nuclear umbrella.

Politically, the biggest obstacle to a German nuclear weapon is the German voter.

Having said that, I suspect that what Merz is really after is a nuclear sharing model like the Two-Keys-Agreement Germany (still) has with the United States, perhaps a bit more robust (i.e. with actual ownership of the weapon). For example, Germany could buy French nuclear warheads for a native cruise missile (like Taurus Neo) and strike a deal to the effect that their use requires French consent.

Totally agree. Technically one could use Taurus too (if the warhead fits) but I mentioned ASMP because its another kind of weapon.

A mix of both a long range cruise missile Taurus and the new ASMPR would be ideal.

The rest I would by as is from France. Tested and reliable maybe somr other offsets can be found.
 
Its Germany related but also EU because of the shitty 2+4 treary we signed with contract breaking Russia.
I just realised the 'New York Post''s headline was junk, and my comment premature.

The Science Department of the Federal Diet was asked to provide expert opinion on this very matter in 2024. (Source)

It came to the conclusion that the Two-plus-Four-Treaty is "declaratory" in nature: Instead of imposing on the Federal Republic of Germany a (new) legal obligation to renounce nuclear weapons in perpetuity, both Germanys affirmed that they would continue to abide by their (existing) obligations under international law not to seek nuclear armament. This "obligation" stems from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

A country can withdraw from the NPT, see Article X, Section 1.
 
Sikorski's speech in Norway:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Nexperia will not be given back control to CEO Zhang "who only wants the best" due to conflicting interests.


Strategic assets should anyway never ever be sold to axis of evil nations. Big mistake.

All is geared towards the CCPs plans.
 
 
Security and defence partnerships support the EU’s strategic autonomy while remaining fully complementary to NATO.

The EU is facing its most serious security situation since the Second World War, with Russia being the main threat.

Need to reassess economic relations with China and strengthen resilience.

Call for a stronger and more capable defence pillar so EU can act autonomously if necessary.

 
Security and defence partnerships support the EU’s strategic autonomy while remaining fully complementary to NATO.

The EU is facing its most serious security situation since the Second World War, with Russia being the main threat.

Need to reassess economic relations with China and strengthen resilience.

Call for a stronger and more capable defence pillar so EU can act autonomously if necessary.


I would make the case that economic security is probably the top concern.

Security could be brought up to par inside a decade by committing to a reasonable ongoing spend. Even with a somewhat fractious system of overlap. Not US spend levels either. Just gotta bump it up and then stay there.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Misleading pseudo-news.

The transfer of migrants from Ceuta and Melilla to the mainland is common practice to prevent the CETIs (Centros de Estancia Temporal de Inmigrantes) in both cities from becoming overcrowded to the point of colapse. The same happens in the Canary Islands when the arrival of boats carrying illegal immigrants exceeds the islands' capacity to manage that mass migration episodes.

Illegal migrants who apply for asylum, or who are protected from immediate deportation under the current regulatory framework (unaccompanied minors, pregnant women, migrants of unknown origin, members of persecuted minorities, etc.) are provided with immigration documentation (often with an associated NIE issued on the spot) and are transferred to the mainland to Foreigners' Detention Centres (CIE - Centros de Internamiento de Extranjeros) while their applications for asylum, protection or regularisation are processed by the National Police and the Ministry of the Interior.

This does not prevent the mandatory expulsion orders from being processed once in mainland Spain, if the applications are denied. In cases where bilateral treaties exist, this means the return of the migrant to their country of origin by air or sea, or in cases where there are no such treaties, they are subject to the provisions of migration agreements with North African and South American countries regarding foreign nationals of third countries who have used those as a route of entry.

The regulatory change associated with the announced mass regularisation of 500,000 illegal migrants has not yet come into force, nor have the current immigration procedures and processes been altered in any way.

For the legislative package approved by Sánchez to come into force, it must first be published in the BOE (Official State Gazette), which has not yet happened. And then, the Royal Decree-Law by which it has been approved must be validated by Congress in time, something that, given the opposition of several separatist partners in the Sánchez government, is very unlikely to happen.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top