No, Kieran, man for man the UK (and France for that matter) unlike Germany field very good troops. But UK numbers are at their lowest since pre-Waterloo; the politicians of the past generation (many of them Tories) have squandered this excellent fighting machine. I say this in great sorrow. Good news is that both the UK and France have a strategic culture still; unlike in Berlin
Damn right they do, John! Regardless of military aptitude, my point was that anyone suggesting they wouldn’t die for their country is out of line. Point taken about Berlin.
Thanks Kieran; I thought ahead of a big week a more thoughtful deep dive of the issue (looking at the key political risk driver questions rather than specifics) was in order. Merz will obviously be saddled with a leftist coalition partner which will hamper his efforts to do less there. But it will remain a mess as the euro elite just don't have the political heft to go full federation. Much as they want to (as Vance noted) their people do not. As you say (and I used the military question as framing this) militarily no one is going to to die for Europe; that's the limitation on the strategic front, much less Ukraine. Russia has the whip hand here; in terms of interests and fervour, whatever we might like. Look for the dealing to start in Saudi. speak soon!
Evening, John. Yes, as a layman, I really appreciate you identifying the key driving questions. It truly helps separate the wheat from the chaff. I can only imagine the tension and atmosphere in that Saudi meeting room… air con on maximum!
Watched the televised political debate here last night, Erik. Nearly fell asleep. Didn’t find it particularly inspiring, but my German is pidgin at best.
Also supported by the official (and state-funded) press.
Friedrich Merkel did not expunge Angela Merkel and did not mold the loyalty to him. He has failed to shape ideology, at best taken over the existing instrument (and even that only half-ass). Unlike how Trump changed the GOP.
It shows.
It renders the next government a failure before it is even formed.
Thats all so, but it is the crazy nature of left-right coalitions that neuters any effort from the CDU (up until now) to do anything other than muddle through. A left-right coalition by definition will be policy mush
I fear you are right Erik. Looked like a great opportunity to inject some energy into the debate, admit the failings of the past, but crucially offer a meaningful vision for the future. Instead it was board room boring.
Europe should absolutely decide whether it wants to be a federation or confederation. It pains me that this was a fundamental question we reflected when I was 17 in 1988 as militant in the MFE. Apart from the "Federalist" in the name of the movement, this seemed obvious to us back then: we traced back the modern formation of the EU to Churchill's declaration for the "United States of Europe" and the fact that during the WWII the French and British governments were acting as a single Federal government. It gave me shivers when two weeks ago you mentioned the Federalist Papers, because we studied part of them in our meetings, and Hamilton's work, was equivalent to a holy text to us.
Back them, we felt that there was a very strong pro-European feeling in Italy (and many countries in the EU), and that European Federalism was something that most Italians would have either wished for or at least not objected to. Sadly the bad decisions, the overreaching regulation, the pointless laws about unimportant issues, the lack of progress in the democratisation of the European organisations meant that most Italians saw their lifestyle worsen. Even if it wasn't necessarily all Europe's fault (I think our own faults were even bigger than those of the eurocrats - namely corruption and culture of illegality), we felt disappointed and betrayed, hence the big move to populism and nationalism. So closer union - that 37 years ago felt a necessary next step - doesn't feel anymore as an achievable goal and this is a problem.
We used to collect signatures in the streets with petition to give the European Parliament (more) powers and we explained that we wanted to count more both as Italian and Europeans. Two generations later, we count much less, we are poorer, and we feel less democracy.
This is just a comment, I wish I could say that I disagree with you and that I could argue about this, but the facts prove you right, so we missed an historic chance!
About Federalism and confederation, we wanted European federalism exactly because federalism - if implemented correctly - would have meant that only a few powers would have been delegated to the EU (foreign politics, defence, budget), while everything else would have left to National and regional level, hence allowing the preservation of the differences between European countries.
We thought that a confederation would have resulted in the main countries (Germany, France) decide the tune giving smaller countries no way to suggest alternatives. We thought that a confederation would have resulted in more homologation and loss of regional/national differences.
Clearly the Eurocrats managed to centralise and over regulate well beyond our federalist ideas, so whatever the EU is, should be reformed. But wouldn't a confederation be an even more terrible risk?
Hi Giancarlo, thanks for this moving account of what has happened over the past generation. I utterly understand the facts prove me right; but know I have no joy in replying them. As an global analyst I often have to separate my feelings (I have four European kids so I have skin in the game here, and as you know love the place) from my analysis if I am going to be world-class. This is such a time. Yes, the entire notion of Europe (fairly and unfairly) has become bound up on the continent’s relative decline. That makes federalism (I Love you’ve read Hamilton; the best ‘How to’ guide ever written about Republican government, brilliant in every way) a non-starter except among cosseted elites. What remains is a more expansive confederalism, with a few but central things done from Brussels and all the rest devolved to the states. I think that does fit the cultural reality of Europe and may give you more coherence than you’d think, and certa9nly than exists now. As realists we work with what is in front of us; that’s the east we can do.
While it is true that people would say they are French or German before they would say European, it is not true that European identity isn't important to the right in the EU. The election of more nationalist anti-EU governments is actually partly due to non-European immigration. The elitist left say they are European, but the nationalist right more strongly identify as European, but not as a country. The rising populist water is partly based on a European identity.
While only a small percentage of people would die for Ukraine, far more see Russia as an existential threat, that they experienced in living memory, and would be willing to fight for that. Americans wouldn't die for any Asian Pacific nation, but understand that what happens there effects them. For Poland and the Baltic states fighting Russia is about survival, and the majority of their citizens know it. Russia is also a top priority for the UK and Scandinavia, who have had Russian sabotage and nerve agent use, and have always been Russian enemies. For Germany too, despite their failure to act, the Berlin wall fell only 35 years ago. Especially since the gas crisis, a large proportion of EU citizens see Russia as the main threat to their prosperity. But also there are many that want peace and trade with Russia, Russian resources are important to EU prosperity.
It looks like they will deploy troops to Ukraine? But probably less than half the required number. In this peace deal, will Russia be satisfied with the land it has taken? Will they continue to act aggressively and cause trouble in Europe? Might they be able to do any real economic or social damage, either winning elections or sabotaging marine infrastructure? Might they rebuild then attack European troops in Ukraine in 10 years? If Trump normalises relations with Russia will the EU also and begin trading again? Can there be a lasting peace? A lasting peace with the US or Europe or both?
Great discussion John. You are so much more connected and understand history far more than myself... I suggest a reference for Europeans, a book.. "The Long Fuse" it's American, on how England lost the American Colonies. Time for Europeans to show some Grit,( yes a confederation is needed) things are going to get extremely messy. God Speed
Hi Kieran, I will look into the book you mentioned as well.
Maybe the UK will be part, and join in on the of the current USA Revolution, as we return to our roots, #REALISM. It's such an absolute exhilarating time in history. Best to you
Fantastic John! How nice of Steve! This past weekend, very snowy and cold. We couldn’t find a movie to watch, and my husband said…”doesn’t John have a list of movies?” I thought me meant my brother John, but he meant you! So we watched Gosford Park…
Yes!!! Once we realized it is a movie where it is not necessary to follow every single conversation to a “T” and let it flow, we were very much enthralled! It led to a conversation about Nashville (which we did watch before) Excellent movie!!!
Tell Chris its a tough one, so give him the Agatha Christie prize! yes, its like Nashville (which as you know I love) in that the feel of the thing is the point; very Altman-esque! Glad you both liked it and fondly, John
Look at it this way: the two most successful countries in Europe are Norway and Switzerland. Norway is only member of the looser EEA, not the EU. Switzerland is member of neither, but of the EFTA (a structure in which it is the only member; there are no other EFTA members - explain that another day). Both have their own currency: NOK and CHF, which trade against Euro - but certainly not pegged.
It seems that those with the least to lose and the most to gain from reverting to an economic community model will dictate its direction. How much power Merz secures next week will be critical, as Germany’s leadership will determine whether momentum shifts toward recalibrating the EU’s structure. The majority of locals I’ve spoken to here in Germany believe his remedy will be for a different EU rather than less EU, but crucially, not more EU either.
It is unrealistic to assume that the average fighting age German or Frenchman would be willing to die for Ukraine in an EU army uniform. National armed forces are built on honour, loyalty, and identity. To serve and if necessary, risk their lives for their country is a fundamental oath soldiers take. Expecting them to sacrifice under an EU flag, rather than their own, ignores the core psychology of military service.
And as you say, whether we like it or not, Ukraine matters more to Russia than to any EU nation except, of course, to Ukraine itself.
Big statement from the UK. Our troops might be heading to Ukraine (officially this time). Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, and France will have to follow. Is this a shit in the US party bag, or is the UK just reading between the lines? Interesting that the deployment seems focused on defending the current frontlines, aligning with Hegseth’s view. Feels like another Checkpoint Charlie moment. Busy week for you, John!
I agree Kieran, its a big statement, but a very odd statement. Its odd in that the terms these peacekeepers would have to fight over/or actual troops. Not at all clear. As I pointed out in the last substack, there’s no actual policy plan attached to this; first the strategic plan then then practical policy means to achieve it, is the sign of seriousness. Once we see this I can actually comment. Until then this is just Wilsonian virtue signalling but huge week ahead as the dots are connected
It could be Starmer desperately trying to stay relevant before the meeting kicks off in Saudi without him (the timing suggests as much). Let’s hope it isn’t a reckless statement, because he’s talking about British blood here. Very much looking forward to your take on it all. Ciao.
No one wants to die for their country, but that doesn’t mean Germans wouldn’t be willing to fight and, if necessary, sacrifice for Germany and its principles. The Bundeswehr exists for this very reason, and German soldiers have already risked and lost their lives in missions abroad. If Germany were genuinely threatened, the idea that Germans would simply roll over is nonsense.
They are not mentally ready. The pacifist glue has been overdone in Germany, it has affected the resilience of the country. This for 8 decades on end and it has had an effect on psyche. Next is the arms & training, but that is secondary (although serious). German soldiers typically die, if at all, on exercises gone wrong (like on a sailing ship where some junior trainees killed themselves).
Is the UK ready to fight? They are staffed below target by about 10,000 (which is more than 10% short). The UK contingent numbers to about 3 months run rate for the Russian army to chew through - but that includes UK navy too. The defence money has been spent elsewhere than on defence: like on a pig shit fermenter for methane production on an RAF base (the RAF is contractually obliged to buy the methane at extortionate prices from me - it was a 5 minute green press release for Boris). The UK defence budget is about as leaky as USAID. UK soldiers don't even have proper housing right now. Who will die for Starmer? Who will take a stand (risking your life) for Yvette Cooper or David Lammy? Iraq veterans are being arrested and jailed over tweets or silent prayer at the moment.
In fact, US recruitment (which plummeted under Biden, no one will die for a transgendered general) has recovered in 2025, it seems a Trump effect, with confidence & pride in the army at an early stage of recovery from the Biden aberration. It remains the case that physical standards have had to be dropped (obesity, athletic readiness...) But Trump's not going to Ukraine. Angelina Jolie has, but not to die fighting.
One NATO army besides the USA that has some punch is Turkey, but Erdogan is cool. Poland is investing and building up.
Overall (and this is part of what I do for the day job), the consensus view is Turkey army large and serious (top of the second tier), French small but quite effective, Poland on the ups as you say across the board, British hollowed out, and my high school football team (as I told the head of the German army) could take the German army. You are right Erik; this is the capacity question, but as Clausewitz said, you have to add psychology. In poll after poll, Germany will fight for almost nothing. It is the black strategic hole here
In the UK, the Army and RAF oath is to the King, not to any political allegiance. Your point about numbers and resources is valid. Still, wouldn’t want to face the pointy end of the SAS or SBS though.
No, Kieran, man for man the UK (and France for that matter) unlike Germany field very good troops. But UK numbers are at their lowest since pre-Waterloo; the politicians of the past generation (many of them Tories) have squandered this excellent fighting machine. I say this in great sorrow. Good news is that both the UK and France have a strategic culture still; unlike in Berlin
Damn right they do, John! Regardless of military aptitude, my point was that anyone suggesting they wouldn’t die for their country is out of line. Point taken about Berlin.
Thanks Kieran; I thought ahead of a big week a more thoughtful deep dive of the issue (looking at the key political risk driver questions rather than specifics) was in order. Merz will obviously be saddled with a leftist coalition partner which will hamper his efforts to do less there. But it will remain a mess as the euro elite just don't have the political heft to go full federation. Much as they want to (as Vance noted) their people do not. As you say (and I used the military question as framing this) militarily no one is going to to die for Europe; that's the limitation on the strategic front, much less Ukraine. Russia has the whip hand here; in terms of interests and fervour, whatever we might like. Look for the dealing to start in Saudi. speak soon!
Evening, John. Yes, as a layman, I really appreciate you identifying the key driving questions. It truly helps separate the wheat from the chaff. I can only imagine the tension and atmosphere in that Saudi meeting room… air con on maximum!
Couldn’t help myself… Looks like the crèche is open in Paris tomorrow while the real business happens in Riyadh.
Yes far from the therapy session
I don't expect anything from Angela Von Der Leyen or Friedrich Merkel. What a difference in calibre with Konrad Adenauer or Helmut Kohl.
Watched the televised political debate here last night, Erik. Nearly fell asleep. Didn’t find it particularly inspiring, but my German is pidgin at best.
The Brandmauer in full view.
Also supported by the official (and state-funded) press.
Friedrich Merkel did not expunge Angela Merkel and did not mold the loyalty to him. He has failed to shape ideology, at best taken over the existing instrument (and even that only half-ass). Unlike how Trump changed the GOP.
It shows.
It renders the next government a failure before it is even formed.
Thats all so, but it is the crazy nature of left-right coalitions that neuters any effort from the CDU (up until now) to do anything other than muddle through. A left-right coalition by definition will be policy mush
I fear you are right Erik. Looked like a great opportunity to inject some energy into the debate, admit the failings of the past, but crucially offer a meaningful vision for the future. Instead it was board room boring.
Europe should absolutely decide whether it wants to be a federation or confederation. It pains me that this was a fundamental question we reflected when I was 17 in 1988 as militant in the MFE. Apart from the "Federalist" in the name of the movement, this seemed obvious to us back then: we traced back the modern formation of the EU to Churchill's declaration for the "United States of Europe" and the fact that during the WWII the French and British governments were acting as a single Federal government. It gave me shivers when two weeks ago you mentioned the Federalist Papers, because we studied part of them in our meetings, and Hamilton's work, was equivalent to a holy text to us.
Back them, we felt that there was a very strong pro-European feeling in Italy (and many countries in the EU), and that European Federalism was something that most Italians would have either wished for or at least not objected to. Sadly the bad decisions, the overreaching regulation, the pointless laws about unimportant issues, the lack of progress in the democratisation of the European organisations meant that most Italians saw their lifestyle worsen. Even if it wasn't necessarily all Europe's fault (I think our own faults were even bigger than those of the eurocrats - namely corruption and culture of illegality), we felt disappointed and betrayed, hence the big move to populism and nationalism. So closer union - that 37 years ago felt a necessary next step - doesn't feel anymore as an achievable goal and this is a problem.
We used to collect signatures in the streets with petition to give the European Parliament (more) powers and we explained that we wanted to count more both as Italian and Europeans. Two generations later, we count much less, we are poorer, and we feel less democracy.
This is just a comment, I wish I could say that I disagree with you and that I could argue about this, but the facts prove you right, so we missed an historic chance!
About Federalism and confederation, we wanted European federalism exactly because federalism - if implemented correctly - would have meant that only a few powers would have been delegated to the EU (foreign politics, defence, budget), while everything else would have left to National and regional level, hence allowing the preservation of the differences between European countries.
We thought that a confederation would have resulted in the main countries (Germany, France) decide the tune giving smaller countries no way to suggest alternatives. We thought that a confederation would have resulted in more homologation and loss of regional/national differences.
Clearly the Eurocrats managed to centralise and over regulate well beyond our federalist ideas, so whatever the EU is, should be reformed. But wouldn't a confederation be an even more terrible risk?
Hi Giancarlo, thanks for this moving account of what has happened over the past generation. I utterly understand the facts prove me right; but know I have no joy in replying them. As an global analyst I often have to separate my feelings (I have four European kids so I have skin in the game here, and as you know love the place) from my analysis if I am going to be world-class. This is such a time. Yes, the entire notion of Europe (fairly and unfairly) has become bound up on the continent’s relative decline. That makes federalism (I Love you’ve read Hamilton; the best ‘How to’ guide ever written about Republican government, brilliant in every way) a non-starter except among cosseted elites. What remains is a more expansive confederalism, with a few but central things done from Brussels and all the rest devolved to the states. I think that does fit the cultural reality of Europe and may give you more coherence than you’d think, and certa9nly than exists now. As realists we work with what is in front of us; that’s the east we can do.
While it is true that people would say they are French or German before they would say European, it is not true that European identity isn't important to the right in the EU. The election of more nationalist anti-EU governments is actually partly due to non-European immigration. The elitist left say they are European, but the nationalist right more strongly identify as European, but not as a country. The rising populist water is partly based on a European identity.
While only a small percentage of people would die for Ukraine, far more see Russia as an existential threat, that they experienced in living memory, and would be willing to fight for that. Americans wouldn't die for any Asian Pacific nation, but understand that what happens there effects them. For Poland and the Baltic states fighting Russia is about survival, and the majority of their citizens know it. Russia is also a top priority for the UK and Scandinavia, who have had Russian sabotage and nerve agent use, and have always been Russian enemies. For Germany too, despite their failure to act, the Berlin wall fell only 35 years ago. Especially since the gas crisis, a large proportion of EU citizens see Russia as the main threat to their prosperity. But also there are many that want peace and trade with Russia, Russian resources are important to EU prosperity.
It looks like they will deploy troops to Ukraine? But probably less than half the required number. In this peace deal, will Russia be satisfied with the land it has taken? Will they continue to act aggressively and cause trouble in Europe? Might they be able to do any real economic or social damage, either winning elections or sabotaging marine infrastructure? Might they rebuild then attack European troops in Ukraine in 10 years? If Trump normalises relations with Russia will the EU also and begin trading again? Can there be a lasting peace? A lasting peace with the US or Europe or both?
Great discussion John. You are so much more connected and understand history far more than myself... I suggest a reference for Europeans, a book.. "The Long Fuse" it's American, on how England lost the American Colonies. Time for Europeans to show some Grit,( yes a confederation is needed) things are going to get extremely messy. God Speed
Thanks, Dianne, I’ll check it out. I have heard The Common Cause by Robert Parkinson is decent (although a long read) too.
Hi Kieran, I will look into the book you mentioned as well.
Maybe the UK will be part, and join in on the of the current USA Revolution, as we return to our roots, #REALISM. It's such an absolute exhilarating time in history. Best to you
*he meant
Fantastic John! How nice of Steve! This past weekend, very snowy and cold. We couldn’t find a movie to watch, and my husband said…”doesn’t John have a list of movies?” I thought me meant my brother John, but he meant you! So we watched Gosford Park…
You went through my Robert Altman appreciation! very pleased Terri; did you all like it?
Yes!!! Once we realized it is a movie where it is not necessary to follow every single conversation to a “T” and let it flow, we were very much enthralled! It led to a conversation about Nashville (which we did watch before) Excellent movie!!!
Chris predicted the end of the movie early on!
Tell Chris its a tough one, so give him the Agatha Christie prize! yes, its like Nashville (which as you know I love) in that the feel of the thing is the point; very Altman-esque! Glad you both liked it and fondly, John
Look at it this way: the two most successful countries in Europe are Norway and Switzerland. Norway is only member of the looser EEA, not the EU. Switzerland is member of neither, but of the EFTA (a structure in which it is the only member; there are no other EFTA members - explain that another day). Both have their own currency: NOK and CHF, which trade against Euro - but certainly not pegged.
Flanders doesn't want to be a part of the EU. It doesn't even want to be a part of Belgium.
Can someone tell me how I switch back and forth between audio and text format? I can’t figure it out! Thanks
I didn't know text/transcript format was even possible!
Great listen, John.
It seems that those with the least to lose and the most to gain from reverting to an economic community model will dictate its direction. How much power Merz secures next week will be critical, as Germany’s leadership will determine whether momentum shifts toward recalibrating the EU’s structure. The majority of locals I’ve spoken to here in Germany believe his remedy will be for a different EU rather than less EU, but crucially, not more EU either.
It is unrealistic to assume that the average fighting age German or Frenchman would be willing to die for Ukraine in an EU army uniform. National armed forces are built on honour, loyalty, and identity. To serve and if necessary, risk their lives for their country is a fundamental oath soldiers take. Expecting them to sacrifice under an EU flag, rather than their own, ignores the core psychology of military service.
And as you say, whether we like it or not, Ukraine matters more to Russia than to any EU nation except, of course, to Ukraine itself.
Big statement from the UK. Our troops might be heading to Ukraine (officially this time). Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, and France will have to follow. Is this a shit in the US party bag, or is the UK just reading between the lines? Interesting that the deployment seems focused on defending the current frontlines, aligning with Hegseth’s view. Feels like another Checkpoint Charlie moment. Busy week for you, John!
I agree Kieran, its a big statement, but a very odd statement. Its odd in that the terms these peacekeepers would have to fight over/or actual troops. Not at all clear. As I pointed out in the last substack, there’s no actual policy plan attached to this; first the strategic plan then then practical policy means to achieve it, is the sign of seriousness. Once we see this I can actually comment. Until then this is just Wilsonian virtue signalling but huge week ahead as the dots are connected
It could be Starmer desperately trying to stay relevant before the meeting kicks off in Saudi without him (the timing suggests as much). Let’s hope it isn’t a reckless statement, because he’s talking about British blood here. Very much looking forward to your take on it all. Ciao.
Germans don't want to die for Germany.
No one wants to die for their country, but that doesn’t mean Germans wouldn’t be willing to fight and, if necessary, sacrifice for Germany and its principles. The Bundeswehr exists for this very reason, and German soldiers have already risked and lost their lives in missions abroad. If Germany were genuinely threatened, the idea that Germans would simply roll over is nonsense.
No, Germans in today's Germany would not be willing to fight for Germany.
There is no national pride and they don't feel that there is a core to defend or to die for.
The recoil from WW1, WW2 and the Holocaust in particular is such that they don't trust their own country or leaders.
The Bundeswehr is not a fighting army. It is more a UN blue helmet type of safekeeping force.
Respectfully disagree Erik.
Whether they are adequately prepared is the real question.
They are not mentally ready. The pacifist glue has been overdone in Germany, it has affected the resilience of the country. This for 8 decades on end and it has had an effect on psyche. Next is the arms & training, but that is secondary (although serious). German soldiers typically die, if at all, on exercises gone wrong (like on a sailing ship where some junior trainees killed themselves).
Is the UK ready to fight? They are staffed below target by about 10,000 (which is more than 10% short). The UK contingent numbers to about 3 months run rate for the Russian army to chew through - but that includes UK navy too. The defence money has been spent elsewhere than on defence: like on a pig shit fermenter for methane production on an RAF base (the RAF is contractually obliged to buy the methane at extortionate prices from me - it was a 5 minute green press release for Boris). The UK defence budget is about as leaky as USAID. UK soldiers don't even have proper housing right now. Who will die for Starmer? Who will take a stand (risking your life) for Yvette Cooper or David Lammy? Iraq veterans are being arrested and jailed over tweets or silent prayer at the moment.
In fact, US recruitment (which plummeted under Biden, no one will die for a transgendered general) has recovered in 2025, it seems a Trump effect, with confidence & pride in the army at an early stage of recovery from the Biden aberration. It remains the case that physical standards have had to be dropped (obesity, athletic readiness...) But Trump's not going to Ukraine. Angelina Jolie has, but not to die fighting.
One NATO army besides the USA that has some punch is Turkey, but Erdogan is cool. Poland is investing and building up.
Overall (and this is part of what I do for the day job), the consensus view is Turkey army large and serious (top of the second tier), French small but quite effective, Poland on the ups as you say across the board, British hollowed out, and my high school football team (as I told the head of the German army) could take the German army. You are right Erik; this is the capacity question, but as Clausewitz said, you have to add psychology. In poll after poll, Germany will fight for almost nothing. It is the black strategic hole here
UK has 40 admirals for 25 operational warships & submarines.
In the UK, the Army and RAF oath is to the King, not to any political allegiance. Your point about numbers and resources is valid. Still, wouldn’t want to face the pointy end of the SAS or SBS though.