Public sentiment is largely negative regarding Russia's withdrawal from the nuclear treaty, showing fears about escalating tensions and the risk of a new arms race. Many comments reflect frustration with U.S. leadership and anxiety over global security, while some express mixed opinions regarding national defense and military strategies.

Russia

United States

NATO

Just to add context for anyone curious:

These are bombs dropped from a plane, not missiles that can be fired.

They produce a blast that ranges from 300 tons of TNT all the way up to 400,000 tons of TNT (for comparison, hiroshima was 16,000 tons of TNT).

There is about 150 of them in total, spread out across 7 (I think) international bases.

Same-Pizza-6724

In most analysis I’ve read, they gain leverage (or they hope to) against the West.  In the short term, that leverage is mostly about Ukraine and the hope that they can coerce the West into facilitating a negotiated truce where Russia holds on to large sections of Ukraine it’s already occupying.  Longer term, it creates risk and uncertainty for the West as Russia pursues larger regional goals.  Russia’s alliance with China (who is not part of START) and Iran (who Russia claimed might be actually given a nuclear bomb by “someone” in light of this weeks’ actions) provides a platform for Russia to blunt the West’s influence on the global stage. For Russia (and China/Iran), their economy isn’t as robust and multifaceted as the West’s so strategic arms are a way to achieve influence and parity as they pursue their goals.  Nukes provide them some protection against economic warfare being used against them. It also raises the risk for NATO in its expansion plans and the U.S. as it attempts to blunt Russian influence.

Semi-Chubbs_Peterson

Mist likely to hide the fact that their warheads and missiles are in shit state.   

The RS-28 Sarmat heavy ICBM, with fordimable perfermonance claims.  Which was supposed to constitute 100% of Russia's silo based ICBMs by 2020 and is officially in active service hasn't had a successful test in years but has had several failures.  One of its two successful tests, only traveled a few dozen kilometers.    

The warheads are old and haven't been tested since the early '90s.   They don't have the advanced engineering and skills needed to maintain them and to develop new warheads.  

According to auditors from the Russian army and intelligence services.  The more secretive a program is and the less ownership of the program there is, the more susceptible it is to corruption and lack of maintenance.  It's highly likely that a lot of the Russian ICBM silos have inadvertently flooded.   

Then there's the issue that soldiers and in particular recruits at Strategic Rocket Force bases are subjected to extreme pressure by local gangsters.  With Russian authorities doing little to stop it and maybe encouraging it.  With the pressure including being forced to get money from relatives and to steal items that the gangsters can then resell.

Russia has always boasted about its military prowess, exaggerating their strength.  Which then causes the West, in particular the US to develop counters in numbers and technical superiority.  For a threat that doesn't exist.    As according to Kruschev "The West can never learn how weak we really are".   Which he said to his son, after he met Vice-President Nixon in Moscow in the late 1950s and claimed that Russia was producing ICBMs "like sausages".

AnOtherGuy1234567

You're not allowed to develop one, right up to the point that you do. Then you join the side that stops other nations developing them, right up until they do.

BaronSamedys

Following international law strictly, only 5 countries in the world are allowed to have nuclear weapons: the United States, the UK, France, Russia and China. These countries are also the only permanent members of the UN's Security Council.

Why these 5 countries in particular? Well because they were the main members of the allied forces in WWII. That's pretty much it.

So it's not really that some countries **aren't** allowed to develop nuclear weapons, but that only some countries **are** allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Any other nuclear programs such as India's, North Korea's or Pakistan's are illegal according to international law. As to why nothing has been done about it, that can be mostly attributed to failed foreign policy by the US and the other legal nuclear powers.

A_Talking_iPod

The main thing is that the nuclear powers don’t really want others joining their “club” so to speak. Once a country has working nuclear weapons, it becomes a lot harder to get rid of them. So the idea is to stop them from developing them in the first place. Now the “fairness” of this can be debated and I’m not here to engage in that argument, just explain the rationale.

Skydude252

What happens if everyone has nukes and everyone has the ability to deter everyone. Will they invent some super ultra nuke

Oi_Kyoraku

Because some countries have unstable governments and will fire them, which makes me wonder how the hell Pakistan ever developed them.

Zorolord

Ever since the USA showcased nuclear weapons by dropping two of them on Japan, all other countries wanted to have them too, and USA wanted to keep them all to themselves. 

It is easy to think that USA allowed UK and France to develop nuclear weapons because they are in the Western Bloc, but contrary to the popular misconception, USA did sabotage British and French nuclear program too.

Anyway, when eventually all five UN permanent security council members had nukes, they decided to ban nukes for everyone else and made NPT and forced almost every country on the earth so that they could use this to sanction countries that try to develop nuclear weapons.

ElectronicSouth

Helps with the status quo. The countries that do have it I.e USA don’t want to lose their advantage.

Prof_Black

Because we should be denuclearising instead of creating more nukes. Honestly no more country should be allowed to have a nuclear weapons

kuda09

Because the USA decides who can and can't have them and will go using the argument of "they are dangerous/will use them" with a straight face when they are literally the only country to ever nuke someone else.

SaraHHHBK

The UK was the the original nukes development nation, and had something of 10 years of head start before the US decided they wanted in on the game.  UK then in the interest of making an actually working bomb decided to join forces with the US and transferred all their research to the US Los Alamos. The US then classified the actual product and the UK got nothing back, but that notwithstanding UK essentially had everything needed for making a bomb anyway soon after ww2.  So to answer the question of why allowing the UK, kind of because they were first.

Why allow others?  In the 40s and 50s there were no real way to stop France and Russia from developing theirs.  In the lates 60s and early 70s when Israel developed theirs in secret there were no political motivation for doing anything about it, because who would not want Israel to be able to defend themselves.  India and Pakistan developed theirs about the same time, and there were no real way of stopping them if you had to bomb both of them. And how would you stop China?

You can also brush it away under the carpet with that sane government would never use nukes against others first, so the list is only countries "we" trust.  This was the argument for why Ukraine were forced to give up their nukes back in the 80/90s, and I guess why not Iran is because we don't trust them to not use it in a first strike against Israel.  ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯

MaybeTheDoctor

Ideally NO country would have them. But once a nation gets them, it becomes much more dangerous and difficult (nearly impossible) to take them away. But if a nation (ANY nation) doesn’t have them yet, then it’s in most other nations’ best interest to try to stop them from getting them.

It’s not about “fair”; it’s about *possible*.

ReverendMak

Apparently North-Korea is and Iran is not....

smaksandewand

For the same reason some people arnt allowed guns or knives, they will use them.... nuclear isnt about power, its about assured destruction, the moment 1 is let off, the receive will let all there own back all at once, making the planet die in around 1-2 years... a single destruction may be recoverable, if the receiving country has there own, the code is to let them all back at once to confirm destruction.  Thus wiping man out in a few short years due to fall out.

Man / countries have reached a stalemate, no one dares let one off, as they will receive all they have back.

GRIFFCOMM

It's simple. Countries with nukes can attack other countries without nukes but can't attack other countries with nukes. The USA attacked Iraq and is attacking Iran because they don't have nukes but they would never attack North Korea. The superpowers are hypocritical and will fight wars whenever it's in their interests. Everyone should develop nukes if they could. It's the only protection that they can receive.

bahhaar-blts

How quickly we’ve lost post World War II knowledge. There’s a reason for which countries are on the UN security council.

lilglazeddonut

unluckyexperiment

you also forget that Iran openly said that they will erase Israel from earth with any means they have, and they hide fact of creating nukes from all other countries regulating it. Its no joke right? Imagine your kid is creating home made bomb that can explode his whole school, but when you enter his room and ask what are this powder for, he says its for studying. Now understand?

Zestyclose-Cap9408

Responsible-Cow-5433

Are you asking from a criteria perspective or insinuating hypocrisy?

In the case of the former there are security concerns, not only about their possible use by a nation state but by a state's ability to effectively secure them.  This is a major reason Ukraine was encouraged (and why many elements within Ukraine desired) to turn their nuclear weapons over.  

In the case of apparent hypocrisy, I'll just put that one to bed, it is hypocritical and I simply don't care.  It's also pragmatic.  If I'm sitting across the table from a friend and there is a revolver on the table and that friend reaches out to pick it up, I'd not stop them.  If however the person across from me expresses hatred for me and a desire to kill me and reaches for that weapon I'd absolutely seek to prevent them from grabbing it even if I'm currently carrying a sidearm of my own.

thecoat9

The main difference between the UK and Iran is that the UK has had nukes for a long time while Iran is trying to make/get ones without already having them.

Nukes are a useful deterrent force, but most countries that do have access to them don't want countries without nukes to develop any, otherwise a significant strategic advantage is lost. (Namely "I can nuke you but you can't nuke me")

Xiaodisan

Pakistan developed them and minded its own business. North Korea developed them and minded its own business. In both cases, it's a form of guarantee that another power wont roll in with a conventional force and muscle you out.


Iran is very much not in the business of minding its own business. That's why the guarantor of our current order would really like them not to have it.

beastwood6

So they can be invaded and have their resources stolen "Procured" You don't want to invade a country that could essentially set off a global apocalypse if they feel like they are losing the "war." Iraq is a perfect example of this, they had weapons and then as soon as they dismantled their weapons. We (USA) invaded and bombed them with impunity.

Even though we said we wouldn't if they dismantled said weapons.

Codeshi

Lee63225

Islamic state who have pledged "death to the West" + Nuclear Bomb = very bad idea

YayaTails7

We(Pakistan) developed to counter India, part of the reason why our longest missiles can only reach the entirety of India only(2750kms) and we aren't interested in icbms. It was a simple deterrent for India and balancing the power in South India. Also I think you are referring to Iran with regards to the reason why they aren't allowed to develop nuclear. Well it's something about their regime going on about destroying Israel and what not and so the west can't take that risk with Iran. (Hypocrisy or not? You decide) I'm also amazed sometimes how my country and North Korea developed nuclear under so many watchful eyes. Combination of luck, time and Scientists like Dr Abdul Qadir (leading scientist who massively helped in the development of it). Also we aren't a signatory of NPT while Iran is so that also comes into play :)

ImportantCheck6236

There are 5 nations with nukes that are officially recognized 

* America
* UK
* France
* China
* Russia

There are 3 nations that have illegally created nukes

* India
* Pakistan
* Israel 

There are a few countries trying to make nukes

* Iran
* North Korea (claim they have them but not verified)


Nukes are terrifying. Everyone knows this. Which is why countries more than capable of producing them have agreed not to for the sake of the world.

The trouble is there are always going to be trouble makers looking to make nukes and making vague noises/threats about using them (cough Iran) which is why total nuclear disarmament isn't possible (yet)
Because one day you'll find your enemy at the door with something you discarded years ago.

With weapons as powerful as nukes the question of fairness doesn't come into play.
The message is clear "don't make them, don't even try or there will be consequences"

We are talking about the survival of the species and the planet and people out here talking about "fairness" like we are stopping a kid from selling lemonade without a license.

Duck_on_Qwack

Cuz Iran ain’t on our team it’s as simple as that

plasma7602

helbur

Because of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, that forbids any member from developing nuclear weapons unless they had built and tested a nuclear weapon before 1967 (six months before the treaty signing); so only the US, Russia, UK, France and China are the only parties allowed to have a nuclear weapons program. 

It was the only way to make them sign and comply with the treaty, after all, nuclear weapons are the biggest political and diplomatic weapon ever created.

North Korea and (arguably) Iran violated it by developing and testing nuclear arsenal while being bound to the treaty. Also Israel, Pakistan and India didn't sign the treaty, so they are "allowed", sort to speak.

Lucky-Echo2467

No one should have them. They are pointless. Waste of money and resources. They should all be banned and every nation should just destroy any research or facility.

Memonlinefelix

A whole lotta somebodies signed a big old treatise back in the day called the non-proliferation treaty. That was aimed at preventing nuclear weaponry from snowballing &amp; essentially gathered non-weapon states that were signatories under a given security umbrella (USSR, USA, CN, etc.)

Part of this is a sharing program essentially, usually worked out between interested nations, for the provision of nuclear energy development, infrastructure, etc. Russia for example aided North Korea and Iran under this, and ourselves with other countries too. This in a way enables ultimately each country to *eventually* get the ability to produce weapons grade material, but it subjects the nations to strict supervision by international institutions. 

There’s “tiers” to these signatories. The non-weapon states and the nuclear weapon states. The original signees include the big dogs: USA, USSR/China, UK, etc. As the 70s/80s rolled around, more nuclear powers arose such as France and China, whom *kind of* did their own thing but eventually acceded to the treaty. So basically all the functional offensive nuclear arsenals are fairly homogeneous and adhered to a non-proliferation treaty which serves their domestic security on account of preventing other countries from gaining the international leverage and of course the weaponry itself.  

But, between the development of nuclear power and the NPTs opening in 1968, a myriad of countries kicked off their own “programs” to varied success. China for example was quick to acquire nuclear ability and weaponize it, as was France. France aided Israel in this period with their nuclear program. Pakistan and India likewise I believe had the seeds of their program established. Anyways, a whole bunch of countries committed to non-weapon nuclear energy with oversight from one of the larger parties. 

Well, since then there have been several countries that were *not* signatories and never were to the NPT, such as Pakistan, India, and Israel whom have either acquired by illicit trade, covert development, or by the fortitude in the face of international pressure develop the weaponry. India and Pakistan are two such examples - the strength and ability of their nuclear programs varies. Israel is believed to have developed theirs initially with France &amp; South Africa, but holds an ambiguous position as to if they do or do not have nukes, which contrasts these other two countries whom have a “no first strike” policy that China also adopted for a while, but are open about their arsenals. 

This does several things; it gives plausible deniability to the country and its allies in the face of international scrutiny or non-compliance with other agreements (IAEA for example), and makes it a little less easy for neighbors to nuclearize. Otherwise it’s out and in the open. North Korea is a bit of a wild card here, as they originally were a signatory to the NPT, but withdrew in the early 2000s and quite quickly had nuclear capability afterwards. 

So, “not allowed” is a loaded phrasing. First, if they are signatories to the NPT, are a non nuclear weapon state, and attempt to develop a nuclear weapons program, they will be *interdicted* which is what’s happening with Iran, who is a signatory. If they are not signatories like Israel, India, or Pakistan then the non-proliferation efforts depend on the deal between that country and the various international efforts. Both avenues can be ameliorated by economic or humanitarian relief; North Korea was placated with such things but only temporarily. This all can then get bemuddled by the different intentions and circumstances each nation willing to interfere has. 

I fell asleep typing this so good luck if that’s a garbled mess

RedJamie

More countries with nukes means more chances for them to be used. It’s like Pandora’s box- once one is used, the odds of more going off skyrockets. Once everyone gets the idea that it’s ok to fire them at will, it’s basically only a matter of time till the full on nuclear apocalypse.

alamohero

Because if everyone had it, it would be pretty scary. So people that have it dont want people to not have it  to not get it. Prevents the entire world from catching fire I guess

Tedanty

because some countries have ties to certain groups who might actually use them

lycos94

I think the good ol US wants to be able invade any country it likes. Them having nukes scuppers that.

rocketdog67

Let's skip the bullshit, do you want Iran to have nukes? See, that's why.

DPX90

Israel has over 300. Who was the aggressor Israel started war.

Abbey1544

Well, the UK hasn't been actively fighting vis proxies for decades against an enemy they have sworn to destroy with nuclear weapons once they have nuclear weapons, unlike Iran. That's a pretty clear distinction, I'd say.

Rocklar911

War, politics. You make the bigger gun and say "I make the rules you can't do this" and this the arms race ensues.

RManDelorean

Because the less people have it, the better. Ideally, no one would have it. It's a dangerous invention.

Astro51450

non-western countries are like animals in a zoo — essential, certainly, but you wouldn’t give them the keys

keithgabryelski

So we all should do the same to US NO??? They don't have ? They never used them???

It's deliberated and they are not the world. Iran has total right to defend from this.

Big_Pin_4141

Why are some people not aloud to own guns

Buttermyparsnips

Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Probably not given the circumstances, but it may not have mattered longterm anyway.

Interesting-Gear-392


Attacking them is worthless and there should be a no sanction approach cause Iran has suffered a lot of betrayal from US and US-Israel backed proxies like ISIS, Al Qaeda and Iraqi militias has caused grave harm to them. US funded an 8 year war to destabilize Iran but it made the regime stronger than ever.

Iran always said they don’t want nukes, they enriched to 60% because they want the US to lay back on sanctions as a negotiating tactic.

Iran didn’t backstab and kill Israeli or American generals and chiefs or scientists.

Israel did that, US did that. Trump killed Qasem soleimani when he came to Baghdad for negotiations. Why did he do that? How can you expect countries to negotiate when US deals in bad faith. Just currently, America’s rogue dog couldn’t keep his leash on and attacked Iran UNPROVOKED when there was negotiations on Sunday in Oman. Israel killed 80+ Civilians the first strike, killed members of Leadership without any goddamn reason.

If I were the leader of Iran I’d have built that bomb and I’d have told America to go fuck off. And this is coming from an American.

Just right now, there’s B2-Bomber spotted in Israel. So imagine you’re entering Iran territory with your stealth fighter to bomb the shit out of their facilities. America has no right to do that.

Diplomacy was always going strong until Trump did crazy shit.

I REPEAT, If Pakistan could have Nukes, IRAN COULD ALSO GET NUKES IF THEY WANTED. BUT THEY DONT. It’s against “SHIA Islamic” belief system. Khamenei needs to give out a Fatwa in order for them to build it as they consider nukes as Destroyer of human race and its “Haram”

sabotroned

I guess it depends on if you believe Iran was going to follow their side of things.

revengeappendage

Layer7Admin

Iran wasn't doing their part anyway which means the whole agreement was pointless anyways.

[Atomic watchdog says Iran not complying with nuclear safeguards](https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164291)

[Lack of cooperation from Iran hampers nuclear checks, says atomic energy watchdog](https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164166) 

The point is they were never playing by the rules. If they agreed it was all lip service.

GreatSoulLord

Yes it was a good move to leave the deal.

&gt;The deal included robust and unprecedented inspection and verification measures by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure Iran's compliance, granting inspectors access to declared nuclear facilities, the supply chain, and potentially undeclared sites.

In the words of Joe Biden... come on man. Calling the inspections "robust" is ludicrous. They had to notify Iran weeks (24 days) ahead of time, and they couldn't go to sites Iran said were "non-nuclear". Those provisions made the inspections totally worthless.

Most importantly, the deal allowed Iran to build the expertise and knowledge base it needed to eventually make weapons. This is something that can't be mitigated with inspections.

&gt;2. If you felt the deal wasn't good enough, was something better than nothing?

No, absolutely not. What we have now is better - a crippled Iran that's on the brink of collapse.

Inumnient

&gt;with some estimates suggesting it has enough highly enriched uranium to produce multiple nuclear explosive devices

Where are these estimates and by who exactly?

NoVacancyHI

You mention as a “key provision” that the deal included monitoring by the IAEA, but we handicapped them so heavily they may as well not have bothered going to Iran anyways. 

We ended up conceding on “anywhere, anytime” access for IAEA and being restricted to “declared” nuclear sites, with Iran having right of refusal for other sites. 

Without anywhere anytime access, there was no reason to even make the deal. Of course the IAEA was going to certify Iran’s compliance, as Iran would just not declare the actual enrichment sites and comply at the declared enrichment sites. We basically gave sanctions breaks and got nothing in return.

jayzfanacc

[deleted]

The heart of the problem is that the agreement needed to be a treaty, but such a treaty would never have been ratified by the Senate.  

That was a severe constitutional defect.  The executive branch can negotiate treaties, it cannot enter into them unilaterally.  

I also think it was remarkably foolish given just how unpopular the treaty would have been with congress and how few votes it would have garnered in the Senate.  

You seem to have also asked about the content of the agreement, whether that seemed beneficial for the US in general, unrelated to problems with the constitutional process.  

My opinion is it seemed fine.  Any nation with a functional nuclear energy industry also has a functional pipeline to nuclear bomb production.  It's almost like how any country which can make chemical fertilizer can also make mustard gas.  Same physics and same chemistry, respectfully.  The only realistic goal was to get Iran on board with having the capability but not exercising it, the way Japan, Italy, South Korea, and many other countries have the capability but do not exercise it.  The agreement seemed like a rational path towards that end, and, in hindsight, it's really a huge mistake that we didn't give it a shot.  

But, again, the severe constitutional flaws I think doomed it regardless of how good an idea it might have been.

rcglinsk

We gave them cash and they funded terrorist. A lesson I've learned in life is to not deal with immoral people. 

random_guy00214

You would have to be pretty naive and gullible to believe that Iran was going to abide by any of it.

worldisbraindead

I have said it once and i’ll say it again.

We need European Nuclear Weapons.

Zhukov-74

TALLINN, May 16 (Reuters) - The United States will begin discussions with European allies to reduce U.S. troops in Europe later this year, U.S. ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker said on Friday.

Asked to comment on a report that the Trump administration is considering withdrawing troops from Europe, Whitaker said "nothing has been determined".

"But as soon as we do, we are going to have these conversations in the structure of NATO", said Whitaker.

"It will be certainly after the summit, sometime later in the year, we are going to start those conversations... All our allies are ready to do it", he added, referring to the NATO summit in The Hague in June.

Addressing a security conference in Estonia, Whitaker said U.S. will talk through any troop changes with allies to avoid any security gaps.

"It’s more than 30 years of U.S. desire (to reduce troops in Europe), President Trump just said, enough, this is going to happen and it’s going to happen now, this is going to be orderly, but we are not going to have any more patience for foot dragging in this situation... We just need to work through the practical consequences", Whitaker said.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told NATO allies in February that "stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe".

The Atlantic reported in March that Hegseth and Vice President JD Vance had complained about European allies in a chat group. Hegseth expressed his "loathing of European free-loading", according to the Atlantic.

Such comments have fuelled European fears about the U.S. commitment to NATO, along with Trump's threats not to protect members that spend too little on defence, and his reluctance to keep supporting Ukraine's fight against Russia's invasion.

Whitaker said U.S. is not withdrawing: "The United States is going to remain in this alliance, and we are going to be a great friend an a great ally".

He warned the European Union against restricting non-EU companies from European defence purchases, saying this would undermine NATO interoperability, slow Europe's rearming, raise costs and stifle innovation.

Massimo25ore

&gt;He warned the European Union against restricting non-EU companies from European defence purchases, saying this would undermine NATO interoperability, slow Europe's rearming, raise costs and stifle innovation.    

Mr. Whitaker doesn't quite get it, it seems.   
Local manufacture does not only means local spare parts only a short distance away, but also local jobs building equipment that suits the local environment.    

*The US wants Europe to upgrade all roads and rail because their latest and shiniest tank is too big and too heavy for the existing infrastructure.*

mrCloggy

All sounded well and good until the last sentence about the warning, about excluding non-EU participation in the money pot. Never works without injecting some kind of threat with them

toolkitxx

I wonder what the EU is doing in anticipation of this.

New_Zebra_3844

Poland, Germany and Italy should be allowed to have nukes. Change my mind.

Bbrasklapp

All the comments that are happy about this move are either russian bots, western europeans, or have zero understanding of potential impact.

Eastern Europe is up for grabs if U.S. pulls out. Europe won't do anything, and whatever it is going to do, is not going to be enough.

I hope I am wrong.

test702

The US is threatening to invade EU territory, so this can't happen soon enough imo

opp3nh31m3r

AntonioClaus

Another Putin order he's hurrying to follow.

Nknk-

instinctive offbeat historical insurance aware fall cooing elderly wide history

 *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev/home)*

Whatcanyado420

That would be excellent news. I hope they leave Germany and also special agreements for sharing European airbases get terminated.

BeatTheMarket30

Lofteed

I want a law stating every large media outlet, and it's executives, will get a thorough financial inspection Yearly.  No foreign money allowed at all.


Social media, any post that routes with a node that touches Russia, or one of its allies, gets blocked.


It will help EU countries trust one another more.

Zzoomer

At least Europe won't have a choice but to get stronger.

ShotofHotsauce

DogsSaveTheWorld

So Kremlin is celebrating yet another victory, especially with how all of this is worded.

Jake-of-the-Sands

Why is this happening?  

Putin own trump

LukasJackson67

Honestly

I think this is a good thing, it will force Europeans to get of their asses, and use more money on the military and strengthen its military

It should be the job of Europeans to protect Europe and be responsible for European security not the US/Americans. 

People can downvote me as much as they want, i will never change my mind on this.

Mountain-Fox-2123

Europe needs nuclear weapons and vastly increased military capacity.  The US has gone as an ally and, given the very real and repeated threats from the US should be considered a potential military opponent.

Toolatethehero3

In addition to that, more Russian gas and oil should be bought, cause not doing that damaging European economy, just saying /s

Ventriloquist_Voice

Not only reducing, but also withdrawing every single soldier-armament and closing their bases 

Nigel_Bligh_Burns

It’s was always going to happen the main question is what are assets are they going to withdraw. Certain assets are not going to be easy to replace.

Shot-Winter-6559

SpeakerConfident4363

And what is happening with the soldiers/people that get pulled out?

I'm guessing that they get fired, so more people without jobs = homeless.

Belophan

This is really bad, investigation are showing that Russia could hit Europe in the next 2 years, we need to be independant from the US, but this isnt a great Time. 
And i am saying this While beeing French. We really need indépendance from the US regard if our army, but this moove from Trump really look like he doesnt care about Europe (I mean I Know he doesnt care really much, but this show that it is far worse). 

This moove could have been done 10 ou 20 years ago and it woulnd had been a problem, but now with Russia rebuilding an army marger than needed for Ukraine, this isnt a good Time to go home. 


In the other hand it is a wake up call for all of us, we need to have strong army and TO HAVE OUR ARMY, with european system not american.

Altruistic_Syrup_364

They need them here in the U.S. for arresting and murdering immigrants.

Busy_Ordinary8456

Stipovski

they still have to coordinate after all. 

One-Reflection-4826

Eu must keep supporting Ukraine, start quick arming itself with European equipment and spread nuclear weapons maybe to Poland, Italy, Sweden, Finland?

ExcellentHunter

A_Brown_Crayon

andupotorac

the end of Russian assets in Ramstein? We will see...

redd1618

He will need his troops for his civil war

Vegetable-River-253

Russia has officially announced its withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, citing threats posed by Western countries, particularly NATO's policies.

Russia Nuclear Treaty Withdrawal

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want