Edit - these posts will get downvoted. If only you could downvote reality away, eh?

Well clearly we did hold cards. The very post you replied to has pointed out exactly the cards we held, and still hold.

What I will say is remainers (including the UK government charged with managing the negotiations) weakened the UK's bargaining position just like your attitude would weaken the UK's position going forward.

But his isn't a brexit argument, that is a long-resolved issue.

This is about the UK's relationship with the EU. And notice I say EU, not Europe. I read media reports conflating the EU with Europe every week. Even this week talking of EU countries creating a 'European Army': well if they are going to define Europe as 'EU countries' (a corporatist takeover of the continent, if you like lol and most certainly something that I have read done week in and week out for years) so be it. Why wouldn't we maintain our special relationship with the US, and lean towards Russia, while maintaining our friendly relationship with China?

You reap what you sow.

Now if the EU wants the protection of our nuclear weapons they demonstrate how the have significantly changed their attitude towards the UK on an ongoing basis and the EU's role in Europe, and they pay economically.

Edit - these posts will get downvoted. If only you could downvote reality away, eh?

They did everything they could to weaken the UK. To punish the UK for deciding to leave the EU.

No quarter given.

But the reason people voted to leave the EU was the importation of cheap Eastern European labour that was used to undermine pay and conditions for British workers of every origin. Saying brexit was the result of 'Russian interference' is as reductionist as saying 'Hilary's emails' was why people voted Trump in first time around. The bbc and others framed the debate as EU 'liberalism' (is that social or economic liberalism?casue political liberalism is the soft and fuzzy one covering the hard and ruthless other) v. something xenophobic. The reality on the ground was far more complex. Like in the US, the stories of poor people harmed by political liberalism were ignored. They still are being hence Trump 2, and the rise of Reform in the UK. As long as they are ignored the Reform party will continue a rise to power and you will see a UK split from EU countries further anyway.

I know it doesn't sound like it but I would rather have closer ties to Europe, but that is a different story to wanting closer ties with the monolithic, corporatist EU.

But ok, I am very happy to agree to disagree on the above. If it was reasonable for the EU to treat the UK badly over brexit, then it is more than reasonable for the UK to give no quarter back now that the Germans are asking for the protection of our nuclear weapons.

Now, to some degree the UK is going to remain aligned with the US. Our military and intelligence capabilities seem to be very much intertwined. The alternative for the EU, a UK completely aligned with the US, Russia, and a friend of China, is the alternative to the EU winding back the harm they have intentionally caused the UK.

Perhaps they should have been reasonable when the UK decided to leave the EU.

I doesn't look like us Brits can completely break with the US in military or intelligence terms, at least for the time being (if not foreseeable future). But closer military co-operation with the rest of Europe clearly has to happen, assuming maintenance of our nuclear capability isn't completely reliant upon, or tied up with the US.

Late edit (after a few people upvoted this post) - given the disgraceful way the EU treated the UK during brexit negotiations this sharing of nuclear weapons should come at significant economic cost to EU countries that might want it. I mean, the alternative, a UK aligned to the US and Russia, military bases and nuclear weapons ready, full of US bases, puts the shitty way EU countries were happy to deal with the UK into a bit of perspective.

The Chinese are going to build their biggest embassy in Europe in London about half a mile or so from the US embassy. I'd guess the UK will continue trying to play a mediating role.

I am English.

Most likely you meant to reply to somebody else, but it's possible you picked up and ran with a response to my question. If that's the case then thanks for the effort!

What does this mean? People putting on a 'work voice' or something?

I would guess that European leaders' first priority is to protect Europe in the short term, which means defending Ukraine, including delaying or minimising any actual fighting for as long as possible in order to build their own defence capability. Similar to how other countries (China) have played the game while building their economic and military capability.

I would guess Russia think Trump has gone too far in terms of provoking a coordinated response from Europe in terms of immediate investment in defence, including a potential proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Then at some point in the future (depending on the actions of the US, the degree to which global politics allows international co-operation, the economic and military capabilities of the various parties, and the ability to purchase oil in currencies other than US dollar) countries globally will sell US debt, most likely bit by bit as all of the above circumstances allow, or potentially all at once - if the US make a less dramatic response impossible, massively raising interest rates for the US/effectively forcing it into bankruptcy > developing world economic status.

Still America at that point will have been made great because they will be cheap enough to manufacture goods again!

What does America think the alternative is? Does it think it can blow hot air and try and bully the world into buying US debt without offering the protection it used to provide in return?!!? That huge military industrial complex spending wasn't for nothing. It was to protect the dollar's status, which in turn ultimately meant people everywhere paid America's debt.

Based on what I have read online (famous last words - especially anywhere near sites such as reddit, and other social media sites over the last twenty years or so) I get a strong impression that this is a dynamic most Americans are not aware of, having been told that it is their exceptionalism that allowed them to accrue such a large portion of unearned global wealth.

I think Americans, over the coming decades are going to learn a new truth - at least those with a flexible enough mind will. Part of that new truth will be that choosing Trump was choosing a much much harder landing than was necessary.

The Taliban humiliated him. He has one entirely exploitable strategy: try and be a bully and back down when he gets called out.

The result is widespread boycott of American manufacturing, Europe pulling away from a reliance on the US including manufacturing their own arms, a pivot towards BRICS and China, and a hastened end to the dollar as global reserve currency followed by an America that has to pay its debts.

What a fool. America's second vote for Trump has shown the world it is an unreliable partner.

Here are the four points the bbc is reporting, which are completely different to yours. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn5220x56pqt

• To keep military aid flowing into Ukraine while the war is ongoing, and increase economic pressure on Russia

• Any lasting peace must ensure Ukraine's sovereignty and security, and Ukraine must be at the table for any peace talks

• In the event of a peace deal, European leaders will aim to deter any future invasion by Russia into Ukraine

• There would be a "coalition of the willing" to defend Ukraine and guarantee peace in the country

De-dollarisation is the dismantling of the dollar's role as global reserve currency, which is intimately tied to the petrodollar arrangement, which caused the world to buy oil in dollars for the last fifty years.

I welcome any corrections/clarifications, but off the top of my head, the petrodollar arrangement was an agreement that Richard Nixon's government made with the Saudis in the early seventies where the Saudis agreed to only sell oil in US dollars in return for military support. The agreement was a fifty year deal.

In order for countries to buy oil they needed dollars. This was and currently still is via the selling of US government bonds, which has allowed the US to fund its deficits by printing more and more US dollars. Ultimately the world has paid for that US spending. This ends with the end of the US dollar as global reserve currency.

Trump is showing in real time that the US cannot now be relied upon to provide security, so that half of the petrodollar arrangement is dead and gone. Would you fund the enemy's military spending? Plenty have. And when you wanted to try and sell oil in a currency other than dollars you got a whole lot of freedom!

This de-dollarisation very much suits the likes of Russia (for historical reasons) and China (for sound economic reasons) who do not want a world dominated by the US.

Trump is playing into the likes of Putin's hands fantastically. Not only is Putin getting what he wants from Trump in Ukraine, Trump is also voluntarily dismantling America's position as global leader. I don't know if he is a Russian asset, or if he is just so stupid, or believes the US should be an explicit oligarchy.

Buckle up, the future is not looking good for the US. Countries that have relied on the US are facing a period of serious instability.

So much of what is publicly known about the UK's intelligence capability (presumably military too) is tied up with the US. Based on this alone I'd bet that we (as in the UK) are simply not in any position to turn around and defy the US.

Remaining trapped in this position moving forwards is another matter. Europe has no choice but to develop capabilities that do not rely on the US. Only an idiot would think this is good for the US.

I don't think the UK putting boots on the ground to police a peace deal agreed upon by Russia and the US is what you meant?

The process of global de-dollarisation,much talked about, is being hastened far sooner than I think most people (at least those not privvy to whatever intelligence existed on Trump and others' motivations and intentions) expected.

The question as to whether the country with the largest military in the world can accept a much-reduced international role (and much reduced share of unearned global wealth to go with it), without kicking off a kinetic world war three will likely be answered shortly.

Trump and Musk appear wide open to exploitation/manipulation, without anywhere near the required experience or intelligence to maintain the US's international position.

Unstable times ahead.