Nuclear deterrence won't stop an attack on the Baltics. For that you need a credible defence on the ground.

To clarify: Sweden is full of uranium ores that can be extracted if necessary. There used to be at least one mine, but they shut it down because of acceptable import alternatives. But there is a discussion about restarting this activity.

It works in Scandinavia too, at least for private persons with solar panels.

Private persons can even profit from solar in Scandinavia. And when that doesn't work, there's wind power, hydro and (non-renewable, but almost as if) nuclear (in the worst of cases, the uranium from the latrer can be supplied domestically).

Just as Trump has not changed the global economy with his tariffs, he also hasn't changed the defence world with his foreign policies. His erratic self-aggrandising mob-tribute conduct has exposed and exacerbated many existing trends more than anything else.

Exactly.

- so you tend only to hear the "dangerous provocative NATO expansion" line from people who were so soaked in Russian propaganda narratives in the past that they cannot leave them behind in the present even though Russia itself has done so.)

3/12

Indeed.

In this I certainly agree with you.

Not to mention the fact that Russia can use the "demilitarized area" as a springboard anyway. Knowing that Russia breaks every single agreement, we can take for granted that this is what is going to happen.

There are so many caveats regarding the security guarantees that this makes the Budapest memorandum seem like a perpetual covenant. Also, no one could ever trust the Trump regime to actually live up to its commitments.

Without formal recognition, the reconstruction money might go to areas Russia occupies. It's Ukraine after all, and it's where most of the damage is.

Except, of course, that the "DNR DMZ" will have it own "volunteers" (if Russia doesn't simply ignore this provision).