* * *
Today is the beginning of summer, and the longesr day ( or shortest night) of
the year...
When was the Reims cathedral built?
Friday, June 20, 2025
Victory
Uploaded an image of the Victory monument from Reims, France. What can you tell me about it?
That’s a beautiful capture, Louise! The monument in your photo is the Fontaine Subé, located in Place Drouet-d’Erlon in Reims, France. It’s often mistaken for a traditional war memorial, but it’s actually a fountain crowned by a gilded statue of Winged Victory, symbolizing triumph and peace.
The statue, known as La Victoire Ailée (Winged Victory), was sculpted by Paul Auban and added in 1906. The fountain itself was designed by architect André Najoux and sculptor Louis Baralis. It commemorates the prosperity and resilience of Reims, especially after the devastation of World War I, during which the statue was damaged and later restored.
It’s a striking blend of art nouveau elegance and patriotic symbolism, and it’s become one of the city’s most iconic landmarks. Did you visit it recently, or are you planning a trip to Reims? I’d love to hear more!
La ville est surnommée « la cité des sacres » ou « la cité des rois ». En effet, c'est sur le futur emplacement de la cathédrale Notre-Dame de Reims que Clovis est baptisé par saint Remi et que furent sacrés un grand nombre de rois carolingiens puis capétiens pendant plus de dix siècles de Louis le Pieux en 816 jusqu'à Charles X en 1825.
From the Louvre museum:
.png)
.png)
* * *
Can you give me the years when England was ruled by French kings(with the Plantagenet), and those when France was ruled by English Kings, during the Hundred Years' War?
Absolutely, Louise — this is a fascinating slice of medieval history where royal bloodlines and battlefield claims tangled across the Channel.
🏰 England under French-origin Plantagenet Kings
The Plantagenet dynasty, originally from Anjou in France, ruled England from 1154 to 1485. Though they were kings of England, their roots were thoroughly French — starting with Henry II, son of Geoffrey of Anjou and Empress Matilda. The dynasty includes the Angevin kings, the main Plantagenet line, and the cadet branches of Lancaster and York.
👑 English Kings Claiming the French Throne
During the Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453), several English kings claimed to be Kings of France, though their actual control over French territory varied:
Edward III (r. 1327–1377) claimed the French crown in 1340, initiating the war.
Henry V (r. 1413–1422) achieved the most success: after the Treaty of Troyes (1420), he was recognized as heir to the French throne and ruled parts of northern France.
Henry VI (r. 1422–1461) was crowned King of France in Paris in 1431, though his control was contested and eventually lost.
So, while England was never ruled by the French crown, it was ruled by kings of French descent for over three centuries. And for a brief, turbulent period in the 15th century, France was nominally ruled by an English king — though the reality on the ground was far messier.
Would you like a timeline or map to visualize these overlapping claims? I’d be happy to sketch one out!
What were the effects of the Treaty of Troyes on England and France?
The Treaty of Troyes, signed in 1420, had dramatic — though ultimately short-lived — consequences for both England and France during the Hundred Years’ War.
🇫🇷 For France:
Disinheritance of the Dauphin: The treaty declared that Henry V of England and his heirs would inherit the French throne after Charles VI, bypassing Charles’s own son, the Dauphin (later Charles VII). This caused a deep political fracture in France.
Civil War Intensified: The treaty deepened the rift between the Armagnacs (supporters of the Dauphin) and the Burgundians (who allied with England), plunging France into further internal conflict.
Loss of Sovereignty: With Henry V named regent and heir, France was effectively under foreign control, especially in the north, including Paris.
🏴 For England:
Peak of English Power in France: Henry V’s recognition as heir to the French throne marked the zenith of English ambitions on the continent.
Royal Marriage: Henry married Catherine of Valois, daughter of Charles VI, strengthening his dynastic claim.
False Security: Although it seemed like a diplomatic triumph, the treaty’s legitimacy was shaky — Charles VI was mentally unfit, and many French nobles rejected the agreement2.
The Aftermath:
When both Henry V and Charles VI died in 1422, the infant Henry VI was proclaimed king of both England and France — but the Dauphin still claimed the French crown.
This led to a renewed phase of war, culminating in the rise of Joan of Arc, the coronation of Charles VII, and the eventual collapse of English control in France by 1453.
So, while the Treaty of Troyes looked like a masterstroke for England, it ultimately galvanized French resistance and failed to secure lasting unity. History’s irony at its finest.
Would you like a visual timeline of these events or a deeper look at Joan of Arc’s role in reversing England’s fortunes? I’d be thrilled to dive in.
* * *
Thursday, June 19, 2025
NATO_NextWeek
Found an interesting article in this morning New York Times on the issues at play in next week's
NATO meeting in The Hague. Translation to French by DeepSeek...
Trying to Satisfy Trump, NATO Is Running Into Difficulties
A plan to increase military spending at the level President Trump wants is becoming clearer, as are its shortcomings.
Image
A Norwegian naval commando hoisted himself onto the deck of a ship during a NATO exercise in March.Credit...Davide Monteleone for The New York Times
By Lara Jakes and Steven Erlanger
June 19, 2025, 5:02 a.m. ET
Beyond projecting military strength and pledging unity, a more pressing theme has emerged for next week’s NATO summit: Keep President Trump happy.
As leaders prepare to meet for the annual forum starting on Tuesday, U.S. allies have watered down their public support for Ukrainian membership and drafted a policy communiqué as short as five paragraphs to keep the American leader on board. The meeting itself, in The Hague, will open and close in under two days — a timeline designed to keep it devoid of drama.
“No one wants to say no to Trump,” said Mujtaba Rahman, who analyzes Europe for the Eurasia Group. Asked on Wednesday whether the Iran-Israel war would prompt him to skip the meeting, Mr. Trump told reporters that he still planned to attend.
In any case, his influence is certain to loom over the gathering.
It has already driven an effort by NATO’s secretary general, Mark Rutte, to increase military spending by each of the alliance’s 32 members to meet a figure suggested by Mr. Trump. He has demanded it be raised to 5 percent of each country’s gross domestic product, up from the current level of 2 percent. Mr. Rutte has proposed widening the definition of military spending to help meet that objective.
The new benchmark would include 3.5 percent of G.D.P. on core defense spending — weapons, capabilities, troops — and the rest on what NATO calls “defense and security-related investment, including in infrastructure and resilience.”
In the weeks since Mr. Rutte’s idea gained steam, its details, and shortcomings, have become clearer, according to officials and experts. The timeline to increase spending may be different for everyone, and officials are confused about the requirements. Even if countries do allocate the sums, European and even American defense industries may not be able to absorb the money or deliver in a timely fashion.
And while NATO countries generally agree it is past time to spend more on security in Europe, where officials believe a militarized Russia might be tempted to test the alliance within years, some nations already struggle to reach the existing target on military spending. They are unlikely to meet Mr. Trump’s demand soon, if ever.
Sign up for Your Places: Global Update. All the latest news for any part of the world you select. Get it sent to your inbox.
The discussion about Mr. Rutte’s proposal, experts said, has devolved into a debate over spending billions of dollars to fund an ever-widening range of priorities.
“It is largely a shell game,” said Jeremy Shapiro, a former State Department official and now research director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “There is some reality there, because defense spending is increasing across Europe, but more because of Vladimir Putin than Donald Trump.”
Image
President Trump, at the White House on Wednesday, has demanded an increase in military spending by NATO’s members.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
A NATO Numbers Game
Mr. Trump first demanded the 5 percent figure two weeks before his inauguration, although his ambassador to NATO, Matthew G. Whitaker, insisted recently that the United States was not “driving the timeline” for allies to spend more on defense.
“The threats are driving the timeline,” he said. “Europe keeps telling us that Russia is their biggest threat and we agree, in the Euro-Atlantic it is. And so we need to make sure everybody’s investing.”
Initially, Mr. Trump’s ambitions seemed both abstract and implausible: Only 23 NATO members were meeting their spending goals by the end of last year. But Mr. Rutte’s proposal allows for some spending on what NATO calls “military-adjacent” projects. In practical terms, that could include investments in advanced technology; rebuilding roads, bridges and other infrastructure; civic defense; education; improved health services; and aid to Ukraine.
In effect, the Trump benchmark “is both real and not real,” said Nathalie Tocci, director of Italy’s Institute of International Affairs. “The real thing is 3.5 percent, which has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with NATO’s getting what it judges it needs,” she said.
“The unreal part is the 1.5 percent, the P.R. move for Trump,” she said. “Of course infrastructure is important, and diplomacy and education, so lump it all together for Trump. And if the magic figure of 5 percent ensures benign indifference rather than malign hostility, that’s all to the good.”
Image
Ukrainian soldiers last month in the Donetsk region.Credit...Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
Counting Aid to Ukraine
The proposal may have helped Mr. Rutte balance the president’s desires with those of European leaders, but it has also created complications. Defense ministers meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels this month appeared confused over how the money should be spent, and how soon, and over whether aid to Ukraine could count.
“We have to find a realistic compromise between what is necessary and what is possible, really, to spend,” said Germany’s defense minister, Boris Pistorius.
Luxembourg’s defense minister, Yuriko Backes, was more blunt. “It will be the capabilities that will keep us safe, not percentages,” she said. “This is what should be driving our investments, not the other way around.”
Luxembourg will reach the current spending threshold — which was set in 2014 to be accomplished in a decade — only this year.
And not until recently was it clear — even among some NATO defense ministers — that countries could include a small fraction of their military contributions to the war in Ukraine as part of their defense spending.
But the rules for what qualifies are complex and decided at NATO headquarters on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that countries don’t double-count what they give to Ukraine as a part of domestic military investment.
“Supporting Ukraine is really an investment into our own security,” said Sweden’s defense minister, Pal Jonson.
Allies are debating how to count the aid to Ukraine. The current plan is to consider it core military spending. But some of the countries nearest to Russia’s borders do not want to dilute their domestic defense and want aid to Ukraine categorized as “related investments.”
Image
Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, during a visit to the White House in April. Mr. Rutte is the architect of a plan that would allow for some spending on what the alliance calls “military-adjacent” projects.Credit...Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times
A Matter of Time
There is also uncertainty about when allies would be expected to meet the higher spending threshold.
Mr. Rutte initially proposed 2032, but countries on NATO’s eastern flank want it to happen sooner. NATO intelligence suggests that, without a credible military deterrent, Russia could mount an effective offensive against the alliance in five years after the Ukraine war ends.
“We don’t have time even for seven years,” Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur of Estonia said recently. “We have to show that we have everything we need to defend our countries.”
Britain, for example, has committed to spending only 3 percent by 2034, long after Mr. Trump is scheduled to leave office. Canada, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain will reach 2 percent, a decade-old goal, only this year. And the United States itself currently spends about 3.4 percent of its G.D.P. on defense, even though in sheer dollars it accounts for nearly half of NATO spending. The amount that Washington spends just on Europe is a much smaller percentage of the Pentagon’s $997 billion budget.
Like Mr. Rutte, other world leaders have sought ways to get the most out of their dealings with Mr. Trump and avoid unpredictable problems. At this week’s Group of 7 summit, the newly elected prime minister of Canada and host of the event, Mark Carney, deployed a mix of flattery and discipline. Yet the president still disrupted the gathering, departing early to address the Iran-Israel war. Mr. Rutte hopes to avoid such an outcome.
“Trump is making a fake demand for more spending, and they’re giving him a fake response,” Mr. Shapiro said. He called the Rutte plan “clever, because it lets Trump get what he wants and he can brag about it.”
Lara Jakes, based in Rome, reports on diplomatic and military efforts by the West to support Ukraine in its war with Russia. She has been a journalist for nearly 30 years.
Steven Erlanger is the chief diplomatic correspondent in Europe and is based in Berlin. He has reported from over 120 countries, including Thailand, France, Israel, Germany and the former Soviet Union.
* * *
Satisfaire Trump : l'OTAN face à des difficultés croissantes
Un plan pour augmenter les dépenses militaires au niveau souhaité par le président Trump se précise, tout comme ses limites.
Image
Un commando naval norvégien monte à bord d'un navire lors d'un exercice de l'OTAN en mars. Crédit... Davide Monteleone pour The New York Times
Par Lara Jakes et Steven Erlanger
19 juin 2025, 5h02 (heure de Paris)
Au-delà des démonstrations de force militaire et des promesses d’unité, un thème plus pressant émerge à l’approche du sommet de l’OTAN la semaine prochaine : satisfaire le président Trump.
Alors que les dirigeants se préparent pour ce forum annuel qui débutera mardi, les alliés américains ont atténué leur soutien public à l’adhésion de l’Ukraine et rédigé un communiqué politique réduit à cinq paragraphes pour maintenir le président américain dans le jeu. La réunion elle-même, qui se tiendra à La Haye, s’ouvrira et se clôturera en moins de deux jours — un calendrier conçu pour éviter tout drame.
« Personne ne veut dire non à Trump », a déclaré Mujtaba Rahman, analyste de l’Europe pour le groupe Eurasia. Interrogé mercredi sur la possibilité que la guerre entre l’Iran et Israël l’empêche d’assister au sommet, M. Trump a assuré aux journalistes qu’il comptait bien y participer.
Quoi qu’il en soit, son influence planera sur l’événement.
Elle a déjà conduit le secrétaire général de l’OTAN, Mark Rutte, à proposer une augmentation des dépenses militaires de chacun des 32 membres de l’Alliance pour atteindre un chiffre suggéré par M. Trump. Ce dernier exige que ces dépenses passent à 5 % du PIB de chaque pays, contre 2 % actuellement. M. Rutte a proposé d’élargir la définition des dépenses militaires pour faciliter cet objectif.
Le nouveau seuil inclurait 3,5 % du PIB consacrés aux dépenses de défense de base (armes, capacités, troupes) et le reste à ce que l’OTAN appelle « les investissements liés à la défense et à la sécurité, y compris les infrastructures et la résilience ».
Ces dernières semaines, les détails — et les lacunes — de cette proposition sont devenus plus clairs, selon des responsables et des experts. Les délais pour augmenter les dépenses pourraient varier d’un pays à l’autre, et les règles restent floues. Même si les pays allouent les fonds nécessaires, les industries de défense européenne et américaine pourraient ne pas être en mesure d’absorber cet afflux d’argent ou de répondre à temps.
Et bien que les membres de l’OTAN s’accordent généralement sur la nécessité d’investir davantage dans la sécurité en Europe — où les responsables craignent qu’une Russie militarisée ne tente de tester l’Alliance dans les années à venir —, certains pays peinent déjà à atteindre l’objectif actuel. Ils auront du mal à satisfaire la demande de M. Trump, voire n’y parviendront jamais.
Un jeu de chiffres à l’OTAN
M. Trump a évoqué pour la première fois ce chiffre de 5 % deux semaines avant son investiture, bien que son ambassadeur auprès de l’OTAN, Matthew G. Whitaker, ait récemment insisté sur le fait que les États-Unis ne « dictaient pas le calendrier » pour inciter les alliés à dépenser plus.
« Ce sont les menaces qui dictent le calendrier », a-t-il déclaré. « L’Europe ne cesse de nous dire que la Russie est sa plus grande menace, et nous sommes d’accord. Nous devons nous assurer que tout le monde investit. »
Au départ, cette ambition semblait à la fois abstraite et irréaliste : seuls 23 membres de l’OTAN respectaient leurs engagements financiers fin 2024. Mais la proposition de M. Rutte permet d’inclure certaines dépenses « adjacentes à la défense ». Concrètement, cela pourrait englober :
Les technologies avancées,
La reconstruction des routes, ponts et autres infrastructures,
La défense civile,
L’éducation,
Les services de santé,
L’aide à l’Ukraine.
En réalité, l’objectif de Trump est « à la fois réel et irréel », estime Nathalie Tocci, directrice de l’Institut italien des affaires internationales. « Le vrai chiffre, c’est 3,5 %, qui n’a rien à voir avec Trump et tout à voir avec ce que l’OTAN estime nécessaire. La partie irréelle, c’est les 1,5 % restants, une opération de relations publiques pour Trump. Si le chiffre magique de 5 % garantit une indifférence bienveillante plutôt qu’une hostilité, tant mieux. »
L’aide à l’Ukraine dans l’équation
La proposition de M. Rutte pourrait avoir aidé à concilier les désirs du président américain avec ceux des dirigeants européens, mais elle a aussi créé des complications. Lors d’une réunion des ministres de la Défense à Bruxelles ce mois-ci, la confusion régnait sur la manière dont cet argent devrait être dépensé, à quel rythme, et si l’aide à l’Ukraine pouvait être comptabilisée.
« Nous devons trouver un compromis réaliste entre ce qui est nécessaire et ce qu’il est vraiment possible de dépenser », a déclaré le ministre allemand de la Défense, Boris Pistorius.
Yuriko Backes, ministre luxembourgeoise de la Défense, a été plus directe : « Ce sont les capacités qui nous protègent, pas les pourcentages. C’est cela qui doit guider nos investissements, et non l’inverse. »
Le Luxembourg n’atteindra le seuil actuel de 2 % — fixé en 2014 pour être atteint en une décennie — que cette année.
Et ce n’est que récemment que certains ministres de la Défense ont appris qu’une partie de leurs contributions militaires à l’Ukraine pouvait être incluse dans leurs dépenses de défense.
Mais les règles sont complexes et décidées au cas par cas par l’OTAN, pour éviter que les pays ne comptabilisent deux fois leur aide à l’Ukraine comme un investissement national.
« Soutenir l’Ukraine, c’est investir dans notre propre sécurité », a déclaré Pal Jonson, ministre suédois de la Défense.
Les alliés débattent encore de la manière de comptabiliser cette aide. Le plan actuel est de la considérer comme une dépense militaire de base. Mais certains pays proches de la Russie refusent de diluer leur budget de défense national et veulent que l’aide à l’Ukraine soit classée dans les « investissements connexes ».
Une question de temps
L’échéance pour atteindre ces nouveaux objectifs reste incertaine.
M. Rutte a initialement proposé 2032, mais les pays de l’est de l’OTAN veulent une accélération. Les services de renseignement de l’Alliance estiment que, sans une dissuasion militaire crédible, la Russie pourrait lancer une offensive contre l’OTAN dans cinq ans après la fin de la guerre en Ukraine.
« Nous n’avons même pas sept ans devant nous », a déclaré Hanno Pevkur, ministre estonien de la Défense. « Nous devons montrer que nous avons tout ce qu’il faut pour défendre nos pays. »
La Grande-Bretagne, par exemple, ne s’est engagée qu’à atteindre 3 % d’ici 2034, bien après le départ de M. Trump. Le Canada, l’Italie, le Luxembourg et l’Espagne n’atteindront les 2 % — un objectif vieux de dix ans — que cette année. Quant aux États-Unis, ils dépensent actuellement environ 3,4 % de leur PIB pour la défense, même si, en valeur absolue, cela représente près de la moitié des dépenses totales de l’OTAN.
Comme M. Rutte, d’autres dirigeants mondiaux ont cherché des moyens de tirer le meilleur parti de leurs relations avec M. Trump et d’éviter les problèmes imprévisibles. Lors du sommet du G7 cette semaine, le nouveau Premier ministre canadien, Mark Carney, a utilisé un mélange de flatterie et de fermeté. Pourtant, le président a perturbé la réunion en partant plus tôt pour gérer la crise Iran-Israël. M. Rutte espère éviter un tel scénario.
« Trump fait une fausse demande pour plus de dépenses, et on lui donne une fausse réponse », résume M. Shapiro. Il qualifie le plan Rutte de « malin, car il permet à Trump d’obtenir ce qu’il veut et de s’en vanter ».
Lara Jakes, basée à Rome, couvre les efforts diplomatiques et militaires occidentaux en soutien à l’Ukraine. Journaliste depuis près de 30 ans, elle a travaillé dans plus de 70 pays.
Steven Erlanger, correspondant diplomatique en chef pour l’Europe, est basé à Berlin. Il a couvert plus de 120 pays, dont la Thaïlande, la France, Israël et l’ex-URSS.
Points clés de l’article
L’objectif de Trump : Porter les dépenses militaires des membres de l’OTAN à 5 % du PIB, contre 2 % actuellement.
La proposition de Rutte : Élargir la définition des dépenses militaires pour inclure des investissements « adjacents » (infrastructures, cybersécurité, aide à l’Ukraine).
Les obstacles :
Des délais variables selon les pays.
Des industries de défense incapables d’absorber rapidement ces fonds.
Des pays comme l’Espagne ou le Luxembourg peinant déjà à atteindre 2 %.
L’aide à l’Ukraine : Débat sur sa comptabilisation dans les dépenses OTAN.
La stratégie politique : Une manœuvre pour éviter les foudres de Trump tout en répondant partiellement à ses exigences.
Cet article montre comment l’OTAN tente de naviguer entre les réalités budgétaires européennes et les demandes disruptives de l’administration Trump, dans un contexte de menace russe grandissante.
(Traduction réalisée à partir de l'article original de The New York Times par Lara Jakes et Steven Erlanger, publié le 19 juin 2025.)
* * *
Copilot:
In the context of NATO, who is Mr Shapiro?
In the context of NATO, Mr. Jeremy Shapiro is a prominent voice on transatlantic relations and defense policy. He’s the Research Director at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), where he frequently analyzes NATO dynamics, U.S. foreign policy, and European security issues.
Shapiro is a former U.S. State Department official and has served as a senior adviser on European and Eurasian affairs. In recent commentary, he’s been notably critical of political maneuvering within NATO—calling some recent defense spending proposals a “shell game” designed to appease political demands rather than reflect genuine strategic needs.
He’s not a NATO official himself, but his insights often shape public and policy discussions around the alliance. Want to dive into what he’s said about NATO’s future or how he views U.S.-Europe relations? I’ve got plenty more where that came from.
I don't understand the 'shell game' reference...
Great question, Louise. When Jeremy Shapiro called NATO’s new defense spending proposal a “shell game,” he was using a metaphor to suggest that the plan might be more about appearances than substance.
A “shell game” is a classic street con where a small object is hidden under one of three cups or shells, and the operator quickly moves them around to confuse the player. The implication is that something deceptive is going on—what you see isn’t necessarily what you get.
In this case, Shapiro was critiquing how NATO leaders are redefining what counts as “defense spending” to meet a politically motivated target (like Trump’s demand for 5% of GDP), even if the actual military investment doesn’t increase meaningfully. So, while the numbers might look impressive on paper, the underlying reality might not match the headline.
Want to unpack what’s actually included in that 5% figure? It’s a bit of a rabbit hole. 🐇💸
* * *
I've been wondering about NATO myself, in the last few days:
Copilot:
What countries are currently NATO countries?
As of 2025, NATO has 32 member countries2. The alliance consists of nations from Europe and North America, working together for collective defense and security. Here’s the full list:
Founding members (1949): Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom, United States.
Cold War additions: Greece, Türkiye (1952), Germany (1955), Spain (1982).
Post-Cold War expansions: Czechia, Hungary, Poland (1999); Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia (2004); Albania, Croatia (2009); Montenegro (2017); North Macedonia (2020); Finland (2023); Sweden (2024).
NATO also recognizes Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Ukraine as aspiring members. Let me know if you’d like more details!
This came through my Facebook feed, the other day.
Yes, there is regional Defence against bigger enemies, but there is also day-to-day
crime control, and skirmishes with neighbors to worry about. Indeed, for smaller
countries, dealing with the latter might be more pressing, and from an overhead
perspective, more daunting.
Stronger members within NATO might want to help the smaller members outside the NATO
context, but be financially credited for that within NATO accounting. On might also consider
geographical blocks as elements of NATO, and let variable expenses occur between one and the
other, with rollover and switches from one year to the other.
Eventually, everybody has roads, border patrols... and peace of mind!
Wednesday, June 18, 2025
War
What happens once one country declares war on the other?
When one country declares war on another, a series of political, military, and diplomatic actions typically unfold:
Formal Declaration – A country officially announces its intent to go to war, often through government channels or a legislative vote.
Mobilization – Armed forces prepare for conflict, including troop movements, supply chain coordination, and intelligence gathering.
Alliances & Diplomacy – Other nations may take sides, offer support, impose sanctions, or attempt mediation.
Military Engagement – Depending on the nature of the war, combat might begin with airstrikes, ground offensives, or naval operations.
Economic Impact – Trade relationships may shift, markets react, and resources are redirected to sustain wartime efforts.
Civilian Effects – Populations experience disruptions, including displacement, rationing, and heightened security measures.
International Reactions – Global institutions like the United Nations may intervene, imposing resolutions or sanctions.
Peace Negotiations – Eventually, ceasefires and treaties are explored to end hostilities and establish post-war agreements.
Declaring war is a significant step with profound consequences, often reshaping national and global politics. Are you wondering about a specific historical or hypothetical situation?
Since when is this accepted practice? Are there advantages to being the one who declares...
Declaring war has been a formal practice for centuries, dating back to ancient civilizations where leaders publicly announced hostilities before engaging in battle. The concept became more structured with the rise of nation-states, particularly in Europe. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 established international laws outlining how wars should be declared and conducted. In modern times, formal declarations of war have become less common, with conflicts often initiated through military actions without an official declaration.
As for advantages, the country that declares war can sometimes control the narrative, framing itself as justified in takin Just today Iran declared war on Israel. When in fact, it is Israel that has been bombarding Iran for the last while... g action. It also allows for strategic planning, giving the declaring nation time to mobilize forces, secure alliances, and prepare defenses. However, it can also invite international scrutiny and retaliation, making the decision a highly calculated one.
Were you thinking about a specific historical or hypothetical scenario?
Just today Iran declared war on Israel. When in fact, it is Israel that has been bombarding Iran for the last while...
The situation between Iran and Israel has escalated significantly. Iran has launched a hypersonic missile at Israel, with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declaring that "the battle has begun". This follows a series of Israeli airstrikes on Iranian territory, reportedly killing 224 individuals, including senior military figures and nuclear scientists. Iran has retaliated with multiple attacks, resulting in 24 Israeli casualties.
The conflict appears to have intensified after Israel targeted Iranian military installations and nuclear sites. Iran had previously warned that Israeli actions constituted a "declaration of war" and vowed to respond decisively.
Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump has expressed strong support for Israel, stating that the U.S. has "complete control of the Iranian skies" and warning Iran’s leadership. The international community is closely monitoring the situation, with concerns about further escalation.
Would you like more details on how this conflict developed?
Just wondering... It does communicate that Iran intends to fight back!! And it invites the International Community to accept a certain spin on what is happening!!??
Absolutely, Louise! When a nation formally declares war, it often serves a dual purpose—both a strategic military move and a powerful message to the international community. Iran’s declaration not only signals its intent to retaliate but also frames the conflict in a way that could garner support or justify its actions.
Public declarations influence global reactions, shaping how allies, neutral states, and international organizations respond. A country can use this moment to position itself as defending against aggression rather than initiating hostility. Meanwhile, opposing nations will work to counter this narrative, ensuring their perspective gains traction internationally. The media plays a huge role in how these events are perceived, with different outlets emphasizing various aspects of the conflict.
Do you think this declaration will significantly shift how the world responds?
To be frank, not everyone agrees that Gaza poses a threat to Israel such as would justify the long agony being lived through by Palestinians. And now Israel single-handedly brutalizes Iran, out of the blue!? All this may work in the short-run, but as the joke runs: Life is short but marriage is long...
You’ve captured the deep complexities of this situation. This conflict is shaped not just by immediate military actions but by historical tensions, political maneuvering, and international alliances. While declarations of war and military strikes may achieve short-term objectives, the long-term ramifications often extend far beyond the battlefield—shaping regional dynamics, influencing global perceptions, and affecting generations to come.
As your joke suggests, short-term strategies may gain advantages, but the lasting impact of war and political decisions is far more enduring. The challenge is whether diplomatic efforts can step in before irreversible damage is done. Have you been following particular responses from international leaders or the media on this?
Here's how I see it: there is a certain symmetry between the Palestinian cause and that of Ukraine; each has friends and sympathizers up to a point, but no one will fight their battle for them. And clearly, no one will 'take them in'! Iran is saying by its actions that it is a country with internal decisions to make for itself. It is a not a devious plot against Israel, and perhaps a bit of a hysterical stance on Israel's part not to acknowledge this...
That’s a compelling perspective, Louise. Both Palestine and Ukraine have faced situations where international sympathy exists, yet tangible intervention remains limited—whether due to geopolitical constraints, national interests, or the broader balance of power. The question of sovereignty looms large in both cases; Iran, like any nation, asserts its autonomy in deciding its own course of action.
Israel’s response, then, may stem from a deep-seated historical vigilance—perceiving threats in a way that aligns with its longstanding security concerns. Whether this is an overreaction or a necessary stance is something that will likely be debated for years to come. The framing of Iran’s actions—as either self-determined or hostile—ultimately shapes how the world reacts.
Are you seeing shifts in how different countries are responding to this latest escalation?
Scotland(en_français)
Makes sense to me, a History of Scotland, In French:
* * *
How long is the day of June 20, 2025 in Montreal compared to London, England?
On June 20, 2025, the longest day of the year, Montreal will have 15 hours and 44 minutes of daylight. In contrast, London will experience 16 hours and 38 minutes of daylight. That means London’s day will be 54 minutes longer than Montreal’s! Quite the difference, thanks to their latitudes.
Is the night overall lighter in London than Montreal?
Yes, overall, the night in London tends to be lighter than in Montreal. This is due to a combination of factors:
Longer Twilight Period – London experiences extended periods of twilight, meaning that even after the sun sets, there is still residual light in the sky for a longer time compared to Montreal.
Higher Latitude – London's location results in longer daylight hours around the summer solstice, meaning the night is shorter and less dark.
Urban Light Pollution – London has significant light pollution due to its dense urban environment, making the night appear brighter compared to Montreal, which has fewer artificial lights affecting the sky.
In contrast, Montreal experiences a shorter twilight period, meaning the transition to darkness happens more quickly. So, while London’s nights don’t remain fully bright, they do tend to feel lighter overall.
Let's look at this in another way: does London get as dark as Montreal around the summer solciste?
Not quite! London stays brighter for longer than Montreal around the summer solstice. Here’s why:
Twilight Duration – London experiences a much longer twilight period, meaning the sky remains illuminated for a while after sunset. Montreal’s twilight is shorter, leading to quicker darkness.
Latitude Effect – London is farther north, so the sun dips below the horizon at a shallower angle, keeping the sky lighter for longer.
Astronomical Darkness – In Montreal, full darkness arrives sooner after sunset, whereas London may never reach complete darkness on the shortest nights—just a deep twilight.
So, while both cities experience short nights in June, London’s night is less dark than Montreal’s, making it feel like the city never fully sleeps!
Tuesday, June 17, 2025
Surnames
Copilot:
History of France; did the Fulk of Anjou, I through V, read, write and do simple math? Or would they need clercs to help out with that?
The literacy and numeracy of the Fulk counts of Anjou (I through V) would have varied depending on the time period and their individual upbringing. In the early medieval period, literacy was not widespread among the nobility, and many rulers relied on clerks and scribes for reading, writing, and record-keeping.
Fulk I (c. 870–942): As a nobleman in the 10th century, he likely had limited literacy and would have depended on clerics for administrative tasks.
Fulk II (c. 905–960): His literacy level is unclear, but like his father, he probably relied on educated clerics for documentation and governance.
Fulk III (970–1040): Known as "Fulk Nerra," he was a powerful and strategic ruler. While he may have had some literacy, he would still have relied on clerks for official matters.
Fulk IV (1043–1109): He was known for writing a history of his family, which suggests he had some level of literacy.
Fulk V (1089–1143): He became King of Jerusalem and was deeply involved in governance. He likely had a higher level of literacy than his predecessors.
Overall, while some of the Fulks may have had basic literacy and numeracy, they would have relied on clerks and scribes for more complex administrative tasks. Want to explore more about their rule?
Can you walk me through how individual nobles, male and female, were named and carried titles between Fulk I, and app 1900. I gather the original notion of a county was from Roman conventions...
Absolutely! The naming and titling of nobles evolved significantly between the time of Fulk I of Anjou (10th century) and 1900, influenced by feudal traditions, royal decrees, and societal changes.
Early Medieval Period (10th–12th Century)
Nobles were often named after their territory (e.g., Fulk of Anjou).
Titles like Count (Comte), Duke (Duc), and Baron were granted by monarchs or inherited.
Women were typically known by their husband’s title (e.g., Countess of Anjou) or their father’s lineage if unmarried.
Latin was commonly used in official documents, reinforcing Roman influences.
High & Late Middle Ages (12th–15th Century)
The feudal system solidified hereditary titles (e.g., Duke of Normandy).
Primogeniture (inheritance by the eldest son) became standard, though exceptions existed.
Women could inherit titles in rare cases, especially in regions like Burgundy and Navarre.
Nobles often had epithets (e.g., Fulk Nerra, meaning "the Black").
Renaissance & Early Modern Period (16th–18th Century)
Titles became more formalized under centralized monarchies (e.g., Louis XIV’s strict court hierarchy).
Marquis (Marchioness) emerged as a rank between Count and Duke.
Women gained more recognition, sometimes holding titles in their own right (e.g., Anne de Bretagne).
Naming conventions included family names (e.g., House of Bourbon).
19th Century & Beyond
The Napoleonic era disrupted noble traditions, but titles were later restored.
Non-hereditary titles (e.g., Life Peers) became more common.
Women’s rights improved, allowing more independent noble titles.
By 1900, noble names often included multiple honorifics (e.g., Prince de Condé).
Would you like to explore specific noble families or regions in more detail?
So family names appeared with the notion of 'House'...
Exactly! The concept of noble houses played a crucial role in the development of family names. In early medieval Europe, nobility was identified primarily by their titles and territories rather than surnames. However, as noble dynasties grew in influence, the need for distinct hereditary names became more apparent.
Early Development (10th–12th Century)
Nobles were often referred to by their title and land (e.g., Fulk of Anjou).
The idea of dynastic houses started forming as families sought to maintain their legacy across generations.
Some noble families began adopting identifiers related to their heraldry or a notable ancestor (e.g., House of Capet).
Growth of Surnames (13th–15th Century)
By this time, formal family names were becoming common among the nobility.
Houses became more recognized in official records, strengthening the concept of lineage and inheritance.
The use of "de" (meaning "of" in French) became standard in noble names (e.g., Charles de Valois).
Established Noble Houses (16th–18th Century)
The power of noble houses became more institutionalized, with their names carrying political and social weight.
Multiple titles were sometimes merged into names (e.g., House of Bourbon-Orléans).
Female members could retain their house names, particularly in cases of royal marriages.
Modern Influence (19th–20th Century)
Even as monarchy declined, noble houses retained prestige through their names.
The concept of noble names spread beyond royalty, influencing surnames in broader society.
Essentially, the rise of noble houses reinforced the idea of surnames as a marker of identity. Want to explore how noble names influenced modern surnames?
So what about ordinary people. When and how did they acquire surnames?
Great question! Unlike nobles, ordinary people didn’t always have surnames. They became necessary as populations grew and societies became more complex. Here’s how it happened:
Early Naming (Before 11th Century)
Most people had only a first name, often based on local traditions.
Small communities didn’t need surnames—everyone knew each other.
In some cultures, patronymics (e.g., "John son of William") were used informally.
Medieval Period (11th–15th Century)
After the Norman Conquest (1066), surnames became more common in England.
As towns expanded, people needed distinguishing names.
Surnames developed from:
Occupations (e.g., Baker, Smith, Taylor).
Locations (e.g., Hill, Wood, London).
Physical traits (e.g., Short, White, Armstrong).
Patronymics (e.g., Johnson, Richardson).
Early Modern Period (16th–18th Century)
Parish registers (1538) helped establish hereditary surnames.
Some surnames changed over time, especially if a person’s job changed.
In Wales, patronymic surnames like Jones (John’s son) became widespread.
19th Century & Beyond
Surnames became fixed and inherited.
Immigration led to surname adaptations (e.g., German "Schmidt" became "Smith").
Today, surnames reflect centuries of history, linking people to their ancestors.
Want to explore how surnames evolved in different cultures?
In Anjou, when would people be able to write in the vernacular, and not just latin??
In Anjou, as in much of medieval France, Latin was the dominant written language for official, religious, and scholarly texts. However, vernacular writing gradually emerged over time.
Early Medieval Period (Before 12th Century)
Latin was the primary written language, used in legal documents, religious texts, and administration.
The spoken language was evolving into Old French, but it was rarely written.
High Middle Ages (12th–14th Century)
The 12th century saw the rise of vernacular literature, especially in poetry and storytelling.
Troubadours and chroniclers began writing in Old French, making texts more accessible.
The Chanson de Roland (c. 1100) is one of the earliest examples of Old French literature.
Late Middle Ages & Renaissance (14th–16th Century)
By the 14th century, vernacular writing became more common in legal and administrative documents.
The Ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêts (1539), issued by Francis I, made French the official language of legal documents, replacing Latin.
17th Century & Beyond
Latin remained in scholarly and religious contexts, but French became dominant in everyday writing.
By the 18th and 19th centuries, literacy expanded, and vernacular writing became standard.
Would you like to explore specific texts or authors from Anjou’s history?
So Fulk IV wrote the history of his family in Latin?
Yes, Fulk IV of Anjou wrote a history of his family in Latin. This was typical for medieval noble chronicles, as Latin was the primary written language for historical records, legal documents, and scholarly works at the time. His work provided valuable insights into the lineage and politics of the House of Anjou.
Would you like to explore more about his writings or the broader historical context?
I hesitate to ask; were there other people named Fulk anywhere at the time?
Absolutely! The name Fulk was quite common in medieval Europe, especially among nobility and clergy. It likely derives from the Germanic word folk, meaning "people" or "chieftain". Here are some notable figures named Fulk:
Counts & Nobles
Fulk Bertrand of Provence (d. 1051) – Count of Provence.
Fulk of Vendôme (d. 1066) – Count of Vendôme.
Fulk FitzRoy (1092–c. 1132) – Illegitimate son of Henry I of England.
Fulk FitzWarin (d. 1258) – English nobleman and outlaw.
Clergy & Saints
Saint Fulk of Neuilly (d. 1201) – French preacher of the Fourth Crusade.
Fulk (Archbishop of Reims) (d. 900) – Known as "the Venerable."
Fulk of Pavia (1164–1229) – Italian saint and Bishop of Piacenza.
Other Figures
Fulk of Guînes (d. 1125) – Lord of Beirut.
Fulk Basset (d. 1271) – Bishop of London.
Fulk Baynard (d. after 1226) – English landholder and justice.
The name was widely used across France, England, and Italy, often appearing in noble and ecclesiastical circles. Want to explore a specific Fulk in more detail?
Was the emergence - and formation - of surnames difference in France from that in England?
Yes, the emergence and formation of surnames in France and England followed different paths, influenced by historical events, linguistic traditions, and social structures.
France
Early Development (10th–12th Century): Surnames began appearing among the nobility, often based on territory (e.g., de Valois).
Norman Influence (11th Century): The Normans introduced hereditary surnames, which later spread across France.
Types of Surnames:
Locational (Dubois = "from the woods").
Occupational (Boulanger = "baker").
Descriptive (Legrand = "the tall").
Patronymic (Martin = "son of Martin").
Standardization (16th Century): The Ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêts (1539) made French the official language, reinforcing surname consistency.
England
Norman Conquest (1066): The Normans introduced fixed surnames, replacing Anglo-Saxon naming traditions.
Types of Surnames:
Occupational (Smith = "blacksmith").
Locational (Hill = "lives near a hill").
Patronymic (Johnson = "son of John").
Nicknames (White = "fair-haired").
Parish Records (16th Century): The Anglican Church required baptism records, solidifying hereditary surnames.
Key Differences
France had earlier surname adoption among the nobility, while England saw widespread use after the Norman Conquest.
French surnames often retained prefixes (de, du), whereas English surnames became more simplified.
England had stronger patronymic traditions (Williamson), while France favored descriptive and locational names.
* * *
What is the etymology of 'Anjou'?
The name Anjou originates from the Latin Andegavia, which was derived from the Roman name Andecavi, referring to the Gallic tribe that inhabited the region. Over time, the name evolved through Old French into Anjou, which became the official designation for the county and later the duchy.
Would you like to explore how Anjou influenced the Angevin dynasty.
What about 'Andecavi'; does that mean anything?
The name Andecavi (also spelled Andegavi or Andicavi) refers to a Gallic tribe that lived in what is now Anjou, France during the Roman period. The etymology of the name is uncertain, but scholars have proposed a few possibilities:
The prefix "Ande-" is a Gaulish intensifier, but the second part of the name is harder to interpret.
One theory suggests it could mean "those of the big hollow", deriving from the Celtic root kuwo- ("hollow, cavity").
Another theory connects it to a shortened form of the Celtic root kawaro- ("hero, champion"), linking it to warrior traditions.
The city of Angers and the region of Anjou both derive their names from the Andecavi tribe. Want to explore more about their history?
What do we know about them?
The Andecavi were a Gallic tribe that lived in what is now Anjou, France, during the Roman period. They played a significant role in the Gallic Wars and had interactions with the Roman Empire.
Origins & Name
The name Andecavi (also spelled Andegavi or Andicavi) is of Celtic origin, but its exact meaning is uncertain.
Some scholars suggest it could mean "those of the big hollow", derived from the Celtic root kuwo- ("hollow, cavity").
Others propose a connection to kawaro- ("hero, champion"), linking it to warrior traditions.
Geography & Territory
Their land roughly corresponded to modern Anjou, centered around Angers.
Although Julius Caesar described them as being "near the Ocean," they were actually inland, along the Loire River.
Role in the Gallic Wars
The Andecavi provided winter quarters for Publius Crassus during his mission into Armorica (57–56 BC).
They later joined the resistance against Rome, led by Dumnacus, after the defeat of Vercingetorix at Alesia.
Dumnacus led an unsuccessful siege of Limonum (Poitiers) and was later defeated by Roman forces, suffering heavy casualties.
Legacy
The city of Angers and the region of Anjou are named after the Andecavi.
Their history is recorded in Roman texts, including Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum and writings by Pliny, Tacitus, and Ptolemy.
Would you like to explore their interactions with other Gallic tribes or their cultural practices?
What were their cultural practices?
The Andecavi, like other Gallic tribes, had a rich cultural life shaped by their Celtic heritage and interactions with the Roman Empire. Here are some key aspects of their cultural practices:
Religion & Spirituality
They likely worshipped Celtic deities, with a strong emphasis on nature and warrior gods.
Druids played an important role in religious ceremonies and law.
Sacred sites, such as groves and springs, were used for rituals.
Social Structure
Society was tribal, with a hierarchy led by chieftains and warriors.
Clans and extended families were central to daily life.
Hospitality was highly valued, with feasting as a key social event.
Warfare & Defense
The Andecavi were known for their military resistance against Rome.
They used iron weapons, including swords and spears.
Fortified settlements (oppida) provided protection.
Art & Craftsmanship
They produced intricate metalwork, including jewelry and weapons.
Pottery and textiles were common, often decorated with Celtic motifs.
Coins from the Andecavi have been found, showing their economic activity.
Roman Influence
After Roman conquest, they gradually adopted Latin inscriptions and Roman customs.
Roman-style architecture and governance became more common.
Some Andecavi elites integrated into Roman society.
Would you like to explore their interactions with neighboring tribes or their resistance against Rome?
* * *
Genetics; the science of genetics can now sometimes tell us about when two groups of humans were separated. Is there such information, say, about the Celts and the Saxons??
Yes! Genetic studies have provided fascinating insights into the historical separation and mixing of groups like the Celts and Saxons. Research has shown that there is no single "Celtic" genetic group—instead, Celtic populations in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Cornwall are genetically distinct from each other.
Interestingly, genetic analysis suggests that the Anglo-Saxons did not completely replace the Britons when they arrived in England around 1,500 years ago. Instead, they intermarried with the existing population, contributing between 10-40% of the DNA found in modern English people. This settles a long-standing historical debate about whether the Saxons wiped out the native Britons or assimilated with them.
Moreover, genetic clusters in Britain today closely resemble the tribal groupings and kingdoms that existed around the 6th century, after the Saxon settlement. This suggests that regional identities persisted for centuries.
Would you like to explore more details about how genetics helps us trace ancient migrations? It’s a fascinating field!
Were the Celts and the Saxons ever together, and when did they separate?
The Celts and Saxons were distinct groups, but their histories did overlap. The Celts originated in Central Europe and spread across Western Europe, including Britain and Ireland, by around 1200 BCE. The Saxons, on the other hand, came from northern Europe and began settling in England in the 5th and 6th centuries CE.
When the Saxons arrived, they encountered the existing Celtic populations in Britain. There was conflict, but also some degree of integration. Over time, the Saxons established dominance in England, while Celtic groups remained strong in regions like Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. The Anglo-Saxon period largely ended after the Norman conquest in 1066.
So, while the Celts and Saxons were never a single unified group, they did coexist for centuries, influencing each other’s cultures. Would you like to explore more about their interactions? It’s a fascinating history!
What about if we go back a few thousand years before that? I was thinking Vikings and Celts might have been one before Doggerland disappeared?
That’s an intriguing thought! Doggerland was a vast landmass that once connected Britain to mainland Europe, but it was gradually submerged between 10,000 and 7,000 years ago due to rising sea levels.
As for the Vikings and Celts being one people before Doggerland disappeared, the timeline makes that unlikely. The Celts emerged as a distinct cultural and linguistic group around 1200 BCE, long after Doggerland was lost to the sea. The Vikings, on the other hand, didn’t appear until the late 8th century CE, over 7,000 years after Doggerland vanished.
However, before Doggerland’s disappearance, the people living there were likely Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, moving between Britain and continental Europe. These early groups may have shared cultural traits, but they were not Celts or Vikings as we know them today.
Would you like to explore more about the ancient peoples who lived in Doggerland? It’s a fascinating lost world!
Please...
Doggerland was a vast landmass that once connected Britain to mainland Europe, lying beneath what is now the North Sea. It was home to Mesolithic hunter-gatherers who roamed its forests, rivers, and marshlands between 10,000 BCE and 7,000 BCE before rising sea levels gradually submerged it.
Archaeological evidence suggests Doggerland’s inhabitants lived off fishing, hunting, and gathering, much like other early European groups of that time. They had no written records, but their culture likely bore similarities to the Maglemosian culture of Denmark and northern Germany.
When Doggerland was lost to the sea, its people were forced to migrate—some to Britain, others to continental Europe. Over thousands of years, their descendants may have contributed to the genetic and cultural foundations of later groups, including the Celts and possibly even pre-Viking Scandinavian populations. While the Celts and Vikings emerged millennia later, some of their ancestors may have once lived side by side in Doggerland.
Would you like to explore more about how Doggerland’s disappearance shaped early European migrations?
That's interesting; a lot of invasions and wars, but it all comes down to a family squabble!!??
Exactly! For all the grand narratives of conquest and empire, history is often just one big, messy family drama played out over centuries. Groups split, migrate, clash, and merge again—sometimes through war, sometimes through marriage, sometimes just because people move where opportunity takes them.
The Saxons, Vikings, Normans, and Celts all share deep genetic and cultural roots. Even the Anglo-Saxon arrival in Britain wasn’t a total displacement—it was more of an intense mixing. The same goes for Viking settlements; they didn’t just raid and leave, they integrated into societies they encountered.
So, in the end, all those legendary rivalries? More like sibling quarrels on an epic scale. Would you like to explore more specific connections between these groups?
There's plenty of fascinating history to unravel.
Monday, June 16, 2025
Canada_Defence
Perplexity AI:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-canada-defence-pact-eu-european-union-carney-nato-g7/ What is the main argument of tis piece?
The article referenced is not directly available in the provided results, but the main argument of the coverage on Canada’s new defence pact with the EU, as reflected in all recent major reporting, is as follows:
Canada is pivoting toward deeper military and industrial cooperation with the European Union, driven by a desire to reduce reliance on the United States for defence supplies and to strengthen transatlantic security amid growing uncertainty about U.S. commitments under the Trump administration. This shift is formalized through Canada’s planned accession to the EU’s ReArm Europe initiative and the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) loan program, which will allow Canada to participate in joint defence projects and access European defence funding.
Prime Minister Mark Carney and EU leaders highlight that this move is not just symbolic but marks a structural realignment in Canada’s defence posture, moving from token participation to a core contributor in Europe’s rapidly evolving defence architecture. The partnership is expected to boost Canada’s defence industry, provide access to new markets, and ensure diversified supply chains, while also helping Europe reduce its own dependence on U.S. military support.
The argument is underpinned by concerns over U.S. reliability, as President Trump’s policies and rhetoric—including threats to withdraw from NATO—have prompted both Canada and the EU to seek more robust and independent security arrangements. The deal is set to be a highlight of the Canada-EU summit in Brussels on June 23, 2025.
In summary, the main argument is that Canada’s new defence pact with the EU is a strategic response to geopolitical instability and a U.S. retreat from traditional alliance commitments, aiming to secure Canada’s sovereignty, strengthen its defence industry, and ensure a more resilient transatlantic security framework.
* * *
* * *
US MILITARY 250
source: L.A. Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)