[HN Gopher] US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s
___________________________________________________________________
US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s
Author : ctack
Score : 945 points
Date : 2025-03-09 11:08 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ukrainetoday.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (ukrainetoday.org)
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Right now every buyer of American kit is feverishly evaluating
| non-US alternatives.
|
| Seriously, America, this is like Brexit but 1000x. A voluntary
| decision, taken with gusto, to chop off arms and legs and ears
| and fingers and whatnot, cut off the deadwood, be light and free,
| a lone vessel on the ocean of prosperity, free of the burden of
| the stupid foreigners who are the sole reason why everything was
| going wrong.
| eunos wrote:
| Especially F-35 where lack of American support means total
| brick.
|
| Hey, at least Ukraine can use their S-300 systems and Sukhois
| against their maker.
| bborud wrote:
| This is top of mind for all European countries that bought
| the F-35. They are painfully aware of this. So is the US
| defense industry which will notice softening sales kicking in
| a few years down the line as European countries are less
| inclined to buy US arms.
|
| This was predictable though. The markets have already
| rewarded those who saw this coming.
| eunos wrote:
| But if the EU has no 5th gen fighters then they'd have a
| hard time maintaining Air Superiority against Russia if
| they manage to mass produce Su-57 or Su-75 and I am betting
| the Russian can do it before EU can have 5th gen fighters
| or FCAS.
| fullstackwife wrote:
| > Russia if they manage to mass produce Su-57 or Su-75
|
| They can only do that if US provides them with required
| components
|
| oh wait...
| eunos wrote:
| I'm willing to bet they can do it with possible financial
| assistance from India (they need 5th gen fighters too)
| and generic chips from China.
|
| P.S. Many mocked Russian munitions came with chips made
| by Texas Instruments among others, but thing is those
| chips are so damn generic you can get that from random
| shops in Shenzhen.
| eitland wrote:
| India already got burned.
|
| Their previous orders have still not been delivered since
| they were sent to the frontlines in Ukraine.
|
| I doubt India will want to repeat that.
| eunos wrote:
| Not many options for India. F-35 is also very risky and
| unclear delivery date, not to mention they also got
| burned by delayed F414 engines delivery for their Tejas.
|
| With rumours of Pakistan getting J-35, 5th Gen fighters
| are necessity I guess.
|
| Besides they can force Russian to manufacture them in
| India like Su-30 MKI.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Russia doesn't have air superiority in Ukraine and they
| chose the time and place of the war.
| postingawayonhn wrote:
| The Russian aviation industry has a terrible track record
| on delivering new aircraft.
| eunos wrote:
| I'm willing to entertain the possibility that the Russian
| can improve the track record faster than the EU develops
| 5th gen fighters.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| Sure, but that risk is just something Europe has to eat
| as punishment for buying F-35 instead of building their
| own, it doesn't affect the new reality that US aircraft
| _cannot be trusted in wartime_.
| eunos wrote:
| I'm highlighting more about EU conundrum here and I'm
| still amused that they still have energy to pick up fight
| with say China.
| eitland wrote:
| So far their 5th generation fighter program has been an
| even worse embarrassement than the T14 Armata.
|
| Their own press photos shows uncovered Philips screws on
| a supposedly stealth aircraft, and their "loyal wingman"
| drone used the first opportunity near the frontlines to
| try to defect.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Thankfully, Russia doesn't really have 5th Gen either.
| Europe has a lot of solid 4+ gen planes: Rafale,
| Eurofighter, maybe Gripen. And I'm willing to guess that,
| especially with better trained pilots, these are
| potentially better than Russia's assortment.
|
| But there remains a question of quantity and
| determination.
| varjag wrote:
| The surviving Russian pilots are pretty competent at this
| point.
| goatsi wrote:
| The surviving Russian pilots fly towards the front line
| at a high altitude until they get close to the suspected
| range of Ukrainian air defences, drop glide bombs and
| then turn around. Sometimes the Ukrainians have snuck an
| air defence unit closer to the front lines without it
| being detected and the pilots exit the category of
| surviving Russian pilots.
|
| I'm not sure how applicable this would be to a
| confrontation with European countries. Russian fighters
| will get getting lots of flight hours on CAP as well, but
| not much combat based on reporting. Both sides are
| keeping everything inside their own AD bubbles.
| mhog_hn wrote:
| Good, can we skip the 5th gen and move towards autonomous
| aerial systems faster?
| thewinnie wrote:
| Russia already lost Su-57 in Ukraine when ukrainians
| didn't even had F-16.
| ben_w wrote:
| I think Russian capabilities depends almost entirely on
| who the US and China are willing to sell weapons to --
| Russia has huge corruption problems, arguably this is why
| they were dumb enough to not only start a war but also
| why they weren't able to actually pull off a blitzkrieg
| against Ukraine, so I don't think Russia will be able to
| combine high volume and high quality for anything any
| time soon.
|
| EU industrial capabilities may also have issues, but they
| are (mostly) different ones than Russia faces.
| maxglute wrote:
| Yeah a lot of RU dismissing here.
|
| Whatever shit tier RU MIC/performance has been, it has
| manage to consistently defeat or mitigate what US+EU has
| thrown against her. Which includes highend gear like PAC3
| MSE. Meanwhile half the reason RU had a hard time was due
| to facing UKR's abundant legacy USSR systems. At this
| point it's not unreasonable to dismiss everything in EU
| arsenal as wunderwaffe tier especially without US
| support. Including F35... which even if US doesn't
| restrict usage against EU-RU scenario, could still be
| borderline paperweight without US tier ISR.
|
| People also forget NATO fought a much shitter/temu RU in
| Yugoslavia where NATO threw everything at even more
| legacy soviet systems. All of the awacs, prowlers, F117
| barely chiped away at 20% of Yugoslav anti air, something
| like 700 harms were fired and destroyed less than handful
| of SA6 batteries. Hard to argue EU part of NATO has
| better military capability than 20 years ago.
|
| IMO there's a strong chance US would heavily
| restrict/limit F35 operations against RU. Because one
| shot down F35 by S400 let alone anything shittier
| completely evaporates narrative around 5th gen (and what
| that entails for IndoPac). They'd rather see RU hit F35s
| in hangers with standoff munitions because at least they
| can point to JP and SKR and say, see, you need to build
| harden air shelters.
| eunos wrote:
| > People also forget NATO fought a much shitter/temu RU
| in Yugoslavia where NATO threw everything at even more
| legacy soviet systems. All of the awacs, prowlers, F117
| barely chiped away at 20% of Yugoslav anti air, something
| like 700 harms were fired and destroyed less than handful
| of SA6 batteries. Hard to argue EU part of NATO has
| better military capability than 20 years ago
|
| Likewise the reason why Russia couldn't steamroll Ukraine
| swiftly is because Ukraine anti air is very formidable
| (using Soviet hardware no less). That is why it is wrong
| to simply assume Russia is weak.
| eitland wrote:
| > That is why it is wrong to simply assume Russia is
| weak.
|
| russia is weaker than they have been since 1991, possibly
| 1950.
|
| There is a reason they are now delivering ammo using
| mules and actually attempting old school cavalry charges
| on horseback.
|
| And it it's not because donkeys are better than the
| armoured, tracked towing tractors or because actual
| horses are better than tanks.
| somenameforme wrote:
| One problem with the digital age is you can find news to
| support any view, regardless of how disconnected from
| reality it may be. And enough people to echo such that
| one may not realize how ridiculous they sound.
| maxglute wrote:
| >horses are better than tanks
|
| There's pics of UKR javalin calvary too. It's precisely
| because they're situationally better than tanks in
| certain combat conditions. For the same reason everyone
| is zipping around in dirt bikes and golf carts or UKR
| retiring M1 tanks from frontlines. Look up survivability
| onion, tanks/armor get detected and destroyed because
| they're too visible vs modern frontline battlefield
| recon. If you want to survive, have to move to
| smaller/more agile platforms to avoid detection in the
| first place. RU and UKR are both learning and adapting.
| It's reflection that last 50 years of doctorine is
| obsolete, aka everything EU military also hedged on. If
| shit ever hits the fan, NATO maybe donkeying as well.
| eitland wrote:
| Have my upvote, good reasoning.
|
| Still sources like Covert Cabal and others do make me
| think it isn't _only_ a tactical consideration the
| russians have made but also a reflection of the fact that
| they very much do see the end of their stockpile.
| orwin wrote:
| > aka everything EU military also hedged on
|
| I don't think that's true. As an example, Finland and
| French doctrine are very different. It's easier to test
| all Euopean nations diffrent doctrine and choose what
| works best (especially if countries from the Balkans add
| their grain of salt)
|
| Imho that's where European defense industry (as a whole)
| is interesting. Because you have 5 competing IFV designs
| (well, over 15, but really, 5 different design that does
| different things). You also have multiple tanks (and
| AMX-10s), as well as a bunch of different drone
| constructors. Even in gun design you have multiple
| choices, andh while optics and optrionics are Thales',
| overall equipements are extremely distributed. Europe
| might find itself on the backfoot in case of an
| engagement, but i'm pretty sure it would bounce back
| quickly.
| MaxPock wrote:
| "French doctrine" Is this a joke ?
| simion314 wrote:
| if donkey are superior, then explain why only after 3
| years Putin used them, was Putin keeping them in reserve
| for the Berlin attack?
| ben_w wrote:
| Overall your points are valid, but:
|
| > There's pics of UKR javalin calvary too. It's precisely
| because they're situationally better than tanks in
| certain combat conditions.
|
| It's a war of attrition, both sides are using whatever
| they can lay their hands on at this point.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| You really make the best point here. End of the day, the
| 1986-style WW2++ strategy is dead. Manned air superiority
| outside of the third world is dead.
|
| The Russian failure is the exemplar. They were re-waging
| WW2, and they have little more than a lot of cooked
| tankers to show for it. Now we're rolling with throwing
| prisoners into trenches to stop the maneuver warfare,
| because they can't maneuver.
|
| The US is probably in as bad of a condition. Given the
| poor performance of air power in Ukraine and the
| Trump/Putin driven destruction of world alignment, US
| naval power is questionable. Aircraft carriers will
| become ineffective as modern SAMs are sold on the market.
| Our submarine platforms are old, manufacturing is barely
| operational, and we'll probably fire key individuals if
| we haven't already.
| holowoodman wrote:
| Aircraft carriers were always a joke in a US vs. Soviet
| conflict. A carrier will help with third-world enemies
| that cannot threaten it. However, the Soviet Union had
| capable submarine forces as well as ship-launched (e.g.
| from Kirov class cruisers) as well as air-launched anti-
| ship missiles which in numbers can overwhelm the carriers
| air defense screen.
|
| In WW3 the role of an aircraft carrier is to launch its
| airplanes exactly once, before it is sunk.
| SJC_Hacker wrote:
| The ISR environment is pretty saturated. Practically
| there's not much you can do to avoid detection.
|
| I agree that mules / horses are better in certain
| situations, and not even considering cost. I believe even
| US 10th Mountain division still uses them
| tw2347288 wrote:
| Let's be fair here. If we rightly mock all the silly
| *pravda sites, the mules aren't exactly reported in the
| serious press either.
|
| It seems more likely that mules were used where they make
| sense: Supplying ammo to a trench deeply in the forest,
| where mules are the superior "technology". Then that
| observation was blown out of proportion.
|
| Remember that "the Russians are fighting with shovels"
| was a slogan in 2022.
| fabian2k wrote:
| Where are you getting this from? There certainly has been
| some exaggeration online and in the media about the
| capabilities of western military hardware, especially
| tanks. But that doesn't mean they were bad, just that
| they are far from invulnerable. And there are quite a few
| examples where they saved the soldiers inside when a
| Russian tank would have tossed their turret.
|
| Patriot works in Ukraine, they even got a few Khinzal.
| But of course any air defense is limited by available
| ammo and you need enough of the right kind of air defense
| in the right places for this to work well. The Ukraine is
| really limited by the number of available systems and
| ammunition. And for something like the Shahed drones you
| need other ways to defend yourself to avoid exhausting
| your precious ammunition for advanced air defense
| systems.
|
| Russia also was shown to be nearly unable to intercept
| Storm Shadow/SCALP EG at the beginning. So the somewhat
| aging European cruise missiles were able to easily
| penetrate current Russian air defenses.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| > Russia also was shown to be nearly unable to intercept
| Storm Shadow/SCALP EG at the beginning. So the somewhat
| aging European cruise missiles were able to easily
| penetrate current Russian air defenses.
|
| Most likely because they did not have the specs or
| complete specs for them and how they looked like on
| radar. There was an article somewhere that I can't find
| right now where something like this was said: Once a new
| weapon system is employed against RU or by RU against UA,
| it takes about two weeks to create countermeasures for
| it.
| maxglute wrote:
| I didn't say western hardware bad, but exaggeration
| leading to RU dismissal and thinking that EU would be
| able to stomp RU in unrestricted warefare... especially
| without US assistence in short/medium time frame.
|
| >patriot works
|
| With US ISR (i.e. AWACs) providing early warning, IIRC
| correctly UKR was salvoing full patriot battery to
| intercept single kinzhal/zircon tier hypersonics, i.e.
| entire supply of EU patriot launcher can be overwhelmed
| by handful of hypersonics.
|
| >storm shadow
|
| Similarly UKR could sneak cruise missiles through RU IADs
| is because US info share helped plan missions/routes to
| circumvent RU defenses. Competent (not even super modern)
| air defense has like almost 100% interception on subsonic
| targets like cruise missiles, provided the are detected.
|
| The TLDR is hard to say how EU hardware will perform
| without US force multiplier tier ISR. Which will effect
| everything from finding targets to hit, hitting targets,
| and avoid getting hit even with same/better hardware.
| Which again, is not to say EU is bad... but EU very
| unlikely to be US level great.
| Sammi wrote:
| "Hard to argue EU part of NATO has better military
| capability than 20 years ago."
|
| We are seeing Ukrainians regularly hitting russian redars
| and air defence. Whatever nato wasn't able to do in hte
| 90s the Ukrainians are fully capable of doing today,
| because they are doing it. And with lots of european
| help. So this is just outdated speculation you're doing.
| mrighele wrote:
| > IMO there's a strong chance US would heavily
| restrict/limit F35 operations against RU. Because one
| shot down F35 by S400 let alone anything shittier
| completely evaporates narrative around 5th gen (and what
| that entails for IndoPac)
|
| Israel's F-35 have being going in and out of Iran's
| airspace with impunity, so no, I don't think that is
| going to be an issue.
| ocschwar wrote:
| The biggest Russian fuckup in this war was to put their
| elite soldiers in one plane for Hostomel Airport without
| knowing that Ukraine had SAMs in position and enough
| intelligence to know this was coming.
|
| After that the Russian "elite" units were elite in name
| only.
|
| This was in hour 8 of the war and it's worth bearing in
| mind that this war could have gone very, very
| differently.
| Retric wrote:
| Real life isn't a movie, one aircraft worth of people
| isn't going to do that much.
| ocschwar wrote:
| It annihilated the VDV.
| ttyprintk wrote:
| Or, airborne in name only nowadays.
| Retric wrote:
| And? It also took out a useful aircraft which could have
| been more significant over the war.
| adwn wrote:
| No, but them taking and holding the airport close to
| Ukraine's seat of government would have done a lot.
| Retric wrote:
| Now you're assuming quite a bit more than just a handful
| of troupes surviving. Such as them being able to get to
| an airport when there's air defenses in the way. Being
| able to reinforce those troupes quickly again through air
| defenses etc.
|
| Within a narrative such as loss of elite troops would
| definitely have some serious impact. In the context of a
| war the loss of the aircraft could easily be more
| significant.
| outer_web wrote:
| The videos of the Russian troops at Hostomel are on
| Youtube. As a commenter above mentioned, they were there
| to allow troop transports to land and eventually be
| connected to the tank column coming south from Belarus.
| Retric wrote:
| Sure that was a plan, but it turns such movements of
| tanks proved very detrimental to Russia.
|
| It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking if only X,
| but war is complicated. It's possible Russia would have
| been worse off because they tried to use those VDV
| soldiers in a plan that disastrously failed. It's
| slightly more likely that they would have been a small
| net benefit, but chances are things would look more or
| less identical today with or without them.
| outer_web wrote:
| My guy, the dismissive tone of "it's not an action movie"
| while backpedaling to "tut tut, sure that might have been
| their specific plan but have you considered unintended
| consequences" is too much for me.
| Retric wrote:
| I'm sorry if reality is too much for you.
|
| Saying doing X wouldn't have mattered is a perfectly
| reasonable rebuttal here. Ukraine not using a missile for
| attacking that aircraft means they could have used it to
| attack a different aircraft. Similarly Russia got to use
| all forces in that plan not destroyed with the aircraft
| in some other plan.
|
| That's not backpedaling that's just the inherent
| complexities involved.
| outer_web wrote:
| Have a good day.
| Retric wrote:
| Sure, have a good day.
| dmytrish wrote:
| I don't know where you got this myth from. Extermination
| of elite VDV units was not just one plane shot down.
|
| There were many russian helicopters successfully landing
| at Hostomel, the area saw heavy fighting for several days
| until it was under Ukrainian control.
|
| > The Russian Il-76s carrying reinforcements could not
| land; they were possibly forced to return to Russia.[35]
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antonov_Airport
|
| Rumors of an Il-76 downed close to Vasylkiv did not prove
| to be true:
|
| > Claims have been made that Ukrainian aircraft shot down
| two Russian Ilyushin Il-76 aircraft transporting assault
| troops.[33][124][34] However, The Guardian reports "no
| convincing public evidence has surfaced about the two
| downed planes, or about a drop of paratroopers in
| Vasylkiv".[125]
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_front_of_the_Russi
| an_...
| bojan wrote:
| That's the thing - having F-35s doesn't mean any more you
| actually have them, even though you paid through your
| teeth for them.
| cratermoon wrote:
| Sounds like Kindle books.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| So, F-35 Kindle edition.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| If.
|
| They have less than 30 airframes, probably 30-40% have
| some level of operational airworthiness.
|
| The Russians get a lot of glazing on social media about
| military prowess. The reality is they're fighting a tiny,
| poor country, got their asses kicked early on when nobody
| was really helping Ukraine substantially, mostly by
| virtue of their own incompetence.
|
| The Russians version of the USAF is their information
| operations. They've helped to nurture right wing
| shitheads in the US for decades culminating in two
| freakshow presidential administrations. They've done the
| same in Germany in the former GDR and in the UK with the
| leave wankers.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| I wonder if we'll see a coordinated wave of F-35
| cancellations. They must all be aware they are potentially
| buying bricks. The time to do it, thus, is now - the
| situation isn't improving while time and money are wasted.
| But that's an enormous political escalation.
|
| Or maybe Europeans, as "founding members", are able to
| support the planes on their own? I doubt it though. The
| engine alone is US made, ans that alone is probably
| unmaintainable without their support.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| It is not going to happen. There is no european
| manufacturer or a consortium that can build a similar
| airplane with comparable capabilities. They can't even
| match the F-22 which is more than two decades old.
|
| The only way Europe can match Russia/China is to keep
| buying american made weapons. Maybe in 20-30 years the
| situation will be different and Europe will have the same
| capabilities of the US, but until then... buy, baby, buy!
| lou1306 wrote:
| Any warplane that _works_ has comparable, nay even better
| capabilities than a brick.
| generic92034 wrote:
| There are three superpowers, only one of which has shown
| no hostility towards Europe. Draw your conclusions.
| cutemonster wrote:
| There are two. Russia is not a super power.
|
| Putin has nukes, apart from that Russia is a pretty
| irrelevant country.
|
| More like this: Two super powers, and a terror nukes
| nation.
| generic92034 wrote:
| It does not really change my argument, if you exclude
| Russia from the group. It was about possible alignment
| options Europe now has.
|
| However, any power able to incinerate large parts of the
| planet is a bit more than a regional power, in my eyes.
| cutemonster wrote:
| When Putin can't take back Kursk, it seems odd to call
| Russia a super power.
|
| But yes, agree with you about China.
|
| Putin wants people to think Russia is a super power, when
| it's instead a corrupted inefficient mafia state. Look at
| research or startups coming from there (not much) or it's
| economy - the country is not interesting any longer
| (Putin has damaged it that much). Except for Putin
| attacking Ukraine, and his nukes and troll farms.
|
| If Pakistan starts threatening other countries with
| nuclear war, and tries to invade a neighbor but mostly
| fails, is it then suddenly a super power?
|
| Maybe "terror power" could be a new word
| catlover76 wrote:
| > Putin has nukes, apart from that Russia is a pretty
| irrelevant country.
|
| Clearly, it's not irrelevant if it's been able to drive a
| wedge between the US and Europe like this.
| SJC_Hacker wrote:
| China is a economic superpower but not a military one, at
| least not yet. Their blue water navy is not credible.
| brabel wrote:
| I wish the EU agreed with you. That would surely mean
| they would not want to go on a 800 billion Euro spend of
| my taxpayer money to deter an "irrelevant country".
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Fundamentally, it's not just about Russia. It's about not
| being carved up by the US and China.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| And you think a 1T EUR will move the needle significantly
| to maybe deter this?
| philipov wrote:
| US, China, who else are you calling a superpower? Cause
| Russia is not a superpower.
| generic92034 wrote:
| It does not really change my argument, if you exclude
| Russia from the group. It was about possible alignment
| options Europe now has.
|
| However, any power able to incinerate large parts of the
| planet is a bit more than a regional power, in my eyes.
| ben_w wrote:
| FWIW, given everything else that we've seen from Russia
| in this undeclared(!) war, I'm moderately confident the
| Russian nukes and delivery mechanisms are sub-par.
|
| (Typing "sub" reminded me of the Kursk nuclear submarine
| that sank itself...)
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| It needs only a few to launch successfully to engulf
| Europe in flames. So, even with subpar equipment, out of
| all of the 1700+ launch vehicles a few will still launch.
| ben_w wrote:
| Kinda.
|
| Some of the P(weapon failure) is constant: from what I
| hear, a certain fraction of Soviet and US systems (and
| presumably everyone else's) just don't work.
|
| If that was all it was, then you would be correct.
|
| But: some failures come with age, and require ongoing
| maintenance to retain function. For example, I expect all
| the tritium has decayed, and also that in many cases the
| money that was supposed to get spent replacing the
| tritium was instead spent on a fancy yacht or a football
| team or a seat in the UK's House of Lords etc.
|
| And I don't know how good modern anti-missile weapons
| are, but I would expect them to have improved;
| conversely, despite Russia's talk about new hypersonic
| missiles, what they've shown hasn't been very impressive,
| and they've even used up some of their old nuclear-
| capable missiles while attacking Ukraine.
| FredPret wrote:
| You are hopefully right but this is not a bet you ever
| want to have to make.
| ben_w wrote:
| Quite.
|
| I'm happy to be relaxed about this, but only because I
| have no power -- 90% chance some attempted hot war is
| actually all duds is great for me personally, 10% chance
| everything burns is unacceptably high for someone running
| a country.
| SJC_Hacker wrote:
| There is only one superpower - the US.
|
| Russia and China are regional powers and can't project
| military power very far, excluding nukes. To do that you
| need a credible blue water navy. China is close though,
| and definitely projecting its economic strength.
|
| Europe (lets just say EU + UK) could be a superpower.
| However they lack political unity. And still want big
| daddy US to do the heavy lifting.
| rh219ag wrote:
| Yes, that's why the U.S. wants to control Arctic trade
| routes from China to Europe.
|
| The Ukraine war was "successful" in destroying the
| possibility of railways between the EU and China.
|
| The EU, ever the good vassal, now ramps up the rhetoric
| against Russia _which is exactly what Hegseth wanted in
| the open_.
|
| The EU is still playing the U.S. deep state script and it
| is _very_ likely that all the Trump pressure and insults
| are carefully planned political theater.
|
| If the above conjectures are wrong and Trump is serious
| about peace with Russia, then the EU needs to pivot
| quickly to China and at least maintain reasonable
| diplomatic relations with Russia.
| generic92034 wrote:
| > The EU is still playing the U.S. deep state script and
| it is very likely that all the Trump pressure and insults
| are carefully planned political theater.
|
| I find that becoming exceedingly unlikely. Trust has been
| destroyed, there is no easy recovery from that.
| 5azehG wrote:
| So many odd things have been occurring in the past month
| that I don't know what to believe any longer.
|
| First, ex-neocon Rubio admitted on the Megyn Kelly show
| that the world is now multi-polar. Even if he believes
| that, why would he say so unless it's for show.
|
| Then there is Lindsey Graham. In 2016 he gave warlike
| speeches to the Azov Batallion:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ4e1A-LZEA
|
| In 2025 he throws Zelensky under the bus:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18oqMGLWcRA
|
| Graham and probably Rubio are still neocons. Trump must
| be really powerful to keep all this under control.
|
| Then there is the U.S. arms lobby, which is uncannily
| quiet even though they'll lose a ton of business when
| NATO becomes irrelevant. Then there are no reactions to
| Polish nuclear ambitions, which is weird unless the whole
| thing is scripted.
|
| So there are two theories. Either Trump is carving up the
| world or he is acting.
| jmpman wrote:
| Elon Musk threatens to spend millions against any
| republican who deviates from Trump's policies. Without
| that threat, the republicans would speak up against this
| assault on American interest and values. I wonder more if
| Elon has been compromised than Trump. Or if Russia
| threaten to trigger the Kessler syndrome, destroying all
| of Elon's aspirations of getting off this rock (I'm still
| skeptical if he's telling the truth about that), and
| instructed him to stop the war.
| mongol wrote:
| A good airplane from an unreliable supplier is not a good
| airplane.
| dv_dt wrote:
| It may kill human piloted powered combat aircraft in
| favor of missiles and drones
| ttyprintk wrote:
| That's what I expect: long careers in NATO for Ukrainian
| veterans who can extrapolate from the high-point of USA
| and Russian arms.
| SJC_Hacker wrote:
| Drones can't replace a human in the cockpit. Remote
| piloted are subject to EW. Autonomous are not quite there
| yet. May be in ten years, maybe not.
| convolvatron wrote:
| given the extreme 'benefits' of autonomous weapons
| (cheap, can be produced in arbitrary numbers, easier
| logistics, fewer parents mourning their children in your
| country, vastly easier production), we should expect them
| to be fielded before they are really ready.
| simmerup wrote:
| Not to pile on but you say we should buy the F-35 to go
| toe to toe against Russia...
|
| America is currently doing everything for Russia! If we
| actually used the F35 against Russia right now Trump
| would probably immediately do everything in his power to
| stop that, just like he's exerting pressure everywhere
| else he can in Russias favour
|
| Honestly I'll personally be buying as little American as
| possible going forwards
| chgs wrote:
| Euro companies need to be moving off companies like
| Amazon swiftly, they're under the boot of the new
| leadership. There's a few years before even the current
| Russian leadership can change us rhetoric to be actively
| hostile to Europe, but it's coming.
| davidw wrote:
| > under the boot
|
| To me it looked like Bezos put the boot there himself, he
| seemed pretty enthusiastic about it.
| chgs wrote:
| Maybe trumpism simply empowered him., same result though
| - relying on US companies is a danger
| casenmgreen wrote:
| I suspect it is going to be done to them.
|
| It seems to me Donald is beheld in some way to Vladimir;
| what's being done now to my eye is too specifically about
| setting up UA for second RU invasion.
|
| Donald then I think, step by step, is going to ally with
| Vladimir.
|
| 1. US aid to UA stops (done).
|
| 2. USA leaves NATO (on the way).
|
| 3. US troops in Europe leave or move to Hungary
| (floated).
|
| 4. Hungary is ejected from EU due to Orban obstructing
| everything he can.
|
| 5. Hungary becomes RU satellite state (maybe with many
| tens of thousand of US troops).
|
| 6. USA lifts its sanctions, placing it directly in
| conflict with Europe.
|
| 7. Donald invokes Insurrection Act, military units can
| now be used for civil policing (this is why top military
| brass and specifically top military _lawyers_ removed).
|
| 8. Europe puts boots on ground and air cover over UA.
|
| 9. To "encourage peace", Donald now disables support for
| US weapon systems being used by Europe in UA. At this
| point, F-35 is history whether or not EU has dropped them
| or not.
|
| 10. Protests in USA, military used, people die, Donald
| suspends Constitution "to restore order and combat
| subversive elements".
|
| 11. No more elections. All court cases underway made
| irrelevant.
| geetee wrote:
| Or it doesn't happen like that
| scrollaway wrote:
| Anyone with a working memory of a couple of years
| remembers people like you who said a variety of excuses
| to the tune of "it won't be that bad", "you're
| exaggerating" and "it won't happen like that".
|
| Of course, all of them were wrong. Short of WW3 between
| Europe and the US, many awful things that were predicted
| have come true. DT has severely weakened the USA,
| weakened the stock market, damaged US reputation and
| trust in the US army, dismantled many departments, put
| useless shills in most important positions, pulled out of
| Ukraine, stopped aid to Ukraine, sucked up to Putin, and
| turned it all into a country that most people in Europe
| consider a hostile enemy (myself included).
|
| So. For the sake of your fellow citizens, quit the
| excuses.
| whatshisface wrote:
| The result, and perhaps the definition, of the
| polarization problem is that every time something
| terrible happens, the responsible side would rather say
| "I love suffering, this feels great" than lose face in an
| imagined argument with the other side.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| How do you think it will play out?
| pmontra wrote:
| > 8. Europe puts boots on ground and air cover over UA.
|
| Given the size and battle experience of their armies I
| think that it's more probable that it's Ukraine that will
| cover Europe and not viceversa. And if they'll have to
| flee their country add a 12th point the UA army takes
| sanctuary in the EU that goes the way of Lebanon in the
| 70s when another army had to flee there.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| Yes. Right now it's the EU which needs UA, and EU knows
| it; EU military is weak and has no idea how to fight with
| drones. UA military is strong and knows how to fight with
| drones.
|
| If UA goes down, then EU goes down, because RU will
| attack before EU is ready.
|
| This is why I think we see EU direct involvement in UA
| fighting; needed to keep UA up, and needed to get up to
| speed with drones.
| mft_ wrote:
| > If UA goes down, then EU goes down, because RU will
| attack before EU is ready.
|
| Do you have any numbers or analysis to back this up,
| please?
|
| A few counterpoints:
|
| - Russia failed to 'take' a relatively unprepared
| Ukraine, and arguably has only managed the gains it has
| made because the support (from Biden US and EU) was drip-
| fed according to the Biden team's strategy.
|
| - Russia is haemorraging fighters and modern fighting
| machinery in the current war in Ukraine. It's unknown how
| much longer the loss of life can be sustained without
| internal unrest. The absence of modern machinery would
| obviously make an invasion of Europe less likely to
| succeed.
|
| - While Russia might now be a "war economy" I've seen
| reports that they can't economically sustain the war for
| too much longer.
|
| - While the EU certainty needs to invest in defence, some
| countries are already strong, and would likely fight to
| protect the collective.
|
| Overall, this suggests that Russia would fail against a
| united Europe, were they to extend beyond a defeated
| Ukraine.
| rurp wrote:
| While Russia certainly botched the invasion they probably
| would have taken all of Ukraine by now without so much
| western support. Ukraine would of course be in a much
| better position now if that support had been stronger and
| not been dribbled in.
|
| Russia's economy is teetering and looks very weak now,
| but much of that is due to sanctions. Sanctions that
| trump will probably remove soon, for zero concessions.
| I'm not sure how effective EU sanctions will be on their
| own. Soon we will be seeing a much stronger Russia,
| already on a heavy war footing, start swallowing up a
| much weaker Ukraine. I don't like what might happen after
| that plays out.
| azan_ wrote:
| > While Russia certainly botched the invasion they
| probably would have taken all of Ukraine by now without
| so much western support.
|
| But the western support was very small compared to actual
| western military capability.
| mft_ wrote:
| I get that Trump is unpredictable from one moment to the
| next, and also that (at best) is strongly influenced when
| he speaks to Putin, but he's been consistently spoken and
| (just about) acted from anti-war and pro-peace-deal
| positions.
|
| Wouldn't freeing up Russia through removal of sanctions
| and a refusal to engage militarily resulting in an
| escalation in Ukraine and potentially beyond into Europe
| be seen as a big failure of his position?
| Gregaros wrote:
| Read something of a similar bent here
| https://theradicalfederalist.substack.com/p/the-regimes-
| next...
|
| Any suggestions on where in the world will remain
| relatively stable?
| casenmgreen wrote:
| South America. Was peaceful in WW1 and WW2. In US sphere,
| but far enough away not to be messed about with much.
|
| I will be going to UA, to fight with them.
| Juliate wrote:
| Not American, but provided US military has an oath
| towards the Constitution (and not to whatever the
| government claims), I doubt _all_ of US army would follow
| (either internally, either externally) such a brutal
| reversal of duty as well as alliances.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| I am reminded of North Africa in I think it was 1942.
|
| France over-run by Germany. Gestapo at work, with all its
| horrors.
|
| UK+US land in French North Africa, part of taking Africa
| from Germany, part in the long run of liberating France
| from horrors of occupation.
|
| French soldiers fighting, killing and being killed by
| UK+US troops.
| Juliate wrote:
| You mean the _Vichy_ French soldiers? that's quite a
| different situation than the allied French army :)
|
| And, I was more thinking of the situation on American
| ground, within the USA and between the USA and Canada. I
| don't mean it wouldn't happen. I mean that I don't think
| that would happen with 100% engagement from all US army.
| The disconnect and reversal of strategy of the US,
| against its own allies, is too sudden.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| They were French army, just as any other, only the part
| which was in North Africa when France fell.
|
| My thought here was that armies can fight with the most
| brutal oppressors of their very own country, against
| those who would liberate it.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| Duty is to the Constitution and the Commander in Chief.
| And alliances are at the discretion of the President. The
| military will do whatever they are told in terms of who
| the have to be friends with.
| Juliate wrote:
| I know. That's the theory and mostly the practice.
|
| Only, ask your military to return against your just
| previous allies (at your own initiative) among which the
| one that helped your very nation to fight for its
| independence, with which you did cross-training and
| exercises, for the past 80 years... everyone is in for
| quite a bumpy road.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| The solution should probably be to go in and fight Russia
| immediately.
|
| I think it's foolish to restrict operations to Ukraine
| though, and feel that the size of Russia is one of its
| main weaknesses. If there's to be a war, it should
| involve incursions into the US proper.
| grayhatter wrote:
| Nah, Swedish aerotech already out matches both Russia in
| terms of production capacity, arguably 6th if you ignore
| stealth, weapons range and weapons reliability. And
| already beats China in terms of technology, they're just
| now producing 5th gen airframes with copied tech, where
| Sweden isn't just following.
|
| The EU without the US can already produce 5th gen, the
| selling point of the F35 was 6th gen compatible with 7th
| gen (NGAD).
|
| Russia is still flying more 4th then 5th gen fighters,
| because they can't get their bricks off the ground. Why
| would the EU want to copy the same mistakes of their
| enemy?
| konart wrote:
| >Russia is still flying more 4th then 5th gen fighters
|
| Just like any other military including the US, no?
| grayhatter wrote:
| No, because the US could fly them, (assumedly), but
| doesn't. Where my understanding is Russia can't keep
| their fleet maintained let alone produce more. You don't
| use gorilla air tactics and bomb civilian infrastructure
| if you have other options. Russia is smart enough to know
| the value of winning hearts and minds, but they don't.
| Why not? Because they can't is the only reasonable
| conclusion I've seen
|
| I don't have access to perfect information, but I find
| the reports that Russia is unable to maintain their
| entire fleet creditable, and believe and/or trust the
| experts who confirm this analysis.
| konart wrote:
| As far as I know the US military still has more 4gen jets
| than 5gen.
|
| Obviously Russia has no 5gen at all (or just a few 5gen
| Su-57, if we going to name them 5gen).
|
| Anyway, my point is that as of now Russia has no need for
| gen5 and can't afford it anyway, just like about anyone
| else except for the US and a few countries that have them
| but at the same time have to rely on the US anyway.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| Do you have any data to back this claim up? The Grippen
| looks awful.
| holowoodman wrote:
| If you look at the raw specs maybe. Grippen has a
| specific role which is starting and landing anywhere and
| being easy to support, both in manpower and materials.
| You can land a Grippen on any short stretch of paved
| ground, get it rearmed and ready to fly again in half an
| hour with 5 people. Whereas higher spec american jets
| like the F16 need very long, clean and straight runways,
| lots of support infrastructure, lots of personnel and
| have a long turnaround time. With the likes of F35 and
| F22 this is even worse.
| fifilura wrote:
| Also, I believe reading raw plane specs these days is
| more like counting CPU GHz. It does not really matter
| anymore.
|
| What matters these days is the cost of
| buying/flying/maintenance, software platform and what
| missiles they can launch.
|
| Gripen has modular upgradable software, and supports
| modern Europe-made missiles such as Taurus and Meteor.
| fsloth wrote:
| As other poster said, Gripen is perfect for a defensive
| role as a missile launch platform. It's not supposed to
| go 1:1 with F-35:s, but to counter the Russian air
| capability - and mostly in a defensive role. F-35:s were
| really great when they came with larger techno-military-
| political ecosystem but now the trust in that ecosystem
| is shattered.
| mikrotikker wrote:
| The grippen looks amazing what are you talking about? Are
| we looking at the same plane? The high off boresight
| capability and meteor are top of class.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| It is single engine and it is an ugly looking plane. The
| F22 looks like a spaceship compared to it in terms of
| looks and capabilities.
|
| For the same reason I consider the F35 a failure.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Who cares if it's ugly. Your priorities are mind
| boggling. You doubling down on that argument is comical.
| spitfire wrote:
| Swedish griphen e/d variants use an American engine.
| Possibly other avionics idk. So those will be grounded
| after few months into a conflict.
|
| I expect a crash program to reengineer them has already
| started if only unofficially.
| acdha wrote:
| The Rafale has claimed F-22 kills, but also consider that
| the competition here isn't a straight up war against the
| United States but rather against Russia. As we've seen in
| the invasion of Ukraine, they don't need advanced 6th
| generation fighters to handily best Russian forces using
| Soviet-era technology, and drones are FAR more
| significant in that kind of combat. Even if the F-35 was
| better at those types of missions, the high cost of the
| aircraft and support suggest that this might simply
| accelerate the shift away from human-piloted aircraft.
|
| If your threat model did include a war within former NATO
| members, the F-35 is the worst possible choice so another
| way of thinking about this is that they should pick the
| best option which is actually available. That would mean
| things like swarm attacks and strikes on the airfields
| where those stealthy but extremely fragile planes are
| housed. Even if the public range is significantly low,
| they'd need a base closer than Greenland to strike
| European targets.
| delfinom wrote:
| But the F-35 is functionally useless. If Russia, being
| the only threat to Europe invades, the US will shut down
| the F-35s.
| lumost wrote:
| Europe had no reason to spy on the US before, why
| shouldn't the EU produce a carbon copy of the F-35? There
| is already a plant making them in Germany. If the US is
| tearing up treaties then why can't the EU tear up their
| promise of not stealing military technology?
| louthy wrote:
| What exactly do you think are so special about American
| made products? The only reason that America's allies have
| bought them in the past is because of Pax Americana.
| That's about to end if not has ended already.
|
| BAE Systems along with other European arms/aerospace
| manufacturers are perfectly capable of making competing
| products.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| > What exactly do you think are so special about American
| made products?
|
| They are more battle-tested than any other. America has
| been involved in a war or another pretty much
| continuously since the end of WWW2.
| louthy wrote:
| Alongside its allies, mostly. Thanks JD.
|
| Not that they're going to be allies much longer.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| Which allies fought alongside in every conflict the US
| participated in? With the exception of the blunders in
| Iraq and Aghanistan where everybody jumped on the "lets
| conquer faraway countries" bandwagon.
|
| In Syria the US bombs things at their will, same in
| Somalia. In all Latin America conflicts the US went at it
| alone.
| louthy wrote:
| Honestly, go and look it up yourself, you're not engaging
| in this thread constructively. You're simply parroting
| MAGA talking points. I didn't say "every", I said
| "mostly".
|
| Maybe pay attention to Greece, Korea, Libya, Kosovo,
| Serbia, Yemen, Syria (1982), Iran, Iraq (twice),
| Afghanistan, WW1, WW2
|
| The fact that even as we bicker on this forum British and
| American forces are in Yemen pretty much says everything.
| zidad wrote:
| > America has been involved in a war or another pretty
| much continuously since the end of WWW2.
|
| * correction: since 1776
| FredPret wrote:
| Very large amounts of continuous investment and
| battlefield testing since 1941.
|
| There's no reason this can't be replicated by other rich
| nations but it won't be cheap or quick.
| ta988 wrote:
| Absolutely every European country can make something
| better than a brick.
|
| And there are high quality planes like the Rafale that
| aren't PaaS (Planes as a Service) where the owner can
| unilaterally stop you from using it.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| You did read the article saying the US is not supplying
| "software updates" to the F16s and the planes themselves
| fly just fine, right?
| spacedcowboy wrote:
| I think the comment is in reaction to the F35 ones above
| it. Without activated software, these are bricks.
|
| And no country wants to wake up to a set of bricks when
| they _really_ need warplanes all of a sudden.
| wood_spirit wrote:
| A plane without up to date countermeasures is not fit for
| purpose. They will be ineffective or even unusable in
| weeks.
| wafflemaker wrote:
| Don't forget the F-35 is the best plane for the PREVIOUS
| war. The current and the NEXT war will be fought with
| drones. And Ukraine is one of the countries that has the
| best drone industry.
|
| Maybe we (as a Pole living in Norway) can't have state of
| the art jets, but in practice don't need them?
|
| We (as the whole eastern block - Scands, Balts, Poland,
| Romania and Ukraine) should cancel our orders of F-35 and
| focus on developing our drone and strategic missile
| industry. And focus on investing, developing and buying
| from our closest allies - the eastern block.
|
| Not on the countries that don't care because they are
| either too far from Russia (Spain, Italy) or have vested
| geopolitical interest in alllying with them (Germany).
| France and UK might want to join to balance out Germany.
|
| At least that's what I understand from hearing smarter
| than me discuss the current situation.
| nradov wrote:
| Which next war? The type of small, short range drones
| currently being used in Ukraine and Russia won't be of
| much use in a major regional conflict with China. Ranges
| will be orders of magnitude longer and communication
| links for drone control won't be reliable.
|
| The main reason that Ukraine and Russia have had to rely
| so heavily on drones is that they had no better
| alternative. The air forces on both sides are shit with
| zero (or effectively zero) 5th generation aircraft that
| can survive in a contested environment. The F-35 was
| designed for that mission and would at least have a
| chance.
| stackedinserter wrote:
| > The air forces on both sides are shit with zero (or
| effectively zero)
|
| I wouldn't call Russian AF "shit". The UMPK (JDAM) bombs
| crushed formidable defense of Avdeevka and now hit AFU
| hard in Sudja. Ka-52 helicopters stopped counteroffensive
| a year ago. Surely, sky is contested, but it's still
| important component that hurts Ukraine very hard.
|
| > have had to rely so heavily on drones is that they had
| no better alternative
|
| What would be an alternative to wing reconnaissance
| drones? What can hyper-equipped US armed forces offer as
| a replacement FPV and fiber-optics FPV attack drones?
| Yeah they have Reapers and other fancy expensive gear for
| the first 3-4 weeks of active war, then what?
| nradov wrote:
| The Russian air force is shit. They have zero capability
| to conduct close air support and have been reduced to
| launching stand-off weapons from within their own air
| defense coverage. This has some value but it's basically
| just another form of artillery. US tactical air
| capabilities are on an entirely different level.
|
| The US has a variety of overlapping reconnaissance
| capabilities including not just large UAVs but also
| manned aircraft (including the F-35) and multiple
| satellite constellations. Over the next few years the
| priorities in that area should be to accelerate the B-21
| Raider program (it will make an excellent recon platform)
| and develop some sort of prompt satellite launch
| capability to replace combat losses within hours. There
| is also a general recognition that we'll have to increase
| spending or shift budget priorities to build up the
| industrial capacity necessary to sustain longer
| conflicts.
| stackedinserter wrote:
| > The Russian air force is shit.
|
| Define "shit".
| impossiblefork wrote:
| The next war could be a EU-Russia war though.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| The only way this happens is if the EU goes full retard
| and sends troops to Ukraine.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| Personally I oppose sending troops to the front in
| Ukraine, but for a different reason than others who
| oppose it: I believe that to send them to already
| fortified Russian positions is wasteful.
|
| Consequently I believe that if the EU is to intervene,
| which I think is a very reasonable thing to do, it should
| be by imitiating the Russian approach of using aircraft
| as flying artillery-- i.e. to release missiles etc.,
| against Russian positions in Ukraine, but I also believe
| that we should attack Russian natural gas pipelines,
| ammonia plants, nitric acid plants, ammunition plants
| with long-range weapons. I also believe that it's
| reasonable to send in ground troops to seize Russian and
| Belarusian territory in locations where it can be
| determined that Russia lacks artillery, tanks etc., and
| to in that way force troop movements, thus depleting the
| front in Ukraine and allowing Ukraine to basically roll
| it over.
|
| I believe that this is possible for several reasons,
| among them that we Europeans are three times as many as
| the Russians. I believe that it is unlikely to lead to
| nuclear war because I believe that the Russians are
| rational and well aware that any nuclear use by them
| leads to a proportional nuclear use by 'us', whatever
| that means, and that the number of nuclear weapons in
| Russian control is irrelevant for the reason that they're
| gone after an exchange of a mere hundred or so, so that
| anything beyond that is superfluous.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Have you seen that Chinese dragon made with drones they
| showed off during the NYE show? Now imagine them
| autonomous and every carrying a bomb. Even Phalanx will
| not help you. Bye bye aircraft carriers.
| randunel wrote:
| Small DIY drones are only useful when no side has air
| superiority. Once you own the air, you can bomb and
| support ground troops a lot more efficiently.
| ljm wrote:
| I mean, if any other country spent 700+ billion a year on
| corporate welfare to defence contractors they'd have some
| impressive tech too.
|
| If nobody wants to buy any of that shit because of the
| knock-on effects of Trump's self-sabotage and they start
| investing elsewhere, then those defence companies will
| sooner distance themselves from the US as well. Unless
| they're in on whatever the administration is cooking up
| the money is still going to speak louder.
| jajko wrote:
| No, thank you we are not idiots. Out fighters are just
| fine, as long as we don't have to fight US.
|
| BTW you don't seem to understand military well - F22 is
| much better plane than F35, but abysmally complex to do
| and expensive, thats why the low numbers. F35 has way too
| many compromises ie for us navy.
|
| Also, as Ukraine war shows fighter jets are not that
| important for waging war if situation is more like peer
| vs peer, and not US blowing shepherds and weddings into
| pieces. Sure, they lob a bomb or two, sometimes launch a
| rocket but all from as much distance as possible. What
| wins such wars these days is artillery, massive amount of
| infantry and millions of various drones.
| bad_haircut72 wrote:
| Australia ought to start paying tribute to China instead
| of USA and invest in chinese subs rather than USA ones
| which will never be delivered anyway
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| Let's switch suppliers a second time?
| bad_haircut72 wrote:
| We need to pay the money to USA as tribute so its a
| write-off anyway, but I have low confidence we will ever
| see working hardware from it. However I bet China would
| _actually_ prioritise delivery of some new subs if we
| pivoted to using them as our naval supplier, to win
| mindshare in the west as an alternative to America or
| Russia as an arms supplier. and we set up the next 100
| years of paying off bigger countries to leave us alone,
| which honestly worked well enough the last 100 years
| mc32 wrote:
| The devil you know...
|
| No one would ever trust China, not Vietnam, not anyone
| unwilling to take orders from them. The terms would be
| heavy.
| bad_haircut72 wrote:
| Like all things it depends on the terms, in my mind
| though China would probably be incentivized to give us a
| good deal - Im sure they would be very amused delivering
| real hardware while the USA continues to demonstrate
| their incompetence at shipbuilding. It would also signal
| that Australia wants to sit out any USA/China war, which
| might be hard to do politically (which is maybe why Im
| not PM) but its certainly the position I hope Aus ends up
| taking should these 2 buffoons start a real blue
| Aloisius wrote:
| Eh. They aren't meant to be delivered for at least 5
| years by which point US politics will have swung the
| other direction again.
| yurishimo wrote:
| Why? They can buy subs from France who was the other
| option when Australia was last shopping around.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| Europe can't even maintain some Eurofighter fleets
| without US support. The Austrian model for example needs
| a crypto key for secure communications from a US company
| for every flight.
| nradov wrote:
| The US cryptography key is only needed for NATO Link 16
| communications, not for regular flight operations. This
| is totally normal because Austria isn't a full NATO
| member. They are part of the NATO Partnership for Peace
| program which allows for limited levels of cooperation.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| All possible, I'm not familiar with the details.
|
| But right now the fact that there US citizens (apparently
| civil contractors, not military personell) stationed at
| austrian air bases to enable some functionality is a big
| deal. This is a big deal because the wish-wash Austrian
| Neutrality is crucial to Austrian Identity.
| nradov wrote:
| How is it a big deal? If Austria wanted full access to
| NATO technology then they should have joined NATO. They
| chose not to, and now they have to accept the
| consequences of that choice. Can't have your cake and eat
| it, too.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| It's the usual hypocrisy. There never was money for the
| military, neutrality ever popular and nobody thought
| about it back when things seemed more stable. Now that
| things are changing, it's a big deal. Maybe we join Nato,
| maybe Europe get it's own shit together. We'll see.
| holowoodman wrote:
| There are still doubts as to whether the new Trumpian
| reality is permanent. Politicians in Europe are still
| hoping that this is all a bad dream. So I guess the
| orders will somehow (by delaying payments, inventing some
| requirements, finding problems in deliveries that have to
| be endlessly discussed and fixed, ...) be delayed for 4
| years. If the next president is still looking as anti-
| European as Trump, orders will for sure be cancelled.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| Still. None of the desired 800B of investment in defense
| equipment and technology can have US suppliers after the
| last couple of weeks. Even if the US eventually gets rid
| of this cancerous development.
| nine_k wrote:
| "We are delaying our $N billion order until the
| administration ceases to act insane" would be quite a
| signal for big business elites in the US.
|
| (Sadly, sanity of the opposite political party was / is
| also highly questionable.)
| crote wrote:
| I doubt "until the administration ceases to act insane"
| is going to be enough. The current administration has
| proven to be untrustworthy, so _nothing_ they say is
| going to restore trust in the US. On top of that, what
| guarantees could the US give that a future Trump 2.0 isn
| 't going to break on their first day?
|
| The problem is systemic: The US doesn't have a
| functioning democracy. FPTP, gerrymandering, unchecked
| campaign financing, the electoral college? It just isn't
| working, and the US is permanently stuck in a
| dysfunctional two-party system. If that doesn't get fixed
| (and let's be honest, it won't), the rest of the world
| won't be trusting the US until it can demonstrate a few
| _decades_ of continuous trustworthy leadership after
| Trump is gone.
| nanna wrote:
| I think this is overly optimistic. Countries around the
| world can't build strategies around the US that will only
| hold when the Democrats are in power. Trump and the
| Republican party as a whole have thrown reliability out
| the window. Even if the GOP come to their senses and
| reject the America First ideology and pop their
| disinformation bubble the damage has still be done to the
| character of state. The only option for the US is to hold
| on to its power by sheer muscle power, but that will only
| last so long.
| jajko wrote:
| Doubts? Maybe officially in PR statements, otherwise you
| would have to be mad to think this is temporary. Its as
| temporary as his lifespan. People with actual power are
| not that stupid anywhere.
|
| I am not holding my breath that he will just walk away in
| 4 years, why would anybody be so naive? He thinks US
| constitution is an old toilet paper, its mememe. Look at
| what happened last time he was supposed to go out.
| kingkawn wrote:
| Trump has been here clearly signaling that a large
| portion of the US population does not support
| international military subsidies and Europe has done
| nearly nothing to prepare. Pushing forward a head-in-the-
| sand narrative is hugely detrimental to Europe's
| independent future and requires a degree of blindness
| that is absurd
| bborud wrote:
| By "military subsidies" you mean US government money
| subsidizing US defense industry I assume?
|
| Because that is where most of the money ends up when the
| US "supports" other countries. The US unloads weapons
| from its stockpiles (that need to be replaced at some
| point anyway) and then replenish the US stockpiles. This
| is both a huge injection of funds into US defense
| industry, and it takes care of the expensive problem of
| dealing with old ordnance.
|
| US defense industry is going to be busy restocking the US
| stockpiles for a while longer.
|
| If revenue were to soften before that, the Trump
| administration can distract from this reality by pumping
| more money into the industry short term. This may
| actually push the problem forward in time to the next
| president if they can keep pumping in enough money to
| hide the problem. It looks as if they are doing exactly
| this.
|
| Of course, a few years down the line the defense industry
| will be in trouble as "consumer trust" is gone, Europe
| have ramped up their production and revenues will start
| to plummet.
| bborud wrote:
| > There are still doubts as to whether the new Trumpian
| reality is permanent
|
| We have to assume that the US cannot be trusted as a
| military ally for at least the next 4 years. In fact, we
| have to be open to the possibility that they will be
| willing to be hostile. Including, but not limited to,
| extortion tactics. That's the hard baseline here.
|
| We also have to be open to the possibility that the US
| either won't or can't have a proper election in 2028. And
| even if there is a proper election, that even a
| "sensible" president will not repair the damage.
|
| What is already permanent is that Europe will never have
| the same level of trust in the US ever again. Perhaps
| _some_ of it can grow back over a few decades, but the
| former level of trust will not return.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| The European country best suited to support the F-35 is
| France. Which also isn't a member of the program due to
| that reason.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| Won't that go against their homegrown Rafale fighter jet?
| timeon wrote:
| Is there any other country in Europe that kept its own
| sovereignty like France? Maybe Sweden and Finland (if we
| do not consider nuclear cover)?
| greedo wrote:
| Sweden's Gripen is dependent on US engines...
| m4rtink wrote:
| Check where good percentage of europes (and for the
| record gloval as well) small arms ammo comes from. ;-)
|
| (Sellier & Bellot and no, it is not French)
| boricj wrote:
| We're uniquely suited to not support the F-35. Not unless
| you swap out the engine for a Safran one, change the
| avionics for Dassault's, rip out the rest of the
| electronics for the Thales stuff and replace the ordnance
| with MBDA's.
|
| We'd keep the frame, but Serge Dassault and Charles de
| Gaulle would probably smite any French mechanic coming
| within 20 feet of a F-35 to do anything but dismantle one
| for its secrets.
| nradov wrote:
| On the F-35 program, ability to perform local support
| isn't so much based on being a "founding member" but
| rather program partnership level. The only other Level 1
| partner is the UK. As Level 2 we have Italy and the
| Netherlands. All other countries are down at Level 3
| (most heavily dependent on US support), except for Israel
| which is sort of a special case with a unique variant and
| special rules about local control. Ultimately though,
| you're correct that the F-35 will quickly turn into a
| brick for every export customer without active US
| support.
|
| The other factor is the NATO nuclear sharing arrangement.
| The F-35A is the only new aircraft certified to carry the
| US nuclear weapons under that arrangement, so that
| impacts Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Netherlands. Germany
| looked into certifying the Eurofighter Typhoon for the
| nuclear strike mission but decided that they couldn't
| afford it, and bought the F-35A instead. Of course, if
| the US pulls back from NATO and ends nuclear sharing then
| that concern would become moot and some of those
| countries would be likely to develop their own nuclear
| weapons.
| lukan wrote:
| "Germany looked into certifying the Eurofighter Typhoon
| for the nuclear strike mission but decided that they
| couldn't afford it, and bought the F-35A instead"
|
| I remember the story rather like this:
|
| US: "you want to certify your fighter for nuclear
| devices"
|
| Germany: "yes"
|
| US: "ooh, that will be expensive and takes a loooong
| time. Don't you want to just buy our F35 instead?"
|
| And germany basically did. With the implicit
| understanding, to buy a piece of nuclear protection with
| that. Well, all gone ... so there are really only some
| voices left, wanting to keep buying the expensive,
| potentially useless bricks.
| nradov wrote:
| Yes, that's basically accurate. Since the end of the Cold
| War, Germany has always taken the cheapest possible
| military option in order to fund their precious social
| programs and treated the military as just another
| government jobs program. While I think the current US
| administration's moves to cut off our allies are deeply
| stupid and the moral equivalent of treason, Germany has
| only itself to blame for creating such a dependency.
| Alliances are always temporary and now Germany will have
| to face reality.
| StayTrue wrote:
| Canada's largest newspaper published an opinion piece [0]
| calling for the cancellation of F-35 purchases. The article
| calls out source code availability in its argument.
|
| [0] https://archive.is/2LLkO
| mc32 wrote:
| Europe does not produce a 5th gen fighter. By the time they
| get one out, the big three will have 6th gen fighters.
| amarcheschi wrote:
| Europe is developing 6th Gen fighter(s) already though.
| And yes, Europe produces a 5th Gen fighter. The f35 is
| made only in USA and Italy, although I share the worries
| on having a potentially brickable device
| bborud wrote:
| 5th gen is a nonsense marketing term. It is far less
| about the plane itself and more about how it integrates
| into a force. This is why russian figthers are pretty
| useless: they are not integrated with the rest of the
| force and they lack coordination. The russians do not
| even have the ability to discriminate between their own
| planes and enemy planes when making decisions to launch
| AA missiles.
| mrweasel wrote:
| While I doubt that it solves all the issue, subcontractors,
| imported parts and so on, but the Italian F-35s are build be
| Leonardo in Cameri in Italy. How long would it take BAE, SAAB
| or Leonardo to un-brick an F-35?
|
| Again, not ideal, but the first F-35 have been delivered an
| need to be serviced and maintained until they can be
| replaced,... or maybe just until the next US election.
| acdha wrote:
| I think there's an interesting question about how important
| updates are: say they unbrick it, how often do you have
| before there's some change you'd actually want to have but
| it's no longer easily available? This feels like the much
| higher-stakes version of people trying to jailbreak phones
| without losing security updates.
| mrweasel wrote:
| It would very much so be a stopgap. Long term it's a
| security risk, but it's also a risk to not be able to fly
| your plane tomorrow.
| acdha wrote:
| Yeah, no good options in this scenario. I would be very
| worried that there's a kill switch you haven't uncovered.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| Hardware is not the issue. The US strictly controls the
| software whence many differentiated capabilities of the
| aircraft come. This includes a lot of secret computer
| science R&D that no one has access to. Countries were
| buying it for the advanced software.
| notpushkin wrote:
| Can they reverse engineer it?
| Bluestrike2 wrote:
| I'd expect the original agreements that were put in place--
| both the ones with the subcontractors as well as the
| purchase agreements--are quite strict on what you can do
| with the plane. Trying to reverse engineer software (the
| policy was that no one gets access to the original source
| code for the F-35[0], at least back in 2009) is probably a
| no-go under those agreements.
|
| The original article suggests that Ukraine may end up
| having to replace the electronic countermeasures hardware
| to get around this in the future, so I'd expect any
| attempts to "un-brick"/work around the lack of support will
| eventually be along those lines, even if it results in some
| performance degradation.
|
| No matter how they approach this, it's going to be a
| horrifically difficult and expensive task.
|
| 0. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/exclusive-us-to-
| withho...
| mrweasel wrote:
| > The original article suggests that Ukraine may end up
| having to replace the electronic countermeasures hardware
|
| See my other comment:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43307996#43309468
| Replacing the jammers shouldn't be "horrifically
| difficult", might still be expensive though.
| blibble wrote:
| > Trying to reverse engineer software (the policy was
| that no one gets access to the original source code for
| the F-35[0], at least back in 2009) is probably a no-go
| under those agreements.
|
| the UK made access to the source code a condition of
| purchase, and the technology transfer agreement was
| signed
|
| in a hypothetical scenario where the US federal
| government falls under the direct control of a russian
| asset, I imagine this would end up in our allies hands
| reasonably quickly
| spitfire wrote:
| I expect knowing this new f35 deliveries will have
| hardware just different enough to need new software.
|
| Move a few flags around in a few registers and for all
| practical purposes it's stuck.
| mft_ wrote:
| > I'd expect the original agreements that were put in
| place--both the ones with the subcontractors as well as
| the purchase agreements--are quite strict on what you can
| do with the plane. Trying to reverse engineer software
| (the policy was that no one gets access to the original
| source code for the F-35[0], at least back in 2009) is
| probably a no-go under those agreements.
|
| We're talking about Europe being able to protect itself
| from a potential Russian invasion despite the US bricking
| their F35s, and your argument is that they'd have to bend
| or break an agreement?
|
| I don't think that's a big hurdle, in that eventuality.
|
| (Reminds me a touch of this, though: :)
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3EBs7sCOzo )
| cynicalsecurity wrote:
| Will there be next US elections?
| chgs wrote:
| Next national elections are the midterms in November 2026
| with a new house and senate taking over in Jan 2027, 22
| months time.
|
| If the American people want to shift track they have the
| opportunity to actually elect a Congress which will do
| something.
|
| If not it's November 2028 for the next presidential
| election. Trump (if he's still alive - he's not exactly
| young or healthy) won't be able to stand for a third term
| unless a constitutional ammendment is past
| timeon wrote:
| > Trump (if he's
|
| It is not just about Trump.
| crote wrote:
| MAGA is essentially a personality cult. There will be a
| massive power vacuum once Trump leaves the stage, and I
| doubt any fraction will be big enough to whip the kind of
| unwavering loyalty we're seeing today.
| chgs wrote:
| Typically in these situations you get infighting,
| splintering and general collapse of the movement.
|
| The question is will it happen soon enough to mitigate
| some of the damage.
| spixy wrote:
| Depends on the used cryptography, could be months or
| decades.
| Eupolemos wrote:
| UK and Israel have a deal where they can replace the software
| or some such.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKNPCk-fd8I
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| The Israelis weren't given a choice in the matter. The
| challenge is that parts of the software required for some
| key capabilities use advanced computer science R&D that is
| not in the literature.
|
| You can fly the airframe but there is a significant
| reduction in capability unless you can also produce
| equivalent algorithms and data processing technology.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| The Mossad is great at industrial espionage, and as the
| US gov alienates and lets "big balls" exfiltrate critical
| information, they'll probably see advancements.
| tempest_ wrote:
| Probably don't even need to work that hard. The Saudis
| got a bunch of nuclear secrets the first round so I am
| sure F35 info can be brought to Mar a lago.
| spitfire wrote:
| I have a copy of the original cognitive radar papers. You
| can find most of them, the real work is doing a real
| world implementation.
|
| I'm not aware of any computer science breakthroughs
| required for the f35.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| The cognitive radar stuff is old tech. I don't think that
| concept is really considered a differentiated capability
| beyond being a sophisticated implementation.
|
| Almost by definition, any classified computer science
| research would be non-obvious.
| spitfire wrote:
| If cr is old tech any keywords for what is new/current
| tech?
|
| I'm not sure your second point is true. The vast vast
| majority of classified information is very boring, or
| operational like frequencies of radar, etc.
|
| Both sides know the basics, it's what frequencies the
| radar comms and aircraft work at that is classified.
|
| There's very little "OMG this one algorithm changes
| everything!!". Unless proven otherwise
| casenmgreen wrote:
| F-35 going off the menu means the two Brit aircraft carriers
| have no aircraft.
| eunos wrote:
| Lol Royal Navy would soon have more admirals than military
| hardwares.
| metalman wrote:
| "their S-300 systems and Sukhois against their maker" by
| "thier" you of course mean every single last operational
| legacy system from the former soviet block and
| customers.....so all of those ,ummmm, suppliers, are now
| realising the worth of the promesary "upgrades" they got for
| thier systems, plus knowing that even glancing east, is not
| going to go well, and that central europe now has
| them....."(insert unpleasant imagery here)" Trump been at
| this?, what 50 days? whole classes of sinecures getting shut
| down, no end in site
| Someone wrote:
| I don't know how much it's worth but https://en.wikipedia.org
| /wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...:
|
| _"On 27 May 2006, President George W. Bush and Prime
| Minister Tony Blair announced that "Both governments agree
| that the UK will have the ability to successfully operate,
| upgrade, employ, and maintain the Joint Strike Fighter such
| that the UK retains operational sovereignty over the
| aircraft." In December 2006, an agreement was signed which
| met the UK's demands for further participation, i.e., access
| to software source code and operational sovereignty. The
| agreement allows "an unbroken British chain of command" for
| operation of the aircraft."_
| gonzo41 wrote:
| If you can't make every part of the plane it's not really
| yours.
| timeon wrote:
| When things get serious agreement is not going to help
| (case in point: Budapest Memorandum - from which ever
| angle).
| bboygravity wrote:
| Since when was the US in the European Union or even near
| Europe? How is it like Brexit in the slightest? Why is it the
| US's responsibility to finance and organize the majority of
| EU's defense?
|
| PS: I'm from and in Europe. I don't get why it is a good or
| logical thing that the US should be responsible for the
| majority of "Western" defense on our territory.
| goosedragons wrote:
| Brexit damaged the UK's economy and partnerships. The actions
| the US keep taking are like that but worse. They are pissing
| off allies in Europe by doing things like this, they are
| damaging their own economy and partnerships by threatening
| and placing tariffs on allies for no real reason.
| apeescape wrote:
| Because it's been a really good deal for the US. 1. European
| countries have (for the most part) not had an incentive to
| build military might, which means they won't be adversaries
| to the US. 2. This dependency on the US has given the US a
| lot of soft power in terms of diplomatic pull. In the past,
| the US could just ask Europe to jump, and Europeans would ask
| how high. 3. In addition to Europe, it's also kept Russia in
| check, because it has prevented them from expanding to the
| west.
| mijamo wrote:
| It was a win win arrangement of sorts. Europe got to spend
| less on defense. US won a reliable ally that would not
| challenge them much, and help enforce worldwide US dominance.
| Basically a near vassal situation.
| nxm wrote:
| How exactly was the US benefiting in this arrangement?
| Sounds very one sided if the American tax payer is doing
| the bulk of spending while Europe is freeloading
| rocqua wrote:
| The US has allies in return for this spending. A block of
| people who stand against autocrats and with the US. It
| also bought a much more peaceful and free world. Not just
| nice because it is better for people, but also because it
| gives opportunity for trade.
|
| Note that it might have been possible for the US to
| convince the rest of NATO to spend more on their defense
| _without_ losing the faith of their allies. This sure isn
| 't the way to do it.
| Sharlin wrote:
| They're responsible for honoring their agreements and
| contracts. How can any European state now trust the F-35s
| that they've purchased or going to purchase? All the trans-
| Atlantic trust built since 1945. Flushed down the toilet in a
| few weeks. Trust is difficult to build but easy to destroy.
| bboygravity wrote:
| My real question as a European: why where we buying US
| fighter jets in the first place and not French/European
| ones (for example)?
| tokai wrote:
| Corruption. US MIC is good at forcing or enticing foreign
| purchasers.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| The US administration agrees with you. It also decided it
| doesn't want to sell weapons to the Western world anymore,
| and that it wants to carry the cost of weapons development
| all itself without relying on exports.
|
| It also wants to forcibly grow competing defense contractors
| in Europe.
| robwwilliams wrote:
| Sweet sarcasm. Agree.
| AngryData wrote:
| The US is the largest arms dealer in the world and sells ass
| tons of equipment to the EU. Ain't nobody going to be buying
| US arms if they think they could be cut off on a whim. Large
| parts of the US economy are based on arms production and
| sales, and a large part of the US's non-arms trade is thanks
| to the US protecting its trade routes and partners. If the US
| stops protecting its trade, people will stop preferring trade
| with the US because it will now be vulnerable and near
| impossible to secure as a smaller nation because it has to
| cross the largest oceans in the world.
| Cyan488 wrote:
| Without much background in the politics, the parallel I see
| is this:
|
| Group A and Group B build an economic partnership under
| consensual terms generally favourable to both over a long
| period of time.
|
| At one point, Group A decides to withdraw due to real or
| perceived inequality. The timeframe of withdrawal is faster
| than entering, and is insufficient to unearth the complex
| network of roots that took generations to plant.
|
| When the trunk is pulled, the pain is felt in vast numbers of
| small ways that add up. These roots are what contain the vast
| majority of the surface area after all.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| comparing war-mongering to a living tree is especially ugly
| language. Wolf-packs pissing on trees, more like it
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Brexit was about repealing long-term commitments for short-
| term gain, and a healthy does of FU to closest partners for
| domestic publicity. Oh and the short term gains never
| materialised, it was all costs in the end.
|
| I see this as analogous. US is maybe reaping some short term
| benefits from flipping on its allies, but burning the bridges
| it very much relies on.
| danmaz74 wrote:
| The US was never in the European Union, but has always been
| the leader of NATO and, since WWII, the "Western world".
| Trump bringing the US out of those positions is a bigger deal
| than Brexit, because the UK was never a leader in the EU
| (because of all the internal opposition to it).
| oezi wrote:
| > Why is it the US's responsibility to finance and organize
| the majority of EU's defense?
|
| This is a common talking point, but I think it is totally
| wrong. The US didn't finance and organize Europe's defense.
|
| They did spend money on their own defense forces which happen
| to be best positioned in Europe near the best interest as a
| superpower.
|
| America spent money against their Russian adversary. This
| money was always well spent as far as I can see it.
| lyu07282 wrote:
| > I don't get why it is a good or logical thing that the US
| should be responsible for the majority of "Western" defense
| on our territory.
|
| Read some history (everything geopolitics after the second
| world war), you should ask yourself why for 76 years that's
| exactly what the US did (and perhaps why this is the first
| time that question occurred to you).
|
| It's because the relationship between Europe and the US is
| not a mutually beneficial one, the US benefited the most from
| its power and influence over western Europe, and that doesn't
| just apply to Europe. NATO and the roughly 128 military bases
| in 58 different countries don't exist because the US somehow
| likes to subsidize the military spending of these countries
| for some altruistic purpose, it exists because it strengthens
| US influence across the world.
|
| That's soft power, and if it fails, it means war (in total
| 123 military conflicts since WW2). It's a less bloody
| alternative to make sure the US gets what it wants because
| its the stronger party in any geopolitical relationship.
|
| That's the logic behind it. The same logic applies to
| military aid it gives to Egypt and Israel (that Trump
| continues to give).
| tomohawk wrote:
| Trump and Biden have shown that the US is an unreliable
| partner, and that it is no longer going to provide security
| guarantees when it is really needed.
|
| If I was a foreign leader, I would immediately consider
| building nuclear deterrence of some sort, and find alternatives
| to US weapons.
|
| Biden's 'minor incursion' remarks, giving Putin the go ahead
| for round 2 in 2022:
|
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/20/ukra...
| QuadmasterXLII wrote:
| I think you need to reassess your instrumental subgoals,
| because this isn't a game you can win by owning the libs: if
| Trump fucks the US hard enough, your life is still gonna suck
| even if everyone blames Biden and hates democrats.
| timbit42 wrote:
| More countries are already considering building nuclear
| deterrence for the past month or so.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| There is actually a psychiatric disorder (from an Oliver Sacks
| book) where the patient wakes up one day with a terrible
| conviction that their own healthy limbs are not theirs, and
| with an overwhelming urge to amputate them. Sometimes it's so
| distressing that amputation is actually done.
|
| This kind of happened to the US.
| xnx wrote:
| Great analogy!
|
| "Body integrity identity disorder (BIID), or body integrity
| dysphoria, is a mental health condition where you feel that a
| limb or healthy body part shouldn't be part of your body."
|
| https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/body-
| integrit...
| labster wrote:
| While I agree with you, I think the problem goes beyond
| military equipment. There's a lot of risk now in doing business
| with America in every field, because it's so unpredictable. Why
| get cloud or SaaS from the US if they're one executive order
| away from being forced to break the GDPR -- or shut off service
| completely, like Maxar in Ukraine. Why build supply chains
| through America if the price of raw materials can arbitrarily
| change with tariffs? Sure, it's a huge market to sell to, but
| all of those risks have real costs.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Yes, I agree. There was a view that Trump is at least
| transactional - that so long as you pay (NATO defense
| spending target, US weapons etc) he'll have your back,.in a
| subscription basis. Likewise outside defense I guess.
|
| But that's going up in smoke rather quickly.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| The word for what you describe is racketeering.
| svara wrote:
| Yes, exactly.
|
| I'm beginning to think that being somewhat reined in by the
| Republican establishment in his first term, a weakness that
| the MAGA-crowd sought to correct, ultimately worked in his
| favor in protecting him from his poor instincts.
|
| It's like he doesn't understand that trust and reliability
| have a real, tangible value. That's simply a misjudgment.
| Maybe he actually believes that America is so exceptionally
| strong that any sort of cooperation ultimately works
| against it?
|
| It's terribly sad and depressing frankly. A small part of
| me still has hope that this is going to end badly, in that
| it turns into a useful lesson, but not badly enough to
| cause lasting damage. I might be naive.
| labster wrote:
| We're only seven weeks in, and the damage so far will
| probably take a decade to fix. I'm not as optimistic as
| you about the remaining 201 weeks -- if that in fact is
| the number.
| kingkawn wrote:
| Trump is still transactional, but now the transaction is
| with Russia
| mmcnl wrote:
| I was thinking the same thing. Europe should build its own
| cloud. All purchased US goods and services are now a
| potential target for a match of arm wrestling.
| Juliate wrote:
| It's not a matter of risk, it's done.
|
| I work in IT. We already have several customers projects
| (various profiles) that paused all their ongoing projects to
| _start_ migrating their servers and hosted services away from
| US-based/owned ones towards EU-based ones.
| drysine wrote:
| >There's a lot of risk now in doing business with America in
| every field, because it's so unpredictable.
|
| That's how the rest of the world has been doing business with
| America, Europe will get used to this too.
| dopidopHN wrote:
| I have friends working on the French Rafale. Really expensive
| plane, mildly successful so far.
|
| They are really busy right now.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| Ironically India's decision to go with Rafale looks great in
| the current circumstances.
| phlakaton wrote:
| And you know who we call that lone vessel on the ocean of
| prosperity?
|
| Bob.
| pokstad wrote:
| Ukraine wasn't a buyer. They were given those F16s. Be careful
| when something is given for "free".
| adamors wrote:
| The Netherlands for instance, who gave Ukraine a batch of
| F16s _was_ a buyer. Logic still stands, US made anything is
| worthless if it includes a kill switch that can be toggled
| any time post-purchase.
| pokstad wrote:
| Good point, but I wonder if there was something in the
| agreement between the US and the Netherlands when those
| were originally sold.
| delfinom wrote:
| They all create export agreements where countries have to
| seek permission to reexport and more. Usually for
| political plays.
|
| It's also the same reason the Swiss defense industry is
| now in collapse. Because they refused to allow re-export
| of ammo to Ukraine citing Swiss neutrality.
|
| It immediately made all Swiss made ammo worthless for all
| european countries in event of war. Lol
|
| Apparently the Swiss are still talking of revising their
| law while their defense industry is crying because nobody
| wants to buy their shit as European countries want to be
| able to help other European countries. Especially circles
| like the Nordic or Baltic regions where the countries are
| extremely buddy buddy.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Some sources on this:
|
| https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/foreign-affairs/is-the-
| swiss-we...
|
| https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/the-cost-of-
| neutrality-s...
| tokai wrote:
| Wasn't US' F16s.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| Sounds like the statement that if an online service is free,
| you are the product, when in reality the same applies to
| paying customers as well. You are only exempt if you have
| full control over it.
|
| It doesn't matter who owns these planes, the US have shown
| that they have the power to make them useless and that they
| cannot be trusted, and that is a dealbreaker when it comes to
| expensive & important equipment.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's
| friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Post the rest of the quote. If I recall he was warning
| against alienating an ally. He didn't want the quote to
| become true.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Yes, he was basically warning that short termism, and
| constantly throwing people under the bus, will be bad for
| American imperialism in the long term.
|
| "Word should be gotten to Nixon that if Thieu meets the
| same fate as Diem, the word will go out to the nations of
| the world that it may be dangerous to be America's enemy,
| but to be America's friend is fatal."
|
| Thieu did meet the same fate, well, he wasn't killed, but
| he was overthrown and lived life in exile as a recluse.
|
| Zelenskyy will almost certainly suffer the same fate.
| wyldfire wrote:
| The agenda that Trump advanced during campaigns was not "cut
| ourselves off from the rest of the world". Do his supporters
| really want this? What's the rationale he advances for this
| stance and the tarrifs?
|
| What would a president who _was_ beholden to Russians do once
| elected? I mean -- what 's the point of provoking Canada, of
| all countries? Canada as the 51st US state would be the new
| most populous state and would cause a huge change in US
| politics. Not to mention it could only arrive through conquest.
| So why even propose it if not merely to cause a rift?
| jisnsm wrote:
| The agenda was to leave Ukraine and to have Europe pay for
| its own defence which is what's happening here. Nothing more,
| nothing less. Don't let yourself get manipulated by Reddit-
| tier arguments.
| snozolli wrote:
| The agenda is to abandon US allies and let Russia expand
| however it wants, because that's what Putin wants. Putin
| wants to erase the Ukrainian cultural identity, which is
| what Russia has tried to do for centuries.
| af78 wrote:
| It goes beyond that:
|
| - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7435pnle0go US sides
| with Russia in UN resolutions on Ukraine (the US rejected a
| resolution that named Russia as the aggressor).
|
| - https://news.online.ua/en/the-us-is-ending-support-for-
| ukrai... The US is ending support for Ukrainian F-16
|
| - https://www.reuters.com/world/us-cuts-off-intelligence-
| shari... US cuts intelligence sharing for Ukraine, adding
| pressure for Russia peace deal
|
| - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-08/us-
| vetoes... US Vetoes G-7 Shadow Fleet Task Force Plan
|
| There's a pattern: Trump wants to force a capitulation of
| Ukraine.
| wafflemaker wrote:
| This is actually true, no need for political downvoting.
|
| It's just the way it's done, quite childish and not ally-
| like. Pulling out from EU and UA could've been done in much
| less 'rug-pulling' style.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| > leave Ukraine
|
| The United States was never "in Ukraine" in at all the same
| way it was in Iraq or Afghanistan. There were never
| American combat boots on the ground.
| epistasis wrote:
| > Do his supporters really want this?
|
| After many long discussions, I can only conclude it less
| about the values of the supporters and more about their
| psychology.
|
| His supporters want whatever he wants, as long as it means
| that the right people get bullied. There's not much deeper
| thought than that.
|
| It's very sad to see people that I respected debase their own
| principles so that they can remain proud Trump supporters.
| Their identity appears tied to the decision, and I know only
| one person who had the principles to to respond to any of
| Trump's actions with "OK these people actually have no clue
| what they are doing." (Which was in response to their
| treatment of Zelensky in the Oval Office).
| sillyfluke wrote:
| >His supporters want whatever he wants, as long as it means
| that the right people get bullied.
|
| Yeah, pretty much. Everyone in this thread should be able
| to craft a Trump line that's easily digestible by his base
| on this point by now. In this specific case it's "I don't
| want to give US weapons to anyone who won't act in our (my)
| national interest on every issue." Once you empower him to
| decide what is or is not in the US national interest,
| there's not much you need in the way of convincing. It's
| only when his policies start hurting his voters
| individually that they'll maybe start questioning whether
| what Trump claims is American national interest is actually
| in their own interest or not.
| jcgrillo wrote:
| > Do his supporters really want this?
|
| That's like asking whether a child wants the sugar crash that
| will come after eating the candy bar. They're not able to see
| that far ahead. They'll only "get it" when their lives have
| been made significantly harder, and even then it's not likely
| they'll be able to attribute their misery to the
| administration's policies--they could very easily be
| convinced to blame some minority group or foreign nation.
| TylerLives wrote:
| Not sure about Canada, but Trump's actions will make a lot
| more sense if you consider that to American rightists,
| American leftists are a much bigger enemy than Russians. I
| think the same is true in the opposite direction. These 2
| groups can't stand each other and often sabotage the other's
| efforts. We can put that aside and ask what's best for the
| world or America, but as long as there is this hatred between
| the parties in the US, both sides will act primarily against
| the other.
| nicbou wrote:
| > to American rightists, American leftists are a much
| bigger enemy than Russians.
|
| This reminds me of France in the Second World War. My
| (questionable) understanding is that they were more worried
| about the enemies at home than the ones across the border.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| The supporters are just a rabble bought into a cult of
| personality. If they know what they think, it doesn't matter.
|
| The point of all of this is the chaos and destruction of
| trust in the system. A concept in the early stages of the
| Russian revolution was that the stage had to be set for a
| "spark" to light the tinder of the proletariat. Here the
| Russians had RT, probably fed talking points and material to
| talk radio and podcast people. Had honeypots seducing
| strategic politicans and special interests (See Maria Butina
| and the NRA). Obviously wields influence over Trump.
|
| Once that tinder has been set, the sparks some in the chaos.
| You have the religious weirdos who think dinosaurs are fake,
| Elon who believes he's the protagonist in a sci-fi fantasy,
| some war-hawks pushing the Artic Dominance thing, and
| whatever fuckery the gang of oligarchs like Theil, etc have
| in mind.
| apwell23 wrote:
| > Right now every buyer of American kit is feverishly
| evaluating non-US alternatives.
|
| they are doing what they should've been doing this whole time?
| ajmurmann wrote:
| It's a big advantage if allies use compatible or identical
| kit.
| stouset wrote:
| Does Europe lessening their desire to buy US-designed and US-
| made military hardware benefit or harm the US?
|
| Extend this to other areas of commerce. If the US is no
| longer a reliable trade partner and its allies lessen their
| economic ties, is that a positive outcome for the US?
| ascorbic wrote:
| A week ago Trump killed the western alliance when he made it
| clear that allies could not rely on the US. This week he has
| killed the US weapons export business. Not a single country
| will trust them now. It would be quite an interesting thing to
| watch if we didn't have to live here.
| jcgrillo wrote:
| He also may have killed US agriculture, we'll find out in the
| next few months.
| nxm wrote:
| *They can't rely on USA and the American tax payer for the
| defense of their country. Finally some defense spending will
| have to take place
| mlyle wrote:
| The spending that happens, though, will not be flowing to
| the US like a very large share has in the past.
| chgs wrote:
| Europe has spent trillions on defence since the fall of the
| Berlin Wall, most of which went to US weapons
| manufacturers.
|
| What the last decade has shows is relying on external
| oligarchs for energy and defence is not sensible. The us
| has encouraged this for a long time. I just hope that
| Europe actually steps up quickly enough.
|
| It will hurt the us a lot more than Europe, and China will
| be massively emboldened in the Pacific. It's a new world
| order.
| MrDresden wrote:
| Spending among NATO member nations had already started
| growing considerably since Trump's first term. And a lot of
| that spending went towards buying US made weapons, though
| not exclusively.
|
| With this move, any nation will think twice about buying US
| made weapons. Trump effectively kneecapped the US arms
| industry by this move.
| Argonaut998 wrote:
| Even accepting that as true (it's not -- it's the cost of
| having soft-power in Europe.) it means that no European,
| and probably Turkish, Korean, Japanese and Canadian cash
| will be flowing to the USA defence industry.
| ascorbic wrote:
| They can't rely on weapons that they have bought from US
| defense manufacturers
| jmye wrote:
| It's "great" in the sense that this will decimate the US
| military industry (great or "great" depending on your view of
| American hegemony). China and Europe will be stronger, and
| America is absolutely finished as a world power.
|
| So much winning, eh?
| nxm wrote:
| Europe has had 20 summits and talks about what they plan to
| plan to plan to do... eventually. USA will be fine.
| amarcheschi wrote:
| Weapons procurement expenses has been shooting up in
| Europe, I do not get why you only talk about the spoken
| plans and not the actual things that eventually happens
| after these plan are designed.
|
| Just a few days ago, Leonardo signed a treaty to develop
| uavs together with Baykar. A month or so ago, Italian
| government announced the creation of a joint venture
| between rheinmetall and Leonardo, sharing technologies to
| Leonardo and producing some of the >1000 ifvs to buy for
| the italian army in italy and some in Germany
| maxlin wrote:
| Remember those Iranian F-14s?
|
| Yeah. What you said has zero relevance. It's not like US is
| taking away the jets. They are just reducing proactive support
| because it's a democracy and the people don't want the country
| to be on the leash of anyone.
|
| It's time for Europe to do its own work on this. As a Finnish
| guy I know plenty of that, and don't view other European
| nations as acting very responsible having had their self
| defense capabilities and believability wither.
| anonzzzies wrote:
| > Right now every buyer of American kit is feverishly
| evaluating non-US alternatives.
|
| I don't know anything about fighter jets but for a lot of other
| things, Trump could not have done a nicer thing for China.
| Whatever issues many countries had with China, they are not
| actively beating most of them in the face. Probably the best
| years for Xi these are going to be.
| elevaet wrote:
| > this is like Brexit but 1000x
|
| This sums up what I've been thinking too - it looks like the
| USA is sick of being the center of the world and is stepping
| down from the position right now.
|
| I guess this means it's China's moment. :/
| chgs wrote:
| Warehouse 14 time
| elevaet wrote:
| What's warehouse 14?
| chgs wrote:
| TV series warehouse 13, which houses all the world's
| "odd" artifacts. The warehouse was always in the
| strongest empire through history, it moved itself when
| world order changes - warehouse 12 was in the U.K. up
| until the 20th century for example.
|
| The finale had it trying to love itself to China and
| becoming warehouse 14, but that eventually stopped and
| American Superiority won over.
|
| Those days seem at an end. The actions Trump had made
| over the last two months will reverberate for the next
| two decades at least.
| outer_web wrote:
| On the heels of 40-year old American kit demonstrating its
| capability against their biggest arms export competitor. What a
| reversal.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| The best era ever to be selling French of German arms.
| hkyu12 wrote:
| That is good. Don't know why you are saying in mocking way. We
| should move away from unipolar world. There should be stronger
| US, Europe, Asia, Africa like everyone. Monopoly is bad.
| bagels wrote:
| I cant wait for the inevitable EU sanctions against the US.
| brianbest101 wrote:
| Beyond sanity. The US breaking trust with the world will have
| repercussions for generations. This is a stupid decision
| k1kingy wrote:
| Donald Trump really should leave his fragile ego at the door and
| continue to support the USA's allies at this time. People forget
| that it was Zelensky refusing to lie which led to Trumps first
| impeachment.
|
| At the very least this entire 180 and the attempt to humiliate
| Zelensky in the White House is Trump wanting to enact some kind
| of revenge.
|
| At the very worst him praising Putin, threatening to leave Nato,
| threatening other allies, moving troops out of Germany and into
| Hungary, et all just reeks of something more.. conspiracy theory
| or not it's pretty disgusting as someone looking in from the
| outside.
| michelb wrote:
| I do not for a second believe Trump thinks this all up himself.
| I'm not one for conspiracies, but I'm wondering how large the
| group using him as a mouthpiece really is.
| apeescape wrote:
| That's the thing. Trump's actions make no sense unless you
| view them through the lens that he's driving the agenda of
| Putin.
|
| Then again, even if a global nuclear war broke out, some of
| his loyalists would still be convinced that Trump is playing
| some sort of 3D chess and that it's all going according to
| his masterful plan.
| Chance-Device wrote:
| I used to think this, but now I think something different -
| isn't Russia a useful domestic and geopolitical tool?
| Perhaps the US does not want for Russia either to be too
| weak or too strong, perhaps they simply want them to be
| useful.
| apeescape wrote:
| But would Russia's friendship be more useful than
| Europe's? I can see the logic behind strengthening ties
| with Russia to keep them from aligning with China, but
| Russia has proven itself an unreliable partner in the
| past, so you have to assume that as soon as Russia sees
| more benefit in fraternizing with China than the US,
| they'll turn their coats. The EU has been a pretty loyal
| vassal, even when disgruntled. But I think we've gone
| over the tipping point now. The US has shown it can't be
| trusted upon.
| Chance-Device wrote:
| I don't think they are a partner in the strictest sense,
| they're more a useful enemy. Keeping Russia in a certain
| position - weak enough that they're not a real threat,
| strong enough that they can represented as one, means
| they can be used for domestic and foreign political ends.
|
| This view is the only thing that to me makes sense of
| what's happening.
| maxglute wrote:
| RU has reliably said they would respond to NATO expansion
| or pulling UKR away from RU influence. RU has also
| reliably sent gas to EU while responding to efforts by
| US+EU to swing UKR. RU under Putin is geopolitically
| reliable, at least in realist sense.
|
| EU are reliable vassals, but they're reliable in the
| sense that their vassalage doesn't add much to strategic
| balance, especially vs PRC. EU/NATO bluntly net drain in
| US security commitments and trade balance. Like EU could
| have been buying 100s of billions more in US arms and
| LNG, US looking at the 2T+ trade deficit with EU in last
| 20 years and wondering if that's worth the hegemon
| privilege. EU + most US partners think they have a
| tributary system where vassal supports the hegemon, but
| it's really an expensive client state system where US
| pays off vassals. Looking at projected US finances - they
| can't afford to pay off everyone anymore. Also bluntly,
| US vassals aren't going to reverse payment flow and
| become tributaries. If it comes to parity burden share as
| past US admins has pressured, there's less reason to even
| be "partners" and more reason for EU to try to be their
| own pole.
| bad_haircut72 wrote:
| This medievil view of Europe as vassals instead of allies
| is why US is about to get a medievil style government
| again.
| maxglute wrote:
| And European leaders drunk on atlanticist koolaid
| brainwashing them into thinking that they're allies /
| partners instead of vassals is why they're in this mess
| to began with. It's always been medievil beneath the
| veneer.
| jameskilton wrote:
| Trump doesn't care about anyone but himself. The only reason he
| ran for president again (a job he absolutely hated the first
| time around) was so he would stay out of jail for the myriad of
| crimes he committed. Now that he actually got reelected (us
| Americans can be incredibly dumb) he's doing everything he can
| to punish everyone he deems was "out to get him".
|
| Also he _adores_ Putin and Xi and is doing what he can to
| become like them. There 's no conspiracy, Trump really is that
| much of a child.
| tim333 wrote:
| >There's no conspiracy, Trump really is that much of a child.
|
| [citation needed]
| kccoder wrote:
| Paying attention the last ten years.
| tim333 wrote:
| Yeah suspending updates to the AN/ALQ-131 pods to
| advantage Russian assaults is the kind of thing any child
| would do.
| smdyc1 wrote:
| Playing right into Putin's hands.
| chii wrote:
| trump is _in_ putin's hands.
| meindnoch wrote:
| Time for us in Europe to man up.
| k1kingy wrote:
| Thankfully it seems to be uniting the EU rather than dividing.
| Remains to be seen if they can get their act together though.
| throwaway_20357 wrote:
| I'm sceptical. Recent movements in Germany point into the
| opposite direction or rather a continuation of wishful
| thinking. Yes, a lot of debt-funded defence investment is
| coming. They also promised some investment in "infrastructure".
| At the same time the debt increase will delay reforms that are
| overdue for 20 years and longer. There were already calls that,
| now, with all brakes off, we can increase rather than curb
| spending on the welfare state. As it currently looks, the
| productivity gap with the US and Asia will widen rather than
| shrink. A very disappointing development to say the least.
| bootsmann wrote:
| European manufacturing is more productive than US
| manufacturing. The US productivity advantage comes almost
| entirely from the US' strong tech (as in software) sector.
| kragen wrote:
| Tech (as in software) is what's being cut off to Ukraine,
| and tech (as in software, MEMS gyros, and GNSS) is how
| Ukraine keeps blowing up US$3M T-90 tanks with three or
| four US$500 FPV drones. So I think it's highly relevant to
| the question of sovereignty.
| lfsh wrote:
| As far as I know all cheap drone tech is provided by
| China (to both Russia and Ukraine).
| kragen wrote:
| It's largely kind of an international open-source effort,
| but there is a lot of crucial hardware that is only
| available from China, yes. Until this week I think
| Anduril was in a good position to become an alternative
| to China in two to four years, but this move strongly
| undermines their credibility overseas.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| > There were already calls that, now, with all brakes off, we
| can increase rather than curb spending on the welfare state.
|
| I'm curious: Where can I read more about this? Which parties
| (and how many) are saying this? Is there any pushback from
| Merz?
| throwaway_20357 wrote:
| One example is pensions. For demographic reasons the state
| pension system is underfunded for years, a situation that
| is projected to become worse. One solution would be to
| increase contributions which are already sky-high and make
| working or opening a business a lot less attractive in
| Germany. Another is to freeze pensions. Guess what
| happened? Germany's old government increased the
| contribution level starting in January this year [1].
| Additional, a pension raise [2] has recently been announced
| and the newly-found debt will provide funding for
| additional benefits for pensioners [3]. It more and more
| feels like a gerontocracy.
|
| [1] https://www.deutsche-
| rentenversicherung.de/DRV/DE/Ueber-uns-... [2] https://www.
| tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/rentensteigeru... [3] htt
| ps://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/innenpolitik..
| .
| foldr wrote:
| Germany has slightly higher productivity per hour worked than
| the US. There's a productivity gap between the US and
| European economies as a whole (which is a relatively recent
| phenomenon dating back to around 2005), but Germany is quite
| productive.
| throwaway_20357 wrote:
| I should have more precisely referred to the "productivity
| growth gap" (https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-
| PROD/PROD000000000053...)
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Please not more "masculine energy."
| rocqua wrote:
| The point stands that Europe needs to arm itself. Europe
| needs to be able to defend itself without the US.
|
| Indeed there is slight toxicity to calling this 'manning up'.
| Especially towards men, where it signals that men should be
| strong enough to defend themselves. Which wronly reinforces
| the idea that capability in violence is a positive trait in
| men.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Thank you for that understanding and nuanced response. It
| actually gives me great comfort to see someone communicate
| so well in today's climate.
|
| I of course agree with the point about Europe and you've
| beautifully captured the reason why the phrasing gave me an
| uneasy feeling. The line between the necessary reaction and
| over-reaction is terrifyingly small and I hope for the best
| for all of us.
| stackedinserter wrote:
| > that men should be strong enough to defend themselves
|
| What's wrong with that, aside that it's missing "themselves
| and their women and children"?
|
| The whole idea that it's somehow "toxic" made EU the weak
| sausage that it is now.
| rocqua wrote:
| The fact that it demands violence off men. As my very
| next sentence states.
|
| Demanding that a 'masculine man' is capable of violence
| is making men ... more violent. Men being too violent is
| a decently big societal problem. Hence, the idea that men
| should be able to defend themselves (and others) is
| harming society.
| stackedinserter wrote:
| A man that can protect their family from a criminal or
| home intruder is harming society? Men with enough balls
| and sense of duty that join armed forces, so society is
| able to protect itself, are harming society?
|
| If I was Putin or other adversary of the West, I would
| pour tons of money into promotion of this self-castrating
| idea.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| They didn't say those things did they? They said "the
| idea that men should be able to defend themselves (and
| others) is harming society." The idea that they are duty-
| bound to these things by their manhood, not that they
| choose to do so. People should feel free to make their
| own reasoned choices.
|
| I ging it sad and frankly creepy to think of the many
| great minds who have added so much to our society being
| sidelined or pushed down arbitrary funnels in their lives
| because someone had an obsessive idea that they needed to
| prove a biological tautology of "having balls" by going
| down a certain route towards militancy.
| stackedinserter wrote:
| That's exactly what "they" said: "the idea that men
| should be able to defend themselves (and others) is
| harming society".
|
| "Their" twisted logic is "man defends his family" -> "man
| gets more violent" -> "man gets too violent" -> "much
| violence is bad". I'm not sure if it's troll, stupidity
| or sincere and intentional self-castration.
|
| What was your point?
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| It's reductive, essentialist and prescriptive and myopic.
| It's fine for someone to defend themselves but saying
| that "men should be strong enough" to do so gets quite
| murky. Would you say Stephen Hawking was less of a man
| because he was unable to defend himself? Is someone who
| defends themselves by de-escalating a situation through
| dialogue less of a man than someone who uses their
| strength? The above statement implies these things but I
| certainly don't think they're true.
|
| Toxic is your word and I'm not sure the EU is a "weak
| sausage." I think it's remarkable that so many people
| within the EU have been able to co-exist peacefully for
| so long and work together in developing systems that give
| them other options than the kinds of violence we saw for
| so much of the past. Could you really point to Russia and
| say that they're in a stronger position, that they're a
| "strong sausage(?)," because their leader exhibits some
| loosely defined manly ideals?
| Argonaut998 wrote:
| Yeah what we need is yet even more strong female politician
| color-matched photo-ops.
|
| Europe has been castrated and has been impotent for decades.
| Maybe this will change things.
| mullingitover wrote:
| You mean: European militaries haven't done their historical
| norm, which is starting wars that kill horrific numbers of
| civilians. The only serious militarized power in that side
| of Eurasia is Russia, and what are they doing? Killing
| horrific numbers of civilians.
|
| Seems like the reasonable goal would be to embargo Russia
| until they disarm like the other adults in the region.
| throwaind29k wrote:
| Is no one in Europe not skeptical of the increase in defense
| spending? Things have costs, that money is having to come from
| somewhere.
|
| Is increasing traditional military spending the way to go in
| the 21st century? If the decision is left to military
| leaders,they might spend massive amounts of money preparing to
| fight yesterday's war.
|
| If you set aside alarmist positions, it may very well possible
| that Russia has no interests in military conflict with rest of
| Europe beyond Ukraine.
|
| In that case what is the best thing Europeans could do?
|
| There is danger and risk in military over spending at this
| juncture, and Europe needs to be level headed about it.
| guerrilla wrote:
| It sounds like you're not keeping up on things. We know where
| the money is coming from. It's headline news daily in the
| financial press. What are you talking about? And yes, of
| course we need to defend ourselves.
| xg15 wrote:
| The money is coming from increased debt.
| deadbabe wrote:
| Europe has benefited a lot from not having to pour tons of
| money into defense spending. Europeans will be hurting if
| their countries suddenly have to shift finances for this.
|
| I think it's much easier to just hunker down and appease the
| United States for four years and hope the next
| administrations are more merciful.
| cjes wrote:
| "hope"
| GlobalFrog wrote:
| Maybe... but probably not. Having to divert investments
| from one part of the economy to another is not that much a
| big problem: Russia has been doing the same and they have
| an economy of war that works more or less (some say they
| are on the brink of collapse and yet, they are still
| there). So, Europe can totally rely way less on the US,
| they just have to change their priorities, and they'll
| adapt just as Russia has adapted. Thinking they cannot is
| really presumptuous, or even comptemptuous (and a lot of
| people have made the same mistake with Russia by the way).
| And yet, at the moment, the US think that way, not
| believing in soft power any more, but only in pure pressure
| or even blackmail. If history teaches one thing, it is that
| you always create your own ennemies (Versailles treaty
| comes to mind).
| whatwhaaaaat wrote:
| That is not what is happening. Listen to Ursula. She's
| telling you what is happening. Eu countries are being
| "allowed" to go into debt without triggering eu debt
| procedures. It won't be reinvestment. It will be dilution
| of currency though debt. Something all too familiar to
| Americans.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Correct. Interestingly enough, it will massively increase
| the supply of euro bonds, and probably pull in a bunch of
| cash that goes to US treasuries now.
|
| If there's enough pan European bonds (which there won't
| be) then the reserve currency status of the dollar could
| be threatened.
| Eupolemos wrote:
| We have opened for EUR800 billions in investments through the
| EU.
|
| So, no.
|
| Calling anything "alarmist positions" now is just uninformed;
| Putin has said Russia wants the USSR territory back, their
| entire industry is now turned to produce weapons, their
| schools are "Putin-Jugend", they are currently invested in
| the first "great war" since WW2.
|
| And the US isn't just getting out of Europe - they have gone
| full turncoat.
|
| This is an unmitigated disaster for both US (citizens) and
| EU, and the EU is trying to manage what they can.
| throwaind29k wrote:
| This conflict may be a disaster for Ukraine, but how is
| this conflict a disaster for Europe?
|
| Is Europe going to ratchet military spending at Putins's
| bluff?
| grey-area wrote:
| Because Putin will take whatever he can of Europe,
| starting with Ukraine and the baltic states.
|
| Putin's Russia is already at war with Europe -
| assassinations, destabilisation operations, sabotage.
| ascorbic wrote:
| If they succeed in Ukraine then they are free to re-arm.
| Meanwhile Trump has made it clear that article 5 is
| worthless, so the Baltics are there for the taking. As
| much as I'd like to say they can rely on the rest of
| NATO, I'm really unsure if the UK or France would be
| willing to sacrifice London or Paris for Tallinn or
| Vilnius.
| pixelpoet wrote:
| 10 month old account with a handful posts calling Putin's
| actions in Europe a "bluff"... spidey sense is tingling.
| MaxPock wrote:
| If you,Europeans believe that Russia is such an existential
| threat,why not attack preemptively ?
| snozolli wrote:
| George W. Bush showed the world what "preemptive defense"
| leads to.
|
| "Speak softly and carry a big stick" seems to be a better
| plan for stability while keeping aggressors in check.
| outer_web wrote:
| Nuclear retaliation.
| rocqua wrote:
| Are you arguing against spending money on armies at all, or
| do you want Europe to spend money on more effective weapons?
| 01100011 wrote:
| I hate to be the guy, but I find myself having to point this
| out to all of my doom-minded American friends. Yes, Trump is a
| criminal idiot, but one positive, probably unintended effect is
| that the world becomes more, in the words of Taleb, anti-
| fragile. As an American I am thrilled that Europe is becoming
| more united, more pragmatic, and more self-reliant. Our
| relationship is not over, it is just changing, and Europe is
| experiencing a long-needed renaissance.
|
| Of course Europe always had some ability to defend itself, but
| I think it's clear that some of that ability was outsourced to
| the US(with reciprocal benefits for the US, but still). Yes,
| this introduces some redundancy into the Western sphere, but
| that's a good thing.
| finnjohnsen2 wrote:
| Trump just destroyed US advanced arms export. He is efficient at
| tearing things down, gotta give him that.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| It makes the US oligarchs _comparatively_ stronger within the
| US though, with foreign backing diminished, which is probably
| the main objective of this circus.
| thewinnie wrote:
| How so? Isn't is way better when other countries heavily
| investing in your economy?
| bananapub wrote:
| better for who?
|
| I think everyone is underestimating the changes that are
| happening. Obviously if Trump wanted a prosperous USA, he
| wouldn't be isolating it, and destroying the federal
| government and wrecking scientific research and diplomacy
| across the world.
|
| but an overall poorer US with a permanent far right
| government under the control of a small group of rich
| lunatics is better for _those rich lunatics_.
| jfengel wrote:
| I don't really care what he wants, but apparently tens of
| millions of Americans want isolationism. We have tried to
| make it clear that this will be an economic disaster, but
| they won the election and they get to make the decisions.
| So rich lunatics it is.
|
| Really sorry for Ukraine, though. We knew back in
| November that this meant certain death for them.
| stevenwoo wrote:
| A guy who can bankrupt his own casinos is the opposite of
| whatever a good chief executive officer is.
| Escornabois wrote:
| Hello,
|
| Complete ignorant of strategy, international relations and power
| dynamics here.
|
| Is it nagging anyone else that the "Forbes Analyst" gets called
| Aks, Aske and Ax in just 10 lines or it is just me?
| franky47 wrote:
| I found it weird too. Was the author using voice dictation to
| write the article?
| mopsi wrote:
| That's most likely an artifact of automated translation.
| azalemeth wrote:
| Trump is really a disgusting human being. I'm not a US citizen
| but this looks an awful lot like treason -- he is actively
| helping an enemy of the state.
| 10xDev wrote:
| He is saving American money for American people as was
| promised. You just don't like the fact that the world is
| heading towards de-globalisation because of whatever other
| political belief you have that you aren't sharing like most
| people here.
| sovietmudkipz wrote:
| I genuinely wish there was an understandable endgame for the USA.
| The USA seems to be throwing its weight around but I'm not
| entirely sure to what end. This headline/article is just one area
| where the US is behaving perplexingly.
|
| I understand that Trump wants Zelenskyy to sign the minerals deal
| and that implicitly there's security guarantees. Fine there's at
| least a through line. However; by demonstrating that the US is
| willing to revoke access to this war material during an active
| shooting war over some ego thing they're showing allies who've
| invested in the US military equipment that they're vulnerable to
| suffer this same fate. Now Europe is turning hard away from US
| tech.
|
| To some degree this is a good thing, I think, from USA's POV.
| Trump has said it's unfair USA spends the most on NATO and that
| member states should pay more (how many don't hit the 2% target).
| However; the point was to spend their 2% GDP on American
| armaments. Now Europe is taking their demand and money and
| investing in domestic military equipment. Which will inevitably
| beg the question in the coming years if NATO, a US establishment,
| is to be made redundant?
|
| This US administration can't seem to have their cake and eat it
| too. They want money, demand for their goods, but every time they
| act out they drive away their business partners.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| What would you do if you were a team of US oligarchs with
| connections to the administration and wanted to increase your
| share of, and power over, the domestic cake?
|
| Tell me it doesn't fit.
|
| Edit: this story just dropped off the main page. Currently
| sitting at 85 points and 77 comments. It had position 2 or so,
| now it has position 79.
| ncruces wrote:
| If Europe collectively decides they must only buy French and
| German weapons, there's less US cake.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Sure, but are these guys the kind who wants control over
| the _whole cake_ or a smaller slice of a larger cake?
|
| Look at Russia.
| ctack wrote:
| Suspicious that it's not on the front page.
| ctack wrote:
| Edit: no disagreement or flagging, just poof, gone. Likely
| someone knows how to make unwanted conversations go away on
| platforms like HN.
| cyberlimerence wrote:
| It's because number of comments > number of upvotes,
| which triggers flamewar detector.
|
| > How are stories ranked? Other factors affecting rank
| include [...] software which demotes overheated
| discussions, [...]. [1]
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
| eitland wrote:
| Laat I think I knew anything it took surprisingly few
| flags and I think people abuse it all the time to get rid
| of things they personally don't like. And don't like is a
| broad category.
| kortilla wrote:
| There is absolutely no interesting discussion going on in
| the comments here.
|
| Lots of political flaming and not much else.
|
| Upvote to comment ratio is low and people are likely
| flagging it too because it's just world news.
| yowlingcat wrote:
| I don't think Hacker News is trying to be Reddit.
| postingawayonhn wrote:
| NATO as has existed is already over. Nobody has any faith that
| the US will follow through on its Article 5 obligations.
| ozim wrote:
| The fun part - US is the only country that called Article 5.
| gotts wrote:
| 80+ countries to USA: "we want our money back, money spent
| on your war that shouldn't had happened in the first place"
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| The clown in the oval office claimed we wouldn't help them.
| More Danish men died per capita in middle east because of
| article 5 than men from the US...
| sovietmudkipz wrote:
| If that's the case that "NATO as has existed is already over"
| then maybe it is wise for the USA to pull out. Maybe that's
| the endgame for Europe? Europe defends Europe (or gets taken
| over by Russia I guess), and USA isn't on the hook for its
| defense anymore.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| If Europe is taken over by Russia, you don't think the U.S.
| will be next?
| bad_haircut72 wrote:
| Americans all have this attitude that theyre "on the hook"
| for everyone elses defence as if theyre the white knight
| defending the world against evil. Its more like the local
| mob tough guys who have been taking protection money for
| the last 40 years backed down when a rival gang finally
| decided to make a move
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Please don't use sweeping generalizations like this.
|
| The hyperbole interferes with construction discussion.
| bad_haircut72 wrote:
| Are you a LLM? This is what the rest of the world feels
| mate!! Its a part of the discussion.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| There are lots of sites you can visit to vent your
| emotions by making inflammatory, inaccurate
| generalizations to a receptive, cheering echo chamber.
|
| Let's not do that here.
| bad_haircut72 wrote:
| Its an accurate generalization
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| > Americans all have this attitude
|
| ...
|
| > Its an accurate generalization
|
| I'm American, and I don't have that view. So it's clearly
| not _literally_ true.
|
| So perhaps you mean that it's "mostly" true. Then I'd
| ask, what evidence do you have to support that? Is there
| some poll of public opinion you can refer to? That's
| something we could meaningfully discuss.
| tehjoker wrote:
| You are incredibly insulated. Read some books about the
| world and world history.
|
| Here's one for you:
| https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/vincent-
| bevins/the-...
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| I wonder if you've misunderstood the topic of this
| thread.
|
| We've been discussing whether or not certain views are
| held by nearly 100% of current Americans.
|
| IIUC, that book focuses on evils done by the US
| government in 1965. I'm not seeing the connection.
| nthingtohide wrote:
| Actually, your view is true even if there exists even
| just one person with your view. In reality what matters
| is the distribution of views. Furthermore, what matters
| is the distribution of views by the decision makers
| because those will be divorced from public distribution
| and informed by other secret plans or information unknown
| to public. So in a sense, it doesn't matter whether he is
| right or you are.
| jfengel wrote:
| America _is_ pulling out. That is the only reason that NATO
| is ending.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| NATO is there to make sure that the dollar is the dominant
| trading currency.
|
| NATO is the reason why saudis are trading in dollars.
|
| NATO is the reason that the US has credible nuclear
| deterrents
|
| NATO is why america doesn't need to have a physical
| colonial empire in europe (otherwise it'd need to subjugate
| cyprus, and somewhere like saaremaa, and that costs a shit
| tonne of money)
|
| NATO isn't about playing for defence of europe, its about
| keeping the USSR and russia far enough away to keep trading
| routes open.
| tim333 wrote:
| I'd say it's on hold for four years till they get a new
| president. In the meanwhile I guess the other members will
| have to try to manage.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| In 4 years another administration could come in but there's
| still damaged trust. If something happens in 5, 6 years
| from now and article 5 kicks in then even if the US comes
| to help what is there to say they won't suddenly pull out
| again 2 years into a war when Vance takes charge? The
| reliability is gone.
| tim333 wrote:
| I guess you've got to be flexible depending on
| circumstances. I mean NATO only really got going after
| Europe elected Hitler and now we have another iffy
| electoral result to work with.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| What happened in Germany that allowed the US to trust
| them again?
| tim333 wrote:
| After the war they seem to have realised the error of
| their ways. I note with the recent Musk salute Germany
| had the largest fall in Tesla sales, 80%.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| I think they might have been helped along a little by
| things like being occupied, becoming economically and
| militarily reliant on their occupiers and watching all of
| their leaders face judgement at the Nuremberg Trials.
|
| Things haven't gotten quite so extreme in the US yet but
| it feels reductive to suggest that they can just have a
| flip flop election and that will show they "realised the
| error of their ways" like Germany did post WW2.
| tim333 wrote:
| I think culturally most of the US is still pro NATO, it's
| just Trump and friends who are anti. I guess if Vance
| succeeds him things will be similar but if the dems win
| they won't.
|
| I'm kind of interested if Russia could become normal if
| the current regime collapses.
| tokai wrote:
| The Allies forced a system of re-eductaion on Germany
| post ww2.
|
| https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/scholarsweek/2016/
| Ger...
| jfengel wrote:
| But what about four years after that? It's just not a good
| idea to depend on someone who is aligned with your enemies,
| even intermittently.
| 51Cards wrote:
| The US has burned trust well past 4 years. This has shown
| how the US political system enables this. Every 4 years
| they elect someone who has the power to just toss out
| everything the previous administration did or committed to.
| Every 4 years... and the US is so politically divided that
| it only takes a few percent of opinion change at each
| election to swing to the other party with polar opposite
| views. As a result, why would any other country now trust
| the US in any agreement? (not to mention the large number
| of agreements they have signed then just abandoned later)
| Four years is nothing time wise.. barely enough time to get
| an agreement fully implimented before the US can just say
| "Nah..." There will be significantly less trust for the US
| even beyond the Trump era.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Why would another Republican President act any differently
| than Trump after they see how well that works? A majority
| of the US either doesn't care about international affairs
| or they are actively isolationist.
| eigenspace wrote:
| It would be delusional to think that this can be patched up
| with a new president, or that any of America's former
| allies will be willing to wait around twirling their
| thumbs, hoping that the next time America flips a coin, it
| turns out better.
|
| The relationship is over. Maybe in 4 years America can
| start making some initial steps towards patching things up,
| but even that seems increasingly unlikely at this point.
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| Does anyone think a country not already involved in a nuclear
| war would willingly expose itself to being annihilated? NATO
| works best when all member states are stable, ideologically
| aligned, and its Article 5 resolve is untested. Here the
| uncertainty works in its favor. But when NATO expands past
| deep ideological alignment towards a maximal expansionist
| strategy, and openly courts states its rival signals as core
| security interests, NATO becomes something else entirely.
| When it became a tool for maximally isolating Russia, it
| undermined its own credibility as a unified security entity.
| There is a genuine question whether the US would go "all in"
| to defend eastern european states. The fact that we can
| credibly ask this question about a NATO member just shows how
| far it's gone from its initial ideals.
| robwwilliams wrote:
| We need to remember the Budapest Memorandum on Security
| Assurance and not forget that Ukraine was coaxed to give up
| its nuclear weapons in 1993 by a guarantee of territorial
| integrity.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
| yesco wrote:
| Why do we need to remember this agreement that provided
| zero security guarantees? At most it ensures
| denuclearization is dead, but frankly speaking, it
| already was.
|
| Maybe instead we should remember the 2014 Wales Summit
| that was intended to deter Russian invasion?
|
| - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Wales_summit
|
| Or maybe instead we should consider that right before
| Russia's invasion in February 2022, Europe collectively
| dropped their military spending as % of GDP? Possibly
| since Trump had left office in 2021? Its unfortunate
| deterrents don't function when you do this...
|
| -https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_222664.htm
|
| Actually, maybe what we need to remember is that most of
| Europes money has been going to Russia even after the
| invasion? What a strange thing for allies to do right?
|
| - https://www.russiafossiltracker.com/
|
| It's weird how the United States justified its support in
| Ukraine as securing the region for its allies while its
| allies undermined this at every step of the way, do
| allies usually do that? When I listen to them on TV they
| seem to care a lot about Ukraine so it's strange...
| outer_web wrote:
| Ukraine is already quietly divisive in Congress. If Russia
| were to roll into Poland I could see a legislative
| declaration of war.
|
| In any event, maybe NATO just needs go squeak by four years
| without an Article 5 invocation to be back to normal.
| jgilias wrote:
| With the current pace of how things are developing, we
| might not be able to squeak by four years.
| ratatoskrt wrote:
| I think it boils down to the fact that Trump does not
| understand soft power. Slashing the most powerful and
| influential aid programme in the world shows that very clearly.
| The US is as rich as it is because they created an environment
| of stability (at least on their own territory) and ensuring
| that there are markets American companies can sell into.
| outer_web wrote:
| Maybe not so much that as he sees everything as a bargaining
| chip and any unused chips as a waste. After all, bribery and
| favors are more or less what soft power is.
| throwaway_20357 wrote:
| > I understand that Trump wants Zelenskyy to sign the minerals
| deal and that implicitly there's security guarantees.
|
| I don't think there are any "security guarantees". What could
| they be?
|
| The "endgame" as far as I understand it: The US wants access to
| the minerals as a compensation for the money already spent and,
| perhaps, to restore some of the support currently put on hold
| (satellite data access). Once the Ukranian resistance is
| broken, the US and Russia will jointly dictate a peace,
| gradually install a Russia-friendly regime and split the profit
| between them. They will happily invite the EU to finance some
| of the rebuilding of Ukraine that is then mainly performed by
| US and Russian companies. The US furthermore hopes that by
| spearheading the lifting of sanctions it will get priority
| access to some beneficial deals with and within Russia itself.
| anotherhue wrote:
| Truer words...
| sovietmudkipz wrote:
| I think the implicit guarantee is if American business and
| workers are harvesting minerals then if Russia attacked the
| USA would have even more incentive to intervene militarily.
|
| That said, I don't know what more Ukraine would want given
| the Budapest Memorandum already ties the USA, UK, and Russia
| to Ukraine's defense. That's proven to be a mixed success, as
| both USA, UK, and other countries have indeed stepped up for
| Ukraine's defense.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| > if American business and workers are harvesting minerals
| then if Russia attacked the USA would have even more
| incentive to intervene militarily
|
| Or Russia just invades while being careful not to damage
| their buddy's mines. Maybe the US even helps the Russians
| out once the Ukranian "dictator" is forced to begin
| fighting in too close proximity to the minerals.
| danmaz74 wrote:
| The point is that Russia won't have to attack any more,
| because Ukraine will already be nothing more than a puppet
| state after having been forced to sign the kind of peace
| deal that Putin wants.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| There is no such thing as implicit guarantees. The US has
| shown it is not a trusted country, and as such, we expect
| that it will also renege any written guarantees.
| foldr wrote:
| American businesses and workers operate all over the world.
| No-one thinks that this means that all these countries will
| receive military support from the US if they are invaded.
|
| Another relevant detail here is that a lot of the resources
| included in the deal are in territory that's currently
| occupied by Russia - which Trump clearly envisions Russia
| keeping in any peace settlement.
| bananapub wrote:
| > I understand that Trump wants Zelenskyy to sign the minerals
| deal and that implicitly there's security guarantees.
|
| I don't think this is true at all, I think Trump wants Ukraine
| to be conquered and for Russia to win and for people to stop
| bothering him about any of it.
|
| _Trump_ blew up whatever nonsense minerals deal there was, and
| is actively sabotaging the Ukrainian defence efforts via this,
| and ending intelligence sharing, and apparently leaning on
| random American companies to stop them selling services to
| Ukraine, and by providing diplomatic cover and support to
| Russia.
|
| people haven't seem to have caught on yet - the US has switched
| sides, it is now part of the Russia bloc.
| tesch1 wrote:
| > point was to spend their 2% GDP on American armaments
|
| Do the NATO agreements specify American armaments? Europe could
| have spent on European armaments and armies too, just chose not
| too because they didn't see a reason to.
|
| Europe not buying F35 or whatever hurts US arms industry, but
| probably not the general strategic position of the US. There's
| even a credible argument (dont know how credible?) that these
| arms programs actually undermine security by investing crazy
| money in outdated / ineffective technology. The dumb part would
| be not learning from the Ukrainians how to fight a modern war.
|
| US participation in NATO may be made redundant, but Europe's
| need for a credible collective defense agreement is not going
| away.
| bloopernova wrote:
| What would trump do differently if he had been told explicitly
| by putin to destroy the usa?
| justin66 wrote:
| He would have been asked to be a little less obvious about
| it?
| nxm wrote:
| Where was it requested/required to spend 2% on solely American
| armaments?
| perlgeek wrote:
| The endgame isn't for the USA, it's for Trump. I don't really
| know what it is, but I'm pretty certain that to understand his
| actions, you have to rid yourself of the idea that he's doing
| it for anybody or anything else than for himself.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| But Zelensky came to the white house to sign the deal. If Trump
| wanted the deal to be signed, it would have been signed. But he
| chose to gang up on Zelensky.
| dividedbyzero wrote:
| Today it's Ukraine and F35s, who and what will it be in a year? I
| suppose European governments are taking a long hard look at
| strategic dependencies on the US right now, like the whole
| economy running on top of Microsoft and Google and other US-made
| SaaS. If all of that went dark at once, I honestly don't know how
| some of the larger companies I know could keep operating. They
| all have fallbacks for critical infrastructure obviously but
| those are US-made, too...
| jopsen wrote:
| In practice it goes both ways...
|
| Lots of critical things for the US is made exclusively in
| Europe.
|
| Lots of medicin that people rely on daily would be unavailable
| if EU/US trade broke down completely.
| generic92034 wrote:
| Adding to this:
|
| About half of the US companies over a certain size run on ERP
| software from an European vendor. And it is not trivial at
| all to change that, even if they wanted to.
| perlgeek wrote:
| ... and nearly all European corporations run US-made
| operating systems on some of their machines, many of which
| are critically important.
|
| A real untangling of the US and European economies seem
| both impractical and really inefficient.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| At this point it's inevitable, no matter the cost.
| touisteur wrote:
| Aside from life-saving medicine, I was thinking that the un-
| availability (not 'available with tariffs' but 'we're not
| selling it to the US anymore') of Ozempic in the US might
| become a political problem, maybe more so than many other
| trade-war hits. Maybe it's easy to manufacture it locally but
| the time-gap until it's up and running might be too much to
| swallow...
| tokai wrote:
| Not going to happen. It would kill Novo Nordisk, which
| would be extremely bad for the Danish economy.
| touisteur wrote:
| I think having Greenland annexed might also be a problem
| for the Danish. Europe might subsidize Novo Nordisk's
| losses, switch to distributing the meds all throughout
| Europe. And it seems the loss of such a society-
| transformative drug (and having millions of people
| gaining back all their lost weight would be a
| difficult/untenable political position for this
| administration. Just surprised not to see this much in
| the current news.
|
| Sibling in thread says there's already an US alternative,
| anyway.
| thfuran wrote:
| I don't think that would end up being a political
| problem. It'd just get spun as the evil communist
| Europeans trying to destroy America with their traitor
| liberal collaborators and used as justification for
| passing the FAT IS FREEDOM Act, which subsidizes butter
| production and eliminates capital gains tax and the
| library of Congress.
| agsqwe wrote:
| US has Eli Lilly with a competing product (Tirzepatide)
| tim333 wrote:
| I think so far F16s not F35s. Though you wonder if say the UK
| could use F35s in Ukraine without Trump trying to turn
| something off.
| pacifika wrote:
| What's the motivation, if the Russians have the strong cards in
| this upcoming peace negotiation the current administration feels
| the need to weaken the Ukrainian side equipment? Slice of the
| minerals?
| dashundchen wrote:
| Trump/Musk/Republicans have taken the side of a fascist
| dictator Putin. Every recent move wrt Ukraine has benefitted
| Russia. Even if it means betraying democratic allies and
| decades long alliances.
|
| It is so shameful and disgusting.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| Honestly curious what you, and proponents for continuing to
| arm Ukraine, think should be done about Russia's encroachment
| into Western Europe?
| rocqua wrote:
| What encroachment do you mean? There isn't much
| encroachment other than sabotage. Perhaps some financing of
| undermining political parties. There was significant
| encroachment of eastern Europe, but that has slowed down
| due to attention going towards the Ukraine war.
|
| The main goal in Ukraine should be to make sure that Russia
| has as little benefit from their invasion as possible.
| Luckily this is effectively wholly compatible with
| Ukrainian goals.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| Sorry, I should have said encroachment towards the west,
| or really just "invasion of Ukraine".
|
| > The main goal in Ukraine should be to make sure that
| Russia has as little benefit from their invasion as
| possible
|
| But how? Is it mostly to prolong the war until Russia
| gets tired of spending money and resources on it?
| oezi wrote:
| I wish Europe and the US would have just put their foot
| down and kicked out Russia swiftly and decisively in
| 2022.
|
| Rather the have adopted the doctrine of "Ukraine can't
| lose, but Ukraine may not win". Always supplying just
| enough arms to keep the Ukrainian front from collapsing
| not to "stir up" Russia.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| Doesn't seem like that would have made anything better
| though. I thought the general consensus was that direct
| action would have just escalated things?
|
| I watched a video recently that discussed all the grudges
| against the West/NATO Russia (Putin) has been holding
| onto since the mids 90s that makes them feel justified
| now.
| oezi wrote:
| But who cares if Putin escalates. He already is all-in to
| the tilt. If he had more he would deploy it.
|
| The only thing left would be nuking. He hasn't dared and
| likely won't.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/25/europe/putin-nuclear-
| warns-we...
|
| He has dared. Empty threats? Maybe... but that's quite
| the gamble to make.
|
| Edit: To downvoters...
|
| Why?
| oezi wrote:
| Why is it a gamble for the West?
|
| On the contrary: Should Putin risk everything for some sq
| km of Ukrainian soil?
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| I think he already answered that question long ago.
| verdverm wrote:
| or in 2014 when they first invaded
| rocqua wrote:
| Drain Russia in the war. Make them pay for every day they
| are invading. Make them pay in human lives, make them pay
| in losy industrial output. Make them pay in economic
| welfare. Not just on Ukrainian soil.
|
| If at all possible, take back any Ukrainian territory.
| Reduce whatever gain they got from this invasion. But
| even if the current line stands, the more Russia can be
| made to bleed, the less it will think that war can be a
| net postive for them.
| tim333 wrote:
| People have different idea but roughly the Ukrainian plan
| seems to be hold the current lines approximately, destroy
| Russian assets and work on Russia collapsing economically
| to the extent they have to pull back a bit like their
| Afghanistan experience.
|
| Anders Puck Nielsen on that
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNZ56C-f4a8&t=422s That's
| starting at the Ukrainian plan but it's worth watching the
| whole vid if you are interested.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| Thanks! I'll watch it later.
| oezi wrote:
| I am confused why you ask this of the proponents. The
| proponents think that Russia is performing horrendous war
| crimes and must be stopped from encroaching further. We see
| massacres such as Bucha where Russia had a couple of days
| and indiscriminately butchered innocent civilians and
| realized that there is no other way but to keep fighting to
| stop Russia from taking more territory and lives.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| My question is more looking for what changes to the
| strategy are proposed? Arming Ukraine hasn't stopped
| Russia from these crimes so far. There's certainly some
| turning point point where US, or NATO, involvement will
| be seen as a declaration is war against Russia and it's
| allies, right?
|
| Another commenter suggest sent a video about this that
| I'll watch later, I suspect the answer lies there, but
| thought I'd share with you so you can have some
| understanding of what someone who sees both side's
| surface level plans as confusing and problematic .
| oezi wrote:
| Arming Ukraine has absolutely stopped Russia from
| advancing and stopped them from committing more crimes.
|
| Nothing will stop Putin but force.
|
| Russia has no allies, just cronies such as Lukashenko and
| Russia is de-facto at war with the west. The front line
| just goes through Ukraine.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| Isn't Russia still advancing though? I've only been
| watching these video updates:
| https://youtu.be/G8jreLqRSXI?si=wopg1BQA1rc-jhfg
| oezi wrote:
| At a pace that Ukraine can handle and allows to evacuate
| citizens.
|
| Of course, with the US under Trump withdrawing their
| support we will see what will happen, but currently it is
| a stalemate.
| ascorbic wrote:
| Trump just wants the war to end. Ukraine doesn't want to
| surrender a chunk of its territory under bad terms, so they
| won't make a deal. Putin is more than happy to take a deal that
| means they win. Trump thinks that if he weakens Ukraine then
| they'll be more willing to take a bad deal. He also doesn't
| like Ukraine or Zelenskyy, so has no particular desire to do
| them a favour.
| hkpack wrote:
| > doesn't want to surrender a chunk of its territory
|
| It is not about a chunk of the territory.
| tsupiroti wrote:
| Exactly. For Ukraine, a peace treaty now that allows Russia
| to regroup and invade again in N years is not really
| helpful.
| azan_ wrote:
| Ukraine already surrendered chunk of its territory few years
| ago. You think this time it will be different and Russia
| won't try to take Ukraine again once it rebuilds its military
| potential?
| polski-g wrote:
| The difference is that in the future (assuming the mineral
| deal goes through), there would be US citizens operating
| mineral franchises on Ukrainian territory. So if Russia
| harmed them in the future, we would be drawn into an actual
| war.
| azan_ wrote:
| Assuming that USA would not withdraw their citizens prior
| to Russian attack. It's a big assumption with current
| administration.
| polski-g wrote:
| It will take more than 3 years to get a mining franchise
| operational.
| vanviegen wrote:
| Assuming mining those minerals would actually make
| economic and strategic sense for US companies,
| considering significant long-term investments require
| stability. And that a significant US workforce would even
| be required for that. And that the US administration
| doesn't just make a bargain with Putin about leaving
| these mining operations alone while doing whatever the
| fuck else they want.
| vanviegen wrote:
| > Putin is more than happy to take a deal that means they
| win.
|
| That is not at all evident. Russia's economy is in a terrible
| spot, and might collapse entirely without the war ('special
| military operation') effort.
| acdha wrote:
| He forces Ukraine to take a bad deal by removing their ability
| to walk away. That deal involves more revenue for him and
| ensures that he gets to tell his voters that he kept his
| promise to end the war. His first impeachment was over trying
| to extort Ukraine's assistance in election rigging so the
| humiliation is an extra bonus.
| jopsen wrote:
| I'm not sure Denmark is going to cancel our F35 orders. From a
| security perspective, it's certainly in our interest to pretend
| this isn't a big deal. And that everything is normal.
|
| But I'm not surprised that our prime minister recently did not
| leave out the possiblity of hosting nukes on Danish territory.
|
| Given the theatre in the US one could even say we'll need nukes
| to defend Greenland.
| realo wrote:
| The Donald wants Groenland ... After that, why not Denmark
| itself ?
| jopsen wrote:
| > After that, why not Denmark itself ?
|
| Hmm, the US welcome to liberate us from sour tax burden. I
| suspect the invading force will surrender when they see the
| liabilities :)
| darthrupert wrote:
| Trump probably is planning to cash in by raping the country
| of its mineral and oil wealth.
| tim333 wrote:
| I wonder if F35s will be like HP printers and refuse to start
| unless they phone home?
| DFHippie wrote:
| People commenting here keep speaking as though Americans all
| decided to do this. Trump didn't even win the majority of votes
| of those who voted. And those who voted for him had only the most
| nebulous idea of what doing this would mean. It meant something
| like "Those people who never treated us with respect will get
| what's coming. If they don't love us they will fear us."
|
| This happens all the time. "Russia did X." "The UK just did
| stupid thing Y." "Why are Germans suddenly authoritarian again?"
|
| There are always lots of people who disagree with the actions of
| their government. Some governments -- the US government
| increasingly so -- punish dissent. Russians, for one, have almost
| no say over what their government does. Americans in general are
| not making these terrible decisions. Some cabal is, but even the
| Republicans, who have all the power at the moment, are mostly
| just knuckling under to decisions they know are terrible.
|
| I know it's tempting to blame and hate people as nations, but I
| don't think it helps. In fact, it's how we got here in the first
| place: firebrands telling nitwits that everyone in Europe or New
| York City or wherever hates them.
| chii wrote:
| > Trump didn't even win the majority of votes of those who
| voted.
|
| he did win the popular vote this time, unlike last.
| eunos wrote:
| Still below 50% (49% something) so technically not majority
| but plurality.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| Trump: 77,302,580 votes / 49.8% of popular vote Harris:
| 75,017,613 votes / 48.3% of popular vote
|
| It doesn't matter it wasn't 50%. He actually won the
| popular vote this time.
| gmokki wrote:
| Technically you are correct. But actually the real
| winners were the extreme vote suppression tactics.
| Without them trump would have lost clearly: read the
| extremely conservative estimates targeted mostly non-
| trump voters: https://hartmannreport.com/p/trump-lost-
| vote-suppression-won...
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| I find it very funny how even faced with actual numbers
| you can't accept that he won the popular vote.
| DFHippie wrote:
| I find it funny how we're making the point that his
| election doesn't say that much about the aggregate
| opinion of Americans and you keep missing it.
|
| Yes, he won the popular vote. No, it doesn't mean America
| is massively behind his project. In fact, it is massively
| unpopular and its popularity is declining.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > "Russia did X." "The UK just did stupid thing Y." "Why are
| Germans suddenly authoritarian again?"
|
| This is just the language that is used to refer to the
| governments as well as the people/culture. It may help to
| presume that, in most cases, they're referring to just the
| governments.
| Eupolemos wrote:
| > People commenting here keep speaking as though Americans all
| decided to do this. Trump didn't even win the majority of votes
| of those who voted.
|
| True, but if Americans do not stop it, they own it.
|
| Nobody cares much if you meant to make an accident, you should
| have been more careful - especially if you run away from the
| scene.
| ctack wrote:
| @dang - why flagged?
| beveldropshadow wrote:
| Everything nominally related to Trump is getting flagged, even
| comments. Several unrelated comments of mine went from
| neutral/positive to flagged suddenly. Salty folks, or maybe
| coordinated, probably a little of both.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| I've noticed the same. Wish I knew if it was real people or
| an army of bots flipping switches to influence visibility for
| someone's gain.
|
| You're right, probably both. Unfortunately the question alone
| makes HN have much less utility.
| saintamh wrote:
| Politics is explicitly marked as off-topic for HN in the
| guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| acdha wrote:
| The guidelines don't completely rule out politics, and in
| this case the topic is of interest here since it dovetails
| with other political issues of long-running concern in the HN
| community: who owns devices with outside service
| dependencies, right to repair, etc. The question of whether
| someone who physically controls an ECM pod can configure it
| feels a lot like the question about whether John Deere can
| prevent a farmer from configuring their tractor's software or
| an IoT vendor can shut down a service without providing an
| alternative.
|
| One area where this is especially of interest is everyone
| considering their dependency on U.S. products. If you live in
| a country under military threat, questions like what happens
| if the first strike against Canada involved a malicious
| Chrome or Windows update or holding back a patch for a
| vulnerability the NSA wants to exploit is quite an
| interesting problem.
| mcmcmc wrote:
| The guidelines seem just vague enough to allow for
| suppression of topics that the oligarchs are touchy about
| while appearing reasonable. Tech is inherently political.
| ludwik wrote:
| What's "politics"? Any policy enacted by the US government?
| That's not how it used to work here.
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| Given how pervasive politization has become this would
| suggest that strict adherence to any "politics is off-topic"
| rule would necessarily involve making the site permanently
| read-only.
| silvestrov wrote:
| From the rules:
|
| > Most stories about politics, [...] _unless they 're
| evidence of some interesting new phenomenon_
|
| The US killing trust in its export of arms is definitely a
| new phenomenon. It breaks with +80 years of policy.
|
| All startups in SV will now have to consider if they will
| have an export market at all.
|
| Which non-US companies would now like to be dependent on
| whatever export restrictions that Trump might make up in the
| future?
| dredmorbius wrote:
| "Most" != "all":
| <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13531909>
| layer8 wrote:
| Flagging is done by HN members, not by dang.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42177590>
|
| <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23873461>
| tw2347288 wrote:
| I'm glad that this discussion finally takes place, even though
| the discussion is of course flagged.
|
| You can flag here, but the mainstream press has picked up the
| issue:
|
| "Can the US switch off Europe's weapons?"
|
| https://www.ft.com/content/1503a69e-13e4-4ee8-9d05-b9ce1f7cc...
|
| "Such is the concern that debate has turned to whether the US
| maintains secret so-called kill switches that would immobilise
| aircraft and weapons systems. While never proven, Richard
| Aboulafia, managing director at consultancy AeroDynamic Advisory,
| said: "If you postulate the existence of something that can be
| done with a little bit of software code, it exists."
|
| In practice, it may not even matter because of how already
| reliant advanced combat aircraft and other sophisticated weapons
| -- such as anti-missile systems, advanced drones and early
| warning aircraft -- are on US spare parts and software updates."
|
| There you go, finally mainstream press and politicians are
| mentioning the kill switch.
| jopsen wrote:
| Yeah, not delivering additional aid for free is one thing.
|
| But retracting support is the nuclear option.
|
| Figuratively, because you can probably one do it once, so you
| better pick a good reason for doing it.
|
| And literally, because small European countries do now have to
| consider nukes.
| jcgrillo wrote:
| > small European countries do now have to consider nukes
|
| It wouldn't be all that surprising to see Poland and Finland
| doing atmospheric tests in the next few months. Given that
| Ukraine gave up their weapons for a totally vacuous security
| guarantee it would make sense for them to build bombs too.
| 2025 could be the year of global nuclear proliferation.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| I don't think anyone is dumb enough to restart atmospheric
| testing. If you want a subsurface test to be public
| knowledge, there's a pretty good track record of how to do
| that: invite the press. Pakistan, North Korea, India &
| others can serve as a good example.
|
| In fact, while most nuclear powers have dabbled in the idea
| of 'how could we conceal a nuclear test', it seems that
| only Israel is capable of doing it. That is an argument
| from the absence of evidence unfortunately.
| titzer wrote:
| > while most nuclear powers have dabbled in the idea of
| 'how could we conceal a nuclear test'
|
| Given the sensitivity of global seismometers, I don't
| think this is physically possible.
|
| Maybe you could test one on the far side of the moon? :)
| jcgrillo wrote:
| The point of an atmospheric test wouldn't be to merely
| say "we have capability" it would be to say "we have
| capability and we're absolutely not afraid to use it, no
| matter what the cost." The idea is to demonstrate
| overwhelming strength and resolve, such that the opponent
| doesn't dare attack, not to escalate slowly.
| layer8 wrote:
| Not just small European countries, but all European countries
| that do not have their own nukes, which is all except France.
| The issue is, they'll have to leave the Non-Proliferation
| Treaty for that (except for the UK, I think), and once an
| otherwise respected country does that, the floodgates would
| be open in the world. The other problem is that such a
| decision would be very divisive in the European country's
| electorate, and therefore highly problematic on its domestic
| political front. This is simply not likely to happen.
|
| A more realistic outcome is that French nukes will be
| stationed in other European countries. But France is also not
| willing to give up exclusive control over those nukes, and
| the next French government could very well be far-right, and
| thus become as unreliable as the current US government. It's
| a difficult situation.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Not just European countries. Non proliferation is dead.
| mmcnl wrote:
| Whether there is a kill switch or not is somewhat irrelevant.
| There is a larger than nonzero chance that there is a kill
| switch, and the US cannot be trusted anymore. So we have to
| assume there is a kill switch.
| ascorbic wrote:
| That's basically what the article says. And that even if
| there isn't a kill switch, these weapons rely on constant
| updates and cutting those off is effectively a kill switch,
| even if it wasn't designed as one.
| silvestrov wrote:
| Lack of maintenance parts is just a kill switch with a timer.
|
| Jet Fighters need a lot of maintenance, they are not like
| cars.
|
| So a kill switch in software is not needed. If the US stops
| shipping parts, then it is only a matter of time before the
| Jet Fighters is an expensive paper weight.
| spixy wrote:
| Huge part of F35 (like the engine) is made in EU/UK. We
| could "kill switch" USA as well.
|
| https://www.ft.com/content/1503a69e-13e4-4ee8-9d05-b9ce1f7c
| c...
| justin66 wrote:
| It's false to say that all F-35 engines are made in the
| same country.
| jki275 wrote:
| Iran is still flying F14s.
| bambax wrote:
| Exactly. There probably is a kill switch (the temptation to
| add one is just impossible to resist), but it's not even
| needed. Stop maintenance, and in a matter of days these
| things can't fly.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| With absolutely no military experience, I find this thought
| process hard to believe. Namely that the existence of
| backdoors is hard to conceal forever, and that their
| discovery would do worse damage than what Trump is doing now.
| Given most administrations seemed interested in maintaining
| friendship with Europe, I don't see the strategic benefit.
| vanviegen wrote:
| > I don't see the strategic benefit.
|
| Selling expensive weapons that can never be used against
| oneself sounds like a pretty significant strategic benefit
| to me. Are there risks? Sure, but the US could just shrug
| if exposed. A kill switch seems likely.
| nosianu wrote:
| I just read here a few days ago how very dependent on regular
| US maintenance the British nuclear weapons are.
|
| "US support to maintain UK's nuclear arsenal is in doubt
| (theguardian.com)"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43299011
| louthy wrote:
| The Economist gives a more nuanced view [1]. Essentially
| saying the deterrent _is_ independent and if support was
| pulled by the US that there wouldn't be a 'cliff edge', which
| would potentially give time to replace.
|
| The UK has produced its own nuclear weapons in the past and
| has weapons grade processing at Sellafield. There's ~140
| metric tons of separated plutonium stored there.
|
| It is apparently enough material to build tens of thousands
| of nuclear weapons. Not every warhead had to be a billion
| megatons to be a deterrent.
|
| [1] https://archive.is/Qz2lI
| darthrupert wrote:
| Will America ever be trusted again?
|
| Also, stop flagging news articles simply because they are
| slightly anti-Trump.
| jfengel wrote:
| I don't know why anyone trusted us post 2016. Even with a sane
| President it was always clear that we were dangerously
| unreliable. And even if this insanity ends in four years it
| will always recur.
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| Could recent wars just be a worldwide plot for just accelerating
| economy (selling weapons, buying food, etc..)?
| mcmcmc wrote:
| No. War is bad for economies. It's good for firms that produce
| materiel but on the whole is a net negative. Classic broken
| window fallacy. Killing your workforce is a drain on economic
| growth.
| tim333 wrote:
| I'm wondering if the deal with Trump and Russia is just favours
| like they find investors for his questionable businesses and he
| helps them or if they do have kompromat? Apparently in the days
| they were entertaining him in Moscow it was quite common to
| provide hookers and film things and given Trump's character it
| may not have been that hard to get him to go along. He always
| looks rather embarrassed with Putin.
|
| Also it could explain this stuff which is hard otherwise.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| I honestly think Trump is just impressed by Putin. Like he
| loves the power that Putin wields and likes and wants that.
| Trump has consistently expressed his admiration of
| unconstrained power in all forms. It's not just a Putin thing,
| though I think there is a little extra going on with Putin.
|
| Otherwise, I think what Trump has said about Ukraine is more or
| less what he believes and wants. He wants there to be peace,
| quickly, so that he can be known as a peace maker. He wants to
| be known as the person who can do the undoable. His henchmen
| repeat it endlessly - "only Donald Trump could bring peace
| here". He does not care about the details for Ukraine, and he
| doesn't really care about the details for Europe - he's wanted
| to cut loose from Europe since the first term.
|
| In addition, there's probably quite a lot of personal apathy
| towards Zelensky specifically.
|
| Finally it's possible that his China hawks are also shaping his
| base tendencies to try to deliver a Russia-China split. But I
| don't think that Trump really believes in that, it's just the
| people in his admin trying to make something of this situation.
| And I don't really believe that even a peace favourable to
| Putin can deliver the type of split that the China hawks might
| dream of, at least within this term.
| devsda wrote:
| "Trump is an alien impersonator trying to destroy humanity from
| within to make it easier for the aliens to colonize earth"
|
| That is also a probable explanation for what's happening, if
| you believe in UFOs and aliens.
|
| Sorry, I mean no disrespect.
|
| As a non-american and non-westerner, it's absolutely wild to
| see what people are willing to believe when it comes to Trump.
| Surely, there's a more rational and simple explanation for
| what's going on ?
| kragen wrote:
| Perhaps you have thought of one? If so, the rest of us are
| dying to hear it.
| devsda wrote:
| It doesn't matter what I think or believe. What matters and
| what we know is that nearly half of America's electorate
| does not think that these allegations have any merits. The
| rest are free to believe or speculate whatever they want
| to.
| kragen wrote:
| What matters more is what's actually true.
| jbm wrote:
| My personal farfetched alternative theory is the "Earth X"
| theory.
|
| Earth X was a comic (lol) with one interesting idea -- if
| enough people preceive "A" as "B", "A" becomes "B".
|
| In the case of Trump, he despises the left wing camp for
| kicking him off Twitter and prosecuting him. As such he
| takes their nightmares that they believed in term one and
| makes them real as personal revenge. For an old man, it is
| no doubt the most satisfying possible end of his life
| possible.
|
| Far fetched but more realistic than "He's being
| blackmailed". Do you really believe the man has any shame?
| kragen wrote:
| Yes, the 34 felony counts against Trump proven in court
| beyond a reasonable doubt were about falsifying business
| records to pay hush money to pron star Stormy Daniels
| over their sex affair: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St
| ormy_Daniels%E2%80%93Donal...
|
| If he had no shame, he would have kept the money.
| tim333 wrote:
| I don't really want to divert the thread to a lot of
| questionable Trump stuff but there is some evidence in that
| direction. See for example
| https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/19/trump-
| fir... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/29/trump-
| russia... https://www.kyivpost.com/post/47630
| jpadkins wrote:
| Do you have sources that don't take funding from US Intel
| (USAID)?
| bigyabai wrote:
| I mean, you can just check the source used in the article
| they linked if you aren't afraid to click on it: https://
| www.facebook.com/alnurKZ/posts/pfbid027EZdp8n4vuBm97...
| jpadkins wrote:
| LOL that was the source? It was a random guy saying he
| recruited Donald Trump in the 1980s (possibly true), and
| then a bunch of conjecture based on appearances? No
| collaborating evidence? No details on what he recruited
| Donald Trump for or what they used them for?
|
| Thank you for a good laugh.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Sorry, did you want the Politburo to convene in the
| graveyard to deliver an official statement? Maybe you're
| waiting for a _really_ trustworthy Russian ideologue like
| Putin to examine the KGB records on your behalf?
|
| The story is corroborated by Yuri Shvets and Sergei
| Zhyrnov. You don't have to listen if the accusation
| offends you, but the pieces of the puzzle sure point
| towards kompromat more than glasnost.
| jpadkins wrote:
| The accusation doesn't offend me at all. Please send me
| the sources for Yuri Shvets and Sergei Zhyrnov (either
| credible journalists or first hand sources that I can dig
| through are fine).
|
| I am interested in facts, not propaganda echo chamber
| discussions.
| bigyabai wrote:
| https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5162890-assessi
| ng-...
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH6r8Oq-tu4
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/29/trump-
| russia...
| tim333 wrote:
| Felix Sater? I'm guessing he's not funded by US intel?
| But I really don't know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fel
| ix_Sater#Involvement_with_T...
|
| Or "Alnur Mussayev, former head of Kazakhstan's security
| service, who rose up the ranks of the Soviet KGB"? Was US
| intel funding the KGB?
| TrackerFF wrote:
| Who would have thought that the POTUS would be the person to kick
| foreign arms industries into sixth gear?
| pokstad wrote:
| Well he's been very vocal about NATO countries increasing their
| defense contributions. That doesn't necessarily mean that the
| US needs to sell all the weapons.
| mrighele wrote:
| "Trump Tells Europe to Buy American Arms to Keep NATO
| Strong". [1]
|
| "U.S. President Donald Trump complained Thursday that his
| country's decades-old security treaty with Japan is
| nonreciprocal, as he steps up pressure on allies to increase
| defense spending and buy more American products." [2]
|
| It's about buying more American weapons.
|
| [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-13/trump-
| tel...
|
| [2] https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2025/03/fd3521d51353-u
| pda...
| rocqua wrote:
| We're not increasing defense spending to appease Trump
| though. We're increasing defense spending because we
| realize a need for strategic independence from the US.
| Because for the comming 4 years, it's obvious that the US
| won't be a reliable partner, and might even be an
| adversary. It makes no sense for us to buy American if we
| need strategic independence from the US.
| bhaak wrote:
| > It's about buying more American weapons.
|
| He's an idiot if he really thinks that his actions will
| result in this.
|
| European defense stocks are going parabolic right now.
| tim333 wrote:
| Yeah this turning of F16 support is really going to sell
| them.
| monetus wrote:
| He is indeed an idiot. Often more of an idiot than anyone
| else around.
| ncruces wrote:
| And all everybody speaks of is expenditure, not capabilities.
| That alone should tell you what the goal is.
|
| Except it might backfire if Europe _understandably_ decides
| it must buy European.
| martin_a wrote:
| Yes, seems like things are already starting to take off:
|
| - Shares of Starlink's European rival Eutelsat have
| tripled. CEO says it can do the job in Ukraine. [1]
|
| - Boost for German economy: Armaments sector picks up
| former car industry employees [2]
|
| [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/shares-of-starlinks-
| europe... [2] (German only)
| https://www.n-tv.de/wirtschaft/Ruestungsbranche-sammelt-
| ehem...
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| He has been pretty vocal about exactly that. He said multiple
| times that European countries must increase defense budgets
| significantly.
| preisschild wrote:
| Yeah, but EU countries donated weapons like the F-16, which
| were bought from the US in the first place. So now we have to
| use another source for those weapon systems and the
| revenue/jobs won't end up in the US.
|
| Is this really what the US wants?
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| That's US's problem. Which is very minor compared to
| Ukraine's or Europe's problems with this war.
| goodluckchuck wrote:
| What exactly was Europe's problem? Did they not invite
| war by promising to provide only ineffective assistance
| to Ukraine? Which European nation does not have nukes?
| Which cannot flatten Moscow? Yet none even implied a
| willingness to do what it would take to prevent an
| invasion. Either win or lose. There is no honor in
| sending millions of young men to die.
| acdha wrote:
| Yes, but he said that in the context of buying American
| products. He wanted the American economy to benefit from arms
| sales, not a more independent Europe.
| Jerrrrrry wrote:
| Source please, that seems totally made up.
|
| He has been clear about NATO %'s, very little room for your
| confusion.
| przemub wrote:
| EU is being threatened with tariffs because we're not
| buying ,,enough" things from the US, including among
| others arms. The ,,suggestion" has always been to spend
| that money in the USA.
| acdha wrote:
| Almost every time he talks about it you'll see some
| detail like this link shared by someone else:
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-13/trump-
| tel...
| goodluckchuck wrote:
| Historically, an independent Europe has meant continental
| war after continental war, and Europe is again pushing for
| a continental war.
| acdha wrote:
| This isn't "Europe" pushing for a war, that's solely
| Russia. That's also why this policy reversal is so
| shocking: until recently, pretty much everyone accepted
| the post-WWII consensus that the United States helping to
| stabilize Europe was better for everyone. Trump throwing
| in with Russia is not only a betrayal of our allies but
| also dramatically increasing the risk of war since it
| tells Russia and anyone else so inclined that wars of
| aggression are viable as long as you make it financially
| rewarding for him.
| azan_ wrote:
| What are you talking about? Isn't it Russia that's
| pushing for a continental war, not Europe?
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Yes. To buy more American weapons.
| peeters wrote:
| Sometimes I wonder if he's a secret genius that leverages his
| own stupidity.
|
| E.g. he might be solely responsible for getting the Liberals
| reelected in Canada, something that a year ago you would have
| thought was absolutely impossible. But Trump is so deeply hated
| in Canada now that every time he mocks Trudeau it makes the
| Liberals more popular. Liberal support, which before Trump was
| elected was so low as to make a Conservative election win seem
| inevitable, has skyrocketed since Trump took office. It's now
| pretty much a dead heat, and that's before the Liberals have
| elected their new leader.
|
| So I don't know, maybe he just really, really wanted the
| Liberals to get reelected and he pulled off the only way to
| make it happen. Maybe he felt sorry that Canadians seemed so
| internally divided, so he threatened to annex Canada to unite
| us.
|
| Or maybe he's a moron that can't even understand cause and
| effect.
|
| https://338canada.com/polls.htm
| kccoder wrote:
| Just like everything else he's done, I'm not remotely
| surprised. I wonder if people realize where this all ends, and
| are taking appropriate precautions.
| regularization wrote:
| I am tired of being taxed and having the money go to forever wars
| in other countries. Slaughtering Palestinians in Gaza,
| destabilizing Russia, and on and on. At least Trump is winding it
| down in one place. If Europeans think a hardline against Russia
| is important, then they can pay for it. We're on the other side
| of the ocean.
|
| This is why the Democrats lost. All they care about is war in the
| Ukraine. Bernie Sanders supports the war too, but at least he
| says a few scraps from the table should go to US workers. But he
| is thrown aside. The Democrats were for the Ukraine war, Jill
| Stein and Trump were not, and Americans voted for this.
|
| Americans voted for this, Trump is implementing it, and all the
| warmongers and war profiteers and neocons have left is some
| neocon press and downvotes here for the majority American opinion
| which screwy old Trump is implementing.
| declan_roberts wrote:
| This was a democrat/liberal position until 2016, and now it is
| exceedingly right-coded.
| otherme123 wrote:
| A lot of that is inherited from Germany not going fully armed
| again after II WW, and some capable countries not making nukes
| (Spain and Italy halted their advanced nuclear programs when
| the US pressured for it, offering them NATO coverage). How
| could the USA ask now European countries to not develop nukes?
|
| It's in the interest of the USA to cooperate and be part of
| defensive alliances. When USA goes to their wars and they ask
| for help, Europeans, Canadians and Australians oblige. If USA
| goes full isolationist, the rest of the world _must_ develop
| their own nukes and their own forces. Goodbye to the dollar
| hegemony and the industrial military complex. USA fought hard
| with the USSR to achieve hegemony, and now that they got it
| they throw it away?
|
| If that's what US wants, it's OK, but I believe some people
| don't fully understand the reality or the consequences. The US
| citizen don't pay taxes for Europe protection; Europe citizens
| pay taxes to buy american weapons.
| regularization wrote:
| > It's in the interest of the USA to cooperate and be part of
| defensive alliances.
|
| Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and
| Romania are in NATO. "Defensive alliance" means the US
| bankrolls and guarantees their security, there is no two way
| street with them, they can do nothing for us.
|
| Finland is the most ridiculous case as Stalin could have
| easily swallowed it up in 1945 if it was in Russia's interest
| to do so, with little a peep from the West. Them joining NATO
| in 2023 is an absurdity. A military alliance which should
| have never existed in the first place - which both Taft and
| former VP Henry Wallace said in the 1940s.
|
| > Goodbye to the dollar hegemony and the industrial military
| complex. Goodbye military industrial complex? Hallelujah!
|
| > USA fought hard with the USSR to achieve hegemony
|
| It's more absurd thinking. In 1917 Russia's economy was about
| Brazil's size. It was like an NFL team playing against a high
| school team for over a century. Russia barely even had
| influence over the communists in China.
| Etheryte wrote:
| The US is the only country to ever invoke NATO article 5.
| When the US did, militaries from all countries you listed
| came and fought the war in a far away land for roughly
| nothing at all. I can see where you're coming from with all
| your points, but I think they're very shortsighted. The
| money the US pours into NATO is minuscule compared to the
| income it receives from the petrodollar system. Already
| today we're seeing the nuclear weapons program discussion
| restart in many countries in Europe. The end result is a US
| that spends less on other countries, yes, but also a US
| that receives an order of magnitude less income from those
| countries than it previously did. All things considered, it
| will be a US with both less income and less influence.
| otherme123 wrote:
| Your view of "biggest is winner" is totally wrong. There is
| nothing wrong in supporting those small countries, they
| won't require you to move all your army to defend them. In
| fact, just by being allies keeps the peace, at a very low
| cost for both parts.
|
| You have a very small frame. If you let Russia, for
| example, take all those small countries for free, suddenly
| you have a bigger enemy. Not saying that they would defeat
| the US, but they can make worse problems. Because those
| little countries you despise are historically peaceful, but
| Russia not so much. Because Russia leaders are unreliable,
| for example: https://www.newsweek.com/what-putin-has-said-
| about-russia-ta.... By keeping Russia at bay, the USA keeps
| the hegemony more easily and for less money.
|
| Please, stop thinking that USA is "bankrolling" no one. USA
| spending on defense of those countries is basically zero.
| It's just a few military bases with a few dozens of people
| (20 in Bulgaria, 20 in Estonia, 20 in Finland, 20 in
| Latvia, 20 in Lithuania, 200 in Poland and 130 in Romania,
| the countries you named), and have nukes at home that they
| were going to have anyway. By contrast, those countries
| deployed to Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom,
| answering the USA call: Bulgaria 600, Estonia 250,
| Lithuania 270, Poland 2500 and Romania 1800. It was a
| bargain for the USA.
|
| > Goodbye military industrial complex? Hallelujah!
|
| I never said it was a bad thing per se. I only say that
| being an unreliable supplier of military goods makes you an
| undesirable business partner. A large share of the GDP of
| the US depends on military exports, so a large part of the
| population would have to find another job. Again: this is
| not bad per se. But, are you sure you (the USA) want this?
| How many Trump supporters and isolationists don't even
| suspect how much of the GDP is based on military exports?
|
| Another unintended consequence might be China becoming a
| more reliable military supplier than the US, thus
| empowering their military industry. Are the USA interested
| in that happening?
|
| Another consequence might be Europe becoming a significant
| player in the military industry, effectively moving jobs
| and GDP from USA to Europe.
|
| > It's more absurd thinking
|
| It was not about GDP, stop thinking in pure economical
| terms if you want to talk geopolitics. It was about
| _influence_. China has always been a wild card. But the
| USSR had a lot of influence over half Europe, half Hispan-
| America and half Africa. It 's not about economy: put and
| support a dictatorship in a country like Cuba or North
| Korea, and it doesn't matter how uber poor they are. You
| now have two pains in the ass, one of them with nukes and
| ICBMs, the other was once very close to be a nuke base
| pointing to the USA.
|
| For years, for decades, it was the USA who pressed the NATO
| expansion. It's imperialistic people like Putin the one who
| despises it. Again, you can be isolationist like
| Switzerland is in many senses, but then don't complain when
| others don't buy your shit, or develop nukes, or make
| friends with your enemies, or make alliances among
| themselves (like
| https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250226-trump-says-eu-
| fo...).
| iw2rmb wrote:
| First, reps where for Ukraine and now you are flipping like a
| vane. Second, $100b in weapon aid for Ukraine is just small
| change and old stuff mostly; and Ukraine could be one of the
| solid buyers for decades. Third, if you're not a filthy rich
| you are paying and will pay a lot more for the upcoming years.
| This could be a real win for US, Ukraine and even probably
| could overthrow Putin. But with that course of actions the only
| option for you is to keep stacking eggs.
| tim333 wrote:
| This particular story is interesting because it's not just
| about Trump stopping tax payer money, it's about deactivating
| US made weapons the Europeans have paid for.
| guerrilla wrote:
| I love the irony that it's the complete opposite of "America
| First" in practice.
| sorokod wrote:
| The Danish air force is likely experiencing a buyers remorse
| about their batch of F35s.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Danish_Air_Force
| Sammi wrote:
| "27 in total ordered; 17 delivered as of January 2025; 11 in
| Denmark and 6 in Luke Air Force Base for training purposes as
| of January 2025"
|
| Project is so far along that Denmark is probably stuck with
| them.
| sorokod wrote:
| If, and that is a big if, the US would allow Denmark or any
| other of their "allies" to suspend their commitments to the
| US arms industry.
|
| "The weak are meat the strong do eat."
| soramimo wrote:
| They can probably sell them to Russia or China a few years
| down the road at the current trajectory.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Russia wouldn't know what to do with them, given that they
| effectively do not develop weapon systems after the
| collapse of the Soviet Union. China probably has decent
| enough espionage they don't really need them, although it
| might make a nice political overture.
| soramimo wrote:
| And to clarify, this was a bit of a tongue in cheek
| comment implying that the US will become friendly enough
| with the two big autocracies of the world so they will
| officially buy arms from US defense companies (in which
| case Denmark can pass those F-35s to them).
|
| For the record, I dearly hope it doesn't come to this,
| but right now I'm not sure.
| timeon wrote:
| Russia can just ask US at this point.
| knubie wrote:
| Yes I'm sure the Danes are wishing they had purchased their
| fifth generation fighters from China or Russia instead.
| davikr wrote:
| The Chinese and Russian would certainly have provided
| continued support if they were on the other end of a
| conflict, differently from the Evil Bad American Empire.
| eitland wrote:
| Alternatively they could have went with not 5 generation, but
| still extremely good Gripen.
|
| It's electronic warfare capabilities have reportedly
| surprised Nato pilots in exercises before.
| __loam wrote:
| Gripen has an American engine and uses American licensed
| missiles.
| xdennis wrote:
| Presumably you can't brick an engine. The F-35 can be.
| eitland wrote:
| Can probably also use other missiles but I agree we need
| to get rid of all US dependencies and I guess a lot of
| effort is going on now to see what can be done to get rid
| of the American engine.
|
| Maybe a cooperation with French (Safran) or British
| (Rolls Royce) industry could remove their reliance on the
| Americans? (Not suggesting overnight but over the next 2
| - 7 years.)
| __loam wrote:
| Snecma Gripen would be pretty sick.
| justin66 wrote:
| The best medium range missile usable from a Gripen is the
| Meteor, which is a European product. Of course the issue
| is that production isn't high enough.
| __loam wrote:
| Good point I forgot about the meteor.
| simonsarris wrote:
| Extremely good is getting a bit over the top. The Gripen
| was designed in the 80's and it shows. It cannot really
| compare with something like the F-22 or 35 on anything
| substantial except cost. And if you're optimizing for cost,
| it becomes a question of how many pilots you're willing to
| lose to make it fulfill realistic roles.
| valdiorn wrote:
| Which jet will they prefer if they need to defend
| Greenland? A dated and affordable gripen, or an F35 that
| the Americans will just beam a kill -9 command to via a
| backdoor?
| xdennis wrote:
| That money could have been used on drones or other weapons
| rather than buying expensive paper weights.
| bambax wrote:
| There's zero chance the F35s will even be able to take off
| when the US attacks Greenland, while the chance of Chinese
| planes defending Denmark from the US is non-zero.
|
| Also, they could have bought European planes (Rafale).
| spixy wrote:
| Czech people also discuss it (F35s ordered in 2024, delivery
| estimated in 2031-2035).
| RandyOrion wrote:
| When totalitarian governments all start applauding what you're
| doing, using what you're doing as a distraction from a bad
| domestic situation as well as a justification for their
| dictatorships, you should know that something is totally screwed
| up.
|
| Yes, I'm talking about the totalitarian governments of China and
| Russia.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| you are talking about ( _edit_ almost) a third of the entire
| human population, as if you know better. Reality says - random
| armchair Western Educated Individual Rich and Democratic does
| not rule the day for a third of humanity by claiming some
| political imperative.
|
| More reality - the Muslim world is organized and very wealthy
| in spots. By confrontational and arrogant (see above) posturing
| and actions by Westerns, it drives power alliances to the
| Muslim world. So then there is one third of the actual
| population of the entire world, embracing the Muslim world
| economically and politically.
|
| Secondly and perhaps more importantly, the backdrop
| economically for all parties is substantially about Oil and
| Gas. In the USA, the Oil and Gas interests have gained the
| upper hand, and they know very well how to apply it. Oil and
| Gas industry has all the capital and all the ambition to
| expand, fortify and entrench for the next multiple decades. It
| is rarely mentioned in the provocative and divisive social
| "news" that fills the media in the West each day.
| RandyOrion wrote:
| The combined population of China and Russia is less than a
| fifth of the world (15-16 bn vs 80+ bn). Edit: should be
| 1.5-1.6 bn vs 8 bn.
|
| I'm only discussing Trump's behaviour and its effect on
| totalitarian governments, I don't have enough knowledge to
| discuss the rest of what you wrote.
|
| I think the recent series of Trump's actions against Ukraine
| have failed to send a message to totalitarian governments
| that matches his own words. This has nothing to do with how
| much of the population Trump rules.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| please read this page:
|
| https://worldpopulationreview.com/
| awkwardpotato wrote:
| From your own website;
|
| China: 1,419,320,000
|
| Russia: 144,820,000
|
| World: 8,005,176,000
|
| Russia + China = ~1.56 billion
|
| (Russia + China) / World = 0.195 aka 20% or 1/5 of the
| world population
| manmal wrote:
| Parent just forgot a decimal separator I think.
| epistasis wrote:
| To be fair to China, even they are "appalled" by what Trump is
| doing to cause chaos with Europe and to abandon Ukraine by
| holding talks about Ukraine without Ukraine:
|
| https://news.liga.net/en/politics/news/china-appalled-by-tru...
| 9283409232 wrote:
| China isn't actually appalled but they are trying to slip
| into America's spot in the world and they will likely do so
| successfully.
| ferguess_k wrote:
| It almost looks like China doesn't want but US somehow is
| dragging it towards that point.
|
| China has been mostly concerned about economic links with
| other countries and it has few oversea bases comparing to
| any of the other 4 big dogs.
|
| It doesn't have the mindset to be a region police, let
| alone a world one.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| China doesn't want to be the world police. It just wants
| the economic benefits of being the US without the
| security liabilities.
| ferguess_k wrote:
| Yup that's the idea. It's not going to run away from that
| police liability very soon. Probably in 5-10 years I
| think. Actually already happening right now in Myanmar.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Meh.
|
| Let's all be honest here. At the end of the day, what
| China wants is for everyone to shut the F up and buy a
| big screen TV.
|
| Preferably on credit.
|
| Anything that moves the world towards that goal will
| receive China's tacit support. Trump's moves are seen to
| move the world away from that goal, so we're seeing some
| signs of discomfort coming from China.
|
| But believe me, it ain't because they're concerned about
| Ukraine or freedom or "ideals". Or even because they do
| or do not want to be world police.
|
| We can't think about their goals in Western terms because
| the fundamentals of the thinking are just completely
| different.
| acdha wrote:
| I view it as China valuing stability. They want to
| control their interests, but countries like Russia or the
| post-Trump U.S. make long-term planning hard because you
| can't assume rational decisions by the other major
| players.
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| They say they're appalled so as to be able to take up
| opportunities left by the fleeing Americans in Europe.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| China doesn't care about Ukraine but they care about
| continuing to sell to Europe a lot.
| xeckr wrote:
| Ah yes, the only country in the world whose array of official
| foreign policies includes a "no limits partnership" with
| russia.
|
| The statement of the named Chinese official is either a
| psyop, or he is, in the parlance of intelligence agencies,
| "going native". I'm leaning towards the former hypothesis.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > The statement of the named Chinese official is either a
| psyop
|
| Or more likley China wants to sell to people, and thats
| hard if they are in a trade war, and spending money on a
| crash re-militarisation drive.
|
| It also serves China well to be on the side of the EU as
| they can mop up some of the trade thats being destroyed by
| the USA.
| ssssvd wrote:
| How about the 'totalitarian' governments of Saudi Arabia, UAE,
| and Qatar -- do they get a pass? What about NATO member and EU
| hopeful Turkey? Has India joined the 'Evil Club' yet? Is
| Israel's treatment of Arabs a shining example of democracy in
| action?
|
| For many Westerners, 'totalitarian' just means 'a country that
| has something we want but won't give it up for free.' If you're
| useful to the right people, you can treat women as second-class
| citizens or violently repress minorities--no problem, business
| as usual.
|
| Maybe get off your high horse and admit that moral outrage
| tends to be selective.
| jacquesm wrote:
| How aboutism, is that a variation on whataboutism?
| ssssvd wrote:
| I brought both so you wouldn't have to stress over which
| one to deflect with.
| FpUser wrote:
| No, it is a variation of exposing hypocrites.
| keybored wrote:
| Whataboutism is a legitimate rhetorical tactic. Without it
| we would just be exploring hegemonic (and hypocritical)
| talking points, forever.
| mola wrote:
| 20% of Israel citizenship is Arab, they get equal rights.
| Parliamentary representatives etc. they even get affirmative
| action in getting higher education. Is it perfect? No Half
| the country is fighting the other half to keep us a western
| democracy. But every time ignorants post half baked opinions
| and paint us as pure evil, more ppl here say, fuck it.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Much like how Americans can be good people under asinine
| leadership, Israel ends up criticized for the actions taken
| by their government.
|
| If Israel wanted a goody-two-shoes relationship with their
| neighbors then they should have considered that when they
| annexed the Golan Heights.
| ssssvd wrote:
| I have Israeli friends across the spectrum (except maybe
| ultra-orthodox, but including Ukrainian/Russian olim). I
| also have friends from Lebanon (not even Arabs). They all
| share different stories, many of them very ugly ones, --
| and not just about Palestinians. And many of them are
| Jewish and critical of Jewish policies.
|
| I know plenty of Israelis who are genuinely trying, and
| there are many of liberal-minded people with their
| conscience absolutely in the right place. I don't want to
| badmouth any of them.
|
| My point is -- if the same level of "trying" happened
| elsewhere (like in Xinjiang), Americans and Europeans would
| instantly brand it the worst kind of totalitarianism.
|
| It's astonishing how the same first-rank predators who've
| been devouring the world for 500 years now posture as moral
| messiahs. And that's coming from me -- one of them.
| YZF wrote:
| Don't let anecdotes shape your perception of reality. I
| have a feeling you're not familiar enough with the
| details.
|
| Parent is correct. 20% of Israel's citizens are Arabs who
| generally enjoy equal rights. They are members of
| Knesset, they are judges, they are in tech, they are in
| academia. Some of them serve in the IDF (though that's an
| area that can still use improvement).
|
| It's as far from totalitarianism as can be. And there's
| plenty of that in the world your Americans and Europeans
| let slide when it's in their interest. Most of the world
| is not free and democratic:
| https://freedomhouse.org/country/israel
|
| "Jewish policies"? What's that?
|
| Ask your friends from Lebanon what happened to the
| Christian majority that used to exist in that country? Or
| what happened to the Jews that used to live there?
| ssssvd wrote:
| My Lebanese friends are Armenian Gregorians, so I tend to
| consider their perspective relatively impartial --
| though, as you rightly noted, it remains anecdotal.
|
| As for 'Jewish policies', there are, of course, issues
| around settlers, the West Bank, and Gaza. My own view on
| Gaza doesn't favour any particular side - it's a deeply
| complex and painful topic, and I recognise the trauma is
| still fresh. But I was referring to a different angle.
| Many of my Israeli friends are deeply frustrated by the
| influence of the ultra-Orthodox community and the state
| policies shaped by that influence - whether it's on
| women's rights, voting rights for Israeli Arabs, or
| broader social norms.
|
| It's increasingly concerning given the explosive
| proportional growth of this community, which is on track
| to represent a third of Israel's population within a few
| decades.
|
| And yet, the topic of the ultra-Orthodox and their
| influence is exceedingly rare in the West. I wouldn't
| have been aware of it myself if I hadn't had a personal
| experience. Years ago, a girl who had run away -
| literally - from a Hasidic community arrived in the UK,
| desperately looking for a way to stay. She was applying
| for jobs, including a position I had open. Meanwhile, she
| was staying with some soft-hearted Jewish family, working
| as a nanny for their kids. I still remember her eyes and
| the dedication -- and desperation -- in her voice.
|
| My CTO at the time, an Israeli ex-IDF intelligence guy,
| soft-pushed me to hire her, even though she was
| absolutely unqualified. He told me, 'These people have
| enough resolve to become anything.' I didn't budge. But
| I've never forgotten that experience.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > Ask your friends from Lebanon what happened to the
| Christian majority that used to exist in that country
|
| War my friend, war.
| user3939382 wrote:
| These same people invoking the concept of totalitarianism to
| push their agenda are totally silent on the US allying with
| Al Queda in Syria. The concept that we have moral standards
| for foreign policy friends or enemies is a joke.
| tananaev wrote:
| Build trust for a hundred years. Then flush it down the drain in
| two months.
| ascorbic wrote:
| Not even two _weeks_
| ferguess_k wrote:
| That been said. Historically US got strong by screwing over its
| allies. For example to the UK during the second World War.
| tananaev wrote:
| What specifically are you referring to during the WW2? I'm
| sure it wasn't always black and white, but I think in general
| the US and western Europe were fairly good allies.
|
| Personally I think the reason the US got strong, especially
| economically, is because of stability, rule of law, global
| trade and economy of scale due to large enough population.
| Not because of specific incidents of screwing someone.
| callc wrote:
| I view it as US got strong by being late to WWII. Then
| every country in Europe, Russia was in shambles from the
| war. Japan got its expansionist hopes crushed by two atomic
| bombs, US' new "don't fuck we me I've got a delete
| everything button".
|
| Every other country was either recovering from being a
| colony, or not as far along industrially as US
| enraged_camel wrote:
| >> I view it as US got strong by being late to WWII.
|
| This is the wrong view. The US got strong because it was
| able to convert its considerable industrial might to
| wartime footing within a very short timespan (which was
| frankly an incredible undertaking), and also because its
| geographic isolation allowed it to focus almost fully on
| offense.
| keybored wrote:
| > Personally I think the reason the US got strong,
| especially economically, is because of stability, rule of
| law, global trade and economy of scale due to large enough
| population. Not because of specific incidents of screwing
| someone.
|
| (WWII^W) The US has had free reign to screw with dozens of
| countries since the end of WWII. And they did. But it
| wasn't your[1] country so then it doesn't count. Which is
| high school clique logic.
|
| [1] Except if you were a politically active left-wing
| organizer post-WWII. Then the US and government-backed
| groups in Europe could have screwed with you through
| Operation Gladio, for example in Italy.[2]
|
| [2] This is just an example. And I'm not terribly educated
| on the matter. I can't learn about this by watching the
| tellie. So it takes more effort than the stupor that a
| slogan like _100 years of building trust_ hints at.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > US got strong by screwing over its allies
|
| The biggest empire in the world paid for the US to re-tool
| its economy to produce arms for them. Later on the USA
| provided loans to continue that expansion.
|
| Then Japan entered the war and it got personal.
|
| Sure bretton-woods was a humiliation, but the Marshall plan
| was there to stop those humiliated allies from going
| communist.
| tenpies wrote:
| That's certainly one take, but I suspect historians will
| actually link the beginning of this trend to the
| European/Western reactions to Russia in February of 2022.
|
| It could be framed as "cancel culture overruled the courts".
| The second Putin became the "literally Hitler" of the moment
| well anything could be done - even things they didn't do when
| actual Hitler was around.
|
| This meant extra-judicial seizures including "preventive"
| seizures. No law was broken or sanction placed yet, but they're
| going to seize your assets now and figure out how to make it
| "legal" later on.
|
| Even the Swiss - neutral during WW2 - abandoned over two
| centuries of neutrality and went along with the EU in this.
|
| The message these countries sent was clear: if you ever oppose
| us, rule of law will not protect you.
| Gollapalli wrote:
| There's a good reason for people to flag these posts.
|
| It seems like most folks in the comment section didn't even read
| TFA.
|
| Per TFA, this impacts F-16s NOT F-35s
|
| Per TFA, the US is not actively "turning off" any piece of
| equipment, they are no longer providing updates (something with
| which we are all familiar.
|
| Per TFA, this means that the US is no longer providing active
| support in a country-vs-country battle of electronic warfare.
| Which is what the title and article says, and very different from
| what most of you actually READ.
| adamors wrote:
| > Per TFA, this impacts F-16s NOT F-35s
|
| Title it about F16s
|
| > Per TFA, the US is not actively "turning off" any piece of
| equipment
|
| From the article: "the Trump administration has cut off vital
| support for their [the F16s'] jamming capabilities"
|
| What article are you reading?
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| Exactly this: the US is not providing software updates anymore.
| The planes fly just fine. It is going to be tricky if they
| decide to stop hardware support - meaning spare parts.
| legitster wrote:
| The article pretty clearly explains how important the missile
| jamming feature is, and that Ukraine has to switch to other
| planes and equipment.
| Gollapalli wrote:
| Okay, let's separate this out.
|
| Functionally are the jammers now useless? Sure.
|
| Did the US make them useless? No.
|
| They're useless because the Russians figured out how to beat
| them.
|
| When the Russians beat them, America has basically been
| saying "Okay here's another version." And that's what has
| stopped.
|
| So all the moaning about how "other countries should be
| worried about their arms purchases..." or "kill switches in
| the F-35" or "Americans didn't want this," are basically
| whining about America refusing to provide arms and
| intelligence/cyber services for free.
|
| And let's break down one more final assumption. You seem to
| assume that I should care about Ukraine losing? I don't. I
| care far more about Americans being dragged into it for
| reasons that make no sense. So I'd like for the conflict to
| end.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| So, to conclude, foreigners shouldn't buy F35s.
| pseudony wrote:
| And as you aptly demonstrated. You don't care about the
| security needs of your allies.
|
| As for free support. Have you any clue how much economy of
| scale is unlocked by selling to other markets ? You profit
| from the sales, you profit from lower per-unit costs.
|
| Anyway. Whatever, you can count on the feeling being mutual
| soon, we are so done with you..
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Per TFA, this impacts F-16s NOT F-35s
|
| But this should absolutely worry F-35 operators.
| ryao wrote:
| What stops the Russians from reprogramming their radars to switch
| to a different frequency every 5 minutes as specified by a
| CSPRNG? It seems like it would make the manual reprogramming of
| jammers pointless.
| gotts wrote:
| These systems are much more advanced than how you perceive
| them.
| mrweasel wrote:
| So in the article, they talk about the AN/ALQ-131 jammer. It
| needs to be updated by the US, to keep up with the Russia counter
| measures, that's what's stopping. At least the F-16 donated by
| Denmark will most likely have pylons from Terma (ECIPS), which
| should work with the CJS from Leonardo (ECIPS/CJS).
|
| Shouldn't be to hard for Europe to make the required pylons for
| the planes who don't have the ECIPS and for those that do, some
| of them might already have CJS installed.
|
| It's a problem for sure, but it's a manageable one.
| gonzobonzo wrote:
| And the article itself appears to be making some logical leaps.
| It says it's getting its information from a Forbes article, but
| the information in the Forbes article is simply this[1]:
|
| > But the Russian air force could sidestep the jamming by
| reprogramming their radars to operate at slightly different
| frequencies. Under Biden, the USAF team might've kept pace with
| Russian adaptation by constantly adjusting the AN/ALQ-131s own
| frequencies. Under Trump, Ukrainian airmen are stuck with pods
| whose programming may soon be out of date.
|
| Some people were asked why this got flagged, by I think there's
| some justification for that given the fact that it's a
| misleading headline for an article editorializing another
| article, and that most people here used it as a jumping off
| point to talk about politics and not what was actually being
| discussed.
|
| [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2025/03/07/france-
| to-t...
| Narretz wrote:
| Well it's always good to be specific, but I think it was the
| only thing that the US did for the F-16, wasn't it? They didn't
| exactly support sending planes in the first place. And it's not
| gonna be the last wrench the US will throw into Ukraine's (and
| Europe's) gears. It all piles up.
| russfink wrote:
| Yes. The problem seemed to be the lack of continued updates
| that evolve with the Russian radar changes. This sounds like an
| anti-virus paradigm: base software plus signature files.
|
| Can't the Ukrainees (?) reverse engineer the update format and
| make their own on the down-low?
| duxup wrote:
| Trump administration is weakening the US faster than any enemy
| could.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I think this from French senator Claude Malhuret sums it up:
| This is a tragedy for the free world, but it's first and foremost
| a tragedy for the United States. [President Donald] Trump's
| message is that being his ally serves no purpose, because he will
| not defend you, he will impose more tariffs on you than on his
| enemies, and he will threaten to seize your territories, while
| supporting the dictators who invade you.
|
| I've thought for a while now that the U.S. has spent a long time
| building up subjective resources in goodwill, trust, reliability,
| etc. (you can certainly bicker about the details here). But with
| Trump, they're cashing in on all of that. They're selling the
| laptops and office chairs (sometimes quite literally) as a
| business strategy.
|
| I think there's a fatal misconception among many Americans about
| where their prosperity comes from. They're not special or
| exceptionally capable by any means. It comes from wielding
| tremendous economic and military power gently, preferring
| cooperation over conquest.
|
| My concern is that the consequences of the current strategy are
| too far into the future to act as a sufficient deterrent. It'll
| feel like it actually works for a time. But then eventually
| everyone hates you and adapts to exclude you.
| glitchc wrote:
| No, I'm afraid you're wrong. US prosperity is rooted in its
| overwhelming military might. People dare not take it on for
| fear of reprisal. Those who occasionally try are quickly
| reminded through reciprocal action. US companies benefit
| greatly from secure operations and relatively laissez-faire
| domestic economic policies to grow into world behemoths.
|
| Don't kid yourself for one second into thinking that your
| safety and security are tied to some "Kumbaya good feeling"
| that random strangers have towards you. The stick may be silent
| most of the time, but everyone knows it's there.
| rincebrain wrote:
| It's both.
|
| The stick being silent only works if people believe you won't
| randomly start swinging it if they cooperate, and people
| trusting you not to swing wouldn't matter if you didn't have
| a stick.
| tim333 wrote:
| Meh. I think that's backwards. The US has a strong military
| because of its economic success.
|
| Same with China. Get rich first then buy guns.
| jpadkins wrote:
| What alliance did the US sign with Ukraine? Ukraine is not and
| has not been a US ally. It's been used to make certain elements
| within our government and power structure very rich. It's been
| used to develop bioweapons we don't want to make on our lands.
| That's it.
|
| The US is not the global policeman and the US taxpayer is not
| the global defense financier.
| bigyabai wrote:
| > What alliance did the US sign with Ukraine?
|
| _Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with
| Ukraine 's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
| of Nuclear Weapons_
|
| > The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to
| Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final
| Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the
| existing borders of Ukraine.
|
| Which was negotiated as part of a package to prevent nuclear
| proliferation being required to provide security assurances.
| America's treatment of Ukraine will be remembered when
| diplomatic disarmament is proposed to North Korea and Iran.
| jpadkins wrote:
| Thank you. That memo is not a treaty, ratified by our
| Senate. Second, Russia clearly broke the agreement. Third
| it only states that the US is obligated to provide
| assistance if a threat or act of aggression _where nuclear
| weapons are used_. As long as Russia does not use nuclear
| weapons (or threatens them!), we have no obligation in this
| agreement.
|
| Also it does not specify assistance. Clearly the US has
| already assisted Ukraine in defending from the invasion
| from Russia. And clearly the US people are tired of
| assisting them. We have no alliance with Ukraine.
| bigyabai wrote:
| I'm not saying the US is bound by international law to
| follow this verbatim. I am saying that our stance here is
| exactly the motivation required to promote nuclear
| proliferation to any country that demands others respect
| their borders.
|
| Iran and North Korea now have no diplomatic path to
| nuclear disarmament. America has no credible homeland
| ICBM defense, either, so we're playing a very dangerous
| game.
| tim333 wrote:
| Over 6,000 Ukrainians performed military service in Iraq and
| Kuwait, as allies of the US. They signed the Budapest
| Memorandum.
|
| Russia/the USSR has been a main or the main enemy of the US
| for decades and Ukraine is doing the US a service standing up
| to them. Why do you think the US even had an $800bn military
| budget for decades?
| nosianu wrote:
| US Department of Defense article from 2019:
|
| https://www.defense.gov/News/News-
| Stories/Article/Article/20...
|
| > _In 2016, the U.S. and Ukraine agreed to a 5-year concept
| of partnership that focuses on developing a robust and
| capable Ukranian military and reforming the Ukrainian defense
| sector to be in line with NATO standards and principles._
|
| ...and a lot more. There are five main points.
|
| The point is, the US was _heavily_ actively involved in
| Ukraine for decades. They were not a bystander.
| keybored wrote:
| Nothing like a bully POTUS to bring out all the rose-colored
| glasses praising the US for something that it never was. Set in
| the context of a representative of neocolonial France speaking
| about "the free world".
|
| I don't understand the causality. Trump reaches a new low and
| the slogans about the benevolent past reaches a new, even more
| naive high.
|
| > I think there's a fatal misconception among many Americans
| about where their prosperity comes from. They're not special or
| exceptionally capable by any means. It comes from wielding
| tremendous economic and military power gently, preferring
| cooperation over conquest.
|
| For how many years has the US been not-at-war?
| 9283409232 wrote:
| Trump has had it out for Ukraine since he tried to bribe them.
| Telling them to find dirt on Biden or he would withhold military
| assistance. They didn't go for it and it is what directly led to
| his impeachment. While Russia absolutely owns Trump, I believe
| Trump would do this even if they didn't.
| MaxPock wrote:
| Zelensky campaigning with democrats didn't help
| 9283409232 wrote:
| Zelenskyy did not campaign with the Democrats. He met with
| both Dem and Republican senators throughout 2024.
| ta988 wrote:
| And the story continues. This means that no country will want to
| buy F16s. If you don't get support they are useless. They are
| eroding really fast the US shine and trust in the world. This is
| going to have a massive effect on the US economy, internal
| consumption will not save it. This is the end of an empire while
| its rich kings are golfing every weekend on the taxpayer dime
| using federal and local resources.
|
| I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people able
| to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against their
| own personal interests (they have proven already that other's
| interests do not matter for them). This sounds like self-
| flagellation seen from the outside.
| samcheng wrote:
| The best explanation I've heard is that this (almost) half of
| the US population doesn't care if it hurts a bit, as long as it
| hurts the other half of the US population more.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Not half - but probably around 30%
| signalToNose wrote:
| Most of politic seems to be about negotiating to keep a
| third of the population away from power. Because once they
| get in power they will trash almost anything in their path
| lolinder wrote:
| No, that's not it. I'm writing this from rural America in
| deep Trump territory, and people here are already struggling
| and have been for years. From their perspective they've been
| left out of the benefits of the global economy--the big
| cities and the coasts might be better off, but the middle of
| the country wants to go back to when they had opportunities
| and jobs for working class Americans.
|
| They're almost certainly wrong about the medicine, but their
| diagnosis isn't far off: globalization has not helped them as
| much as it's hurt them. Cheaper goods don't make up for dying
| towns.
|
| Edit: Downvoting people who actually understand Trump voters
| and try to vocalize their needs and perspectives just
| silences the voices that could be used to shape a better
| platform for the Democrats next time. You won't win elections
| by fighting a straw man invented by your echo chamber.
| api wrote:
| I don't necessarily agree with Bernie Sanders about the
| medicine either, but his diagnosis is correct: the
| Democratic Party abandoned middle America and the working
| class, so they abandoned it.
|
| America decided in the 1970s to liquidate its interior and
| its manufacturing base to make Wall Street rich from the
| labor arbitrage trade, and did so with the full throated
| support of both parties.
|
| I live in the outer suburbs of a middle American city. The
| idea that all Trump supporters are cult members is vastly
| overblown. There is some of that, but much of his support
| is exasperation. Rural and working class Americans have
| nothing to lose and nowhere to go but down. The choice is
| to vote for Trump or keep watching everyone commit suicide
| with fentanyl. They know Trump might be full of shit or
| might not have any real solutions, but they also know
| Democrats and mainstream Republicans will continue to sell
| them out.
|
| It's also important to understand that for the most part
| working class and small town Americans don't want welfare,
| which is the only thing the Democratic Party (possibly,
| maybe) offers them. They want jobs. They want to feel
| useful, to do useful things. Unless you are disabled,
| accepting welfare is disgraceful. I remember my mom (a
| lifelong Democrat BTW who hates Trump) feeling _humiliated_
| to use food stamps for a brief period when I was a kid.
| "These are for people who really need them. I don't need
| them." She worked as hard as she could to get off them.
| Americans want to do things.
|
| MAGA is as much anti-traditional-Republican as it is anti-
| Democrat. In fact I know a few Trump voters whose hatred
| for the likes of Bush II and the Cheneys is greater than
| for Democrats. It's a third political party that has taken
| over the corpse of the Republican party that Bush II
| destroyed.
|
| I didn't vote for Trump because I don't think he actually
| cares either, and I loathe the man in general. I also have
| two daughters, and his MAGA movement is full of people who
| cheer for pro-rape influencers like Andrew Tate or want to
| LARP the Handmaid's Tale. I can't vote for a movement that
| is openly allied with such people. Their performative
| scapegoating of LGBTQ people is gross too, and then there's
| the crazy autocrat ideologies lurking at the margins. Even
| if MAGA has some policy points I agree with, the movement
| is just too intellectually batty and personally disgusting
| to support.
|
| I see nobody on the US political stage that I actually
| like. I voted for Harris as a "holding pattern" vote in the
| hope that something better will appear in the future. It's
| better to stay with the bad option than to go for obviously
| worse options. If you look around the world "just shaking
| things up" with nothing better waiting in the wings usually
| results in a bad outcome. Successful major political shifts
| or revolutions require a superior alternative with better
| ideas.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Do you think they'll be able to observe that prices are
| higher and their lives are even harder? My greatest
| concern is that the disaffected voters will be persuaded
| to go on a "long march," for some sort of "five year
| plan," that prevents them from reacting to the extreme
| negative effects.
| api wrote:
| They're not as dumb as you think. They know tariffs will
| raise prices. What they _think_ is that tariffs may
| repatriate manufacturing, leading to more and better jobs
| and higher wages. Lower prices have resulted from
| outsourcing, which has resulted in their unemployment and
| under-employment.
|
| They had a different reaction to price increases under
| Biden because those were not resulting from pro-American-
| worker trade policies, or at least were not perceived as
| such. In reality Biden was doing _some_ things to try to
| repatriate manufacturing, but these policies were badly
| communicated if they were telegraphed at all, and they
| were not enough.
|
| Constantly assuming these people are all just stupid
| isn't winning back any votes. To be fair: Republicans and
| MAGA spend a lot of time attacking straw man Democrats
| and liberals too.
|
| BTW -- I see what they're thinking, but I suspect a lot
| of repatriated manufacturing will be so heavily automated
| it will not result in the mass employment gains they're
| hoping for.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Accepting price increases, agricultural failure and
| significant hardship because in five years someone might
| build a factory describes the five-year plan - the _real_
| one.
| mindslight wrote:
| How did they react to the first term of Trumponomics,
| with empty store shelves and massive inflation? There is
| always a scapegoat.
| api wrote:
| COVID was the scapegoat for that, which was partly true.
| phinnaeus wrote:
| > have nothing to lose and nowhere to go but down
|
| Which is it? I mean, I know it's "nothing left to lose"
| but how can "nowhere to go but down" fit in to that?
| mistrial9 wrote:
| insightful -- you should know that California Senator
| Dianne Feinstein and husband Richard Blum, personally
| made a billion dollars from creating the China -> USA
| cheap goods conveyor belt. Blum also owned oil
| transportation business. This occurred over the decades
| between the Oil Shock 70's and dot-com 90s. The trade
| changes are still playing out.
| Maken wrote:
| Maybe the USA truly needs more than two parties, so these
| alternatives can have a voice.
| api wrote:
| Oh yes. The two-party duopoly is a major cause for pretty
| much everything that's wrong. We also need term limits in
| Congress, badly.
| outer_web wrote:
| Can we add national referendums to override either house
| of Congress?
| marcus0x62 wrote:
| (Also a deep-red-state resident like the GP.)
|
| The way I look at Trump/MAGA is they took over an
| ineffective, sclerotic Republican party that spent 40
| years talking about "family values" while selling off the
| productive base of the country to globalization and
| letting rural America rot. The tea-party movement of the
| late aughts was their last chance to avoid being
| decapitated. They failed. The Republican party has been
| hollowed out and is simply not the same entity it was 10
| years ago. It has been taken over by a very angry
| insurgent force.
|
| As I see, the Democrat Party is where the Republicans
| were in 08/09. They have, perhaps, a few more years of
| whatever it is they are doing before they similarly get
| taken over.
|
| Best case scenario: we end up with a new political party
| (or two) that represent the more sane interests of the
| old guard and of the population as a whole. Worst case
| scenario: we end up with _two_ absolutely insane zombie
| versions of our two legacy political parties fighting for
| control of the nation.
|
| At least we don't have more guns than people and a bunch
| of nukes. -\\_(tsu)_/-
| gruturo wrote:
| > The choice is to vote for Trump or keep watching
| everyone commit suicide with fentanyl.
|
| Except, that's the exact same outcome you get even if you
| vote for Trump, unless there's something I'm not seeing?
| thesuperbigfrog wrote:
| >> Except, that's the exact same outcome you get even if
| you vote for Trump, unless there's something I'm not
| seeing?
|
| I think you are correct.
|
| Trump promised change and had "concepts of a plan".
|
| Democrats promised more of the same, and then realized
| that that was unpopular and then threw together a plan
| that they said would work.
|
| The reality now is that Trump's promised change may or
| may not help those voters economically, but the
| accompanying geopolitical disruptions may be worse.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| This is happening in other countries as well. It is often
| the internal periphery (former GDR, rural France etc.,
| poorer parts of the EU) that votes for anti-system parties
| out of bitterness.
|
| The liberal elites are paying for their inability to keep
| the societal compact somewhat alive. If too many people
| don't have jobs and can't find a dentist, they will start a
| "voter disobedience".
|
| Of course the second order effects will be huge, but it is,
| in a sense, necessary development. A democratic country has
| to be able to keep a majority of its people reasonably
| satisfied and well-off.
| timeon wrote:
| This seems to me more like simplistic attempt to quickly
| find the reason. In my poorer corner of Europe we vote
| for these "anti-system" parties for more than decade. One
| could argue that they actually are the system. And
| somehow when in the US every other time "anti-system"
| sentiment gains the rule (often without popular majority)
| people see it as deep trend while when other side wins
| then no-one is saying that "people like globalists".
| Because I think that it is not really the cause in both
| cases.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I think it was already 20 years ago when a French
| sociologist whose name I have forgotten showed that the
| share of vote for the Front National clearly correlated
| with various negative economic variables, including
| "distance from the closest still functional railway
| station".
|
| FYI I don't believe in "THE REASON" or "THE CAUSE" and I
| am wary of people who reduce complex issues such as
| voting patterns to one single root cause, but to deny
| that economic hardship is a significant factor in anti-
| system vote seems to be wishful thinking to me.
|
| Show me a relatively rich neighbourhood or voting
| district (say, over 130 per cent of average national GDP)
| with above average anti-system vote share, anywhere in
| Europe. I don't think you will find it. People who have a
| lot to lose don't rock the boat.
| epistasis wrote:
| That's a very very partial picture of it. There's a lot of
| hate about social change, people are terrified of trans
| people and that has been effectively turned into a culture
| war issue.
|
| Also your economic story doesn't hold water. The Biden
| administration successfully placed tons of factories all
| over the country with tax incentives for clean energy, but
| those factories could never trumpet what they were doing
| because hate for Democrats and for Biden and for clean
| energy is stronger than any desire for jobs. Similarly the
| destruction of the CHIPS act and its unpopularity in rural
| areas also shows that the economic opportunity aspect is
| just an excuse for the cultural hate that has been worked
| up.
|
| The best way to understand a Trump supporter that I have
| come to is a person that hates Democrats more than
| anything, and will do anything possible to bully them,
| including the economic destruction of the country. I have a
| lot of family like this, and for years I thought they were
| just joking or exaggerating about their hate, but the past
| year has shown me that they were earnest. It's not the
| 1990s anymore, this is a visceral culture war above all
| else.
| lolinder wrote:
| > The Biden administration successfully placed tons of
| factories all over the country with tax incentives for
| clean energy, but those factories could never trumpet
| what they were doing because hate for Democrats and for
| Biden and for clean energy is stronger than any desire
| for jobs
|
| Nothing has changed here. It's doesn't matter what
| they've claimed they're doing, there are still no jobs
| here and working class Americans feel abandoned.
|
| The vast majority of Trump voters around here voted for
| him because of the economy. The trans stuff was seen as
| evidence that the Democrats were so wrapped up in first
| world problems held by a tiny minority that they didn't
| even notice that the majority of the country was actively
| struggling to make ends meet. It's not about the trans
| people, it's about the narrative that Trump shaped about
| how that related to these people's economic lives.
| ta988 wrote:
| And for sure dismantling social security and all the
| safety nets including medicaid will help them feel
| welcomed again...
| lolinder wrote:
| As I said, they're wrong about the medicine, but Trump
| wins by being the first to acknowledge that there's a
| serious problem.
| bavell wrote:
| I applaud you for trying, but HN doesn't want reason or
| understanding w.r.t trump or his voters. Way easier to
| label everyone/everything as fascist nazis and stick your
| head in the sand.
| lolinder wrote:
| Thanks. I know. I'm here every few weeks with a fresh
| attempt. It went over better before the inauguration, but
| now that Trump is actually implementing the policies that
| he campaigned on it's a bit harder for people to stomach
| the idea that his voters are anything other than orcs.
|
| I'll probably give it a rest here for a few more weeks.
| monkey_monkey wrote:
| > I'll probably give it a rest here for a few more weeks.
|
| Even though you are the only person on HN who understands
| the working American, you deserve a rest.
| lolinder wrote:
| Nah, there are plenty of us here, we've just mostly gone
| underground in the face of the mindless hate and anger
| that's been dominant the last month or two. Echo chambers
| are self-reinforcing that way.
| monkey_monkey wrote:
| You are a brave soldier - almost a true resistance hero.
| Chapeau.
| coryrc wrote:
| He's not the first in the slightest.
| lolinder wrote:
| In the last 30 years, which other nominee for president
| by one of the two parties that matter has made addressing
| the struggles of working class America the center of
| their platform?
| coryrc wrote:
| That's moving the goalposts. There are plenty of
| candidates for Congress they voted against as well.
|
| But, sure, how about Barack Obama?
| https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/fact-sheet-
| creatin... The one who created the hated Obamacare, but
| they rebelled when their R representatives threatened to
| cancel the ACA.
|
| No, they're the byproduct of a failed educational system
| and culture of unearned entitlement. They expect others
| to save them from drug addiction while doing every
| possible to prevent help. And they only have this power
| because of the Senate represents land instead of people.
| deeg wrote:
| The CHIPS act was not only an acknowledgement of the
| problem it was actually doing something about it.
| TheBlight wrote:
| How is social security being dismantled? What exactly are
| you talking about? Do you even know?
| tayo42 wrote:
| They fell for misinformation because the economy was
| improving.
|
| People don't realize the economy isn't just a switch with
| good and bad
| sorenjan wrote:
| I'm not American, but the issue I saw time and time again
| from Americans getting interviewed by various news
| organizations was inflation, specifically food prices. So
| many people said that food was cheaper when Trump was
| president, so they want him and his food prices back.
| This is of course totally disregarding that the rest of
| the world also had massive inflation, and most of it
| comes from increased oil prices because of Russia's
| invasion of Ukraine, and governments printing money to
| use for Covid stimulus. The tariffs probably didn't help
| either, but I don't know how many of those Biden kept so
| I don't know if any side can be blamed there. I doubt all
| these new tariffs will help though.
|
| I actually saw a couple people saying that they've
| received a check from Trump during Covid, and mentioned
| that as a clear reason to vote for him. I thought it
| sounded dumb when I saw that he insisted on having his
| name on the stimulus checks, but apparently it worked. I
| also saw some people, southern women and big city black
| men, saying that they definitely didn't want a female
| president. That was probably part of why Hillary lost,
| and making the same play this time wasn't very wise from
| the democrats, although I would probably blame Biden for
| not dropping out earlier and leaving them very little
| choice.
| Aloha wrote:
| IMO - the trans stuff feels like a moral panic, like on
| the same level as the Satanic Panic of the 80's - or the
| violence in video games panic, or any number of other
| things - I'm just waiting for the storm to blow over.
|
| All of this is made much worse by social media too, which
| fans the flames hotter than it ever could have been
| before.
| WillowWithAWand wrote:
| >people are terrified of trans people
|
| For no reason. Trans people aren't doing anything but
| trying to live their lives but the concept of being trans
| disrupts their view of the world. People fear what they
| don't understand and because they don't understand the
| real reasons for their struggles, everything they don't
| understand can be conflated by a confident liar saying
| they are related.
|
| Possibly the most succinct summary has been sitting in
| pop culture for a quarter century but how it could apply
| to real life never clicked with most people: "Fear is the
| path to the dark side"
| masklinn wrote:
| > Cheaper goods don't make up for dying towns.
|
| And so... they vote for the cheaper goods and killing their
| towns more?
|
| > the voices that could be used to shape a better platform
| for the Democrats next time.
|
| The Democratic platform has been around providing succour
| and training to rural areas for several election cycles,
| Clinton's campaign included 30 _billions_ in
| infrastructure, training, and redevelopment, as well as
| healthcare and pension safeguard for coal counties.
| lolinder wrote:
| Don't you see how that platform is more patronizing than
| "I'll bring the jobs back home"? It's far more appealing
| to hear that your jobs were taken by cheap Chinese labor
| than to hear that your skills are out of date and you
| need training.
|
| It doesn't actually matter in this case who is _right_
| --as I said, they're wrong about the medicine--what
| matters is who understands the human beings who vote
| better. And Trump understood these people better than any
| member of the establishment in either party, which is
| _why_ he was able to hijack one and defeat the other.
|
| Inventing stories about how half the country just wants
| the other half to hurt won't help win the midterms and
| the next presidency. We have to get past that and
| actually look at what Trump voters truly believe, then
| speak to them as real people, not strawmen.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| We're talking about the "fuck your feelings" crowd right?
| krapp wrote:
| Fuck _your_ feelings. Take _their_ feelings very
| seriously.
| lolinder wrote:
| Again, it doesn't really matter if you like them or think
| they're mature in their attitudes and approach, they've
| now proven that you can't win elections without them.
| Figure out how to appeal to them or watch us descend into
| decades of Trumpism.
| krapp wrote:
| ... but appealing to them would mean descending into
| decades of Trumpism, because that's what they want.
|
| They don't want to be appealed to, nor do they intend to
| compromise. They want to tear down everything I value,
| burn it to the ground, piss on the ashes and put me up
| against the wall. I know this because they've told me
| precisely that, and have been telling me that for nearly
| a decade. They've been very vocal and clear about what
| they want, and it isn't to be understood, or to meet
| anyone halfway.
|
| I'm tired of being told that I need to capitulate and
| surrender and understand why I deserve the bullet. Fuck
| that, and fuck them.
|
| Trumpism Delenda Est.
| lolinder wrote:
| See, this is exactly why I felt the need to speak up.
| Trumpism isn't what they want, it's just the closest
| thing to what they want that's been offered. And if you
| let Trump be the only person who speaks to them for the
| next 10 years, you might actually find they they begin to
| believe that it is in fact the real thing.
|
| The economic woes come first, and it's still not too late
| for a left-leaning populist to take charge of the
| Democrats and give the people what they need while
| protecting minorities and LGBT folks. The only way we get
| to the social justice disaster that people are predicting
| is if we all collectively throw up our hands and write
| off 50% of the voters as a lost cause.
| wrs wrote:
| The trouble with this argument is that if what they want
| is to keep the coal mines running, _no one_ can give them
| that. If it's a disqualifying event to tell them that
| fact and offer to help, then it seems like we're on a
| dead-end road. The election goes to the people who lie
| about it to gain power and still do nothing about it, or
| make it worse.
|
| E.g., the party who actually succeeded in _doing
| something_ about health insurance just lost to the party
| who did everything in their power to stop it, and who
| immediately decided to decimate Medicaid when they took
| over. So you can give the people what they need and still
| get punished for it.
| tstrimple wrote:
| We've been hearing what they are asking for and what they
| are saying. The push back that Romney and McCain got from
| their own voters because they wouldn't attack Obama as a
| foreign Muslim. What will it take for people to believe
| that people who state "He's not hurting the people he's
| supposed to be hurting" actually want to hurt people. We
| don't want the same things with different paths to get
| there. We have fundamentally different values.
| watwut wrote:
| I like how Trump is not what they want only when there is
| a need to deflect the blame. But when someone needs to
| deflect blame from Trump, then he is doing exactly what
| his voters want.
|
| And somehow, when left and democrats are doing something
| bad, left and democrats are to be blamed. And when
| conservatives or right do something bad ... left and
| democrats are to be blamed.
|
| > The economic woes come first
|
| No they do not. Trump does not make economy better, you
| know it, they know it, I know it. It is not about
| removing fraud or corruption, Trump is fraudster and they
| know it, you know it and Trump himself knows it.
|
| It was a stream of lies and hate that won and people
| voted for. It has nothing to do with economic policies
| that could help these people or not. Pretending to
| yourself that some rational policy can counteract it is
| how you loose.
| yesco wrote:
| No I believe this discussion is about the majority of
| voting Americans.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| The majority of voting Americans live in cities and have
| jobs, so I don't think that's right.
| dpkirchner wrote:
| "I'll bring the jobs back home" seems vastly more
| patronizing to me. That's just telling people they're
| stuck with their lot and shouldn't try to improve their
| situation because daddy GOP will take care of them.
| NeutralCrane wrote:
| The reality is most people are stuck with their lot, and
| that's the point. These people understand the reality a
| lot better than the people making promises of retraining.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| What? You think these people are literally incapable of
| learning to work on a solar farm instead of a coal mine?
| Why?
| wrs wrote:
| I may be old fashioned, but it actually does matter who
| is right. Because reality is a thing.
|
| Being a leader means understanding the reality of a
| situation, developing a strategy, and understanding where
| people are so you can get them on board and all work
| together to improve things.
|
| It does not mean "understanding people" so you can pander
| to their misunderstandings and prejudices, and take all
| the power for yourself while making their situation even
| worse.
| lolinder wrote:
| Before you can be a leader people have to follow you, and
| in democracies people have to vote for you. And the
| unfortunate reality is that reality doesn't matter for
| elections, only the perception of reality matters.
|
| So if you want to be a leader, you have to start by
| understanding people and, yes, pandering to them. There's
| a reason why too many of our powerful politicians have
| been essentially indistinguishable from sociopaths.
| wrs wrote:
| Yes, the question is what end are they devoting their
| sociopathic skills toward? And isn't it the most
| "patronizing" thing of all to believe that people are too
| stupid to see that when they vote?
| lolinder wrote:
| So far Trump 2.0 has done exactly what he promised he
| would, and his supporters are quite happy. If his actions
| don't lead to the outcomes he promised that may change,
| as long as someone else who understands the needs can
| offer an alternative.
| wrs wrote:
| I think we did that experiment in November, and it
| doesn't support your assertion that people suddenly turn
| into rational performance evaluators after the election
| (or in this case an entire first term).
|
| In any case, this time around the likelihood is Trump
| will be long dead (of natural causes, I mean) before the
| impact of this election is realized. The change happening
| right now is generational in scale. The voters' children
| will be reading this chapter in their history book and
| asking what on earth they were thinking.
| sunshowers wrote:
| In _electoral_ democracies people have to vote for you.
| marcus0x62 wrote:
| > I may be old fashioned, but it actually does matter who
| is right. Because reality is a thing.
|
| Is that a position you hold consistently? Is there
| anything you believe that you wouldn't be swayed on when
| presented evidence to the contrary of your belief?
|
| I ask, because there is an _awful lot_ of mainstream
| Republican _and_ (here's the controversial bit) Democrat
| thought that simply has no basis in reality.
| wrs wrote:
| All humans do that. The question is, do you want elect
| someone who seems to be better at perceiving reality
| according to evidence than yourself, or worse?
| marcus0x62 wrote:
| I'd love to have that choice. Neither the Republican nor
| Democrat party in 2025 offers me that.
| wrs wrote:
| Well, then you have to fall back on whether one of them
| is at least better at it than the other, and it's hard to
| believe that would be a difficult decision at the moment.
| marcus0x62 wrote:
| That's one option. Another option is to reject that
| either major party offers a sane choice and vote for a
| third party.
| wrs wrote:
| Unless the election already has an obvious winner so your
| vote doesn't matter, that's just silly. Write an
| editorial if you're unhappy with the choice, but don't
| throw away your vote and just roll the dice as if you're
| indifferent to the two alternatives. (And if you really
| were indifferent to the alternatives this time around, I
| don't know what to say.)
| wruza wrote:
| _It does not mean "understanding people" so you can
| pander to their misunderstandings and prejudices, and
| take all the power for yourself while making their
| situation even worse._
|
| It does mean "understanding people" so you can pander to
| their misunderstandings and prejudices, and take all the
| power to do whatever you wanted to do. Their prejudices
| are the real part of reality.
|
| Politicians who forget this fact get owned.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| This is such an important point, and why I believe the
| Dems constantly "get owned".
|
| Frankly, everyone has prejudices, some stronger than
| others, but the Dems made it part of their ethos that if
| you even acknowledge having some of these prejudices that
| you're a bigot. But their fatal flaw is the Dems
| convinced themselves that very few people harbor these
| beliefs.
|
| Very real strategic case in point: I think it sucks that
| this is our current reality, but the American populace at
| large has now shown multiple times that they are not
| willing to elect a woman from the managerial class as
| President. It's not just Dems (e.g. Hillary Clinton and
| Kamala Harris) but Republican women have also been
| rejected multiple times (e.g. Nikki Haley, Carly
| Fiorina). I am not in any way saying being female is the
| only reason these candidates were rejected (indeed, I
| think one flaw on the Democratic side is that they pushed
| this "they just hate women" narrative too strongly), but
| in a ~50/50 electorate, a few percentage points makes all
| the difference.
|
| So the problem for the Dems is they want to appeal to
| this "higher nature", but, again, as much as I may
| personally not like to believe this, I strongly think
| that if they put forth another woman at the top of the
| ticket in the near future that they will lose, again.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| You realise Trump won right?
| mindslight wrote:
| What you say meshes with my understanding. The crux is
| how do we even pull up from this? It has essentially been
| the Republican playbook for the past few decades - the
| politicians enact backdoored policies that make things
| even worse, while personally looting and maintaining
| support with identity politics. Trump's main differences
| are the lack of usual political decorum, the level to
| which he's doing it, and how much his actions are openly
| benefiting foreign powers.
|
| The tough nut to crack is that it is _impossible_ to talk
| with red tribe voters about any of this! You can sit
| there and listen, of course. But as soon as you say
| anything that still addresses their frustration and pain,
| but yet diverges from their overly-simplistic party
| chorus, you 're now part of the "other" that is eagerly
| responsible for their problems and will just be
| reflexively argued with.
|
| And the situation has gotten so bad that lighter touch
| individual-freedom-respecting solutions (that they could
| possibly agree with in theory) aren't likely to even work
| now. For example twenty years ago, stopping the
| profligate government spending and handouts to banks
| could have stopped rural economies from continuing to get
| hollowed out. Allowing deflation in consumer goods would
| have allowed main street to experience some of the gains
| from offshoring. Re-setting the definition of full time
| employment to 40 hours per household per week would have
| slowed down the financial grindstone.
|
| Instead these days we're basically down to direct
| government stimulus to create new jobs - directly at odds
| with the medicine they think they need. Or even worse,
| completely uninspiring answers like UBI.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| >It's far more appealing to hear that your jobs were
| taken by cheap Chinese labor than to hear that your
| skills are out of date and you need training.
|
| Training for what? What if our population of working age
| people is far larger than our economy's ability to absorb
| whatever sort of service worker you imagine they should
| be training to become? Given a fixed total population,
| there's only room for x masseuses or y graphic artists.
| If we have n unemployed people needing training, and that
| number is higher than x and y combined (for any sort of x
| and y), telling them to retrain doesn't solve their
| problem. Some are going to lose out. The truth of the
| matter is that by offshoring manufacturing, we created an
| economy where there is a surplus of ultimately
| unemployable people.
|
| A message of training isn't _just_ bullshit, it 's
| _transparent bullshit_. Most people have an intuition
| that this is the case, after all. As for midterms, both
| the Republican and Democratic parties have a different
| strategy. They will simply import voters who will vote
| for them. H1Bs for the GOP, and the remainder of the
| naturalization pipeline for the Ds. It 's slow, but
| they're willing to put in the longterm effort.
| nradov wrote:
| Training for construction and manufacturing jobs. A lot
| of HN users don't seem to realize this but the USA is re-
| industrializing at an accelerating rate as the globalized
| system breaks down. The electric grid is growing fast due
| to higher demand including generation, transmission, and
| storage. The chemicals and plastics industries are
| booming due to cheap natural gas from fracking. Ocean
| shipping routes are getting slower, more hazardous, and
| more expensive. China's labor cost advantage is eroding
| due to demographic collapse and horrendous central
| planning policies (the USA has its own challenges in
| those areas but overall we're in better shape).
| rhubarbtree wrote:
| Ah, so it's the fault of the _workers_ that the rich
| decided not to invest in them or their factories and
| instead exported their jobs overseas?
| NeutralCrane wrote:
| And how has that been working out for those communities?
| Democrats have been in office for 5 of the last 9
| administrations. Wealth inequality is as high as ever
| during that time period. Whether it's because their
| platform isn't actually meant to benefit them, or because
| of incompetence by the party in implementing it,
| Democrats haven't proven to be any better to them than
| Republicans.
| watwut wrote:
| Republicans block improvements and then blame democrats
| for not improving things. They get power and make things
| worst.
|
| So, how is inflation and egg price doing now when bad
| democrats lost?
| jjk166 wrote:
| > Democrats have been in office for 5 of the last 9
| administrations.
|
| Democrats have had 4 presidents in office in the last 10
| administrations (11 if you count the current one),
| accounting for 24 of the past 56 years.
| lostdog wrote:
| How is it benefited these communities? They can get
| health insurance now, and Biden kicked off a
| manufacturing boom (as long as DOGE doesn't kill it).
| Sure, that's not enough to immediately fix everything,
| but it's steps in the right direction.
| nradov wrote:
| The Democratic platform has been particularly tone deaf
| and ineffective for rural areas dependent on resource
| extraction industries. Federal grants won't fix the
| fundamental economic problems. When Hillary Clinton and
| Joe Biden told unemployed coal miners to learn how to
| code that didn't go over very well.
|
| https://www.yahoo.com/news/joe-biden-tells-coal-
| miners-15210...
|
| (I am not claiming that their opponents have any better
| solutions.)
| masklinn wrote:
| > Federal grants won't fix the fundamental economic
| problems.
|
| The economic problems are that once a location reliant on
| extractive industries gets too expensive (and / or gets
| automated leading to orders of magnitude cuts to the
| necessary workforce) it's not coming back, the companies
| either fold or leave. Europe has coal countries which
| folded a century ago. Once your coal is too far to be
| cheaply extractible, even if new tech made extracting it
| viable once again it almost certainly would not need
| anywhere near the same level of crewing. And reactivating
| an old mine is probably not worth the cost over upgrading
| mines which are still active.
|
| So your only "fixes" are to flee the area or move to a
| new industry. And to do the latter, you need a way to
| kickstart the change. That's the goal of federal grants.
|
| The recovery of extractive areas is difficult, and may
| not even be possible if too dependent. And it certainly
| does not happen by clinging to the extractive industry
| which left you behind.
| simion314 wrote:
| How much is also the hate on LGBTQ and woke people? Just
| curious, I see in Romaia the rise of such fascist group
| that suck on Putin because he also wants the woke and LGBTQ
| dead and he is a Christian men that kills the assassinated
| the traitors in the name of God.
| lolinder wrote:
| The anti-woke grassroots rhetoric around here is more
| about how much of a waste of time it is when they should
| be focused on issues that matter to people's livelihood.
| It's not hate on LGBTQ so much as irritation that
| something that doesn't seem to matter (to them) is given
| so much emphasis while the working class struggles.
| bavell wrote:
| This is 100% correct based on all the trump voters I've
| spoken to.
| rsynnott wrote:
| It's... largely being given emphasis by 'their' side,
| though? Which side of the political divide spends all
| their time going on about trans people? I mean, it's very
| much the right.
| simion314 wrote:
| But is it given so much importance by the politicians?
|
| The reason I ask is that here in Romania the issue is
| completly fabircated by the social media and amplified by
| the algorithm. What I mean there was not a single law pro
| LGBTQ passed in Romania, the educational system is not
| teaching children about LGBTQ, there are no changes in
| schools or other places to unixes bathrooms, no forced or
| assisted transitioning programs.
|
| It is just media with conspiracies like the COVID
| vaccines makes you gay, 5G makes you gay, Bruxelles wants
| to make your children gay, Soros wants to make the
| children gay. There are also staged video with
| transexuals making a circus and shared on TikTok. So now
| we have a lot of idiots that actually thinks that we need
| to surrender to Putin so he can kill the traitors and the
| gays.
| ambicapter wrote:
| The culture war stuff FOLLOWS from economic depression.
| Once someone is in the financial dumps, they're already
| angry, and it's easy to redirect that anger to
| meaningless culture war stuff.
| lolinder wrote:
| See 1930s Germany. Even Hitler didn't arise in a vacuum,
| he gave people an outlet to express their anger at a
| _very_ real economic disaster.
| tw04 wrote:
| >No, that's not it. I'm writing this from rural America in
| deep Trump territory, and people here are already
| struggling and have been for years. From their perspective
| they've been left out of the benefits of the global economy
| --the big cities and the coasts might be better off, but
| the middle of the country wants to go back to when they had
| opportunities and jobs for working class Americans.
|
| But they haven't, they're just completely uninformed about
| what they're getting. If you think ANY of the rural farming
| communities could continue to exist without significant
| federal subsidies, you're crazy.
|
| Ask a farmer whether globalization has helped him or not
| the next time China retaliates to a tarriff by refusing to
| import any US soybeans and you'll quickly discover that it
| has absolutely helped them.
|
| Globalization is less the cause of their issue, it's
| deregulation. Consolidation of manufacturing has killed
| plants in those small towns. Consolidation of groceries[1]
| has made it impossible for small-town grocery stores to
| survive on their own. Both can be traced back to
| Reaganomics.
|
| Are the Democrats at fault for not attempting to reverse
| any of that? Absolutely, but the answer isn't: we need
| someone who wants even more consolidation and to kill all
| international relations.
|
| [1]https://ilsr.org/articles/policy-shift-local-grocery/
| itsanaccount wrote:
| Lol prepare to be talked down to.
| titzer wrote:
| Grew up in the midwest and still have a lot of ties there.
| You left out the absolutely gargantuan amount of right wing
| crazy propaganda that has all of them hating democrats and
| "The Left" and "socialists" to death. The most religious
| literally believe the Democrats are evil and want to
| destroy America. They've been harping on that for 40 years.
| lolinder wrote:
| There are always some fraction of nutjobs in any
| coalition, but in my part of the Midwest that is a tiny
| fraction of the voters. Most are just tired of change and
| tired of feeling left behind. To the extent that they're
| riled up by that rhetoric it's because it gives them a
| place to put their economic frustrations.
| xedrac wrote:
| In my experience, the average Trump voter is far more
| accepting than the average leftist, who will refuse to
| even engage with you if you think differently than they
| do.
| ProcNetDev wrote:
| This has not been my experience growing up in a rural
| America. Sure leftists might try to cancel you online.
|
| But I got my face punched multiple times for not
| preforming masculinity in a way that they found
| acceptable or for standing up for someone smaller and
| weaker.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| It's odd to me that you start your post with "No, that's
| not it", because I think that both your post and the one
| you are responding to are exactly correct.
|
| You state "the big cities and the coasts might be better
| off, but the middle of the country wants to go back to when
| they had opportunities and jobs for working class
| Americans. ...globalization has not helped them as much as
| it's hurt them. Cheaper goods don't make up for dying
| towns."
|
| I 100% agree with that. But I think that many folks are so
| enthralled with Trump because he was the first politician
| to really acknowledge this simmering rage, give it
| legitimacy, and say that it's all those woke, city-dwelling
| liberals fault. The GP comment says "The best explanation
| I've heard is that this (almost) half of the US population
| doesn't care if it hurts a bit, as long as it hurts the
| other half of the US population more", but that fits
| perfectly in with your explanation as well. A lot of Trump
| supporters are pissed as hell about the hollowing out of
| their communities, and they're looking to bring retribution
| for those they blame for their downfall (or the ones Trump
| has convinced them are responsible for their downfall).
| Heck, Trump even said it loudly and proudly, "I am your
| retribution."
| ambicapter wrote:
| Saw an interesting article on zero-sum thinking as
| contingent on the idea that the pie stays fixed, thus
| ruling out the possibility of "lose a little now, but the
| pie grows overall so your share grows more to compensate"
| (the basis for friendly trade relations, basically).
|
| What I realized was that, for people who've been "left out
| of the benefits of the global economy", that picture makes
| total sense--the pie didn't grow, and in fact probably
| shrank for them. Thus, zero-sum thinking makes perfect
| rational sense. It's an accurate worldview, and anyone
| trumpeting "the pie will grow, you just need to give up a
| little more (in increased taxes or jobs shipped elsewhere)"
| in spite of the evidence that IT HASN'T, must be either a
| fool or outright lying to them.
|
| Anyways, for the first time I felt myself understanding a
| little bit how these voters may feel.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| It's actually a bit worse than that, from their
| perspective. What if they see it as someone telling them
| "sure, the pie will shrink for you, but for me and mine
| it will grow and I'll get a bigger share of it and you
| should take one for the team so I can prosper"...
|
| Who would go for that? If it were merely about the pie
| shrinking, maybe that's just inevitable, and reasonable
| people would have to concede that it must shrink. They
| feel as if there is an element of fraud in the proposals
| that are made. Rather than miscalculation, rather than
| misfortune.
| LadyCailin wrote:
| Their pie shrunk, because they have nothing of value to
| offer. And instead of buckling down and figuring out how
| to provide value and making things better for themselves,
| they have decided to ruin everything for everyone
| (themselves included!) Coal mining is dying, and it isn't
| coming back, not because of some liberal agenda, but
| because renewable energy is a better business model. Car
| manufacturing has been automated and/or shipped overseas,
| because no one wants pay a premium for a shitty car, just
| because it was made by Americans.
|
| But, instead of focusing on spinning up solar panel
| production factories or cutting edge automation in
| automobile manufacturing or funding world class
| universities to reskill people in things the modern world
| needs, they'd rather double down on their protectionist
| agenda while blaming the liberals, despite it being 100%
| their own fault. Fucking over the liberals might make
| them feel smug, but the conservative position is worse,
| because now there isn't the remote possibility that they
| can get government funding for all these "socialist
| agenda items", never mind that it would actually help
| them.
|
| I'm not saying you're defending their position, but I am
| saying that they need to get over themselves, because
| that's the only way things get better for them. And don't
| get me wrong, I'm not saying things don't suck for them.
| I'm sorry for them that life is hard, and things change.
| It would certainly be nice if we could just do the things
| we're used to and like forever without needing to adapt.
| But shit changes, and being mean to trans people or
| whatever just isn't going to make their lives better,
| it's only going to make every one else's worse too. We
| rely on each other. We have no choice not to. So instead
| of being antisocial, they need to grow up and join the
| rest of us in the society we're trying to have.
| Cornbilly wrote:
| > Downvoting people who actually understand Trump voters
| and try to vocalize their needs and perspectives just
| silences the voices that could be used to shape a better
| platform for the Democrats next time. You won't win
| elections by fighting a straw man invented by your echo
| chamber.
|
| Living in Trump country doesn't give you any extra
| credibility. I also live in "Trump Country" and say that
| the real reason is because they're all goofs that fell into
| a personality cult due to the decline of US education and
| this country's obsession with celebrity. Who is correct?
|
| Save the downvote victim complex for Reddit.
| wruza wrote:
| A real goof is the one selling an evening dress to a
| struggling man.
| meroes wrote:
| Isn't that wanting your cake and eating it too?
| Conservativism rejects progress and changes by definition,
| so these people purposefully didn't adapt to changes since
| the rust belt occurred, and NOW they are so worse off and
| want blood in the water.
| NeutralCrane wrote:
| What changes should the Rust Belt have made that would
| have prevented the gutting of their communities when
| financiers and board rooms decided to ship their
| livelihoods to third world countries?
|
| There isn't a "progress" switch to turn on. The current
| state of the Rust Belt isn't because they are full of
| knuckle dragging idiots inferior to the coasts. It's
| because they were dealt the economic equivalent of a
| traumatic brain injury, and have spent decades trying to
| recover. Meanwhile, the areas of the country that
| inflicted this injury on them are now trying to convince
| everyone that it was their own fault.
|
| I'm as disgusted by Trump as anyone, and would never vote
| for him. But I am from the Rust Belt and absolutely
| sympathize with the anger that would make someone want to
| burn the system down.
| meroes wrote:
| Half my family is from the south and I lived in Ohio for
| years. They could have stopped giving tithes to churches
| on every corner and giving away their land and resources
| at pennies to massive corporations that have no
| allegiance and invested in education and social programs
| for the long term instead or in addition. The Rust Belt
| and the South were WEALTHY economies don't ever forget
| it. You can see the remnants of that wealth in the slave
| quarters adjacent to every house in certain
| neighborhoods, the massive plantations, the rusting
| industrial areas. They HAD money to invest in the past
| for securing a better future.
| samcheng wrote:
| I did read "Hillbilly Elegy" and come from a rust-belt city
| with rural family.
|
| I understand your perspective, but I don't think that
| explains most of Trump's actions. The (very valid!)
| critique of globalist profiteering you shared has been
| boiled down into something beyond economics and into
| tribalism.
|
| I blame decades of right-wing media dominance on cable TV
| and rural radio.
| newhotelowner wrote:
| All my employees are Trump supporters and Trump got 75% of
| the vote in my county.
|
| They want the 70s-80s economy back, but they don't want to
| support unions.
|
| They think they deserve to receive government benefits. But
| others are moochers, and they don't deserve it.
|
| They think Trump is deporting criminal / drug cartel
| illegal immigrants.
|
| My state is red (State houses & governor have been
| conservatives for the last 30 years). Yet they blame all
| the issues on democrates. When my state signed the carry
| law, they thought Biden was the one who signed the law.
|
| If you are in the deep trump territory, listen to
| conservative/religious radio stations. You will know how
| much hate they are spreading against liberal, trans, gays,
| and immigrants.
| lolinder wrote:
| > If you are in the deep trump territory, listen to
| conservative/religious radio stations. You will know how
| much hate they are spreading against liberal, trans,
| gays, and immigrants.
|
| You have to distinguish between the rhetoric being spread
| to hijack the economic woes and the actual root of the
| problem. All that stuff is designed to give people an
| outlet for their very real economic frustrations. It's
| not deep seated (yet), it's a tool to exploit them. The
| only reason why it's working is because these people have
| been ignored for too long by the establishment in both
| parties, and it's not too late to respond and adapt.
| coryrc wrote:
| Where were they when Bernie Sanders needed votes to be
| the Democratic nominee?
| lolinder wrote:
| Not voting in the Democratic primary because Trump had
| already shifted them to the Republican party.
| analog31 wrote:
| How big a role did race and religion play? I'm genuinely
| curious because the mainstream media won't talk about it,
| perhaps out of a sense of political correctness. But it
| seems odd that they're framing the election as a referendum
| on economics, when the Trump campaign didn't even float a
| coherent economic agenda.
|
| As I mentioned in another thread, the Republicans switched
| from "the immigrants are stealing your jobs" to "the
| immigrants are stealing your cats."
| lolinder wrote:
| It played a role in giving people an outlet to attach
| their anger to, the same as it did in 1930s Germany. But
| the economics came first and are still dominant in the
| majority of Trump voters I speak with. The vocal minority
| pushing the racism and anti-LGBT stuff are not
| representative.
| Aloha wrote:
| It's like you and I are reading from the same book! - If
| I just go off what I see online, most of the loudest
| anti-trans voices, and most of the racists, I'm more or
| less convinced have never met or gotten to know any trans
| people or any black people. It's a certain amount of
| willful ignorance on their part.
| edflsafoiewq wrote:
| Income is one of the weakest predictors of which way you
| voted. Race and religion are far stronger.
| jpadkins wrote:
| That's incorrect. Gender was a larger predictor in the
| last election (and then married status, interestingly
| enough). Trump gained in both black and latino voter
| share. https://apnews.com/article/election-harris-trump-
| women-latin...
| edflsafoiewq wrote:
| No, it is correct.
|
| Here are CNN's exit polls:
| https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/exit-polls/national-
| result...
|
| The largest split in any income group is 52-46, nearly
| even. The largest split by gender is only 55-43.
|
| By contrast, Blacks are 13-86. White Protestants are
| 72-26. White Jews are 20-79. White nones are 28-71.
| Ray20 wrote:
| >when the Trump campaign didn't even float a coherent
| economic agenda
|
| With what their opponents had? They didn't even need one.
| throw0101b wrote:
| > _Cheaper goods don 't make up for dying towns._
|
| Manufacturing output in the US is at an all-time high:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United
| _St...
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United
| _St...
|
| Though it's (a) smaller share of GDP compared to the 'good
| old days' of the 1950-60s, and (b) does not need as many
| workers because of automation. This is true in a lot of
| industries: various seaports have never imported/exports
| more goods, but have fewer dockworkers than decades ago
| because of containerization and giant cranes.
|
| Though one problem is of 'concentrated loss': if a
| town/area was dependent on one factory (or industry), then
| it could be especially heavily hit because of that single
| point of failure.
| Aloha wrote:
| You're more or less spot on.
|
| It doesn't matter that Republicans are slightly more to
| blame then Democrats in the thinning out of rural places -
| the folks who live there, IMO, see both parties as the same
| thing.
|
| They remember how their towns were when they were young,
| they had a bustling locally owned and operated main street
| full of commercial activity, they also often had a factory,
| or mill which provided good jobs too.
|
| Some of the parallel commenters here only think rural =
| farming, and thats not true. If you look at the Carolinas
| for example, there were textile and lumber mills - farming
| there is still more or less as healthy as its every been -
| but all of those other sources of employment which brought
| money in from outside of the community are gone.
|
| This story repeats itself in a bunch of places, Ohio,
| Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Michigan, and across
| the greater west too.
|
| This rot started well before Reagan though - it's something
| I've called "the 1971 problem". If you go on a road trip
| across rural America, you'll rarely see a locally funded
| building (aka, not a chain store), built after 1971-3 -
| with the notable exception to this being places with a
| military base, college, or some other government facility -
| and I think the causes are multiple here, post vietnam
| drawdown of forces, detente, the 1973 oil crisis,
| stagflation, the Nixon shock, then later the so-called
| peace dividend after the collapse of the Soviet Union and
| the end of the cold war.
|
| Globalization thru the 80's-90's just made all of these
| issues worse, and hollowed out manufacturing too - now all
| of this this effected cities too, to some extent, but as
| you mention, cities got benefits of globalization - more
| information economy jobs, greater wealth flowing in from
| the financialization of everything, which while didnt
| replace the jobs lost in manufacturing, did replace the
| wealth generated by it. (there are even more things I've
| not really touched on - like the steady decrease in local
| ownership of businesses, and the corresponding civic rot
| that kicks in when this happens)
|
| There is another issue I also want to touch on here - "jobs
| for regular people" - for a significant portion of the
| population, the best job they can hope for is a decent
| factory job, a job in the trades - or more likely today, a
| not so great service job. One of the reasons I want to
| onshore manufacturing is that we need those higher quality
| jobs to ensure the benefits of our economy are shared more
| broadly.
|
| I'm a proponent of tariffs as a way to solve this - not
| what Trump is doing which are penalty tariffs - but what
| I've called cost adjustment tariffs - tariffs that adjust
| the price of imported manufactured goods to the same level
| as if they were made here, where you price in labor
| differences overall regulatory burden, environmental and
| climate rules, and other factors - on a fundamental level,
| I feel it is immoral to export all the externalities from
| manufacturing to another country (pollution being the
| primary one I'm thinking of).
|
| While tariffs, even at some low level may result in slower
| GDP growth. People cannot eat or pay their rent with GDP -
| a more ideal answer (one I support) is UBI, but UBI doesn't
| appear to politically possible - and there is also value in
| being able to do work where you can see the fruits of your
| labor (both in the physical good you've made - and the pay
| check you get at the end of the week), for good or for bad,
| it gives you self worth and a feeling of purpose too.
|
| So I get why rural voters vote for Trump, and its because
| my side has failed to understand the economic pain that
| anyplace that isn't a tier 1/2/3 city has experienced over
| the last 50 years - and what their needs are for the
| future. In the end, I think Trump will fail them, and
| probably make everything else worse - but he's the horse
| that the American people who could be bothered to show up
| to vote picked (I'll note much to my consternation, that 3m
| less people voted in 2024 vs 2020).
| lolinder wrote:
| > It doesn't matter that Republicans are slightly more to
| blame then Democrats in the thinning out of rural places
| - the folks who live there, IMO, see both parties as the
| same thing.
|
| Yes, and they're very aware that Trump is not a
| Republican in the traditional sense. It doesn't matter to
| them which banner he hijacked, they know he's different.
| Aloha wrote:
| I'm more skeptical of that statement - sure, I think some
| are aware.
|
| Some are just blind partisans, otherwise those places
| wouldn't have been voting for team red for the last 35
| years or so.
|
| There is also the paradox of the low information voter
| too, which seemed to have broken for Trump 2:1 - that
| does concern me some.
|
| Trump also has a huge benefit with low information
| voters, he spews noise all the time which the news media
| covers with baited breath.
|
| I call it the "Trump says alot of things" problem - it
| allowed people to paint whatever they wanted him to be
| onto him by essentially cherry picking the various things
| he's said to make up their own collage view of whatever
| they wanted him to be.
| jajko wrote:
| That's what populists do, everywhere including Europe -
| they take _real_ issue and low-income & low-education
| folks (usually big overlap), tell then how they were
| wronged, play on their emotions, dumb down things to us-vs-
| them yada yada.
|
| But they _never_ ever deliver any real solution. Never.
| What trump solved in first term? No wall, he was joke of
| the world for that. No middle east peace - fuck, he _made_
| the invasion to Israel by giving Jerusalem official israeli
| status. Palestinians lost all hope at that point (I know
| its way more complex than that, I know, but this was the
| trigger point to go full mental like a cornered animal).
| Afghanistan withdrawal? Thats his contracts with taliban
| which made US look so weak they were shooting ducks as you
| guys and rest of west literally ran away for your life.
|
| To make any successful long term massive changes, you need
| a steady leadership. trump is the opposite due to his
| mental & childhood issues, heck he is the epitome of
| instability. And so he drags whole world into same
| instability, changing global markets from bullish to
| bearish within a week, losing literally all friends and
| allies, globally. No, puttin' ain't your friend and never
| will be, he is a murderous sociopathic p.o.s. till his last
| breath.
|
| If simpler folks refuse to see all this and much more and
| connect those few dots, your idea of babysitting them and
| hald-holding in ever changing environment is laughable.
| Even in Europe you guys consider semi-communist we don't do
| that, we can't do that, its idiotic. This problem is not
| unique to US in any way and solution ain't what he wants to
| do. But its so nice to hear all that crap, "I will fix your
| woes", "the others are to blame for all your issues" and so
| on. Full on emotions, 0 rationality. Folks, even societies
| work like that, but get ready China will overtake you
| sooner than you would like.
|
| I kept thinking he is just a russian agent brainwashed in
| 80s during his visit to moscow (maybe deep hypnosis or
| something else), but it seems more and more he is doing
| massive favors to China actually, since russia is already
| insignificant globally. I don't mean some pesky tariffs, I
| mean whole world will realign around China, and he is
| giving it all to them for free. Bravo.
| lolinder wrote:
| There are only three ways to beat a populist:
|
| * Abolish democracy (only works preemptively, abolishing
| democracy while they're in charge would obviously not
| work).
|
| * Wait for them to die and hope they don't teach what
| they know to a successor.
|
| * Learn from them and speak to some fraction of their
| core even more persuasively than they do.
|
| You don't defeat a populist by simple virtue of being
| right.
| the_gastropod wrote:
| > people who actually understand Trump voters and try to
| vocalize their needs and perspectives just silences the
| voices
|
| We've been falling over ourselves trying to understand
| these poor misunderstood Trump voters for nearly 10 years
| now. We've all heard these rationalizations many times
| before.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| This is supported by the research:
|
| There _are_ committed bigots in the Republican voter base.
| They're suburban and rural-rich.
|
| The rural poor Republican voters largely are, at least
| hypothetically (if you can get through their media bubbles)
| reachable by the right economic message. They're not in it
| for the racism or what have you. That's the suburban
| republicans.
| analog31 wrote:
| I know I responded to you once already, but the other thing
| I wonder is if globalization is really the issue here.
| There's also an inherent productivity gap between densely
| and sparsely populated areas. Had industrial jobs not moved
| to China, they would have moved to the cities.
|
| When people do build factories, which they still do, they
| build them in or around the cities, not in the country,
| despite having to pay more for land, labor, and regulatory
| compliance. If they do locate in the country, they choose a
| town that has a university and a hospital.
| nradov wrote:
| That's not really as true any more. The plastics and
| chemicals industry is growing rapidly in Ohio and
| Pennsylvania, and those factories tend to be sited based
| on easy access to natural gas supplies rather than
| proximity to cities.
| deeg wrote:
| But what is Trump saying/doing that's addressing their
| concerns? Cutting taxes for the rich? Tariffs? Renaming the
| Gulf of Mexico? Killing trans/gay rights?
|
| The closest is his anti immigrant rhetoric but my guess is
| that this will largely hurt farmers (although maybe they
| know better than I do).
|
| How is any of this helping fly over country?
| lostdog wrote:
| The saddest part is that Biden's infrastructure,
| manufacturing, and chips work would benefit them a ton.
| They cannot see cause and effect, and in the end they will
| get hurt the most.
| rectang wrote:
| Playing only zero-sum games. A positive sum outcome, where
| both of us benefit, is inconceivable!
| NekkoDroid wrote:
| Not even a zero-sum game, just straight up "everyone has to
| lose, but I have to lose less", a negative sum game I
| guess.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Take a step back and consider how hardened the divide is
| between "the two sides". It should have never come that
| far, how are you gonna keep national unity in a situation
| like that!? Are there other first world countries that are
| that divided?
| randomNumber7 wrote:
| US is probably worse cause no social system, but germany
| for example also feels divided.
|
| Half of the population benefits from the status quo while
| the other suffers. It is hard to tell whose fault it is,
| if this question even matters.
| eternauta3k wrote:
| How is Germany divided?
| wombatpm wrote:
| Did you see the areas that voted far right? Lots of
| overlap with firmer East Germany
| generic92034 wrote:
| That would not be a split in halves, by any means,
| though. East Germany accounts for about 15% of the
| population, last I looked. Also, the far-right AfD got
| about 20% of the votes in the recent election. That is
| also not a split in halves.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Why squabble at semantics here fixating on exactly half?
| 1/5th of modern Germany voting for the modern incarnation
| of the nazi party is a disgrace and speaks to the
| propaganda situation their population faces.
| generic92034 wrote:
| Simply because the statement was "half of the population
| benefits [..]". That is wrong. Feel free to skip
| corrections that annoy you.
| pegasus wrote:
| East and West. The differences in economic output and
| political leanings are stark.
| pumnikol wrote:
| You can see for yourself: https://bundeswahlleiterin.de/b
| undestagswahlen/2025/ergebnis... This shows the winners
| of the "second vote." Dark blue = CSU (conservative
| party), its outlines are identical to Bavaria because
| this party only runs there and, this time around, won
| 100% of the second votes. Cyan = AfD, far right-wing
| party. Its outlines are nearly identical to the borders
| of the former GDR. Gray = CDU, CSU's sister party, making
| up for most of the remainder.
| kingkawn wrote:
| Maybe the Nazi side of the country is to blame
| kingkawn wrote:
| Hilarious that this is controversial
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Increasingly so most western countries are getting
| fractures by the Russian and Chinese propaganda
| apparatus. Ask any rural/working class western european
| these days and whatever rhetoric they are primed to
| regurgitate to you is not dissimilar to what you'd get
| from a similar american: people who aren't white are
| destroying the country they claim, they claim they should
| be more insular and less tied to the global stage, and
| they are trusting charlatans who speak to these bigoted
| positions without ever actually reading their policy
| positions that solely benefit the oligarch class in that
| country.
| rsynnott wrote:
| The US voting system is probably fairly unhelpful, here.
| Most democratic countries have _multiple_ sides, and need
| to form coalitions; compromise is, of necessity, more of
| a thing. For instance, the next government in Germany
| will likely be a centre-right/centre-left coalition.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| It's _the_ root of the problem imo. However, with the
| majority of the population on a middle school reading
| comprehension level, it 's impossible to explain.
| rsynnott wrote:
| To add: Beyond the need for compromise, a multi-party
| democracy also provides a safety valve; if a fringe
| element of a major party grows _too_ fringe, it will
| often just break off (in the last 20 years Ireland has
| had _two_ new minor parties emerge from an anti-
| abortion/anti-LGBT fringe breaking with a major party,
| say). In two party systems, you instead tend to get 'big
| tent' parties, with the fringe elements on the inside,
| and sometimes one of the fringe element takes over. For
| instance, see the US Republicans with Trumpism, the UK
| Conservatives with Brexiteers (and later an attempted,
| though largely failed, takeover by Truss's lot, and, er,
| whatever the hell they're doing now, who even knows
| anymore), and arguably UK Labour with Corbyn's faction
| (again, this didn't really last).
|
| (The UK's a bit of an oddity here in that it's _kind_ of
| a multiparty state for historical reasons, but doesn't
| really have the right type of electoral system to support
| a multiparty system.)
| OKRainbowKid wrote:
| Disenfranchised, easily manipulated voters that want to
| tear down the system on one side, and people whose
| convictions are still somewhat based in reality on the
| other.
| baby_souffle wrote:
| This is precisely correct.
|
| Briefly, the parts of the map that voted for Trump are
| largely known as flyover country. To oversimplify things, the
| people in this area have been neglected and talked down to by
| some portion of the political apparatus as far back as they
| can remember.
|
| In some cases, the vote for Trump wasn't meant to be anything
| more than punitive. To get a rise out of the politically
| aligned groups that can afford to fly over and - literally -
| look down on.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Farm subsidies and other special programs have been flowing
| to "flyover country" at an enhanced rate for almost a
| century (for about as long as the government has done
| things like that) as a result of the constitutional rule
| that says each state gets two senators regardless of
| population. The trade war is presently creating an economic
| crisis for those farmers, who primarily sell their crops
| outside the US.
| brookst wrote:
| Kind of true but also kind of victim-blaming.
|
| Part of the reason many people consider those areas
| "flyovers" is that minorities, women, gays, nerds, really
| lots of people, can expect to get treated very badly in
| those areas.
|
| Now, maybe there's an obligation to turn the other cheek,
| reach out, and try to educate people in flyovers. But it is
| far too reductive to act like the blame points one way here
| and it's just snobby elites who have abandoned these
| populations.
| epistasis wrote:
| I think this is where "flyover" talk is so useless.
|
| Look at Minneapolis, and Minnesota in general. Wealthy,
| hugely diverse, amazingly Red rural areas and
| unbelievably Blue urban areas. It's a lot like
| California, honestly.
| architango wrote:
| I spend a lot of time in the "flyover" areas, and this is
| simply not true at all. Maybe it was long ago, but we are
| no longer living in that age. It seems like the media
| want to portray middle America as some kind of medieval
| redneck nightmare thunderdome, for reasons I cannot
| fathom.
| peder wrote:
| I'm not even sure it was ever true. I think it's just
| become part of the folklore of urban leftists,
| potentially as a way to justify their lives even when
| nobody was demanding a justification.
| bavell wrote:
| > Part of the reason many people consider those areas
| "flyovers" is that minorities, women, gays, nerds, really
| lots of people, can expect to get treated very badly in
| those areas.
|
| It's not all roses and butterflies but a blanket
| statement like "women/gays/nerds/minorities get treated
| very badly" in these areas is laughable and very
| "online"/detached from reality.
|
| Very snobby elitist take tbh.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| Oof. Please go visit "flyover county". Its just more
| Americans trying to make a good life for their families.
| brookst wrote:
| I have visited. My long-haired male traveling companion
| got homophonic slurs yelled at him in the street twice in
| four days. I'm sure those yelling were trying to make a
| good life for their families by chasing undesirables out,
| and I suppose it worked.
| canuckintime wrote:
| Flyover states versus costal states is too simplistic and
| inaccurate. A more accurate reduction is rural+suburban
| (isolated insular) communities versus urban (integrated
| diverse) communities.
| bennettnate5 wrote:
| You mean (almost) a quarter of the population--only 47% of
| Republicans actually support funding Ukraine less [1]. There
| are plenty on both sides that disapprove of the foreign
| policy decisions of the current administration.
|
| I've seen these "people in party x categorically do y"
| comments a whole lot more recently, and it really feels like
| a net negative to political discourse. Based on the source I
| pointed to earlier, there seems to be a plurality of support
| for at least continuing aid to Ukraine, with only 30%
| believing we're sending too much. Us vs them mentality won't
| help people recognize and voice disapproval of decisions
| within their own party that they don't agree with; we need to
| concede that people may vote a candidate for a narrow set of
| reasons (thanks to the two-party system) and have political
| discourse that encourages disagreeing with certain of your
| own party's views.
|
| [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-
| reads/2025/02/14/americans...
| KerrAvon wrote:
| That data is outdated. That support has eroded since then,
| and will continue to erode now that Trump has stopped
| equivocating (lying) about his position on Ukraine.
|
| Hate to break it to you, but people in the GOP will support
| anything Trump tells them to. The right wing political
| ecosystem is a closed system and it's driven from the top
| down, and they'll believe anything they're told, so long as
| the entire ecosystem is reinforcing it. They spent 60 years
| building this system; it works really well now. And it's
| the reason the country is now being dismantled, and the
| reason there's nothing anyone can do about it. This system
| was the cracks in the foundation and Trump was the
| nitroglycerin.
|
| There is nothing like this on the Democratic side of the
| fence. There's no centralization of opinion, and there's no
| media ecosystem whatsoever. The so-called "mainstream
| media" is now all owned by right-wing or at best center-
| right billionaires, so Democrats can't actually push a
| message even if they could get it together, because they
| don't have any microphones.
|
| There were attempts at a Democratic media ecosystem, all of
| them sabotaged by centrists who didn't want progressives to
| gain power. Because "better things aren't possible" wasn't
| a winning message and people on both sides of the political
| fence generally prefer progressive policies (until you
| associated them with the Democrats, then GOP support
| plunges.) But it would threaten people like Nancy Pelosi
| whose power and personal fortune derive from doing massive
| favors for defense contractors.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| There is a huge centralization of opinion among
| democrats. They all made tiktoks last week reading from
| the same exact script. If anything they would hugely
| benefit from a diversity of opinion.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| My mental model is that it will hurt the S&P500 but benefit
| the working class.
| epistasis wrote:
| How do you see some sort of benefit for the working class?
| Has Trump, Musk, or literally anyone associated with this
| administration ever made any move towards that? Trump in
| particular is famous for not paying people.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Tariffs are an inefficiency that lowers profits and
| raises the cost of goods but they also create
| manufacturing jobs which benefit the working class.
| That's my mental model- I'm not an economist. I also
| strongly disagree with the tariffs on Canada and Mexico
| and almost all of the current policy decisions. There
| might be a method to the tariffs madness though is all
| that I'm saying.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Take that thought further.
|
| Say we put a tariff on socks. And Hanes opens a sock
| factory in the US. Is a few hundred sock jobs going to
| help the millions who aren't making socks? Does working
| in the sock factory pay enough to buy computers and cars
| and other higher margin goods?
|
| Generally speaking, for broad tariffs, the answer is
| "No".
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Tariffs could mean a few hundred sock jobs but also
| cotton jobs, nylon jobs, rubber jobs, dye jobs, etc.
|
| All more expensive than importing but supports local
| economies. Again, I'm not an economist, and tariffs are
| not a panacea, but they are also not useless.
| alistairSH wrote:
| They're useless when used as blunt instruments as we're
| seeing today. Broad tariffs on raw materials and goods -
| the cost hurts the general public more than any benefit
| to the few.
|
| There's a place for tariffs. Protecting against countries
| that undercut us by skirting international labor or
| environmental laws is a decent example. Protecting a
| specific, narrow industry that has national defense
| implications could be another.
|
| But against Canada and Mexico? GTFO. That's nonsense
| that's going to hurt the average consumer.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I agree with everything that you've said. I think you're
| attacking args I haven't made- im against almost all of
| the current admin's policies including the tariffs. I'm
| pretty much only pro tariffs on China
| rsynnott wrote:
| > I'm not an economist.
|
| That much is clear.
|
| This can kind of be the case with narrow, directed
| tariffs (protectionism of a vulnerable uncompetitive
| industry, for instance see
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax), or in a
| developing country that has mostly primary industry (that
| is extractive industry, mining and that sort of thing).
| In a developed country, it's a lot more complicated; a
| lot of that manufacturing probably depends on imported
| materials or parts (so tariffs hurt it from that
| direction) and a lot of the market is probably export
| (which tariffs also hit, for tariffs more or less
| inevitably lead to retaliatory tariffs).
|
| And where you have heavy protectionism, the _consumer_
| tends to suffer, as the protected industries have little
| incentive to make their products good or cheap. See
| British Leyland; for quite a while the British government
| attempted to keep it alive by heavily restricting the
| import of actually good cars. Spoiler: it did not work.
| alistairSH wrote:
| How? Trickle down has failed every time it's been employed,
| most recently in Kansas. And as far as I can tell, massive
| tax cuts for the donor class is all we're getting this
| budget cycle.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| Since the Trump administration took over, Tesla shares and
| Musk's wealth are up by hundreds of billions, tens of
| thousands of working class are fired, prices are up,
| tariffs are making imports more expensive, welfare help
| programs are cut, retaliatory tariffs are reducing exports.
|
| How is your mental model literally backwards from reality?
| bavell wrote:
| > Tesla shares and Musk's wealth are up by hundreds of
| billions
|
| Not sure about musk's wealth but TSLA is down by >30% in
| the last 3 months.
| Erem wrote:
| One quick correction -- Tesla shares are down quite a bit
| since the trump administration took over
| wombatpm wrote:
| TSLA was up about 200 pts post election. His post
| inauguration actions have erased all of those gains.
| netless wrote:
| As an European with seizable(for me) position in SP500 etf,
| which I never inteneded to liquidate, am actually thinking
| to completely deinvest from US. Purely because of what
| Trump did and will do to Ukraine and because of his
| dismantling of postwar Atlantic security architecture
| MandieD wrote:
| Here I was, thinking that the most self-sacrificing
| action an American well off enough to have retirement
| savings (no immediate tax on capital gains) could take
| would be to divest from all domestic stocks and funds and
| shift to international ones.
|
| Might not turn out to be as self-sacrificing as I
| thought.
| rsynnott wrote:
| It'll hurt the S&P500, sure. Far less clear how it'd
| benefit the working class, tho. Like, how does that work?
| You'd expect a decline in economic activity (ie fewer jobs,
| and lower or negative wage growth for what jobs do exist),
| and an increase in prices. That doesn't help anyone much
| except _arguably_ the predatory super-rich (who can buy
| stuff up cheap), but even then it's not a clear win for
| them either.
| peder wrote:
| Holy strawman, batman.
| the_gastropod wrote:
| There's certainly no shortage of MAGA folk whose primary
| motivations are "owning the libs". But I think there's plenty
| of people who just truly believed in the nonsense Trump was
| selling.
| bmitc wrote:
| But that isn't what has happened or is happening.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| > as long as it hurts the other half of the US population
| more.
|
| if it was only half of the US population they want to hurt,
| it's also the rest of world, even the environment.
| ohgr wrote:
| Don't forget the F35s we all have.
| epistasis wrote:
| I always thought that the American Empire would be dismantled
| when it elected a leftist steeped in anti-imperialist ideology
| who wanted to better the world.
|
| Nope, turns out that the American Empire is being dismantled by
| something else entirely. A subset of the populace that feels
| jealous of those with more and scared of social change,
| reacting to try to hurt their fellow country men? A
| megalomaniac leader who is somehow completely controlled by
| Russia? It's hard to get the full picture.
| pydry wrote:
| It's not being dismantled at all. It's engaged in a sudden
| retrenchment which has been brought on by years of slow
| decline.
|
| They even say this - Rubio said that we do not live in a
| unipolar world any more - a comment which attracted weirdly
| little notice.
|
| Biden's approach assumed a unipolar world which did not
| exist. That's why the Ukraine war, from the American
| imperialist perspective, backfired.
|
| The achilles heel of the American empire was, ironically,
| always profit and greed. If there is one thing that could be
| used to persuade America to let its industry rot it is profit
| and its industrial malaise is largely responsible for the
| ever-more-obvious decline in hard military power.
| masklinn wrote:
| > It's not being dismantled at all. It's engaged in a
| sudden retrenchment
|
| Sounds like a destruction. The administration is abandoning
| both the US soft power and its abilities to project through
| allied countries.
| pydry wrote:
| USAID and NED propaganda and agitation are nowhere near
| as effective as they used to be and they have a stronger
| tendency to piss off foreign leaders and push them into
| the arms of rival powers. The golden days of the color
| revolution are over.
|
| The failure in Georgia to push back on the "pro Russian
| law" (a law similar to one the US has which required all
| foreign propaganda to be clearly labeled) was probably
| seen as a watershed moment that it was about time to hit
| the reset button on that stuff. That one didnt just fail
| it backfired.
|
| No US military bases have been closed though, have they?
| snailmailstare wrote:
| Germany must be wondering why it is keeping enemy bases
| on its soil.
| masklinn wrote:
| Japan was just asked why the US spends so much defending
| it...
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Because they went in to protect their own interests in
| the world after the world war 2. They dropped 2 nukes on
| Japan, remained in the country, and now they want money.
| Crazy people.
| rUwzx210 wrote:
| Given that all continuity of agenda posts are downvoted,
| they are probably true. Political truth is always
| downvoted.
|
| What is expected is to react to the latest headlines,
| accept them as truth and fight an approved R vs D battle.
| standardUser wrote:
| > Biden's approach assumed a unipolar world
|
| Incorrect, Biden treated China as a rival power and pursued
| an industrial policy based on this view.
| pydry wrote:
| Incorrect. He tried to box in China and contain it as a
| solely regional power by building military bases along
| the first island chain and flipping countries into the US
| sphere of influence.
|
| If China started doing something similar in North America
| the US would probably invade that country almost
| instantly (e.g. like it almost did to Cuba during the
| Cuban missile crisis).
| causal wrote:
| "backfired" makes it sound like you believe the US started
| the war
| pydry wrote:
| Few wars have exactly one cause, but to deny that NATO
| expansion was the main cause of this one is to be a
| western equivalent of an unequivocal and passionate Putin
| apologist.
|
| Even Donald Trump now admits that stalling NATO expansion
| and not treating Russian security concerns with utter
| contempt could have prevented this.
| Juliate wrote:
| NATO didn't expand. More countries joined it. That's
| rather a significant nuance.
| pydry wrote:
| Im not sure it's a distinction worth drawing. Other kinds
| of gang also expand by luring in fresh meat who join
| voluntarily in a fractious security environment.
|
| It's very vulnerable position being a prospective member
| of a gang. The fact that you try to join one for
| protection doesnt mean you wont end up being sacrificed
| when the gang leaders demand you "prove yourself" first.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| From whom do the joining countries feel they need
| security, in this "fractious security environment"? :)
| Juliate wrote:
| That's not a gang against another here.
|
| Those are democratic, sovereign countries, in an
| international order governed by law. Joining voluntarily
| a _defense_ alliance.
|
| And one bully country that keeps on bullying, and
| pretends to be the victim of everyone, and unlawfully
| attacks a neighbouring country.
|
| Despite its own twisted narrative, if someone took the
| wrong decision, that's Russia.
| azan_ wrote:
| > Even Donald Trump now admits that stalling NATO
| expansion and not treating Russian security concerns with
| utter contempt could have prevented this.
|
| Even person who panders to Putin repeat bullshit Russian
| propaganda? How surprising. The NATO expansion excuse is
| just ignorant talking point. Russian imperialism is the
| very reason why every neighbour of Russia (apart from the
| ones that are it's puppet states) want to be in NATO, not
| the other way around.
| philjohn wrote:
| The NATO Expansion line has been disproven to death.
|
| Putin sees the fall of the USSR as a historical wrong
| that must be righted. He uses NATO Expansion as an easy
| excuse to sell to the rubes, but it's just that, an
| excuse.
|
| He was going to go after Ukraine and Georgia NATO or not.
| pydry wrote:
| It hasnt been disproven even once. The usual attempts to
| do so deny geopolitical realities (e.g. assuming the
| Finland-Russia border is as vulnerable as the Ukraine
| border).
|
| Georgia was, obviously, left alone after it dropped its
| NATO ambitions, disproving the rather quaint theory that
| Putin is intent on reforming the USSR.
| philjohn wrote:
| Excuse me? Are you claiming that occupying 20% of
| Georgia's land mass is "leaving them alone"?
| pydry wrote:
| Abkhazia and South Ossetia are to Georgia what Kosovo is
| to Serbia.
|
| Serbia did not get Kosovo back did it?
| hetman wrote:
| According to the Kremlin, this means Russia dictating
| security policy to a population double its own. You may
| choose to believe that you can count on one hand the
| number of countries in the world with genuine
| sovereignty, but I assure you the citizens of the other
| countries will beg to differ.
|
| Also it's not clear what "Even Donald Trump now
| admits..."is intended to mean here. Donald Trump has
| always repeated Kremlin talking points so I'm not sure
| why anyone would think of this as novel.
| pydry wrote:
| >Also it's not clear what "Even Donald Trump now admits
|
| Obviously American left coast DNC die hards and
| neoliberals hate him with a passion that beggars belief
| but he's basically still a different face of American
| imperialism repesenting similar goals with a changed
| strategy. Patching things up with Russia is part of that.
|
| The conspiracy theory that he's a Russian plant is
| amusing, but a delusion to which even the most die hard
| Putin supporter cannot reach. I guess it's easier to
| admit than the idea that America lost.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > Even Donald Trump now admits that stalling NATO
| expansion and not treating Russian security concerns with
| utter contempt could have prevented this.
|
| EVEN Donald Trump? As if minihands is the staunchest
| critic of Russia? I mean, c'mon. Pretty much _only_
| Donald Trump claims this outside the context of actual
| Russian propaganda.
|
| It's a terribly flimsy argument. Like, no-one has ever,
| as far as I know, said that Poland should invade Belarus
| because it joined the CSTO, say. Because that would be
| obviously ridiculous; actually joining, never mind
| wanting to join, a defensive treaty organisation is no
| sort of excuse for invasion. None of this makes any sense
| unless you accept to start with that Russia has some sort
| of rights over Ukraine, and no-one really buys that
| except for Russia.
| ericjmorey wrote:
| Putin is the reason why NATO had more members join. This
| war is 100% all Putin's making.
| OKRainbowKid wrote:
| "Even" Donald Trump? The man who many accuse of being a
| Russian asset and having more sympathy for Putin than for
| decade-long allies? That Donald Trump?
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| The cause of a war is the first illegal action in it.
|
| Allying with other countries is not illegal, therefore it
| cannot be a cause of a war.
|
| russia invading a sovereign country is illegal, therefore
| it was the cause of the war.
| mejari wrote:
| >Even Donald Trump now admits that stalling NATO
| expansion and not treating Russian security concerns with
| utter contempt could have prevented this.
|
| I'm confused why you would phrase it as "even Donald
| Trump", as if we should somehow expect Trump to _not_ buy
| in to Putin 's propaganda line? The fact that Trump
| "admits" that he agrees with Putin should not give any
| weight to what Putin claims.
| forgotTheLast wrote:
| I assume they meant that the Biden administration's
| approach backfired because instead of isolating Russia on
| the world stage it strengthened its ties with other
| countries and China in particular.
| jajko wrote:
| I don't think you understand some terms you are using, ie
| unipolar
| sho_hn wrote:
| I think the meta is studying history, and wondering if any
| slide toward facism has ever been successfully stopped in its
| tracks without being beaten down in wars.
|
| The two sort-of examples in Western history I can think of
| are Spain after Franco, and the UK in the 1930s. In Spain a
| monarch's left-shift was perhaps the deciding and surprising
| variable, and in the UK it was a powerful civil rights
| movement.
|
| The US has neither, so I don't know what to expect. The two-
| party system also makes it very hard to bootstrap meaningful
| change, since both parties tend to try and chase the Overton
| window, but only one is really pushing to move it right now.
| Maken wrote:
| In Spain one of the deciding factors was the prime
| canditate for succeeding Franco as a dictator being blown
| up by Basque terrorists. Also, you should consider the
| Carnation Revolution in Portugal as another example.
| sho_hn wrote:
| Thanks -- I really don't know much about the latter
| belter wrote:
| The regime collapsed when the Portuguese colonial war in
| Africa consumed up to 40 percent of the national budget,
| and a new generation of university-educated military
| officials began spreading through the armed forces.
|
| Portugal endured a dictatorial regime for almost 42
| years, one of the longest in modern Europe, which was
| tolerated by NATO due to its anti-communist stance.
| [1],[2]
|
| Interestingly enough, Russia is currently spending more
| than 40% of its budget on the war. [3]
|
| A far more effective strategy to force them out of
| Ukraine, would be genuine economic starvation. Instead,
| the West tolerated hundreds of businesses continuing to
| operate in Russia.[4]
|
| The most likely explanation for agent Krasnov's,
| (currently occupying the White House), sense of urgency
| to halt the war in Ukraine, and use it as a pretext to
| restart economic ties with Russia is the impending
| collapse of the Russian economy.[5]
|
| If the USA were to leverage its real and soft power by
| issuing executive orders that refuse to allow any company
| to do business with Russia. And by threatening sanctions
| on India and China for enabling the Russian economy, it
| would force India and China to choose between access to
| the US market and economic prosperity, or support for
| Putin. The war would cease, employing the same tactics
| Reagan used to bankrupt the Soviet Union.
|
| Instead, the US administration chose to betray the entire
| West, by yielding to Russian demands.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_de_Oliveir
| a_Salaz...
|
| [3] https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-
| eurasia/politika/2024/1...
|
| [4] https://leave-russia.org/
|
| [5] https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/01/russias-
| economic-dilemm...
| dh2022 wrote:
| Re: economic sanctions against Russia. In 2019 Russia
| main exports went to EU and China and Belarus, while main
| import a were from US EU and China [0]. It will be
| crucial for EU to keep their sanctions or maybe even
| tighten them. Even if US stops their sanctions Russia
| will mostly buy technology from the US (for drilling).
| This will not solve Russia's problem re:lower revenues.
|
| I am very curious if EU is smart enough to keep and even
| tighten their sanctions. After all is European security
| that is threatened by Russia.
|
| [0]
|
| [https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/RUS
| /Yea...
| Ray20 wrote:
| >A far more effective strategy to force them out of
| Ukraine, would be genuine economic starvation.
|
| It doesn't seems like that. The West was pretty
| intolerant to business connections with Russia, and if
| instead of 80% cut there was 100% cut - it doesn't change
| the overall picture very much.
|
| >by threatening sanctions on India and China
|
| If We look at the trade balance of Western countries and
| China - the West isn't close to the position to do that.
|
| >use it as a pretext to restart economic ties with Russia
| is the impending collapse of the Russian economy
| >yielding to Russian demands.
|
| That's a blatant conspiracy theory. It seems like the
| main obstacle in the Trump's "peace deal" is that Putin
| is thinking that he is winning this war and that the
| Russian economy has way more time than the Ukrainian army
| will be able to conscript new soldiers.
|
| >employing the same tactics Reagan used to bankrupt the
| Soviet Union
|
| Soviet Union collapsed because of it's own complete left
| economy, because oil prices were several times lower than
| now (even adjusted for inflation) and because Gorbachev
| thought that it is better for him to advertise pizza,
| then to be the Supreme Ruler of those piece of sh.t of a
| country.
| belter wrote:
| But here is the problem...The West is still sending, and
| this incredible after 3 years of the Ukraine war, more
| than 200 to 300 billion a year to Russia! The Russia
| military budget is 100 Billion! Their GDP is smaller than
| Italy.
|
| There is no political will. Sadly, and on this Trump is
| correct, the pathetic EU sent as much money to Ukraine as
| the amount of money they sent to Russia in oil purchases:
|
| https://www.euronews.com/video/2025/03/05/has-europe-
| spent-m...
|
| Three years of war and no real strategy of economic
| starvation of Russia....
| achernik wrote:
| wasn't the Carnation Revolution a direct result of the
| war in Angola?
| belter wrote:
| Yes. A colonial war in three countries simultaneously,
| 2,000 miles from the nation.
|
| Yet it still took 13 years, combined with the regime's
| economic collapse and a shift in the educational
| background of the Armed Forces hierarchy to spark the
| revolution.
|
| The US most likely will be in a civil war in eight to six
| months.... A cut in social security benefits will do
| it...
| dh2022 wrote:
| OMG such a bold assertion with no backing data...
| belter wrote:
| Not at all, the reason the current administration is
| acting so cruelly is to bring people to despair. And
| desperate people do desperate things. A violent action
| will be used as excuse to deploy US armed forces against
| US citizens.
|
| "Trump suggests he'll use the military on 'the enemy from
| within' the U.S. if he's reelected" -
| https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-suggests-
| hell-us...
|
| Democrats will dress in pink...
|
| https://www.npr.org/2024/04/20/1246134779/the-reality-
| behind...
|
| "In the near future, the U.S. president has given himself
| a third term. He's disbanded the FBI."
|
| "Trump Muses About a Third Term, Over and Over Again" -
| https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/us/politics/trump-
| third-t...
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Like Putin did.
| etc-hosts wrote:
| Spain's first astronaut!
| signalToNose wrote:
| Polen corrected course slightly in resent time.
| ForTheKidz wrote:
| Pinochet is an example, albeit not a particularly hopeful
| one.
| derektank wrote:
| Poland is still in the midst of a constitutional crisis
| caused by the Law and Justice party's attempts to subvert
| the country's constitutional court. It's only with the
| formation of Donald Tusk's government in 2023 that Poland
| has come back from the brink.
| randomNumber7 wrote:
| If you wanne see trump as the messenger of bad news, this
| could still hold.
| verandaguy wrote:
| The myth of how much harm "leftists" can do/are doing in the
| US is probably what got you all here. It's another
| McCarthyist boogeyman, and it's not even being sold well -- a
| lot of the marketing's just outright lies, and people are
| eating that up.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| That's the most frustrating part. What America calls
| leftists is considered pretty centrist everywhere else.
| They're so afraid of empathic policies it's no wonder the
| country is falling apart.
| lucasyvas wrote:
| It has completely fallen apart to any outside observer.
| It will take decades, possibly a generational timescale
| to repair.
|
| The damage is already irreversible on any near to medium
| term timescale - how bad it gets on an absolute scale is
| the only thing left to speculate.
| heresie-dabord wrote:
| > decades, possibly a generational timescale to repair.
|
| It will easily take a generation just for people to find
| solidarity and courage again.
|
| Progress takes real sacrifice. People died fighting for
| basic dignity and rights. The anti-slavery movement in
| the US fought monied interests for centuries.
|
| It took real sacrifice for the labour movement to gain
| rights such as voting, education, housing, health care in
| the face of deadly opposition from the rich and their
| legislative puppets.
|
| It just takes a moment of complaceny on the part of
| progressive-minded people for the rich and their
| legislative puppets to undo the foundations of democracy.
| _heimdall wrote:
| The risk of undoing progress so quickly is only possible
| after nearly a century spent centralizing the very
| authority that makes a quick undo possible.
|
| The executive branch shouldn't have nearly as much
| authority as it does and anything we want to be difficult
| to be undone should be protected by law, with a
| legislative body needing something akin to a 2/3s vote to
| change it.
|
| Instead we have a massive, powerful executive branch and
| legislators that can wield way too much power with a
| simple majority.
| cardamomo wrote:
| In theory, that isn't too far from the system we have.
| The President was never meant to have so much authority,
| and Congress already requires a 2/3 majority in order to
| make certain kinds of decisions, including overruling a
| presidential veto.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Didn't congress change the rules a few years ago on only
| needing a simple majority for more things?
|
| I was living out if the country st the time and didn't
| keep up, I could be mistaken there.
| cardamomo wrote:
| There was some debate whether or not to remove the rule
| requiring a 60% vote to end filibusters in the Senate.
| Because this rule still stands, most laws cannot pass
| without 60 Senators' votes. Budget reconciliation bills,
| however, can be advanced with only a simple majority of
| the Senate. Though this is not a recent rules change,
| much recent legislation has gone through the
| reconciliation process to avoid the supermajority
| requirement.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Thanks! That must be the debate I remember happening and
| thought they actually made the change.
| deepsun wrote:
| No, it's not only executive branch. People voted in Trump
| adorers to majority in both Senate and House of
| Representatives.
| _heimdall wrote:
| If the voting public of a democracy fairly elected so
| many people to office like that, I don't really know what
| we can complain about.
|
| Democracy would have worked in that scenario, and society
| would just have bifurcated enough that the slight
| minority lost most power and very much disagrees with the
| direction.
|
| Congress does have to act pike adults though and do their
| job of keeping the executive branch in check. If they
| don't the system is just fundamentally broken and the
| only reasonable choice is to throw it out and start
| fresh.
| wrs wrote:
| The word "fairly" is doing a lot of work there. There has
| been a lot of success on one side to tilt things with
| redistricting and voter suppression since the 80s.
| bigfudge wrote:
| Just wait till 2028!
| _heimdall wrote:
| Redistricting and voter suppression are definitely a
| problem. If they were both done in a way that was
| technically legal though, we can't be too angry about it
| before we change the laws that allowed it in the first
| place.
|
| Fairness in the context of an election only means that it
| was done in accordance to the existing laws. Maybe equal
| access to voting needs to be on that list too, but I'd
| expect that to be covered by voting laws.
| scott_w wrote:
| Under the constitution, the US federal government has far
| less power than, say the UK government does in
| comparison. Yet, if the other branches of government show
| no interest in constraining it, then it'll expand
| rapidly.
|
| I actually wonder if the problem the USA has is that its
| system has no override function like the UK does under
| the Parliament Act 1918. I see a lot of frustration that
| Congress has been deadlocked for nearly 2 decades (mostly
| by Republicans) so it's no surprise the average voter
| demands change and wants the executive branch to take all
| the power.
| _heimdall wrote:
| A weaker federal government was always our design though.
| Really until the last century, our federal government was
| extremely weak and limited in authority. It wasn't until
| around FDR that we started seeing a shift if power to the
| federal government, often specifically to the executive
| branch.
|
| The large executive branch has been growing since
| steadily since FDR though, that isn't a recent reaction
| to gridlock. There's a good argument that gridlock is a
| feature of our system meant to slow it down
| intentionally. We're seeing now how jarring it can be to
| have the government completely change source every 4
| years, gridlock and bureaucracy help smooth that out.
|
| We could be making it worse by demanding gridlock be
| avoided through executive actions and similar.
| scott_w wrote:
| Compared to historic USA, perhaps, but compared to OTHER
| COUNTRIES, the US system has insane gridlock and, right
| now, a very unhappy public. What I'm pointing to is not
| that more power should shift to the executive but that it
| should be given to the legislature, and could happen in a
| way that reduces this gridlock.
|
| Compare to the UK's Parliament Act, which allows the
| Commons to override the Lords if it passes the same
| legislation in two sessions. It means that overriding
| isn't free (it takes 1-2 years of focused effort) but
| critical legislation can't be blocked. Combined with
| strict timetables that force rejection of legislation
| that isn't passed in its allotted time, you bypass the
| pocket veto, too. Compromise is preferred but, if the
| upper house refuses to play ball, the threat of ramming
| it through anyway always exists to keep it in check.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Honest question (including that since its sometimes hard
| to tell when written) -
|
| What additional authority doss the US legislative branch
| need? They have pretty wide authority to create any laws
| that don't violate our constitutional rights, I don't
| know how we could really expand that further (but my view
| is definitely biased since I grew up here).
|
| I think congress would be well within its rights to
| change their own rules to add time limits on legislation
| or required expiration on proposed bills, for example.
| nradov wrote:
| Which other _major_ countries have happier publics? The
| UK public seems at least as unhappy as the USA. UK
| citizens certainly aren 't happy with low economic growth
| (everywhere outside London), high immigration, tiny
| houses, and decaying healthcare. Similar issues in
| Germany, etc.
| poncho_romero wrote:
| I would argue that the much higher incidence rate of
| suicide and mass murder in the US compared to the UK or
| Germany suggests otherwise. Citizens in other developed
| countries seem much less prone to irrational, life
| changing outbreaks, that to me seems consistent with the
| idea that there is a deep current of unhappiness running
| through the American population that is causing people to
| "break"
| nradov wrote:
| Suicide rates are more a cultural artifact than a sign of
| national happiness level. The rates in an number of Arab
| countries are particularly low, even though people there
| seem to be deeply unhappy to the extent of trying to
| escape to Europe.
|
| https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-
| rankings/suicide-r...
| mafuy wrote:
| The US and Europe are culturally quite close, unlike to
| Arabia, so I think the comparison actually holds.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| There is a compelling argument that the US is culturally
| much more like a highly developed version of a Latin
| American country than a European country. Over time I
| find myself coming around to this idea.
| realo wrote:
| Canada?
|
| But the Donald is doing everything he can to stop that.
| bigfudge wrote:
| But in the UK this effectively gives power to the
| executive. Our exec are drawn from the legislature, and
| most ruling party MPs will Have a government position -
| especially if the majority is slight.
| araes wrote:
| Sure, the system was designed to have gridlock, yet
| they're supposed to at least be able to operate the
| government. Currently, like pretty much every year
| lately, we're heading into March, _And We Still Don 't
| Have A Budget_.
|
| Now they're talking about keeping the government running
| on auto-pilot budgets all the way to September. [1]
| Doesn't even help that it's Rep. Exec. branch, Rep.
| Senate, Rep. House, Rep. Supreme Court, and Rep. Governor
| majority. Still a stopgap CR land where nothing gets
| advanced.
|
| [1] https://www.politico.com/live-
| updates/2025/03/07/congress/ho...
| _heimdall wrote:
| Agreed the budget should be a non-starter. Meaning, they
| shouldn't be allowed to punt on agreeing to a budget
| deadline.
|
| The budget is a weird topic when we consistently spend
| trillions in debt. I've found it hard for me to take
| budget debates too seriously when the idea of running
| such a deficit seems completely against any fundamental
| financial plan.
|
| I'd care more about budget deadlines and temporary
| agreements if they were required to agree to a _balanced_
| budget.
| hackyhacky wrote:
| > The executive branch shouldn't have nearly as much
| authority as it does and anything we want to be difficult
| to be undone should be protected by law
|
| It doesn't matter if rights are protected by law, if the
| executive branch has no intention to enforce that law.
|
| Right now the executive branch is plainly violating laws
| established by Congress, and there is no one to stop
| them.
| _heimdall wrote:
| The legislative and judicial branches are both expected
| to hold the executive accountable if it breaks the law.
| If that doesn't happen our system is fundamentally
| broken, we might as well throw it out and start over.
| xnx wrote:
| Is there any democratic system that is safe from
| democratically voting to dissolve the democracy and
| replace it with whatever autocracy/kakistocracy/oligarchy
| we've got now?
| _heimdall wrote:
| No, that's a fundamental risk built into democracy.
|
| If any minority group has the power to overrule a
| majority vote, regardless of what the vote is for, then
| you don't really have a democracy.
| vkou wrote:
| No, every country is one election away from this shit-
| show.
|
| Which is why under no circumstances you should _ever_
| elect anyone who will send yours in that direction.
| Canadians, take note, the CPC only detached its lips from
| Trump 's backside because they needed to come up for air.
|
| At minimum, don't elect people who staged failed coups.
| They and their supporters will not ever act like they are
| bound by law.
| nradov wrote:
| The executive branch has blatantly violated numerous laws
| but so far they have still obeyed court orders which
| explicitly required them to follow those laws. The real
| Constitutional crisis will come if they decide to openly
| defy a federal court order.
|
| I would also note that while the current Trump
| administration has broken federal laws at an accelerated
| rate, the previous Biden administration did much the same
| thing on a smaller scale. People here on HN frequently
| make excuses for Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness
| program because they liked the results but if we want to
| preserve the rule of law then it needs to apply to
| _every_ program. In the long run allowing unchecked
| growth of executive branch power and the administrative
| state will be bad for everyone.
|
| https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-
| dow...
| DangitBobby wrote:
| It's quite telling that you see this as remotely
| comparable to how the executive is being conducted right
| now.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Its quite telling to me that you _don 't_.
|
| In both cases the executive branch is overstepping legal
| bounds and attempting to take actions that it isn't
| legally authorized to do.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Right, continuing a tradition of executive overreach to
| help indebted students get the dick out of their ass is
| the exact same thing as dismantling the federal
| government, installing loyalists, betraying allies,
| allying with dictators, and promising lots of money to
| billionaires. I intend for it to be telling that I don't
| see them as the same. We don't even live on the same
| fucking planet.
| _heimdall wrote:
| The issue isn't why laws were breached, only that the
| executive branch intentionally broke them.
|
| The why behind it matters most for how emotional of a
| response it will invoke, but maybe I'm preaching to the
| choir here.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| I expect "illegal" action in the sense that it will
| sometimes turn out the executive doesn't have the
| authority to do it when tested by courts. I expect that
| to happen when the executive tries to push its agenda
| past an obstructionist Congress (for better or worse).
| It's not something I would consider "illegal" in the
| sense you could go to jail for doing it. But the reasons
| for acting a certain way absolutely matter here as they
| always do, and I am much more concerned about sanewashing
| with both-sideisms. Not just the reasons, but the extent
| to which he is willing to circumvent established systems
| of how basically everything works is much more concerning
| than attempting to pass EOs that are eventually struck
| down in the courts.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| And sadly the Dems were all too willing to consolidate
| this power in the Executive because of expediency.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Both parties have consolidated power to the executive
| branch for decades, this isn't a one party problem.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| It started with Lincoln and was expanded by Wilson and
| FDR.
| _heimdall wrote:
| That's fair, Lincoln did kick it off. I've always
| considered it more that Lincoln crested the precedent
| that was only really used layer by FDR, but maybe that's
| ignoring nuance of how powers were expanded between the
| two.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Before Lincoln states had much more power. Both Lincoln
| and Wilson curtailed civil liberties. Wilson created the
| income tax which gave the president a large source of
| income. FDR created the bureaucracy that spends the
| income tax money.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "for people to find solidarity"
|
| That's not going to happen with the way tech/algos are
| exacerbating the divide.
| malfist wrote:
| Which is increasingly looking intentional
| giantg2 wrote:
| Nah, it's a by-product of giving people what they want to
| make money. This sort of issue has been building for a
| long time. It's based on abundance of resources and
| availability of choices. As we have more time and money
| to spend on things, we can make more independent choices
| and take positions on issues that we didnt even think
| about before. Essentially, the semi-homogeneous
| population slowly fragments into smaller and smaller
| factions that are not geographically constrained (thanks
| to tech).
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| We've known it is intentional since Cambridge Analytica
| at the latest.
| giantg2 wrote:
| That wasn't about creating a split but rather taking
| advantage of an existing split, right?
| soulofmischief wrote:
| If you have engineering or product skills, now is the
| time to take a hard look in the mirror, inventory your
| interests and concerns, and figure out how to fight fire
| with fire.
|
| We need to be proliferating alternative, humanistic,
| empathetic software in the world and putting it into
| people's hands. It's easier than ever for us to
| independently build a wealth of defensive infrastructure
| for the common people.
| giantg2 wrote:
| We already have the tools. The problem is marketing,
| FOMO, etc. We can use stuff like Cloudflare restrictive
| DNS, a Pihole with additonal lists (like social media), a
| VPN, screen time or app usage timers, etc. Will and self-
| control are what's lacking.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| The problem isn't marketing or FOMO. The problem is the
| average person barely understands what you just said, and
| we can't expect them all to become domain experts,
| especially when many people lack the fundamental research
| skills and experience needed to intuitively grok these
| technologies.
|
| We have to use our intelligence and expertise to make
| applications which take care of users and their privacy,
| without them needing to suddenly become overnight
| computer experts. Most of the tooling I see today has
| (understandably) massive UX issues and is largely
| relegated to at least the mildly technical.
|
| We need new and open Facebooks, TikToks, calendars,
| operating systems, etc. which protect and empower people
| but don't complicate their lives and stress them out,
| which leads to security and privacy fatigue. Even my
| current operating system, macOS, is so intensely user-
| hostile and obfuscated off the happy path, despite being
| heralded as a champion of human-oriented design.
|
| We need a modern GNU-like organization but focused on
| building the social/web tooling that most people today
| are using.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Almost anyone who cares about their privacy should be
| able to Google how to improve it, find an article about
| VPNs, and sign up for Nord VPN (pretty user friendly and
| commercials everywhere). Dive just slightly deeper and
| you can find information on DNS and set the VPN to use
| the DNS you were recommended.
|
| Most people don't care enough to even ask the questions.
| Creating competing services were the value
| differentiation is privacy (likely at the trade off of
| cost or quality) is bound to fail for that same reason.
| wat10000 wrote:
| The problem right now isn't the rich. The problem is that
| half of the electorate is on board with this stuff. You
| can't rally the people against this when half the
| population is in favor of it.
|
| I'm sure there's a good argument that wealthy people and
| a broadening wealth divide are responsible for this, but
| it's too late to attack that now. We need a huge shift in
| public sentiment if this is going to change now.
|
| Even if the outcome had been different in November. We'd
| still be in deep trouble. A lot less, but still a lot.
| The fundamental problem we have right now isn't that
| Trump is President, it's that about 50% of those who
| bother to vote think he's worthy of it.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Don't think you can address the one while not dismantling
| the other. Otherwise you're lucky to be trading water.
| wat10000 wrote:
| I think you need the populace on your side first, though.
| Otherwise how can you change anything if you have neither
| government nor a majority?
|
| Unfortunately, I don't see any way to change the minds of
| the American populace. They'll have to learn the hard
| lesson of where this stuff goes. The problem is that we
| all have to learn that lesson alongside them whether we
| need it or not.
| naijaboiler wrote:
| It's still the wealthy, leaning on social issues to
| create a democratic majority
| rhubarbtree wrote:
| What makes you think it will be repaired? I'll go for
| America splinters into at least two countries.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| For this to happen, the US population is probably too old
| on average, and too overweight.
|
| Civil wars and the like are usually based on youth
| bulges, as they need a lot of breathing bodies to fight
| it out. Preferrably slightly hungry bodies, as hungry
| people are easier to provoke into fighting.
| apeescape wrote:
| Who knows what the next American civil war would look
| like.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Lots of destroyed keyboards?
| rvnx wrote:
| Stealth donations to unauthorized political parties
| through OnlyFans or meme coins.
| ben_w wrote:
| Despite all the 2nd Amendement talk, it mainly comes down
| to the military.
|
| The military have the tanks, the air support, the
| logistics, the surveilence net, the miscelaneous support
| equipment, and all the training to use everything.
|
| A split _within_ the military, that gets real ugly real
| fast.
| ty6853 wrote:
| I think any civil war would have a split within the
| military, because in your premise that they're using
| tanks and aircraft, some people are not going to want to
| bomb the place where their mother or child lives, not to
| mention the supply chain of all that fancy stuff relies
| on a somewhat functioning domestic society to make and
| deliver much of the underlying goodies and support.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| The youth are also of poor quality these days. It was one
| thing in 1860 when a given 18 year old was built like an
| ox from hauling bales of hay or whatever else. Today most
| 18 year olds are sedentary. We don't even do the mile run
| in gym class anymore.
| klipt wrote:
| Halfway to WALL*E
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Well, looking into really old draft records, you will
| find a lot of disqualified recruits with bad health -
| tuberculosis, parasites, or general bodily problems
| caused by malnutrition.
|
| But yeah, there also was a lot of physically strong young
| people to choose from.
| nradov wrote:
| Yes, exactly. Some of the federal farm subsidy and low-
| income nutrition programs we have today came out of
| findings in WWII that many potential recruits who had
| grown up during the Great Depression were literally
| malnourished: too weak and underweight to be combat
| effective. While the new HHS secretary Robert F. Kennedy
| Jr. is kind of wacky and has terrible policies in many
| areas, he at least recognizes the serious state of youth
| obesity and poor nutrition.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Don't forget school lunch programs were pushed by the
| military in the 1946 National School Lunch Act (America's
| Great Age to MAGA) to improve the fitness of potential
| recruits. Programs the Republicans now attack as 'woke'
| nonsense.
| empthought wrote:
| Flying drones isn't particularly demanding in terms of
| strength.
| bigfudge wrote:
| Gen Z are a lot fitter and drink and smoke less than my
| Gen x peers afaict. What's more, the 90th centile Gen zer
| is a -lot- fitter. Not everyone needs to join up...
| giantg2 wrote:
| What is more likely is that significant portions of rural
| America break off and the part that's left doesn't feel
| it's worth it to take it back by force.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| A lot of rural area across the country have movements to
| break states into pieces, or join other states. I don't
| think most are very serious but at least two of them are
| serious enough.
|
| One, there are a few counties on Oregon that want to
| redraw the boundary so that they become part of Idaho.
| This, I think, is only mildly serious.
|
| The second is the border of Indiana and Illinois, which
| is serious enough that the Indiana state legislature has
| voted to create a commission to work on it. It was a
| bipartisan vote, too. Because there are a number of rural
| counties in Illinois that would like to join Indiana, and
| two urban counties in Indiana that say if the option is
| on the table they'd rather be part of Illinois. Such a
| thing would need both states to agree and then send it on
| to Congress, but ultimately I don't think anything will
| come of it.
|
| When you look at state funding, these urban counties are
| sending more tax dollars to their respective state
| capitols than the states are spending in their counties.
| In the case of these rural Illinois counties, the state
| is spending between $5 and $6 per tax dollar collected.
| Does Indiana really want to take on such welfare queens?
| And give up some of their few donor counties in exchange?
| It seems hardly likely!
|
| That's the rub all across the US. The urbanized areas are
| subsidizing the rural areas. Are the rural areas prepared
| to do without such subsidies? They can say "the cities
| can't live without the food we grow", but the entirety of
| human history shows that the cities always come out ahead
| in these transactions.
| giantg2 wrote:
| The Jefferson area of CA seems about as serious as
| Oregon.
|
| With out current structure of governments, as we get
| around/over 80% urbanization, the rural areas will just
| get steamrolled and want to break away due to a lack of
| agency. If you study people in the "western Idaho" area
| and on the Oregon coast, it would be easy to see that
| they are two different nations.
|
| Also,do you have e a source for the 5x tax collected
| number? The 5x seems really high. I couldn't find one for
| Indiana, but Illinois shows it's <2x.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| This study (I think it has since been updated)
|
| https://news.siu.edu/2018/08/081018-research-shows-state-
| fun...
|
| Shows that on average it is about 3x. There are more
| detailed per-county numbers available in the actual
| study.
|
| The real losers are the suburban counties surrounding
| Chicago. Cook County is only slightly shafted.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Yeah, pretty much in line with what I was seeing. Just
| depends on where the lines are drawn for
| downstate/southern.
|
| https://www.farmweeknow.com/policy/state/state-tax-
| dollars-b...
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| Right. So anyway, if various states (or the whole
| country) breaks apart based on urban/rural divides, the
| urban areas have very little incentive to try to reunite.
| It's a losing proposition for the rural areas.
|
| My personal opinion is that our state and nation
| legislatures have way too few members given our current
| populations. For example, the US House should have some
| sort of dynamic membership count: the smallest odd number
| such that when you run the apportionment algorithm the
| smallest state has 3 members. That's probably somewhere
| around 1100 members (just spitballing).
| giantg2 wrote:
| Economics aren't the only factor, so the rural areas may
| not care so long as they are free. That also assumes the
| rural areas keep the same service levels and regulations.
| It's possible they could create conditions to lure some
| industries to them. They would also have to raise food
| prices to deal without subsidies. It's likely many
| services would see reductions, such as road maintenance,
| anything heavily relying on grants, and possibly schools.
| Certainly the colleges in the article would be closed.
|
| Decreasing the ratio of constituents to representatives
| won't really work. It may work at the margins, but you
| will still have the mismatch in proportions between
| urban/rural.
| jppope wrote:
| California has multiple times brought up splitting out
| into multiple states, its made it as a prop a few times
| too. I think most people want it to happen, its just
| tough to figure out what the best split would be
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| > I think most people want it to happen
|
| I don't believe that at all.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I believe the state as a whole added a ballot initiative
| for 2028 to split from the US
| fragmede wrote:
| Three countries. Boston Dynamics vs Figure & 1X vs Tesla
| lukan wrote:
| Well, also overweight people can create havoc with
| drones.
| araes wrote:
| Most authors that look at the subject have usually
| proposed 3+ groups post-balkanization. Tends to depend on
| whether it's simply an "After America" balkanization or a
| complete apocalypse scenario. Table top roleplaying games
| are full of speculative fiction on those kinds of
| concepts. Nukes, or zombies, and sometimes black swan
| "magic" tend to be rather popular.
|
| After America would be like the Fall of the Roman Empire,
| or the collapse of the Chinese Jin (romance of the three
| kingdoms) and Tang (five dynasties, ten kingdoms) eras,
| usually because of human bickering over power and
| control. Occasionally, systems like Shadowrun have a
| "mild" apocalypse that mostly serves as a catalyst for
| balkanization. Whatever vestiges of a state remained fall
| apart under the stress.
|
| Complete apocalypse tends to be something like large
| scale devastation from a known threat that final gets
| used (nuclear, biological, dangerous machine sentience)
| and everybody's too busy dealing with their own issues to
| care about larger ideas like a continental federal state
| of "America."
|
| Either way, tends to result in 3+ most of the time. From
| looking at the Roman Empire and the multiple collapses of
| China though, it really does not take anything especially
| dramatic to result in pretty severe balkanization. Often
| its the old "Blue and the Grey" divide and then most of
| the West just does their own thing. Occasionally it's
| more like East Coast, Heartland, and often the West still
| is not really included.
|
| The result for the West has actually been one of the
| weirder parts of reading a lot of those settings. Often
| this undercurrent that the West has never really been a
| part of "America." The heavily populated East is still
| mostly fighting over the same issues with each other, the
| lightly populated West is just some far away land they
| occasionally pay attention to (mostly California and
| Texas).
| karparov wrote:
| It doesn't help that the tech sector is falling in line.
| Spearheaded by Musk who is still glorified my many in the
| industry, other tech giants are following suit. Meta,
| Google, Amazon, nobody dares challenging the new US order
| and is playing along. This is really where the HN crowd
| should realize how much they are involved in this. Tech
| was one of the bullwarks against right wing fascist
| takeover. Not anymore, they are playing along. It's going
| to be dark.
| LadyCailin wrote:
| I never thought that. They have always just played along
| with society. When LGBT rights were fashionable, they
| were more than happy to jump on that bandwagon and
| rainbow wash everything for money. Which, is great, don't
| get me wrong, but I never thought for one second it was
| because the leadership truly thought that was important
| deep down in their hearts (Tim Cook perhaps excepted, but
| even then not fully, as he still cares about business
| more than principals, though he has more to lose
| personally.)
| karparov wrote:
| Excellent point. Why would a move a certain crowd likes
| be out of principle and when the tide turned and a move
| in the opposite direction happens suddenly be just
| opportunism? The more realistic/neutral interpretation is
| that it's all just opportunism in either direction.
|
| Zuck is probably the best example.
| ajuc wrote:
| It's the ironic part.
|
| Trump is the result of anti-system vote by people who
| were ignored for decades by both parties.
|
| Trump obviously won't solve their problems. Inequality
| won't decrease. Healthcare won't become more accessible.
| Workers' rights won't be fixed. Homes won't get more
| affordable. Inflation won't drop.
|
| So - even when Trump disgraces himself completely - these
| disappointed voters will just vote for another anti-
| system con-man.
|
| Trump's core voters desperately need Sanders to win. But
| they will vote Trumps and get fucked over time and time
| again.
|
| This is how democracy dies. People distrusting the system
| so hard they destroy it.
| fredoliveira wrote:
| The fact that democracy has in it the ability to bring to
| power the systems and people that can destroy it is
| what's most frustrating about it.
| ajuc wrote:
| There are safety features built-in in more recent
| democracies. USA is just a very early implementation and
| hasn't been keeping up with the patches.
|
| 2-party system is bad. Regional representation instead of
| population representation is bad. Allowing gerrymandering
| is bad. Letting companies/oligarchs to contribute to
| election campaigns is VERY bad.
|
| All of this ends with a system that cannot reform itself.
| It's a common failure mode in early democracies. There
| are known workarounds.
| azan_ wrote:
| Safety features work only if you do not ignore them and
| turns out that semi-authoritarian ruling parties can do
| that.
| lotrjohn wrote:
| Can you point me towards these 'workarounds' so I can
| learn more? TY.
| krapp wrote:
| You can find plenty of "workarounds" in any Wal-Mart or
| pawn shop in the US. You can even buy a "workaround" from
| someone directly and avoid a background check.
| ericjmorey wrote:
| Two people tried to use their "workaround" prior to the
| election and failed.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| First-past-the-post voting systems are extra dangerous.
| I.e. where all the votes of a district go to the winner
| of the district.
|
| If instead all votes go proportionally according to what
| people voted, you get less extreme policies and encourage
| parties to build coalitions. Nobody is happy, but fewer
| people are _extremely_ unhappy.
| deepsun wrote:
| Forbid Gerrymandering.
|
| E.g. Republican Schwarzenegger has been advocating
| against gerrymandering for a long time.
|
| Force all states to cast election votes to be
| proportional to citizens' votes (some states do but
| others do not).
| analog31 wrote:
| I realize this is just my own idea, but I think the
| Constitution forbids gerrymandering, by demanding a
| "republican form of government" in the states. The
| question is how this opinion would stand up to being
| tested by the current Supreme Court.
| epistasis wrote:
| Trump voters will never vote for somebody like Sanders,
| and I think that fundamentally misunderstands Trump
| voters and what they want.
| ajuc wrote:
| I know what they want and I know what they need. The
| difference is precisely the problem.
| _heimdall wrote:
| The idea that anyone can know without a doubt what
| someone else needs is part of the problem.
|
| People need to be treated as adults before they can be
| expected to act like adults. There's always the risk that
| goes wrong, it has in the past, but we're doomed if we
| believe the only way forward is a small group of elites
| forcing change on us because they "know best".
| alabastervlog wrote:
| Political science has decades of research that
| consistently shows that it's entirely correct to think
| that most voters have no clue about anything, including
| what would be best for them.
|
| Reasoned, informed votes aren't a major factor in
| elections.
|
| [edit] see if your library has a copy of _Democracy for
| Realists_ and also dig into older major works they cite,
| if you're interested in more on this. For a quick gut-
| check, look up the proportion of US voters that
| understand how marginal income tax rates work, then
| reflect on the fact that this is something very simple
| that directly affects them in ways they must confront at
| least once per year, and despair at how bad similar
| measures must look for practically _everything else_ and
| that if they don't understand the basics of how things
| work, they can't even begin to figure out "what's best"
| for them or for anyone else.
| _heimdall wrote:
| I will see if I can find that book, thanks for the
| recommendation.
|
| I'm not sure how we could untangle the issue of today's
| uneducated populace with our education system itself. If
| people don't understand marginal tac rates, for example,
| and most people go to public school because the
| government makes it pretty difficult to choose anything
| else, is it not the fault of public education for either
| not teaching it or teaching it poorly?
|
| More importantly in my opinion, if people don't care to
| understand it that's fine - they can make that choice. If
| the system still works and no one complains, great. If it
| becomes a problem we can either better educate people on
| how it works or move to a more simply form of taxation
| that is easier for people to understand.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| I'm not sure how much _understanding the issues_ is a
| factor in democracy functioning well. I think it has more
| to do with widespread belief in democratic and rule-of-
| law identity, such that voters will reliably punish those
| who violate those tenets, and structures set up to resist
| the kind of rot that targets inherent weaknesses in
| democracy, especially to prevent capture of media and
| lobbying by rich minority interests. These reduce the
| effects of directed _exploitation_ of voter ignorance,
| and block democratic attacks on democracy itself.
|
| Both of those factors are, to use the scientific term,
| _completely fucked_ in the US, which is why we're where
| we are now. We're not here because people think that we
| spend 20% of our budget on foreign aid, but rather,
| people think that because of concentration and capture of
| media ownership, and intense lobbying. The ignorance
| would be there either way, but the direction and form of
| it is carefully cultivated, and allowing that cultivation
| is the problem.
|
| The generation of hard data demonstrating that voters
| (more or less) don't know jack-shit about anything goes
| back to IIRC the 1950s, and the best answer Poli Sci has
| for why this results in a functioning system at all is
| that voter behavior is fairly erratic (much of it amounts
| to "do I perceive that things are bad, even that have
| nothing to do with the government _or with me_? Then
| throw the bums out!") and (this was once accepted but is
| now controversial) that voter ignorance kinda _balances
| out_ by virtue of being chaotic. If that ignorance
| becomes directed, however, _both_ of these things are
| weaponizable or breakable.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Many of the founders of the US wrote about the importance
| of an educated populace and feared that an uneducated
| voting public would ruin the system.
|
| What you describe are both results of an uneducated
| voting public in my opinion. At least as I see it, those
| are two important effects with the root cause being a
| lack of education and critical thinking.
|
| If people were better educated on how our systems work
| and issues that impact them directly, and willing to
| think critically and listen to, or engage in, reasoned
| debates we wouldn't have to worry about what shit they
| may hear or see in the media, or from politicians,
| lobbyists, etc.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| The solution at the time largely involved not letting
| groups unlikely to be educated... vote at all.
|
| I'd definitely be interested in evidence that there are
| democracies with voters who are significantly better at
| understanding the function of their government, the
| breakdown of the budget, how basic functions of it work,
| et c, than in the US before, say, 1975.
| _heimdall wrote:
| I'm not totally sure whether you meant the 1975 point as
| a comparison of democracies today versus 1975 US, or
| democracies from 1975 compared to the US.
|
| This is anecdotal since I don't have evidence handy, but
| I've been impressed with Swiss voters that I've met and
| they have all spoken highly of both their Democratic
| model and their voters. I don't know all the intricacies
| of it, but my understanding is that their system pushes
| any meaningful change to a vote. Its slower and requires
| more voter engagement, but at least from my experience
| that has succeeded in building a better informed public.
| ericjmorey wrote:
| It was the other way around. People who are being treated
| like adults are acting like scared children.
| _heimdall wrote:
| We should never expect people treated as children to act
| as anything more.
|
| Acting like an adult requires practice and learning
| lessons when you mess up. Treating those you may disagree
| with, or don't trust, as children is a self fulfilling
| prophecy _and_ strips them of the dignity of having the
| chance to make their own decisions and deal with the
| consequences.
| jpadkins wrote:
| Could you please implement Sander's socialist paradise in
| Vermont first? I'd really like to see how it works out
| before you try and subject the rest of us to your ideas.
| thanks!
| ajuc wrote:
| Visit EU.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Is there much overlap in Trump and Sanders policy views?
|
| I wouldn't expect voters for either candidate to agree
| with much from the other candidate, but maybe I don't
| know their platforms well enough to see the similarities.
| speed_spread wrote:
| Trump doesn't "have policy views". Trump _is_ the policy
| and the view.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Trump surely has policy views. Maybe they aren't
| consistent, and he often speaks contradictory to whatever
| his views are, but you're underestimating him if you
| believe his has no views. If you consider him a threat,
| underestimating him sounds dangerous
|
| > Trump _is_ the policy and the view.
|
| That may be true for voters, I know quite a few Trump
| voters that only care to vote for him and couldn't
| explain any coherent policy reason for preferring him.
| That has no bearing on Trump's own policies or views
| though.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > I know quite a few Trump voters that only care to vote
| for him and couldn't explain any coherent policy reason
| for preferring him
|
| Perhaps the reasons can't be mentioned in polite company.
| _heimdall wrote:
| I assume you mean they're racist. Yes I do know one
| openly racist person who happened to vite for Trump. I
| don't think he voted for Trump for that reason though,
| he's just been a republican voter for decades if I'm not
| mistaken.
| amrocha wrote:
| The issue is that you think people are voting for
| policies. I don't think that's true anymore, and maybe it
| never was true.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Even more reason one wouldn't expect voters to jump
| candidates or parties.
|
| Given the GP comment I assumed we weren't talking about
| that scenario where people are only a candidate or party
| voter.
| amrocha wrote:
| I didn't say that they're voting for a candidate and
| would never change their mind either.
| _heimdall wrote:
| What are they voting for if not policy views, a
| particular candidate, or a particular party?
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| People are definitely voting for policies. There was a
| study that found trump spent a higher percent of time
| talking about policies than Hillary. The PBS documentary
| on 2016 had an anecdote than in 2016 the trump rally
| crowd would chant things that became trump policies.
| ForTheKidz wrote:
| This is just a baffling attitude. Sanders is the _only_
| name that regularly gets respect from every corner of the
| political spectrum. His most vociferous critics by a long
| shot are centrist democratic loyalists.
| ars wrote:
| Sanders means well in the things he does, but he's
| unfortunately very very .. how do I put this, stupid in
| his ideas.
|
| Even his own party never votes for his stuff because his
| ideas are always terrible. They are always emotional, but
| he never thinks them through. I don't think he's able to
| think them through.
|
| I'll give you an example from a different person: There's
| someone on Twitter who wants a 0.1% tax on stock
| transactions, and then he calculates that this little
| change will fund everything we could possibly want. He
| utterly ignores that if you put this tax _people will
| change their behavior_! There will be fewer transactions,
| and this tax will fund nothing at all.
|
| Sanders is the same way: He makes an idea, and completely
| ignores how people will respond to it.
|
| Sanders has a 0% chance of winning.
| bigfudge wrote:
| This is a misrepresentation of the position. It's
| possible that to sell a policy like a transaction tax you
| might overstate the potential revenue. But nobody serious
| actually thinks you could simply multiply the tax rate by
| transactions to predict revenue. But that doesn't matter.
| The revenue would be non zero. And there are plenty of
| other reasons to tax transactions anyway (stability,
| realign market and societal priorities)
| ars wrote:
| > But nobody serious actually thinks you could simply
| multiply the tax rate by transactions to predict revenue
|
| This guy does:
|
| https://media.mstdn.social/media_attachments/files/114/09
| 9/2...
|
| I can't find his original post on X (although that's
| probably for the better because his feed is filled
| antisemitic garbage, and he's pretty clearly at utter
| idiot).
|
| But yes, some people really do think that way: They never
| think about the results of their proposals, and getting
| back to the topic at hand Bernie is the same way
| (although unlike that other guy Bernie really does seem
| to care about people), but he never thinks about the
| effects of his proposals, how people would react and
| change behavior.
|
| This would make him a terrible President.
|
| And I would remind you that despite being in congress for
| 34 years Bernie has never manged to get even a _single_
| idea of his passed.
| Glide wrote:
| Bernie's Sanders is very easy to attack because of how
| fast he folded to the DNC in the past decade.
|
| Even for the Trump "bull in the china shop" voter,
| Sanders has become less relevant in 2020 and 2024 because
| he offers so little and for someone so called principled,
| he doesn't hold the same ideas on immigration that he has
| before.
| epistasis wrote:
| Look, all I have is polling data from multiple national
| presidential elections to back me up.
|
| I know many Trump supporters but not a single one of them
| respects or like Sanders, and all the polling data I can
| find points out that this is the general trend.
|
| Any Sanders path to victory involved massive amounts of
| youth turnout that would have otherwise stayed home, and
| there's basically zero Republican leaning voters that
| would switch to Bernie. And the swing vote swings
| massively to Trump when Sanders goes against Trump.
| realo wrote:
| I wonder what those swing votes would be today, now that
| people start to realize how quickly and efficiently the
| USA is being destroyed from the inside, right now.
| jmyeet wrote:
| I distinctly remember the lead up to the 2016 election. I
| remember having one conversation with a friend who is
| relatively affluent. Not independently wealthy but a top
| 1% earner. I had been watching Bernie gain steam and I
| brought this up in the context of how unhappy with the
| status quo people seemed to be.
|
| This immediately got dismissed. "Everything is fine". It
| is a mistake to paint _all_ Trump voters as just being
| proto-fascists (which the majority are). Many ended up
| there because they desperately wanted change and
| establishment candidates were just offering more of the
| same. Hilary absolutely was a "more of the same"
| candidate. And the entire GOP primary field (21 at one
| point) were "more of the same". That's why Trump won the
| primary. That, combined with Hilary's massive negatives
| and her generally being a terrible candidate, were why
| Trump won in the first place.
|
| 2020 was an anomaly in many ways. We had Covid lockdowns
| and were coming off 4 years of Trump chaos. Because of
| the lockdown, voting was made substantially easier with
| early voting and mail-in ballots. The more people vote,
| the more Democrats win. It's why voter suppression is a
| key part of the Republican platform (make no mistake,
| "voter ID" is simply voter suppression). Were it not for
| the pandemic, I very much suspect Trump would've won re-
| election. Biden was a terrible candidate and never
| should've been the nominee. Clyburn basically handed him
| the nomination (in South Carolina) and Warren stayed in
| long enough to split Bernie's vote, the second time the
| DNC had actively sabotaged Bernie's campaign.
|
| Remember in 2020, Bernie had Joe Rogan's endorsement.
|
| The Democrats are really just Republican Lite now.
| Kamala's immigration plan was Trump's 2020 immigration
| plan. Kamala abandoned opposition to the death penalty
| from the party platform and called for the most "lethal"
| military. She courted never Trumpers like Liz Cheney.
| Like seriously, who was that for? She refused to separate
| herself from Biden on any issue despite his historic
| unpopularity. And of course, she refused to deviate from
| the deeply unpopular position on Israel-Gaza. In short,
| she offered the voters absolutely nothing.
|
| In this election, progressive voter initiatives
| outperformed the Democratic party by a massive margin.
| For example, minimum wage increases passed in Missouri, a
| state Trump won by 22. Trump won Florida by 14 yet
| recreational cannabis and abortion protection got 55-59%
| of the vote (unfortunately, you need 60% to pass in
| Florida).
|
| The Democratic Party exists to actively sabotage any
| progressive momentum. We didn't get a convention primary
| after Biden withdrew because the DNC was scared a
| progressive candidate would win. They stuck us with
| Kamala to avoid that.
|
| My point here is that Trump doesn't have and has never
| had a majority. He only won each time because there was
| effectively zero opposition. A chunk of Trump's base are
| simply people desperate for change. At least Trump lied
| to them and gave them something to vote for. Democrats
| wouldn't even lie to them and tell them they were going
| to fix housing and egg prices and give them healthcare.
| chabes wrote:
| Louder, for the people in the back.
|
| This is a solid summary of what happened during the
| political shifting of the last (almost) ten years.
|
| Unfortunate that this comment is so deep in the thread
| here.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Not disagreeing with your points (maybe taking issue with
| a few), but pretty sure no _True Progressive_ would have
| won either.
| dboreham wrote:
| > At least Trump lied to them
|
| This is the real bisector. If one party gets to use magic
| and capture the stupid vote, what's the other party
| supposed to do? Lie more? Lie less? As long as magic
| appeals to stupid people, we're screwed.
|
| The real underlying problem is the collapse of the
| consensus of the elites, projected through corporate
| media. Murdoch saw a financial opportunity to break from
| this model, and social media companies followed with this
| as their only business model. Murdoch and Zuckerberg make
| money spreading magic which appeals to stupid people who
| vote in deranged morons. There is no effective feedback
| mechanism because not enough voters have the mental
| skills to evaluate the consequences of their actions. Or
| perhaps they just like seeing chaos and destruction.
| Rinse repeat.
| alexis_y wrote:
| The Democrats' solution - What if we throw the ~10
| transgender athletes under the bus? That will definitely
| sway some votes. Next time you will hear from Gavin
| Newsom how climate change is not that big of a deal.
| delusional wrote:
| Bernie Sanders would not fix the American Problem,
| because he too would be unable to do anything. It's a
| mistake to think that there was one recent event decided
| on the margins that somehow led to collapse.
|
| The American Problem is not one of systems or policies.
| The American Problem is about people, what they do to
| each other, and that you allow that to happen. The
| constitutional arguments they have are Red Herrings. What
| matters is what people do, and what they want to be
| allowed to do by their arguments.
| whstl wrote:
| _> This is how democracy dies. People distrusting the
| system so hard they destroy it._
|
| Funny. Reminds me of the last time I visited Brazil. In
| the last day I heard someone justifying voting for
| Bolsonaro by saying "things are so bad that I just want
| someone who will destroy everything".
| maleldil wrote:
| Bolsonaro is a symptom of the same disease as Trump. At
| least he's ineligible until 2030. Who would have thought
| that Brazil would have stronger democratic institutions?
| therouwboat wrote:
| It's weird, they think things can't get any worse. In my
| country, union got us 7% raise in 3 years, thats 4% if
| you discount union membership cost and people talk about
| leaving union "because it's not worth it".
|
| Without union we get nothing and people before us had to
| fight to get us these rights and now some people want to
| throw it away because they didn't get big enough raise.
| watwut wrote:
| > Trump is the result of anti-system vote by people who
| were ignored for decades by both parties.
|
| Nah, they were not ignored by both parties. It is votes
| by people who were listened to by the republican party
| again and again and again.
| deepsun wrote:
| I don't buy the "ignored" part.
|
| It's not like in authoritarian countries where their
| votes just go down to trash. It's not like they cannot
| voice their opinion or organize demonstrations. I agree
| there is a sentiment of "I'm ignored", but at any point
| in time it's up to them to not being ignored in
| democratic society.
| ajuc wrote:
| Do you think it's realistic to expect a new party to win
| elections in USA in the next 20 years?
| gruez wrote:
| >What America calls leftists is considered pretty
| centrist everywhere else. They're so afraid of empathic
| policies it's no wonder the country is falling apart.
|
| Maybe on economic issues. On certain social issues it's
| definitely not "centrist" and arguably further left than
| other developed countries.
| hobs wrote:
| Which? Be clear, because the only ones I hear you
| dogwhistling here are Trans folks rights or Black folks
| rights if you are vaguely referencing "social issues" and
| generally America's historical context there is Pretty
| Dang Bad.
| cced wrote:
| What's the dogwhistle?
| inglor_cz wrote:
| There is nothing dogwhistleable here, US leftist race
| policy is a huge outlier in the Western world and I would
| hesitate to call it "liberal". Once someone groups people
| into racial groups and treats them like interchangeable
| Lego bricks by color, they have left any pretense of
| liberalism, which by necessity considers an _individual_
| to be the smallest and most vulnerable minority of them
| all.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| The US is very liberal, but liberal doesn't mean left.
|
| Left to me means workers movements, and there's very
| little of that in the US.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Identity politics is on the right in Israel. In a general
| sense I think it might not belong on the same spectrum as
| redistributive policies or militarism.
| gruez wrote:
| >The US is very liberal, but liberal doesn't mean left.
|
| At no point was "liberal" mentioned in this comment chain
| prior to your comment.
|
| >Left to me means workers movements, and there's very
| little of that in the US.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-
| wing_politics#Social_prog...
| epistasis wrote:
| Biden was the strongest supporter of workers unions we
| have ever had, and the left in the US reviled Biden.
| Including the unions, largely.
|
| It's time to stop thinking in materialist terms when
| analyzing US politics, that has completely flown the
| coop. It's all culture war.
| closewith wrote:
| For economics (both sides) healthcare, labour, "defense",
| energy, firearms, speech, religion and basic human
| rights, both main parties in the US are far right by
| Western standards (and true outliers for most).
|
| It's really only identity politics where the left is
| actually on the global left, and then it's far-left.
| gruez wrote:
| >For economics (both sides) healthcare, labour,
| "defense", energy
|
| Those are arguably closer to "economic" than "social".
| Energy is plainly economic. Even healthcare and labor at
| the end of the day, boil down to dollars and cents (ie.
| how much people are paying for healthcare and how much
| they earn).
|
| >speech
|
| Having the strongest free speech protections in the world
| is "far right" now?
|
| >religion
|
| The Republicans might be "far right" on religion, but I
| don't see how the Democrats are. They can certainly be
| more secular (think the CCP), but at least they're not
| obviously religious. Compare this to the UK and Denmark
| which have state regions, and the _christian_ democratic
| union in Germany.
|
| >basic human rights
|
| Clarify. "basic human rights" has been muddled by the
| left to include mean stuff like "healthcare", as well as
| the right to mean "right of babies not not get aborted"
| and "kids not being groomed".
| bigfudge wrote:
| If you think the UK state religion is in any way relevant
| to this then you are sorely mistaken. The Church of
| England has little to no influence on daily politics and
| is a historical oddity. All political parties, left and
| right, are essentially secular. Religious politicians
| basically have to keep their faith quiet while gaining
| and maintaining office. Blair is a good example of this.
| derektank wrote:
| Since when is defending freedom of speech a right wing
| issue?
| karparov wrote:
| It will soon stop being considered that, when Trump and
| Musk keep widening their censorship apparatus.
| sangnoir wrote:
| College campuses are already a 1A-free zone with the
| intention to deport "anti-Semitic" students
| vanviegen wrote:
| > It's really only identity politics where the left is
| actually on the global left, and then it's far-left.
|
| That rings true, but how did the US get here? How did
| identity politics suddenly come to be the most important
| thing, bringing the world order to its knees?
| bigfudge wrote:
| I don't actually think it's far left though. And they are
| certainly much less effective than other socially liberal
| parties in Europe. In the UK it was our right wing party
| that legalised gay marriage, for example. Europe is a lot
| more woke than the US (and a good thing too)
| moomin wrote:
| US is still pretty far-right on social policy by the
| standards of most of Europe. This is an average, there's
| lot of outliers such as even the proper left in France
| being weird about Muslim dress.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Well yeah, plenty of developed countries are xenophobic
| and bigoted in terms of same sex marriage still. I'm
| curious what "social issue" you are imagining that is
| represented by the american left but not the european
| left otherwise.
| derektank wrote:
| The US left wing is far more supportive of trans rights,
| particularly youth gender affirming care, than its
| counterparts in Europe. For example, I do not think you'd
| see a Democrat outside of a swing district publicly say,
| "It's very important that we protect female-only spaces,"
| as Keir Starmer has. Also, while on the campaign trail he
| said he wouldn't scrap the proposed ban on teaching young
| people in England about transgender identity in school,
| saying, "I'm not in favour of ideology being taught in
| our schools on gender," language not too dissimilar from
| the Trump administration's.
| amenhotep wrote:
| Starmer is a centrist and Labour have been very weak
| against a trans panic being whipped up by right wing
| media.
| derektank wrote:
| Yes, that's my point. And there are many Labor MPs that
| are to the right of Starmer on this issue. The party
| that's closest to the Democrats (and arguably slightly
| more left on the issue though not by much) are the Lib
| Dems, and they got, what, 12% of the vote?
|
| Also, do you not think American right wing media is not
| capable of whipping up panics? This feels like special
| pleading.
| bigfudge wrote:
| Outside of trans rights though, it's hard to see what
| issues the us left is to the left of Europe on. What's
| more, we actually have left wing parties in power and
| using govt machinery to advance what would now be called
| 'woke' in the us.
| chabes wrote:
| > For example, I do not think you'd see a Democrat
| outside of a swing district publicly say, "It's very
| important that we protect female-only spaces," as Keir
| Starmer has.
|
| Maybe a year or two ago...the political landscape has
| shifted drastically in recent years and months.
|
| California governor Gavin Newsom has a new podcast, and
| recently told Charlie Kirk (yes, he invited Kirk to
| pander to the young white male voters) something along
| the lines of "trans people shouldn't play sports".
| nradov wrote:
| That's not what Gavin Newsom said. What he actually told
| Charlie Kirk is that it isn't fair for women to have to
| compete against biological males. You can disagree with
| him but don't misrepresent his position.
|
| https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-this-is-gavin-
| newsom-268...
| Aromasin wrote:
| The biggest win the Republicans and billionaire class
| ever had was convincing the American public that left ==
| liberal. It's not. Blue hair, trans flag, black lives
| matter, pro-palestine, etcetera; these are socially
| liberal stances. "Left" doesn't mean any of these things
| for the rest of the world in a conventional sense. Left
| means unions, workers rights, socialism or sydicalism;
| generally, power to the workers/99%/people rather than
| the capatilists/monarchists/regime.
|
| Americans should continue to conflate socially liberal
| and economically left-wing at their own peril.
| ForTheKidz wrote:
| It's worth noting that labor unions _have_ mobilized all
| over the globe in solidarity with Palestine. Given that
| the main bone of contention in this country is continued
| material and financial support to a military campaign it
| feels odd to lump in with "social liberalism".
| gruez wrote:
| >Left means unions, workers rights, socialism or
| sydicalism; generally, power to the workers/99%/people
| rather than the capatilists/monarchists/regime.
|
| Everyone claims they're the true voice of the 99%. Trump,
| despite being a billionaire, claims he's defending
| Americans workers by imposing tariffs and deporting
| undocumented immigrants. More broadly the right claims
| that they're fighting against the "elites" in the
| media/academia/corporations/"deep state".
| karparov wrote:
| Trump and Musk claiming they fight against "the elite" is
| one of the major jokes the rest of the world is laughing
| at.
| thfuran wrote:
| It was surreal watching Trump, the man who has made his
| very name into a corporate product, campaign against
| Hillary Clinton with claims that she's too influenced by
| corporations. And, somehow, our politics managed to get
| even stupider since then.
| peatmoss wrote:
| I agree, but would add that _many_ issues (left and
| right) here are more extreme. I think two things are a
| self-reinforcing cycle driving both ends of the political
| spectrum to extremes. First, hyper-partisanship has
| emerged where it was formerly held in check by social
| norms within our political institutions. Second, US
| politics has become a national pastime, replacing sports
| and other things in our attention. Everyone is able to be
| part of the commentator class by virtue of social media
| (I cite this thread, including my comment, as an example
| of this).
|
| Normie centrist views tend not to garner much attention
| either in traditional media or in online forums. Instead,
| we tend to focus much more on the issues that clearly and
| quickly establish our membership and bonafides in a
| particular group.
|
| The same extreme-voices-get-heard feature gets
| recapitulated through our political system. Especially
| the rise of getting primaried from the left or right.
| Break ranks with your side? Get primaried. The result is
| that, to get heard over the fray, political candidates
| need to articulate more extreme views and stick to them.
|
| Lots of words have been spilled about how various
| electoral reforms could get us out of this mess. For me,
| I believe ranked choice voting and open primaries
| represent an optimal trade-off between "legal, and
| plausibly implementable" and "yield biggest improvements
| to electoral system." A major complaint against ranked
| choice voting is that it tends to bias for more moderate
| centrists, which I think would be a not-bad problem to
| have.
| ahartmetz wrote:
| Conveniently, these certain social issues do not threaten
| elite interests like "traditional" leftism would.
| rhubarbtree wrote:
| Indeed. Social democracy is a requisite for stability.
| It's surprising it lasted this long. I guess the New Deal
| might have been instrumental in postponing collapse.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| People forget how close we got last time with The
| Business Plot. Now the Business Plot actually went off.
| ItCouldBeWorse wrote:
| People forget, how oligarchies are actually not desirable
| for the oligarchs. Because there is no law and no
| stability. The zhar/king has a bad day and the whole
| crowd around you shifts in some economic landslide.
| Oligarchs in Russia came and went, and they took their
| money to europe/swiss/uk/us - because you can not thrust
| a oligarchy, when you are today in favor of the golden
| god king.
|
| Such moves towards such systems, are usually desperate
| jumps of those whose empires are under threat of being
| broken up anyway.
| motorest wrote:
| > That's the most frustrating part. What America calls
| leftists is considered pretty centrist everywhere else.
|
| The most frustrating part is that Trump is sabotaging the
| US by enacting the pseudo-anti war policies that the
| republican party has been vilifying for decades.
| ninetyninenine wrote:
| Er no. There is a huge extremist leftist attitude that
| pervades the country. And all these leftists think they
| are centrists.
|
| Leftist now refers to that. The leftist of like over a
| decade ago. That leftist is now more centrist.
| acdha wrote:
| Do you have any specific examples?
| rayiner wrote:
| The countries that have had the most successful but
| empathetic policies have reversed course on the key issue
| of immigration:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/24/magazine/denmark-
| immigrat.... MAGA would be thrilled to achieve the
| reversal of immigration that's happening in Denmark, for
| example.
| bad_user wrote:
| The kind of immigration that Europe had to deal with is
| very different from that of the US.
|
| If you want to copy Denmark, I'm guessing you also want
| their universal healthcare.
| g8oz wrote:
| Is it that different? Lots of low skilled people who are
| generalized to be a threat to the nation.
| rayiner wrote:
| Assuming we got Danes to run it, yes, I'd want their
| universal healthcare system too.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| The US is so far right, that being against segregation, is
| now considered a far left 'woke' idea.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Nonsense, you have no idea how many conservatives are still
| mad the "leftists" forced the baker to make a custom cake
| endorsing gay marriage against his beliefs. (Not sell an
| off the shelf one, he was okay with that, a customized
| cake.)
|
| That's the kind of persecution they are talking, and angry,
| about. If that incident had not happened, Trump may never
| have been elected.
| epistasis wrote:
| I think this is precisely it. The culture war stuff may
| sometimes get a veneer of economic interests, but those
| are subservient to culture war.
| jayd16 wrote:
| They were upset about a tan suit. I don't think it's
| about any specific little incident.
| thfuran wrote:
| And fancy mustard.
| latentcall wrote:
| They also didn't like how Harris, a center right
| politician by all accounts, laughed "too much".
| tgma wrote:
| Regardless of how McCarthyism is antagonized under post
| Cold War era, it is not at all clear to me that such
| crackdowns wouldn't have been essential in ensuring the
| culture war is not lost to the Soviet Union.
| atoav wrote:
| Yeah?
|
| How about you check out the rest of the western world,
| where _each single_ democracy had their own pickings with
| communist tendecies. And most of them handled that in the
| common sense way of giving workers basic protections and
| ensuring their share of wealth so they don 't feel the
| need to go to the communists.
|
| Worked pretty well for most European countries.
|
| Although, once communism was gone, the ideology of
| neolibral economic thinking took over and thus all
| benefits to workers were seen as unnecessary expenses.
| Leading to the current rise in nationalism and fascism
| nearly everywhere.
|
| It is pretty simple: If you want all people to carry a
| system, all people need to feel like they profit from its
| existence. Once the mask slips and people realize they
| aren't profiting, they will be unwilling to hold up their
| side of the social contract. This is what is happening
| right now.
| ModernMech wrote:
| > This is what is happening right now.
|
| Yup, and the response to from the owner class is not to
| uphold the social contract, but to renegotiate it.
|
| "the whole structure of society will be up for debate and
| reconfiguration." - Sam Altman
| tgma wrote:
| > Worked pretty well for most European countries.
|
| Has it though? It appears most of Europe is by and large
| a failed state collapsing under such communist-adjacent
| policies plus unbounded immigration. I would not want to
| be Europe today, so yeah, to the extent McCarthyism has
| been a protection against that, kudos.
| AlimJaffer wrote:
| ... have you ever been to Europe? A failed state - keep
| drinking that Fox News koolaid.
| tgma wrote:
| Yes, two of my siblings are European citizens. It's
| staggering how much richer US feels. Many Europeans are
| fed daily propaganda and thus are in denial/ideological
| hatred. I implore Europeans especially the ones in
| technology to skip over anti-capitalist and anti-American
| propaganda widespread in Europe (e.g. you'll hear
| shootings every day; you'll be BK and die on the street
| if you get cancer) and seriously explore opportunities in
| the US. They can be _multiple times_ wealthier, not just
| some measly percentages.
| esafak wrote:
| That money apparently is not making Americans happier:
|
| https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-
| rankings/happiest-...
| tgma wrote:
| When you measure Socialist ideals and call it "happiness"
| you get paradoxical results.
|
| Ignore the US; keep believing that Sweden is happier than
| Spain :)
|
| They should really call it something like "World ESG
| Index."
| Peanuts99 wrote:
| But you only get two weeks of annual leave a year on
| average to enjoy that extra money. Seems a shame.
| tgma wrote:
| You can take a few years off with one year of FANG comp
| but if denial feels good I am not going to ruin the
| moment.
| latentcall wrote:
| Yes most of the population does not enjoy that benefit. I
| understand you only care for yourself, so yes please
| enjoy the current system that benefits you. Maybe we can
| a country just for you and send you there.
| jpl98 wrote:
| This is the classic american take, look at how much more
| money you could have.
|
| To most europeans there are more important things than
| money, especially those working in tech who likely earn
| enough to have a great quality of life. Also lots of them
| have been to the US and made their own minds up.
| atoav wrote:
| This is such a wild con, especially looking at the whole
| thing from Europe. The Us _has no significant political
| left_ , how on earth are they "behind everything" if they
| can't even manifest some influence within the Democratic
| party?
|
| If the left was strong in the US there would have been a
| contest between Hillary Clinton and an actual left wing
| contender like Bernie Sanders. Even people like AOC would
| make a decent centrist candidate in Europe.
| latentcall wrote:
| It's just a boogeyman so we can swing this country into
| full blown fascism. Hitler did the same crap. It's always
| somebody else's fault, usually your friends and
| neighbors.
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| The funniest part is how MAGA are literally rabid against
| anyone left of Bret Baier while embracing the overtly
| obvious Russian propaganda to the point where you start
| feeling sorry for them when the outright repeat Russian
| talking points e.g. deep MAGA don't care a single iota for
| about anything more than 20ft from the US shores (because
| America first!) and yet they will have the strongest and
| most deeply detailed opinions on Crimea lol
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| During Trump's first term in office I developed a hobby
| wherein I would get hardcore conservatives to
| unequivocally support various talking points from the
| Communist Manifesto, normally in response to them
| bitching about "leftists". This takes a lot less effort
| than you might think.
| mafuy wrote:
| Could you share one or two examples of how that went? :)
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| I mean it's not like I told them they were agreeing with
| communist propaganda at any point during the conversation
| so from everyone's perspective in the moment everything
| was going fine. The typical workflow was something along
| the lines of them bitching about liberals which is fine
| by me until they misapplied the term leftist or similar
| at which point I'd normally inject a non-sequitur about
| how bankers and execs are piling up cash with a forklift
| while the folks that actually work for a living can't
| hardly get by. This never gets any pushback and provides
| the perfect opening to quote your choice of communist
| propaganda, which also doesn't get any pushback as long
| as you aren't goofy enough to attribute your sources. ;)
|
| My favorite example is probably getting my wife's uncle
| to agree that the proletariat has nothing to lose but
| it's chains mid-rant about how right-wing militia groups
| are the only folks in the country with a finger on the
| pulse and how they were absolutely going to overthrow the
| federal government with a selection of canned goods and
| small arms...
| xnx wrote:
| > The myth of how much harm "leftists" can do/are doing in
| the US
|
| Every single bit of the right is projection. "The left
| hates America" = we (the right) will dismantle and destroy
| this 250 year experiment
| sebazzz wrote:
| Every single bit of the Trump club you meant. The USA
| used to have a _sane_ right wing party.
|
| But yes, projection. Like free speech, playing with World
| War III, etc.
| fallingknife wrote:
| I completely distrust and generally regard leftists with
| contempt due to my personal interactions with them alone. I
| regard them as societal cancer and would prefer any other
| group to be in charge over them. No McCarthyist propaganda
| needed. I'll take a fascist's boot on my neck any day over
| a lefty who pretends to do it for my own good.
| tigrezno wrote:
| wow you're full of hate
| bongodongobob wrote:
| 99% of leftists are completely normal people.
| bdangubic wrote:
| 99% of leftist and roughly 2.76% rightists :)
|
| the saddest part about a comment you are commenting on is
| that their mind has been so polluted that they only see
| the world through the views of two arbitrary political
| parties (who shift their own views every couple of
| decades, hard rightist from few decades ago is basically
| same-ish person as far-leftist today). all empires fall
| and USA is slowly getting there (now going "little"
| faster) because of thinking like this in part.
| wholinator2 wrote:
| Strong words here friend. Just curious, have you ever had
| a boot on your neck? What does leftist mean to you? And
| reading your comment back slowly do you still agree?
| hobofan wrote:
| > when it elected a leftist steeped in anti-imperialist
| ideology who wanted to better the world
|
| You are saying this as a hypothetical that never happened,
| right?
| pegasus wrote:
| Probably some of the leftist dictators of South America
| would qualify. Chavez, Morales et. al.
| hobofan wrote:
| Yes, but not in the US, as OP was saying.
|
| I assume he was trying to allude to Obama, which at least
| in the recent decades came the closest to that in terms
| of media image, but the claim that there has been an
| anti-imperialist president of the US (on any relevant
| timescale) doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.
| epistasis wrote:
| That's what the "would be" indicates directly in front of
| the part you quoted. And in reference to your comment
| below, I am definitely not referencing Obama, that doesn't
| even make sense because he did not dismantle American
| Empire in his two terms, in addition to not really being a
| leftist at all.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| English is ambiguous. Your statement can be interpreted
| as "I thought the guy we elected (a specific individual
| to whom I refer coyly, not by name) would destroy
| everything" or "I thought it would take electing a
| certain type of person to destroy everything".
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| There's some truth to this, but the bigger issue is that
| we've been paying A LOT in taxes for A LONG time and because
| larger and larger portions of that are going to pensions,
| people are starting to second guess every expense.
|
| The good news - form my perspective - is that the GROWTH in
| the percentage of the workforce living off pensions is
| slowing dramatically and is now under REAL growth, which
| means working folks might feel like life is getting better
| again.
|
| The reason people have complained that life hasn't gotten
| better for workers over the last 20 years is because nearly
| all growth has gone to more people being retired and the
| 0.1%.
|
| If you keep the same growth, but the number of people
| retiring slows, there's a little more wiggle room with the
| pie.
| kingkawn wrote:
| The country has been growing and people getting rich taxes
| are not the issue that's just Republican propaganda
| bad_haircut72 wrote:
| I moved from Australia to the USA (be careful who you swipe
| on dating apps) and went from paying 50% tax to 15% tax for
| basically the same job with basically the same quality of
| life. Tax in America is outrageously low which is no doubt
| why it cant balance its budget (though I approve of cutting
| government spending aswell).
| imajoredinecon wrote:
| Counterpoint: I'm in the US and my effective income tax
| rate is in the mid-40s, with my marginal rate over 50%.
| And I'm not in one of the few states with the highest
| state income taxes.
| bad_haircut72 wrote:
| Admittedly I live in Texas (no state income tax) but
| where do you pay 40%? California?
| screye wrote:
| 25(federal)+8(social security)+5(state) is a common
| combination. That's 38%.
|
| God forbid you live in NYC and it can gonna to 42%
| callmeal wrote:
| Social security is 6.2% and is capped (you only pay
| social security taxes on a max income of $168,600). So if
| your income is 168,600 you pay $10,453 in social security
| taxes.
|
| And if your income is $1,000,000 you still only pay
| $10,453 in social security tax.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| $176,100 this year, and you should also include Medicare
| which is 1.45% and has the same cap. That does mean a
| base 7.65% federal tax rate for most W-2 earners. But
| when you work out the math on the effective tax rates for
| income tax (not payroll) it takes a lot to hit 25% as
| your effective federal income tax rate.
|
| Around $350,000 gets you to a 24.8% effective federal
| income tax rate if you're single and only take the
| standard deductible, $700k if married. That puts you in
| the top 3% and 1%, respectively, of incomes in the US
| these days.
|
| But that gets reduced when you include things like tax
| advantaged retirement accounts, various tax credits,
| dependents, paying for health insurance, possibly being
| able to itemize (more likely at those incomes than the US
| median income). So really you have to be making something
| like $400k-500 as a single person to hit 25%, and $800k+
| for a married person.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| A single W-2 earner making $1 million has a 33.49%
| effective federal tax rate (OASDI, Medicare, Income)
| taking only the standard deductible and doing nothing
| else to lower their taxable income (no tax advantaged
| accounts, not spending enough in categories that allow
| itemization, etc.). A single non-W-2 earner (has to pay
| the employer part of payroll taxes) has an effective rate
| of 34.84%.
|
| If they're married the rates are 29.62% (W-2) and 30.97%
| (non-W-2), under the same assumption that they do not do
| anything to qualify for either reduced taxable income or
| any kind of rebate or credit.
|
| Most people don't make $1 million, and those that do have
| ways to reduce their tax burden quite a bit without much
| trouble.
|
| EDIT: Small modifications to the numbers above, they were
| off by about 0.4% to 0.5%.
| jmalicki wrote:
| The highest federal bracket is 37%, the highest state
| bracket in the US is California at 13.3%, Medicare at
| 2.9% if you're self employed, NIIT caps out at 3.8% - so
| even earning well into seven plus figures, with punitive
| NIIT, only puts you at a max of 47% marginal. Social
| security taxes stop long before the brackets kick in.
|
| NYC has combined local and state top marginal rates of
| 14.776%, to go up to 48.476%.
|
| I call BS on marginal rates exceeding 50%
|
| Edit: even the new 2024 California payroll tax cap lift
| and mental health tax on seven figure incomes put it at
| 49.1%. Marginal rates that high don't exist in the US.
| Even then that requires paying payroll taxes and NIIT on
| the same income, which I'm pretty sure is impossible.
| callmeal wrote:
| A quick back of the envelope calculation shows that an
| income of $1 million gets you an effective tax rate in
| the mid 40s in California.
|
| AGI: $1000k Federal Income Tax: $322k California State
| Income Tax: $102k FICA Taxes: $32k Total tax: $456k
|
| Compared to say Germany, where for the same income you
| would be paying over 50% in taxes. So I think you're
| doing very well.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "Tax in America is outrageously low which is no doubt why
| it cant balance its budget"
|
| Neither can France, which redistributes over 50 per cent
| of its GDP.
|
| The hunger for public monies will eventually outrun any
| feasible taxation system.
| raincom wrote:
| In US, employer pays their share of social security +
| medicare taxes, which is about 7.6%. If you are self-
| employed, you need to pay both the employee and the
| employer side (about 15.2% taxes, mandatory).
| alabastervlog wrote:
| When we briefly had a balanced budget (kinda, if you
| squint just the right way) we had 1990s tax levels and a
| major economic boom.
|
| We've since had two major rounds of tax cuts by
| republicans, so a balanced budget isn't feasible even in
| booms and when we're _not_ deficit spending on two stupid
| wars. And now we've got all the interest on the debt from
| those tax cuts and wars to worry about.
|
| If only anyone could have predicted this. Oh wait,
| everyone who knew anything about taxation policy did.
| poisonborz wrote:
| > same quality of life
|
| What is your bill when an ambulance brings you in? When
| you have a legal problem at your workplace? What will be
| your pension? How is the mass transit system? What do you
| pay for child care, how is your school, how safe is your
| neighborhood, how do the number of murders in your area
| compare?
| ajuc wrote:
| Taxes aren't the problem.
|
| How do I know? Because my parents earning ~1000 USD per
| month each living in Poland have higher standard of living
| than most Americans. Despite paying ~30% taxes.
|
| You have to add up what the taxes pay for in the
| calculation. Free healthcare, free university education,
| good public transport, low inequality (= low crime). All of
| that adds up to higher standard of living achievable with
| pretty shitty earnings.
|
| Oh and before you blame it on military spending - we spend
| higher% of GDP on military than USA. Russia is a shitty
| neighbor, we have to.
|
| American problems are exactly the opposite of what
| Americans think they are. You are in dire need of some
| social democracy.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Lack of civic pride and a lack of belief in even the
| _possibility_ of effective government means that the US
| -- and many countries like it have a) ineffective civil
| service and b) ineffective government.
|
| Going at it with a chainsaw isn't going to help.
| tocs3 wrote:
| > _Free healthcare, free university education, good
| public transport, low inequality_
|
| And I think these are all difficult things to do well and
| make money, as in doing a good job in healthcare,
| education, etc. is not really profitable. So, they are
| areas for government involvement.
| throw_pm23 wrote:
| That's an interesting perspective, that could be used as
| an argument by both camps. You say more social democracy,
| someone else might say, more social cohesion due to
| shared cultural background and low immigration.
| ajuc wrote:
| Social democracy is orthogonal to immigration policy.
|
| You can have welfare state with close or open borders and
| anything in between, and you can have libertarian state
| with close or open borders.
|
| For the last few years most EU countries have been going
| towards pretty strict immigration policy but not towards
| libertarianism.
|
| Also Poland is not a good example (it's been accepting A
| LOT of immigration since ~2014 - more than average in
| EU). But that argument gets pretty detailed very quickly
| so unless you want to go into it - I'll leave that
| alone).
| colinprince wrote:
| I read recently that Patrimonialism is a good way of
| describing the current regime
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrimonialism
| delusional wrote:
| I really hope this realization makes you reconsider your
| distrust of "leftists steeped in anti-imperialist ideology",
| and whatever ideology you carry.
| rhubarbtree wrote:
| See also: "tax is theft."
| Footkerchief wrote:
| Horseshoe theory addresses this.
| Karellen wrote:
| I need to give a name to my theory which posits that
| horseshoe theory is a bullshit right-wing talking point, no
| different from the classic villain trope "We are not so
| different, you and I", where one side admits to being awful
| but uses false analogies to try and paint the other with
| the same brush, and the other rejects both the comparison
| and the conclusion.
|
| The underlying goal of horseshoe theory is not to create a
| meaningful comparison between two positions, but an
| underhanded attempt to demoralise those on the left, and to
| swing undecided centrists by convincing them that the left
| isn't really offering the progress that it claims. I think
| it's also used as a shield by people who are right-leaning
| but don't want to admit it out loud.
|
| ...unless you can find a single good example of a notable
| left-wing proponent suggesting that horseshoe theory is
| valid, actually.
| dse1982 wrote:
| This and 1000 times this. It is so absurd: of course it
| seems ad hoc plausible to treat roughly similar things as
| if they were the same. However: never do this in this
| forum, since this is a community is looking a lot into
| all kinds details, so you will get called out.
|
| But somehow - SOMEHOW - the same people that ask for
| nuance in everything act as if it would be even remotely
| plausible that the two most polar opposites of political
| theory would be basically the same for all important
| intents and purposes if thought to an end.
|
| It is simply mind-blowing. People looking at something,
| seeing it is complex, stopping their thinking and just
| somehow feeling their way to the most empty assessment
| ever: "probably the same consequencesif you think it to
| the end". Without even having begun to think their way
| through it!
|
| But I get it: thinking is nice as long as it is a purely
| intellectual endeavor but not if any personal moral
| responsibility is concerned. You might be morally
| obligated to draw consequences in your behavior - Heaven
| Forbid!
| exe34 wrote:
| I'm the most cynical person I know, and somehow I spent 38
| years thinking the US would always be on top, and despite the
| smaller scale invasions and the odd assassination, would
| maintain world peace and fund prosperity for all in terms of
| fundamental research.
|
| I knew that democracy was fragile and that losing it could
| happen to all of us - except the US. somehow I believed their
| separation of powers would always work, that the pretence of
| freedoms would always be in the interest of Western
| oligarchs.
|
| it's been a tough 6 weeks for me.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| The US has always been a plutocracy with democratic
| trimmings. Exactly like ancient Rome.
|
| The difference now is that the plutocrats are high on their
| own supply.
|
| There used to be an understanding that if they didn't give
| something back they'd end up hanging from a lamp post.
|
| Now they've decided the little people and their silly
| little planet are disposable, and AI, magic robots, and a
| cult of narcissism will replace them.
|
| Absolutely lunacy, with consequences as expected.
| exe34 wrote:
| it does occur to me that maybe they think robot soldiers
| will soon be able to keep them safe from the revolution,
| but honestly, they're probably just greedy and reckless.
| pmarreck wrote:
| > somehow completely controlled by Russia
|
| Yeah, about that... Analysis by Grok says "75-85% likelihood
| Trump is a Putin-compromised asset"
|
| https://x.com/i/grok/share/WQepvCpIJl2EJ0F7tHNbLAhm6
|
| Can you imagine if this were true?
| typeofhuman wrote:
| Trump's actions towards the EU has resulted in a massive
| increase in military spending by those nations. This is
| exactly what Trump has demanded of them. This is
| consequential to Russia and in no way good for them. To
| think Trump is "controlled by Russia" is such a tired, worn
| out farce.
| rfrey wrote:
| He has already ceded the two greatest Russian demands re:
| Ukraine, without a negotiating table even being set up
| yet. Why did he do that?
| pmarreck wrote:
| Is it possible that he was smart enough to agree with
| Putin but that neither was smart enough to expect the
| unintended consequences? It is trivially easy to see
| things as "obvious" in hindsight, which were not
| actually, prior.
|
| Did you read the evidence Grok gave, at least? Lots of
| citations in there.
| ericjmorey wrote:
| Trump clearly respects Putin and sees Putin as a role model
| for himself. Doesn't matter if he compromised.
| api wrote:
| The idea that the empire has a burden to civilize the world
| is a common theme in empires throughout history.
|
| It's part honest desire to do something good with the
| position history has afforded the empire, and part self-
| serving rationalization, depending on who is doing the
| talking.
| sudoshred wrote:
| It is, in my own opinion, a common fallacy to attribute the
| outcome as a direct consequence of the associated ideology,
| when more often than not the ideology is at best a post-hoc
| rationalization. Material decisions and their natural
| consequences are far more consistently impactful than any
| abstract justification for them.
| cardamomo wrote:
| Oft quoted on HN in these contexts: "The purpose of a
| system is what it does." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_
| purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
| dse1982 wrote:
| The system is eroded by the people who were brought into the
| position of being capable to destroy the system: by the
| system!. In so far: "The purpose of a system is what it does"
| (Stafford Beer). This should motivate us to ask what
| properties of the system lead to this and how we might change
| it.
|
| To me it seems to be a bit like what the Bockenforde-Diktum
| points to, which is: "The liberal secularized state lives by
| prerequisites which it cannot guarantee itself."
|
| Basically the modern capitalist secularized society is so
| void of deep human values and only emphasizing legality and
| profitability that it brings out a certain kind of elite. An
| elite which is decoupled from all real human connection and
| value leading to a thinking like this:
| https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/05/politics/elon-musk-
| rogan-...
|
| Well and now we have to cope with this. But until we
| understand that these elites are no accident but logical
| results of the system we foster, nothing will really change.
| Or better: until we accept that the reductionist approach to
| human society and value that this system is based on is
| flawed and act accordingly everything we do is basically just
| flex-taping it and waiting for the next escalation.
| rchaud wrote:
| > leftist steeped in anti-imperialist ideology who wanted to
| better the world.
|
| This is precisely how half of the US media characterized
| Barack Obama, who pioneered an even more impersonal style of
| American imperialism with drone warfare in Afghanistan, Iraq,
| Yemen and Syria.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Obama is responsible for advancing the power of the
| presidency pushing further the limits with executive orders
| to make law. When met with the uselessness and
| obstructionism of Congress, both parties elected officials
| choose authoritarianism. When faced with disagreement, both
| party's voters advocate for authoritarianism. If the
| opposition doesn't agree, we'll use the government to force
| them.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Calling Republicans jealous and afraid is a good way to make
| yourself feel better but very much misses the character of
| what's happening. The "I'm a superior son of a bitch"
| attitude of leftists is gross. Saying "they're just jealous"
| is something you tell children.
|
| What you're saying here is "we're better than everyone else
| and everyone else disagrees with my positions because they
| envy how awesome we are".
| alabastervlog wrote:
| Democrats have a real problem with saying true but
| demeaning things that you have to discuss when coming up
| with strategy, out loud in public.
|
| Hillary's "deplorables" thing was maybe the most prominent
| example. Her point was that democrats who think that all
| republicans are committed to evil positions we can't
| compromise with or entertain isn't correct! Only about a
| third of them are, according to the data. The rest could
| maybe be reached or worked-with!
|
| This is true shit you say in blunt terms in a strategy
| meeting or nerdy discussion groups, not in public, because
| poli sci is just full of demeaning stuff about voters,
| _because they are stupid and often evil_ and if you study
| democracy soberly that's what you'll find, and you have to
| grapple with it to act effectively, but you don't say it in
| public because most voters _also don't know that stuff_
| because they're not poli sci nerds. She, and /or her speech
| writers, had been around strategists and wonks too much.
|
| [edit] on the other hand, one wonders how much this really
| matters when Trump wins while saying worse things about all
| kinds of folks. The way the media approach and characterize
| and amplify (or don't) the messages may matter more than
| what's actually said.
| watwut wrote:
| I find complaining about basked of deplorables coming
| from the conservative side to be the height of hypocrisy.
| The same people compete with each other who will be more
| insulting.
|
| They voted for Trump, twice. They love it when
| politicians are insulting.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Trumpers are utterly immune to declarations of hypocrisy,
| as people who refuse to engage in good faith often are.
| There's basically no point in calling it out.
| olddustytrail wrote:
| > "we're better than everyone else and everyone else
| disagrees with my positions because they envy how awesome
| we are".
|
| Now what American would _ever_ think that?...
| watwut wrote:
| Oh please. Between "libtards" and "snowflakes" and general
| condescension and insults comming from the the right for
| years and years, it is getting really tiring when the same
| people suddenly become thin skinned.
|
| For years we have been listening "fuck your feelings"
| coming from the right.
| wordofx wrote:
| "Fuck your feelings" came from the left...
| ModernMech wrote:
| Can you substantiate this?
|
| The only reference I can find before Trump is the lil
| Wayne song that came out in 2014:
|
| https://genius.com/Lil-wayne-fuck-yo-feelings-lyrics
|
| Before that nothing:
|
| https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&
| q=F...
|
| The internet is filled with pictures of Trump supporters
| wearing flags that say "Fuck your feelings" though.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owning_the_libs
|
| So I'm wondering what evidence you've come across that
| this phrase came from the left.
| scheeseman486 wrote:
| "Fuck Your Feelings" was strongly and rapidly adopted as
| a slogan by Trump campaigners in 2019. Prior to that it
| wasn't strongly used in a political context, instead used
| nonpartisanly as disparagement of ones opinions in
| general. It didn't come "from the left".
| walls wrote:
| The stupidity and confidence to post this, incredible.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Can you please explain the character of what's happening in
| a way that isn't demeaning to anyone? It's hard for me to
| view these events while inside without assigning blame.
| 827a wrote:
| It always ends up happening how you least expect it, though
| maybe that expectation is evidence that it was bound to
| happen via a different road anyway.
|
| At the end of the day, the problem isn't really Trump. The
| American Empire isn't going to end because its only exporting
| $300B of military might to the world instead of $600B, when
| no one else on the planet is scratching $50B (I made these
| numbers up as an illustration).
|
| It _might_ end because it seems like the media landscape has
| entirely striated the US population into two groups: One
| group who genuinely and deeply believes that these actions
| are necessary for the continuity of the US way of life, and
| another group who genuinely and deeply believes that these
| actions will destroy the US way of life. No one makes any
| good faith effort to understand the other side; even my
| suggestion that this division is the real threat will get
| downvoted by HackerNews ' overwhelmingly leftist bubble.
| American political discourse is now dominated by people who
| cannot allow even a single imperfection in their coat of
| armor, Trump cannot possibly be wrong about anything, his
| supporters cannot admit they might not have known the
| implications of what they voted for, the left cannot possibly
| be wrong about any of their criticism of him, we're screaming
| past each other.
|
| Interrogate your inner thought process right now; were you
| thinking "What side is this person on?"
|
| Its so difficult to get the full picture of understanding of
| the other side. Trump is rich, egotistical, and doesn't
| listen to the counsel of others; but Russia is controlling
| him? Trump wants to reduce the federal debt levels of the
| United States; but is hellbent on spending anything to deport
| economically productive illegal immigrants? Trump is
| silencing the media and kicking them out of the white house;
| while streaming more than Pokimane, direct from the Oval
| Office, just rambling for hours a day? Trump supporters were
| hoodwinked and lied to; yet more than any President america
| has had for decades, Trump is doing exactly, to the letter,
| what he said he'd do on the campaign trail; its just that the
| left didn't believe him back then, because we're so used to
| Presidents that do nothing. America's children have the worst
| test scores in the G20, and cost the most to educate; we
| should continue what we're currently doing? America's
| healthcare outcomes are among the worst in the G20, and most
| expensive; we should continue the path we're currently
| walking?
|
| We're in a crisis of understanding right now. We need more
| moderates. We need people who understand both sides of the
| coin, and can have a reasonable conversation about why the
| past 20 years hasn't worked for most Americans, and also why
| Trump's policies also won't fix things. My fear, however, is
| that we won't get that in 2028; instead we're just going to
| move into our camps further, with a leftist version of Trump
| v JD Vance, and we'll dig further down the hole of two sides
| that need each other to solve the problems we face, but
| refuse to work with one-another.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| > No one makes any good faith effort to understand the
| other side
|
| I do and have.
|
| Too many of their issues are simply made-up for me to get
| much traction, though. You see one outrageous thing after
| another and go "omg if that's true it does seem pretty
| bad!" and then it's almost always not true when you look
| into it. You can do this all day long with Fox News, let
| alone even nuttier sources.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| No one on the left is surprised by what Trump is doing. The
| people who are surprised are his voters.
|
| "I thought he was going to hurt those other people, not
| _me_. "
|
| Well. About that.
|
| The problem isn't even left vs right. It's a media system
| that has parted company with reality and deliberately
| promoted lies and rage bait for clicks and distraction.
|
| It's a huge machine. It's not just Fox, it's the entire
| network of neoliberal, now neofascist media outlets - from
| think tanks and "serious journalists", to bot farms and
| weaponised social media that promotes selected views and
| deboosts others, to podcasts, influencers, megachurches,
| mainstream econ schools, MBAs, startups... all promoting
| the same dysfunctional reality-denying neoliberal
| supremacist views under various guises.
| foobarian wrote:
| I wonder if part of the problem is that we abdicated our
| information intake to online sources, which for whatever
| reasons end up driving the divisions (engagement
| optimization, ads, money interests, etc.).
|
| Where information input before the Internet might have
| been: 20% newspapers, 50% face-to-face (at the bar, church,
| work), 10% radio, 20% TV, now it's more like 80% Internet,
| 10% TV, 10% face-to-face. And it seems to make it a lot
| easier to grow hateful without the human element.
| dh2022 wrote:
| Trump does not want to reduce US debt level- Trump wants a
| tax cut. If government spending decreases as a result of
| DOGE that will not result in lower debt- it will result in
| a bigger tax cut.
|
| The savings from DOGE ( if there will be any) will pass on
| to rich people, not to the average American voter.
| naijaboiler wrote:
| And we will borrow more than is saved to give tax cuts to
| the rich. Let's just stop this fallacy of this is about
| debt. It's not
| gip wrote:
| That's fine if Trump wants to spend less or even withdraw
| from NATO.
|
| Doing it like it just did with basically no notice is a
| stabbing in the back to former allies of the US. And
| Republicans are also not saying much.
|
| That behavior should and very likely will not be forgotten
| by Europe.
|
| The next phase that makes sense is an iron curtain between
| 4 blocks (US, Europe, Russia, China). Like during the Cold
| War, it is the approach that will minimize the risk of war.
| dtquad wrote:
| >I always thought that the American Empire would be
| dismantled when it elected a leftist steeped in anti-
| imperialist ideology who wanted to better the world.
|
| Most leftist political parties in Scandinavia and the Baltics
| manages to be be both pro-Palestine, pro-NATO, and pro-
| Ukraine. They don't seen any contradiction because there
| aren't any.
|
| Why do some American leftists follow this 3rd worldist neo-
| Maoist thinking that Western civilization needs to burn down
| before you can get free healthcare and free college?
| epistasis wrote:
| It's quite frustrating, but it's clear propaganda spread.
| There's a complete vacuum of media for leftists in the US,
| and a tiny amount of money goes a long ways to cementing
| desired propaganda. Seeing the entire left in the US turn
| on Ukraine calling them Nazis, when in fact they were
| occupied by Nazis, with all the terrors that entails, and
| were planned to have half their population killed and the
| other half enslaved to Nazis, well, it's red pilling. The
| left in the US is so weak and leaderless that it is easily
| co-opted to any sort of end.
| jayd16 wrote:
| What leftists are you talking about? These comments seem
| incredibly out of touch. Are we going to pretend the left
| elected Trump and these policies?
| wyre wrote:
| I find it mostly with younger people steeped in ideology
| and dogmatism, that reparations need to be made for a long
| history of imperialism.
| whstl wrote:
| _> Why do some American leftists follow this 3rd worldist
| neo-Maoist thinking that Western civilization needs to burn
| down before you can get free healthcare and free college?_
|
| Let's be fair, you said "some". We also have some of those
| in Europe.
|
| But to answer, with a guess: perhaps the difference is that
| in European countries there are way more political parties.
| But I'm not an expert on American politics so feel free to
| say this is BS.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Probably because 2/3 of the population can't be reached.
| They either want to do whatever they can to be anti-left,
| even if it hurts themselves, or they don't care at all. So
| voting harder isn't going to work. All while education is
| being gutted. I honestly don't know what other options are
| left. Maybe turning states into their own countries and let
| them raw dog the world without any help from the federal
| govt. Idk, it's bleak.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| 3rd wolrdism also exists in Europe. I'm pretty sure it's
| far more popular.
|
| The reason why they feel overrepresented in the US is
| simply because a real, progressive leftist political
| project is essentially impossible, so the most extreme of
| the extremes are proportional more audible.
| belter wrote:
| And the billionaires controlled by Russia: "Musk says he
| could 'collapse' Ukraine frontline with Starlink decision" -
| https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-trump-zelenskyy-
| putin...
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| I don't see this driven so much by ideology as much as musks
| drug fueled conversations with putin.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| It's being dismantled by an immigrant from South Africa with
| a dude who's grandparents immigrated about 100 years ago from
| Germany who has an immigrant wife.
| paulddraper wrote:
| > end of an empire
|
| Imperialism is not good, so this is welcome.
| brookst wrote:
| A broken arm is not good, but that doesn't mean cancer is
| welcome.
| FpUser wrote:
| Being an Empire guarantees cancer sooner or later
| itishappy wrote:
| I'm sure Greenland, Panama, and Gaza will be relieved to hear
| that.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Yes?
| casenmgreen wrote:
| Taiwan is now going to be _seriously_ worried.
| brookst wrote:
| If Taiwan didn't give up on the US and start making
| alternative plans on Nov 7th, that was a huge mistake. The US
| has made it clear that not only is it abandoning traditional
| allies, it will likely side with any invading force that
| exercises the "might makes right" principle.
| mft_ wrote:
| A couple of counterpoints:
|
| 1) Trump might be alienating his traditional allies and
| cosying up to Russia, but he still apparently sees China as
| a problem or adversary.
|
| 2) Thinking purely transactionally, the US is very
| dependent on Tiawan due to TSMC. Most of the US' largest
| tech companies are investing heavily in AI hardware (TSMC
| chips) and/or rely directly on TSMC for their own supply
| chain. I have no idea whether Trump et al see it this way,
| or this would be enough to trigger the US to protect
| Tiawan, but _transactionally_ , it's immeasurably more
| valuable to the US than Ukraine.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| > Trump might be alienating his traditional allies and
| cosying up to Russia, but he still apparently sees China
| as a problem or adversary.
|
| It seems to me it's hard to believe anything Donald says,
| or to think it could not change without warning in the
| near future.
| Vilian wrote:
| Don't listen to what politician say, watch what they do,
| to be fair his decisions were very anti-china, I mean,
| maybe it going to backfire, but it was anti-chine in it's
| principle
| brookst wrote:
| He's too erratic to take any past behavior as evidence of
| the future. If he breaks promises to a bunch of allies,
| no other ally should feel safe because he hasn't broken
| theirs _yet_.
|
| All it would take for a pro-China pivot is the right
| leverage. Cash, blackmail, who knows. But it's just a
| matter of whether the price is met, not whether the deal
| is available.
| gruturo wrote:
| > 1) Trump might be alienating his traditional allies and
| cosying up to Russia, but he still apparently sees China
| as a problem or adversary.
|
| That's not a guarantee at all. The only thing he's every
| been honest, consistent and truthful about is that
| _nothing is sacred_ , everything's on sale, no values
| (economic, patriotic, environmental, political) will
| stand in the way of his own profit, there's always the
| willingness to make a deal and sell something (someone)
| off, and fuck the consequences, no matter how gigantic,
| embarrassing, and suicidally bad they are. Negative-sum
| deals are absolutely on the table as long as he comes out
| richer or more powerful.
|
| China just needs to make a good offer and Taiwan's fucked
| when it comes to Trump's support.
| mft_ wrote:
| Fair point.
|
| "Let us take Tiawan and we'll _give you_ TSMC for the
| next n years " would probably be a pretty strong
| offering.
| warrenmiller wrote:
| TSMC machines have kill switches built in for such an
| event. https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/asml-
| adds-remote-...
| mft_ wrote:
| Sure, but I'm imagining a situation where China ensures
| the ongoing operations of TSMC via negotation with TSMC
| and the Trump government, to the satisfaction of all
| parties, and then being 'allowed' to take Tiawan as a
| result. For example, they could allow TSMC to function as
| an American-run entity for a number of years, or offer US
| companies very friendly terms, or something similar.
|
| This doesn't account for the actions of Tiawanese
| nationalists working in TSMC setting off the kill routine
| themselves, irrespective of the deal struck, but it's
| still an interesting scenario.
| this_user wrote:
| What alternative plan is there for them?
|
| If the PRC should actually decide to invade, it is going to
| be extremely difficult to hold that off on their own for an
| extended period of time. Which means they need allies who
| can rapidly deploy a sufficiently large force to stabilise
| the situation.
|
| But the only way to get there is with a naval force, and
| air supremacy would likely be critical to the outcome of
| that fight, which means you need someone with a large
| carrier fleet, and that is pretty much a pool of one.
|
| Without US help, there is very little hope that Taiwan
| would not be overrun sooner or later. Their only real hope
| would be a nuclear weapons programme that would allow them
| to credibly threaten to nuke Beijing if invaded. But the
| PRC would never let it get that far and would make sure to
| strike before that could be completed.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| It seems to me their hope is to make invasion so costly
| it is not undertaken.
| brookst wrote:
| Certainly ultra-secret nuclear program makes sense.
| Perhaps working with another country with development
| abroad so there is nowhere directly related for China to
| strike in Taiwan (the calculus for "we attacked a weapons
| development facility in Taiwan" is different from "we
| attacked Taiwan because they are participating in weapons
| development in the Philippines)
|
| Probably also increased military and economic ties to
| South Korea and Australia, and an effort to build a NATO
| of the area, absent the US, perhaps under ASEAN. Or
| something new.
|
| It's a tough problem but it's a real problem and I don't
| see how Taiwan could ever go back to trusting the US to
| defend democracies facing invasion.
| throw_pm23 wrote:
| There is a trivial alternative that military strategists
| have been suggesting for decades. For a nation of 20+ M,
| having a reservist army of 1M would be feasible and make
| the island impossible to invade even if the rest of Earth
| would join forces to do that.
| Epa095 wrote:
| Oh? The army still needs resupply, and the population
| needs food? Seems like a siege of an island is pretty
| easy.
| architango wrote:
| Taiwan should be thrilled. Every indication is that this
| administration is letting Europe fend for itself so it can
| focus on the Pacific.
| Erem wrote:
| The pacific is not safe from this effect. Trump has also
| recently started complaining about our security pact with
| Japan.
|
| https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2025/03/fd3521d51353-upd
| a...
| casenmgreen wrote:
| USA had two military alliances of central importance, one
| with Germany, one with Japan.
|
| The first is to keep Russia in check, the second China.
|
| The rumours of a carve-up, spheres of influence, begin to
| resonate.
|
| Problem is, you cannot run a country as if it were a
| business, because to do is to value influence and power
| above freedom, human dignity, and human suffering.
| philwelch wrote:
| Japan's constitution and postwar treaties with the United
| States constrain their ability to rearm and use military
| force. Those need to be amended and renegotiated in order
| for Japan to be an effective ally in the Asia-Pacific
| region. Japan's been asking for a change in the status
| quo for years. Trump is signaling not only a willingness
| to encourage Japanese rearmament, but a willingness to
| sell it to the American people in terms of their own
| interests.
|
| And frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the same weren't
| true of Europe as well. Ever since at least the Obama
| administration, the US has been begging Europe to
| increase their defense spending. Aside from Poland, none
| of them have done so. That might be changing now. Europe
| didn't rearm when Obama (whom you actually liked) asked
| nicely. Getting to sneer at Trump and the United States
| is a much more effective permission structure. And then
| the next time we elect a Democrat, Western Europe will
| give him a Nobel peace prize and pretend the whole thing
| never happened, just like the last time.
| brandonmenc wrote:
| Defending Taiwan is - unfortunately - a suicide mission.
|
| I'd rather not engage a hot war with China over it.
|
| We're going to have enough on our plate keeping China out of
| the Caribbean and our half of the Pacific.
|
| Buckle up.
| daemonologist wrote:
| The idea I think was that China would _also_ rather not
| engage in a hot war with the US over it, and therefore
| would be content with the status quo (or at least content
| to wait for a favorable political climate in the US...).
| pphysch wrote:
| Certain political factions* in Taiwan should be worried.
|
| The actual Taiwanese people are breathing a sigh of relief
| that they are increasingly avoiding the "primrose path" of
| Ukraine: Catastrophic death and destruction based on lies,
| marginally enriching foreign countries and a corrupt domestic
| elite.
| Juliate wrote:
| That also means no country will want to buy US (military)
| equipment.
| yimby2001 wrote:
| No one is using fighter jets in this war. Why? And everyone
| (who knows) knows this: The anti-air technology is too good to
| field a jet. It will just get shot down. so the Jets are now
| useless. so there's no point in supporting useless jets. And no
| country is going to buy useless jets. But go on and make this
| political and not about some physical reality of our world.
| epistasis wrote:
| These jets are being used to shoot down the drones that
| Russia uses to destroy residential homes and civilian
| infrastructure.
|
| Their loss will be felt both in lives, and in the cold of
| winter when homes are unheated.
| mlyle wrote:
| Jets are _massively_ used in this war-- to launch glide bombs
| and as roving defense against cruise missile threats. Ukraine
| is mostly doing the latter.
|
| Yes, the amount of direct CAS and amount of direct air to air
| engagement is low.
|
| Making an argument that "everyone knows" something without a
| basic effort to inform yourself is not great.
| outer_web wrote:
| They are absolutely using 'fighter jets' for standoff
| munitions delivery. You probably have heard of Storm Shadow
| and JDAM-ER.
|
| Even if this wasn't the case, they would still not be useless
| in that the firearms in your house aren't useless if you
| aren't actively shooting a home invader.
| hkpack wrote:
| That is extremely misguided take.
|
| Fighter jets are extremely valuable, they are not a magic
| weapon though, but just one of the very important tool for
| the military to have.
| mopsi wrote:
| Photos of a Mirage fighter jet shooting down a Russian Kh-101
| cruise missile over Ukraine, published two days ago by the
| Ukrainian General Staff:
| https://x.com/GeneralStaffUA/status/1898105929364648055
| wegfawefgawefg wrote:
| airplanes funded by tax money are not a business for selling
| product
| amelius wrote:
| > I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people
| able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against
| their own personal interests
|
| Sounds like another reality distortion field.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field
| belter wrote:
| "We Are Fighting Against a Dictator Backed by a Traitor" -
| https://youtu.be/j51HZncBvEI
|
| https://www.independants-senat.fr/post/claude-malhuret-situa...
| lucasyvas wrote:
| It's easy to prove that half is wrong as well because all the
| US' (past) global friends are screaming at the US trying to
| save them from driving off the cliff. It's one thing for the US
| to want to remake itself - gradual, cooperative plans to reduce
| engagement on the world stage over multiple years would have
| been something manageable.
|
| Pulling the cord with such little respect will not be
| forgotten. The USD will be lucky to still be the reserve
| currency in 5-10 years time. The rest of the world is likely to
| sanction the US at this rate. It is violating all of its
| agreements in bad faith.
| blibble wrote:
| > The USD will be lucky to still be the reserve currency in
| 5-10 years time.
|
| if the US regime carries on at the rate it has over the last
| month I expect it will be gone considerably faster than this
| lucasyvas wrote:
| Practically speaking I think it requires a lot of will,
| momentum, and process to change this. The decision even if
| made soon would probably take a few years to complete.
|
| Supplementing it may be faster (eg. adding Euro and/or
| Yuan) than outright replacing it, but it's not my area of
| expertise. The timeframe was based on some light research.
| blibble wrote:
| something to remember is that a good chunk of the
| "dollar" reserve is in reality eurodollars
|
| the backing of which could be switched very quickly
| indeed
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| This stuff moves slowly, until it doesn't. I'd honestly say
| at least ten years for large changes.
| rchaud wrote:
| And this will inflate away the debts tokenized in CCP-held
| US Treasuries. 4D chess! Russia did something similar in
| 1998 that sank the US hedge fund Long Term Capital
| Management.
| moduspol wrote:
| Actually we just want the war in Ukraine to end. Hope that
| helps.
|
| There's a lot of bloviating from the chattering class about
| cozying up to Russia, but I've yet to hear a cogent
| alternative. And no, I don't think "endlessly funding Ukraine
| to a forever stalemate" qualifies.
| Vilian wrote:
| I don't want to see Ukrainian genocide by Russia, hope that
| help
| convolvatron wrote:
| I would rather not have to live through an emboldened and
| desperate autocracy rolling over Europe and opening up the
| very real possibility of a third world war.
|
| and while we're here, since the US is ostensibly going
| isolationist, maybe they should stop telling the Ukrainians
| they need to submit to subjugation.
| isubkhankulov wrote:
| If Russia is powerful enough to take over Europe, how can
| Ukraine possibly win?
| convolvatron wrote:
| I think the story is Russia becomes powerful enough to
| threaten Europe, one state at a time.
|
| Ukraine has an amazing job, but they wouldn't have been
| able to do even that without convincing others that it
| was in their best interest to fund the war. That's been
| clear from the beginning.
| goodluckchuck wrote:
| The war is the genocide. Putin's invasion would have killed
| thousands, maybe tens of thousands and been over in a week.
| Western involvement changed that into the deaths of
| hundreds of thousands. What more effective means of self-
| genocide could Europe conceive? Germany cannot exactly
| round up a whole class of their own for slaughter again in
| their current political environment. The West (England,
| Germany, France, etc) caused WWI and WWII not Russia. Now
| we (America) should trust their vision to avoid WWIII? We
| should be clear who the problem is and stay out of it.
| bloopernova wrote:
| Ukraine remembers this:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
|
| For Ukraine to continue existing, the russians have to be
| driven out. Otherwise the genocide will continue. The
| genocide caused by russians, caused by russians invading
| Ukraine, caused by russians stealing Ukraine's children.
|
| In america's right wing trump followers, there is utter,
| sociopathic, monstrous _indifference_ to Ukraine 's
| suffering.
|
| So I'll ask you, personally: If the neighbouring state or
| country decided to invade and take over an area of your
| state, and you were told "you've been resisting too long,
| give in already and give up your fight", would you lay
| down and welcome the invaders you've been fighting? If
| you knew that the invaders were stealing children, and
| murdering whole towns?
| goodluckchuck wrote:
| You should not conflate Stalin with Russia. The
| socialists and communists were terrible for everyone
| everywhere they went...
|
| I'm not blaming Ukrainians for fighting. I am saying it
| is evil to give Ukraine only enough to suffer. However
| Europe again has socialists in power and it again means
| death for Ukrainians.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| As opposed to Russians in power which means death for
| Ukrainians?
| monkey_monkey wrote:
| If the West had just let Mr Hitler do what he wanted, so
| many deaths would have been avoided.
| userbinator wrote:
| The US didn't get involved until Pearl Harbor.
| nikcub wrote:
| FDR bending the Neutrality Act to support France and
| Britain is an important part of WW2 history - he was
| doing it before the invasion of Poland.
|
| It's exactly what the Ukrainians are asking for - not
| troops, just weapons.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| If Woodrow Wilson hadn't drawn Europe's borders to cause
| conflict many deaths could have been avoided.
| AppleAtCha wrote:
| This is such incredibly twisted logic. I would have
| honestly been aghast to see this on HN a few years ago,
| but now the site seems nearly as infected as Facebook or
| X with this.
| artem2471 wrote:
| You know buddy, I was there in Kyiv in that first week of
| invasion, and you know, the Western involvement was no
| where to be found, except for some infantry weapons
| (thanks for that). Again, hundreds of thousands of
| Ukrainians joined the military with full understanding
| that Russia has more of everything, that foreign support
| may not come and so on.
| moduspol wrote:
| I don't think any of us do. And they'll take your donations
| either way, so I don't think that's in question.
|
| What's your plan that results in Russia giving up the
| territory they've claimed and heading home?
| ProcNetDev wrote:
| You want the war to end so that Russians can do what they did
| to Bucha a thousand more times!
|
| You want the war to end so that Poland, Japan, Taiwan and
| Australia no longer trust that the US will help them and
| develop their own nuclear weapons!
| brandonmenc wrote:
| It is absolutely insane that anyone thinks giving nukes to
| Taiwan is a good idea.
| betaby wrote:
| US prevented Taiwan from developing nukes in the first
| place.
| xdennis wrote:
| If you think Taiwan shouldn't cease to exist, how else
| can you guarantee that? It's either nukes or US
| protection and nobody trusts the Americans anymore.
| ProcNetDev wrote:
| Other nations have adjacency.
|
| Taiwan makes some of the most complex devices humans have
| ever constructed! They can figure out the almost 100 year
| old technology to make a gun bomb nuke.
| moduspol wrote:
| I want the war to end because I have no preferable
| alternative.
|
| And you, too, have failed to present one. Is funding a
| never-ending stalemate indefinitely the only option?
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| so _your_ alternative of inaction involves a likely
| outcome of raping and murdering thousands of civilians in
| the name of peace for thousands of soldiers.
|
| Fantastic.
| moduspol wrote:
| I'm sure they'll still accept your personal donations,
| but no, I don't think spending billions to ostensibly
| prolong a forever-war thousands of miles away is even
| necessarily a good or ethical thing.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| the us can do plenty of things without spending billions
| of dollars that are short of this, and yes, i have
| personally donated to the Ukrainian effort.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| You know, you all talk about "spending" and "giving". All
| that money goes back to the US and funds jobs in the US.
| AppleAtCha wrote:
| An obvious alternative is to increase support to Ukraine
| to give them what they need to expel Russia. The good old
| USA has the resources to do that but Republicans have
| blocked increasing aid at the orders of Donald Trump for
| years now. And now that he is in power he is finally
| blocking it altogether.
| itishappy wrote:
| Why just this war? What's Israel's cogent plan?
| moduspol wrote:
| I'm not sure we should be funding that, either.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| You are "not sure"?
| BrawnyBadger53 wrote:
| Because conflict ended for good when crimea was annexed...
| moduspol wrote:
| Fair point. If only we had stretched that over decades and
| spent billions of dollars. I guess it could have been a lot
| more expensive?
|
| Still waiting on the alternative plan.
| AppleAtCha wrote:
| Is your plan really to just let Russia have new territory
| whenever they want it? Why do you think this would save
| money or lives?
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| We call you when Putin comes for Alaska.
| mft_ wrote:
| You must be being deliberately obtuse at this stage. He's
| not saying the Crimea incursion should have been fought
| again more. He's saying that allowing the annexation of
| Crimea to be relatively peacful didn't prevent the
| subsequent imvasion of Ukraine, and as such, stopping the
| war now and allowing Russia to keep the gains it has made
| may lead to a short-term peace, but will likely not
| prevent another war in the future.
|
| Given Putin's stated wishes, this will only stop if
| Russia is unable to make such moves (for whatever reason)
| or states at risk of invasion are defended such that it's
| strategically stupid for Russia to even try.
| af78 wrote:
| The Ukrainians want this war to end, too. The difference is
| that they want to survive as a nation, so _how_ the war ends
| matters.
|
| Plus if Russia wins, its appetite will only grow, and another
| war is just a matter of time.
| moduspol wrote:
| Yep, that all sounds great. Now what's your plan for
| preventing Russia from winning?
|
| The plan so far has not worked.
| tim333 wrote:
| Hold the line, stop the oil tankers.
| moduspol wrote:
| Who stops them? Ideally we'd do this without starting
| WW3.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| ideally we can stop hitler without starting wwwii. just
| give him a bit more of Czechoslovakia bro, this time its
| enough, bro. i promise.
| moduspol wrote:
| If only we had spent billions for decades of fighting in
| Czechoslovakia. Fair point.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| if only france and spain had decided to be neutral in the
| us war of independence we wouldnt be here hearing your
| navel gazing opinion.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| just because it hasnt worked so far doesnt mean it won't
| work. the time horizon matters. is russia gonna give up
| in 10 years? this is a bad plan. in 1 year? maybe not so
| much.
| moduspol wrote:
| That's not a plan. That's a wish. Wars aren't won on
| wishes.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| its not. plenty of OSINT evidence that this is
| inevitable. YOUR not-plan has no evidence going for it.
| moduspol wrote:
| It's inevitable that if Ukraine has no funding or
| soldiers to continue this war, then it will end. I don't
| think that is being questioned.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| why do you want the war to end? is it just a moral
| calculus of lives lost? how can you be sure that ukraine
| capitulating to russia will lead to less lives lost than
| one more year of war? 100,000-600,000 people died in the
| occupation of iraq, why do you think that a russian
| occupation of Ukraine will be less bloody?
| moduspol wrote:
| I don't think it is wise or ethical to spend billions of
| dollars prolonging a forever-war thousands of miles away.
|
| I also don't think it's wise or rational to presume that
| every aggressive action necessarily means that the
| aggressor is Hitler or bent on world domination. Or even
| that opposing them by sending resources to their enemy is
| the most effective way to stop it.
| tedd4u wrote:
| For the US, this is an extremely cheap [1] way to counter
| Russia. Ukraine is doing 99% of the work. We give them
| money which they immediately give back to us to buy
| hardware. Or we give mothballed hardware slated for
| destruction. Most prefer this to a future with dead
| Americans and US boots on the ground in Europe when NATO
| countries are invaded by Russia, emboldened by a world
| that gave up on Ukraine.
|
| [1] as a percentage of the US$850,000,000,000 _annual_
| Pentagon budget
| af78 wrote:
| It may surprise you but Russia is not winning. It has
| been exhausting itself for no measurable benefit, at the
| cost for US taxpayers of roughly a coffee per day.
|
| Up to now, Ukraine has never received the support it
| would need to win, just enough not to lose. Weapons
| deliveries been too little, too late, making the war
| longer and bloodier than it needs to be. In the meantime
| domestic production has increased to the point Ukraine
| covers 30% of its needs.
|
| Russia has lost other wars, it can and should lose this
| one.
| moduspol wrote:
| How many more billions do we need to send to ensure
| Russia loses? Any how many more years will it take?
|
| And what does "loss" even look like? Are you genuinely
| proposing they will simply pack up and head home from all
| captured territory?
| af78 wrote:
| > How many more billions do we need to send to ensure
| Russia loses? Any how many more years will it take?
|
| You have to compare with how much will it cost if the war
| continues to grow in scale or intensity. Russia is
| dedicating more and more resources to its war machine.
| And I have no reason to think it will stop if Ukraine. In
| 2022 Putin already said he wanted NATO back to 1991, IOW
| he wants Eastern Europe defenseless.
|
| Russia's economy is just the size of Spain or Italy: not
| negligible, but not formidable either. Europe should do
| more, much more, if only for its own sake.
|
| > And what does "loss" even look like? Are you genuinely
| proposing they will simply pack up and head home from all
| captured territory?
|
| Territorial issues are somewhat secondary. What matters
| is that the defeat is clear and Russia's leaders
| discouraged from attempting to go to war again. It
| happened to Russia against Japan in 1905, and to the USSR
| in Afghanistan. It can happen again.
| bambax wrote:
| Nobody wants the Russians to "pack up and head home"; we
| want them to die on the battlefield and be left there to
| rot.
| gherkinnn wrote:
| If Ukraine stops the fight they cease to be a sovereign
| nation. If Russia stops they loose face. The former is
| existential, the latter is not. Why is this so hard to
| understand?
|
| Any ceasefire or peace without security guarantees will be
| used by Russia to rearm and try again in a few years time. It
| will be a continuation of the conflict that started in 2014.
| That, too, isn't hard to understand.
| moduspol wrote:
| I guess we're on the hook to fund a stalemate indefinitely
| then?
|
| What's your plan for beating Russia? Ideally without
| starting WW3.
| codethief wrote:
| According to many economists we were already on a very
| good way to beating them (ruining them) with existing
| sanctions alone.
| graycrow wrote:
| Giving Ukraine all the weapons it needed and asked for,
| instead of destroying them soon, would be a good start.
| Also, you know, not forbidding Ukraine to use its long-
| range drones to damage Russia's oil industry would also
| be helpful. This is to get started. I can continue.
| Paradigma11 wrote:
| Winning the attrition war. They have most likely less
| than a year left before their economy crumbles. 21%
| interest rates, capital controls, official 10% inflation,
| annihilated non military sectors (fe cars), forcing their
| banks to give loans to anything military adjacent while
| forbidding them to call them in.......
|
| I am sure the Europeans would be willing to shoulder more
| of the cost but the US has been cutting Ukraine off from
| intelligence sources and now also support. There is no
| cost argument for that.
|
| Also do you really think that these decisions will not
| cost the US in lost sales, reassurances for everything
| because of lost trust....
| kilotaras wrote:
| I believe a big crux is in definition of "war ended".
|
| You (and Donald Trump) seem to be using "Ukraine and Russia
| stop shooting at each other right now", while Ukraine
| operates more under "Russia stops shooting at us for the
| foreseeable future, 20 years at least." Russia has previously
| broken a number of ceasefires and written agreements
| (including the infamous Budapest memorandum) and so Ukraine
| is not super trusting to agreements not backed by anything.
| moduspol wrote:
| What Ukraine will accept is entirely dependent on how much
| funding they will get from foreign powers to continue their
| war effort.
|
| I've had a lot of responses to my comment, yet I've seen no
| alternative ideas presented that will result in a different
| outcome. What is your plan for getting Russia to lose this
| war?
| bambax wrote:
| The alternative is to destroy Russia. Destroy its economy,
| kill their soldiers until there isn't one left standing,
| ravage its cities. Set fire to its oil fields. Sink its
| ships. It's a good alternative. A pleasant sight and a nice
| thing to look forward to.
| davikr wrote:
| > If you don't get support they are useless.
|
| Yes, but any country selling military hardware would do the
| same if it turned coats in a conflict.
| Beijinger wrote:
| "If you don't get support they are useless"
|
| Is this really the case or only a long term problem? The F-35
| is a totally different story.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I fully expect that in some near future the civilian
| infrastructure also will be de-coupled from USA in the name of
| national security by other nations.
|
| At this very moment, Apple and Google have the ability to
| disable communications for billions of people. They can make
| computers and phones totally unusable. Not just some features
| but everything.
|
| EU was trying to legislate around this risk by forcing
| companies to bring data on EU soil and open their platform to
| alternative providers. They always tried to be gentle with it
| as companies will claim that they are taken advantage of but as
| the things unfold at this pace I'm pretty sure that it EU and
| probably the rest of the world will be very heavy handed the
| moment there's an instance of US president or US tech oligarch
| decides to shut down group of people from their devices to
| teach them a lesson or to compel them into something like they
| did with military systems in Ukraine. I was afraid for years
| that people will be insulated into groups and the global
| community will be destroyed and now I feel like its happening.
| dachris wrote:
| I've thought about this for some time now, and am surprised I
| haven't seen this voiced more often.
|
| The way almost all societies have allowed themselves to be
| completely dependent on a few providers is mind-boggling.
|
| Someone else 10,000 miles away has the kill switch for your
| phone, your credit card, your brokerage account, your TV,
| likely your HVAC if you're into home automation, maybe your
| car.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Just recently Musk threatened cutting Ukraine's access to
| Starlink and then insulted the Polish foreign affairs
| minister once it was pointed out that its paid by Poland.
| Here:
| https://x.com/sikorskiradek/status/1898700362460070080
|
| Even though later he claimed that he did not mean that, I
| guess more people will start thinking about these things.
| austin-cheney wrote:
| > I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people
| able to twist reality to defend...
|
| Most people everywhere generally believe what their social
| reference group tells them to believe. Human nature, I guess.
| rchaud wrote:
| People believe what they want to believe. When reality turns
| out to not match their expectation, they quietly drop out of
| the conversation, without admitting they misjudged things.
|
| Best example of that is to take a look at HN in 2022 when
| Musk announced the Twitter takeover. A good half of the
| comments were quoting Voltaire and Snowden and applauding
| Musk for 'protecting free speech'. The other half saw it for
| what it was. When Musk stories come up now, there is no one
| still pushing the free speech angle.
| bmitc wrote:
| It's the Internet.
| CalRobert wrote:
| Russia might buy some
| ericjmorey wrote:
| A substantially sized loud minority in the US is fully
| committed to a death cult of personality. The rest of us are
| suffering and unprepared for this.
| bmitc wrote:
| What about all the "liberals", including many on this site,
| that not only bought into but actively promoted the cult of
| personality around Musk, Tesla, and SpaceX? Musk has always
| been a charlatan, and the majority of this very site bought
| into it.
| lucianbr wrote:
| Seems like they were able to change their position when
| faced with enough evidence. Does not seem like the other
| side can.
|
| Also, you know, literally "what about"-ism.
| addicted wrote:
| How can any reasonable national leader justify building their
| military on American systems anymore?
|
| Especially now that the U.S. government is also talking about
| not living up to its NATO obligations.
|
| This is not gonna hurt the rest of the world. Defense is where
| the U.S. exports a lot. So cutting back on U.S. weaponry will
| only help other nations.
|
| The same is true of Tech. Currently the tech industry is
| global, but expect it to become increasingly national.
| Considering this is one of the biggest and fastest growing
| industries in the U.S. and one of its biggest exports, again,
| this is only gonna hurt thenUS economy.
|
| And the US's dominance in this space is so high the rest of the
| world will simply push for open source at no loss to their own
| economies, since it's only the US's profit making will be hurt.
| rvnx wrote:
| Even further, the US position is getting tougher.
|
| Now there are new ideas getting pushed (through influencers
| like Musk): that Ukraine "should be sanctioned", that Ukraine
| "should give their minerals to the US", that Ukraine "should
| give up their lands", that Zelensky "should resign" and
| finally that "US should leave NATO".
|
| With such allies, you don't really need enemies.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| It's really bizarre that we are looking at a near future
| where our best ally is Russia and West Europe/Canada and
| everyone else who was our friend is now our enemy. You
| literally couldn't write this up as fiction and be taken
| seriously a decade ago.
| yuliyp wrote:
| It really makes you feel like you're in the middle part
| of the 1980s.
| davidw wrote:
| I lived through the 1980ies, and I still have trouble
| processing the idea that the anti-Soviet, rah-rah patriot
| types that loved movies like Red Dawn are now in bed with
| the Russians. It's just bizarre.
| jcgrillo wrote:
| It used to be that fascists and communists were our most
| hated enemies. How the tables have turned!
|
| EDIT: more seriously, though, throughout the 20th century
| America hewed much closer to fascism than communism. It's
| always been there, if not always out in the open.
| rayiner wrote:
| You must have been traveling in some neocon circles a
| decade ago. But normalizing relations with Russia and
| disengaging with the rest of the world military was the
| goal for us liberals back then:
| https://youtu.be/T1409sXBleg?si=svqMzx1aAIKgMd13;
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/
| wat10000 wrote:
| Sure, back when Russia looked vaguely like a democracy
| for about ten minutes.
| rayiner wrote:
| We are allied with lots of non-democracies, including
| ones that invade their neighbors (like Saudi). That part
| is irrelevant.
| wat10000 wrote:
| It's extremely relevant when you're talking about why
| liberals would think we should be friendly to this
| country. I haven't seen a lot of liberals in favor of
| being friendly to Saudi Arabia.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| Well, there was a point when everybody, including
| European politicians, wanted to normalize relations with
| Russia. But the guy had a different view and chose to
| invade Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. At that point
| some people still chose to believe that he can be
| civilized. It backfired badly in 2022. So now Trump
| trying the same thing and pretending to be Putin's buddy
| and trying his best to make Ukraine miserable is just
| sad.
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| Dont forget the first and second chechenya wars.
| vkou wrote:
| Russia didn't pivot its policy in 2008, it did so a
| decade earlier, when the second Yugoslavian war was
| carried out without buy-in from it (the first one was, to
| an extent, a joint NATO-Russian operation).
|
| And then the coalition of the willing invaded Iraq[1],
| again, against Russia's protests, and by that point,
| that's like two countries attacked (one invaded and
| occupied) by NATO/most of its members, and you'd have to
| be an idiot to look at that and not notice that it
| shifted from a purely defensive alliance to an offensive
| one. [2]
|
| Putin isn't an idiot, he looks at this and starts
| surrounding himself with buffer states, through both soft
| and hard power. Unfortunately, soft power isn't working
| out great in this, for various reasons.
|
| ---
|
| [1] It's weird how when you mention Iraq in isolation,
| people think it's indefensible, but when you mention it
| in the context of Russian anxieties, all of a sudden, we
| are all bending over backwards to explain how it was
| perfectly justified, and it wasn't unprovoked aggression
| against an uninvolved country.
|
| [2] It's been 14 years since NATO attacked a country,
| though (Libya in 2011 - if you squint hard enough, Syria
| might not count), so I guess we could once again reframe
| it as a defensive alliance. [3]
|
| [3] It the US continues on it's insane trajectory and
| withdraws, it will _definitely_ become a defensive
| alliance, simply because it will lack the ability to
| project power.
| rayiner wrote:
| Obama's dig at Romney was well after the invasion of
| Georgia. what Obama correctly understood is that Russia's
| designs on Eastern Europe don't actually matter to
| America.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| It's almost like things have happened between then and
| now.
| Fnords wrote:
| Obama's 100% correct point was that Russia was incredibly
| weak economically. Obama never said we should disengage
| "with the rest of the world military." Bush, Clinton, W.
| Bush also tried to normalize with Russia. Everyone hoped
| Putin was sane. Obama strengthened our alliances. And he
| has been proven right. Ukraine has depleted Russias
| military stockpiles and their National Wealth Fund.
| Russia was weaker than people thought.
| bojan wrote:
| And that made sense, as there was a point in time that
| Russia did seem like it had a chance of becoming a normal
| democracy. At some point even the idea of the EU
| membership was floating around.
|
| By the 2008 attack on Georgia it was clear that there is
| no democratisation of Russia, but some people didn't want
| to believe it for a long time, not even after 2014 attack
| on Ukraine.
| bakuninsbart wrote:
| EU membership was never feasible. Russia is too large
| population-wise, it would have threatened franco-german
| leadership of the EU. The EU, as it was back then was
| hanging in a delicate balance, where France and Germany
| usually had to agree on something to get things done, but
| other countries could form blocks of convenience to push
| their own demands through (eg. UK, Nordics and the
| Netherlands on fiscal discipline, or the Baltics,
| Visegrad and countries from the Balcans on immigration).
| France and Germany would not have wanted to lose that
| much influence, Poland would not have wanted to be
| between Russia and Germany again (politically speaking),
| and hatred of Russia runs rather deep in countries of its
| former empire.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > You must have been traveling in some neocon circles a
| decade ago. But normalizing relations with Russia and
| disengaging with the rest of the world military was the
| goal for us liberals back then
|
| I don't know which is more wrong, the broad claim here or
| the claim that you are a liberal.
|
| I mean, what you describe was generally the case...but
| between the fall of the USSR and the start of the new US-
| Russia Cold War around 1998-1999, with the belief that
| Russia was on a path that, while rocky, led to Western-
| friendly democracy with the right support.
|
| From 1999-2014 (but generally declining through that
| period) engagement was viewed as useful, in part because
| Russia's hostile turn was seen by some as curable with
| reassurance, but more because Russia was seen as a
| generally hostile generally but having useful alignments
| of interest in some parts of the world.
|
| But by a decade ago, 2015? "Normalizing relations with
| Russia and disengaging with the rest of the world
| militarily" was certainly not a common, much less the
| dominant, American liberal position on foreign policy.
| versale wrote:
| You'd better report your wrongthink. We, Oceania, have
| always been at war with Eastasia, Eurasia was always our
| ally.
| bad_user wrote:
| US's Republicans have been so afraid of '1984' that they
| took it as an instructions manual.
| fifilura wrote:
| Very well played!
|
| https://www.abhafoundation.org/assets/books/html/1984/24.
| htm...
| ck2 wrote:
| The shift to bailout Russia is no surprise to anyone
| taking notes, there is a long LONG history
|
| https://reddit.com/comments/j6z8eh
| hyperman1 wrote:
| It was idiotically unbelievable fiction until literally
| the day before Trump took office, even with project 2025
| readable on the internet.
|
| In fact, we discussed how the whole idea of an USA ex-
| president calling up a personal militia, trying a coup
| that could reboot a civil war, giving up half way, and
| not ending up in jail or even politically castrated was
| garbage fiction until 5 jan 2021.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| "Our best ally is Russia" is a nightmare scenario; ask
| anyone else in the CSTO how responsive Russia is to
| allies' needs.
| bojan wrote:
| And a bit further back, ask anyone who the Red Army
| helped liberate in WW2 what has happened later, and how
| long it took the Red Army to actually withdraw.
| ahartmetz wrote:
| The Manchurian Candidate was along these lines, though it
| has an (early) happy ending, before the candidate becomes
| president, at least in the movie. I haven't read the
| book.
| fakedang wrote:
| The game Tom Clancy's End War is basically about a
| quadripolar world (you play as Russia, USA or Europe),
| where Russia hacks the EU WMD network and uses it to
| attack an American space-based weapon, using that as a
| false flag operation to make America go to war with
| Europe. Russia "joins" USA in an alliance and attacks the
| EU from the east while the US attacks from the
| Netherlands and Denmark.
| freehorse wrote:
| There were people saying that, but you are right that
| they were not been taken seriously. Maybe they should
| have had.
| rapjr9 wrote:
| Leaving NATO is not a one way street. If the US leaves
| NATO, then the NATO countries can also stop supporting the
| US. How many components of US weapon systems are made in
| the EU?
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| The US cannot support it's military projection without
| allies. If every US base has to be ran as 'fortress USA'
| the budget will break. Even just losing a few
| strategically located bases will greatly increase the
| cost of power projection.
|
| All Europe has to do is stop all local support for US
| bases and force all resupply to be done via the US
| military and the bases existing infra, not via ANY
| civilian infrastructure (no civilian airports, no
| civilian trucking, no civilian shipping). That's just one
| pain point in the USAs soft underbelly that we didn't
| have to worry about before because we had allies.
| fallingknife wrote:
| I think that's kind of the point. The Trump admin takes a
| very isolationist view of things, so I don't think they
| even want all those international bases.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| It's not the point for the MAGA types. They want the
| power AND deference of the good old days, not actual
| feeble pullback and irrelevance. They think Europe paying
| it's share means Europe will pay for OUR military
| presence. Add on their kids no longer having access to
| military jobs/path to education and those communities
| will start to freak out. Trump wants to project power in
| the middle east. That's current done out of European
| bases.
| warrenmiller wrote:
| tell that to Greenland.
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| he doesnt care about the military bases. he just want the
| resources. National security is just an excuse.
| dboreham wrote:
| That's about two orders of magnitude more thinking than
| they're actually doing.
| rayiner wrote:
| But why do we need "power projection?" Why do we need
| bases all over the world?
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| You mean why do we need Greenland and Canada?
|
| US power in Europe has been our intentional policy since
| the end of WW2. I can't do justice in educating you on
| the geopolitics of it all but there is a plethora of
| information out there for you. Not sure how an American
| can get to be an adult without understanding the
| background and reasoning.
|
| We did this to the point of encouraging Germany to
| include limitations on their own power in their
| constitution (along with Japan). Anyways it's a long,
| thought out standing position of our country that has 70
| years of thought put into it versus the recent 'but it's
| not fair to us' MAGA reaction based position.
| lostdog wrote:
| You asked this exact question last week and I answered
| it. If you are just going to ignore the people who reply
| to you, why bother commenting?
| rayiner wrote:
| But your answer was handwaving. What's the evidentiary
| basis for concluding that maintaining bases all over the
| world benefits americans? The British Empire was
| motivated by mercantilism: by requiring colonies to sell
| raw materials to Britain and buy finished goods from
| Britain, it ensured Britain remained highest on the
| supply chain, and redirected capital from the colonies to
| Britain.
|
| We don't do anything like that. We don't extract
| resources from Europe at below market value. We run a
| trade deficit, so free trade doesn't even help us. So
| what's the concrete explanation that isn't just recycling
| liberal internationalist tropes?
| lostdog wrote:
| I would like to see the trade deficit evening out, but
| even then, the deficit is ~0.6% of our GDP. Charitably,
| the intake of goods we do support keeps our internal
| economy extremely productive, so even at a deficit maybe
| it's worth it.
|
| That said, it's not very difficult to fix the deficit if
| there were any will. And once fixed, the US would benefit
| from open maritime trade more than anyone else. Holding
| these bases helps us keep the world in order, and in the
| current order the US winds up on top. (Though the US does
| need to deal with China's incursions).
|
| It's funny to see you use the word "evidentiary" when you
| do not apply any standard to your own comments. If you do
| reply, please try to back up your points, since I'd like
| to understand where you're coming from.
| kranke155 wrote:
| Because the alternative to a US dominated world is a
| world dominated by someone else.
| sekai wrote:
| > Leaving NATO is not a one way street. If the US leaves
| NATO, then the NATO countries can also stop supporting
| the US. How many components of US weapon systems are made
| in the EU?
|
| For example, 15% of every F35 is made in UK.
| bayindirh wrote:
| On tech side, personally I started to move my servers and
| personal infra to Europe, both physically and legally.
|
| I'll not be able to leave some companies outright, but I'll
| be taking backups and reducing my reliance fast.
| rwyinuse wrote:
| Same here, it's a massive risk to trust any important data
| or services to be handled by American companies now.
| Thankfully I was already fairly decoupled from US big tech,
| so the transition took just a couple of days.
| gip wrote:
| Totally agree that Trump is trading long-term dominance for
| short-term gains.
|
| I think that in a few months, we will see the U.S. economy
| doing very well and somehow rebuilding its industrial base.
| In the long term, U.S. influence and wealth will make up a
| much smaller share of the world's wealth than it does today.
| fifilura wrote:
| He does not rule out recession. Why do you think the US
| economy will be doing very well because of his policies?
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-
| politic...
| gip wrote:
| I do think there will be a recession yes. But within 6 to
| 18 months, the recession could be over with and growth
| will come back as the US rebuilds some of its industrial
| base. US imports and exports will decrease over time.
|
| Note: it is my prediction at 70% (e.g. I think there is
| 70% that it will happen).
| tpm wrote:
| It could be over, but it won't be over, because he can't
| be trusted, changes position on important issues every
| night, and this does not create environment welcoming to
| investors. Nobody sane will commit to longterm
| investment. No investment, no growth.
|
| > US imports and exports will decrease over time.
|
| So prices will rise and and government expenditures will
| fall. Where exactly will that growth come from?
| gip wrote:
| I think companies who want to access the large U.S.
| internal market will have an incentive to have factories
| in the U.S. That will likely fuel growth. The growth will
| be coupled with less imports and exports given
| nationalism and tariffs.
|
| And if it is what the Americans want why not. But as the
| U.S. take this new direction, let's make sure former
| allies are treated with respect and given proper notice
| of the changes so that they can adapt their economies and
| defense postures.
| fifilura wrote:
| Could work. Or they could just decide to invest
| elsewhere.
|
| I guess if the economy is in a recession and people
| spending less it is not the best place to invest. Unless
| it is for cheap labor but then you'll have problems with
| export tariffs.
| gip wrote:
| If they invest elsewhere, they will have limited access
| to the U.S. market--that is Trump's policy it seems.
|
| If the U.S. has one thing going for it, it's the strength
| of its market, characterized by high consumer spending
| and strong potential for growth. Contrast this with the
| Japanese consumer market, for instance: in real terms,
| salaries have not increased over the past 10 years, and
| consumer spending is below what it was a decade ago.
| (Note: I love Japan, but this is the reality.) European
| market is between these extremes I believe. The U.S.
| market may be significantly more attractive to most
| companies.
| rapjr9 wrote:
| It usually takes five to ten years to move a factory from
| one country to another, and it costs an enormous amount
| of money that mostly will not drive new profit. Costs in
| the US will be higher also. There is more to consider in
| moving a factory to the US than market access.
| drumhead wrote:
| There isnt the slack in the US labor force to rebuild the
| manufacturing base. Not without significant inflationary
| pressure. Especially with the hostility towards
| migaration.
| jppope wrote:
| In fairness, he's getting kind of old.
| dboreham wrote:
| US economy definitely won't be doing well.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| I don't even see the short term gain.
| schmookeeg wrote:
| I keep expecting him to rally his support base and
| attempt to overturn the 22nd amendment. Short-term
| "winning" might be exactly what he needs to rally them.
|
| Honestly I expected it on his last term.
| riehwvfbk wrote:
| Get out of an unwinnable war with minimal losses and re-
| group for the war that will really matter. China.
| Epa095 wrote:
| One would think it would be a bit beneficial to have some
| allies in that war...
| bigfudge wrote:
| There's close to zero chance the US would win a war with
| China in the event that it attacks Taiwan. Either china
| wins quickly, or it takes out all the assets which make
| it strategic in any case.
| holoduke wrote:
| Why would the US or the west or China wants to start a
| war? Over what? They don't have any disputes about land
| or people. Just some irritations about whatever. But
| certainly not recipe for war. Even Taiwan is not a reason
| for the US to start a real war against China. Proxy war
| by supporting Taiwan sure. But thats it.
| method_capital wrote:
| Overspending for decades. Rationalization requires
| economic pain. Big surprise: restraint lacks the support
| pissing money every which way enjoys.
| terrabiped wrote:
| So far we've only traded our long term dominance. I'm yet
| to see any short term gains or even prospects of those.
|
| Unbelievable amount of damage done in just a month.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| > Totally agree that Trump is trading long-term dominance
| for short-term gains.
|
| I'd say the other way round - rebuilding everything that
| was outsourced will take a long time, so hard times are
| ahead. In the long term, I hope the USA will be less
| dependent on China.
|
| But at the same time the way it was done completely
| destroyed the credibility of the USA as a reliable partner,
| both in trade as well as military relations. Countries will
| organize new treaties, and the USA will be a powerful
| player but with far less influence than before.
| fifilura wrote:
| There has to be cheaper, faster and easier ways to bring
| coal mines and steel plants back to USA?
|
| For the coal mines, maybe you could fund them through
| some museum budget?
| MaxDPS wrote:
| Assuming that does happen, it won't be "in a few months".
| At best, this is a timeline measured in years if not
| decades.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| No one is going to invest in building the US industrial
| base unless there's stability.
| ty6853 wrote:
| This is an inherent property of closed source proprietary
| weapons. Which is why gun owners like stuff like the gen3
| glock and ar-15 as everyone knows how to make the parts and
| the open source blueprints are put into manufacture by a
| gazillion companies to the point PSA shitwagon can compete
| with a Colt and interchange most the parts.
|
| Maybe Europe should open source a fighter jet and let the
| world compete on how they'll manufacture it.
| bayindirh wrote:
| Europe's weaponry is already somewhat "open source". Many
| big things like aircraft and missile systems are designed
| and built with pan-European consortia. As a result, every
| country knows how to build these things.
|
| Heck, even Italian Agusta sold some of their platforms to a
| NATO ally with build/iterate/export permissions...
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| Look up the F-35 sometime. For Germany's F-35 fleet,
| Rheinmetall was going to build the fuselages and do final
| assembly in Germany. Splitting up the work like this
| isn't unique to products from Panavia or similar EU-only
| consortia.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| As an observation, when the US originally licensed out the
| AR-15 to other countries they often also had to license
| aluminum foundry tech at the same time. We take it for
| granted now because that tech is old.
|
| The ability to scale advanced or exotic materials science
| at will was a cornerstone of why US weaponry is difficult
| to copy. People always underestimate this aspect but it is
| a major reason why manufacturing of state-of-the-art
| hardware is not fungible.
| blibble wrote:
| risk of war going hot aside, the long term effect of this is
| fantastic for the rest of the world's industries
|
| AWS, GCP and Azure looked unbeatable a month ago
|
| but today, if you're a government official in the UK, Poland
| or Germany, would you be recommending AWS as your cloud
| provider?
|
| absolutely not
|
| they now have massive geopolitical risks associated with them
| due to being under the control of the increasingly unstable
| and authoritarian US regime that will sacrifice 80 years of
| foreign policy and soft power for a soundbite on fox news
| dh2022 wrote:
| AWS and Azure have regional data centers in each one of the
| countries. Data in EU stays in EU. The CAPEX risk is
| entirely borne by US companies while being operated by
| locals following local laws. These states can easily
| nationalize these data centers if, say, US does something
| really bad to them. So the geopolitical risk for using AWS
| or Azure seems low to me.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| The risk isn't geopolitical but economic decoupling.
| American tech valuations will take a bath.
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| Who cares about tech stocks? Have a look at what happens
| when the dollar loses it's status as reserve currency.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Almost all of the S&P gains have been tech stocks.
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| Like I said, go have a look at what happens when we lose
| reserve status and get back to me about how what you just
| said is in any way relevant. Parenthetically bullshit
| like this is why I invest in real estate.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| See what happens to real estate when the boomers start
| dying.
|
| The reserve status is overblown. The question is if not
| the USD what asset would reserves go into. Certainly not
| the yuan with china's currency controls.
| j0057 wrote:
| 'Data stays in EU' is not true: the US CLOUD act means
| that American law enforcement and intelligence agencies
| can and do access data stored in data centers operated by
| American companies, whether or not they are on American
| soil.
| gatienboquet wrote:
| If you have local warrants.
| worik wrote:
| > If you have local warrants
|
| To obey local laws
|
| The USA is going "unlawful", so the risks are technical
| and real. Local laws do not apply
| ahakki wrote:
| IIRC the US-UK CLOUD Act Agreement extended the
| jurisdiction of each parties warrants onto the other
| parties territory.
|
| I have not looked at the US-EU agreement.
| pyrale wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._United_S
| tat...
|
| You don't need an agreement.
|
| Tthe EU commission has tried to create schemes bypassing
| the issue, and twice they were dismantled by the EU
| supreme court.
| poisonborz wrote:
| What does the hardware give you? These datacenters are
| dependent on US teams, US processes using US maintained
| software. It's just a bunch of fast deprecating assets,
| which would need a full reinstall by a team of an AWS-
| like entity built from ground up.
| gpm wrote:
| The idea that we (Canada, any EU country, etc) can
| "easily nationalize" data centers running on bespoke
| hardware that we do not have a supply chain for, bespoke
| software which we do not control or have the source to,
| running workloads for customers as dictated by business
| relationships with a (now hostile) foreign company, with
| the descriptions of those workloads almost certainly
| stored in said hostile foreign companies local (i.e.
| foreign to us) servers... is absurd.
|
| It's even more absurd to suggest that this can be done in
| response to the US becoming more hostile than they are
| today. By the time they are more hostile, we're talking
| about open hostilities. It's only safe to assume that
| they will have exfiltrated all the data they are
| interested in, and then sabotaged or destroy as much of
| the hardware as possible (as can be done remotely),
| making the data center next to worthless. And prior to
| nationalization it was "their data-center", they were
| entirely within their "rights" to sabotage and destroy
| it.
|
| The time to migrate away from data-centers to minimize
| geo political risk is now, not when the current data
| centers operators are actively trying to deal damage.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Nationalization of foreign assets occurs at an extreme
| level of hostility that stable European governments would
| have no chance of doing, unless it had been done first by
| the other side. It is the kind of thing that happened in
| Venezuela.
| worik wrote:
| > Nationalization of foreign assets is an extreme level
| of hostility that stable European governments would have
| no chance of doing
|
| I see the point. But I would not underestimate the grit
| of Europeans when backed into a corner, like this
|
| The USA a Europe had very friendly relations for decades,
| that has changed overnight.
|
| All bets are off
| whatshisface wrote:
| As a reference point, the US has not nationalized Russian
| or Chinese national's assets. Nationalization is much
| worse than poor diplomatic relations, on a scale of
| retaliation it is close to war.
| pyrale wrote:
| You may have missed the point where Trump is threatening
| to annex land ruled by Denmark.
| blibble wrote:
| this is the same tired argument as to why conventional
| forces are redundant if you have nuclear weapons, due to
| MAD
|
| the enemy will never put you into a position where the
| rational thing to do is to launch your nukes (nationalise
| their data centres)
|
| but they will push and push up against that line
|
| the way to deal with this is gradual decoupling, ideally
| backed up by legislation and government subsidy
| rschoultz wrote:
| Similar to that jets effectively would be grounded the
| second that the US decides they would not be exportable
| to a former ally, my guess is that not many would, in
| this scenario, believe a former US owned AWS region in
| Europe to operate completely autonomously to the degree
| that it can be "easily" nationalized.
|
| But long before that, I believe there will be other
| noticeable effects. As someone working in a medium sized
| European company, with substantial investments across
| private infrastructures, AWS, GCP and some Azure, I can
| testify to that since last couple of weeks the Public
| Cloud Exit strategies around having services being
| prepared is a very hot topic. This concerns both existing
| services preparations as well as enforcing standards and
| configurations for new services.
| ramoz wrote:
| > if you're a government official in the UK, Poland or
| Germany, would you be recommending AWS as your cloud
| provider?
|
| They don't. Sovereign cloud in EU has been progressing for
| a few years now.
|
| Such that some of your mentioned "unbeatable" hyperscalers
| have already been positioning (e.g. ceasable
| infrastructure), and some interesting new players on the
| block. As well as old benefiting from the related market
| positions: https://www.oracle.com/cloud/eu-sovereign-cloud/
| blibble wrote:
| the "sovereign" label from Amazon, Microsoft, Google and
| Oracle was always a lie, for auditors check boxes
|
| they are not sovereign because they're running software
| developed by a company liable to coercion by the regime
| Sammi wrote:
| US companies are required by US law to disclose data to
| US authorities when requested - no matter where in the
| world they operate.
|
| Doesn't matter if it is a EU subsidiary. The US parent
| company must abide by US law and give US authorities the
| data.
|
| EU citizens cannot trust their data in the hands of US
| companies. No matter if it is on servers in Europe hosted
| by European subsidiaries.
| mattlondon wrote:
| The way they are doing it is entirely air gapped systems,
| run by totally independent companies (not subsidiaries,
| totally separate legal entities owned and run by other
| people) that are effectively licensing the software.
|
| So the US legal system can say "give us this data" but
| they don't have access as they are on another company's
| servers in another company's data center operated by
| another company's staff.
| pyrale wrote:
| > So the US legal system can say "give us this data" but
| they don't have access as they are on another company's
| servers in another company's data center operated by
| another company's staff.
|
| US institutions don't hesitate to demand their companies
| to implement secret backdoors in their hardware or
| software, as evidenced by Snowden's leaks (for Cisco
| routers) and the Lavabit shutdown (mail company ordered
| to implement a tap on their clients' data).
|
| Sure, you can have all you described, but how are updates
| vetted?
| sebazzz wrote:
| If that is the case, how can I manage my EU Azure
| instances via the regular Azure Portal, yet US-Microsoft
| not having any access?
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Yeah it's a 100% checkbox exercise explicitly designed to
| only satisfy the letter of the law.
|
| Unfortunately critical infrastructure providers flock to
| that, though there are some exceptions.
| sudoshred wrote:
| Disagree, location matters. It should be technically
| feasible to implement a code freeze (in software, or
| hardware) in a sovereign system when external partners'
| motives become questionable. That being said in all
| likelihood that capability is cost prohibitive
| (speculation), but still co-location is a pre-requisite.
| bakuninsbart wrote:
| Cloud is going be far easier to transition for most
| companies compared to Office, Browsers, OS and Hardware.
| There are basically no non-american competitors, and so
| many companies deeply relying on the tech don't have the
| IT capacity to implement something OSS like Linux.
| whymeogod wrote:
| Yes, but if the government were to spend say 10% of their
| GPD on defense and infrastructure (Hi, German!), some of
| this spending might be in grants/tax breaks to help
| companies make this transition.
|
| I think you underestimate what a capitalist system can
| accomplish, and how quickly.
| sidibe wrote:
| This has been slowly coming so now they are offering the
| entire data center stack to be operated by European
| companies in European owned datacenters
| marcuschong wrote:
| Even I, the founder of a small startup outside the US,
| caught myself considering things I never would have before.
|
| Just last month, I had to change my dedicated server
| provider and was genuinely concerned about hosting my
| websites on US-based entities. Would Trump impose a tariff
| to antagonize my country and president? I don't have the
| resources to keep changing providers and migrating my
| services.
|
| I ended up hosting locally.
| whatshisface wrote:
| It isn't fantastic on net, although it could be a net
| benefit for those industries that compete directly with
| (former?) American strengths. The other industries will no
| longer benefit from the highly competitive offerings of US
| cloud providers, which are for now, better and cheaper than
| the alternatives.
| hnaccount_rng wrote:
| One would guess. But at least German's cyber security
| agency.. Well, if you read German:
| https://www.heise.de/news/Google-und-BSI-arbeiten-an-
| sichere...
| riehwvfbk wrote:
| How do they justify buying US war tech? By understanding what
| the US will do to their country if they don't buy it, and
| figuring out how to sugar coat this to their populace.
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| Countries do have choices and many did choose the us as
| security provider. Some thirld world countries recently
| switched away from russia and/or started to built versions
| of their own design of previously in license produced
| weaponry. Examplw: India
| riehwvfbk wrote:
| And Turkey buys from both. But India and Turkey have a
| degree of independence that small European nations do not
| have. The latter are entirely reliant on NATO for their
| security, and until recently this meant being friends
| with the USA.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| This simply isn't true. Various countries bought F-35 even
| after recognizing it's far more of a geopolitical PITA than
| Rafale or Gripen because F-35 is world-beating. It is that
| much better than the competition that putting up with
| various restrictions is almost always worth it.
|
| Where the competition is less slanted, yes you see
| countries selecting Leopard for their MBT over Abrams (the
| US won't sell the advanced Abrams armor packages). But when
| it's F-35 vs. literally anything else, the competition is
| for second place. You only really choose something else
| when F-35 isn't an option at all. Threats aren't needed
| when you just have to do a fly-off.
| grvbck wrote:
| But is that really how nations decide which plane to buy?
|
| Sure, technical capabilities are crucial, but don't
| political and economic factors significantly influence
| the adoption of the F-35? Factors like strengthening
| alliances, diplomatic influence, cost sharing, job
| creation, and export strategies.
|
| My point is: you don't just buy a plane. You buy into an
| ecosystem where supply chains, political partnership,
| trade deals and long-term support are just as important.
| Take away some of that, and I'm sure for a lot of buyers
| the Typhoon or Gripen suddenly start looking a lot more
| attractive.
| drumhead wrote:
| The F35 is better, but they're not going to trust or give
| business to the US anymore. The Typhoon, Rafale and
| Grippen are good enough, so we'll see more purchases of
| those.
| throw__away7391 wrote:
| I think the administration is gambling on being able to
| consolidate global power before anyone is going to have a
| chance to build anything. Europe is completely reliant on the
| US and US technology for defense right now, these systems
| took decades and trillions of dollars to build and refine,
| and an 800 billion EUR investment does not magically create a
| military industrial complex overnight. Decades ago in my
| early career I briefly worked on some logistics software for
| the Joint Strike Fighter project and had some contact with a
| couple of the army of contractors working on the project. The
| scale and complexity of this effort blows away anything else
| I've ever seen in my career, which includes a number of
| multi-billion dollar infrastructure and nuclear power
| projects.
|
| Trump talks about invading Canada or Greenland and people act
| like it is a joke. I don't think it is.
|
| The US is in a position to completely dictate to Europe what
| they will or won't do, using Russia as a proxy for now. We
| are 48 days in. A couple of weeks ago I replied to someone
| suggesting the US could provide weapons to Russia with
| disbelief. I no longer consider that an impossible scenario.
| Europe stops buying F35s? Trump tells Europe that if they
| don't buy them he's going to sell them to Russia. I mean
| that's a relatively tame response compared to the options on
| the table.
|
| Right now the only chance for Europe is to stop this madness
| in the US. We have this "take it down" act, the executive
| order to produce a report advising whether or not to declare
| martial law, the January 6th pardon of the Proud Boys who are
| now effectively a paramilitary force of thousands waiting for
| Trump to deploy. These are all familiar elements in history
| and I think we are in for a bloody, bloody summer. I think
| we're going to see government forces opening fire on
| protesters, martial law declared, and the implementation of
| Chinese style suppression and crackdown on dissent online.
| Maybe attempts to strip US citizens of their citizenship and
| "deport" them for good measure, anything to try to sow fear
| into average people to not step out of line. If the
| administration is successful in quashing the opposition and
| getting everyone to go back to work, Europe could easily next
| on the chopping block. Remember all the things Bannon said
| about the EU during the first administration.
| philwelch wrote:
| This might be the most delusional comment I've ever seen on
| HN. Crackdown on dissent online? That's the explicit policy
| of our "democratic" European "allies" that the Vice
| President openly criticized in Munich. Opening fire on
| protestors? What protestors? And this talk of a thousands-
| strong Proud Boys "paramilitary" is paranoid nonsense.
| throw__away7391 wrote:
| Well I hope you are right. All of those things were
| already either done or tried by Trump during his last
| term. The trajectory is leading towards further
| escalation.
|
| The protests will escalate in the summer, when the
| weather is warmer, more time has passed for awareness of
| what is happening to soak in, and students are on school
| break.
| dboreham wrote:
| There have been street protests here in Montana (red
| state) already (because he fired large numbers of
| national park and forest service employees and said any
| foreign students who made online comments supporting
| Palestinians should be deported).
| rapjr9 wrote:
| >Europe stops buying F35s? Trump tells Europe that if they
| don't buy them he's going to sell them to Russia.
|
| Actually Europe would stop supplying components for the
| F-35's so the US would not be able to build any more or
| keep the ones they have working, let alone sell them to
| Russia. Russia would never buy them anyway, how could they
| trust that the next US president wouldn't pull the plug on
| spare parts? Would they trust that Trump is going to become
| dictator for life? (And what happens after he dies?) Russia
| has their own fighters that may not be quite as capable in
| some ways, but are good enough. Russia sells jet fighters
| themselves, they do not buy them.
|
| >Europe is completely reliant on the US and US technology
| for defense right now, these systems took decades and
| trillions of dollars to build and refine, and an 800
| billion EUR investment does not magically create a military
| industrial complex overnight.
|
| Europe already has a large local military industrial
| complex. Half of what Ukraine has received has come from
| Europe. They would only have to expand what they have, not
| develop new technologies, except perhaps for a replacement
| for the Patriot missile system. They'd get a boost from
| converting their existing factories from building US
| weapons components to building EU weapons components as
| well.
|
| I'm actually surprised that the US military industrial
| complex (MIC) is not screaming bloody murder about some of
| this. They stand to lose sales of replacement weapons for
| those sent to Ukraine, to lose support contracts for
| F-16's, and to lose a whole lot more if the US pulls out of
| NATO. Even if the US does not pull out of NATO, the NATO
| countries have already started investing in their own
| defense industries, which is going to severely cut into US
| MIC profits. They should be terrified.
| apelapan wrote:
| SAMP/T exists and is allegedly better than Patriot.
|
| I don't think there are any particular weapon types for
| which there is no qualified European alternative. Very
| many systems are however designed around some amount of
| American components. Even if there are locally produced,
| reasonably equivalent versions of those components, you
| can't just swap them out without major redesign work.
|
| For example the license-manifactured jet engines used in
| the Saab 39 Gripen. If Trump/Musk pulls the plug on
| support for those, it will be an epic headache to rebuild
| around some other engine. Not quite designing a new plane
| from scratch, but very major rework.
| bambax wrote:
| Yes the US may have a second civil war coming. The good
| guys won the last one; they should win this one too, but it
| may take some time. In the end though they should go for a
| "reconciliation"; MAGA will show no mercy -- the good guys
| shouldn't either.
| bayindirh wrote:
| This is one of the peak "move fast, break things" moments for
| the US. However, people warned about Chesterton's fences for
| years...
|
| I think we have passed the Rubicon for quite some time. There's
| no turning back now. The equilibrium will be found in another
| configuration.
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| What's truly eroding trust is the voting system. A system that
| places so much power in a single individual with complete
| immunity exposes its vulnerabilities-especially in a time when
| people can be manipulated so effectively. To be honest, I see
| the lack of justice as the biggest problem. If the highest
| courts in the U.S. are essentially political institutions,
| shaped by those in power rather than acting as neutral arbiters
| of justice, that seems absurd to me. It feels like you can
| basically do whatever you want. And the lifetime mandate?
| That's a joke. As a European, I'm sorry for shitting on
| Europeans. It's far from ideal here, but I'm finally starting
| to appreciate what we have. Let's hope this would not spread.
| Valodim wrote:
| It didn't used to be "complete immunity", that's part of the
| problem
| esalman wrote:
| Lack of trust on voting system has been brewing for a while.
| The Democratic establishment has successfully and
| unsuccessfully tried to shoehorn choice candidates last few
| election cycles. While republican candidates have been
| questionable, there's no denying that they went with whoever
| the voters wanted.
| yannis wrote:
| >no country will want to buy F16s
|
| US needs to diversify and have an industrial policy. It also
| needs to rethink capitalism. Maybe new capitalism with US
| characteristics and more humanism thrown in. As to the defense
| industry it needs to shrink and be part of the industrial
| policy, not depend on warmongering to exist. You can have peace
| and a defiance industry without wars.
| petre wrote:
| We will buy tge Dassault Rafale, thank you.
| billmcneale wrote:
| > they have proven already that other's interests do not matter
| for them
|
| I disagree. Their interests matter greatly to them, they are
| just totally unequipped to understand who, and what, they are
| voting for.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > This is the end of an empire
|
| Empires are not good.
|
| > I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people
| able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against
| their own personal interests
|
| Self-interest is a middle-class religion. I think that a lot of
| Americans think that what we are doing is morally wrong. I also
| think that the idea that everybody else is going to shun our
| military exports over ditching Ukraine is absolutely hilarious.
| Ukraine isn't paying for any of this, they don't even count as
| a customer. Everybody has been free at all times to buy from
| the UK, France, and Germany, and if they don't see the
| difference between themselves and Ukraine, they should make
| decisions about their futures accordingly.
|
| I might remind them in passing that borrowing money from
| Germany to buy weapons from Germany was what brought Greece's
| economy down. Also I'd remind them, for what it's worth, that
| again they're partnering with Germany or France or the UK to
| invade Russia for unintelligible reasons.
| rt276ah wrote:
| > they're partnering with Germany or France or the UK to
| invade Russia
|
| Can we stop this nonsense on both sides? Russia does not want
| to invade NATO countries, and for sure Germany, France and
| the UK do not want to invade Russia.
|
| Britain is hawkish because they love continental powers
| fighting against each other and pulling the strings. They
| will not send their 50,000 soldiers to Moscow.
| xnx wrote:
| A strong economy only exists with a strong democracy.
| Billionaires thought this administration would be good for
| them, but they are just as stupid as anyone.
| drysine wrote:
| It's not the first time it happens. For example, in 2006 the US
| stopped supplying spare parts to F-16s it sold to Venezuela.[0]
| Oddly, other countries kept buying F-16s.
|
| Or think about Boeing and Airbus stopping servicing the planes
| they sold to Russia. Other countries are still buying from them
| as if nothing happened.
|
| [0] https://www.foxnews.com/story/venezuela-threatens-to-
| sell-f-...
| bad_user wrote:
| The difference is that now European countries, and other
| (former?) US allies are starting to see the US as a threat.
| With people like Trump in power, the chance of a military
| conflict between the EU and the US is now non-zero, so what's
| on everyone's mind going forward will be independence from US
| tech. Maybe you haven't seen European news and commentary.
|
| US's republicans still don't grasp what a diplomatic mess
| Trump is causing, which will surely affect all trade.
| Actually, I'm expecting consequences for the entire US tech
| sector, not just the defence sector.
| drysine wrote:
| >Maybe you haven't seen European news and commentary.
|
| No, I haven't. Could you suggest something to read or to
| watch?
| tlogan wrote:
| Buying high-tech American weapons comes with an implicit
| condition: they can only be used with U.S. approval.
|
| The U.S. has long leveraged this strategy to control
| governments. Do you think Saudi Arabia could use its American-
| made jets to attack Israel?
|
| Now, Trump is pressuring Ukraine to start negotiation under
| these terms:
|
| 1. Allowing parts of Ukraine to be annexed,
|
| 2. Permanently blocking NATO membership, and
|
| 3. Signing a "mineral deal" to sell resources to the U.S. at
| cut-rate prices.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| Not being troll-y or intentionally obtuse but I have to ask:
| when has The Military Industrial Complex acted in my / our best
| interest?
|
| Sure there's plenty about US policy and actions that have been
| normalized, but that doesn't mean they should have been
| adopted. It doesn't mean those things should persist without
| thought or challenge. Even going about that the wrong way is
| more productive
|
| Yes, The System is fragile (as opposed to antifragile). But
| then let's discuss that, not insist on the persistence of
| fragile-ness.
| anabab wrote:
| > when has The Military Industrial Complex acted in my / our
| best interest?
|
| [Not a US citizen/resident; never worked in MIC-related area]
|
| a). MIC is an industrial sector creating jobs, doing some R&D
| (which can trickle down into the civilian sector) and
| bringing hundreds of billions they do in exports into
| country; all of those seem benefitial for the overall
| economy. Of course those can be achieved in non-military-
| related areas, but so far there was a working machine - and a
| wrench is already thrown into the gears.
|
| b). The last three years have shown that large-scale wars are
| still on the table and having a working and oiled MIC is much
| better than having a degraded one.
| 6SixTy wrote:
| Doesn't matter that countries doesn't want F16s, pretty much
| any US component inside these systems means that they require
| US approval for the whole thing. Saab Gripens use a Swedish
| built version of a US powerplant, which allowed the US to deny
| sales of the Gripen to Colombia.
| bbqfog wrote:
| It's in my personal interest to not spread war and weapons
| throughout the world. We should cut off _all_ weapons exports.
| user3939382 wrote:
| The chicken hawks that make up the majority on HN don't share
| that view unfortunately.
|
| The reality is the military industrial complex has massively
| corrupted our foreign policy for decades resulting in one
| disaster abroad after another and trillions down the drain.
| ipv6ipv4 wrote:
| > I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people
| able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against
| their own personal interests (they have proven already that
| other's interests do not matter for them). This sounds like
| self-flagellation seen from the outside.
|
| They aren't thinking, really. If you look at the online
| comments from people who support these actions, you'll notice
| these characteristics: they are usually listing the same
| talking points, using the _exact_ same collection of key words
| or "facts" (even in different languages, across different
| cultures) often strung together like chants, have a
| conspiratorial notion of a hidden puppeteer directing events or
| people they disapprove of, conversely they often have a
| messianic belief in their chosen prophet, and they are usually
| inexplicably very angry.
|
| You will also notice that the vast majority of them very
| rapidly, and across cultural boundaries, start parroting the
| latest talking points. Talking points that didn't exist days
| before and weren't on anyone's minds.
|
| It's a form of mass hysteria.
| jpgvm wrote:
| ... and just like that, America cedes arms export leadership.
|
| China will laugh all the way to the bank.
| esalman wrote:
| If US shine and trust is based on proliferation of war then it
| probably deserves to erode.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| > I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people
| able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against
| their own personal interests
|
| Sometimes people are more interested in inflicting pain to
| others than to improve their own situation.
| vonnik wrote:
| The main victim of this order is the US defense industry.
|
| What Ukrainians need most are the low-cost drones made of
| commercial parts from Asia which have made it hard for the
| Russians to fire artillery and supply the front. To produce
| these drones, they need cash. The Europeans have mastered the
| art of sending cash to Ukrainian vendors that serve actual
| battlefront needs, and doing so under strict supervision to
| prevent fraud. Europe can fill the gap the Us is leaving in
| military aid if they spend their cash right.
|
| For the last two years, I have supported a US non-profit
| sending non-lethal aid to Ukraine, my CB if it used for drone
| defense and EW.
|
| https://ukrainedefensefund.org/
|
| Cheap is a technological frontier. If you operate on that
| frontier, you are able to trade less expensive pieces for more
| expensive pieces, pawns for queens. This is the cost-exchange
| ratio. All other things being equal, the country that best
| lowers the cost basis of its materiel will win a war of
| attrition; ie the other side exhausts its resources first. The
| US does not operate on the frontier of cheap because of bad
| incentives, namely cost-plus procurement.
| betteryourweb wrote:
| this is the best news ever... all these other countries keep up
| conflict to keep the bankers happy while they exploit our
| resiurces for corrupt politicians and business men... Everyone
| crying about the economy, but our economy is already shit and
| extending out these corrupt ppl corrupt directives will only
| keep us (on the private side) in economic turmoil... We've been
| in perpetual conflict over 2 decades... It's time to focus on
| us...
| nullstyle wrote:
| If someone thinks that "We've been in perpetual conflict"
| includes the support being to given to ukraine, in which we
| send them cluster munitions that we would otherwise have to
| pay to dismantle while risking virtually zero american armed
| service member lives, they need to recalibrate their senses
| because they're not doing a good job.
|
| The Ukrainian people deserve sovereignty, full stop. If
| someone believes in traditional American values, (e.g. life,
| liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) they should support
| the fight against russian aggression, and IMO the flimsy and
| poor arguments being made about focusing on our economy reek
| of dishonesty when someone thinks about how integrated the US
| economy is with the world's.
| philwelch wrote:
| Did Ukraine buy any F-16's? No. They've benefitted from the
| generosity of the United States since 2017, and thanks in large
| part to that generosity they succeeded in the defense of Kyiv
| in 2022. Now it's 2025 and the war has been stalemated for a
| couple of years. Does the United States have an open-ended
| obligation to continue supporting, at its own expense, yet
| another forever war on the other side of the world?
|
| The United States is still being taken for granted. And I have
| to laugh at the implication that the American economy will be
| ruined by the effect on the American arms industry when almost
| every American ally was neglecting their own military, instead
| taking American security guarantees for granted.
| abe_m wrote:
| I think Ukraine is a bit unique in how they got the jets. Since
| they were given the jets during a war, there wasn't much
| negotiation involved, relative to a country trying to buy plane
| in peace-time.
|
| In normal peace-time procurement, there is usually significant
| locally made content required, plus much deeper training. I'd
| suspect that countries who acquire arms in that way are much
| more able to continue without US support.
|
| When Iran was still in the US good graces, they bought a bunch
| of F14s. After their 1979 revolution, they kept operating their
| F14s. The US actually retired and destroyed all their F14s
| during the retirement to prevent spares from finding their way
| to Iran.
| cbmuser wrote:
| > This means that no country will want to buy F16s.
|
| This means that no country will buy _any_ US-supplied military
| equipment.
|
| Trump has destroyed the trust in the US defense sector for
| years to come.
|
| Absolutely irresponsible action.
| timewizard wrote:
| > the US shine
|
| Oh no! We lost our "shine" because we aren't the premier
| weapons dealer on the planet anymore!
|
| > a massive effect on the US economy
|
| You see the problem. You just ignore it. You pretend it's a
| secret virtue.
|
| > end of an empire
|
| Good. I'm absolutely tired of being a citizen of an "empire."
| Take your dusty imperialism and go away; please, your
| warmongering ways absolutely disgust me.
|
| > a direct attack against their own personal interests
|
| It's not. You want it to be for propaganda purposes. See what I
| mean about living in an empire? This is completely churlish and
| gross.
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| > This means that no country will want to buy F16s.
|
| This is just HNers being late to the party.
|
| Back in the 1990s, the US blocked sale of F-16s to Indonesia
| due to human rights concerns (eventually worked out).[0]
| Thailand has F-16s but more recently switched procurement to
| Swedish Gripens, partly to avoid reliance on a single combat
| aircraft supplier. Thailand also does bilateral training with
| PLAAF (Chinese Air Force), and their F-16s are apparently
| barred from participating. [1] There are _rumors_ Egypt is
| switching from F-16s to Chinese J-10s, largely because the US
| refuses to sell Egypt modernizations and air-to-air missiles
| that would make them competitive against the Israeli Air
| Force.[2] The move away from the US as a combat aircraft
| supplier has been building steam for decades now. In the past
| there simply weren 't many options competitive with the F-16
| (both affordable and capable), but that's not the case in 2025.
|
| > This is going to have a massive effect on the US economy,
| internal consumption will not save it.
|
| I guess this really is the question: what is the expected
| overall quality of life for the average American when our
| continent-sized economy is largely functioning under conditions
| of autarky? The US's imports and exports are lower in 2023 than
| they were in 1913. Even in 1913 the US had the world's largest
| GDP (but not GDP/capita, was still much lower than the UK's at
| the time).
|
| [0] https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA441694.pdf
|
| [1] https://www.scmp.com/week-
| asia/opinion/article/3279377/why-t...
|
| [2] https://fmso.tradoc.army.mil/2024/egypt-is-rumored-to-
| have-s...
| theahura wrote:
| Obligatory: https://open.substack.com/pub/theahura/p/the-five-
| year-old-t...
|
| Trump is constantly failing the five year old test. A child could
| tell you that this is the wrong thing to do.
| grej wrote:
| European defence companies are about to see the biggest demand
| boom of our lifetime.
| pydry wrote:
| The Soviet arms industry experienced a similar boom in the
| 1980s due to an eye wateringly expensive arms race with
| America.
|
| Spoiler alert: it did not end well for them.
|
| Putin is setting another trap.
| tim333 wrote:
| I'm not sure how this plays out as Putin setting a trap? This
| is probably going to be a bit expensive for European
| taxpayers, myself included, but we'll get by.
|
| Russia on the other hand may have issues similar to the
| 80s/90s if we get serious with sanctions on shipping oil.
| bigyabai wrote:
| I think you misunderstand why exactly the USSR's weapon
| production hurt them. There were a number of circumstances
| that were specific to the Soviets that made their decisions
| uniquely self-destructive:
|
| 1. They already had an enormous weapon stockpile from the 60s
| and 70s that was becoming rapidly outdated, and was
| manufactured with few basically no limit on the unit count
| being made, resulting in tens-of-thousands of surplus weapons
| being funded by the state and the economy bending to support
| an oversized MIC.
|
| 2. Soviet Russia had a struggling economy in the 60s and 70s,
| and an almost nonfunctional one in the 80s. The idea of
| developing new digital weapons was basically trashed, and the
| "next generation" Soviet weaponry became the surplus analog
| stuff they stockpiled. Research and prototyping ground to a
| halt as Russia lost self-sufficiency on the technology that
| mattered.
|
| 3. The Soviet-Afghanistan war weakened the USSR's traditional
| force composition to the point that it was doubtful they
| could fight a traditional war, even with a relatively
| untrained adversary. Thousands of Soviet soldiers died to
| prove that Russia's doctrine wasn't going to win a pitched
| battle against a well-funded enemy.
|
| Europe already avoided over-arming themselves like the USSR,
| they have a modernized economy, and they aren't fighting
| proxy wars against forces they can't beat. As an American
| citizen I'm more concerned with our own country resting on
| it's laurels, struggling to modernize it's supply chain and
| threatening to fight wars in the Levant with no clear goal.
| oezi wrote:
| Trump wants to cut the military as well, so it will be double
| disastrous for the US military complex.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/13/defense-stocks-drop-after-
| tr...
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Rheinmetall has already been going absolutely bonkers on the
| stock market.
| amelius wrote:
| Wouldn't be surprised if Trump bought shares.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Some congressmen have, apparently
| MrDresden wrote:
| Most of them have had double digits growth in their stock price
| over the last few days[0]:
|
| _" Britain's BAE Systems rose by 15% on Monday, Germany's
| Rheinmetall gained 14%, France's Thales increased 16% and
| Italy's Leonardo was also up 16%. In London the surge in
| defence related shares helped to push the FTSE 100 to a new
| record high"_
|
| [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/03/european-
| de...
| Chance-Device wrote:
| I think I'll use this thread to make a prediction.
|
| At the end of Trump's term:
|
| - Europe will still be using F-16s and F-35s
|
| - The US will still be in NATO, and will still be actively
| committed to the alliance
|
| - European defense spending will be massively higher, with
| manufacturing and supply chains that are far less easily
| disrupted
|
| - The US forces deployed to Europe will still be there, but will
| be bolstered by more European troops
|
| - Russia will have maintained its status as simultaneously a
| threat and a non-threat
|
| - Whatever the outcome in Ukraine, suddenly, nobody will care.
| The media won't talk about it, people will have largely
| forgotten, and some other controversy or distraction will be the
| story of the day.
|
| All of which will nicely serve the broader long term interests of
| the United States.
|
| As it always is, no matter who is in the White House.
| kragen wrote:
| Do you have reasoning to support this improbable conjunction,
| or are you just seeking to bet money?
| Chance-Device wrote:
| The strategic interests of the US stay the same. All of this
| is posturing which will only improve the alliance _which the
| US leads_. Carrot or stick, this president or that president,
| certain things don't change. All that changes is the
| implementation.
| kragen wrote:
| John Bolton, Vladimir Putin, Emmanuel Macron, Friedrich
| Merz, Wesley Clark, and Justin Trudeau seem to be unanimous
| in their assessment that the things you are saying "don't
| change" just changed. Of course they could be wrong, or
| lying, but they certainly aren't acting in concert.
| Chance-Device wrote:
| Look what's happened: the Europeans are now unanimous on
| the idea that European rearmament is necessary for
| survival, and have a political environment that allows
| them to sell that idea to their electorates. Electorates
| that historically have been opposed to spending on
| military over healthcare and social programs.
|
| And once that rearmament happens, or is underway to an
| extent that it's irreversible, what is the US going to
| do?
|
| They'll simply resume the same leadership position they
| always held, but now over a greatly reinforced alliance.
| And the Europeans will say, thank goodness the US is
| back. Aren't we all safer now.
| silvestrov wrote:
| > - The US will still be in NATO, and will still be actively
| committed to the alliance
|
| This is already gone: _" US 'to cease all future military
| exercises in Europe'"_
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/03/08/us-to-cea...
| Chance-Device wrote:
| I wasn't aware that Trumps term had ended after only three
| months.
| hobs wrote:
| Ah yes, we'll end our participation and pull out all troops
| and then send them all back, in opposite land.
| Chance-Device wrote:
| They haven't been pulled out. Just like they weren't
| pulled out during his last term. He's "threatening" to
| redeploy troops to Eastern Europe from Germany.
| "Threatening" to do exactly what happens to make the most
| strategic sense. But it's a threat. Honest.
| rtp4me wrote:
| Honestly, my gut feeling tells me the same. Time will tell...
| bitcurious wrote:
| One more prediction: a number of our allies will test
| domestically built nuclear weapons, including Germany, Poland,
| and South Korea.
| Chance-Device wrote:
| Unlikely. Nuclear independence threatens US hegemony. It
| won't be allowed to happen. The US wants Europe stronger, not
| independent.
| gip wrote:
| Probably accurate for the coming 4 years.
|
| In the middle to long term though, Europe should and will
| decouple from the US in defense and tech. US influence will be
| reduced. European almost made a fatal mistake with Galileo that
| the US wanted to kill [0] and I don't think they will make that
| mistake again. F-35, Starlink, air defense will be built by
| European companies.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)
| perlgeek wrote:
| > - Whatever the outcome in Ukraine, suddenly, nobody will
| care. The media won't talk about it, people will have largely
| forgotten, and some other controversy or distraction will be
| the story of the day.
|
| I'm sure the Ukrainians will care, and most of us in Europe
| will too.
| Chance-Device wrote:
| I certainly agree that the Ukrainians will care about it very
| much, but you, unless you are in an Eastern European country,
| most likely will not.
|
| The reason that you care right now is because it is in US
| interests that you care. As soon as that changes, you won't.
| You'll be too busy caring about something else.
| hollywood_court wrote:
| Congratulations to Russia for winning the Cold War I guess.
| simion314 wrote:
| I remember when Europe was launching stuff in space and USA
| americans were calling this stupid and wasteful, they demanded
| Europe give th money to Elon
| lucasyvas wrote:
| I find some of the comments I've read today in this thread
| somewhat enlightening - there is intelligent conversation about
| the capabilities of the American hardware and its software.
|
| The sophistication of the F-35 cannot be debated. But the rest of
| the world doesn't trust the US anymore, so it doesn't matter how
| good it is - people would gladly explore a worse product because
| they see it as lower risk.
|
| That's the reality of where America is at the moment. There are
| many Americans on Hacker News (if not the majority) and naturally
| the merits of the product that America produces are being
| discussed, and its superiority is front and center.
|
| This viewpoint is not relevant to the rest of the world. We don't
| want the US' stuff anymore and the only thing that can save that
| relationship is full software control. If America wants to make
| sales it needs to adjust to that expectation, or buyers are going
| elsewhere.
|
| The argument is missing the forest for the trees - the
| relationship is more important than the product itself. The
| sooner that is acknowledged the more likely a political course
| correction is possible. Otherwise, sure, you might see a few
| short term F-35 sales conclude. But the purchasing will stop as
| soon as it can.
| titzer wrote:
| It's only been 2 months. America in free fall.
| galleywest200 wrote:
| >and its superiority is front and center.
|
| The vast majority of the comments I am reading on this site are
| not stating this. The vast majority, even the Americans, are
| agreeing that this is a bad decision. Unsure where you got this
| from.
| lucasyvas wrote:
| Specifically the F-35, as that phrasing is ambiguous within
| the context I wrote it.
| d4vlx wrote:
| I think he is referring to the F-35 only here. On military
| discussion forums it is the consensus that the F-35 is
| superior to everything else out there with the only exception
| being that the F-22 has superior air to air combat
| capabilities.
| chgs wrote:
| Dollar for dollar is the f35 or a drone superior?
| justin66 wrote:
| "A drone" could mean literally anything from a twenty
| dollar quadcopter to the next generation $300M NGAD
| system.
| dharmab wrote:
| There is currently no drone that can replace everything
| the F-35 does. There might be one in the future, and it
| will likely be the most expensive aircraft ever made (see
| the two NGAD programs' unmanned components)
| dragontamer wrote:
| No drone can take out a CRAM (aka: RADAR aimbot shooting
| bullets into the sky).
|
| Meanwhile, a helicopter with an anti-radiation missile
| can take out CRAM, let alone a stealth F35. F35 (and F16)
| are the next step after helicopters: you send F35 when
| enemy antiair is good enough to threaten helis.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| The F35 was an enormously expensive program only possible by
| increasing the production run through sales to partners/allies.
| It was predicated on a defense model currently burning down.
| jm4 wrote:
| Absolutely. This isn't just about the F16 and F35 either. It
| effectively ends or drastically changes the upcoming NGAD
| before they even get started. Any previous sales projections
| are irrelevant in a world where the USA has essentially
| remotely disabled an ally's fighter jets without cause. I
| wouldn't be surprised if they have to redesign major
| components of the NGAD in light of a budget that looks
| drastically different than it did a month ago.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| NGAD was already being scaled back due to cost. But yeah
| this is probably going to get it canceled.
| syntex wrote:
| I wonder why Poland is still buying F35 and other European
| countries.
| preisschild wrote:
| Because it's the only mass-produced (and thus relatively cheap)
| 5th Gen fighter that gives you a lot of advantages over 4th Gen
| and it will likely take at least a decade before mass-produced
| EUropean alternatives are available.
|
| But yeah, actual experts with access to hardware should
| validate if there is a kill switch and if replacement parts /
| weapons could be reverse engineered before buying any more.
| fpoling wrote:
| Poland was already pissed off with US arm industry under Biden
| with slow deliveries of US weapons and started to order more
| and more from South Korea. I guess it will only accelerate.
| iamsanteri wrote:
| Hahahaha, do they even know what they are doing to their US
| hegemony?! This kind of short-term thinking leads to the US
| enemies laughing all their way into the bank. They don't even
| understand what they're losing here. If they don't try to path-
| correct very soon this is the beginning of a gradual decline. Is
| the current U.S. leadership really that afraid? There is no
| reason to act like this otherwise. Or this is some very very
| incredibly smart way of "peace through strength". Go figure and
| good luck all.
| yimby2001 wrote:
| They aren't even useful the anti-air is too good for either side
| to use jets
| outer_web wrote:
| Incorrect. The explanation is above.
| fvrther wrote:
| France sending jets while the U.S. waves the white flag? Looks
| like the surrender baton just got passed westward.
| nxm wrote:
| Sigh... a few jets can't compare to level of aid American tax
| payer has given the past few years. More than OK with France
| finally doing something.
| Etheryte wrote:
| Europe has given more aid to Ukraine in total numbers than
| America if I'm not mistaken? So I'm not really sure if I see
| what you mean.
| DFHippie wrote:
| Yes, Europe has given more aid overall. And certainly much
| more per capita in many countries. The US has given more
| _military_ aid, but not that much more.
| altacc wrote:
| The US' contribution has been incredibly significant and the
| war would have gone very differently without US support but
| the idea that the US has contributed most money is false and
| driven by hubris.
|
| There's various ways of tracking support and by many metrics
| there are European countries that have given more than the US
| once you account for population & GDP. It gets more
| complicated for EU members as the EU has given financial
| support, so the largest funders of the EU, like France, have
| paid proportionally more via the EU than directly.
|
| https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-
| ukraine/ukraine-s... https://www.usnews.com/news/best-
| countries/articles/these-co...
|
| Also worth remembering that 70% of that aid from the US never
| left the US and was spent on procuring weapons from the US.
|
| https://econofact.org/factbrief/does-most-u-s-aid-to-
| ukraine...
| whymeogod wrote:
| Yes, this point should be emphasized more. The aid the US
| gave Ukraine was the US government buying expensive things
| from US companies. The money stayed in the US, created US
| jobs and US economic growth.
| Springtime wrote:
| The article is written to give the reader the impression only the
| US can reprogram the jamming system and the comments seem to
| mostly be taking it at face value.
|
| In the very Forbes article the OP's article cites it links to
| info about this F-16 reprogramming effort[1], showing it was
| collaboration between the US/Norway/Denmark and that the US
| electronic warfare team wasn't familiar with the system, yet
| within two weeks they say they managed to reprogram them to meet
| the initial deadline.
|
| _> The 68th EWS assembled a dedicated team comprised of a
| mixture of seasoned experts and bright, young engineers to
| approach the reprograming challenge. Their first task was to
| understand the unfamiliar EW system and how to reprogram it._
|
| _> Relying on data provided by Denmark and Norway, then adapting
| new processes and approaches to the usual process, the team was
| able to understand the system and start their work._
|
| _> After understanding the system, the 68th EWS deviated again
| from normal methods and sent its members overseas to a partner-
| nation lab to collaboratively develop and test the system
| alongside coalition teammates._
|
| [1] https://www.dvidshub.net/news/479401/dominate-
| spectrum-350th...
| ea550ff70a wrote:
| Fckd up
| joshdavham wrote:
| Regarding flagging: I think the worry is that, with all the
| political news constantly generated by Donald in the white house,
| HN might get submerged by politics constantly rather than the
| hacker-related stuff we all come here for.
| ifyoubuildit wrote:
| That and the discussions are basically devoid of any new info
| or insight. If you were to take a random comment from each of
| these threads, youd probably have a hard time telling which
| came from where.
| jmward01 wrote:
| True. This post is just being used as a reason to continue
| previous threads with very little connection to the
| submission. I am of two minds on this. The first is 'I want
| my life to be about cool tech and interesting ideas' and the
| second is 'This is a critical moment in history so people
| need to discuss it more than anything else'. At this exact
| moment I lean towards the latter so I think it is,
| unfortunately, important to get everyone out into discussion
| and action even in discussion forums like HN.
| joshdavham wrote:
| > This is a critical moment in history so people need to
| discuss it more than anything else
|
| You may be correct on this, but I'm trying to keep in mind
| that we still have 4 more years of this and I think this
| may sorta be the new normal for the time being. I'd hate to
| see HN get distracted by every new drama Donald gets
| himself involved in till 2029.
| -1 wrote:
| I disagree. The majority of HN readers are Americans and a
| vocal and active subset don't like seeing articles which are
| critical of their "great" nation.
| joshdavham wrote:
| I respect your opinion, but as a non-American myself
| (Canadian), I also really don't like having my feed filled
| with whatever the last drama was that Donald stirred up. HN
| for me is an escape from other news outlets.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Other countries who fly then will fill in the gaps. They may
| start making replacement parts themselves, that's what I would do
| if I were them.
| tehjoker wrote:
| My suspicion is Trump is putting pressure on Zelensky (a) because
| he hates him personally and (b) because he wants an even bigger
| mineral rights deal. The thinking being, let Zelensky stew in it
| without U.S. help and suffer some humiliating defeats and let him
| come crawling back to the table so that he can sell of the
| majority of his country to the Americans, far more than the
| Russians will ever get.
| iw2rmb wrote:
| It's because Russia is on the verge of economic collapse and
| Putin forces Trump to cancel sanctions critical to them.
|
| At this point, Russia got maximum from this war. These rare
| minerals deal is just to distract and it's nothing compared to
| oil, manganese and soil Russia will capture.
|
| Also, I'm struggling to find any reason for Zelensky to sign
| the deal - no protection, zero chance to get land back. Just
| thrown under the bus. EU is better option.
| netsharc wrote:
| It's 2 assholes friendly with each other sharing the spoils of
| war: Putin gives Trump the opportunity to brag about bringing
| $500B to the US/maybe it'll be today's Halliburton that'll get
| the mining rights, for a donation to the new Trump Mansion, and
| Putin gets everything else.
| niemandhier wrote:
| Could there be an orchestrated effort by volunteers to replace
| what the Americans were doing or does this rely on intelligence
| insight the Americans have?
|
| In country if 40 Million desperate people as educated as the
| Ukrainians there should be quite the talent pool to try to hack
| this.
| hkyu12 wrote:
| So much warmongering going on here. The site where majority used
| to call to end US as world police, stop interfering and
| instigating overthrowing government now wants the opposite. This
| site is surely astroturfed or suddenly people have turned
| violent.
| lif wrote:
| I can assure you that there would never be any chance of paid
| shill brigades shouting down opposing viewpoints on HackerNews.
| Instead, as I have been informed many times, posts critical of
| Trump are being flagged. The posts that make it through then
| naturally are flooded with independent thinkers who just happen
| to all be in agreement. I mean, how could you not agree with
| them, right?
|
| Those who disagree about this particular topic obviously
| deserve whatever they get here. That's why ad hominem rules do
| not apply to them, and there is no need to be civil when
| replying to Russian trolls such as them!!
|
| If astroturfing were happening, it would show up as most anyone
| critical of the astroturf comments being downvoted and/or
| flagged into grey oblivion, while the astroturf brigade would
| present as an unusually large number of comments that all agree
| with each other.
|
| Anyway, I have been keeping track for a small study I a doing
| on information warfare, and look forward to presenting my
| research on this. Am still gathering screenshots and other
| data. So far, I am in awe at the deep thinking and high level
| of civil discourse on display here. I really like that folks
| here show respect even to those who disagree.
| hkyu12 wrote:
| Deep thinking, civil discourse? Your comment even indicates
| that if you disagree you are russian troll. How come a left
| leaning site become a rabid warmongering right leaning one.
| It seems like left and right switched sides on some issues.
| retrorangular wrote:
| Many here are anti-war, not pacifist. They disliked the US
| starting wars. Likewise, they dislike Russia starting wars.
| That's neither astroturfing nor people turning violent. Quite
| the opposite: many abhor violence, and letting people invade
| other countries without consequence does not lead to a world
| with less violence.
|
| People don't want the US to interfere with domestic politics in
| Ukraine, they want it to help the national government that has
| overwhelming support from the local populace fend off an
| invasion from a foreign nation. They're not in favor of
| overthrowing the government, they want to prevent that very
| thing from happening.
| abujazar wrote:
| I guess the Danes (just like us Norwegians) think the choice of
| F-35 rather than neighbouring allies' planes was wise... In
| contrast to the F-16, one can only assume that Trump & co can
| basically disable the F-35 or at least render it completely
| useless for battle. Norwegian operation of the F-35 is even
| completely dependent on American personnel for years to come.
| bsdice wrote:
| Used to be "buy cheap, buy twice", now it's "buy American, buy
| twice".
|
| One step could be to replace what Israel replaced, for more
| independance. Wouldn't buy their solution though, they sell bad
| pagers.
|
| Trump has the soccer world cup in USA soon. Spectators could
| make it hell, boo the USA anthem at every game. I think they
| will.
| cornhole wrote:
| capitulation will not bring peace
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| I wonder when European founders start switching from
| Azure/AWS/Google to domestic alternatives. I feel the risk of
| being thrown out all of the sudden increases every day.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Already happening in multiple places.
| serpix wrote:
| So is it going to be Kubernetes as the IaC stack from now on?
| I'm asking as a heads up as I foresee a potential major
| demand for infrastructure migrations in the future.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > going to be Kubernetes as the IaC stack
|
| Not unless its heavily modified to scale past 10k nodes
| sensibly. its security/secrets model also needs a boatload
| of work before you can think about hosting untrusted
| parties on your kit.
| perlgeek wrote:
| I work for one of the domestic alternatives.
|
| Guess where our network gear vendors are? (Currently using
| mostly Arista, but also some Juniper core routers, used to have
| Cisco gear too).
|
| Guess where our OS is being sold from? (Even when use Linux,
| much of it is RHEL).
|
| We use VMWare products (yep, US), and Openshift (RHEL, also
| US).
|
| We use F5 and A10 load balancers. Both US.
|
| There's sooo much off-the-shelf hardware, software and firmware
| from the US; replacing one of them would be a big to huge
| integration project; replacing them all would be an endless
| nightmare, especially if the only alternative is from China. If
| there even is a practical alternative.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| America is turning into Russia in real time right now, it's nuts
| and a lot of people is saying Trump is playing 6D chess
| d_burfoot wrote:
| The Ukraine Today article seems to be a copy of this Forbes
| article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2025/03/07/france-
| to-t...
|
| For additional context, here's an article from August about how
| the USAF helped to upgrade the F-16 electronic warfare
| capabilities:
| https://www.airandspaceforces.com/ukraine-f-16-electronic-wa...
|
| The words "lose support" is carrying a lot of weight in this
| reporting.
| maelito wrote:
| France's Rafales just had an incredible sale boost.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| The US has been compromised by Putin. It's very clear for all to
| see.
| matt-p wrote:
| "why did everyone stop buying our planes and weapons"
| anuraj wrote:
| This war from the beginning was meaningless other than for MIC
| interests. Trump is right in getting out of this mess. Europe did
| harakiri by sacrificing its energy security and economy for an
| inconsequential NATO expansion. What is playing out now is the
| end of Western liberal democracy which is being replaced by
| Techno libertarianism. European elites who do not see the writing
| on the wall are writing their own obituaries.
| przemub wrote:
| Sure, if we had kept Berlin Wall up and Soviet Union alive then
| Western liberal democracy would be in a much better state, tech
| bros would not exist and everyone would be rich, young and
| beautiful. Please get a grip.
| bitcurious wrote:
| If your "energy security" is dependent on a belligerent state,
| you don't have energy security. This was something Trump
| himself has repeatedly criticized the Europeans for, so if you
| lead with "Trump was right" follow that thread.
| anuraj wrote:
| Europe has no apparent future - neither economy nor
| demography is in its favor. EU experiment has failed. NATO is
| irrelevant as well. Real reason why Trump does not care.
| ozgrakkurt wrote:
| I don't understand, why does the government of US has to give
| support for privately manufactured weapons. The company that
| sells the weapons should do that right?
|
| Also what does US gain if all countries are using f16?
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| 1. ITAR, 2. They get money.
| davethedevguy wrote:
| This seems like a huge own goal for the US.
|
| Who will want to buy American military technology, when the
| ability to employ it is at the whim of whoever wins the next
| election?
|
| Especially as it's clear now than any alliance with the US is
| fragile at best, and could end overnight depending on which side
| of the bed Trump wakes up on.
| mahkeiro wrote:
| This will soon be not only limited to military technologies
| jacquesm wrote:
| Today your aircraft, tomorrow all your mobile phones. I'm pretty
| sure those could all be remote bricked.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Nuh uh! Hacker News told me that American businesses have the
| ultimate moral imperative to cease operations in any country
| that demands invasive control of my devices.
|
| Surely my smartphone OEM would fight the entire American
| government before handing over my data.
| zapnuk wrote:
| Let's assume a Russian asset somehow becomes President of the
| USA.
|
| What would he have done? How would he weaken the USA and
| strengthen Russia?
|
| At this point, I don't see a difference between Trump + GOP
| (leaders) and actual traitors.
| shmerl wrote:
| Does anyone still have any doubts that Trump is helping Putin? He
| consistently helps Russian fascists using "boiling the frog"
| method to avoid doing it too rapidly. But it's still glaringly
| obvious.
|
| Everyone who for voted for this scum should be blamed.
| paulsutter wrote:
| Am I reading this right? Nothing has been disabled, they're no
| longer sending frequency updates? Not even clear if this is
| related to the current spat.
|
| > the Biden Air Force was able to keep up with the Russian
| adaptation by constantly tweaking the AN/ALQ-131 frequencies,
| under Trump, Ukrainian pilots are not receiving updates, and the
| programs could soon become obsolete.
|
| If so, title seems inflammatory. Not that I support the action,
| just saying it should be characterized accurately
| nbzso wrote:
| Simple fact. The empire of lies lost the proxy war against
| Russia. Be glad that you are alive. Stupidity, lack of critical
| thinking, emotionally driven Russophobia, warmongering,
| corruption in Ukraine and EU. This is the logical result.
|
| You have being saved by the immense patience of Russian people
| and Kremlin. Everything else is pure madness.
|
| USA is not the economic power of the world anymore. You don't
| have the industrial base for producing the quantity of weapons
| needed for conventional war with pear countries. The dream is
| over.
|
| Now you must cut back all the operational expenses for
| information war and save what you have for the next big conflict.
| With China.
|
| And as Victoria Nuland stated in 2014 building the military coup
| in Kyiv: F* the EU.
| matt-p wrote:
| If Ukraine is corrupt why didn't Putin just bribe them?
| nbzso wrote:
| Because USA gave more money, dear. Tons of it. The investment
| in Bandera's far right nationalist terror groups dates back
| to project Paperclip. Check your six.
| justahuman74 wrote:
| This is going to make Australia think twice about those Virginia
| subs
| nabla9 wrote:
| Even if Trumpism is gone by 2028, nothing goes back to normal.
| We'll see the raise of ITAR-free weapons systems from Europe and
| Asian "former" US allies and cooperation around the US.
|
| What Trump and MAGA people don't realize is that 11 carrier
| groups sailing around the seas alone are not that big a threat.
| Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) and Status of Forces
| Agreement (SOFA) provide unsinkable airfields, supply depots for
| the US all over the world. They are massive power multiplier for
| the US military.
| dboreham wrote:
| There goes the US defense industry and thank you very much from
| Saab.
| Simon_O_Rourke wrote:
| If I was a defense minister in Western Europe right now I'd go
| looking at whatever the Dassault, Saab or other European based
| defense tech can provide. I'd also immediately halt any pilot
| training in the US. I can see shares in Raytheon, Lockheed, etc.
| taking losses in the next couple of quarters, I mean here we have
| a president that won't even spend money on its own defense tech
| for export, and is now actively shutting down that export market.
| pseudony wrote:
| Beyond being morally reprehensible (and it really is), this is a
| humongous own-goal.
|
| I don't think US arms manufacturers should expect many future
| orders from the EU.
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| What a move to break the spine of us forces and industrial
| complex at the same time .
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| This is yet another "People said the US would never do that, it
| would undermine their credibility too much, we shouldn't spread
| FUD -> oops, they did it anyway" moment.
|
| I'm hoping that people eventually understand that "losing
| credibility" isn't a deterrent when the offending party is
| entrenched enough that they believe (correctly or not) that
| everyone will keep buying their stuff anyway.
| mixxit wrote:
| it seems so sad that americans dont find it worth while to stand
| up to their president
| Element_ wrote:
| And if the American defense sector wasn't bruised enough from the
| last month, Elon musk was on social media this weekend claiming
| he could collapse the Ukranian frontlines by disabling Starlink
| and insulting the Polish foreign minister for buying Starlink
| systems...
|
| https://bsky.app/profile/tatarigami.bsky.social/post/3ljxhgc...
| https://bsky.app/profile/tendar.bsky.social/post/3ljx3esi74k...
| justin66 wrote:
| Musk might not value Poland's patronage but the rest of the
| American defense industry certainly does. Poland is a huge
| buyer of arms.
|
| I can't imagine what the internal struggles look like right
| now, but it definitely hasn't dawned on most of the Trump
| people that whatever budgetary gains they make by randomly
| firing people will be offset - to put it mildly - by the effect
| fucking up the arms export market will have on the federal
| budget.
| physhster wrote:
| Really makes you wonder if that "president" could be teaming up
| with the other side...
| yctim wrote:
| This is a sign of a rapid decline of the US in the world stage,
| faster than I expected a year ago.
|
| A new world order is being established and the US wouldn't be a
| leader in that world.
| DrNosferatu wrote:
| The EU should buy - or even license produce - Swedish Saab
| Gripens to help the Ukrainians resist.
|
| Low cost, simple to operate, and specially designed to fight
| Russian aggression.
| deeviant wrote:
| They are not low cost, they cost nearly as much as an F35.
| DrNosferatu wrote:
| The first steps are already underway, nevertheless the European
| Democracies should start a, new, NATO-like military Alliance on
| their own, but without Trump's America.
|
| (and without the notorious US-made military equipment kill-switch
| ability - like with the F16s here)
|
| And while we're at it, this time will be different: Instead of
| the membership criteria being anti-soviet communism, as in NATO,
| it should be effective Liberal Democracy - and - Freedom from
| Exceptionalist Exemptions, namely from the International Rule of
| Law. So, to be part,
|
| 1. Compulsory International Criminal Court membership and
| compliance - hence no exceptionalistic US, and no
| exceptionalistic Israel.
|
| 2. No "Illiberal Democracies": say, for example, composite of a
| minimum 0.67 score on the WJP Rule of Law Index and others:
| therefore no Orbanic Hungary, and no illiberal others like it.
| Poland, Slovakia, Italy: time to make some hard choices if you
| want in.
|
| 3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance,
| and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion.
|
| Not one more new military equipment purchase from the US, (and
| dispreference for other non-qualifying nations procurement).
| Member nations should use their - substantial - industrial
| capacity to equip themselves with indigenous military materiel.
|
| Hey, it would be actually great for the economy!
|
| Initially European scope, but bridges to a broader global scope
| (or even a secondary sister-Alliance) with open-ended
| partnerships with Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Japan, South
| Korea, and yes: Taiwan.
|
| US and/or Israel want to join, if a more Democratic future
| selves? Simple: fully join the ICC, and meet the Alliance's full
| criteria as every other member. Same applies for prospective new
| members.
|
| Sweden shows how principled positions can be maintained while
| building serious defense capabilities. Now multiply that model by
| Europe's combined industrial and technological base.
|
| We just need the political will to execute - instead of just
| rolling over and wagging our tail to bullies.
| Animats wrote:
| Sweden will reportedly be supplying Ukraine with Saab-built
| Gripen fighters.[1][2] Maybe. Apparently Sweden has been holding
| off on transfer of 14 Gripens while Ukraine was learning to use
| and service F-16s.
|
| The Gripen has advantages for Ukraine. It's a more rugged
| aircraft, with lower maintenance demands and lower operating
| cost. It can operate from very basic airstrips and roads. Saab
| boasts about this.[3] Their pitch mentions that servicing an
| aircraft between missions requires just one trained tech assisted
| by five other workers. The USAF likes to operate from big, well-
| equipped, secure air bases, and US aircraft tend to be designed
| for that environment.
|
| The US has, in the past, tried to discourage other countries from
| buying the Gripen, to protect US manufacturers. That sales
| advantage just disappeared.
|
| [1]
| https://min.news/en/military/a409faa4bc530b328f75ed6ccff23b7...
|
| [2] https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/03/04/saab-ceo-pushes-
| for-s...
|
| [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyD0liioY8E
| guerrilla wrote:
| Fascinating. What's with the US approach then? In general, it
| seems like lean forces tend to win. Afghanistan (twice) and
| Vietnam, for example. The Houthis as another example.
| whymeogod wrote:
| I thought the US lost in Afghanistan and Vietnam. Am I
| misunderstanding something in your post?
| arkensaw wrote:
| Yes I think you are misunderstanding. The leaner forces in
| all of the cases above are not the US, but the opposition.
| willvarfar wrote:
| Various components in the Gripen, particularly the engine which
| Volvo licensed from GE, are from the US and the US has a veto
| on them. It is currently blocking sale of Gripen to Colombia,
| for example.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Are there any other compatible engines for the platform?
| graeme wrote:
| None at present to my knowledge. The French Rafale is the
| only western jet fighter without any US components.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Thanks. This leads me to the conclusion reverse
| engineering and production of these engines are a
| priority.
| quelup wrote:
| The comments in this thread freak me out. Either the world's
| media has brainwashed the population into believing America is
| failing and the 'right' is evil/dumb, or I'm totally delussioned
| (as an American) for seeing _mostly_ good in what the current
| administration is doing. Both are terrifying.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| What exactly is the good here?
| whymeogod wrote:
| with kindness and respect.
|
| Ideally, "hacker news" is for people who have a hacker/engineer
| mindset. Look at the actual facts of the situation, not the
| flashy sales brochure.
|
| Odds are that your second hypothesis is the correct one. You
| may wish to start by comparing what you think the current
| administration is doing with what it is actually doing.
|
| You cannot count on Fox News to be accurate, they have never
| claimed to present "accurate" news.
|
| You may be interested in the results of this study, where Fox
| viewers were paid to watch CNN for a month.
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/fox-news-study-compari...
| rwyinuse wrote:
| I think it's time for foreign buyers of F-35 to evaluate that
| choice too.
| throwaway46713 wrote:
| Meanwhile, Trump forgets what Aukus is, and one of his peoples is
| making concerned noises about whether it's a good idea ([1]).
|
| If the point is to piss off every single one of the US' allies in
| an any% speedrun, the current administration seems to be doing a
| pretty bang-up job of this.
|
| It's terrifying, though. The world's (current) superpower might
| have a big military and all, but actively signalling that you
| don't really need friends can only lead to a decrease in overall
| geopolitical stability, right?
|
| [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/09/trump-pick-
| for...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-09 22:01 UTC)