The Gripen is a good choice for geographically small countries.
It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads, with modest mobile ground equipment for support. Saab commercial for the Gripen: [1]
The USAF's force model involves basing at big, well-equipped, well-protected air bases. Those are now hard to protect from drone attacks, as Russia recently found out. From now on, air forces have to be able to operate from improvised bases, or build very strong bunkers at major bases.
"It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads, with modest mobile ground equipment for support."
Nothing is really new. I used to live in West Germany in the '70s and '80s. The UK had an aircraft called Harrier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_jump_jet. At that time I think Sweden was deploying the Drakken (Dragon) and later the Vigen (Lightning). I made models of both as a child and I think both of them were superb in their own way.
Harrier was designed to work out of fields, let alone roads. Rather similar to an Apache. Minimal maint (ish) and so on.
I now live in Yeovil, Somerset and we have recently had several Italian rotary wing aircraft, such as The Seaking doing test flights around here. Presumably airframe testing and proving for VJ Day.
gliptic · 3h ago
> I think Sweden was deploying the Drakken (Dragon) and later the Vigen (Lightning).
The names are much less flashy, Draken (The kite, due to the shape) and Viggen (The tufted duck) :P.
geon · 2h ago
Yes, Draken and Viggen are officially named after the kite and the tufted duck, respectively.
The names do however carry the other meanings as well.
Draken means (the) kite, dragon and male duck.
Viggen means (the) lightning and tufted duck.
yesbabyyes · 14m ago
And Gripen is the Griffin. Before Draken was Tunnan, the Barrel.
qingcharles · 2h ago
Which RAF bases are around there? I used to live at the end of the Filton airstrip and I came home one day to a Harrier hovering directly over my house. It moved off towards Filton, but I didn't see where it went. I didn't think about what RAF bases are in the West Country.
breppp · 52m ago
The F-35 has a STOVL model if that's somehow relevant, which is superior to the Gripen in both stealth and ability to operate from improvised bases
While Ukraine was able to use drones to attack Russian airbases, this was not the way Israel overpowered Iran, whose main driving factor was F-35s rather than drones (although these were present)
Edited: STOVL not VTOL
dilyevsky · 1h ago
> Those are now hard to protect from drone attacks, as Russia recently found out.
Not hard at all - just build the damn concrete shelters. Not going to protect you from bunker busters but more than plenty against drones
geon · 2h ago
If large air bases are hard to protect, wouldn’t the Gripen be good also for large countries?
Havoc · 46m ago
A better metric is likely how far out you want/need to project power rather than country size. The answer for that is very different depending on whether you're sweden or the usa
trenchpilgrim · 9h ago
How do improvised bases offer protection, especially in a world where radar on satellites sees through clouds and certain vegetation?
USAF's switch to improvised bases seems to be motivated by needing to operate from small islands in the Pacific where they isn't enough solid ground to build a full airbase.
cutemonster · 8h ago
If a plane can land anywhere to refuel and takes off again in 10 minutes, the other side needs a fast kill chain to catch the plane.
But if they land on big well known bases, it's much simpler.
Another comment here about slow drone speeds and nest drones:
And sometimes the other side can destroy all big airbases in a small country.
trenchpilgrim · 7h ago
Thanks, that was clarifying for me!
bell-cot · 8h ago
In terms of military resources required, there's a vast difference between keeping a close eye on the other side's few known airfields, and keeping a close eye on every park, parking lot, farm field, forest clearing, etc., etc. in their country.
trenchpilgrim · 7h ago
This kind of monitoring is something you can buy commercially now, for less than the cost of the weapons carried by a fighter jet on a single mission.
However, revisit times are still long enough that sibling comment's remarks on mobility make sense.
jacquesm · 2h ago
The very successful attack that Ukraine performed on Russian long range bombers would have never worked if those weren't tied to particular locations for a really long time. 6 months of planning and execution would have gone out of the window by a single late (as in the last 30 days) order to move things around. All airfields are now at risk of such attacks, including civilian ones.
I would bet that within a year we'll see ransom attacks on airfields in open societies. The idea is out there and the capabilities are so cheap that any idiot could do it.
walrus01 · 4h ago
> How do improvised bases offer protection, especially in a world where radar on satellites sees through clouds and certain vegetation?
If operating from an airfield that has been improvised out of a straight stretch of highway, the grouping of vehicles that contain all of the necessary ground support equipment and munitions resupply can be disguised to resemble an ordinary civilian cargo box truck, or tractor trailer combo.
Unless the attacking force is willing to begin with the resources needed, and repercussions of airstriking everything that looks like a civilian cargo truck moving in the region, it would be extremely difficult to eliminate the group of vehicle and men that compromise the ground support equipment element. Particularly when you might have multiple groups of such roaming randomly around an area.
echelon · 10h ago
> It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads
I can understand this argument.
> The USAF's force model involves basing at big, well-equipped, well-protected air bases.
But I don't understand this one. Isn't a drone attack a drone attack? The same drones that could take out F-16s could take out Gripens. You'd have to defend your expensive weapon systems in either case.
Don't we need a new strategy that isn't entirely reliant upon extremely powerful, but extremely expensive hardware? I'd imagine you still want your expensive pieces, but that you want a compliment of inexpensive combat items and fortified bunkers as a line of defense to protect them when not deployed.
Animats · 5h ago
The USAF argues over this internally. See [1], and a reply, [2].
Some USAF officers have been making noise about the need for more dispersal for years.[3]
There's a "build tougher bases" faction in the military. Read "Concrete Sky"[4]
If you want to read up on this, those are some good starting points.
This is so much better than I even asked for! Thank you so much for putting this together and sharing.
Any opinion as to which faction(s) will win these arguments?
simne · 8h ago
> The same drones that could take out F-16s could take out Gripens
Gripens could base on ordinary highway, so could distribute planes through big territory.
Drones usually have limited range, so they really could target most air bases capable for F-16 (using for example semi-truck container as movable nest), but it is literally impossible now, to target all highways.
dgrin91 · 8h ago
Yes but it's a question of finding targets. Why was Ukraine able to decimate the Russian Air Force? Partly because they are all based out of big, well known bases. Even in wartime they have to be in a big base.
A jet like the Gripen can move basically instantly to basically anywhere and then it's hard to find, especially because it can just move again
riffraff · 3h ago
I don't want to sound negative, I wish all the best to Ukraine, but did they actually "decimate" the Russian air force?
I was under the impression a few attacks on air bases happened, but a lot more drones were aimed at refineries and other infrastructure.
jacquesm · 2h ago
Yes.
They hit a substantial fraction of the Russian long range bombers and assorted other aircraft. Quite a bit of that is at least for the moment impossible for Russia to replace.
hgomersall · 3h ago
Given the original definition of decimate, to remove one in ten, perhaps so.
petre · 2h ago
True, but the Gripen is not a big strategic bomber and Sweden doesn't have nukes to threaten other countries with. They do air policing and would employ guerilla tactics in case of war, like put a gripen in a cattle shed somewhere and operate it from a road¹. It's a good strategy for a smaller country with lower population density to defend itself. Possibly not such a great option for Benelux, but for most of the EU, save for the big boys it's great. Even Germany could employ it, with the amount of sheds and the highway network that they have. Russia and the US needs aibases to operate strategic bombers from.
I admit I didn't read the article. Is the Gripen 40% cheaper so that countries can own more of them?
Also smaller airbases can mean more airbases. So a single drone attack might take out one or two bases worth of Gripen. But it takes a lot more drones and a lot more sophisticated attack to take out all the Gripen spread across so many small bases.
maxglute · 3h ago
The on paper assumption / sales pitch that remains valid in most scenarios is increased survivability of shooters = more sorties. If hardware can operate from austere conditions you can squeeze in a few more missions, which may be tactically/operationally significant, but there's limitations on modern airframes, still need to go back to a well resourced large base (5th gen also requires conditioned shelters) for maintenance, i.e. it's still fundamentally a bandaid solution. The logistics tail is also larger <- this gets slept on (or underplayed in public facing messaging).
It remains valid in most scenarios, as in most force on force that is not US/PRC, because very few countries has c4isr abilities to kill chain entire operational theatre, i.e. it's partially hopium strategy in US vs PRC in IndoPac. Which circles back to your second point, the related debate around hardening and distributing is almost distraction - airforce capitalization of highend platforms is in the shitters - so there's parallel discussion around distributed / agile deployment but with cheaper CCAs. Of course what's typically being hand waved away is the logistics tail part, i.e. there's already massive maintenance personnel shortages, unlikely to disperse thousands of maintenance crews on the ground to support the concept. The even more handwaved part for US in IndoPac is host nation access / political constraints.
There's a reason US wants JP to support ACE/agile combat employment (as in on main islands), increase harden shelters... but JP reluctant to open main islands. Because no one wants more American forces doing shenanigans with their civilians and the optics of having support fleets reminding populace they're on the frontline is bad. Hence JP still largely constraining US to Okinawa/Ryukyus, PH in Luzon/Palawan. The further downstream handwaving of all this is even if properly implemented, is now you've spread out shit load of more exposed logistics staff across vulnerable islands, i.e. dramatically increased exfiltration complexity / suicide deployments. Survivability of drones increases, survivability of the logistics force decreases. Which is... even worse optics, hence it's rarely even part of discussion with respect to ACE. There some self awareness with marine NMESIS MLRS / EABO (expeditionary advanced base operations)... i.e. wait we're sending marines on likely one way missions to tiny islands that PRC can lock down? Maybe that's worth if they take out a type055.
hubraumhugo · 2h ago
> It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads
While sweden has a lot of straight road stretches specifically designed to serve as emergency airfields, it is a lot easier to find 500 m of suitable road than 1600.
ivape · 9h ago
Is there an equivalent to drone dog fighting? In that case, we may as well shift warfare to that.
simne · 9h ago
What you mean? Aerobatic?
- Anti-air weapons all based on maneuverability much exceed planes with human pilots.
- Anti-missile maneuver based on limited energy in missile, because it is usually ~100 times smaller then plane, and square-cube rule mean, missile could make active flight just few seconds - if plane survive these seconds it win.
Stealth planes are new tier in warfare, because enemy see them when already lost time need to launch anti-air weapons.
trenchpilgrim · 9h ago
Sorta - in Ukraine there have been instances of drones killing other drones, mostly by ramming them. But it's all very new.
jacquesm · 2h ago
There have been thousands of such instances by now. Ramming is indeed the most frequently used option. Depending on the target drone there are different defender drones in use. Some favor altitude and duration of flight, others favor speed. It all depends on what you are trying to hit, what sensor package and what kind of flight conditions you will face (day/night for instance).
walrus01 · 4h ago
Yes, there's already Ukrainian fpv flown quadcopters which are optimized to intercept, as a munition, common flying wing camera surveillance platforms. I've seen probably 20 or 30 different videos now taken from the view of the quadcopter, with detonator contact wires sticking out the front, diving into the rear of a large Russian flying wing UAV.
sureglymop · 10h ago
Switzerland also has an open fixed-price deal for 36 F-35s.
The US are trying to alter the deal and raise the price to ~1 billion USD more than agreed to.
I wish Switzerland would do the same and cancel the deal.
On top of that Switzerland should go a step further and impose a tax on gold exported to the united states if they don't stop with their silly little 39% tariffs on imported Swiss goods. Just ridiculous and embarrassing to sever long running trade relationships out of ignorance.
gpt5 · 8h ago
>The US are trying to alter the deal
I don't understand why people claim that. Here are the actual facts/timeline:
Nov 2021: Switzerland agreed contract terms with the U.S. government for 36 F-35A and budgeted CHF 6.035 bn. Under U.S. FMS (Foreign military sales) rules, LOA (letter of offer) values are estimates and the buyer owes actual full cost, so this was not an enforceable CHF-fixed total.
May 2022: The Swiss Federal Audit Office warned of legal uncertainty around any fixed price, but the warning was ignored internally.
Sep 2022: Parliament authorized; LOA signed Sep 19, 2022.
Jun 2025: Switzerland announced the U.S. disputes a binding fixed price and sought a diplomatic solution. U.S. officials pointed to inflation/raw-material/energy costs that have changed.
Aug 2025: Switzerland announced it cannot legally enforce a fixed price and is estimating additional costs (+CHF 650 m–1.3 bn).
wbl · 6h ago
Good timeline but would be better to put in that inflation was pretty big over that period as well.
mcmcmc · 10h ago
There is no such thing as a tariff on exports. Tariffs are specifically an import tax intended to increase domestic demand for domestically produced goods by shifting it away from imported goods
graeme · 4h ago
Not correct actually. Checked dictionary, tariff applies to an import or an export.
It just isn't commonly done to apply an export tariff.
mrandish · 10h ago
> There is no such thing as a tariff on exports.
That's correct, or at least it was until this week. Did you happen to see the recent announcement where NVidia and AMD are now apparently required to pay 15% of the revenue from GPUs exported to China to the U.S. government? This is apparently GPUs which were, prior to this new 15% payment, "too harmful to our national security" to export to China.
Frankly, I only saw the headlines and haven't looked into it myself yet - mostly because it makes my head hurt trying to even tally the laws, policies and trade agreements doing this would probably violate. So, I'm admittedly unclear on the details but it sure sounds like an "export tariff".
mcmcmc · 6h ago
It’s just an export tax. The reason they are trying to call it anything but that is because the constitution specifically prohibits it
singleshot_ · 9h ago
My limited understanding is that this is going to be an offset against the applicable import tariff, not an export tariff.
Tostino · 8h ago
So, a roundabout way to do the same thing that he's prohibited from doing by the Constitution? Yeah, that sounds totally legit.
jacquesm · 2h ago
The new legal is where you just do what you want and if you get away with it (by hook or by crook) then it was legal.
blktiger · 10h ago
I think he meant export taxes or export duties.
csomar · 4h ago
Tariff is just a different name for "tax". You can tax imports, and you can also tax exports. You can also tax anything that moves, or doesn't.
mrtksn · 9h ago
Swiss appear to believe that if they kiss hard enough they will get favorable terms, so they confirmed that the f-35 deal is still on. This f-45 thing was always a way to pledge allegiance and pay your duty to USA for the protection more than actually intending to use the aircraft.
Swiss also pride themselves to European but having their own way of doing things, and as a result they aren't going to join EU.
Tough times, wishing them the best luck.
sureglymop · 8h ago
There are more things that make the whole ordeal more controversial. For one, the swiss people voted for the procurement of a new fleet of fighter jets with a majority of 50.1%. They later voted to approve a budget of 6 billion swiss franks for this. The current proposed price by the US now exceeds that budget.
Also, this procurement process was driven by former Swiss Defence Minister Viola Amherd who has since stepped down from her position.
While the deal may still be own, it will probably be altered such that it is within budget (lower quantity).
Tough times indeed.
refulgentis · 10h ago
I'm American and kinda stunned how little salience the issue has. Please punish us as much as possible.
It feel like we're gonna full on Erdogan inflation speed run out of this. i.e. multiple years of lunacy, coupled to forced interest rate decreases that make the inflation worse. I have no idea why US markets rallied earlier in the week on the idea they'd be lowered. We're full on in "well, if Herr Daddy says he fixed it, we can all say it's fixed, in fact it'd be damaging not to" territory.
Edit: also, for the historians, it's absolutely stunning how little power the legal system has. This is obviously illegal, and yet, many months will proceed by the time it gets judge, appealed, and then a 65/35 shot at the supreme court saying "well, gee, are we sure the constitution was against this instance of being a king?"
dragonwriter · 10h ago
> Edit: also, for the historians, it's absolutely stunning how little power the legal system has.
For historians (and political scientists, for similar reasons), it is not stunning at all. It might be stunning for other people, but people who study history are likely to be very aware that the legal system isn’t magic and is ultimately only a notional agreement about what society will tolerate which has only the weight that people refusing to tolerate violations gives it.
jacquesm · 2h ago
Indeed, checks and balances mean absolutely nothing if there is no will to enforce. This is the main innovation of the Trump administration: to prove that the checks and balances that we thought were in place are absolutely meaningless.
corimaith · 9h ago
>I'm American and kinda stunned how little salience the issue has. Please punish us as much as possible.
The majority of major economies are all exporters, it's only a few and mostly just the USA that is both large enough and willing to absorb their surpluses. Without the USA, the entire system collapses because nobody else is willing to run that deficit. You cannot have a room filled only with sellers.
The root of the dispute here is the right to freely sell to the USA while simulatenously pursuing their own protectionist tariffs and subsidies. When you realize the absurdity of a relationship which requires both parties to believe in different things, then it's also understandable that the gravy train has stopped and it's time to negotiate to a more realistic deal. Ironically enough, it's for the same reasons in their beliefs in protectionism that they won't be able to coordinate together.
geraneum · 9h ago
I’m afraid it’s more complicated than that. How would you get rid of this asymmetric relationship and still keep USD as global reserve currency?
corimaith · 8h ago
You won't be keeping the USD as the global reserve. Trump wants his cake and to eat it, but that position is likely unsustainable long term anyways. Mind you, the role of reserve currency today is larged hoisted by the rest of the world onto the USA, there is no rule dictacting its role. But the thing is anybody who is large enough to support it (EU/China) dosen't want that role either, lest they end up deindustrialising like USA.
The actual alternative, with the so-called multilateral "Bancor" and the International Clearing Union as originally proposed by Keynes works via directly controlling exchange rates to punish surplus nations and provide relief to deficit nations. Well, it's for that reason there isn't a serious effort to create it from these other nations, which leaves them at an impasse. That's why as much as I hate to admit, Trump may actually win here because other countries don't really have any good options. Unfortunately the USA is playing a necessary systemic role here that nobody else wants to do.
qqqwerty · 3h ago
Trump is being pulled in too many different directions to the point where nothing coherent is going to emerge from his strategies (or lack of). You can't promise Wall Street/Corporate America the moon and keep the economy running along nicely while rounding up and deporting immigrants, cutting federal spending, and implementing regressive taxes via tariffs. If he would have just limited himself to the goal of balancing trade while maintaining reserve currency status, I think that he would have had a shot to pull it off. But there is the very real risk that the rest of the world just starts routing around the US so even that is not a given. But when you combine this with all the other things he is trying to do, I think he is seriously risking sending the U.S. economy off a very tall cliff. That is also why he probably is so obsessed with lower interest rates. It is an attempt to try and jolt the economy before all the head winds from his policies start to have an impact.
jacquesm · 2h ago
> But there is the very real risk that the rest of the world just starts routing around the US so even that is not a given.
That's no longer just a risk, it is a reality.
geraneum · 2h ago
I do largely agree with you, however
> Mind you, the role of reserve currency today is largely hoisted by the rest of the world onto the USA
It’s the opposite [1]. Trump openly threatens anyone who tries to replace dollar. It even goes beyond Trump. I bet it will go to war if there are real threats to replace USD.
> there is no rule dictating its role
There’s also no rule dictating other countries to honor US sanctions, but they do.
Is there a resource you’d recommend to learn about this?
favflam · 8h ago
You do not include digital services like FANG here.
corimaith · 8h ago
The current account balance (BoP) considers goods and services. And it's not bilateral relationships that matter, but the aggregate global imbalance. To say that America is the engine of the deficits that absorbs the world's surpluses is trivially accepted by economists.
There's a nice table to understand how skewed things are really with the balance of payments here. America's deficit is 10x higher than the second rank with the UK, which should illustrate how difficult it is for the surplus countries to find alternatives. In any case, this whole situation on excessively relying on one country to buy all the world's exports is a stupidly unstable situation.
petcat · 10h ago
> I'm American and kinda stunned how little salience the issue has. Please punish us as much as possible.
The EU has already agreed to one of the most lopsided trade deals in history as a result of all of this. It's a business arrangement just like any other, and at this point it's pretty clear where the leverage is. It's not with the EU.
ants_everywhere · 10h ago
The EU recognized that the US placed a large tax on American consumers and saw no reason to place a similar tax on European consumers.
They'll just ramp up economic production and turn toward China like we're seeing with BYD penetration.
petcat · 9h ago
> US placed a large tax on American consumers
The 15% flat tariff (with 0% reciprocal tariff), was only a small part of the agreement.
> They'll just ramp up economic production and turn toward China like we're seeing with BYD penetration.
EU also agreed to $750 billion in USA energy purchases over the next three years and another $600 billion in miscellaneous investments in USA companies and industries.
ants_everywhere · 9h ago
That stuff isn't legally binding and is unlikely to happen.
> The European Union's pledge to buy $250 billion of U.S. energy supplies per year is unrealistic because it would require the redirection of most U.S. energy exports towards Europe [0, emphasis mine]
The EU negotiates as a bloc. If the trade deal includes $750 billion in energy purchases and $600 billion in investments, those commitments came from the EU's negotiating mandate, not from separate members acting on their own.
Maybe some of the EU member states don't like how the "union" operates. In that case, they should pull a Brexit. We already saw it happen once.
sasvari · 9h ago
Neither the EU, nor its member states, have the power to make investment decisions on behalf of private companies.
America also agreed to quite a few things, alongside the EU, with the Iranian nuclear deal. Then, we left the EU hanging when we pulled out. One could be forgiven for thinking that "done deals" are renegotiable in the current paradigm.
corimaith · 9h ago
They'll turn toward China by increasing imports and thus reduce their surplus in response to US tariffs that were aimed to reduce said surplus?
riffraff · 3h ago
The EU made a bad deal from a propaganda point of view, and as a European I wish it had not.
But the truth is: there is no concrete deal beyond the tariff. There are supposed investments and expenses the EU will do which have not been specified and would need to be approved by national governments.
This will be a nothingburger, cause all Trump cares about is the announcement, not any actual effect.
You may know this cause even in his first term he made a deal to export beef to the EU, which sounded big, but was effectively un-impactful once the details were hammered out.
petre · 1h ago
Sure, we import more beef from Mercosur countries than US beef from soy fed cattle. The EU customer is rather educated about what they eat.
This is just how the $600 bn worth of investments will pan out, leading Trump to state time again that the EU has screwed the US. Fortunately he'll be too old by then to be taken seriously.
refulgentis · 10h ago
Let's accept that.
Then my mind turns to a couple things.
America was founded on the intellectual rejection of one man taxes on imports.
Demonstrations of power are not an end unto themselves, they are theater and province of the weak minded.
rayiner · 7h ago
> America was founded on the intellectual rejection of one man taxes on imports
The 1789 constitution created a federal government that was funded chiefly by import duties! Setting up the system of import taxes was one of the first things Congress did. Import taxes were also a founding plank of Lincoln’s GOP.
petcat · 10h ago
Fair enough, but in this case the "theater" seems to have produced tangible, one-sided terms that will impact billions in USA-EU trade.
Regardless of whether it's rooted in principle or posturing, the EU still has to live with its economic reality. And that reality heavily favors USA in whatever they deem necessary to facilitate their economy.
The EU didn't agree to the one-sided trade deal for no reason.
refulgentis · 7h ago
It doesn't sound one-sided at all?
I'm honestly confused, you sort of repeated "but the US was willing to impose higher taxes on its citizens than the EU"
I get there's the pandemic of the braindead thinking they've invented new economics like new gravity, but I'd think it'd feel a bit absurd when it's that bald-faced.
I'd especially think it was absurd when you can check on how the markets, the real skin in the game, price this fantastic W.
rayiner · 7h ago
The countries that have 10-20% VAT don’t think consumption taxes are bad, lol.
Most countries that aren’t the U.S. take affirmative steps to discourage imports and encourage exports. Sometimes they even engage in currency manipulation to make exports artificially cheap while making imports more expensive.
Many of the big EU countries are export-oriented economies. Germany is not upset about the trade deal because they perceive it as a “fantastic W.” https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/07/29/german-politic.... They don’t want Germans buying American products tax free. They want Americans to buy German products tax free.
refulgentis · 5h ago
The compilation of unrelated "water is wet" things like VAT is a consumption tax, opposition party complains in Germany, belies that you are violently agreeing that yes, the big W is the US is in fact willing to have higher "consumption taxes" than anywhere else.
I think it's reasonable to need to perform a ritualistic EU sneering with this much Winning occuring, but it's a little bit disquieting see it sort of cause this black hole where you can't discuss the thing at hand, just complain about other things.
rayiner · 5h ago
You’re just glibly saying “haha taxes.” But Germany (1) clearly doesn’t think consumption taxes are bad—and tariffs are just consumption taxes that have the added benefit of discouraging imports; and (2) don’t think they’re winning with this trade deal.
rayiner · 7h ago
Obviously the EU has no leverage. They spent the last 30 years making themselves dependent on the American military, Russian oil and gas, and mass immigration. They’re not real countries, they’re vassal states and they made themselves that way.
maest · 4h ago
What is the purpose of such inflammatory language and lopsided argumentation? Very poor form.
underlipton · 8h ago
>"well, if Herr Daddy says he fixed it, we can all say it's fixed, in fact it'd be damaging not to" territory.
Worked for Biden. Which is not me, as a progressive, saying that Trump is any better, or that the two are even close to comparable on a number of important (mostly social) issues. However, common across admins and parties is an absolute terror of even the suggestion that we've entered a recession. That's because we're in a massive bubble, completely dislocated from fundamentals; in fact, the only thing keeping sentiment and performance afloat is... sentiment.
I think the tacit plan may be to inflate their way out of debt (personal, corporate, national...) while strong-arming the rest of the world into keeping the dollar the reserve currency, which allows us to continue "exporting" a portion of that inflation. It's obviously supervillain shit that will never work, but I suppose that they consider it the superior choice to letting the "bust" part of the "boom-bust cycle" actually take place.
rayiner · 7h ago
The President isn’t a king, but he is CEO of the executive branch, and Congress gave the President power over tariffs.
I know it’s hard for people who believe “experts” are a branch of government but they’re not.
jdminhbg · 5h ago
> Congress gave the President power over tariffs
a) It didn't.
b) It's not the case constitutionally that Congress can give away its powers unilaterally. Chevron deference is dead, for example.
cassepipe · 4h ago
I recognized you, Curtis Yarvin
verdverm · 12h ago
A lot of countries are learning lessons from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the world's reaponses
pimlottc · 12h ago
What do you mean specifically here?
glial · 11h ago
“Selling the F-35, or American systems for that matter, will certainly become more complicated for American companies,” said Gesine Weber, a Paris-based fellow at transatlantic think tank German Marshall Fund.
“An important factor in the purchase of the F-35 by European governments was the idea that European defense would be built on a transatlantic basis in terms of strategy, institutions and capabilities,” she said, adding that “the Trump administration is in the process of dissolving the transatlantic link, and the purchase of American systems will therefore no longer have any added value for Europeans.”
“If you keep punching your allies in the face, eventually they’re going to stop wanting to buy weapons from you,” said a Western European defense official, granted anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. “Right now we have limited options outside of U.S. platforms, but in the long run? That could change in the coming decades if this combativeness keeps up.”
Alienate customers, punish colleges, cancel research, send smart folks running from your borders. Sounds like a pretty logical conclusion.
hervature · 10h ago
The point of their comment is that the statement is tautological regardless of the subjects.
"I could change in the coming decades."
"The most stable rock formation could change in the coming decades."
"Even under the best possible leadership, EU and US relations could change in the coming decades."
freeopinion · 8h ago
If you are Boeing or Northrup Grumman, etc. most of your focus is on the coming decades. A huge part of your budget is getting governments to sign procurement deals that are 20 years out. They know that will guarantee revenues 40 years out.
Boeing's string of disasters over the last couple of years isn't so much a concern for its short-term health as it is for Boeing's ability to land any long-term payouts. They hire people today to deliver a product twelve years from now. If there is no prospect for twelve years from now they start caving in today. You just don't see the dust cloud for a few years.
XorNot · 10h ago
Except the reason people say decades is that's how long military procurement programs run for. Companies have order books past 2035 for many systems and standing up new programs takes time.
You start making yourself look unreliable now, then you prompt a transition away and by the time it's underway there's no reason to switch back anyway - i.e. traditionally stable companies "suddenly" are having trouble finding sales.
echelon · 10h ago
I think the comment is calling out how Europe can be slow or indecisive when it comes to building businesses, startups, industries, etc. Not that Europe doesn't have a desire to do so.
afavour · 11h ago
I can’t see a world in which this stuff isn’t considered on a decades long scale. It’s not like you go year to year ordering a couple of different fighter jets here and there.
seanmcdirmid · 10h ago
If you are buying military equipment that you will keep around for a few decades, you need to look into the future to make reasonable buying decisions.
jacquesm · 11h ago
It makes good sense though. International weapons systems integration has massive inertia. If not for that the US would sell a lot less than it does right now, people are not buying because they want to, but because they have to. There has been some progress on integrating more diverse systems but it is slow, the number of people able to do this work is not large outside of the circles where the systems were developed in the first place. But Europe has never really shut down its defense industry, and there has been a massive revival in the last couple of years. It is still ramping up as far as I can see and it will for the foreseeable future. No matter what the outcome of the Trump-Putin summit (I refuse to call it the Ukraine peace summit, just like I wouldn't call the Molotov Ribbentrop meeting the Polish, Latvian and Estonian peace summit).
Waterluvian · 9h ago
The United States is an unreliable partner and cannot be trusted. I welcome the ongoing cultural divorce and am hoping Canada will move closer to the EU for military partnership as well.
kyboren · 6h ago
> [I] am hoping Canada will move closer to the EU for military partnership as well.
Have you ever looked at a map?
If the threat comes from Russia, EU would struggle mightily merely to defend themselves; they're not crossing the Atlantic to come to Canada's aid. And Canada already has existing military partnerships with many EU countries through NATO... which is a creature of the US. Canada's defense against Russia relies upon integration with the US and NATO.
If the threat comes from China, there is zero chance EU nations will declare war on China for Canada's sake. Even if they did, they have zero chance of projecting meaningful force across the world against China. Canada's defense against China relies upon integration with the US.
If the threat comes from the US, there is zero chance EU nations will declare war on the US for Canada's sake. Even if they did, they have zero chance of projecting meaningful force across the Atlantic against the US. And if they did, they'd probably end up getting double-teamed by both the US and Russia. Canada's defense against the US is hopeless.
No other nation has the geographical position or force projection capabilities to pose a serious threat to Canada's sovereignty. I'm sure you're very emotional about Trump's annexation comments and tariffs on Canada, but you can't base national security strategy on your fee fees. You ought to get real about Canada's position and options and act accordingly.
Waterluvian · 4h ago
Anything is better than nothing. And being an ally of America is pretty much nothing, if not worse, it seems. I think something that unsettles me so is that even reasonable Americans seem absolutely blind to the reality of how the world perceives them now.
rasz · 4h ago
>If the threat comes from Russia
The threat already came from russia, and all trump can manage are "two more weeks" TACOs
sirtaj · 5h ago
I suppse the only answer is for Canada to acquire nuclear weapons then? Only thing that ever seems to give America any pause.
(somewhat /s)
kyboren · 5h ago
If Trump is actually serious about annexing Canada (or at least retaining the option), development of nuclear weapons would seem more likely to precipitate an invasion than to deter one.
Building nuclear weapons specifically to use against the US would also--in some measure, at least--justify any claims that such an invasion is a national security imperative.
sirtaj · 5h ago
Worked fine for North Korea. No invasion plans that we've heard about so far.
kyboren · 4h ago
Obviously these situations are quite a bit different.
Canada shares a border with the US and is an ocean away from anybody else.
DPRK is an ocean away from the US and shares borders with and enjoyed very credible security guarantees from both China and Russia. DPRK also shares a border with US ally South Korea, whose capital and millions of residents they already held at risk from thousands of hardened artillery positions and mobile launchers.
sirtaj · 4h ago
From what I understand, there were the usual half-arsed plans from the same stable geniuses who invaded Iraq. I've mostly been facetious, but honestly, the fact that you would consider a response to an idle invasion threat from a serially belligerent nation as itself being a threatening act - it's pretty indicative of the problem at hand.
kyboren · 3h ago
I wouldn't consider it a threatening act. But I am not Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.
I am not advocating an invasion of Canada. I deplore the annexation rhetoric coming from POTUS. I don't believe there is a serious intention to annex Canada through military force, but I do believe loose talk like what we've seen harms our national security interests and understandably frightens our utterly vulnerable neighbors.
However, I also believe that in this new Great Game it's important to understand the actual state of the board and the likely actions/reactions of the other players.
Deluding oneself that Canada can resist a full-scale invasion by their only neighbor with overwhelming military, economic, industrial, financial, and diplomatic advantages because foreign nations will be obliged to join the war on Canada's side is unwise.
Deluding oneself that developing nuclear weapons would not be an easy casus belli for an actually hostile US is similarly unwise.
sirtaj · 3h ago
You're right, it's seeking and developing nuclear weapons that has been the problem historically. Once you have them it's fine, the sabre-rattling pretty much stops. Worked for India, Pakistan, China, North Korea.
Waterluvian · 4h ago
My American friends use this logic when they bend over for Trump. "It'll just upset him." It's embarrassing to watch.
ahmeneeroe-v2 · 8h ago
Low risk move for Canada since the US would likely not abide any foreign power invading N America, essentially giving Canada a free defense treaty.
Waterluvian · 8h ago
I can't speak for all Canadians but in my sphere the attitude is that the U.S. is the greater threat. I think it's a very American mindset to perceive the existence of some overseas bogeyman coming and invading Canada in some way that your assertion would mean much.
ahmeneeroe-v2 · 8h ago
If Canada's threat model really is US invasion, they shouldn't waste their time with EU alliances. Can you really imagine the EU projecting enough power across the across the Atlantic to stop the US military fighting next to their home base?
Waterluvian · 8h ago
Well of course not. With oceans between us and our allies and friends, we'd be the ablative armour while the rest of the world got organized. Much like the Baltics. But they're in NATO for reasons other than expecting a prompt rescue.
kyboren · 5h ago
> we'd be the ablative armour while the rest of the world got organized.
If the trade negotiations are any indication, I wouldn't count on a magical solution to a global coordination problem.
Those countries you are expecting to commit suicide to defend your sovereignty are much more likely to appease the US either because they depend on the US for energy, trade, or military defense (or some combination of those) and have no good alternatives; or because a war with the US would be so devastating--potentially even escalating to nuclear warfare--it is only worth risking for core national security interests.
Of course, geostrategically speaking, Canada is already just America's hat. Direct US control over Canada is not a threat to the core national security interests of any nation with a capability to intervene. So I wouldn't count on foreign intervention if I were you.
Anyway the balance of forces between the US and Canada is so lopsided that any invasion would likely be a fait accompli before any substantive foreign intervention could be launched. Certainly Canada's ports and airspace would be blockaded and closed in any opening action.
In the case of (an IMO very unlikely) US invasion, I think Canada could be isolated, have its energy infrastructure destroyed and internal logistics disrupted, and ultimately the population could be starved into submission if necessary without much difficulty. And no other nation would do anything about it.
Canada would be much better off just surrendering and trying to maintain a national identity post-annexation in the hope of a future peaceful secession.
Waterluvian · 3h ago
> Canada would be much better off just surrendering and trying to maintain a national identity post-annexation in the hope of a future peaceful secession.
I think the difference between American values and real values is that there’s nothing tolerable about surrendering to Nazis in hope of some sort of better deal. For a nation that’s been a freedom and liberty cosplayer, I can understand why this idea seems sensible, logical even.
kyboren · 1h ago
I guess your position is "Better dead than red (white and blue)".
If you really believe Americans are Nazis coming for Canada, you presumably believe the US has the capability and will to force that choice upon you. If so, posting on a US forum about how you'd resist US forces to the bitter end seems like a poor choice. Unfortunately, being dead makes it difficult to defend your values. Peter Thiel says hi.
I understand that jimmies have been thoroughly rustled and that Canadians are frightened. But this "elbows up" false bravado is a bit ridiculous. The US isn't going to invade Canada--and if they did, Canada has no real capacity to resist.
bamboozled · 10h ago
The USA has left Ukraine in the lurch after signing the Budapest memorandum. They should’ve kept their Nukes and Russia wouldn’t have been able to invade and steal all their land, kidnap and auction off children , commit massacres etc.
Because America is currently an untrustworthy ally who is 100% American first and thinks deploying the military on home soil and applying harsh tariffs to its allies is more important than anything else, it’s best to countries no longer rely on the USA for basically anything. That will probably mean the end of the USD as a global reserve currency at some point too. Which is fine because it’s what the majority of voting Americans wanted. Isolationist, American first policies.
Go look at how Zelensky was treated in the interview with Trump and Vance and how the literal red carpet is rolled out for Putin and other world leaders with a brain see that and say, no thanks…
dh2022 · 10h ago
Re: Ukraine defending itself with the nukes it gave up as part of Budapest memorandum - the nuclear code required to activate the warheads never left Moscow.
Maybe the Ukrainians could have tinkered with these warheads and find out how to enable them.... but that is quite risky.
dylan604 · 10h ago
> the nuclear code required to activate the warheads never left Moscow.
People have an extremely bad understanding of nuclear security: yes, if you have a warhead and a few days you aren't going to be able to arm it...but nuclear bombs can be built with 1940s machining technology. They are not complicated devices.
If you have a warhead and a few months (definitely if more then a year) then you have a warhead.
Ukraine has rocketry expertise and nuclear scientists and powerplants. As a nation they were easily capable of reactivating Russian warheads - physical access is total access.
bamboozled · 10h ago
It’s not about that, it’s about doing the right thing and trusting alliances. Ukraine seems to trust it alliance with Europe , probably because they need Ukraine to defend them now. But Ukraine could also build a nuke but they know it would’ve just give the current administration an excuse to never help them again. They’re hostages.
If they had nuclear weapons they’d be respected, like North Korea now. No one going to mess with them.
cutemonster · 8h ago
> untrustworthy ally who is 100% American first
Trump and Vance first, then their families, then America on a distant third place
alephnerd · 12h ago
He's implying the Gripen deal was a result of Trump.
In reality, the US-Thailand relationship has been dead since the Junta took over in Thailand, and for domestic brownie points we decided to make an example out of them and Cambodia for democratic backsliding during the Biden admin [3]
Edit: cannot reply below (@Dang am I being rate limited)
The US has consistently rejected Thailand's F-35 request under the Biden admin [0][1]. If forced to buy a 4th gen jet, may as well buy the cheapest option on the market, which is the Gripen, as they have been using the Gripen for decades [2].
European affairs have little to do with affairs in Asia.
But Thailand is far from alone in this move away from US weapons. Spain cancelled their bid for F-35s and Switzerland is looking into doing the same. Denmark recently expressed regret over their purchase of F-35s. Portugal and Canada also both lost interest in American F-35s recently.
It could just be tariff backlash—aircraft have historically been the US' largest export. But I do wonder if the recent tests of US military tech in Russia/Iran had any hand in this
c420 · 11h ago
It seems the recent volatility from this American administration is being overlooked. They’ve turned their back on allies, resorted to bullying, and even issued outright threats, while walking away from commitments. Buyers may be weighing the risk that when they need service for their purchase, they could be strong-armed with threats of withheld maintenance — or worse, face a remote kill switch being activated.
bboygravity · 10h ago
Turned their back on allies?
That's a funny thing to say on the very day that Trump might've brokered a peacedeal that instantly would end the war.
Seems obviously more valuable to me than selling weapons to Ukraine for many years to "help its ally"?
Delk · 9h ago
If Trump were to broker a deal that would "instantly end the war", it would be only by and for the sake of looking after his own interests. In the process he would ignore the interests and long-term security of Ukraine while likely yielding to Putin's wishes where he -- not Ukraine -- feels like he isn't losing a lot.
There's no other way Trump can broker a quick end to the war. He doesn't have the kind of leverage to persuade a peace deal without giving Putin what Putin wants, and even if he did, there's a good chance the calculating manipulator Putin would still play him like a fiddle due to Trump's egotism.
Even if Trump were to be able to broker a quick peace -- which he has been promising since day one but obviously not achieved -- he would not be doing that for the sake of the allies of the US.
0cf8612b2e1e · 9h ago
Saying that he would annex Canada? Or were we always at war with Eurasia?
thebigman433 · 10h ago
There is nothing indicating a ceasefire, and Zelensky isnt even there. That is not helping an ally.
Ukraine also is not our only ally - the current administration constantly makes fun of our other ones
onlypassingthru · 10h ago
That's wildly optimistic that Trump would convince Putin to admit his mistake and fully retreat from all of occupied Ukraine, but I admire the sentiment.
dragonwriter · 10h ago
> That's a funny thing to say on the very day that Trump might've brokered a peacedeal that instantly would end the war.
With whom is he meeting on each side of the conflict such that he might have brokered a peace deal?
dylan604 · 10h ago
You are clearly overlooking his threats to withdraw from NATO, and his rhetoric about possibly not coming to the aid if another member was attacked. Of course, Trump being Trump later stated he would abide by Article 5.
The fact his response was not an immediate yes response to supporting Article 5 is destabilizing. As a result, the other NATO members are hedging their bets.
There are many more trees in the world than the Ukraine shaped tree that you can't seem to look around.
netsharc · 10h ago
What flavor Koolaid are you drinking there, bud?
God, a warmonger is currently dealing with someone who cosplays as a strongman/world-leader, and poorly.
I can't imagine the stupidity to imagine he's going to make a good deal. But then again, that Koolaid is going to make you believe that it will be a good deal, and if Zelensky or the EU don't want it, they're ungrateful losers...
garbthetill · 11h ago
I still think US military tech is king, especially their fighter jets. eu countries cancelling or regrets is just geopolitics pandering
fighter jets are unicorns on the same level as chips you cant just procure 3nm chips tomorrow because you want too. I'm not super knowledgeable on them, but its interesting to see how difficult maintaining and making new gens are for example gripens still rely on US engine, china relies on Russian engines etc and the US seems to be always ahead
culi · 11h ago
Perhaps. But the US is less and less capable of producing them. Especially since the tariffs back-and-forth with China that lead to an exports control on rare earth minerals. Even before that, US manufacturers were consistently under-delivering and behind schedule on orders
Not to mention there are key areas that the US is widely considered to be behind on (e.g. hypersonic glide vehicles and drones) compared to the "Second World" powers. And there's been lots of talk—even from within the US—that drones have become more important to modern warfare than manned jets.
goyagoji · 11h ago
When you procure a 3nm chip you expect to keep it working as well as when you bought it, even if you block the management engine for privacy.
When you buy a fighter plane you should expect to not be able to fly for the full duration of a single conflict the manufacturing country disagrees about.
Terr_ · 11h ago
Right: A powerful jet that can not be flown for lack of replacement-parts is worse than a mediocre jet that actually operates.
We've made great strides in reliability over the years, but planes are anything but solid-state like integrated CPUs are.
_DeadFred_ · 10h ago
Forget parts. Mission's can't be flown. Look up Mission Data Files and F35 Partner Support Complexes.
netsharc · 10h ago
Ukranian hackers know how to hack John Deere tractors.. hah, downloading files from a Ukranian web forum to install on your F-35 would be very dystopian cyberpunk.
fooker · 11h ago
> When you procure a 3nm chip you expect to keep it working as well as when you bought it
US military tech is best but European stuff is pretty functional.
dylan604 · 10h ago
> US military tech is best
Do we know this to be true still? There's a lot of new modern equipment that other countries have that have not gone head-to-head against to really know that any more.
cutemonster · 8h ago
I'd say it's not true, not in all aspects. Ukraine for example is better at drone production and defence
wcfields · 9h ago
“Best” but you’re going to spend millions per missile system to have “the best”.
Israel quickly found out when trying to shoot down “cheap” $30k Iranian drones.
alexnewman · 11h ago
People think jets are things that should work even if they aren't supported by the manufacturer. Javelin and patriot don't work that way? How exactly does someone beside the us manage the hydrazine supplychain without usa logistics?
freeopinion · 8h ago
Buying US weapons puts you in a position of needing US backing for decades. You need replacement parts, maintenance training, and a million other dependencies. Naturally, you'd need similar from any supplier. So an important part of your calculus has to be, "Will these guys be around to support me in 25-40 years?" That has never really been a question for the US in the last 75 years.
Now it is.
I don't think anybody fears that the US will cease to be a country. Or even that it will cease to be an important country. The question is whether they will be your reliable ally in 25-40 years, or even in four years. Or will they start some pattern of being your friend for a couple years, then cutting you off for a few years, then trying to re-friend you? That is not a relationship on which anybody wants to build their national security support.
ericmay · 9h ago
At the end of the day it just doesn’t matter whether these countries buy F-35s or not except as additional profit streams for US defense companies and in some ways it’s good that they are looking to buy EU jets instead since the EU needs to invest more in its “domestic” defense industry.
Do we really think Spain and Portugal are going to fight alongside US forces in Europe or elsewhere? I don’t. Isn’t Switzerland a neutral country? This isn’t a slight against any of these countries but let’s be realistic.
There is a lot more proof for the Europeans fighting alongside the USA than for the reverse if we ignore WWII. And even in WWII the USA would have stayed out much longer if not for Pearl Harbor.
mthoms · 8h ago
1) Over a hundred Spanish soldiers died defending America as part of the Afghanistan war. How many Americans have died defending Spain in a hot war since the founding of NATO?
2) The linked article doesn't say what you claim it says. The Cdn. military is advising the government to go ahead with the entire F-35 purchase. That doesn't necessarily mean the civilian government will agree. We just don't know yet.
ericmay · 8h ago
1) Over a hundred Spanish soldiers died defending America as part of the Afghanistan war. How many Americans have died defending Spain in a hot war since the founding of NATO?
How many times has Spain been attacked? Not a great argument.
And just to make sure the record is very clear I am very grateful for our allies and their contributions, particularly to the war in Afghanistan, but that’s Afghanistan, it’s not Russia or China. And Spain in particular is unwilling to increase defense spending - why is that?
2) The linked article doesn't say what you claim it says. The Cdn. military is advising the government to go ahead with the entire F-35 purchase. That doesn't necessarily mean the civilian government will agree. We just don't know yet.
They’ll buy. Also the OP said
“Portugal and Canada also both lost interest in American F-35s recently.”
Did they lose interest? Doesn’t appear to be the case for Canada.
blibble · 11h ago
don't forget the Swiss too
who are livid after orangeman applied 39% tariffs because he doesn't understand the triangle trade of gold
impossiblefork · 10h ago
The advantage of the Gripen isn't that it's cheap. The F-16 is cheaper.
But Gripen has Meteor and can fly really well. Now, I'm a Swede, but there are claims of practical experiments in Norway trying out old some Gripen planes vs F-15C and F-16 have shown that the Gripen is simply better at air-to-air stuff.
The F-16 is obviously bigger though, so if you want to bomb somebody a lot and whoever that is doesn't have anything to put up against it then maybe it's reasonable to get one of those instead, but I don't think that's a problem Thailand has. I think they want an air force that can challenge another air force if required.
It's also nice since one can actually fly with it without breaking the bank.
wcfields · 9h ago
I’m not any sort of analyst but from my understanding the threats Thai faces is Cambodia border skirmishes and Myanmar both of which could be handled with any aircraft.
China is a non starter, even a next gen aircraft is no match for their entire military.
impossiblefork · 29m ago
Maybe, but I don't think China, despite its population, has a large pool of people suited to be fighter pilots, so I don't think they'll be throwing their pilots away against competent air forces.
A competent air-to-air capability will be a deterrent.
A country like Cambodia is screwed against Thailand whatever Thailand buys.
varispeed · 10h ago
US has become an unreliable ally. Siding with war criminal, lack of intelligence services response, potential leaks to the hostile states and ability to ground planes and other weapons remotely, means US equipment has become a non-starter.
See what a coincidence that Trump becomes a president and few months later Patriots can't intercept Russian missiles.
fabian2k · 11h ago
No idea what the reasons are in this specific case, but these kinds of military procurements are inherently tied to the political side.
Planes like this quickly become paperweights if you can't get replacements parts, support and ammunition. And most buyers won't be able to get significant parts of the construction into their countries. So you must trust the political stability of the country you're buying from, that they're still your friend in a decade or a few and support your planes.
Trump and his administration are anything but reliable partners.
alephnerd · 12h ago
Thailand wanted the F-35 [0], but the we will not give it to them given how close the Thai government has become to China after the junta [1].
Their junta and King wants to keep Thailand as an authoritarian illiberal democracy. The Biden admin on the other hand strongly opposed democratic backsliding in Thailand [2]
As a result, they - like Cambodia - decided to flip to China.
My brief research says Cambodia was using old Soviet and Chinese stuff, with some UAV support.
alephnerd · 11h ago
Yep! They are!
But in the 2010s we helped Cambodia transition into a democracy, build an independent press (a number of Cambodian journalists used to be HN users back in the day), invest in rural healthcare expansion, and even sponsored Hun Sen's son to study in the US.
The Cambodian leadership didn't want any of that. They wanted to continue to rule as an oligarchy, and Western development funds came with oversight requirements and American firms followed the FCPA.
On the other hand, Chinese vendors were fine paying bribes to leadership in Cambodia and ignoring rising criminality (it was a win-win for China as well - they were able to "convince" organized crime to leave China).
China's elite centric approach [0][1] to foreign relations is better than grassroots democracy promotion that a subset of Americans believed in.
If Cambodia or Serbia or Thailand's leadership want to remain a dictatorship or oligarchy, let them. It's not our problem. Our commitment to democracy should be within our borders. Let other countries be dictatorships or democracies as long as they align with our interests. This is what China and Russia does.
> But in the 2010s we helped Cambodia transition into a democracy, build an independent press
History of US-Cambodia relations -
1970 - CIA aids Lon Nol coup against government. US invades Cambodia. US kills 4 student protesters against invasion at Kent State, 2 at Jackson State
1970-1973 Operation Freedom Deal, US drops 250,000 tons of bombs on Cambodia
1975 King Sihanouk, overthrown by CIA assisted coup in 1970 returns to power, in coalition with communists. The destabilization of the country by the US is what is seen to help bring the communists to power
1979 Split in Cambodian communists, Vietnamese-aligned side comes to power. US immediately begins to arm the coalition of Sihanouk and the so-called "Khmer Rouge". The US also fights to keep the Khmer Rouge coalition as Cambodia's UN representatives. The New York Times reports on the arms shipments in the early-mid 1980s
[...]
"2010s we helped Cambodia transition into a democracy"
throwaway7801 · 11h ago
Yes, the Chinese are horrible people. Only if these countries could look into Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Vietnam, and on and on, they would realise that the Americans are indeed the trustworthy and reliable partner.
jacquesm · 11h ago
I don't particularly trust either.
freefrog1234 · 9h ago
In 2010 nothing noteworthy (politically) happened in Cambodia. The most democratic elections were run by UNTAC in 1991. There were a few USAID projects that did try to help defeat CPP since then.
MaxPock · 1h ago
The real joke is that the US or Biden cared about democracy in Thailand.
Hikikomori · 12h ago
I for one welcome our new Chinese overloads.
alephnerd · 12h ago
It's a side effect of democracy promotion.
We the US cannot have a values based foreign policy - all that matters is power.
Cambodian and Thai leadership wants to retain power, so they decided to work with the Chinese - who don't care if you are an autocracy or a democracy, while we tried to make an example out of Thailand (and Cambodia) for regressing into authoritarian military governments.
We the US need to return to the same mercenary foreign policy. We are starting to do that again with rappoachment to Pakistan, shielding Israel, and arm twisting the Europeans.
Welcome to a multipolar world - only the powerful can set the rules.
Barrin92 · 11h ago
>arm twisting
This is exactly why countries are deciding to reduce their dependence on the US. If you're one president or one policy away from being cut off from technology, tariffed to death or otherwise bullied you're going to choose other partners.
Politics is about power, that much is true. But power exercised with restraint. China isn't increasing its influence by arm twisting but the opposite. Simply saying "we're open for business" and not interfering in the domestic politics of other countries as long as that's reciprocated. This is effectively a reversal of the Cold War, which they learned a lesson from. Acting like the Soviet Union isn't going to serve the US well.
The more you look like a desperate empire in its late stages losing its grip, replacing mutual benefit with brutality the faster you're done. That ought to be the lesson of the 20th century.
jacquesm · 2h ago
You forgot about 'or threatened with invasion'. That's the big one.
Cyph0n · 11h ago
No, it’s a side effect of US hypocrisy. We apply “standards” - or at least claim to - in some cases but not others. We apply or seek to apply international law in some cases but not others. There was never a true values-based foreign policy. It has always been nothing more than holier than thou posturing.
mensetmanusman · 11h ago
Any sufficiently complex system has hypocrisy.
Hikikomori · 11h ago
Crazy take if you know anything about Americas meddling in South America and other parts of the world.
daveaiello · 11h ago
This deal is for four (4) jets, according to the SCMP.
With respect to everybody reading this, I'm not prepared to read anything into a purchase of four jets.
John23832 · 11h ago
Total thai airfare is 112 capable aircraft. That includes the various types. 4 fighters in the context of a small airforce is a lot.
daveaiello · 11h ago
I can appreciate that perspective as well.
mensetmanusman · 11h ago
Good, the EU needs its own defense industry.
zppln · 10h ago
More specifically, we could use our own engine. Gripen E still rely on the GE F414. Europe has nothing to rival the P&W F135.
cm2187 · 10h ago
My limited understanding is that the F135 is massively over-powered to be capable of VTOL + push through the bulky shape of the F35, resulting in a disappointing range. I don't know that it would make sense to use it on a different platform.
zppln · 10h ago
I was thinking more in terms of it being a newer design.
From what I've gathered there's some work being done on new engine designs within the FCAS program, but I have no idea how it's going.
adgjlsfhk1 · 10h ago
That just means it's the right size engine for a bigger plane without vtol.
rjsw · 9h ago
The Gripen could have been designed around one Eurojet EJ200 or Snecma M88.
culi · 11h ago
Today, Thailand decided to go with Swedish Gripen jets over F-16s. A week ago, Spain chose the Eurofighter over the F-35[0] and Switzerland seems to be considering a similar move.[1] Before that the Pentagon halved its funding for the F-35 program.[2] Criticism of the F-35's status as a "hangar queen" have been around a long time[3] and seem to be increasingly prominent.
California—the world's 4th largest economy—'s biggest export is airplane parts.[4] Is California in for a reckoning as the world seems to be increasingly rejecting US weapons technology?
Looks like Thailand's no longer in a rush to get a "final" tariff deal, even if we're stuck at a 19% rate. (I think our flag carrier might be refreshing its fleet exclusively with Boeing to sweeten the deal.)
hunglee2 · 11h ago
You basically cannot trust the US at this point - Trump is so mercurial, that any possible scenario, however ostensibly unrealistic, now has to be factored into the equation. Doesn't get better when Trump gets removed in 3 years, it has been proven now that US democracy can produce any kind of result and hence persistent unreliability most now be the default
Fordec · 11h ago
If removed in 3 years. So many societal norms are being broken, what's one more. It sounds hyperbolic to say out loud because it usually is, but we're dealing with any possible scenario here.
rozap · 11h ago
It sounded hyperbolic for the 50 last newsworthy things he has done. Americans seems to think the current order is a given when in reality it's much more precarious.
RajT88 · 11h ago
Trump will be gone in 3 years, dead or degraded into a bowl of racist jello.
It seems clear that the plan is to game the system as much as possible before then so Republicans never have to win an election again. If they can do that, they don't need Trump - the Trump administration will live on.
tyleo · 11h ago
I agree with this though I wouldn’t be surprised if they can’t manage without Trump.
Republicans aren’t some consistent viewpoint. It’s a big tent that’s (somehow) united by Trump. Even if Republicans came to completely dominate politics, they may have their own schism and we end up back in two party land.
Thought that may still be a more chaotic two party land than we have today. Who knows what the future brings.
Hikikomori · 11h ago
It's not so much the republican party anymore, it's project 2025 people and the federalist society, Christian fascists funded by people like Thiel and built on the plans of Curtis Yarvin. They'll still be there after trump as they are his entire cabinet, Vance is in deep on it so succession is already secured, they'll rig or cheat elections to keep political power. Part of project 2025 was a CV database so they could insert sycophants in all levels of unelected government positions as well. They're entrenched and chipping away at election integrity every day.
RajT88 · 10h ago
There's a strong possibility. He's a cult of personality, and really doesn't believe in the values of either party. The Republican establishment loves him, because he gets people out to vote, and he'll push their agenda as long as he gets his cut of the action. This is one model of understanding Trump anyways.
(There are many models, and all models are wrong, yadda yadda)
dgfitz · 10h ago
If the Democratic Party can get their shit together, he will be a lame duck president in ~18 months.
Please note I am not planting a flag here, just making an observation.
jimt1234 · 9h ago
The Democratic Party is a complete disaster. When they pushed out David Hogg, rather than embracing him, it was over for me.
Hikikomori · 11h ago
Personality cults rarely survive the first leader, though it has happened (munster Rebellion). But at that point the plans of Christo fascist like thiel and the federalist society have progressed so far it's too late that it doesn't matter. Maybe a military coup is all we can hope for now.
__d · 7h ago
Trump himself might not stay on as president, but one of his proxies could stand and win, assuming that there continues to be no viable opposition.
Vance is the obvious candidate, but I don’t think the 2028 strategy will become clear until after the 2026 mid-terms.
firefax · 11h ago
>If removed in 3 years. So many societal norms are being broken, what's one more.
Are you American? I don't think you understand our culture if you go down this road. Trump operates in the gray -- gray enabled in part by two Democratic presidents doing things like keeping the minimum wage low while painting themselves as progressive as being "soft" on immigration. Is it a kindness to create instability in one's homeland, then look the other way if they flee as long as they don't insist on the same legal protections as others?
Anyways, the two term limit is a very basic rule, one that would provoke an overwhelming response the likes of which I do not think anyone who contemplates such a move fully grasps, and one that is difficult to put into words without sounding theatrical or shrill.
dragonwriter · 10h ago
> by two Democratic presidents doing things like keeping the minimum wage low while painting themselves as progressive
Biden proposed and backed a boost of the federal minimum wage to $15/hr, it was defeated in Congress (he also unilaterally implemented a boost in the minimum wages under federal contracts, which did not require legislation, to create upward pressure on wages.)
Prior to that, President Obama also backed a federal minimum wage increase which, as well as boosting the wage would have indexed it to inflation going forward, this also was defeated in Congress (President Obama also unilaterally boosted the minimum wage under federal contracts.)
(OTOH, people pretending the President is a dictator and blaming him for failure to implement legislation when the President pushed for it but Congress refused to allow it to be passed is not entirely unrelated to the status quo where the President simply refuses to be bound by the law in his actions, though its not the main reason for that problem.)
> Anyways, the two term limit is a very basic rule, one that would provoke an overwhelming response the likes of which I do not think anyone who contemplates such a move fully grasps
The degree to which people are confident and complacent that other people will spontaneously rise up and do something if Trunp crosses on red line or another is, perhaps, one of the significant reasons why people do not, in fact, rise up in any way that is effective as Trump crosses every red line that exists.
firefax · 9h ago
>Biden proposed and backed a boost of the federal minimum wage to $15/hr... Prior to that, President Obama also backed a federal minimum wage increase
I don't have time to get into the specifics with you, but to put it in poker terms, the democrats play a "tight-passive" strategy - they make piddling bets then fold when called, when faced with an opponent who will C bet them to the river.
Combined with the documented kneecapping of candidates further left than neoliberalism, it's the height of entitlement to fail to govern well, repeatedly, and demand votes because the "other guy" is worse.
>The degree to which people are confident and complacent that other people will spontaneously rise up and do something if Trunp crosses on red line
Maybe spellcheck your own post before assuming I speak for anyone but myself?
>Trump crosses every red line that exists.
You have not spoken to the victims of totalitarianism, and your histrionics will make it sound less dire when folks like me announce with deadly seriousness it's time to go into your condo, lock the door, and get in the bathtub.
jacquesm · 11h ago
The USA already came within a hair of testing that boundary, outside of natural causes I think Trump will make a play for it. He's had zero respect for any rule, I don't see why that one would be different, especially not given what has already happened.
Fordec · 9h ago
> Are you American?
Nope, but have spent my time in the Bay and Massachusetts. Born European and currently in Canada. But, guess what, every country looking at their trade deals in the world are not American either. If you need to be American to have confidence in it as a trading partner, there are no such American trading partners on the international stage. Welcome to what the majority of the world is actively thinking about the state of the US right now. The borders can remain the same while the paperwork governing those borders can be changed, just ask the Fifth French Republic.
Very basic rule indeed, and who upholds those rules? The army and police? ICE? The paper is only worth the systems that support them, and there are years to go in tinkering with the make up of those systems. A ruling or two by the Supreme Court, and it's a whole new ball game.
Let me be crystal. TL;DR Only babbling fools think America isn't capable of crossing any line right now on the international stage. The trust, is gone.
firefax · 8h ago
>Let me be crystal. TL;DR Only babbling fools think America isn't capable of crossing any line right now
I think the babbling fools are the ones with multiple passports, ignorant of their privilege, who demand that the same untrained civilians they turned their noses up at when they tried to leave this place take risks for a type of global elite who's happy to float in wherever they can enrich themselves, then flee.
There are plenty of great unis in the EU and Canada. Why come here, if we're so terrible?
bdhcuidbebe · 4h ago
> Why come here, if we're so terrible?
Times have changed..
bamboozled · 10h ago
Will take decades to repair if that’s even possible, lots of reform. I can’t believe the USA could even have a king but here we are.
I wonder if some major states like California will secede eventually .
Buttons840 · 10h ago
This gerrymandering debacle does seem to increase political tensions around and between states, especially if it spreads to multiple states and everyone starts gerrymandering, making all states politically binary in their representation. The sides for a succession / civil war become clear.
Just yesterday federal agents were in California against the will of the California state government, and gathered outside a building where the governor was speaking, so threats of violence / force are on the table already.
It's basically so incredible that I can't believe Russia and or China wasn't behind this, the dismantling of The Union, it's a Soviet wet dream and it could be happening for real.
Amazing.
ImJamal · 10h ago
The Supreme Court ruled in 1869 (Texas v. White) that a state cannot secede.
jacquesm · 2h ago
If the Supreme Court wants to have its rulings respected they'll need to ensure that they have buy-in from all parties. Secession would be very messy. But there are borders that some states will not cross and others will, when - and if, and let's hope it does not come to pass - that happens there are lots of things on the table that the Supreme Court can no longer put a stop to. This is why Trump is as dangerous as he is: he doesn't care one bit about how the USA became the superpower that it is, he'll burn it all down for ego and personal gain, no matter what the consequences.
mthoms · 8h ago
If the United States becomes an authoritarian dictatorship then the United States as we know it ceases to exist and all bets are off.
Unclear if this is some kind of reactionary retaliation for perceived favorability toward Cambodia or if Trump’s apparently favorability toward Cambodia is retaliation for what he may have already known about Thailand’s shift toward EU weaponry. They’re hardly the first country to start shopping around, so the latter wouldn’t surprise me.
throwaway5752 · 11h ago
This is not some reciprocal action, it's just logical fallout that the US is no longer reliable as a military ally under this administration, and capable of electing similar leadership in the future. Much, much more of this is ahead. It will impact the USD.
bdhcuidbebe · 4h ago
Disgusting war profitering.
Sweden should not make such deals with a country attacking their neighbor.
reactordev · 10h ago
I mean, I would buy a Gripen over an F-16 anyday. However, the view from the F-16 cockpit is matched only by the F-22/F-35. damn near 360 degree bubble view.
deadbabe · 10h ago
How does one become a broker for military jets and does it pay well?
bdhcuidbebe · 4h ago
In Sweden, by being prime minister, aka arms dealer
notice how sweden is selling arms to dictators and crap countries?
actionfromafar · 1h ago
900 dollar profit. Heads should roll.
poniko · 9h ago
When we want to sell fighter jets and Karl Gustav rockets we send the King of Sweden to pander the deal. There have been some debacle over a few suitcases with bribes as well but hey that's probably a good paying job.
jeffrallen · 11h ago
Ooh, now do Switzerland! We stupidly chose the stupid F-35, an airplane that couldn't even fly even if the Americans ssh'd in to let it.
john-h-k · 9h ago
The F35 overran on time and budget, sure, but it’s still an insanely good aircraft. I think the public perception that it’s a “failure” is a mistake
jeffrallen · 2h ago
Then maybe ask the pilots who doubt whether it can keep them alive, let alone accomplish a mission. Or look at the ready time versus maintenance time ratio.
Military hardware exists to achieve a certain mission. Having some insanely great engineering figures Mena's nothing if the hardware is too unreliable to get the job done.
more_corn · 10h ago
I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that nobody wants to do business with a damned bully.
mongol · 11h ago
Brazil chose Gripen very soon after it Snowden leaks had revealed had intercepted Dilma Rouseff personal communications. I will be lazy here and paste a ChatGPT summary since I recalled the outline but not the details:
It’s very likely it played a significant role in the final choice — not necessarily as the only reason, but as a decisive tie-breaker.
Here’s why:
1. Timing was suspiciously close
Snowden’s NSA revelations came out in mid-2013.
Rousseff’s UN speech condemning U.S. spying was in September 2013.
Brazil announced the Saab Gripen NG selection in December 2013 — just three months later.
2. Boeing’s bid was politically radioactive
Even if the Air Force had rated the F/A-18 highly, the president would have had to approve the purchase. After the scandal, a U.S. fighter buy would have looked domestically like ignoring a national insult.
3. Public and congressional pressure
Brazilian media hammered the NSA issue for months, and opposition politicians would have used a U.S. aircraft deal as evidence of weakness or hypocrisy.
4. The other contenders were “good enough”
Gripen NG wasn’t the cheapest in sticker price (Rafale was more expensive), but it was competitive in capability and far stronger in technology transfer terms. That made it easy to justify dropping the U.S. option without taking a big performance hit.
My assessment: If the NSA scandal hadn’t happened, Boeing would still have faced challenges on tech transfer, but it would likely have been the Gripen or F/A-18 in the final decision. With the scandal, the F/A-18 had near-zero chance — the scandal probably moved the Gripen from “contender” to “winner.”
The USAF's force model involves basing at big, well-equipped, well-protected air bases. Those are now hard to protect from drone attacks, as Russia recently found out. From now on, air forces have to be able to operate from improvised bases, or build very strong bunkers at major bases.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyD0liioY8E
Nothing is really new. I used to live in West Germany in the '70s and '80s. The UK had an aircraft called Harrier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_jump_jet. At that time I think Sweden was deploying the Drakken (Dragon) and later the Vigen (Lightning). I made models of both as a child and I think both of them were superb in their own way.
Harrier was designed to work out of fields, let alone roads. Rather similar to an Apache. Minimal maint (ish) and so on.
I now live in Yeovil, Somerset and we have recently had several Italian rotary wing aircraft, such as The Seaking doing test flights around here. Presumably airframe testing and proving for VJ Day.
The names are much less flashy, Draken (The kite, due to the shape) and Viggen (The tufted duck) :P.
The names do however carry the other meanings as well.
Draken means (the) kite, dragon and male duck.
Viggen means (the) lightning and tufted duck.
While Ukraine was able to use drones to attack Russian airbases, this was not the way Israel overpowered Iran, whose main driving factor was F-35s rather than drones (although these were present)
Edited: STOVL not VTOL
Not hard at all - just build the damn concrete shelters. Not going to protect you from bunker busters but more than plenty against drones
USAF's switch to improvised bases seems to be motivated by needing to operate from small islands in the Pacific where they isn't enough solid ground to build a full airbase.
But if they land on big well known bases, it's much simpler.
Another comment here about slow drone speeds and nest drones:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44918955
And sometimes the other side can destroy all big airbases in a small country.
However, revisit times are still long enough that sibling comment's remarks on mobility make sense.
I would bet that within a year we'll see ransom attacks on airfields in open societies. The idea is out there and the capabilities are so cheap that any idiot could do it.
If operating from an airfield that has been improvised out of a straight stretch of highway, the grouping of vehicles that contain all of the necessary ground support equipment and munitions resupply can be disguised to resemble an ordinary civilian cargo box truck, or tractor trailer combo.
Unless the attacking force is willing to begin with the resources needed, and repercussions of airstriking everything that looks like a civilian cargo truck moving in the region, it would be extremely difficult to eliminate the group of vehicle and men that compromise the ground support equipment element. Particularly when you might have multiple groups of such roaming randomly around an area.
I can understand this argument.
> The USAF's force model involves basing at big, well-equipped, well-protected air bases.
But I don't understand this one. Isn't a drone attack a drone attack? The same drones that could take out F-16s could take out Gripens. You'd have to defend your expensive weapon systems in either case.
Don't we need a new strategy that isn't entirely reliant upon extremely powerful, but extremely expensive hardware? I'd imagine you still want your expensive pieces, but that you want a compliment of inexpensive combat items and fortified bunkers as a line of defense to protect them when not deployed.
Some USAF officers have been making noise about the need for more dispersal for years.[3]
There's a "build tougher bases" faction in the military. Read "Concrete Sky"[4]
If you want to read up on this, those are some good starting points.
[1] https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AEtherJournal/Jo...
[2] https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/drone-hype-and-air...
[3] https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDN_1-21/A...
[4] https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/Concrete...
Any opinion as to which faction(s) will win these arguments?
Gripens could base on ordinary highway, so could distribute planes through big territory.
Drones usually have limited range, so they really could target most air bases capable for F-16 (using for example semi-truck container as movable nest), but it is literally impossible now, to target all highways.
A jet like the Gripen can move basically instantly to basically anywhere and then it's hard to find, especially because it can just move again
I was under the impression a few attacks on air bases happened, but a lot more drones were aimed at refineries and other infrastructure.
They hit a substantial fraction of the Russian long range bombers and assorted other aircraft. Quite a bit of that is at least for the moment impossible for Russia to replace.
1. https://youtu.be/HbkScZFCgro
Also smaller airbases can mean more airbases. So a single drone attack might take out one or two bases worth of Gripen. But it takes a lot more drones and a lot more sophisticated attack to take out all the Gripen spread across so many small bases.
It remains valid in most scenarios, as in most force on force that is not US/PRC, because very few countries has c4isr abilities to kill chain entire operational theatre, i.e. it's partially hopium strategy in US vs PRC in IndoPac. Which circles back to your second point, the related debate around hardening and distributing is almost distraction - airforce capitalization of highend platforms is in the shitters - so there's parallel discussion around distributed / agile deployment but with cheaper CCAs. Of course what's typically being hand waved away is the logistics tail part, i.e. there's already massive maintenance personnel shortages, unlikely to disperse thousands of maintenance crews on the ground to support the concept. The even more handwaved part for US in IndoPac is host nation access / political constraints.
There's a reason US wants JP to support ACE/agile combat employment (as in on main islands), increase harden shelters... but JP reluctant to open main islands. Because no one wants more American forces doing shenanigans with their civilians and the optics of having support fleets reminding populace they're on the frontline is bad. Hence JP still largely constraining US to Okinawa/Ryukyus, PH in Luzon/Palawan. The further downstream handwaving of all this is even if properly implemented, is now you've spread out shit load of more exposed logistics staff across vulnerable islands, i.e. dramatically increased exfiltration complexity / suicide deployments. Survivability of drones increases, survivability of the logistics force decreases. Which is... even worse optics, hence it's rarely even part of discussion with respect to ACE. There some self awareness with marine NMESIS MLRS / EABO (expeditionary advanced base operations)... i.e. wait we're sending marines on likely one way missions to tiny islands that PRC can lock down? Maybe that's worth if they take out a type055.
The Swiss Air Force is regularly practicing starting and landing on highways: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYkleF72du8
- Anti-air weapons all based on maneuverability much exceed planes with human pilots.
- Anti-missile maneuver based on limited energy in missile, because it is usually ~100 times smaller then plane, and square-cube rule mean, missile could make active flight just few seconds - if plane survive these seconds it win.
Stealth planes are new tier in warfare, because enemy see them when already lost time need to launch anti-air weapons.
The US are trying to alter the deal and raise the price to ~1 billion USD more than agreed to.
I wish Switzerland would do the same and cancel the deal.
On top of that Switzerland should go a step further and impose a tax on gold exported to the united states if they don't stop with their silly little 39% tariffs on imported Swiss goods. Just ridiculous and embarrassing to sever long running trade relationships out of ignorance.
I don't understand why people claim that. Here are the actual facts/timeline:
Nov 2021: Switzerland agreed contract terms with the U.S. government for 36 F-35A and budgeted CHF 6.035 bn. Under U.S. FMS (Foreign military sales) rules, LOA (letter of offer) values are estimates and the buyer owes actual full cost, so this was not an enforceable CHF-fixed total.
May 2022: The Swiss Federal Audit Office warned of legal uncertainty around any fixed price, but the warning was ignored internally.
Sep 2022: Parliament authorized; LOA signed Sep 19, 2022.
Jun 2025: Switzerland announced the U.S. disputes a binding fixed price and sought a diplomatic solution. U.S. officials pointed to inflation/raw-material/energy costs that have changed.
Aug 2025: Switzerland announced it cannot legally enforce a fixed price and is estimating additional costs (+CHF 650 m–1.3 bn).
It just isn't commonly done to apply an export tariff.
That's correct, or at least it was until this week. Did you happen to see the recent announcement where NVidia and AMD are now apparently required to pay 15% of the revenue from GPUs exported to China to the U.S. government? This is apparently GPUs which were, prior to this new 15% payment, "too harmful to our national security" to export to China.
Frankly, I only saw the headlines and haven't looked into it myself yet - mostly because it makes my head hurt trying to even tally the laws, policies and trade agreements doing this would probably violate. So, I'm admittedly unclear on the details but it sure sounds like an "export tariff".
Swiss also pride themselves to European but having their own way of doing things, and as a result they aren't going to join EU.
Tough times, wishing them the best luck.
Also, this procurement process was driven by former Swiss Defence Minister Viola Amherd who has since stepped down from her position.
While the deal may still be own, it will probably be altered such that it is within budget (lower quantity).
Tough times indeed.
It feel like we're gonna full on Erdogan inflation speed run out of this. i.e. multiple years of lunacy, coupled to forced interest rate decreases that make the inflation worse. I have no idea why US markets rallied earlier in the week on the idea they'd be lowered. We're full on in "well, if Herr Daddy says he fixed it, we can all say it's fixed, in fact it'd be damaging not to" territory.
Edit: also, for the historians, it's absolutely stunning how little power the legal system has. This is obviously illegal, and yet, many months will proceed by the time it gets judge, appealed, and then a 65/35 shot at the supreme court saying "well, gee, are we sure the constitution was against this instance of being a king?"
For historians (and political scientists, for similar reasons), it is not stunning at all. It might be stunning for other people, but people who study history are likely to be very aware that the legal system isn’t magic and is ultimately only a notional agreement about what society will tolerate which has only the weight that people refusing to tolerate violations gives it.
The majority of major economies are all exporters, it's only a few and mostly just the USA that is both large enough and willing to absorb their surpluses. Without the USA, the entire system collapses because nobody else is willing to run that deficit. You cannot have a room filled only with sellers.
The root of the dispute here is the right to freely sell to the USA while simulatenously pursuing their own protectionist tariffs and subsidies. When you realize the absurdity of a relationship which requires both parties to believe in different things, then it's also understandable that the gravy train has stopped and it's time to negotiate to a more realistic deal. Ironically enough, it's for the same reasons in their beliefs in protectionism that they won't be able to coordinate together.
The actual alternative, with the so-called multilateral "Bancor" and the International Clearing Union as originally proposed by Keynes works via directly controlling exchange rates to punish surplus nations and provide relief to deficit nations. Well, it's for that reason there isn't a serious effort to create it from these other nations, which leaves them at an impasse. That's why as much as I hate to admit, Trump may actually win here because other countries don't really have any good options. Unfortunately the USA is playing a necessary systemic role here that nobody else wants to do.
That's no longer just a risk, it is a reality.
> Mind you, the role of reserve currency today is largely hoisted by the rest of the world onto the USA
It’s the opposite [1]. Trump openly threatens anyone who tries to replace dollar. It even goes beyond Trump. I bet it will go to war if there are real threats to replace USD.
> there is no rule dictating its role
There’s also no rule dictating other countries to honor US sanctions, but they do.
Tarrif
1. https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/trump-repeats-tar...
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BN.CAB.XOKA.CD?most_rec...
There's a nice table to understand how skewed things are really with the balance of payments here. America's deficit is 10x higher than the second rank with the UK, which should illustrate how difficult it is for the surplus countries to find alternatives. In any case, this whole situation on excessively relying on one country to buy all the world's exports is a stupidly unstable situation.
The EU has already agreed to one of the most lopsided trade deals in history as a result of all of this. It's a business arrangement just like any other, and at this point it's pretty clear where the leverage is. It's not with the EU.
They'll just ramp up economic production and turn toward China like we're seeing with BYD penetration.
The 15% flat tariff (with 0% reciprocal tariff), was only a small part of the agreement.
> They'll just ramp up economic production and turn toward China like we're seeing with BYD penetration.
EU also agreed to $750 billion in USA energy purchases over the next three years and another $600 billion in miscellaneous investments in USA companies and industries.
> The European Union's pledge to buy $250 billion of U.S. energy supplies per year is unrealistic because it would require the redirection of most U.S. energy exports towards Europe [0, emphasis mine]
[0] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
Maybe some of the EU member states don't like how the "union" operates. In that case, they should pull a Brexit. We already saw it happen once.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eus-600bn-us-investment-will...
The extra investments pledged under the trade deal would come from private companies, which Brussels conceded it has no power to control.
1. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_...
But the truth is: there is no concrete deal beyond the tariff. There are supposed investments and expenses the EU will do which have not been specified and would need to be approved by national governments.
This will be a nothingburger, cause all Trump cares about is the announcement, not any actual effect.
You may know this cause even in his first term he made a deal to export beef to the EU, which sounded big, but was effectively un-impactful once the details were hammered out.
This is just how the $600 bn worth of investments will pan out, leading Trump to state time again that the EU has screwed the US. Fortunately he'll be too old by then to be taken seriously.
Then my mind turns to a couple things.
America was founded on the intellectual rejection of one man taxes on imports.
Demonstrations of power are not an end unto themselves, they are theater and province of the weak minded.
The 1789 constitution created a federal government that was funded chiefly by import duties! Setting up the system of import taxes was one of the first things Congress did. Import taxes were also a founding plank of Lincoln’s GOP.
Regardless of whether it's rooted in principle or posturing, the EU still has to live with its economic reality. And that reality heavily favors USA in whatever they deem necessary to facilitate their economy.
The EU didn't agree to the one-sided trade deal for no reason.
I'm honestly confused, you sort of repeated "but the US was willing to impose higher taxes on its citizens than the EU"
I get there's the pandemic of the braindead thinking they've invented new economics like new gravity, but I'd think it'd feel a bit absurd when it's that bald-faced.
I'd especially think it was absurd when you can check on how the markets, the real skin in the game, price this fantastic W.
Most countries that aren’t the U.S. take affirmative steps to discourage imports and encourage exports. Sometimes they even engage in currency manipulation to make exports artificially cheap while making imports more expensive.
Many of the big EU countries are export-oriented economies. Germany is not upset about the trade deal because they perceive it as a “fantastic W.” https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/07/29/german-politic.... They don’t want Germans buying American products tax free. They want Americans to buy German products tax free.
I think it's reasonable to need to perform a ritualistic EU sneering with this much Winning occuring, but it's a little bit disquieting see it sort of cause this black hole where you can't discuss the thing at hand, just complain about other things.
Worked for Biden. Which is not me, as a progressive, saying that Trump is any better, or that the two are even close to comparable on a number of important (mostly social) issues. However, common across admins and parties is an absolute terror of even the suggestion that we've entered a recession. That's because we're in a massive bubble, completely dislocated from fundamentals; in fact, the only thing keeping sentiment and performance afloat is... sentiment.
I think the tacit plan may be to inflate their way out of debt (personal, corporate, national...) while strong-arming the rest of the world into keeping the dollar the reserve currency, which allows us to continue "exporting" a portion of that inflation. It's obviously supervillain shit that will never work, but I suppose that they consider it the superior choice to letting the "bust" part of the "boom-bust cycle" actually take place.
I know it’s hard for people who believe “experts” are a branch of government but they’re not.
a) It didn't.
b) It's not the case constitutionally that Congress can give away its powers unilaterally. Chevron deference is dead, for example.
“An important factor in the purchase of the F-35 by European governments was the idea that European defense would be built on a transatlantic basis in terms of strategy, institutions and capabilities,” she said, adding that “the Trump administration is in the process of dissolving the transatlantic link, and the purchase of American systems will therefore no longer have any added value for Europeans.”
“If you keep punching your allies in the face, eventually they’re going to stop wanting to buy weapons from you,” said a Western European defense official, granted anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. “Right now we have limited options outside of U.S. platforms, but in the long run? That could change in the coming decades if this combativeness keeps up.”
[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/punching-allies-in-the-face-...
"I could change in the coming decades."
"The most stable rock formation could change in the coming decades."
"Even under the best possible leadership, EU and US relations could change in the coming decades."
Boeing's string of disasters over the last couple of years isn't so much a concern for its short-term health as it is for Boeing's ability to land any long-term payouts. They hire people today to deliver a product twelve years from now. If there is no prospect for twelve years from now they start caving in today. You just don't see the dust cloud for a few years.
You start making yourself look unreliable now, then you prompt a transition away and by the time it's underway there's no reason to switch back anyway - i.e. traditionally stable companies "suddenly" are having trouble finding sales.
Have you ever looked at a map?
If the threat comes from Russia, EU would struggle mightily merely to defend themselves; they're not crossing the Atlantic to come to Canada's aid. And Canada already has existing military partnerships with many EU countries through NATO... which is a creature of the US. Canada's defense against Russia relies upon integration with the US and NATO.
If the threat comes from China, there is zero chance EU nations will declare war on China for Canada's sake. Even if they did, they have zero chance of projecting meaningful force across the world against China. Canada's defense against China relies upon integration with the US.
If the threat comes from the US, there is zero chance EU nations will declare war on the US for Canada's sake. Even if they did, they have zero chance of projecting meaningful force across the Atlantic against the US. And if they did, they'd probably end up getting double-teamed by both the US and Russia. Canada's defense against the US is hopeless.
No other nation has the geographical position or force projection capabilities to pose a serious threat to Canada's sovereignty. I'm sure you're very emotional about Trump's annexation comments and tariffs on Canada, but you can't base national security strategy on your fee fees. You ought to get real about Canada's position and options and act accordingly.
The threat already came from russia, and all trump can manage are "two more weeks" TACOs
(somewhat /s)
Building nuclear weapons specifically to use against the US would also--in some measure, at least--justify any claims that such an invasion is a national security imperative.
Canada shares a border with the US and is an ocean away from anybody else.
DPRK is an ocean away from the US and shares borders with and enjoyed very credible security guarantees from both China and Russia. DPRK also shares a border with US ally South Korea, whose capital and millions of residents they already held at risk from thousands of hardened artillery positions and mobile launchers.
I am not advocating an invasion of Canada. I deplore the annexation rhetoric coming from POTUS. I don't believe there is a serious intention to annex Canada through military force, but I do believe loose talk like what we've seen harms our national security interests and understandably frightens our utterly vulnerable neighbors.
However, I also believe that in this new Great Game it's important to understand the actual state of the board and the likely actions/reactions of the other players.
Deluding oneself that Canada can resist a full-scale invasion by their only neighbor with overwhelming military, economic, industrial, financial, and diplomatic advantages because foreign nations will be obliged to join the war on Canada's side is unwise.
Deluding oneself that developing nuclear weapons would not be an easy casus belli for an actually hostile US is similarly unwise.
If the trade negotiations are any indication, I wouldn't count on a magical solution to a global coordination problem.
Those countries you are expecting to commit suicide to defend your sovereignty are much more likely to appease the US either because they depend on the US for energy, trade, or military defense (or some combination of those) and have no good alternatives; or because a war with the US would be so devastating--potentially even escalating to nuclear warfare--it is only worth risking for core national security interests.
Of course, geostrategically speaking, Canada is already just America's hat. Direct US control over Canada is not a threat to the core national security interests of any nation with a capability to intervene. So I wouldn't count on foreign intervention if I were you.
Anyway the balance of forces between the US and Canada is so lopsided that any invasion would likely be a fait accompli before any substantive foreign intervention could be launched. Certainly Canada's ports and airspace would be blockaded and closed in any opening action.
In the case of (an IMO very unlikely) US invasion, I think Canada could be isolated, have its energy infrastructure destroyed and internal logistics disrupted, and ultimately the population could be starved into submission if necessary without much difficulty. And no other nation would do anything about it.
Canada would be much better off just surrendering and trying to maintain a national identity post-annexation in the hope of a future peaceful secession.
I think the difference between American values and real values is that there’s nothing tolerable about surrendering to Nazis in hope of some sort of better deal. For a nation that’s been a freedom and liberty cosplayer, I can understand why this idea seems sensible, logical even.
If you really believe Americans are Nazis coming for Canada, you presumably believe the US has the capability and will to force that choice upon you. If so, posting on a US forum about how you'd resist US forces to the bitter end seems like a poor choice. Unfortunately, being dead makes it difficult to defend your values. Peter Thiel says hi.
I understand that jimmies have been thoroughly rustled and that Canadians are frightened. But this "elbows up" false bravado is a bit ridiculous. The US isn't going to invade Canada--and if they did, Canada has no real capacity to resist.
Because America is currently an untrustworthy ally who is 100% American first and thinks deploying the military on home soil and applying harsh tariffs to its allies is more important than anything else, it’s best to countries no longer rely on the USA for basically anything. That will probably mean the end of the USD as a global reserve currency at some point too. Which is fine because it’s what the majority of voting Americans wanted. Isolationist, American first policies.
Go look at how Zelensky was treated in the interview with Trump and Vance and how the literal red carpet is rolled out for Putin and other world leaders with a brain see that and say, no thanks…
Maybe the Ukrainians could have tinkered with these warheads and find out how to enable them.... but that is quite risky.
did they try 0000? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-...
If you have a warhead and a few months (definitely if more then a year) then you have a warhead.
Ukraine has rocketry expertise and nuclear scientists and powerplants. As a nation they were easily capable of reactivating Russian warheads - physical access is total access.
If they had nuclear weapons they’d be respected, like North Korea now. No one going to mess with them.
Trump and Vance first, then their families, then America on a distant third place
In reality, the US-Thailand relationship has been dead since the Junta took over in Thailand, and for domestic brownie points we decided to make an example out of them and Cambodia for democratic backsliding during the Biden admin [3]
Edit: cannot reply below (@Dang am I being rate limited)
The US has consistently rejected Thailand's F-35 request under the Biden admin [0][1]. If forced to buy a 4th gen jet, may as well buy the cheapest option on the market, which is the Gripen, as they have been using the Gripen for decades [2].
European affairs have little to do with affairs in Asia.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/thailand-...
[1] - https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/thailand-f35-02162022...
[2] - https://www.reuters.com/article/business/autos-transportatio...
[3] - https://asia.nikkei.com/politics/turbulent-thailand/thailand...
It could just be tariff backlash—aircraft have historically been the US' largest export. But I do wonder if the recent tests of US military tech in Russia/Iran had any hand in this
That's a funny thing to say on the very day that Trump might've brokered a peacedeal that instantly would end the war.
Seems obviously more valuable to me than selling weapons to Ukraine for many years to "help its ally"?
There's no other way Trump can broker a quick end to the war. He doesn't have the kind of leverage to persuade a peace deal without giving Putin what Putin wants, and even if he did, there's a good chance the calculating manipulator Putin would still play him like a fiddle due to Trump's egotism.
Even if Trump were to be able to broker a quick peace -- which he has been promising since day one but obviously not achieved -- he would not be doing that for the sake of the allies of the US.
Ukraine also is not our only ally - the current administration constantly makes fun of our other ones
With whom is he meeting on each side of the conflict such that he might have brokered a peace deal?
The fact his response was not an immediate yes response to supporting Article 5 is destabilizing. As a result, the other NATO members are hedging their bets.
There are many more trees in the world than the Ukraine shaped tree that you can't seem to look around.
God, a warmonger is currently dealing with someone who cosplays as a strongman/world-leader, and poorly.
I can't imagine the stupidity to imagine he's going to make a good deal. But then again, that Koolaid is going to make you believe that it will be a good deal, and if Zelensky or the EU don't want it, they're ungrateful losers...
fighter jets are unicorns on the same level as chips you cant just procure 3nm chips tomorrow because you want too. I'm not super knowledgeable on them, but its interesting to see how difficult maintaining and making new gens are for example gripens still rely on US engine, china relies on Russian engines etc and the US seems to be always ahead
Not to mention there are key areas that the US is widely considered to be behind on (e.g. hypersonic glide vehicles and drones) compared to the "Second World" powers. And there's been lots of talk—even from within the US—that drones have become more important to modern warfare than manned jets.
When you buy a fighter plane you should expect to not be able to fly for the full duration of a single conflict the manufacturing country disagrees about.
We've made great strides in reliability over the years, but planes are anything but solid-state like integrated CPUs are.
This seems like it’s being revisited.
https://www.theverge.com/news/719697/nvidia-ai-gpu-chips-den...
Do we know this to be true still? There's a lot of new modern equipment that other countries have that have not gone head-to-head against to really know that any more.
Israel quickly found out when trying to shoot down “cheap” $30k Iranian drones.
Now it is.
I don't think anybody fears that the US will cease to be a country. Or even that it will cease to be an important country. The question is whether they will be your reliable ally in 25-40 years, or even in four years. Or will they start some pattern of being your friend for a couple years, then cutting you off for a few years, then trying to re-friend you? That is not a relationship on which anybody wants to build their national security support.
Do we really think Spain and Portugal are going to fight alongside US forces in Europe or elsewhere? I don’t. Isn’t Switzerland a neutral country? This isn’t a slight against any of these countries but let’s be realistic.
Canada is going to buy still*
* https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/canada-to-buy-all-88-f-...
2) The linked article doesn't say what you claim it says. The Cdn. military is advising the government to go ahead with the entire F-35 purchase. That doesn't necessarily mean the civilian government will agree. We just don't know yet.
How many times has Spain been attacked? Not a great argument.
And just to make sure the record is very clear I am very grateful for our allies and their contributions, particularly to the war in Afghanistan, but that’s Afghanistan, it’s not Russia or China. And Spain in particular is unwilling to increase defense spending - why is that?
2) The linked article doesn't say what you claim it says. The Cdn. military is advising the government to go ahead with the entire F-35 purchase. That doesn't necessarily mean the civilian government will agree. We just don't know yet.
They’ll buy. Also the OP said
“Portugal and Canada also both lost interest in American F-35s recently.”
Did they lose interest? Doesn’t appear to be the case for Canada.
who are livid after orangeman applied 39% tariffs because he doesn't understand the triangle trade of gold
But Gripen has Meteor and can fly really well. Now, I'm a Swede, but there are claims of practical experiments in Norway trying out old some Gripen planes vs F-15C and F-16 have shown that the Gripen is simply better at air-to-air stuff.
The F-16 is obviously bigger though, so if you want to bomb somebody a lot and whoever that is doesn't have anything to put up against it then maybe it's reasonable to get one of those instead, but I don't think that's a problem Thailand has. I think they want an air force that can challenge another air force if required.
It's also nice since one can actually fly with it without breaking the bank.
China is a non starter, even a next gen aircraft is no match for their entire military.
A competent air-to-air capability will be a deterrent.
A country like Cambodia is screwed against Thailand whatever Thailand buys.
See what a coincidence that Trump becomes a president and few months later Patriots can't intercept Russian missiles.
Planes like this quickly become paperweights if you can't get replacements parts, support and ammunition. And most buyers won't be able to get significant parts of the construction into their countries. So you must trust the political stability of the country you're buying from, that they're still your friend in a decade or a few and support your planes.
Trump and his administration are anything but reliable partners.
Their junta and King wants to keep Thailand as an authoritarian illiberal democracy. The Biden admin on the other hand strongly opposed democratic backsliding in Thailand [2]
As a result, they - like Cambodia - decided to flip to China.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/thailand-...
[1] - https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/17/china-thailand-submarin...
[2] - https://asia.nikkei.com/politics/turbulent-thailand/thailand...
My brief research says Cambodia was using old Soviet and Chinese stuff, with some UAV support.
But in the 2010s we helped Cambodia transition into a democracy, build an independent press (a number of Cambodian journalists used to be HN users back in the day), invest in rural healthcare expansion, and even sponsored Hun Sen's son to study in the US.
The Cambodian leadership didn't want any of that. They wanted to continue to rule as an oligarchy, and Western development funds came with oversight requirements and American firms followed the FCPA.
On the other hand, Chinese vendors were fine paying bribes to leadership in Cambodia and ignoring rising criminality (it was a win-win for China as well - they were able to "convince" organized crime to leave China).
China's elite centric approach [0][1] to foreign relations is better than grassroots democracy promotion that a subset of Americans believed in.
If Cambodia or Serbia or Thailand's leadership want to remain a dictatorship or oligarchy, let them. It's not our problem. Our commitment to democracy should be within our borders. Let other countries be dictatorships or democracies as long as they align with our interests. This is what China and Russia does.
[0] - https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspec...
[1] - https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/lost-translati...
History of US-Cambodia relations -
1970 - CIA aids Lon Nol coup against government. US invades Cambodia. US kills 4 student protesters against invasion at Kent State, 2 at Jackson State
1970-1973 Operation Freedom Deal, US drops 250,000 tons of bombs on Cambodia
1975 King Sihanouk, overthrown by CIA assisted coup in 1970 returns to power, in coalition with communists. The destabilization of the country by the US is what is seen to help bring the communists to power
1979 Split in Cambodian communists, Vietnamese-aligned side comes to power. US immediately begins to arm the coalition of Sihanouk and the so-called "Khmer Rouge". The US also fights to keep the Khmer Rouge coalition as Cambodia's UN representatives. The New York Times reports on the arms shipments in the early-mid 1980s
[...]
"2010s we helped Cambodia transition into a democracy"
We the US cannot have a values based foreign policy - all that matters is power.
Cambodian and Thai leadership wants to retain power, so they decided to work with the Chinese - who don't care if you are an autocracy or a democracy, while we tried to make an example out of Thailand (and Cambodia) for regressing into authoritarian military governments.
We the US need to return to the same mercenary foreign policy. We are starting to do that again with rappoachment to Pakistan, shielding Israel, and arm twisting the Europeans.
Welcome to a multipolar world - only the powerful can set the rules.
This is exactly why countries are deciding to reduce their dependence on the US. If you're one president or one policy away from being cut off from technology, tariffed to death or otherwise bullied you're going to choose other partners.
Politics is about power, that much is true. But power exercised with restraint. China isn't increasing its influence by arm twisting but the opposite. Simply saying "we're open for business" and not interfering in the domestic politics of other countries as long as that's reciprocated. This is effectively a reversal of the Cold War, which they learned a lesson from. Acting like the Soviet Union isn't going to serve the US well.
The more you look like a desperate empire in its late stages losing its grip, replacing mutual benefit with brutality the faster you're done. That ought to be the lesson of the 20th century.
With respect to everybody reading this, I'm not prepared to read anything into a purchase of four jets.
From what I've gathered there's some work being done on new engine designs within the FCAS program, but I have no idea how it's going.
California—the world's 4th largest economy—'s biggest export is airplane parts.[4] Is California in for a reckoning as the world seems to be increasingly rejecting US weapons technology?
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/spain-rejects-f-35-for-europ...
[1] https://breakingdefense.com/2025/08/switzerland-weighs-cuts-...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-slashe...
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20210317192541/https://www.washi...
[4] https://www.worldstopexports.com/californias-top-10-exports/
It seems clear that the plan is to game the system as much as possible before then so Republicans never have to win an election again. If they can do that, they don't need Trump - the Trump administration will live on.
Republicans aren’t some consistent viewpoint. It’s a big tent that’s (somehow) united by Trump. Even if Republicans came to completely dominate politics, they may have their own schism and we end up back in two party land.
Thought that may still be a more chaotic two party land than we have today. Who knows what the future brings.
(There are many models, and all models are wrong, yadda yadda)
Please note I am not planting a flag here, just making an observation.
Vance is the obvious candidate, but I don’t think the 2028 strategy will become clear until after the 2026 mid-terms.
Are you American? I don't think you understand our culture if you go down this road. Trump operates in the gray -- gray enabled in part by two Democratic presidents doing things like keeping the minimum wage low while painting themselves as progressive as being "soft" on immigration. Is it a kindness to create instability in one's homeland, then look the other way if they flee as long as they don't insist on the same legal protections as others?
Anyways, the two term limit is a very basic rule, one that would provoke an overwhelming response the likes of which I do not think anyone who contemplates such a move fully grasps, and one that is difficult to put into words without sounding theatrical or shrill.
Biden proposed and backed a boost of the federal minimum wage to $15/hr, it was defeated in Congress (he also unilaterally implemented a boost in the minimum wages under federal contracts, which did not require legislation, to create upward pressure on wages.)
Prior to that, President Obama also backed a federal minimum wage increase which, as well as boosting the wage would have indexed it to inflation going forward, this also was defeated in Congress (President Obama also unilaterally boosted the minimum wage under federal contracts.)
(OTOH, people pretending the President is a dictator and blaming him for failure to implement legislation when the President pushed for it but Congress refused to allow it to be passed is not entirely unrelated to the status quo where the President simply refuses to be bound by the law in his actions, though its not the main reason for that problem.)
> Anyways, the two term limit is a very basic rule, one that would provoke an overwhelming response the likes of which I do not think anyone who contemplates such a move fully grasps
The degree to which people are confident and complacent that other people will spontaneously rise up and do something if Trunp crosses on red line or another is, perhaps, one of the significant reasons why people do not, in fact, rise up in any way that is effective as Trump crosses every red line that exists.
I don't have time to get into the specifics with you, but to put it in poker terms, the democrats play a "tight-passive" strategy - they make piddling bets then fold when called, when faced with an opponent who will C bet them to the river.
Combined with the documented kneecapping of candidates further left than neoliberalism, it's the height of entitlement to fail to govern well, repeatedly, and demand votes because the "other guy" is worse.
>The degree to which people are confident and complacent that other people will spontaneously rise up and do something if Trunp crosses on red line
Maybe spellcheck your own post before assuming I speak for anyone but myself?
>Trump crosses every red line that exists.
You have not spoken to the victims of totalitarianism, and your histrionics will make it sound less dire when folks like me announce with deadly seriousness it's time to go into your condo, lock the door, and get in the bathtub.
Nope, but have spent my time in the Bay and Massachusetts. Born European and currently in Canada. But, guess what, every country looking at their trade deals in the world are not American either. If you need to be American to have confidence in it as a trading partner, there are no such American trading partners on the international stage. Welcome to what the majority of the world is actively thinking about the state of the US right now. The borders can remain the same while the paperwork governing those borders can be changed, just ask the Fifth French Republic.
Very basic rule indeed, and who upholds those rules? The army and police? ICE? The paper is only worth the systems that support them, and there are years to go in tinkering with the make up of those systems. A ruling or two by the Supreme Court, and it's a whole new ball game.
Let me be crystal. TL;DR Only babbling fools think America isn't capable of crossing any line right now on the international stage. The trust, is gone.
I think the babbling fools are the ones with multiple passports, ignorant of their privilege, who demand that the same untrained civilians they turned their noses up at when they tried to leave this place take risks for a type of global elite who's happy to float in wherever they can enrich themselves, then flee.
There are plenty of great unis in the EU and Canada. Why come here, if we're so terrible?
Times have changed..
I wonder if some major states like California will secede eventually .
Just yesterday federal agents were in California against the will of the California state government, and gathered outside a building where the governor was speaking, so threats of violence / force are on the table already.
Amazing.
Unclear if this is some kind of reactionary retaliation for perceived favorability toward Cambodia or if Trump’s apparently favorability toward Cambodia is retaliation for what he may have already known about Thailand’s shift toward EU weaponry. They’re hardly the first country to start shopping around, so the latter wouldn’t surprise me.
Sweden should not make such deals with a country attacking their neighbor.
Göran Persson selling JAS to south africa: https://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/bokrecensioner/a/Rx6p1r/ja...
magdalena andersson wants to sell JAs to phillipines: https://www.svd.se/a/y6lrBg/sverige-kan-salja-jas-gripen-til...
the current Ulf Kristersson government is making money under the table selling jas to hungary: https://www.placera.se/telegram/saab-statssekreterare-kopte-...
sweden also sold jas to brazil.
notice how sweden is selling arms to dictators and crap countries?
Military hardware exists to achieve a certain mission. Having some insanely great engineering figures Mena's nothing if the hardware is too unreliable to get the job done.
It’s very likely it played a significant role in the final choice — not necessarily as the only reason, but as a decisive tie-breaker.
Here’s why:
1. Timing was suspiciously close
Snowden’s NSA revelations came out in mid-2013.
Rousseff’s UN speech condemning U.S. spying was in September 2013.
Brazil announced the Saab Gripen NG selection in December 2013 — just three months later.
2. Boeing’s bid was politically radioactive Even if the Air Force had rated the F/A-18 highly, the president would have had to approve the purchase. After the scandal, a U.S. fighter buy would have looked domestically like ignoring a national insult.
3. Public and congressional pressure Brazilian media hammered the NSA issue for months, and opposition politicians would have used a U.S. aircraft deal as evidence of weakness or hypocrisy.
4. The other contenders were “good enough” Gripen NG wasn’t the cheapest in sticker price (Rafale was more expensive), but it was competitive in capability and far stronger in technology transfer terms. That made it easy to justify dropping the U.S. option without taking a big performance hit.
My assessment: If the NSA scandal hadn’t happened, Boeing would still have faced challenges on tech transfer, but it would likely have been the Gripen or F/A-18 in the final decision. With the scandal, the F/A-18 had near-zero chance — the scandal probably moved the Gripen from “contender” to “winner.”