US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

Ah yes, the only country in the world whose array of official foreign policies includes a "no limits partnership" with russia.

The statement of the named Chinese official is either a psyop, or he is, in the parlance of intelligence agencies, "going native". I'm leaning towards the former hypothesis.

Your view of "biggest is winner" is totally wrong. There is nothing wrong in supporting those small countries, they won't require you to move all your army to defend them. In fact, just by being allies keeps the peace, at a very low cost for both parts.

You have a very small frame. If you let Russia, for example, take all those small countries for free, suddenly you have a bigger enemy. Not saying that they would defeat the US, but they can make worse problems. Because those little countries you despise are historically peaceful, but Russia not so much. Because Russia leaders are unreliable, for example: https://www.newsweek.com/what-putin-has-said-about-russia-ta.... By keeping Russia at bay, the USA keeps the hegemony more easily and for less money.

Please, stop thinking that USA is "bankrolling" no one. USA spending on defense of those countries is basically zero. It's just a few military bases with a few dozens of people (20 in Bulgaria, 20 in Estonia, 20 in Finland, 20 in Latvia, 20 in Lithuania, 200 in Poland and 130 in Romania, the countries you named), and have nukes at home that they were going to have anyway. By contrast, those countries deployed to Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom, answering the USA call: Bulgaria 600, Estonia 250, Lithuania 270, Poland 2500 and Romania 1800. It was a bargain for the USA.

> Goodbye military industrial complex? Hallelujah!

I never said it was a bad thing per se. I only say that being an unreliable supplier of military goods makes you an undesirable business partner. A large share of the GDP of the US depends on military exports, so a large part of the population would have to find another job. Again: this is not bad per se. But, are you sure you (the USA) want this? How many Trump supporters and isolationists don't even suspect how much of the GDP is based on military exports?

Another unintended consequence might be China becoming a more reliable military supplier than the US, thus empowering their military industry. Are the USA interested in that happening?

Another consequence might be Europe becoming a significant player in the military industry, effectively moving jobs and GDP from USA to Europe.

> It's more absurd thinking

It was not about GDP, stop thinking in pure economical terms if you want to talk geopolitics. It was about influence. China has always been a wild card. But the USSR had a lot of influence over half Europe, half Hispan-America and half Africa. It's not about economy: put and support a dictatorship in a country like Cuba or North Korea, and it doesn't matter how uber poor they are. You now have two pains in the ass, one of them with nukes and ICBMs, the other was once very close to be a nuke base pointing to the USA.

For years, for decades, it was the USA who pressed the NATO expansion. It's imperialistic people like Putin the one who despises it. Again, you can be isolationist like Switzerland is in many senses, but then don't complain when others don't buy your shit, or develop nukes, or make friends with your enemies, or make alliances among themselves (like https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250226-trump-says-eu-fo...).

I hate to be the guy, but I find myself having to point this out to all of my doom-minded American friends. Yes, Trump is a criminal idiot, but one positive, probably unintended effect is that the world becomes more, in the words of Taleb, anti-fragile. As an American I am thrilled that Europe is becoming more united, more pragmatic, and more self-reliant. Our relationship is not over, it is just changing, and Europe is experiencing a long-needed renaissance.

Of course Europe always had some ability to defend itself, but I think it's clear that some of that ability was outsourced to the US(with reciprocal benefits for the US, but still). Yes, this introduces some redundancy into the Western sphere, but that's a good thing.

> I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against their own personal interests (they have proven already that other's interests do not matter for them). This sounds like self-flagellation seen from the outside.

They aren't thinking, really. If you look at the online comments from people who support these actions, you'll notice these characteristics: they are usually listing the same talking points, using the exact same collection of key words or "facts" (even in different languages, across different cultures) often strung together like chants, have a conspiratorial notion of a hidden puppeteer directing events or people they disapprove of, conversely they often have a messianic belief in their chosen prophet, and they are usually inexplicably very angry.

You will also notice that the vast majority of them very rapidly, and across cultural boundaries, start parroting the latest talking points. Talking points that didn't exist days before and weren't on anyone's minds.

It's a form of mass hysteria.

Because it's the only mass-produced (and thus relatively cheap) 5th Gen fighter that gives you a lot of advantages over 4th Gen and it will likely take at least a decade before mass-produced EUropean alternatives are available.

But yeah, actual experts with access to hardware should validate if there is a kill switch and if replacement parts / weapons could be reverse engineered before buying any more.