Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

ukrainetoday.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#931

Post by childintime »

titzer wrote: post #347
lucasyvas wrote: post #315

I find some of the comments I’ve read today in this thread somewhat enlightening - there is intelligent conversation about the capabilities of the American hardware and its software. The sophistication of the F-35 cannot be debated. But the rest of the world doesn’t trust the US anymore, so it doesn’t matter how good it is - people would gladly explore a worse product because they see it as lower risk. That’s the rea…

It's only been 2 months. America in free fall.

Middle finger politics at work, brought about and cheered on by evangelical christians.

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#932

Post by rurban »

mmcnl wrote: post #134
tw2347288 wrote: post #114

I'm glad that this discussion finally takes place, even though the discussion is of course flagged. You can flag here, but the mainstream press has picked up the issue: "Can the US switch off Europe’s weapons?" https://www.ft.com/content/1503a69e-13e4-4ee8-9d05-b9ce1f7cc... "Such is the concern that debate has turned to whether the US maintains secret so-called kill switches that would immobilise aircraft and weapons…

Whether there is a kill switch or not is somewhat irrelevant. There is a larger than nonzero chance that there is a kill switch, and the US cannot be trusted anymore. So we have to assume there is a kill switch.

One of the kill switches are the Intel ME, AMD PSP, Windows OS, Google. Apple? Who knows if they will participate in such national security measure.

Also core routers, interxions, sealines, Level 3 et al.

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#933

Post by csomar »

whymeogod wrote: post #828
guerrilla wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascinating. What's with the US approach then? In general, it seems like lean forces tend to win. Afghanistan (twice) and Vietnam, for example. The Houthis as another example.

I thought the US lost in Afghanistan and Vietnam. Am I misunderstanding something in your post?

The US might have lost lots of wars but it is a clear winner in the propaganda front (at least until recently). The parent is a manifestation of that.

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#934

Post by rifty »

peeters wrote: post #532
TrackerFF wrote: post #135

Who would have thought that the POTUS would be the person to kick foreign arms industries into sixth gear?

Sometimes I wonder if he's a secret genius that leverages his own stupidity. E.g. he might be solely responsible for getting the Liberals reelected in Canada, something that a year ago you would have thought was absolutely impossible. But Trump is so deeply hated in Canada now that every time he mocks Trudeau it makes the Liberals more popular. Liberal support, which before Trump was elected was so low as to make a C…

Trump reminds me of someone trying to finish the last side of a rubiks cube by undoing every other side in that pursuit by not paying attention to them.

I think he'll continue to be the main cause of constraints to realizing his visions maximally.

For this reason, once we can look back on this time in retrospect, there's a way this plays out where he may just be a horse that ran away. [0]

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_old_man_lost_his_horse

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#935

Post by guerrilla »

wqaatwt wrote: post #920
guerrilla wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascinating. What's with the US approach then? In general, it seems like lean forces tend to win. Afghanistan (twice) and Vietnam, for example. The Houthis as another example.

The Taliban/Mujahideen didn’t win per se, they just survived long enough for the foreign “empires” to lose interest. Vietnam wasn’t a conventional conflict either. If you’re willing to lose complete control of most of “your” country and sustain 10x higher casualties than your opponent you might have a chance, but that’s an extremely steep price to pay.

> The Taliban/Mujahideen didn’t win per se, they just survived long enough for the foreign “empires” to lose interest.

So, they won.

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#936

Post by DrNosferatu »

deeviant wrote: post #852
DrNosferatu wrote: post #783

The EU should buy - or even license produce - Swedish Saab Gripens to help the Ukrainians resist. Low cost, simple to operate, and specially designed to fight Russian aggression.

They are not low cost, they cost nearly as much as an F35.

You simply cannot trust US military equipment anymore.

How do you know they won’t do to your equipment what they did to Ukraine’s F16s?

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#937

Post by aa-jv »

titzer wrote: post #347
lucasyvas wrote: post #315

I find some of the comments I’ve read today in this thread somewhat enlightening - there is intelligent conversation about the capabilities of the American hardware and its software. The sophistication of the F-35 cannot be debated. But the rest of the world doesn’t trust the US anymore, so it doesn’t matter how good it is - people would gladly explore a worse product because they see it as lower risk. That’s the rea…

It's only been 2 months. America in free fall.

The world has been getting progressively more and more sick of America's shit since March, 2003.

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#938

Post by MisterSandman »

wqaatwt wrote: post #920
guerrilla wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascinating. What's with the US approach then? In general, it seems like lean forces tend to win. Afghanistan (twice) and Vietnam, for example. The Houthis as another example.

The Taliban/Mujahideen didn’t win per se, they just survived long enough for the foreign “empires” to lose interest. Vietnam wasn’t a conventional conflict either. If you’re willing to lose complete control of most of “your” country and sustain 10x higher casualties than your opponent you might have a chance, but that’s an extremely steep price to pay.

That’s the most interesting way to warp reality that I’ve seen.

Afghanistan won, period. It doesn’t matter how Americans would like to advertise their loss - you didn’t “lose interest”, you lost, abandoned the people who were helping you, and have left thousands of innocent civilians to fend for themselves. Afghanistan is, and should be treated as, the biggest failure of the American “empire”.

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#939

Post by tim333 »

9283409232 wrote: post #245
epistasis wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair to China, even they are "appalled" by what Trump is doing to cause chaos with Europe and to abandon Ukraine by holding talks about Ukraine without Ukraine: https://news.liga.net/en/politics/news/china-appalled-by-tru...

China isn't actually appalled but they are trying to slip into America's spot in the world and they will likely do so successfully.

China borders Russia. If the Russians invaded some Chinese territory and then Russia and the US held talks to decide how much to take not involving China in the talks, I think they would be pissed off. It's kind of the principle of the thing.

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#940

Post by genewitch »

genewitch wrote: post #927
epistasis wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair to China, even they are "appalled" by what Trump is doing to cause chaos with Europe and to abandon Ukraine by holding talks about Ukraine without Ukraine: https://news.liga.net/en/politics/news/china-appalled-by-tru...

Ukraine was invited. Stop lying.

> Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said his country would not accept any outcome from the talks since Kyiv didn’t take part, and he postponed his own trip to the kingdom scheduled for Wednesday.

every article, when directly quoting, uses weasel words like this. "Ukraine" decided they didn't want to participate because Europe wasn't involved, or Ukraine "didn't get a paper invitation". even though Zelenskyy was supposed to be in country at the time, he decided not to.

I will source the actual facts later, but keep downvoting stuff you don't like.

Downvote this comment too, here, i'll help:

Russia was promised by the US that NATO would not expand. by someone named Baker. Stuff shifted, but under no circumstances was russia going to let Ukraine "join NATO". When Ukraine started saying they were in talks to join NATO and get their own nukes, russia perked up and started fucking with the border. Russia warned Ukraine about the murders occuring in "ethnically" russian "speaking" areas of ukraine, near the border. I bet you can name them. Russia waited eight years to actually respond to this injustice, and it was after Ukraine started talking about joining NATO. Again.

So if you are pragmatic, and you don't want an all out war in europe, you withdraw the US support for NATO. Simple as. Now you don't get to threaten russia with US forces anymore. The US doesn't want to fight Russia, and certainly not for a leader that "loses" hundreds of billions of dollars. "whoops, we can't find half of it" is bad enough when it's an amazon order, it's a lot different when you're talking about sending nearly 400,000,000,000.00 USD to ... Ukraine.

The thing that gets me though, is does anyone really believe this is all russia is capable of? moving a front line 10 meters, or a kilometer?

Europe needs to stop prepping for a war, because Europe is the most war-hungry population on the planet, historically. They can't help themselves.

The rest of the world is about to find out what it's like to not have the US backing up your stupid decisions. We, as taxpayers, are tired of paying for the EU experiment, for sabre rattling from the UK and France and Germany.

It boils down to the need to "read between the lines" and not just accept any article put forth in the last 4 years. there is a lot more nuance than "orange man bad" and "Comedian War Hero", ok?

Post reply on HN