Live data from Hacker News

European Nations Decide Against Acquiring Boeing E-7 Awacs Aircraft

defensemirror.com

51–60 of 227 posts

Re: European Nations Decide Against Acquiring Boeing E-7 Awacs Aircraft

#51
post #30
post #2

There will be a lot more decisions like this one. For the war in Ukraine and anything immediate they will buy American stuff if there is no EU alternative (and for many things there just isn't right now, there are too many dependencies). But the tide has changed, for 'in' it is now to 'out'. It is abundantly clear the USA is no longer a dependable ally, and that it will use all kinds of strings attached to hobble wha…

[flagged]

FYI, I'm not seeing how this relates to the story or discussion.

That might explain the current downvotes.

Re: European Nations Decide Against Acquiring Boeing E-7 Awacs Aircraft

#52
post #30
post #2

There will be a lot more decisions like this one. For the war in Ukraine and anything immediate they will buy American stuff if there is no EU alternative (and for many things there just isn't right now, there are too many dependencies). But the tide has changed, for 'in' it is now to 'out'. It is abundantly clear the USA is no longer a dependable ally, and that it will use all kinds of strings attached to hobble wha…

[flagged]

Europe isn't unified in the same sense as the US though, so this feels like a bit of an apples and oranges situation. Even though the US is varied geographically and culturally from an internal perspective, it's very much not in the sense of how the government conducts foreign policy and international trade. From the perspective of a European government pondering a trade deal, the differences between North Dakota and California aren't necessarily going to be super relevant, let alone the differences of various people within those states. This isn't really comparable to how things work in reverse; there's no "president of Europe" who can unilaterally decide to put a bunch of tariffs on anything imported from the US into Europe without regard to how it affects the individual member states.

Re: European Nations Decide Against Acquiring Boeing E-7 Awacs Aircraft

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the past it was useful for nations to opt for an American solution even if it wasn’t the most optimal precisely because of America being a dependable and trustworthy ally.

One could also phrase it more cynically as protection money. Now that no more protection is offered, there's no point in spending the money.

Well this was quite openly communicated, why germany bought the F35 for example. To still get (nuclear) protection. (with the homebuild Tornados phasing out and the Eurofighter not getting a licence so easy, only the F35 is capable of delivering nukes with german pilots).

But I think it was a pretty bad appeasement deal.

Re: European Nations Decide Against Acquiring Boeing E-7 Awacs Aircraft

#54
post #2

There will be a lot more decisions like this one. For the war in Ukraine and anything immediate they will buy American stuff if there is no EU alternative (and for many things there just isn't right now, there are too many dependencies). But the tide has changed, for 'in' it is now to 'out'. It is abundantly clear the USA is no longer a dependable ally, and that it will use all kinds of strings attached to hobble wha…

> It is abundantly clear the USA is no longer a dependable ally An extreme and inaccurate statement. The US is still party to NATO Article 5, meaning the blood of our young people is pledged to be shed to defend, say, Estonia. That has not changed. What has changed is the US has become more realistic and up front about the limitations of its reduced military. It’s not healthy, for the US /or/ Europe, to indulge the i…

"An extreme and inaccurate statement. The US is still party to NATO Article 5, meaning the blood of our young people is pledged to be shed to defend, say, Estonia. That has not changed"

What changed is the US President saying things like, he will encourage Putin to invade countries not spending so much on military.

What also changed is the US President threatening members of the EU militarily over greenland for example.

Reliable allies don't really do that.

(you probably do not realize the shock Denmark felt over this, that went deep and the change will not happen over night, but it will happen)

Re: European Nations Decide Against Acquiring Boeing E-7 Awacs Aircraft

#55
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The damage to our future world order I don't think "damage" is the right word, especially outside of the US. Changes aren't necessarily bad, and, as someone living in the EU, I actually like the current trend.

Talk to me in 10 years or so. Changes can be very bad if they are rapid.

I firmly believe people are deluding themselves if they think that without US patronage, Europe wouldn't devolve into its historical norm, a state of internal warfare.

The popular narrative suggests a 'United States of Europe' is forming, but this seems like propaganda when you look at the reality, nations are already returning to the historical status quo, prioritizing their own agendas and pulling in separate directions, much as they always have.

A recent, clear example is the debate over using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort. That single issue exposes the deeper divides. Belgium objects because it wants to shield its own financial sector. Germany backs the idea because it would spare it from taking on more of the financial burden. France, meanwhile, has long argued for a different approach, issuing joint EU debt, an option that many financially weaker member states would favor, but one Germany refuses to accept.

EDIT. Unfortunately HN has decided that "I am posting too fast", because I wrote 4 posts, amazing work, I love getting throttled by mods with not reason! So cannot really respond in the thread. EDIT2. As always, thank you for downvoting without addressing the argument.

I'll just update this one:

> Do you really believe Europe would devolve into actual > internal warfare, without the US? What about the EU? I > believe it has successfully kept the peace ever since its > predecessor, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) > was created - specifically to avoid another war. > Your example is very on point: the member states are talking > - not fighting - to protect their own interests.

It’s really not hard to imagine this turning into something very different. All it takes is a major political shift in Germany or France, and both are already close to that point. A lot of people are still thinking in peacetime terms, but we’re past that. The parties that are likely to come to power soon are not going to keep talking about “European solidarity,” because a core part of their message is that this solidarity has come at the expense of their own country’s strength.

Re: European Nations Decide Against Acquiring Boeing E-7 Awacs Aircraft

#56
post #52
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Europe isn't unified in the same sense as the US though, so this feels like a bit of an apples and oranges situation. Even though the US is varied geographically and culturally from an internal perspective, it's very much not in the sense of how the government conducts foreign policy and international trade. From the perspective of a European government pondering a trade deal, the differences between North Dakota and…

> there's no "president of Europe" who can unilaterally decide to put a bunch of tariffs on anything imported from the US into Europe without regard to how it affects the individual member states.

And it's not even clear if it's legal in the US. The Supreme Court is in the process of deciding that after a dozen US states sued about it.

Re: European Nations Decide Against Acquiring Boeing E-7 Awacs Aircraft

#57

Geopolitically this rift between the US and EU is great for adversaries like Russia and China.

I’m starting to question thinking of China as our adversary, what makes us think that way? Russia, sure they’re actively fighting against our allies. China?

In my opinion it’s because of several things. They took over Xinjiang and Tibet, and committed large scale atrocities in both. They threaten Taiwan. They abandoned the treaties around Hong Kong. They continue to harass India - a sort of ally of NATO countries - over borders they share. Let’s also not forget crimes against Chinese people during the cultural revolution and since then.

They’ve also engaged in widespread campaigns of asymmetric warfare against other countries. Lots of cyberattacks. Theft of intellectual property - corporate espionage but also copies of designs and hacks of government agencies. Unfair protectionism in their own markets. Lots more to list.

But mostly because the CCP just can’t be trusted with their power, because they’re neither democratic nor support liberal values like free speech. I think there’s a lot to admire about China and Chinese citizens. But their government is ultimately a threat to the world order and the progress of liberalism.

Re: European Nations Decide Against Acquiring Boeing E-7 Awacs Aircraft

#58
post #34
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should the EU not see an expansive authoritarian superpower as an adversary, or, at the very least, a real threat to its continued existence and sovereignty?

You talking about China or the US here?

China is trying to grow their influence around the world, while the US is trying to reduce their influence around the world.

From where I’m sitting in the EU, both seem successful in their quests.

(So I’m assuming they mean China.)

Re: European Nations Decide Against Acquiring Boeing E-7 Awacs Aircraft

#59
post #56
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe isn't unified in the same sense as the US though, so this feels like a bit of an apples and oranges situation. Even though the US is varied geographically and culturally from an internal perspective, it's very much not in the sense of how the government conducts foreign policy and international trade. From the perspective of a European government pondering a trade deal, the differences between North Dakota and…

> there's no "president of Europe" who can unilaterally decide to put a bunch of tariffs on anything imported from the US into Europe without regard to how it affects the individual member states. And it's not even clear if it's legal in the US. The Supreme Court is in the process of deciding that after a dozen US states sued about it.

True, though we do have a system that apparently lets it go on for a bit even if it does end up getting determined to be illegal (not to mention the track record of the Supreme Court in recent years not exactly inspiring confidence in their impartiality when it comes to policies being decided on a non-partisan basis).
Post reply on HN