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

European Nations Decide Against Acquiring Boeing E-7 Awacs Aircraft

defensemirror.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 227 posts

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

#131

Post by tick_tock_tick »

saubeidl wrote: post #99
philwelch wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, Donald Trump has broken a sufficiently large number of treaties Which?

Iran Nuclear Accords (negotiated by the EU!), Paris Climate Agreement are two that come to mind concerning the EU. There's obviously more, like NAFTA.

> Iran Nuclear Accords

The USA did not ratify

> Paris Climate Agreement

The USA did not ratify

Obama famously avoided sending either to Congress as he is legally required for the USA to ratify a treaty. The USA's "commitment" was non binding and frankly illegal for Obama to make. Hell the USA Congress even send a letter to Iran to be super explicit that the accords didn't mean shit since it's not ratified by the USA.

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

#132

Post by paganel »

WanderPanda wrote: post #114
w10-1 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An independent Europe is easier for China to dominate. Now that NATO is in question, you'll start to hear about US manipulation of the SWIFT banking system, so Europe will start pushing for an international one, which China will eventually control.

SWIFT is Belgian, though?

It’s just a detail, the international financial market/banking system is basically under active US control, just look at what happened to Wegelin & Co. (at that point the oldest bank in Switzerland) when they thought that that was not the case.

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

#133

Post by Havoc »

jacquesm wrote: 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…

This is why the aukus thing puzzles me. Thats a huge longterm bet on the US being reliable

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

#134

Post by dragonwriter »

Johnny555 wrote: post #130
eduction wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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. A treaty is only as good as its enforcement, and if the USA declines to uphold their obligations, who is going to force them?

> A treaty is only as good as its enforcement, and if the USA declines to uphold their obligations, who is going to force them?

A mutual defense treaty is no good at all if it needs enforcement; it only works as a coordinating tool between basically-willing parties. When it becomes anything else, well, look at CSTO.

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

#135

Post by saubeidl »

radeck wrote: post #128
saubeidl wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this addresses why we should see China as a threat at all. We thought y'all had our back - why should we have yours now that you've shown your true colors?

I'd like to know why you think the US doesn't "have Europe's back"? Short term disagreements on priorities are expected when there's resource contention. NATO is still very much a thing. Why do you think a rising China is concerning to the US, but not to Europeans?

Re the US not having our back - here's just the latest evidence: https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-security-funding-baltics...

Re China: We don't share any border or ocean with them and none of our interests are opposed. To the contrary, they're the only other major power taking climate change seriously. Why would they be a threat to us?

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

#136

Post by saubeidl »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #131
saubeidl wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran Nuclear Accords (negotiated by the EU!), Paris Climate Agreement are two that come to mind concerning the EU. There's obviously more, like NAFTA.

> Iran Nuclear Accords The USA did not ratify > Paris Climate Agreement The USA did not ratify Obama famously avoided sending either to Congress as he is legally required for the USA to ratify a treaty. The USA's "commitment" was non binding and frankly illegal for Obama to make. Hell the USA Congress even send a letter to Iran to be super explicit that the accords didn't mean shit since it's not ratified by the USA.

These are your internal implementation details. They only make you look untrustworthy, they do not strengthen your case.

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

#137

Post by Y-bar »

cjrp wrote: post #37

Presumably the alternative is the SAAB GlobalEye?

Seems so, but perhaps some nations like France want a bigger variant with a bit more range and larger sensors. Airbus A330 is already used by European fighters for aerial refuelling so I suppose it could also be built into an AWACS.

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

#138

Post by tick_tock_tick »

saubeidl wrote: post #119
philwelch wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran and Paris weren’t treaties. Neither of them were ever ratified by the Senate. Trump didn’t break NAFTA, he renegotiated it. NAFTA remained in effect until the new treaty, USMCA, came into effect.

See, this is exactly what I mean. In international law, they were treaties. Your internal squabbles do not concern us and just make you look unreliable.

> In international law, they were treaties. Your internal squabbles do not concern us and just make you look unreliable.

What a joke everyone knew we didn't ratify them everyone just wanted to pretend. We even send a letter to Iran making sure they knew. The EU especially was funny acting like the agreement had any value when the USA wasn't part of it.

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

#139

Post by MengerSponge »

drooopy wrote: post #68

It requires some level of skill and talent to be able to cause this amount of damage to the soft power and influence that the US projected around the world in less than a year. Throughout my 40 years on this planet, Pax Americana was a constant that seemed to hold the world together (+/-). It's scary to see it vanish and with such speed and efficiency.

The world was somewhat sympathetic to the US when we elected Trump the first time: it's disappointing, but you can get tricked sometimes. When we re-elected him it casts the first time as not an error, but rather a deliberate choice.

A nation that makes that kind of choice is not a reliable ally. We're just beginning to see the repercussions of that loss of trust.

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

#140

Post by fransje26 »

drooopy wrote: post #68

It requires some level of skill and talent to be able to cause this amount of damage to the soft power and influence that the US projected around the world in less than a year. Throughout my 40 years on this planet, Pax Americana was a constant that seemed to hold the world together (+/-). It's scary to see it vanish and with such speed and efficiency.

> It requires some level of skill and talent to be able to cause this amount of damage to the soft power and influence that the US projected around the world in less than a year.

The art of the deal.

Post reply on HN