211–220 of 227 posts
Seemingly the USAF was about to buy E-7 Wedgetail aircraft, but according to Wikipedia, they think it would be a better idea to use satellites.
This isn’t an angle I had thought of before, and there must be many satellites required to support that.
I’ll try and research more into this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I 100% agree that Europe regarded Russia as a potential trade partner (and possibly more positively than the US) even after the 2014 annexation. But I don't think that this makes EU policy necessarily incorrect : Would German military spending of 5% GDP have prevented the Crimea annexation? We won't know, but I don't think so, and European militarism in the 2000s might have led to significantly worse outcomes than we…
> Would German military spending of 5% GDP have prevented the Crimea annexation? Probably not Crimea, but you'd think that the annexation would have caused some rethinking of "soft power". The lack of European defense spending since 95 means that Europe doesn't have much to help Ukraine. (EU countries brag about "100% to Ukraine" but never talk about how little that 100% is.) It also means that Europe doesn't have mu…
Realistically, what options? The only thing that could have really helped in my view in hindsight was either massive visible arms-deliveries to the Ukraine before 2022 (to discourage Russia), or to demonstrate willingness to join the fight (with soldiers). That willingness is and was not there (in neither US/EU), and spending more would not really have helped that.
> you'd think that the annexation would have caused some rethinking of "soft power".
You mean giving up on Russian gas early? It's a much harder call without hindsight in my view if Crimea is the main focus. The whole second Chechen war was much more problematic than that annexation in my view, and if you're not drawing the line for that, than why'd you change your opinion for Crimea?`
I do fully agree with you though that there should have been harsher consequences after 2014, and that those might have actually helped more than anything else (by making the "happy path" for the 2022 invasion worse): I think Putin considered the 2022 invasion as "quick regime change, some yapping from the west and then business as usual in a few years"; the west/EU demonstrating willingness for self-sacrifical sanctions to punish expansionism in 2014 might have discouraged this strongly.
> BTW - do Europeans know how "But we have better work/life balance" comes across? The reaction by many Americans is "Why am I paying to defend their work/life balance?"
I'll give you my European perspective:
1) Yes the US is overspending on its military, but that is entirely their own decision
2) American military spending profits itself first and foremost, because spending mainly goes to domestic industry, and forces are mainly used to further domestic interests
3) Europe is already paying for the humanitarian fallout of ill-advised US interventionism in the middle east, and indirect costs from this alone are in the "percent GDP" range as well
Don't get me wrong, I think it is a really good thing that the US did provide substantial aid during the Ukraine invasion. I personally wish that "the west" did even more, but the sad reality is that a good part of the population considers the Ukraine conflict a "not my problem", and is simply unwilling to pay more to defend human rights abroad (and the attitude is very similar between especially western Europeans and US-americans in my view).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a delusional position. > If anything, I’d rather actively choose Russia’s side on this against the West Based on your comment history, you have already done so. You've been carrying water for Russia on HN for the longest time. > at least Russia is the devil we know Apparently, you don't know. You think you know. Romania could be the Switzerland of Eastern Europe, but it is this mentality that stops that from…
> Based on your comment history, you have already done so. You've been carrying water for Russia on HN for the longest time. I'm talking physically, for better or for worse that is still not the case. I don't want to see Romanian men (which would include me) leaving their (our, in fact) bones on the Ukrainian steppe up to the Volga, once was enough. > Apparently, you don't know. You think you know. Romania could be t…
I don't want to see Romanian men (which would include me) leaving their (our, in fact) bones on the Ukrainian steppe up to the Volga, once was enough.
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]
Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them if you want to keep participating here.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is abundantly clear the USA is no longer a dependable ally, and that it will use all kinds of strings attached to hobble what they sell to be able to exert political pressure. This isn’t a US-only problem, and if anything the US has been more reliable on this account than some major European countries. For instance, in the first several months of the war Germany actually prohibited other countries from exporting…
That's a borderline whataboutism statement. Yes, Germany could have done a lot better. But at least they're not actively trying to sabotage NATO, they're not threatening to invade allies and they're not bombing other countries just because they can.
The US has spent years begging, pleading, cajoling, and now threatening the Europeans to take responsibility for the defense of their own continent. It took the outbreak of war in Ukraine for anyone in Europe west of Warsaw to even start considering rearmament.
Also, the shitty anti-American attitude from Western Europe isn’t anything new, it existed for decades before Trump seriously entered politics. I’m just speculating here, since none of us actually know what’s said between world leaders behind closed doors, but the US wants Western Europe to rearm and Western Europe’s leaders probably recognized the necessity of doing so in 2022, so it’s pretty convenient for all parties involved that they can pretend they’re doing it to spite America rather than at America’s request.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
False. Treaty ratification is a recognized feature of international law. For instance, the USMCA was signed by all three parties in 2018 but didn’t enter effect until 2020, when the last of the parties—Canada—ratified the treaty.
At that point, the US was estopped from changing course. Doing so broke the bona fide principle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are your internal implementation details. They only make you look untrustworthy, they do not strengthen your case.
You’re making treaty ratification out to be some weird US-specific thing when it really isn’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a borderline whataboutism statement. Yes, Germany could have done a lot better. But at least they're not actively trying to sabotage NATO, they're not threatening to invade allies and they're not bombing other countries just because they can.
Germany also spend the last couple decades buying as much Russian natural gas as possible, even to the extent of decommissioning their nuclear power plants, and only really stopped when someone (probably Ukraine) destroyed their pipelines. They also pressured the rest of Europe to admit a surge of ‘refugees’ that has incited a populist backlash and very likely materially damaged the national security of almost every…