Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers • Hacker News Board

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#471

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD » Thu, May 28, 2026, 3:20 PM UTC

sjogress wrote: post #458

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, the US was also hated in Europe as Biden was sending lots of money to Ukraine in the wake of Russia's invasion: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u... You can see even with Biden as president, around half of Europe's population regarded the US unfavorably. This was at a time when the US was sending more aid per capita than almost all European countries: https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/com…

Remember that Trump also had a term before Biden where he undermined cross-atlantic relations. Under Obama you had the reputational fallout from the Snowden leaks. Before Obama you had Bush Jr's wars, with especially the Iraq war being very controversial.

>Remember that Trump also had a term before Biden where he undermined cross-atlantic relations.

Sure, tell me about Trump's first term where he made statements about Europe's relationship with Russia that look incredibly prescient with the benefit of hindsight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k

>Before Obama you had Bush Jr's wars, with especially the Iraq war being very controversial.

Yes, I'm an isolationist. I say the US should end all defense commitments and warmongering. Starting with Europe. US should withdraw from NATO, because Europe complains about US foreign policy the most. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#472

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD » Thu, May 28, 2026, 3:21 PM UTC

oneshtein wrote: post #408

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the memorandum text, at most the US promised to go to the UN security council if Ukraine's territorial integrity was threatened. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P... There is a lot of misinformation floating around the internet about this memorandum. Furthermore, even Wikipedia states: "The Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty, and it does not confer any new legal obligations for…

Your words are not proven in court.

Where in the memorandum does it say the US is obligated to defend Ukraine? Please give me a direct quote.

Otherwise this is a nonsense objection. "You have to give me $1 million. You haven't proven otherwise in court!" What is the actual evidence for your position?

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#473

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD » Thu, May 28, 2026, 3:25 PM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #413

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ukraine was essentially invaded because they became too friendly with NATO (and hence america). Well then maybe the US stopped sending them weapons in order to address the underlying problem?

Where does Trump sucking up to Putin fit into this? What problem is that solving?

bawolff stated:

>Ukraine was essentially invaded because they became too friendly with NATO (and hence america).

Wouldn't this theory predict that if NATO/USA becomes hostile to Ukraine, the invasion will cease? According to bawolff's worldview, Trump's foreign policy will address the root cause, no? They should be supporting Trump.

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#474

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD » Thu, May 28, 2026, 3:27 PM UTC

otherme123 wrote: post #403

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Being a U.S. ally no longer guarantees that you will be protected by the U.S. as Ukraine is seeing. The US never promised to protect Ukraine. It's often claimed that the Budapest Memorandum was a promise from the US to protect Ukraine, but this is misinformation. Read the memorandum for yourself if you don't believe me, it's not very long: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...

Point 1: "The Russian Federation., the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" Point 4 of the Memorandum: "The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the…

Note, the US did seek UN security council action when Ukraine was invaded, back when Biden was president. Russia vetoed of course.

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#475

Post by nephihaha » Thu, May 28, 2026, 3:42 PM UTC

throwaway27448 wrote: post #300

stickfigure wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only is this true, there are about 50 million people in the south who are incredibly grateful for US involvement. And about 26 million people in the north who are, on average, several inches shorter than the southerners due to the end of US involvement.

The people in the north aren't worked to death tho

Erm, yes they are. There are generational camps as well where people live because their parents and grandparents offended the Kim dynasty.

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#476

Post by selectodude » Thu, May 28, 2026, 3:42 PM UTC

nxm wrote: post #273

selectodude wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texas would be a G7 nation for about a week if they seceded from the US. Being the logistics hub for a country only works if you’re part of that country.

It’s just a logistics hub? Are you ignoring the oil and natural gas that’s supplying the world these days?

I have a feeling Mexico wouldn’t torpedo their relationship with the United States by continuing to buy all their oil from Texas.

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#477

Post by quantgenius » Thu, May 28, 2026, 3:52 PM UTC

lobocinza wrote: post #451

benj111 wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the state of missile tech, is that as relevant anymore? If you strap a missile on to a Cessna that can take down a 5th gen fighter before it knows you're there. Doesn't really matter what fancy doodads the latest and greatest jet has. Further if your 5th gen jets are relying on tech from your adversary....

The fancy doodads 5th generation has is reduced radar signature, improved sensors and data-link. The 5th generation can see and fire against a 4th gen fighter and evade before being detected and it can do that without EWACS (which are big, slow and easy to kill). That's why the US has a gap on replacing the current EWACS because it doesn't really need them.

Stealth is somewhat overrated, especially 5th gen. Sure you get a lower radar cross-section which means you are less visible to X-band radar but near-peer adversaries or even non-peer technologically advanced adversaries don't rely only on X-band radar, to say nothing of distributed array radar where the transmitter and receiver are not in the same location. More than one networked war plane in the air are essentially distributed array radar. There are other bands which admittedly as not as good as X-band in terms of how much energy you need and how accurately you can locate things. But you can send a missile in the general direction using say S-band and have the missile turn on it's seeker once it's closer. Once the missile is close enough, a stealth plan can no longer hide. This is what the Russian S-400 and S-500 do for example.

Even when Serbia was bombed during the Clinton years, American stealth bombers escaped not due to stealth but because they used decoys towed by fiber optics which transmitted what the missile seeker expected to receive from the plane while also aggressively jamming the missile seeker so the missile hit the decoy not the plane. One stealth bomber was hit anyway.

Safran and other European manufacturers arguably produce decoys that are as good as anything US planes have, arguably better because they decided not to go all in on stealth and focus on other measures instead. Stealth is certainly better to have than not but stealth also means somewhat worse aerodynamics and much less serviceability. You need to apply stealth paint and cure it any time you work on the plane. The plane needs more work and is harder to work on because of the tradeoffs made to achieve stealth. So instead of 75%+ of the planes being available at any one time, you only have about 50% of the planes available at any one time and total operational costs are much higher.

Given these disadvantages, it's not completely clear how much of a benefit 5th gen stealth is in a near-peer conflict. If the US is fighting Iraq fine. Now, if you can actually achieve what defense manufacturers say they will achieve with 6th gen stealth, where you have much lower RCS to all bands of radar from all directions, that could be a game changer but we don't actually know yet. The F-35 still doesn't do everything it was supposed to be able to do when the program started, so I would take these claims with a large grain of salt. And stealth countermeasures will continue to evolve.

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#478

Post by mopsi » Thu, May 28, 2026, 3:57 PM UTC

znort_ wrote: post #447

ethbr1 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you're referring to the "green men" in crimea: those were the ukranian (but culturally russian) garrissoned troops If you want to believe that Russia had no military forces in Ukraine before 2022, then I have a bridge to sell you. Or do you think Russia is in the habit of randomly transporting air defense systems with Russian crew through different nation-states they have nothing to do with? https://en.wikipedia…

> If you want to believe that Russia had no military forces in Ukraine before 2022 that's not what i said, and supporting a warring faction doesn't really qualify as "invasion" nor "taking territory". also, i would recommend very strict skepticism about politically sensitive content on wikipedia. it can still be useful for general timelines, but a simple check at the sources (when there are any) will reveal they tend…

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has established that there was no genuine separatism in Eastern Ukraine in 2014. From the get-go, these were operatives of Russian military and special services, or people under their direct control. Girkin, one of the main leaders of Russian forces in Ukraine, has confirmed the same: there was no grassroots action; it was them who started the war in 2014. Removing insignia from uniforms does not make it any less of a foreign invasion.

ECHR's lengthy verdict on the responsibility of the MH-17 shootdown lays out all the relevant facts.

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#479

Post by gostsamo » Thu, May 28, 2026, 4:08 PM UTC

kakacik wrote: post #464

gostsamo wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

confiscating money is much bigger deal than you can imagine. Russia and the EU are not officially at war and just taking money because you can is a serious violation of fundamental rights.

Yeah rules apply only on one side it seems, russia confiscated western planes, factories etc. worth tens of billions. I'd say eye for an eye is the only strategy mafia state like russia understands. That and rule of stronger, bigger dog fucks weaker, as russia tends to frequently do.

yes. that's why people don't trust russian banks and institutions, but trust european ones.

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#480

Post by otherme123 » Thu, May 28, 2026, 4:31 PM UTC

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #474

otherme123 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point 1: "The Russian Federation., the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" Point 4 of the Memorandum: "The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the…

Note, the US did seek UN security council action when Ukraine was invaded, back when Biden was president. Russia vetoed of course.

Are you a sophist? This thread is about how the US has lost all their political leverage, built for almost a century, since Trump got in power (no longer a trustable ally, losing contracts, etc).

You keep mixing up pre- and post-Trump events as if nothing happened, technicalities, "but you said X", and nobody that was trying to debate in good faith does that, only one interested in "winning" the argument but with zero interest in getting somewhere productive.