4 ms·

> There was no pressure from the U.S. to buy it How would you know? Are you privy to all conversations between the Finnish and the U.S. government? > there ar

by mikl 4y ago

> There was no pressure from the U.S. to buy it How would you know? Are you privy to all conversations between the Finnish and the U.S. government? > there are no incentives from the U.S. to buy it Right from the article itself: >> However, in what is a major win for the team behind HX, Lockheed Martin provided a unique tailored solution to Finland – one described in their BAFO-press statement to “includes many opportunities for the Finnish defense industry related to the direct manufacture and maintenance of the F-35 that have not been offered before.” Pretty much all buyers of the F-35 have been offered different sorts of kick-back deals, where they get to produce parts of the plane or handle maintenance, so the deal props up the national arms industry in some way or another. A nice boon for the politicians who can then brag about how they’re securing Finnish/Danish/Italian/whatever jobs.

daemoens 4y ago
> How would you know? Are you privy to all conversations between the Finnish and the U.S. government? Are you? How do you know they've happened?
- mikl 4y ago
  At least in Denmark, it’s a bit of an open secret that the Danish government is unusually efficient and unanimous whenever decisions are made that help U.S. interests in some way or another. Like how Denmark have joined pretty much every U.S. war of aggression in recent history, despite having no interests at all in Afghanistan or the middle east.
  - daemoens 4y ago
    That's still not proof of any such conversation happening. Denmark joined because the US invoked Article 5 after 9/11. It was more about making sure they're protected if they ever need it in the future, so I'd say it was absolutely in their interest. This was the first time Article 5 was invoked, not going would've killed NATO and their own security. The invasion of Ukraine has solidified their reasoning.
    - mikl 4y ago
      No, of course they wouldn’t make such pressure official. But it’s not exactly a secret that the U.S. arms industry has a lot of political pull. Not hard to imagine that such pull extends to “helping” NATO subjects to pick the right suppliers. As for article 5, that might explain the second gulf war and/or Afghanistan, but certainly not the first gulf war, Libya or Syria. Whenever Uncle Sam says “jump”, you’ll see all the small NATO states lining up to ask “How high?”.
      - gggggg5 4y ago
        >As for article 5, that might explain the second gulf war and/or Afghanistan No it wouldn't. The Article 5 invocation resulted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Assist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Assist and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Active_Endeavour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Active_Endeavour, that's all. >Whenever Uncle Sam says “jump”, you’ll see all the small NATO states lining up to ask “How high?”. Consider that small NATO states want to partake in this stuff because it offers their forces an opportunity to gain experience.
    - lfodofod 4y ago
      > Denmark joined because the US invoked Article 5 after 9/11 Article 5 has only been invoked once, and did not involve any actual conflict.
  - nova22033 4y ago
    it’s a bit of an open secret "Open secret" is the news version of "Trust me bro"
AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
One could also read that as providing the nation the ability to handle its own needs for these aircraft and thus not be as reliant on Lockheed Martin. Basically just alleviating one of the primary concerns of choosing a foreign aircraft.
fnrslvr 4y ago
> Pretty much all buyers of the F-35 have been offered different sorts of kick-back deals, where they get to produce parts of the plane or handle maintenance, so the deal props up the national arms industry in some way or another. What? This is pretty much standard practice across the board in military procurements. For example, as part of SAAB's Gripen bid for Canada, they would arrange for the aircraft to be produced, assembled, and maintained in Canada if the Gripen were selected. Countries do this for a variety of reasons -- yes, to bolster local industry, but also to give them a leg-up on sovereign sustainment of the platform, and so that they can ramp up manufacture to meet their own needs in the event of a war.
mlindner 4y ago
> How would you know? Are you privy to all conversations between the Finnish and the U.S. government? It's usually on the person proposing the existence of something to prove that it exists rather than on the person saying it doesn't exist to prove that it doesn't. I can't prove the lack of existence of bigfoot nor can I prove the lack of existence of aliens having visited earth. > Right from the article itself: > <snip> > Pretty much all buyers of the F-35 have been offered different sorts of kick-back deals, where they get to produce parts of the plane or handle maintenance, so the deal props up the national arms industry in some way or another. A nice boon for the politicians who can then brag about how they’re securing Finnish/Danish/Italian/whatever jobs. That's not an incentive from the US though. That's an incentive from Lockheed Martin. Which is something businesses do when they're trying to close sales with a skeptical customer and can afford to do so.

by mikl 4y ago

daemoens 4y ago

> How would you know? Are you privy to all conversations between the Finnish and the U.S. government? Are you? How do you know they've happened?

mikl 4y ago
At least in Denmark, it’s a bit of an open secret that the Danish government is unusually efficient and unanimous whenever decisions are made that help U.S. interests in some way or another. Like how Denmark have joined pretty much every U.S. war of aggression in recent history, despite having no interests at all in Afghanistan or the middle east.
- daemoens 4y ago
  That's still not proof of any such conversation happening. Denmark joined because the US invoked Article 5 after 9/11. It was more about making sure they're protected if they ever need it in the future, so I'd say it was absolutely in their interest. This was the first time Article 5 was invoked, not going would've killed NATO and their own security. The invasion of Ukraine has solidified their reasoning.
  - mikl 4y ago
    No, of course they wouldn’t make such pressure official. But it’s not exactly a secret that the U.S. arms industry has a lot of political pull. Not hard to imagine that such pull extends to “helping” NATO subjects to pick the right suppliers. As for article 5, that might explain the second gulf war and/or Afghanistan, but certainly not the first gulf war, Libya or Syria. Whenever Uncle Sam says “jump”, you’ll see all the small NATO states lining up to ask “How high?”.
    - gggggg5 4y ago
      >As for article 5, that might explain the second gulf war and/or Afghanistan No it wouldn't. The Article 5 invocation resulted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Assist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Assist and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Active_Endeavour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Active_Endeavour, that's all. >Whenever Uncle Sam says “jump”, you’ll see all the small NATO states lining up to ask “How high?”. Consider that small NATO states want to partake in this stuff because it offers their forces an opportunity to gain experience.
  - lfodofod 4y ago
    > Denmark joined because the US invoked Article 5 after 9/11 Article 5 has only been invoked once, and did not involve any actual conflict.
- nova22033 4y ago
  it’s a bit of an open secret "Open secret" is the news version of "Trust me bro"

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago

One could also read that as providing the nation the ability to handle its own needs for these aircraft and thus not be as reliant on Lockheed Martin. Basically just alleviating one of the primary concerns of choosing a foreign aircraft.

fnrslvr 4y ago

> Pretty much all buyers of the F-35 have been offered different sorts of kick-back deals, where they get to produce parts of the plane or handle maintenance, so the deal props up the national arms industry in some way or another. What? This is pretty much standard practice across the board in military procurements. For example, as part of SAAB's Gripen bid for Canada, they would arrange for the aircraft to be produced, assembled, and maintained in Canada if the Gripen were selected. Countries do this for a variety of reasons -- yes, to bolster local industry, but also to give them a leg-up on sovereign sustainment of the platform, and so that they can ramp up manufacture to meet their own needs in the event of a war.

mlindner 4y ago

> How would you know? Are you privy to all conversations between the Finnish and the U.S. government? It's usually on the person proposing the existence of something to prove that it exists rather than on the person saying it doesn't exist to prove that it doesn't. I can't prove the lack of existence of bigfoot nor can I prove the lack of existence of aliens having visited earth. > Right from the article itself: > <snip> > Pretty much all buyers of the F-35 have been offered different sorts of kick-back deals, where they get to produce parts of the plane or handle maintenance, so the deal props up the national arms industry in some way or another. A nice boon for the politicians who can then brag about how they’re securing Finnish/Danish/Italian/whatever jobs. That's not an incentive from the US though. That's an incentive from Lockheed Martin. Which is something businesses do when they're trying to close sales with a skeptical customer and can afford to do so.