39 ms·

And the story continues. This means that no country will want to buy F16s. If you don't get support they are useless. They are eroding really fast the US shine

• samcheng 2y ago
  The best explanation I've heard is that this (almost) half of the US population doesn't care if it hurts a bit, as long as it hurts the other half of the US population more.
  • onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
    Not half - but probably around 30%
    • signalToNose 2y ago
      Most of politic seems to be about negotiating to keep a third of the population away from power. Because once they get in power they will trash almost anything in their path
  • lolinder 2y ago
    No, that's not it. I'm writing this from rural America in deep Trump territory, and people here are already struggling and have been for years. From their perspective they've been left out of the benefits of the global economy—the big cities and the coasts might be better off, but the middle of the country wants to go back to when they had opportunities and jobs for working class Americans. They're almost certainly wrong about the medicine, but their diagnosis isn't far off: globalization has not helped them as much as it's hurt them. Cheaper goods don't make up for dying towns. Edit: Downvoting people who actually understand Trump voters and try to vocalize their needs and perspectives just silences the voices that could be used to shape a better platform for the Democrats next time. You won't win elections by fighting a straw man invented by your echo chamber.
    • jajko 2y ago
      That's what populists do, everywhere including Europe - they take real issue and low-income & low-education folks (usually big overlap), tell then how they were wronged, play on their emotions, dumb down things to us-vs-them yada yada. But they never ever deliver any real solution. Never. What trump solved in first term? No wall, he was joke of the world for that. No middle east peace - fuck, he made the invasion to Israel by giving Jerusalem official israeli status. Palestinians lost all hope at that point (I know its way more complex than that, I know, but this was the trigger point to go full mental like a cornered animal). Afghanistan withdrawal? Thats his contracts with taliban which made US look so weak they were shooting ducks as you guys and rest of west literally ran away for your life. To make any successful long term massive changes, you need a steady leadership. trump is the opposite due to his mental & childhood issues, heck he is the epitome of instability. And so he drags whole world into same instability, changing global markets from bullish to bearish within a week, losing literally all friends and allies, globally. No, puttin' ain't your friend and never will be, he is a murderous sociopathic p.o.s. till his last breath. If simpler folks refuse to see all this and much more and connect those few dots, your idea of babysitting them and hald-holding in ever changing environment is laughable. Even in Europe you guys consider semi-communist we don't do that, we can't do that, its idiotic. This problem is not unique to US in any way and solution ain't what he wants to do. But its so nice to hear all that crap, "I will fix your woes", "the others are to blame for all your issues" and so on. Full on emotions, 0 rationality. Folks, even societies work like that, but get ready China will overtake you sooner than you would like. I kept thinking he is just a russian agent brainwashed in 80s during his visit to moscow (maybe deep hypnosis or something else), but it seems more and more he is doing massive favors to China actually, since russia is already insignificant globally. I don't mean some pesky tariffs, I mean whole world will realign around China, and he is giving it all to them for free. Bravo.
      • lolinder 2y ago
        There are only three ways to beat a populist: * Abolish democracy (only works preemptively, abolishing democracy while they're in charge would obviously not work). * Wait for them to die and hope they don't teach what they know to a successor. * Learn from them and speak to some fraction of their core even more persuasively than they do. You don't defeat a populist by simple virtue of being right.
  • rectang 2y ago
    Playing only zero-sum games. A positive sum outcome, where both of us benefit, is inconceivable!
    • NekkoDroid 2y ago
      Not even a zero-sum game, just straight up "everyone has to lose, but I have to lose less", a negative sum game I guess.
    • barbazoo 2y ago
      Take a step back and consider how hardened the divide is between “the two sides”. It should have never come that far, how are you gonna keep national unity in a situation like that!? Are there other first world countries that are that divided?
      • randomNumber7 2y ago
        US is probably worse cause no social system, but germany for example also feels divided. Half of the population benefits from the status quo while the other suffers. It is hard to tell whose fault it is, if this question even matters.
        • eternauta3k 2y ago
          How is Germany divided?
          • wombatpm 2y ago
            Did you see the areas that voted far right? Lots of overlap with firmer East Germany
            • generic92034 2y ago
              That would not be a split in halves, by any means, though. East Germany accounts for about 15% of the population, last I looked. Also, the far-right AfD got about 20% of the votes in the recent election. That is also not a split in halves.
  • baby_souffle 2y ago
    This is precisely correct. Briefly, the parts of the map that voted for Trump are largely known as flyover country. To oversimplify things, the people in this area have been neglected and talked down to by some portion of the political apparatus as far back as they can remember. In some cases, the vote for Trump wasn't meant to be anything more than punitive. To get a rise out of the politically aligned groups that can afford to fly over and - literally - look down on.
    • whatshisface 2y ago
      Farm subsidies and other special programs have been flowing to "flyover country" at an enhanced rate for almost a century (for about as long as the government has done things like that) as a result of the constitutional rule that says each state gets two senators regardless of population. The trade war is presently creating an economic crisis for those farmers, who primarily sell their crops outside the US.
    • brookst 2y ago
      Kind of true but also kind of victim-blaming. Part of the reason many people consider those areas “flyovers” is that minorities, women, gays, nerds, really lots of people, can expect to get treated very badly in those areas. Now, maybe there’s an obligation to turn the other cheek, reach out, and try to educate people in flyovers. But it is far too reductive to act like the blame points one way here and it’s just snobby elites who have abandoned these populations.
      • epistasis 2y ago
        I think this is where "flyover" talk is so useless. Look at Minneapolis, and Minnesota in general. Wealthy, hugely diverse, amazingly Red rural areas and unbelievably Blue urban areas. It's a lot like California, honestly.
      • arrobbiato 2y ago
        I spend a lot of time in the “flyover” areas, and this is simply not true at all. Maybe it was long ago, but we are no longer living in that age. It seems like the media want to portray middle America as some kind of medieval redneck nightmare thunderdome, for reasons I cannot fathom.
  • bennettnate5 2y ago
    You mean (almost) a quarter of the population--only 47% of Republicans actually support funding Ukraine less [1]. There are plenty on both sides that disapprove of the foreign policy decisions of the current administration. I've seen these "people in party x categorically do y" comments a whole lot more recently, and it really feels like a net negative to political discourse. Based on the source I pointed to earlier, there seems to be a plurality of support for at least continuing aid to Ukraine, with only 30% believing we're sending too much. Us vs them mentality won't help people recognize and voice disapproval of decisions within their own party that they don't agree with; we need to concede that people may vote a candidate for a narrow set of reasons (thanks to the two-party system) and have political discourse that encourages disagreeing with certain of your own party's views. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/14/americans-views-of-the-war-in-ukraine-continue-to-differ-by-party/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/14/americans...
    • KerrAvon 2y ago
      That data is outdated. That support has eroded since then, and will continue to erode now that Trump has stopped equivocating (lying) about his position on Ukraine. Hate to break it to you, but people in the GOP will support anything Trump tells them to. The right wing political ecosystem is a closed system and it’s driven from the top down, and they’ll believe anything they’re told, so long as the entire ecosystem is reinforcing it. They spent 60 years building this system; it works really well now. And it’s the reason the country is now being dismantled, and the reason there’s nothing anyone can do about it. This system was the cracks in the foundation and Trump was the nitroglycerin. There is nothing like this on the Democratic side of the fence. There’s no centralization of opinion, and there’s no media ecosystem whatsoever. The so-called “mainstream media” is now all owned by right-wing or at best center-right billionaires, so Democrats can’t actually push a message even if they could get it together, because they don’t have any microphones. There were attempts at a Democratic media ecosystem, all of them sabotaged by centrists who didn’t want progressives to gain power. Because “better things aren’t possible” wasn’t a winning message and people on both sides of the political fence generally prefer progressive policies (until you associated them with the Democrats, then GOP support plunges.) But it would threaten people like Nancy Pelosi whose power and personal fortune derive from doing massive favors for defense contractors.
  • 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    My mental model is that it will hurt the S&P500 but benefit the working class.
    • epistasis 2y ago
      How do you see some sort of benefit for the working class? Has Trump, Musk, or literally anyone associated with this administration ever made any move towards that? Trump in particular is famous for not paying people.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        Tariffs are an inefficiency that lowers profits and raises the cost of goods but they also create manufacturing jobs which benefit the working class. That's my mental model- I'm not an economist. I also strongly disagree with the tariffs on Canada and Mexico and almost all of the current policy decisions. There might be a method to the tariffs madness though is all that I'm saying.
        • alistairSH 2y ago
          Take that thought further. Say we put a tariff on socks. And Hanes opens a sock factory in the US. Is a few hundred sock jobs going to help the millions who aren’t making socks? Does working in the sock factory pay enough to buy computers and cars and other higher margin goods? Generally speaking, for broad tariffs, the answer is “No”.
          • 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
            Tariffs could mean a few hundred sock jobs but also cotton jobs, nylon jobs, rubber jobs, dye jobs, etc. All more expensive than importing but supports local economies. Again, I'm not an economist, and tariffs are not a panacea, but they are also not useless.
  • peder 2y ago
    Holy strawman, batman.
  • the_gastropod 2y ago
    There’s certainly no shortage of MAGA folk whose primary motivations are “owning the libs”. But I think there’s plenty of people who just truly believed in the nonsense Trump was selling.
  • bmitc 2y ago
    But that isn't what has happened or is happening.
  • yodsanklai 2y ago
    > as long as it hurts the other half of the US population more. if it was only half of the US population they want to hurt, it's also the rest of world, even the environment.
• maxlin 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • mcculley 2y ago
    As a U.S. citizen, I don’t want to “bend the knee”. I want to maintain the Pax Americana that keeps us rich and safe. Ceding global leadership to Russia and China and Europe is a myopic move.
    • blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      How is global leadership being ceded to either Russia or China? That would only happen if European countries prefer building economic and strategic ties with China over the US. If that happened it would mostly be revealing the true colors of Europe, choosing to side with a dictatorship and system that has killed tens of millions. As for Europe itself, I doubt Europe will be able to lead anything given its economic condition. These changes essentially just force people to resolve this one conflict.
      • OKRainbowKid 2y ago
        Europe will prepare for a future independent of the US, as they have proven to be an unreliable and fickle ally. This breaks the western blocks global dominance, as it is now no longer aligned, breaking into two (or more) blocks. As a result, the US loses much of their global influence.
  • epgui 2y ago
    This is totally detached from reality.
    • maxlin 2y ago
      No it is quite simple, driven by a president who prefers simplicity. You might be detached well though, given you just state that with zero elaboration as you can't produce one.
  • 2y ago
• ohgr 2y ago
  Don’t forget the F35s we all have.
• epistasis 2y ago
  I always thought that the American Empire would be dismantled when it elected a leftist steeped in anti-imperialist ideology who wanted to better the world. Nope, turns out that the American Empire is being dismantled by something else entirely. A subset of the populace that feels jealous of those with more and scared of social change, reacting to try to hurt their fellow country men? A megalomaniac leader who is somehow completely controlled by Russia? It's hard to get the full picture.
  • pydry 2y ago
    It's not being dismantled at all. It's engaged in a sudden retrenchment which has been brought on by years of slow decline. They even say this - Rubio said that we do not live in a unipolar world any more - a comment which attracted weirdly little notice. Biden's approach assumed a unipolar world which did not exist. That's why the Ukraine war, from the American imperialist perspective, backfired. The achilles heel of the American empire was, ironically, always profit and greed. If there is one thing that could be used to persuade America to let its industry rot it is profit and its industrial malaise is largely responsible for the ever-more-obvious decline in hard military power.
    • masklinn 2y ago
      > It's not being dismantled at all. It's engaged in a sudden retrenchment Sounds like a destruction. The administration is abandoning both the US soft power and its abilities to project through allied countries.
      • pydry 2y ago
        USAID and NED propaganda and agitation are nowhere near as effective as they used to be and they have a stronger tendency to piss off foreign leaders and push them into the arms of rival powers. The golden days of the color revolution are over. The failure in Georgia to push back on the "pro Russian law" (a law similar to one the US has which required all foreign propaganda to be clearly labeled) was probably seen as a watershed moment that it was about time to hit the reset button on that stuff. That one didnt just fail it backfired. No US military bases have been closed though, have they?
• paulddraper 2y ago
  > end of an empire Imperialism is not good, so this is welcome.
  • brookst 2y ago
    A broken arm is not good, but that doesn’t mean cancer is welcome.
    • FpUser 2y ago
      Being an Empire guarantees cancer sooner or later
  • itishappy 2y ago
    I'm sure Greenland, Panama, and Gaza will be relieved to hear that.
    • paulddraper 2y ago
      Yes?
• casenmgreen 2y ago
  Taiwan is now going to be seriously worried.
  • brookst 2y ago
    If Taiwan didn’t give up on the US and start making alternative plans on Nov 7th, that was a huge mistake. The US has made it clear that not only is it abandoning traditional allies, it will likely side with any invading force that exercises the “might makes right” principle.
    • mft_ 2y ago
      A couple of counterpoints: 1) Trump might be alienating his traditional allies and cosying up to Russia, but he still apparently sees China as a problem or adversary. 2) Thinking purely transactionally, the US is very dependent on Tiawan due to TSMC. Most of the US' largest tech companies are investing heavily in AI hardware (TSMC chips) and/or rely directly on TSMC for their own supply chain. I have no idea whether Trump et al see it this way, or this would be enough to trigger the US to protect Tiawan, but transactionally, it's immeasurably more valuable to the US than Ukraine.
      • casenmgreen 2y ago
        > Trump might be alienating his traditional allies and cosying up to Russia, but he still apparently sees China as a problem or adversary. It seems to me it's hard to believe anything Donald says, or to think it could not change without warning in the near future.
        • Vilian 2y ago
          Don't listen to what politician say, watch what they do, to be fair his decisions were very anti-china, I mean, maybe it going to backfire, but it was anti-chine in it's principle
          • brookst 2y ago
• Juliate 2y ago
  That also means no country will want to buy US (military) equipment.
• yimby2001 2y ago
  No one is using fighter jets in this war. Why? And everyone (who knows) knows this: The anti-air technology is too good to field a jet. It will just get shot down. so the Jets are now useless. so there’s no point in supporting useless jets. And no country is going to buy useless jets. But go on and make this political and not about some physical reality of our world.
  • epistasis 2y ago
    These jets are being used to shoot down the drones that Russia uses to destroy residential homes and civilian infrastructure. Their loss will be felt both in lives, and in the cold of winter when homes are unheated.
  • mlyle 2y ago
    Jets are massively used in this war-- to launch glide bombs and as roving defense against cruise missile threats. Ukraine is mostly doing the latter. Yes, the amount of direct CAS and amount of direct air to air engagement is low. Making an argument that "everyone knows" something without a basic effort to inform yourself is not great.
  • outer_web 2y ago
    They are absolutely using 'fighter jets' for standoff munitions delivery. You probably have heard of Storm Shadow and JDAM-ER. Even if this wasn't the case, they would still not be useless in that the firearms in your house aren't useless if you aren't actively shooting a home invader.
  • hkpack 2y ago
    That is extremely misguided take. Fighter jets are extremely valuable, they are not a magic weapon though, but just one of the very important tool for the military to have.
  • mopsi 2y ago
    Photos of a Mirage fighter jet shooting down a Russian Kh-101 cruise missile over Ukraine, published two days ago by the Ukrainian General Staff: https://x.com/GeneralStaffUA/status/1898105929364648055 https://x.com/GeneralStaffUA/status/1898105929364648055
• wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
  airplanes funded by tax money are not a business for selling product
• amelius 2y ago
  > I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against their own personal interests Sounds like another reality distortion field. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field
• belter 2y ago
  "We Are Fighting Against a Dictator Backed by a Traitor" - https://youtu.be/j51HZncBvEI https://youtu.be/j51HZncBvEI https://www.independants-senat.fr/post/claude-malhuret-situation-en-ukraine-et-s%C3%A9curit%C3%A9-en-europe https://www.independants-senat.fr/post/claude-malhuret-situa...
• lucasyvas 2y ago
  It’s easy to prove that half is wrong as well because all the US’ (past) global friends are screaming at the US trying to save them from driving off the cliff. It’s one thing for the US to want to remake itself - gradual, cooperative plans to reduce engagement on the world stage over multiple years would have been something manageable. Pulling the cord with such little respect will not be forgotten. The USD will be lucky to still be the reserve currency in 5-10 years time. The rest of the world is likely to sanction the US at this rate. It is violating all of its agreements in bad faith.
  • blibble 2y ago
    > The USD will be lucky to still be the reserve currency in 5-10 years time. if the US regime carries on at the rate it has over the last month I expect it will be gone considerably faster than this
    • lucasyvas 2y ago
      Practically speaking I think it requires a lot of will, momentum, and process to change this. The decision even if made soon would probably take a few years to complete. Supplementing it may be faster (eg. adding Euro and/or Yuan) than outright replacing it, but it’s not my area of expertise. The timeframe was based on some light research.
      • blibble 2y ago
        something to remember is that a good chunk of the "dollar" reserve is in reality eurodollars the backing of which could be switched very quickly indeed
    • disgruntledphd2 2y ago
      This stuff moves slowly, until it doesn't. I'd honestly say at least ten years for large changes.
    • rchaud 2y ago
      And this will inflate away the debts tokenized in CCP-held US Treasuries. 4D chess! Russia did something similar in 1998 that sank the US hedge fund Long Term Capital Management.
• moduspol 2y ago
  Actually we just want the war in Ukraine to end. Hope that helps. There's a lot of bloviating from the chattering class about cozying up to Russia, but I've yet to hear a cogent alternative. And no, I don't think "endlessly funding Ukraine to a forever stalemate" qualifies.
  • itishappy 2y ago
    Why just this war? What's Israel's cogent plan?
    • moduspol 2y ago
      I'm not sure we should be funding that, either.
      • rad_gruchalski 2y ago
        You are “not sure”?
  • Vilian 2y ago
    I don't want to see Ukrainian genocide by Russia, hope that help
    • convolvatron 2y ago
      I would rather not have to live through an emboldened and desperate autocracy rolling over Europe and opening up the very real possibility of a third world war. and while we're here, since the US is ostensibly going isolationist, maybe they should stop telling the Ukrainians they need to submit to subjugation.
      • isubkhankulov 2y ago
        If Russia is powerful enough to take over Europe, how can Ukraine possibly win?
• davikr 2y ago
  > If you don't get support they are useless. Yes, but any country selling military hardware would do the same if it turned coats in a conflict.
• Beijinger 2y ago
  "If you don't get support they are useless" Is this really the case or only a long term problem? The F-35 is a totally different story.
• mrtksn 2y ago
  I fully expect that in some near future the civilian infrastructure also will be de-coupled from USA in the name of national security by other nations. At this very moment, Apple and Google have the ability to disable communications for billions of people. They can make computers and phones totally unusable. Not just some features but everything. EU was trying to legislate around this risk by forcing companies to bring data on EU soil and open their platform to alternative providers. They always tried to be gentle with it as companies will claim that they are taken advantage of but as the things unfold at this pace I'm pretty sure that it EU and probably the rest of the world will be very heavy handed the moment there's an instance of US president or US tech oligarch decides to shut down group of people from their devices to teach them a lesson or to compel them into something like they did with military systems in Ukraine. I was afraid for years that people will be insulated into groups and the global community will be destroyed and now I feel like its happening.
  • dachris 2y ago
    I've thought about this for some time now, and am surprised I haven't seen this voiced more often. The way almost all societies have allowed themselves to be completely dependent on a few providers is mind-boggling. Someone else 10,000 miles away has the kill switch for your phone, your credit card, your brokerage account, your TV, likely your HVAC if you're into home automation, maybe your car.
    • mrtksn 2y ago
      Just recently Musk threatened cutting Ukraine's access to Starlink and then insulted the Polish foreign affairs minister once it was pointed out that its paid by Poland. Here: https://x.com/sikorskiradek/status/1898700362460070080 https://x.com/sikorskiradek/status/1898700362460070080 Even though later he claimed that he did not mean that, I guess more people will start thinking about these things.
• austin-cheney 2y ago
  > I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people able to twist reality to defend… Most people everywhere generally believe what their social reference group tells them to believe. Human nature, I guess.
  • rchaud 2y ago
    People believe what they want to believe. When reality turns out to not match their expectation, they quietly drop out of the conversation, without admitting they misjudged things. Best example of that is to take a look at HN in 2022 when Musk announced the Twitter takeover. A good half of the comments were quoting Voltaire and Snowden and applauding Musk for 'protecting free speech'. The other half saw it for what it was. When Musk stories come up now, there is no one still pushing the free speech angle.
  • bmitc 2y ago
    It's the Internet.
• CalRobert 2y ago
  Russia might buy some
• ericjmorey 2y ago
  A substantially sized loud minority in the US is fully committed to a death cult of personality. The rest of us are suffering and unprepared for this.
  • bmitc 2y ago
    What about all the "liberals", including many on this site, that not only bought into but actively promoted the cult of personality around Musk, Tesla, and SpaceX? Musk has always been a charlatan, and the majority of this very site bought into it.
    • lucianbr 2y ago
      Seems like they were able to change their position when faced with enough evidence. Does not seem like the other side can. Also, you know, literally "what about"-ism.
      • bmitc 2y ago
        This is not about whataboutism. Musk has been supported by many when he shouldn't have been. It was clear from the beginning. Has every Tesla owner or investor divested? No. To be perfectly clear, I am worlds away from today's extremist Republicans and centrist Democrats. My point is that cult of personality led here, and many on this site ("the rest of us"), even when presented with evidence, ignored their part in it when it came to Musk. It's the same cult of personality lamented in the comment I replied to. Both brought us to here.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• addicted 2y ago
  How can any reasonable national leader justify building their military on American systems anymore? Especially now that the U.S. government is also talking about not living up to its NATO obligations. This is not gonna hurt the rest of the world. Defense is where the U.S. exports a lot. So cutting back on U.S. weaponry will only help other nations. The same is true of Tech. Currently the tech industry is global, but expect it to become increasingly national. Considering this is one of the biggest and fastest growing industries in the U.S. and one of its biggest exports, again, this is only gonna hurt thenUS economy. And the US’s dominance in this space is so high the rest of the world will simply push for open source at no loss to their own economies, since it’s only the US’s profit making will be hurt.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • rvnx 2y ago
    Even further, the US position is getting tougher. Now there are new ideas getting pushed (through influencers like Musk): that Ukraine "should be sanctioned", that Ukraine "should give their minerals to the US", that Ukraine "should give up their lands", that Zelensky "should resign" and finally that "US should leave NATO". With such allies, you don't really need enemies.
    • seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      It’s really bizarre that we are looking at a near future where our best ally is Russia and West Europe/Canada and everyone else who was our friend is now our enemy. You literally couldn’t write this up as fiction and be taken seriously a decade ago.
      • yuliyp 2y ago
        It really makes you feel like you're in the middle part of the 1980s.
        • 2y ago
• bayindirh 2y ago
  This is one of the peak "move fast, break things" moments for the US. However, people warned about Chesterton's fences for years... I think we have passed the Rubicon for quite some time. There's no turning back now. The equilibrium will be found in another configuration.
• hsuduebc2 2y ago
  What's truly eroding trust is the voting system. A system that places so much power in a single individual with complete immunity exposes its vulnerabilities-especially in a time when people can be manipulated so effectively. To be honest, I see the lack of justice as the biggest problem. If the highest courts in the U.S. are essentially political institutions, shaped by those in power rather than acting as neutral arbiters of justice, that seems absurd to me. It feels like you can basically do whatever you want. And the lifetime mandate? That's a joke. As a European, I'm sorry for shitting on Europeans. It's far from ideal here, but I'm finally starting to appreciate what we have. Let's hope this would not spread.
  • Valodim 2y ago
    It didn't used to be "complete immunity", that's part of the problem
    • hsuduebc2 2y ago
      Yea. I used word "complete" because when your last and absolute pillar of justice is political you can't expect nothing else than them behaving like politicians.
  • esalman 2y ago
    Lack of trust on voting system has been brewing for a while. The Democratic establishment has successfully and unsuccessfully tried to shoehorn choice candidates last few election cycles. While republican candidates have been questionable, there's no denying that they went with whoever the voters wanted.
• yannis 2y ago
  >no country will want to buy F16s US needs to diversify and have an industrial policy. It also needs to rethink capitalism. Maybe new capitalism with US characteristics and more humanism thrown in. As to the defense industry it needs to shrink and be part of the industrial policy, not depend on warmongering to exist. You can have peace and a defiance industry without wars.
• petre 2y ago
  We will buy tge Dassault Rafale, thank you.
• billmcneale 2y ago
  > they have proven already that other's interests do not matter for them I disagree. Their interests matter greatly to them, they are just totally unequipped to understand who, and what, they are voting for.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• rayiner 2y ago
  [flagged]
• pessimizer 2y ago
  > This is the end of an empire Empires are not good. > I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against their own personal interests Self-interest is a middle-class religion. I think that a lot of Americans think that what we are doing is morally wrong. I also think that the idea that everybody else is going to shun our military exports over ditching Ukraine is absolutely hilarious. Ukraine isn't paying for any of this, they don't even count as a customer. Everybody has been free at all times to buy from the UK, France, and Germany, and if they don't see the difference between themselves and Ukraine, they should make decisions about their futures accordingly. I might remind them in passing that borrowing money from Germany to buy weapons from Germany was what brought Greece's economy down. Also I'd remind them, for what it's worth, that again they're partnering with Germany or France or the UK to invade Russia for unintelligible reasons.
  • rt276ah 2y ago
    > they're partnering with Germany or France or the UK to invade Russia Can we stop this nonsense on both sides? Russia does not want to invade NATO countries, and for sure Germany, France and the UK do not want to invade Russia. Britain is hawkish because they love continental powers fighting against each other and pulling the strings. They will not send their 50,000 soldiers to Moscow.
• xnx 2y ago
  A strong economy only exists with a strong democracy. Billionaires thought this administration would be good for them, but they are just as stupid as anyone.
• drysine 2y ago
  It's not the first time it happens. For example, in 2006 the US stopped supplying spare parts to F-16s it sold to Venezuela.[0] Oddly, other countries kept buying F-16s. Or think about Boeing and Airbus stopping servicing the planes they sold to Russia. Other countries are still buying from them as if nothing happened. [0] https://www.foxnews.com/story/venezuela-threatens-to-sell-f-16-fleet-to-iran https://www.foxnews.com/story/venezuela-threatens-to-sell-f-...
  • bad_user 2y ago
    The difference is that now European countries, and other (former?) US allies are starting to see the US as a threat. With people like Trump in power, the chance of a military conflict between the EU and the US is now non-zero, so what's on everyone's mind going forward will be independence from US tech. Maybe you haven't seen European news and commentary. US's republicans still don't grasp what a diplomatic mess Trump is causing, which will surely affect all trade. Actually, I'm expecting consequences for the entire US tech sector, not just the defence sector.
    • drysine 2y ago
      >Maybe you haven't seen European news and commentary. No, I haven't. Could you suggest something to read or to watch?
• tlogan 2y ago
  Buying high-tech American weapons comes with an implicit condition: they can only be used with U.S. approval. The U.S. has long leveraged this strategy to control governments. Do you think Saudi Arabia could use its American-made jets to attack Israel? Now, Trump is pressuring Ukraine to start negotiation under these terms: 1. Allowing parts of Ukraine to be annexed, 2. Permanently blocking NATO membership, and 3. Signing a “mineral deal” to sell resources to the U.S. at cut-rate prices.
• chiefalchemist 2y ago
  Not being troll-y or intentionally obtuse but I have to ask: when has The Military Industrial Complex acted in my / our best interest? Sure there’s plenty about US policy and actions that have been normalized, but that doesn’t mean they should have been adopted. It doesn’t mean those things should persist without thought or challenge. Even going about that the wrong way is more productive Yes, The System is fragile (as opposed to antifragile). But then let’s discuss that, not insist on the persistence of fragile-ness.
  • anabab 2y ago
    > when has The Military Industrial Complex acted in my / our best interest? [Not a US citizen/resident; never worked in MIC-related area] a). MIC is an industrial sector creating jobs, doing some R&D (which can trickle down into the civilian sector) and bringing hundreds of billions they do in exports into country; all of those seem benefitial for the overall economy. Of course those can be achieved in non-military-related areas, but so far there was a working machine - and a wrench is already thrown into the gears. b). The last three years have shown that large-scale wars are still on the table and having a working and oiled MIC is much better than having a degraded one.
    • chiefalchemist 2y ago
      The number one benefactor from the US invasion of Iraq was the MIC poster child Halliburton. Then VP Dick Cheney was a former executive at Halliburton. Not to worry, our MIC is oiled with gold. Even after the WMDs panic was uncovered as a lie, no one was held accountable. Our MIC does media control well too. These are not things to be proud of.
• 6SixTy 2y ago
  Doesn't matter that countries doesn't want F16s, pretty much any US component inside these systems means that they require US approval for the whole thing. Saab Gripens use a Swedish built version of a US powerplant, which allowed the US to deny sales of the Gripen to Colombia.
• bbqfog 2y ago
  It’s in my personal interest to not spread war and weapons throughout the world. We should cut off all weapons exports.
  • user3939382 2y ago
    [flagged]
• ipv6ipv4 2y ago
  > I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against their own personal interests (they have proven already that other's interests do not matter for them). This sounds like self-flagellation seen from the outside. They aren't thinking, really. If you look at the online comments from people who support these actions, you'll notice these characteristics: they are usually listing the same talking points, using the exact same collection of key words or "facts" (even in different languages, across different cultures) often strung together like chants, have a conspiratorial notion of a hidden puppeteer directing events or people they disapprove of, conversely they often have a messianic belief in their chosen prophet, and they are usually inexplicably very angry. You will also notice that the vast majority of them very rapidly, and across cultural boundaries, start parroting the latest talking points. Talking points that didn't exist days before and weren't on anyone's minds. It's a form of mass hysteria.
  • brokenmachine 2y ago
    Bots. It's bots. Some idiots, but mostly bots.
    • ipv6ipv4 2y ago
      I used to believe that. Trump got elected twice. And now he's spewing the most ridiculous lies that are swallowed whole by the MAGA faithful (don't get me wrong, there are similar problems on the other side of the political spectrum. Each side occupies their own bubble). I don't believe it is bots anymore. Now even real people on LinkedIn are posting with the same characteristics. There are some bots, for sure. There are disinformation campaigns but people are organically amplifying them. While social media is artificially amplifying them to maximize engagement. The social media amplification is why many of these people are so angry. Anger is the ultimate engagement hack.
• jpgvm 2y ago
  ... and just like that, America cedes arms export leadership. China will laugh all the way to the bank.
• esalman 2y ago
  If US shine and trust is based on proliferation of war then it probably deserves to erode.
• yodsanklai 2y ago
  > I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against their own personal interests Sometimes people are more interested in inflicting pain to others than to improve their own situation.
• vonnik 2y ago
  The main victim of this order is the US defense industry. What Ukrainians need most are the low-cost drones made of commercial parts from Asia which have made it hard for the Russians to fire artillery and supply the front. To produce these drones, they need cash. The Europeans have mastered the art of sending cash to Ukrainian vendors that serve actual battlefront needs, and doing so under strict supervision to prevent fraud. Europe can fill the gap the Us is leaving in military aid if they spend their cash right. For the last two years, I have supported a US non-profit sending non-lethal aid to Ukraine, my CB if it used for drone defense and EW. https://ukrainedefensefund.org/ https://ukrainedefensefund.org/ Cheap is a technological frontier. If you operate on that frontier, you are able to trade less expensive pieces for more expensive pieces, pawns for queens. This is the cost-exchange ratio. All other things being equal, the country that best lowers the cost basis of its materiel will win a war of attrition; ie the other side exhausts its resources first. The US does not operate on the frontier of cheap because of bad incentives, namely cost-plus procurement.
• betteryourweb 2y ago
  this is the best news ever... all these other countries keep up conflict to keep the bankers happy while they exploit our resiurces for corrupt politicians and business men... Everyone crying about the economy, but our economy is already shit and extending out these corrupt ppl corrupt directives will only keep us (on the private side) in economic turmoil... We've been in perpetual conflict over 2 decades... It's time to focus on us...
  • nullstyle 2y ago
    If someone thinks that "We've been in perpetual conflict" includes the support being to given to ukraine, in which we send them cluster munitions that we would otherwise have to pay to dismantle while risking virtually zero american armed service member lives, they need to recalibrate their senses because they're not doing a good job. The Ukrainian people deserve sovereignty, full stop. If someone believes in traditional American values, (e.g. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) they should support the fight against russian aggression, and IMO the flimsy and poor arguments being made about focusing on our economy reek of dishonesty when someone thinks about how integrated the US economy is with the world's.
• philwelch 2y ago
  Did Ukraine buy any F-16’s? No. They’ve benefitted from the generosity of the United States since 2017, and thanks in large part to that generosity they succeeded in the defense of Kyiv in 2022. Now it’s 2025 and the war has been stalemated for a couple of years. Does the United States have an open-ended obligation to continue supporting, at its own expense, yet another forever war on the other side of the world? The United States is still being taken for granted. And I have to laugh at the implication that the American economy will be ruined by the effect on the American arms industry when almost every American ally was neglecting their own military, instead taking American security guarantees for granted.
  • lostdog 2y ago
    Interesting how the exact phrases "forever war," "open-ended obligation," and "taken for granted" keep coming up. Always in comments that lack critical thought or explanation, and never support these talking points and just take them as a given. It's an attempt to pretend that real USA screwups, like Vietnam and Iraq II, are at all similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. So, philwelch, please compare and contrast. Without just echoing what you've heard, what are the pros and cons of supporting Ukraine in fighting off Russia? ETA: Also "on the hook." As though Ukraine is forcing us to give them money?
    • philwelch 2y ago
      Sophist.
  • darkhorn 2y ago
    Then why USA was defending those countries in first place? Only for goodwill?
  • tguvot 2y ago
    F-16 arrived from Netherlands as USA was unwilling to supply them. About defense of Kyiv, it has nothing to do with usa generosity and everything to do with creativity and a lot of luck. i'll suggest to read about how it was managed. there is a 50 pager released by uk miliary on this topic
• abe_m 2y ago
  I think Ukraine is a bit unique in how they got the jets. Since they were given the jets during a war, there wasn't much negotiation involved, relative to a country trying to buy plane in peace-time. In normal peace-time procurement, there is usually significant locally made content required, plus much deeper training. I'd suspect that countries who acquire arms in that way are much more able to continue without US support. When Iran was still in the US good graces, they bought a bunch of F14s. After their 1979 revolution, they kept operating their F14s. The US actually retired and destroyed all their F14s during the retirement to prevent spares from finding their way to Iran.
• cbmuser 2y ago
  > This means that no country will want to buy F16s. This means that no country will buy any US-supplied military equipment. Trump has destroyed the trust in the US defense sector for years to come. Absolutely irresponsible action.
• timewizard 2y ago
  > the US shine Oh no! We lost our "shine" because we aren't the premier weapons dealer on the planet anymore! > a massive effect on the US economy You see the problem. You just ignore it. You pretend it's a secret virtue. > end of an empire Good. I'm absolutely tired of being a citizen of an "empire." Take your dusty imperialism and go away; please, your warmongering ways absolutely disgust me. > a direct attack against their own personal interests It's not. You want it to be for propaganda purposes. See what I mean about living in an empire? This is completely churlish and gross.
• CapricornNoble 2y ago
  > This means that no country will want to buy F16s. This is just HNers being late to the party. Back in the 1990s, the US blocked sale of F-16s to Indonesia due to human rights concerns (eventually worked out).[0] Thailand has F-16s but more recently switched procurement to Swedish Gripens, partly to avoid reliance on a single combat aircraft supplier. Thailand also does bilateral training with PLAAF (Chinese Air Force), and their F-16s are apparently barred from participating. [1] There are rumors Egypt is switching from F-16s to Chinese J-10s, largely because the US refuses to sell Egypt modernizations and air-to-air missiles that would make them competitive against the Israeli Air Force.[2] The move away from the US as a combat aircraft supplier has been building steam for decades now. In the past there simply weren't many options competitive with the F-16 (both affordable and capable), but that's not the case in 2025. > This is going to have a massive effect on the US economy, internal consumption will not save it. I guess this really is the question: what is the expected overall quality of life for the average American when our continent-sized economy is largely functioning under conditions of autarky? The US's imports and exports are lower in 2023 than they were in 1913. Even in 1913 the US had the world's largest GDP (but not GDP/capita, was still much lower than the UK's at the time). [0] https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA441694.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA441694.pdf [1] https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/3279377/why-thailand-chose-buy-swedish-fighter-jets-instead-us-f-16s https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/3279377/why-t... [2] https://fmso.tradoc.army.mil/2024/egypt-is-rumored-to-have-signed-purchase-agreement-for-chinese-j-10c-fighters/ https://fmso.tradoc.army.mil/2024/egypt-is-rumored-to-have-s...