9 ms·

This is actually more likely a non-political procurement decision that looks like a political one. This is the 'right size' for Canada and other nations - the

This is actually more likely a non-political procurement decision that looks like a political one. This is the 'right size' for Canada and other nations - the US doesn't offer a true comparable, and, looks like the US balked at buying the 'kind of comparable' Boeing E7 putting it in jeopardy. With European military renaissance and the SAAB gear proving itself in Ukraine ... well, you see the shift. This is the shift writ large. This is going to happen across all industries. I don't think it's going to 'fundamentally' alter the landscape, but it will be a shift we don't come back from.

adjejmxbdjdn 5mo ago
In the past countries would buy American equipment even if it wasn’t the best fit because that would make you essentially an American ally. Being part of the U.S. ecosystem was valuable. Unfortunately, over the last 1.5 years, the political value proposition has turned by 180 degrees. - Being a U.S. ally no longer guarantees that you will be protected by the U.S. as Ukraine is seeing. But the U.S. has been tearing agreements left and right and the President has openly said he may not respond to a valid Article 5 invocation. - Being a U.S. ally seems to bring even more threats from the U.S. as Canada and Europe are seeing - Being a U.S. ally is no guarantee of protection even if you literally host American bases like the gulf countries are seeing. In fact, it’s only made them a target and the U.S. prioritized protecting Israel entirely over protecting any of the Gulf states. The value proposition for buying U.S. weapons has become really bad at this point.
- bluegatty 5mo ago
  So I don't think 'buying US gear made you an ally' - it was just part of the package, and in some cases, the US would 'require allies' to buy. The US Ambassador to Canada is openly threatening Carney right now with some procurement things - the 'Big One' is the F35. This is Can PM Carney playing a decent card, and biding for time until the midterms, and then waiting out the 'lame duck' period. 'Border State Republicans' are badly upset with the anti-Canada situation, and will buck Trump if given the chance without massive repercussions. Trump may not force the issue if he knows he's going to lose. If we see Trump with conciliatory language towards Canada after the elections, it's because he knows he's been beat. Or if he just shuts up about it and let's the negotiations roll. I give it 50/50. But - to be very clear - the world is 'doing 1 nudge' away from the US - not 'breaking away'.
  - bigfudge 5mo ago
    I think this is complacent. The rest of the world is actively seeking opportunities to decouple. The US is so embedded in defence ecosystems at the moment that is a delicate balance because we are all still dependent on US space and logistics capabilities. But Ukraine and Eastern Europe and building the foundation for conventional forces to be supplied without the US, and although it will take longer, Sweden France and Uk have the aerospace chops to reduce dependency on the US too. We are unlikely to reach parity any time soon, if at all. But that isn’t needed for the goal to be worthwhile.
    - NuclearPM 5mo ago
      What is complacent?
    - gunsle 5mo ago
      [flagged]
    - bluegatty 5mo ago
      "Reddit tier America bad geopolitics takes" The US president threatened to take Greenland by force, that's a very real thing. Mind you, it's one man, and not the nation or state, but he does have a lot of backers. That's a very real concern.
      - Lapel2742 5mo ago
        > Mind you, it's one man, and not the nation or state, but he does have a lot of backers. My 2ct: He is the duly elected leader in a representative democracy. He speaks on behalf of all U.S. Americans, he acts on behalf of all U.S. Americans, and all U.S. Americans share the same responsibility for the actions of his government. He isn't the only problem, though. It has now been proven that the U.S. Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on. In my opinion, that's the real concern. Trump will not be around for long. The U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court, the people that allowed that to happen and the Republican Party will. Edit: At least the U.S. Constitution needs some amendments, and I don’t see that happening, but there may be some plans to amend it I’m not aware of. Edit-2: Of course, there will still be cooperation with the U.S. after Trump, but fundamentally, something is broken. We will not return to the pre-Trump state.
- brightball 5mo ago
  > Being a U.S. ally no longer guarantees that you will be protected by the U.S. as Ukraine is seeing. How much more is the US supposed to do in Ukraine beyond the $60-70 billion in weapons and supplies? Do we need to actually go to war with Russia?
  - sobellian 5mo ago
    Ukraine is still fighting. We don't need to send troops. We just need to keep sending weapons (Trump stopped this)
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
  - lux-lux-lux 5mo ago
    New Ukraine aid effectively ended with the current administration, if you were unaware
    - manphone 5mo ago
      Oh, they were aware from the phrasing they ate implying that we’ve already spent enough and we should stop, which is exactly what Trump was saying and is totally stupid if you want the world not to be run by Vladimir Putin.
    - drnick1 5mo ago
      It did not, but the implicit U.S. policy is to help Ukraine just enough to maintain a stalemate and to keep Russia busy and unable to assist other countries like Cuba and Iran.
      - lukan 5mo ago
        How is the US aiding now, besides selling weapons? Intel probaly, but we don't know the exact arrangements there. And nothing like before.
    - 5mo ago
- PearlRiver 5mo ago
  I am getting the feeling that Americans don't understand that words have meaning. Trump insulting, threatening and bullying everones is supposed to be one big joke. But we are talking about sovereign states here that have been around for centuries- they are neither amused nor cowed.
  - noir_lord 5mo ago
    They don’t seem to get that Trump while a huge problem for us is a symptom of the actual problem, which is “all the conditions that put Trump in the White House will still exist when Trump is no longer in the White House”. Simply put, they did it twice, who’s to say Trump 2.0 won’t be worse. This whole “Democrats will take the house and it’s back to normal” attitude they have when it applies to foreign politics is naïve, oh we’ll continue to trade and we may still buy some military stuff and so on but that’s simply because the US is so large and integrated that decoupling isn’t quick or entirely necessary/possible immediately. The paths pretty clear at this point, it’s just early enough that it hasn’t become widely obvious that the existing world order since post WWII is gone.
    - altacc 5mo ago
      I have heard at least one interview with Steve Bannon where he says that Trump isn't delivering what many political operatives and financiers want but they see him as laying the ground for the next administration, who will restructure the government & US more efficiently.
      - kakacik 5mo ago
        As in behaving so badly changes will even be allowed? I wouldn't hold my breath for those in power to willingly give it back
        hylaride 5mo ago
        The idea is more "Trump wasn't the real deal, but trump 2.0 is...so vote for them." You're already seeing this as some MAGA people split and even go so far as admitting they were duped, MTG in particular.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
  >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/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...
  - bawolff 5mo ago
    I don't think that is really relavent. Ukraine was essentially invaded because they became too friendly with NATO (and hence america). Even without a formal promise, other countries are going to notice america hanging ukraine out to dry and add that to their calculations when deciding who to be buddy-buddy with.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
      >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?
      - lostlogin 5mo ago
        Where does Trump sucking up to Putin fit into this? What problem is that solving?
        0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
        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.
- ifwinterco 5mo ago
  This is 100% true and I agree with all of it, but I would just add that for fighter jets specifically the calculus is a bit different. Unless you want to buy Chinese jets your choices are either F35s or a big step down to 4th generation fighters that are materially worse in terms of capability. Modern 4th gen fighters are still very capable, cheaper, simpler and more reliable, but if you ever do end up facing an adversary who has 5th gen fighters you'll be in trouble, so the trade off of choosing not to buy F35s is very real
  - flakeoil 5mo ago
    But if you can have more 4th gen aircrafts and have easier support and maintenance so that you can keep them flying, then that might more than outweigh the 5th gen aircrafts possible superiority. A 5th gen aircraft on the ground is not very useful. It's easier to bomb out 100 aircraft than 400 aircraft. A 5th gen aircraft, disabled remotely via software is not very useful.
    - ifwinterco 5mo ago
      Yep I don't disagree, especially with your last point
  - lostlogin 5mo ago
    > so the trade off of choosing not to buy F35s is very real Amazing planes and all, but given that America is struggling to win the wars it starts, how useful are they?
    - bawolff 5mo ago
      They seem to have no problem winning battles though which is the part aircrafts help with. Winning the war is more about strategy and political savyness.
    - ethbr1 5mo ago
      You can't win a war with air superiority alone, but it's tough to win one after ceding the sky. Necessary but not sufficient.
- bawolff 5mo ago
  > Being a U.S. ally is no guarantee of protection even if you literally host American bases like the gulf countries are seeing. In fact, it’s only made them a target and the U.S. prioritized protecting Israel entirely over protecting any of the Gulf states. I think that is a little oversimplified. America did spend resources on defense of gulf states. They might feel it wasn't enough but it definitely wasn't nothing. I imagine defending Israel was probably a fair bit easier given the distance from Iran, and their domestic military being a lot more prepared and practised for missile defense, which may have translated to more effective results. Ultimately though i think there is a limit to how much America can reasonable do on defense once something like that starts. Probably the thing gulf states could most reasonably be pissed about was starting the whole adventure in the first place without much regard for the fairly predictable consequences.
  - GJim 5mo ago
    > America did spend resources on defense of gulf states. No offence mate, but did you miss the bit about the USA starting the war?
    - 05hundred 5mo ago
      Considering the last sentence in the comment you are replying to, i doubt they missed it...
      - GJim 5mo ago
        Their use of the word "probably" rather suggests they did miss it. By a country mile.
        pirates 5mo ago
        No, I think you missed it by a country mile. “Probably” was meant in the sense of “out of all the things the gulf states have reason to be mad at the US about, starting the conflict is ‘probably’ (obviously, lol) the thing they’re most unhappy with”. They weren’t saying the US “probably” started the conflict.
lysace 5mo ago
> With European military renaissance and the SAAB gear proving itself in Ukraine Btw, we just got this news report here in Sweden: Sweden is giving Gripen jets to Ukraine https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/vr3znL/uppgift-sverige-forbereder-donation-av-jas-plan-till-ukraina https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/vr3znL/uppgift-sverige-... Aftonbladet is Sweden's largest daily newspaper. They have a fairly strong track record on government and defense scoops. The supposed announcement is tomorrow morning, local/CEST.
- bluegatty 5mo ago
  They are not likely 'giving' , Sweden just got $90B in locked up Russian money and those 'freebies' are going to come along with a major purchase order.
  - lysace 5mo ago
    Unfortunately the EU still hasn't gotten the balls to confiscate that frozen oligarchy money, so no. Just wait, though. Soon you will cry. ;)
    - bluegatty 5mo ago
      That's right, but Ukraine got $90B from Europe knowing most of it would come back for equipment purchases. Also - I think that EU is going to try to figure out a way to get that Russian money. If they can't, then the EU should not exist - literally. It's decisive evidence that the bureaucracy can't even face an existential threat on it's own existence because it can't organize it's own legal concerns. "We remained lawfully committed to juducial integrity and processes ... as we were exterminated!" This situation is similar to 'many other things' (capital markets, tech investment, border/migration concerns etc.)
      - jpleyden98 5mo ago
        > That's right, but Ukraine got $90B from Europe knowing most of it would come back for equipment purchases. Thats standard for military aid to other countries. Almost all US military aid to Ukraine was spent in the US for equipment purchases. The benefit for Ukraine is getting the weapons to use in the war, although it's worth noting a decent portion of the military aid will be spent by ukraine on domestic manufacturers. Also €30 billion is financial and humanitarian aid, almost all of which will be spent in ukraine proper. > Also - I think that EU is going to try to figure out a way to get that Russian money. It's already sending the interest on the money to Ukraine, that alone is worth billions a year. Simply seizing the rest is more complicated and additionally probably not preferable. Keeping the rest immobilised gives europe and Ukraine a substantial bargaining chip in negotiations with Russia when the war eventually ends. Either Russia agrees to concessions to get the money back or it doesn't and it agrees the money can be sent to rebuild Ukraine.
mmooss 5mo ago
As the OP says, Carney has a clear, explicit policy of reducing military (and also economic) dependence on the US, for obvious reasons. It's what Carney is best known for, his leading international affairs and economic policies. Every time a similar story, of a country turning away from US trade, is posted HN, people post that it's not political. Not only is that claim thin and largely unsbustantiated, but why is it such a focus?
isodev 5mo ago
> likely a non-political procurement How can this be true - the only reason humans still need military equipment of any sort is politics. We are not fighting aliens, just stupid politicians that suddenly choose to throw people at a problem instead of using words.
lostlogin 5mo ago
> I don't think it's going to 'fundamentally' alter the landscape, but it will be a shift we don't come back from. That sounds like a fundamental change.

adjejmxbdjdn 5mo ago

In the past countries would buy American equipment even if it wasn’t the best fit because that would make you essentially an American ally. Being part of the U.S. ecosystem was valuable. Unfortunately, over the last 1.5 years, the political value proposition has turned by 180 degrees. - Being a U.S. ally no longer guarantees that you will be protected by the U.S. as Ukraine is seeing. But the U.S. has been tearing agreements left and right and the President has openly said he may not respond to a valid Article 5 invocation. - Being a U.S. ally seems to bring even more threats from the U.S. as Canada and Europe are seeing - Being a U.S. ally is no guarantee of protection even if you literally host American bases like the gulf countries are seeing. In fact, it’s only made them a target and the U.S. prioritized protecting Israel entirely over protecting any of the Gulf states. The value proposition for buying U.S. weapons has become really bad at this point.

bluegatty 5mo ago
So I don't think 'buying US gear made you an ally' - it was just part of the package, and in some cases, the US would 'require allies' to buy. The US Ambassador to Canada is openly threatening Carney right now with some procurement things - the 'Big One' is the F35. This is Can PM Carney playing a decent card, and biding for time until the midterms, and then waiting out the 'lame duck' period. 'Border State Republicans' are badly upset with the anti-Canada situation, and will buck Trump if given the chance without massive repercussions. Trump may not force the issue if he knows he's going to lose. If we see Trump with conciliatory language towards Canada after the elections, it's because he knows he's been beat. Or if he just shuts up about it and let's the negotiations roll. I give it 50/50. But - to be very clear - the world is 'doing 1 nudge' away from the US - not 'breaking away'.
- bigfudge 5mo ago
  I think this is complacent. The rest of the world is actively seeking opportunities to decouple. The US is so embedded in defence ecosystems at the moment that is a delicate balance because we are all still dependent on US space and logistics capabilities. But Ukraine and Eastern Europe and building the foundation for conventional forces to be supplied without the US, and although it will take longer, Sweden France and Uk have the aerospace chops to reduce dependency on the US too. We are unlikely to reach parity any time soon, if at all. But that isn’t needed for the goal to be worthwhile.
  - NuclearPM 5mo ago
    What is complacent?
  - gunsle 5mo ago
    [flagged]
  - bluegatty 5mo ago
    "Reddit tier America bad geopolitics takes" The US president threatened to take Greenland by force, that's a very real thing. Mind you, it's one man, and not the nation or state, but he does have a lot of backers. That's a very real concern.
    - Lapel2742 5mo ago
      > Mind you, it's one man, and not the nation or state, but he does have a lot of backers. My 2ct: He is the duly elected leader in a representative democracy. He speaks on behalf of all U.S. Americans, he acts on behalf of all U.S. Americans, and all U.S. Americans share the same responsibility for the actions of his government. He isn't the only problem, though. It has now been proven that the U.S. Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on. In my opinion, that's the real concern. Trump will not be around for long. The U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court, the people that allowed that to happen and the Republican Party will. Edit: At least the U.S. Constitution needs some amendments, and I don’t see that happening, but there may be some plans to amend it I’m not aware of. Edit-2: Of course, there will still be cooperation with the U.S. after Trump, but fundamentally, something is broken. We will not return to the pre-Trump state.
brightball 5mo ago
> Being a U.S. ally no longer guarantees that you will be protected by the U.S. as Ukraine is seeing. How much more is the US supposed to do in Ukraine beyond the $60-70 billion in weapons and supplies? Do we need to actually go to war with Russia?
- sobellian 5mo ago
  Ukraine is still fighting. We don't need to send troops. We just need to keep sending weapons (Trump stopped this)
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
- lux-lux-lux 5mo ago
  New Ukraine aid effectively ended with the current administration, if you were unaware
  - manphone 5mo ago
    Oh, they were aware from the phrasing they ate implying that we’ve already spent enough and we should stop, which is exactly what Trump was saying and is totally stupid if you want the world not to be run by Vladimir Putin.
  - drnick1 5mo ago
    It did not, but the implicit U.S. policy is to help Ukraine just enough to maintain a stalemate and to keep Russia busy and unable to assist other countries like Cuba and Iran.
    - lukan 5mo ago
      How is the US aiding now, besides selling weapons? Intel probaly, but we don't know the exact arrangements there. And nothing like before.
  - 5mo ago
PearlRiver 5mo ago
I am getting the feeling that Americans don't understand that words have meaning. Trump insulting, threatening and bullying everones is supposed to be one big joke. But we are talking about sovereign states here that have been around for centuries- they are neither amused nor cowed.
- noir_lord 5mo ago
  They don’t seem to get that Trump while a huge problem for us is a symptom of the actual problem, which is “all the conditions that put Trump in the White House will still exist when Trump is no longer in the White House”. Simply put, they did it twice, who’s to say Trump 2.0 won’t be worse. This whole “Democrats will take the house and it’s back to normal” attitude they have when it applies to foreign politics is naïve, oh we’ll continue to trade and we may still buy some military stuff and so on but that’s simply because the US is so large and integrated that decoupling isn’t quick or entirely necessary/possible immediately. The paths pretty clear at this point, it’s just early enough that it hasn’t become widely obvious that the existing world order since post WWII is gone.
  - altacc 5mo ago
    I have heard at least one interview with Steve Bannon where he says that Trump isn't delivering what many political operatives and financiers want but they see him as laying the ground for the next administration, who will restructure the government & US more efficiently.
    - kakacik 5mo ago
      As in behaving so badly changes will even be allowed? I wouldn't hold my breath for those in power to willingly give it back
      - hylaride 5mo ago
        The idea is more "Trump wasn't the real deal, but trump 2.0 is...so vote for them." You're already seeing this as some MAGA people split and even go so far as admitting they were duped, MTG in particular.
0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
>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/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...
- bawolff 5mo ago
  I don't think that is really relavent. Ukraine was essentially invaded because they became too friendly with NATO (and hence america). Even without a formal promise, other countries are going to notice america hanging ukraine out to dry and add that to their calculations when deciding who to be buddy-buddy with.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
    >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?
    - lostlogin 5mo ago
      Where does Trump sucking up to Putin fit into this? What problem is that solving?
      - 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
        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.
ifwinterco 5mo ago
This is 100% true and I agree with all of it, but I would just add that for fighter jets specifically the calculus is a bit different. Unless you want to buy Chinese jets your choices are either F35s or a big step down to 4th generation fighters that are materially worse in terms of capability. Modern 4th gen fighters are still very capable, cheaper, simpler and more reliable, but if you ever do end up facing an adversary who has 5th gen fighters you'll be in trouble, so the trade off of choosing not to buy F35s is very real
- flakeoil 5mo ago
  But if you can have more 4th gen aircrafts and have easier support and maintenance so that you can keep them flying, then that might more than outweigh the 5th gen aircrafts possible superiority. A 5th gen aircraft on the ground is not very useful. It's easier to bomb out 100 aircraft than 400 aircraft. A 5th gen aircraft, disabled remotely via software is not very useful.
  - ifwinterco 5mo ago
    Yep I don't disagree, especially with your last point
- lostlogin 5mo ago
  > so the trade off of choosing not to buy F35s is very real Amazing planes and all, but given that America is struggling to win the wars it starts, how useful are they?
  - bawolff 5mo ago
    They seem to have no problem winning battles though which is the part aircrafts help with. Winning the war is more about strategy and political savyness.
  - ethbr1 5mo ago
    You can't win a war with air superiority alone, but it's tough to win one after ceding the sky. Necessary but not sufficient.
bawolff 5mo ago
> Being a U.S. ally is no guarantee of protection even if you literally host American bases like the gulf countries are seeing. In fact, it’s only made them a target and the U.S. prioritized protecting Israel entirely over protecting any of the Gulf states. I think that is a little oversimplified. America did spend resources on defense of gulf states. They might feel it wasn't enough but it definitely wasn't nothing. I imagine defending Israel was probably a fair bit easier given the distance from Iran, and their domestic military being a lot more prepared and practised for missile defense, which may have translated to more effective results. Ultimately though i think there is a limit to how much America can reasonable do on defense once something like that starts. Probably the thing gulf states could most reasonably be pissed about was starting the whole adventure in the first place without much regard for the fairly predictable consequences.
- GJim 5mo ago
  > America did spend resources on defense of gulf states. No offence mate, but did you miss the bit about the USA starting the war?
  - 05hundred 5mo ago
    Considering the last sentence in the comment you are replying to, i doubt they missed it...
    - GJim 5mo ago
      Their use of the word "probably" rather suggests they did miss it. By a country mile.
      - pirates 5mo ago
        No, I think you missed it by a country mile. “Probably” was meant in the sense of “out of all the things the gulf states have reason to be mad at the US about, starting the conflict is ‘probably’ (obviously, lol) the thing they’re most unhappy with”. They weren’t saying the US “probably” started the conflict.

lysace 5mo ago

> With European military renaissance and the SAAB gear proving itself in Ukraine Btw, we just got this news report here in Sweden: Sweden is giving Gripen jets to Ukraine https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/vr3znL/uppgift-sverige-forbereder-donation-av-jas-plan-till-ukraina https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/vr3znL/uppgift-sverige-... Aftonbladet is Sweden's largest daily newspaper. They have a fairly strong track record on government and defense scoops. The supposed announcement is tomorrow morning, local/CEST.

bluegatty 5mo ago
They are not likely 'giving' , Sweden just got $90B in locked up Russian money and those 'freebies' are going to come along with a major purchase order.
- lysace 5mo ago
  Unfortunately the EU still hasn't gotten the balls to confiscate that frozen oligarchy money, so no. Just wait, though. Soon you will cry. ;)
  - bluegatty 5mo ago
    That's right, but Ukraine got $90B from Europe knowing most of it would come back for equipment purchases. Also - I think that EU is going to try to figure out a way to get that Russian money. If they can't, then the EU should not exist - literally. It's decisive evidence that the bureaucracy can't even face an existential threat on it's own existence because it can't organize it's own legal concerns. "We remained lawfully committed to juducial integrity and processes ... as we were exterminated!" This situation is similar to 'many other things' (capital markets, tech investment, border/migration concerns etc.)
    - jpleyden98 5mo ago
      > That's right, but Ukraine got $90B from Europe knowing most of it would come back for equipment purchases. Thats standard for military aid to other countries. Almost all US military aid to Ukraine was spent in the US for equipment purchases. The benefit for Ukraine is getting the weapons to use in the war, although it's worth noting a decent portion of the military aid will be spent by ukraine on domestic manufacturers. Also €30 billion is financial and humanitarian aid, almost all of which will be spent in ukraine proper. > Also - I think that EU is going to try to figure out a way to get that Russian money. It's already sending the interest on the money to Ukraine, that alone is worth billions a year. Simply seizing the rest is more complicated and additionally probably not preferable. Keeping the rest immobilised gives europe and Ukraine a substantial bargaining chip in negotiations with Russia when the war eventually ends. Either Russia agrees to concessions to get the money back or it doesn't and it agrees the money can be sent to rebuild Ukraine.

mmooss 5mo ago

As the OP says, Carney has a clear, explicit policy of reducing military (and also economic) dependence on the US, for obvious reasons. It's what Carney is best known for, his leading international affairs and economic policies. Every time a similar story, of a country turning away from US trade, is posted HN, people post that it's not political. Not only is that claim thin and largely unsbustantiated, but why is it such a focus?

isodev 5mo ago

> likely a non-political procurement How can this be true - the only reason humans still need military equipment of any sort is politics. We are not fighting aliens, just stupid politicians that suddenly choose to throw people at a problem instead of using words.

lostlogin 5mo ago

> I don't think it's going to 'fundamentally' alter the landscape, but it will be a shift we don't come back from. That sounds like a fundamental change.