5 ms·

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.

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.
      - simondotau 5mo ago
        People outside the US understand that Trump is a temporary phenomenon. And there's no evidence that Trump has any interest in post-Trump politics, except insofar as it insulates him from repercussions.
        Lapel2742 5mo ago
- _carbyau_ 5mo ago
  > Trump may not force the issue if he knows he's going to lose. That didn't play out at the end of his last term. I don't think Trump is a "I've had a good run, lets call it a day." kinda guy...
  - ben_w 5mo ago
    While he always talks tough regardless, I think his actions depend on the nature of the loss, e.g. him being all over the place on Iran, disregarding his own ceasefire for strikes and yet also heading towards a deal that's significantly worse than if he'd done nothing; or similarly all the everything in response to his threats against Greenland.
    - _carbyau_ 5mo ago
      I interpret the same events you describe as Trump being unable to let go when he should have. Which is why he's made things worse than if he'd done nothing.
      - ben_w 5mo ago
        No disagreement there; the point is not to excuse his foolishness, but that despite his words always being pugilistic, he can be made to back off.
- patcon 5mo ago
  Sorry, but I also think you are complacent. This is generational destruction of reputation. As a Canadian, we regularly talk about "fuck American companies" in a way we never did. I still actively avoid buying anything from USA in grocery stores. City of Toronto is spinning up a nonprofit grocery store pilot, and they sure as hell are going to be trying not to stock USA goods -- the mayor herself passed an anti-USA procurement bylaw last year. Related: I just helped run a weekly community speaker series[1], where we had 60 ppl (many public servants) signed up to hear a presentation on a supply chain app to help people avoid American products. And just 30 min ago, coming home at 1am, I was talking to the service guy for my city's bikeshare program. He mentioned new bike models were coming. He was like "fuck Lyft" and I said "I don't trust American companies anymore" and he agreed (Lyft acquired the Montreal bikeshare company we used to deal with). A friend who used to work for Deloitte is actively working to convince city officials to sever the bikeshare contract, and diversify the network for similar reasons. PRAGMATIC anti-americanism is literally a new hobby for a sizable cohort of the citizenry. It's the only rational choice, and many perceive it as literally a matter of sovereign survival. [1]: https://guild.host/events/from-tariffs-to-transparency-x69sg0 https://guild.host/events/from-tariffs-to-transparency-x69sg...
  - GoblinSlayer 5mo ago
    How do you know which companies are not american?
    - yayamo 5mo ago
      People I know will google that information when they care. Or are already aware for product categories they care about like buying a SkiDoo vs Polaris. But also there’s an app for that: https://www.oscanadaapp.ca/ https://www.oscanadaapp.ca/
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.

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.
    - simondotau 5mo ago
      People outside the US understand that Trump is a temporary phenomenon. And there's no evidence that Trump has any interest in post-Trump politics, except insofar as it insulates him from repercussions.
      - Lapel2742 5mo ago
_carbyau_ 5mo ago
> Trump may not force the issue if he knows he's going to lose. That didn't play out at the end of his last term. I don't think Trump is a "I've had a good run, lets call it a day." kinda guy...
- ben_w 5mo ago
  While he always talks tough regardless, I think his actions depend on the nature of the loss, e.g. him being all over the place on Iran, disregarding his own ceasefire for strikes and yet also heading towards a deal that's significantly worse than if he'd done nothing; or similarly all the everything in response to his threats against Greenland.
  - _carbyau_ 5mo ago
    I interpret the same events you describe as Trump being unable to let go when he should have. Which is why he's made things worse than if he'd done nothing.
    - ben_w 5mo ago
      No disagreement there; the point is not to excuse his foolishness, but that despite his words always being pugilistic, he can be made to back off.
patcon 5mo ago
Sorry, but I also think you are complacent. This is generational destruction of reputation. As a Canadian, we regularly talk about "fuck American companies" in a way we never did. I still actively avoid buying anything from USA in grocery stores. City of Toronto is spinning up a nonprofit grocery store pilot, and they sure as hell are going to be trying not to stock USA goods -- the mayor herself passed an anti-USA procurement bylaw last year. Related: I just helped run a weekly community speaker series[1], where we had 60 ppl (many public servants) signed up to hear a presentation on a supply chain app to help people avoid American products. And just 30 min ago, coming home at 1am, I was talking to the service guy for my city's bikeshare program. He mentioned new bike models were coming. He was like "fuck Lyft" and I said "I don't trust American companies anymore" and he agreed (Lyft acquired the Montreal bikeshare company we used to deal with). A friend who used to work for Deloitte is actively working to convince city officials to sever the bikeshare contract, and diversify the network for similar reasons. PRAGMATIC anti-americanism is literally a new hobby for a sizable cohort of the citizenry. It's the only rational choice, and many perceive it as literally a matter of sovereign survival. [1]: https://guild.host/events/from-tariffs-to-transparency-x69sg0 https://guild.host/events/from-tariffs-to-transparency-x69sg...
- GoblinSlayer 5mo ago
  How do you know which companies are not american?
  - yayamo 5mo ago
    People I know will google that information when they care. Or are already aware for product categories they care about like buying a SkiDoo vs Polaris. But also there’s an app for that: https://www.oscanadaapp.ca/ https://www.oscanadaapp.ca/

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.