A White House spokesperson put it the best, I think:

The White House spokesperson Andrew Bates, when asked about Trump’s comments, said: “Encouraging invasions of our closest allies by murderous regimes is appalling and unhinged – and it endangers American national security, global stability and our economy at home.”

What’s so insane about all this is that Trump saying something like that out loud means it’s now practically gospel to the vast majority of GOP voters, and might as well be official party policy.

  • @hydropticOP
    link
    English
    605 months ago

    The idea that Europe isn’t militarily self-sufficient is, frankly, horseshit. The US just has such an incredibly outsized military that anything will look “insufficient”

    • @nevemsenki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -16
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      We can’t supply Ukraine with enough weapons… or even munitions, as the self-pledged 1mill 155mm shells will be only halfway met (hopefully). The few self-designed combat aircrafts we have are painfully mediocre (Eurofighter, Gripen, Rafale…).

      Definitely don’t think we would fare any way decently in an actual war without US backing nowadays.

      • @stephen01king@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        495 months ago

        Being able to supply another country with weapons and ammunition while keeping enough stock for your own military is not the definition of a self-sufficient military, though?

        • @nevemsenki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -165 months ago

          If we were able to succesfully do so, I would agree with that. We aren’t succeeding in supplying enough to keep Ukraine in the game right now, though.

          • @grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            305 months ago

            The point is that having any ammo left over for Ukraine at all – let alone “enough” – is literally the definition of more than self-sufficient.

            • @meat_popsicle@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -7
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              If you use 0 bullets in a hot-war of your own, but can’t provide a wartime amount to another country with the help of allies that means you cannot provide enough for yourself during a true homeland crisis.

              Euroland focused too much on social services and allowed their military production capabilities to rust because big daddy USA would always be there with the largest MIC on the planet.

              Well, somebody just went to the gas station for cigarettes. Good luck.

        • @EpicGamer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -94 months ago

          🤓☝️ source? It doesn’t take much reasoning to see that a new 5th generation aircraft first produced in 1987 is quite mediocre compared to the american wizardry that is the f-35. The gripen is a fine 4th generation aircraft, but it is not a 5th gen. Don’t get me started about eu engine production as well. We are behind, and we need military funding.

          • @mindlight@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            154 months ago

            You are both comparing two systems and calling the one that cost 5-7 time less per flight hour mediocre in a discussion where the enemy discussed are recycling hardware from the 50’s on the battlefield.

            Dudes, Gripen might not be a 5th generation fighter but it clearly outperforms the enemy it was designed to wrestle.

            So “mediocre” it’s not what I would call Gripen even though I agree that we (Sweden) should spend more on developing a new 5th generation system among other defence systems.

            • @EpicGamer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -34 months ago

              The finnish and swiss did not agree, both concluded that the f-35 would be economally better over the entire lifespan of the planes. Buying a new plane requires you to look further than one month of flying

              • @mindlight@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                If this is what makes you conclude the F-35 being a better system, you clearly have idea of what you’re talking about. (NOT.)

                Arms deals of that magnitude are based more on what politicians see as a chance of getting reelected than what the engineers conclude.

                Furthermore, just looking at the specifications and conclude that A is better than B is something people without insight would do.

                I recommend this Swedish blog post on the subject that was written 10 years ago: Gripen E vs JSF

        • @nevemsenki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -115 months ago

          It’s advertised as a cheap lightweight fighter, it’s standout feature being that a minimal amount of crew can operate it in adverse conditions. Which is most useful if you want a peacetime or “guerilla” fighter. There’s exactly two countries in Europe - beyond Sweden - that use Gripen, and I do know that in one of them (Hungary) they beat the F16 by basically buying off Orban and his cronies. …who, ironically enough, are now blocking Sweden’s entry into NATO.

          I’d think that at least in Europe you’d see more adoption of the plane if it weren’t mediocre.

          • @mindlight@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            16
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            When I asked about you backing your claim I didn’t mean you making more claims. We’re on the internet, just link to the analysis you are referring to.