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.

  • @nevemsenki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Europe would do well to become military self-sufficient. Of course once they are, there’s not much reason to keep US forces in their territory either, so I’m not sure how much the US really wants that.

    • @hydroptic@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      501 year 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
        -14
        edit-2
        1 year 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.

          • @EpicGamer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -71 year 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
              111 year 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
                -31 year 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
                  1 year 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

                  • @EpicGamer@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    01 year ago

                    Oke whatever dude buy the gripen have fun, I’ll gladly buy the f-35. And I’ll continue my life without insight haha wtf

          • @nevemsenki@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -121 year 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
              13
              edit-2
              1 year 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.

    • @GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      8
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Reminds my of when Trump threatened to withdraw troops from Germany to punish them and a high-ranking military officer had to correct him and explain that the American troops are not in Germany to protect Germany but for the benefit of the US in order to support its strategic interests in the region.

      Trump seems clueless on these things.

    • @Delta_V@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -151 year ago

      I’m not sure how much the US really wants that

      Or anyone else for that matter. Armed Europe has a somewhat violent history.