Could people not hype the F-16 deliveries? The media hyping NATO wunderwaffes and Ukrainian counteroffensive, which failed to deliver expected outcomes, just played into Russian propaganda. Kremlin foresaw the axis of advance to be southern Ukraine because the Western freaking hype that that is where the likely axis for UAF. It lost the element of surprise! Compare this to 2022’s Kharkiv Oblast counteroffensive operation. Before, the media had been saying the war could become a long war, until they changed their script when Ukraine thunder run Kharkiv oblast and kicked out the Russians. Everyone then said Putin will be ousted by the end of 2022! That did not happen although Putin’s rule became delicately precarious.
Ukraine does better when their operational security is kept intact and when no one expects them to win. Okay there was the leak of counteroffensive plan but Western media hyping things up doesn’t help! Just stop with sensationalism!
I wouldn’t drive hype either but those F-16s are some serious capability. Not really so much because they would be that much better airframes as what Ukrainians are already flying but because they can carry a metric fuckton of different NATO armaments that are currently sitting in warehouses that can’t be shipped to Ukraine because Ukraine wouldn’t be able to throw them at Russia, or only with questionable effectiveness – say, those air-to-air IRIS-T that Germany is sending over: They integrate into IRIS-T air defence but launched from the ground they’re very short-range^1^. Having F16 means that Ukrainians can also strap them to planes, with system integration close to that of an Eurofighter.
^1^ they don’t care about launch orientation at all, that’s their point you can launch them in the opposite direction upside down while spinning heavily and they’ll still find their target. But the air-to-air variants just carry less fuel
What SMillerNL said. Also: he didn't gain an absolute majority, and as the Netherlands doesn't use a first past the post system like the US or UK, he'll need to form a coalition government to be able to rule the country.
The F35 was ordered a decade ago. The decision to replace the ageing F16 was basically already made twenty years ago, IRC one of the Balkenende governments:
The Netherlands is part of the nuclear sharing agreement with the US. The F16 is nuclear capable but over 30 years old. The F35 is also nuclear capable and replaced it. The Dutch government would have had to withdraw from nuclear sharing and seriously damaged its relationship with the US.
and make Europe more like America without Healthcare.
The US spends almost twice as much on healthcare as the Netherlands. Saying that the Netherlands or the US must choose between healthcare and defense, is a false dichotomy. One often pushed by Russian and Chinese propagandists.
Last time I checked, the Netherlands spends less than 1.5% of GDP on defense. That's still less than the 2% agreed upon by Balkenende in 2014.
You invest in defense, or you get pushed around by countries like China or Russia. That means more expensive fuel, imports, less ability to export, etc. It means less jobs and everyone's poorer. If they think you're weak, they're also more likely to make stupid mistakes, like blow up another civilian airliner or use a toxic nerve agent that could have killed thousands near a UK military base in a show of force. If you're strong, they're more careful, and we can all live in peace for a while longer.
Honestly, this reminds me a lot of climate change. People burying their heads in the sand, rather than admit the reality. Even after countless warnings and half a million casulties in a European war, people are still trying to pretend nothing's changed.
Rutte heavily destroyed the country’s Healthcare system and introduced student loans. The Dutch healthcare system is starting to look more like the American one every year.
He randomly let the entire cabinet fall on a non-issue that his party now doesn’t even care about anymore to get a new coalition going.
The requirement for peace isn’t more war planes to bomb the middle east with though Westerners can not seem to imagine having peace with anyone by not violently oppressing them.
Rutte heavily destroyed the country’s Healthcare system and introduced student loans. The Dutch healthcare system is starting to look more like the American one every year.
Correct, but irrelevant to military spending.
Military spending is still low and it is possible for a country to spend a bit more on defense and have a good healthcare system.
Giving Ukraine some 30 year old F16s, which were going to be scrapped anyway, costs almost nothing compared to what is spent on healthcare. Suggesting you have to choose is a logical fallacy.
If anything, giving Ukraine some more military aid, reduces the risk of Russian invasion or increased provocations, which in turn reduces the need to increase military spending in the long term. Giving Ukraine some more military aid now, ultimately means we will almost certainly have MORE money to spend on healthcare.
He randomly let the entire cabinet fall on a non-issue that his party now doesn’t even care about anymore to get a new coalition going.
Correct. But this has little to do with buying new planes, a decision which was made decades ago (if it wasn't the brits would still be using spitfires), or sending Ukraine a few 30 year old planes.
The requirement for peace isn’t more war planes
Incorrect. The best way to ensure peace, is to ensure your military is strong enough to deter foreign countries from invading.
Eg. North Korea vs. Ukraine.
One has nukes. One had nukes. Guess which one was invaded?
Appeasement doesn't work. Claiming you're neutral doesn't work either.
Didn't work the Belgians during WWI.
Didn't work for the Netherlands during WWII.
Didn't work for Latvia. Didn't work for Lithuania.
Didn't work for Hungary in 1956.
Didn't work for Ukraine in 2014.
Westerners can not seem to imagine having peace with anyone by not violently oppressing them.
The Chinese and Russians certainly can't, judging by what they've been up to in Ukraine, South East Asia, Xinjiang and Sudan.
The problem seems to be that a lot of people assume European supremacy and can't conceive of us being the victims who need to defend ourselves from Imperial powers. That's why like you they can't grasp needing planes for anything other than foreign wars. Because you've never experienced war, you don't seem to grasp what the primary purpose of a country's military is defence not foreign interventions or humanitarian missions.
The reality is that we are incredibly weak because we've spent far too little on defense for decades, and because Europe has been stagnating in relative terms, and has been for years. And yes, that is costing us money and jobs.
War has never been beneficial to an economy unless they’re selling the weapons instead of waging war with them.
There is already a job shortage and you say we need to waste even more workers on making weapons because jobs? Because bombs are going to build houses or something? Especially now the economy is stagnating
The west has been massively oppressing other countries for about a century now with their “defense”. But you have not read any history. Afghanistan and Iraq, Palestine, Syria, and many others don’t exist according to you.
Sudan has been ruined by France and NATO for the last few decades. Peace is not gonna come from the Russians but it sure won’t come from the West either. Do you need to defend it or colonize it?
Destruction is becoming cheaper than ever just look at israel’s billion dollar defense system being wrecked by 30.000 Hamas members with improvised rockets. If you want to win wars with these costs you’d better be a thousand times richer than your enemies.
This extra spending has nothing to do with previous purchases. It’s about spending even more on more on western backed terrorism like the Dutch are doing against the Houthis to support israel’s Genocide. The extra budget won’t be used defensively, knowing NATO that’s for sure.
War has never been beneficial to an economy unless they’re selling the weapons instead of waging war with them.
Which is why you need a strong military as a deterrent. It demonstrably reduces the risk of war.
The west has been massively oppressing other countries for about a century now with their “defense”.
Imperialism is wrong, whether it's the west, the Russians, or the Chinese doing it.
There is already a job shortage and you say we need to waste even more workers on making weapons because jobs? Because bombs are going to build houses or something? Especially now the economy is stagnating
You need to increase military spending to prevent war, not for jobs.
But if the economy stagnates or goes into recession, this will lead to job losses, so this argument doesn't make much sense.
It is possible to build more houses and spend money on defense. Once again, this is the false choice fallacy.
Afghanistan and Iraq, Palestine, Syria, and many others don’t exist according to you.
Would the Israelis be carpet bombing Gaza right now, if the Palestinians had a very strong military?
Would the Soviets or Americans have been more or less likely to invade if Afghanistan had a very powerful military?
Sudan has been ruined by France and NATO for the last few decades.
What is now Sudan was a British and not a French colony.
It sounds like you're confusing Sudan with French Sudan, which is present day Mali, or perhaps Niger which has been in the news recently.
In any case, Sudan broke off relations with the west in 1967. They were in the Soviet sphere of influence for decades after that. They've had close ties with Russia and China for years now.
This extra spending has nothing to do with previous purchases.
The F16s were going to be put out of service. That decision was made decades ago.
If the F16 wasn't being replaced with the F35, Rutte wouldn't be sending them to Ukraine. So as a matter of fact, Rutte sending F16s has a lot to do with the previous purchase of F35s.
Increasing military spending to 2% was agreed upon years ago, before Rutte became PM.
Read the article you posted. It doesn't say France is selling Sudan weapons.
It says "Amnesty International representatives call on France and its European partners to press for an effective international arms embargo to be imposed on Sudan" and that "France and its European partners should urgently pressure states concerned by these sales, and international bodies, to impose an effective international arms embargo on Sudan."
The article mentions who those states are. The UAE, Russia/Wagner, China, and Libya. It also mentions that a lot of the weapons are of Soviet and Iranian design. It does not mention France supplying Sudan weapons.
Also, how is France supposed to impose a weapons embargo without a military to monitor shipments? That was a rhetorical question. No need to answer.
Anyway, agree to disagree and all that. No point continuing this discussion.
Sounds like a bad idea to announce when the hardware will be moving. We’ve seen past weapons transfers announced to be happening “soon” though they’ve already occurred. They may well already be in Ukraine.
Does anyone know what kind of timeline there might be before the pilots are trained to fly them? Is it something that might have an impact within days/weeks or is it going to be months before they can be used effectively?
rferl.org
Active