Allies cancelling orders may force Washington’s hand: the cost of additional jets, parts, et cerera skyrocket if spread over fewer planes.
US has killed the allies trust.
Had these two events not happened, and most likely sales would not have been cancelled regardless of the F-35 issues.
Whether actual kill switches exist is unknown. But if you were a European country, would you take the chance of buying fighters from a country threatening to invade multiple of your allies based on their assurance that the rumors about kill switches are nothing but unsubstantiated rumors?
Up till now, there was no demonstrated risk of this happening - but that's a broken trust which won't be repaired for generations, if ever.
But everyone viewed this kill switch as a way broader than HIMARS, and rightfully so.
It will be foolish to assume that the USA has the capacity to turn HIMARS targeting capacity off, literally incapacitating the system which was built in the 90s, but somehow won't be able to kill switch a F35... This is disingenuous.
No country should trust their national security on the whims of one guy sitting in the White House, that can decide to side with the enemy and make your jets stop working because of disabled services.
Sure. My point is it does become small enough to fail if its effective price to taxpayers doubles due to allies cancelling orders.
> remote kill switch used against Ukrainian jets
Source?
Could you provide some references to this? A quick search only turned up denials that such a kill switch exists.
Even today, with all this talk around NATO, there’s a massive U.S. military presence at NATO bases across Europe.
These forces are, in effect, under U.S. control, stationed in countries like Germany and Italy. And if Germany suddenly decided it wanted them gone - well, it’s not their call.
TL;DR: Life on the empire’s periphery might be comfortable, but you don’t get to choose your enemies - and you still have to pay your dues, or else.
I find it refreshing, however, that the "we are the evil empire now" idea is getting out of the closet. Call a spade a spade.
“Good” and “evil” are moral constructs that haven’t played a meaningful role in documented geopolitics since at least the 4th century BC.
There’s a well-known quote often attributed to Hastings Ismay that captures NATO’s original purpose. I won’t paste it here as it might come off as a bit harsh, and I’m not trying to drag this discussion out further.
> That's a fantasy, unless you think Germany is occupied by the USA. But that's not the case.
Circling back to Germany—I honestly can't think of a more humiliating moment for any NATO member than this[^1]. Sure, Mr. Biden was more aesthetically pleasing than Mr. Trump but take a moment to consider the symbolism and the signals sent to ally nations. Regardless of media narratives, the events of September 26, 2022, marked a turning point that fundamentally altered Germany’s economic path and future. It was a hostile act on a massive scale, and its consequences are undeniably real for the country.
How do you imagine that will work? The US may have to lower the price more than they can afford to. Some countries have already cancelled their F-35 orders. You can't force someone to buy what they don't want.
In hindsight, the project was (as expected) over budget etc. I wish our government(s) had given that money to European fighter jets instead. There's a chance the US will remote disable the jets that have been put into service now, or withold service / spare parts.
The opium wars would disagree
Greenland has always been an ally, if for safety reasons the US needs more military presence on the island they could have just asked for it and it would most likely have been approved.
There is zero reason to use force, but if the US would take such steps I wouldn't be surprised if Europe starts replacing the dollar as reserve currency. This could trigger other nations like China to follow. This move would hurt the US economy way worse than the current trade war does.
