Jens Stoltenberg says Nato ‘ready and able to defend all allies’, after Trump invited Russia to attack member countries

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.

    • EpicGamer@lemmy.worldEnglish
      514·
      11 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.eeEnglish
        161·
        11 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.worldEnglish
          25·
          11 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.eeEnglish
            31·
            11 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

            • EpicGamer@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11·
              11 months 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

          • Plopp@lemmy.worldEnglish
            31·
            11 months ago

            Ahem, do you know how much fuckery goes on in military arms deals?

    • nevemsenki@lemmy.worldEnglish
      516·
      11 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.eeEnglish
        215·
        11 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.