KYIV – Ukraine will likely receive it first shipment of advanced F-16s in the next few days, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte told President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in a phone call as Kyiv seeks to disrupt Russia’s air superiority over Ukrainian skies amid continued battles on December 23 in the east and south of the country.
“Today, I informed President Zelenskiy of our government’s decision to prepare an initial 18 F-16 fighter aircraft for delivery to Ukraine,” Rutte said late on December 22 in a post on social media platform X.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which is why you need a strong military as a deterrent. It demonstrably reduces the risk of war.
Imperialism is wrong, whether it’s the west, the Russians, or the Chinese doing it.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The French are supplying weapons to Sudan.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2023/09/01/sudan-some-states-are-actively-fuelling-the-conflict-by-providing-arms-and-ammunition_6118526_23.html
The 2% number was never being reached because it’s not needed. We have Nuclear weapons that is plenty deterrent.
Unless you want to keep the entire world under the terror grip of the west of course then you need the 2%.
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.
deleted by creator