Gripen can use roads, small airfields, but that is because it is a domestically designed and built system (by Saab) for the doctrine that Sweden has, and has had since the second world war. It's not designed to be stealthy because it is not supposed to be a strike aircraft. It's cheap, tough, can use a large range of munitions and there to defend Sweden. The doctrine here is to try and be as self-sufficient in defence as possible and not rely on third parties too much.
The F35 is different. It's way more expensive, stealthy, able to link/co-ordinate, but at the same time _will_ have higher requirements for maintenance and _will_ be beholden to the US for updates. You might be able to buy weapons from Thales or MBDA, but if the software can't use them and the US won't allow export of the software, then you are screwed.
I can absolutely see a pan-European 6th gen fighter program, yes the previous ones were fraught, but then so is the F-35 which is also a collab product. But we're talking 10-15 years development here (at least) before getting something operational.
Two
Global Combat Air Programme involving the UK, Italy, Japan. Not expected before 2035.
Future Combat Air System, France, Germany, Spain. Not expected before 2040
Presumably those dates will slide
if the software can't use them and the US won't allow export of the software, then you are screwed.
This is the crux of it for me. I don't think we can trust a US which seems to be aligning itself with our most likely future adversary. It's going to be difficult, but we need to disentangle ourselves from reliance on US defence products. Yes it will be painful and costly and won't happen overnight, but it's necessary IMO. The world has changed fundamentally, the US are not our allies anymore.
How does the UK untangle itself from the US as I very much doubt trump will simply walk away from Lakenheath if asked to.
Getting rid of Trump/Vance and having a non Russian asset in charge would be easier and quicker than replacing US hardware.
How does the UK untangle itself from the US as I very much doubt trump will simply walk away from Lakenheath if asked to.
A separate issue. I was talking about disentangling ourselves from reliance on US defence hardware, not their real estate in the UK. It's worth considering though, if the US continues to be so openly hostile to Europe and friendly with Russia there could be grounds to send in the bailiffs in future. It might not be necessary though. As Trump pivots towards the Pacific and away from Europe, I reckon there's a good chance he'll want to close some of these places anyway and bring the personnel home or redeploy them. A lot of them are cold war relics anyway, and their foe in that "war" is their new bezzie mate.
I can absolutely see a pan-European 6th gen fighter program, yes the previous ones were fraught, but then so is the F-35 which is also a collab product. But we're talking 10-15 years development here (at least) before getting something operational.
Two
Global Combat Air Programme involving the UK, Italy, Japan. Not expected before 2035.
Future Combat Air System, France, Germany, Spain. Not expected before 2040
Presumably those dates will slide
I wonder if in time they might merge those projects into one and yeah, I would be amazed if those dates are hit. Struggling to think of a fighter project that came in on-time and under budget! Maybe the F-5!?
If Europe is genuinely serious about moving procurement away from the USA then four years of Trump may cost the USA trillions of dollars over the next few decades.
Ok I read the article. It’s whole premise that it’s understandable that the USA doesn’t want to war with Russia over Ukraine. Therefore it doesn’t want to provide a security backstop.
Firstly, the USA in theory already does this with its NATO commitments (though that may be changing).
Secondly, NATO with its superpower backing works, and Russia has been deterred from trying anything with a nato member.
Thirdly. To me a credible American backstop will ensure that Russia won’t try and invade Ukraine again, much in the same way that NATO has achieved this.
Therefore a US backstop will guarantee there won’t be conflict with Russia.
Fails IMO, like many of these sorts of articles because it treats both Trump and Putin as if they are rational actors with negotiable positions that are sensible and grounded in reality.
Do you mean articles by people with a certain expertise and who understand Trump beyond "he's a complete idiot and greedy and that's all you need to know", such as the author here who is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace?
The only thing that is probable in that article is that President Trump has adopted a position where
"the US will either broker an end to the war in Ukraine in short order or remove itself from the conflict, unless perhaps it deems Russia to have obstructed a ceasefire. (As Trump told Zelenskyy on Friday: “You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out.”) "
Anything else is pure opinion and it doesn't matter who the author is and what their experience is. Even the author conceded that,
Discerning the signal in the noise isn’t easy, but amid the zigs, zags and bombast, the new administration appears to be taking a position...
"isn't easy", "zigs and zags" and "appears to be" do all of the heavy lifting within a single sentence, which demonstrates that the author can't discern a coherent policy to discuss
Anything else is pure opinion
Of course it is an opinion, which is why the Guardian printed in big bold letters "The Guardian Opinions" You actually have to click on that to go to the link.
I am not sure why it should be dismissed on the basis it is someone's opinion, the geezer seems to have a vague idea about the subject that he is giving an opinion on.
Are all the other comments on this page "facts"?
Are all the other comments on this page "facts"?
No, but to argue based on an opinion of a position that even the author can't easily discern doesn't inspire confidence
An interesting article imo. Although be warned that it doesn't paint Trump as a complete idiot who is largely motivated by personal grudges, so perhaps not for everyone 😉
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/03/europe-trump-ukraine
Par for the course from an isolationist such as Wertheim, he’s another gob on a stick as far as I’m concerned
Unless the US is going base it's diet on cress, I'm not sure the Great Farmers of the United States can grow stuff quick enough to make up any shortfall.
it's a novel approach. make the cost of imported goods higher than domestically produced goods in an effort to make people feel better about rising prices. boiled egg, anyone?
You have to translate everything now into "what's in it for Trump personally". That's going to be what drives US foreign policy for the next 4 years.
I guess that depends on who is really pulling the strings behind the scenes...There's a school of thought that Trump and Vance are just useful idiots acting as the front men but the real power lies hidden elsewhere, and for now, Trump/Vance are usefully disruptive.
You'd hope (ha!), that the real, strategic power brokers within GOP step in sometime soon and bring a bit of sanity back. I guess the question is, how deep is Putin's influence?
I'm not sure the Great Farmers of the United States can grow stuff quick enough to make up any shortfall.
There are the supplies which were going to go to USAID. Although I doubt it will do more than touch the sides.
Looks like the egg prices arent coming down anytime soon.
There's a school of thought that Trump and Vance are just useful idiots acting as the front men but the real power lies hidden
Is it Jar Jar Binks? It is isn't it. Meesah controling the free world Ani!
I doubt their is some kind of "strategic brokers" behind this, unlike last time when he was surrounded by hangers on, this time I think there are people who have worked out how to play him, feed him bullshit and nudge him towards their goals, but IMO they are not co-ordinated or working together much more likely they are just all out for themselves. I doubt the GOP will turn against him, until it becomes clear the country has turned against him big time, and that is an "if".
Tariffs coming in on Mexico and Canada tomorrow, if they don't back down to his demands, then inflation will surge and people will start suffering quite quickly, I think that Canadians and Mexicans are probably more up for the costs of not acquiescing to his demands than americans will be when they start to suffer the cost of his trade war.
I see they are looking to back down on sanctions against Russia too. The baddies are going to win this one
Are the hill billies happy to suddenly embrace the russians and electric cars? Surely they must smell a rat at some point.
An interesting article imo. Although be warned that it doesn't paint Trump as a complete idiot who is largely motivated by personal grudges, so perhaps not for everyone 😉
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/03/europe-trump-ukraine
Par for the course from an isolationist such as Wertheim, he’s another gob on a stick as far as I’m concerned
He might be a gob on a stick, but I couldn't find much to disagree with in that article. I can't see any popular support for stationing US troops in Ukraine. His suggested route to peace actually seems fairly reasonable. No NATO, but armed to the teeth. I'll be honest, I can't see a better outcome that has any real chance of happening.
Might have been posted before, but Anders did a quick video a couple of days ago that seems reasonable
I see they are looking to back down on sanctions against Russia too. The baddies are going to win this one
Fundamentally weakening NATO
Parroting Russian Propaganda on Ukraine/Zalenski
Refusing to sign the UN Resolution condemning Russia for invading Ukraine
Refusing to further support the Ukranians
"Pausing" cyber security actions against Russia
Offering Russian oligarchs US Citizenship
Preparing to lift US sanctions against Russia
Firing (or trying to fire) swathes of CIA and FBI staff
Inviting Russian state TV into the oval office whist simultaneously banning Reuters and AP
Admitting that he's been having meetings/discussions with Putin in-between his terms in office
Plus all the "Russian interference" in his previous election
Even if you don't believe he is a Russian asset..... you have to admit that he's behaving exactly like one
Par for the course from an isolationist such as Wertheim, he’s another gob on a stick as far as I’m concerned
I'm old enough to remember when US intervention in foreign countries was seen as a serious problem, it seems like only yesterday.
Maybe there should now be some mass demonstrations outside US embassies across the world demanding "US TROOPS IN !"
Time to replace peace activists with war activists perhaps?
Time to replace peace activists with war activists perhaps?
Time for any country that wants to remain independent to get itself a nuclear arsenal ASAP.
Ukraine gave up its nukes in return for a promise from Russia, the USA and the UK that they would be protected, and now it's only us that's still there.
What a vile man Trump is. Cutting off all aid to Ukraine immediately. He is trying to force a peace on Russias terms.
Vile treacherous criminal.
No! He's playing 4D chess - he's a genius. (He'd only eat the pieces BTW)
If Putin doesn't have Kompromat on Trump, he's got a bargain with just picking a moron.
It’s forcing a surrender really, rather than a peace.
Whats most worrying is the message it sends out. It says to the worlds dictators that America is happy to not only reward aggression but positively encourage it.
Putin (who must be laughing his tits off!) will now have his eye on who’s next and I’d be getting twitchy if I was in Taiwan, the West Bank or anywhere else in the world where your neighbours have expansionist ideas. You’ve just been deemed fair game
I agree. What an absolute arsehole. And a pox on those that think it's an acceptable outcome to have people like this in power because 'the others are all the same'. Is this the different you wanted?
Being entirely cold about it - if you are trying to make a deal you consider using whatever leverage you have to get it. If/How you use it can depend on whether you want a one off deal and who cares if the other side hate you after, or whether you want a lasting relationship after. So this tactic is a valid one, in general.
But absolutely not when people's lives and the security of a former allied nation / region is at stake. It's the act of an arsehole.
And this isn't a typical negotiation, this is a middleman trying to broker a deal between others. So why he isn't exerting the same pressure on Russia, with sanctions, seizure of assets, whatever else he has. But nothing, just bringing the aggressor back into his circle.
What does Putin have on him. There must be some kind of major dirt, or a threat of 'see that Litvinenko / Skripal? Just saying'
Trump crashes the stock market in real time as he delivers speech on tariffs for Canada and Mexico.
I couldn't find much to disagree with in that article.
I think that it depends on perspective and as ^^ I agree with the probability of this bit, "The crux of the message seems to be this: the US will either broker an end to the war in Ukraine in short order or remove itself from the conflict, unless perhaps it deems Russia to have obstructed a ceasefire."
The problem is that if the US position isn't easily discernible then the plan is all but invisible
I can't see any popular support for stationing US troops in Ukraine.
I think that's more about demonstrating a European commitment to the US that we would provide security. The subtlety that's missing is that you can't have peace-keepers if one side doesn't want them (or a specific nation) on their border.
It would be much better if a well-armed and supplied Ukraine could protect their own borders under NATO membership. I think that we have to remember two facts:
This invasion was never about NATO expansion eastward. President Putin has done more to expand NATO in three years than NATO has achieved in two decades and
Article 5 NATO doesn't compel states to act.
The two facts combined don't need to risk WW3, which is a Russian inflection point, e.g. nuclear sabre-rattling, Oreshnik IRBM, etc.
His suggested route to peace actually seems fairly reasonable.
It is, until you ask what the route to peace is. The article jumps from a ceasefire to the post war period, having travelled via it being okay to reward the aggressor, which takes me back to "then the plan is all but invisible" ^^
The only thing that President Trump can control is Ukraine, because he can't control Russia, "Trump eventually threatened to withdraw US aid to Ukraine altogether if Zelenskyy’s position did not change."
What will Trump do next? Deny Ukraine their internationally-recognised borders because Russia doesn't want that and Trump wants peace
Withdraw the US from NATO because Russia doesn't want that and Trump wants peace, what's the plan?
Second, the US and Europe would commit to arm Ukraine heavily if Russia invaded again.
We'll arm Ukraine after Russia invades?
I'm not a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, but is part of a secure peace plan waiting for another invasion?
I'd suggest that a secure peace will come much more easily and President Trump will get a deal if Russia turns around and crosses the international border. Taking Ukraine's weapon supply away and easing sanctions won't achieve that, which is what President Zelensky is rightly pointing out.
What does Putin have on him.
The Russians oligarchs who support Putin have stopped buying Trump's apartments in Panama because of sanctions. Trump wants to normalise relations with Russia so they can spend their money with him again. Otherwise he faces financial risk in Panama. Hence his tub-thumping
Fundamentally weakening NATO
Parroting Russian Propaganda on Ukraine/Zalenski
Refusing to sign the UN Resolution condemning Russia for invading Ukraine
Refusing to further support the Ukranians
"Pausing" cyber security actions against Russia
Offering Russian oligarchs US Citizenship
Preparing to lift US sanctions against Russia
Firing (or trying to fire) swathes of CIA and FBI staff
Inviting Russian state TV into the oval office whist simultaneously banning Reuters and AP
Admitting that he's been having meetings/discussions with Putin in-between his terms in office
Plus all the "Russian interference" in his previous election
Even if you don't believe he is a Russian asset..... you have to admit that he's behaving exactly like one
Yep I don’t think you actually need to know whether he is an asset or has compromat on him, his actions sort of give away his intent.
I think he just looks on the Russians as a market that he is denied and doesn’t see why not.
He would have got good money out of them in the past and doesn’t see why anything like sanctions should stop him from taking their money.
Just another bunch of rich guys to play golf with and fleece, his sort of people, who he’s spent all his life with.
Either that or the much rumoured piss video
Kompromat is certainly possible but i think its mainly because Trump admires Putin as a strong leader and Trump would like to be like him
Sgain you have to remember that as a psychopath Trump has no conscience and no morality.
TBH he did just release the ‘Epstein files’ (or not) and he’s sort of in them 🙂
I think he’d just fake news it out .
I think he’d be more annoyed with not having the Russian bot farms pushing his stuff constantly, they helped him win the election which is why investigations into Russian activity won’t be investigated ever again, just like Tik-tok was un banned as it helps him.
I doubt Trump is all that bothered about kompromat. Any conscience he might have had would have been purely transactional and now he has the power to make any negative effects negligible.
In actual fact, I think he is just a thoroughly evil person totally out for his own vanity and financial gain. I don't really know how the rest of the world should cope with the Trump-Putin axis of evil (yes, I use that phrase deliberately). Someone like Trump should never have been anywhere near power, but that's democracy combined with poor education systems for you.
I guess we sit it out as best we can.
Current rumours is that he's told workers at the CISA (federal cybersecurity agency) to remove Russa from all their communications and not to focus on threats from Russia. Previously Russia and China were their main targets. I really try to avoid hyperbole but that surely would be treason?
https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/03/infosec_in_brief/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/28/trump-russia-hacking-cyber-security
The definition of 'treason' varies depending on who is defining it, and whether they are POTUS.
The whole situation is remarkable. He has turned a growth and jobs economy (albeit one with severe structural weaknesses) into a recessionary and inflationary doom-slide inside a month. Recent Republican presidents have all presided over economic failure, but this will take the biscuit.
The Russians oligarchs who support Putin have stopped buying Trump's apartments in Panama because of sanctions. Trump wants to normalise relations with Russia so they can spend their money with him again. Otherwise he faces financial risk in Panama. Hence his tub-thumping
You are actually serious aren't you? You really believe that the United States position on Ukraine hinges on the price of apartments in Panama don't you?
I can't remember the last time I heard a finer conspiracy theory to suit a political agenda but it would have either come from a typical Trump supporter, ironically, or from an ultra-leftist desperate to prove just how wicked capitalists are.
No wonder you were so dismissive of the opinion piece in the Guardian which offered a balanced and realistic analysis.
I guess that is the problem with echo chambers that won't tolerate healthy debates and a diversity of opinions, unchallenged people become ever more extreme in their theories.
In actual fact, I think he is just a thoroughly evil person totally out for his own vanity and financial gain.
There are reports suggesting he is desperate for a Nobel Peace Prize to match Obamas (undeserved) one.
I dont think he quite grasps that trying to force an invaded country to surrender doesnt really count as peace.
