zlacker

>>saubei+(OP)
There will be a lot more decisions like this one. For the war in Ukraine and anything immediate they will buy American stuff if there is no EU alternative (and for many things there just isn't right now, there are too many dependencies). But the tide has changed, for 'in' it is now to 'out'. It is abundantly clear the USA is no longer a dependable ally, and that it will use all kinds of strings attached to hobble what they sell to be able to exert political pressure. Besides the obvious problems with the political system internally to the USA I think it is the external effects that drive decisions like these.

I see the same happening with choices about other suppliers. The EU is a very large trading partner to the US and what is happening right now is unprecedented in the last 75 years or more. The damage to our future world order is incalculable and the fact that it all seems to be by design bothers me greatly.

The lyrics of Alan Parson's 'Children of the moon' have been spooking through my head lately.

>>jacque+U4
> It is abundantly clear the USA is no longer a dependable ally

An extreme and inaccurate statement. The US is still party to NATO Article 5, meaning the blood of our young people is pledged to be shed to defend, say, Estonia. That has not changed.

What has changed is the US has become more realistic and up front about the limitations of its reduced military. It’s not healthy, for the US /or/ Europe, to indulge the imperial fantasy that US forces in Europe (token deployments in Germany and Poland) are sufficient to defend against Russian attack.

Trump is not the first US president to push Europe to do more of precisely what it is doing here (spend its own money on defense). Being clear about limits is what a reliable ally does.

Europe ordering an Airbus AWACS instead of Boeing now that the US stopped subsidizing them is not surprising nor does it mean the sky is falling.

>>educti+Jc
I don't think that the sky is falling.

However, I think that many in the US are underestimating the current paradigm shift. Right now, in Europe, leaders and voters need to take decisions while keeping in mind the possibility that the US will invade Canada and Greenland while not reacting if Russia movies to Estonia.

Will it happen? Who the f*k knows? Donald Trump has made declarations very much in this direction. Also, Donald Trump has broken a sufficiently large number of treaties since becoming president that _anything_ should be considered possible.

That being said, as you mention, it's not clear that any of this is in any way related to Europe not buying the E-7.

>>Yoric+ti
> Also, Donald Trump has broken a sufficiently large number of treaties

Which?

>>philwe+9l
Iran Nuclear Accords (negotiated by the EU!), Paris Climate Agreement are two that come to mind concerning the EU.

There's obviously more, like NAFTA.

>>saubei+Xo
Iran and Paris weren’t treaties. Neither of them were ever ratified by the Senate.

Trump didn’t break NAFTA, he renegotiated it. NAFTA remained in effect until the new treaty, USMCA, came into effect.

>>philwe+Cu
See, this is exactly what I mean.

In international law, they were treaties. Your internal squabbles do not concern us and just make you look unreliable.