This Hacker News discussion primarily revolves around a shift away from US military technology, particularly fighter jets like the F-35, by various countries, and the attributed reasons for this shift. Several interconnected themes emerge, including geopolitical strategy, the reliability and attractiveness of US military offerings, the rise of alternative suppliers like China and European defense initiatives, and concerns about the political reliability and perceived "bullying" tactics of the United States.
Shifting Geopolitical Alliances and the Rise of Multipolarity
A central theme is the changing global landscape, where countries are re-evaluating their alliances and defense partnerships in light of new geopolitical realities. The invasion of Ukraine is seen as a catalyst, prompting countries to learn lessons and adapt their strategies. This includes a move towards greater independence from traditional US influence.
- "A lot of countries are learning lessons from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the world's reaponses," observed verdverm.
- alephnerd posits that this shift is partly driven by the US's perceived insistence on a "values based foreign policy," which can alienate potential partners. They argue, "We the US cannot have a values based foreign policy - all that matters is power." This leads to a conclusion that, "Welcome to a multipolar world - only the powerful can set the rules."
- Barrin92 directly links this to a desire for reduced dependence on the US: "If you're one president or one policy away from being cut off from technology, tariffed to death or otherwise bullied you're going to choose other partners."
Perceived Unreliability and "Bullying" of US Military Suppliers
A significant concern expressed is the perceived unreliability and the use of "bullying" tactics by the US in its foreign and trade policies. This manifests in several ways, including conditional sales, tariffs, and the potential for manufactured goods to be rendered inoperable by the supplier.
- Barrin92 elaborates on the "arm twisting" behavior: "But power exercised with restraint. China isn't increasing its influence by arm twisting but the opposite. Simply saying ‘we're open for business’ and not interfering in the domestic politics of other countries as long as that's reciprocated."
- c420 directly criticizes the US administration's actions: "It seems the recent volatility from this American administration is being overlooked. They’ve turned their back on allies, resorted to bullying, and even issued outright threats, while walking away from commitments. Buyers may be weighing the risk that when they need service for their purchase, they could be strong-armed with threats of withheld maintenance — or worse, face a remote kill switch being activated."
- fabian2k echoes this concern regarding long-term partnerships: "Trump and his administration are anything but reliable partners."
- The specific example of the F-35 becoming a "paperweight if you can't get replacements parts, support and ammunition" if political relations sour is highlighted by fabian2k.
Concerns Over F-35 Program and US Defense Capabilities
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, a cornerstone of US air power, is frequently brought up as an example of issues that are making US military hardware less attractive. These issues include cost, reliability ("hangar queen" reputation), and complex support systems that create dependencies.
- culi notes a trend of countries reconsidering or rejecting US aircraft: "But Thailand is far from alone in this move away from US weapons. Spain cancelled their bid for F-35s and Switzerland is looking into doing the same. Denmark recently expressed regret over their purchase of F-35s. Portugal and Canada also both lost interest in American F-35s recently."
- The "hangar queen" issue is explicitly raised by culi, who links it to criticism of the F-35's status.
- Terr_ and _DeadFred raise concerns about the operability and maintenance of advanced US aircraft, with _DeadFred stating, "Forget parts. Mission's can't be flown. Look up Mission Data Files and F35 Partner Support Complexes."
- This dependency is further illustrated by alexnewman's question: "Javelin and patriot don't work that way? How exactly does someone beside the us manage the hydrazine supplychain without usa logistics?"
- even jeffrallen expresses buyer's remorse: "We stupidly chose the stupid F-35, an airplane that couldn't even fly even if the Americans ssh'd in to let it."
The Rise of Competitors and Alternatives
The discussion highlights the growing capabilities and attractiveness of alternative defense suppliers, particularly China and European defense consortiums, as well as Sweden's Gripen jet. These alternatives are seen as offering better terms, more technology transfer, and greater political neutrality.
- alephnerd points to Thailand's decision to pivot to China: "Their junta and King wants to keep Thailand as an authoritarian illiberal democracy. The Biden admin on the other hand strongly opposed democratic backsliding in Thailand... As a result, they - like Cambodia - decided to flip to China."
- The choice of the Gripen over US offerings is seen as a strategic move by countries seeking alternatives. impossiblefork notes, "The advantage of the Gripen isn't that it's cheap. The F-16 is cheaper. But Gripen has Meteor and can fly really well."
- mensetmanusman advocates for European self-sufficiency: "Good, the EU needs its own defense industry."
- zppln identifies a gap in European engine technology but expresses hope for future developments: "More specifically, we could use our own engine. Gripen E still rely on the GE F414. Europe has nothing to rival the P&W F135."
Political Instability and the Future of US Global Leadership
There's a pervasive concern about the political stability and future direction of the United States, particularly in the context of the Trump presidency and its aftermath. This instability is seen as directly impacting foreign policy and international partnerships.
- hunglee2 articulates this anxiety: "You basically cannot trust the US at this point - Trump is so mercurial, that any possible scenario, however ostensibly unrealistic, now has to be factored into the equation. Doesn't get better when Trump gets removed in 3 years, it has been proven now that US democracy can produce any kind of result and hence persistent unreliability most now be the default."
- Hikikomori connects this to deeper ideological shifts: "It's not so much the republican party anymore, it's project 2025 people and the federalist society, Christian fascists funded by people like Thiel and built on the plans of Curtis Yarvin."
- bamboozled expresses a profound disillusionment: "I can’t believe the USA could even have a king but here we are." This sentiment extends to questions about the long-term viability of the US dollar as a global reserve currency.
- The idea that the US is becoming "the same mercenary foreign policy" as historically observed from other powers is noted by alephnerd.
Historical Lessons and the Nature of Power
The discussion frequently references historical precedents, particularly the Cold War and the legacy of American interventionism, to inform the current debate. There's a sense that past actions and policies, both by the US and other powers, are serving as cautionary tales.
- Barrin92 draws a parallel to the Cold War: "Acting like the Soviet Union isn't going to serve the US well."
- The notion that "The more you look like a desperate empire in its late stages losing its grip, replacing mutual benefit with brutality the faster you're done," is presented as a lesson from history by Barrin92.
- Mongol's detailed account of the Snowden leaks influencing Brazil's decision to choose the Gripen over a US aircraft underscores how past US intelligence actions can have significant and lasting international repercussions.
Erosion of Trust and Long-Term Relationships
Underlying many of these themes is a significant erosion of trust in the United States as a reliable partner. This is attributed to a combination of political volatility, perceived self-interest trumping alliances, and a departure from consistent, values-driven foreign policy.
- glial quotes a Western European defense official: "‘If you keep punching your allies in the face, eventually they’re going to stop wanting to buy weapons from you... Right now we have limited options outside of U.S. platforms, but in the long run? That could change in the coming decades if this combativeness keeps up.’"
- petcat observes the leverage held by the US in trade deals as a consequence of this dynamic: "The EU has already agreed to one of the most lopsided trade deals in history as a result of all of this. At this point it's pretty clear where the leverage is. And it's not with the EU."