@hanse_mina Until autonomous loitering UAVs and dirigibles become commonplace I'd like to see manned twin-turboprops carrying compact radars, Link16-type comms and APKWS-type low-cost rockets patrolling hostile borders.

@eff @newyorktimes Opportunity missed? #Palantir and #PeterThiel are at the very heart of the #NetworkState project (also see #Project2025) intent on ending liberal democracy and indeed USA as a republic.

It also strikes me as insane to have Palantir involved in #EuropeanDefence projects. In fact most of the new military startups in the USA are intimately linked to the fascist-leaning #techbros...

@thejapantimes Designing and building a small number of expensive snowflakes (like #GCAP and #FCAS) was never a recipe for great success.

Now the MAGA regime means the USA can't be trusted while the #CCP China has 5th gen designs and the industrial base and intent to outmanufacture all democracies. And when "the time is right" they will sell their advanced military gear to their despot allies, including putin.

Perhaps democracies should consider rationalizing their plans and settle for a unified airframe design that can be mass-produced and equipped with mass-produced electronics and armament. The time isn't ideal for profiteering and IP masturbation.

I've previously suggested using the *existing* Korean #KF21 as a starting platform because we might not have *years* let alone decades to start building actual deterrence...

@hanse_mina Here's an idea: Starting May 1st 2025,

#1 Anyone engaged in the invasion of a friendly democracy will receive a *lifetime* ban from *all democracies*.

#2 Anyone involved in the war effort will receive 25 year ban from *all democracies*. (applies to manufacturing, propaganda etc.)

Why? I don't want to see a single ruzzian invader unless its through the sights...

This might even deter recruitment... even if just a little bit.

Also the Chinese CCP subjects might have something to think about. (Also apply it to CCP's military that is currently occupying China's and *Tibet's* neighbours.

Perhaps this ban should be applied to all regime enforcers of dictatorships if only to make those 'jobs' less appealing...

@hanse_mina Europe doesn't need or especially want uberpowerul military corporations. German gov't or the EU should place competitive orders for designs and then distribute manufacturing across partners in Europe.

They should keep the crucial software, IP and circuits manufactured under separate high security arrangements of course.

The original developers would still get licensing fees, but right now volume is the key. Supposing we're watching Ukraine getting relentlessly hit every day and learning from their suffering.

World's democracies condemned the crackdown in Hong Kong, but did nothing to impose costs on the CCP dictatorship. Instead business (read: Chinese exports) only grew and grew. Gotta empower them despots! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hong Kong's pro-democracy struggle presented an opportunity for democracies to stand up against dictatorship, but we failed miserably.

Giving the #CCP yet another free pass (after its repressive occupation of Tibet in 1950-1951 and the 1989 Tiananmen massacre) surely emboldened #putin to invade #Ukraine in 2022.

Repression of Tibetans, Uighurs, South-Mongolians, Hongkongers... or a billion+ voiceless Chinese brought no consequences, but at least the invasion of *European* Ukraine gave us Europeans a limited wakeup.

It's not enough. We could have aided developing democracies when the Soviet empire fell in 1989-1991 and *not aided* repressive regimes. Instead we doubled down on doing business without limits and empowered the likes of Chinese dictatorship.

There are things I love about Europe, and things I am deeply ashamed of. Talking about human rights while empowering despots belongs in the latter category.

Some foreign individuals did "Stand with Hong Kong" though. At least one here in Mastodon is, as always, still busy fighting authoritarian takeover. Now in her homeland of the USA.

“Your freedom and mine cannot be separated.“
— Nelson Mandela

@EUCommission A good way of boosting security is not empowering hostile regimes through trade and technology transfer in the first place.

Imagine if all developed democracies had decided to support developing *democracies* through aid and mutually beneficial trade since say 1990 onwards. We'd now have a large community of democracies instead of the revanchist imperial dictatorships like Russia and China which we built up in their place. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@AliceStollmeyer @anneapplebaum This might be the first time that I must politely disagree with @anneapplebaum. Pacifism in itself isn't the problem here, but the absolutist version of it advocating for total surrender.

I'm a (peacetime) pacifist who believes (believed?) not only in credible *deterrence* in military terms but also in holistic *avoidance*.

I have advocated against empowering dictatorships through business, normalization and appeasement (without credible actions towards democracy and human rights) since the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. First over the bonkers and near instantaneous rehabilitation of the CCP-ruled China out of sheer greed, and in the 2000's the revisionist putin regime which noted how the CCP got away with murder without consequences because *business and greed dictated policy in democracies*.

Our democracies had a pacifist way forward after the Cold War: Support developing democracies with trade and aid while targeting repressive regimes with punitive tariffs (yes the could be used for good!) and technology embargoes.

Instead of a strong global alliance of democracies we now have military-expansionist and revanchist China and Russia using all their wealth, power and guile to subvert those still-struggling democracies to the dark side. And not only that, they're trying to disrupt and fragment our once-powerful developed democracies as well! (Hello russian influence on the trump regime!)

The era of potential pacifist deterrence ended in February 2022 and we're *still funding* those hostile regimes.

(Anne's piece was posted on the fundamentally anti-democratic substack site so I steered clear )

@hanse_mina Spain again.

It's either authoritarian Right or Authoritarian-friendly Left that is eager to collaborate with the (fake-Left) Chinese dictatorship...

Is it the Southern climate thing, the catholic tradition or what...?

@Lazarou A few considerations: 1) The F-35 is currently a "force multiplier" with various electronic capabilities Europe can't replace or reproduce in the next few years even with the best effort, on top of current cutting-edge low-observable design. Having F-35s in the mix together with European air superiority fighters (Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale etc.) is really, really helpful.

The latest F-35 Block 4 / TR-3 (still awaiting clearance, essentially software certification) will enhance those electronic capabilities further.

2) Customers can buy localized "server/mainframe" capability essentially removing the need to depend on the USA for that service. If the USA cut off access to e.g. the constantly updated "threat libraries", Europe could do their best to manage their own sharing.

3) Europe simply can't depend on the USA acting in Europe's best interests for the foreseeable future. Building more Typhoons and Rafales and perhaps increasing investment in their further development is a rational option and IMO should be done in any case (esp. the latter; see #5b below).

4) Invest in European manufacturing (i.e. orders) of locally designed missiles (consumables) such as the Meteor and Mica.

New options:

5a) Invest in European twin-seaters and speed up the development of the "unmanned wingman" type aircraft to take responsibility of the frontline stealth/low-observability (LO) missions (South Koreans are also developing these).

5b) Join forces with South Korean (ROK) KAI and licence/collaborate/fast-track the fully 'LO' next versions of the already flight-cerfified KF-21, except replacing its GE F414 engines with roughly similar European engines used in the Typhoon and Rafale (both of which are slightly slimmer and longer, requiring tweaks to the airframe). ROK ought to be interested in a dependable alternative source for engines too.

Europe could be churning out Korean-European 5th gen fighters with no dependency on the USA within two years. Some argue that stealth/LO designs will become moot with advancements in radar and AI tech, but they will always have advantage over non-stealth designs.