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.

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.

  • @LinkerbaanEnglish
    -3•1 year ago

    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.

    • Hyperreality
      2•1 year ago

      War has never been beneficial to an economy unless they’re selling the weapons instead of waging war with them.

      Which is why you need a strong military as a deterrent. It demonstrably reduces the risk of war.

      The west has been massively oppressing other countries for about a century now with their “defense”.

      Imperialism is wrong, whether it’s the west, the Russians, or the Chinese doing it.

      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

      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.

      Afghanistan and Iraq, Palestine, Syria, and many others don’t exist according to you.

      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?

      Sudan has been ruined by France and NATO for the last few decades.

      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.

      This extra spending has nothing to do with previous purchases.

      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.

        • Hyperreality
          2•1 year ago

          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.