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.
The reason Rutte is pushing this through ASAP is because Wilders ‘won’ the last election, and might become the next PM. He’s widely seen as pro-Putin.
Scuse my ignorance, but why put ‘won’ in quotes? Did he not actually win?
What SMillerNL said. Also: he didn’t gain an absolute majority, and as the Netherlands doesn’t use a first past the post system like the US or UK, he’ll need to form a coalition government to be able to rule the country.
Rutte wants to become the next head of NATO which is why he randomly ditched his spot as Dutch PM and let the entire cabinet fall.
He’s just trying to give the military industrial complex an insane amount of taxpayer money and make Europe more like America without Healthcare.
Rutte is a twat.
The F35 was ordered a decade ago. The decision to replace the ageing F16 was basically already made twenty years ago, IRC one of the Balkenende governments:
Archived Dutch article.
The Netherlands is part of the nuclear sharing agreement with the US. The F16 is nuclear capable but over 30 years old. The F35 is also nuclear capable and replaced it. The Dutch government would have had to withdraw from nuclear sharing and seriously damaged its relationship with the US.
The US spends almost twice as much on healthcare as the Netherlands. Saying that the Netherlands or the US must choose between healthcare and defense, is a false dichotomy. One often pushed by Russian and Chinese propagandists.
Last time I checked, the Netherlands spends less than 1.5% of GDP on defense. That’s still less than the 2% agreed upon by Balkenende in 2014.
You invest in defense, or you get pushed around by countries like China or Russia. That means more expensive fuel, imports, less ability to export, etc. It means less jobs and everyone’s poorer. If they think you’re weak, they’re also more likely to make stupid mistakes, like blow up another civilian airliner or use a toxic nerve agent that could have killed thousands near a UK military base in a show of force. If you’re strong, they’re more careful, and we can all live in peace for a while longer.
If Trump gets re-elected, which isn’t unlikely, he will continue to undermine NATO. If Ukraine falls, Putin will become emboldened. Russia has lost a lot of troops in Ukraine, but they have increased conscription. According to the experts, they’ve moved their economy to a war footing. If they win in Ukraine, they will be stronger, more experienced, and more dangerous than they’ve been in decades. When that happens, that 1.5% will likely have to be double or even tripled to ensure things stay stable and mistakes aren’t made.
Honestly, this reminds me a lot of climate change. People burying their heads in the sand, rather than admit the reality. Even after countless warnings and half a million casulties in a European war, people are still trying to pretend nothing’s changed.
Rutte heavily destroyed the country’s Healthcare system and introduced student loans. The Dutch healthcare system is starting to look more like the American one every year.
He randomly let the entire cabinet fall on a non-issue that his party now doesn’t even care about anymore to get a new coalition going.
The requirement for peace isn’t more war planes to bomb the middle east with though Westerners can not seem to imagine having peace with anyone by not violently oppressing them.
Correct, but irrelevant to military spending.
Military spending is still low and it is possible for a country to spend a bit more on defense and have a good healthcare system.
Giving Ukraine some 30 year old F16s, which were going to be scrapped anyway, costs almost nothing compared to what is spent on healthcare. Suggesting you have to choose is a logical fallacy.
If anything, giving Ukraine some more military aid, reduces the risk of Russian invasion or increased provocations, which in turn reduces the need to increase military spending in the long term. Giving Ukraine some more military aid now, ultimately means we will almost certainly have MORE money to spend on healthcare.
Correct. But this has little to do with buying new planes, a decision which was made decades ago (if it wasn’t the brits would still be using spitfires), or sending Ukraine a few 30 year old planes.
Incorrect. The best way to ensure peace, is to ensure your military is strong enough to deter foreign countries from invading.
Eg. North Korea vs. Ukraine.
One has nukes. One had nukes. Guess which one was invaded?
Appeasement doesn’t work. Claiming you’re neutral doesn’t work either.
Didn’t work the Belgians during WWI.
Didn’t work for the Netherlands during WWII.
Didn’t work for Latvia. Didn’t work for Lithuania.
Didn’t work for Hungary in 1956.
Didn’t work for Ukraine in 2014.
The Chinese and Russians certainly can’t, judging by what they’ve been up to in Ukraine, South East Asia, Xinjiang and Sudan.
The problem seems to be that a lot of people assume European supremacy and can’t conceive of us being the victims who need to defend ourselves from Imperial powers. That’s why like you they can’t grasp needing planes for anything other than foreign wars. Because you’ve never experienced war, you don’t seem to grasp what the primary purpose of a country’s military is defence not foreign interventions or humanitarian missions.
The reality is that we are incredibly weak because we’ve spent far too little on defense for decades, and because Europe has been stagnating in relative terms, and has been for years. And yes, that is costing us money and jobs.
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.
Which is why you need a strong military as a deterrent. It demonstrably reduces the risk of war.
Imperialism is wrong, whether it’s the west, the Russians, or the Chinese doing it.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The French are supplying weapons to Sudan.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2023/09/01/sudan-some-states-are-actively-fuelling-the-conflict-by-providing-arms-and-ammunition_6118526_23.html
The 2% number was never being reached because it’s not needed. We have Nuclear weapons that is plenty deterrent.
Unless you want to keep the entire world under the terror grip of the west of course then you need the 2%.
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.
deleted by creator