Comments by "N Velsen" (@nvelsen1975) on "Donald Trump and the risk of a NATO-Russia war" video.

Here in the Netherlands an entirely political generation was formed by the MH17 terrorist strike by Russia. Apart from those parties being in power, there's several hawks in the opposition too. On top of this there were several Russian hybrid warfare attacks here domestically that those in the know are aware of but aren't media fodder. But those in the know stay working for decades; Our PM Schoof is one of them in fact. Even if you assume everybody who's suspected of being pro-Russia would instantly go full putinist mode in case of a war by Russia, they still don't have even a large minority in parliament. There WILL be a Dutch response.
6
This issue was done to death during the initial discussion, and recently Israel hammered a nail in the coffin of your argument too: Gripen = overpriced trash, contracts tend to go 400% over budget. F16 is better than Gripen, and F35 replace the F16. Eurofighter is an overly expensive air superiority fighter, not a fighter-bomber. We need a fighter-bomber. The NATO war model against Russian-style armies involves using airpower to overwhelm their GBAD and ground forces, as Serbia discovered. The F35 can do that. Neither the Eurofighter nor the Gripen can. Israel recently used the F35 to overwhelm Iran's air defenses and took out all of their S400 and S300 systems: The best the Axis of Evil even has for sale. No planes were lost. Stealth worked.
1
@adrien5834 So why isn't Ukraine currently halfway to Moscow after blitzing through Russia's AA defenses then, if stealth isn't necessary? Exactly, with Russia and Iran both able to clear the sky up to 100 km away from the front, stealth is a hard requirement.
1
@adrien5834 Ah you mean they're in the same situation as the 20-50 Gripens would be if any single European country goes up against Russia. Well I guess stealth is needed then and you can stop shilling for inferior systems to eat up all of our defense budget.
1