Comments by "TheGreatDane" (@thegreatdane3627) on "Jake Broe" channel.

  1. almost $500.000, that is amazing. Respect to everyone who donated. Happy birthday Jake 🥳
    10
  2. it makes sense for Denmark to join the coalition, we have around 40 F-16s in good condition that are meant to be replaced by F-35s when the US can actually get around to build the ones we ordered back in 2016...
    8
  3.  @Xenomorphine  that is not really true. The commission doesn't have much power, it's not like Ursula could call Macron and tell him what to do.
    8
  4. hi Jake, the EU pledge to supply 1M shells was made in 2023, and the 300.000 figure is from april to today. While the 1M goal might not be reached, it will most likely be pretty close. Artillery shells were supplied by individual member states before this pledge. But the important part is that production is being expanded, and the EU will be able to produce more than 1M in 2024. Rheinmetall alone expects to produce around 600.000-700.000 shells in 2024.
    5
  5.  @0cypher0  that was a good one 😄
    4
  6. that would probably only make things worse. It's not gonna help Ukraine if the EU and US start fighting.
    2
  7. I don't get this claim about the US providing more weapons than everyone else combined. When you look at the actual number of weapons delivered, instead of the claimed value, it seems to me that the majority has been delivered by Europe?
    2
  8. i find all the talk about spending 2% or 5% to be extremely annoying. It is just a distraction from the real issue, which is how the money is spent. Countries like russia, Germany, France and the UK all spent a similar amount on defense before the war, but with very different results. The US spends more than russia, China and most of Europe combined, and they are still getting outproduced by russia and China in a number of key areas. It would make more sense to me if NATO started talking about how much each member country should be able to field on a short notice.
    1
  9. go Sweden
    1
  10. the russians have already tried that. Why would they be more successful this time?
    1
  11. i still don't get why MAGA wants Greenland so bad. Yes, there might be oil somewhere, but no one has been able to find it yet. Yes, there are minerals and metals there, but mining in arctic conditions is more expensive. And you can find the same resources in other parts of the world that are not covered in ice. The security situation doesn't really change, the US is already allowed to have military bases on Greenland. The only difference is that Denmark would no longer pay anything. And no, Greenland will not be ice free any time soon. The most pessimistic estimate i have seen, is around 1000 years for all the ice to melt.
    1