Without the agreement of the US a lot of the weapon systems NATO members have cannot be used. That’s the downside of using common components and platforms throughout the alliance.
The weapons “cant be used” in the diplomatic sense, it not like the bombs phone up the pentegon to ask permission to be used. If we’re talking about the US ripping up all its commitments I think other countries might be less inclined to pay attention to those.
Without the agreement of the US a lot of the weapon systems NATO members have cannot be used. That’s the downside of using common components and platforms throughout the alliance.
The weapons “cant be used” in the diplomatic sense, it not like the bombs phone up the pentegon to ask permission to be used. If we’re talking about the US ripping up all its commitments I think other countries might be less inclined to pay attention to those.
… which would cause Trump to cancel trade most certainly. I’m a citizen of a European Nato member and I don’t believe we can take that risk.
Probably yes, but if its at the point of European NATO having to fight directly that’s likely a second order consideration.
That’s literally the opposite purpose of having common munitions.
Yeah. We’ve learnt a lot from how countries have acted when we’ve tried giving weapons and munitions to Ukraine the last few years.
The Swedish Gripen airplanes are still not in Ukraine. It’s not due to Sweden or Ukraine …