> Or just buying from the existing European providers? Most American gear has a (sometimes better, cf. all the stuff even the US buys from European companies) European based equivalent.
That might happen over the long term (I still have doubts given that whenever a joint EU project is formed between two countries with vendors, they inevitabely end up collapsing due to domestic political considerations such as the European MBT and FCAS - no leader wants to be the leader who shut down a factory with 1200 high paying unionized jobs for the greater good), but cannot happen in the 1 year timeframe given.
The reality is, if we the US make a deal with Russia over the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the next 12 months, the EU will have no choice but to accept it if you do not put boots on the ground and if you do not expropriate Russian government assets in the EU. But your leadership class has rejected [2] both [3].
> European manufacturers need to increase output, and they have been working on it and have done so quite a lot already.
Not enough for the 1 year time frame needed
> how the DSA is supposedly a negotiating tactic from the EU any more than you could say that about GDPR
We view the DSA as a non-tariff barrier to American services companies. This is both a Trump admin view [0] as well as a Biden-era admin view [1].
We held similarly negative views about the GDPR until Ireland, Czechia, Poland, and Luxembourg accommodated us by hiring our lobbyists as their commissioners.
And this is why every single pan-EU project fails - every major country like the US (previously listed) and China [4][5] cultivated economic and political ties with members that act as vetos in decisions that have a unanimity requirements.
This is why I gave the comparison to the Qing and Mughal Empire - the English, French, and other European nations broke both empires by leveraging one-sided economic deals with subnational units (eg. the Bengal Subah in the Mughal Empire and the unequal treaties in the Qing Empire), which slowly gnawed away at unity.
We in the US, China, Russia, India, and others are starting to do the same to you - not out of explicit strategy, but due to the return of multipolarity and most European state's failure to recover from the Eurozone crisis.
> whenever a joint EU project is formed between two countries with vendors, they inevitabely end up collapsing due to domestic political considerations such as the European MBT and FCAS - no leader wants to be the leader who shut down a factory with 1200 high paying unionized jobs for the greater good
Eurofighter Typhoon and before that the Panavia Tornado. That lineage's next up is the GCAP 6th gen plane.
Horizon/Orizonte and after that the FREMM (which is so good even the US are buying it). In general Italian/French naval cooperation is very strong.
The whole of MBDA and hell even Airbus were created for inter-country cooperation.
There are plenty of successful examples on which to build on, as well as failures from which to learn. But again, today very few military things cannot be sourced from a European supplier. BAE, Leonardo, Dassault, Thales, Rheinmetall, KNDS, Saab, Fincantieri, Naval Group, Indra, Airbus, MBDA etc. are world leaders in their respective fields.
> The reality is, if we the US make a deal with Russia over the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the next 12 months, the EU will have no choice but to accept it if you do not put boots on the ground and if you do not expropriate Russian government assets in the EU
No? US can sign whatever bootlicking deal it wants with Russia, but it's up to Ukraine what happens actually. The EU will continue backing Ukraine. Boots on the ground are highly unlikely, but exploration of Russian assets is quite probable (opposition isn't massive, and as time goes on, will only whither).
> We view the DSA as a non-tariff barrier to American services companies. This is both a Trump admin view [0] as well as a Biden-era admin view [1].
Cool, nobody cares. The US has put in sufficient actual tariffs that it cannot scream "unfair". EU leaders will try to negotiate whatever they can to lower short term economic damage, but the long term damage is done. The US is not a reliable trade or anything partner, and there's no going back on that.
Regarding your Mughal and Qing comparisons... Damn, where do I even start? EU isn't a country, so the comparison is off from the start.
How? Ukraine uses American intel for targeting, a significant amount of American munitions either bought directly from the US or indirectly by member states, and more critically, we in the US can force Ukraine to the table by preventing access to these systems.
> but exploration of Russian assets is quite probable (opposition isn't massive...
How? Belgium has vetoed expropriating Russian assets [0] because the ECB rejected providing a backstop. And Hungary has vetoed the utilization of Eurobonds [1]
If EU member states cannot expropriate Russian assets nor provide boots on the ground in Ukraine nor provide munitions and intel to replace American offerings in the next 1 year, what else is there that the EU can do?
On top of that, we've given the 2027 deadline for NATO, so now what should the EU prioritize?
> That lineage's next up is the GCAP 6th gen plane
Which isn't really an EU project - it's a Leonardo SA - Mitsubishi project as Leonardo is dual British-Italian. And that's my point. No EU joint defense project succeeds because inevitably individual states in the EU protect their champions
> The US is not a reliable trade or anything partner, and there's no going back on that.
Yep. And who else is there? The Chinese gave the exact same ultimatum as the US to European leadership, and so are the Indians as part of the FTA negotiation.
And we can always put the squeeze on Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, and LVMH and make both Germany and France squeal [2] and blunt any regulations coming out of the EU as a result - just like the China [3] and India [4].
> are world leaders in their respective fields
They absolutely are in R&D and IP, but their production will not scale out until 2029-35, at which point it would be too late.
They have been cut off already. But if you think that Ukraine was flying blind until now if not for US targeting, I don't know what to tell you.
> Which isn't really an EU project - it's a Leonardo SA - Mitsubishi project as Leonardo is dual British-Italian
No, Leonardo is Italian with significant presence in the UK. But in any case the British component is provided by BAE Systems (which also heavily participate in F-35). And yes, it's not an EU project, it's a project in which European countries and companies are taking part. Does that change anything?
> Which isn't really an EU project - it's a Leonardo SA - Mitsubishi project as Leonardo is dual British-Italian. And that's my point
> No EU joint defense project succeeds because inevitably individual states in the EU protect their champions
Do I need to list the big successes again? This is categorically not true.
> How? Belgium has vetoed expropriating Russian assets [0] because the ECB rejected providing a backstop. And Hungary has vetoed the utilization of Eurobonds [1]
Belgium can be convinced potentially, and with any luck Orban would be heading to prison next year, so Hungary wouldn't be vetoing Eurobonds.
> The Chinese gave the exact same ultimatum as the US to European leadership, and so are the Indians as part of the FTA negotiation.
What ultimatum? To drop DSA? Source?
> They absolutely are in R&D and IP, but their production will not scale out until 2029-35, at which point it would be too late.
Production of what? This is so industry and company specific that I struggle taking you seriously just throwing random years like that for everything. And in any case one the major weapon of the war is drones, for which manufacturing is mostly local in Ukraine. There are a million other things that go into a war machine, but pretending that the second US cuts supplies Ukraine has to surrender is disingenuous.
They cannot. The Belgian government has categorically rejected expropriation 3 days ago because the ECB rejected providing any funding, and Euroclear has announced it will fight the EU in Belgian court if any steps are taken to do so [2] with Belgian govenenent backing [4], so those funds would anyhow be frozen for years.
You aren't even reading any of my citations.
> Orban would be heading to prison next year, so Hungary wouldn't be vetoing Eurobonds
We still have Slovakia [3].
> What ultimatum? To drop DSA? Source
Over other regulations like CBAM [0]. The same way the US is playing hard ball over the DSA, China+India are playing hard ball over CBAM.
> Leonardo is Italian with significant presence in the UK
Yep, and as a result needs to continue to follow UK specific regulations and export controls [1], but being a single overarching conglomerate makes it significantly easier to manage the GCAP project, versus FCAS which became a Renault-Airbus spat which turned into a France-Germany spat.
> but pretending that the second US cuts supplies Ukraine has to surrender is disingenuous.
EU leadership has admitted this fact [5] and even best case projections [6] show it is a Herculean task in the next 1 year.
> Yep, and as a result needs to continue to follow UK specific regulations and export controls [1], but being a single overarching conglomerate makes it significantly easier to manage the GCAP project, versus FCAS which became a Renault-Airbus spat which turned into a France-Germany spat.
I have a hard time with you, you sound extremely confident in your opinions, provide sources and everything, and then make massive errors like saying no European common military projects work (after having been given a list of the big hits), confuse what Leonardo is and who is working on GCAP, and now you're confusing Renault (a car manufacturer that used to make planes a century ago, and that has recently said they'll look into making drones from underused factories) and Dassault Aviation.
To top it off, you cite sources that don't support your claims.
> Yep, and as a result needs to continue to follow UK specific regulations and export controls [1],
And cite a source that merely says "Requirement to rate each part number being exported from the UK in accordance with the UK Military Classification List;
" (emphasis mine).
> Over other regulations like CBAM [0]. The same way the US is playing hard ball over the DSA, China+India are playing hard ball over CBAM.
"Playing hardball" is not ultimatum. And your source doesn't even support your "hard ball" claim, it says India tried pushing back which was refused by the EU.
How what? How the EU will support Ukraine? The same way it currently has, and if things get dire, there will be more pressure to get alternative revenue streams (like convincing Belgium).
Or how there have been no ultimatums, and how EU legislations aren't negotiating tactics?
That might happen over the long term (I still have doubts given that whenever a joint EU project is formed between two countries with vendors, they inevitabely end up collapsing due to domestic political considerations such as the European MBT and FCAS - no leader wants to be the leader who shut down a factory with 1200 high paying unionized jobs for the greater good), but cannot happen in the 1 year timeframe given.
The reality is, if we the US make a deal with Russia over the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the next 12 months, the EU will have no choice but to accept it if you do not put boots on the ground and if you do not expropriate Russian government assets in the EU. But your leadership class has rejected [2] both [3].
> European manufacturers need to increase output, and they have been working on it and have done so quite a lot already.
Not enough for the 1 year time frame needed
> how the DSA is supposedly a negotiating tactic from the EU any more than you could say that about GDPR
We view the DSA as a non-tariff barrier to American services companies. This is both a Trump admin view [0] as well as a Biden-era admin view [1].
We held similarly negative views about the GDPR until Ireland, Czechia, Poland, and Luxembourg accommodated us by hiring our lobbyists as their commissioners.
And this is why every single pan-EU project fails - every major country like the US (previously listed) and China [4][5] cultivated economic and political ties with members that act as vetos in decisions that have a unanimity requirements.
This is why I gave the comparison to the Qing and Mughal Empire - the English, French, and other European nations broke both empires by leveraging one-sided economic deals with subnational units (eg. the Bengal Subah in the Mughal Empire and the unequal treaties in the Qing Empire), which slowly gnawed away at unity.
We in the US, China, Russia, India, and others are starting to do the same to you - not out of explicit strategy, but due to the return of multipolarity and most European state's failure to recover from the Eurozone crisis.
[0] - https://www.ft.com/content/3f67b6ca-7259-4612-8e51-12b497128...
[1] - https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/-wyden-and-cra...
[2] - https://tvn24.pl/polska/szczyt-w-paryzu-donald-tusk-przed-wy...
[3] - https://www.ft.com/content/616c79ee-34de-425a-865e-e94ba10be...
[4] - http://en.cppcc.gov.cn/2025-11/13/c_1140641.htm
[5] - https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202405/10/content_WS663d3b83...