I guess they will use Ericsson and Nokia equipment instead.

I think it’s Ericsson and Nokia (which bought Alcatel Lucent I think) that are the main competitors.

> the digitalization of everyday life took longer, whereas everyone and their dog in the US had a smartphone and social networks from day 0.

This very much depends on where in Europe you were living. In parts of the Nordics (at least Sweden and I think Finland as well) cell phones were very common already in the 90s, and a few years later smart phones as well. I don’t even remember when it wasn’t possible to handle taxes, banking and similar stuff with an app or online. We also had social networks but I guess most died when Facebook arrived here. The US are usually ahead of us in consumer products, but to say that all European countries are bad at all kinds of innovation is quite exaggerated.

True but the mass adoption and flooding social media was far more gradual compared to the US still - all the big social media came out of the US really, so did all the massively centralized services. Computers in general have a steep learning curve so they are at large useless for remote rural areas in the US(in Europe you are never too far from a large city with universities and all the modern day creature comforts). Smartphones on the other hand are basic commodity with no entry barrier. 200 bucks and you have access to infinite and unfiltered information, which is what ultimately seems to have caused the issue: Across Europe(like mentioned before) we were all(and sadly still are) collectively playing catch up. And again - Nordics are all too familiar with how russia operates, whereas the US is still far from figuring it out. Hence the reason Europe is far more immune to it, although many are still falling victim. Europe also knows how to protest, which is still at large something the US has no clue about. Imagine if the leader of any large European country shamelessly pulls a pump and dump the way Trump did (twice as a matter of fact) this week. People in Europe pull out their pitchforks for infinitely less.

> They don't spend their full NATO commitments.

Some do and some don’t. EU is not one country. But in general it’s a bit strange that we didn’t start increase spending already around 2014.

Two countries in Europe have nuclear weapons (several have nuclear power though). Sweden for example had a nuclear weapons program that was shut down in the late 60s (guess which country strongly wanted us to shut it down).

I think most European countries cut down too much on the defence after the Cold War, but it seems we are about to fix that. But it’s not like the US gave away fighter jets and other weapon systems for free. Several European countries spent lots of money buying US planes and other stuff.

> unsuccessful in influencing the EU to fund its own defense

We did cut down too much on our defence, especially after the Cold war (not all European countries though, like Finland). But, many European countries have bought plenty of expensive US military equipment like fighter aircraft, helicopters, anti aircraft systems, etc. It’s not like those were a gift.

Yes, I agree the US should service those contracts. But Europeans shouldn't feel obligated to buy from the US over any other vendor.

I believe there are several non-US awacs systems out there, although the American ones are probably the most common.

Or russia could maybe just leave? Quickest and smoothest way to get peace.

So you mean we should be happy with peace on russian terms and rewarding them for invading their neighbour? Russia is very much weakened and probably would like this though.

Wait, is Russia so weakened that it's unable to win this war or is it so strong that if it wins, Europe and eventually even the USA would be next? Pick one, you can't have both.

I personally am not afraid of russia successfully invading my country, especially considering how much men and equipment they lost in Ukraine. But if the war in Ukraine would end on Russian terms, they might get more stupid ideas later after rebuilding their military.

So you believe Trump when he said that the US has given more support than Europe? He was corrected several times but continues saying it, and I see several comments about it here as well. I agree about satellite reconnaissance and such systems though. Several countries wants to give fighter jets, and Sweden wanted to give Gripens but someone convinced them to pause those plans.

I was talking about technological, military, and intelligence capabilities, not about financing. Regarding support budgets, it does appear to me that Trump is misrepresenting things, see for example this tracker: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-af... I nevertheless agree that Europe needs to invest more both in their capabilities and in Ukraine support.

However, I don’t know how useful it is to compare it like that 1:1. The problem with Trump is that apparently he doesn’t believe that the US has strong (or even any) interests in containing Russia’s imperialist drive and geopolitical gains, and to the contrary is needlessly giving up a lot of bargaining power to Russia.

Russia has zero interest in stopping the war, except to their own conditions, which includes installing a Russia-friendly government in Kiev (what they call “denazification”). They have expressed that many times.