387
US warns they will send fighter jets into Canadian airspace if F-35 deal doesn’t go through | The Independent
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
387 points (93.9% liked)
News
34686 readers
2859 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The US does not command Korea’s military. They’re a large contributor to SK defense posture, sure, but Korea is a major economic powerhouse in its own right (see: chip foundries), builds their own AEGIS-parity ships - and generally have some of the most advanced and productive shipyards in the world - and the largest standing army in the world at 3.6M active personnel. They have a thriving international military arms trade in terrestrial units and munitions (see: Poland). They are also beginning to roll out an indigenously produced 5th gen fighter, amongst many other interesting technological and military products and advancements.
Getting absolutely stomped twice in rapid succession (by Imperial Japan - saved by the fall of Imperial Japan; by NK - saved by UN (though primarily US) intervention) tends to focus one’s priorities on defense.
Also, strategically speaking, their huge chip foundries are an incentives for allies to pitch in, for the same reason Taiwan’s chip industry is a huge incentive for allies to pitch in - the entire rest of the economic world basically revolves around what they can make. And nobody wants their economy to crash, so there’d be a lot of assistance for SK if NK (or anyone else) decided to try to wreck them again.
Japan is to some degree in the same boat - though I dare say if the US pulls back from allies in east Asia, I do think there’s a good chance they’d set aside some of the historical animosity out of sheer pragmatism and the potential for mutual defense (a fringe benefit of being involved in the US-centric arms pipeline for so long is implicit system compatibility - if not direct, then much easier to adapt and modify for compatibility).
As to Europe: we’ll see how that goes. The EU seems to be partially waking up and taking things more seriously, but they’re also for the most part world fucking champions at bureaucracy-ing themselves to death. At the same time, the Brits and French have nukes, which, if they actually fully commit to continental defense (and if nukes proliferate more), is a bit of a trump (no relation) card.
The US takes control at will during times of war, as determined by the US, and the exercises occur with the US in command. The difference between this and the US commanding SK forces all the time is not meaningful.