I don't see this news as anything but a good thing. For every technology out there, the EU needs a native alternative. It's clear the current US administration wants to make the EU worse based on a politics of grievance.
What we also need is a faster acceleration of military spending so this can happen with more companies.
They are not. It can hurt Airbus very much if a provider says they can provide a certain level of hardware/software for 10 years and in three years the RAM or storage goes through the roof and the provider is not big enough to absorb all the losses.
People don’t choose the hyperscalers because they are based in the US, they choose them because they are too big to fail and have pretty much unlimited resources and have multiplr streams of revenue.
Yeah, and that's a fine vehicle for insuring against this risk for a finance company or for an individual.
I am prepared to be wrong on the following take (as it is based on nothing more than just "it came to me in a dream"), but my hunch is that neither Airbus nor the EU state governments are currently even attempting to hedge the RAM price risk by accumulating a RAM futures stash on the market.
It is also likely to get the majority of the European civil, commercial, and military orders now.
There is no reason why Europe can't build a hyperscalar cloud service. The skills and the software and hardware are all transferrable technology.
European defence budgets are being ramped up, spending some billions on data centres and comms is a no-brainer as part of that.
European governments contracting to a European cloud provider would be more than enough to fund the provisioning.
This is a disingenuous straw man. The allies are derided for literally freeloading on US military protection while underinvesting in their own defense.
The US isn't anywhere close to paying its way.
My country spends less on defence as a percentage of GDP than the US. But it spends much of that with US companies. This is not Freeloading. It was a deal. Cancel TSR-2, and buy American and we will lend you some money. Cancel your nuclear program and buy US submarine launched missiles and we will help you look after yourself. Now let Visa and Mastercard skim off all your transactions and we will keep you secure to keep the money flowing. Sweetheart tax deals for US companies to operate, and we will keep you safe to keep the money flowing. It is not Freeloading, it is colonialism
The strongest state, economically and military, can get away with a lot others wouldn't, since everyone else will want to be on their good side. The new US administration has clearly shifted in terms of what they say, but not yet much in terms of what they do. Maybe Ukraine will be the exception here.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5656174-trump-si...
> The bill approves a record $901 billion in military spending for fiscal 2026
Oh…
For too long European NATO countries have kept token militaries lacking any substantial combat power. They have centered their national defense strategies around holding off Russia for just long enough for Uncle Sam to swoop in, fight the Russians, and save the day. But the US does not have the combat power to fight both Russia and China. So our total combat power must increase. Should the US bear this increased burden alone? Or should the rest of NATO finally get serious about funding and fielding effective militaries?
European states have been freeloading, and US defense budgets are not going to decrease just because Europe finally starts to take some responsibility for its own defense.
1. No one forced the US to spend a bajillion dollars on defense.
2. The US did so out of their own free will, and out of self-interest: their power hegemony allowed for peaceful trade routes that benefited the US economy and US corporations.
3. Their own defense against what? What threats, until fairly recently, did the Europeans face that they needed to spend money protecting against?
Same ones the US built the most expensive army in the world to defend against
A Europe with an independent defense is dangerous competition for the US. Maybe it means that some international trade will be done in Euro. Maybe it means foreign policies in Europe's interests.
Long term, I agree with you.
They will not be very useful in a conflict against the US, since the US can basically disable them remotely.
The US means to undermine the EU: https://www.dw.com/en/will-trump-pull-italy-austria-poland-h...
The US means to annex European territory: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0j9l08902eo
It's the same reason you don't want Chinese equipment in your telecommunications infrastructure. You can't trust what the Chinese government will do to it or with it.
Doesn't Europe actually have a lot of Chinese equipment in their telecom infrastructure? Is this an effort just to try not to make that mistake again?
Europe doesn’t want to buy Russian gas, but there is also the very real political reality of what happens if your citizens freeze to death. I will be very surprised if any EU state is reliant on Russian gas by 2035.
Taking one look at just the cost required for the network, even outside of the cost of any generation at all, you realize this is an insane and slapping a few solar panels down is far from a solution.
And also lets not ignore that places that have done a lot of the 'lets just build renewable and hope for the best' have very high energy prices. And maybe possible maybe sodium batteries might show up will not solve these issues.
I calculated the costs of covering the needs of Germany for a 2 days low production event (as it happened between 6-9 december) and you would need about a trillion dollar. That's for something that cannot even garantee you more than 48h of runtime for half the country's needs.
You would need at least 4 times that to be safe. Even if batteries price are divided by 2 (very unlikely, there are large fixed costs) you would need trillions of dollar for a single country. That's just not happening any time soon and even in 30 years time, I doubt it will be that prevalent of a solution.
We are talking in the order of 500 billion Euro and this is very conservative assumption on nuclear construction cost. Much worse cost then what France actually achieved in their build-out. Also much of that is actually the grid, grids are really expensive it turns out. But building nuclear in central location next to places where there used to be coal plants, makes grid cost much cheaper because most of the grid is already there perfectly positioned to feed the population clusters. And that accounts for actually increasing overall production of energy, not decreasing as Germany is actually doing.
On the other-hand for the renewable path that Germany is going since 2000, just the grid alone is going to cost more then 500 billion euro, some estimation suggest that 2000-2045 total gird investment requirement is above significantly above that. Sadly today where everything is in this different private organization, this information is all over the place and 'semi'-private organization doing different parts of the infrastructure.
In total, between all the renewables, the grid and the storage, we are talking 1.5 trillion euro and that still includes gas peakers. If you want to go beyond and really go all in, it would be even more then that, as you suggest.
Turns out, if you plan includes trying to gather solar energy in Greece and Spain (or even Egypt), transporting it to Germany and then storing it into batteries there, well yeah, that's going to be expensive. And the solar panels you import from China aren't the expensive part.
France did the exact right think in the 70/80s build reliable long term energy generation, sadly since the 90s the newer generation of French politicians done literally anything they can to handle the situation as a badly and as incompetently as possible but that's a different story.
One thing that is really important to understand is that power is not something that is uniformely needed everywhere at the same level. Traditionally, power plants were created close to where industries needed them. Renewables require specific conditions to be viable and those factors are not necesseraly what allows industries to thrive, so you need a lot of additional infrastructure to make it possible.
Turns out this infrastructure is extremely coslty and very hard to make reliable. So, even if you have infinite money, that's a massive challenge in itself. But now Europe does not have that much money, the massive debt burdens being a large evidence of this. Yet we are asked to pay more for this future, in the name of climate change, even though most of the factors contributing to this is already happening overseas, largely out of the control of European regulations. So what is the point exactly ?
In the long run, it just ends up making everyone more dependent on external powers while weakening the position of the countries that believe in that "solution".
Nuclear constructions costs are largely overblown, because of the massive bureaucracy/over-regulation, thanks to Germany in no small part. If China can manage to build twice as fast at half the cost, we are doing something wrong for sure.
But the conversation is dominated by ideologues, that have an sadist like fetish. As if weakening your position will ever make your competition/enemies take pity on you and allows you to dictate the terms of the converstion, because people are supposed to be nice, right ?
Even with perfect implementation, there is no way to make renewables work to allow industries to thrive, and now we are going to pay the price of those poor political choices.
With all the money in the world, it was already a discutable choice, but now it is just replacing depence on fossil fuel with depence on overseas manufacturing (most of it in China). Funny thing is that China is not that stupid, and we are selling them the knowledge/skillset to become dominant on the cheap. I just can't fathom what was going on in the mind of the decision makers 20 years ago, but now it seems they are just insane. There is no way it will work in 15 years, yet we needed that power generation yesterday.
In the process of trying to make climate change better, we have done the reverse. Now people are burning more wood, and I feel like we might go back to coal if electricity doesn't become cheaper (for residential heat). Gas is hopeless, even if the depency on Russia wasn't that strong. Electric cars are very nice but if it turns out to be more expensive to run them than just using foreign oil it's not going to happen.
I'm just rambling at this point but it feels like there was a large anti-nuclear sentiment by people who are dominated by irrational fears and they have dominated our politics for the worse. It's really not usefull to fear a nuclear meltdown if you end up making your people poorer overtime. Why would you fear something with such a low probability of problems if you end up having to become dependent on foreing power that has no such quaslm.
France had the right path but then leftist ideologues took power and Germany's sabotaging did the rest. In theory we are not at war but in practice, there is very much an economical/ideological battleground going on and we are losing it.
Steps are being made but it takes time
Being risk-averse unfortunately now means "avoid the USA".
Pardon my French, but where do you get that nonsense from?
Not sure it’s really sunk in for my fellow Americans what’s going on, we’re not exactly used to consequences and it’s still considered, a best, impolite to treat a holistic evaluation of policies as something beyond debate.
I remember years ago talking to some EU telecom VP who was on the engineering side that said "id buy from North Korea if the price was right".
We live in new times anyways - most of the carriers have outsourced a lot of the tech stuff to the vendors anyways.
Then he has no principle and cannot be trusted.
Incidentally, the voice call quality in the UK is also really crappy. Operators compress/downsample the audio stream to the very edge of recognisability, because investing in sufficient infrastructure to support higher bandwidths is expensive.
It was actually the US that was pressuring Europe to get rid of Chinese telecom equipment, as part of the first Trump administration's broader strategy against China.
The US is not anti-Europe. The US has just begun to start evaluating its relationship with Europe rationally and wants it to grow up beyond the post-WW2 training wheels.
The overreaction to this kind of gives vibes of slamming the door and screaming “you don’t love me!” because dad won’t buy a new toy.
The official 2025 NSS document does not explicitly state a US goal to dismantle the European Union.
The strategy is highly critical of the EU's direction and Europe's trajectory in ways that critics could say could indirectly undermine EU cohesion, but there's no formal language saying the US wants to dismantle the EU.
Critics interpret the tone and strategic shift as potentially indirectly weakening EU cohesion if taken as encouragement to nationalist or Eurosceptic political forces.
I hear there's a third version.
There is no conspiracy, sorry.
Your framing is off, I'm afraid.
Across Europe, most people see the EU as more good than bad, especially compared to the alternative of countries acting alone. At the same time, support is often cautious rather than enthusiastic.
I had hoped that the UK would vote to remain and Europe would move away from a centralist, authoritarian model, but it's got worse especially since 2020. The EU is its own worst enemy.
EU is authoritarian? Why do you think that?
It was pushed by Sweden but also by many other countries including France (which loves to give lessons of democracy to the world by the way and is very much at the forefront of human rights or so they say) and Hungary amongst others.
> has consistently lost in the Parliament.
It has consistently lost so far. Secondly the reason it has lost is because people like me took the time to actually reach out to any MEP who would take my call to tell them to oppose this law. If we had waited for the EU to react and put a stop to this madness, we would still be waiting.
This law should never have been proposed in the first place anyway. The fact that it was proposed and debated is a shameful action in itself.
> I know things would have been much worse without the EU.
How can you know for sure? You can't. Since it originated from the EU commission, it stands to reason that without the EU commission it would not have happened.
You believe that the EU is good because that is your belief. The European countries existed for 100s of years before the EU. There is no reason to think that they can't go back to this state in the future.
The EU has its fair share of corruption, but it is is better at hiding it than developing countries. Its current president Ursula Von Der Leyen is a fraud who appears to have cheated at university, and only got to where she did due to wealth and aristocratic family connections.
It would seem to me that the recent spate of sanctioning individuals - e.g. for 'disseminating misinformation' without a legal definition of what that actually is would be an example of authoritarianism. A direct attack on freedom of speech and thought.
But I haven't lived in central Europe, like Germany, Belgium, etc. Where the attitudes seem to be quite pro-EU.
The original statement still stands. Europe is not the EU. The EU is not Europe.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/657860/member-states-show-stron...
Opinion polls on actually leaving the EU show a minority in favour. Most Europeans saw Brexit play out and realise sticking the finger up at your neighbours is not a winning strategy.
Maybe you should get out of your right-wing bubble.
- EU approval among its citizens hits record high as security fears grow, poll shows (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-approval-among-its-c...)
- Nearly three quarters of EU citizens (74%) say that, taking everything into account, their country has benefited from being a member of the EU. (https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3378)
There are things I like about the EU, but it also has some things horribly wrong.
Compared to the USA it still is.
Americans take homeschooling for granted, for better or worse, but it is banned in some European countries like Germany.
Also the USA allows groups such as the Amish their liberty, which would be extremely unlikely in much of the EU where state interference would either force them out or destroy them.
The US has umpteen issues but is much better for freedom of expression frankly, although it is being steered away from that.
EU is not demanding 5 yeara of social media public from kids entering in.
EU is not killing fisherman to feel manly.
EU is overall more democratic and more free. The parts that sux Hungary and Slovakia dont sux because of EU, but despite it.
It is ok for Germany to not have homeschooling.
The EU and USA are going down the same road. Social media is a part of this censorship of open discussion and is usually American based, but works hand in hand with the European governments. Both European and American governments seem happy to deceive citizens into a surveillance state.
It is unacceptable to ban homeschooling. Some children need to be homeschooled, because of disabilities, or even high intelligence. Given the fact that Germany has suffered from both far right and far left dictatorships within living memory, anything that does not promote blind obedience to the state should be encouraged.
Many parts of Europe retain a feudal mentality, which includes constant deference to authority.
> There are a lot of things you can't say or will get shut down for.
> It is unacceptable to ban homeschooling. Some children need to be homeschooled, because of disabilities, or even high intelligence.
As for neglect and abuse of children, the public schools is where you will most readily find it. Including bullying until children commit suicide. And school shootings. Which is a lesser risk at home. No matter which continent.
Schools are a haven for bullying, both by students and teachers. I did have some good teachers but some of them were also the most cruel and abusive people I've ever met.
Well, we can't say them.
(but it involves nazies, denying genocides, hate speech, and this kind of stuff. It also depends on the country)
Jacques Baud, recently sanctioned by the EU for promoting conspiracy theories. https://data.europa.eu/apps/eusanctionstracker/subjects/1802...
I find it amusing that homeschooling is so vilified and stereotyped. All the homeschooled children I know are BETTER educated not worse. Contrary to the stereotype. Schools have massive bullying issues and are often bad environments for neurodiverse people. Schools are very Lord of the Flies.
Home schooling is of course only as good as the people teaching but the same is true of schools. Most state curricula prioritise the state and adoration of the state... funnily enough
There's philosophical terms for this: America emphasizes negative liberty ("freedom from interference by other people. Negative liberty is primarily concerned with freedom from external restraint") , while Europe emphasizes positive liberty ("the possession of the power and resources to act in the context of the structural limitations of the broader society which impacts a person's ability to act")
> Maybe you should get out of your right-wing bubble.
Your comment is nasty, but I don't think you're this nasty in real life. Probably you're just blowing off some steam online.
At least I know that's a bubble, because I know anti-eu people exist in my country too. Get out of yours.
> Get out of yours.
I suggested in my original post that Germans seem to be pro-EU. And probably neighbouring countries too. Here in this thread also appeared a fanatically pro-EU Spaniard. In Nordic countries, I've never met a person who would admit they were pro-EU. Of course they must exist, since presumably half the people voted yes to join, a few decades ago.
In the end it seems to be no more complicated than people who benefit financially from EU redistribution of money are pro-EU and the people who have to pay the bill for it are against the EU.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/657860/member-states-show-stron...
fwiw: I definitely am paying the bill. But I'm also strongly pro-EU. Taxes are a membership fee for a functioning society.
You can prove anything with statistics. The last opinion poll I saw for my country of birth was both the EU and the national government at a less than 50% approval rate.
Honestly goods and service regulations are probably the biggest infringement of sovereignty as it signs all of your companies up to arbitrary standards. That may be a good idea, but to pretend that it's somehow less important than other pooling of sovereignty seems strange to me.
Next perhaps you're going to accuse me of "Staatsfeindlichkeit", which the German leadership was screaming in their denouncements, before the people tore down their walls.
"Verunglimpfung des Staates" - "Insulting the State", this awful, awful crime, is something I'm going to continue doing however I fancy. Millions of people were killed for that right, so it's not something I'm ever giving up.
Insisting that we European citizens hate the EU when it is not true, and then doubling down with accusations of censorship when the whole thread points out your mistake, is downright stupid. But hey, if that makes you happy as some kind of freedom fighter, go for it.
It's a short read (30 pages, large font) so it's well worth looking at.
> A majority of Europeans also think the EU has major issues
I don't disagree with you in principle here, but do you have a source for this?
Greenland is not in europe. It may be a danish colony but that doesn't make it "european territory" any more than french guiana is. EU territory? Sure. But europe is a penninsula on the western flank of eurasia.
Edit: huh I had no idea how complicated the classification of eu territories is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_territories_of_members...
You are right that Greenland is not in Europe (it sits on the Nort American tectonic plate).
It is also not an EU territory, however, it is linked to Europea through Denmark. European influence exists through governance, education, and trade.
Most Greenlanders identify primarily as Kalaallit (Inuit) and Greenlandic, not European.
What kind of argument are you even trying to make?
Sure, no argument here.
> What kind of argument are you even trying to make?
Mostly that characterizing Greenland as European is just as insane as characterizing French Guiana that way. Or the falknlands, New Caledonia, Polynesia, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Aruba, Curaçao, Anguilla, Bermuda, the Virgin Islands, etc etc. These are colonies—not part of europe, and should have been made whole decades ago with the resolution of WWII, and their continued presence as "rightfully" part of European nations destabilizes our globe.
Europe is welcome to extend its economic privileges to all nations of earth, and I for one will continue to argue for kicking us out of Hawaii and Guam while ensuring we don't further engage in predatory trade agreements.
Of course, I don't expect any of this predation to cease anytime soon.
But also, actually, if China did annex puerto rico? Snap snap snap. Good for them. They really made it out the hood. May god look upon the rest of us so positively
I looked online but didn’t find any hard numbers, only vague movements. Scottish independence for example seems to have substantial , if minority , support. If the same cannot be said for Hawaii, then this comment feels… like a cop out.
Perhaps it is better to argue they should exercise indigenous control than wait until the concept is a farce
As is the case when it comes to indigenous populations being displaced and slowly replaced over time: they don't get to have a choice. Hawaii was mostly Japanese in the early 1900s having already displaced previous arrivals, and today less than 15% of the population considers themselves native hawaiians. The remaining 85% are there _because_ Hawaii is not independent, why would they ever hold a vote for it ?
See similar cases in New Caledonia, the Falklands, and more.
It never existed to begin with with China, so no change is necessary.
That's not "melodramatic".
The US now wants to push Europe out of the nest, but most Europeans have only ever known life "living in their parents house".
Building an independent Europe is not compatible with the current European ethos of work/life/life/life balance, and will likely result in Europe either coming back to the US, falling into economic chaos, or moving into daddy Xi's house. They are a socialist country after all...
these evil europeans wanting to have a break from work! how dare them!
/s
> There never was a relationship of mutual trust
Technically, you're not disagreeing with GP. :)
Or :( I guess.
On the European side, socialism is a question of who owns businesses. If the majority of businesses are owned by the people who are working at those businesses, you have a socialist economy. Welfare states, regulatory regimes, and high tax rates do not change the ownership of businesses, they are about who provides the infrastructure around those businesses. If you have an economy where infrastructure is owned by a liberal nation-state, and businesses are owned by whoever gambled capital on the venture, then you get a capitalist economy. If your infrastructure is privately owned by individuals, then those owners become feudal lords and you get feudalism.
On the Chinese side, you might point out that there are laws that require CCP ownership of all businesses, eat the party line that says the CCP is the representative of the working class, and say, "hey that's a socialism". But this ownership and representation is purely nominal. The average Chinese worker has more or less zero political agency; speaking out gets you censored and harassed. How is that worker ownership? If, say, America started punishing individual shareholders who voted against Trump-aligned board members, we'd correctly recognize that the shareholders do not meaningfully own their businesses anymore.
"Moving into Daddy Xi's house" would be stupid. The EU and China are not aligned on basically any core value; it'd basically be a surrender of one to the other. Actually, to be clear, the EU isn't even aligned on basically any core value with itself[0]. In fact, I would argue that's a way bigger headwind than European workers being used to a top-heavy welfare state. The EU has the resources to build a sovereign cloud, or run its own military, or source its own energy. But for each one there are challenges posed by the uniquely decentralized structure of Europe:
- Europe could build a sovereign cloud, but probably not one for each member state. So they're going to have to agree what country holds the data, and agree that that country can and will spy on all the others.
- Europe could fund its own military, tell NATO to pound sand, and re-colonize America for the trouble. But who runs that military? Given the history of EU politics, it would be France and Germany, and every other country in the EU has a history of being colonized by France or Germany. They are not trustworthy.
- Europe could fix its energy dependence, but Germany thinks nuclear power is Satan and wants to backstop renewables with the dirtiest-burning coal you can mine.
You'll notice a recurring theme here. The problem with Europe is not its fiscal deficit, the perceived laziness of its workers, or what have you. It's the lack of trust. The most trustworthy member state of the European Union was the United States of America, and so that's why everyone put their data on American servers, and let America dominate NATO, and so on. This is not Europe getting kicked out of the nest, it's the kids realizing their parent is a gaslighting asshole and that all their siblings, including themselves, are cut from the same cloth.
[0] Trump's current tariff actions and threats of territory annexation have galvanized the European public against America's government. However, prior to Trump coming back, Europe was full of far-right nutjobs that were just as cringe. Actually, a lot of them are still in power in Europe, and they're way more competent and cunning than Cheeto Mussolini.
The tariffs are on European exports. The problem is Europe has a weak domestic consumer market and is dependent on selling stuff to the US, not buying from them.
What do you mean by "unilateral tariffs"?
> The reason the US is not able to extract the same rents from China is that they have digital sovereignty and the US cannot just pull the cloud plug from them.
The US has higher tariffs against Chinese imports than European imports.
[1] https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...
Unfortunately despite their best efforts this isn't something Eurocrats can simply will into existence. The most important prerequisite is a common language, and there is zero political will to do the only sensible thing and establish English as the official common language of the EU.
Using this logic, every country should develop its own critical equipment from scratch, in terms of both hardware and software.
My belief is that there is no problem with the Chinese equipment, just scare-mongering from the US because it has no manufacturer of 5G equipment. And Europe jumped on the bandwagon just because.
> Using this logic, every country should develop its own critical equipment from scratch, in terms of both hardware and software.
The logic is don't use infrastructure of people you don't trust. If Europeans don't trust Chinese, then don't use Chinese infra; if the Europeans don't trust the US (anymore), then don't use US infra. The Europeans could trust the Canadians, and use Canadian infra for example.
I'm seeing the EU being singled out as unreasonable for avoiding the risk represented by buying their whole infrastructure from companies with deep and blatant ties to CCP's armed forces.
Somehow these critics are omitting the fact that most of the world, specially asian countries, have also banned them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerns_over_Chinese_involvem...
The issue is the US burning up that earned mutual trust. And at some point you have to sadly abandon ship. Cooperation is great, trade is great, but not under all circumstances and all the time.
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-spy-agency-tapped-g...
Trusting the US should be considered a problem since decades.
The issue has less to do with intelligence silliness, and more to do with the fact that the overall geopolitical objectives of the US can not be trusted, and that rift has grown to a point where self-reliance on critical infrastructure may be in Europe’s best interest.
The cracked encryption was not given to "friends" but country's like Libya
US started to eavesdrop on Turkey and Greece first. Germany pulled out of the project by citing this is going too far for them. Some citations from news:
The Germans were taken aback by the Americans’ willingness to spy on all but their closest allies, with targets including NATO members Spain, Greece, Turkey and Italy [0].
Operation Rubicon [1] has a map of spied countries, incl. NATO allies and "friends".
I failed to find that great long-read article. If I can find, I will attach it here, too.
[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-...
It's not that each country needs to develop their own, but it is prudent to not depend on those who have a fundamentally different and incompatible world view.
Like Saudi Arabia and formerly the Saddam regime (when he sold oil in USD)?
While compatible world view is used as an argument against diplomatic and economic relations, in reality it’s just a bonus, not a requirement. What’s important is plain old cost benefit and national interests. The US is still a better ally for EU than China, but it’s gotten drastically worse fast. And while China has territorial ambitions, they are nowhere near EU. The US is the good old status quo ”devil you know”, but it’s abundantly evident now that nobody really knew them, including many of their own political elites domestically.
On diplomacy timescales, ignoring China because of human rights concerns is exceptionally short-sighted, both for EU if US continues current path, and for global stability in case conflicts escalate between China and US. There is no choice that guarantees EU will have a strong ”human rights” ally in 10 years.
Let's also say that democracy is very important internally. But as a EU citizen (or even better as a middle east citizen) whether they're democratic or authoritarian makes very little difference to me- I don't get a say in what they do. And in the case of the ME, it wasn't China or its allies that reduced several countries to rubble, it was the democratic US.
> it is prudent to not depend on those who have a fundamentally different and incompatible world view
There are no such things as "incompatible world view" but certainly closer or more distant ones. And I think the fundamental values of the US are pretty far away from those of the EU.
Between nations, if that were so, no trade relationship would be possible between your go-to examples of each.
Huawei became very competitive to Apple. Outsold Apple in it's home market. Huawei got banned.
DJI has a near monopoly on drones. No US company could compete and players like GoPro shut down their consumer drone projects. DJI got/is about to get banned.
Tiktok was dangerous to Meta. TikTok got almost banned/forced-sold.
Chinese EVs are better than almost any US offering. Chinese EVs got banned (by 100%+ tarrifs on them).
Sale of AI and Chips to China got banned. No ChatGPT or Claude offered to us here in Hong Kong.
This is all the US Tech sector can do now. Short term this will go very well but long term this leads to the US falling behind and behind because American companies have artificially created barriers where they aren't forced to comepete anymore, meanwhile the world moves on and has a competitive environment. Innovation will move faster Ex-USA
I fly a DJI Mini 5 Pro, use a Huawei Freeclip 2 earphone, a Huawei GT6 watch, a Xiaomi Silicon Carbon powerbank, an Oppo Find N5 foldable. Most are better/unique compared to what you can even get in America. And that's only the beginning. That's only 2025.
How would you explain Samsung, LG, Sony, etc.?
> DJI got banned.
Untrue.
Supply is constrained and future of new product availability is uncertain because of FY2025 National Defesnse Authorization ACt, which requires a security audit by late Dec 2025. If that doesn't happen, DJI could automatically be added to the FCC's restricted list, which could block new products from being certified and sold in the US.
In the meantime, for sale at Best Buy, Adorama, B&H, Walmart, etc. e.g. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1737927-REG/dji_cp_ma...
> Sale of AI and Chips to China got banned.
Your argument is that US tech companies do not have the ability to compete, but this example doesn't support your claim; in fact it does the opposite.
But even so, your information is out of date. Nvidia is now allowed to sell its advanced H200 AI chips to China. The whiplash is dumb, but the move is aimed at maintaining US AI leadership, support American jobs, while addressing concerns about China's military AI development.
And this is coming from someone who has owned multiple Samsungs over the years.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3337398/us-bars-appr...
What you're talking about is social networks/messengers/news which are limited not so much for competitive reasons but national security reasons. They like to control what people see which is something a Google, Meta or X cannot guarantee.
You can very much buy US software, e.g. https://www.microsoft.com/zh-cn/microsoft-365/buy/microsoft-... etc.
You can buy a Prada bag, a Ralph Lauren sweater, the newest iPhone or Mac, a Model Y, adidas or Nikes, Adobe Photoshop... etc etc
Not sure how that statement squares against the fact that a lot of major US stores (Amazon, Target, Costco, Walmart, B&H Photo, Microcenter, etc.) have DJI products available for purchase, as well as that there is literally a physical retail DJI store[0] within a ~20min subway ride away from my apartment in the US.
https://www.theverge.com/news/831241/dji-ban-us-trump-fcc-cu...
Even if that were accurate, which it isn’t, what exactly do you think the US stands to gain by Europe buying 5g from someone other than China (like the European providers Ericsson and nokia)?
Secondly, it stops China gaining as much experience in this field as it could have.
USA claims and treats Europe as the ennemy. Not every country treats every other country as the ennemy.
USA is, right now vicious and less trustworthy then China. Which is unfortunate cause China is not trustworthy.
It's not clear that europe even trusts europe anymore. Especially with french and german economic dominance looking shakier than ever, debt financing an unpopular war in the east piling up, mounting deficits, industry collapse, youth unemployment... european countries (or greenland for that matter) could do a whole lot worse than turning to china.
Agreed, though, that reliance on US is foolhardy. I can't make any sense of why we're trying to saw the feet off our own economy.
At least with China there's some consistency. I can reliably trust them not to give a shit about me or my privacy, and to further their geopolitical interests. Meanwhile populists in the West aren't really even acting rationally from geopolitical perspective, they're more unpredictable.
Ah yes. Europe and the US are famously not known for performing industrial espionage. They're bestest friends.
https://www.mediapart.fr/en/journal/france/290615/revealed-m... https://web.archive.org/web/20151016000311/http://www.nytime... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-snowden-petr... https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brazil-canada-espionage-which...
> embedded surveillance into products
I'm sorry, did we already forget about the NSA literally running the biggest dragnet the world has ever known and the US CLOUD Act that allows them to spy into absolutely any US company anywhere in the world ?
>supported the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
As regrettable as it is, China's "support" of the invasion is mostly a matter of them both not giving a shit about the situation, and it helping them geopolitically with regards to Taiwan. They sold weapons. Just like France sold weapons to north african regimes when they were brutally repressing their protesters. The vast majority of Europe is doing the bare minimum for ukraine to keep the fight away without being actually involved.
Countries are not moral, and will do what benefits them. Some of them are more ruthless than others, but as it stands the vast majority of Europeans are considering the US as a greater threat to democracy and general life quality than China.
Hopefully now "Europe" will think before fire selling all of its hardware manufacturing companies to foreign firms.
The linked articles are not about NATO obligations.
"The US is gonna have their FO moment aaaany day now, they're gonna regret messing with us Europeans!"
"Bro you haven't even kept your end of the deal on your NATO military spending."
Turns out despite all the hubub, the 'superpower' fading the fastest was Europe after all.
Even if the democrats make it back to power, a lot of trust and goodwill has been lost. There can always be another trump.
(and I say that as someone that used to sell commercial aviation data that came on CDs...)
It seems there is a misunderstanding over the classification of 'critical' stuff.
We may all have a very different definition.
All I know: the second your are connected to internet, you are cooked.
Not only Airbus. You see, cloud is secure, information is encrypted and only you have access to your data.
Everything else is, I am sorry to say, BS.
Why would a company without cryptographic expertise modifying an existing algorithm without any particular goal in mind just to be different, produce something more secure than the winning solution in an open cryptographic competition?
> directory names
And file structure too, preferably. Incremental sync could be done with XTS mode.
Are you an AI?
Sounds like the "I know a guy" kind of thing that shouldn't be done if you really care about security.
>Are you an AI?
Non-sequitur.
Ofc, that must be encrypted on systems which "cannot connect" (and you can go overkill with EM protection with a very good faraday cage).
If you are making such a technical pain for attackers, they will switch to social engineering anyway.
If someone has an attack that would defeat the cryptographic protection in a particular piece of software, the software is likely doing one or more of the following:
* Not using a modern, well-tested algorithm (e.g. using DES, a hokey custom XOR stream cipher, AES-ECB, etc.).
* Not following general cryptographic best practices (e.g. hardcoded or predictable key/IV/nonce, insecure storage of keys).
* Not following best practices for the specific algorithm (e.g. using AES-GCM, but reusing a key/nonce combination; using AES-CBC without applying an integrity-protection mechanism).
* The software is doing something that doesn't make sense, cryptographically (e.g. using symmetric encryption to encrypt sensitive data, but the data and the keys are necessarily accessible to the same set of users/service accounts, so there's no net change in security).
If such an attack fails because a developer has made changes to the cryptographic algorithm, a motivated attacker is likely just going to look at the code in Ghidra, x64dbg, etc. and figure out how to account for the changes. It's not a strong security control. I've been decrypting content stored using that kind of software for something like 20 years.
The correct approach is to verify that the use of a particular type of cryptography makes sense in the first place, then use a well-tested modern algorithm and follow the current best practices. i.e. using code from years-old forum posts will likely result in an insecure product.
I repeat: the second you are online, you are cooked. Everything else is BS, probably somebody is trying to sell you something.
All you can do is to find compromise depending on the classification of the data.
And as I said, if you are making it too much hell for attackers, they will switch to social engineering.
Come on...
Usually, non-specialists fiddling with cryptographic algorithms makes them much less secure. Developers who aren't cryptographic mathematicians should generally use a well-respected algorithm, follow current best practices, and treat that component as a magic box that's not to be tampered with.
Why wouldn't a bunch of Airbus executives be next in line to be sanctioned by the US? They represent a threat to the profitability of Boeing.
Source?
It happened several times in the last decade:
- First politicians raise the alarm about "digital sovereignty"
- Then some create new EU sovereign clouds that are pitched/forced on corporations
- They usually do not work, get consolidated and then the scam is revealed
The biggest reveal was when we discovered and warned one of our client the Orange "Sovereign Cloud" (French telco partially owned by the government !) and built to host European most sensitive worloads was just handed over and run by Huawei [0] [1]. They were not the only one who did something like that.
I don't want to put actors like Hertzner in the same bag as they seem to be honest and really compete to offer a cheaper alternative to hyperscalers.
- [0] https://www.huawei.com/en/huaweitech/publication/winwin/29/o...
- [1] https://www.techmonitor.ai/hardware/cloud/orange-introduces-...
lol my team has worked with every major cloud provider for a decade, but sure it's all our fault because incompetence.
good luck man.
edit: I never even implied that AWS lock-in something positive. I'm getting paid to move companies from cloud to on-prem because that's true sovereignty.
People over pay for AWS mostly because of brand recognition. And it's not even small amounts. You get a lot more CPU/memory/bandwidth with some of the competitors. AWS makes money by squeezing their customers hard on that. Competitors do the obvious thing of being a bit more generous. Companies could save a ton just switching to competing solutions. Try it. It's not that hard. Some solutions are obviously not as complete.
This not about US vs. EU but about sovereignty. If you are married to AWS, that's a weakness in itself. Ask yourself how hard it would be to move to Google cloud. Or Azure. Or whatever. If that's very hard, you might have a problem when Amazon jacks up the prices or discontinues a product.
We use a mix of Google Cloud and Telekom Cloud for some of our more picky customers in Germany. Telekom Cloud is not very glamorous. But it's essentially openstack. Which is an open source thing backed by IBM and others. I wouldn't necessary recommend Telekom Cloud (it has a few weaknesses in support and documentation). But it does the job. And unlike AWS, I can get people on the phone and they are happy to talk to me.
I have tried Lambdas and then got this "oh-shit moment" when I have realized that if AWS would be to kick me out, I would be absolutely screwed.
Now I am slowly dispersing and using VMs instead and avoiding all the AWS-specific stuff as much as I can.
IMO the lock-in fear is overblown as the top cloud offerings (S3, Lambdas, K8s as a service etc) are already commoditized among the top providers, the exception being specialized databases like DynamoDB, Spanner, Cosmos …
Not saying there wouldn’t be some major work to switch your operations from eg AWS to GCP, but it is also not a hard lock-in
Performance is not great, so you need middleware and batching anyway. As far as I am concerned, it wouldn't be a great loss if Skywise disappeared and just the SFTP with CSV:s remained.
If it matters so much, run your own computer systems don’t use any cloud.
It would be nice to know what the requirements are. There are plenty of providers in the EU happy to sell cloud services
Don’t they know you can get Hetzner servers starting from $5/month?
Most of the time the missing things are homegrown SaaS offerings of big 3 and identity services. You will not find equivalent IAM or BigQuery in indie clouds.
(searching more I found Koyeb, bunny cdn offers deno similar to cloudflare workers)
I do not know about the others but OVH (even with all of its flaws) is definitely a cloud provider
I got so damn overwhelmed looking at all the services offered by OVH once and I found some niche services which would most likely be underrated by many but if one wants at scale cheap cold storage, I recommend OVH's cold storage because they cost only 2$ per month/TB storage long term but have only 12$/TB ingress/egress compared to the egregious 100$/TB (or so I have heard) AWS's outage and where you have to play this little dance of shutting down AWS itself or something to not pay it but I genuinely think that OVH has a lot of features
I am not kidding but when I say overwhelmed, I truly meant it so much that I had to take a walk outside to put things into mind, I was looking for partnership opportunities for OVH tho that time but in my mind I have rejected them because they are too big to partner at a small scale In my opinion
OVH has the 2nd most meaningful high content or similar metric (I forgot the website which shared it) after AWS, it had more high traffic websites overall even more so than gcp
Personally I do not like this complexity. Just give me compute and storage and let me handle the rest but I don't really like OVH thaat much (my opinions change overtime too) but please look more into it if you genuinely want european cloud provider, I am interested to know about it, What are the metrics which qualify for the "long shot", I am genuinely curious and wishing to discuss honestly.
But to give you another example (from the article): Try migrating Google Workspace to an EU solution. Actually impossible. I tried it myself, and gave up. The closest you’ll get is Proton, which isn’t EU to begin with and doesn’t even have half of the features Google Workspace offers.
Proton recently got proton sheets/proton docs
Personally one of the largest issues I have with proton is the lack of extensibility. Like google has app scripts and similar api's but proton's lack of api's have frustrated me so much that I have built an api over scraping/using a puppeteer instance over it but its still in very finnicky state
1/ First migrate out your "17 years Accenture veteran" executive vice president of digital [0] (who probably sold you MS and Google cloud in the first place)
2/ Then appoint any inside good engineer and ask him to investigate this: "As one of the most prominent and sensitive aerospace corporation, do you think we can setup servers and run our software on it?"
If the answer is no, Airbus might not be fit for the 21th century.
- [0] https://www.airbus.com/en/about-us/our-governance/catherine-...
So computers are actually core to their business. They probably almost invented things like PLM too.
Nothing Airbus does is easy, this is why there are only about 2 companies like that in the world. This is why I do not see why their hosting have to be outsourced...
Actually I'd say "cloud" says more about the business model than it says about the actual product.
I'm sure some people use the term correctly, at least sometimes!
How good/bad it is, I have zero expertise.
https://learning.sap.com/learning-journeys/exploring-sap-con...
History books a hundred years hence will have some choice things to say about how we all stood by and let this happen.
Would have loved to visit the US and see all the things it has to offer, but absolutely not planning to in this climate. I think the US is currently at billions lost in just Canadian tourism?
Airbus has the ability to move their data to another location, but it is very problemetic that all people with a social account can't. Sure, you can delete your Facebook account but it will take years for you profile to be gone because we all know your data is sold to other parties.
My only option is to keep in mind that everything I put online will one day be read by some evil entity. Even my IP address that Hacker News might store (I don't know, but servers log stuff).
I know, watching the fall of the UK and European countries has been really depressing to see. It's unfortunate, but it seems the US will have to carry the torch alone going into the mid-to-late 21st century.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cbs-60-minutes-story-tr...
I must be terribly fussy but this genuinely tripped me up while reading. What does this phrasing even mean? Is it an 80% chance of success? This seems like someone has heard the phrase "80/20 rule" and applied it somewhere it makes no sense.
Half a billion people shouldn't be reliant on whether a guy with clown makeup is having a dementia moment.
Key infra (gov, utilities, news etc) has to be in house or at least in a EU country. Actually in house not big tech EU "sovereign" cloud wink wink nudge
For some EU functionalities there is eu-lisa which develops and hosts services - mostly for police, immigration, biometrics and a slew of others.
The problem is that they are very closed environments with a lot if bureaucracy involved and the development is done at snail pace.
Wow, so they're authentically European! Glad to see they're off to a great start.
This week it broke that China is pretty far along in duplicating EUV litthography. The US restricts ASML, a Dutch company, from exporting their best machines to China and Korean, Japanese and Taiwanese companies from exporting their chips to China. The second one was a massive mistake. Why? Because it created a marekt for China to produce chips because they had no other choice.
Geopolitically I think this is very similar to the USSR copying the atomic bomb in just 4 years after WW2 where US leaders either thought it was impossible or would take 20+ years.
The US has become unpredictable and unreliable. Ukraine is a big part of this because Europe is waking up to them having to be responsible for their own defense and that ultimately will undermine US power projection through NATO.
Since very early in this administration, probably back when the tariff nonsense began, I believed that Europe would be forced to distance themselves from US tech giants and at some point the EU would require cloud storage to be within EU borders and eventually require European companies to own and run that cloud rather than US companies.
China has their own version of virtually every tech company. I can see the EU moving in this direction for key functions and cloud is likely the first of those.
What's really precarious is the entire US economy is now essentially a bet on US companies owning a global AI future and I honestly don't think it's going to happen, mainly because China won't let it happen. DeepSeek was a shot across the bow for this and only the beginning.
What you really need to remember about the current administration is we're not even 1 year into a 4 year term with everything that's happened and the entire foreign policy is kleptocratic not strategic in nature.
We specialise in doing this but on a smaller scale. Eg. 10-100 person companies that have 0-to-a-few DevOps engineers. Included is DevOps time each month to use as you wish, we're on call for SLAs, around 50% reduced cost vs AWS/Google/Azure, etc.
Somewhat differently to most, we deploy onto bare metal. In addition to dropping costs we typically see at least a 2x speed-up overall. Once client just reported a 80% reduction in processing time.
CTOs like us because we're always on-hand via Slack (plus we're the ones getting woken up in the night), and CFOs like us because billing becomes consistent.
Anyway, blatant pitch complete.
[0]: https://lithus.eu/
adam@ above domain
Why did it have to be Trump to make them take action?
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-france-wikileaks-economy/...
What is this "Euro Cloud" and what does it have to do with "ERP, manufacturing execution systems, CRM, and product lifecycle management (aircraft designs)"?
For example I am not aware that Microsoft, Amazon or Google offer any PLM services. The companies offering those would be Siemens, Dassault and so on. Is the issue that those PLM providers are themselves running on Microsoft, Amazon or Google Services? But then the issue is with Airbus needing to force their suppliers into changing where there services are delivered from, but AFAIK these PLM providers offer on prem services, so it seems like a relatively trivial issue.
What exactly is the "Euro Cloud" supposed to mean here, what is the actual issue with Airbus switching their PLM to on prem? TO be honest I find it hard to imagine that this isn't already the case. So what is going on here?
Just ask Ukraine.
Yes.
most of the discourse here is missing the point. it is not to migrate a cloud resource away from (assumed) US-based services, but rather moving to the cloud for core services.
now "sovereign" is the hot word in these parts, and of course it would be a priority. but if it ends up running American HW/SW, is it really being independent? regardless, the article also mentions Google workspace, which is not in the scope of migration.
regardless of which part of the fence one is in, things are easier said than done especially when IT services is a cost to the company rather than revenue stream.
_ache_•1mo ago
hulitu•1mo ago
And how do we fight terrorists, CSAM and political opponents without Palantir ?
_ache_•1mo ago
TeMPOraL•1mo ago
_ache_•1mo ago
I'm talking about the Skywise data platform.
https://www.aircraft.airbus.com/en/services/enhance/skywise-...
t43562•1mo ago
general1465•1mo ago
You can make exactly same argument for client (phone) scanning and depreciation of encryption.
mschuster91•1mo ago
By doing police legwork and by prevention work (i.e. offer help to pedophiles, don't go and wreck MENA countries for funsies, but invest in helping the civilian populations).
bambax•1mo ago
Fighting "CSAM" is absurd and ridiculous, and used as a justification for eroding public liberties. So is the fight against "terrorism".
The US government has decided to kill innocent fishermen en masse and labelled its victims "narco-terrorists" as a justification for these crimes.
We absolutely do not need Palantir.
dzhiurgis•1mo ago
Labelling like this works both ways you know.
j_maffe•1mo ago
pyrale•1mo ago