A necessary step to reduce risk to infrastructure given that the US government has become erratic and has decided it is now anti-Europe.<p>The US means to undermine the EU: <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/will-trump-pull-italy-austria-poland-hungary-from-eu/a-75134777" rel="nofollow">https://www.dw.com/en/will-trump-pull-italy-austria-poland-h...</a><p>The US means to annex European territory: <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0j9l08902eo" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0j9l08902eo</a><p>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.
> It's the same reason you don't want Chinese equipment in your telecommunications infrastructure.<p>Hopefully now "Europe" will think before fire selling all of its hardware manufacturing companies to foreign firms.
> 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.<p>Doesn't Europe actually have <i>a lot</i> of Chinese equipment in their telecom infrastructure? Is this an effort just to try not to make that mistake again?
The UK certainly ripped out a lot of Huawei equipment. Which is why our cellular coverage is a bit shitty these days
No, not a lot as the EU has two very competitive providers in Ericsson and Nokia
Europe will just end up doing whatever is cheapest. It's the same story as always. They'll say some stuff publicly but they'll quietly come back to American tech once they see the price tag difference. They're very cost sensitive and their investors are extremely risk-averse.
> They're very cost sensitive and their investors are extremely risk-averse.<p>Being risk-averse unfortunately now means "avoid the USA".
With US tech now in profit-squeezing mode rather than user-acquisition mode, the cost sensitivity might favor switching for things like SaaS.
Yep - just look at their oil/energy situation: they still buy it by the boatload from you know who, but just through 3rd parties.
[dead]
How was it a mistake? Europe got a lot of good telecom infrastructure for a low price. There's no evidence it was compromised.<p>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.
> 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.<p>Using this logic, every country should develop its own critical equipment from scratch, in terms of both hardware and software.<p>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.
For decades trusting the US was no problem at all. The relationship was mutually beneficial. Cooperation and trust among nations is possible and Juche (completely self-reliance) is not a worthwhile goal at all. So, sure, cooperation is great and should always be a goal – it also secures peace (people who are economically intertwined are less likely to go to war with each other).<p>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.
Have you already forgot the Merkel Phone incident?<p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-spy-agency-tapped-german-chancellery-for-decades-wikileaks-idUSKCN0PI2AD/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-spy-agency-tapped-g...</a><p>Trusting the US should be considered a problem since decades.
That's a small blip on the timeline. If you want some serious, long running stuff, you should read Crypto AG scandal.
This is not uncommon between even allies:
<a href="https://www.dw.com/en/german-intelligence-spied-on-white-house/a-39365418" rel="nofollow">https://www.dw.com/en/german-intelligence-spied-on-white-hou...</a><p>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.
[flagged]
It was co dependant-parasitism, the eu basically a provincial backwater eith centralized social heating. And the eu relied so much on this protecion, it even got itself entangled with ither old landempires, because the assumption was that none of them would defect on this world order. Now its finished, its politicians bought, divided and conquered, its culture non existant and its demographics exhausted and perma voting for a extractive gerontocracy. Oh and in all those wedges putin has a hold, resulting in rebellious voting behaviour by those who shall not grow old.
>> <i>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.</i><p>> <i>Using this logic, every country should develop its own critical equipment from scratch, in terms of both hardware and software.</i><p>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.
Yes, there is a lot of affinity towards Canada in Europa, I feel. Last Bastion of Democracy on the North-American continent, and not part of the whacky Trump-Atlantian Hemisphere.
China is decidedly anti democratic and authoritarian. They're also preparing for military activities to expand their territory.<p>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.
> China is decidedly anti democratic and authoritarian<p>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.<p>> it is prudent to not depend on those who have a fundamentally different and incompatible world view<p>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.
> it is prudent to not depend on those who have a fundamentally different and incompatible world view.<p>Like Saudi Arabia and formerly the Saddam regime (when he sold oil in USD)?<p>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.<p>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.
[flagged]
> just scare-mongering from the US because it has no manufacturer of 5G equipment.<p>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)?
> Using this logic, every country should develop its own critical equipment from scratch, in terms of both hardware and software.<p>USA claims and treats Europe as the ennemy. Not every country treats every other country as the ennemy.<p>USA is, right now vicious and less trustworthy then China. Which is unfortunate cause China is not trustworthy.
We can see the same with everything in the US.<p>Huawei became very competitive to Apple. Outsold Apple in it's home market. Huawei got banned.<p>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.<p>Tiktok was dangerous to Meta. TikTok got almost banned/forced-sold.<p>Chinese EVs are better than almost any US offering. Chinese EVs got banned (by 100%+ tarrifs on them).<p>Sale of AI and Chips to China got banned. No ChatGPT or Claude offered to us here in Hong Kong.<p>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<p>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.
> Huawei became very competitive to Apple. Huawei got banned.<p>How would you explain Samsung, LG, Sony, etc.?<p>> DJI got banned.<p>Untrue.<p>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.<p>In the meantime, for sale at Best Buy, Adorama, B&H, Walmart, etc. e.g. <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1737927-REG/dji_cp_ma_00000587_01_mini_3_dji_rc.html/" rel="nofollow">https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1737927-REG/dji_cp_ma...</a><p>> Sale of AI and Chips to China got banned.<p>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.<p>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.
As a former Huawei phone owner, and a present Honor phone owner, Samsung LG and Sony does not hold a candle to the quality on offer from Honor and Huawei.<p>And this is coming from someone who has owned multiple Samsungs over the years.
I agree generally that protectionism is bad, but the examples you present are just the US (finally!) doing to China what China has done to the world for decades. They rely on relatively unencumbered trade in Western markets, while locking their own markets up from outside competition.
And yet you can buy a Tesla in China or an iPhone or any luxury bag or or or. Plenty of brands. It's not quite as black and white as people think.<p>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.<p>You can very much buy US software, e.g. <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/zh-cn/microsoft-365/buy/microsoft-365" rel="nofollow">https://www.microsoft.com/zh-cn/microsoft-365/buy/microsoft-...</a> etc.<p>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
> You can't trust what the Chinese government will do to it or with it.<p>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.<p>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.
Europe should be building domestic digital capacity regardless (and not just servers) but saying it needs to treat the US like China is a bit melodramatic given the economic and physical threat to Europe is 10X greater in the east.<p>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.<p>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 difference is, Europeans used to trust their US partners, and built a lot of infrastructure on US services. This trust has been betrayed, so things now need to change.<p>It never existed to begin with with China, so no change is necessary.<p>That's not "melodramatic".
There never was a relationship of mutual trust, it was always a relationship of Europe being under the wing of the US as a buffer against the USSR.<p>The US now wants to push Europe out of the nest, but most Europeans have only ever known life "living in their parents house".<p>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...
They control Europe's digital infrastructure and are able to increase rent to usurous levels (tarrifs!) because Europe is dependent on their digital services. Without digital sovereignty, Europe has no sovereignty and will quickly become a modern colony from which wealth will be extracted.
> The US is not anti-Europe.<p>Sure. They are not anti-Europe. They just announced that they want to topple democracy in our countries, destroy the European Union, want to annex a European territory and are best buddies with Vladimir Putin. But beside of that they are really good friends ... not!
> want to annex a European territory<p>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.<p>Edit: huh I had no idea how complicated the classification of eu territories is: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_territories_of_members_of_the_European_Economic_Area" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_territories_of_members...</a>
> 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.<p>You are right that Greenland is not in Europe (it sits on the Nort American tectonic plate).<p>It is also not an EU territory, however, it is linked to Europea through Denmark. European influence exists through governance, education, and trade.<p>Most Greenlanders identify primarily as Kalaallit (Inuit) and Greenlandic, not European.
And Hawaii is not in America. Certainly neither is Guam etc.<p>What kind of argument are you even trying to make?
They did not, this is all political ragebait journalism and memes.
[flagged]
> Even Zelenskyy acknowledged that the US provides more aid than the EU. And this is despite the fact that Europe has twice the population and doesn't have a vast ocean between it and Russia.<p>Why does the population matter at all? The US GDP is $30T and the EU GDP is $21T.
>the EU has LITERALLY provided less aid to Ukraine than it has given to Russia<p>The EU is buying resources from Russia, not providing aid to it.
> Isn't it exactly the opposite, and it was the EU that attempted to overthrow democracy in the US (and failed)?<p>What are you talking about? According to US intelligence agencies, bipartisan Senate reports, and federal prosecutions, Russia, China, and Iran have been singled out at running disinformation campaigns. The EU has never been accused by the US of trying to topple democracy in the US.
Well, to be fair, the EU in its current form needs to be killed with fire.<p>It was supposed to be something akin to United States of Europe, but instead in devolved into a bureaucracy that regulates the shit out if everything, is incredibly socialist and the EC thinks it is above everyone else.
> It was supposed to be something akin to United States of Europe<p>No, it never was.<p>> but instead in devolved into a bureaucracy<p>No it hasn't:<p>"There are two striking aspects of this rejection of EU bureaucracy. First, in comparison with other, comparable entities, such as the US federal bureaucracy, the EU’s administrative apparatus has a marginal size. Specifically, the EU, which is responsible for more than 440 million citizens, employs only around 60,000 people, while the US federal bureaucracy has more than two million employees that govern a territory with about 330 million inhabitants. Accordingly, the EU bureaucracy is comparatively small and far from being the “bureaucratic monster” which it is frequently portrayed as."<p><a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2023/09/04/why-do-so-many-people-hate-eu-bureaucracy/" rel="nofollow">https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2023/09/04/why-do-so-many...</a><p>> that regulates the shit out if everything,<p>I'm thankful for that. That is why our food is way better and way healthier than the shit the US makes it's citizens eat.<p>> is incredibly socialist and the EC thinks it is above everyone else.<p>LOL. No it's not "socialist" and the European Commission is the executive branch of the European Union. If you really think the Commission behaves as if they are above everything else (they do not!), I pull an American president.
> There are two striking aspects of this rejection of EU bureaucracy. First, in comparison with other, comparable entities, such as the US federal bureaucracy, the EU’s administrative apparatus has a marginal size. Specifically, the EU, which is responsible for more than 440 million citizens, employs only around 60,000 people, while the US federal bureaucracy has more than two million employees that govern a territory with about 330 million inhabitants.<p>that's because the EU co-opted existing member state agencies instead of creating its own<p>e.g. the german federal department of agriculture effectively is controlled by the EU (almost all of its duties are an EU competence), but 100% of its costs are attributed to germany<p>this makes the EU look much more efficient than it is
> That is why our food is way better and way healthier than the shit the US makes it's citizens eat.<p>The US optimized for convenience, affordability, and variety.<p>You can eat very healthily in the US, but it requires more intentional choices.
In many (not all) EU countries, the default option is closer to healthy.
Socialist is a very weird term to use here. The eu is the epitome of neoliberalism, even more so than the us
The US literally wrote a national security strategy describing that it wants to dismantle the EU.<p>What do you mean it's not anti-Europe? It's literally trying to destroy our shared institutions!
> The US literally wrote a national security strategy describing that it wants to dismantle the EU.<p>The official 2025 NSS document does <i>not</i> explicitly state a US goal to dismantle the European Union.<p>The strategy is highly critical of the EU's direction and Europe's <i>trajectory</i> 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.<p>Critics interpret the tone and strategic shift as potentially indirectly weakening EU cohesion if taken as encouragement to nationalist or Eurosceptic political forces.
This is all political ragebait and rumors, just like those claiming the US was going to pull out of NATO at the beginning of this administration.<p>Also, Europe is doing a fine job harming our shared institutions all on its own, we don’t need any help in that department.
This article is about FAFO for MAGA loyalists in the USA. Well, MAGA has FA'd with US-European relations. Now they get to FO where it takes us (i.e. over the waterfall, isolating the USA from everything good in the world.)
Project 2025 was just political rage bait and rumors too, until it wasn’t.
It can be both. The document is massive, very contradictory and incoherent, and most of the people hysterical over it haven't even read it. Look I'm no fan of the trump administration but people should have concrete concerns, not waving around "project 2025" like some symbol of the country's imminent collapse. Unfortunately, our country is nowhere near collapse and this administration is not going to be the thing to bring it down. Though they're trying their hardest, i will admit.
Talk of how it might be interpreted is rather beside the point when the administration appears to be implementing a particular interpretation and SCOTUS appears to be fine with that, whether or not it is a selective one. Those are the concrete concerns of which you speak.<p>It is helpful to have the document publicly available, but only if enough people heed its implicit warning.
I would argue the concrete concerns we should have is the fact that we seem to be committing economic suicide, which will have decades of economic and sociopolitical fallout. If you think people have an appetite for fascism today, wait until you see what decades of deflating economies will do.
Their VP and one of their government-linked oligarchs is meeting with literal Neonazis in Germany that are trying to topple the constitutional order: <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/14/jd-vance-afd-meeting-019130" rel="nofollow">https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/14/jd-vance-afd-meetin...</a><p>To say they're not anti-Europe is either hopelessly naive or cynically ideologically aligned with their goals.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany</a><p>AFG are Neonazis?
From the wikipedia article you just linked to: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany#Neo-Nazi_controversies" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany#Neo-Na...</a><p>and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany#German_nationalism" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany#German...</a>
Indeed.<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/19/turmoil-in-germany-over-neo-nazi-mass-deportation-meeting-explained" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/19/turmoil-in-ger...</a><p><a href="https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/dangerous-liaisons-the-true-proximity-of-germany-s-afd-to-neo-nazis-a-e69c51d3-4b3c-49d2-8d54-d7b0a19c3f9a" rel="nofollow">https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/dangerous-liais...</a>
By this logic the Ukraine is a neo-Nazi country. One can't have it both ways.<p>Times Of Israel[0]:<p>"The criticism came one day after Ukrainians marked the 111th birthday of Stepan Bandera, the wartime leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), a violently anti-Semitic organization that collaborated with the Nazis. Among Holocaust historians, the consensus is that the OUN and its military offshoot, known as the UPA, were responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews and up to 100,000 Poles during the war (estimates vary).<p>In a joint letter to civic leaders in Lviv and Kyiv, Israeli ambassador Joel Lion and his Polish counterpart, Bartosz Cichocki, expressed concern regarding efforts to honor Bandera and Andryi Melnyk, the head of a competing faction of the OUN.<p>In Kyiv on Wednesday, local officials raised a giant banner with Bandera’s picture over the city administration building, prompting anger from Jewish activists. That came just over a week after the Lviv Oblast Council approved funding for a 2020 celebration in honor of Melnyk.<p>Israel and Poland, which have clashed repeatedly in recent years over differing interpretations of the history of the Second World War, came together on Thursday to issue a rare joint condemnation of Ukraine over its efforts to rehabilitate nationalists who collaborated with the Nazis.<p>The criticism came one day after Ukrainians marked the 111th birthday of Stepan Bandera, the wartime leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), a violently anti-Semitic organization that collaborated with the Nazis. Among Holocaust historians, the consensus is that the OUN and its military offshoot, known as the UPA, were responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews and up to 100,000 Poles during the war (estimates vary).<p>In a joint letter to civic leaders in Lviv and Kyiv, Israeli ambassador Joel Lion and his Polish counterpart, Bartosz Cichocki, expressed concern regarding efforts to honor Bandera and Andryi Melnyk, the head of a competing faction of the OUN.<p>In Kyiv on Wednesday, local officials raised a giant banner with Bandera’s picture over the city administration building, prompting anger from Jewish activists. That came just over a week after the Lviv Oblast Council approved funding for a 2020 celebration in honor of Melnyk.<p>“Remembering our innocent brothers and sisters murdered in the occupied territories of Poland 1935-1945, which now constitute a part of Ukraine, we the Ambassadors of Poland and Israel believe, that celebrating these individuals is an insult,” Lion and Cichocki wrote.<p>“Glorification of those who promoted actively the ethnic cleansing is counterproductive in the fight against Antisemitism and the reconciliation of our People,” they continued.<p>...<p>Thursday’s letter is the second time that Lion and Cichocki have come together to call for a change in Ukrainian memory policy. In June, the pair signed a joint letter to the mayor of the Ukrainian city of Ivano-Frankisvsk, protesting the unveiling of a monument honoring Roman Shukhevych, a collaborator with the Nazis who was implicated in the murder of countless Jews and ethnic Poles.<p>Following Ukraine’s 2014 revolution, the former Soviet republic’s parliament passed a series of bills known collectively as the Decommunization Laws, meant to sever the country’s ties to its Russian and Soviet past. One of the bills prohibited what it called the “public denial of the legitimacy of the struggle for independence of Ukraine in the twentieth century.”<p>In practical terms, these bills paved the way for the rehabilitation of Ukrainian ultranationalist figures who had collaborated with the Nazis.<p>Over the last several years, streets all over Ukraine have been named after far-right figures and steps have been taken to rehabilitate their images, casting them as fighters for democracy whose followers saved Jews from the Germans.<p>Asked about the letter, Ambassador Lion told The Times of Israel that Israel and Poland “have a common interest in combating Holocaust denial and rewriting of History.” "<p>[0] <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-row-over-holocaust-history-israel-and-poland-issue-joint-critique-of-ukraine/" rel="nofollow">https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-row-over-holocaust-history-...</a>
If the #2 or #1 most popular political party in Germany are "literal Neonazis", I think Germany and likely Europe as a whole has a much bigger problem than whatever America is doing.
Those two are not unrelated.<p>It's a result of deliberate media manipulation and hybrid warfare by the US and Russia.
Let's not forget Israel.
I see.<p>Well, foreign intervention and propaganda in democracies is nothing new. It is well documented all the way back to the time of ancient Greece.<p>So your contention is that in Germany and perhaps other countries (France?) some of the most popular political parties are popular only because their partisans are uneducated dupes or worse, in thrall to foreign powers. Perhaps you would be better off ideologically not supporting democracy - it sounds like it is not for you. Of course democracy has its problems - and people voting for dumb ideas is one of them!<p>You can either accept that it's your duty to convince your citizens you are right to win their votes, or you can insist that everyone else is wrong and democracy means they should shut up and vote only the "right" way in accordance with establishment approved opinions and go about what Europe has been doing, which is to continue to pursue unpopular policies and blame Russiia/nazis/America/the Internet/free speech for their problems.<p>European center and left parties could suck all the oxygen out of the room and starve the far-right overnight if they simply introduced and enforced major immigration restrictions - but it's precisely this which is not a Establishment Approved Idea and deemed Unthinkable Hate. Democracy, as long as your opinions are allowed.
> So your contention is that in Germany and perhaps other countries (France?) some of the most popular political parties are popular only because their partisans are uneducated dupes or worse, in thrall to foreign powers. Perhaps you would be better off ideologically not supporting democracy - it sounds like it is not for you. Of course democracy has its problems - and people voting for dumb ideas is one of them!<p>I don't! I think authoritarian leftism is the way to go as most people are too stupid for their own good tbh.
Indeed it is a huge problem, in particular their affiliation with muscovite fascism. It is a huge threat to all of Europe.<p>Dealing with this was a big problem already, the US policy is just a not-very-welcome frosting on the cake in this respect.
[flagged]
Yes, because the EU i stitutiins as they are now need to be razed from the face of the earth. Plain and simple.<p>The EU needs to be gone and try again something like this in a generation or two, with more emphasis on competition, development and creativity, rather than regulation and socialism.
What socialism? What are you talking about?<p>The EU parliament has a conservative majority [0], as does the Council. [1]<p>It's a right-wing organization. I wish there was socialism, mate.<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_European_Parliament#Current_composition" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_European_Parliament#Curr...</a><p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union#Governments_represented_in_the_Council" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union#...</a>
Is it actually anti-europe to ask europe to meet its NATO obligations?
Literally this.<p>"The US is gonna have their FO moment aaaany day now, they're gonna regret messing with us Europeans!"<p>"Bro you haven't even kept your end of the deal on your NATO military spending."<p>Turns out despite all the hubub, the 'superpower' fading the fastest was Europe after all.
This is a non sequitur that has nothing to do with the comment or articles you're responding to.
Whataboutism.<p>The linked articles are not about NATO obligations.
The US leadership and billionaires are literally trying to destroy my country by supporting far right parties here. I never want to have anything to do with the US again at least until they sort their own crap out.
Some people in the US deride it's close allies as "freeloaders" because they choose to use and buy US tech, reinforcing the US's position as a global powerhouse. (Meanwhile US tech is built on the shoulders of their allies.) Now we see these same allies are starting to look inward and invest in technology they own completely because the US is acting decisively not like an ally. Something unthinkable since WW2.<p>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.
I agree, this is a good thing. Long term stable large contracts are great simulation for a market. Airbus obviously has a large amount of military work, and its data needs to stay in Europe.<p>What we also need is a faster acceleration of military spending so this can happen with more companies.
> thing. Long term stable large contracts are great simulation for a market.<p>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.<p>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.
There's a futures market for RAM prices if you want to hedge that risk. No different than corn.
I would expect a contract review for millions in hosting to review how the company will mitigate those costs. Normally you would expect them to contract away the risk themselves. In fact the current rise in RAM costs is due to exactly this, big hosters contracting for long term RAM certainty.
Of course it's a good thing. It's an excellent thing. Is there any European company or individual arguing otherwise?
[flagged]
> <i>Almost all computer equipment companies are from US.</i><p>Made in a few Asian countries. I think it's kind of funny reading the contents of your post and how it ignores Asia, that's <i>actually</i> behind most of it. How much of a Dell PC is US-American?
Was it laziness and stupidity, or was it <i>protection money</i>. I thought the deal since WW2 was a US security guarantee, in return for letting the US have our money. A protection racket. Or perhaps it was more like Europe paying <i>tribute</i> to its colonial master.<p>Anyhow it is clear the protection is not to be relied upon, so it is time to stop paying. It is dangerous making deals with gangsters. It is perhaps more dangerous to change the deal. But when the protection is not there, it is time to build strength.<p>Well done to France for maintaining its independent nuclear deterrent through this era. Britain made a mistake letting that go
> <i>I thought the deal since WW2 was a US security guarantee, in return for letting the US have our money</i><p>No. The Marshall Plan was about rebuilding Europe so it could be a <i>military</i> ally against the Soviet Union. The trade stuff came afterwards.
>Britain made a mistake letting that go<p><a href="https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-11/united-kingdom-nuclear-weapons-2024/" rel="nofollow">https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-11/united-kingdom-nucle...</a>
Wait so the US is supposed to provide security at no cost forever? Are you talking about NATO or something else? The only thing I see a problem is all countries paying the same rate to be in NATO.
Wouldnt say its laziness.<p>The US has a long history of funding the Silicon Valley expansion using Darpa and other federal agencies for example.<p>Europe never had such a thing, and they had a fragmented market for a long time.<p>The big money is in the US, thats why the talent goes there.
Your words are displaying the mindset that is the main driving force behind the currently ongoing decline of the American empire. Incredible hubris paired with ignorance and a lack of self reflection. Great qualities if you want to go further down that line.
Almost all computer equipment is from China.
> More on the laziness and stupidity of their allies.<p>s/laziness and stupidity/corruption/g<p>See, for instance, what happened to Gemalto.
> Some people in the US deride it's close allies as "freeloaders" because they choose to use and buy US tech<p>This is a disingenuous straw man. The <i>allies</i> are derided for literally freeloading on US military protection while underinvesting in their own defense.
Freeloading?<p>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
Agreed those things exist, in most contracts one or both parties feel they are not getting a 'fair' deal and will renegotiate terms, this is very common.
I can hear the whoosh going over the head of anyone associated with Trump. Thanks for trying though.
How's that? How many Middle Eastern refugees are America sheltering from the fallout of American aggression and the regimes it props up?<p>The US isn't anywhere close to paying its way.
The current U.S. President has insisted that Europeans are freeloading. Given that he’s been the primary proponent of this idea, and given that he’s been cutting off aid and has made cutting off this “freeloading” the central plank of his defense strategy, the U.S. defense budget must have gone down significantly right?<p><a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5656174-trump-signs-ndaa-act/" rel="nofollow">https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5656174-trump-si...</a><p>> The bill approves a record $901 billion in military spending for fiscal 2026<p>Oh…
Pray tell, how much of, say, the latest Afghanistan war did the US pay and how much do their allies need to bear? The rebuilding of a whole country, the reinstatement of the Taliban regime, the destabilization of the region, and the still ongoing stream of refugees? The political aftermath of which is still felt in Europe.
> The political aftermath of which is still felt in Europe.<p>Nobody is forcing Europe to allow people without visas in. Building a eall and shooting on site anyone who crosses it is a very simple and effective method of keeping immigration in check.<p>But no, the EU seems hellbent on destroying itself by allowing all kinds of savages through its borders.
Europe could have simply denied entry to the refugees and avoided their entire refugee problem. It's especially silly to blame the US when most EU states strongly supported the downfall of Qaddafi and Assad.
> <i>The allies are derided for literally freeloading on US military protection while underinvesting in their own defense.</i><p>1. No one forced the US to spend a bajillion dollars on defense.<p>2. The US did so out of their own free will, <i>and</i> out of self-interest: their power hegemony allowed for peaceful trade routes that benefited the US economy and US corporations.<p>3. Their own defense against what? What threats, until fairly recently, did the Europeans face that they needed to spend money protecting against?
Let's not pretend this was something the US didn't want for most of the last seventy years.
Guess which country had never any interest in a strong (politically and militarily) Europe, to maintain the world hegemony?<p>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.
It seems every single comment in the thread is understanding "cloud" here to mean AWS vs Hetzner. But it's clear from the first paragraph of the article that what they actually mean is MS 365 Dynamics vs SAP. They primarily want a managed ERP + CRM solution, not servers.
Cloud must be the most uselessly overloaded term ever. I have no way of knowing what you are actually talking about when you use it.
I will be servers as well. Eurostack cloud providers. We are involved in one of these - a large car company doing the same.
As far as I know SAP is more capable and widespread, so I don’t know why they were using Microsoft in the first place.
SAP needs servers though, if they buy SAP hosted in AWS that kind of defeats the purpose.
Indeed. And SAP has no cooperation with any European cloud providers, afaik. It's the big three plus alibaba. SAP wants to move away from on-prem, but I guess it has a solution for critical applications. Maybe that can be shoehorned onto OVH or something.
Much of what people call cloud is a commodity at this point. If you need vms, object storage, load balancers, vpcs, etc., which is what most people would need, that works in a lot of solutions. And you can usually also find managed databases, redis, and a few other bits and bobs. If you like Kubernetes (I personally don't), the whole point of that is that it kind of works everywhere.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
> If you are married to AWS, that's a weakness in itself<p>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.<p>Now I am slowly dispersing and using VMs instead and avoiding all the AWS-specific stuff as much as I can.
Most cloud providers have a similar offering to AWS Lambda, plus it is not that hard to convert your code from the event handling pattern impose by AWS Lambda to a long running container running in K8s or VMs like you are doing yourself<p>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 …<p>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
It is amazing how quick a country can turn into a corrupt dictatorship.<p>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.<p>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 really hope regulators don't back down on this.<p>Half a billion people shouldn't be reliant on whether a guy with clown makeup is having a dementia moment.<p>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
> Key infra (gov, utilities, news etc) has to be in house or at least in a EU country.<p>For some EU functionalities there is eu-lisa which develops and hosts services - mostly for police, immigration, biometrics and a slew of others.<p>The problem is that they are very closed environments with a lot if bureaucracy involved and the development is done at snail pace.
Good, and them get ride of Palantir as a "data manager".
It's a step in financing EU sovereign cloud providers.
> estimates only an 80/20 chance of finding a suitable provider<p>It would be nice to know what the requirements are.
There are plenty of providers in the EU happy to sell cloud services
In case any SME-sized companies here are wanting to do something similar but are looking askance at the risk/investment/hiring required, then we'd [0] love to talk to you.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Anyway, blatant pitch complete.<p>[0]: <a href="https://lithus.eu/" rel="nofollow">https://lithus.eu/</a><p>adam@ above domain
And not just Airbus. Very quietly there is a lot of stuff being moved out of the US and away from MS, AWS, Google etc. Trump has absolutely no idea what he's doing and comes across as the proverbial bull in a China shop.<p>History books a hundred years hence will have some choice things to say about how we all stood by and let this happen.
Given it was revealed that CIA specifically targeted 200million deals and above, it was political naivety amounting ti gross negligence on behalf of Airbus executives that it took them 10 years. Same for many other large organisations and countries, unbelieveable.<p>Why did it have to be Trump to make them take action?<p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-france-wikileaks-economy/u-s-spy-agency-wiretapped-two-french-finance-ministers-wikileaks-idUKKCN0P92QT20150630/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-france-wikileaks-economy/...</a>
I wonder if this includes Skywise, the Palantir-built data lake and design stack that they use for many many internal operations (design, airline support, manufacturing). Not sure what difference it really makes where the data is hosted if the folks doing the hosting call home to Colorado…
From what I've seen of Skywise, it is just a glorified SharePoint. Different systems upload CSV files that get turned into database tables. Then you can define views across these tables that other systems can consume by having them dumped to CSV and dropped on an SFTP.<p>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.
I'm sure there are 10 other things nearly as bad. No reason not to start the journey.
Sovereign from the EU regime?
> estimates only an 80/20 chance of finding a suitable provider<p>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.
He is my free advise for Airbus:<p>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)<p>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?"<p>If the answer is no, Airbus might not be fit for the 21th century.<p>- [0] <a href="https://www.airbus.com/en/about-us/our-governance/catherine-jestin" rel="nofollow">https://www.airbus.com/en/about-us/our-governance/catherine-...</a>
You had me right up until 21th
do you really suppose replicating the technical requirements of a security-sensitive company of this size in-house would be so easy? I've been doing infrastructure for 25 years and wouldn't want anywhere near this project. but what you will no doubt find is a pool of overconfident volunteers creating exactly the kind of risk outsourcing the problem allowed them to avoid in the first place
The way I understand it is today is when I board on an Airbus I enter an hybrid of a mechanical and digital machine.
I understand there is a lot of complex and sensitive software embedded/hosted on that plane that hopefully are not gonna kill me.<p>So computers are actually core to their business. They probably almost invented things like PLM too.<p>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...
"sovereign Euro cloud", ah good chuckle
Good, but how independent of US service providers is S/4HANA in practice?
Weird.<p>If it matters so much, run your own computer systems don’t use any cloud.
Sounds like they're adopting EU cloud but will continue to use Google Suite. Surely there are viable EU based alternatives further up the stack?
This administration has done more to undermine US power than probably any in history. This isn't a new statement either (eg [1]). Personally, I think that's not such a bad thing because we are the bad guys. I know people get all in their feelings when you say stuff like that but the number of democratically elected governments we've overthrown, just to get their resources, is indefensible.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>[1]: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45775985">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45775985</a>
Airbus is putting all its design on internet? wow...
You can have the data safely on-prem, connected to computers that are connected to the internet, or safely in the cloud, connected to computers that are connected to the internet. The threats are not that different.
Managing product data on the cloud does not mean public internet access, unless someone messes something up big time.
> Airbus is putting all its design on internet? wow...<p>Not only Airbus. You see, cloud is secure, information is encrypted and only you have access to your data.
It would be reasonably "secure" if it is encrypted on a physically private network using in-house _modified_ _mainstream_ encryption algorithm, then after an over-the-air transfer then you can store it on a third party could under the control of foreign interests. Oh, don't forget the file names have to be encrypted too.<p>Everything else is, I am sorry to say, BS.
> in-house _modified_ _mainstream_ encryption algorithm<p>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?<p>> directory names<p>And file structure too, preferably. Incremental sync could be done with XTS mode.
You'd be fooling yourself if you think any moderately complex company still hasn't moved to the cloud or isn't thinking about it (with <i>rare</i> exceptions)
Yeah, not really sure how a globally distributed manufacturing operation with a complex supply chain and customers all over the world that need access to data for their operations is supposed to function effectively without it.<p>(and I say that as someone that used to sell commercial aviation data that came on CDs...)
Having worked with all major European clouds: Good luck, have fun opening a lot of support cases for things that should work ootb.
Did you ever do it while waiving a $50m cheque though?
I do, works perfectly if you know what you're doing. If you have no clue, jump to AWS and enjoy the lockin, if you do, jump to a EU provider, and enjoy not being locked in, and a vastly lower cost.
"if you know what you're doing"<p>lol my team has worked with every major cloud provider for a decade, but sure it's all our fault because incompetence.<p>good luck man.<p>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.
Great - an anecdote. Most company leaders just want to focus on their core business on top of proven tech that works.
It's better than having the rug pulled from under your company one day. This is the point in history we're at unfortunately.
One of the reason is a lot of those "EU Sovereign Clouds" were malicious cash grabs.<p>It happened several times in the last decade:<p>- First politicians raise the alarm about "digital sovereignty"<p>- Then some create new EU sovereign clouds that are pitched/forced on corporations<p>- They usually do not work, get consolidated and then the scam is revealed<p>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.<p>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.<p>- [0] <a href="https://www.huawei.com/en/huaweitech/publication/winwin/29/orange-business-services-cloud/" rel="nofollow">https://www.huawei.com/en/huaweitech/publication/winwin/29/o...</a><p>- [1] <a href="https://www.techmonitor.ai/hardware/cloud/orange-introduces-public-cloud-service-with-huawei?cf-view" rel="nofollow">https://www.techmonitor.ai/hardware/cloud/orange-introduces-...</a>