Palantir is active in Ukraine though. I understand the point
of view of Ukraine, mind you, but I fail to see why european
money goes into US mega-corporations. That seems incredibly
stupid and short-sighted. Germany in particular has no real
consistent strategy here. I don't quite like Macron, but a
ton of criticism pertaining to Germay is correct. Quo vadis,
Germany? Make up your mind.
Obviously. Any European nation that doesn't treat America and companies ultimately under US political control a strategic risk would have to be asleep at the wheel. "Perfidious" is the word.
Palantir doubly so, since it has close ties to the current regime. (No, this is not a political discussion - it's simply about proximity to power, and the interests of said power)
Agreed, though the nuclear issue still has to be solved. IMO the EU needs a nuclear arsenal. Any future dictator from the east will keep on probing otherwise.
But, even IF the US-led over-dominance would be maintained, I really don't understand why my taxes paid, go into US companies. This model really does not work anymore after the USA allied with Russia (de-facto, if you listen to the orange king).
Isn't this a good thing though? Europe becomes more self-reliant and less dependent on US technology, the US is able to refocus to the Pacific which is a more strategically relevant area, the anti-US people in Europe become happy, and the anti-Europe people in the US become happy.
It's not like tourism or cultural distance is going to disappear. All that disappears is the military entanglement, which to be honest, was mostly obsolete after 1991 anyway.
>the US is able to refocus to the Pacific which is a more strategically relevant area
this was the ostensible narrative for almost a decade but in reality the US has since then, threatened Europe with the annexation of Greenland, invaded Latin America and withdrawn resources from Asia for a war in the Middle East, with energy market consequences worst for America's allies in the Pacific. (Japan depends almost entirely on the Gulf)
This has not been good news for the China hawks in the US, literally as we're discussing this the US president is in China and Taiwan seems to have completely vanished from the agenda. Far from directing resources against China and bolstering democratic nations in Asia the US is now emulating China, withdrawing from Asia to bully its regional neighbors.
As long as there is NATO and US troops in the EU, I don't see that this is happening (plus, all europeans need a nuclear arsenal under EU control).
> It's not like tourism or cultural distance is going to disappear.
I do not think tourism is an issue anywhere.
> All that disappears is the military entanglement, which to be honest, was mostly obsolete after 1991 anyway.
This is a possibility, but why would you discount other possibilities? The USA is saying a lot, but doing very little. Why are there still occupying troops in the EU? Didn't the USA announce how NATO is dead already? So why are there still troops?
I am very much not convinced that anything has really changed, aside from the rhetorics.
The US also profited an exceptional amount from selling arms & software to Europe, far more than the US was spending on military aid to Europe, which was largely contingent on trust and friendly terms.
Over a decade or so the US is on course to lose far more than it's saving with these changing politics.
Eh we're taxed for these things you know, you could have the same in the #1 economy and #1 power in the world if you didn't keep falling so hard for grifters and sociopath decades after decades but ok
If you taxed the rich and corporations like Europe does you could easily have social security. The rich in the US love making Europe the boogeyman that stole your social security, while they laugh all the way to the bank.
pdpi is right that the article contradicts it, but there's something to the underlying point.
The GFF lawyer applies the same black box critique to ChapsVision too, right there in the article. The constitutional requirement the courts are pushing toward, show your reasoning, prove it respects rights, is provider agnostic. So the BfV maybe solved the sovereignty problem and not the transparency one.
Palantir doubly so, since it has close ties to the current regime. (No, this is not a political discussion - it's simply about proximity to power, and the interests of said power)
The US-European alliance is on its deathbed.
Agreed, though the nuclear issue still has to be solved. IMO the EU needs a nuclear arsenal. Any future dictator from the east will keep on probing otherwise.
But, even IF the US-led over-dominance would be maintained, I really don't understand why my taxes paid, go into US companies. This model really does not work anymore after the USA allied with Russia (de-facto, if you listen to the orange king).
It's not like tourism or cultural distance is going to disappear. All that disappears is the military entanglement, which to be honest, was mostly obsolete after 1991 anyway.
this was the ostensible narrative for almost a decade but in reality the US has since then, threatened Europe with the annexation of Greenland, invaded Latin America and withdrawn resources from Asia for a war in the Middle East, with energy market consequences worst for America's allies in the Pacific. (Japan depends almost entirely on the Gulf)
This has not been good news for the China hawks in the US, literally as we're discussing this the US president is in China and Taiwan seems to have completely vanished from the agenda. Far from directing resources against China and bolstering democratic nations in Asia the US is now emulating China, withdrawing from Asia to bully its regional neighbors.
> It's not like tourism or cultural distance is going to disappear.
I do not think tourism is an issue anywhere.
> All that disappears is the military entanglement, which to be honest, was mostly obsolete after 1991 anyway.
This is a possibility, but why would you discount other possibilities? The USA is saying a lot, but doing very little. Why are there still occupying troops in the EU? Didn't the USA announce how NATO is dead already? So why are there still troops?
I am very much not convinced that anything has really changed, aside from the rhetorics.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/tactical/royal-marine-command...
Over a decade or so the US is on course to lose far more than it's saving with these changing politics.
That's the summary from the article, and directly contradicts your point that they're snubbing all software.
The GFF lawyer applies the same black box critique to ChapsVision too, right there in the article. The constitutional requirement the courts are pushing toward, show your reasoning, prove it respects rights, is provider agnostic. So the BfV maybe solved the sovereignty problem and not the transparency one.