As a European I feel increasingly concerned about the influence of US in our recent trading decisions. The sense of an alliance feels somewhat imbalanced to say the least. Interestingly whereas we have an advanced hardware industry we’re so far behind on leading software solutions that I doubt there will be any change to this balance any time soon. I guess software is eating the world...
TBH I'm glad it's not sold off. Europe has barely any large world leading companies in the digital sector. ASML is one of those world leaders.
As for your american influence point, I'd certainly prefer if a strong EU council would block the sale instead of our transatlantic partners, but EU council can't even prevent OBOR in central europe...
The article says that ASML keeps selling earlier-generation equipment. Apparently, that can't be reverse-engineered and/or stolen as easily. (Or maybe just buying it is cheaper than going through all that hassle.)
if no one can sell to them, the Chinese market is a moot point.
Sometimes national security interests supersede a single darling companies bottomline. Plus, considering the Chinese track record of stealing technology, if that machine goes to China, ASML wont be the only one making it in a couple years.
It’s not like this is new, except with this government subtle diplomacy has been replaced with loud buffoonery, which makes this kind of manipulation slightly more obvious.
The is quite obviously an increase not just in buffoonery, but the basic, mercantilistic strategy. That's why this adminstration is bailing out to the tune of four times what the financial crisis cost, year. And farmers even get to keep that money.
That hardware usually ships with software provided by the manufacturer, so I'm not sure Europe really is behind on "leading software solutions". Software that isn't aimed at mass-market user-facing applications is still software.
It feels like the US and China are in an undeclared cold war and the US is trying to draw lines to see who is on which side. If you resist using Huawei for example you are more likely on the US side of the fence.
Europe hasn't reached the same level of awareness(paranoia?) that the US has yet.
I don't think that US even hides the fact that they made Wassenaar in order to keep their allies in line, and clip their wings on the techno-economic front.
For example, when US was enthusiastic selling military equipment to China, not a single US company was ever denied a license, at the same time, US made everything to deny that for its allies.
> Interestingly whereas we have an advanced hardware industry we’re so far behind on leading software solutions that I doubt there will be any change to this balance any time soon. I guess software is eating the world...
American Security guarantees do not come for free. Feeling constrained? then raise an Army and a Navy worth fielding and fighting Russians with out American assistance.
Collectively Europe outspends Russia in military investments. However, there is quite a bit of duplication in the individual European armies that make a straight comparison misleading. I suggest that military spending is not an accurate enough indicator of relative strength.
Defense spending alone is meaningless if there is not an accompanying ability/willingness to project power. Russia is certainly not shy about projecting it's power and European countries have been when it comes to Russia. Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia certainly don't feel their security would be guaranteed in the absence of the United States being in NATO. Thanks to a successful Russian campaign to undermine confidence in the United States increasingly U.S. security guarantees are becoming less reliable.
The shift to a multi-polar world has begun. Will European governments rise to the challenge?
> However, there is quite a bit of duplication in the individual European armies that make a straight comparison misleading.
x 4 doesn't justify "a bit of duplication"
The difference is big enough. If we talk GDP, Europe is > ~13 times Russia. And don't forget, the size of their troops were x 5 during the USSR. Guess how much that helped.
I don't understand your response. It seems like we are saying, at least to some extent, the same thing. Does this mean that you agree that a straight monetary comparison of spending is not adequate to give an accurate portrayal of relative military might?
In case there is misunderstanding on what I meant by duplication let me be more specific. The UK and France both have similar military command structures. Thus collectively both militaries are paying for the bureaucratic overhead of maintaining of two militaries whereas Russia pays for only one. Both militaries have personnel dedicated to HR, admin, police and other ancillary costs for maintaining a military. Since there is no Euro wide military the collective spending on defense is inefficient.
From my perspective The EU is militarily disjointed, fragmented, and overall weak. I'm speaking solely in terms of military might and force projection.
Fyi: The EU is 20 years old and police isn't in the defense budget. A budget 4 times as large makes a way bigger army.
The USSR military wise, was 5 times as strong and still they collapsed. The Russian economy isn't strong enough to support a war this size in modern times and in the process losing their primary trade partner. The EU can easily spend more on financing a war than Russia, military spending is currently < 2%.
What you mean by fragmented is actually being solved by Russian threats through joint exercises.
A fragmented army ( multiple countries with different strategies) actually won in the past ( WW 2), so history doesn't seem to agree.
You are also forgetting that attacking 1 country is now attacking a continent. You don't know what the response will be or where the threat will come from. The EU also has a lot of allies because of its economic power.
While Russia would send it's army to the Western border, some other Asian countries with approval of the West ( and because they are under attack) would have no trouble seizing Russian land. I'm pretty sure that China would be quick to grab some too ( is the easiest quick win ever for them) and Russia wouldn't be able to stop them. Since their army would be in the West and immobile. Leaving the East open without much resistance or their army fragmented.
Multiple countries ( eg. Poland for one) are already on high alert because of Russian threats.
The power would actually be fragmentation. Russia is just one railroad to slow it's tanks ( transportation). European countries are only unsafe at the border of Russia and perhaps Turkey.
Russia is one HQ ( Moscow) within 80 km from the European border, we have never been this close.
I'm saying that if Russia would actually attack the EU ( which would be incredibly dumb). Russian infrastructure would be easily wiped out and their economy would probably collapse again.
They would also lose a lot of land in the East.
Since 47% of their trade is with the EU, it would cause further "unrest" among Russian population. Nobody would benefit.
Facts differ from propaganda.
I don't even think that actual war with 2 similar countries is possible anymore. The countries that are the most scared for actual war are the ones that censor things.
Eg. Unrest in China about pork prices.
Oh yeah, I forgot nuclear arms. Which would make an actual war very risky. Even with the EU's technical and numerical advantage ;)
There are examples of a fragmented coalition winning a war. There are also examples of losing a war. I believe you view is antiquated and not rooted in the present reality of the world. There will be no conventional war with the EU. The war is a cyber one and one of swaying public opinion and one of sowing the seeds of doubt and confusion. At least as I see things. I'm by no means an expert but what is happening in the UK with it leaving the EU (supposedly!) and in the U.S. makes it clear that at present Russia is winning by fracturing the West. It remains to be seen if the EU can come together and form a cohesive alliance or if it will be fractured further with more states seeking to leave the EU.
The duplication is beneficial for defense. Once the first line is penetrated, defense becomes very difficult. More countries mean more first lines of defense.
There can be advantages for coalitions in a war. There are also disadvantages. However, this is not the point I made. The only point I made is that $x spent by say 15 countries on defense is not at all equivalent to $x spent by a single country on defense in terms of military power, force projection, etc. due to the aforementioned duplication of HR, admin and other ancillary roles in supporting a military force.
I'm very sympathetic to the European view, but it was pretty disappointing to see Europeans forces do very little in Yugoslavian civil wars, Libya, Ukraine.
Europe invests in army, but it isn't a global military peace-keeper. It was/is ? actually a role that America tries to play for a long time.
You already mention 3 countries. You are forgetting Georgia and a lot of other countries.
Europe is a democracy and tries to influence with trade, not war. We do not force western opinions that much as America does.
PS. I'm aware of Europe's history, but we live in the present. The EU is still young ( 1999 was the Euro ) and people seem to forget this all the time. I'm pretty sure that almost everyone who reads this will be older.
Or create a new NATO that does not repeatedly exclude the Russians[1]. And could also hold a rule not to invade other countries (yes looking at you US).
> Or create a new NATO that does not repeatedly exclude the Russians[1].
It seems like accepting Soviet/Russian proposal would have had the effect of 1) limiting the criticism of Soviet human rights abuses and 2) weakening the ability of democratic western countries to resist aggression by the authoritarian Soviets.
I think it was the right call for NATO to reject this proposal. If it had been accepted, maybe we'd still have the Soviet Union around in 2020.
From your link:
> Molotov wrote. “The USSR joining the North Atlantic Pact simultaneously with the conclusion of a General European Agreement on Collective Security in Europe would also undermine plans for the creation of the European Defense Community and the remilitarization of West Germany.”
> But Molotov did foresee problems in the event the Soviet Union became a NATO member. NATO would likely insist on democratic institutions while the Soviet Union considered the Westphalian concept of sovereignty sacrosanct. “If the question of the USSR joining it became a practical proposition, it would be necessary to raise the issue of all participants in the agreement undertaking a commitment (in the form of a joint declaration, for example) on the inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of states and respect for the principles of state independence and sovereignty,” Molotov wrote.
To "not repeatedly exclude the Russians" is premature. The Russians have invaded a European ally of the US. There is a path to Russia becoming a welcomed part of Europe and that path leads out of Ukraine.
Sorry? The US invaded so disgustingly so many places since WW2. The "invastion of Ukraine" is not quite the same: many on Crimea want it to be with Russia? That's a much lighter invasion when 50%+ welcomes you, than Korea, Dominican, Vietnam, ... Iraq, Afganistan, etc.
Ukraine status as an ally is the whole point here. As I understand it they were "given" crimea in the assumption things would stay cool. Since NATO is hostile to Russia/USSR (they decline their membership, why would that be?), the Ukraine joining would mean Russia could never get "it's army base" back. See how difficult the US does today (pay 1B if you make us leave our base in Iraq + sanctions thread)? Why should Russia not be protective of it's interests?
That "ally" thing is quite a sick reasoning. There's always some group in a country that one can say is it's ally. South-Vietnam was the ally! South-Korea! The common people of Iraq/Libia/Syria/Afganistan! The people on Crimea! Sure that allegation needs some substance...
I live in neither country. And I have some anti-state tendencies in general. But the NATO is clearly no all "love and peace" as their PR dept makes it seem.
Because Russians want to move their borders to Carpathians to secure their borders given their dwindling demographics (since you can protect will lesser numbers).
this is not anything to do with Cold war -- it is natural state of survival. One thing East Europeans get and West Europeans are clueless is the Russian Expansionism.
The immediate prescription of half-wits is "Cold War".
I did not make the North European Plains flat.. do not blame me.
> Because Russians want to move their borders to Carpathians
Russians will move their border as far as you allow them to. I know their mentality, for I am one, and I grew up in a town full of army and fleet people.
I saw many types like that, before I got out of the country. Those will keep bully you more and more to see where you set the line, and punch them back.
In their calculus, being punched back is not bad at all, if before that they were able to punch you "for free"
It seems to me that Russia's desire for the Crimea is rational and understandable. It was an accident of history that the Ukraine ended up with Crimea after the split of the Soviet Union. I understand that my belief on this might not be rooted in reality. What is your view of Russia's Crimean desires?
Russia's Crimean desire is Russia's desire for land and spoils of war. Nothing more nothing less.
Crimea just happened to be there with some historical justification with which they came months into the conflict. Russia was plainly unable to advance any much further beyond the line where Ukrainians were scared enough to fight them seriously.
Russophone sentiment? No, nonsense, otherwise they wouldn't be occupying Ukrainian majority regions, or allow ethnic Russians to be made hate crime victims in their own backyard (Armenia, Kazakhstan to some extend, and ethnic autonomies in Russia itself)
Their desire for Crimea is not much different from their desire from getting a cut of land on the Rheine, or french Riviera, or even your capitol hill if you allow them to.
Thank you for your perspective. I don't know much about that region of the world and used to view Ukrainian and Russian as basically the same people until I had a Ukranian professor in graduate school.
- Without Ukraine, Russia can't even use their naval fleet. That's why they are being aggressive. The sanctions of being aggressive are hurting them, but cutting off oil to Europe would hurt them a lot more.
- Europe has never been so close to Moscow. They are more scared than you imagine
- Russia has way more borders to defend than any other country. That's why they are willing to get run over by China. Their relationship will fail sooner or later. China doesn't invest in Russia despite longtime promises. Their relationship will hold untill Putin realizes there is not much to gain or till China doesn't need them anymore.
Russia needs China more ( because of borders ) than the other way around. China also wants more security at it's borders, but it's less of a requirement.
- Russia's and Turkeys relationship is also not that stable. It was because of one man that they talked again, by the use of a special Turkish expression that said: sorry, but not that sorry. Their relationship could hold untill one of both actually tries to improve relations with Europe, not happening soon though.
If Europe would want to hurt Russia, they only need to heavily subsidize renewable resources, that would hurt max. 5% of Russia's GDP. No war required and don't bite the hand that feeds you ;)
Man... what your economic policy will do to 30k units or armour, and 50k units in reserve?
Russia is still 100% capable to just put reservists into t55s and send them in the general direction of Europe. The only two real option to stall them for Nato will be to redeploy US forces to Europe or use French nukes.
What will the army / Putin do against much higher protests, if they continue to threat and receive more economic sanctions? This is why the USSR, at it's peak in 1980 x 5 of current Russia, fell without a war.
Do they care when they talk of making populace "eat grass?" And I think they wouldn't even mind doing that and losing for as long as they "mess up your lawn"
From tiny pieces of what gets leaked, Putin hoped for nothing less than complete victory in both Georgia and Ukraine, and in both times it demonstrated that his generals were comically incompetent, causing lots of discontent in the military. Nevertheless, I think he still came out quite happy with just scaring the West away from those two countries, and messing up any prospect for a brighter future for them.
Perhaps your vision is too black and white. Russia still receives sanctions ( that hurts their economy) and Crimea has always been mostly Russians, with over 65% Russians.
None of them were actually part of the EU. Although i would have wished Ukraine would have been better off without Russia ( and more democracy). It's not that easy to make an objective opinion, Russia had way more to loose than any of us + 65% Russians in the country would have made it possible to make a democratic decision ( in theory)
Georgia, i'm not aware of that actually. It's seems to me that both were caused by oil for Russia. My statement about subsidizing renewable energy against Russia has only been proven right.
If they were afraid of sanctions (which, even at this level are a complete joke,) they wouldn't be doing military adventures which would set them as a target for them.
> It's not that easy to make an objective opinion, Russia had way more to loose than any of us + 65% Russians in the country would have made it possible to make a democratic decision ( in theory)
This sound to me as a Russian a complete nonsense. An average Russian couldn't have hated Russia more for what it is, let alone opting to jump into the "warm embrace of the fatherland" once they got out.
For Russians, Russians who ended up with Ukrainian, Baltic states, or even a some joke Central Asian passport after the collapse of the Union are seen as somebody very lucky.
And the talk of ethnic Russians in the West, let alone US and Canada ever thinking of returning to Russia is a complete joke. Sorry, but you read to much Pravda, I'm afraid. I can't get other words for that.
Since Europe is Russia's biggest trading partner, sanctions could be a lot worse. But that would also heavily influence the daily lives of a lot of Russians. Since Europe accounts for 46% of Russian exports.
I think you grossly underestimate the impact that heavy sanctions could have on the daily lives of Russians. The sanctions were NOT targetting the Russian people, but at making the lives of the responsibles less comfortable ( eg. the leaders/rich people).
And while Russia likes to publicly partner with China, they seem to forget that China literally does nothing for them (economically).
> This sound to me as a Russian a complete nonsense. An average Russian couldn't have hated Russia more for what it is, let alone opting to jump into the "warm embrace of the fatherland" once they got out.
I've only mentioned the spoken language in Crimea, not about the sentiment. Do not change my words, none of your last assumptions are correct and i don't even know Pravda ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Edit 2: I reread my comment, i did add "in theory" there, as I did not know much about the exact situation. I do agree, it could have been more clear.
But i did not say that they wanted to join Russia. I suggested ( or meant to) that there was a chance and that i did not know about the sentiment there.
Some countries. Propaganda is hard to undo. See how people believe capitalism equates 1-on-1 with "free market" and think that communism means they cannot have personal belongings. Lol.
This software imbalance is partially created by the fundamental inequalities contract+IP law creates. Since it grants not just remuneration for the creative, but also control, it's really, really easy to abuse economies of scale, and software is one big capitalist failure in that regard - it's not competitiive at all; one barrier to entry and network effect after the other.
And whereas we by now have e.g. laws that allow transferring (say) a telephone number from one provider to the next; we do not yet have similar protections for the digital equivalents. Want to transfer your facebook account - as in the live account, connections & address & all, not the old data - to a new provider? Good luck with that (frankly, even the data isn't transferable, because the export format isn't an commonly used standard). Want to replace your gmail account with something else? Or, to play on recent events - want to transfer your .org registration to some place not being defrauded by ICANN insiders? All of that's hopeless.
People sometimes claim there are technical difficulties here, but while those are real - they're not the cause for all this lock in. If the alternative to account transferability were bankruptcy, you can bet the big players would have this solved in about next to no time at all; but as it is - the incentives are to suppress competition and leverage the ill-gotten gains from being an early moving and having access to a large, single-language market.
This is also why I'm not so sure china's rise is actually a bad thing - even for the US. The US economy is essentially stagnant; there needs to be a shake-up rather than resting on laurels. IP law currently is less of an incentive to create, and more theft of the commons - the benefits to the private interests are completely out of whack with the costs imposed on society. A country that won't entirely bow to the absurdities of IP law might inspire others for entirely selfish reasons to follow suit - and that might eventually cause the IP oligopoly to crack, and inject more actual dynamism and creativity. Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting china is being nice or anything - it's just that if we're lucky the collateral damage may fall for once in a beneficial direction. Of course, we might not be so lucky, but hey...
If Europe really wants to compete, it should take a look around and adopt a similar less protective stance. France's tax is the wrong direction - instead of taxing the giants, we should break their market power, and prioritize things like flexibility to reassign a facebook account over the trademark holders right to keep the facebook name in house. Copyright should be restrained to FRAND principles, and e.g. not be a way to prevent a competitor from competing (i.e. the oracle vs google api fight) - and perhaps changed fundamentally to discourage rent-seeking where the value of a copyright lies to a significant extent in the network effect, not the actual content (which is pretty often the case, e.g. for shared cultural history like music too).
The deck is fundamentally and anti-competitively stacked; there' little chance of fighting via innovation when there's no way to compete even with innovations.
Obviously, anti-competitive tendencies are just as strong in Europe or China as they are in the US. But given the self-interest in breaking the US IP-backed rent-seekers, and the coinciding (and politically acknowledged) threat of democracy-undermining social bubbles there's a chance for a least some baby-steps towards change.
