And yet they won't. Europe is too busy mandating that every citizen use a Google or Apple phone for digital ID to mind much surrendering their independence.
If you’re talking about device attestation, I see no particular way in which the technology is locked down to Google/Apple. Another phone/OS manufacturer could implement the same mechanism.
We have a mobile OS duopoly. There is nothing that can replace it in any forseeable future. Remote attestation is deeply anti-competitive, and also is exactly the mechanism used to ensure it stays this way.
> In the years ahead, this may cost American companies tens if not hundreds of billions of lost revenue.
Europe would first have to invest "tens if not hundreds of billions" themselves in order to develop any viable replacements and that is very unlikely to ever happen.
They are politically and societally paralyzed from building even basic things like datacenters which are essentially just industrial compute factories and the foundation for anything pertaining to data sovereignty and technology sovereignty.
We're not paralyzed, we just delay and delay until it breaks and costs a lot more to fix.
For the cynical but factually curious look up the history of the ARC project, and NJ governor Chris Christie who canned it - this was to upgrade the tunnel that hosts the biggest train lines in the country (Northeast Corridor). Guess what - it has to happen, just at a much higher costs.
The United States fails at infrastructure because it's too decentralized. You don't build with anything four year terms and corrupt politicians. It's too short-term.
> Europe would first have to invest "tens if not hundreds of billions" themselves in order to develop any viable replacements and that is very unlikely to ever happen.
It seems you've been living under a rock. Europe is already started investing those billions on non-US providers, and the US is already complaining it's not fair.
> They are politically and societally paralyzed from building even basic things like (...)
You're spending too much time in your alt-right pipeline. Europe already mobilized to cover around 80% of Ukraine's external aid, and is providing Ukraine with long range missiles and even drone technology, which the US conspicuously lacks.
Even this week there were news reports that Ukraine was now looking at Eutelsat to replace StarLink.
Propagandists have long figured out that you don't have to control people's thoughts and opinions. You just need to go into their public forum and say some outrageous shit, it doesn't have to be right, well thought out, you just need to shout some shit, so that you get to control the topics that people talk about.
Everytime something about EU tech sovereignty is posted, comments with sentiments like OP are posted within the first several minutes. Because they're outrageous (anger-inducing) they get a lot of comments telling them off, an resultingly will be presented prominently on the page.
How much effort and resources does it really cost to have some bots doing this kind of stuff on a couple of well-visited platforms? As techies we should understand that it's basically costs no resources, time and effort. Therefore we should expect these kinds of influence operations on public forums like these.
I'm not sure if those comments are even bots. The bots seem to only amplify those opinions and make them more visible. It's a vicious circle, once those opinions are everywhere, more and more people pick up on them and write new posts like that.
do you suppose that the average tech worker is socially perceptive enough to determine the occurence of their manipulation? seems to me that most tech workers cease consideration of consequences after accepting their role.
I think the claims about propaganda can often be nullified pretty easily, by simply turning it around. Were it remotely possible to push people in any direction whatsoever then the powers that be would be spending every possible effort, with 'insider access' no less, to tilt people in that direction. And, for the most part, they are. But it simply does not work, at least not on topics that people had any preconceived opinions of before at all. See: Israel/Gaza.
As for Europe, this [1] is a graph of the EU's share of the global GDP, PPP adjusted. It's been in steady decline for decades. And so discussing the decline of Europe, at least relative to the rest of the world, is hardly outrageous.
I don't think I was stating or implying anything else? It's also completely reasonable to say that US has been in relative decline, though to a lesser degree than Europe. Though I wouldn't call China a hegemon. They have the largest economy in the world, by an increasingly wide margin, but I think we've fully entered into a multipolar world and we will probably be staying here for the foreseeable future at least.
> it's also completely reasonable to say that US has been in relative decline
I'm not sure you understood the point, which is that relative trends are irrelevant.
If there's a single member who outgrows everyone and increases its share of the global market, of course all other members will see their relative share shrink.
This somehow reminds me of that Winston Churchill joke:
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for $1 million?
Woman: Why Winston, yes I would.
Churchill: How about $10?
Woman: What sort of woman do you think I am?
Churchill: We've already established that. Now we're just negotiating the price.
With countries all things are relative. A rich country isn't rich because of some specific number, but only relative to another country or countries. And in this case the EU is objectively in decline. From there we can debate about whether it's due to the more rapid rise of other countries, bureaucracy imperiling innovation, or whatever else - but those are the details, and in reality it's likely a bit of all of them.
Something I'd emphasize is that the main reason that China/India are rising is simply because relative tech disparities between nations are fading rapidly. And once you have at least remotely comparable tech, the size of your economy is going to be heavily dependent upon your population. The US has 340 million people. China and India have about 1400 million. That's a losing battle. But notably the EU has 450 million. That's well below China/India, but well ahead of the US. That should count for something, but for 'some reason' it seemingly does not.
> Europe would first have to invest "tens if not hundreds of billions" themselves in order to develop any viable replacements and that is very unlikely to ever happen
It's _been_ happening. Why do you think something that delivers jobs, boosts the economy, and is an easier and easier political and popular sell everyday, is unlikely?
> They are politically and societally paralyzed from building even basic things like datacenters
That's also happening. It's just that we're not as gung-ho about doing things at any cost.
Unless your plan is to pay SpaceX to launch this constellation, 'it' (developing both launch and a constellation to rival starlink) has not been happening in europe
When I was checking earlier, it seems some European projects will use SpaceX to launch. Probably makes sense economically.
From what I saw Europe has no plan to launch a large constellation that could become an alternative to Starlink. The ambition apparently does not exist.
You are describing Europe as a homogeneous entity, that's not what it is.
While the overarching opinion of AI might be more negative, there's plenty of people pushing for exactly what you're describing, despite hurdles in regulation and also a fragmented market.
What's pretty clear from talking to companies of every size is that most leaders now understand how important it is.
Strongly disagree that centralized data centres are the foundation of technological sovereignty. Europe could, if it chose, strike a different course: inexpensive, locally-hosted systems. They could embrace personal computing and individual sovereignty instead of the American model of cloud-hosted surveillance tech that lives in giant data centres.
European countries have been embracing and funding free software at all levels of government and business at an accelerating rate, and doing so with the same ethos of personal freedom and autonomy. It would make sense to continue to that trajectory in other technological areas.
This is getting priced out of the market for the foreseeable future: thick clients are getting squeezed out of the hardware market because rhe componemt prices are surging - the datacenter builders are trying to gobble it all up.
Meaningful local computer power could only survive realistically if exceptionally high demand (multiples of that of AI data centers) could be generated within weeks/months to get the semiconductor companies to pivot and sell the components mainly though other channels.
64GB laptops are no longer in stores. 32 GB is probably going to get squeezed out soon. For prebuilt desktops it's the same. That's no basis for meaningful local, decentralized compute.
My vision includes native software that replaces Electron blobs needed 32GB of RAM to display a text editor or a chat window. With the right motivation and moderate funding, it's possible to imagine a software ecosystem that is radically better than the current hyperscaling slopscape.
Collaborative native software that works peer-to-peer without servers, no large-scale data breaches because there are no giant databases of PII, for things that really do benefit from being hosted (e.g. photo sharing or community notice boards) they could be run by municipalities or local community groups.
Electron is atrocious, if you asked me. Modern computers are wasting staggering amounts of CPU cycles and memory on inefficient, bloated software stacks. But the realistic response to the RAM shortage will be to tell users to run their stuff in their normal browser instead because that gets rid of the extra browser runtime.
I'm afraid that technological sovereignty is secondary to military superiority when the governments in question value might over justice. It seems that you can apply financial leverage to avoid violence but I think everyone has to play ball.
Lol. Change the mindset. Russia is getting similar results (controlling drones at a distance) without spending much of anything. Russia is using mesh radios to create and maintain communications over similar distances without any space assets.
Your enemy is always your best teacher. Pay attention when they demonstrate a new skill.
Trump and his tech bros have alienated Europe and other democracies in the world.
What the US is currently doing by openly supporting far right movements in Europe (and Brazil) while serving Putin's wishes have revealed a US on the wrong side of history.
The remnants of American democracy is paralysed and US is sliding into fascism.
Boycott US will be a fast growing movement in democracies all over the world.
I'm not sure where you got this information, but there are datacenters in the EU. In fact the EU colo/internet market is much more competitive than the US one. Maybe this makes it look smaller when measured in dollars because providers can't squeeze insane profits? Not sure.
Arianespace has been for decades an extension of the French government, which needed at max several launches per year and didn't give a damn about its market share. As a result, it is seriously behind in reusable rocket development. The space port in Kourou may be the most underused space port in the world, even though its location is unbeatable.
I am not sure if this gap can be closed. Maybe some of the smaller startups like Isar Aerospace can do it, but the giants are ossified Molochs. Not that Boeing is any better, ever since absorbing MacDonnell Douglas and its pathological management structure.
If capability is intellecutal capability, then no.
If you mean systematic capability, then yes, exactly. There are enough smart europeans to build anything. But it is rather
- a lack of risk taking (i.e., culture),
- a lack of incentivizes (i.e., if you take a risk, and it plays out, you benefit rather than everyone complaining how you can be rich at the expense of others),
- a lack of funding risky ventures,
- a lack of allowing risky ventures (i.e., politics don't allow you to do stuff because any kind of rare bat might live in close proximity). These rules make it way tougher than necessary, take longer, more compley, costly you name it...
That is the reason why europe is falling behind. System. Not people.
Reminds me of this article. Everyone knows that Europeans could compete, and the world stage would welcome it, but they have put themselves into a bind where taking back any social service or loosening regulation and allowing markets to operate would take their air of superiority over stupid Americans and they would rather kill off any chance at becoming world technology players than that. Also it is just political and cultural suicide, ask Paris right now.
Stopping the stiffling of innovation does not mean trampling over people. Europe has outsourced defense to the US, and in return theyve gotten nothing but a slowly crumbling relevance in the world stage. As a person that believes in Europe and is incredibly thankful for the historic contribution to the western intellectual canon, it saddens me.
No, this article gets its core premise wrong: labor laws are not the main issue. The issue is that if I wanted to found a new company, I'd be confronted with lots very strict regulations with lots of implications and induced overhead. The list is too long for a HN comment.
It's not impossible to overcome, but it is an added commitment for any new company. Founding is not very attractive and that's why we don't get that many crazy wild bets here (Tesla was one initially too).
No, labor laws are fine exactly as they are. Not importing US style at will hire and fire culture is an asset. That's all budgetable and relatively minor. If you are seeing a need to downsize your company early on, the fundamental mistakes already happened way earlier by choosing a path that was unsustainable. Such a company doesn't usually have a future.
> The issue is that if I wanted to found a new company, I'd be confronted with lots very strict regulations with lots of implications and induced overhead
Yes, like for example you have to actually pay your employees for the time they work, and give them a certain amount of paid annual leave
This is something anathemic to USian companies, who see skilled workers as essentially disposable single-use devices.
Is what I wrote confusing? I have nothing against labor laws in the EU. It's that there are a lot of other well meaning regulations that bog down young businesses. They are mostly justified, but they are also pretty daunting chores for founders.
Mandatory tamperproof data retention for bookkeeping and taxes, GDPR, mandatory machine readable invoices; a flawed data backup routine can have considerable legal repercussions... it's the way those pieces interconnect that makes compliance time-consuming.
Yes regulatory burden is my best bet as to why Europe has produced almost nothing of worth aside copying uber and doordash. Skype was cool for a moment there.
> Relative to income, it costs large companies four times more to lay off Germans and French than American workers
Yep, so saying Europe can build software is pretty much like Western factories trying to compete with slave or child labor in some developing part of the world.
I mean most Americans probably don't want to open their own sweatshop garment factories. But it does mean that if we start ww3 that shirts may be harder to come by. I think it's probably a good thing that the entire world is too interdependent to want to start shooting at each other? (G10 at least)
Production of innovative technology pushing the frontier of whats possible is the measure. Cost of laying off is one possible non exhaustive diagnosis as to why it might not exist in Europe.
As a software developer in an at will arrangement, i dont quite see the comparison with sweatshops. Look, the US isnt perfect by any means, and Europe has the brainpower. Were waiting for a European Tesla, that should have been your domain. Yet here we are, Skype and Angry Birds being the last big hits. Maybe Lovable is a current exception. Your Nordic countries really doing heavy lifting.
Let's just assume your claim is true, and it is impossible to build software in Europe.
European companies can still build software in different countries. Nothing stops them from building their software in an US subsidiary they fully control. A lot of good software developers are currently looking for a job.
Nobody is going to build any software in US when nearshore is 2-3 times cheaper. American engineers are overpriced and not competitive on the global market.
Nobody wants “dirt cheap contractors who accomplish nothing” literally. That’s the figure of speech that has only one meaning in the context of conversation: that you supposedly think that outside of USA, people have lower qualifications. If you intended to say something different, feel free to elaborate.
My claim is never about lack of brainpower in the EU. Clearly theres talent. Its a bit cultural, yes, but mostly its part of a framework that does not reward innovation. For a place with the best car manufacturing in the world and such a drive towards renewables, youd think Tesla should have come from EU. Or even should be replicated there. Why wont it?
Are you saying EU with its 450M people is lacking "money" and needs 350M US to do it for us? Because somehow "money" is what makes stuff to happen. Not labor.
I mean I hear people clamoring for a paycheck without work. I've never heard someone ask to work without a paycheck. So yes money seems like an important ingredient.
Europes slice of global GDP has gone from ~30% (1980's) to ~17% (2020's), America's has remained at ~25%, and China has been on the rise, tbd if they can pass the US
instead of 'money', the more precise term would be 'risk capital'. And yes, Europe has a stark shortage of that, which is why Euro startups raise in the US and when they go public, they go public on the US exchange.
SpaceX and Tesla are together worth more than all companies on the entire German stock market put together.
Lotta "Europe could never build this!" points in here, missing that Telesat (Canadian) is already building this, planning to launch in Q1 2028, and will happily sell to Europe.
Lotta "Europe is already working on it!" points in here, missing the fact that it's been in the work for a long time, and maybe let's wait until it's actually deployed to count the cows. Over the past decades a lot of things have been "in the work" in Europe and never really went anywhere. It's very easy to "put things in the work".
"Going forward a U.S. founder selling into European defense or government now needs an answer to “who holds the switch” before the first meeting; and European founders just got sovereignty as a sellable feature.
What was done in a fit of pique will cost the U.S. both leadership and jobs."
Telesat launches are still on SpaceX Falcon 9s. So the non American alternative still depends on American launch capacity to get there.
Don't forget that US can always strong arm Canada and make it bend to its will.
We are too dependent on them. It's nearly impossible to disassociate with United States due to our proximity.
The timeline has changed before, like the ASIC issues pushed full service into 2028. Also scale and capability obviously differ, but it could be a good starting point.
Regardless, I think Europe is better served focusing on its own tech like IRIS and Eutelsat.
There is a Canadian company developing launch capability[1].
There was some awareness that relying on American launch capability was a problem after the Radarsat-2 kerfuffle. The Americans deemed that satellite a threat to U.S. national security, so it had to be launched by Russia. Now Russia's off the table too.
If Nordspace pans out, Canada will finally have domestic launch capability and won't have to worry about a foreign country refusing to launch satellites.
Telesat is a different product than StarLink. My understanding is that Telestat is for telecom operators and large network providers which cannot run fibre cables to their cell towers.
I think Galileo is an example of how the EU with ESA can create an alternative to a critical US capability. At the same time it is also an example how difficult it is, on a financial, political and commercial level.
The US wasn’t happy with it and tried to put pressure not to proceed. In hindsight , It’s good that it did got into orbit.
ESA tends to favour French, Italian and German big state owned corporations rather than small start ups. So it will always be a political thing and slow.
There just isn’t a company in the EU that can operate like Elon Musk. Even if there was imagine a European company ceo holding that power. How would they use it, can they be coerced by EU countries? Should such a capability be in private hands at all?
Europe itself a collection of nations. The US was traditionally an ally and for the better part of a century we've been comfortably building out a host of projects together, from military to science to cultural goods. That the US has apparently stepped away from working cooperatively is genuinely surprising and disappointing, but we shouldn't let it normalise the idea that we can only ever trust others of our own nation. Especially in Europe where you obviously have countries like Belgium that aren't nation states to begin with.
Because until a certain orangutang broke it, the new world order was doing rather nicely.
Powerful people got together and decided the world would be a nice place if everyone worked together. Their solution for ensuring that happened whilst taking human behaviours into account was global capitalism.
Despite its downsides (some of which we're only starting to see the consequences of) you have to admit that it was doing its job. Countries were cooperating because it was in their best interest. It was always a delicate thing though, and the orangutang broke the trust it relied on.
It might seem naive now, but "bro, of _course_ you can rely on us for service X, why are you even asking?" was an believable response before the orange.
Not just infrastructure. Europe has depended on the US for its entire defense apparatus for decades. Everyone loves to scoff at the billions America throws away on fighter jets until Putin rolls out of bed and invades your nextdoor neighbor.
Europe has been forced to depend on the US. The UK particularly had a world-leading civil and military aviation industry until the US "suggested" this was unwelcome.
The UK signed an agreement with the US to supply research for the Manhattan Project, in the naive belief the results would be shared.
The US said "Nuh uh - that's classified" and the UK had to develop its own program from scratch.
And so on. NATO has very much been a showroom for US arms sales, and competition has been discouraged - not always effectively, but the implied pressure has always been there.
It's been more carrots than the (non-zero) sticks.
I think it's under selling Europe's agency to characterise the relationship as 'forced'.
And now that the US is increasingly seen as unreliable, Europe is (slowly?) decoupling - which is what you'd expect as a mutually beneficial relationship sours.
It might have given a reason, but it’s not like that will actually create anything in Europe.
The only thing they can do these days is imposing new regulations of bottle caps. They turned themselves into the laughing stock of the all world: willingly.
In a normal world, this would be treason by an illegal immigrant to the US. In today's world it's a blip in news. Sad state of affairs :(
Europe will absolutely build alternatives. They'll bicker for some time, but in the end, they build. To Americans it looks like they don't but they do. Quality of life, life expectancy, and many factors have outpaced US in the last few years. The tech industry in the US is still important, but the importance will start waning soon.
Citizenship can be lost via revocation of naturalization, with the main reason being that it was obtained illegally or fraudulently. If you break immigration law and the government is not aware of this during naturalization, then they can definitely take it back.
Another mindless comment grouping all Europeans into the same bucket. Europe has incredibly poor countries where developers are paid pitance (within Europe) and then developed countries paying high salaries (relative to the cost of living).
If you are a software engineer doing a relatively good job, it really doesn't matter which country you live in Europe - you will have a comfortable life. That said, of course if you take a Romanian sweng salary and try and live in Switzerland off that - you might live a little less comfortably. Similarly if you take a Swiss sweng salary and live in Romania - you will live extremely comfortably.
I'm pro Ukraine but treason has a specific definition in the us Constitution, so until Congress declares Russia an "enemy" and not just an "adversary" it's not treason. Would be very strange to have ISS missions and rideshare agreements with an "enemy".
Iran has also supplied ballistic missiles to Russia. Ukraine attacked a Caspian ship of Iran's that was allegedly carrying arms over the summer.
Assistance has been mutual, though lately the flow has been more from Russia to Iran. Drone improvements, targeting intelligence and missile tactics to avoid Patriot interception.
OK but that's not an act of war any more than supplying Ukraine with intelligence and drones is an act of war against Russia. Words mean things, especially and most of all in legal settings.
It pains me to say this but one of the best possible strategies for the US from a realpolitik standpoint is to pretend to be friends with Russia (to avoid nuclear war), and quietly hand over intel and resources to Ukraine, and maximize meaningless digs at Ukraine, and periodically "claw back" support possibly substituting other forms of support in some cases. If this were happening, this would would on its face be indistinguishable from what we see now. I also don't think Trump is that smart, so to whatever degree that is happening, I think it's by accident
If he's doing this at an urging of an enemy of the US, Putin, how could that not be treason?
He put American lives in direct risk in Kyiv, at the bidding of a foreign enemy, while having control of massive amount of crucial infrastructure.
I'm not sure how you can see that as anything except treason. Any plebe employee doing it would be up for treason, especially an employee that had been in direct contact with Putin or other foreign agents, like Musk has been.
Common use != legal use. We can regard it as treason without the law doing so, because we can regard Putin as an enemy of the US without the law doing so.
That said, I'm not saying what position the law supports. I never studied law, let alone American law.
US federal law is quite clear on this point: for better or worse, Russia isn't legally classified as an "enemy" and thus it would be impossible to convict anyone of treason for aiding them. (I'm not claiming that's a good state of affairs, just explaining the legal situation.)
The US economy, the side of it that serves the plebs, runs on trucking, which run on diesel. If you ask these same plebs, people who don't read Vanity Fair, who they think their nation's enemies are or what people or groups they feel threatened by, you might be severely disappointed who isn't near the top of the list.
The diesel shortage has been staved off, in part by temporarily forgiving use of forms of diesel that are normally illegal.
It's not a good time for America to have Zelensky's guys drone-bombing Russia's petroleum and diesel ports/terminals.
I overheard a colleague say the other day that if Zelensky's guys attack another petroleum/diesel port, that Trump should bomb Zelensky. From what I'm reading and hearing, the middle tier of the "line go up plz" crowd don't find that unreasonable.
At this point, this shit show architected by Victoria Noodleman, and implemented in part by players like Lindsey Graham and John McCain, is just a huge waste of resources.
The only thing that has come out of this is removing the bulk of the Ukrainian population from Ukraine. Twenty years from now, a completely different people will occupy that land.
That's just what he's brazen enough to do in public.
I'm convinced that if Elon were actually investigated, we'd see enough for him to hang, side by side with the rest of his cohort (POTUS included).
But absolutely, let's assert that the public knowledge that we currently possess isn't quite sufficient to prosecute Elon for treason as defined in the US Constitution, a famously immutable document, which, among other things, captures the nuances of hybrid warfare in perfect clarity.
This is a very reasonable rebuttal to the statement that. if things were normal, Elon would hang for treason.
Now if you think about it, it's almost as if Russia deliberately acts just below the threshold of what constitutes an act of war in any particular state to allow their assets to be, say, hanged for treason. Almost as if Russia's top general, Gerasimov, published a widely cited paper over a decade ago where blurring the line between war and peace was specifically outlined as the modern way of waging war[1], which Russia has successfully been applying since 2014 at the very least.
But let that not cloud our judgment.
Our 250 year old document has a specific definition which means, alas, that our hands (but not Elon's) are tied, and whatever he does is, plainly and simply, NOT treason.
Random anecdote, accurate as of about 20 years ago?
My father worked for the Sheriff's Office in Melbourne, Australia.
The Sheriff's Office isn't like it is in the US. More something akin to bailiff meets US Marshal (enforcement of court orders, often time fines).
Anyway, being that Australia was still in the Commonwealth and such, his boss, the Sheriff, was still technically the executioner of record for capital crimes in Australia. Australia hasn't hung anyone since 1967, but technically still will/can for two crimes: high treason and piracy on the high seas.
His boss told him 1) that he was required to keep a noose or rope for it in his office, and 2) that to him, in the event of anyone even being charged with one of those crimes, the very next thing he would do would be: resign.
What would Russia do about it? They're not going to start a nuclear war and can't fight a conventional one against NATO given the stalemate in Ukraine.
You're treating them like a rational actor. And yet the war which realistically can't be won at this point and only destroys both countries more every day is still ongoing...
It looks like currently Russia just decides how much it gets hurt it return. There's barely any real change for months in terms of progress, but instead the scope of strikes in its territory expands. I mean, we're at the stage of energy infrastructure and large warehouses being a valid target, with some regional persistent blackouts. If pressed harder, I'm not sure Ukraine will stop itself from hitting utilities and energy infra in winter. Whatever the outcome looks like in terms of land ownership, Russia can't "win" for the current generation - it's already got many years worth of rebuilding and bringing some balance to the population to do. I literally can't imagine how anyone in Ukraine or Russia in the next decade or more could be better off in life, compared to immediate surrender.
Ukraine war is a US war not a European war. The real issue is the eastward expansion of NATO.
Now towards that end, it is mind boggling to see that current fascist regime and its billionaire fascist cronies are hollowing out the US standing and busy kneecapping US in ways unimaginable even for the worst US enemies.
That is misinformation. Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 (and again in 2022), Europe has paid far more to Russia for fossil fuels than they ever contributed to Ukraine. I think that both the USA and Europe should do more to support Ukraine but so far contributions from both parties have been the bare minimum to keep Ukraine from being defeated. Not enough to enable them to actually win.
Let's be clear what's really going on here. Russia has a GDP about the same as Italy. The EU and NATO countries could contribute far more to Ukraine but they choose not to. Instead it's business as usual. The welfare states continue uninterrupted and they haven't asked their citizens to sacrifice anything. They continue buying Russian fuel instead of asking people to put on a sweater.
It's a complex system that has a history and situation when war broke out
This does not change that the EU has contributed more to Ukraine than the US overall, which is separate from the fossil fuels which the EU has made good progress on, and separate from the high end systems Ukraine needs most right now. The US overcommitted to global security, Trump took us into another forever war, and the world is reorganizing. I generally agree the the US could do a lot more, but that's not happening and other countries need to take care of themselves instead of the America will protect everyone. That is not the reality we live in any more.
Countries are free to join whatever alliance they want
If Russia is scared or insecure, that's on them, not a valid reason to murder others, NATO is a defensive pact
Listen to what Putin says in Russian, the war is about Making Russia Great Again, a conquest of empire. He miscalculated and Russia is in the worst place it has been since the fall of the USSR. Their future does not look bright either.
Europe would have to not only build the satellites, but launch them, which rocket program do you think exists in Europe that could do that? The pace of Ariane launches could not accelerate quickly enough
Ariane can't, but then again neither could any non-SpaceX American launch provider.
What's the total funding needed to get a Falcon 9 equivalent, given it's demonstrably possible? Likely about the same as SpaceX actually spent in time and money?
Is it actually possible for Europeans to build a company capable of deploying capital as efficiently as SpaceX? Due to cultural and regulatory factors I suspect they would need 2-3 times as much funding to accomplish the same thing. Where would that capital come from? Private EU capital markets are still too thin. Are governments willing to step up?
European markets could fund it if they wanted to, and so could several governments; the question, as is always the case at this scale, is what else could they invest in instead?
Looking at capital markets, one common thing in the EU is how often our investments go to businesses outside our market, while the current issue with the US is all the money is flowing to anything with "AI" in the prospectus.
When it comes to "yes, but what else could we spend this money on?", I think EU governments may be interested in rockets to the extent they're dual-use military assets, but not much beyond that. We do, after all, also want to rapidly shift a few hundred gigawatts of power supply (mostly for heating and transport, but also electricity) away from fossil fuels and towards something less prone to global geopolitical nonsense like Hormuz.
> We do, after all, also want to rapidly shift a few hundred gigawatts of power supply (mostly for heating and transport, but also electricity) away from fossil fuels and towards something less prone to global geopolitical nonsense like Hormuz.
If this was the case, electricity wouldn't be taxed much higher than gas and phasing out coal wouldn't be the number one priority. You describe China's energy policy, not Europe's.
Arguments about the effectiveness of the policy are independent of noting what goals the EU (and member states) have.
That said, I'm giving a rank ordering here, that energy policy is more important than rocket policy, not saying what's on top, e.g. raise taxes on things people currently use too much/too fast, you put brakes on whole economy rather than encouraging transition.
Also also, phasing out coal isn't inherently at odds with energy security, the stuff is a limited resource. Nuclear power would be a better example to question here, but again, that energy security is more important than rockets doesn't change the fact that in e.g. Germany nuclear power has a very strong political taboo.
It was the case maybe 50 years ago, but there are no systemic factors that support strong building/innovation/ entrepreneurial processes anymore. Maybe with some occasional exceptions.
Have you seen what crap cars even german manufacturers produce lately?
OK, so why are German auto manufacturers no longer capable of building globally competitive products? They seem to have just given up and are now following a managed decline process with no plan for growth.
Right, but why don't the Germans respond? I understand that they have some structural cost disadvantages but they seem to have been caught by surprise and just gave up.
I think what happened is Merc and VW wanted to sell into China. Part of the deal was they had to build factories in China and allow Chinese imports the other direction. It was very profitable for a while but is now causing issues.
That impacts market share but it doesn't explain why the Germans keep building shitty cars. Why are they so lazy and incompetent? Blocking Chinese imports wouldn't fix that fundamental problem.
Their problems are created by the government mostly, so they can't do anything about them.
• Expensive energy (German government believes there is a climate crisis)
• Expensive labour (German government believes in prioritizing workers over companies)
• Expensive regulations (you get the picture)
They can't solve any of these problems because they are left wing imperatives, and the left would rather the German car industry die than give up on any of them. So all they can do is wait for the end, and/or hope the AfD somehow obtain a majority.
Just for your information, the AfD doesn't want to have cheap energy either. Nobody in Germany does, and that's the problem.
While the AfD wants to keep German lignite (half as cheap as any imported gas), it also wants gas. The point of coal is eliminating gas. Otherwise you're just polluting for no gain.
The point of coal is to make electricity and making sure it's cheap means using every resource you have. So I don't quite see how supporting the reopening of coal plants is not the AfD supporting cheap energy.
As I said, coal makes electricity cheaper if it can eliminate gas, like in China and India. Poland uses a lot of coal, but it doesn't help because it also uses a lot of gas nowadays.
Of course, there are geopolitical considerations. Germany thought that it could cut military spending by buying Russian gas, and Poland believes that it needs to buy American gas for protection. But none of them can compete with China.
Energy is expensive in Germany not because of gas itself but because of the Energiewende combined with reliance on Russian gas. This comes largely from Europe's refusal to use fracking and insistence on lots of wind and solar, which are expensive and unreliable. The UK has gas deposits it could frack, for instance, but refuses to do so because they believe (wrongly in my view) that this would end the world.
Of course they can compete with China. China is rather resource poor for such a big country and has to import lots of its fuel. Energy is cheap(ish) in China because it is willing to use all available energy sources without net zero ideology.
Even though I think the comment you replied to is wildly over-simplifying how things work:
> By whom? The people with > $100M net worth in Congress and their friends?
That is how taxes have historically worked, so why object this time?
> At which point do we realise politicians are not on our side?
That's the argument for democracy. I would like democracy to be better than it is, but fundamentally, this is what it's for: getting the politicians on our side.
There is already the European Eutelsat alternative to Starlink, with 600 satellites currently deployed (vs Starlinks 6000). They provide satellite internet, and video, both for consumer, business and military/government use.
Apparently Ukraine does use already use Eutelsat in addition to Starlink, but it's utility is limited due to number of satellites and bandwidth, as well as the current weight of terminals (presumably an issue for weapons-borne receivers).
Starlink has over 10000 satellites. The goal of Eutelsat is 1000 by 2030. Starlink launched 3000 satellites in 2025 alone. Whether one satellite from Eutelsat provide the same service as one from Starlink, I don't know but it would be relevant.
I wish Eutelsat success, but the scale of funding is completely different.
Ukraine and even Europe don't need global coverage though. The Russian system that they're testing at the moment is geostationary satellites over Ukraine.
Sure, but autonomous control systems for cruise missiles and attack drones are improving rapidly. They aren't quite as good as remote human pilots but adequate for most missions except interdiction or close air support. So higher latency might not be a problem if satcomm is only needed for strike coordination.
The more significant technical problem with geostationary satellites is you need a much higher gain antenna. Tough to incorporate that into a small drone design. The Starlink/ Starshield terminal is a marvel of compact efficiency.
Getting hung up on numbers isn't really correct. Much more goes into it - altitudes, satellite capabilities, target customers, etc. Large numbers is one approach but it is not the only one.
This comment reminded me yet again to always wait for HN comments to settle down after several hours because the first sentence is immediately wrong in multiple ways as people have pointed out such that I'm not sure why one would bother to believe the rest, even though I do have thoughts on how exactly Europe would build, or not.
> They'll bicker for some time, but in the end, they build. To Americans it looks like they don't but they do
There was ease in Casey's manner as he stepped into his place;
There was pride in Casey's bearing and a smile lit Casey's face.
And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly doffed his hat,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt 'twas Casey at the bat.
The sneer is gone from Casey's lip, his teeth are clenched in hate,
He pounds with cruel violence his bat upon the plate;
And now the pitcher holds the ball, and now he lets it go,
And now the air is shattered by the force of Casey's blow.
Oh, somewhere in this favoured land the sun is shining bright,
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light;
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout...
Baffled by this framing and that of the article, where Europe is sitting on its hands not building a copy of starlink because it’s easier to just use Elon’s.
The reality is nobody had that vision and built the rocket company first to make it happen. Even after seeing the trick done it isn’t likely to be replicated by Europe or a European company within 30 years.
> In a normal world, this would be treason by an illegal immigrant to the US.
As other comments have stated, this is not treason. However, a private individual/citizen should not have the ability to dictate national security policy:
The true statement is: "This is not considered treason in the current legal framework of the US".
Which is exactly the point the OP is making: it is not normal.
What Russia is waging against the US is war according to their own doctrinal documents[1].
If we're stupid enough to accept this as peace while they make one gain after another, it's not a basis for saying that Elon's meddling isn't treason.
This should be a wake-up call.
The world has changed. War has changed. And Russia was brazen enough to publish the new rules.
I hope at least people here have the clarity of mind to read them and understand the implications, beyond "the Constitution uses a particular wording to define treason".
> Would you say the same thing about Anthropic defining the terms of use of its technology to the military?
No. With Anthropic (AIUI) the terms of use were agreed to beforehand. With Starlink things were changed suddenly on a whim.
If Starlink doesn't want to be involved with military operations, then put that in the ToS, and Ukraine cannot / will not use it for that.
But Starlink agreed to the use — especially with defence-only operations which were part of the agreement, and what was being done — and suddenly yanking capabilities basically means aiding the murder of civilians.
The article is wrong, Elon didn't make the decision to limit Starshield. The US government did.
As to Europe "outpacing the US", that is a major LOL. Europe is facing many serious challenges (see the civil unrest in France and the UK for instance), and is also economically far behind.
We'll see how things unfold with the tech industry... ;-)
Trump and Musk are both pointing the finger at each other over this. Maybe they were both for it before they found out how bad it would play with (potentially) Republican voters right before the midterms. Now they're both against it and it's the other guy's fault, as per usual with these two.
What matters is that the U.S. has a leader who is behaving as though he's a Russian agent and allows military assets like Starlink to be controlled by private citizens with zero oversight. If either of these guys can turn off an asset like Starlink on a completely undocumented whim, there's a problem.
As a American Centrist/Independent , I have always believed that the Pentagon/DoD would always remain in control and be the decision makers when it comes to everything from Intelligence to comms to equipment and ordinance. But after what this Administration has done, I can no longer trust that they will act in the interests of the American people and Americas allies. This Administration has shown the world that America can never be trusted again and any safety mechanisms that were in place to stop foreign adversary control over the Presidency has failed (Republican house and senate). I am sure I am not alone in my feelings and I would encourage Europe to separate its Defense Industry, Economy/Financial institutions, trade, etc as quickly as humanly possible. Trump and the Republicans have shown that there is no friend in America and that with a group as dumb/mentally disabled/uneducated as MAGA, future American Administrations should never be trusted again. As Mark Carney(Canadian PM) has said, "We have recognized from the beginning that America has changed, and that we will not return to our old relationship" It will be one of the most difficult things Europe will face but it will guarantee your survival and protection from American Hegemony.
europe has had a free ride at the rest of the world's expense, whether through security provided by the us, resources stolen from africa, or cheap energy from russia, when others don't give europeans what they want, they complain, and that's about it, replacing starlink? good luck
Europe should start by reducing the amount of legal paperwork required in running a business, because that is the main reason why founders flee to places such as the US
Lot's of low hanging fruit. How about when creating a corporate legal entity not requiring public notaries to spend several hours reading the entire corporate charter out loud to all signatories before signing.
That's not something that's required in 'Europe'. It would be a much better discussion if people could point to specific countries and regulations rather than talking as if the whole of Europe had a single regulatory regime for business.
I mean, yeah? If you're talking about a particular country and a particular problematic national regulation, then name the country and regulation, so we can have a proper discussion about it. Otherwise this thread is just going to be generic moaning about how 'Europe' is over-regulated, which everyone has already heard a thousand times before.
What sort of entity is that? Creating a simple limited company (aksjeselskap) in Norway takes a few minutes of work and is done entirely online. You fill in a few simple forms, create a simple memorandum of association, set up a specific type of account with your bank and deposit at least 30 kNOK (3 kUSD). Get the bank to confirm the deposit to the registry. The registry will send you electronic documents that all board members must sign electronically and that's pretty much it. Takes a couple of weeks of elapsed time, or less.
Elon and Trump have effectively destroyed America’s soft power which was probably the goal because somehow that makes them richer who knows. Either way the world is no longer going to trust US companies. Europes VC scene is comparatively weak but if I were European I would be investing heavily right now as the local demand for homegrown services will surely skyrocket. This was a huge mistake for American Businesses as the European market will be significantly more difficult to earn now.
There's a rule of thumb that a mature tech business in the US will earn at least half of its revenue outside the US. If that stops being true, it halves the early stage value of tech companies in the US.
Something something Anthropic IPO already down 25% of original expected value, and still a fair bit of volatile water (cough midterms cough) to go under the bridge before it goes ahead.
I'm thinking America (and Europe) was buying soft power at a price it could not sustainably afford. A correction was necessary. Trump took it too far though.
If trump's goal was to destroy American prosperity and global power he couldn't behave much differently than he has been. Shameful many Americans don't see that, it is plain as day.
The problem is the EU is still suffering startup drain to USA entirely because of market and regulatory burdens. We just saw this most recently with Heart Aerospace. They warned EU regulators repeatedly that it was very difficult to develop frontier technology in Europe. And then they eventually just relocated to California completely.
These are political and societal issues that are very difficult to solve. Not to mention that energy insecurity and cost makes Europe non-competitive from the outset.
This particular example is hardly representative. The market they work on is difficult. They may have an ambition to become Tesla of airplanes, but it did not take a long time before traditional manufacturers learned from Tesla’s success and took over. VW builds more electric cars, and number one globally is a Chinese company. With airplanes, becoming an independent manufacturer is a long and risky path. In the end, their main choice is between being acquired by Boeing or Airbus if they are successful, or being outcompeted by incumbents or Chinese. I do not think this reflects the investment climate in Europe in general. There are fields where startups can do well, and fields where starting something new in Europe is generally a bad idea. I’m not sure that’s always because of regulations.
All the money is in Silicon Valley, that's why they move there.
If this was a US vs EU thing, I would love to hear a US tech giant that isn't in Silicon Valley or Seattle.
Fact is, even in US, no other city was able to replicate that success. For example, there would be no point to move your startup from EU to New York for example.
Lots and lots of US tech giants are not in Silicon Valley or Seattle. In fact, Texas, North Carolina, New York, Georgia, and Virginia have huge hubs of tech giants - especially the Research Triangle Park in NC.
My list exactly addresses your point: "If this was a US vs EU thing, I would love to hear a US tech giant that isn't in Silicon Valley or Seattle". I have shown you at least 10 US tech giants that are not in Silicon Valley. I also did not include many others such as Network Appliance, Texas Instruments, Pfizer, Micron Technologies, Akamai, etc. Regardless of their size vs Siemens, they are huge in the industry. But, keep moving the goalposts if that makes you feel better.
And, no, we are not ignorant to the fact Europe does not have tech companies. No one said that, but you seem to have a real axe to grind against the US. I suggest you step outside and touch some grass.
BTW: I have traveled all over the EU and one thing holds true: folks there are the most arrogant and condescending people I have ever met. And your remarks proves the point once again. They are truly unapproachable. They do not smile and they refuse to acknowledge each other when grocery shopping, walking on the sidewalks, riding on the bus/train - essentially in any public space. It must be absolutely depressing to live in such a culture all the time.
Edit: I see you removed your nasty comment: "Are Americans really that ignorant that they think Europeans don't have tech companies the size of Redhat". Why?
I agree with the general premise that US tech isn't exclusively in Silicon Valley or Seattle. But those regions clearly still play an enormously outsized role in the US tech industry, to the point where it seems unlikely US tech would be as globally dominant without them.
Notably several entries on your list are companies that were founded and grew successful before moving to the locations you listed, often for tax breaks and/or to fit the politics of the company executives. Aside from Dell, all the companies you listed as being located in Texas became successful elsewhere first. Texas has proved it can lure in already successful companies more than it has demonstrated it can grow them. Which is itself a legitimate achievement, but if the question is how you grow new successful tech companies, it's not a super useful metric.
'Another' reason, it's most definitely not the first reason. Musk is a small cherry on a large cake.
After sanctions for the ICC members, Europe should be getting off services that allow the US to perform the sanctions. It's very difficult though, with any organizations that continue to offer services to sanctioned individuals risking cutting themselves off from the lucrative US market.
Ironically, Europe might need to learn a few things from Russia.
Either way, everyone loses from this kind of behavior. International cooperation is generally the most efficient way of operating. Looks like that's done for until the new world order is settled, and the US is going to flail wildly for a good decade or two to prevent that from happening (despite the current administration accelerating it, under the impression they can win everything, which is now demonstrably categorically false).
332 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 258 ms ] threadShould me "Elon Musk Just Gave Europe yet another Reason to Replace American Technology"
Europe would first have to invest "tens if not hundreds of billions" themselves in order to develop any viable replacements and that is very unlikely to ever happen.
They are politically and societally paralyzed from building even basic things like datacenters which are essentially just industrial compute factories and the foundation for anything pertaining to data sovereignty and technology sovereignty.
Lmao. Says the country that is to politically paralyzed to even maintain roads and sewers.
For the cynical but factually curious look up the history of the ARC project, and NJ governor Chris Christie who canned it - this was to upgrade the tunnel that hosts the biggest train lines in the country (Northeast Corridor). Guess what - it has to happen, just at a much higher costs.
The United States fails at infrastructure because it's too decentralized. You don't build with anything four year terms and corrupt politicians. It's too short-term.
It seems you've been living under a rock. Europe is already started investing those billions on non-US providers, and the US is already complaining it's not fair.
https://www.euronews.com/2026/09/30/us-ambassador-slams-eus-...
> They are politically and societally paralyzed from building even basic things like (...)
You're spending too much time in your alt-right pipeline. Europe already mobilized to cover around 80% of Ukraine's external aid, and is providing Ukraine with long range missiles and even drone technology, which the US conspicuously lacks.
Even this week there were news reports that Ukraine was now looking at Eutelsat to replace StarLink.
Everytime something about EU tech sovereignty is posted, comments with sentiments like OP are posted within the first several minutes. Because they're outrageous (anger-inducing) they get a lot of comments telling them off, an resultingly will be presented prominently on the page.
How much effort and resources does it really cost to have some bots doing this kind of stuff on a couple of well-visited platforms? As techies we should understand that it's basically costs no resources, time and effort. Therefore we should expect these kinds of influence operations on public forums like these.
They are often unfounded and obviously incorrect when made towards old accounts with established history of posting.
As for Europe, this [1] is a graph of the EU's share of the global GDP, PPP adjusted. It's been in steady decline for decades. And so discussing the decline of Europe, at least relative to the rest of the world, is hardly outrageous.
[1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/253512/share-of-the-eu-i...
That's fun, here's the US's version of that graph.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/270267/united-states-sha...
Notice that both show the same downward trend?
Do you know what's behind that trend? It's because it's a graph of the global share. The share drops if the GDP of other members is increasing faster.
I'm not sure you understood the point, which is that relative trends are irrelevant.
If there's a single member who outgrows everyone and increases its share of the global market, of course all other members will see their relative share shrink.
Something I'd emphasize is that the main reason that China/India are rising is simply because relative tech disparities between nations are fading rapidly. And once you have at least remotely comparable tech, the size of your economy is going to be heavily dependent upon your population. The US has 340 million people. China and India have about 1400 million. That's a losing battle. But notably the EU has 450 million. That's well below China/India, but well ahead of the US. That should count for something, but for 'some reason' it seemingly does not.
It's _been_ happening. Why do you think something that delivers jobs, boosts the economy, and is an easier and easier political and popular sell everyday, is unlikely?
> They are politically and societally paralyzed from building even basic things like datacenters
That's also happening. It's just that we're not as gung-ho about doing things at any cost.
From what I saw Europe has no plan to launch a large constellation that could become an alternative to Starlink. The ambition apparently does not exist.
While the overarching opinion of AI might be more negative, there's plenty of people pushing for exactly what you're describing, despite hurdles in regulation and also a fragmented market.
What's pretty clear from talking to companies of every size is that most leaders now understand how important it is.
Meaningful local computer power could only survive realistically if exceptionally high demand (multiples of that of AI data centers) could be generated within weeks/months to get the semiconductor companies to pivot and sell the components mainly though other channels.
64GB laptops are no longer in stores. 32 GB is probably going to get squeezed out soon. For prebuilt desktops it's the same. That's no basis for meaningful local, decentralized compute.
Collaborative native software that works peer-to-peer without servers, no large-scale data breaches because there are no giant databases of PII, for things that really do benefit from being hosted (e.g. photo sharing or community notice boards) they could be run by municipalities or local community groups.
This analagous to distributed cloud infrastructure that for 99.9% of companies could be replaced with a few servers and a 2-3 node postgres system.
Your enemy is always your best teacher. Pay attention when they demonstrate a new skill.
Arianespace has been for decades an extension of the French government, which needed at max several launches per year and didn't give a damn about its market share. As a result, it is seriously behind in reusable rocket development. The space port in Kourou may be the most underused space port in the world, even though its location is unbeatable.
I am not sure if this gap can be closed. Maybe some of the smaller startups like Isar Aerospace can do it, but the giants are ossified Molochs. Not that Boeing is any better, ever since absorbing MacDonnell Douglas and its pathological management structure.
That is the reason why europe is falling behind. System. Not people.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/09/14/musk-internet-access-...
Reminds me of this article. Everyone knows that Europeans could compete, and the world stage would welcome it, but they have put themselves into a bind where taking back any social service or loosening regulation and allowing markets to operate would take their air of superiority over stupid Americans and they would rather kill off any chance at becoming world technology players than that. Also it is just political and cultural suicide, ask Paris right now.
It's not impossible to overcome, but it is an added commitment for any new company. Founding is not very attractive and that's why we don't get that many crazy wild bets here (Tesla was one initially too).
I will accept your argument that there are additional onerous regulations on top of that. But that seems like the same "core premise".
Yes, like for example you have to actually pay your employees for the time they work, and give them a certain amount of paid annual leave
This is something anathemic to USian companies, who see skilled workers as essentially disposable single-use devices.
Yep, so saying Europe can build software is pretty much like Western factories trying to compete with slave or child labor in some developing part of the world.
I mean most Americans probably don't want to open their own sweatshop garment factories. But it does mean that if we start ww3 that shirts may be harder to come by. I think it's probably a good thing that the entire world is too interdependent to want to start shooting at each other? (G10 at least)
Or maybe, just hear me out, that's an American delusion, promoted to justify the oligarchy here.
European companies can still build software in different countries. Nothing stops them from building their software in an US subsidiary they fully control. A lot of good software developers are currently looking for a job.
> Nobody wants “dirt cheap contractors who accomplish nothing” literally
Yes they do. This is why cognizant, Accenture, wipro, etc. exist
Money they probably don't have.
With us 1.5B Indians, we can concur money is a big factor if not the biggest.
Population wise, 7%, 5%, and 16%
SpaceX and Tesla are together worth more than all companies on the entire German stock market put together.
"Going forward a U.S. founder selling into European defense or government now needs an answer to “who holds the switch” before the first meeting; and European founders just got sovereignty as a sellable feature.
What was done in a fit of pique will cost the U.S. both leadership and jobs."
Do you agree or disagree with that?
Don't forget that US can always strong arm Canada and make it bend to its will. We are too dependent on them. It's nearly impossible to disassociate with United States due to our proximity.
The timeline has changed before, like the ASIC issues pushed full service into 2028. Also scale and capability obviously differ, but it could be a good starting point.
Regardless, I think Europe is better served focusing on its own tech like IRIS and Eutelsat.
There was some awareness that relying on American launch capability was a problem after the Radarsat-2 kerfuffle. The Americans deemed that satellite a threat to U.S. national security, so it had to be launched by Russia. Now Russia's off the table too.
If Nordspace pans out, Canada will finally have domestic launch capability and won't have to worry about a foreign country refusing to launch satellites.
______________
[1]https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/article/nordspace-signs-20-m...
The US wasn’t happy with it and tried to put pressure not to proceed. In hindsight , It’s good that it did got into orbit.
ESA tends to favour French, Italian and German big state owned corporations rather than small start ups. So it will always be a political thing and slow.
There just isn’t a company in the EU that can operate like Elon Musk. Even if there was imagine a European company ceo holding that power. How would they use it, can they be coerced by EU countries? Should such a capability be in private hands at all?
Belgium has been independent for almost 200 years, and is one of the founding members of the the UN. In what possible way is it not a nation state?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_state
Powerful people got together and decided the world would be a nice place if everyone worked together. Their solution for ensuring that happened whilst taking human behaviours into account was global capitalism.
Despite its downsides (some of which we're only starting to see the consequences of) you have to admit that it was doing its job. Countries were cooperating because it was in their best interest. It was always a delicate thing though, and the orangutang broke the trust it relied on.
It might seem naive now, but "bro, of _course_ you can rely on us for service X, why are you even asking?" was an believable response before the orange.
The UK signed an agreement with the US to supply research for the Manhattan Project, in the naive belief the results would be shared.
The US said "Nuh uh - that's classified" and the UK had to develop its own program from scratch.
And so on. NATO has very much been a showroom for US arms sales, and competition has been discouraged - not always effectively, but the implied pressure has always been there.
It's been more carrots than the (non-zero) sticks.
I think it's under selling Europe's agency to characterise the relationship as 'forced'.
And now that the US is increasingly seen as unreliable, Europe is (slowly?) decoupling - which is what you'd expect as a mutually beneficial relationship sours.
Because, yes, you get E2EE by having the operator do the encryption :facepalm:
The only thing they can do these days is imposing new regulations of bottle caps. They turned themselves into the laughing stock of the all world: willingly.
Europe will absolutely build alternatives. They'll bicker for some time, but in the end, they build. To Americans it looks like they don't but they do. Quality of life, life expectancy, and many factors have outpaced US in the last few years. The tech industry in the US is still important, but the importance will start waning soon.
Not a lawyer, but wouldn't an illegal immigrant owe no allegiance to breach and therefore couldn't commit treason?
If you are a software engineer doing a relatively good job, it really doesn't matter which country you live in Europe - you will have a comfortable life. That said, of course if you take a Romanian sweng salary and try and live in Switzerland off that - you might live a little less comfortably. Similarly if you take a Swiss sweng salary and live in Romania - you will live extremely comfortably.
You mean Iran supplying Russia with drones.
Assistance has been mutual, though lately the flow has been more from Russia to Iran. Drone improvements, targeting intelligence and missile tactics to avoid Patriot interception.
The ally of a special military operation adversary surely cannot be my enemy. /s
He put American lives in direct risk in Kyiv, at the bidding of a foreign enemy, while having control of massive amount of crucial infrastructure.
I'm not sure how you can see that as anything except treason. Any plebe employee doing it would be up for treason, especially an employee that had been in direct contact with Putin or other foreign agents, like Musk has been.
That said, I'm not saying what position the law supports. I never studied law, let alone American law.
The diesel shortage has been staved off, in part by temporarily forgiving use of forms of diesel that are normally illegal.
It's not a good time for America to have Zelensky's guys drone-bombing Russia's petroleum and diesel ports/terminals.
I overheard a colleague say the other day that if Zelensky's guys attack another petroleum/diesel port, that Trump should bomb Zelensky. From what I'm reading and hearing, the middle tier of the "line go up plz" crowd don't find that unreasonable.
At this point, this shit show architected by Victoria Noodleman, and implemented in part by players like Lindsey Graham and John McCain, is just a huge waste of resources.
The only thing that has come out of this is removing the bulk of the Ukrainian population from Ukraine. Twenty years from now, a completely different people will occupy that land.
He was famously pro Ukraine.
Why are we sending enemy astronauts up to the ISS? Why do we trust an enemy country to safely take our astronauts up to the ISS?
That's just what he's brazen enough to do in public.
I'm convinced that if Elon were actually investigated, we'd see enough for him to hang, side by side with the rest of his cohort (POTUS included).
But absolutely, let's assert that the public knowledge that we currently possess isn't quite sufficient to prosecute Elon for treason as defined in the US Constitution, a famously immutable document, which, among other things, captures the nuances of hybrid warfare in perfect clarity.
This is a very reasonable rebuttal to the statement that. if things were normal, Elon would hang for treason.
Now if you think about it, it's almost as if Russia deliberately acts just below the threshold of what constitutes an act of war in any particular state to allow their assets to be, say, hanged for treason. Almost as if Russia's top general, Gerasimov, published a widely cited paper over a decade ago where blurring the line between war and peace was specifically outlined as the modern way of waging war[1], which Russia has successfully been applying since 2014 at the very least.
But let that not cloud our judgment.
Our 250 year old document has a specific definition which means, alas, that our hands (but not Elon's) are tied, and whatever he does is, plainly and simply, NOT treason.
[1] https://www.armyupress.army.mil/portals/7/military-review/ar...
My father worked for the Sheriff's Office in Melbourne, Australia.
The Sheriff's Office isn't like it is in the US. More something akin to bailiff meets US Marshal (enforcement of court orders, often time fines).
Anyway, being that Australia was still in the Commonwealth and such, his boss, the Sheriff, was still technically the executioner of record for capital crimes in Australia. Australia hasn't hung anyone since 1967, but technically still will/can for two crimes: high treason and piracy on the high seas.
His boss told him 1) that he was required to keep a noose or rope for it in his office, and 2) that to him, in the event of anyone even being charged with one of those crimes, the very next thing he would do would be: resign.
You probably didn't mean it that way, but "almost certainly lethal injection" is indeed what we use today.
In a normal world, lethal injections almost certainly would not be used[1].
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/10/christa-pike-tenne...
>And yet the war which realistically can't be won
...is being fought on many battlefields, including the elections in the US.
And I am not so sure Russia isn't winning that one.
Now towards that end, it is mind boggling to see that current fascist regime and its billionaire fascist cronies are hollowing out the US standing and busy kneecapping US in ways unimaginable even for the worst US enemies.
Let's be clear what's really going on here. Russia has a GDP about the same as Italy. The EU and NATO countries could contribute far more to Ukraine but they choose not to. Instead it's business as usual. The welfare states continue uninterrupted and they haven't asked their citizens to sacrifice anything. They continue buying Russian fuel instead of asking people to put on a sweater.
This does not change that the EU has contributed more to Ukraine than the US overall, which is separate from the fossil fuels which the EU has made good progress on, and separate from the high end systems Ukraine needs most right now. The US overcommitted to global security, Trump took us into another forever war, and the world is reorganizing. I generally agree the the US could do a lot more, but that's not happening and other countries need to take care of themselves instead of the America will protect everyone. That is not the reality we live in any more.
If Russia is scared or insecure, that's on them, not a valid reason to murder others, NATO is a defensive pact
Listen to what Putin says in Russian, the war is about Making Russia Great Again, a conquest of empire. He miscalculated and Russia is in the worst place it has been since the fall of the USSR. Their future does not look bright either.
What's the total funding needed to get a Falcon 9 equivalent, given it's demonstrably possible? Likely about the same as SpaceX actually spent in time and money?
Looking at capital markets, one common thing in the EU is how often our investments go to businesses outside our market, while the current issue with the US is all the money is flowing to anything with "AI" in the prospectus.
When it comes to "yes, but what else could we spend this money on?", I think EU governments may be interested in rockets to the extent they're dual-use military assets, but not much beyond that. We do, after all, also want to rapidly shift a few hundred gigawatts of power supply (mostly for heating and transport, but also electricity) away from fossil fuels and towards something less prone to global geopolitical nonsense like Hormuz.
If this was the case, electricity wouldn't be taxed much higher than gas and phasing out coal wouldn't be the number one priority. You describe China's energy policy, not Europe's.
That said, I'm giving a rank ordering here, that energy policy is more important than rocket policy, not saying what's on top, e.g. raise taxes on things people currently use too much/too fast, you put brakes on whole economy rather than encouraging transition.
Also, EU policy explicitly regards energy security, decarbonisation and affordability as connected objectives: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/strategy/repowereu-phase-out-rus...
Also also, phasing out coal isn't inherently at odds with energy security, the stuff is a limited resource. Nuclear power would be a better example to question here, but again, that energy security is more important than rockets doesn't change the fact that in e.g. Germany nuclear power has a very strong political taboo.
Have you seen what crap cars even german manufacturers produce lately?
You'd be foolish to think it correlates to any sense of innovation or entrepreneurialism.
• Expensive energy (German government believes there is a climate crisis)
• Expensive labour (German government believes in prioritizing workers over companies)
• Expensive regulations (you get the picture)
They can't solve any of these problems because they are left wing imperatives, and the left would rather the German car industry die than give up on any of them. So all they can do is wait for the end, and/or hope the AfD somehow obtain a majority.
While the AfD wants to keep German lignite (half as cheap as any imported gas), it also wants gas. The point of coal is eliminating gas. Otherwise you're just polluting for no gain.
Of course, there are geopolitical considerations. Germany thought that it could cut military spending by buying Russian gas, and Poland believes that it needs to buy American gas for protection. But none of them can compete with China.
Of course they can compete with China. China is rather resource poor for such a big country and has to import lots of its fuel. Energy is cheap(ish) in China because it is willing to use all available energy sources without net zero ideology.
At which point do we realise politicians are not on our side?
> By whom? The people with > $100M net worth in Congress and their friends?
That is how taxes have historically worked, so why object this time?
> At which point do we realise politicians are not on our side?
That's the argument for democracy. I would like democracy to be better than it is, but fundamentally, this is what it's for: getting the politicians on our side.
By the relatively small group of armed leftist activists ready to use violence until their goal would be achieved.
Apparently Ukraine does use already use Eutelsat in addition to Starlink, but it's utility is limited due to number of satellites and bandwidth, as well as the current weight of terminals (presumably an issue for weapons-borne receivers).
I wish Eutelsat success, but the scale of funding is completely different.
The more significant technical problem with geostationary satellites is you need a much higher gain antenna. Tough to incorporate that into a small drone design. The Starlink/ Starshield terminal is a marvel of compact efficiency.
Ignore the cost and you'll figure it all out.
The reality is nobody had that vision and built the rocket company first to make it happen. Even after seeing the trick done it isn’t likely to be replicated by Europe or a European company within 30 years.
As other comments have stated, this is not treason. However, a private individual/citizen should not have the ability to dictate national security policy:
* https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/its-time-to-take-starlink...
The true statement is: "This is not considered treason in the current legal framework of the US".
Which is exactly the point the OP is making: it is not normal.
What Russia is waging against the US is war according to their own doctrinal documents[1].
If we're stupid enough to accept this as peace while they make one gain after another, it's not a basis for saying that Elon's meddling isn't treason.
This should be a wake-up call.
The world has changed. War has changed. And Russia was brazen enough to publish the new rules.
I hope at least people here have the clarity of mind to read them and understand the implications, beyond "the Constitution uses a particular wording to define treason".
[1] https://www.armyupress.army.mil/portals/7/military-review/ar...
No. With Anthropic (AIUI) the terms of use were agreed to beforehand. With Starlink things were changed suddenly on a whim.
If Starlink doesn't want to be involved with military operations, then put that in the ToS, and Ukraine cannot / will not use it for that.
But Starlink agreed to the use — especially with defence-only operations which were part of the agreement, and what was being done — and suddenly yanking capabilities basically means aiding the murder of civilians.
As to Europe "outpacing the US", that is a major LOL. Europe is facing many serious challenges (see the civil unrest in France and the UK for instance), and is also economically far behind.
We'll see how things unfold with the tech industry... ;-)
Also could stop sending $250b to Russia.
What matters is that the U.S. has a leader who is behaving as though he's a Russian agent and allows military assets like Starlink to be controlled by private citizens with zero oversight. If either of these guys can turn off an asset like Starlink on a completely undocumented whim, there's a problem.
what and when is the the "next" economic cycle?
Do you think you would stand even the tiniest chance of hiring European tech workers into a company run the way they are in the US?
2. They don't have to replace a lot of US tech before the economic impact compounds to effect the US.
https://www.heartaerospace.com/newsroom/heart-aerospace-relo...
These are political and societal issues that are very difficult to solve. Not to mention that energy insecurity and cost makes Europe non-competitive from the outset.
If this was a US vs EU thing, I would love to hear a US tech giant that isn't in Silicon Valley or Seattle.
Fact is, even in US, no other city was able to replicate that success. For example, there would be no point to move your startup from EU to New York for example.
---------------------
Cisco — Research Triangle Park (Raleigh), NC
Dell — Round Rock, Texas
Epic Games — Cary, NC
HP — Houston, Texas
IBM — Armonk, New York
Lenovo — Morrisville, NC
Oracle — Austin, Texas
Redhat — Raleigh, NC
SAS Institute — Cary, NC
Tesla — Austin, Texas
Lots and lots of US tech giants are not in Silicon Valley or Seattle. In fact, Texas, North Carolina, New York, Georgia, and Virginia have huge hubs of tech giants - especially the Research Triangle Park in NC.
Tesla clearly started in Silicon Valley by the way.
And, no, we are not ignorant to the fact Europe does not have tech companies. No one said that, but you seem to have a real axe to grind against the US. I suggest you step outside and touch some grass.
BTW: I have traveled all over the EU and one thing holds true: folks there are the most arrogant and condescending people I have ever met. And your remarks proves the point once again. They are truly unapproachable. They do not smile and they refuse to acknowledge each other when grocery shopping, walking on the sidewalks, riding on the bus/train - essentially in any public space. It must be absolutely depressing to live in such a culture all the time.
Edit: I see you removed your nasty comment: "Are Americans really that ignorant that they think Europeans don't have tech companies the size of Redhat". Why?
Notably several entries on your list are companies that were founded and grew successful before moving to the locations you listed, often for tax breaks and/or to fit the politics of the company executives. Aside from Dell, all the companies you listed as being located in Texas became successful elsewhere first. Texas has proved it can lure in already successful companies more than it has demonstrated it can grow them. Which is itself a legitimate achievement, but if the question is how you grow new successful tech companies, it's not a super useful metric.
After sanctions for the ICC members, Europe should be getting off services that allow the US to perform the sanctions. It's very difficult though, with any organizations that continue to offer services to sanctioned individuals risking cutting themselves off from the lucrative US market.
Ironically, Europe might need to learn a few things from Russia.
Either way, everyone loses from this kind of behavior. International cooperation is generally the most efficient way of operating. Looks like that's done for until the new world order is settled, and the US is going to flail wildly for a good decade or two to prevent that from happening (despite the current administration accelerating it, under the impression they can win everything, which is now demonstrably categorically false).
I hope Europe all the best but there is a reason why only US companies dominating those space.
US companies can operate in lost for many years, because they have deep pocket, and also because they have many way to earn profit.
Isar is working hard on commercial launch capabilities: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/sep/06/german-star...
And Ariane used to be the dominant commercial launch vehicle, beating the US alternatives by a mile.
Ukraine has access to other solutions.