It's the same reason you don't want Chinese equipment in your telecommunications infrastructure. You can't trust what the Chinese government will do to it or with it.
> It's the same reason you don't want Chinese equipment in your telecommunications infrastructure. You can't trust what the Chinese government will do to it or with it.
Using this logic, every country should develop its own critical equipment from scratch, in terms of both hardware and software.
My belief is that there is no problem with the Chinese equipment, just scare-mongering from the US because it has no manufacturer of 5G equipment. And Europe jumped on the bandwagon just because.
For decades trusting the US was no problem at all. The relationship was mutually beneficial. Cooperation and trust among nations is possible and Juche (completely self-reliance) is not a worthwhile goal at all. So, sure, cooperation is great and should always be a goal – it also secures peace (people who are economically intertwined are less likely to go to war with each other).
The issue is the US burning up that earned mutual trust. And at some point you have to sadly abandon ship. Cooperation is great, trade is great, but not under all circumstances and all the time.
>> It's the same reason you don't want Chinese equipment in your telecommunications infrastructure. You can't trust what the Chinese government will do to it or with it.
> Using this logic, every country should develop its own critical equipment from scratch, in terms of both hardware and software.
The logic is don't use infrastructure of people you don't trust. If Europeans don't trust Chinese, then don't use Chinese infra; if the Europeans don't trust the US (anymore), then don't use US infra. The Europeans could trust the Canadians, and use Canadian infra for example.
China is decidedly anti democratic and authoritarian. They're also preparing for military activities to expand their territory.
It's not that each country needs to develop their own, but it is prudent to not depend on those who have a fundamentally different and incompatible world view.
Huawei became very competitive to Apple. Huawei got banned.
DJI has a near monopoly on drones. No US company could compete and shut down their projects. DJI got banned.
Tiktok was dangerous to Meta. TikTok got almost banned/forced-sold.
Chinese EVs are better than almost any US offering. Chinese EVs got banned (by 100%+ tarrifs on them).
Sale of AI and Chips to China got banned.
This is all the US Tech sector can do now. Short term this will go very well but long term this leads to the US falling behind and behind because American companies have artificially created barriers where they aren't forced to comepete anymore, meanwhile the world moves on and has a competitive environment. Innovation will move faster Ex-USA
> It's the same reason you don't want Chinese equipment in your telecommunications infrastructure. You can't trust what the Chinese government will do to it or with it.
Doesn't Europe actually have a lot of Chinese equipment in their telecom infrastructure? Is this an effort just to try not to make that mistake again?
Europe will just end up doing whatever is cheapest. It's the same story as always. They'll say some stuff publicly but they'll quietly come back to American tech once they see the price tag difference. They're very cost sensitive and their investors are extremely risk-averse.
> You can't trust what the Chinese government will do to it or with it.
It's not clear that europe even trusts europe anymore. Especially with french and german economic dominance looking shakier than ever, debt financing an unpopular war in the east piling up, mounting deficits, industry collapse, youth unemployment... european countries (or greenland for that matter) could do a whole lot worse than turning to china.
Agreed, though, that reliance on US is foolhardy. I can't make any sense of why we're trying to saw the feet off our own economy.
Europe should be building domestic digital capacity regardless (and not just servers) but saying it needs to treat the US like China is a bit melodramatic given the economic and physical threat to Europe is 10X greater in the east.
The US is not anti-Europe. The US has just begun to start evaluating its relationship with Europe rationally and wants it to grow up beyond the post-WW2 training wheels.
The overreaction to this kind of gives vibes of slamming the door and screaming “you don’t love me!” because dad won’t buy a new toy.
The difference is, Europeans used to trust their US partners, and built a lot of infrastructure on US services. This trust has been betrayed, so things now need to change.
It never existed to begin with with China, so no change is necessary.
They control Europe's digital infrastructure and are able to increase rent to usurous levels (tarrifs!) because Europe is dependent on their digital services. Without digital sovereignty, Europe has no sovereignty and will quickly become a modern colony from which wealth will be extracted.
The reason the US is able to raise rents (tariffs) has nothing to do with Europe buying US digital services.
The tariffs are on European exports. The problem is Europe has a weak domestic consumer market and is dependent on selling stuff to the US, not buying from them.
> The US literally wrote a national security strategy describing that it wants to dismantle the EU.
The official 2025 NSS document does not explicitly state a US goal to dismantle the European Union.
The strategy is highly critical of the EU's direction and Europe's trajectory in ways that critics could say could indirectly undermine EU cohesion, but there's no formal language saying the US wants to dismantle the EU.
Critics interpret the tone and strategic shift as potentially indirectly weakening EU cohesion if taken as encouragement to nationalist or Eurosceptic political forces.
Yes, because the EU i stitutiins as they are now need to be razed from the face of the earth. Plain and simple.
The EU needs to be gone and try again something like this in a generation or two, with more emphasis on competition, development and creativity, rather than regulation and socialism.
This article is about FAFO for MAGA loyalists in the USA. Well, MAGA has FA'd with US-European relations. Now they get to FO where it takes us (i.e. over the waterfall, isolating the USA from everything good in the world.)
If the #2 or #1 most popular political party in Germany are "literal Neonazis", I think Germany and likely Europe as a whole has a much bigger problem than whatever America is doing.
Well, foreign intervention and propaganda in democracies is nothing new. It is well documented all the way back to the time of ancient Greece.
So your contention is that in Germany and perhaps other countries (France?) some of the most popular political parties are popular only because their partisans are uneducated dupes or worse, in thrall to foreign powers. Perhaps you would be better off ideologically not supporting democracy - it sounds like it is not for you. Of course democracy has its problems - and people voting for dumb ideas is one of them!
You can either accept that it's your duty to convince your citizens you are right to win their votes, or you can insist that everyone else is wrong and democracy means they should shut up and vote only the "right" way in accordance with establishment approved opinions and go about what Europe has been doing, which is to continue to pursue unpopular policies and blame Russiia/nazis/America/the Internet/free speech for their problems.
European center and left parties could suck all the oxygen out of the room and starve the far-right overnight if they simply introduced and enforced major immigration restrictions - but it's precisely this which is not a Establishment Approved Idea and deemed Unthinkable Hate. Democracy, as long as your opinions are allowed.
> So your contention is that in Germany and perhaps other countries (France?) some of the most popular political parties are popular only because their partisans are uneducated dupes or worse, in thrall to foreign powers. Perhaps you would be better off ideologically not supporting democracy - it sounds like it is not for you. Of course democracy has its problems - and people voting for dumb ideas is one of them!
I don't! I think authoritarian leftism is the way to go as most people are too stupid for their own good tbh.
It can be both. The document is massive, very contradictory and incoherent, and most of the people hysterical over it haven't even read it. Look I'm no fan of the trump administration but people should have concrete concerns, not waving around "project 2025" like some symbol of the country's imminent collapse. Unfortunately, our country is nowhere near collapse and this administration is not going to be the thing to bring it down. Though they're trying their hardest, i will admit.
Sure. They are not anti-Europe. They just announced that they want to topple democracy in our countries, destroy the European Union, want to annex a European territory and are best buddies with Vladimir Putin. But beside of that they are really good friends ... not!
Greenland is not in europe. It may be a danish colony but that doesn't make it "european territory" any more than french guiana is. EU territory? Sure. But europe is a penninsula on the western flank of eurasia.
> Greenland is not in europe. It may be a danish colony but that doesn't make it "european territory" any more than french guiana is. EU territory? Sure. But europe is a penninsula on the western flank of eurasia.
You are right that Greenland is not in Europe (it sits on the Nort American tectonic plate).
It is also not an EU territory, however, it is linked to Europea through Denmark. European influence exists through governance, education, and trade.
Most Greenlanders identify primarily as Kalaallit (Inuit) and Greenlandic, not European.
Well, to be fair, the EU in its current form needs to be killed with fire.
It was supposed to be something akin to United States of Europe, but instead in devolved into a bureaucracy that regulates the shit out if everything, is incredibly socialist and the EC thinks it is above everyone else.
> It was supposed to be something akin to United States of Europe
No, it never was.
> but instead in devolved into a bureaucracy
No it hasn't:
"There are two striking aspects of this rejection of EU bureaucracy. First, in comparison with other, comparable entities, such as the US federal bureaucracy, the EU’s administrative apparatus has a marginal size. Specifically, the EU, which is responsible for more than 440 million citizens, employs only around 60,000 people, while the US federal bureaucracy has more than two million employees that govern a territory with about 330 million inhabitants. Accordingly, the EU bureaucracy is comparatively small and far from being the “bureaucratic monster” which it is frequently portrayed as."
I'm thankful for that. That is why our food is way better and way healthier than the shit the US makes it's citizens eat.
> is incredibly socialist and the EC thinks it is above everyone else.
LOL. No it's not "socialist" and the European Commission is the executive branch of the European Union. If you really think the Commission behaves as if they are above everything else (they do not!), I pull an American president.
> That is why our food is way better and way healthier than the shit the US makes it's citizens eat.
The US optimized for convenience, affordability, and variety.
You can eat very healthily in the US, but it requires more intentional choices.
In many (not all) EU countries, the default option is closer to healthy.
The EU is not Europe. I never see any pro-EU sentiment anywhere besides on HN and Reddit. Talk to Europeans and they hate the EU and see it as an oppressive foreign power. Except for the Germans.
Which Europeans have you "talked" to? Discord and twitter don't count. People moan about the EU like they moan about their own national government.
Opinion polls on actually leaving the EU show a minority in favour. Most Europeans saw Brexit play out and realise sticking the finger up at your neighbours is not a winning strategy.
> Talk to Europeans and they hate the EU and see it as an oppressive foreign power.
Your framing is off, I'm afraid.
Across Europe, most people see the EU as more good than bad, especially compared to the alternative of countries acting alone. At the same time, support is often cautious rather than enthusiastic.
Some people in the US deride it's close allies as "freeloaders" because they choose to use and buy US tech, reinforcing the US's position as a global powerhouse. (Meanwhile US tech is built on the shoulders of their allies.) Now we see these same allies are starting to look inward and invest in technology they own completely because the US is acting decisively not like an ally. Something unthinkable since WW2.
I don't see this news as anything but a good thing. For every technology out there, the EU needs a native alternative. It's clear the current US administration wants to make the EU worse based on a politics of grievance.
I agree, this is a good thing. Long term stable large contracts are great simulation for a market. Airbus obviously has a large amount of military work, and its data needs to stay in Europe.
What we also need is a faster acceleration of military spending so this can happen with more companies.
> thing. Long term stable large contracts are great simulation for a market.
They are not. It can hurt Airbus very much if a provider says they can provide a certain level of hardware/software for 10 years and in three years the RAM or storage goes through the roof and the provider is not big enough to absorb all the losses.
People don’t choose the hyperscalers because they are based in the US, they choose them because they are too big to fail and have pretty much unlimited resources and have multiplr streams of revenue.
> Almost all computer equipment companies are from US.
Made in a few Asian countries. I think it's kind of funny reading the contents of your post and how it ignores Asia, that's actually behind most of it. How much of a Dell PC is US-American?
Was it laziness and stupidity, or was it protection money. I thought the deal since WW2 was a US security guarantee, in return for letting the US have our money. A protection racket. Or perhaps it was more like Europe paying tribute to its colonial master.
Anyhow it is clear the protection is not to be relied upon, so it is time to stop paying. It is dangerous making deals with gangsters. It is perhaps more dangerous to change the deal. But when the protection is not there, it is time to build strength.
Well done to France for maintaining its independent nuclear deterrent through this era. Britain made a mistake letting that go
Wait so the US is supposed to provide security at no cost forever? Are you talking about NATO or something else? The only thing I see a problem is all countries paying the same rate to be in NATO.
This trope with CERN/EU created the WWW is just chauvinism. That contribution to the internet is just infinitesimal small. Just stop repeating it as it was the cornerstone of today’s world.
Is just one little stone in a gigantic castle made in the united states. I’m European, and I think is just silly to look who “invented” each thing, trying to feel patriotic about that. Every invention is based on other inventions, research, ideas and necessities around the world. Trying to put flags on it, is just stupid.
Well, the currently best OS widely deployed is Chinese only. HarmonyOS, a microkernel OS replacing Android on Chinese phones. About 10x faster development than in the US. And secure, unlike Linux.
Fuchsia never made it widescale. They started a couple of years before the Chinese and then got stuck
Your words are displaying the mindset that is the main driving force behind the currently ongoing decline of the American empire. Incredible hubris paired with ignorance and a lack of self reflection. Great qualities if you want to go further down that line.
> Some people in the US deride it's close allies as "freeloaders" because they choose to use and buy US tech
This is a disingenuous straw man. The allies are derided for literally freeloading on US military protection while underinvesting in their own defense.
My country spends less on defence as a percentage of GDP than the US. But it spends much of that with US companies. This is not Freeloading. It was a deal. Cancel TSR-2, and buy American and we will lend you some money. Cancel your nuclear program and buy US submarine launched missiles and we will help you look after yourself. Now let Visa and Mastercard skim off all your transactions and we will keep you secure to keep the money flowing. Sweetheart tax deals for US companies to operate, and we will keep you safe to keep the money flowing. It is not Freeloading, it is colonialism
Agreed those things exist, in most contracts one or both parties feel they are not getting a 'fair' deal and will renegotiate terms, this is very common.
The current U.S. President has insisted that Europeans are freeloading. Given that he’s been the primary proponent of this idea, and given that he’s been cutting off aid and has made cutting off this “freeloading” the central plank of his defense strategy, the U.S. defense budget must have gone down significantly right?
Pray tell, how much of, say, the latest Afghanistan war did the US pay and how much do their allies need to bear? The rebuilding of a whole country, the reinstatement of the Taliban regime, the destabilization of the region, and the still ongoing stream of refugees? The political aftermath of which is still felt in Europe.
Europe could have simply denied entry to the refugees and avoided their entire refugee problem. It's especially silly to blame the US when most EU states strongly supported the downfall of Qaddafi and Assad.
> The allies are derided for literally freeloading on US military protection while underinvesting in their own defense.
1. No one forced the US to spend a bajillion dollars on defense.
2. The US did so out of their own free will, and out of self-interest: their power hegemony allowed for peaceful trade routes that benefited the US economy and US corporations.
3. Their own defense against what? What threats, until fairly recently, did the Europeans face that they needed to spend money protecting against?
Guess which country had never any interest in a strong (politically and militarily) Europe, to maintain the world hegemony?
A Europe with an independent defense is dangerous competition for the US. Maybe it means that some international trade will be done in Euro. Maybe it means foreign policies in Europe's interests.
It seems every single comment in the thread is understanding "cloud" here to mean AWS vs Hetzner. But it's clear from the first paragraph of the article that what they actually mean is MS 365 Dynamics vs SAP. They primarily want a managed ERP + CRM solution, not servers.
Much of what people call cloud is a commodity at this point. If you need vms, object storage, load balancers, vpcs, etc., which is what most people would need, that works in a lot of solutions. And you can usually also find managed databases, redis, and a few other bits and bobs. If you like Kubernetes (I personally don't), the whole point of that is that it kind of works everywhere.
People over pay for AWS mostly because of brand recognition. And it's not even small amounts. You get a lot more CPU/memory/bandwidth with some of the competitors. AWS makes money by squeezing their customers hard on that. Competitors do the obvious thing of being a bit more generous. Companies could save a ton just switching to competing solutions. Try it. It's not that hard. Some solutions are obviously not as complete.
This not about US vs. EU but about sovereignty. If you are married to AWS, that's a weakness in itself. Ask yourself how hard it would be to move to Google cloud. Or Azure. Or whatever. If that's very hard, you might have a problem when Amazon jacks up the prices or discontinues a product.
We use a mix of Google Cloud and Telekom Cloud for some of our more picky customers in Germany. Telekom Cloud is not very glamorous. But it's essentially openstack. Which is an open source thing backed by IBM and others. I wouldn't necessary recommend Telekom Cloud (it has a few weaknesses in support and documentation). But it does the job. And unlike AWS, I can get people on the phone and they are happy to talk to me.
Most cloud providers have a similar offering to AWS Lambda, plus it is not that hard to convert your code from the event handling pattern impose by AWS Lambda to a long running container running in K8s or VMs like you are doing yourself
IMO the lock-in fear is overblown as the top cloud offerings (S3, Lambdas, K8s as a service etc) are already commoditized among the top providers, the exception being specialized databases like DynamoDB, Spanner, Cosmos …
Not saying there wouldn’t be some major work to switch your operations from eg AWS to GCP, but it is also not a hard lock-in
It is amazing how quick a country can turn into a corrupt dictatorship.
Airbus has the ability to move their data to another location, but it is very problemetic that all people with a social account can't. Sure, you can delete your Facebook account but it will take years for you profile to be gone because we all know your data is sold to other parties.
My only option is to keep in mind that everything I put online will one day be read by some evil entity. Even my IP address that Hacker News might store (I don't know, but servers log stuff).
Seems extremely dangerous to be doing those kinds of things with software from someone politically hostile. Perhaps the EU should be weaning itself off that too?
> And how do we fight terrorists, CSAM and political opponents without Palantir ?
By doing police legwork and by prevention work (i.e. offer help to pedophiles, don't go and wreck MENA countries for funsies, but invest in helping the civilian populations).
Half a billion people shouldn't be reliant on whether a guy with clown makeup is having a dementia moment.
Key infra (gov, utilities, news etc) has to be in house or at least in a EU country. Actually in house not big tech EU "sovereign" cloud wink wink nudge
Lmao but in all honesty, there are a lot of european cloud providers that I know and they are even cheaper than american counterparts like aws, azure, gcp. Personally I like european cloud too but I dont have so much as an preference and it depends but the current environment of america does seem a little hostile but not the fault of datacenters in america but I hope that hostility slows down
There are a lot of European “cloud” providers, but there’s not one that offers anything even close to AWS/GCP/Cloudflare. If you need more than compute and S3, you’re pretty much SOL.
And not just Airbus. Very quietly there is a lot of stuff being moved out of the US and away from MS, AWS, Google etc. Trump has absolutely no idea what he's doing and comes across as the proverbial bull in a China shop.
History books a hundred years hence will have some choice things to say about how we all stood by and let this happen.
I wonder if this includes Skywise, the Palantir-built data lake and design stack that they use for many many internal operations (design, airline support, manufacturing). Not sure what difference it really makes where the data is hosted if the folks doing the hosting call home to Colorado…
From what I've seen of Skywise, it is just a glorified SharePoint. Different systems upload CSV files that get turned into database tables. Then you can define views across these tables that other systems can consume by having them dumped to CSV and dropped on an SFTP.
Performance is not great, so you need middleware and batching anyway. As far as I am concerned, it wouldn't be a great loss if Skywise disappeared and just the SFTP with CSV:s remained.
> estimates only an 80/20 chance of finding a suitable provider
I must be terribly fussy but this genuinely tripped me up while reading. What does this phrasing even mean? Is it an 80% chance of success? This seems like someone has heard the phrase "80/20 rule" and applied it somewhere it makes no sense.
1/ First migrate out your "17 years Accenture veteran" executive vice president of digital [0] (who probably sold you MS and Google cloud in the first place)
2/ Then appoint any inside good engineer and ask him to investigate this: "As one of the most prominent and sensitive aerospace corporation, do you think we can setup servers and run our software on it?"
If the answer is no, Airbus might not be fit for the 21th century.
do you really suppose replicating the technical requirements of a security-sensitive company of this size in-house would be so easy? I've been doing infrastructure for 25 years and wouldn't want anywhere near this project. but what you will no doubt find is a pool of overconfident volunteers creating exactly the kind of risk outsourcing the problem allowed them to avoid in the first place
The way I understand it is today is when I board on an Airbus I enter an hybrid of a mechanical and digital machine.
I understand there is a lot of complex and sensitive software embedded/hosted on that plane that hopefully are not gonna kill me.
So computers are actually core to their business. They probably almost invented things like PLM too.
Nothing Airbus does is easy, this is why there are only about 2 companies like that in the world. This is why I do not see why their hosting have to be outsourced...
You can have the data safely on-prem, connected to computers that are connected to the internet, or safely in the cloud, connected to computers that are connected to the internet. The threats are not that different.
It would be reasonably "secure" if it is encrypted on a physically private network using in-house _modified_ _mainstream_ encryption algorithm, then after an over-the-air transfer then you can store it on a third party could under the control of foreign interests. Oh, don't forget the file names have to be encrypted too.
Why would a company without cryptographic expertise modifying an existing algorithm without any particular goal in mind just to be different, produce something more secure than the winning solution in an open cryptographic competition?
> directory names
And file structure too, preferably. Incremental sync could be done with XTS mode.
You need only cryptographic common sense: it seems you have no idea how much it is easy to modify a mainstream cryptographic software to add basic and robust cryptographic modifications...
You'd be fooling yourself if you think any moderately complex company still hasn't moved to the cloud or isn't thinking about it (with rare exceptions)
Yeah, not really sure how a globally distributed manufacturing operation with a complex supply chain and customers all over the world that need access to data for their operations is supposed to function effectively without it.
(and I say that as someone that used to sell commercial aviation data that came on CDs...)
I do, works perfectly if you know what you're doing. If you have no clue, jump to AWS and enjoy the lockin, if you do, jump to a EU provider, and enjoy not being locked in, and a vastly lower cost.
lol my team has worked with every major cloud provider for a decade, but sure it's all our fault because incompetence.
good luck man.
edit: I never even implied that AWS lock-in something positive. I'm getting paid to move companies from cloud to on-prem because that's true sovereignty.
One of the reason is a lot of those "EU Sovereign Clouds" were malicious cash grabs.
It happened several times in the last decade:
- First politicians raise the alarm about "digital sovereignty"
- Then some create new EU sovereign clouds that are pitched/forced on corporations
- They usually do not work, get consolidated and then the scam is revealed
The biggest reveal was when we discovered and warned one of our client the Orange "Sovereign Cloud" (French telco partially owned by the government !) and built to host European most sensitive worloads was just handed over and run by Huawei [0] [1].
They were not the only one who did something like that.
I don't want to put actors like Hertzner in the same bag as they seem to be honest and really compete to offer a cheaper alternative to hyperscalers.
The US means to undermine the EU: https://www.dw.com/en/will-trump-pull-italy-austria-poland-h...
The US means to annex European territory: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0j9l08902eo
It's the same reason you don't want Chinese equipment in your telecommunications infrastructure. You can't trust what the Chinese government will do to it or with it.
Using this logic, every country should develop its own critical equipment from scratch, in terms of both hardware and software.
My belief is that there is no problem with the Chinese equipment, just scare-mongering from the US because it has no manufacturer of 5G equipment. And Europe jumped on the bandwagon just because.
The issue is the US burning up that earned mutual trust. And at some point you have to sadly abandon ship. Cooperation is great, trade is great, but not under all circumstances and all the time.
In what way? They are just more upfront and in your face lately.
> Using this logic, every country should develop its own critical equipment from scratch, in terms of both hardware and software.
The logic is don't use infrastructure of people you don't trust. If Europeans don't trust Chinese, then don't use Chinese infra; if the Europeans don't trust the US (anymore), then don't use US infra. The Europeans could trust the Canadians, and use Canadian infra for example.
It's not that each country needs to develop their own, but it is prudent to not depend on those who have a fundamentally different and incompatible world view.
Huawei became very competitive to Apple. Huawei got banned. DJI has a near monopoly on drones. No US company could compete and shut down their projects. DJI got banned.
Tiktok was dangerous to Meta. TikTok got almost banned/forced-sold.
Chinese EVs are better than almost any US offering. Chinese EVs got banned (by 100%+ tarrifs on them).
Sale of AI and Chips to China got banned.
This is all the US Tech sector can do now. Short term this will go very well but long term this leads to the US falling behind and behind because American companies have artificially created barriers where they aren't forced to comepete anymore, meanwhile the world moves on and has a competitive environment. Innovation will move faster Ex-USA
Doesn't Europe actually have a lot of Chinese equipment in their telecom infrastructure? Is this an effort just to try not to make that mistake again?
It's not clear that europe even trusts europe anymore. Especially with french and german economic dominance looking shakier than ever, debt financing an unpopular war in the east piling up, mounting deficits, industry collapse, youth unemployment... european countries (or greenland for that matter) could do a whole lot worse than turning to china.
Agreed, though, that reliance on US is foolhardy. I can't make any sense of why we're trying to saw the feet off our own economy.
The US is not anti-Europe. The US has just begun to start evaluating its relationship with Europe rationally and wants it to grow up beyond the post-WW2 training wheels.
The overreaction to this kind of gives vibes of slamming the door and screaming “you don’t love me!” because dad won’t buy a new toy.
It never existed to begin with with China, so no change is necessary.
That's not "melodramatic".
The tariffs are on European exports. The problem is Europe has a weak domestic consumer market and is dependent on selling stuff to the US, not buying from them.
What do you mean it's not anti-Europe? It's literally trying to destroy our shared institutions!
The official 2025 NSS document does not explicitly state a US goal to dismantle the European Union.
The strategy is highly critical of the EU's direction and Europe's trajectory in ways that critics could say could indirectly undermine EU cohesion, but there's no formal language saying the US wants to dismantle the EU.
Critics interpret the tone and strategic shift as potentially indirectly weakening EU cohesion if taken as encouragement to nationalist or Eurosceptic political forces.
https://archive.ph/eT1FY
The EU needs to be gone and try again something like this in a generation or two, with more emphasis on competition, development and creativity, rather than regulation and socialism.
The EU parliament has a conservative majority [0], as does the Council. [1]
It's a right-wing organization. I wish there was socialism, mate.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_European_Parliament#Curr...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union#...
Also, Europe is doing a fine job harming our shared institutions all on its own, we don’t need any help in that department.
To say they're not anti-Europe is either hopelessly naive or cynically ideologically aligned with their goals.
AFG are Neonazis?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/19/turmoil-in-ger...
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/dangerous-liais...
It's a result of deliberate media manipulation and hybrid warfare by the US and Russia.
Well, foreign intervention and propaganda in democracies is nothing new. It is well documented all the way back to the time of ancient Greece.
So your contention is that in Germany and perhaps other countries (France?) some of the most popular political parties are popular only because their partisans are uneducated dupes or worse, in thrall to foreign powers. Perhaps you would be better off ideologically not supporting democracy - it sounds like it is not for you. Of course democracy has its problems - and people voting for dumb ideas is one of them!
You can either accept that it's your duty to convince your citizens you are right to win their votes, or you can insist that everyone else is wrong and democracy means they should shut up and vote only the "right" way in accordance with establishment approved opinions and go about what Europe has been doing, which is to continue to pursue unpopular policies and blame Russiia/nazis/America/the Internet/free speech for their problems.
European center and left parties could suck all the oxygen out of the room and starve the far-right overnight if they simply introduced and enforced major immigration restrictions - but it's precisely this which is not a Establishment Approved Idea and deemed Unthinkable Hate. Democracy, as long as your opinions are allowed.
I don't! I think authoritarian leftism is the way to go as most people are too stupid for their own good tbh.
Sure. They are not anti-Europe. They just announced that they want to topple democracy in our countries, destroy the European Union, want to annex a European territory and are best buddies with Vladimir Putin. But beside of that they are really good friends ... not!
Greenland is not in europe. It may be a danish colony but that doesn't make it "european territory" any more than french guiana is. EU territory? Sure. But europe is a penninsula on the western flank of eurasia.
Edit: huh I had no idea how complicated the classification of eu territories is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_territories_of_members...
You are right that Greenland is not in Europe (it sits on the Nort American tectonic plate).
It is also not an EU territory, however, it is linked to Europea through Denmark. European influence exists through governance, education, and trade.
Most Greenlanders identify primarily as Kalaallit (Inuit) and Greenlandic, not European.
What kind of argument are you even trying to make?
It was supposed to be something akin to United States of Europe, but instead in devolved into a bureaucracy that regulates the shit out if everything, is incredibly socialist and the EC thinks it is above everyone else.
No, it never was.
> but instead in devolved into a bureaucracy
No it hasn't:
"There are two striking aspects of this rejection of EU bureaucracy. First, in comparison with other, comparable entities, such as the US federal bureaucracy, the EU’s administrative apparatus has a marginal size. Specifically, the EU, which is responsible for more than 440 million citizens, employs only around 60,000 people, while the US federal bureaucracy has more than two million employees that govern a territory with about 330 million inhabitants. Accordingly, the EU bureaucracy is comparatively small and far from being the “bureaucratic monster” which it is frequently portrayed as."
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2023/09/04/why-do-so-many...
> that regulates the shit out if everything,
I'm thankful for that. That is why our food is way better and way healthier than the shit the US makes it's citizens eat.
> is incredibly socialist and the EC thinks it is above everyone else.
LOL. No it's not "socialist" and the European Commission is the executive branch of the European Union. If you really think the Commission behaves as if they are above everything else (they do not!), I pull an American president.
The US optimized for convenience, affordability, and variety.
You can eat very healthily in the US, but it requires more intentional choices. In many (not all) EU countries, the default option is closer to healthy.
There is no conspiracy, sorry.
Opinion polls on actually leaving the EU show a minority in favour. Most Europeans saw Brexit play out and realise sticking the finger up at your neighbours is not a winning strategy.
Your framing is off, I'm afraid.
Across Europe, most people see the EU as more good than bad, especially compared to the alternative of countries acting alone. At the same time, support is often cautious rather than enthusiastic.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/657860/member-states-show-stron...
I don't see this news as anything but a good thing. For every technology out there, the EU needs a native alternative. It's clear the current US administration wants to make the EU worse based on a politics of grievance.
What we also need is a faster acceleration of military spending so this can happen with more companies.
They are not. It can hurt Airbus very much if a provider says they can provide a certain level of hardware/software for 10 years and in three years the RAM or storage goes through the roof and the provider is not big enough to absorb all the losses.
People don’t choose the hyperscalers because they are based in the US, they choose them because they are too big to fail and have pretty much unlimited resources and have multiplr streams of revenue.
Long term, I agree with you.
Made in a few Asian countries. I think it's kind of funny reading the contents of your post and how it ignores Asia, that's actually behind most of it. How much of a Dell PC is US-American?
Using European technology (ASML).
Anyhow it is clear the protection is not to be relied upon, so it is time to stop paying. It is dangerous making deals with gangsters. It is perhaps more dangerous to change the deal. But when the protection is not there, it is time to build strength.
Well done to France for maintaining its independent nuclear deterrent through this era. Britain made a mistake letting that go
https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-11/united-kingdom-nucle...
The US has a long history of funding the Silicon Valley expansion using Darpa and other federal agencies for example.
Europe never had such a thing, and they had a fragmented market for a long time.
The big money is in the US, thats why the talent goes there.
Is just one little stone in a gigantic castle made in the united states. I’m European, and I think is just silly to look who “invented” each thing, trying to feel patriotic about that. Every invention is based on other inventions, research, ideas and necessities around the world. Trying to put flags on it, is just stupid.
Where was binary logic invented? Where was boolean algebra invented? Where was the turing machine invented?
Hell, we can go back even further. Where would any of this be without Aristotle?
Of course, this castle has been built by many many stones. But I think it's fair to say most stones came from Europe.
The fact is the US and China are steamrolling us with their IT companies since decades.
We need to wake up and do it ourselves.
Yes, the www was created at Cern, but this is only a small part of the whole tech industry and history as a whole.
Also before that, Arpanet, the precursor of the Internet, was created and funded in the US by the military and the top unis.
Fuchsia never made it widescale. They started a couple of years before the Chinese and then got stuck
s/laziness and stupidity/corruption/g
See, for instance, what happened to Gemalto.
This is a disingenuous straw man. The allies are derided for literally freeloading on US military protection while underinvesting in their own defense.
My country spends less on defence as a percentage of GDP than the US. But it spends much of that with US companies. This is not Freeloading. It was a deal. Cancel TSR-2, and buy American and we will lend you some money. Cancel your nuclear program and buy US submarine launched missiles and we will help you look after yourself. Now let Visa and Mastercard skim off all your transactions and we will keep you secure to keep the money flowing. Sweetheart tax deals for US companies to operate, and we will keep you safe to keep the money flowing. It is not Freeloading, it is colonialism
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5656174-trump-si...
> The bill approves a record $901 billion in military spending for fiscal 2026
Oh…
The US isn't anywhere close to paying its way.
1. No one forced the US to spend a bajillion dollars on defense.
2. The US did so out of their own free will, and out of self-interest: their power hegemony allowed for peaceful trade routes that benefited the US economy and US corporations.
3. Their own defense against what? What threats, until fairly recently, did the Europeans face that they needed to spend money protecting against?
A Europe with an independent defense is dangerous competition for the US. Maybe it means that some international trade will be done in Euro. Maybe it means foreign policies in Europe's interests.
People over pay for AWS mostly because of brand recognition. And it's not even small amounts. You get a lot more CPU/memory/bandwidth with some of the competitors. AWS makes money by squeezing their customers hard on that. Competitors do the obvious thing of being a bit more generous. Companies could save a ton just switching to competing solutions. Try it. It's not that hard. Some solutions are obviously not as complete.
This not about US vs. EU but about sovereignty. If you are married to AWS, that's a weakness in itself. Ask yourself how hard it would be to move to Google cloud. Or Azure. Or whatever. If that's very hard, you might have a problem when Amazon jacks up the prices or discontinues a product.
We use a mix of Google Cloud and Telekom Cloud for some of our more picky customers in Germany. Telekom Cloud is not very glamorous. But it's essentially openstack. Which is an open source thing backed by IBM and others. I wouldn't necessary recommend Telekom Cloud (it has a few weaknesses in support and documentation). But it does the job. And unlike AWS, I can get people on the phone and they are happy to talk to me.
I have tried Lambdas and then got this "oh-shit moment" when I have realized that if AWS would be to kick me out, I would be absolutely screwed.
Now I am slowly dispersing and using VMs instead and avoiding all the AWS-specific stuff as much as I can.
IMO the lock-in fear is overblown as the top cloud offerings (S3, Lambdas, K8s as a service etc) are already commoditized among the top providers, the exception being specialized databases like DynamoDB, Spanner, Cosmos …
Not saying there wouldn’t be some major work to switch your operations from eg AWS to GCP, but it is also not a hard lock-in
Airbus has the ability to move their data to another location, but it is very problemetic that all people with a social account can't. Sure, you can delete your Facebook account but it will take years for you profile to be gone because we all know your data is sold to other parties.
My only option is to keep in mind that everything I put online will one day be read by some evil entity. Even my IP address that Hacker News might store (I don't know, but servers log stuff).
And how do we fight terrorists, CSAM and political opponents without Palantir ?
Fighting "CSAM" is absurd and ridiculous, and used as a justification for eroding public liberties. So is the fight against "terrorism".
The US government has decided to kill innocent fishermen en masse and labelled its victims "narco-terrorists" as a justification for these crimes.
We absolutely do not need Palantir.
Labelling like this works both ways you know.
You can make exactly same argument for client (phone) scanning and depreciation of encryption.
By doing police legwork and by prevention work (i.e. offer help to pedophiles, don't go and wreck MENA countries for funsies, but invest in helping the civilian populations).
I'm talking about the Skywise data platform.
https://www.aircraft.airbus.com/en/services/enhance/skywise-...
Half a billion people shouldn't be reliant on whether a guy with clown makeup is having a dementia moment.
Key infra (gov, utilities, news etc) has to be in house or at least in a EU country. Actually in house not big tech EU "sovereign" cloud wink wink nudge
It would be nice to know what the requirements are. There are plenty of providers in the EU happy to sell cloud services
Don’t they know you can get Hetzner servers starting from $5/month?
(searching more I found Koyeb, bunny cdn offers deno similar to cloudflare workers)
History books a hundred years hence will have some choice things to say about how we all stood by and let this happen.
Performance is not great, so you need middleware and batching anyway. As far as I am concerned, it wouldn't be a great loss if Skywise disappeared and just the SFTP with CSV:s remained.
I must be terribly fussy but this genuinely tripped me up while reading. What does this phrasing even mean? Is it an 80% chance of success? This seems like someone has heard the phrase "80/20 rule" and applied it somewhere it makes no sense.
If it matters so much, run your own computer systems don’t use any cloud.
1/ First migrate out your "17 years Accenture veteran" executive vice president of digital [0] (who probably sold you MS and Google cloud in the first place)
2/ Then appoint any inside good engineer and ask him to investigate this: "As one of the most prominent and sensitive aerospace corporation, do you think we can setup servers and run our software on it?"
If the answer is no, Airbus might not be fit for the 21th century.
- [0] https://www.airbus.com/en/about-us/our-governance/catherine-...
So computers are actually core to their business. They probably almost invented things like PLM too.
Nothing Airbus does is easy, this is why there are only about 2 companies like that in the world. This is why I do not see why their hosting have to be outsourced...
Not only Airbus. You see, cloud is secure, information is encrypted and only you have access to your data.
Everything else is, I am sorry to say, BS.
Why would a company without cryptographic expertise modifying an existing algorithm without any particular goal in mind just to be different, produce something more secure than the winning solution in an open cryptographic competition?
> directory names
And file structure too, preferably. Incremental sync could be done with XTS mode.
Are you an AI?
Sounds like the "I know a guy" kind of thing that shouldn't be done if you really care about security.
>Are you an AI?
Non-sequitur.
(and I say that as someone that used to sell commercial aviation data that came on CDs...)
It seems there is a misunderstanding over the classification of 'critical' stuff.
We may all have a very different definition.
All I know: the second your are connected to internet, you are cooked.
lol my team has worked with every major cloud provider for a decade, but sure it's all our fault because incompetence.
good luck man.
edit: I never even implied that AWS lock-in something positive. I'm getting paid to move companies from cloud to on-prem because that's true sovereignty.
It happened several times in the last decade:
- First politicians raise the alarm about "digital sovereignty"
- Then some create new EU sovereign clouds that are pitched/forced on corporations
- They usually do not work, get consolidated and then the scam is revealed
The biggest reveal was when we discovered and warned one of our client the Orange "Sovereign Cloud" (French telco partially owned by the government !) and built to host European most sensitive worloads was just handed over and run by Huawei [0] [1]. They were not the only one who did something like that.
I don't want to put actors like Hertzner in the same bag as they seem to be honest and really compete to offer a cheaper alternative to hyperscalers.
- [0] https://www.huawei.com/en/huaweitech/publication/winwin/29/o...
- [1] https://www.techmonitor.ai/hardware/cloud/orange-introduces-...
Why wouldn't a bunch of Airbus executives be next in line to be sanctioned by the US? They represent a threat to the profitability of Boeing.