5 ms·

But we only have a monster in the attic, because we choose to choose one of those two. I believe that's the point the article is trying to make: That the EU sh

But we only have a monster in the attic, because we choose to choose one of those two. I believe that's the point the article is trying to make: That the EU should stand up and be an actual 3rd party and possibly mediate between China and USA. But then the article also concludes that it's not surprising that doesn't happen considering the parties in Europe.

duxup 7y ago
What would "mediate" mean? The EU is hardly in a position to actually address any security concerns.
- acqq 7y ago
  > The EU is hardly in a position to actually address any security concerns. Why?
  - sgt101 7y ago
    Because all the nations of Europe have significantly under invested in defence and security for decades. 'catchup' would require 30 -60%of one years EU gdp over 5-10years + current spend... Until that happens the EU is a spectator or victim.
    - klingonopera 7y ago
      We wouldn't need that much defense if we play out the US and China and Russia against each other. Apart from that - I had suspected that "security" meant "defense" and I think this is far less important globally, than many would like to believe. Of course if you're a country that doesn't know how to negotiate and compromise and do politics, all you'd know is military intervention.
      - duxup 7y ago
        >We wouldn't need that much defense if we play out the US and China and Russia against each other. How does that work? If anything European history shows how non major players become the chips the players play for / the worst consequences land on them.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Most of the significant Euro powers hit around the 2% NATO guide figure, the smaller ones don't, nor does Canada. Germany has some special restrictions on defence. Overall I doubt that deprives us a carrier group or tank division. America badly wanted Pax Americana, got it, and just as Pax Britannica and Pax Romana did, it costs.
      - sgt101 7y ago
        The US has spent double the nato figure the last decade. 2% per UK, Germany, France and Holland would be five carrier groups and ten divisions. Germany and Holland are really delinquent here, Holland now has no actual navy, Germany would be unable to mount any defence of itself or Poland in a war with Russia. This will matter in the next few years.
        NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        They have, but I'm not even convinced that's the result of the choice to seek the post-war US hegemony and Pax Americana, that's been a significant benefit to America. The US doesn't have to spend that, she chooses to. Drop rate to the Nato agreed 2% of GDP as well and still be the world's dominant and most advanced military power. Halve spending and the US would still reach the old two power standard in terms of spending - easily. It would be nearer a 3 power standard. Right now it's more than what, the next seven or eight combined? Germany has constitutional limits placed on her defence demanded by the post-WW2 allies, even if they did spend more. There's limits on when and how they can operate outside of Germany - though I'm very unclear on the detail. Holland may not have much navy - but it certainly still exists with frigates, submarines and what have you, and plans for new vessels - just rather few of them. They recently increased budget to get nearer that 2%. They've a population of about 15m, I think a modern carrier is simply out of reach without completely unbalancing their defence budget. They're way past their projecting power era anyway. I do completely agree all signatories should stick better to that Nato agreed 2% though, or any future agreed amount.
    - acqq 7y ago
      I have understood the discussion to be in the domain of computer security not in "who has a bigger ... own nuclear weapons" or whatever. I can imagine that the former would be technically doable, if there were enough political support (e.g. also to demand on the highest level from the U.S. companies to provide for the technical support to the project which would be managed from Europe for Europe). But yes, politically, I understand there wouldn't be much readiness, because of the long term established practice of depending on the U.S. "solutions" even in these aspects.
- demarq 7y ago
  why do you think that?
  - mfatica 7y ago
    The EU and it's leaders are incredibly weak. The only thing they've managed to do successfully is replace their own people with swaths of migrants
    - duckMuppet 7y ago
      Well they managed to push thru GDPR, which has become an incredibly powerful tool for the elites and government bureaucracy over their people. I think they've even weaponized it against certain archival websites, a brilliant but obvious move for control of the people. The U.S. has so far stymied attempts at government control and regulation of the internet through tools such as net neutrality, But I fear this is short lived, after all, "the children"..
  - oytis 7y ago
    Really, German government even failed to see any security threat in Kaspersky Antivirus on computers of public servicemen, and it is literally a backdoor for the Russian secret services.
    - AnonymousPlanet 7y ago
      How is this different from using an OS that sends the names of the files you have accessed to a foreign country if you don't use its enterprise version or have misconfigured it? A situation that is true throughout public services and across your entire country's industry.
      - oytis 7y ago
        Not quite sure what you're referring to. They also failed to replace MS products with open-source alternatives, because, you know, the icons are on the wrong places.
badpun 7y ago
> That the EU should stand up and be an actual 3rd party That would require allignment of international politics across every EU state. If that is ever going to happen, we are very far, perhaphs hundreds of years, from that.
- luckylion 7y ago
  Not necessarily. It wouldn't need to be a total unified process where you can't start before everybody agrees on every detail and it has been translated to a million local dialects. If you get Germany and France to work together, you're half way there, just like with Airbus/EADS. Nobody needs or wants to wait around for Luxembourg or Ireland, and we really only need the heavy weights - they're the ones paying for it anyhow.
  - badpun 7y ago
    Right now, Germany, with Nord Stream 2, is acting in a way that threatens the security of Poland (EU's sixth largest country). If Germans, the supposed leaders of Europe do it, I can't see anyone else rising above their particular interests.
- jdietrich 7y ago
  The EU is very serious about developing an integrated foreign security apparatus; those efforts have taken on a particular urgency since the Ukraine crisis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po...
sparkling 7y ago
Ignoring the technical difficulties of such a project: I don't trust the EU anymore than i trust the US or China.
- klingonopera 7y ago
  You're wise not to trust anyone in those spheres. Still I'd feel more comfortable with three or more powers arguing over one thing than just two. It's more balanced.

duxup 7y ago

What would "mediate" mean? The EU is hardly in a position to actually address any security concerns.

acqq 7y ago
> The EU is hardly in a position to actually address any security concerns. Why?
- sgt101 7y ago
  Because all the nations of Europe have significantly under invested in defence and security for decades. 'catchup' would require 30 -60%of one years EU gdp over 5-10years + current spend... Until that happens the EU is a spectator or victim.
  - klingonopera 7y ago
    We wouldn't need that much defense if we play out the US and China and Russia against each other. Apart from that - I had suspected that "security" meant "defense" and I think this is far less important globally, than many would like to believe. Of course if you're a country that doesn't know how to negotiate and compromise and do politics, all you'd know is military intervention.
    - duxup 7y ago
      >We wouldn't need that much defense if we play out the US and China and Russia against each other. How does that work? If anything European history shows how non major players become the chips the players play for / the worst consequences land on them.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Most of the significant Euro powers hit around the 2% NATO guide figure, the smaller ones don't, nor does Canada. Germany has some special restrictions on defence. Overall I doubt that deprives us a carrier group or tank division. America badly wanted Pax Americana, got it, and just as Pax Britannica and Pax Romana did, it costs.
    - sgt101 7y ago
      The US has spent double the nato figure the last decade. 2% per UK, Germany, France and Holland would be five carrier groups and ten divisions. Germany and Holland are really delinquent here, Holland now has no actual navy, Germany would be unable to mount any defence of itself or Poland in a war with Russia. This will matter in the next few years.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        They have, but I'm not even convinced that's the result of the choice to seek the post-war US hegemony and Pax Americana, that's been a significant benefit to America. The US doesn't have to spend that, she chooses to. Drop rate to the Nato agreed 2% of GDP as well and still be the world's dominant and most advanced military power. Halve spending and the US would still reach the old two power standard in terms of spending - easily. It would be nearer a 3 power standard. Right now it's more than what, the next seven or eight combined? Germany has constitutional limits placed on her defence demanded by the post-WW2 allies, even if they did spend more. There's limits on when and how they can operate outside of Germany - though I'm very unclear on the detail. Holland may not have much navy - but it certainly still exists with frigates, submarines and what have you, and plans for new vessels - just rather few of them. They recently increased budget to get nearer that 2%. They've a population of about 15m, I think a modern carrier is simply out of reach without completely unbalancing their defence budget. They're way past their projecting power era anyway. I do completely agree all signatories should stick better to that Nato agreed 2% though, or any future agreed amount.
  - acqq 7y ago
    I have understood the discussion to be in the domain of computer security not in "who has a bigger ... own nuclear weapons" or whatever. I can imagine that the former would be technically doable, if there were enough political support (e.g. also to demand on the highest level from the U.S. companies to provide for the technical support to the project which would be managed from Europe for Europe). But yes, politically, I understand there wouldn't be much readiness, because of the long term established practice of depending on the U.S. "solutions" even in these aspects.
demarq 7y ago
why do you think that?
- mfatica 7y ago
  The EU and it's leaders are incredibly weak. The only thing they've managed to do successfully is replace their own people with swaths of migrants
  - duckMuppet 7y ago
    Well they managed to push thru GDPR, which has become an incredibly powerful tool for the elites and government bureaucracy over their people. I think they've even weaponized it against certain archival websites, a brilliant but obvious move for control of the people. The U.S. has so far stymied attempts at government control and regulation of the internet through tools such as net neutrality, But I fear this is short lived, after all, "the children"..
- oytis 7y ago
  Really, German government even failed to see any security threat in Kaspersky Antivirus on computers of public servicemen, and it is literally a backdoor for the Russian secret services.
  - AnonymousPlanet 7y ago
    How is this different from using an OS that sends the names of the files you have accessed to a foreign country if you don't use its enterprise version or have misconfigured it? A situation that is true throughout public services and across your entire country's industry.
    - oytis 7y ago
      Not quite sure what you're referring to. They also failed to replace MS products with open-source alternatives, because, you know, the icons are on the wrong places.

badpun 7y ago

> That the EU should stand up and be an actual 3rd party That would require allignment of international politics across every EU state. If that is ever going to happen, we are very far, perhaphs hundreds of years, from that.

luckylion 7y ago
Not necessarily. It wouldn't need to be a total unified process where you can't start before everybody agrees on every detail and it has been translated to a million local dialects. If you get Germany and France to work together, you're half way there, just like with Airbus/EADS. Nobody needs or wants to wait around for Luxembourg or Ireland, and we really only need the heavy weights - they're the ones paying for it anyhow.
- badpun 7y ago
  Right now, Germany, with Nord Stream 2, is acting in a way that threatens the security of Poland (EU's sixth largest country). If Germans, the supposed leaders of Europe do it, I can't see anyone else rising above their particular interests.
jdietrich 7y ago
The EU is very serious about developing an integrated foreign security apparatus; those efforts have taken on a particular urgency since the Ukraine crisis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po...

sparkling 7y ago

Ignoring the technical difficulties of such a project: I don't trust the EU anymore than i trust the US or China.

klingonopera 7y ago
You're wise not to trust anyone in those spheres. Still I'd feel more comfortable with three or more powers arguing over one thing than just two. It's more balanced.