6 ms·

> Why would it be the last? They have a long and vibrant history of collaboration. I suppose the FBI ends up being a partisan agency, like all other US governm

by Fnoord 2y ago

> Why would it be the last? They have a long and vibrant history of collaboration. I suppose the FBI ends up being a partisan agency, like all other US government agencies. Regardless, if trust is eroded between countries [1] [2] [3], why would the police of these countries cooperate, and share intel? [1] Threaten those in NATO paying < 5% of annual budget to defense won't be protected by US (the US pays less). [2] Threatening a colony of a NATO partner (Greenland, of Denmark). [3] Threaten all your [now former] friends with tariffs. FVEY is dead. NATO is dead. And any cooperation between US and NL is also dead. However, CA and AU might increase their cooperation with EU.

tokioyoyo 2y ago
Well, I genuinely hope our governments start getting in talks with China.
rafram 2y ago
To be precise, the NATO target is 5% of GDP. The US spends 13.3% of its budget on defense, but only 3.4% of GDP.
- opo 2y ago
  Where are you getting this NATO target of 5% of GDP? >...In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness. >...The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, is almost equal to that of the United States. However, non-US Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defence. https://www.nato.int/cps/em/natohq/topics_67655.htm#:~:text=The%202%25%20defence%20investment%20guideline,ensure%20the%20Alliance's%20military%20readiness. https://www.nato.int/cps/em/natohq/topics_67655.htm#:~:text=...
terrabiped 2y ago
1. I think it’s also fair to say that since the interview, Mark Rutte has come out and said that NATO countries need to increase their spending to be able to protect themselves. Countries like Poland, Sweden, and Lithuania (possibly more, though I haven’t followed this closely) have shared the same opinion. Paraphrasing Tusk's comments, wanting your allies to be stronger can hardly be considered a hostile move. 2. The only thing to add here is that, over time, this has morphed from “not ruling out the use of force” to “threatening the use of force.” Either way, I agree, it’s not a good look. 3. To counterbalance, the EU has been using US tech companies as a piggy bank for many years now, yet that hasn’t hindered collaboration between the US and Europe. NATO isn’t dead but is likely only going to grow stronger. FVEY will probably continue, especially on initiatives where everyone stands to benefit.
- exceptione 2y ago
  > the EU has been using US tech companies as a piggy bank for many years now, Ouch ouch... I have to tell you that you got this backwards. Those tech companies are very happy to hoard billions of dollars from EU citizens. The problem is more that they don't like competition and have utmost disrespect for human rights like privacy. There were lawsuits for the very basic thing of ANTI-COMPETITIVE behavior. The real tragedy US people do not even know anymore what a healthy, competitive economy does entail. US companies do not like to compete, they like to kill competition. I did not even mention they facilitate illegal stuff, poison society with disinformation and function as a springboard for adversary states. Those slaps on the wrist were a shame. Google, Apple and MS should have had received a ban for 20 years, but the EU has been to late to decouple, and now they find themselves in the grip of tech oligarchs. (Luckily, some of them are also openly nazi-supporters, otherwise the Afd would miss some keynote speakers).
  - terrabiped 2y ago
    Nice story, but it doesn’t really match the reality I’ve seen. One example: I was involved in the implementation of Article 15/17 at one of the FAANG companies. Throughout the process, we had many meetings with governmental bodies in the EU and, specifically, with the European CMOs (many of these are government controlled in Europe). It was clear as day that all they wanted from us was to pay up. It was literal extortion and had nothing to do with helping the "creatives" or fair competition or anything else.
    - exceptione 2y ago
      Man, that sounds unfair. If I would be the owner of a FAANG company, I would tell the EU to fuck themselves instead of using them as a piggy bank. Why do those FAANG companies still want to do business there? It almost sounds like the EU wants companies to pay taxes and fines if they violate the law. An alternative theory is that you were not in every relevant meeting. I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I totally don't buy it. And you understand why.
      - 2y ago

by Fnoord 2y ago

tokioyoyo 2y ago

Well, I genuinely hope our governments start getting in talks with China.

rafram 2y ago

To be precise, the NATO target is 5% of GDP. The US spends 13.3% of its budget on defense, but only 3.4% of GDP.

opo 2y ago
Where are you getting this NATO target of 5% of GDP? >...In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness. >...The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, is almost equal to that of the United States. However, non-US Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defence. https://www.nato.int/cps/em/natohq/topics_67655.htm#:~:text=The%202%25%20defence%20investment%20guideline,ensure%20the%20Alliance's%20military%20readiness. https://www.nato.int/cps/em/natohq/topics_67655.htm#:~:text=...

terrabiped 2y ago

1. I think it’s also fair to say that since the interview, Mark Rutte has come out and said that NATO countries need to increase their spending to be able to protect themselves. Countries like Poland, Sweden, and Lithuania (possibly more, though I haven’t followed this closely) have shared the same opinion. Paraphrasing Tusk's comments, wanting your allies to be stronger can hardly be considered a hostile move. 2. The only thing to add here is that, over time, this has morphed from “not ruling out the use of force” to “threatening the use of force.” Either way, I agree, it’s not a good look. 3. To counterbalance, the EU has been using US tech companies as a piggy bank for many years now, yet that hasn’t hindered collaboration between the US and Europe. NATO isn’t dead but is likely only going to grow stronger. FVEY will probably continue, especially on initiatives where everyone stands to benefit.

exceptione 2y ago
> the EU has been using US tech companies as a piggy bank for many years now, Ouch ouch... I have to tell you that you got this backwards. Those tech companies are very happy to hoard billions of dollars from EU citizens. The problem is more that they don't like competition and have utmost disrespect for human rights like privacy. There were lawsuits for the very basic thing of ANTI-COMPETITIVE behavior. The real tragedy US people do not even know anymore what a healthy, competitive economy does entail. US companies do not like to compete, they like to kill competition. I did not even mention they facilitate illegal stuff, poison society with disinformation and function as a springboard for adversary states. Those slaps on the wrist were a shame. Google, Apple and MS should have had received a ban for 20 years, but the EU has been to late to decouple, and now they find themselves in the grip of tech oligarchs. (Luckily, some of them are also openly nazi-supporters, otherwise the Afd would miss some keynote speakers).
- terrabiped 2y ago
  Nice story, but it doesn’t really match the reality I’ve seen. One example: I was involved in the implementation of Article 15/17 at one of the FAANG companies. Throughout the process, we had many meetings with governmental bodies in the EU and, specifically, with the European CMOs (many of these are government controlled in Europe). It was clear as day that all they wanted from us was to pay up. It was literal extortion and had nothing to do with helping the "creatives" or fair competition or anything else.
  - exceptione 2y ago
    Man, that sounds unfair. If I would be the owner of a FAANG company, I would tell the EU to fuck themselves instead of using them as a piggy bank. Why do those FAANG companies still want to do business there? It almost sounds like the EU wants companies to pay taxes and fines if they violate the law. An alternative theory is that you were not in every relevant meeting. I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I totally don't buy it. And you understand why.
    - 2y ago