Oh look, another “news” site trying to shove their nose up the Cheetos ass
Europe will be fine with tech sovereignty, as will every country that decides to love away from US fucked up tech companies
NON-sovereignty has greater risks.
Context, including Trump, matters.
_ /\ _
Rubio literally sent out a memo in december if I remember right saying to aggressively counter any tech sovereignty pushes, as the trump admin wants access to all foreigner data for AI integration and “national security” of the USA. They want to hold/have access to it, cause they like using it as part of their AI surveillance and snooping regime. Again, if I remember right, that was circulated to embassies and lobby firms etc etc.
So any news story about how hard it is, is likely a US influence campaign. Using their oligarch control of media to magnify issues, think tanks publishing unprovoked ‘white papers’ that support the US narrative, and on and on.
When did military leaders become so spineless?
Wellesley must be spinning in his grave (he probably was already at the lack of hats in parliament, but that’s besides the point)
Wellesley must be spinning in his grave (he probably was already at the lack of hats in parliament, but that’s besides the point)
I strongly disagree. Parliament is chockful of asshats.
Then do a military stimulation and assume all American tech had a kill switch triggered. See how far you get.
Hell, do a simulation and assume the US is the aggressor. The orange, imperialistic idiot thinks of it, we should as well.
“It’s not realistic or helpful,” said one European military official of the “tech sovereignty” discussions. “Most of our European platforms are relying on American back-end . . . so it’s very difficult to see anything happening in the short term. It’s just not possible.”
Those arguments resonate more with European military officials than with politicians, according to tech lobbyists, because military leaders better understand the risks a sudden decoupling from the US would bring. Such a break, they argue, would create capability gaps and fragmentation, undermining military operations and cyber security, and making intelligence-gathering less efficient.
It’s okay if big changes are not possible in the short term but they shouldn’t ignore the long term.
Seeing the source (FT) and the Rubio directive, that anonymous qoute from the “European military official” may have come from some hungarian puppet.
Exactly. At least make a plan.
In response to the quote you cited:
What if the orange regime decides to go balls to the wall on Greenland? What’s the play? Roll over and acquiesce? Ask them to stop, while they categorically ignore the requests, and likely clown on the relative powerlessness of the EU military apparatus?
Seriously, if any senior officer in the EU can’t see that for the clear and present danger that it is, they should be fired. Of course it’s a dangerous situation. But decades of letting EU defense atrophy is how they got here, and hard choices are now becoming necessary. Better to start the process and endure the pain now, than to be forced into even worse compromises due to imminent or active military action.
It’s just the classic “Im too old or stuborn to imagine anything different than today”
It’s the same people throwing tantrums at their phone because they moved a setting.
