Comment on Europe’s ‘tech sovereignty’ ambitions carry security risks, military warns
gian@lemmy.grys.it 3 days agoSo any news story about how hard it is, is likely a US influence campaign.
Not necessarily. To build such systems is hard, they are not simple systems you can put togheter in a couple of weeks.
What is true is that it is difficult to distinguish between a true warning about the difficult to build such systems and a US influence campaign.
wampus@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
Building on US tech means the US generally has control over whether you can deploy your military assets, and gives a foreign, militaristic/fascist trending power, deep insights into your military operations. Pretending like these risks are not greater than, or at the very least on par with, “its hard to integrate systems/build our own” is silly.
It’s sorta like Canada’s former liberal leadership hopeful Chrystia Freeland acting like China’s the biggest threat to Canada. While the US administration is actively and openly trying to dismantle Canada using economic warfare, is ignoring former international conventions like those pesky ‘human rights’, and so on. Like there’s this old joke about Canada being in bed with a sleeping elephant given the disproportionate sizes and risk of that elephant rolling over and accidentally squishing you. Except the elephant woke up now, and is actively trying to harm you. Meanwhile idiots like Freeland go on about some Chinese Bear that’s a threat primarily on the other side of the world, ignoring the elephant in the room.
The USA is a threat. They are actively attacking anyone they feel like. They are actively antagonistic towards their “allies” and neutral nations. Their tech oligarchs actively talk about setting up their own baronies, aka “Freedom cities” in the hollowed out carcasses of what remains of nations. Their state department actively opposes foreign nations pursuing data sovereignty, because the USA doesn’t care about privacy, especially not for non-republicans – they want that data to target “terrorists” (non-republicans) more easily with the use of AI. Their leadership quite literally called all their Generals in to a room last year, said “We expect you to commit war crimes, cause we want the world to fear you” and fired anyone that objected. The USA isn’t just a ‘risk’ of being a threat, they are an active threat undermining western democratic nations. Why anyone would think there’s a greater risk ‘not’ to give these folks more power/control over you, is beyond my understanding. My closest approximate comparison on a day-to-day relatable level would likely be something like an abusive relationship, where the victim rationalizes staying in the relationship because “If I left, they’d outright kill me”. That ain’t healthy, nor a desirable position for a military.
Like even the Iran / Hormuz stuff, is basically intentional pain inflicted on the EU. Last year, as part of their chat leak during their strikes on yemen – the chat that leaked on whatsapp or whatever – Hegseth, Gabbard and them were complaining about how they felt they were policing the area, even though all the benefit went to Europe in the form of open trade routes. They wanted Europe to be more actively involved. Trumps made clear references of a similar nature, with his regular bravado/crassness, in his recent “we probably shouldn’t even be there” comments.
The current US administration also has a focus on isolating opponents (which they tend to talk about as ‘containment’ in their ideological writings if I remember right). It’s what underpins things like what they’re doing to democrats in places like Minnesota, and building concentration camps for “illegals” (non-republicans, and non-whites) – they want enemies isolated, cut off from outside aid. Even more, they want those people to suffer, and make noise as they suffer, as it helps to keep other blue states in line and lets them point at the suffering to appease their base. A similar approach underpins much of their international relations, cutting off nations from trade opportunities to weaken “opponents” (non-nuclear / smaller nations) – see Cuba as an easy example currently, or the ongoing attack on international trade norms. Attacking Iran cuts the EUs oil supply (among other trade gaps), exposing a strategic weakness and providing greater opportunities for the US to sow discord amongst EU block members: enter the relaxing of Russian sanctions to further sow animosity, as some EU nations are pressured to resume Russian trade. Trying to distract from his Epstein atrocities is part of the reason Trump may’ve agreed to the plan and rushed the timing a bit, but pretending like it’s the only reason for the current shit going on is naive – there’s a whole fascist administration, full of out and proud Christian white nationalists, backing the actions of Trump, and using his antics to distract from their goals.
gian@lemmy.grys.it 2 days ago
I know, but it is not what I said.
I only pointed out that simple saying “its hard to integrate systems/build our own” did not automagically means that it is said by some US influence campaign or disinformation. It can be the result of an assessment done by someone with some knowledge of the reality.
The fact is that such thing is hard and if we want to break free from US tech (as much as possible) we should be aware of the fact, which obviously did not mean that we should give up.
Yep, and if Canada and EU had the balls, they simply would send a message like “man, we own your debt, keep quiet or we could just sell it” and then just sell about 10% to just show how it would feel.