Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
lokar | on: Dutch Align with US Export Controls on Some ASML Chip Tools
Then be prepared to spend 5%+ of gdp on defense, or become a Russian satellite.
impossiblefork | parent | next
We're 3x as many as the Russians. There's no need for that, unless we need to have a war for some other reason.

5% is what Sweden needed in the 1980s to defend itself from the whole Soviet Union + Warsaw Pact, without the EU and without NATO.

mschild | parent | next
5%+ would likely put Europe ahead of the US in spending on military. Even 3%+ would be such a significant amount of noney that almost noone except the US could compete.

That said, its a price we should pay instead of relying on the US as a partner.

trgn | root | parent
Us and Israel show what the downstream effects on tech innovation are. It may not be a coincidence
megous | root | parent
There's innovation without having to constantly kill and terrorize your neighbors and provoke wars to test your tech.
bigmattystyles | parent | next
Is that so bad if that’s the cost of independence? Go after profiteers ruthlessly however.
lokar | root | parent
I think it would be a better system (as an American)
danieldk | parent | next
It's so sad that the relationship between allies has come to the point where NATO Article 5 has become a bargaining chip against privacy/market fairness laws (DSA/DMA). I think to a lot of Europeans it feels like Americans have unilaterally ended a friendship.

It's true that Europe and Canada need to invest more in defense, but the balance is currently 755 billion USD (US) vs. 430 billion USD (EU) [1]. So it's certainly not like the MAGA rhetoric pretends. The US has the benefit of being a large nuclear power, but for a long time the US preferred being the nuclear protector to avoid too much proliferation on the continent.

Another annoying part of the 'they gotta pay up' Trump/MAGA discourse is that it's starting to sound like a mob wanting protection money. This is not how the NATO agreement works. Countries have to spend 2% of their GDP on defense, but it's not a payment to the US. They could buy Saab Grippens if they wanted to.

[1] https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pd...

mongol | root | parent | next
If the US rhetoric continues it will not be long until you will see some currently non-nuclear EU countries start talking about contingency options. It will take a while, but it is good to remember that the reason there are so few nuclear weapons states is not because it is terribly hard, but because states have abstained for the global good and benefit of non-proliferation. This with the implied protection from states that have it.

If that no longer holds, then we enter a new era where non-proliferation will be history.

jnurmine | root | parent
I think already at this point, that there will be several more nuclear states in Europe (inside EU) in the not so distant future.

Many of the countries already have certified delivery platforms, or have ordered them.

Of course, we're treading in new waters and it's completely unknown if any existing contracts and treaties will be honoured anymore, but that concern will be secondary to this, I think.

I say it is a secondary concern because 1. basically any European nation can put together a delivery system, ballistic or cruising, should they have to; and 2. creating the weapon itself is not really that big of an undertaking for a modern high-technology nation state level actor.

mongol | root | parent
My bet is that we will see Poland to become the next nuclear weapons state. Possibly in collaboration with some neighbours around the Baltic Sea. Who knows, maybe Ukraine joins
NickC25 | root | parent | next
>it's starting to sound like a mob wanting protection money

Starting to sound like a mob? He's been at this for his whole adult life.

lokar | root | parent | next
I certainly find the trump rhetoric distasteful and counterproductive. But I really think the EU would be better off with the ability to defend themselves. Depending on NATO article 5 always introduces a tempting ambiguity, which can lead to miscalculation.
danieldk | root | parent
I agree. Not only does it open the chance of miscalculation, but also makes Europe vulnerable to this kind of blackmailing.

It is still sad though. At any rate, it fits the pattern. During his first term he was also more interested in cozying up with autocrats.

openrisk | root | parent
For a long time Europe was happy having the cake and eating it. Pretending to be a united, peaceful, "soft superpower" and reaping the peace dividends of a US brokered world system. Yet everybody knows that almost all power rests with its varied nation governments, that they are all preoccupied with their own demons and internal inequalities and that they all see the EU as an alliance of convenience.

History called our bluff. Event after event, Financial crisis (remember that?), the Brexit implosion of the UK, the Syrian war / migration crisis, the Pandemic, the Russian invasion, the Trumpist implosion of the US, the Adtech invasion, the Energy transition disruption from China etc. An endless list of setbacks that is not going to end anytime soon.

The old continent is shaken to the very core but somehow we are still in the denial phase.

jnurmine | root | parent | next
Hardly having the cake and eating it. Ideas of a pan-European army were always shot down by either NATO or UK. I mean, it's hard to develop an own army if you are not allowed to by people who are part of the decision process.
loading story #42773024
danieldk | root | parent
The old continent is shaken to the very core but somehow we are still in the denial phase.

I am not sure we are in denial. Have you seen defense spending since the invasion of Ukraine? Moscow failed blackmailing member states using gas. There was pretty good collective purchasing and distribution of COVID vaccinations, etc.

It's just a very slow process with 27 member states. But it seems that every crisis so far as accelerated European integration, which is a win.

loading story #42771732
Spooky23 | root | parent | next
The long Russian strategy has been to undermine the NATO via the US. The right wing nonsense in the US plays into that, by design, and is happening at the worst time for the US.

Reality is the value that the US brings is lower than it was. Ukraine has chewed up the old Soviet-era WW2 style tank divisions, but we’ve also seen that 4th generation fighters can’t survive in contested airspace and traditional Navy ships need to stay offshore (for now) to avoid being sunk by drone jetskis. Kinda a problem where we have limited inventory of 5th generation aircraft in either of our air forces.

The Navy sort of figured this out, but instead of building submarines built stealth ships with no weapons.

We need a reappraisal of US military force structure, based on the technology of 2026 vs 1986, as we’re on the path to end up like the Russians.

lth20B | root | parent | next
As an EU citizen, what bothers me most about this is that the EU is currently verbally attacked from both sides: Lavrov started in the Carlson interview with saying that relationships with Russia and the EU will be difficult but relations with the US are still possible. Mededev topped it off by saying that the EU cannot be forgiven but the US is still an important partner.

YouTube channels that follow the Russian narrative suddenly amplify this and pivoted from "the US is to blame" to "the EU is to blame".

The US narrative (at least online) seems to shift similarly: The US wasn't that important for the conflict, it is the Brits, the French and the Eastern European states who are the real hawks and who have to pay for the war.

Since the EU will be left out of talks between Trump and Putin, one wonders what the game is here and if secret agreements have already been made.

JumpCrisscross | root | parent
> Since the EU will be left out of talks between Trump and Putin, one wonders what the game is here and if secret agreements have already been made

This is defeatist. Europe isn't bound by talks it's left out of.

SllX | root | parent
The DMA really is despicable though. Finding existing monopoly language to be inadequate for their purposes, the EU invented entirely new language that’s theoretically neutral laws on neutral principles but was drafted with the intent of targeting specific foreign entities in a comprehensive manner (mostly American, but also TikTok which is a PRC corporation) threatening to levy fines of 20% of their global—not EU—global revenue.

With the full text of the law implemented, several of these companies came up with compliance plans that don’t run afoul of the letter of the law, but the EC has repeatedly and continued to say “not good enough”, effectively inserting itself in the design process of new products and services from these companies going forward.

I’m against using NATO Article 5 as a bargaining chip too, but seeing what popular support crappy extremely targeted and extremely bureaucratically-minded laws like this has, has me questioning how much the EU is really an ally these days. It’s a given that a lot of you feel this way about the election of Donald Trump (twice), so I get it, but it cuts both ways across the Atlantic right now.

Chris2048 | parent | next
> or become a Russian satellite

I'm sceptical Russia has this kind of power anymore, beyond being a proxy for China..

yapyap | parent | next
be a US sattelite, be a Russian sattelite.

Honestly it feels like the US is also becoming a Russian sattelite with Trump & Elon having quiet gettogethers w Putin.