I think it makes sense. Europe and other countries need to boycott the US based on how the US is negatively affecting the world and driving consumption. Similar to how many countries boycotted Russia.
linotype · 3h ago
You really think what the US has done is remotely on par with what Russia is doing?
LarsKrimi · 1h ago
Yes. Russia has been threatening invasions for years. Now for 7 months America has started doing it too.
It's a much worse feeling being threatened with military invasion by someone your own government tries to continue insisting is a close ally
LaurensBER · 2h ago
Not at all but it seems reasonable to set some standards for the game (e.g supporting free trade) and stop playing with those that do not respect the rules.
Unfortunately with both China and America not respecting the rules that's not realistic for Europe at the moment but one can dream.
bestouff · 2h ago
Not necessarily but nobody was trusting Russia.
chrisco255 · 2h ago
The U.S. should pull out of NATO and leave Europe to deal with Russia, and the inevitable World War 3 that would ensue. The U.S. isn't driving consumption, we plateaued on that basis years ago. However, we're not so suicidal as the Europeans, who have resigned themselves to wring their hands and mock Americans as they get leapfrogged by China, India, and the rest of the rapidly developing world while contributing little but feckless regulatory edicts.
jschveibinz · 4m ago
As an American citizen and firm capitalist, I welcome a technically strong and united European ally that contributes to a majority of its own defense and to the production of new and useful technology to the rest of the world at a fair price. The U.S. wants strong allies and trading partners.
WW2 was 80 years ago. It's time for Europe to reprioritize in favor of economic growth and development; deprioritize protectionism and bureaucracy; encourage investment in small businesses; unite politically instead of pretending to unite; and let go of the cultural past by looking to the future.
The U.S. is always changing, and will always be changing. That's the nature of the country and the source of its strength.
I'm ready for the downvotes--but I haven't said anything that is not true.
pfdietz · 4h ago
I thought the results of science are free for everyone to see. That's how science works.
So isn't it optimal to depend on science someone else does? They spend the money, but you both reap whatever knowledge is obtained.
Rodmine · 2h ago
No, “science” often produces results favourable to those who fund it.
pfdietz · 2h ago
So, the results aren't published? How is that consistent with how science is supposed to be done?
Or do you mean there are spinoffs? But then how is science supposed to be superior at producing these compared to directed development of actually useful things?
tharne · 4h ago
Lol, I'll believe it when I see it. Is this the same Europe that despite everything going on in the world is:
- Still buying Russian gas
- Dependent on U.S. Military bases for their own security
- Dependent on Chinese manufacturing for consumer goods
- Dependent on the U.S. for software and cloud infrastructure
- Dependent on the Chinese for computer hardware
Best of luck Europe, you've had a good run, but you've gotten yourself into a fine mess here.
tobias3 · 4h ago
Yeah, it was a mistake taking this free trade, globalization, UN, WTO, basic human rights, ICC, change through trade, nuclear disarmament etc. stuff seriously. Cost us bigly.
tharne · 3h ago
It really did cost you bigly. Compared with 25 years ago, Europe is less safe, less powerful, and more dependent on other countries for very important things.
jemmyw · 1h ago
That is arguably incorrect and a matter of perception. Europe was perceived to be safer and more powerful 25 years ago. But is in fact, safer and more powerful now than it was then. Are you safer if the dependencies are unknown or if they're known and people are talking about them? Are you safer if you believe the US will have your back, not knowing that it won't really, or are you safer with better knowledge on how far support will go?
The EU countries are, right now, pumping up their military budgets. Russia has just spent several years destroying it's huge stock of soviet era equipment. 25 years ago, that equipment was in better shape and the EU was reducing military budgets all over the place, and Ukraine was closer to Russia's sphere of influence - potentially far less safe but nobody knew it?
lazyeye · 4h ago
Not everything but in alot of cases yes it was a mistake. Trade has never been free, globalization has been a negative for alot of people etc
satyrun · 1h ago
The best will be when they turn away from the US and start infighting.
As an American, I think the US as EU scapegoat mechanism is so cute.
No history, no bad blood. Those centuries old rivalries and wars have all been forgot about lol.
jemmyw · 1h ago
The problem is that for a lot of these problems Europe hasn't had that much self determination over the last 75 years. The US had to intervene twice in world wars that started in Europe. And after WWII the US did, arguably, a reasonably noble thing in how it provided investment to rebuild Europe. No more wars out of Europe and a market to sell US goods to, and then a bit later a bulwark against the USSR. All these things meant a forced dependency. And the US still wants to sell its military equipment, and under Trump very very keen to sell more goods. I would argue that this situation also contributed to Europe losing it's initial developments in computing with brain drain to the US.
75 years just isn't that long in geopolitics, and it's a hard ship to turn around. Only 25 years ago the relationship between the US and Europe was still very strong and it didn't look like there was any pulling back.
You mention buying Russian gas. Again, it's very hard to suddenly stop that gas flow. Even Ukraine didn't shut down the gas pipelines going from Russian to Europe while they had existing contracts in place, it's happening this year. Gas from Russia was 40%, is now less than 11%, is forecast to drop much further this and next year. These kind of economic dependencies also continued for surprising long in previous wars between countries that were actually in hot wars with each other.
The kind of changes you're talking about are slow. The US also has it's dependencies on Asian manufacturing that it is also now trying to turn around, and that will also be slow.
lazyeye · 4h ago
Yes the funding of Russia's war machine (by buying Russian energy) whilst expecting the US to fund the EU's defense takes some level of nerve. Nobody should take the EU seriously.
richwater · 5h ago
> The United States funds 57% of Argo's $40 million annual operating expenses, while the EU funds 23%.
Why the hell is the US on the hook for practically 2/3rds the cost of a system that monitors the entire worlds' ocean?
bryanrasmussen · 4h ago
1. Why should the EU monitor the Pacific? The Pacific is big.
2. The EU claims the EU as its sphere of influence. The U.S claims The U.S and Central and South America by virtue of the Monroe Doctrine.
3. The U.S wanted to be in charge and be big and important, so if you want to be big and important you gotta do more.
4. The EU has military bases in the EU and the waters which touch the EU. The U.S has a military presence in every Ocean of the world.
chrisco255 · 1h ago
> The EU claims the EU as its sphere of influence. The U.S claims The U.S and Central and South America by virtue of the Monroe Doctrine.
The Monroe Doctrine is a policy from the 19th century. A lot has happened since then.
> The U.S wanted to be in charge and be big and important
The EU isn't a sovereign country unto itself, so it either must be "big and important" or it has no other reason to exist. The EU is the second or third largest economy by GDP and not far off from the U.S. but it expects the U.S. to pay disproportionate levels for everything as if it's still 1946.
> The EU has military bases in the EU and the waters which touch the EU
The EU doesn't have military bases.
azinman2 · 4h ago
> The EU has military bases in the EU and the waters which touch the EU. The U.S has a military presence in every Ocean of the world.
UK/France and I’m sure others have bases all over the world.
nosianu · 4h ago
But that is their business and not the EU. And I have no idea why you included the UK anyway - not in the EU.
Something else: Let's also ignore (or not) that the headline of the submission is waaayyy too grand for what's actually in the article. It's only about meteorological data collection. As important as it may be, there's a lot more science than that.
perihelions · 4h ago
$820 billion in hurricane damages since 2016, and the cost center we should focus on is some $40 million/year spent researching causes of that? That's roughly similar in proportionality—and in reasoning—to a datacenter deleting its smoke detectors. (If that is what you want for your discounts, there is OVH).
The hurricanes will continue, as they always have, as will aerial, satellite, and oceanic monitoring of hurricanes, but that is not what the OP article is talking about.
lawlessone · 4h ago
Because they chose too?
It more than likely has uses in defence?
Hegemony isn't free.
zekrioca · 4h ago
It is one of the side effects in terms of costs that a country has in order to enable the safe flow of global trade.
epistasis · 4h ago
Why the hell should I have to live a worse life with more storm damages, less military preparedness, etc. etc. etc. just because sycophants are willing to make up ridiculous excuses for extremely unwise decisions? Such is the pain of democracy, while we still have one.
givemeethekeys · 5h ago
Yeah, just like they're breaking their reliance on the American military /s.
inejge · 4h ago
Those things take time and have an inertia in both branches: it's easier to continue using the existing resources than standing up your own, but once you're committed to developing a replacement it's not easy to stop.
(EU already did it, however partially, with its own satellite navigation system.)
pfdietz · 4h ago
Yes, they will divert money from their social welfare spending into military spending any day now.
Any. Day. Now.
surfsvammel · 5h ago
Yes. Very similar actually. Most of Europe is increasing spending on military defence.
xyzzzzzzz · 5h ago
So they finally are doing what trump asked them to do?
whynotmaybe · 4h ago
No, they've been doing it since Russia's war in Ukraine.
3 days after the start of the invasion, Germany announced a €100 billion increase to military spending.
The fact that you think that's a big number just underscores how dire Europe's security situation is at the moment. One hundred billion Euros sounds like a lot, but China spends two and a half times that much on defense every single year, the U.S. spends 10X that much every single year, and even the Russians spend more than that every single year. Nevermind the fact Europe needs to play catch up here, not just keep pace.
vikaveri · 2h ago
Wikipedia says Russia spent 100 billion in 2023, so increase of 100 billion should be more than that don't you think? Are you misinformed or deliberately lying?
chrisco255 · 1h ago
You have to adjust figures for PPP, or Purchasing Power Parity, due to exchange rate differences. In 2024, Russia's PPP adjusted military spend was somewhere between $300B and $400B [1][2]. Their technology is also vastly superior to Germany's and they have a much larger personnel. It doesn't matter how much you spend if you don't get your money's worth.
By promising to buy more american weapons, more american LNG and investing in american companies.
We europeans are having a really hard time breaking our US addiction. I mean what are we even doing in here
jltsiren · 4h ago
Those "promises" were meaningless BS. Every European should know that the EU cannot make such promises, because it has no power in those matters. Defense policy is up to the member states, while investments and energy purchases are mostly made by private entities.
No comments yet
bpodgursky · 4h ago
Europe is deciding that US technology addiction is better than Russian subjugation.
It's not a time to be playing political games buying sub-par weapons. Bad for Saab, but that's reality. The world is dangerous again.
alimw · 4h ago
If your weapons can stop working according the whim of America, that would be seriously subpar.
bpodgursky · 3h ago
The reality is that European solidarity is not ironclad either. Is the US, or Germany, or Sweden more likely to fold and deactivate* weapon systems under nuclear blackmail?
It sounds hypothetical but seriously, what would Gripen do if tactical nukes were dropped on Estonia and Putin threatened the same on Sweden if they didn't back off? I don't know, and you don't either.
*I've not seen credible accusations this is possible, but assuming it is
No comments yet
givemeethekeys · 4h ago
*Most of Europe has promised to do something... in the glorious future, where anything is possible. Anything at all!
It's a much worse feeling being threatened with military invasion by someone your own government tries to continue insisting is a close ally
Unfortunately with both China and America not respecting the rules that's not realistic for Europe at the moment but one can dream.
WW2 was 80 years ago. It's time for Europe to reprioritize in favor of economic growth and development; deprioritize protectionism and bureaucracy; encourage investment in small businesses; unite politically instead of pretending to unite; and let go of the cultural past by looking to the future.
The U.S. is always changing, and will always be changing. That's the nature of the country and the source of its strength.
I'm ready for the downvotes--but I haven't said anything that is not true.
So isn't it optimal to depend on science someone else does? They spend the money, but you both reap whatever knowledge is obtained.
Or do you mean there are spinoffs? But then how is science supposed to be superior at producing these compared to directed development of actually useful things?
- Still buying Russian gas
- Dependent on U.S. Military bases for their own security
- Dependent on Chinese manufacturing for consumer goods
- Dependent on the U.S. for software and cloud infrastructure
- Dependent on the Chinese for computer hardware
Best of luck Europe, you've had a good run, but you've gotten yourself into a fine mess here.
The EU countries are, right now, pumping up their military budgets. Russia has just spent several years destroying it's huge stock of soviet era equipment. 25 years ago, that equipment was in better shape and the EU was reducing military budgets all over the place, and Ukraine was closer to Russia's sphere of influence - potentially far less safe but nobody knew it?
As an American, I think the US as EU scapegoat mechanism is so cute.
No history, no bad blood. Those centuries old rivalries and wars have all been forgot about lol.
75 years just isn't that long in geopolitics, and it's a hard ship to turn around. Only 25 years ago the relationship between the US and Europe was still very strong and it didn't look like there was any pulling back.
You mention buying Russian gas. Again, it's very hard to suddenly stop that gas flow. Even Ukraine didn't shut down the gas pipelines going from Russian to Europe while they had existing contracts in place, it's happening this year. Gas from Russia was 40%, is now less than 11%, is forecast to drop much further this and next year. These kind of economic dependencies also continued for surprising long in previous wars between countries that were actually in hot wars with each other.
The kind of changes you're talking about are slow. The US also has it's dependencies on Asian manufacturing that it is also now trying to turn around, and that will also be slow.
Why the hell is the US on the hook for practically 2/3rds the cost of a system that monitors the entire worlds' ocean?
2. The EU claims the EU as its sphere of influence. The U.S claims The U.S and Central and South America by virtue of the Monroe Doctrine.
3. The U.S wanted to be in charge and be big and important, so if you want to be big and important you gotta do more.
4. The EU has military bases in the EU and the waters which touch the EU. The U.S has a military presence in every Ocean of the world.
The Monroe Doctrine is a policy from the 19th century. A lot has happened since then.
> The U.S wanted to be in charge and be big and important
The EU isn't a sovereign country unto itself, so it either must be "big and important" or it has no other reason to exist. The EU is the second or third largest economy by GDP and not far off from the U.S. but it expects the U.S. to pay disproportionate levels for everything as if it's still 1946.
> The EU has military bases in the EU and the waters which touch the EU
The EU doesn't have military bases.
UK/France and I’m sure others have bases all over the world.
Here is a list, by the way: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/overseas-...
Something else: Let's also ignore (or not) that the headline of the submission is waaayyy too grand for what's actually in the article. It's only about meteorological data collection. As important as it may be, there's a lot more science than that.
https://www.wunderground.com/article/storms/hurricane/news/2...
It more than likely has uses in defence?
Hegemony isn't free.
(EU already did it, however partially, with its own satellite navigation system.)
Any. Day. Now.
3 days after the start of the invasion, Germany announced a €100 billion increase to military spending.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitenwende_speech
The 100B euro investment was also a temporary one-off budget allocation that had been distributed over the past 2 years and to little effect: https://www.grosswald.org/eu100-billion-later-fixing-the-bun...
[1] https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/debating-defence-budgets-why-... [2] https://militaryppp.com/blog/
We europeans are having a really hard time breaking our US addiction. I mean what are we even doing in here
No comments yet
It's not a time to be playing political games buying sub-par weapons. Bad for Saab, but that's reality. The world is dangerous again.
It sounds hypothetical but seriously, what would Gripen do if tactical nukes were dropped on Estonia and Putin threatened the same on Sweden if they didn't back off? I don't know, and you don't either.
*I've not seen credible accusations this is possible, but assuming it is
No comments yet