Angela Merkel’s calm steadied a wounded nation — but it also put it to sleep. For sixteen years, Germany mistook caution for competence and comfort for courage. This essay dissects how the myth of …
You said: It’s better that both are strong and fight each other
… each other than one winning.
Now, who do you think will carry the burden when two large ones are fighting? Hasn’t Europe been the stage for the cold fight between Washington and Moscow for too long? Why do we also need to be the stage for the fight between Washington and Beijing?
Yes.
So just to reiterate: you disagree with the expertise of the report you were citing numbers from?
If USA or China adjust, the investment is not enough.
Do you think they’re not really trying right now?
Just what I know.
You know more about this topic than the people writing this report?
Why should any country support the EU in that fight?
That’s not the question. You asked about skill and culture.
I told you about India. You already forgot by the end of the comment.
An economy isn’t measured by its inhabitants, but by its economic power. That’s why Europe is second before China and that’s why the US with only 300m is at the absolute top.
It’s either fight for dominance or being dominated.
I guess you’ll agree that we spent far to much time being dominated by the US. While you propose welcoming China as our new (co-)overlords instead, I propose a Europe that finally aspires to be independent. Yes, that will be hard, yes that will require changing a lot of things. But yes, it is worth it.
To be honest: we can keep this here up for months, becoming entangled in ever more remote topics such as apparently now discussing the East India Company, without making any progress at all. So let’s be clear: there’s a report even you cited that points out the challenges Europe’s facing when trying to become more independent. This report is written by actual experts in these fields, something no-one on this forum can claim for themselves. If you oppose the statements from that report, I expect more substance than just your intuition and a lot of noise thrown into the discussion.
Europe is the second largest economy on the world. European countries are among the most developed and wealthiest countries in the world. Independence is never given for free and starts with the desire to actually be independent. But that requires to also have an open eye for possibilities instead of solely concentrating on why something is not possible. I don’t think you want to do that, so what’s the point in keeping discussing really?
For me, it’s that somebody is wrong on the internet comic. I think I am right and I don’t understand how you can stick to your opinion, despite the knowledge that you obviously have.
One thing is that you imagine arguments. I am saying that it’s better if both countries compete instead of one winning but you write above that I want to welcome China as our new overlord. I hope that if I write it often enough that you will remember and that we can move on to discuss which options Europe realistically has.
Both countries can compete as much as they want, I couldn’t care less.
My priority is that Europe should use the opportunity to become as independent of these two as possible. They both are not interested in our benefits and every European should be determined to get these two out of our continent as fast as possible. We have the US, we have China, we have Russia all aspiring to be independent, but you somehow want to tell us that it isn’t possible for Europe? I’m sorry, but that smells of bad faith because you don’t even try to consider it a possibility but jump from “fact” to “fact” why it absolutely isn’t possible at all. You can repeat that as much as you want, but I’d rather have some substance why you think you know better than actual experts on that topic.
We have the US, we have China, we have Russia all aspiring to be independent
People usually agree that Russia is now dependent on China.
but you somehow want to tell us that it isn’t possible for Europe?
The EU is deregulating the banking sector to get the money to get the engineers. That looks desperate to me.
but jump from “fact” to “fact” why it absolutely isn’t possible at all.
Because I jumped from engineers to money? You need the engineers and you get them with money.
but I’d rather have some substance why you think you know better than actual experts on that topic.
Why should I appeal to authority? If there is not enough money then there are not enough engineers then there is a technological gap and then there is a power gap.
People usually agree that Russia is now dependent on China.
…yet they had the most engineering graduates worldwide in 2024. Shouldn’t they be thriving according to your engineer dogma?
The EU is deregulating the banking sector to get the money to get the engineers.
Yes yes, we’ve been through this. Let’s talk numbers instead of words for a change: what numbers do you base that on, how many engineers would Europe need in your eyes to achieve independence? Strong opinions, strong facts, let’s hear it.
Why should I appeal to authority?
Do you ask that your doctor too? Or when you go to a lawyer? Or when there’s an electrician coming to you? It’s about recognising that somebody else spend time gathering expertise and a better understanding on a specific topic than you. Nothing wrong with that.
If there is not enough money
Yea no. The report states there is enough money, it just needs to be spent accordingly.
Shouldn’t they be thriving according to your engineer dogma?
They punch above their weight, not only in the war. They have a social network and a search engine. But they need more engineers than either the West or China, which they don’t have.
how many engineers would Europe need in your eyes to achieve independence?
As many as China, and more, and they have to be good. The US have the surveillance to know the tech leads and to make them offers they can’t resist. Difficult to stay ahead without the best minds.
’s about recognising that somebody else spend time gathering expertise and a better understanding on a specific topic than you. Nothing wrong with that.
Or everything. No matter the reputation, if an argument is not convincing, it does not matter. Reputation is there to make people think twice if they disagree.
Yea no. The report states there is enough money, it just needs to be spent accordingly.
As long as there is no forced spending, it’s difficult to change the mindset.
There would be enough, if banks would do the investing, but as the report writes, they should not and can not take the risk.
What the EU does not have are enough founders who take their money and their knowledge and finance the winners of the next round. It does not help if normal citizens burn their money in the next cryto scheme.
To compete, the EU needs two generations of startups, or big companies to become nimble and do the innovation.
That takes at least 15 years, while AI and the political change rewrite the rules.
And once at the top, the founders need a preference to do business in Europe.
It should be done, but it is more difficult than just finding the will to spend.
The problem is that you mistake difficulties with destiny.
These problems can be addressed by policies. For example: Europe has a very good education system capable of producing high class engineers. If you’d want, it is possible to increase the number of engineers.
No matter the reputation, if an argument is not convincing, it does not matter.
If you’re lacking the expertise to make an informed assessment of the argument, all you do is base it on personal opinions. These hardly matter in a fact-driven discussion.
You said: It’s better that both are strong and fight each other
Now, who do you think will carry the burden when two large ones are fighting? Hasn’t Europe been the stage for the cold fight between Washington and Moscow for too long? Why do we also need to be the stage for the fight between Washington and Beijing?
So just to reiterate: you disagree with the expertise of the report you were citing numbers from?
Do you think they’re not really trying right now?
You know more about this topic than the people writing this report?
That’s not the question. You asked about skill and culture.
An economy isn’t measured by its inhabitants, but by its economic power. That’s why Europe is second before China and that’s why the US with only 300m is at the absolute top.
And you say we have to fight and dominate them.
Because we don’t have the skills to avoid it. It’s 1984, we could have known.
Yes. It’s a political document. It’s a lower bound on the problems and an upper bound on the potential.
Good question. They are, but so is the EU.
They write what is necessary, not what is sufficiant.
You think those old skills will help?
I am talking about the East India Company. India was the wealthiest country in the world, next to China. Both succumbed to small European countries.
The size of the economy doesn’t help against cleverness. Are we going to be clever?
It’s either fight for dominance or being dominated.
I guess you’ll agree that we spent far to much time being dominated by the US. While you propose welcoming China as our new (co-)overlords instead, I propose a Europe that finally aspires to be independent. Yes, that will be hard, yes that will require changing a lot of things. But yes, it is worth it.
To be honest: we can keep this here up for months, becoming entangled in ever more remote topics such as apparently now discussing the East India Company, without making any progress at all. So let’s be clear: there’s a report even you cited that points out the challenges Europe’s facing when trying to become more independent. This report is written by actual experts in these fields, something no-one on this forum can claim for themselves. If you oppose the statements from that report, I expect more substance than just your intuition and a lot of noise thrown into the discussion.
Europe is the second largest economy on the world. European countries are among the most developed and wealthiest countries in the world. Independence is never given for free and starts with the desire to actually be independent. But that requires to also have an open eye for possibilities instead of solely concentrating on why something is not possible. I don’t think you want to do that, so what’s the point in keeping discussing really?
For me, it’s that somebody is wrong on the internet comic. I think I am right and I don’t understand how you can stick to your opinion, despite the knowledge that you obviously have.
One thing is that you imagine arguments. I am saying that it’s better if both countries compete instead of one winning but you write above that I want to welcome China as our new overlord. I hope that if I write it often enough that you will remember and that we can move on to discuss which options Europe realistically has.
Both countries can compete as much as they want, I couldn’t care less.
My priority is that Europe should use the opportunity to become as independent of these two as possible. They both are not interested in our benefits and every European should be determined to get these two out of our continent as fast as possible. We have the US, we have China, we have Russia all aspiring to be independent, but you somehow want to tell us that it isn’t possible for Europe? I’m sorry, but that smells of bad faith because you don’t even try to consider it a possibility but jump from “fact” to “fact” why it absolutely isn’t possible at all. You can repeat that as much as you want, but I’d rather have some substance why you think you know better than actual experts on that topic.
People usually agree that Russia is now dependent on China.
The EU is deregulating the banking sector to get the money to get the engineers. That looks desperate to me.
Because I jumped from engineers to money? You need the engineers and you get them with money.
Why should I appeal to authority? If there is not enough money then there are not enough engineers then there is a technological gap and then there is a power gap.
Why would you need somebody to confirm this?
…yet they had the most engineering graduates worldwide in 2024. Shouldn’t they be thriving according to your engineer dogma?
Yes yes, we’ve been through this. Let’s talk numbers instead of words for a change: what numbers do you base that on, how many engineers would Europe need in your eyes to achieve independence? Strong opinions, strong facts, let’s hear it.
Do you ask that your doctor too? Or when you go to a lawyer? Or when there’s an electrician coming to you? It’s about recognising that somebody else spend time gathering expertise and a better understanding on a specific topic than you. Nothing wrong with that.
Yea no. The report states there is enough money, it just needs to be spent accordingly.
They punch above their weight, not only in the war. They have a social network and a search engine. But they need more engineers than either the West or China, which they don’t have.
As many as China, and more, and they have to be good. The US have the surveillance to know the tech leads and to make them offers they can’t resist. Difficult to stay ahead without the best minds.
Or everything. No matter the reputation, if an argument is not convincing, it does not matter. Reputation is there to make people think twice if they disagree.
As long as there is no forced spending, it’s difficult to change the mindset.
There would be enough, if banks would do the investing, but as the report writes, they should not and can not take the risk.
What the EU does not have are enough founders who take their money and their knowledge and finance the winners of the next round. It does not help if normal citizens burn their money in the next cryto scheme.
To compete, the EU needs two generations of startups, or big companies to become nimble and do the innovation.
That takes at least 15 years, while AI and the political change rewrite the rules.
And once at the top, the founders need a preference to do business in Europe.
It should be done, but it is more difficult than just finding the will to spend.
The problem is that you mistake difficulties with destiny.
These problems can be addressed by policies. For example: Europe has a very good education system capable of producing high class engineers. If you’d want, it is possible to increase the number of engineers.
If you’re lacking the expertise to make an informed assessment of the argument, all you do is base it on personal opinions. These hardly matter in a fact-driven discussion.