one more reason*
Yeah, it’s been one reason after another since Trump took office. And it was already an issue before that.
And yet, I still do not see corporate Europe make even the tiniest move to hedge against the risk that at some point, oligarch-owned U.S. companies will pull the plug on them. I wonder what their rationale is. Are European corporate strategists just too stupid or stubborn to see this as an obvious threat to their companies’ very existence? Do they believe this will just “blow over” and things will just return to normal after Trump? (Spoiler: they won’t.) Are they planning to lobby European politicians into kissing ass and bending the knee once the U.S. returns with new demands running counter to European interests?
I assume the corporate ones are only looking for shortterm gains, and the strategists in government/politics that actually have influence are all bought.
Why should I buy a fire extinguisher? My house isn’t on fire, so what am I going to do with that investment? In the meanwhile, I can use that money on something that will bring about an immediate benefit, such as a mini fridge for my 7up cans or a deep fryer for chicken wings.
Sounds stupid, I know. That’s exactly how companies work. That old code written in the 1980s still works, so why bother rewriting it. This old server still runs and we’re not even maxing out its capacity, so we’re definitely not upgrading it. Instead we will keep on pouring millions on patching the old code even though there are only a handful of people who know that language. Meanwhile, we will also complain about electricity prices, even though newer servers would cut electricity expenses to a fraction. Companies are totally allergic to capex, but somehow they can always handle absurdly high opex.
Companies should have an inherent interest in at least appearing to be reliable partners. Some theoretical NSA backdoors, sure, these never concerned 99% of European companies or customers. But this behavior makes it clear, that anything goes if it serves a political, economical, narcissistic or really no purpose at all. We now need to move all our infrastructure off US systems and companies. Anything else is reckless.
Didnt germany just buy new fighter jets from the us for billions but without critical map data, with said killswitches, with undisclosed data sent to U.S. and not even the right to maintain them? Absolute crazy.
Germany bought a small number (35) US fighter jets as replacement for the aging Panavia Tornado used as bombers carrying US nuclear weapons as they are not allowed by their allies to have their own.
And they did so alongside ordering more Eurofighters (58 additional ones already ordered, more planned long-term) for all other roles (even ones where EF variants are still to be developed - EW for example which also is covered by Tornados at the moment) exactly for one reason: the alternative would be giving the US all details of the Eurofighter to get them certified for these bombs.
Context matters… and allies (France and UK in particular) are free to find another arangement than forcing Germany to use US equipment to fullfil NATO requirements. Alas… they won’t because… reasons…
Germany bought a small number (35) US fighter jets as replacement for the aging Panavia Tornado used as bombers carrying US nuclear weapons as they are not allowed by their allies to have their own.
This is a very weird claim. If Germany wanted to build its own nuclear bombs, it could withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Germany could also have asked to host French nuclear missiles instead of US nuclear bombs, possibly as part of an EU-wide agreement rather than a bilateral deal.
If Germany wanted to build its own nuclear bombs, it could withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
They could, if there wasn’t a certain piece of paper their own allies (France and UK in particular) forced upon them as a a requirement for German reunification.
The Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany restored the country’s full sovereignty. The positions it reaffirms don’t limit what Germany is allowed to do under other treaties. It doesn’t prevent Germany withdrawing from the NPT. It doesn’t prevent Germany from doing anything that other sovereign states can do.
So you say that one side of the treaty (restoring Germany’s sovereignity) is valid while the other side (Germany’s assurance to never have nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, banning nuclear weapons stationed in former Eastern Germany and so on…) isn’t?
That’s an interesting idea, although one were you might not find a lot of people agreeing. Especially not as the the German side of assurances also includes no territorial claims over any former German areas now belonging to Poland. Do they know that international law is seemingly bullshit and you can just pick which agreements to uphold?
I’m saying your interpretation of the treaty is incorrect. Immediately after the two sentences you quoted is a third one clarifying that the “rights and obligations arising from the [NPT] will continue to apply to the united Germany”, meaning that Germany retains the right to withdraw from the NPT under Article X like any other signatory.
The actual text says the opposite as it continues:
“[…]They declare that the united Germany, too, will abide by these commitments. In particular, rights and obligations arising from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968 will continue to apply to the united Germany.”Sorry, but reading those two sentences as “we will abide by the renunciation of nuclear weapons, by keeping the right to withdraw from the NPT” is quite frankly insane.
