Also LOL @ the US being the destabilizing force with Russia.
That is not really true. Some european countries have nuclear forces. France and the UK.
There are also countries who host American nuclear weapons, but they can't arm them without the authorisation of the US Department of Defense. (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey)
Europe as an entity does not have its own nuclear force. (It is hard to even know what that would mean.)
https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_arsenals?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj...
A similar dilemma: will the US risk New York to save Paris?
France did not believe that the US would risk New York to save Paris.
So France developed it's own nuclear deterrent.
I leave the rest as an exercise to the reader.
Wtf
Post-95 french doctrine refuse the use of nuke as a tactical weapon, so i guess supply lines or military airports would be the targets of subsequent nukes, but we have generals who grew with the idea of using tactical nukes, and i'm pretty sure the possibility is still studied at St-Cyr.
French will say "we won't bomb Russia, but do you think we can bomb your territory, close to the border, on this train station/close to this airport?" It will probably be refused, until its _really_ needed.
Russia (and US) doctrine of only using nuke if their territory is nuked does not work in an offensive war.
Unless you believe France and the UK would leave the rest of Europe hanging to dry in case of a nuclear exchange, if you think so I'd first question why.
Imagine Russia invades Poland. Will the UK Nuke Moscow? Probably not - because Russia would surely retaliate, on the UK!
Imagine Russia nukes Paris. Does the UK Nuke Moscow? Probably not! For the same reason.
As always, yes minister got it all right: https://youtu.be/3OpsP-gz_00?si=_uKmwkZUbE_fTNCM
But yeah, Poland/East Germany is probably too far away and there will be debates about nuclear sharing.
So the gas money definitely did not go to the army. Now, after the sanctions, on the other hand Russia keeps producing missiles and other things and trades with China.
By the way, Saudi Arabia does have a history of invading Yemen. Not an EU country, but a "military operation".
You are basically saying that despite pre-2022 Russian/European gas trade revenue initial Russian military performance was poor, but since Russian combat readiness improves now (with sanctions in place), the EU might as well have continued trading? Because that is just faulty reasoning; You would need actual data here to draw any conclusions about sanction effectiveness.
The supply chain for iPhones is heavily dependent on Chinese manufacturing.
We wouldn't normally expect Tim Cook to kowtow to the Chinese Communist Party, though.
Why wouldn't we? They already do, and quite a bit.
They store Chinese user data exclusively in China on Chinese servers run by Chinese companies despite the obvious implication that the state has eyes into that data.
They censor apps out of the app store that violate Chinese policies and comply with requests for censorship, automatically deleting VPNs that could be used to bypass the firewall or news apps that could access free information. They censor information on Tianenman Square protests, and Hong Kong democracy.
They have modified iCloud encryption and air-drop settings to allow China to bypass them and limit time durations to make them less effective as tools in protest organization.
They make investments into Chinese companies, they maintain quiet neutrality on sensitive subjects that would imperil their relations with the state, they adapt to their markets and acquiesce their territorially disputed maps to China's requests, etc.
> VELDHOVEN, the Netherlands — To win U.S. clearance in the purchase of Silicon Valley Group Inc., officials at ASM Lithography Holding N.V. agreed to a number of restrictions and obligations aimed at protecting lens technology and maintaining operations in the United States. But the Dutch company's CEO today said many of those requirements are compatible with ASML's original goals in buying SVG.
> ASML today announced it had finally cleared U.S. review of its planned purchase of San Jose-based SVG about seven months after announcing plans to acquire the lithography supplier for $1.6 billion in stock. Completion of the merger had been stalled for several months because of concerns about U.S. national security and protection of defense-related technologies. The U.S. government agreement now clears the way for ASML to complete its takeover of SVG within the next few weeks, according to officials in Veldhoven (see today’s story).
> “Clearly any CEO would like a completely free hand, with no obligations,” said ASML chief executive officer Doug Dunn, during a conference call today following the announcement of the agreement. Dunn said a free hand was “never going to be the case with this particular merger/takeover. The U.S. government took a very strong interest in this because, in their opinion, it very clearly effected national security.”
> Topping the list of requirements in the agreement is a promise by ASML to make a “good faith effort” to sell SVG's Tinsley Laboratories subsidiary within six months of completing the acquisition of Silicon Valley Group. Tinsley's lens-polishing technology was one of the major concerns blocking ASML from finishing its purchase of SVG.
The article continues: https://www.eetimes.com/what-asml-agreed-to-do-to-win-u-s-ap...
"U.S. Undersecretary of Energy Ernest Moniz said, “if the EUV technology proves viable, ASML has agreed to build a factory in the U.S., similar to its Netherlands facility, as well as to establish an American research and development center. The factory will supply 100 percent of all ASML's sales in the United States.”"
Minoz said ASML has “agreed to help facilitate periodic reviews among the Euclides EUV program members and U.S. manufacturers.” Euclides is a Europe-based research effort supported by the European Community and based primarily at ASML's R&D facilities in Eindhoven. “Collaborative participation on a pre-competitive basis among these leading lithography tool suppliers is the best approach for strengthening the overall technology and assuring its international acceptance,”
But there are still benefits to NL since China is their adversary too.
We also love it when our government takes marching orders from the US.
Without the American companies not sure the benefits would be the same to the Netherlands or to ASML.
ASML acquired SVGI (Silicon Valley Group, doesn't seem to have been created as a licensing vehicle, apparently founded in 1977), but according to wikipedia it already had access to the technology (SVGI, Intel, and some other US chip manufacturers had access to the tech).
Nowhere in any of the press articles about the acquisition they mention EUV as being a factor (seems like standard industry consolidation instead). If anything they were really far from delivering EUV at the time (it took close to 20y).
AMD produces their own x86 under IP licensed by Intel (and vice versa).
In any case if the US adrenaline fueled diplomacy, starts violating hundreds of years old borders of it's allies, respect for ambiguous IP Laws, will be pretty low in the list of priorities. :-)
The details have never been disclosed but it is well known that this agreement fell within the domain of national security and export controls.
Here's a press release [1] directly from ASML that references these export controls. Even though this PR actually relaxing DUV controls with respect to the U.S., it reaffirms that "EUV systems are also subject to license requirements."
[1]: https://www.asml.com/en/news/press-releases/2024/dutch-gover...
In return, the consortium would have exclusive rights to the technology in the EUV lithography field of use
Researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories were funded in the 1990s to perform basic research into the technical obstacles. The results of this successful effort were disseminated via a public/private partnership Cooperative R&D Agreement (CRADA) with the invention and rights wholly owned by the US government, but licensed and distributed under approval by DOE and Congress.
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/13/1212604208/asml-euv-extreme-u...
Curious how that happened.
All NatLab-Private partnerships have this kind of a rider.
ASML is already starting another partnership with LLNL on next-gen EUV.
This is false.
> To address the challenge of EUV lithography, researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories were funded in the 1990s to perform basic research into the technical obstacles. The results of this successful effort were disseminated via a public/private partnership Cooperative R&D Agreement (CRADA) with the invention and rights wholly owned by the US government, but licensed and distributed under approval by DOE and Congress.[3] The CRADA consisted of a consortium of private companies and the Labs, manifested as an entity called the Extreme Ultraviolet Limited Liability Company (EUV LLC).[4]
> In 2001 SVG was acquired by ASML, leaving ASML as the sole benefactor of the critical technology.
Unless the situation has changed, the IP is still owned by the US government, and is licensed to ASML through their acquisition of Silicon Valley Group.
"By 2018, ASML succeeded in deploying the intellectual property from the EUV-LLC after several decades of developmental research, with incorporation of European-funded EUCLIDES (Extreme UV Concept Lithography Development System) and long-standing partner German optics manufacturer ZEISS and synchrotron light source supplier Oxford Instruments..."
That explicitly says that the IP is with EUV-LLC (edit: which is of U.S. origin).
"The CRADA consisted of a consortium of private companies and the Labs, manifested as an entity called the Extreme Ultraviolet Limited Liability Company (EUV LLC)."
Again, your first quote explicitly states that EUV-LLC was American. The second quote refers to the "Labs", which in this case were the Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, and Berkeley National Laboratories.
Apple may have developed the M4 from the ground up but they still licensed the ISA from ARM.
"To access EUV technology, Intel in 1997 formed the EUV LLC, which entered into a cooperative R&D agreement (CRADA) with DOE. As part of this agreement, Intel and its partners would pay $250 million over three years to cover the direct salary costs of government researchers at the national labs and acquire equipment and materials for the labs, as well as cover the costs of its own researchers dedicated to the project. In return, the consortium would have exclusive rights to the technology in the EUV lithography field of use. At the time, it was the largest CRADA ever undertaken."
In return, the consortium would have exclusive rights to the technology in the EUV lithography field of use
Who knows. In the last batch of negotiations they never made the deal public. These deals get made by elites and the public never learns the details.
FWIW this is not a very common ambition people have here in NL. Besides the implied blatant corruption, which I don't think is the case here, I strongly doubt you can bribe any Dutch executive with something as uncool as a bought Harvard admission.
More powers involved the better for me even as an American.
I don't think this is really good for the US or anybody else in the long term.
Europe should arm up, but US should cultivate a friendly relationship. If Europe would arm up and the US keeps pushing it'll either end up with escalation or US will have to start dismantling European cohesion, both out comes would be bloody.
Plus, If this tragedy happens, China would have an easier time dominating.
Plenty of countries don't think the same things and are not at war, and they're not even allies...
Disagreement?
People do that all the time.
To avoid this outcome being common, we created a monopoly on violence inside states so disagreements have to be solved via courts and not violence.
We don't have this in geo politics.
Russia is already in that position, so you are already dealing with an assertive opponent who only believe in power. And you got war.
So I'm not saying that Putin's rhetoric is correct. but it is a fact that it causes war. In Europe's case it's avoidable if you don't go that route.
The sensible thing would be to pull NATO back to more reasonable boundaries and leave the Russians alone. Maybe ally with them to oppose the Chinese or support India against China. Point them East instead of forcing them to militarise to the West.
What actually happened only really makes sense in context of the famous and rather concerning Trump-Biden debate. If that is the quality of the US's diplomatic head then it is easy to explain why the US policy went so far astray.
Without NATO more countries than Ukraine and Georgia would be at risk of war with Russia.
Russia is not going to ally with the US against China even if we let them rape and murder Ukraine to their black hearts content. They want to dominate Europe and share the values of our authoritarian adversaries.
The sensible thing would be to bleed Russia to death. Regardless of whether they manage to hold on to some part of Ukraine for a while, Russia's ability to threaten their other neighbors and project conventional power beyond their borders is being rapidly, irreversibly ground down. Their low birth rate, and declines in their educational system and industrial base, are going to take them off the board as significant players for decades. Most of their major infrastructure and industrial plant is either a remnant of Soviet times or was built largely by foreign experts who have now left for good; there just aren't many young Russians left who still know how to build anything.
Russia has nothing that we need. China can be contained without any help from Russia. China isn't self sufficient in energy or food, and are facing their own demographic time bomb. So it's enough to keep them bottled up behind the first island chain and prevent them from securing their sea lines of communication. Keep the pressure on and eventually they'll have another revolution or civil war; those have been a frequent occurrence throughout Chinese history. As for India, sure let's have good relations with them but they're going to pursue their own interests and have zero interest in being sucked into some kind of entangling alliance.
This does nothing to address the core issue of Russia viewing over 100 million Europeans across more than 10 countries as "lost colonies" that must be reconquered and subjugated under a Russian supremacist ideology.
It is us, not Russia, that must be left alone. In February 2022, European tanks did not roll into Russia; Russian tanks rolled into Europe.
There is no reason for EU-US war, as there is no possibility of gaining anything. Neither can invade the territory of the other.
Militarism and aggression from the EU would presumably be directed east.
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...
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.
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.
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.
There is indeed some evidence of this but this is not a cause to celebrate.
It is a reactive response and minimalist in scope. Once the crisis is somehow mitigated, everybody is back singing their old tunes. E.g., the various proclamations for banking and capital markets union are still in deep freeze, two decades after the financial crisis. The first response to the Covid and migrant crises was to close internal borders etc.
> It's just a very slow process with 27 member states.
Yes, and we should always celebrate and prioritise preserving that individuality - when it is not hindering the collective survival of our cultures and values.
The beauty of the European project is that it doesnt follow a known pattern. It must invent the needed mechanisms. At this juncture it feels there is a need for drastic such invention. To stop running after disasters and have some confidence in our future.
If that no longer holds, then we enter a new era where non-proliferation will be history.
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.
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.
This is defeatist. Europe isn't bound by talks it's left out of.
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.
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.
Starting to sound like a mob? He's been at this for his whole adult life.
That said, its a price we should pay instead of relying on the US as a partner.
I'm sceptical Russia has this kind of power anymore, beyond being a proxy for China..
Honestly it feels like the US is also becoming a Russian sattelite with Trump & Elon having quiet gettogethers w Putin.
5% is what Sweden needed in the 1980s to defend itself from the whole Soviet Union + Warsaw Pact, without the EU and without NATO.
> In 1997, ASML began studying a shift to using extreme ultraviolet and in 1999 joined a consortium, including Intel and two other U.S. chipmakers, in order to exploit fundamental research conducted by the US Department of Energy. Because the CRADA it operates under is funded by the US taxpayer, licensing must be approved by Congress. It collaborated with the Belgian IMEC and Sematech and turned to Carl Zeiss in Germany for its need of mirrors.[25]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASML_Holding
Before aiming to not be pushovers, EU should probably study the history of their own companies.
No. ASML started as a spinoff of ASMI and Philips in 1984. It became hugely successful and effectively a global monopoly in chip production before any of its EUV products shipped.
Also, taxpayer money funds lots of research everywhere, and this is then used by companies to make money. Most of that research is public, done at universities. That the US chose to stick an "ours!!" label on some of it doesn't really make that research more special than other taxpayer funded research, in moral terms.
No, it's not.
It's ASML looking out for its largest customer. It's Amsterdam looking out for its shipping lanes, as well as for its Nine Eyes partner. Washington absolutely strong arms Europe, but it's strategically aligned with the Netherlands.
Like, just think about the guy coming into the White House. What about him screams quiet, behind-the-scenes diplomatic win taker?
The significant geopolitical shake-up of the past few years should serve as a clear warning to Europeans to prioritize their own defense instead of depending on the USA.
Somehow it never leads to anything :-)
There's a reason the law you're talking about only authorizes the president to do it. The lawmakers know that what they by passing the law are threatening is crazy, so they put it in the hands of the president, who they understand will never use it. They make sure there's a strong gate separating them and the other dog, then they bark. They know that actually trying to extract people from the Hague would look something like the Battle of Hostomel on steroids and would permanently and irrevocably damage relations and they would do nothing of the sort.
There is a reason the US does not recognize the ICC. And we also know they have the plans ready to free any soldier from the Netherlands _if_ we were to arrest a American soldier.
And the US _will_ execute that plan. And the Netherlands _will_ sit back and let it happen.
See, the world is a big schoolyard, and America is tired of shaking people down for protection money and threatens us "to start protecting ourselves".
I don't like Trump, but I can't deny he accelerates events that should have started a while back. Very good for our future, not so much for the US. But that's what they voted for.
This is false though. No one pays US money for defense. The 2% spending is on their own industry. The analogy breaks down.
If anything, the US pays to support other countries/allies.
Hearing the inaugural speech of President Trump, I feel that some treaties and contracts might soon be worth less than the paper they were written on, if breaking those somehow gives national benefits in the quest to "make America great again".
That is how Mr. Trump's speech came across to me anyway. Perhaps and hopefully that is untrue, I'm not a native speaker, so perhaps I lost some subtle nuances.
Wow, the conspiracy theories in this thread are nuts.
The Netherlands is a port economy and agricultural exporter. The U.S. Navy protects the sea lanes it relies on. The Netherlands have been a reliable and natural American ally because our interests align--particularly when it comes to a war as potentially devastating to international trade as a Pacific conflict.
(Zooming in to ASML, their largest customer is TSMC.)
Is that a benefit? I got the impression some countries are rather pressured by the US to spend their money on US military equipment (instead of alternatives) rather than the reverse.
Most importantly, the F-35A is the only available platform certified for nuclear weapons delivery so as long as the Netherlands wants to continue participating in the NATO nuclear sharing arrangement there is no alternative. Germany looked into getting the Typhoon certified for the nuclear strike mission but gave up due to high costs and purchased the F-35A instead.