Hacker News

points by petcat 12 hours ago | 0 comments

Ask Europe if they think there are "actual national security concerns" about them being so heavily reliant on USA tech companies and services.

[–] Munksgaard 12 hours ago

China isn't threatening to invade European countries.

[–] gman83 12 hours ago

They're just providing Russia with all the components they need to build as many drones and rockets as they need to keep striking striking Europe.

[–] pbhjpbhj 11 hours ago

Whilst USA provides the funding for Russia to buy weapons in dollars.

Can you source your statement that China is supplying drone components to Russia?

[–] scottyah 11 hours ago

It is common knowledge, just google it and whichever new site you trust to skip the "Omg you trust news site X?" step

[–] noduerme 11 hours ago

Let me Google that for you

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/09/06/china-secr...

[–] petcat 12 hours ago

Europe and Germany invested heavily in the Nordstream pipelines despite USA repeatedly warning them that Russia would weaponize energy dependence against them [1]. Germany even continued shuttering their nuclear plants after Crimea because they loved the cheap gas.

The point is, Europe's judgement cannot be trusted. They have allowed themselves to become dependent on very risky globalized sources despite decades of warnings.

[1] https://2021-2025.state.gov/nord-stream-2-and-potential-sanc...

[–] MaxHoppersGhost 9 hours ago

I'd love to see the math on whether the EU basically funded the Russian's war on Ukraine via Nordstream.

[–] culi 11 hours ago

This is ridiculous comment. Europe invested in a partnership with Russia because they didn't want the US to continue to dominate them economically, especially when it comes to energy. Now they've been cut off from both Russian oil and West Asian oil and the result is a Europe that is powerless to stand up against the US.

The EU is stuck choosing which of their two masters they're stuck with until they switch to renewables

[–] petcat 10 hours ago

Obama and Merkel held a joint press conference in 2014 where Obama publicly warned about Germany's energy dependence on Russia and Merkel assured everyone that Germany had a "10 to 15 year plan" [1] and then proceeded to continue shutting down its nuclear plants anyway.

Three years later US Energy Secretary Rick Perry went to Poland and gave another speech imploring Germany not to shutter their nuclear plants.

Then Germany celebrated the closing of the last plant with festivities at the Brandenberg Gate and the very next year Russia invaded Ukraine.

I know it's easy to blame everything on some external factor, but sometimes Europe's problems really are simply because they make very bad decisions entirely on their own.

[1] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/0...

[–] culi 9 hours ago

You're not listening. The US wants Germany to be its puppy. If Germany is able to get energy from Russia and the Middle East, then that can't happen.

OF COURSE the United States is gonna "warn" them. They have a massive geopolitical interest in making them dependent.

Germany is right to diversify its dependencies while it switches to renewables. All of EU should've done the same. Depending on the US is a massive threat to their sovereignty

[–] Firaxus 8 hours ago

How does encouraging Germany to be self sufficient and maintain their own energy generation capabilities with nuclear power result in them being the USA’s puppy?

I understand diversification to avoid over reliance, but isn’t that exactly what happened with over reliance on Russian energy sources? To Ukraine and Europe as a whole’s detriment?

[–] culi 7 hours ago

Did you read the statement you posted? It's not asking Germany to increase nuclear. It starts off talking about all the economic benefits that US corporations have had for Germany and then goes to suggest utilizing future U.S. liquefied natural gas exports to "enhance European energy security"

(finishing off with an apology for the NSA spying on the German chancellor)

I'd highly recommend you read it. It makes it abundantly clear that the US wants Germany to rely more on the US for energy security than anything else.

[–] drnick1 12 hours ago

This. There are no words to describe how asinine Europe's (and in particular Germany's) energy policy is. And it's all self inflicted for largely ideological reasons.

[–] reeredfdfdf 10 hours ago

Nordics do have a decent energy policy, mostly covered by nuclear, wind and hydro. To us German fear of nuclear has always seen highly irrational.

[–] Markoff 11 hours ago

and yet Russia didn't weaponize nordstream, meanwhile our "ally" Ukraine destroyed it for us and people still continue pumping there dozens of billions EUR on prolonging endless war

Russia would happily supply cheap gas, it is self imposed EU resrictions together with green deal shooting themselves in their own foot, same thing with EU airlines taking detour to avoid russian airspace while Chinese airlines happily save kerosene flying through RU airspace

[–] Markoff 10 hours ago

your downvotes won't change a reality, but enjoy it if it makes you happy LOL

[–] lawn 12 hours ago

At this point US is a bigger security concern than China.

[–] wil421 12 hours ago

Who do you think is building weapons, parts, and sharing tech with Russia to use on Ukraine?

[–] Danox 11 hours ago

Is America buying Russian diesel? How’s that working out?

[–] wil421 10 hours ago

How much gas and oil has Europe purchased from Russia since the start of the war?

[–] TMWNN 10 hours ago

... while Europe did not allow the Ukraine War to interrupt its longstanding massive purchase contracts for gas from Russia.

The United States is, contrary to what many subreddits' denizens seem to believe, not actually at war with Russia. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Anything the US does, or does not, regarding sanctions on Russia is up to the US to decide.

[–] culi 11 hours ago

Chinese parts have been found in equal parts on both the Russian and the Ukrainian side.

[–] stickfigure 10 hours ago

That still makes them complicit in arming Russia. There is no "it's ok to be neutral and arm both sides" here.

[–] culi 9 hours ago

Well officially they are not neutral. They explicitly ban trading with Russia. They don't sell any actual military products and have strict controls on dual-use products.

Ukraine actually uses Chinese parts much more heavily because its easier for them to get it through the EU. Also, US microchips are routinely found in Russian weaponry. 75% of all its jamming devices come from the US

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-foreign-parts-russia...

It's not easy to paint China on one side or another. It's the same in West Asia. People often try to associate China with Iran but historically they have certainly not been allies. Many of the Saudi Arabian drones China has downed have been Chinese drones and the vast majority of Iran's assets that are locked up due to sanctions are actually currently held in China. China is holding them in compliance with sanctions.

At the same time, they've (rightfully) denounced Trump's illegal retreat from the JCPOA and the additional (illegal) sanctions those have triggered against Iran.

[–] Markoff 11 hours ago

US, China, Israel? I am sure many companies will happily earn money supplying both sides while those idiots are figthting each other in endless war, there is only one winner in this war - military industrial complex.