It is worth noting that Thucydides' own response to "The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must" was "acting this way will make your allies and enemies alike turn on you at the first opportunity, and raze your city to the ground".
This is a painful, yet important read. I still think that a winning AI strategy for Europe to accelerate AI adoption rather than double down on development, but I appreciate your admission of having second thoughts. I think constant re-evaluation is important.
While I agree with the logic you have spelled out I don't agree with the framing or overall strategic approach. Is it really worth risking everything the west has worked for to save another legacy european colonial project? Was it truly so awful for the Bahamas to separate front the British crown? We're the dutch really providing better governance to Indonesia than what they ended up doing? Trump may be misguided but he does have a point. By what right does Denmark deserve to extend it's powers so far from it's shore on a different peoples. Is the current status quo really the best thing for Denmark or Europe for that matter? The whole project was build on the presumption that larger polities would not go around bullying smaller ones with cash and weapons. Let the natives (as few as they are) of Greenland settle their own matters in the best way that they see fit.
great post veery suggestive. May be Europe can become more reasonable climatewise, but I doubt it. Too much green ideology is all pover the place, but one should never dispair.
#1: Network effects are overhyped. Meta has some of the best engenieers of the world who also earn a little fortune. Why would Zuck pay them so much if the code doesn't matter much and most of Meta's value is its network effect? You could say they work in other stuff besides keeping and aumenting the user base, but that isn't overall true. Alas, we have seen many social networks such as Tik Tok being excepcionally successful (not due to networks, because there were any) and many other big players have gone extint.
#2: Even if the previous point wasn't true, if Europe cut ties with Meta, X and so... how would the European alternative deal with the lost users from the rest of the world? An European Twitter, without American users, would be extremely boring and my quality of life would be quite worse. So, no easy, costless alternative.
Great stuff. I really enjoy the clarity and brevity of the points you've outlined. These points come across clearly, would be great if people in power would also listen...
Apart from 12-13 ("the likeliest outcome is failure"), I like your thinking, especially 10 and 14, and I would like 7 if I understood exactly what we would be fining and suspending the tech giants for.
In the Greenland case, could Trump’s apparent chaotic statements be interpreted as a signaling strategy designed to force other players into costly responses that reveal their true preferences? If so, how does this transform a situation of vague diplomacy into a separating equilibrium, and what are the potential risks and benefits of such a strategy in repeated negotiations with allies and adversaries?
Pieter, your subtitle alone is worth the read - the Thucydidean inversion captures the whole argument. I wrote a satirical piece last week from Dame Europa's perspective as she receives Sam's "freshly laminated Life Plan." Your post gives her the toolkit she only hints at: treasuries, DSA, anti-coercion instruments. Same diagnosis, different register - she signs off with "regulated affection," you give her the regulations: https://rajeshachanta.substack.com/p/conscious-uncoupling
The point about Europe financing American debt is one that should concentrate minds. Structural power sitting unused. The question is whether credible threat requires actual willingness to use it - and your honesty about the anti-coercion instrument's political constraints suggests probably not yet.
It is worth noting that Thucydides' own response to "The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must" was "acting this way will make your allies and enemies alike turn on you at the first opportunity, and raze your city to the ground".
Which was pretty much what ended up happening.
This is a painful, yet important read. I still think that a winning AI strategy for Europe to accelerate AI adoption rather than double down on development, but I appreciate your admission of having second thoughts. I think constant re-evaluation is important.
While I agree with the logic you have spelled out I don't agree with the framing or overall strategic approach. Is it really worth risking everything the west has worked for to save another legacy european colonial project? Was it truly so awful for the Bahamas to separate front the British crown? We're the dutch really providing better governance to Indonesia than what they ended up doing? Trump may be misguided but he does have a point. By what right does Denmark deserve to extend it's powers so far from it's shore on a different peoples. Is the current status quo really the best thing for Denmark or Europe for that matter? The whole project was build on the presumption that larger polities would not go around bullying smaller ones with cash and weapons. Let the natives (as few as they are) of Greenland settle their own matters in the best way that they see fit.
great post veery suggestive. May be Europe can become more reasonable climatewise, but I doubt it. Too much green ideology is all pover the place, but one should never dispair.
One aspect that you don't mention about Carney and Sheinbaum: both are climate champions and, nevertheless, are adapting to the situation.
Carney is probably best known as a climate champion.
Sheinbaum, maybe less so. But she was a lead author of a chapter in the fifth assessment report of the IPCC.
Regarding point 6, I think it has two big flaws:
#1: Network effects are overhyped. Meta has some of the best engenieers of the world who also earn a little fortune. Why would Zuck pay them so much if the code doesn't matter much and most of Meta's value is its network effect? You could say they work in other stuff besides keeping and aumenting the user base, but that isn't overall true. Alas, we have seen many social networks such as Tik Tok being excepcionally successful (not due to networks, because there were any) and many other big players have gone extint.
#2: Even if the previous point wasn't true, if Europe cut ties with Meta, X and so... how would the European alternative deal with the lost users from the rest of the world? An European Twitter, without American users, would be extremely boring and my quality of life would be quite worse. So, no easy, costless alternative.
Great stuff. I really enjoy the clarity and brevity of the points you've outlined. These points come across clearly, would be great if people in power would also listen...
Apart from 12-13 ("the likeliest outcome is failure"), I like your thinking, especially 10 and 14, and I would like 7 if I understood exactly what we would be fining and suspending the tech giants for.
In the Greenland case, could Trump’s apparent chaotic statements be interpreted as a signaling strategy designed to force other players into costly responses that reveal their true preferences? If so, how does this transform a situation of vague diplomacy into a separating equilibrium, and what are the potential risks and benefits of such a strategy in repeated negotiations with allies and adversaries?
Pieter, your subtitle alone is worth the read - the Thucydidean inversion captures the whole argument. I wrote a satirical piece last week from Dame Europa's perspective as she receives Sam's "freshly laminated Life Plan." Your post gives her the toolkit she only hints at: treasuries, DSA, anti-coercion instruments. Same diagnosis, different register - she signs off with "regulated affection," you give her the regulations: https://rajeshachanta.substack.com/p/conscious-uncoupling
The point about Europe financing American debt is one that should concentrate minds. Structural power sitting unused. The question is whether credible threat requires actual willingness to use it - and your honesty about the anti-coercion instrument's political constraints suggests probably not yet.