Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | honzabe's commentslogin

As a European, I hope Trump 2.0 will do to European Trumpist movements what Brexit did to European anti-EU movements.

What is your experience running that company? It looks great on paper, but if you don’t mind sharing, what is the practical side of things? Have you encountered any stumbling blocks?

> With Greenland, Trump just demonstrated how this works: maximum escalation (tariff threats against a NATO partner), then “backing down” in exchange for concessions (“total and permanent access”). The result is a structural shift - Europe becomes more dependent on US decisions in the Arctic, not less.

What concessions? Can you name one thing that Trump got that the US did not have before?

If these actually are attempts at some sort of “the art of the deal” manipulation, they are failing catastrophically. He is achieving nothing while destroying the soft power the US benefited from since WW2.

> The second-order effect: coercive bargaining within the Western alliance becomes normalized

What? What does that even mean? Do you realize how hand-wavey this sounds? With this kind of vague ex-post rationalization totally blind to any negative consequences of the supposed “bargaining”, you could sanewash literally any action. Trump shoots the Prime Minister of Norway on live TV? He just wanted to promote better security of the Western leaders.

Someone else in this thread talks about the supposed lack of awareness of “the art of the deal” meme. No, I am aware of the “4D chess” theory to explain Trump’s behavior. I just don’t think it matches the observation. I think the “malignant narcissist with emotional maturity of an 8-year-old” works much better.

BTW, I like how Emily Maitlis talks about Trump’s “achievements” in Davos - it brings a bit of much-needed levity to the situation: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/34yP2X-nZCk


I think you underestimate how dramatically the perception of the US in Europe changed for the worse. It was already in nose dive during recent months, but the recent days (Greenland crisis) will put a nail in the coffin. I don’t have a crystal ball, but I expect that influx to dry up very soon.

What is the European alternative to the US military if Russia attacks Europe?

This whole thing just seems like the standard hysterical overreaction of people who spend too much time on social media.


> What is the European alternative to the US military if Russia attacks Europe?

European military. Why do some people act as if European countries had no armies?

And even if we had no armies and Russia attacked and totally destroyed us, how is it related to the topic discussed here, which is whether the influx of European engineers to the US will continue or not?

> This whole thing just seems like the standard hysterical overreaction of people who spend too much time on social media.

Perhaps. I don't think it is, but let's say you are right. How is that relevant? People do not want to go to a country they perceive negatively. Whether that perception is an objective fact or hysteria is, in this context, immaterial.


Well there is no "European military" per se and there will be no "Russia invades Europe" scenario, because "Europe" is a continent and not a sovereign nation.

What would happen is that Russia invades Poland, or Russia invades Romania or Bulgaria or something. Those are Eastern European countries. (I mean they all used to be Soviet bloc anyway.) Or Russia would invade Germany like the good ol' days. So whatever nation they invaded would sic their own armed forces on them, and their allies' too. NATO could jump into the fray.

Americans (and perhaps Russians too) often misunderstand how terribly small European nations are, really. They're mostly smaller than individual United States. So, less population, less time to transport stuff, fewer natural resources available in a sovereign context, etc. But lots of national borders.

So Russia won't invade "Europe" but they could go into one or more nations on the list.


Striking? Why?

Appeasement of aggressors has a terrible track record, both historically (Hitler, Putin) and specifically with Trump (TACO).

Danish military analyst Anders Puck Nielsen argues, IMHO convincingly, that Europe should NOT try to appease Trump, but do the opposite - escalate to de-escalate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwRsTDlqU8I

His reasoning is that Trump is a malignant narcissist, and malignant narcissists separate people into two categories: those perceived as strong, whom they admire (Putin, Xi), and weak, whom they abuse. Appeasement will only encourage further abuse. The only viable option is to show strength.

As a European myself, I will support politicians with an uncompromising approach, no matter the cost.


> Come on. Americans sent no such signal. No US election in my lifetime has been about foreign policy, including the last one. Domestic issues are by far predominant.

Guess what, we also care about domestic issues more. Except in smaller countries, your election might have a bigger impact on our fate than our own elections. We only want to live our lives and take care of our families... and then you elect the president who starts helping our worst enemy, and then even threatens our neighbor.

Our soldiers bled and died for you in Iraq and Afghanistan. Please, try to put yourself in our shoes. Imagine you live in one of those small countries that always tried to be a good ally to the US, and you get stabbed in the back, and then you hear an American basically saying, “come on, we don’t care about you, we only care about ourselves”. How would you react?


That reminds me of an article Noah Smith wrote about this: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/after-trump-the-deluge

He believes they will switch from charisma to ideology to keep the movement going.


Danish military analyst Anders Puck Nielsen argues, IMHO convincingly, that Europe should now escalate to de-escalate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwRsTDlqU8I

As a European myself, I will support politicians with an uncompromising approach, no matter the cost.


My guess would be that the OP subscribes to the MAGA worldview, because in their alternative reality, the US-Europe security arrangement was not a mutually beneficial relationship between allies, but a parasitic relationship where the US pays, and Europe reaps the benefits.

Obviously, this worldview is strategically myopic, based on ignoring many things the US was getting out of this arrangement, like US military bases in Europe (also used for power projection to the Middle East), Europeans buying US weapons (big part of why those weapons are so advanced), doing America's bidding in the UN, supporting US military adventures (however misguided) in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

It could be argued that the US role of being the security provider to Europe and others was the main source of their wealth and power. The US had the proverbial goose laying golden eggs, but Trump got angry that they had to shelter that goose, so he kicked her out... no goose would abuse the US like that!

Here is one example: Trump saying that the EU was formed to screw the United States: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kq28VSlvUw


Indeed. I am also tired of Trump pretending trade imbalance is real when he is only counting goods and energy, but he does not count the massive influence of American Big Tech and how Europe basically has zero competition against cloud services, operating systems, office suites, mobile phone manufacturers, computer chips... It all comes from USA, or, lately, China.

> Was/is it common practice to omit the ages of adult women in Germany?

A gentleman does not ask a lady's age.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: