The central command is there, but it’s led by America. This means that, if we rely on NATO mechanisms, America effectively controls collective responses by Europe, which is undesirable now that they are not on Europe’s side in the conflict with Russia, and they state over and over again that they intend to annex Greenland.

A European central command and standardisation between countries makes a lot of sense to me. If member states don’t want to give up autonomy, maybe with some kind of opt-out clause. That way the countries that are willing won’t need to coordinate poorly through dozens of bilateral communication channels, but can jointly operate with a common strategy, and at worst, not all member states would contribute to every action. Plenty of possibilities for problems still, but a step up from the current situation.

I would personally still prefer to see a more integrated European military, though. While we will have a bunch of low-population countries all doing all possible tasks poorly, instead of having some specialise to specific strengths and sourcing collectively, the EU will always be weaker militarily than a comparable force that is not split in such a manner.

Probably many greedy reasons, but my personal favourite speculation: annexing Greenland surrounds Canada and stops any potential aid by its NATO allies in case of an invasion, since annexing Canada is one of the stated objectives of the US now.

In terms of strategy for actual national security, they already got all the access they wanted, if they wanted more all they had to do was ask. If they’re the ones doing the attacking of a common ally, though, they wouldn’t get that access. So it’s only of added strategic value to annex instead of maintaining the alliance if the goal is to attack members of the alliance.

Ukraine has one of the strongest militaries in Europe. This whole “they couldn’t even beat puny Ukraine” line I keep seeing is entirely too haughty for my liking. Their gear is less state-of-the-art, sure, but many European countries lack vital components of a functional military altogether. Including logistics and coordination of joint efforts which the Americans have until recently been doing.

Sure, no need to panic yet, but certainly a need to get a move on and actually respond proactively to make up for gaps, and respond jointly, to ensure that it’s not going to be a matter of small countries getting steamrolled one by one.

Korean democracy is not dead yet!

Me, checking what the damage is: oh good, my European defence stocks went up 2 to 4 percent today while the American stocks are tanking, happy days!

Me, after thinking on it a bit longer: oh God, my European defence stocks went up while the world economy is taking a hit, better get ready for whatever’s coming

While you are staying, your productivity is fueling the economy, and the taxes you pay go to the government you dislike. If you flee, that’s a big economic difference you’re making over the years. I guess if you fight symbolically but non-pragmatically and get arrested, they have to feed you and house you in a prison which will cost a little extra, but compared to your non-productivity that’s just a small bonus. Fleeing also means you get to proactively contribute to competitors and reward them for being a better place to live, which in a way doubles your economic impact. There’s a reason the Berlin wall was built and North Korea executes 3 generations of the families of defectors. People are valuable, and they can’t afford to lose too many of them.

On the other hand, if your threshold for fleeing is too low, there are no competitors to support, because every country has their issues, and some may be at a risk of the same developments as the country you’re fleeing from, making it a pointless exercise. And your loved ones could be essentially hostages that can be used to make you stay.

So it kind of depends, but at least the cowardice argument seems pointless to me. Pragmatic small-scale effectiveness tends to beat symbolic perfectionism at making an impact.

Slightly off-topic from the intended point, but I’ve heard this more often, that there’s no such thing as a fish, but it’s a useful constructed concept to have.

So why is it so important that we all remember that animals like whales are not fish, they’re mammals? Didn’t stop us from calling animals from other groups fish, why should mammals get a special treatment?

While nice, this seems at odds with the budget cuts to science that are horribly undermining our existing, high-quality scientific institutions. It would be much nicer if luring these US-based scientists were an addition to a larger package to invest in, rather than cut and destroy, science in the country.

We could certainly use the help, so they’d be very welcome, but if we’re still getting rid of hundreds of fully set up scientists while gaining a few new ones from this, that’s still a net loss…

Plus, any US-based scientist who might consider doing this would surely look at these budget cuts, see how countries like France and Germany are actually investing in scientific infrastructure, and take this into account when selecting a destination. If you want to “lure” people over, you do need to have an actual high-quality and functional system to show off.

Incredible news! We’ve been needing this for a long time; the research community has been calling for a “CERN for AI” for years at this point.

As a publicly funded researcher working in this field it’s very frustrating to see so many of our excellent, well-educated students in Europe end up contributing to the performance of American tech giants (who then use that power to undermine our democratic society). It is also hard to overstate how dependent we are on American compute infrastructure, for example, Google colab, AWS or Google Earth Engine. This last one is especially frustrating because basically the entire European research community relies on access to a service by an American tech giant to access our own globally leading high-quality public access satellite data.

I’ve seen a lot of negativity on this news as a waste of money. Personally I’m not too sold on the usefulness of LLMs either, their hype is very much overblown. But investing in AI is not the same as investing in LLMs, and Europe absolutely needs this. AI is being used, and has been for decades, in nearly everything we do. This includes not just LLMs and deep learning, but optimisation, formal logic, all sorts of probabilistic inference, forecasting, robotics, simulation, surrogate modelling, satisfiability, and much more. The correctness of the chips your phone uses has been verified using AI techniques. Weather forecasts and disaster warnings use AI methods. The food you eat has been monitored as it grew using AI. Air travel and general infrastructure needs AI to function, much of manufacturing and design needs it, etc etc. These are not just the chat bot “assistants” that tech companies try to push so hard on the public, but computational methods that answer vital questions we cannot otherwise answer.

Being dependent on a country like the US (or China) for something this pervasive and important is a terrible idea. Compute infrastructure, central hubs of expertise, and continental instead of national scale investment opportunities all contribute strongly to European sovereignty in this regard, for all the fields mentioned above (not just the over-hyped ones).