The article talks about secondary tariffs.

I found this analysis very good when I watched it. The Real Reason Trump Submits to Putin - Vlad Vexler (YouTube)

They’re already quite successful in hybrid warfare against NATO and EU.

Probing NATO’s security guarantees doesn’t mean taking it on fully. It means testing out how far you can go without them fully committing with military.

What does this mean?

We here in EU should do the same instead of trying to fuck everyone of these companies equally.

What do you mean?

By uncalled for I mean there’s not really a factual and warranted reason for it.

I tried to present the two sides opposed to each other. How many people feel vs how that’s usually not factually appropriate. Doesn’t magically change that we feel that way of course.

Hit the belly button

I think that’s somewhat common and natural, but also unnecessary and uncalled for.

Let the other party decide for themselves whether they’re fine helping and to what degree. From your side, take the help you can get.

6 years of cleanup. Crazy.

I must have missed that back then. Thank you for the context.

3

Yeah seems like a good number for an ama

Interesting that they advocated for a more careful approach, waiting a month for messaging and further evaluation.

Of course, in the end that government didn’t choose that but just went ahead.

I don’t think we should let vendors get away with this stuff.

Yes returning it is a huge hassle. But if you’re not returning it you still bought their product, supported them financially and that product line. Even if they see you not activating cloud features in numbers, others do and they can make very favorable calculations.

The single most effective way to not let them get away with it is returning it. As an unacceptable product.

This system mandates that users connect their dishwasher to Wi‑Fi and register for a Home Connect account in order to access essential functions

lol what the fuck

The article advocates/answers with infrastructure should be prepared so it can be purposed if it should ever be necessary.

There is, however, a third option: nuclear hedging. In this model, a country does not develop nuclear weapons outright but instead builds the technological capacity to produce them if ever deemed necessary.

Most of the comments here seem to discuss the headline instead - whether it should equip.

There were proxy wars though.

Would one have invaded the other without them? I kind of doing it.

The cold was escalated with the atomic bomb arsenal and proxy wars. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they were necessary or actually effective that was like that.

EU only exists because member countries saw the need for an economic power to contend with the US post-WWII. It’s not like States in the US

I’m pretty sure the US was very involved in the process of establishing more union and collaboration in Europe.

You wrote “only exists because”. Did you man “only still exists because”? But then the post WW2 comment doesn’t make much sense.

The US also did a lot of economic support. So which time frame are you referring to?

I think the fear is very much alive.

If the alternatives are fearing the negative impact potentially imposed vs being imposed upon, most people choose their own safety and security though. Whether that’s factual or hypothetical - it’s more than not having such a deterrent while the potential aggressor has them.

What does that have to do with the claim that they have nukes?

If they can’t use them or only conditionally use them then they don’t really have them.