Hacker News Reader

Comment by Frieren | Hacker News Reader

> Yeah, but do you control international banking the way they do?

This is why Europe needs to detach itself from the American banking system.

It used to be very practical to use it. Countries renounced to some sovereignty in exchange for ease of doing business. The USA had an advantage but it didn't abuse it too much.

The current situation is that the USA is asking to forfeit sovereignty and to control business in an ideological basis. There is a strong incentive to leave that system as the alternative is become a colony of the USA. And the push for colonization is not subtle as the president takes over other countries resources like Venezuela's oil or tries to take control of the straight of Hormuz (None part of the USA at this moment)

View on HN

At the moment Europe is getting more reliant on the US. There are new non-Us payment systems but the end user devices are Apple or Google controlled. Governments and banks are very eager to get rid of cash, to introduce digital ID etc. That all relies on American platforms.

> That all relies on American platforms.

Totally true. The EU needs its own platforms, I hope that better regulated than their USA counterparts. Linux started in Europe, it should have been promoted more for internal usage. But privatization of state-owned companies made it ideologically impossible to push for it. Public good was seen as "bad" and "against business", I hope that the obvious failure of that policy makes it now a possibility to use Linux.

We used to. Contactless payments from my phone didn't require Google Wallet a few years ago, but now they do. My bank passes suddenly say VISA and have credit card numbers on them which they didn't have a few years ago. European banks are going in the completely wrong direction and need to reverse.

They will only do so if forced to by regulators, and so far regulators have shown no interest in doing it.

Your bank pass may support multiple systems. I think a lot of European cards (not all) are EC-Karten as well as one of the major credit card brands, and when you use it in an ATM, it uses neither system but directly contacts your bank.

> This is why Europe needs to detach itself from the American banking system.

So far, what it's detached itself from its sources of fossil fuels. With a little help from its great American friends.

I love how Europeans get pumped up on anti-American rhetoric when they are far more submissive to the US than even a Ukraine or a South Korea is. I'm starting to think the rhetoric (always about what they're about to do, something about Trump, something about Musk) is being pumped to them by US admin think tanks.

The US is going to be at peace with Russia, and still pumping anti-Russian rhetoric into Europe to keep them buying US LNG. The big difference will be that they'll start mixing more Trump-Russia rhetoric in - but the result is that they'll be more dependent on the US. The anti-China rhetoric is working great, too.

The best thing for a Europe that wants to separate from the US is to completely isolate themselves from any possible energy or trade replacement for the US./s

That being said, in Europe it's a small elite class (that is still fairly firmly in control of everything) that pushes this (on direct orders and direct payments from US masters.) The rising degree of control of speech and association they have to exert, and the direct election interference they've had to engage in is very disturbing to a plurality of the European population. And that normally politically disengaged plurality is becoming politically active as their living standards drop.

I think what you're missing is that for many Western European countries, like Germany, suddenly gaining a direct border with Russia is a genuine concern. It's not just rhetoric; it's the real world.

It's easy for Americans, who are essentially uninvadable, to discount this as just people saying stuff, but in Europe, we actually have to live with Russia's direct military threat.

> gaining a direct border with Russia

If you mean EU borders - it's had direct border with Russia since 1995.

If you mean in the sense of placing NATO troups on border with Russia, that is indeed recent, and definitely a concern, but - those west-European countries have gone along with expanding NATO eastwards.

If you mean the supposed fear of Russia conquering Poland - then that is not really serious.

> we actually have to live with Russia's direct military threat.

So far in this war, it is German and other European & NATO member state weapons being intentionally fired into Russia, not the other way around.

Of course, if you look further back, Russia has invaded westwards multiple times over the centuries, and European powers have indaded Russia multiple times: Sweden, France, Germany. But mutual perception as threats is something almost any pair of European states can be said to have in their past. And the distances are even closer than Russia and Germany.

It would be great to have a direct border with Russia, and finally get rid of US troops in Europe. Would solve lots of issues and drastically increase prosperity and well-being. There's never been a Russian threat in the first place. The sustained militarization of post-WW2 Europe, i.e. NATO, the arms race and the Cold War and its world-wide proxy wars, is the result of Britain and the US pursueing their strategy of tension. At every single step it was the US who escalated, divided and militarized Europe. This is a patently obvious fact of history. And it includes the current war using the Ukraine as ram against Russia.

> There's never been a Russian threat in the first place.

Have you really had your head in the sand, or are you just desperately trying to sell a transparent lie here? The Putin is not exactly careful about his threats.

You're replying to a 25-day-old account that posts pro-Russian comments. Don't feed the trolls please.

> The US is going to be at peace with Russia, and still pumping anti-Russian rhetoric into Europe to keep them buying US LNG.

The US isn't really a source of anti-Russia rhetoric. In fact, the US may be the biggest source of pro-Russia rhetoric, with Trump constantly sucking up to Putin and repeating Kremlin talking points.

"anti-Russian rhetoric" Phrasing like this is hilarious when Russia is actually invading Ukraine and randomly bombing civilians in order to permanently steal its land. In this context the objective facts are "anti-Russian"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com