Europe has had a space agency for a while now. So this story isn't "Europeans finally started to launch for space" but a private European company chose to launch from a continental location.
It's funny how we can't be celebrate a European achievement without trying to interpret it into relationship to the US.
It really isn’t funny. The US shat the bed and for now the repercussions are mainly being felt outside the US. When the US realises what it’s lost it’s going to be too late.
The UK is likely to be an illustrative example, so it's apt you mentioned it
Where? Are you replying to the right message?
I can't believe people are saying that with straight face. How on Earth can you see all the wars that the US has started or had a hand in igniting and still think that?
I think you maybe believing that War would not have happened or there was some other approach without war, ever? I'm sorry but such beliefs are as wishful thinking as buying the world a coke.
That's the consequence of a broken education system when it comes to teaching history. Empires rarely come to terms with what they did, and never while they're in power.
That's another thing that puzzles me. How people claim with straight face that anyone is threatening the US homeland.
Peace in Europe was maintained mostly by people in democracies generally wanting to work together. Yes the US had something to do with that as they supported that after WW2 but over the last 50 years, people in democracies generally don't fight each other. And more so by the threat of the Soviet Union that was so clearly the more dangerous option. Its easy to make allies if Stalin is on the other side.
And outside of Europe the US hardly maintained peace.
Nuclear weapons maintained 'peace' between Soviets and the US more then anything else.
And Europe has always pulled its weight in science, technology and engineering.
The US was actually on the right side in that one (just like in Korea). The Communists were not exactly the good guys and their "agricultural and personnel reforms" lead to drastically reduced food production and starvation and death.
Blame the US for real things instead, such as supporting the wrong side in Afghanistan in the '80s or ensuring the survival of the Soviet Union in the '40s.
The cause of that intervention was North Vietnam sending Viet Cong insurgents into South Vietnam, attempting to overthrow the government, and ignoring the South's sovereignty.
That doesn't justify the US's later transgressions while engaged in the war, but their initial support to South Vietnam was neither unjustified nor illiberal.
Johnson was a warmonger, exaggerating (or possibly faking) the Gulf of Tonkin engagements to justify full escalation was a crime that led to the death of 60,000 Americans, hundreds of thousands more with PTSD, and 2 million+ murdered Vietnamese civilians. Not to mention hundreds of thousands of birth defects caused by agent orange and the still ongoing effort to clean up dioxins from the environment.
Telling 'we're the good guys' while regularly bombing entire villages into oblivion with napalm on some vague suspicions ('we heard some gunshot when flying around so we blasted them' scenarios). My Lai and many others.
If this is how US population views their past fuckups then no wonder we are where we are, objectivity ain't easy if one is on the wrong side, isn't it.
Supporting wrong side in Afghanistan? Against Soviet invasion? Sometimes, often even there are no good sides.
If you guys didn't support Soviet union in 40s (which they vehemently denied since then but its their inferiority complex, the issue with russian mentality since forever), there would be no massive eastern front with most german losses and wehrmacht spread out too thinly, and D day would be crushed like nothing. History would be very different in Europe and globally.
You can go even farther back in time. If the US hadn't massively relieved the famine in Russia in 1920/21 there might have been a chance, Lenin and the Bolshevik regime wouldn't have survived.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921%E2%80%9...
One can argue FDR later embrace of Soviets was way to early and a direct stab in the back to France and other European powers.
The Southern regime was incredibly corrupt and dominated by land owners. Look at the Philippines for an example of what happens to a US 'colony' where the land lords are in control.
Communist Vietnam did some bad reforms yes, but they also changed and eventually did a lot of good things, turning the country into what it is today.
The US spent decades of war propping up a regime that was mostly incapable and killed a lot of people in the meantime.
Maintain "world war" (for corpo-profit) -> FIXED
This launch is a move towards lower cost and more frequent launches, that in the US are provided by SpaceX.
3D printing has been a game changer that basically allows you to crank out rocket engines from raw materials, which means that building new ones is cheap and easy. If you look at the Raptor 3 (3D printed), it looks super clean, thanks to the fact that they integrated most of the piping into the 3d printed body, but that means you can't really fix or inspect it.
Which is fine tbh. SpaceX (and Tesla) has been shown to be pragmatic not dogmatic when it comes to new technology. 'Elon time' might be a meme, but Musk both pushes his employees very hard, but probably not harder than possible - and he's willing to take flak for delaying projects, changing scope or outright cancellation.
We are not talking about forever spacecraft, and even Falcon 9's reusabilility is partial (the second stage is lost), but even what Falcon 9 has achieved allows for very rapid progress, due to the short feedback loop, including progress in reliability.
That said I think this is awesome and hope the EU is able to make further advances. I have a very positive view of Musk, but the more competitors there are in space, the more likely we able to accelerate advances and efficiency in that domain. And I think everybody wins in that scenario.
In software, thanks mostly to the open-source movement, we all have access to the same materials and manufacturing processes.
In manufacturing, there are huge differences in materials and processes that we need to account for. On the flip side, this can allow one to leapfrog the other rather than replicating them - it’s likely the next reusable Falcon 9-class vehicle will use a methalox engine that’ll be easier to maintain compared to Flacon 9’s kerolox ones. China has demonstrated a novel approach to vehicle recovery as well (in addition to landing legs). Future competitors will have access to materials current incumbents didn’t have and can’t easily adopt with their current supply chain.
People also forget SpaceX subverted a lot of the expectations for reusable rockets - they didn’t use parachutes, but opted to carry extra propellant for landing; they didn’t eject the engines, opting instead to reuse the whole stage; and they built landing barges because their rockets would launch towards the ocean, saving fuel for a boost back to the launch site. They also tested capsule landing using the launch abort rockets, but opted for parachutes and splashdowns instead. Still they keep all the RCS motors in the capsule, making their expendable service module very inexpensive in comparison to Boeing’s.
All these decisions point to proven mission architectures so that followers don’t need to explore architectures that were explored and dropped.
It's because space programs are job programs to keep the advanced rocketry tech available for future use. The so-called launch market never materialized. Congresses of launch capable nations are completely fine with couple hundred to low billion dollars divided by couple launches per year doing science and gravity experiments and occasional TV sat launches. Every dollar "saved" is every dollar unspent and diverted away from STEM.
Starlink wouldn't be accounting for like 99.9% of Falcon 9 launches and 99.9999% of man made objects in space if this wasn't the case.
China does what it does because else the world won't take them seriously, which creates artificially lower socio-economic statuses with no benefits to anyone. They have bunch of different lineages of space launch vehicles and production capacities, they don't need reusability per se. Same goes for humanoids - US/CN both have ~zero chance entering heavy industry hard robotics used in car plants, and that leads both into so-to-speak alternative robotics.
Europe has already invested far more in rocket then SpaceX did and isn't close.
If your capital efficiency is far lower, it might not be inexpensive. If you can get the scale because you don't have payloads, its going to be more expensive.
There is a incredibly long road between 'rocket can land' and 'cheap and scalable launch'. A long road most people don't see because its not as flashy as landing.
Continental Europe? yes. The Russian's Plesetsk Cosmodrome is well within the boundaries of the European continent.
Continental Europe outside of Russian influence? no.
A real shame Britain abandoned their own research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SaxaVord_Spaceport
How about the last time South America contested a little parcel of land?
Regardless, a launch facility within Europe seems much less riskier long term from a geopolitical standpoint.
Yes, that's why the risk is NOT the same between French Guiana and New Caledonia. Both of them are oversea territories far from the mainland with a colonial past, but their current relationship with the mainland is very different.
Around a quarter of the population of New Caledonia has been calling for independence for decades at this point, with 3 referendum organised during the last 10 years to resolve this issue. Only half of the population was able to vote to the referendums (and some local elections, like Congress of NC), due to local rules than are about to change–this, incidentally, is the cause of the protests you are talking about. On the geopolitical side of things, the independentists are probably propped up by Azerbaijan (https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/geopolitique-n...) and maybe China (https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/ambitions-geostrategiq...).
None of this holds for French Guiana. The risk between these territories is not the same. At all. Putting them on the same level by reducing them to their status as former colonies is nonsense.
Sure, placing launch infrastructure in French Guiana is probably less risky than setting up shop in New Caledonia. Clearly, the risk profile is not the same for all of Overseas France.
My point is that if the decision is between mainland and Overseas France, the latter introduces elevated risk in the long term in general. French Guiana could be fine today, but it is not impossible that the next few years could see the rise of a populist pro-independence movement that would eventually impact launch infrastructure (similar to how it did for the USSR).
Reality is fundamentally chaotic after all.
My opinion is that there is an implied reliance on the US "allowing" Europe to ship the rockets to Kourou and launch them there.
If our relations ever completely sour, the US might, for example, take over the shipping vessels going to Kourou, kinda like Europe takes over Russian shadow fleet vessels.
Now all of a sudden Europe has no means of launching rockets, except now it can launch to polar orbits. It might seem a stretch, but there is a non-zero chance that could happen, therefore it is better to have an alternative.
No, but it makes it vulnerable to the US.
The US can also decide to “free” and “bring democracy” to the French Guiana because the rich oil deposits of its continental shelf won’t free themselves.
The point is that a slow ship crossing the ocean with hard to replace is very vulnerable in transit.
Though not every sovereign state has an army, see Iceland, Costa Rica, theoretically Japan, etc.
"Don't say that he's hypocritical,
Say rather that he's apolitical.
'Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department,' says Wernher von Braun."
Still, an interesting possibility of a fully civilian space program from the start & how it would look like & how it would be different.
Kinda like in Wings of Honneamise.
Not really in case of the USSR. German group in Russia was isolated and Korolev didn't like competition. Soviet space program started by replicating German rocket, but once all production chains were created, it was off on its own course.
I highly recommend English translation of memoirs of Boris Chertok[0] to anyone interested in the history of Soviet space program.
[0] https://www.nasa.gov/history/history-publications-and-resour...
Once the knowledge was "extracted" the Germans were allowed to return though (good thing Stalin was already dead at that time).
Former Junkers engineer Brunolf Baade then went on to build the first and only German jet airliner for East Germany - which then of course was cancelled as soon as it was ready to enter production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baade_152).
Americans didn't trust either. But then Sputnik happened and Americans only had oopsnik[0], so they turned to neglected Redstone made by von Braun[1][2]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_TV-3#Reaction
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_1
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#U.S._Army_ca...
Yes. A Spanish private company launched the Miura 1 from Huelva (South of Spain) in 2023.
In any case it was programmed to reach only 46 Km high in the first attempt, and suffered damages after landing in the ocean at the expected coordinates.
It seems that a loan to finish its successor, the reusable rocket Miura 5, were granted in April of this year and that its first test flight is expected for the end of 2026, so Germany is not the only European country trying this.
And of course the original rocket missiles developed by von Braun and used to bomb London.
When the US government funded SpaceX, it was motivated in no small degree by a desire to not be permanently reliant on a geopolitical wildcard (Russia) for getting astronauts into orbit. Now that the US itself has become a geopolitical wildcard, savvy countries know that they need to seek out alternatives to SpaceX under more stable regimes.
How is Russia a wildcard? What unexpected thing do you think Russia has done?
If Russia behaved rationally they would have made a deal with Ukraine (decades ago) that protected the rights of the Russian minorities in Ukraine and continued massively profiting from gas and oil exports into Europe.
Russia did, many times, last time in 2010.[0]
But the US and the EU didn't like it, so the coup in 2014 happened with American help[1] which overthrew democratically elected president of Ukraine who introduced the law protecting Russian speaking Ukrainian citizens.[2]
The law was repelled right after the coup and Crimeans supported the reunion with Russia.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#201...
Parliament votes 328-0 to impeach Yanukovych on Feb. 22; sets May 25 for new election Parliament did not vote to impeach the president, which would have involved formally charging Yanukovych with a crime, a review of the charge by the Constitutional Court, and a three-fourths majority vote in parliament—at least 338 votes in favor.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#Removal_...
I think Trump definitely pushes allies away much faster than ever anticipated, that's probably the only achievement from the current administration.
The alliance still stands, but it's hard to trust the US when the current president is constantly praising violent dictators and doesn't seem to grasp the concept of laws/rules + tries to blame everyone else + threatens to invade EU countries + the requirement to bribe him with funds/crypto to have "alliance".
You can know a guy by the friends he keeps :)
Fyi. I used to always use US tech, the last year I've done my best to adhere to the "European Souvereign Cloud". My current stack on US providers is down from 300 € / month to 35€ / m. And many are following suite ( it's slowly becoming a requirement for tenders for the governement + cities)
Good friends you're choosing there.
China has it's own launchers which shows it's decoupling from Europe now. It's over for Europe as countries race to be independent from them.
I’d love to be able to go a day without having to see whatever the latest stupidity we’ll have to deal with the fallout from is, I really would.
Because you elected actors for president before. Because you had school shootings before. Because everything in the sky was always UFO to you, and everything on the ground either bigfoot or communists. Because you spread "democracy" that is shaped like bombs. Because you fund your own terrorists and drug cartels. Because you strong-arm world economies for non-reasons. Because you have nukes and eternal paranoia.
But yes, it did get much worse recently. Congratulations on noticing?
What specific event and year were IYO the onset of what you're claiming?
Now we have to pay attention because what you always where in part is in full control and it’s essentially impossible to ignore.
I long for the days when we can go back to the happy place of ignoring your government day to day until it’s time for another Middle East intervention.
Til then and for the avoidance of any doubt, I loathe Trump, I don’t like the people in his government, I don’t like the people who voted for him and the ones who didn’t vote and could have, the only people in America I have any sympathy for is the ones who voted for anyone but him/this shit show, the rest of you got what you deserved and will continue to do so.
So with that as your president if you still believe in American Exceptionalism you can shove it.
Hope that was clear enough.
Yes? You talk about us waaaaay more than we talk about you. And not just since Trump.
On HN it definitely is just like that.
Is this the new cope?
The USA is a Goliath on the world stage. The deranged tweets of your president move global markets and the next time Israel manipulates him into starting another war it might not be Iran, it might be Denmark, or Canada.
People pay close attention to the US not because they want to buy because they basically have to.
In particular, I’m loving the obviously British comments (I deeply admire their ability to give the classiest insults).
Aside from technology, Germany also got major control centers and mission planning capability in Cologne and Oberpfaffenhofen.
Most components are there, but not the political will to go on a national mission.
After the horrors of WWII, Europe decided it would rather do things collectively than each country doing its own thing. This resulted in wonderful things like Concorde, fast rail, Airbus, and Ariane. Europe became more than the sum of its parts.
For any failure you would need to have an ocean in the direction of launch.
Also not all orbits are equal because then you need more fuel etc.
It is silly to say every country has equal opportunity to go to space because space is only 100km up. That’s not how it works.
They kicked off the wave of commercial space launch - and now, it reached the EU too.
The second camp saw the craziness when the later Bush was elected a second time.
And people who get wet when France says they are going to send soldiers to Ukraine and it never materializes.
The general population has 0 understanding of international relations. It's the United States and China right now. Any other belief comes from someone who has read 0 international relations Realism books.
Whilst the EU in it's current form did not exist until 1993, it's predecessor the European Coal and Steel Community was formed in 1950 with the Schuman Declaration: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor...
The primary goal of this was to prevent another war by joining european economies together economically. It's not 'overthinking it'. It quite literally is the main reason and you can go and read the speeches from the politicians at the time to confirm this.
Heres a direct quote from the declaration itself
> The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible.
The fact that the european powers (with the exception of russia) are largely at peace with each other and haven't had a major war with each other since the second world war is very unusual given european history.
I am talking about the formalization that is specifically the modern European Union. You are talking as if it's some inevitable consequence of earlier efforts.
> Europeans who created the EU knew about balance of power geopolitics so well, they created this slow bureaucratic mess specifically to stop Germany and France sliding back into the same old lethal habit.
I don't think anything you're saying is strengthening this statement that I had an issue with.
The Maastricht Treaty which is what created modern day EU was driven by other concerns, asking Gemini yields: "To answer your second question: No, everyday Europeans in 1992 were not primarily thinking about WWII.
By the time the Maastricht Treaty was being drafted, the public was reacting to a completely different era of history. They were focused on the collapse of the Soviet Union, the opening of Eastern Europe, and the need to compete economically with the United States and Japan in a rapidly globalizing world. The defining event on the public's mind was the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, not the end of WWII."
So you are right that the processes that eventually led to the formation of the EU started after WW-II due to concerns related to that war. But specifically the EU as it stands today with its current structure and agreements was not formed due to those considerations. Europe could have continued with the previous arrangements. At least that's my take and I don't think anything you're saying contradicts it. I'll admit to a certain lack of knowledge so happy to learn more about Europe pre-EU or why what I'm saying is still wrong.
EDIT: I guess one can see how the reunification of Germany was a factor that could have made people consider the world wars. That said the creation of the EU was a major change compared to previous arrangements.
EDIT2: When I read the EU site you linked to I get a strong sense of "backsplaining" as if it was written after the fact to appear like the EU was just part of a process that goes back to WW-II. The title says "History of the EU – 1945-59" but in 1945-1959 there was no EU. Didn't the term European Union only show up circa 1992? So this is perhaps the "history of Europe" but not the history of the European Union? I could be totally wrong. I am not European but I did live through these events and follow the news (well, not WW-II but the fall of the USSR, Germany's unification, and the establishment of the modern day EU). What's of interest to me in the context of this specific question/debate is what were the concerns of the Europeans and their leaders entering into the agreements that formed the modern day EU.
It's also not just about WW2, europe had at that point been at major war with itself in some form or another for well over a thousand years with only very brief periods of peace.
Of course by the 1990s it wasn't top of peoples minds because there had been peace for nearly 40 years, which is testament to the success of the original project, it doesn't mean the original goals had disappeared.
The EU has clear predecessor initiatives and organizations that lead to its current form. Just like territories became states in the US, or the League of Nations lead to the UN. This isn’t a complicated concept we see it all the time. Something forms, it molds and changes over time, and eventually it becomes something else. But the roots are still clearly understood and are a part of its history.
The European Union is only a little over 20 years old. The economic and political union of Western Europe is an ~80 year old project that directly led to the European Union. You may as well take issue with people talking about England’s colonies prior to 1776 when discussing US history.
History of everything is a long journey. The OP made a comment re: the EU specifically which I thought was off. And at least so far in this thread my reply seems to have been more accurate.
> Europeans who created the EU knew about balance of power geopolitics so well, they created this slow bureaucratic mess specifically to stop Germany and France sliding back into the same old lethal habit. While clumsy positioning between the US and China is a headache in the present moment for Europe, compared to a tedious Union Europeans prefer reawakenings of 1914 in their backyard. Well at least so far.
This statement isn't talking about "the decades long journey Europe has gone through informed by wars". It is very specifically talking about the creation of the EU (and e.g. its slow bureaucratic mess which are an attribute of the modern EU). I have yet to see any actual support to the idea that the specific step of the formation modern (of the) EU was indeed primarily about Germany and France sliding back into war and that a "slow bureaucratic mess" was the intentional vehicle here. As someone who has lived through these events I have my perspective and it's fine for others to have a different perspective. But if that is the case then I'm still to see that in this thread.
You are painting a picture as if a geographic region inevitably drifts towards the EU, the UN, the USA, etc. This just feels like total nonsense to me to be blunt. These are decisions taken at the time for various specific reasons. Sometimes they go one way. Sometimes a different way. The countries that formed the EU and decided to adopt one currency and open borders (amongst other decisions) took that step for a reason. It was not inevitable. There are and were many other paths forward. And Germany and France going to war, as far as I recall, was not part of the discussion at the time (1992-ish).
Is current day Europe and the EU a product of a history. I mean duh. That was not the point the OP was making.
EDIT: I can see why this would be a sensitive topic for present day Europeans and how the rise of nationalism is a possible threat to the modern day EU. There's definitely ample motivation to paint a certain picture here and tell a certain story. Present day EU was not a given. It passed by a very small margin. Then there was Brexit. It's not a given that there would be more wars in Europe without the EU. Europeans can do what's best for them. Again, my main reason for jumping in is that the comment didn't agree with my memory of the time when all of this was happening, so it feels like a modern day rewriting of what Europe was actually like in the 90's.
I am not European, I am from the US. I saw this conversation and saw you being weirdly obstinate. This contrarian position then digging in regardless of response is not productive.
The original comment was the opposite of my personal experience having followed the events as they happened. The responses to my comment did not really address what I was talking about.
If you make a point (that the formation of the EU is because of X you are very specific about it) then you should be the one who is prepared to demonstrate it somehow. Why is this a problem?
Are you familiar with the topic or you're simply here to tell me that my manners are bad? If you're familiar I'd love to get your input on the actual question.
Why is my position "contrarian"? I am disagreeing with the original comment. For sure. And the reason I am persisting is that this comment seems wrong and I don't want to just let it go. It's important enough. FWIW I asked another random person whether my take on the EU's formation made sense to them (who was around at the time) and they agreed with me. It's definitely possible that I'm missing something profound but if I am then those taking the other position should spell it out. Maybe the OP meant something different. The OP didn't even weigh in.
@jpleyden98 jumps in with: You're just showing your ignorance and lack of knowledge about the history of the EU. Directly linking modern day EU with "European Coal and Steel Community was formed in 1950". I don't think that's right. At the very least it's missing a lot that happened in between.
> Its not that Europeans havent read Mearsheimer. its that for the best part of three hundred years the whole of Europe has been trying that same realist script until there was nothing left but total ruin across the entire continent. Europeans who created the EU knew about balance of power geopolitics so well, they created this slow bureaucratic mess specifically to stop Germany and France sliding back into the same old lethal habit. While clumsy positioning between the US and China is a headache in the present moment for Europe, compared to a tedious Union Europeans prefer reawakenings of 1914 in their backyard. Well at least so far.
Back to the original comment I had a problem with. This isn't some minor detail. It's pretty important. This history matters. At least I think it does.
Let's just add the actual preamble to the Maastricht Treaty that discusses at least some of the rationale: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_on_European_Union/Prea...
So ignoring my bad manners and my apparent ignorance. Where is the support to the idea that the Europeans created the EU as it stands today "they created this slow bureaucratic mess specifically to stop Germany and France sliding back into the same old lethal habit" ? I'm happy to learn something new today. When I try with AI it seems to agree with the point I am making: "Treating the 1993 Maastricht Treaty as a simple continuation of the 1950 Coal and Steel Community is a common oversimplification. While the underlying desire to keep Germany anchored to Western Europe remained a constant thread, the actual decisions made in 1993 were driven by a vastly different geopolitical crisis and economic reality.". If the OP just talked about the post-war European integration then I'm in complete agreement. To just project that to modern day EU feels like a very big stretch to me. But a quote from the specific individuals involved in the formation of the EU circa 1992 would definitely help me change my position. Again, this feels like a pretty big deal to me in terms of why the EU exists as it does today and understanding Europe.
EDIT: Also worth looking up the thread to what OP was responding to:
> The general population has 0 understanding of international relations.
And I think he's absolutely right.
Again, not that the wars in Europe don't cast a shadow today. But Europe has moved past that would be my take. Obviously not Putin I guess. But we digress.
The entire thread is a mix of politics/opinions etc. What I was trying to contribute is what the world was actually like during the formation of the EU from my personal experience and that it was not primarily driven by WW-II. Now it's possible my personal experience is wrong but hey, at least it's something that's not pure politics/opinion?
EDIT2: When you say where we got here is a process over time how is that not something that is just true? Yes, everything today everywhere is a result of the process of history playing over time. The EU was not a predetermined outcome. That is not the question. Is the EU today (and in 1992) primarily concerned with European wars or with the world?
EDIT3: To repeat what I'm not arguing with:
- Post WW-II sentiments and agreements were definitely driven by trying to ensure that a similar war does not repeat (more specifically around Germany).
- Before the EU was established in 1993 there were various cooperation arrangements in Europe that trace their history back to WW-II and can be seen through the lens of evolution.
- Where I disagree is the persistent weight of WW-II in the decades that followed vs. immediate after the war. More specifically the applicability to today's politics and geopolitics. In my impression the 60's until the fall of the USSR were dominated by the cold war and not the worry of new wars with Germany or France for example. The EU itself is a step function that was not a given and was driven by a wide array of reasons. The EU today also has a wide range of concerns. I also wouldn't compare the EU's formation to the USA or the UN. That said I can see how on some level the erasure of nationalism removes the motivation for wars that stem from said nationalism.
It's a difficult problem to solve.
But having educated people everywhere is hard, so some people, because they don't get how some stuff works, they try to abuse friends and allies and make things worse (inefficient) for everybody in the process.
Northern launches are done sometimes for high inclination orbits since they reduce the need to maneuver from an equatorial orbit.
Although Ariane's rockets are wildly expensive and uncompetitive compared to SpaceX.
Then, it depends on what you need to do. A 3x cost if you deploy a strategic constellation is fine. A 3x cost if you want to launch huge payloads for a Mars trip (I know costs were for LEO, just giving an example) is probably uncompetitive.
In a "free market" would you recommend on USA to rely only on a Chinese manufactured essential product for its military (or the reverse, or Europe on Russia, or etc.)?
I am not against great private offers (be it rockets/cloud/etc.). But there should also be some "local" capability for some strategic products, so that if the private providers encounter issues (crazy CEO, tariffs, export regulations, etc.) you are not left without any of that capability.
I'm hopeful that SpaceX's success will lead to European companies following in their footsteps and providing some more affordable alternatives to Ariane's current wildly-expensive rockets.
Please give an example of gov assistance that was not a open contract to every private launch company in the US
The government contracts that made SpaceX were all open bid, where SpaceX bid an better solution than anything that any of the established companies did, at literally half the price. Falcon 9 was a massive gift to the US government, in that it drove the entire industry to halve the prices they extracted from the government. Dragon was just as good.
That they also built a profitable launch company out of it just highlights how much of an outlier SpaceX is. They sold the US government a dollar for fifty cents, made a profit doing it, and ended up driving half the rockets already flying out of the business.
Let's not also forget that NASDAQ changed the rules right before listing SpaceX... resulting in forced index fund procurement of sinking equity. Not sure how 'public policy' that is (arguably separate), but in reality global prime market listing rules are pretty high-significance effectively Federal or even international monetary policy. Well done Elon! Can't fault you for execution!
The most subsidized companies in human history by how long they've been around. it's worse than the actual military industrial complex (though both his major companies are heavily tied to the MIC as well)
https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/tesla-inc
https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/space-explor...
> Nevada has offered Tesla, an electric car producer, a subsidy package worth estimated $1.3 billion over several years. The package includes 100 percent abatements of sales taxes ($725 million saving over 20 years), real and personal property taxes ($332 million over 10 years), and modified business taxes ($27 million over 10 years). In addition, the subsidy package includes transferable tax credits: a tax credit of $12,500 per job for up to 6,000 jobs ($75 million saving for the company); a tax credit of 5 percent of the first $1 billion investment ($50 million); and a tax credit of 2.8 percent of the next $2.5 billion investment ($70 million). In addition, Tesla will receive cheaper electricity rates for eight years, which will save the company an estimated $8 million. Nevada will spend $43 million to buy the right of way for USA Parkway for the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center, where the Tesla facility will be located (the amount is not included in the total). The state will also change its laws to allow Tesla to sell its cars directly to consumers, rather than through car dealers. Jobs are projected full-time permanent jobs at the facility. Investment is total projected investment (the company has committed to invest $5 billion within first 3 to 5 years and another $5 billion during the following 10 years). However, to receive the subsidies, Tesla must invest $3.5 billion.
> SpaceX dramatically decreased cost to orbit which had reliance on Russian technology at the time.
Both can be (and are) true at the same time. Elon hired/partnered the right people and didn't have capacity to mess all the companies he owned into oblivion. His main skill is bullshiting investors, the government and the public.
(When the UK left the EU it was able to remain in ESA because of this separation.)
An ecosystem where we develop things independently is one where everyone loses.
Especially given that recent history has shown us that we're back to "power" being the only language spoken.
__
Rel: The ecosystem thing.
I would challenge that, because if there's one thing where the US has had absurd leverage over the EU (and world, for that matter), then it's tech ecosystems.
A healthy ecosystem would not be owned by SV/US alone.
So right now, we're not really "strong together" but rather weakly dependent. That should be remediated, and decoupling like this is exactly the tool for that.
"Power being the only language spoken", never left in the first place in order to get back to it, it's how the world always worked and will always work.
Granted, power wasn't actually the "language spoken", but more accurately it was the stick ensuring the enforcement of the terms agreed within the "language spoken", a lesson as old as time that many in EU forgot after post-USSR collapse and now have to re-learn it, but at a heavy cost and with added interest.
"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it", couldn't be more true.
That's pretty damn obvious to everyone with a half of brain, yet here we are being pulled apart.
There is a very credible argument to be made that excessive cooperation leads to incredibly heavy overly political programs that are completely static and can't adjust because of international agreements.
That doesn't mean working together isn't good but they way they have been has been pretty questionably in many ways (along with a lot of space policy).
If any of this machines use Python or Linux internally, then we could find some obvious connections with Europe and the people at charge of it.
A rocket launched into orbit from Norway. That's insane progress and worth celebrating.
A non-reusable launcher that can put small payloads into a Polar orbits only, due to launch site latitude and lack of an orbital bus. It's fairly 1960s stuff.
I'm not even sure what to make out of that dismissal opener other than that you've apparently didn't like whatever I wrote.
And that's coming from me, who is already tiptoeing the letter of the law in pursuit of the spirit of the law.
I don't see you contributing to the space here. Just to yourself and your self-image, maybe. Like.. not even trying.
> I don't see you contributing to the space here. Just to yourself and your self-image, maybe. Like.. not even trying.
In that same spirit your comment wouldn’t have been contributing either. You don’t like to see comments I guess about people talking about how far behind the EU is as it continues to be eaten alive by American and Chinese industrial policy, and I don’t like comments about “decoupling”.
Though, regardless of if that is formalized, the spirit is pretty clear. Anyway.
The United States saves the day. France pretends they are in charge with grand speeches.
I was close to a European immigrant and 2 things she was shocked about:
How rich the United States was. Even our poor had more than her upper middle class family had.
How people in the United States do not take 2 hour coffee and cigarette breaks.
ESA and ArianeSpace will slowly but surely decay into obsolescence.
ESA neither launches or builds rockets. They are an end-user, and they own the launch infrastructure in Kourou. Both these roles will exist long after Ariane is gone.
Arianespace does not build rockets. It's a launch services provider, they purchase the rockets from other companies, handle all the logistics and manage the launchpad. It's in no way married to Ariane 6, and it has in the past and still does sell launches on multiple different rockets from different companies. There will be demand for these services even after Ariane the rocket is gone.
ArianeGroup is the company that builds Ariane 6. They are a complex co-owned project between Airbus and Safran, with workshare distributed between France and Germany. They make other things than the Ariane 6, notably the French SLBM. Eventually the Ariane 6 will go away, because it will be obsolete, but that will not necessarily mean that ArianeGroup will go under, because they have an another subsidiary called ArianeWorks developing a new rocket, called Themis.
Italy accused the French-based ArianeSpace of deliberately taking launches away from the Italian-build Vega rocket in favor of the French-build Ariane rockets. They've now left ArianeSpace and are selling the rockets themselves and using ESA's infrastructure to launch them.
I worked on the Ariane from 2000 to 2006."National return" was a pain for all the smaller companies and they usually founded subsidiaries in all the other member states to game the system.
Without Germany and Italy, France can build and fly no Ariane. Not even close.
Not to diminish France's contribution but without Germany and Italy there would be no Ariane. France could not build one and could not fly one.
Was it the land that Russia currently controls and Ukraine is very unlikely to retake? There's a spectrum between ideological behavior and pragmatic behavior. If Ukraine gives up this land and achieves peace, maybe it's worth it. I'm not suggesting it definitely is but at least the US is trying to negotiate or find some sort of solution, even if it's not going well.
In retrospect the US should have prepared for war and been willing to fight to uphold what was agreed to with Russia but that would have been a hard sell.
> So, no more support to that crazy country.
Nah Europe will still support it. Nothing will change there. But if you want things to change, we can completely withdraw from NATO, move bases back from Europe where we see fit, and un-sanction Russia while no longer providing support to Ukraine in any fashion and no longer sell weapons to Europe. That would be a disaster for Europe, which is why I tend to think comments like this are either ignorant, or pro-Russia/Iran/China with the intent to further inflame whatever tensions exist.
It wasn't the US's decision to make, certainly not without having talked to Ukraine.
And right now, well, this war will continue until one of them runs out of money. The EU currently appears to consider Ukrainian sovereignty in this war to be in their own national interests, so they will keep funding it. Who will support the Russian economy in the same way?
> Nah Europe will still support it. Nothing will change there. But if you want things to change, we can completely withdraw from NATO, move bases back from Europe where we see fit, and un-sanction Russia while no longer providing support to Ukraine in any fashion and no longer sell weapons to Europe. That would be a disaster for Europe, which is why I tend to think comments like this are either ignorant, or pro-Russia/Iran/China with the intent to further inflame whatever tensions exist.
You, and many like you, really need to stop thinking Trump's behaviour is something that can be easily undone. You write to suggest dissenting voices are pro-China: Trump's actions have already forced many in the EU to consider the USA to be a bigger threat than China.
This isn't us liking China, we think poorly of their human rights record etc., it's just that the USA has fallen that far in our eyes.
Just to make it specific: Which city do you live in? I want you to imagine it getting actually, literally, nuked by French or British missiles in response to the USA doing what Trump keeps saying he'll do to Canada or Greenland.
Actual nukes.
I hope that will stay imagination.
Trump has a lot of levers he could pull that would be de facto acts of war besides annexing allies like he says he wants to. Ordering all the tech companies to stop providing services overnight, even that might do it given current dependencies.
I think you may have misunderstood, my point about levers was there's may ways for him to *start* a war with everyone else in NATO, potentially without even realising that's what the lever would do.
Starting such a war is inherently him "doing a terrible job".
Didn’t suggest it was, but at the end of the day it’s the US who is the partner at the table who can make the biggest difference and bringing Ukraine in to the room with Russia will just result in conflict and no hope of figuring things out diplomatically. Of course any deal that the US attempted to broker would have to be agreed to by Ukraine as well. Everyone understands this.
> , and many like you, really need to stop thinking Trump's behaviour is something that can be easily undone. His actions have already forced many in the EU to consider the USA to be a bigger threat than China.
Ok then we should do what I mentioned. It’s over. Is the EU ready to abandon Taiwan? Because if not, and let’s not ignore the G20 statement nor Germany hemorrhaging jobs and pretend the EU is cozying up to China. The US can just do the same and partner with China if it decided to.
> I hope that will stay imagination.
It won’t because it’s hyperbole that can be casually discarded.
> Trump has a lot of levers he could pull that would be de facto acts of war besides annexing allies like he says he wants to. Ordering all the tech companies to stop providing services overnight, even that might do it given current dependencies.
Nah he can’t do that. Tone down the imagination and sensationalizing
How? The US no longer supplies military aid to Ukraine. They're not a partner at all, let alone the one "who can make the biggest difference".
> Ok then we should do what I mentioned. It’s over. Is the EU ready to abandon Taiwan? Because if not, and let’s not ignore the G20 statement nor Germany hemorrhaging jobs and pretend the EU is cozying up to China. The US can just do the same and partner with China if it decided to.
That's not even a coherent argument.
> It won’t because it’s hyperbole that can be casually discarded.
If you don't take it seriously enough to prevent it, your city gets nuked.
> Nah he can’t do that.
Legally, or de-facto? Because legally he shouldn't be currently exchanging missiles with Iran. Legally the White House should be intact. Legally the Epstein files should've been release. Legally he's got 34 felony convictions for things he wasn't allowed to do. Legally he couldn't do the big tariffs he announced. Legally they had no right to go after Anthropic when the company refused to let their software get used for military stuff. Legally, his "I declassified them with my mind" claim was nonsense and he should've had a ten year sentence for that alone.
Not only do we not trust him, we don't trust you, and I mean personally you but also collectively you, to hold him back.
You, personally, are an avatar of the problem us Europeans see with America, because you don't seem to understand how seriously we take this.
Please, for the love of wherever you call home, take this seriously. You write as if this will all blow over and things will return to normal, but this can only happen if you recognise fault.
At a minimum the US still provides intelligence to Ukraine and maintains (and has increased) sanctions on Russia. Actions against both Venezuela and Iran negatively affected Russian shadow fleet operations which were funneling money to Russia to continue its war. Iran provides military support by selling drones, at a minimum. The US also maintains a significant military in presence to defer Russia from opening new fronts. In the last couple of weeks the director of the CIA met with Russian counterparts in an attempt, at least as alleged, to provide information to Russia to get them to come to the negotiating table. Your suggestion that the US isn’t a partner is your opinion but is not reflect in reality.
> That's not even a coherent argument.
Sure it is
> Legally, or de-facto?
Either. Don’t mistake my comments for supporting Donald Trump. I didn’t vote for him and think he belongs in jail over Jan 6 at a minimum. But I’m also not going to tolerate these asinine “what if France nuked my hometown” comments nor other similar sensationalized rhetoric.
Giving away intel is the exact opposite of supporting Ukraine.
Most of the other stuff you list was the USA's (or Trump's) own interests; Iran was more of an Israeli interest.
That said, keeping the Iran conflict warm is now also now a direct interest of everyone else that the USA has threatened, because it locks up your materiel, depletes your munitions, and lowers the morale of your personnel. As the Trump admin has already threatened military force against the USA's allies, that list is rather long.
> Sure it is
Mate, one of them wasn't even a coherent sentence.
Fundamentally, if you're an American isolationist government tearing down all the connections with the EU, we all know you're going to deal with the other big trading bloc that is China, or you will go bankrupt, because you are not an autarky.
But if you want to have good trade relations with the EU, and want the EU to not have good relations with China, you need to stop enabling the proven dishonest warmonger in the White House, who is giving us a choice between someone who has threatened military force against us (i.e. himself) or China, because we are also not an autarky.
It is not an argument to say "oh I guess we'll deal with China too". Yes, you will. This is not relevant. It is not an argument to say "but Germany's jobs". Yes, big issue due to car manufacturing, USA (big export market) tariffs, and Chinese competition (worldwide). This is also not relevant: *Your president threatened military action against one of us, and tariffs against anyone who helped defend the target*.
> But I’m also not going to tolerate these asinine “what if France nuked my hometown” comments nor other similar sensationalized rhetoric.
If you don't care, you don't care: I'm just giving you the consequences of not stopping him from sending the military into our territory to annex it. The consequences will include war on US soil, just like the consequences to Russia trying it with Ukraine were war on Russian soil. And Ukraine managed to hit the capital city of a nuclear power despite, similarly to our ally Canada, not having any nukes of their own.
You say Trump should be in jail? Great.
*Make that actually happen*.
And make sure the next apple isn't from the same rotten barrel:
Right now, if he resigned or was incapacitated *today* and didn't make it to the end of his term, it would still take an entire Presidential term from a decent president just for our trust in the USA to rise to about the same low level we have for China, who are "only" threatening the sovereignty of someone else we like to do business with but aren't that closely allied to (plus human rights abuses), and one or two decades of hard work on your part to get back to the level of trust we had in 2024.
Keep him around long enough to screw up the relationship more, that becomes three decades if the USA (him or successor) were to somehow force Ukraine to capitulate to Russian expansionism.
Ignore this, sit on it, brush it aside? Well, he came back after Jan 6. We can't trust you until you actually sort yourself out.
Your, personally your, suggestions to withdraw even harder are the opposite of sorting yourself out. That threat itself is a reason to distrust the USA.
Think of it this way: if you were a drunk, this would be an intervention.
Your (personal) responses have been like facing an intervention and saying "oh if I can't drink around you, I just won't invite any of you over for drinks! I'll have new drinks buddies! You've been listening to China too much! If you drink with China instead of me, I'll drink with China too!"
Meanwhile, the police keep giving you (the nation) DUI tickets and someone's wondering if they can hide your (national) keys before someone gets hurt.
> > Legally, or de-facto?
> Either.
https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/156691-how-sanctions-can-weap...
De-facto it's one sanction away.
So far as I can tell, this specific event is why the EU now has a big interest in "sovereign cloud" etc.
Nobody has reported that the director of the CIA (who is a Russia hawk by the way) "gave away intel". In fact, all known reporting from credible sources stated that the reason he went was to try and get Putin to see how dumb and hopeless this war is to get Russia back to the negotiating table.
> That said, keeping the Iran conflict warm is now also now a direct interest of everyone else that the USA has threatened, because it locks up your materiel, depletes your munitions, and lowers the morale of your personnel. As the Trump admin has already threatened military force against the USA's allies, that list is rather long.
Well according to you we can't be trusted, &c. so why would we care if munitions for Europe for example were used up?
Your assertion of how the US is behaving doesn't match with your own strategic comments.
> Most of the other stuff you list was the USA's (or Trump's) own interests; Iran was more of an Israeli interest.
If you are familiar with US foreign policy, Iran has been a primary interest for a long time. Calling it an Israeli interest is accurate but it doesn't detract from US policy
Second, yes the Budapest Memorandum was violated. Why didn’t the other parties do anything or immediately declare war on Russia besides just the United States?
Here’s a better question though: why didn’t the EU do something when Russia violated it? Is your gear ready? Are you ready to deploy to the front lines? Why are 600 million Europeans asking 340 million Americans to defend them from 180 million Russians?
The immediate reaction of the other parties was roughly the same as the USA's immediate reaction.
> Here’s a better question though: why didn’t the EU do something when Russia violated it?
The EU isn't party to the Budapest Memorandum.
> Is your gear ready?
It is actively being sent, unlike US gear which appears to have stopped roughly with Trump taking over.
> Are you ready to deploy to the front lines?
We aren't asking you to deploy to the front lines of Ukraine. Why do you even think this has been asked of you?
> Why are 600 million Europeans asking 340 million Americans to defend them from 180 million Russians?
This is an entirely separate question to Ukraine.
About 500 million Europeans are living in a NATO state. For them, if war came to them (which it has not yet done so!), the answer is "Article 5". We're already wondering if the USA honour its obligations, so yet again the very fact you have even asked this question makes us trust the USA less.
It's almost like you think, as the Russians keep claiming, NATO was never really a mutual defence treaty, but a way for the USA to be stronger.
That said, a thought crosses my mind: If I were a Chinese or Russian propagandist, I'd get someone to do what you're doing now. Or, better yet, convince some actual Americans to do what you're doing now.
"Divide and conquer, baby. Isolate the big scary army from all their allies who are also their industrial suppliers and FOBs!"
Other Western parties, I should have written.
Wikipedia list of parties to the Budapest Memorandum: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Russia, United States, United Kingdom
Oh look, Germany, France, Poland, Finland, they are not on that list. And yet, still supply more support to Ukraine than the US government is currently supplying.
Well the US and UK rushed munitions. But aside from that it just makes Western Europe culpable for failing
> It is actively being sent, unlike US gear which appears to have stopped roughly with Trump taking over. We aren't asking you to deploy to the front lines of Ukraine. Why do you even think this has been asked of you?
You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand the troop levels and equipment placed throughout Europe. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
> This is an entirely separate question to Ukraine.
Not really
> We're already wondering if the USA honour its obligations, so yet again the very fact you have even asked this question makes us trust the USA less.
If the military presence, continued training exercises, continued well, functioning of NATO means you now don't trust us, then why are we there? You don't trust us, we could just turn on you any moment! Your belief does not reflect reality.
> That said, a thought crosses my mind: If I were a Chinese or Russian propagandist, I'd get someone to do what you're doing now. Or, better yet, convince some actual Americans to do what you're doing now.
You're the one saying "we don't trust you" "you don't support Ukraine" etc. and neither of those are true. You're purposefully driving divisions when none need exist.
Of Western Europe, one nation was party to the Budapest Memorandum.
That one party is the UK.
> You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand the troop levels and equipment placed throughout Europe. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
Zero of which are currently fighting Russia.
Despite what Russian propaganda claims about this war, NATO is not a belligerent, therefore the USA is not a belligerent.
You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand this. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
> > > Why are 600 million Europeans asking 340 million Americans to defend them from 180 million Russians?
> > This is an entirely separate question to Ukraine.
> Not really
Yes really.
You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand the front lines and belligerents, and that NATO isn't on that list. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
> If the military presence, continued training exercises, continued well, functioning of NATO means you now don't trust us, then why are we there? You don't trust us, we could just turn on you any moment! Your belief does not reflect reality.
You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand the troop levels and equipment placed in and around Greenland in direct response to the attempt by your president to, and I need to emphasise this, ILLEGALLY ANNEX IT LIKE PUTIN IS DOING TO BITS OF UKRAINE. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_crisis
> You're the one saying "we don't trust you" "you don't support Ukraine" etc. and neither of those are true. You're purposefully driving divisions when none need exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Diplomatic_crises_dur...
You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand the problem and that your president has been purposefully driving divisions when none need exist. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
Fact is, we genuinely do not trust you, to an even greater extent than we don't trust China. Because, again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_crisis
You may not take that seriously, we did. If you can't understand that, we (personally) are done.
What I can't work out, and don't care to, is how much of this is you treating the USA like it's the only power that matters and everyone else can be disregarded (common failing in all nations), or if you're actually here to push the Russian efforts to cause America to needlessly isolate itself from, and outright alienate, its allies.
Like, least you could do is admit that the Greenland crisis is a serious crisis that drove a wedge between us, that needs to be resolved. If the USA can't bring itself to admit that, it's going to be full of people very surprised allies rapidly (as fast as slow moving ships of state can) stop being allies when you threaten to take their territory.
And that actually taking it means war.
Real, hot, war.
I don't know which is better, you having a normal level of nationalist myopia (which would mean a lot of Amis think like you, leads to high risk of hot war), or you being an agent (actively manipulating opinions, leading to aforementioned).
Given that Trump's "peace plan" is essentially for Ukraine to give up even more territory and partially disarm - decreasing the size of their military and giving up long-range weapons... and there's no such provisions for Russia to do anything of the sort. The plan all but sets up Russia's next invasion of a weakened Ukraine.
The US didn't declare war on Russia. The EU isn't a party to the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine, US, UK, and Russia are with China and France giving separate assurances.
I can't say anything other than what is officially reported. Everything else is a conspiracy theory. While I definitely agree with you that he's inexperienced, who exactly from Europe is flying to Moscow and attempting to negotiate? You can't just sit here and say the US isn't trying just because you don't like the folks that were sent.
> Given that Trump's "peace plan" is essentially for Ukraine to give up even more territory and partially disarm - decreasing the size of their military and giving up long-range weapons... and there's no such provisions for Russia to do anything of the sort. The plan all but sets up Russia's next invasion of a weakened Ukraine.
Ok so then you don't want to see any attempt at negotiation and just want to see the war continue? The problem is you're playing ideological games when we need to figure out a pragmatic solution. I don't think Ukraine should give up territory it controls, for example, but if it has to give up some territory that it has little chance of taking back for the sake of peace maybe it should do so. Unless you are willing to go to war with Russia you need to figure something out.
> The US didn't declare war on Russia. The EU isn't a party to the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine, US, UK, and Russia are with China and France giving separate assurances.
So what? You want the United States and United Kingdom to go to war with Russia now? I don't know what citing the Budapest Memorandum is accomplishing here other than attempting to further drive division between western allies.
> Why didn’t the other parties do anything or immediately declare war on Russia besides just the United States?
I pointed out the fallacy of your statement. The US didn't declare war on Russia. And the fact that the EU isn't a party to the Budapest Memorandum, so they're not supposed to be defending Ukraine from Russia.
Now, you're saying that the we should ignore the Budapest Memorandum and negotiate in good faith with a tyrant like Putin that never negotiates in good faith. And violates agreements without thinking twice. And that somehow sending a fraudulent "negotiator" like Kushner is somehow a good thing and the US acting in good faith.
Also:
> I can't say anything other than what is officially reported. Everything else is a conspiracy theory.
The actual reporting by multiple news organizations contains far more factual details than anything 'officially' released by a convicted fraud and adjudicated rapist. Or his sycophants.