FortyTwo

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.

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.

Though I like the spirit and intended message, so I don't want to be too negative, I'm not personally too fond of this approach. Like you said, everyone can make their own considerations; I'll add mine in case you find them interesting.

A big obstacle that often comes up with joint European plans is that every country wants their own local companies to benefit. This has long been a problem with defence (though hopefully a bit less so now), everyone wants to do a little bit of everything, which often ends up with them doing it poorly, while the EU also misses out on the benefits of scaling up. Or from the perspective of consumers, it's why we don't have a proper European alternative for Netflix, but instead dozens of "meh" national subscription services. For food, it can be complex; on the one hand it's good for the environment to reduce transportation emissions, on the other hand, transport is often a negligible part of the emission cost of produce compared to other factors (but not always). So it's often better to import produce from countries where it grows well, than buying locally from producers who use costly (financially or environmentally) methods.

It can get quite complex quite quickly. I'd say let's consider local products as good options with potential advantages and disadvantages, but don't necessarily view them as superior to other EU products. And let's avoid falling into the trap of expecting direct national benefit from every individual EU initiative (not saying you specifically OP, just a general point).

I guess I'm not growing old

One caused by counting on internal division in the EU, the probability of which increases when we fail to have a unified response right now. Basically just gambling that countries like the Netherlands won't be willing to defend, e.g., a Baltic country. Russia could certainly beat the militaries of small Baltic states one by one, if it is breaking even with Ukraine. No joint response would mean selling out member states and effectively disabling the whole concept of the EU. Joint response would mean war for everyone.

I would prefer a future that minimises the probability of this gamble being made, and nobody gets invaded.

I suppose this is karma for me getting too excited about European unity getting a massive boost as a silver lining to the state of the world. My own country is joining Hungary in attempting to sabotage it.

This is not the time to make an ideological show to your populist national electorate. If this doesn't get implemented properly and the newfound unity is not credible, the continent and the EU will be faced with war. Which, if that on its own is not convincing enough, also tends to be somewhat suboptimal for fiscal stability and the economy.

I sometimes wonder now if the plan is to stop having allies, and instead just make an American version of Wagner. Privatised American military fights for the highest bidder, buys lots of material from the American MIC, makes the world a worse place but makes a lot of money of it. I doubt it would be more profitable than a permanent inflow of 2% of the yearly GDP from several of the richest countries in the world, but I wouldn't put it past them to think that it would be.

I remember a few weeks ago Dutch pension funds sold all their Tesla stock because they felt it wasn't a safe investment anymore. The decision was laughed at on reddit because Tesla still went up a little bit after that, clearly it was a political choice and the uncertainty was just an excuse, surely the Dutch people would be annoyed that politics cost them big gains on their pensions, etc etc.

I feel vindicated. Let's see how low it can go!

I've spent years now trying not to consume products from companies I consider immoral. There are a lot of them and, realistically, you won't make a big dent or bring the company down. The average person is, by definition, average, so a boycott based on people doing the good thing at the expense of some personal discomfort will always fail.

But that doesn't mean it's pointless. Companies like Amazon are almost impossible to compete with because of their size. The most important impact you can have as a consumer is not that the lack of your personal revenue is going to keep the likes of Jeff Bezos up at night. It's that you're providing revenue and a user base to alternative businesses that are struggling to exist in a world where most people just use Amazon.

You can make a real difference this way! Focus on growing competitors rather than hoping the bad company will go away because of your abstention. Kind of like using Lemmy instead of Reddit.