this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2026
191 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
87417 readers
3849 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are you being for real right now? They have attacked several EU countries. Literally even assassinated people on foreign soils. Somewhat recently they launched drone attack on my country (Latvia) and blew up fuel storage. It is also a known fact that China trained Russian troops that were sent into European country.
Are you being for real right now? EU is a union of states/countries, like US or Soviets were. Middle East is not part of that union. So if someone attacks Portugal, it would be fine for the rest of EU to ignore it just because people don't want to get involved into middle east? Please, stop. You're borderline copying Russian anti-EU sentiment and disinfo.
https://www.plataformamedia.com/en/2026/04/14/portugal-china-and-russia-as-main-threats-to-internal-security/ - guess who did they not name? Middle eastern countries.
If you think denying technology to China because they work with Russia is a proportional response to Russia murdering people in Europe, I have some news for you about CIA activities all over the World including in Europe ...
It's a lot more simple to just follow the logic of Principles and pushing back on those commiting wars of aggression and genocide and those who support them as a rule and without trying to treat some of those one way and others differently for *reasons*, than try and come up with the perfect red-line of actions in Europe which decides between "do nothing at all" and "block anybody in any away associated with them", that puts Russia on the bad side of the line and the likes of America on the good side so that we can keep on treating one set of murderous imperialists better than the other.
It's not about proportional response, it's about what we can do. We can't do alot, but we could at least not share critical technology.
I'm not sure why are you comparing Russia to US. The CIA has never officially planned or executed a successful coup in Europe. If you want us to get hostile towards any country who has done something to another country (outside EU), we'd have only enemies.
Again. If we'd get involved into every conflict, we'd likely have no friends, but only enemies. Which war is more important for Europe? Why would we shift focus to middle east? Europe is already pretty much hostile towards Israel and not on good terms with US (Spain just signed some mining deal with Iran), but why are we even talking about those two conflicts? There are currently 25+ active conflicts. Why not a single word about Thailand and Cambodia, or all those African conflicts, or Iran, or Afghanistan, or Sudan, or etc.. Either you're a hypocrite and care about specific conflict only, or you want EU to basically sacrifice itself by getting involved into every conflict (which would borderline lead to isolationism).
What do you think Americans would do with Russo-Ukrainian war if we sent assist or even weapons to Palestine (same old "what can we even do?")? Same with getting involved into Asia (Thailand). Let's just not, we have our own war.
Well, now we're down to "pragmatic responses".
By which point we're not "punishing" anybody for being bad boys, we're doing things for geo-strategical value - basically to change behavior or reduce the possibility of future behaviors which are bad for us.
What the poster that originated this thread wanted - that Europe stops sending any tech to China because in his or her view China "supports" (unclear how much is too much) Russia - is not an appropriate response in pragmatic terms because it is a hostile movement towards a massive and increasingly influential nation - China - to try and change unclear behavior (just how much does China really "support" Russia compared to, say, India?) which supposedly indirectly would change somebody else's (Russia) behavior. Specifically for the EU, said somebody else is bad for it because they basically bark a lot towards it (whilst not actually biting it, though they do bit others) and have committed crimes in the EU at the level of a small organized crime organization.
How exactly is it pragmatic to go down a route of trade aggression towards a giant nation which is friendish towards a different nation to somehow (magic?) try and deter said other nation from further committing in the EU the level of crime of a small criminal organization?!
The retribution from China would cost the EU vastly more than the problem that action by the EU might (but it's not at all guaranteed) ameliorate.
That's not pragmatic in any way form or shape.
If we're going for punishing them, then that's not "pragmatic" anymore, that's at the level of principles, at which point what I wrote about punishing all imperialists, genociders and their supports applies.