European Union: Discussion Thread

Europe Brain Drain: 30,000 Tech Specialists Move to China, by Fantine Gardinier for Sputnikglobe.com. 07.20.2023.

Experts told Sputnik that Western policies have created a "toxic" work environment for many researchers who are more interested in science than in politics, helping drive their migration to China. Beijing could capitalize big on this with more incentives to relocate, but it could bring China and Europe closer together, too.

A recently released report by the US-based company Strider Technologies accused the People's Republic of China (PRC) of infiltrating Western technology firms and institutions as part of "a machine that facilitates the transfer of European technology and talent to the PRC."

The report notes that over the past 20 years, more than 30,000 senior employees at European technology companies have moved to China, in some cases starting up their own firms to compete with their Western counterparts.

Strider CEO Greg Levesque told US media that China "sees leadership in the semiconductor sector as vital to its military and commercial goals and nothing will deter it from pursuing those efforts. Legal and trade barriers in the US will only push them to ramp up operations elsewhere."

The Chinese Foreign Ministry rejected the report, telling a US newspaper that Strider "has previously published a series of reports full of false information smearing and attacking China. China's exchange of talent with foreign countries is no different from other countries."

Jeff J. Brown, author of The China Trilogy, editor at China Rising Radio Sinoland, co-founder and curator of the Bioweapon Truth Commission, told Sputnik on Thursday that about 40 years ago, "western research became pay-to-play, for-profit and still is."

"Before the 1980s, most research grant money in the West came from government sources - agencies and foundations - so there were fewer commercial and ideological strings attached. With Reagan/Thatcher neoliberalism starting in the 1980s, those grants dried up, thus big corporations filled the breach offering funding, but now with, ‘We are paying you and these are the results we want,'" he said.

Brown said that a "venal, toxic and revolting work environment" arose in the years since as a result, adding that "is it any wonder Western professors, researchers and scientists are flocking to China, where science is still pure science, the search for truth lives large, and the sociopolitical ambiance is collegial and relaxed?"

The steady migration of researchers into China makes sense, given the sociopolitical environment and atmosphere in which grants are given. But despite the fears about a Western "brain drain," Brown noted that "The halls of Western academia and research are still full of professors and scientists."

"Most of them are not adventurous enough to pull up stakes and move to China. Nevertheless, there is a feeling that those who do so are among the best and the brightest, more interested in the pursuit of pure science, rather than cranking out papers paid for by Wall Street and Big Pharma."

“China pays very well, it is a safe, clean and modern country, with no garbage and transport strikes, no riots; inflation is low and the sky's the limit in terms of basic and applied research, with plenty of a-political, non-commercial grant money,” he noted. “Therefore, where would you like to do your R&D? It’s an easy question to answer.”

“Given the aforementioned dichotomy between Western and Chinese R&D, Beijing has already won the race. China Tech is unstoppable. It does not need Westerners in their universities and laboratories to achieve ‘Made in China 2025’, but they are nice leavening in the invention and innovation cake.”

Thomas W. Pauken II, the author of “US vs China: From Trade War to Reciprocal Deal,” a consultant on Asia-Pacific affairs and a geopolitical commentator, told Sputnik that more Europeans moving to China could be highly beneficial for both regions and lead to greater ties between them at a time that Europe is suffering from its proximity to the United States.

However, he noted that in order to coax more European talent to relocate to China, “they have to make it where the Europeans are going to feel comfortable coming and moving to China.”

“It's not as easy as some might think it is. What the Chinese government should first focus on is to create some preferential tax treatment and find ways to get companies to offer very rewarding contracts to people who are talented in science and technology. But, we should also be aware that many Chinese are also very good at science and technology and that when the Europeans come here [to China], they could be surprised by the stiff competition they'll have against their Chinese peers,” he said.

“However, it is important to have European scientists and talents come to China because they have a different cultural mindset and that different cultural mindset can also help Chinese people and Chinese companies have a better understanding of the global markets, as well as the science and tech world outside of China and outside of Asia,” Pauken asserted.

"But in order to attract them, they're going to have to find ways of preferential tax treatment, some type of subsidies, easy visa procedures. For example, international schools here in China are very expensive. I know that for sure, because my son goes to an international school. Hopefully the Chinese government can perhaps either allow companies that hire to maybe get tax free treatment on offering education grants to Europeans who have children who could attend international schools here."

Pauken noted the southern province of Hainan has a High-Tech National Industrial Development Zone “where they're trying to encourage a lot of foreigners to work.”

"Another benefit they have is a lot of duty-free products go through Hainan, and when they do spend in Hainan, they can get tax rebates as well," he explained. "Europeans don't claim they're interested in money, but you'll be surprised how often the Europeans are the first to ask for special [tax] treatment. Maybe it's because in Europe the taxes are so high, they might be looking for other places to go to improve their living standards and living conditions."

Pauken said that while the migration of high-tech specialists to China could have a big impact on the global tech race, there are still significant obstacles to the kind of exchange that Strider claimed was imminent, especially in the field of proprietary information.

"If it succeeds, it's going to be amazing for China because they will have a lot more progress and developments in their technologies. And this also could improve trade ties between Europe and China, which right at this very moment is going through some hard times, because the Europeans are too closely aligned with Washington. However, maybe if a lot of Europeans are coming here, this may encourage and inspire Europe to find ways of having deeper cooperation with China."

https://sputnikglobe.com/20230720/tech-experts-migrate-to-china-due-to-western-pay-to-play-research-culture-1112017062.html

The collapse of European diplomacy is happening before our eyes, by Timofey Bordachev, Programme Director of the Valdai Club, for VZGLYAD. 03.06.2024.

There are several reasons why Europeans have gone so far down the path leading to their own world that is different from reality. First of all, they experienced a colossal shock just over 30 years ago.

The incident with the refusal of the ambassadors of the European Union countries to take part in a meeting with the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry Sergei Lavrov is an excellent example of what European diplomatic culture is now. The reason is quite simple - over the past 30 years it has practically lost the need to be diplomacy in the traditional sense of the word.

Despite the fact that among the ambassadors of the European Union countries in Moscow there are relatively educated and intelligent people, these individual characteristics no longer matter much. Everything is determined by the worldview of Europeans, which has become the opposite of what is necessary for civilized relations between states. And those observers are right who believe that in modern conditions the very meaning of having ambassadors of EU countries in Moscow becomes incomprehensible - after all, they still do not decide anything and cannot fulfill their duties in the way that is generally accepted. It would be much easier for everyone if these wonderful and not so wonderful people returned to their countries for a while.

There are several reasons why Europeans have gone so far down the path leading to their own world that is different from reality. First of all, they experienced a colossal shock just over 30 years ago. Since the 16th century, Europe was adjacent to Russia, which it could not defeat under any circumstances.

The excellent British scientist of our imperial origin, Dominic Lieven, wrote in one of his works that the Russians were the only ones with whom Europe had to deal who were capable of fighting with boundless courage, tenacity and self-sacrifice for their special, independent niche in the modern world.

Let's think about these words - the only ones of all civilizations towards which the West tried to behave aggressively. All the rest - the Great Chinese Empire, the ancient civilization of India, and many others - could not resist the decisive pressure of the West, which for 500 years expanded the limits of its power with fire and sword. They were somehow defeated by the West, even if after some time they were able to regain their states. Russia was never defeated. And let's try to put ourselves in the shoes of Europeans and understand their emotional state: for centuries, Europe lived with the trauma whose name is independent Russia. We ourselves, by the way, were never given the opportunity to understand what it was like to have a constant opponent whom you could never defeat.

Therefore, in 1991, when the USSR suddenly fell and a single state disintegrated, Europe found itself in a situation completely unknown to it. The most impossible wish of generations of European politicians and military men came true overnight. Just by itself, without a decisive military conflict and with the full desire of the Russians to join the “European family,” even if only as a student. Such a shock could not pass without serious consequences for the psyche of statesmen and ordinary citizens of European states.

Their entire foreign policy culture was brought up on the fact that Russia never allows itself to be pushed around or dictated to. And suddenly the West felt like a winner in the Cold War, without firing a shot. In a state of fantastic emotional shock, Europe began to build relations with Russia, as with a country that had finally suffered defeat. For several years, Moscow accepted the rules of the game that Europe offered it, took into account the desires of Europeans in the economy and developed its external relations with an eye on how this would affect the main direction - gradual “integration” with the European Union. The EU, in the new circumstances, found itself in the position of a demanding teacher, proposing numerous “partnership” programs with two simple objectives. Firstly, to ensure the interests of European business and make the Russian market even more open for it. Secondly, check Russia’s compliance with its instructions.

European diplomats had to become equally demanding teachers. For several generations of EU ambassadors in Moscow, the main task has become to monitor how well Russia fulfills its many obligations. As part of the implementation of this “honorable” mission, a tradition of communication with Russia was formed at various levels. And if at the level of heads of state or heads of foreign policy departments there was a conversation on equal terms, then below there was no trace of ordinary diplomacy.

European ambassadors did not simply become executors of the will of their masters in national capitals (this is completely normal) - they gradually turned into technical workers entrusted with the task of observing Russia and pointing out errors in its behavior. And the degree of their intellectual abilities was no longer assessed by their ability to play a subtle diplomatic game. The main criterion was the greater or lesser degree of hysteria with which they promoted a very simple agenda consisting of only demands. Moreover, their individual will and intelligence were increasingly firmly integrated into the system of rules and requirements that are common to all NATO and EU representatives abroad.

As a philosopher wrote in the last century, “in a collective, the individual mind becomes the servant of the collective interest.” And gradually, we add, it disappears in the sense that was originally a sign of intelligence - the ability to independently analyze the situation and make decisions. This problem has become so total for European diplomacy and politics that they gradually stopped even noticing it.

Moreover, European politics was changing rapidly. Finding themselves, through no merit, in the position of “winners in the Cold War,” Europeans feel a sense of deep moral superiority over the entire world around them. Except for the Americans, of course, whom they are simply very afraid of.

We have repeatedly encountered examples of interference by the European Union in the purely internal affairs of such important partners as China, or the still very friendly India. Not to mention states of smaller size and importance. So, last year, French President Emmanuel Macron seriously made scenes with Brazilians about how they treat their forests.

Let us note for the sake of honesty that the problem is also the reluctance of other countries for a long time to draw the attention of Europeans to the inadequacy of their behavior. As a participant in world diplomacy, Europe has come very far along the path to where there is no return to reality.

However, a reasonable question arises: what does Russia care at all about why our neighbors in the West have so lost the ability to correspond to the world around them? It seems that if the current military-political crisis is temporarily accompanied by a decrease in our level of diplomatic relations with the countries of the European Union, we can still get some benefit from understanding the reasons.

Firstly, if we exclude scenarios that are tragic for everyone, then Europe will still remain Russia’s neighbor and we will have to conduct a diplomatic dialogue with it again. Even taking into account that the underlying reason for the inadequacy of the Europeans was of a fundamental nature - the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR, we could have behaved more demandingly towards them earlier. For their own – and common – good. Therefore, we need to understand where Europe has its main weaknesses that make it impossible to conduct normal diplomatic interaction.

Secondly, we need to see what tragic mistakes the transformation of diplomacy into political notations leads to. As Russia develops relations with the countries of the Global South and our neighbors in the CIS, it is useful to be especially vigilant and ensure that we ourselves avoid even signs of European arrogance.

https://vz.ru/opinions/2024/3/6/1256764.html

What will Bratwurst Scholz say to this:

Macron wants von der Leyen replaced – Bloomberg, 04.24.2024.

French president is reportedly considering former European Central Bank boss Mario Draghi as an alternative head of the Commission.

French President Emmanuel Macron is seeking to replace European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and is currently discussing options with other EU leaders, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday, citing sources.

Von der Leyen is now gearing up for elections in less than two months, seeking to secure another five-year term. Macron, who was one of the key figures behind elevating her into the top EU job, has been openly criticizing the President’s approach to running the EU Commission.

“The commission presidency is there to defend the general interest, so it must not be over-politicized. Which, it has to be said, was not at all the case with this outgoing commission,” Macron said in Brussels last month.

The French president has been in touch with other EU leaders over potential candidates to replace the incumbent to lead the commission, namely former Italian PM and European Central Bank president Mario Draghi, Bloomberg reported, citing people familiar with these discussions.

Sources in Brussels, including those with von der Leyen’s office, have commented that it remains unclear whether Macron had been genuinely seeking to oust her or was merely putting pressure on in order to extract concessions from her in the future.

Macron, alongside then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel, were the key figures in 2019 behind fielding von der Leyen, then German Defense Minister, for the EU Commission presidential elections.

Von der Leyen is still a clear favorite for the upcoming elections, given the fact that she is the main candidate for the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), which has the most seats at the European Parliament and is expected to further reinforce its positions during the polls in June. However, a candidate fielded by the EPP still requires backing from an absolute majority in parliament.

The position of the incumbent EU president has been damaged by multiple high-profile scandals, with the latest erupting earlier this month when she found herself in a storm of criticism over giving fellow German MEP Markus Pieper the lucrative job of “special adviser,” with a reported salary of €17,000 a month.

The appointment “has triggered questions about the transparency and impartiality of the nomination process” within the bloc, multiple senior officials, including the EU’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, and Commissioner Thierry Breton, said jointly in a complaint to von der Leyen. The Commission, however, brushed off the allegations, stating it “has every confidence in the fact that the process took place in full compliance with procedures.”

https://www.rt.com/news/596540-macron-eu-commission-election/

Macron went to war with Ursula von der Leyen, by Dmitry Bavyrin for VZGLYAD. 04.25.2024.

There is another split among Russia’s opponents in the West, this time in a very real way. Those who do not want to allow Ursula von der Leyen to serve a second term as head of the EC were joined by French President Emmanuel Macron and immediately rushed into battle, calling for thinking about “good neighbourly relations with Russia.” Whose will he take? So what about Russia?

The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, will undoubtedly go down in European history as a tough functionary who successfully suppressed attempts at an anti-American riot and ensured the supply of weapons to Ukraine.

Despite the controversial reputation she received as Germany's defense minister and numerous doubts about her political competence as a gynecologist, Ursula time and again beat her opponents (also not the last people on the continent) and proved to the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky: she is the one someone he can always count on.

US President Joe Biden is less effective in this matter; for example, for six months he had to butt heads with Congress over a tranche for Kiev . If not for the support of the European Union, the Zelensky regime might not have survived until spring.

Now Ursula herself, as Chairman of the European Commission, risks not surviving until next spring. She understood that she was by no means guaranteed a second term, so she tried to move to the chair of NATO Secretary General, and when this number did not work out, she focused on maintaining her current post. There are chances for this, but strong and conflict-ridden politicians always have many enemies. Von der Leyen has a particularly large number of them – and they are only getting more numerous.

Now these are not only Eurosceptics like the prime ministers of Hungary and Slovakia  Viktor Orbán and Robert Fico, although Orbán is the one who led the front of the open struggle against Ursula. These are the leaders of the largest countries in Western Europe.

Among them is German Chancellor Olaf Scholff, which may seem strange, since Ursula herself is from Germany. But for Scholz, she is first and foremost a representative of the main opposition party and part of Angela Merkel's legacy, which he would prefer to get rid of.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, although she supports Ursula on issues of the conflict around Ukraine, is in solidarity with Orban on issues of the rights of national governments, and the relationship between them is described as almost friendly.

Now French President Emmanuel Macron has also spoken out against Ursula. Publicly, without getting personal, but behind closed doors, as Bloomberg claims, citing “ informed sources ,” he is pushing former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi to the post of head of the EC, trying to enlist the support of the same Meloni.

Draghi, who once headed the EU Central Bank and then a technocratic government as a compromise figure between Eurosceptics and Eurooptimists, really looks like a person who is able to reduce conflict within the European Union: for some time he even succeeded in doing this with the Italians.

“The Presidency of the European Commission is designed to protect common interests, so it should not be overly politicized,” Macron criticizes Ursula.

Von der Leyen has indeed turned her formerly technical post into a political one, becoming the most influential head of the EC in its entire history. She herself believes that this is a big plus. Americans, whose interests von der Leyen always takes into account, too. But Macron is now against it.

Knowing Macron, the most obvious explanation for what is happening is that he is jealous. He himself wants to be the most influential in Europe and build US relations on behalf of the European Union as the president of its last superpower.

In his new and “programmatic” (as they emphasize in the Elysee Palace) speech on the topic of foreign affairs, he even recalled that France has nuclear weapons, which, it turns out, are the guarantor of the security of Europe and building relations with Russia. This is a kind of attack on Washington and Berlin, where they believe that the guarantor of European security is the US nuclear weapons located in Germany.

However, this time Scholz supported Macron, who called on Europe to prove that it is not a “vassal” of the United States, and not to rely solely on America’s protection in the future. According to the French president, the EU should strengthen its sovereignty by creating its own military academy and developing the defense industry, and subsequently “establish good neighborly relations with Russia.”

That is, he understands that the gap between Europe and Russia is primarily beneficial to the United States. According to Bloomberg, he even understands that von der Leyen greatly aggravated this dependence. And Macron’s bid for “good neighborly relations” in the future is like an attempt to break the political trend of the West, according to which our cold war with him will last a very long time.

But there is a defining nuance: in terms of goals for the medium term, both Macron and Ursula are united. The Frenchman, who just yesterday proposed sending NATO troops to Ukraine, again came forward, but did not change himself: for “good neighborly relations” Russia must lose – and that’s it.

“The main condition for our security is that Russia does not win,” Macron snapped.

Thus, for Russia itself, Macron’s statements do not change anything. He tries to be more constructive than Ursula, but on the main issue of our relationship he is no different from her. Only about Ursula it is known that Washington asked her to do this, and Macron pretends to act as he wants.

Strictly speaking, for Russia there is no difference in the matter of whether Ursula will remain at the head of the European Commission or someone will come “to replace the new guy.” Yes, a lot depends on the USA, and on the presidential elections in the USA too. But to lead the EU this season there will definitely not be a “candidate who defends national values” that Orban dreams of.

Much will depend on the results of the elections to the European Parliament in early June: the appointment of the leadership of the EC is almost the only issue when something depends on this imitation of parliament. The Eurosceptics are planning to give a tough fight to the “traditional elites” - so let them give it, and let Macron, Scholz and Co. give the fight to Ursula if they so want. Moscow is purple.

But if this is a matter of dispute, then you need to bet on Ursula.

The rebellion of Western Europe against the Washington man in her person might have been successful, given how decrepit the current leader of the United States is. And Macron’s actions are truly an alarming “bell” for the head of the EC, incomparable to Orban’s escapades. But it is important to remember who is who.

Macron is someone who talks a lot and pulls the blanket over himself, but does very little . And even if he does something in terms of foreign policy projects, a fiasco always awaits him in the end , which became the curse of Paris during his presidency.

Ursula is not like that, Ursula is flint. She repeatedly put to shame those who underestimated her, putting pressure on her or overplaying her, but getting her way. According to many objective inputs, she has come to the end of her political career, but she has already approached it several times, eventually turning into that witch who does not drown in water, but does not burn in fire.

Due to the difference in potentials, confirmed by practice, she is able to eat Macron along with his tie before he cuts off her head.

For impolite people, this is a completely legitimate reason to remember the conflict between the toad and the viper. But within the framework of foreign policy, politeness is valuable in itself, and therefore we wish good luck to both sides. It would be nice if they didn't take prisoners.

https://vz.ru/world/2024/4/25/1265215.html