Connect with us

Diplomacy

Palantir CEO Alex Karp says he would not vote for ‘pro-Russian’ AfD in Germany

Published

on

The co-founder and chief executive of Palantir, Alex Karp, has stated that while he understands the rise of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, he would not vote for the group if he lived in Germany, describing it as “pro-Russian”.

Speaking as a guest on a programme hosted by Mathias Döpfner, the chairman of the German media conglomerate Axel Springer, Karp addressed a wide range of subjects, including the war in Ukraine, artificial intelligence (AI), Palantir’s surveillance technologies, and the state of German politics.

Döpfner noted that when they first met at a party in 2003, Karp was viewed as an “interesting left-wing intellectual”. Asked how he had since transitioned into what some describe as a “dark figure of the radical right”, Karp rejected the characterisation, asserting that the image is inaccurate and that he receives widespread support when meeting ordinary people.

“Every investor in Silicon Valley would cut off their right arm to have a fanbase like ours,” Karp said. “Probably their left arm too.”

Asserting that Palantir’s products—specifically its data analytics and investigative software, Gotham—have made history by preventing terrorist attacks and playing a central role in the defence of Ukraine, Karp argued that a cultural divide exists between Europe and the United States.

“In the US, when it comes to a new technology, the first question asked is not whether we find the person behind it likeable,” Karp said. “Instead, the key question is: does the technology work? Is it better? Does it make companies more successful? In Europe, however, these questions are often not asked at all. Or at least, not in the right way. Because if these questions were taken seriously, one might reach the uncomfortable conclusion that a significant portion of technological infrastructure will, for the foreseeable future, have to come from the United States.”

While acknowledging that Palantir face rejection from certain sections of the political and media elite, Karp maintained that the vast majority of Germans simply want to know whether the company’s products are effective.

Karp claimed that his firm possesses the world’s only industrial-scale “application layer” of its size, which he said prevents data from being harvested or misused by large language model providers.

According to Karp, the supreme irony is that “in Europe, in the name of data protection, technically uninformed bureaucrats are fighting the very company that makes this data protection possible in the first place.”

Arguing that Europe suffers from a fundamental deficit in technological competence, the Palantir founder added: “Economically, Palantir does not need the European market. But Europe is very important to me. That is why this debate interests me.”

Comparing concepts of freedom, Karp observed that in the US, rights are primarily understood as protections against the state, whereas Europe places greater emphasis on economic rights.

Identifying himself as a progressive, Karp defined his philosophy as defending the rights of individuals “even if I do not personally like them”.

He described the frequent depiction of Palantir’s other co-founder, Peter Thiel, as “anti-democratic” or a “religious fanatic” as a scandal.

“I have known him since our time together at Stanford,” Karp said of Thiel. “He was a political outlier on the right back then, but he was certainly no enemy of democracy. The narratives about Peter rarely withstand objective scrutiny. The same applies to Palantir. Therefore, I find the question of why people still want to believe these stories far more interesting. My impression is that a very American form of political polarisation is blending with German traditions. What emerges is no longer a German debate, but an imported American culture war logic. Yet historically, Germany would ask a completely different question: not ‘do we like this person?’ but ‘can we afford the luxury of learning nothing from him?'”

Germany, Karp argued, should currently possess the world’s second-most powerful technology sector.

“Yet Germany is now barely represented in this league,” Karp said. “Germany’s largest listed company is Siemens. Palantir’s value today is significantly higher than Siemens’. In fact, I believe Palantir is still undervalued at present.”

Turning to German domestic politics, Karp described the rise of radical parties in the country as entirely predictable.

The Palantir executive argued that those who accepted large-scale migration into Germany “without involving the public and openly discussing the consequences” should not be surprised by the political outcome. He pointed to an “incredibly difficult and painful inability to speak openly about obvious facts” in Europe, and particularly in Germany.

At this point, Döpfner intervened, suggesting that Karp was avoiding the question and pressed further: “What do you think of the AfD? Palantir is assisting Ukraine in its war against Russia. In contrast, the AfD has repeatedly demanded that Ukraine be forced to negotiate with Russia. Leading representatives of the party reverse the roles of perpetrator and victim. How do you assess this? I ask this question so directly because some imply that Peter Thiel or you share a certain affinity with the AfD.”

Karp responded by emphasizing that whilst he understands why the AfD has achieved success, this does not mean he supports them.

“If I were a German citizen, I would not vote for them,” Karp said. “I have no interest in supporting a party that shows understanding for Putin or harbours sympathy for the Chinese Communist Party.”

He suggested that many people vote for the AfD as a protest, believing that established parties no longer wish to take issues like migration seriously or resolve them, which drives voters toward the AfD.

Karp noted that people who genuinely care about Germany have pointed to this development for years and have often been publicly discredited. Addressing Döpfner directly, Karp said: “You are a good example of this. My impression is that on many social issues, you are slightly to the left of the centre-left. Fundamentally, you would probably be classified by many Americans as a classical liberal or even mildly left-wing. Yet you are regularly attacked in Germany. All this while you resolutely oppose the AfD. You have no sympathy for Putin; on the contrary, we both know that Russia poses a direct threat to the West.”

Karp added that both he and Döpfner defend democracy, the West, and support for Ukraine. When Döpfner stated that he also views the success of the AfD as the result of a weak political centre, whilst rejecting the party as an alternative due to its pro-Russian, anti-American, and anti-capitalist stances, Karp responded: “I largely agree with that.”

Nonetheless, Karp maintained that many voters support the party not because of its broader platform, but because they feel ignored by the political establishment.

Karp acknowledged that AI represents both an opportunity and a threat. However, he argued that European discussions on AI often focus on issues that have already been settled in the US, describing it as though Europe is discussing a “light” version of the technology.

“Germany must reshape its industry with the help of AI,” Karp said. “The automotive industry, the chemical sector—practically all key industries are on the verge of a profound transformation. At the same time, the workforce is shrinking, energy costs remain high, and international competition is intensifying. There is only one serious answer to this: AI.”

Karp asserted that nothing will change unless the German Chancellor publicly declares that the country is in a crisis. He argued that Germany requires individuals who have successfully built global enterprises in the past, naming figures such as Tobias Lütke, Philipp Schindler, and Peter Thiel.

“This task cannot be solved by people who have never established a global technology company,” Karp claimed.

“Germany must do everything it can to win back such entrepreneurs and provide them with the necessary freedom,” he continued. “Technology companies do not emerge from a four-day working week. They are built by people who work for years with an almost fanatical dedication. Around the clock. And of course, this includes the ability to replace teams when things do not work out. This does not mean I fundamentally question workers’ rights. On the contrary. But a top engineer working in AI requires a different employment law framework than many traditional industrial professions. I would also establish a special economic zone—a region where the same competitive conditions apply as those in the United States, Israel, or China. Because this is where the global technology competition is taking place today.”

While admitting that AI carries risks, Karp argued that the primary danger does not lie in the existence of AI itself, but in the prospect of democratic societies failing to utilise its potential out of fear.

The chief executive stated he is certain that AI will raise the standard of living for most people, though he noted that those who develop and control these technologies could become 10, 20, or 100 times wealthier than they are today.

Recalling that past industrial revolutions enriched entrepreneurs, Karp added: “But inequalities remained within a framework that society could accept. Today, however, the wealth gap is reaching dimensions that many people cannot even imagine.”

Karp observed that societies have been divided for much longer than people care to admit. “When you add an unprecedented concentration of wealth to this social distance, a politically explosive environment is created,” he warned. “Many people fear becoming redundant.”

When asked by Döpfner about the geopolitical tech race between the West and an alliance of authoritarian states including China, Russia, and Iran, Karp expressed confidence that the moral standards of the Western world would serve as a competitive advantage.

He attributed part of Ukraine’s military success to Palantir’s ability to protect data and strengthen digital sovereignty.

“Technology does not develop in a vacuum,” Karp said. “Those who gain experience under real operational conditions gain an advantage. This is why I view China’s supposed advantages partly as disadvantages. It is often claimed that China has much larger volumes of data. What matters is not the quantity of data, but what can be done with it.”

Karp said it remains impossible to predict whether the US or China will lead technologically in a decade. However, he warned that if the West restricts technologies critical to its competitiveness, Russia, China, and Iran will immediately exploit the gap.

While Karp said he did not believe every campaign against Palantir was orchestrated by adversaries, he added: “But of course, authoritarian states attempt to influence these very debates.”

Acknowledging China’s significant capabilities, Karp argued that the primary challenge lies not in Beijing, but in whether Europe and America can maintain their political capacity to act.

“We must fight with all our strength to avoid waking up in societies where freedom and the rule of law are nothing more than memories,” Karp said, calling for a society where the best can succeed.

He described his vision of a society where as many people as possible have equal opportunities, but where outcomes depend on “talent, discipline, effort—and yes, to some extent, luck.”

Concluding his remarks, Karp said: “A society where the rule of law applies to everyone. A society where freedom of expression does not depend on whether an opinion pleases us. A society where data protection applies even to those we personally dislike. A society where state power remains limited, where people can be creative and are rewarded for their achievements. At the same time, a sufficient number of people must share in this prosperity so that social cohesion can be preserved. But what worries me is this: today, many people who consider themselves progressive are fighting against this very order. They define people by their origins or identities. They no longer treat freedom as a universal principle, but as a privilege. Palantir and I are working precisely against this—by giving people greater sovereignty over their data, and by supporting democracies like Ukraine, Israel, or the United States to defend themselves against authoritarian adversaries.”

Diplomacy

Finkelstein says US campus clampdown has surpassed McCarthyism

Published

on

Appearing as a guest on the online programme hosted by American journalist and television presenter Tucker Carlson, political scientist, academic, and author of “The Holocaust Industry” Norman Finkelstein evaluated post-October 7 developments in Gaza, Israel’s military operations, free-speech crises across American universities, and the historical background of Gaza.

Responding to Carlson’s question regarding conditions in Gaza prior to the October 7 actions, Finkelstein stated that the roots of the issue trace back to 1948.

“Gaza became Gaza in 1948”

Explaining that the current demographic structure of the Gaza Strip was shaped by the forced displacement of 1948, Finkelstein said:

“Gaza became Gaza in 1948 as a result of Israel expelling approximately 750,000 Palestinian Arabs from the lands it incorporated into its borders. Around 300,000 of those 750,000 expelled individuals were sent to Gaza, and this population constituted roughly 80% of Gaza’s inhabitants. The indigenous population was overwhelmed by this massive influx of refugees. At that time, Gaza was part of Mandate Palestine under British rule.”

Finkelstein noted that conditions in the territory, which fell under Egyptian administration after 1948, drew the attention of international observers from the earliest years.

Recalling that United Nations officials serving in Gaza as early as the 1950s explicitly compared the territory to a concentration camp, Finkelstein cited historical accounts from the era:

“In July 1967, Al Gore Sr., then a senator from Tennessee, visited Gaza. Describing what he witnessed upon his return to the US Congress, he characterised Gaza as a concentration camp established on sand. Consequently, this has been the common terminology used by external observers visiting the region since 1948.”

Drawing attention to statements by Giora Eiland, former head of Israel’s National Security Council, Finkelstein noted that Eiland does not project a pro-peace profile, continues to advise the current Israeli government, and has publicly stated that he would welcome the outbreak of epidemics in southern Gaza.

Finkelstein continued:

“During a 2004 meeting with senior American officials, Giora Eiland described Gaza as a huge concentration camp. Eiland was an Israeli, a Jew, and head of the Israeli National Security Council. He naturally understood very well the historical gravity of designating a piece of land a concentration camp. The most painful aspect is that those days were Gaza’s best days.”

“A concentration camp kept on the brink of starvation”

Finkelstein recounted that former US President George W. Bush’s administration forced Palestinians into holding elections in 2006 as part of its democracy promotion agenda, noting that Hamas initially hesitated to participate on grounds that it would legitimise the 1993 Oslo Accords.

Hamas won the election backed by public support reacting against corruption within the Palestinian Authority, Finkelstein recalled, citing former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s subsequent remarks expressing regret over the outcome. Observing that former US President Jimmy Carter monitored the process on the ground and described the balloting as completely free and fair, Finkelstein offered the following evaluation:

“Immediately after the elections, Israel, followed by the US and the European Union, imposed an almost medieval blockade on Gaza. Lengthy lists were drafted for items prohibited from entering Gaza. The entry of chocolate, chicks, potato crisps, spices, musical instruments, and notebooks was barred. Official documents were later exposed; they declared that they would keep the population of Gaza at a bare minimum humanitarian nutritional level. This was the diplomatic cover for keeping people living on the edge of starvation. Their objective was to induce the public to overthrow Hamas by keeping Gaza’s economy on the brink of collapse. When Salvador Allende’s government took power in Chile in 1971, the US had said it would make the economy scream. Israel did precisely that in Gaza.”

Finkelstein noted that former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson observed during a 2008 visit that an entire civilisation was being destroyed, adding that prior to October 7, 2023, international bodies had described Gaza as a sinking ship and a toxic slum.

Pointing out that Israel for years termed its recurring military campaigns under the metaphor of mowing the lawn, Finkelstein stressed that this phrase assumes a horrifying dimension in light of the fact that half of Gaza’s population consists of children.

“Targeting children is an indicator of genocide”

Finkelstein described Operation Cast Lead in 2008, Operation Pillar of Defence in 2012, and Operation Protective Edge in 2014 as waves of high-tech slaughter.

Citing former International Committee of the Red Cross President Peter Maurer, who visited the territory following the 2014 assault and stated that he had never in his life seen destruction on the scale present in Gaza, Finkelstein illustrated the gulf between past attacks and the current situation with figures:

“During Operation Protective Edge, 18,000 homes were destroyed or severely damaged. Around 2.5 million tonnes of rubble were left behind. Since October 7, however, the number of destroyed dwellings has exceeded 325,000. Accumulated debris in Gaza has reached 61 million tonnes. While the 2014 devastation was considered unprecedented, it is no longer even a footnote alongside the current picture.”

Turning to the scale of casualties in Gaza, Finkelstein highlighted that in addition to those killed by direct bombardment and artillery fire, children have lost their lives to starvation and collapsed immune systems.

Noting the difficulty of establishing an exact figure, Finkelstein addressed the matter within the framework of debates over genocide:

“The United Nations’ latest report on child fatalities treats the direct targeting of children as a primary indicator in distinguishing whether a conflict constitutes a war or a genocide. According to Gaza Ministry of Health data, children account for roughly 30% of those killed. Out of the 6 million Jews who died in the Nazi Holocaust, 1.5 million were children; this proportion corresponded to roughly 25%. If we all agree that the Nazi slaughter was a genocide and 25% of its victims were children, the fact that 30% of those slaughtered in Gaza are children provides powerful evidence that this is a genocide.”

Responding to Carlson, who noted that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism prohibits comparing Israeli policies to those of the Nazis, Finkelstein pointed out that Israeli politicians have historically and continually equated their adversaries with Adolf Hitler.

Recalling that Gamal Abdel Nasser, Saddam Hussein, Iranian leaders, and Hamas have all been compared to Hitler by the Israeli leadership itself, Finkelstein pointed to the contradiction in barring critics of Israeli actions from making such comparisons.

“The goal is not just genocide, but emptying Gaza entirely”

Emphasising that the destruction in Gaza has been denser and more devastating than even the World War II bombing of Dresden, Finkelstein explained that 97% of schools have been flattened, while hospitals, medical personnel, United Nations staff, and journalists have faced unprecedented targeting.

Finkelstein explained Israel’s primary intent in the following terms:

“I do not believe Israel’s primary objective is to commit direct genocide. Israel’s fundamental goal is to empty Gaza completely. They want to carry out ethnic cleansing. The method they use is to destroy the people of Gaza until they abandon their land. Because the borders are shut and neighbouring states refuse to accept them, they will continue this slaughter until their goal is attained. They are resolved to solve the Gaza problem once and for all. For them, solving this problem means entirely expelling the population. They regard committing genocide as the only means of convincing the people to leave and forcing neighbouring countries to take them in.”

Noting that international legal experts, Human Rights Watch founder Aryeh Neier, the organisation’s former executive director Kenneth Roth, Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, and the International Court of Justice have evaluated Israel’s actions within the framework of genocide, Finkelstein shared striking demographic data:

“Between 30% and 40% of American Jews believe that Israel is committing genocide. This is extraordinarily striking. We are talking about an educated community that has been inculcated from childhood with unconditional affection for Israel, learning this loyalty in synagogues as a condition of belonging. That these people, who cannot be easily duped, have reached such a conclusion constitutes a historic stance.”

“Unprecedented assault on academic freedom”

Finkelstein stated that defending Israeli conduct openly grew difficult after October 7, noting that dual-citizen soldiers serving in the Israeli military posted their own deeds on social media, rendering the horror impossible to conceal, at which point financial leverage was deployed.

Asserting that billionaire donors blackmailed university administrations, Finkelstein addressed presidential resignations at Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and Columbia:

“Figures such as Bill Ackman targeted university leaderships publicly. They announced they would withhold alumni donations unless student encampments supporting Gaza were dismantled. Even at institutions with immense endowments like Harvard, where a single alumnus donates between $50 million and $300 million, this pressure proved effective. Harvard President Claudine Gay, University of Pennsylvania President Elizabeth Magill, and Columbia University President Minouche Shafik were removed from office. When Magill stepped down, she uttered only two words to a close acquaintance of mine: ‘Money talks.'”

Stating that a pervasive climate of fear has been erected across universities, hospitals, and cultural institutions, Finkelstein said healthcare professionals have lost employment over social media postings, while New York libraries and arts institutions have fallen into silence because of financial dependence.

Drawing on his background as a scholar who has examined historical eras of academic suppression across the US, Finkelstein compared the current landscape:

“Nothing like this has ever been seen in our country’s history. There has never been an attack on academic freedom of this brazen magnitude, including the Red Scare of the early twentieth century or the McCarthy era. All three ousted university presidents were women, and two belonged to minorities. Despite possessing every progressive cultural safeguard, none could preserve her post. Outlets such as The New York Times remained silent. This wave of terror persists. Since the spring of 2024, I have received invitations to speak at only two universities across the entirety of the US. As someone who formerly delivered lectures and conference addresses at 40 different institutions annually, I have not been invited to a single institution in New York, where I live.”

Describing how students have had their faces projected onto mobile billboard trucks branding them terrorists, even facing public exposure in their family neighbourhoods, Finkelstein noted that he personally read Harvard University’s 312-page report on antisemitism.

Asserting that the report contained no concrete incidents and instead lumped Israeli students feeling alienated into the category of antisemitism, Finkelstein recalled that Harvard President Alan Garber was forced to concede that the vast majority of claims in the report amounted merely to political criticisms of the state of Israel.

Pointing out that US Supreme Court precedent establishes constitutional protection under free speech even for burning the American flag or advocating the violent overthrow of the government, Finkelstein argued that attempts to criminalise the slogan “From the river to the sea” lack any legal foundation.

“Netanyahu is a perfect reflection of Israeli society”

Answering questions regarding the personal political future of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Finkelstein dismissed claims that Netanyahu is poised to fall from power.

Recalling that Netanyahu is the longest-serving prime minister in Israeli history, Finkelstein characterised the politician’s connection to the public:

“It is constantly claimed that Netanyahu will be ousted, that he will be erased from politics because of corruption trials, but that never happens. The sole reason for this is that Netanyahu is a perfect reflection of Israeli society. He embodies an arrogant, self-righteous Jewish supremacist. When Israeli society looks at him, it sees its own reflection. The corruption allegations or personal scandals surrounding him simply do not matter to the Israeli public.”

Finkelstein recounted that he was barred from entering Israel in 1989 and 2004 while travelling to the occupied Palestinian territories, noting that numerous Jewish intellectuals who opposed the occupation, including Noam Chomsky, were placed on Israeli blacklists.

Stating that he placed the search for justice at the core of his life from his youth and has always remained prepared to pay the price, Finkelstein turned to the obstructions he encountered throughout his academic career.

Disclosing that he remained entirely unemployed for 13 years after his tenure bid at DePaul University was rejected in 2007 following outside pressure and intervention by academic Alan Dershowitz, Finkelstein described the ordeal:

“From 2007 until 2020, I could not find a single job. I was completely unemployed. The rhythm of people’s lives is determined by external obligations; you go to work, you have responsibilities. I had to wake up every morning and invent a purpose for my existence. It was a dark chapter of my life. Later, I taught adjunct courses at institutions such as Hunter College and Brooklyn College. As a scholar of 40 years, I experienced humiliating situations, going weeks without receiving my salary and being treated as an hourly contract lecturer. Yet all I loved was engaging with young minds and teaching them to think.”

Contending that classrooms must not serve as venues for political indoctrination, Finkelstein recalled British philosopher Bertrand Russell’s observation that in every great debate, strong arguments exist on both sides.

He stressed that an academic’s primary duty is to teach students how to weigh evidence rather than imposing one’s personal convictions.

Describing how, as a graduate student, he conducted months of archival work systematically exposing demographic fabrications in Joan Peters’ book, which claimed that Palestinian lands had been largely uninhabited and settled by incoming Arab migrants, Finkelstein recalled that academic doors closed to him one after another following that period, despite earning the endorsement of Noam Chomsky.

“Not a shred of evidence confirms systemic sexual violence on Oct 7”

Responding to Carlson’s inquiries regarding his new book, “Gaza’s Gravediggers”, Finkelstein stated that while he does not deny that Hamas and other armed factions committed grave crimes on October 7, claims of systemic rape are unsupported by physical evidence.

Stating that he devoted the opening chapter of his volume to scrutinising these allegations, Finkelstein noted that he examined in detail the 300-page report released by the Israeli civil commission headed by Dr Cochav Elkayam-Levy:

“The commission announced that it possessed 10,000 photographs and video recordings from October 7. They indicated that reviewing this material would take a single investigator working eight hours a day more than seven months. They stated they had amassed footage from dashcams, helmet cameras, security cameras, and mobile phones. Yet across that vast archive, there is not a single frame of footage showing Hamas members committing rape or sexual violence. Amnesty International has likewise not confirmed the existence of such visual evidence. They justified the lack of forensic proof by citing the rapid burial of corpses according to religious rites. However, that not a single digital recording has emerged defies credulity.”

Pointing to inconsistencies in the report’s testimonies, Finkelstein argued that claims by the primary witness, who hid inside a windowless caravan and purported to hear sounds from a distance, lack legal validity.

Noting that none of the victims named in the report, including released hostage Amit Soussana, provided direct testimony that they had been raped, Finkelstein sharply criticised the documentary produced by former Meta executive Sheryl Sandberg:

“Sandberg is an intelligent Harvard graduate who studied economics, so she understands evidentiary standards well. Yet throughout her film, she looks at a mobile phone pretending to be horrified. While no footage substantiating the claims exists, they turned this into an instrument of propaganda. Facts no longer matter; all that counts for them is keeping their ideological cause alive at all costs.”

“The US supplied 70% of the weapons”

Asked by Carlson whether accountability proceedings would ever commence before international tribunals, Finkelstein asserted that judicial mechanisms cannot function when an entire society is complicit in crime.

Arguing that the Israeli leadership will never be held accountable, Finkelstein concluded:

“The US would never permit it. A fear of a domino effect prevails. If Israeli officials were placed in the dock, what would happen to Joe Biden and Antony Blinken? The US itself supplied 70% of the weapons used in the genocide in Gaza. Washington was the sole power capable of severing the arms flow, yet it refused to do so. In 1964, they staged the Gulf of Tonkin incident to justify entering the Vietnam War on the ground; at least they devised a pretext. In Israel’s recent direct strikes against Iran, they did not even bother seeking such a cover. From the United Nations Security Council, not a sound emerged. Indeed, through Resolution 2803, the Security Council effectively surrendered governance of Gaza to Donald Trump. My sole purpose in writing my new book is to transmit an unvarnished record of the historic evil inflicted upon the people of Gaza to future generations, knowing that no one will ever be brought to justice.”

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Israel pledges full Greek control over Achilles’ Shield source code

Published

on

Israel has said it will transfer technical know-how to Greek companies taking part in the Achilles’ Shield air defence shield project.

The Israeli Ministry of Defence made the statement to Euractiv in response to reports alleging that Israel would retain control over the system.

The ministry stated that Israel will provide Greece with all the necessary technical know-how to enable Athens to develop its own source code for the much-debated Achilles’ Shield air defence system.

Israel noted that under the agreement, the Israeli Ministry of Defence and the Greek Ministry of National Defence agreed on the transfer of Israeli expertise to Greek firms participating in the programme.

A spokesperson for the Israeli Ministry of Defence said:

“The Greek source code developed under the programme, along with any modifications and additions made to it, will remain exclusively under Greek control and will be tailored to Greece’s operational requirements.”

Israel’s stance contradicts media reports suggesting that the system’s source code would belong to Tel Aviv rather than Athens, thereby effectively granting Israel full control over the platform.

Those reports had prompted a strong reaction from the opposition PASOK party, which called for transparency on the matter.

The system will integrate Greece’s existing capabilities, such as Patriot air defence systems and unmanned platforms, with Israeli systems covering various ranges, including Rafael’s SPYDER.

Türkiye reacted to the growing military cooperation between Greece and Israel, claiming that the two countries are attempting to encircle it strategically.

Athens, for its part, stated that its objective is solely to enhance its deterrence.

Meanwhile, former diplomat Vassilis Bornovas argued that the Achilles’ Shield project and Greece’s broader rise in defence spending are directed against “Russian aggression from the north” rather than Türkiye, which is also a NATO member.

Greece and Israel signed an agreement for the 3 billion euro project at the end of August. On the same day, Türkiye announced a mutual defence pact with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, a development received with caution in Athens.

US foreign policy expert Ian Lesser told Euractiv that such regional defence arrangements were “not surprising” following the war in Iran.

“Countries are looking for new ways to diversify their security partnerships,” Lesser said, adding that while NATO’s collective defence relies on trust, that trust “has been eroding for years”.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Allies step back from US as default partner across assets and defence

Published

on

The US is losing its status as the “default choice” for allied governments that have spent decades keeping their money in the country, purchasing weapons, and sending their students to American universities.

American news website Axios emphasises that even small steps away from this Washington-centred balance could harm the advantages that have long sustained US economic power.

Steps taken by European countries to repatriate their financial reserves rank among the concrete signs of this trend.

The Netherlands withdrew approximately 86 tonnes of gold from the US and Canada last week, describing the move as a precaution against “extreme risks”.

France relocated the entirety of its gold reserves in New York back home, while Germany announced its intention to take a similar step.

Amid market volatility, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund announced plans to reduce its holdings of US Treasury bonds.

A similar picture draws attention in the defence industry. According to information reported by Reuters, Europe is seeking to reduce its dependence on the US and is purchasing more military equipment from manufacturers within the continent.

In addition, the European Union (EU) shared plans last summer to develop new strategies for cloud computing services to limit dependence on American technology companies.

A noticeable decline is also visible in the interest of foreign students and visitors in the US. Axios reported that applications by foreign students to American universities dropped by 10% during the latest application cycle.

The report linked this decrease to tightened rules on student visas and broader immigration policies implemented by the administration of US President Donald Trump. At the same time, travel to the US fell by 5.5% in 2025, marking the first decline since the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to an analysis published by Foreign Affairs magazine in June, Trump’s return to the White House prompted European countries to reassess their security architecture and accelerated rearmament on the continent.

With Trump taking office, relations between Washington and its European allies grew noticeably strained. Washington repeatedly demanded that European countries increase their defence spending.

Trump also criticised NATO allies on the grounds that they did not provide sufficient support to the US during the war with Iran, and threatened to review Washington’s role in the alliance.

In light of these developments, calls in Europe to strengthen self-defence and reduce dependence on Washington became more frequent.

In a report published in June titled “Defending Europe, Deterring Russia”, the EU Institute for Security Studies called on continental nations to assume greater responsibility within NATO.

The report stressed that military spending must be increased, arms and ammunition production accelerated, joint procurement expanded, and the domestic defence industry developed.

The authors of the study noted that Europe can no longer rely on the previous level of military support from the US.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey