Here is a quick hypothetical question for you. A friend calls you: "So there's this guy in my neighborhood. He keeps insulting me in public, slapped me around a few times, and told everyone he might take my garage. Last month he tried to annex my neighbor's yard. He now wants me to join his "club" where I can only buy groceries from his store, even if the shop across the street sells the same thing for half the price. He named the club "The I Want to Dominate This Block Association." I hate this guy and desperately want to get away from him... Should I join the club?" Well, your friend pretty much described the EU joining America's "Pax Silica" - which they apparently just committed to (xitter.cf/BertuzLuca/status/2062…) Starting with the name. Typically, when great powers set up an initiative that is imperialistic in nature, they pick a name that says the opposite: “alliance for progress,” “partnership for peace,” etc. This time, evidently in no mood for euphemism, the US straight up called their initiative the most imperialistic name conceivable, directly inspired by the Roman Empire (Pax Romana). Literally the equivalent of naming your neighborhood club "The I Want to Dominate This Block Association." And it's exactly what it, quite explicitly, sets out to do. It's written right on the tin (state.gov/pax-silica): countries sign up, align their supply chains with Washington, shut out Chinese products - however good or cheap - and buy American. The neighborhood bully grocery store clause, basically, except it's for the most strategic technology of the century: the entire AI stack. Worse still, as I explain in my article, not only is the EU voluntarily locking itself into even further dependency on the very power it keeps saying it needs to break free from, but it's doing so in a way that will make it all the more difficult for them to compete in the layer of AI that will matter most - the application layer, where the actual value of AI will get built. That’s the fundamental con behind “Pax Silica”: on the one hand the declaration they wrote (state.gov/pax-silica) affirms that “the 21st century will run on compute” just like “the 20th century ran on oil and steel,” yet on the other hand they’re building a system that makes that very resource scarcer and more expensive for every member of the club - everyone, that is, except for themselves who get to sell it. On top of ensuring, if we keep using their "oil and steel" analogy, that members of the club don’t drill their own oil wells or build their own steel mills. In short Pax Silica is not a wall against China, it's really a cage to keep America's "partners" in - dependent on American tech, and unable to build their own. To understand the full argument and how Europe is making - yet again - another massive strategic mistake that will set it back immensely for the most consequential technology of the future, it's all in my latest article titled "The Pax Silica Con": open.substack.com/pub/arnaud…