I just read this WSJ article on why Europe's tech scene is so much smaller than the US's and China's.
I'm afraid that, like most articles on this topic, it largely misses the mark.
Which in itself illustrates a key reason why Europe is lagging behind: when you fail to understand the root causes of an issue, you have zero chance to solve it.
What makes me competent to speak on this topic?
Back in the late 2000s and early 2010s, I founded and led HouseTrip which at the time was one of Europe's top startups. We were the first historical startup in which all top 3 VC investors in Europe invested.
So I have a pretty intimate knowledge of the European entrepreneurship ecosystem and what it takes to create and grow a tech company in Europe.
We were pretty promising as a startup. In fact as promising as it can possibly get.
We had a similar concept to Airbnb (with some notable differences I won't bore you with), except we created the company 1 year before they did. Which means we were the first-mover - globally - with a multi-billion-euro concept, strong financial backing by the 3 top investors in Europe and, at some point, a team of 250 people with some of the brightest minds in tech in Europe. Everything we needed to succeed.
And yet we didn't succeed: ultimately we were essentially crushed by our American competitor Airbnb in our home turf - Europe - and we had no choice but to sell ourselves to another American company, Tripadvisor.
Believe me, I've reflected long and hard on how that could have happened. In fact after I left the company in 2015 I even spent 3 months in isolation in the Annapurna mountains in Nepal to reflect full time on exactly that 😅
And I then moved to China, where I spent the next 8 years and where I had the chance to study their ecosystem to understand why they're successful and Europe isn't.
So all in all, I think I have some degree of legitimacy to comment on this topic.
The WSJ article says that Europe lags behind due to the usual suspects, the reasons you constantly hear about: too much regulation, fragmented European markets, limited access to financing, a culture that isn't conducive to the startup grind, etc.
Some of those are true, but imho all are secondary.
Take excessive regulations for instance, which gets mentioned all the time. If they were such a hindrance to startups, why would American startups succeed in Europe - like Airbnb in our case - and European startups not? We all face the same regulations 🤷
Or take fragmented markets. Same question: how could US startups successfully conquer these fragmented EU markets when European startups can't?
Because that's the real elephant in the room, and really the story of the European tech scene since the advent of the internet: US startups have shown a remarkable ability to capture European markets despite the supposed barriers, making many of the "usual suspects" explanations for Europe's tech struggles very unconvincing.
In other words, logically, any explanation where both US and European startups face identical barriers fails to address the fundamental difference in outcomes we consistently observe.
Based on my experience, the key problem faced by European startups can be summarized in one word: patriotism.
There is virtually none in Europe, and more than anything that's what's killing EU startups, or preventing them from developing.
It used to drive me absolutely nuts at HouseTrip. What a startup needs first and foremost, especially a consumer-facing startup like we were, is marketing, to become famous.
At first, when I created the company and before Airbnb was even a thing, I used to pitch the company to the media and the general response I would get was almost one of contempt, as in "why would I belittle myself to write about your startup? And furthermore, who would be stupid enough to stay in an apartment when there are hotels? You guys have no future..."
And then Airbnb got launched and the American media started their thing, hyping the company like it was the greatest innovation since sliced bread, like they were national heroes, giving them hundreds of millions in free publicity.
That's when European media started to take notice. Not of us, god forbid, but of Airbnb. The concept was promoted by Silicon Valley, see... so now it was valid.
So I went back to pitch HouseTrip to European media. This time around I was met with a different kind of contempt: "So you guys are like Airbnb? Why would we cover a European copycat when we can just write about the real American original?" Luckily I'm not violent but lets say those moments really tested my civility 😅
All in all, we arrived in the absolutely grotesque situation where, despite Airbnb not having yet set foot in Europe, they were already a cultural phenomenon there, promoted by European media, for free, when the European original - yours truly - had to spend millions on paid marketing (mostly to Google and Facebook, American companies) to achieve a small fraction of the brand recognition.
Which means that, insanely, Airbnb was probably doing more business in Europe than we did before even opening an office there, simply on the back of the free publicity they were getting. How on earth can you even compete with that?
This dynamic was at play with general European elites too. I remember very clearly having dinner next to a legendary European entrepreneur and investor - who I won't name, a man who supposedly, on paper, is dedicating his life to furthering the European tech ecosystem. We naturally got to talk about HouseTrip and he literally told me, and this is an exact quote: "you know I don't really like copycats, they really hurt the European ecosystem." Another big test for my civility that night...
And even if we had been a copycat, so what? That's how China got started, there's nothing to be ashamed of. You need to learn to walk before you can run.
In fact if you study the history of innovation you'll find that every major tech power, including the US, started by imitating and adapting others' innovations before developing their own.
Speaking of China, again a country that I know in depth for having lived there for 8 years after HouseTrip, I've come to the conclusion that patriotism, a deeply rooted mindset of sovereignty, is truly the magic ingredient behind their success.
Contrary to popular belief, they don't do it in a stupid way by just banning competition. Those cases are actually very rare and only occur if the companies in question violate Chinese law in pretty egregious ways.
Most of the time it's the exact contrary: they welcome foreign companies and competition, but create conditions where local alternatives can thrive alongside them, giving Chinese users and businesses legitimate options to choose domestic champions.
Which means you end up with, for instance, Apple doing well in China but simultaneously allowing the rise of Huawei or Xiaomi. Or Tesla doing well in China but simultaneously allowing the rise of BYD or Nio. Etc.
And China is, interestingly, more comparable to the EU than most people realize. It is, again contrary to popular belief, extremely decentralized when it comes to doing business, with various provinces competing against each other much the same way EU countries compete against each other.
But they do it in such a way where, again, the overarching sense of Chinese sovereignty never gets sacrificed at the altar of provincial competition. And where the ultimate goal is to develop Chinese champions which can successfully compete on the global stage.
So there you have it, the dirty little secret behind Europe's lag. We're essentially witnessing a "colonization of the minds" whereby Europe has structurally internalized its technological inferiority, celebrating American startups while dismissing its own homegrown companies.
Why does this barely ever get talked about? Think about it: do you seriously think that the Wall Street Journal would start advocating for, essentially, policies hostile to American tech dominance?
Much better to focus on the usual red herrings like too much regulation or fragmentation which, conveniently, would primarily result in clearing obstacles for American tech giants to dominate European markets even further, rather than nurturing homegrown competitors. This article is, in itself, an illustration of the "colonization of the minds".
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Wow, this is huge, after months of speculation and the U.S. running a massive pre-emptive discreditation campaign (x.com/RnaudBertrand/…), DeepSeek-V4 is finally out!
I haven't studied it in depth but here are the most striking aspects as far as I can tell:
- Fully open sourced with open weights (available for download on huggingface: huggingface.co/deepseek-ai)
- Zero CUDA dependency anywhere in its stack, which is probably the biggest deal of all. For those who don't know, CUDA is Nvidia's software layer - the foundation nearly every frontier AI model in the world is built on. Except, as of today, DeepSeek V4, which can run entirely on Huawei Ascend chips via Huawei's CANN framework (finance.yahoo.com/sectors/techno…). Very concretely it means that China now not only has its own frontier AI models, but its own domestic AI stack, top to bottom.
- The prices are insanely low. V4-Pro is roughly 3x cheaper than GPT-5.5 on input and 8.6x cheaper on output. And V4-Flash is an order of magnitude cheaper still, at $0.14/$0.28 per million tokens vs OpenAI's $5/$30 - so 30-100x cheaper than GPT-5.5 (!). And remember, these are the prices DeepSeek charges on its own API - anyone can download the weights and run them for "free" on their own server.
- It is at or near the frontier on most benchmarks that matter. V4-Pro-Max matches or beats GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.6 on competitive programming (Codeforces rating 3206), coding (LiveCodeBench 93.5), and math (HMMT 95.2, IMO AnswerBench 89.8). It trails the very newest GPT-5.5 and Opus 4.7 on a handful of the hardest agentic and knowledge benchmarks, but it's in the same league.
In effect the value proposition is: "Same league as frontier US AI, at a fraction of the price, open-source and freely modifiable, and hardware-agnostic - you can run it on whatever infrastructure you choose."
Which is insanely good. I now understand the need for a preemptive discreditation campaign: they had every reason to be worried. For the vast majority of use cases, you'd have to be a literal idiot to keep paying OpenAI or Anthropic's prices when this exists.
This 👇 is indeed interesting. It means:
a) V4-Pro is genuinely being served on Huawei chips (since limited by Huawei 950 supernode availability)
b) they expect far bigger compute scale in H2 2026, and that API prices will drop significantly further
Wow, that's extremely rare for a U.S. treaty ally.
South Korea's president, addressing Israel: "It’s disappointing that you don’t even once reflect on the criticisms from people around the world who are suffering and struggling due to your relentless anti-human rights and anti-international law actions."
He said this after posting this yesterday (x.com/Jaemyung_Lee/s…), a video of IDF soldiers throwing a young Palestinian off a rooftop and commenting that "there is no difference between this and the Japanese wartime sexual slavery issue we raise, the massacre of Jews, or wartime killings."
Israel's Foreign Ministry responded that his post was "unacceptable" but President Lee obviously - and courageously - chose to double down 👇
Also probably says a lot about where U.S.-South Korea relations are at right now.
He's backed by other senior South Korean political figures, like Choo Mi-ae (the first female leader of South Korea's Democratic Party) 👇
- A US F-15E fighter jet got shot down over Iran, despite Trump saying 2 days beforehand in his nationwide address that Iran has "no anti-aircraft equipment. Their radar is 100% annihilated." (apnews.com/article/donald…)
- The plane's weapons systems officer - a "highly respected Colonel," according to Trump - ejected from the plane and got "seriously wounded" (still according to Trump: truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTru…)
- He still managed to "hike up a 7,000-foot [2.1km] mountain ridgeline and hide in a crevice" in the Zagros Mountains, despite his wounds (time.com/article/2026/0…)
- U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drones started killing all "Iranian military-aged males believed to be a threat who got within three kilometers of [the American's location]" (x.com/ByChrisGordon/…)
- To retrieve him the U.S. managed to seize an "abandoned airport," 200 miles deep inside Iran, near Isfahan (bbc.com/news/articles/…), which happens to be where Iran's largest atomic scientific center is located (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isfahan_N…)
- Both MC-130 planes got "stuck in the sand" and the U.S. destroyed them themselves "to prevent them from falling into Iranian hands" (theaviationist.com/2026/04/05/u-s…)
- There are videos circulating online of "heavy clashes" with presumably Iranian missiles raining down in Kohgiluyeh County, in the Zagros Mountains during that night (x.com/Afshin_Ismaeli…)
- Iran sent pictures of the aftermath at the "abandoned airport" and it's a sight of utter destruction, with US plane and MH-6 helicopter parts scattered all over the ground, still smoking (turkiyetoday.com/region/wreckag…). Iran claims they are the ones who in fact destroyed all the aircraft.
- Meanwhile a second U.S. plane, an A-10 Warthog, also crashed on Friday near the Strait of Hormuz according to two U.S. officials speaking to the NYT (nytimes.com/live/2026/04/0…). In that instance too the lone pilot was apparently "safely rescued."
- In all this, after the multiple planes and helicopters destroyed or shot down, the documented heavy clashes, the "hundreds of special forces troops and military personnel" operating deep inside Iran, not a single US soldier was reported killed "or even wounded" (according to Trump: truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTru…).
- And the 'highly respected Colonel' this was all for? No name. No photo. No interview. Nobody has spoken to him nor knows who he is.
So to sum up: anti-aircraft equipment that supposedly didn't exist shot down an F-15 (and, apparently, an A-10 Warthog the same day). A seriously wounded man climbed a 2.1km mountain. The US seized an airfield 200 miles inside a country it's at war with, next to one of its most strategic nuclear sites, and deployed hundreds of troops all apparently unimpeded. Lost two planes to "sand" and destroyed their own helicopters. Videos show heavy clashes, missiles raining down - but not a single person got "even wounded". And the man at the center of it all? Nobody knows who he is, completely anonymous, zero pictures, but Trump says he is "SAFE and SOUND." And so is the rescued A-10 Warthog pilot, who also remains anonymous.
Trump concludes this all proves the US has "achieved overwhelming Air Dominance and Superiority over the Iranian skies" (truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTru…), despite the whole episode only happening because Iran shot his planes out of the sky.
Basically, the only thing that's "overwhelming" here is the audacity of the storytelling...
Iran's count is that the US lost 12 aircraft in the rescue operation (on top of course of the downed F-15 and A-10 Warthog) 👇
Which, if accurate, would be a disaster of unprecedented proportions. x.com/upholdreality/…
Heck, even the count semi-officially acknowledged by the US (5-6 aircraft destroyed: 2 MC-130Js, 1-2 Little Birds, F-15E, A-10) is remarkably disastrous for what's being sold as a triumph.
By the way, the fact that everyone's first instinct, including in the US, is to automatically assume Trump is lying and to wait for Iran's statement to understand what's going on is immensely telling in and of itself.
Trump is now speaking about sharing power with the Ayatollah 😅
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but if infrastructure like this 👇 gets blown up, as of this moment it will take at least a decade to recover from this war - and the truth is that the world's energy picture is probably changed forever.
What makes this even worse is that Iran's strike on this was retaliation after Israel attacked their South Pars gas field which draws from the same natural gas reservoir, which is the world's largest by far (9,700 km² - about the size of Qatar itself).
Heck, on the list of the 25 largest natural gas fields (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n…) this single reservoir holds roughly 40% of their combined recoverable reserves - and is nearly 6 times bigger than the 2nd biggest field in the world. And, unlike many of the others on the list, it's only at 10% depletion (meaning 90% of the gas is still there).
Which means that, probably for many years, a huge share of the gas from the world's largest reservoir simply won't be extractable, as infrastructure on both sides - Qatar's and Iran's - has now been blown up.
From a global energy supply perspective, we're deep into worst-case scenario territory.
Even Trump realizes just how catastrophically bad this is 👇.
He fails to mention it's entirely caused by himself, though. A totally avoidable war he started.
I don't know if people understand just how insanely egregious this is.
First of all, 1) not only are NATO spending targets NOT legally binding (nothing in any NATO-related legal text mandates a specific GDP-based threshold for defense spending), but on top of this 2) Spain requested AND RECEIVED an exemption from the 5% target at the 2025 Hague Summit - NATO changed the declaration's language specifically to allow Spain to sign while publicly declaring it would not comply (jurist.org/news/2025/06/n…)
This means that, legally speaking and according to NATO's own rules, Spain is doubly within its rights: there is no binding obligation to begin with, and Spain was excused from even this non-binding obligation.
That's the first point: Germany's chancellor just endorsed - from the Oval Office - the U.S. punishing a fellow EU nation for refusing to comply with an obligation that doesn't exist in law, under a political pledge Spain was excused from at a NATO summit.
The second point is that this 5% target has nothing to do with "defense", quite the contrary in fact: it is pretty explicitly an imperial tribute to the U.S. that will actually **weaken** European defense.
That was Spain's main argument for refusing to comply: Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said that "committing to 5% would not make us any safer" because it "would only reinforce our dependence" on the U.S. (tiempoar.com.ar/ta_article/ped…)
That's the insane thing about EU defense spending: in recent years, the more it has spent on defense, the more that spending has flowed to American contractors as opposed to European ones, making the EU defense industry weaker (x.com/adam_tooze/sta…). Increasing spending to 5% doesn't strengthen European defense: it accelerates exactly this transfer.
All the more insane given the well-documented production backlogs in the U.S. defense industry and its inability to produce at scale: US defense analysts - including from Trump-adjacent think tanks like AEI (aei.org/research-produ…) - openly acknowledge that European customers would be deprioritized behind U.S. ones in any real conflict.
AND, critically, a defense industry from a country that's increasingly hostile to Europe - explicitly so in its National Security Strategy - and whose weaponry has "kill switches" that allows for remote disabling.
I mean, the sheer madness of it: anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that DOUBLING your defense spending to enrich a foreign arms industry that has kill switches on your weapons, can't meet its own military's needs, and increasingly treats you as an adversary, is not even remotely a defense strategy - it's suicide.
That's why having Merz - in the oval office, sitting next to Trump - endorse economic coercion against the one EU country that's still sane enough to see through this madness is so egregious, and frankly straight-up traitorous.
For those who know Asterix and Obelix, Spain is the "one small village still holding out against the invaders" and Merz is Cassius Ceramix, the self-described "gallo-roman" Gaul village chief who's the incarnation of all sycophants after his tribe were conquered by the Romans.
I'm with Asterix, and all Europeans should be too.
The "one small village still holding out against the invaders"