For decades trusting the US was no problem at all. The relationship was mutually beneficial. Cooperation and trust among nations is possible and Juche (completely self-reliance) is not a worthwhile goal at all. So, sure, cooperation is great and should always be a goal – it also secures peace (people who are economically intertwined are less likely to go to war with each other).

The issue is the US burning up that earned mutual trust. And at some point you have to sadly abandon ship. Cooperation is great, trade is great, but not under all circumstances and all the time.

>> It's the same reason you don't want Chinese equipment in your telecommunications infrastructure. You can't trust what the Chinese government will do to it or with it.

> Using this logic, every country should develop its own critical equipment from scratch, in terms of both hardware and software.

The logic is don't use infrastructure of people you don't trust. If Europeans don't trust Chinese, then don't use Chinese infra; if the Europeans don't trust the US (anymore), then don't use US infra. The Europeans could trust the Canadians, and use Canadian infra for example.

China is decidedly anti democratic and authoritarian. They're also preparing for military activities to expand their territory.

It's not that each country needs to develop their own, but it is prudent to not depend on those who have a fundamentally different and incompatible world view.

According to the "Huawei cyber security evaluation centre" (HCSEC) oversight boards annual report to the national security adviser of the United Kingdom (note: HCSEC was a joint lab between NSCS, GCHQ and Huawei with a lot of access to internal documentation and firmware source code and so on to check if they are telling the truth when they promised there is no backdoor for the chinese ministry of national security in the 5G equipment) their quality and basic security processes are so bad, that it is believable that all the vulnerabilities are unintentional. However they did improve in the years prior to being kicked out, so you are not wrong that it was somewhat of a bandwagon move following the us sanctions.

> just scare-mongering from the US because it has no manufacturer of 5G equipment.

Even if that were accurate, which it isn’t, what exactly do you think the US stands to gain by Europe buying 5g from someone other than China (like the European providers Ericsson and nokia)?

We can see the same with everything in the US.

Huawei became very competitive to Apple. Outsold Apple in it's home market. Huawei got banned.

DJI has a near monopoly on drones. No US company could compete and players like GoPro shut down their consumer drone projects. DJI got/is about to get banned.

Tiktok was dangerous to Meta. TikTok got almost banned/forced-sold.

Chinese EVs are better than almost any US offering. Chinese EVs got banned (by 100%+ tarrifs on them).

Sale of AI and Chips to China got banned. No ChatGPT or Claude offered to us here in Hong Kong.

This is all the US Tech sector can do now. Short term this will go very well but long term this leads to the US falling behind and behind because American companies have artificially created barriers where they aren't forced to comepete anymore, meanwhile the world moves on and has a competitive environment. Innovation will move faster Ex-USA

I fly a DJI Mini 5 Pro, use a Huawei Freeclip 2 earphone, a Huawei GT6 watch, a Xiaomi Silicon Carbon powerbank, an Oppo Find N5 foldable. Most are better/unique compared to what you can even get in America. And that's only the beginning. That's only 2025.

> Using this logic, every country should develop its own critical equipment from scratch, in terms of both hardware and software.

USA claims and treats Europe as the ennemy. Not every country treats every other country as the ennemy.

USA is, right now vicious and less trustworthy then China. Which is unfortunate cause China is not trustworthy.