@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidNo sure, but it will boil down to negotiating strategy. People are saying what the US can or can not do. That is all irrelevant. Greenland can negotiate something like a US Overseas Territory status which gives them some kind of self governance.
Is the US offering them that?
All US has to do is end support for NATO and European leaders will be in trouble. Around 70% of NATO war machine is the USA.
2 edits
@Paul-Martin saidYou want to start something with the United Nations go ahead, bring it homes
WWII is closer to the American Civil War than today.
It is irrelevant what countries did 80 years ago!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations
Roosevelt and Churchill met at the White House in December 1941 for the Arcadia Conference. Roosevelt is considered a founder of the UN, and coined the term United Nations to describe the Allied countries.
@moonbus saidBut Trump (America) would also get quite a big inch. In terms of precedent it says if you let America take something you can also take something you have always wanted and America will be fine with it..
For a price, for a very high price, and there is no guarantee that it would avoid WW3. Trading land for peace did not work with Hitler, there is no reason to think it will work with Putin or Xi either. Give them an inch, and they'll take whatever they think they can get away with.
Different to Chamberlain's appeasement strategy. England was not saying, sure Germany you can increase your land to roam, as long as we can have something similar.
@kmax87 saidThe catch is that it would legitimate Russia grabbing all of eastern Europe, after having seized Ukraine, and Trump has already stated that he is not prepared to defend NATO countries if they are attacked.
But Trump (America) would also get quite a big inch. In terms of precedent it says if you let America take something you can also take something you have always wanted and America will be fine with it..
Different to Chamberlain's appeasement strategy. England was not saying, sure Germany you can increase your land to roam, as long as we can have something similar.
@moonbus saidSince when Putin needs legitimacy from Trump to seize anything?
The catch is that it would legitimate Russia grabbing all of eastern Europe, after having seized Ukraine, and Trump has already stated that he is not prepared to defend NATO countries if they are attacked.
1 edit
@Rajk999 saidHe doesn't, but it will be harder for other nations to maintain any semblance of lawful world order if both Trump and Putin go around annexing foreign countries. Until now, the U.S. nuclear capability was widely perceived to be an effective deterrent to Soviet/Russian expansionism. Trump is undermining that perception.
Since when Putin needs legitimacy from Trump to seize anything?
@moonbus saidIf you say so, but it sounds like an excuse.
He doesn't, but it will be harder for other nations to maintain any semblance of lawful world order if both Trump and Putin go around annexing foreign countries. Until now, the U.S. nuclear capability was widely perceived to be an effective deterrent to Soviet/Russian expansionism. Trump is undermining that perception.
1 edit
@moonbus saidYes this would be a total collapse of the International Rules Based Order. Trump will have effectively junked 80 years of international co-operation because of nationalistic petulance.
The catch is that it would legitimate Russia grabbing all of eastern Europe, after having seized Ukraine, and Trump has already stated that he is not prepared to defend NATO countries if they are attacked.
2 edits
@Rajk999 saidIn other words, the way it's already been for over 70 years.
A wise negotiating team will get the US to use Greenland for security purposes [which appears to be his concern], and still allow Denmark to retain control politically of the island.
There is absolutely no reason the US needs to literally annex Greenland to get its security (more like insecurity) concerns assuaged. This is all about expanding the US on a map in the tradition of fascist regimes of the past, which all sooner or later became obsessed with territorial expansion (a.k.a. Lebensraum) before their final unraveling.
Greenlanders know that becoming part of the US only means a total loss of their culture and identity, forever. And what would they get for it? Guns let loose on the streets, billionaires buying all their inhabitable land, everything privatized and allowed to run downhill, with rotting infrastructure, no environmental protections, no concern for the commons or human-scaled livability, and finally, a demented, sociopathic ass clown as their lord and master.
No, the EU should station troops in Greenland, and be prepared to fight for it. Frankly, MAGA rank-and-file already hate the idea of taking Greenland, never mind meddling in Venezuela, Colombia, Iran, Cuba, and several other places, and would have no stomach for any kind of shooting war that would cost the life of even one US soldier. Denmark and the EU don't have to prevail militarily over the US; they only need to make it necessary for the US to put "boots on the ground"—a red line for many GOP senators, not to mention voters.
@shavixmir saidMiller should be hung up and balls exposed to rabid hungry bears.
trump will have destroyed the US before the next elections.
He’s already side-lined congres and he’s stacked the courts.
Just listen to Miller, if noone else
That is the US now.
He is one of the most disgusting of the disgusting already there like Kash Patel, what a fking LOSER, using FBI planes a bunch of times to transport his GF and HER friends like he was already POTUS, instead just another POS Trump sycophant along with Pam Bondi and the rest of that crowd.
It is amazing how regular people can become so cruel when recruited into ICE.
@Soothfast saidRight .. nothing I said is about supporting the idea of taking over Greenland. Trump can achieve his goals there with the current arrangement.
In other words, the way it's already been for over 70 years.
There is absolutely no reason the US needs to literally annex Greenland to get its security (more like insecurity) concerns assuaged. This is all about expanding the US on a map in the tradition of fascist regimes of the past, which all sooner or later became obsessed with territorial expansion (a.k.a. L ...[text shortened]... ary for the US to put "boots on the ground"—a red line for many GOP senators, not to mention voters.
I think people need to see the US in a different light. For years, even prior to his first term, Trump was always unhappy, as are many Americans, that the US spends so much on aid, on immigration and welfare, on assistance in times of disaster, on NATO, even giving aid to extremist Islamic states whose aim is to kill Americans. And what has the US reaped in return? Hatred for, and death to Americans.
Trump's attitude to NATO has changed. Now, its about America. So I think he will still try to take Greenland by force, unfortunately. The excuse is Russian or Chinese access to that island.
I will however continue to support the US involvement in countries ruled by tyrants.
@Rajk999 saidYou're using the wrong light. Almost everything the US does abroad is motivated by the need to secure markets for its products and obtain access to natural resources needed by its commercial, industrial, and military sectors. Eisenhower didn't speak of a "military-industrial complex" way back in the 1950s for nothing. This persistent narrative that the US is some angelic being that selflessly does and does and does for the world, getting nothing in return, simply has no basis in fact, and only appears plausible by ignoring the complex interconnections of geopolitical chess. Once Trump squanders the last smidge of remaining US "soft power" people will figure that out. The US is now in the process of losing its influence around the world, a brain drain has begun, research and development is floundering—simply put, the empire is dying, and as Russia figured out in the 1990s, it doesn't matter how big your military is: if the world despises you, then you lose out, and history passes you by.
I think people need to see the US in a different light. For years, even prior to his first term, Trump was always unhappy, as are many Americans, that the US spends so much on aid, on immigration and welfare, on assistance in times of disaster, on NATO, even giving aid to extremist Islamic states whose aim is to kill Americans. And what has the US reaped in return? Hatred for, and death to Americans.
@Soothfast saidEverything all superpowers do is motiviated by money, power and markets. The Russians and Chinese, are they better? Many countries who have recently accepted and tried Chinese assistance to build roads, airports etc, are living in regret. The price of their help involves giving up control of their country.
You're using the wrong light. Almost everything the US does abroad is motivated by the need to secure markets for its products and obtain access to natural resources needed by its commercial, industrial, and military sectors. Eisenhower didn't speak of a "military-industrial complex" way back in the 1950s for nothing. This persistent narrative that the US is some angelic be ...[text shortened]... r how big your military is: if the world despises you, then you lose out, and history passes you by.