Merged Greenland is part of NATO via Denmark

[ZiprHead]

Duplicate threads merged.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There is a silver lining. Europe has never before in its blood soaked history, been as unified as this. This latest upswell of European patriotism is making Victor Orban less secure, as the Hungarians want to be a part of this new family

Trump tariff threat over Greenland 'unacceptable', European leaders say

The US president says several European allies opposed to his plans to buy Greenland will face 10% tariffs from February.

www.bbc.com

This is readily apparent. No one man has done more to unify Europe since Vladimir Putin. But at what cost? European unity will be defined by military unity and build up. Where will this money come from, the more generous social programs of some European nations? Let's see how this upswell holds up then. Real patriotism starts when there is skin in the game.
I can see Trump's point. Denmark says, sure go ahead and put all the US forces on Greenland you want. Trump is saying, this isn't happening gratis anymore.

What? In the real world a country has the international influence it does because if its army. Those are linked.

European countries have unsustainable and expensive welfare systems that only exist because USA have subsidised our military defence.

Trump absolutely has a point. Every US president since Bush have tried every method they can in talking Europe into spending its fair share on NATO. Trump is the first US president to succeed.

I just think its a tragedy Europe needed someone like Trump to wake us up out of our slumber.

I also like all the European defence organisations that have popped up. Scandinavia now has Europes strongest air force. Which is cool since our populations are relatively tiny

 

[SLD]

Do you think that Trump actually thinks Greenland is this big?



There’s a funny meme there somewhere.

 

[crazyfingers]

Trump is acting as if he wants the US to have no allies and wants the US to be a pariah state.

He's insane.

And his sycophants are detestable. Bessent is out there parroting this "gotta have Greenland" bullshit as if the treaty giving the US access to defend it does not exist.

Why does Trump want to make enemies of the whole world?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Trump is acting as if he wants the US to have no allies and wants the US to be a pariah state.

He's insane.

And his sycophants are detestable. Bessent is out there parroting this "gotta have Greenland" bullshit as if the treaty giving the US access to defend it does not exist.

Why does Trump want to make enemies of the whole world?

It reminds me a bit of Kaiser Wilhelm who managed to alienate its strongest ally, Great Britain, to the point they allied with their greatest enemy, France. An astounding feat of idiotic diplomacy

Kaiser Wilhelm and Trump have similar personalities. Kaiser Wilhelm was also rich and powerful while simultaneously being extremely insecure.

 

[Elixir]

we'll be still stuck with Vance.

Great. Just as obviously a corrupt fuck, but with all the charisma of trash can.
The MAGA base would rather worship a picture of The Felon than follow that guy.

Already addressed that. If democracy is gone, his charisma doesn't matter whatsoever. He'll just be forced through.

Force only works when it has some popular support. If not for the 38-43% who still support Trump, his blatant lawlessness would not sell. Most of those are cultists and Vance lacks the ability to keep a cult together.

 

[Elixir]

Trump is acting as if he wants the US to have no allies and wants the US to be a pariah state.

He's insane.

And his sycophants are detestable. Bessent is out there parroting this "gotta have Greenland" bullshit as if the treaty giving the US access to defend it does not exist.

Why does Trump want to make enemies of the whole world?

He doesn’t! Never has said a harsh word about his pedo pal Putin. Or Kim or Xi. He sees a bloc ruling the world: China, Russia and The Royal Shithole of Trumpistan.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

There is a silver lining. Europe has never before in its blood soaked history, been as unified as this. This latest upswell of European patriotism is making Victor Orban less secure, as the Hungarians want to be a part of this new family

Trump tariff threat over Greenland 'unacceptable', European leaders say

The US president says several European allies opposed to his plans to buy Greenland will face 10% tariffs from February.

www.bbc.com

This is readily apparent. No one man has done more to unify Europe since Vladimir Putin. But at what cost? European unity will be defined by military unity and build up. Where will this money come from, the more generous social programs of some European nations? Let's see how this upswell holds up then. Real patriotism starts when there is skin in the game.
I can see Trump's point. Denmark says, sure go ahead and put all the US forces on Greenland you want. Trump is saying, this isn't happening gratis anymore.

What? In the real world a country has the international influence it does because if its army. Those are linked.

European countries have unsustainable and expensive welfare systems that only exist because USA have subsidised our military defence.

Trump absolutely has a point. Every US president since Bush have tried every method they can in talking Europe into spending its fair share on NATO. Trump is the first US president to succeed.

I just think its a tragedy Europe needed someone like Trump to wake us up out of our slumber.

I also like all the European defence organisations that have popped up. Scandinavia now has Europes strongest air force. Which is cool since our populations are relatively tiny

What a load of fantasy thinking.
International influence mainly comes from soft power. We can see this with the US - it has a powerful military, but its influence has severely declined because it has little soft power left.
Welfare systems are not as expensive as you believe, and the US does not subsidise the military defense of any other nation, it only appears to do so. You are apparently unaware of a concept known as wealth. Wealth grows, and additional infrastructure adds to wealth. So can have a nation that two hundred years ago had a population of fewer than three million, little infrastructure, and not much wealth, that today has a population of 28 million, massive amount of infrastructure, and huge wealth. I am talking of course of Australia.

Neither you nor Trump have a point. Fair share of military spending is a baby's concept, not that of an adult. There are many intangibles involved in military spending. For example, land for US military bases is provided cheaply.
Europe didn't need Trump to wake them from slumber. They would have spent many years studying their future military expenditure, plus military is just one aspect of government. Europe has also invested in advanced technology and research in many areas. Nations need farms and many other things to survive. Europe is awake, US is in a nightmare sleep.

US investment in infrastructure and manufacturing has fallen behind Europe, and its economic future looks bleak. Without a solid economy it will not be able to afford its inflated military. The US is a nation existing in the past, and has bad future prospects.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

we'll be still stuck with Vance.

Great. Just as obviously a corrupt fuck, but with all the charisma of trash can.
The MAGA base would rather worship a picture of The Felon than follow that guy.

Already addressed that. If democracy is gone, his charisma doesn't matter whatsoever. He'll just be forced through.

Force only works when it has some popular support. If not for the 38-43% who still support Trump, his blatant lawlessness would not sell. Most of those are cultists and Vance lacks the ability to keep a cult together.

But still the question remains, who would do anything about it? Not the 2Aers.

 

[Harry Bosch]

There is a silver lining. Europe has never before in its blood soaked history, been as unified as this. This latest upswell of European patriotism is making Victor Orban less secure, as the Hungarians want to be a part of this new family

Trump tariff threat over Greenland 'unacceptable', European leaders say

The US president says several European allies opposed to his plans to buy Greenland will face 10% tariffs from February.

www.bbc.com

This is readily apparent. No one man has done more to unify Europe since Vladimir Putin. But at what cost? European unity will be defined by military unity and build up. Where will this money come from, the more generous social programs of some European nations? Let's see how this upswell holds up then. Real patriotism starts when there is skin in the game.
I can see Trump's point. Denmark says, sure go ahead and put all the US forces on Greenland you want. Trump is saying, this isn't happening gratis anymore.

What? In the real world a country has the international influence it does because if its army. Those are linked.

European countries have unsustainable and expensive welfare systems that only exist because USA have subsidised our military defence.

Trump absolutely has a point. Every US president since Bush have tried every method they can in talking Europe into spending its fair share on NATO. Trump is the first US president to succeed.

I just think its a tragedy Europe needed someone like Trump to wake us up out of our slumber.

I also like all the European defence organisations that have popped up. Scandinavia now has Europes strongest air force. Which is cool since our populations are relatively tiny

What a load of fantasy thinking.
International influence mainly comes from soft power. We can see this with the US - it has a powerful military, but its influence has severely declined because it has little soft power left.
Welfare systems are not as expensive as you believe, and the US does not subsidise the military defense of any other nation, it only appears to do so. You are apparently unaware of a concept known as wealth. Wealth grows, and additional infrastructure adds to wealth. So can have a nation that two hundred years ago had a population of fewer than three million, little infrastructure, and not much wealth, that today has a population of 28 million, massive amount of infrastructure, and huge wealth. I am talking of course of Australia.

Neither you nor Trump have a point. Fair share of military spending is a baby's concept, not that of an adult. There are many intangibles involved in military spending. For example, land for US military bases is provided cheaply.
Europe didn't need Trump to wake them from slumber. They would have spent many years studying their future military expenditure, plus military is just one aspect of government. Europe has also invested in advanced technology and research in many areas. Nations need farms and many other things to survive. Europe is awake, US is in a nightmare sleep.

US investment in infrastructure and manufacturing has fallen behind Europe, and its economic future looks bleak. Without a solid economy it will not be able to afford its inflated military. The US is a nation existing in the past, and has bad future prospects.

I agree that the US is in decline. And our soft power has declined greatly. We have far more than Russia, but it is in decline. But Dr. Z is correct. Europe has to wake up and dramatically increase its military spending. Or half of them will be speaking Russian soon.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There is a silver lining. Europe has never before in its blood soaked history, been as unified as this. This latest upswell of European patriotism is making Victor Orban less secure, as the Hungarians want to be a part of this new family

Trump tariff threat over Greenland 'unacceptable', European leaders say

The US president says several European allies opposed to his plans to buy Greenland will face 10% tariffs from February.

www.bbc.com

This is readily apparent. No one man has done more to unify Europe since Vladimir Putin. But at what cost? European unity will be defined by military unity and build up. Where will this money come from, the more generous social programs of some European nations? Let's see how this upswell holds up then. Real patriotism starts when there is skin in the game.
I can see Trump's point. Denmark says, sure go ahead and put all the US forces on Greenland you want. Trump is saying, this isn't happening gratis anymore.

What? In the real world a country has the international influence it does because if its army. Those are linked.

European countries have unsustainable and expensive welfare systems that only exist because USA have subsidised our military defence.

Trump absolutely has a point. Every US president since Bush have tried every method they can in talking Europe into spending its fair share on NATO. Trump is the first US president to succeed.

I just think its a tragedy Europe needed someone like Trump to wake us up out of our slumber.

I also like all the European defence organisations that have popped up. Scandinavia now has Europes strongest air force. Which is cool since our populations are relatively tiny

What a load of fantasy thinking.
International influence mainly comes from soft power. We can see this with the US - it has a powerful military, but its influence has severely declined because it has little soft power left.
Welfare systems are not as expensive as you believe, and the US does not subsidise the military defense of any other nation, it only appears to do so. You are apparently unaware of a concept known as wealth. Wealth grows, and additional infrastructure adds to wealth. So can have a nation that two hundred years ago had a population of fewer than three million, little infrastructure, and not much wealth, that today has a population of 28 million, massive amount of infrastructure, and huge wealth. I am talking of course of Australia.

Neither you nor Trump have a point. Fair share of military spending is a baby's concept, not that of an adult. There are many intangibles involved in military spending. For example, land for US military bases is provided cheaply.
Europe didn't need Trump to wake them from slumber. They would have spent many years studying their future military expenditure, plus military is just one aspect of government. Europe has also invested in advanced technology and research in many areas. Nations need farms and many other things to survive. Europe is awake, US is in a nightmare sleep.

US investment in infrastructure and manufacturing has fallen behind Europe, and its economic future looks bleak. Without a solid economy it will not be able to afford its inflated military. The US is a nation existing in the past, and has bad future prospects.

I agree that the US is in decline. And our soft power has declined greatly. We have far more than Russia, but it is in decline. But Dr. Z is correct. Europe has to wake up and dramatically increase its military spending. Or half of them will be speaking Russian soon.

Meh. China and Africa getting their shit together is not American decline. USA is still economically dominant. Most and biggest multinationals started as American companies. USA is incredibly strong. Europe is also in good shape. But not as good as USA.

We have a bad habit of staring at the things that aren't working at home and just assume that other countries don't have those problems. Western countries are uniquely good at identifying and dealing with problems. We're awesome at adopting creative solutions. That's why the west is so economicaly dominant in the world.

At the end of WW2 USA was an industrial giant with its economic base not bombed to shit. No shit USA had some awesome decades alone at the top of the hill. Its a more crowded hill top now. But that doesn't mean USA are failing

 

[Elixir]

we'll be still stuck with Vance.

Great. Just as obviously a corrupt fuck, but with all the charisma of trash can.
The MAGA base would rather worship a picture of The Felon than follow that guy.

Already addressed that. If democracy is gone, his charisma doesn't matter whatsoever. He'll just be forced through.

Force only works when it has some popular support. If not for the 38-43% who still support Trump, his blatant lawlessness would not sell. Most of those are cultists and Vance lacks the ability to keep a cult together.

But still the question remains, who would do anything about it? Not the 2Aers.

No proactivity required. A sizeable fractrion of "the base" will sit out elections that don't involve their favorite felon. I'll eat those words if they turn out this year, but so far their behavior is as I describe.

 

[Elixir]

USA is still economically dominant.

Trump is fixing that.

 

[crazyfingers]

This Scott Scott Bessent, Treasury Secretary, is a lying sack of shit.

Regarding Greenland

“The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “It is a strategic decision by the president. This is a geopolitical decision.

What national emergency? The US has been drawing down its forces in Greenland for years. There used to be a lot more US defense assets in Greenland. Now only one surveillance base. That draw-down was not because of any resistance in Greenland or Denmark. It was because the US didn't see the need for more

“President Trump is being strategic,” “He is looking beyond this year. He’s looking beyond next year to what could happen for a battle in the Arctic.

Strategic? My ass. If it was that important why didn't Trump beef up Greenland defenses in his first term? The treaty allows it. Nothing would have stopped the US from beefing up Greenland defenses.

This is all about Trump wanting a shiny object that's not his to have.

We are not going to outsource our national security. We are not going to outsource our hemispheric security to other countries.”

Strawman. No one is saying we'd depend on Denmark to defend Greenland from Russia or China. It would be NATO and the US is the largest part of NATO. This claim about outsourcing the defense of Greenland is bullshit.

“America has to be in control here.”

The US would be essentially in control if this was done either through NATO or the US directly via the treaties that the US has directly with Denmark that allow the US to defend Greenland from Russia (or China)

“I believe that it is very unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule a president’s signature economic policy,” Bessent said. “They did not overrule Obamacare. I believe that the Supreme Court does not want to create chaos.”

The ACA is a LAW. What Trump is doing by edict may be illegal.

It's Trump who is creating chaos.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/18/bessent-national-emergency-tarriffs-00735660

This guy has such a punchable face.

 

[robnisch]

They are going to come over here and make us eat Muk tuk.

 

[bilby]

Two months ago, the Whitehouse published a National Security Policy document.

The word "Greenland" appears in this document 0 times. That's zero, with a 'Z'.

So why is Greenland suddenly a major national security concern? The answer begins with an 'E'. And ends with a 'pstein'.

 

[scombrid]

Land war in Europe? The US military isn't set up for a land war in Europe. It'd take a while to even mobilize the fight. And last time we did, the coastal areas were on the same side.

The US easily can take Greenland. But I imagine it'll be a scorched Earth maneuver. It'd be costly, deploying troops to occupy a small area isn't cheap, even if there is no violence. Losing health care will make the locals angry, something would happen. And in Congress, there would be a need to authorize spending for the occupation. That won't happen in the Senate. It'll be filibustered to the ground.

Trade relations will evaporate, Europe will turn to China. It'll isolate the US, which is exactly what Russia would love. Of course, if Europe turns to China, that isn't exactly in Russia's favor either, but unlike China, Russia doesn't have much of a forward focus. It is the only nation that looks to the future in the past.

Finally, just because the US military takes Greenland doesn't mean the US has Greenland. International law would get really weird if the part of the Government doesn't recognize the US owns Greenland.

If Trump decided to ‘take’ Greenland, it would be the start of WW III.

Maybe down the road. But I can't see Europe going to war over Greenland. It would effectively end NATO and put the UN at risk as well. The cost of taking Greenland would far supercede any "benefits" of doing so.

I think the better thing to consider is whether the US military would actually follow such orders, as invading Greenland would be against treaty law. I'm uncertain if that would be considered an "illegal order".

I think the GOP concludes that ending the UN and NATO would be benefits. That is the whole point. The oligarchs want little nationalistic shitholes that they can most easily dominate and exploit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Maybe down the road. But I can't see Europe going to war over Greenland. It would effectively end NATO and put the UN at risk as well. The cost of taking Greenland would far supercede any "benefits" of doing so.

I think the better thing to consider is whether the US military would actually follow such orders, as invading Greenland would be against treaty law. I'm uncertain if that would be considered an "illegal order".

I think the GOP concludes that ending the UN and NATO would be benefits. That is the whole point. The oligarchs want little nationalistic shitholes that they can most easily dominate and exploit.

Possibly, but that'd be short sighted. NATO and the UN have made these people wealthy in the first place.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Maybe down the road. But I can't see Europe going to war over Greenland. It would effectively end NATO and put the UN at risk as well. The cost of taking Greenland would far supercede any "benefits" of doing so.

I think the better thing to consider is whether the US military would actually follow such orders, as invading Greenland would be against treaty law. I'm uncertain if that would be considered an "illegal order".

I think the GOP concludes that ending the UN and NATO would be benefits. That is the whole point. The oligarchs want little nationalistic shitholes that they can most easily dominate and exploit.

Possibly, but that'd be short sighted. NATO and the UN have made these people wealthy in the first place.

They did? How?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Land war in Europe? The US military isn't set up for a land war in Europe. It'd take a while to even mobilize the fight. And last time we did, the coastal areas were on the same side.

The US easily can take Greenland. But I imagine it'll be a scorched Earth maneuver. It'd be costly, deploying troops to occupy a small area isn't cheap, even if there is no violence. Losing health care will make the locals angry, something would happen. And in Congress, there would be a need to authorize spending for the occupation. That won't happen in the Senate. It'll be filibustered to the ground.

Trade relations will evaporate, Europe will turn to China. It'll isolate the US, which is exactly what Russia would love. Of course, if Europe turns to China, that isn't exactly in Russia's favor either, but unlike China, Russia doesn't have much of a forward focus. It is the only nation that looks to the future in the past.

Finally, just because the US military takes Greenland doesn't mean the US has Greenland. International law would get really weird if the part of the Government doesn't recognize the US owns Greenland.

If Trump decided to ‘take’ Greenland, it would be the start of WW III.

Maybe down the road. But I can't see Europe going to war over Greenland. It would effectively end NATO and put the UN at risk as well. The cost of taking Greenland would far supercede any "benefits" of doing so.

I think the better thing to consider is whether the US military would actually follow such orders, as invading Greenland would be against treaty law. I'm uncertain if that would be considered an "illegal order".

I think the GOP concludes that ending the UN and NATO would be benefits. That is the whole point. The oligarchs want little nationalistic shitholes that they can most easily dominate and exploit.

GOP or Trump?

Focusing more on the Americas rather than Europe has a long history in US politics. A bigger fish in a smaller pond.

Its a fair question to ask, what benefit is NATO to USA? The only reason NATO exists is because Stalin and now Putin are agressive imperialists. Its explicitly a defense pact against Russia. Its a fair question, how that is USA's problem.

I'm a liberal cosmopolitan world peace and brotherhood of man kind of guy. War anywhere is my problem. But I understand if not all people think like me. I'm OK with that.

The UN is different entirely. Its hard to find a valid argument for that the UN doesn't benefit USA. The fact that its headquarters is in New York is a massive boon. But if someone is isolationist that would make sense to be against. Its just dumb