This isn’t really about Greenland’s strategic value; it’s about the category error. You can trade goods, sign treaties, and negotiate basing rights. You can’t “buy” a people or their sovereignty especially when they don’t consent. That’s why Europe responds with process and principle: normalize coercion-as-bargaining among allies and you’re reviving a pre-1945 model of politics Europe built institutions to prevent.
It’s also lose-lose for the US. There isn’t a positive outcome. If it’s dropped, the damage is “just” reputational and partly repairable. If it’s pursued: tariffs, threats, coercion. It burns trust inside NATO, accelerates European strategic decoupling, and hands a propaganda gift to every US adversary. A forced takeover would be a catastrophic own-goal: legitimacy crisis, sanctions/retaliation, and a long-term security headache the US doesn’t need.
And the deeper issue is credibility. The dollar’s reserve status and US financial leverage rest on the assumption that the US is broadly predictable and rule-bound. When you start treating allies like extractive targets, you’re not “winning” you’re encouraging everyone to build workarounds. Part of the postwar setup was that Europe outsourced a lot of hard security while the US underwrote the system; if the US turns that security guarantee into leverage against allies, you should expect Europe to reprice the relationship and invest accordingly.
The least-bad outcome is a face-saving off-ramp and dropping the whole line of inquiry. Nothing good comes from keeping it on the table.
Yes. Ian Bremmer keeps pointing out that if the "law of the jungle" becomes the norm for relations between countries, the USA will not benefit as much as autocracies like China and Russia.
its bad optics for both US and Europe that neither side insists on holding a referendum, how can I know what the local population wants for themselves?
Its damning when neither Europe nor US insists on a referendum, and the population in Greenland is the new soccer ball...
Picking better next time won't be enough unless a lot of work is done to put in place safeguards to make it impossible for a future government to act the same way.
Sort of. Those of us outside the US are aware his support hasn’t cratered. There’s going to be the concern the US will just swap him out for someone similar.
Warren Buffett once said: "You can't make a good deal with a bad person"
Which is exactly the case as long as Trump is POTUS. There's no good deal to be made for Denmark, Greenland, or Europe in general. Trump is a bad person, and can not be trusted.
Any deal that is made will either be altered or voided. And he'll continue to move the goalposts.
There are two outcomes with Trump:
1) He tries to bully someone into submission, and keeps coming back for more if successful.
2) He is slapped so hard that he gives up entirely.
Unfortunately (2) is a bit shaky these days, as he views the US military as his personal muscle.
As a side note. Beware when exporting to the USA using UPS. Especially when having the receiver pay for imports and taxes. UPS does not enforce payment. They will hand out the package before receiving the taxes and tolls. Then, they force you, the exporter, to pay, since you’ve agreed to it by accepting their terms and conditions. I’ve learnt this the hard way.
Yup. Now people outside the US pay tariffs going both ways. Sending a package to the US? Pay the US tariffs for the receiver in advance. Getting a package from the US? Pay any tariffs/duties/taxes as per normal.
They typically do this because they don't have enough warehouse space to keep the packages temporarily, and also because it wouldn't be very Express if it adds another day or two.
But if the value is high or you've landed on their naughty list, they'll have you pay before receiving the package.
I wonder how the current events in Greenland will impact the safety and sovereignty of Taiwan.
The US is Taiwan’s most important military ally, even if that relationship remains unofficial. It is also the most critical power in the First Island Chain. If the US stopped being a global superpower, countries like Japan and South Korea might not be willing to aid in defending Taiwan on their own.
I wonder how the current events in Greenland will impact the safety and sovereignty of Taiwan.
That was my thought as well. It's a dangerous rhetoric being displayed by USA. "We need this land for our security". Turns out, what if other powers start using the same rhetoric? Russia did it already for Ukraine, China might say "We need Taiwan for our security".. where does it stop and ultimately it leads absolutely nowhere good.
China already claims Taiwan, and has for decades; the only thing keeping it practically separate is uncertainty over the outcome in various dimensions if China tries to take it militarily. I don't think there's any doubt that if they were sure they could take it relatively bloodlessly and without significant repercussion, they would do so immediately.
The US recognizes Taiwan as part of China since the 70’s though its position is quite ambiguous! I found this document by the US congress that explains the history behind the rather bizarre situation Taiwan finds itself today: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12503
Nope. The US One China Policy (not to be confused with China's One China Principle) only "acknowledges" China's claim over Taiwan. The wording is intended to be vague so that each side can interpret the meaning according to their own interests (like China claiming "acknowledge" actually means "recognize").
Diplomatic relationships are rarely about justice, because they are almost always about power and influence.
In fact, the US and its allies have been the only major powers advocating for a "rules-based international order." On the other side, you have Russia annexing Crimea in 2014, and China building artificial islands in the South China Sea to forcefully claim territory that isn't theirs under international law. Not to mention that all authoritarian states, by their very nature, are a clear violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defines democracy and freedom of speech as basic human rights.
But at the same time, the US doesn't need a moral justification to sanction China over AI hardware. It is, as always, about power and influence.
The worrying part is that the US is losing its global influence by threatening an ally over Greenland. If they ever resort to military measures, they would lose all influence over the EU, and that would leave Taiwan in a very dangerous spot.
True. Taiwan is an important ally, unofficially. The folks the US is feuding with right now are also allies, but officially. As are Japan and South Korea. It can't be encouraging.
IMO, China will get back Taiwan without firing a single shot, the US is slowly de-risking itself from it and will eventually make Taiwan redundant. After seeing how the US is "helping" Ukraine, will the Taiwanese think fighting an all-out war with allies like this is worth it? China doesn't have the same genocidal intentions russia has towards Ukraine, so less reasons for people to fight it out
Maybe if Xi dies and the next guy is more reasonable. A lot of the animosity towards China is a result of Xi's authoritarian turn a decade or so ago...
Sure, it could blow up its economy and have the U.S. just switch to the existing domestic alternative, which also appears to be superior (tirzepatide).
One thing I never heard a talk about. What would happen to all the US bases in the NATO countrys? I can't imagine the US could fly from NATOs countrys bases and attack Greenland and partner. Would for ex. germany attack Ramstein?
As an Army veteran, I find this kind of keyboard warrioring to be insanely cringe.
The “last time” was 20 years after Mexico had secured their independence from Spain and a few years after fending the military was worn down fending off incursions from France. Mexico was barely able to control or defend northern territories from indigenous tribes at the time, never mind a full country’s military.
It was also nearly 180 years ago and has no bearing on modern conflict.
The sport who's leader shoved his head so far up Trump's ass he was able to taste his orange make-up. All for the sake of giving him a farce of a "peace" prize.
(I'm talking about FIFA in case you are not aware)
This "EU is weak" rhetoric straight from right-wing Twitter is exactly what's fueling Trump and Miller. China already called Trump's bluff, EU will too. We'll see how long the US economy is going to last when it can't even fund its own government.
That's true for all governments who issue treasuries. For the US it's the kindness of the Japanese, the Chinese and the British. But mostly their own kindness.
"We'll see how long the US economy is going to last when it can't even fund its own government."
This is fantasy thinking, projection of a subjective wish.
The dollar is the global reserve currency and is under no serious threat to be displaced (and no, the dollar dropping back to where it was a couple of years ago vs the Euro, is not a meaningful event).
The US economy is by far the world's largest and now dwarfs the Eurozone.
To answer your question: the US economy is going to last a very long time yet. So far it has lasted hundreds of years. Please provide a comparison to any other economy that has lasted so long and done so well. You'll be able to name two or three examples maximum.
In the moment people tend to get hyper emotional, hyperbolic. They think something fundamental is changing. That's almost always nothing more than personal subjective projection of what they want to have happen, rather than an objective assessment of reality. Back in reality the US has survived and thrived through drastically worse than anything going on in the present. The Vietnam era was far worse both socially/culturally and economically. WW2 was drastically worse. The Civil War was drastically worse. The Great Depression was drastically worse. But oh yeah sure, the US superpower is about to end any day now.
Europe survived 2 devastating home wars in the last 100 years, a lot of it was under Soviet occupation, and has smaller natural deposits. The US economy is being propped-up by cheap credit and blitzscaling of tech, and the money is running out. Those companies have to start making money, and the european market is critical to that. The rest of the US market is stagnant at best. The US consumer market is being held up by the top 10% of spenders. The real US economy is disconnected from the stock market and GDP. The average US consumer is weak, and the US is not going to last a trade war with EU and China. Meanwhile the EU signing trade deals.
What is not fundamental about the end of NATO? What is not fundamental about the US actively working to give up its role as global hegemon? The US may survive but that doesn't mean it's not fundamental.
I swear you yanks playing down every single thing that Trump does, as if history has ended, are insane.
The USA will reap what it is currently sowing and it frankly will deserve it.
The US economy is currently to overwhelming extent a bunch of tech companies betting hard on that AI will revolutionize everything. With huge circular economy. Once that bubble bursts, you'll see where you really stand
The problem is deeper than economics. It’s the festering wound of reconstruction turning putrid. It doesn’t have to be the end of the US, but it certainly can be.
Also, I’m not sure the US economy was even great for most of the periods you mentioned. The question of if the US survives to have the same economic standing that it did in the 1800s is not that compelling
One of the best things about this trade war is that we may finally be able to ban toxic yank shit like X full of retarded crap that only Americans are stupid enough to take seriously. Get fucked.
What are you talking about. Trumps US-EU trade deal has been halted, and a response to Trumps 1th. feb tariffs is being drawn up right now. EU not doing anything in your head, try following the news.
Had Merkel not opened the border in 2015, Germany would be far worse off. If you ever set foot into a German retirement home, hospital, restaurant, random shop at the central station, cinema, xmas market, you name it, you realize that all those immigrants are currently carrying the economy.
She should get a prize for this instead of being blamed. Even if you don't care about the moral aspect of helping refugees.
In Germany, 23% of the people in working age, don't work [1]. The "refugees are carrying the economy", because you are effectively paying 23% of the local working age population (I'm here assuming you aren't paying refugees to go there and not work, right?) to slack. Remove their benefits and see how quickly you don't need to import people to do those jobs.
And no, I don't care about the "moral aspect" of not "helping refugees". If you care, you welcome them into your own place.
Also, notice how you didn't go into the gas deals Merkel did with Russia and forced upon the rest of the EU.
You can't just give any random job to any random person. Go out on the street, talk to the first homeless person and then tell me that for your mom's hip replacement surgery next week for which a Syrian doctor is scheduled, you rather see that person scheduled. And the rehab for which an Afghan immigrant is scheduled, you would prefer the homeless' friend next to him, smelling of Jägermeister. After you did that, we talk again.
Even all of the purely imperialistic stated reasons for taking Greenland make no sense.
National security? We already have the right to station as many troops there as we want! And we have actually removed troops recently.
Mineral rights? America is already richly endowed - its just impossible to access what we have when permitting is almost impossible. If there were actually valuable lodes in Greenland, it would probably be easier to mine now!
The only thing I can think of are the warm fuzzies you may feel as a despot to take land and enrage your allies.
Plus, punishing exactlty those Nato partners who are sending military there to see how to strengthen the defense. That shows you don't want Greenland stronger, militarily. You want it weaker to have less issues when you invade it.
Sigh... this is real life and I hate it as an American. The Danes had over 50 [1] Danish lives wasted in the NATO mission in Afghanistan and Iraq and this is how we pay the Danes back when they had America's back, paid in blood.
Danes put up a courteous face right now to get through this, but the relationship to the US is permanently harmed. Even the most pro US politicians are saying the relationship will never go back to what it was before this.
No, posting quotas. This place became a dump where 4 responses down you get time-banned for nobody knows how long and the discussion gets nowhere. You get attacked left and right? Well, tough luck, can’t defend and explain yourself. Good luck when multiple people want to discuss anything with you. This used to be a thought provoking place. It’s a dump now.
Despite all the talk about military action, the fact is that Europe is one of the main trading partners of the US and holds a substantial share of US debt. Any invasion would be economic suicide, and I think even Trump realizes this.
Trump barely thinks about first order effects, much less second order. He probably doesn't know it's economic suicide. And when it happens he'll tell us both "nobody knows more than me" and "nobody knew global commerce was this complicated" and then he'll tell us he'll have a plan to fix it in two weeks
A mass selloff of US bonds will mean that the US can’t sell any more - because the market is suddenly flooded with bonds at a ‘discount’. This means that the US can’t take on any more debt (borrow money)
Why would you pay the US $10 when you can get the same thing from France for $8?
Or the US then has to issue bonds with massively inflated returns - i.e. pay a much higher interest rate.
On the other hand, China sold off most of theirs and nobody even noticed. I think you're exaggerating both how much EU holds and the potential effects of them selling it.
This idea of waging financial war on the US seems very en vogue in Europe right now, but I think it's terribly shortsighted. Here's how I think it would go down:
1. EU countries coordinate a mass selloff of US debt, somehow even coercing private holders into a fire sale.
2. US bond prices consequently fall. EU holders lose tons of money on the sell side. US and Asian buyers rush to buy and get a sweetheart deal and massive risk-free returns, which starts crashing the stock market.
3. The Fed intervenes. They conjure up dollars from nothing and buy the bonds EU holders are selling at some discount, maybe 95 cents on the dollar. Those new dollars go into those countries' and banks' Master accounts at the Fed.
4a. EU countries' and banks' Master accounts are frozen. Maybe some portion of the funds are released every week in order to allow an orderly flow of value without too much market distortion. Or maybe given the act of financial war, those funds remain frozen indefinitely.
4b. Alternatively, their Master accounts are not frozen. Now, presumably EU didn't sell all their bonds just to hold non-yielding dollars. So they'll go to the forex markets and buy up Euros, massively strengthening the Euro and fucking up their export-based economies. Maybe they buy gold, or EU sovereign debt, or ECB steps in with mad QE. EU bond yields crater. EU holders lose more money on the buy side as whatever assets they purchase get more expensive. Inflation ensues.
5. US is furious and retaliates with financial warfare of their own. Or perhaps kinetic warfare. The ringleaders of the fire sale end up blindfolded and earmuffed on a US warship.
6. EU is in a much worse position than before, lost a ton of money on each leg, likely had tons more frozen, has pernicious inflation and/or diminished exports, cut off from the dollar system making currency reserve management and forex difficult and costly. The US is also now furious and looking to impose additional costs on EU however and wherever it can.
Since Trump can't walk away from NATO [1], could the claim on Greenland be a ruse to force the de-facto resolution of NATO?
He probably sees Europe as too meek to do anything more dramatic/substantial. And believes that without NATO, Europe would buy more US weapons that they now get "for free".
Not the parent, but getting US to quit NATO won't help his European ambitions. Russia is weak now, and has solidified the European hostility for years to come.
I think the administration's real goal isn't taking over Greenland. I think it's scaring the EU enough about the possibility the US might take over Greenland that the EU pays to fortify it so the US doesn't have to. (Somebody needs to fortify it, because the world is warming and it will become a strategically important trade choke point when a Northwest Passage opens up.)
Just like Trump being hot-and-cold on Ukraine. The administration's real goal isn't the US letting Russia take over Europe or even Ukraine. The goal is to scare the EU enough about the possibility the US might let Russia take over Europe or Ukraine that they start paying the expense of making sure that doesn't happen.
Greenland only has a population of 56k. If the US really wanted to buy Greenland, it should suggest a referendum whether Greenland should be annexed by the US, then pass a law that says the US will give each Greenlander $1 million if the referendum passes. I'm sure it would pass in a landslide and it would only cost $56 billion, which seems much lower than the price of trying to capture it militarily.
I don't know if I understand, grasp or agree with the geopolitics in your comment, but the weather in the north has indeed been getting nicer as of late; last summer I spent quite some time swimming in the beach without wearing thermal suits or anything at all really. So if anybody thinks that living in US is a tough bite to swallow lately, emigrating to Scandinavia or Iceland is not such a bad thing. Greenland though is still a little too tree-less and bare for my taste, and there my wild speculation[^1] is that the current US administration is looking for some harsh hell to set up forced labor camps to send anybody they don't like.
[^1] With NATO, the security reason given by US makes no sense. And as for natural resources, I'm sure there are perfectly legal and inexpensive mechanisms that US companies can use to set up mining operations in Greenland.
That would be a horrible deal for the Greenlanders, and they know it - there were polls recently and Vance was pretty much told that when he visited there.
The US is allowed for decades to have a military presence on Greenland, but the US Army has been diminishing it's presence as the time went by.
Up it to $5 million per Greenlander then. The US can afford to pull the trigger on a $250-$280 billion acquisition. The EU can't afford to counter it. To put that sum into perspective for the US economy: that's merely 2.x years of operating income for Google. There's no scenario where the people of Greenland reject that $250b offer in a free vote.
>US might take over Greenland that the EU pays to fortify it so the US doesn't have to
Does not make sense. Denmark had already budgeted with a huge increase of military capabilities on Greenland. If US wanted more they could talk with their allied.
And the 'lol just pay them' argument is tone deaf and insulting to the Greenlanders. If you followed along you would know that they have already stated that they would not take money. To say nothing about the laws that governs the Kingdom and the process of leaving the it. Which can not be deferred by paying anyone. But I guess americans have a really hard time understanding the rule of law now.
The goal in Ukraine for the US is to bleed Russia. While Russia is busy in Ukraine, it's losing its influence and positions, from Syria to Iran.
The ideal for the US superpower right now, is to collapse Iran's regime while Russia is kept busy in Ukraine. It's unable to lend support to prop up its allies. The peace efforts are fake, meant to maintain a constant back and forth that never really goes anywhere. The US system has been focused on trying to strip Russia out of that region for decades, since before 9/11. Iraq was about Russia. Syria was about Russia. The first Gulf War was about decimating the Soviet supplied Iraqi army with the latest generation of US weapons, to put them to the test.
Most of the agenda exists from one administration to the next. The Pentagon works on its strategic aims across decades (see Bush & Obama & Trump and pivoting against China).
The US superpower is interested in the great power conflicts, it's not interested in Iraq because of oil, or Venezuela because of oil. It's about Russia and China, the other components (oil, chips, weapons, etc) are mere strategic calculations on the board.
The Americans on HN driving tech, science and innovation are enabling Trump to do this. Without you he would be nothing. Where is your integrity? Do you think having no allies makes you more safe?
Is this really the world you want?
The only way for Europe forward is actual federalization. Unfortunately right wing parties will never let it happen so entire Europe is doomed to become marginalized by China and US.
Indeed, petty national topics that are used to create fake polarization against Brussels, is what is keeping us from realizing the federation we so desperately need. I am so tired of the endless, unbased right-wing arguments from nationalists against the EU, which only exist to distract from their own incompetencies.
You have no idea what it's like to be American right now. The propaganda information war that's being waged in us is overwhelming and it appears to be working. The world needs to start preparing for a reality where the US can no longer be relied on for security or economic stability. For the sake of all of us, I hope that our European allies are taking serious steps to become more independent from US power and security.
We are trying. Please realize that the second largest conflict (based on spending) in the world right now, behind the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is DJT’s ICE attacks on the US. That is how much he is spending to attack his own country. More than Israel spends to occupy Palestinians.
Sadly, if you look at polling, none of this is remotely unpopular with US Republican voters. Our country’s union is hanging on by tattered threads.
Maybe your country's union was a bad idea? Feels like it's allowed the regressive parts to keep control over the greater whole. Maybe y'all should've just let secession happen - at least the worst parts of America would've been contained.
It's easy to look at the politics of individual states as a means of breaking things up if you ignore the economics. Things get very complicated, very quickly when you set a political threshold for breaking up the country.
Pretty rich considering Denmark force-sterilized the native peoples of Greenland. Leftist/Communist governments are far more likely to dictate birth policy than any right wing government. See also the One Child Policy in China.
Are you familiar with America's history with eugenics? Contemporary with Denmark's human rights abuses in Greenland you're bringing up (1960's–70's), America's government was doing very much the same thing, to their own vulnerable minorities.
> "Between the span of the 1930s to the 1970s, nearly one-third of the female population in Puerto Rico was sterilized; at the time, this was the highest rate of sterilization in the world.[120] "
> "An estimated 40% of Native American women (60,000–70,000 women) and 10% of Native American men in the United States underwent sterilization in the 1970s.[125]"
The South wasn’t punished enough after the civil war is where a lot of this stems from. There was no cleaning house like what happened with Germany after WW2.
As a Dane, while slightly angry, and gravely concerned for the people of Greenland, I'm still more fearful of the safety and mental well-being of my US friends and colleague than I am for my own.
Our Congress and Supreme Court are beholden to him. State and Individual resistance will be treated as rebellion. The legal pathways have us waiting until elections. The line of succession is GOP 40 levels deeps.
If we successfully revolt the US doesn't survive in any form to stabilize the world built around us and there is no guarantee that the ruling party isn't MAGA-like.
I hope you are right but I don't have any confidence in a Democratic party controlled Congress. I have never seen a meeker group of politicians. They will struggle to get everyone on board and some of them will defect and vote with Republicans like they did recently to end the government shutdown.
Legally speaking, the Republicans have been losing in court over and over. That doesn't mitigate the damage they're doing during the lag, and the consequences for breaking the law have never been as strong as they should be when officers of the law and elected officials are the ones breaking the law.
But it is important to acknowledge the wins. They do have an effect, and that's the only path we seem to have toward slowing down the march to autocracy.
Literally cannot. The asymmetry of technology which we have allowed to grow and flourish makes it infeasible. Flock and other manifestations of this beast sends shivers down spines and prevents any serious resistance.
Would that it were so easy to blame the flyover states. Almost half the people who cast votes voted for this - and at the same time voted for the status quo legislators who opt not to keep him in check.
The blame extends equally to everybody who supported this but due to the way American elections are set up, those people on the margins are “how” this happened.
...among the people who voted. There are a lot of folks who opted out that bear responsibility for the way this country and its power is being dismantled.
He wouldn't win the popular vote today! Why is it that when you call yourself a Republican, you take a very narrow margin of victory and consider it a mandate to only listen to your fanbase? I bet it feels fun at first, and there are a few people who get very wealthy and powerful as a result, but reality always comes crashing back down.
I suppose that if the talk of suspending mid-term elections bears fruit, that changes the equation.
The truth is that on average Republicans have way more guns that Democrats.
Anecdata but… I’ve personally known many Republicans who have massive gun collections and even personal shooting ranges in their basement. I’ve never met a Democrat with any of that.
Only one side of this conflict is meaningfully armed and they are already in power.
Well 40% of the population or so approves of the administration, so it's more like "to save themselves from their government and 40% of the rest of the population". That means resorting to the 2A is, at the very best, a rather weak bet.
“Second Amendment solutions” are only OK to talk about if you’re a Republican (I.e. “Real American”).
I’m being sarcastic, for the record. Back during his first term, Trump talked about “second amendment people” doing something about liberal Supreme Court justices (iirc) and the right wing media treated everyone as crazy for thinking that was wildly inappropriate.
It's really interesting how the same propaganda is applied by fascist governments everywhere. The ones supporting the "nationalist" government are the patriots and the others are enemies
The average Waco wacko can’t possible to fight even a small contingent from the local national guard, let alone a military with trillions of dollars of meteriel
All the assault weapons you can store in your shed are useless when an f35 takes them out from 300 miles away.
You can still call your congressman, senator, local political, councilman, or someone else, spend 30 mins watching a demonstration, donate $10 to Amnesty, tell a random dude in fatigues "grateful for your service but please don't invade Greenland". The more people that do these kind of things the harder it gets for the Fascists to brand those that do as left-wing terrorists.
I’ve been tear gassed. I’m out here trying. I just know it’s gonna get a lot worse before it gets better. The regime is losing its grip and the only way out that fascists know is to escalate the violence.
Invading Greenland is a symptom of us on the ground fighting back. It’s to prove to Americans that we’re now isolated.
The Americans you’re trying to reach are not here. They’re in Facebook and right wing social bubbles with a constant influx of fresh slop propaganda. It’s unprecedented in the fact that it’s affecting people at the family unit level with people tearing off into political parties within families that cut off all contact from each other.
I believe you’re right but at this point it’s a single issue cult for a lot of folks. For instance, I know a very rational, personable guy that seems generally progressive on a variety of social issues but calls for the extermination of trans people with a straight face. There’s no reasoning with these people, even the ones swayed by rational opinion in other parts of their life.
I don't think anyone's ever assumed left wing consensus here. When's the last time you heard somebody here talk about public ownership of the means of production?
While you're remembering things you shouldn't forget, pay attention to how the Black Panthers are out in Philadelphia, and ICE isn't messing around over here. We chased those Patriot Front clowns out immediately, too.
But yeah, focus on the peaceful citizens making their voices heard, if that makes you feel more secure about how things are going.
Even if any of these claims were true (they aren’t) how exactly does that justify the US annexing an EU territory that clearly stated it does not want anything to do with the US?
Several European countries are also hosting American nukes on their soil. What happens to those in case the US starts an open war with those countries?
I think it is past time for Europe to ask the USA to leave their countries. That is something they can do which will significantly reduce the ability of the USA to project their power.
Rampant propaganda bots and consolidation of communications channels in the US is a real problem. Half the country is getting fascist cheerleading 24/7. When you can monopolize the communications channels there is effectively no free speech. Because dissenting views are priced out. Thanks to lax oversight on merging communication companies and the Citizens United decision that equates speech to money in politics, we are in the middle of it now.
As a US citizen resident of Finland, I am proud of my adoptive country. I have been so far relatively neutral-to-
vaguely-supportive of MAGA wrt the culture wars, and I find Trump's posturing on Greenland appalling and disgraceful. Yes, we all know that Trump's MO is to demand something horrendous in order to secure something less horrendous, but there is no path from threatening an ally's sovereignty that leads to anything good for the US. Monstrous.
This isn’t an aberration, it’s a continuation. Trump has repeatedly done things that would have been disqualifying for any normal president: threatening allies, undermining institutions, abusing power, normalizing coercion. The reason this moment feels different to some people isn’t that the behavior changed, it’s that they’re finally among those bearing the downside. That normalization, enabled by years of “it doesn’t affect me” neutrality, is part of how we got here.
That's only part of it. It feels worse now because everything is visible. Information moves instantly. Evidence is public. Financial trails can be followed. Citizens now expect ethical behavior from their leaders as a baseline rather than a bonus. In earlier eras, people slept better largely because they didn’t know what was happening, not because leaders were more virtuous.
For decades now, elite self-dealing, institutional opacity, and captured power steadily eroded public trust. Trump did not arrive as a reformer. He arrived as a punishment mechanism. A stress test. Unfortunately, US elites are drawing the wrong lessons so far.
We can hope that enough democrats win to cause gridlock and impede more harm. However, the democrats don't offer much in the way of substantive reform and have never demonstrated the stomach for taking bold stances. Whenever a candidate does come along and propose bold change, the institutional democratic party goes out of their way to sabotage or undercut them (think AOC, Sanders, Mamdani et al).
The democrat establishment doesn't seem interested in change, they are like a softer version of politicians getting bought out by tech. Well-mannered, but ultimately not doing long-term thing in the interest of the wider country.
They aren't going to be able to stop the next generation of candidates. And they aren't signing up to run to maintain the institution. This year and 2028 has the potential to be the Democrat's "tea party" moment (except for decent policies instead of destroying the government policies). And it's long overdue.
I very much hope so. I changed my registration to decline to state. California has open primaries, so I can still vote in them, but I couldn't stomach being associated with stubborn, institutional failure.
I've heard this since I canvased for Obama in 2008, before I could even vote. At this point expecting change through the electoral system seems worse than a waste, its a vacuum thats sucks up the radical energy we need to get real change.
The party is already being taken over by the energy we need -- AOC, Mandami, and more. Trump going full fascist fuck is a catalyst. We can have the left-wing reaponse to the tea party that really changes the country back to decency. Or we can just sit around all defeatist and whining, because that's worked so well in the past.
Framing all of us who voted for and support the President’s actions as ignorant is lazy and inaccurate. There’s plenty of us that objectively analyzed the state of the country, the state of the world, and agree with the vast majority of these actions.
this online discussion format is impossible :-( I can tell you with certainty I did not think at all what you just said.. I cannot even imagine how you get that impression
There is no right party, unfortunately. The Duopoly of Democrats and Republicans rely on this illusory idea of "the other side" to maintain a stranglehold on power for both parties. The sooner we give up that idea that one side is better than the other, the sooner we can hold "both sides" accountable. The Democrats are an absolutely corrupt shit show. As are the Republicans.
Each expansion of executive power is treated as unprecedented until it becomes normalized. Before Bush, indefinite detention without trial was unthinkable. Before Obama, the executive assassination of U.S. citizens without due process was unthinkable. Before Clinton, routine humanitarian war without congressional declaration was unthinkable. Each step is later reclassified as “different,” “necessary,” or “less bad,” each step decried by the "opposition" but excused by partisans.
The danger isn’t that one party does uniquely shocking things. It’s that both parties participate in a ratchet where norms only ever move in one direction supported by the rank and file. What looks like a false equivalence is actually a cumulative one: today’s outrage rests on yesterday’s precedents.
And it’s not even mainly about presidents. Fixating on the occupant of the office misses how much of this is legislative and bureaucratic drift. The real damage is often done through laws that quietly expand state power, normalize surveillance, weaken due process, or lock in perverse incentives. Presidents sign them, but Congress writes them, renews them, and funds them. That’s where the ratchet really lives.
USA PATRIOT Act (2001), Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994), FISA Amendments Act (2008), National Defense Authorization Acts with detention and secrecy expansions, Telecommunications Act (1996), Controlled Substances Act (1970), Defense of Marriage Act (1996), Welfare Reform Act / Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996). All terrible. All drafted and passed by both parties.
This is why “no one did X before” is the wrong metric. The system advances through laws and precedents that feel technical, temporary, or defensive at the time. Each one lowers the bar for the next. By the time something looks outrageous, the groundwork was laid years earlier by people insisting they were the reasonable alternative.
I would so much rather use arm twisting in background political discourse to open and public threats of military invasion on a nato ally. Those two are really not even comparable
The end result is the same - we have committed for 15 years now that we are pivoting East. And given some of the recent announcements in both the US and China, I think 2028 is going to be a very bleak year.
Edit: can't reply
> In one scenario nato breaks up...
It doesn't matter if we are in a US-China war WHICH HAS BEEN MY AND EVERY NATSEC STAFFER'S POINT SINCE 2009.
We do not care about Russia - you guys can easily handle them yourselves. On the other hand, you guys cannot support us in Kinmen, Luzon, Yonaguni, or Gageodo.
We can’t. It’s over. Laws don’t mean anything anymore. Even if we had a full democratic congress, they would just be ignored. The Trump administration has already been grooming people to accept congress is useless, beginning with the month long shutdown. And the Supreme Courts will just go along with whatever the president wants now.
The only thing congress can do is impeach and convict trump and his administration, thereby stripping him of his authority. Laws have been passed, judges have ruled, but all those are ignored. however, if he has no authority, then we get to find out who's on the side of the constitution and who is with trump and his allies.
If the Senate convicted, things would change. For one thing, I'm confident the military would not consider an impeached and convicted president as its commander in chief. And the prospect of the consequences of continuing to side with such a one would largely evaporate the availability of the administrative apparatus. Civil war would be a possible result, sure. But I disagree that such a Congress would simply be ignored and that ignoring it could be done while maintaining the means of continuing power.
This is catastrophizing, not analysis. If you genuinely feel this hopeless, that's worth examining as a signal about your own mental state rather than treating it as political insight.
The EU actually has a great track record, it has been a massive unifying force. I think people tend to forget how shit things were even 30 years ago. I really hate this constant shitting on the EU for no concrete reasons.
It is crippled because nation states want to retain control, it is one of the main reasons. People act like 'EU politicians' should solve everything overnight, but the reality is that it is out of their purview in many cases. Only federalization would resolve this issue.
> I think people tend to forget how shit things were even 30 years ago.
About thirty years ago a European family could survive on a single salary and get by decently. Now they can't. So, I'm not sure what are you talking about.
> It is crippled because nation states want to retain control, it is one of the main reasons.
IMO it's crippled by the amount of poor decisions making and complete inability to handle even small-scale crisis somewhat successfully.
> Only federalization would resolve this issue.
On this, I agree. But given the decision making the last 15-20 years, that option is dead on arrival.
I'm sure you consider yourself a clever person, ever consider that the situation was more complex than your one line comment? That maybe it's possible the German banks were so happy to see a country that suddenly had the backup system of the European Central Bank, i.e. a country full of customers they could lend to, that they flooded it with offers of loans? That Greeks, like the sub-prime borrowers of the USA, thought "Well, if everyone is saying the future looks bright, why not borrow money and pay it back with the promised future income?".
That, if I knew my friend was going to be irresponsible with money but their parent was going to bail them out, why shouldn't I lend them money with interest? Is that irresponsible of me? Do I deserve to get all my money back, instead of suffering some of the losses as well? (In this highly simplicized example, I = German banks, my friend = the Greek society, their parents = the ECB. Not saying all of Greek society was irresponsible, but in aggregate, it was a risky "investment")
A lot of the Greek bailout could be summarized as the German government bailing out German banks with EU taxpayers' money...
Here's a long article about what happened when Germany got flooded with money in the 1870s: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/02/michael-pettis-syriz... . It's longer than your one line, maybe you'd rather hold on to your more succint (and maybe more intelligent) summary...
Part of the reason we’re in this mess is that Americans bristle at getting told which is the “right” party to vote for by internationals, the media, existing politicians, institutions…
You know, if everybody shouts at you to not do a certain thing, maybe, just maybe, they could have your best interests in mind? But instead they are being portrayed as "globalists" or whatever the mouthbreathers in the flyover states spin up today.
That's of course a totally valid reason to destroy your institutions, international reputation, and of course the lives of many poor people in your country. Makes sense /s
We should not be allying with any oppressive and dictatorial states, the US is just rapidly sliding into becoming one, and nobody wants to acknowledge it because of the consequences it would imply. If you ask me, us Europeans need to find our self-confidence, we are more than able to compete, but too scared to take the risks and responsibilities to do so.
Don't get me wrong, I would love that! I would love for Europe to step up as world super power (union), a kin to the Non-Aligned Movement - but unfortunately I don't see it happening.
What? Looking back at human history, real large-scale "lasting peace" only exist during the times one super power dominates before their inevitable falls.
Instead of writing long passages about how your native country or country of interest did some atrocities over last 100-200 years, let me just write: I don't care. I care about restoring world balance and establishing long lasting peace.
You can measure the success of a pathological narcissist by brain-minutes. A brain-minute is one human brain thinking about the narcissist for one minute, no matter whether the thought is admiration, confusion, disgust, anger, or fear. You can continue to amass brain-minutes even after you die, as long as people keep thinking about what a [saint | jerk] you were.
By this measure, he is in contention to become the most successful pathological narcissist in history. Which is his sole goal.
I don't like it, but all the time I spent writing this comment contributes to his brain-minute score. So does the time you spend reading it.
In theory, this perspective is similar to the advice to ignore the bully. In practice, we've let this one go on too long.
This is the right answer. I don't know why everyone is overreacting saying how the US democracy is dead and he will be in office forever.
He's just a narcissistic guy who wants to achieve some goals thw US had previously to show he's the only one who could do it, and to show what this great power can do (Iran, Venezuela, etc...)
I also think he's probably aware of his age and cognitive decline, so that's why he's in such a hurry to do everything as fast as possible. He's not the same as in 2017
It's also oddly self-defeating. If Greenland is made the 51st state (as proposed here: https://fine.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1...), it's reasonable to assume that the balance of power in the Senate would shift slightly, but significantly given how thin the majorities usually are. Politically, the two new senators would almost certainly be way to the left of the Republican party.
But on the other hand, Puerto Rico and various U.S. territories are still waiting for their senators to be seated (and voting rights in presidential elections, and in some cases, full citizenship rights).
I'm split three ways on this:
- he is a Russian asset
- he has serious dementia and the power brokers around him are doing what they can
- or, similar to 2 minus the dementia, he's just trying to grift and enrich himself and friends
Waiting on my passport for an EU country (already have citizenship) to figure out options.
Nah. He’s an asset of his American handlers. Stephen Miller is the person driving this Greenland thing (but what are his reasons?), Trump himself would’ve forgotten that the whole island exists if not reminded about it. Now, of course, it has also become an ego and legacy thing for Trump and he can’t walk back without being somehow convinced that he won even without getting Greenland. But that’s going to be almost impossible with Miller whispering into his ear.
If Trump were a Russian asset, would it look in any way different from how he's behaving today?
The thing I find morbidly fascinating is that all the Republicans I used to know, who were vehemently anti-Russia for decades, who worshiped at the altar of Ronald Reagan - have all become bootlicking Trump fanatics. It turns out, it was never about principles with so many of these people I knew - it was daddy issues, writ large.
He clearly has psychiatric involvement in his personality: NPD at least, psychopathic at worst. Both type of personalities are great manipulators who can deceive even the closest friends, more so the masses.
affected or marked by a persistent pattern of antisocial, impulsive, manipulative, and sometimes aggressive behaviour (not in current technical use).
"a psychopathic disorder"
Psychopathy, or psychopathic personality,[1] is a personality construct[2][3] characterized by impaired empathy and remorse, persistent antisocial behavior,[4] along with bold, disinhibited, and egocentric traits. These traits are often masked by superficial charm and immunity to stress,[5] which create an outward appearance of normality.[6][7][8][9][10]
psy· cho· path ˈsī-kə-ˌpath ˈsī-kō-
: a mentally unstable person
especially : a person having an egocentric and antisocial personality marked by a lack of remorse for one's actions, an absence of empathy for others, and often criminal tendencies
----
Seems spot on to me. You'll find a dictionary is your friend.
That I can agree with. Especially now that he's aging and is displaying clear signs of cognitive decline.
I can see he's also being increasingly influenced by his circle like Miller, also for the fact that unlike in 2017, there was no huge line of people coming to the administration, but after his first term now we have all these guys orbiting him trying to use him as a vehicle to push their policy.
And it seems to be fairly easy, just stoke him a bit saying "they don't want you to do this because they think you're weak!!"
And you can see it with the whole excessive gifting by foreign leaders. It works. Myself I'd be insulted because it feels so fake, but he seems to be unaware.
The guy's ego has blown up like crazy this past decade.
He's a malignant narcissist with dementia. Everything he does is a product of that and rationality isn't a necessary part of the bubble of grandeur he lives within. The bigger problem is the team of sociopaths he's now surrounded himself with who are doing the actual scheming.
>"I still can't tell whether Trump is actually an asset of Russia, or just insane."
Why do people keep looking for Putin under their bed in the mornings? Trump does not give a flying fuck about Putin. He has no problems sanctioning Russia. Trump just does what he wants to do. Meanwhile EU kept sucking up to him instead of standing up. Now the EU reaps what their rulers sowed.
This is utter bullshit. He has no problems hurting Russia as long as it safe for him. But Trump works for Trump only. Some other party benefitting or loosing is not his concern.
We've committed to leave NATO by 2027 [0] to rebalance in Asia. We don't care about Russia. We are worried about China.
> Which country is currently earning the most profits by selling weapons within NATO?
It doesn't matter, because no European nation can help us in Kinmen, Luzon, Yonaguni, or Gageodo.
Both us and China are inching towards a Cuban Missile Crisis level standoff in 2028 after the Taiwanese (January 2028) and Phillipines (May 2028) elections.
I would follow the money. Which country is currently earning the most profits by selling weapons within NATO?
From a cursory glance, 2/3 of all arm exports towards NATO country is done by the US. Buying weapons from other NATO countries is a part of being a member in NATO.
>>I fully support the US taking Greenland by non-military means. Makes sense economically and militarily.
So their own wishes on the topic don't matter?
Also I cannot think of many worse fates for Danes than becoming American, yeah I'm sure they can't wait to have their privatised healthcare and Gestapo policing. What Americans want in this scenario matters less than what Russians want in regards to Ukraine.
>>The Danish colonials force-sterilized the native peoples of Greenland.
Would you like me to start listing all the things that Americans have done to both their own citizens in modern times(like injecting people with radioactive compounds just to see why would happen) and in the distant past to the native populations of Northern America?
It’s necessary. The US needs control of arctic sea lanes and as the globe warms much more of Greenland will be exposed for oil, LNG, and rare earths extraction. Literally an untouched goldmine.
For a country 38 Trillion in debt this is priceless.
This is pure national security and economic security pragmatism.
The US propped up Europe for 70 years after WW2 and paid for its defense, while the leaders of European countries hollowed out their own capabilities for energy and defense.
We kept the Soviets at bay.
The bill is due - and I don’t want my country to collapse economically or militarily so taking Greenland is easy to reconcile.
I literally couldn't care less about what US "needs". Russia "needs" Ukraine and similarly no one should be respecting them for it. You Americans think you own the world - you don't.
>>and I don’t want my country to collapse economically or militarily so taking Greenland is easy to reconcile.
If you think taking Greenland will do anything of that sort then you are deeply delusional. Trump and the other fascists will stuff their pockets and the inevitable conflict that follows will make your defence companies rich.
>>We kept the Soviets at bay
I'm sorry, what are you talking about exactly? The Soviets that fought with you to defeat the Nazis? The Soviets you have subsidized with billions of dollars during WW2 with weapons and supplies to defeat Hitler? Those Nazis?
>>The US propped up Europe for 70 years after WW2 and paid for its defense
I assume you never actually sat down to think why that is, and if it might have something to do with the fact that US both wanted to do this and it was in their interest to continue doing so. To now say something as stupid as "the bill is due" is uneducated at best, malicious at worst.
Europeans will really do anything except confront Russia and China.
A little history lesson: the US has defacto and dejure been defending Greenland since WWII (they've had a defence pact since Denmark fell to the Nazis). US bases have been on Greenland from then to the current day.
Even after Ukraine, Europe buys Russian gas. Even with all the threats from China towards Taiwan, Europeans are cozying up to them. And Europe still doesn't adequately defend itself, with a few exceptions.
While Trump is erratic in public, all recent US moves point to a confrontation with Russia/China in the near future. And Europe just sits by twiddling their thumbs. Feels like Eastern Europe and the Baltics are the only ones who take it seriously.
Yeah, we've been here before. Empires don't necessarily fall by the hand of their enemies as much as they fall by their own hands and hubris. See: UK, Germany, Russia, historical China and other asian countries, hell even the Romans, and so on and so forth, we've had it all. Trump is nothing new, just another fool in a long line of fools.
It is getting downvoted because it is a well known silly trope. Generally, success reinforces itself. That’s why there have been a bunch of countries that have had multi-generational streaks of repeated success. Eventually, this feedback look can fail, but it isn’t on some predictable four generation pattern.
> Eventually, this feedback look can fail, but it isn’t on some predictable four generation pattern.
Actually, it kind of is.
See The Fourth Turning and any other book based on the Strauss-Howe generational theory.
Is this theory air-tight and inviolable? No. Does it more or less support this “silly trope”? Yes. I think it’s safe to say that it is directionally correct.
If you think that it's just an imagination, the universe will make you physically feel what it really is. Not all at once, but gradually, drop by drop. And then, you'll learn the true meaning of another "meme" word: ignorance.
Personally I find all of the pretense and posturing around these issues both comical and concerning. The Arctic Circle is opening, and Chinese and Russian pressure will increase. At this time, there is no sign that Canada and the European nations will be in a position to even put up a shadow of resistance to it.
Russia can barely hold its own in a war against a neighboring country 30x smaller than them. Do people really still think they are a threat on the global stage anymore? China, yes, but their tactic is economic rather than military. And they are already winning in that front considering how dependent the rest of the world is on their manpower and manufacturing.
It's pretty clear that going forward the only real military threat the rest of the world has to concern itself with is the USA.
There wouldn't have been a problem if the US would've just done a deal go deploy all their stuff on Greenland, hell, even a whole autonomous military zone or something?
But nooooo, they gotta buy the whole thing like it's Alaska or something.
I don't get it. Especially because now Russia/China will actually get real interested in the Arctic, plus that they now have an opportunity to disrupt the alliance and delegitimize NATO etc.
Like Trump, I too am a (albeit, small-time) real estate guy. Ownership gives me tingles that renting could never give me. You rent a place for 30 years, diligently pay rent, and in the end you own nothing? Pshaw.
I get it, but the world doesn't run on hard power, it runs on soft power.
The US could simply invade Greenland if it actually refuses to let them stay there, or if an adversary tries to take it over.
That's why I'm so appalled. There is no such imminent threat which would force such a transaction to take place.
Subtle deals like the one I was talking about won't fly as justifications to take action against the US by Russia/China, nor will it up tensions unlike this drama.
I guess from the point of view of Europeans and Canada, the Arctic Circle is opening and Chinese, Russian and US pressure will increase. I hear they found a new powerful enemy recently.
This comment shows why the damage done by Trump will be so hard to reverse, no matter who's in charge next. When Trump talks about taking Greenland, the answer should be "no, moron, it's effectively a part of NATO", and instead you get all this muddying analysis of the strategic signifficance of Greenland, history, and how the EU is weak.
Trump is a symptom. The US cannot be trusted because we will always be one US election away of this bullshit again, because there are a lot of people there that actually agree with this.
The EU should be untangling itself from the US as quickly as possible. Any dependency on it is a major security risk.
> ... principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity
What about the US itself? Is it allowed sovereignty and territorial integrity or should the borders be wide open to tens of millions of illegals?
And what about the UK? And France?
Where are the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity for these countries vs the mass illegal migrations?
Or do these concept only exist in the mind of europeans when the US want to seize Groenland but do not exist when we're talking about the middle-east and africa massively moving into the EU (and US to some extent)?
It’s also lose-lose for the US. There isn’t a positive outcome. If it’s dropped, the damage is “just” reputational and partly repairable. If it’s pursued: tariffs, threats, coercion. It burns trust inside NATO, accelerates European strategic decoupling, and hands a propaganda gift to every US adversary. A forced takeover would be a catastrophic own-goal: legitimacy crisis, sanctions/retaliation, and a long-term security headache the US doesn’t need.
And the deeper issue is credibility. The dollar’s reserve status and US financial leverage rest on the assumption that the US is broadly predictable and rule-bound. When you start treating allies like extractive targets, you’re not “winning” you’re encouraging everyone to build workarounds. Part of the postwar setup was that Europe outsourced a lot of hard security while the US underwrote the system; if the US turns that security guarantee into leverage against allies, you should expect Europe to reprice the relationship and invest accordingly.
The least-bad outcome is a face-saving off-ramp and dropping the whole line of inquiry. Nothing good comes from keeping it on the table.
Yes. Ian Bremmer keeps pointing out that if the "law of the jungle" becomes the norm for relations between countries, the USA will not benefit as much as autocracies like China and Russia.
See https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TLhz6ZbrMuI for a more full-throated explanation from Ian.
For a lot of countries China doesn't seem so bad now. Specially when the the difference between human rights in US and China are becoming smaller
Its damning when neither Europe nor US insists on a referendum, and the population in Greenland is the new soccer ball...
You're going to pick better next time, right?
Which is exactly the case as long as Trump is POTUS. There's no good deal to be made for Denmark, Greenland, or Europe in general. Trump is a bad person, and can not be trusted.
Any deal that is made will either be altered or voided. And he'll continue to move the goalposts.
There are two outcomes with Trump:
1) He tries to bully someone into submission, and keeps coming back for more if successful.
2) He is slapped so hard that he gives up entirely.
Unfortunately (2) is a bit shaky these days, as he views the US military as his personal muscle.
But if the value is high or you've landed on their naughty list, they'll have you pay before receiving the package.
The US is Taiwan’s most important military ally, even if that relationship remains unofficial. It is also the most critical power in the First Island Chain. If the US stopped being a global superpower, countries like Japan and South Korea might not be willing to aid in defending Taiwan on their own.
That was my thought as well. It's a dangerous rhetoric being displayed by USA. "We need this land for our security". Turns out, what if other powers start using the same rhetoric? Russia did it already for Ukraine, China might say "We need Taiwan for our security".. where does it stop and ultimately it leads absolutely nowhere good.
In fact, the US and its allies have been the only major powers advocating for a "rules-based international order." On the other side, you have Russia annexing Crimea in 2014, and China building artificial islands in the South China Sea to forcefully claim territory that isn't theirs under international law. Not to mention that all authoritarian states, by their very nature, are a clear violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defines democracy and freedom of speech as basic human rights.
But at the same time, the US doesn't need a moral justification to sanction China over AI hardware. It is, as always, about power and influence.
The worrying part is that the US is losing its global influence by threatening an ally over Greenland. If they ever resort to military measures, they would lose all influence over the EU, and that would leave Taiwan in a very dangerous spot.
Hence Eli Lilly +40% in the last year and Novo -23%. Or on a longer timescale you can see the problem:
https://www.google.com/finance/quote/NVO:NYSE?sa=X&sqi=2&ved...
"Pricing power fell when someone else entered the market" isn't dropping a ball is why I ask.
Most people probably prefer a pill vs injections with needles.
If the US can extract Maduro, it can extract the leadership of Novo Nordisk, their lead scientists and all of their intellectual property.
/amused scenario
That's literally what they are. American forces appeared in Germany in 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_forces_agreement
The “last time” was 20 years after Mexico had secured their independence from Spain and a few years after fending the military was worn down fending off incursions from France. Mexico was barely able to control or defend northern territories from indigenous tribes at the time, never mind a full country’s military.
It was also nearly 180 years ago and has no bearing on modern conflict.
Right now? Trump is risking a worldwar trying to save the dollar/energy/make the history books.
They can take Texas back while they're at it. Or perhaps Elon wants to take it.
I'm a Finn.
I don’t know why we got to be assholes. I prefer speaking softly and carrying a big stick.
(I'm talking about FIFA in case you are not aware)
This is fantasy thinking, projection of a subjective wish.
The dollar is the global reserve currency and is under no serious threat to be displaced (and no, the dollar dropping back to where it was a couple of years ago vs the Euro, is not a meaningful event).
The US economy is by far the world's largest and now dwarfs the Eurozone.
To answer your question: the US economy is going to last a very long time yet. So far it has lasted hundreds of years. Please provide a comparison to any other economy that has lasted so long and done so well. You'll be able to name two or three examples maximum.
In the moment people tend to get hyper emotional, hyperbolic. They think something fundamental is changing. That's almost always nothing more than personal subjective projection of what they want to have happen, rather than an objective assessment of reality. Back in reality the US has survived and thrived through drastically worse than anything going on in the present. The Vietnam era was far worse both socially/culturally and economically. WW2 was drastically worse. The Civil War was drastically worse. The Great Depression was drastically worse. But oh yeah sure, the US superpower is about to end any day now.
The geographical land mass of Europe will of course survive anything bar a collision with another planet, if this is what you're referring to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irene_Triplett
> To answer your question: the US economy is going to last a very long time yet. So far it has lasted hundreds of years.
How old is the US?
> The dollar is the global reserve currency and is under no serious threat to be displaced
Everybody leavs the dollar since a while.
What is not fundamental about the end of NATO? What is not fundamental about the US actively working to give up its role as global hegemon? The US may survive but that doesn't mean it's not fundamental.
I swear you yanks playing down every single thing that Trump does, as if history has ended, are insane.
The USA will reap what it is currently sowing and it frankly will deserve it.
Also, I’m not sure the US economy was even great for most of the periods you mentioned. The question of if the US survives to have the same economic standing that it did in the 1800s is not that compelling
https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen/status/2012472380786925947?s=20
She should get a prize for this instead of being blamed. Even if you don't care about the moral aspect of helping refugees.
And no, I don't care about the "moral aspect" of not "helping refugees". If you care, you welcome them into your own place.
Also, notice how you didn't go into the gas deals Merkel did with Russia and forced upon the rest of the EU.
[1]: https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/employment-rate
EDIT: 23%
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employment-rate
Edit: also you can't do math well -- it's 100 - 77 = 23 (not 33)
National security? We already have the right to station as many troops there as we want! And we have actually removed troops recently.
Mineral rights? America is already richly endowed - its just impossible to access what we have when permitting is almost impossible. If there were actually valuable lodes in Greenland, it would probably be easier to mine now!
The only thing I can think of are the warm fuzzies you may feel as a despot to take land and enrage your allies.
Plus, punishing exactlty those Nato partners who are sending military there to see how to strengthen the defense. That shows you don't want Greenland stronger, militarily. You want it weaker to have less issues when you invade it.
Its so disappointing and tragic.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crmjewpkje9o
Your mistaking is in using rationality and logic.
That's the EU's problem, not Trump's)
Why would you pay the US $10 when you can get the same thing from France for $8?
Or the US then has to issue bonds with massively inflated returns - i.e. pay a much higher interest rate.
1. EU countries coordinate a mass selloff of US debt, somehow even coercing private holders into a fire sale.
2. US bond prices consequently fall. EU holders lose tons of money on the sell side. US and Asian buyers rush to buy and get a sweetheart deal and massive risk-free returns, which starts crashing the stock market.
3. The Fed intervenes. They conjure up dollars from nothing and buy the bonds EU holders are selling at some discount, maybe 95 cents on the dollar. Those new dollars go into those countries' and banks' Master accounts at the Fed.
4a. EU countries' and banks' Master accounts are frozen. Maybe some portion of the funds are released every week in order to allow an orderly flow of value without too much market distortion. Or maybe given the act of financial war, those funds remain frozen indefinitely.
4b. Alternatively, their Master accounts are not frozen. Now, presumably EU didn't sell all their bonds just to hold non-yielding dollars. So they'll go to the forex markets and buy up Euros, massively strengthening the Euro and fucking up their export-based economies. Maybe they buy gold, or EU sovereign debt, or ECB steps in with mad QE. EU bond yields crater. EU holders lose more money on the buy side as whatever assets they purchase get more expensive. Inflation ensues.
5. US is furious and retaliates with financial warfare of their own. Or perhaps kinetic warfare. The ringleaders of the fire sale end up blindfolded and earmuffed on a US warship.
6. EU is in a much worse position than before, lost a ton of money on each leg, likely had tons more frozen, has pernicious inflation and/or diminished exports, cut off from the dollar system making currency reserve management and forex difficult and costly. The US is also now furious and looking to impose additional costs on EU however and wherever it can.
They can literally print them
He probably sees Europe as too meek to do anything more dramatic/substantial. And believes that without NATO, Europe would buy more US weapons that they now get "for free".
[1] https://www.dirittoue.info/u-s-legislation-restricts-preside...
Just like Trump being hot-and-cold on Ukraine. The administration's real goal isn't the US letting Russia take over Europe or even Ukraine. The goal is to scare the EU enough about the possibility the US might let Russia take over Europe or Ukraine that they start paying the expense of making sure that doesn't happen.
Greenland only has a population of 56k. If the US really wanted to buy Greenland, it should suggest a referendum whether Greenland should be annexed by the US, then pass a law that says the US will give each Greenlander $1 million if the referendum passes. I'm sure it would pass in a landslide and it would only cost $56 billion, which seems much lower than the price of trying to capture it militarily.
[^1] With NATO, the security reason given by US makes no sense. And as for natural resources, I'm sure there are perfectly legal and inexpensive mechanisms that US companies can use to set up mining operations in Greenland.
The US is allowed for decades to have a military presence on Greenland, but the US Army has been diminishing it's presence as the time went by.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
Does not make sense. Denmark had already budgeted with a huge increase of military capabilities on Greenland. If US wanted more they could talk with their allied.
And the 'lol just pay them' argument is tone deaf and insulting to the Greenlanders. If you followed along you would know that they have already stated that they would not take money. To say nothing about the laws that governs the Kingdom and the process of leaving the it. Which can not be deferred by paying anyone. But I guess americans have a really hard time understanding the rule of law now.
The ideal for the US superpower right now, is to collapse Iran's regime while Russia is kept busy in Ukraine. It's unable to lend support to prop up its allies. The peace efforts are fake, meant to maintain a constant back and forth that never really goes anywhere. The US system has been focused on trying to strip Russia out of that region for decades, since before 9/11. Iraq was about Russia. Syria was about Russia. The first Gulf War was about decimating the Soviet supplied Iraqi army with the latest generation of US weapons, to put them to the test.
Most of the agenda exists from one administration to the next. The Pentagon works on its strategic aims across decades (see Bush & Obama & Trump and pivoting against China).
The US superpower is interested in the great power conflicts, it's not interested in Iraq because of oil, or Venezuela because of oil. It's about Russia and China, the other components (oil, chips, weapons, etc) are mere strategic calculations on the board.
I wonder whether UK media decide to hammer Farage over his Trump connections to screw Reform super hard.
"Exclusive: How Palantir's Alex Karp went full MAGA" [2]
Look at All In Podcast - tech VCs - they are all in support of this administration.
[1] https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...
[2] https://www.axios.com/2025/10/23/trump-alex-karp-palantir-ma...
Sadly, if you look at polling, none of this is remotely unpopular with US Republican voters. Our country’s union is hanging on by tattered threads.
> "Between the span of the 1930s to the 1970s, nearly one-third of the female population in Puerto Rico was sterilized; at the time, this was the highest rate of sterilization in the world.[120] "
> "An estimated 40% of Native American women (60,000–70,000 women) and 10% of Native American men in the United States underwent sterilization in the 1970s.[125]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States ("Eugenics in the United States")
If we successfully revolt the US doesn't survive in any form to stabilize the world built around us and there is no guarantee that the ruling party isn't MAGA-like.
The rubicon was crossed. This is the new normal.
But it is important to acknowledge the wins. They do have an effect, and that's the only path we seem to have toward slowing down the march to autocracy.
Refuse to buy from any company that supports the current administration (like Microsoft). End contracts where they exist.
I am genuinely sorry that Atlanticism came down to a few hundred thousand of the dumbest Midwesterners we could find.
He wouldn't win the popular vote today! Why is it that when you call yourself a Republican, you take a very narrow margin of victory and consider it a mandate to only listen to your fanbase? I bet it feels fun at first, and there are a few people who get very wealthy and powerful as a result, but reality always comes crashing back down.
I suppose that if the talk of suspending mid-term elections bears fruit, that changes the equation.
Would he win the popular vote today? Hard to know. Only the kind of people who are willing to talk to pollsters end up in polls.
Both parties tend to claim a high moral position and definitive mandate from a narrow margin of victory.
Talk of suspending mandates, third terms, and invading Greenland are exactly how he keeps winning- talk past your goal, and retreat to victory.
Anecdata but… I’ve personally known many Republicans who have massive gun collections and even personal shooting ranges in their basement. I’ve never met a Democrat with any of that.
Only one side of this conflict is meaningfully armed and they are already in power.
I’m being sarcastic, for the record. Back during his first term, Trump talked about “second amendment people” doing something about liberal Supreme Court justices (iirc) and the right wing media treated everyone as crazy for thinking that was wildly inappropriate.
All the assault weapons you can store in your shed are useless when an f35 takes them out from 300 miles away.
Ah yes, and if I recall, that is how the US won in Vietnam ... oh wait. Your comment is a perfect example of the very problem I described.
You can still call your congressman, senator, local political, councilman, or someone else, spend 30 mins watching a demonstration, donate $10 to Amnesty, tell a random dude in fatigues "grateful for your service but please don't invade Greenland". The more people that do these kind of things the harder it gets for the Fascists to brand those that do as left-wing terrorists.
Invading Greenland is a symptom of us on the ground fighting back. It’s to prove to Americans that we’re now isolated.
The assumption of left wing political consensus on this platform is astonishing at times.
We all know they fall down by showing painted signs at street demos. /s
But yeah, focus on the peaceful citizens making their voices heard, if that makes you feel more secure about how things are going.
For decades now, elite self-dealing, institutional opacity, and captured power steadily eroded public trust. Trump did not arrive as a reformer. He arrived as a punishment mechanism. A stress test. Unfortunately, US elites are drawing the wrong lessons so far.
Amongst the MAGA voters I know, ethical behavior is very much a “hope for” bonus than an expectation.
There is a lot of ends-justify-the-means rhetoric in that voter pool that I talk to.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Each expansion of executive power is treated as unprecedented until it becomes normalized. Before Bush, indefinite detention without trial was unthinkable. Before Obama, the executive assassination of U.S. citizens without due process was unthinkable. Before Clinton, routine humanitarian war without congressional declaration was unthinkable. Each step is later reclassified as “different,” “necessary,” or “less bad,” each step decried by the "opposition" but excused by partisans. The danger isn’t that one party does uniquely shocking things. It’s that both parties participate in a ratchet where norms only ever move in one direction supported by the rank and file. What looks like a false equivalence is actually a cumulative one: today’s outrage rests on yesterday’s precedents.
And it’s not even mainly about presidents. Fixating on the occupant of the office misses how much of this is legislative and bureaucratic drift. The real damage is often done through laws that quietly expand state power, normalize surveillance, weaken due process, or lock in perverse incentives. Presidents sign them, but Congress writes them, renews them, and funds them. That’s where the ratchet really lives.
USA PATRIOT Act (2001), Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994), FISA Amendments Act (2008), National Defense Authorization Acts with detention and secrecy expansions, Telecommunications Act (1996), Controlled Substances Act (1970), Defense of Marriage Act (1996), Welfare Reform Act / Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996). All terrible. All drafted and passed by both parties.
This is why “no one did X before” is the wrong metric. The system advances through laws and precedents that feel technical, temporary, or defensive at the time. Each one lowers the bar for the next. By the time something looks outrageous, the groundwork was laid years earlier by people insisting they were the reasonable alternative.
No Democrat president threatened to take over Greenland or took another head of state hostage without precedent.
Yes, they are corrupt and warmongers, but not nearly as harmful as the current Republican party.
Edit: can't reply
> In one scenario nato breaks up...
It doesn't matter if we are in a US-China war WHICH HAS BEEN MY AND EVERY NATSEC STAFFER'S POINT SINCE 2009.
We do not care about Russia - you guys can easily handle them yourselves. On the other hand, you guys cannot support us in Kinmen, Luzon, Yonaguni, or Gageodo.
Start preparing for the post-American world.
The same ones currently blowing up shipwrecked survivors in the water in the Caribbean? A literal textbook example of a war crime? I’m not.
It is crippled because nation states want to retain control, it is one of the main reasons. People act like 'EU politicians' should solve everything overnight, but the reality is that it is out of their purview in many cases. Only federalization would resolve this issue.
About thirty years ago a European family could survive on a single salary and get by decently. Now they can't. So, I'm not sure what are you talking about.
> It is crippled because nation states want to retain control, it is one of the main reasons.
IMO it's crippled by the amount of poor decisions making and complete inability to handle even small-scale crisis somewhat successfully.
> Only federalization would resolve this issue.
On this, I agree. But given the decision making the last 15-20 years, that option is dead on arrival.
That, if I knew my friend was going to be irresponsible with money but their parent was going to bail them out, why shouldn't I lend them money with interest? Is that irresponsible of me? Do I deserve to get all my money back, instead of suffering some of the losses as well? (In this highly simplicized example, I = German banks, my friend = the Greek society, their parents = the ECB. Not saying all of Greek society was irresponsible, but in aggregate, it was a risky "investment")
A lot of the Greek bailout could be summarized as the German government bailing out German banks with EU taxpayers' money...
Here's a long article about what happened when Germany got flooded with money in the 1870s: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/02/michael-pettis-syriz... . It's longer than your one line, maybe you'd rather hold on to your more succint (and maybe more intelligent) summary...
I really hope the US heals, quickly.
With Japan's artificial womb technology, sure! We can also create sperm or egg cells from just about anything and implant that into the womb.
ICE is gestapo. And I'll keep beating them down every chance I get. Can't screw with someone that mines nuclear materials very easily.
> With Japan's artificial womb technology
The down-mods are hilarious, BTW.
May the Almighty have mercy on the folly prevalent in our day.
By this measure, he is in contention to become the most successful pathological narcissist in history. Which is his sole goal.
I don't like it, but all the time I spent writing this comment contributes to his brain-minute score. So does the time you spend reading it.
In theory, this perspective is similar to the advice to ignore the bully. In practice, we've let this one go on too long.
He's just a narcissistic guy who wants to achieve some goals thw US had previously to show he's the only one who could do it, and to show what this great power can do (Iran, Venezuela, etc...)
I also think he's probably aware of his age and cognitive decline, so that's why he's in such a hurry to do everything as fast as possible. He's not the same as in 2017
But on the other hand, Puerto Rico and various U.S. territories are still waiting for their senators to be seated (and voting rights in presidential elections, and in some cases, full citizenship rights).
Waiting on my passport for an EU country (already have citizenship) to figure out options.
The thing I find morbidly fascinating is that all the Republicans I used to know, who were vehemently anti-Russia for decades, who worshiped at the altar of Ronald Reagan - have all become bootlicking Trump fanatics. It turns out, it was never about principles with so many of these people I knew - it was daddy issues, writ large.
affected or marked by a persistent pattern of antisocial, impulsive, manipulative, and sometimes aggressive behaviour (not in current technical use). "a psychopathic disorder"
Psychopathy, or psychopathic personality,[1] is a personality construct[2][3] characterized by impaired empathy and remorse, persistent antisocial behavior,[4] along with bold, disinhibited, and egocentric traits. These traits are often masked by superficial charm and immunity to stress,[5] which create an outward appearance of normality.[6][7][8][9][10]
psy· cho· path ˈsī-kə-ˌpath ˈsī-kō- : a mentally unstable person especially : a person having an egocentric and antisocial personality marked by a lack of remorse for one's actions, an absence of empathy for others, and often criminal tendencies
----
Seems spot on to me. You'll find a dictionary is your friend.
You could say that about a lot of people you don't like.
I'm not saying there's some traits, but we could say that about many people. He's narcissistic for sure and charismatic, but again...
If you want something more likely, look up NPD:
Key Characteristics
Grandiosity: Exaggerated sense of self-importance, achievements, and talents.
Need for Admiration: Constant craving for attention and praise.
Lack of Empathy: Inability or unwillingness to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
Sense of Entitlement: Unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment.
Exploitative Behavior: Taking advantage of others to achieve personal ends.
Envy: Often envious of others or believes others are envious of them.
Arrogance: Haughty, condescending attitudes or behaviors.
---
I'm just saying, clinical psychopathy is much more rare and extreme
I can see he's also being increasingly influenced by his circle like Miller, also for the fact that unlike in 2017, there was no huge line of people coming to the administration, but after his first term now we have all these guys orbiting him trying to use him as a vehicle to push their policy.
And it seems to be fairly easy, just stoke him a bit saying "they don't want you to do this because they think you're weak!!"
And you can see it with the whole excessive gifting by foreign leaders. It works. Myself I'd be insulted because it feels so fake, but he seems to be unaware.
The guy's ego has blown up like crazy this past decade.
Why do people keep looking for Putin under their bed in the mornings? Trump does not give a flying fuck about Putin. He has no problems sanctioning Russia. Trump just does what he wants to do. Meanwhile EU kept sucking up to him instead of standing up. Now the EU reaps what their rulers sowed.
> Which country is currently earning the most profits by selling weapons within NATO?
It doesn't matter, because no European nation can help us in Kinmen, Luzon, Yonaguni, or Gageodo.
Both us and China are inching towards a Cuban Missile Crisis level standoff in 2028 after the Taiwanese (January 2028) and Phillipines (May 2028) elections.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-sets-2...
From a cursory glance, 2/3 of all arm exports towards NATO country is done by the US. Buying weapons from other NATO countries is a part of being a member in NATO.
So their own wishes on the topic don't matter?
Also I cannot think of many worse fates for Danes than becoming American, yeah I'm sure they can't wait to have their privatised healthcare and Gestapo policing. What Americans want in this scenario matters less than what Russians want in regards to Ukraine.
>>The Danish colonials force-sterilized the native peoples of Greenland.
Would you like me to start listing all the things that Americans have done to both their own citizens in modern times(like injecting people with radioactive compounds just to see why would happen) and in the distant past to the native populations of Northern America?
For a country 38 Trillion in debt this is priceless.
This is pure national security and economic security pragmatism.
The US propped up Europe for 70 years after WW2 and paid for its defense, while the leaders of European countries hollowed out their own capabilities for energy and defense.
We kept the Soviets at bay.
The bill is due - and I don’t want my country to collapse economically or militarily so taking Greenland is easy to reconcile.
I literally couldn't care less about what US "needs". Russia "needs" Ukraine and similarly no one should be respecting them for it. You Americans think you own the world - you don't.
>>and I don’t want my country to collapse economically or militarily so taking Greenland is easy to reconcile.
If you think taking Greenland will do anything of that sort then you are deeply delusional. Trump and the other fascists will stuff their pockets and the inevitable conflict that follows will make your defence companies rich.
>>We kept the Soviets at bay
I'm sorry, what are you talking about exactly? The Soviets that fought with you to defeat the Nazis? The Soviets you have subsidized with billions of dollars during WW2 with weapons and supplies to defeat Hitler? Those Nazis?
>>The US propped up Europe for 70 years after WW2 and paid for its defense
I assume you never actually sat down to think why that is, and if it might have something to do with the fact that US both wanted to do this and it was in their interest to continue doing so. To now say something as stupid as "the bill is due" is uneducated at best, malicious at worst.
A little history lesson: the US has defacto and dejure been defending Greenland since WWII (they've had a defence pact since Denmark fell to the Nazis). US bases have been on Greenland from then to the current day.
Even after Ukraine, Europe buys Russian gas. Even with all the threats from China towards Taiwan, Europeans are cozying up to them. And Europe still doesn't adequately defend itself, with a few exceptions.
While Trump is erratic in public, all recent US moves point to a confrontation with Russia/China in the near future. And Europe just sits by twiddling their thumbs. Feels like Eastern Europe and the Baltics are the only ones who take it seriously.
Actually, it kind of is.
See The Fourth Turning and any other book based on the Strauss-Howe generational theory.
Is this theory air-tight and inviolable? No. Does it more or less support this “silly trope”? Yes. I think it’s safe to say that it is directionally correct.
Least we can do is downvote it.
It's pretty clear that going forward the only real military threat the rest of the world has to concern itself with is the USA.
> There is no sign that Canada and the European nations will be in a position to even put up a shadow of resistance to it.
Same for the US. There has been ample reporting about how there is no shipbuilding capacity in the US (but there still is in Europe).
But nooooo, they gotta buy the whole thing like it's Alaska or something.
I don't get it. Especially because now Russia/China will actually get real interested in the Arctic, plus that they now have an opportunity to disrupt the alliance and delegitimize NATO etc.
The US could simply invade Greenland if it actually refuses to let them stay there, or if an adversary tries to take it over.
That's why I'm so appalled. There is no such imminent threat which would force such a transaction to take place.
Subtle deals like the one I was talking about won't fly as justifications to take action against the US by Russia/China, nor will it up tensions unlike this drama.
The EU should be untangling itself from the US as quickly as possible. Any dependency on it is a major security risk.
It could, at any time, reopen them and move troops there under existing agreements, or build more. Nobody would bat an eyelid.
To pretend this is about defence is nonsense. It’s about taking territory.
They were closed because the Cold War ended and they were no longer needed.
What about the US itself? Is it allowed sovereignty and territorial integrity or should the borders be wide open to tens of millions of illegals?
And what about the UK? And France?
Where are the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity for these countries vs the mass illegal migrations?
Or do these concept only exist in the mind of europeans when the US want to seize Groenland but do not exist when we're talking about the middle-east and africa massively moving into the EU (and US to some extent)?