Supposing that it's done, one of the things I wander about is whether the EU and the Danes would understand that it's war and act accordingly-- i.e. would the ships stop, would the transatlantic flights stop, would US firms in Europe get told that they're now independent EU subsidiaries unconnected with their parent companies, would Americans in the EU be interned, etc.-- i.e would people react in the normal way that one does when one is at war.
Obviously they'd have to, but I'm curious about whether they'd do it on the first day, or whether they'd sort of wonder around half-understanding "is this war?"
I've gotten an impression from the Danes through this whole affair that they're not getting it and I wonder how little people understand in general, whether war is so foreign to them that they can't react appropriately.
Legitimately: Could they actually do this? The EU still has so many dependencies on tech provided by the US that could be turned off pretty much immediately which would shut the country down. How are they supposed to fight back if their government stops because Microsoft shuts down their Azure accounts, Outlook, Teams, etc.?
Same goes the other way, the US has dependencies on Europe when it comes to various technologies, that would stop immediately if the US decides to be violent towards its allies. I'm sure Europe could survive without Microsoft Office, what would the US do if they stop being able to get machine tooling since that industry all but disappeared in the US, and the US doesn't have any allies left?
Russia has been theoretically cut off from advanced machinery for years, the west just started selling stuff to central asian countries who resell it to Russia and we all behave as if it's normal.
The truth is that Russia is suffering because of this, but they've been able to maintain a semblance of normality by building some parts themselves and obtaining the rest from China.
Their fleet of Boeing and Airbus jetliners is slowly falling apart. They're extracting chips from washing machines to put in missiles. They're even sending soldiers to the front lines in flimsy electric golf carts.
The sanctions are not working as well as the US hoped but they are working.
> Russia has been theoretically cut off from advanced machinery for years, the west just started selling stuff to central asian countries who resell it to Russia and we all behave as if it's normal.
China makes advanced machinery, and Russia also buys from them.
And apparently Indians. Unfortunately the worldwide supply of poor and desperate young men is virtually infinite so Russia will be able to recruit more mercenaries as long as they have cash from fossil fuel exports.
Huh? Haas 100% supports Russia and does whatever they can to get them stuff. The owner personally is pro-Russia. F Haas, and f' Formula1 with the Haas racing team.
The Department of the Treasury thinks they violated sanctions and they were required to pay over a million dollars in fines. I'm not sure how you make 'two side to the story' out of that?
> How are they supposed to fight back if their government stops because Microsoft shuts down their Azure accounts, Outlook, Teams, etc.?
Tell ASML that that they couldn't ship any new machines or parts to the US. Tell TSMC that if they want to receive ASML machines/parts they cannot send chips they make with ASML machines to the US.
There are US-made parts in ASML machines (AIUI). The two major chip design software companies are also American.
So we're in a M.A.D. situation when it comes to tech.
You can imagine anything from the US trying to steal any valuable materials or information related to lithography that it can, to actively destroying what it can't usefully steal, right? It's not like both sides would just sit there and declare foreign strategically-important companies off-limits.
It seems naive to assume Canada isn't on Trump's shopping list given he has said the exact opposite in the past, though I'm also not sure I understand what you mean/what that had to do with my comment.
That's exactly what I'm talking about too. Some combination of intelligence/military operations would almost certainly target companies like ASML during war, no? Why would you assume its assets would stay intact and remain on the Europe side?
Would ASML be able to produce these machines without parts from the US? My guess is no, because they represent the culmination of decades of research across the entire developed world.
> In 1887 a German-born, long-time Merck employee, Theodore Weicker, went to the United States to represent Merck Group.[8] In 1891, with $200,000 received from E. Merck, Weicker started Merck & Co., with headquarters in lower Manhattan. ...
> After the U.S. entered World War I, due to its German connections, Merck & Co. was the subject of expropriation under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.[10] The government seized 80 percent of the shares owned by the German parent company and sold it. ... Merck & Co. holds the trademark rights to the "Merck" name in the United States and Canada, while its former parent company retains the rights in the rest of the world; the right to use the Merck name was the subject of litigation between the two companies in 2016.
> Legitimately: Could they actually do this? The EU still has so many dependencies on tech provided by the US that could be turned off pretty much immediately which would shut the country down. How are they supposed to fight back if their government stops because Microsoft shuts down their Azure accounts, Outlook, Teams, etc.?
Or more relevantly: shuts down the flow of spare parts and supplies for military equipment.
Globalization makes this kind of stuff hard to reason about. The end result will probably be something like China can go to war (and win) whenever it wants, and no one else can fight without Chinese permission. The reason is the Chinese seems to be the only ones smart enough to prioritize manufacturing capacity and actually keeping their supply chains local, while everyone else's military supply chains will be low capacity and/or intersect with a Chinese choke point.
China lacks internal supply chains for many crucial commodities including fossil fuels, soybeans, iron, copper, fertilizers, etc. They are themselves quite vulnerable to import disruptions and have minimal capability to secure their sea lines of communication beyond the first island chain.
Isn't it If he leaves office at this point, or does it only sound like it from Europe?
They've been testing the waters for way to frequently with seemingly very little pushback... to me, a third presidency is basically guaranteed at this point - one way or another. If they need to falsify the results they'll rationalize it via the "stolen election"
If I was a gambling man I'd have already spend a few thousand on polymarket. I'm not though, so it'll abstain
> Isn't it If he leaves office at this point, or does it only sound like it from Europe?
While I appreciate your sentiment, we really need to stop with this specific type of pearl clutching.
The current president’s mental and physical condition is deteriorating rapidly. He will be lucky to make it through the current term in a functional state.
Adding another number of years to his time in office would mean that he almost literally would need to be propped up by his caretakers.
Is it possible? Sure. Is it probable? No, and it’s not even close, imho.
There is plenty of commentary that can be made about the political machine behind him, but let’s not project that to the dotard currently in office.
"We don't need to worry about the guy making serious noises about an unconstitutional 3rd term because he might die in office" is a position that does not do anything about the problems that have allowed Trump to happen. Could even say it leaves fertile ground for the next populist authoritarian who comes along.
We must challenge the unitary executive theory. America is not intended to be a dictatorship or monarchy. It's not OK for Trump / those in his orbit to make comments about a 3rd term, it is a problem, it is something we need to take seriously.
> “We don't need to worry about the guy making serious noises about an unconstitutional 3rd term because he might die in office" is a position that does not do anything about the problems that have allowed Trump to happen. Could even say it leaves fertile ground for the next populist authoritarian who comes along.
> We must challenge the unitary executive theory. America is not intended to be a dictatorship or monarchy. It's not OK for Trump / those in his orbit to make comments about a 3rd term, it is a problem, it is something we need to take seriously.
This is all covered in my last paragraph (which, imho, is a separate issue from the current president):
“There is plenty of commentary that can be made about the political machine behind him, but let’s not project that to the dotard currently in office.”
The current president isn’t smart enough to do what it takes to stay in office more than two terms. This is all the work of those around him.
To be more pointed, fixating on Trump rather than the political and social machine around him — which many people seem to do — is missing the forest for the trees.
This isn't really trump, he's not the one with the plan, it's all project 2025 people, even Venezuela is a bullet point in it. There's about zero chance it ends with trump unless the cult of personality dies with him.
Had America gone about it in another way and explained to its nato allies it needed to build more bases in Greenland it would have been done with barely a headline.
Zero sum games. If Greenland is independent, it would also get a percentage of the natural resources it extracts, which is money that the US oligarchy does not get.
Important note that Greenland is not in the EU (although Denmark is), so likely the EU would at first think this is not their concern. (I think this would be a wrong thing to think, but that's how it would be diffused at first.)
> so likely the EU would at first think this is not their concern.
No, the EU might not contain the top-of-the-top when it comes to people aware of what's going on, but not even EU is so dimwitted to brush aside an invasion of Greenland as "not our concern".
Not to mention that Greenland is an autonomous part of Denmark, and Denmark is very much a part of the EU.
They're not dimwitted, they're next-level cowards. Big difference. They will gladly take whatever Trump gives to them because they're more afraid about actually standing up for something.
> No, the EU might not contain the top-of-the-top when it comes to people aware of what's going on, but not even EU is so dimwitted to brush aside an invasion of Greenland as "not our concern".
So far the French president is welcoming what happened in Venezuela. How do you imagine he feels about the implications for Greenland and Europe?
Article 5 does not, contrary to popular belief, require military response. Go read the wording. It basically requires members to do exactly what they would be already required to do: whatever they want.
Not necessarily. Such an event would be a geopolitical reenactment of the Danish folk tale "The Emperor's New Clothes". Turns out the emperor isn't just naked he's still living in his parent's basement. And the emperor here is Europe and the parents are the US. Why would I as a German support a war over an island that has not just been criminally neglected by a supposed alley (Denmark), it is even politically and economically irrelevant (as of now). And not just that ... "we" have been begging the US to keep protecting us and for them Greenland is in that respect very much serving a purpose in line with that very military support. Europe is naked as it stands. I don't like it. But that's just how it is.
I find your analogy to be extremely strange. We are extremely well-armed. Greenland has also not been neglected in any way.
With regard to why you should care about Greenland, you've signed an agreement to do it, you are after all in NATO.
There has indeed been co-operation in protecting Greenland and this is very reasonable considering that the US has a presence there in the form of their military bases. I don't see this co-operation as begging.
The disrespectful, colonialist treatment of Greenland by Denmark is sufficiently well documented. And if you think Europe stands a chance in a war against US then I don't even know what to say anymore ...
No one is calling for war, but it's not like that documented history happened in this century. Greenland had been part of Denmark since the vikings. Surely we can get past the history and talk in today's terms. The people of Greenland have a voice in Danish politics and both the people and politicians said NO to wanting to have US rule them and YES to stay with Denmark.
So yes, defending Greenland becomes a case of helping a people stay free and not invaded, no matter the enemy.
It's silly to say "well we have no chance against" because then you can end that with China, Russia or even India.
Then you are the deluded one, because Europe has nukes and if Europe dissapears under US nukes, California turns into a big crater and NYC ceases to exist. Everyone - I repeat, everyone - losses. USA, Europe, China, the rest of the world. Everything lost like the Bronze Age, but far worse.
> Obviously they'd have to, but I'm curious about whether they'd do it on the first day, or whether they'd sort of wonder around half-understanding "is this war?"
It'll be a couple of days or weeks before actual realization happen, and it won't be because of the politicians, it'll be because of the massive demonstrations, protests and general strikes, that finally the governments will understand that something has to be done.
> I wonder how little people understand in general, whether war is so foreign to them that they can't react appropriately.
I think most of us got used to the idea that most others don't actually want war, and there is a lot of posturing going on. Wrongly, this was assumed of the current US administration too, which luckily changed really fast because of yesterday and previous actions.
Europe has a long history of devastating wars, the US not so much, and I think Europe tries much harder to avoid violent conflicts than the US (duh), so when you have an ally knocking on your door, presenting threats, Europe kind of defaults to thinking it's posturing, but if boots actually land on Greenland (outside of the existing base), I think the winds will change relatively quickly.
No one does general strikes during wars, or really, strikes at all. At least we wouldn't here in Sweden.
I don't know what the trigger for these kinds of things would be, in case people were slow on the uptake-- maybe sabotage by American citizens, something like that.
I don’t think they will. As you say Europe avoids war as much as it can - it’s not going to go to war over the latest salmi tactic (base expansion in an uninhabited part of Greenland, then maybe a new base, then blockading of the towns.
Maybe Trump’s golf course in Scotland will sanctioned, that’s as far as it will go
The interacting question is how many bodies coming back under flags will it take before the american public say “enough”.
Well UK is out on day one since we cannot fly F35s without signed sw updates to load the mission profile. Not that UK, France, EU have a hope of fighting independently of US since Suez anyway.
Which would become a very interesting situation from a geopolitical POV.
Because Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, i.e. a NATO country.
Which means Denmark could declare war AND invoke NATO Article 5 against the United States:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."
Which means not only Denmark, but also Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom will immediately be in a state of war with a founding member of NATO - namely the United States. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO)
Up until yesterday most of us felt the same about "Going into Venezuela and kidnap the president of a sovereign nation" but here we are. Sure, it was also not out of nowhere, but I don't think anyone thought Trump needed such an abrasive distraction from the internal conflicts in the nation.
> to a point where USA might find it's all alone in the world.
I think the US might be misleading itself if it doesn't realize that it already is. We still care for the people, but the government of the US has truly shown that it cannot be an ally today, and the rest of the world already realize this, seems the US is the last to understand it.
I don't mean to downplay how terrible the current US administration is, but removing political leaders in Latin America has been a USA tradition and nobody really considers it odd. The US invading an allied country hasn't happened often.
Truly this attack on foreign soil is something without precedents for the USA. What's next, destabilize entire regions? Cause wars? Fund terrorists? Military occupation?
No matter what, let's not forget Ukraine is being attacked by evil Russia.
> Truly this attack on foreign soil is something without precedents for the USA. What's next, destabilize entire regions? Cause wars? Fund terrorists? Military occupation?
All those things have lots of precedent for the USA.
Oh. Yep. I’m just so used to HN seriously thinking Trump is some new kind of evil unleashed on the world— as opposed to just more of the same thing, wrapped up in a tackier and cruder wrapper— that I only read the first sentence and replied. That’s me being a bad HN denizen for the day.
But on the other hand, Trump's treatment of Europe so far – especially in his second term – would be entirely shocking to the sensibilities of any westerner anno 2015. I'm not so sure the US isn't already steaming willingly towards lonesomeness and antagonizing all of its former friends.
You’re right, but it’s like that kid at school who’s a bully and a d*ck but everyone tolerates and stays kinda friendly with because they’re a bit scared of him, and his parents have the best house for parties.
The US can probably go a lot further than they currently have, before a meaningful coalition of meaningful countries will do anything significant —even just economically or diplomatically— against them in return.
Trump has nothing to lose. He's almost 80, doesn't care for Europe or NATO, and is clearly desperate to be remembered for something significant.
Kidnapping Maduro doesn't really ensure his name in the history books. But if he annexes Greenland and/or Canada, then he's the next Jefferson or Jackson.
He might even rename Greenland+Canada to Trumpland.
> Kidnapping Maduro doesn't really ensure his name in the history books.
I genuinely think this one got them exactly what they wanted. They felt like manly men doing manly men things. Figuratively speaking, they got off on it, stroke egos, felt the excitement of watching the attack and feeling like being the ones who made it.
All those involved are very emotional guys. Not emotional as in liking romance, but emotional as in "driven by feelings and emotions". This made them feel good and manly.
I can't think of a realistic, non-cynical reason that doesn't begin and end with "oil" for even looking funny at Venezuela. The whole "drugs 'r bad" thing doesn't wash.
There are a couple of things I can think of. There's the human rights stuff with torture chambers and a third of the population leaving which doesn't seem to bother Trump but the Venezuelans don't much like.
Gotta be honest: "the human rights stuff with torture chambers" sounds like a bonus to a Trumpista. MAGA is not known for its progressive stance on human rights. More the opposite, really, as long as it's not them doing the suffering (or even being mildly inconvenienced).
You're thinking about it from a sane POV, but the people at the helm are insane. The only question is: would invading Greenland please Trump, yes or no?
Except that our transformation into "the bad guys" is already complete. We no longer have the trust or respect of most of the world. The "end of the empire" is already well under way.
It wont happen unless you want the US bases in Europe kicked out fast and every
terror atempt done by the US answered by a massive company expulsion from Europe
starting from Mastercard and Visa and everyone forced to migrate to local banks.
Alright everyone, we're going back to Ericsson phones!
Jokes aside, isn't pushing Europe into China's hands exactly what the USA doesn't want? Part of the motivation behind Venezuela was they were getting too cozy with China.
It's impossible to stand alone and still have access to all top tech in todays world. US will obviously rely much more on china without EU trade.
EU is currently dependent on US for software/cloud.
US is dependent on EU in advanced machinery, precision tooling and high end manufacturing equipment.
The US imports massive amounts of chemicals, drugs and vaccines from the EU.
Both regions would look to china for replacements probably.
A major downside and risk for Europe is that they would have to get the share LNG from the US from elsewhere, as it's not self sufficient energy wise, but this would most likely not come from China.
The US did appoint a representative for Greenland a few weeks ago. It is not inconceiveable that at some point in the future they will let Denmark know that Greeland is a US territory and that’s that.
And realistically, if this happens, in the next 3 years there is nothing anyone can do anything about it.
Post January it could be yet another impeachment, this time it might stick, especially if the project 25 people think trumps causing more harm than Vance.
This is another lie - Venezuela is not mentioned at all in Project 2025. If you believe I'm wrong (and I'm not), please cite the chapter and page that the section on Venezuela is located in.
> Katie Miller, the former administration official-turned-podcaster and wife of deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, posted an image on her X account on Saturday showing a map of Greenland colored by the American flag with a one-word caption: “SOON.” [0]
Great, the USA collectively decided to elect not only stupid arrogants, it selected the violent ones.
What's the goalpost now to call this administration fascist?
It's a YOLO presidency, so sure, why not? Time and time again we've cycled:
1. That's outrageous
2. He's joking
3. But what if he's not joking?
4. We're doing it
Sometimes it stops at 2, but Trump is definitely like that awkward teenage boy who says to the girl he secretly likes, "What if we just, like, made out? That would be crazy, right?"
Nothing new to anyone who follows what goes on in the rest of the world. The West (mostly Europe) just sat in comfort until Putin and now Trump and they are still adjusting to the fact that the world is actually very hostile.
I still don't understand why some people wanted to capture Putin so much and now against Maduro capture when clearly Maduro has done something uncomparably worse to the people in his country.
Greenland is of course a very different deal compared to Venezuela, it will be interesting to see the political push to the EU.
Sovereignty means wrongs done by a head of state outside of the borders of the state are more suitable for international response than wrongs done within the state. Probably including usurping the head of state position.
Also, charges of war crimes are more serious than charges of drug trafficing.
> America did that whole “leader is bad let’s get him”, in Afghanistan and Iraq. We saw how that turned out.
Don't forget that the main countries who fought in the Iraq war were the US, UK, Australia, and Poland, with significant contributions from Spain, Denmark, The Netherlands, and Italy.
In Afganistan, countries fighting were the US, UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, France, Poland, The Netherlands, Turkey, Georgia, Romania, Denmark, Norway, Spain, New Zealand, South Korea.
I don't see this is happening, it's a tremendous death from removing a dictator who's authority was legitimate, to invading Greenland. I just don't see that and I think this is more click bait and rage bait. I don't agree with how it was done, but I'm glad to see maduro gone, but it's opened a very, very, very dangerous door.....
Right. Anyone who thinks this is not a real threat is sadly deluded.
However, if you think through the scenarios, the US is in a very strong military position and there's not much Denmark or the EU as a whole would be able to do about it. They could threaten a direct military response, on the basis of making the annexation more trouble than it's worth, but then you're just playing chicken with a significantly crazier enemy.
Most likely the EU would try to calm the waters, and offer a compromise peace / surrender plan along the lines of the one the US has offered Russia in Ukraine.
The biggest obstacle ought to be political opposition and public protests within the US itself, but right now the US government is in a position to just move fast and make things happen, what with the weak Congress and compliant Supreme Court.
I hope and believe it'll become much less likely after the midterms, with a Democrat-led Congress motivated to push back against the executive's excesses.
It would start off with a complete boycott of anything US made and that will result in a lot of irreversible damage.
This is a path to madness and I'm really surprised that there are no saner heads in the US putting a stop to this before it gets even further out of control. I'm even more surprised at how many people in the US support this, either tacitly or even outright.
Flagged? As in flagged we’re the US company, obviously Republican, obviously trump supporting? Or just ‘meh, sorry, more comments then the likes, cannot do anything’?
You won't be reading about the end of the world on HN either, it will be flagged as off topic. HN is a lot of good things but there are also some very annoying sharp edges and abuse of flagging privileges is definitely one of those. But you take the good with the bad.
I do agree, thanks for formulating this. A brief thought visited me, isn’t that how propaganda works? Like, you’re getting mostly correct info, with some things censored, others saturated.
Yes, that is part of it. And part of it is 'useful idiots' doing what the propagandists would do as well.
On HN you will find people from a lot of different countries with a lot of different viewpoints. The main reason politics (and religion) are mostly taboo on here is because those subjects tend to polarize and turn the place into yet another shithole. So I can see why there is a strong push to keep those off the site.
But at the same time I'm realistic enough to know that everything has a political angle and that you can not solve a problem like this by denying its existence. That just makes it a bigger problem.
The mods here have an un-enviable job, they walk a very fine line with an extremely smart audience, and they are doing an absolutely amazing job of it given that most people would fail in that position in about 30 seconds flat. It is as even handed as you could possibly make it. But flagging is not a moderator action, it is the users and I've seen them be abused more than once, either because of personal dislikes or because of brigading.
Even so, you'd be hard pressed to find a place with better discourse on a large variety of subjects.
Because it is baseless fearmongering. US is not going to invade Greenland or Canada. For these two the ambition is clearly in diplomacy/marketing only.
I love how this is a community that talks about the singularity and transhumanism and all that sci-magick-fi nonsense as if it was going to happen next year, but a real geopolitical threat the likes of which have happened countless times in the last 500 years is considered impossible...
I love how you think that improbable capture of Canada is a real geopolitical threat, but losing the status of the dominant species apparently isn't. You think wars happened a lot? How many species were dominant before us and where are they all now?
It can happen in multiple ways, doesn't need to be an invasion.
I also think there is no way this is actually going to happen, but its obviously big news in itself that Trump and people in his circles are not willing to rule it out and are actively hinting at it.
Its kind of ridiculous that we’re all just supposed to make our own interpretations when the president is just talking shit again or being serious.
It's not discussing wanting Greenland that is wrong, its threatening an ally about it through media instead of going about it in a diplomatic and friendly way. The motives also don't seem rational at all, but more about boosting Trumps ego and legacy. Trump obviously have an imperialism itch he is trying to scratch.
This is incredibly damaging for the USs reputation and alliance with the rest of the western world. A lot of European leaders are now one after one posting on X that Greenland belongs to Denmark.
Not excluding taking Greenland using military force would never have happened without Trump as president.
The EU is already an enemy in the eyes of the US, even though it isn't reciprocated.
Not sure what would happen if the US attacked Greenland, attacking a close ally you have literal agreements about protecting each other kind of forces NATO into new territory. My hunch is that the NATO would be dissolved, and everyone would have to team up against the aggressor.
> My hunch is that the NATO would be dissolved, and everyone would have to team up against the aggressor.
And do what exactly against the US? You can’t invade it, geographically they can easily defend Greenland from any invasion force. And speaking of an invasion force, how many countries do you know that can deploy an expeditionary force strong enough to take on the US?
US would be isolated with sanctions, EU may join to the BRICS (or a partial homologous?).
So I'm not sure if the above is his main intention, or if he is telling Greenland to join the EU (altruism? hmmm), or if we're witnessing how he sent his businesses bankrupt [1] , or if I'm missing something.
Trump specialises in sending his businesses, hotels and casinos bankrupt, to the point banks stopped lending him money, so he turned to the Russian oligarchy for funding.
We are talking about an senary were the market and energy importation from US finish, that would push EU toward the East, Are you sure we will not return to Russia to supply that energy?
Or with other words, Do you think that what happened to the unfortunate Uranians is not related to cut Russian oligarchy tentacles over the EU through energy supply?
At some point you have to stop appeasing and actually take a stand. I’m sure America will say they just need breathing room, I can see Starmer coming back from Florida with a note saying “peace in our time”.
In the latest national security strategy the US defined the EU as an enemy. Also, when you read the chats from that Signal group where a reporter was accidentally added, you can see the resentment those people feel towards the EU.
What? The whole Promoting European Greatness section is obviously an attack on the EU. They want to break it up.
It states the goal is to help Europe operate as a "group of aligned sovereign nations" rather than a unified political or economic entity.
It explicitly calls for "cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations."
It claims that the EU and other "transnational bodies" are responsible for a "stark prospect of civilizational erasure."
It attacks the EU’s regulatory framework, calling it "economic suicide" and "stifling regulation". Suggesting that the U.S. will prioritize trade and technology sharing with "aligned countries" that reject these EU standards, creating economic incentives for member states to break away from EU-wide rules.
It emphasizes building up "the healthy nations of central, eastern, and southern Europe"—specifically those that "want to restore their former greatness"
> 56% of Greenlanders answer that they would vote yes to Greenlandic independence if a referendum were held today, 28% would vote no, and 17% do not know what they would vote for.
Bit strong to say "Greelanders want to be independent" when it's only 56%, it's about half the ones surveyed. But more importantly:
> The results show that 85% of Greenlanders do not want to leave the Realm and become part of the United States, while 6% want to leave the Danish Realm and become part of the United States, whereas the remaining 9% are undecided.
Since a common tactic to gain a pretext for an invasion is "These people want to be independent!" I feel like it's important to point out than Greenlanders overwhelmingly don't want to be a part of the US, judging by that same survey you linked.
So if the choice were to be "Be a part of Denmark" or "Be a part of the US", the majority would stick with Denmark.
Also, the survey is from "22nd to 26th of January 2025", pretty much a year ago, with ~500 people answering, and I'm pretty sure the results would look different today, especially since yesterday.
As mentioned, I'd love to see another survey from this month. My guess, at least based on talking with some acquaintances who are Danish with ancestors in Greenland, is that many now realize that "independent" isn't a realistic choice, given the current circumstances. So it really is between "Denmark with the protection of NATO" or "US with the protection of US by itself".
Yes, of course, the organization with its bureaucratic center being in Belgium, and military headquarters also being in Brussels, IS obviously just the US and the US only.
I'm sorry to tell you, but the world is actually larger than the US, regardless of what your current media is trying to tell you. If the US actually dared to attack Denmark, an ally, I'm fairly certain France and The UK would stop being allies to the US, because suddenly "ally" doesn't mean anything anymore.
>I'm sorry to tell you, but the world is actually larger than the US
Let me tell you since you think i am from the US, i am not.
>France and The UK would stop being allies to the US
No they don't because there's one other choice and that's china, the right of Denmark to keep Greenland is simply not important enough in a multi-polar world.
>bureaucratic center being in Belgium, and military headquarters also being in Brussels
Yes and you can bet that Belgium would rater lick Donald's boots then help Denmark.
That independence is ready for them when they want it, they just wanted a slow transition. It's going according to their plan.
Obviously a huge superpower threatening them is a reason to want less independence not more, due to the military support possibilities.
Also, do you really think they will have independence under American flag? They will be a second-rate US state just like Puerto Rico is. People with no rights to vote, that are just considered good enough by the Americans to throw them a few toilet rolls for a photo-op when their country is ruined by natural disaster.
Holland is a stupid lap dog of the US. They didn't even want to issue a statement condemning the Venezuela operation. It's the most strongly neoliberal country left in the EU since the British left. Also always falling over themselves to apologise for Israeli war crimes. This is why Rutte became SG of NATO, his neoliberal oligarch party was always an American lapdog.
I don't expect any kind of action from them about Greenland. Denmark maybe, they're also pretty right-wing but it affects them directly. And Spain which have much less of an issue giving a middle finger to Trump.
True exaggeration. The US had the chance to take Norway before they become millionaires from fishermen. Greenland is a possible target but in the (very) far future. Venezuela is the current easy target which will suffer immensely from the Oil-curse syndrome.
It's a point for defense against Russia, I think is the main argument (besides the rare metal one).
Take a look at a map of the world from the point of view of North Pole, and you'll understand why warmongers think it's an important point to hold: https://i.imgur.com/LE8DKGR.png
This argument has been rebuked over and over again. Denmark and the USA already have an agreement allowing the USA to establish military bases on Greenland [1]. There used to be a lot of USA military bases on Greenland and currently there is but one: Pituffik Space Base.
Obviously they'd have to, but I'm curious about whether they'd do it on the first day, or whether they'd sort of wonder around half-understanding "is this war?"
I've gotten an impression from the Danes through this whole affair that they're not getting it and I wonder how little people understand in general, whether war is so foreign to them that they can't react appropriately.