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.
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.