4 ms·

I doubt it. Because the western premises and good faith leans on the non written law of not taking eachothers land. Exactly what Russia did in Ukraine. But th

I doubt it. Because the western premises and good faith leans on the non written law of not taking eachothers land. Exactly what Russia did in Ukraine. But that doesn't mean the guy is not doing it. The option is there. One thing we don't know yet is whether US intelligence knows something we don't, in terms of China and or Russia. USA has since 1942 I believe had the military defence over the island, so in that capacity its not something new.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
I mean, best case possible interpretation is that he meant "sure, if Russia was about to occupy it, we could do that" - avoiding saying "no way" so that nobody can say that he flip-flopped on it later. In context, with talking about using "economic force" to force a US "unification" of Canada? I'm less likely to give him the maximum benefit of the doubt.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the western premises and good faith leans on the non written law of not taking eachothers land We’re in the midst of the collapse of the rules-based international order. America ignored it in Iraq and Libya. Russia ignored it in Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. China is ignoring it across the South China Sea, Hong Kong and Tibet. (For brevity I’m largely ignoring the Middle East and entire continent of Africa.) The only ones holding onto the system for dear life are the Europeans, and even there they’re starting to wise up. I’m not thrilled about what’s to come. But it’s clear that just because annexing through force is de jure illegal doesn’t have much bearing onto whether it will happen.
mytailorisrich 2y ago
Well the US invaded Greenland when Germany invaded Denmark in WWII and have had a military presence ever since. The US also engineered Panama's independence in order to get sovereignty over the canal zone, which they completed. And then of course they actually invaded the country in 1989.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  "Invaded" implies a hostile, or at least forceful takeover. That's not what happened. In fact its local government reached out to the US and agreed to come under its wing as a de-facto protectorate, which it saw as a preferable alternative to Canadanian/British (and in any case German) intervention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_in_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_in_World_War_II
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    Ok, they "occupied" Greenland if you prefer although if they didn't have Copenhagen's greenlight it was an invasion. But that's largely semantics and does not address the general point and the fact that the US's interest in Greenland is not new despite Trump being Trump and they were keen to keep it. Even at the time it was not new.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      [dead]
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  Just learned from Wikipedia that the US previously considered buying Greenland in 1867 and actually made an offer to buy it in 1946. So the idea is clearly not new. Now, this is Trump so a lot of bluster and unclear what he is actually getting at but in an historical perspective neither this nor (re)gaining control of the Panama canal (which the US only fully relinquished in 1999) are new or crazy.
p2detar 2y ago
> One thing we don't know yet is whether US intelligence knows something we don't, in terms of China and or Russia. Isn't it a matter of resource mining? Greenland is getting warmer and thus the access to its resources becomes gradually easier.
- jakeinspace 2y ago
  I think control of shipping channels (northwest passage especially), natural deep water ports, and military installations are the main potential values. The oil and gas will likely never have much value, since by the time they’re thawed, the price of both will presumably have collapsed. The rare earth elements and uranium might be nice but bringing in the equipment and infrastructure to do serious mining will takr decades.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

I mean, best case possible interpretation is that he meant "sure, if Russia was about to occupy it, we could do that" - avoiding saying "no way" so that nobody can say that he flip-flopped on it later. In context, with talking about using "economic force" to force a US "unification" of Canada? I'm less likely to give him the maximum benefit of the doubt.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> the western premises and good faith leans on the non written law of not taking eachothers land We’re in the midst of the collapse of the rules-based international order. America ignored it in Iraq and Libya. Russia ignored it in Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. China is ignoring it across the South China Sea, Hong Kong and Tibet. (For brevity I’m largely ignoring the Middle East and entire continent of Africa.) The only ones holding onto the system for dear life are the Europeans, and even there they’re starting to wise up. I’m not thrilled about what’s to come. But it’s clear that just because annexing through force is de jure illegal doesn’t have much bearing onto whether it will happen.

mytailorisrich 2y ago

Well the US invaded Greenland when Germany invaded Denmark in WWII and have had a military presence ever since. The US also engineered Panama's independence in order to get sovereignty over the canal zone, which they completed. And then of course they actually invaded the country in 1989.

aguaviva 2y ago
"Invaded" implies a hostile, or at least forceful takeover. That's not what happened. In fact its local government reached out to the US and agreed to come under its wing as a de-facto protectorate, which it saw as a preferable alternative to Canadanian/British (and in any case German) intervention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_in_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_in_World_War_II
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  Ok, they "occupied" Greenland if you prefer although if they didn't have Copenhagen's greenlight it was an invasion. But that's largely semantics and does not address the general point and the fact that the US's interest in Greenland is not new despite Trump being Trump and they were keen to keep it. Even at the time it was not new.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    [dead]
mytailorisrich 2y ago
Just learned from Wikipedia that the US previously considered buying Greenland in 1867 and actually made an offer to buy it in 1946. So the idea is clearly not new. Now, this is Trump so a lot of bluster and unclear what he is actually getting at but in an historical perspective neither this nor (re)gaining control of the Panama canal (which the US only fully relinquished in 1999) are new or crazy.

p2detar 2y ago

> One thing we don't know yet is whether US intelligence knows something we don't, in terms of China and or Russia. Isn't it a matter of resource mining? Greenland is getting warmer and thus the access to its resources becomes gradually easier.

jakeinspace 2y ago
I think control of shipping channels (northwest passage especially), natural deep water ports, and military installations are the main potential values. The oil and gas will likely never have much value, since by the time they’re thawed, the price of both will presumably have collapsed. The rare earth elements and uranium might be nice but bringing in the equipment and infrastructure to do serious mining will takr decades.