3 ms·
What is fundamentally wrong with starting negotiations? If they lead to a peaceful transfer of ownership (which I'm very skeptical of myself), that would seem t
by yostrovs 2y ago
What is fundamentally wrong with starting negotiations? If they lead to a peaceful transfer of ownership (which I'm very skeptical of myself), that would seem to be within the rules based order.
Changing the name is for giggles, it would seem.
- consumer451 2y agoBecause one of the core principles of post-WWII peace is that national borders generally stay where they were at the end of the war. The US is now talking about annexing Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal.
- Freedom2 2y agoAnnex implies the use of force. For Greenland in particular, this is about opening negotiations. No doubt just a strong negotiation tactic from the US president, and it's not like it's unusual for the US to conduct negotiations like this anyway.
- yostrovs 2y agoAll kinds of borders changed after WW2, such as Yugoslavia, Soviet Union breaking up, Palestine, Sudan, Germany, Eritrea, Hawaii became a state, Tuva became part of Soviet Union. Hindu Raj broke up into multiple countries. Negotiating for territory that's not its own nation and only a protectorate of another it's perfectly within the order you mention.
- consumer451 2y agoYes, but the age of large powers invading their neighbors ended, again, for the most part.
- yostrovs 2y agoTalk to Russia about that. Trump isn't invading anyone.