5 ms·

I mean, I think that's obvious. Ukraine obviously wouldn't contract anything essential from Russia, same goes for Denmark/Greenland and the US. You don't threat

I mean, I think that's obvious. Ukraine obviously wouldn't contract anything essential from Russia, same goes for Denmark/Greenland and the US. You don't threaten countries you want to do business with. It's also not very "between the lines" at all, the article finishes with: > Binzer said the company will keep an open mind for future partnerships, but the priority remains clear. Greenland’s communication systems must stay under Greenlandic control. Sovereignty is more important than ever, and governments are catching up to this fact.

chrisco255 1y ago
[flagged]
- azernik 1y ago
  An "offer" that included an explicit threat of military force if it wasn't accepted. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/04/world/greenland-annexation-threat-trump-nbc-interview-intl-hnk https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/04/world/greenland-annexatio...
  - chrisco255 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - azernik 1y ago
      That is not what "military action" means.
    - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
      > was never a threat > it wasnt a threat of force How are you not seeing yourself moving the goal post here?
      - mlrtime 1y ago
        Because they were never moved. What action has taken place? This is 100% anxiety.
        CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
        Yes, of course it's anxiety, because you have one island with a tiny population listening to a leader of a huge military power saying "We'll get Greenland one way or another". Is it surprising people are feeling anxious when what they thought was a military partner starts to threaten other partners? Do you not realize how that is perceived by others?
        cindyllm 1y ago
        [dead]
        mlrtime 1y ago
        How about stop listening? Or maybe try to understand the actual intention here?
        CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
        Parent initially said: > The offer to buy Greenland from Denmark was never a threat Then afterwards said: > No it wasnt a threat of force How is that not moving the goal post? They realize they cannot argue for "it wasn't a threat" anymore so they now started arguing it wasn't a "threat of force" instead. Completely missing the point why countries suddenly feel it's necessary to setup defenses in case an ally decide to take "military action" against them.
        chrisco255 1y ago
        No the parent initially said: "You know the U.S. has operational military bases on Greenland soil and Denmark was a founding member of NATO and remains an active member, right? The offer to buy Greenland from Denmark was never a threat. It was an offer. The U.S. has made similar territorial purchases in the past, including most famously from our oldest ally the French known as the Lousiana Purchase." The offer to buy Greenland wasn't a threat. Greenland isn't setting up defenses against the U.S. Denmark and Greenland are part of NATO and run mutual defense exercises regularly. NORAD runs out of Greenland. There is no threat by the United States to Greenland. The U.S. already runs a military base there and has had several other shuttered ones in the past. There are threats to Greenland from external actors besides the U.S. including especially Russia that is directly across the Arctic. That's why NORAD runs intercontinental missile detection in Greenland. There is an offer to Greenland and to Denmark, that if Greenland takes it, would mean Greenland would get billions of dollars in funding and economic boosts to their economy, in addition to even stronger guarantees of defense. If the mutual relationship with the U.S. is not desired, then U.S. can always walk. That's not a threat, that's called mutual exchange. If someone wants a divorce, accepting it and walking away isn't a threat.
    - DrewADesign 1y ago
      That’s right. And Luca Brasi wasn’t threatening the band leader when he put the gun to his head. There’s a lot of reasons he could have been holding the gun like that— maybe he didn’t have his reading glasses and he was trying to read the serial number? Maybe he was comparing the the band leader’s hair sheen to a known reference gun? If the band leader then ‘decided’ to sign the contract to let Johnny Fontaine leave, it certainly wouldn’t be intentionally coercive.
      - JackFr 1y ago
        To be fair Luca Brazil did explicitly assure the bandleader that either his signature or his brains would be on the contract before he left. So that’s kind of a threat.
        DrewADesign 1y ago
        He was clearly inviting him to either add his signature, or a brain dump of possible changes to the agreement. Case closed.
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  > You know the U.S. has operational military bases on Greenland soil and Denmark was a founding member of NATO and remains an active member, right? Bases as in multiple? Didn't they shut down all but one? > was never a threat. It was an offer Is this a joke? The president has literally said they're not ruling out military force to annex Greenland, in what world isn't that a threat? Especially when said to a military partner no less. When the US purchased Lousiana from the French, did the bid also come with a "if you don't agree, we might take it by force" addendum?
  - chrisco255 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - mschuster91 1y ago
      > He said he wouldn't take "military action" off the table. Which doesn't mean invasion. You are imprinting that. ... based on the fact that the US did quite a lot of questionably legal invasion campaigns over the last decades and Trump having signed an EO to "rename" DoD to Department of War. It's not an unrealistic interpretation. > This is the same guy that just negotiated peace between Gaza and Israel. He re-hashed Biden's negotiations and takes credit for it. Classic Trump. > He doesn't take options off the table because it automatically weakens your negotiation position. What "negotiations"? We don't live in times any more where kings can distribute pieces of land and the people living on it at will - no matter what Trump thinks he is.
      - chrisco255 1y ago
        > the US did quite a lot of questionably legal invasion campaigns The U.S. is a sovereign country, and Congress approved all the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan for better or worse, and it was bipartisan. Renaming Department of Defense to Department of War is something like the opposite of doublespeak. It's more honest, isn't it? > He re-hashed Biden's negotiations and takes credit for it. Classic Trump. No. The entire Gaza situation erupted under Biden's presidency. As did the Ukraine invasion. The Biden presidency was completely powerless to stop any of this from occurring. Biden, the same guy that bumbled through sentences and lost track of topics in the presidential debate and was replaced by his own party's superdelegates in 2024 after he won the state primaries, had nothing to do with this. > What "negotiations"? We don't live in times any more where kings can distribute pieces of land and the people living on it at will - no matter what Trump thinks he is. There's 185 countries on planet earth. Many of them are run by literal kings and some of them are run by king-like figures. The U.S. absolutely isn't one of them, but when it comes to international politics, the duly elected President is the negotiator-in-chief. This follows in a long history of deal-making, going all the way back to President Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase from France. Ironically, Denmark itself does have a king!
- dxdm 1y ago
  > The offer to buy Greenland from Denmark was never a threat. It was an offer. The highest ranking member of the US executive, in a publicly televised speech before Congress, said that "we're going to get Greenland one way or the other". You can argue that's not a threat, but it would make you look silly IMO. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-text-of-trumps-speech-to-a-joint-session-of-congress https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-text-of-...
  - mlrtime 1y ago
    It's like a bunch of kids on the playground complaining about what some other kid said. What actual action has taken place? None. If you want to criticize the highest ranking member of the US executive for saying dumb things, then get in line, we all agree.
    - lukan 1y ago
      The difference between a bunch of kids on a playground and the US president is, that he commands the US military. (It is weird, having to state such facts now)
      - mlrtime 1y ago
        So there was an invasion? I missed it.
        saubeidl 1y ago
        There was threats of an invasion. If somebody threatened you with murder, would you avoid hanging out with them or would you be like "it's just empty talk"? Stop justifying the unjustifiable.
        jopsen 1y ago
        You can't say the threat isn't there. I personally think it's about time we get a nuclear program in Denmark. We don't need launchers, we'll just nuke whatever island anyone invades.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
Sporktacular 1y ago
Either way, trunks will use a network that is not under sovereign control. So sovereignty here means access must exclusively be through the locally controlled monopoly. Foreign powers will still have the ability to shut down or manipulate traffic, which is hardly sovereignty at all.
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  This reads to me as letting perfect be the enemy of better.
- simiones 1y ago
  The biggest problem with Starlink's proposed solution would be that it would have been B2C - people in Greenland would talk to other people in Greenland through Starlink's satellites. That would put communication inside Greenland at the whims of another foreign power, which is a whole different level of loss of sovereignty than getting communication with the rest of the world cut off.
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  > Foreign powers will still have the ability to shut down or manipulate traffic, which is hardly sovereignty at all. Apparently, some partners/"friends" are more likely to take military action against you than others. If you're considering sovereignty and you have a choice between one partner who've said "I'll protect you" and another that said "Well, we'll never rule out military action against you", working together with one of those are obviously better for your sovereignty than the other.
tessierashpool9 1y ago
> Ukraine obviously wouldn't contract anything essential from Russia West-Ukraine wouldn't. East-Ukraine ... not so sure.
- lostlogin 1y ago
  East-Ukraine? The regions that had 90% vote to be annexed by Russia? When an invader has a gun against your head, how would you vote? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_annexation_referendums_in_Russian-occupied_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_annexation_referendums_in...
- tonyhart7 1y ago
  "West-Ukraine" why you acting like ukraine is already lose its territory???? the war is still going on there is no winner yet
- pyrale 1y ago
  I’m pretty sure no one from Butcha (east Ukraine) will ever buy from Russia again.

chrisco255 1y ago

[flagged]

azernik 1y ago
An "offer" that included an explicit threat of military force if it wasn't accepted. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/04/world/greenland-annexation-threat-trump-nbc-interview-intl-hnk https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/04/world/greenland-annexatio...
- chrisco255 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - azernik 1y ago
    That is not what "military action" means.
  - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
    > was never a threat > it wasnt a threat of force How are you not seeing yourself moving the goal post here?
    - mlrtime 1y ago
      Because they were never moved. What action has taken place? This is 100% anxiety.
      - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
        Yes, of course it's anxiety, because you have one island with a tiny population listening to a leader of a huge military power saying "We'll get Greenland one way or another". Is it surprising people are feeling anxious when what they thought was a military partner starts to threaten other partners? Do you not realize how that is perceived by others?
        cindyllm 1y ago
        [dead]
        mlrtime 1y ago
        How about stop listening? Or maybe try to understand the actual intention here?
        CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
        Parent initially said: > The offer to buy Greenland from Denmark was never a threat Then afterwards said: > No it wasnt a threat of force How is that not moving the goal post? They realize they cannot argue for "it wasn't a threat" anymore so they now started arguing it wasn't a "threat of force" instead. Completely missing the point why countries suddenly feel it's necessary to setup defenses in case an ally decide to take "military action" against them.
        chrisco255 1y ago
        No the parent initially said: "You know the U.S. has operational military bases on Greenland soil and Denmark was a founding member of NATO and remains an active member, right? The offer to buy Greenland from Denmark was never a threat. It was an offer. The U.S. has made similar territorial purchases in the past, including most famously from our oldest ally the French known as the Lousiana Purchase." The offer to buy Greenland wasn't a threat. Greenland isn't setting up defenses against the U.S. Denmark and Greenland are part of NATO and run mutual defense exercises regularly. NORAD runs out of Greenland. There is no threat by the United States to Greenland. The U.S. already runs a military base there and has had several other shuttered ones in the past. There are threats to Greenland from external actors besides the U.S. including especially Russia that is directly across the Arctic. That's why NORAD runs intercontinental missile detection in Greenland. There is an offer to Greenland and to Denmark, that if Greenland takes it, would mean Greenland would get billions of dollars in funding and economic boosts to their economy, in addition to even stronger guarantees of defense. If the mutual relationship with the U.S. is not desired, then U.S. can always walk. That's not a threat, that's called mutual exchange. If someone wants a divorce, accepting it and walking away isn't a threat.
  - DrewADesign 1y ago
    That’s right. And Luca Brasi wasn’t threatening the band leader when he put the gun to his head. There’s a lot of reasons he could have been holding the gun like that— maybe he didn’t have his reading glasses and he was trying to read the serial number? Maybe he was comparing the the band leader’s hair sheen to a known reference gun? If the band leader then ‘decided’ to sign the contract to let Johnny Fontaine leave, it certainly wouldn’t be intentionally coercive.
    - JackFr 1y ago
      To be fair Luca Brazil did explicitly assure the bandleader that either his signature or his brains would be on the contract before he left. So that’s kind of a threat.
      - DrewADesign 1y ago
        He was clearly inviting him to either add his signature, or a brain dump of possible changes to the agreement. Case closed.
CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
> You know the U.S. has operational military bases on Greenland soil and Denmark was a founding member of NATO and remains an active member, right? Bases as in multiple? Didn't they shut down all but one? > was never a threat. It was an offer Is this a joke? The president has literally said they're not ruling out military force to annex Greenland, in what world isn't that a threat? Especially when said to a military partner no less. When the US purchased Lousiana from the French, did the bid also come with a "if you don't agree, we might take it by force" addendum?
- chrisco255 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - mschuster91 1y ago
    > He said he wouldn't take "military action" off the table. Which doesn't mean invasion. You are imprinting that. ... based on the fact that the US did quite a lot of questionably legal invasion campaigns over the last decades and Trump having signed an EO to "rename" DoD to Department of War. It's not an unrealistic interpretation. > This is the same guy that just negotiated peace between Gaza and Israel. He re-hashed Biden's negotiations and takes credit for it. Classic Trump. > He doesn't take options off the table because it automatically weakens your negotiation position. What "negotiations"? We don't live in times any more where kings can distribute pieces of land and the people living on it at will - no matter what Trump thinks he is.
    - chrisco255 1y ago
      > the US did quite a lot of questionably legal invasion campaigns The U.S. is a sovereign country, and Congress approved all the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan for better or worse, and it was bipartisan. Renaming Department of Defense to Department of War is something like the opposite of doublespeak. It's more honest, isn't it? > He re-hashed Biden's negotiations and takes credit for it. Classic Trump. No. The entire Gaza situation erupted under Biden's presidency. As did the Ukraine invasion. The Biden presidency was completely powerless to stop any of this from occurring. Biden, the same guy that bumbled through sentences and lost track of topics in the presidential debate and was replaced by his own party's superdelegates in 2024 after he won the state primaries, had nothing to do with this. > What "negotiations"? We don't live in times any more where kings can distribute pieces of land and the people living on it at will - no matter what Trump thinks he is. There's 185 countries on planet earth. Many of them are run by literal kings and some of them are run by king-like figures. The U.S. absolutely isn't one of them, but when it comes to international politics, the duly elected President is the negotiator-in-chief. This follows in a long history of deal-making, going all the way back to President Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase from France. Ironically, Denmark itself does have a king!
dxdm 1y ago
> The offer to buy Greenland from Denmark was never a threat. It was an offer. The highest ranking member of the US executive, in a publicly televised speech before Congress, said that "we're going to get Greenland one way or the other". You can argue that's not a threat, but it would make you look silly IMO. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-text-of-trumps-speech-to-a-joint-session-of-congress https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-text-of-...
- mlrtime 1y ago
  It's like a bunch of kids on the playground complaining about what some other kid said. What actual action has taken place? None. If you want to criticize the highest ranking member of the US executive for saying dumb things, then get in line, we all agree.
  - lukan 1y ago
    The difference between a bunch of kids on a playground and the US president is, that he commands the US military. (It is weird, having to state such facts now)
    - mlrtime 1y ago
      So there was an invasion? I missed it.
      - saubeidl 1y ago
        There was threats of an invasion. If somebody threatened you with murder, would you avoid hanging out with them or would you be like "it's just empty talk"? Stop justifying the unjustifiable.
      - jopsen 1y ago
        You can't say the threat isn't there. I personally think it's about time we get a nuclear program in Denmark. We don't need launchers, we'll just nuke whatever island anyone invades.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

Sporktacular 1y ago

Either way, trunks will use a network that is not under sovereign control. So sovereignty here means access must exclusively be through the locally controlled monopoly. Foreign powers will still have the ability to shut down or manipulate traffic, which is hardly sovereignty at all.

actionfromafar 1y ago
This reads to me as letting perfect be the enemy of better.
simiones 1y ago
The biggest problem with Starlink's proposed solution would be that it would have been B2C - people in Greenland would talk to other people in Greenland through Starlink's satellites. That would put communication inside Greenland at the whims of another foreign power, which is a whole different level of loss of sovereignty than getting communication with the rest of the world cut off.
CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
> Foreign powers will still have the ability to shut down or manipulate traffic, which is hardly sovereignty at all. Apparently, some partners/"friends" are more likely to take military action against you than others. If you're considering sovereignty and you have a choice between one partner who've said "I'll protect you" and another that said "Well, we'll never rule out military action against you", working together with one of those are obviously better for your sovereignty than the other.

tessierashpool9 1y ago

> Ukraine obviously wouldn't contract anything essential from Russia West-Ukraine wouldn't. East-Ukraine ... not so sure.

lostlogin 1y ago
East-Ukraine? The regions that had 90% vote to be annexed by Russia? When an invader has a gun against your head, how would you vote? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_annexation_referendums_in_Russian-occupied_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_annexation_referendums_in...
tonyhart7 1y ago
"West-Ukraine" why you acting like ukraine is already lose its territory???? the war is still going on there is no winner yet
pyrale 1y ago
I’m pretty sure no one from Butcha (east Ukraine) will ever buy from Russia again.