4 ms·
This is Crimea 2.0. The ideological basis behind the annexation is identical in both instances.
by kombine 9mo ago
This is Crimea 2.0. The ideological basis behind the annexation is identical in both instances.
- gbuk2013 9mo agoThere is no similarity whatsoever.
- kombine 9mo agoYou are clearly wrong. Both Trumpism and Putinism are reactive ultra-conservative ideologies. Annexation of Crimea was motivated largely by Russia's "legitimate security concerns". Russian propaganda was busy convincing the population that Crimea gives strategic control over Black Sea region and if Russia didn't intervene, there would have been NATO bases on the peninsula after the Maiden revolution. Trump and his sycophants are saying the same thing: American security, Arctic, and American geopolitical foes: China and Russia.
- flr03 9mo agoOne similarity is, if I'm correct, Russia claimed that the naval base of Sevastopol was vital for Russian security. The protection of the population and the illegitimacy of the current government was an argument developed by Russia at the time, it has not been yet by USA but I suspect this might start develop in the next few weeks. The common ingredients to justify an invasion/annexation is a mix of: - Self-Defense, security - Historical, Geographical claims - Protection of the population - Moral sugar coating (we had no choice)
- gbuk2013 9mo agoGreenland was not part of the USA for a 150 years. It is also not mostly populated by ethnic Americans who speak English as their mother tongue. Nor is there a large American military base there that Greenland / Denmark is trying to evict them from and potentially hand over to a geopolitical adversary. Greenland is also an island a couple thousand miles away from Denmark. Honestly, it is such a surprise that the difference is not obvious.
- danmaz74 9mo agoHonestly, as someone who firmly opposes what Putin did, there were better "historical justifications" for Russia to annex Crimea than for the USA to colonize Greenland, a territory that has never been part of the USA. The idea of invading an ally's territory just to steal its resources is particularly shameful and disgusting.
- mothballed 9mo agoDenmark would likely low key love to shitcan greenland. They are a massive money drain, welfare state. Their minerals exist but not enough to turn the place net positive to their colonizer. If Denmark could come "steal" something like the Pine Ridge Reservation in the Dakotas, it would be an imperfect analogy. As long as we could lose it while still saving face, it would be absolutely amazing economically for the USA.
- Y-bar 9mo agoDenmark sent about 4,3 Billion Danish Krona to Greenland last year, this is about 0.6% of Denmark's budget. For a nation that made a surplus of about 130 Billion in 2025 it does not seem like a something Danes in general want or need to shitcan.
- mothballed 9mo agoMost people in Greenland want Independence from Denmark. They consider themselves foreigners to the country and yet devour 0.6% of their surplus. IMO it is foolish both for USA and Denmark to take them. Cut them loose as they desire and let them trade their minerals which they will surely do as soon as they realize their free lunch is gone. You would still get the thing you want it for, the greenlander are happy they are free of the colonizers, and it likely wouldn't change things militarily as they would absolutely sign a defense treaty as soon as you hand them the pen.
- spiderfarmer 9mo agoIt's clearly your own opinion, but somehow you comment like you're representing Denmark here.
- arethuza 9mo agoIt actually reminds me more of the Falklands War...