4 ms·

Ridiculous state of affairs we're in- literal threatening hostile takeover as just another in the endless stream of distraction to keep from being held accounta

Ridiculous state of affairs we're in- literal threatening hostile takeover as just another in the endless stream of distraction to keep from being held accountable for anything.

ReptileMan 9mo ago
[flagged]
- robin_reala 9mo ago
  “Acquiring” in that sentence is doing a lot of work for “forcibly invading a NATO ally and triggering article 5”.
  - palata 9mo ago
    I don't think it will trigger article 5. Rather it will (or has?) destroy NATO.
    - aebtebeten 9mo ago
      Luckily there are other defensive alliances in place. The broad advantage of having a "felt of society" —mutually overlapping circles— as opposed to a "fabric of society", is that the latter is much easier to tear.
      - fifilura 9mo ago
        European Union article 42(7) for example. But it has not been very well developed since there was little need with Nato around.
        aebtebeten 9mo ago
        Not well developed would be to our advantage if the casus foederis were in a grey area. (It's somewhat :lolsob: to note that Thucydides already distinguished between "stated reasons" and "real reasons" behind a conflict; remember "Remember the Maine!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli#:~:text=Proschema,causes%20for%20fear%29%2e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli#:~:text=Proschema,... ) EDIT: looks like there may not even be a need to be part of an existing mutual defence alliance; sending troops to take part in Operation Arctic Endurance might suffice for an Art 51 response to invasion? https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e241#:~:text=The%20most%20obvious,objects%20of%20an%20armed%20attack https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/97801992316... 3(a) and 3(d) refer to: https://iilj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/General-Assembly-Resolution-3314.pdf#page=2 https://iilj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/General-Assembly...
    - jrs235 9mo ago
      Exactly what Putin wants.
  - ReptileMan 9mo ago
    And what will we Europeans do if Denmark triggers article 5. A single US carrier group could stop all commercial traffic to Europe and a single USA submarine could keep the parody of navies we have in check.
    - aebtebeten 9mo ago
      (a) if DK triggered Art 5, could Ambassador Whitaker not implement a Denial of Service attack? (b) I'm more optimistic. Indeed, on the scale of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46510437 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46510437 I'm currently on "practise speaking Cantonese". Why? Because even if Oceania, Rasia, and Eastasia want to play 1984 sphere of influence games, we can probably position ourselves neutrally, to trade freely with all of them — and whenever one has designs on us, then the other two would naturally be forced to counter.
- justin66 9mo ago
  > Greenland is important piece of land for US security - and the US has eyed it for a long time. The US have the ability to do everything up to and including basing troops and missiles there, today, under treaty so it's unclear what is meant by the US need for "security."
  - troyvit 9mo ago
    That's what I don't get. We had a solid relationship with our fellow NATO country and that relationship left all the room in the world for collaboration, including what you're describing. We're trashing that relationship not just with Denmark but with NATO. What gains do we see that can offset that? I guess this is not just a rhetorical question, but what is more secure than stable relationships with existing allies?
    - justin66 9mo ago
      All interesting questions that fall short unless you’re willing to assume the American president will act deliberately in the national interest. I feel we’ve clearly moved past that point.
    - jrs235 9mo ago
      Putin is winning. He's getting want he wants. The absolution of NATO.
- ironyman 9mo ago
  The Danes would have allowed all those things without the annexation, think new sub pens for our Virginias, Space Force base expansions and so on. There is simply no need to piss off an ally with this nonsense.
  - palata 9mo ago
    > There is simply no need to piss off an ally with this nonsense. After you militarily threaten multiple allies, do they still count as allies? Or at least, are you still seen as an ally by them?
    - Incipient 9mo ago
      I think the best outcome would really be the US' current allies are just waiting until trump goes and he doesn't break too much and the new person goes back to a more stable posture. It's probably a more realistic outcome however is that no one really trusts the US any more and trump has just hastened the decline as the EU looks inward more, and other areas move more quickly to get support from china.
      - troyvit 9mo ago
        I hope they are more long-sighted than that. They did the same thing with Bush II's "with us or against us" rhetoric and actions. Appease the POTUS while he's there and hope the next one is a little better. Obama was more conciliatory to our allies' needs, but the cycle has been like this since 2001. The US is getting less stable instead of more stable, so I don't know what Europe is hoping for.
        palata 9mo ago
        > They did the same thing with Bush II's "with us or against us" I don't think that Bush II threatened to invade Europe, and that Europe responded by preparing for an invasion, though.
        9mo ago
- JohnFen 9mo ago
  The US can, and always has been able to, maintain its security interests in Greenland without trying to forcibly take it. The calls for doing so now are not about US security.
  - mamonster 9mo ago
    >The US can, and always has been able to, maintain its security interests in Greenland without trying to forcibly take it. I think someone has shown Trump the Project Iceworm documents and he decided that it would be a great addition to the Golden Dome repertoire.
  - mothballed 9mo ago
    Well of course, Greenland is a massive welfare drain, trying to forcibly take it when you already get to use it for defense is would be like marrying the $20 hooker for the 'free' services. You wouldn't buy the cow when you already get the milk cheaper than the farmer. The reason Trump wants Denmark is for vanity purposes. If Denmark actually can shitcan the place while making it look like a victory they would definitely do it. Although the only way I think they can pull that off is by convincing Greenland to become independent and then the US swooping in when Greenland realizes their free money hydrant has turned off and they need a new sugar daddy because all those minerals they're sitting on aren't actually worth a dime unless someone is dumb enough to try and use them in one of the most hostile inhabited environments on earth to mine them.
    - fifilura 9mo ago
      There are some truths in what you are saying. But I don't think Denmark wants to give up Greenland, I think they are ok with the money they pay (around $600 million per year). Denmark is a rich country so money is not a big deal.
- mandeepj 9mo ago
  > This is more than Trump being Trump. Correction: This is more than Trump not being Presidential!
- hakunin 9mo ago
  Somehow, "deep state" is always there as the god of Trump's failures. The concept of "deep state" should be excised from conversation now that we can clearly see the unilateral rule of this administration. At this point, I wish there was a deep state, but unfortunately there's just Trump. His personal idiosyncrasies explain things much better than any conspiracy theory ever could.
  - AnimalMuppet 9mo ago
    No, there is a deep state. It's people who are in the government, who hold to the constitution and the rule of law, rather than implementing whatever wild idea Trump currently proposes that is illegal and/or unconstitutional, and who therefore work internally to block a bunch of Trump's plans. Or at least they must feel like the deep state to Trump. It's just that, for those who like the rule of law, those people are the good guys.
- fzeroracer 9mo ago
  It's stupider than any notion of the deep state. It's rich billionaire assholes like Ronald Lauder that pushed stuff like the annexation of Greenland because they have money-induced rotting brains and have never encountered pushback for anything in their lives. And if there's anything Trump loves more than gaudy fake gold, it's trying to be one of the big shots.
- Jordan-117 9mo ago
  Nonsense. What "deep stater" would think taking de jure control of Greenland would be worth destroying NATO and transatlantic relations broadly, especially when the US already has access to it for military purposes?
ndsipa_pomu 9mo ago
As well as distracting from the Epstein Files, the takeover of Greenland would be something that could destroy NATO which is one of Putin's aims.
- pan69 9mo ago
  I am starting to believe that this might actually be the objective. There is no other logical reason for the US to act this way (not that anything under Trump is logical anyway). They already have full access to Greenland for defence purposes (or pretty much any other purpose) under NATO. It's no secret that Trump is Russian aligned and that he has a intolerance (hatred?) for Europe.
  - tastyface 9mo ago
    There is no mystery here. Trump clearly explained his motivation in a recent interview: "Donald Trump Says He Wants 'Ownership' of Greenland Because It's 'Psychologically Important for Me'" He’a a rapist and does not take no for an answer. That’s it. That’s *really* it. It’s yet another score to be settled from his first term in office. Same with his Nobel Prize fixation. I think a lot of people are having a really hard time grappling with the fact that the leader of a superpower is a literal maniac.
_DeadFred_ 9mo ago
When does it become enough for the fence sitters? What does it take? Donald Trump asked NATO to help us invade and take Greenland. The Euros that met with him said 'it's time to take up drinking' after the meeting. What line is too far for you? This is our President doing this stuff, you act like it's some stupid kid off on the sidelines. Before you argue some BS, the USA has WAY LESS soldiers stationed in Greenland than we did during the cold war. It isn't a serious concern, and if it was, we could...staff to the levels we previously did and that were welcome to be in Greenland.

Ridiculous state of affairs we're in- literal threatening hostile takeover as just another in the endless stream of distraction to keep from being held accountable for anything.

ReptileMan 9mo ago

[flagged]

robin_reala 9mo ago
“Acquiring” in that sentence is doing a lot of work for “forcibly invading a NATO ally and triggering article 5”.
- palata 9mo ago
  I don't think it will trigger article 5. Rather it will (or has?) destroy NATO.
  - aebtebeten 9mo ago
    Luckily there are other defensive alliances in place. The broad advantage of having a "felt of society" —mutually overlapping circles— as opposed to a "fabric of society", is that the latter is much easier to tear.
    - fifilura 9mo ago
      European Union article 42(7) for example. But it has not been very well developed since there was little need with Nato around.
      - aebtebeten 9mo ago
        Not well developed would be to our advantage if the casus foederis were in a grey area. (It's somewhat :lolsob: to note that Thucydides already distinguished between "stated reasons" and "real reasons" behind a conflict; remember "Remember the Maine!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli#:~:text=Proschema,causes%20for%20fear%29%2e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli#:~:text=Proschema,... ) EDIT: looks like there may not even be a need to be part of an existing mutual defence alliance; sending troops to take part in Operation Arctic Endurance might suffice for an Art 51 response to invasion? https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e241#:~:text=The%20most%20obvious,objects%20of%20an%20armed%20attack https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/97801992316... 3(a) and 3(d) refer to: https://iilj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/General-Assembly-Resolution-3314.pdf#page=2 https://iilj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/General-Assembly...
  - jrs235 9mo ago
    Exactly what Putin wants.
- ReptileMan 9mo ago
  And what will we Europeans do if Denmark triggers article 5. A single US carrier group could stop all commercial traffic to Europe and a single USA submarine could keep the parody of navies we have in check.
  - aebtebeten 9mo ago
    (a) if DK triggered Art 5, could Ambassador Whitaker not implement a Denial of Service attack? (b) I'm more optimistic. Indeed, on the scale of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46510437 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46510437 I'm currently on "practise speaking Cantonese". Why? Because even if Oceania, Rasia, and Eastasia want to play 1984 sphere of influence games, we can probably position ourselves neutrally, to trade freely with all of them — and whenever one has designs on us, then the other two would naturally be forced to counter.
justin66 9mo ago
> Greenland is important piece of land for US security - and the US has eyed it for a long time. The US have the ability to do everything up to and including basing troops and missiles there, today, under treaty so it's unclear what is meant by the US need for "security."
- troyvit 9mo ago
  That's what I don't get. We had a solid relationship with our fellow NATO country and that relationship left all the room in the world for collaboration, including what you're describing. We're trashing that relationship not just with Denmark but with NATO. What gains do we see that can offset that? I guess this is not just a rhetorical question, but what is more secure than stable relationships with existing allies?
  - justin66 9mo ago
    All interesting questions that fall short unless you’re willing to assume the American president will act deliberately in the national interest. I feel we’ve clearly moved past that point.
  - jrs235 9mo ago
    Putin is winning. He's getting want he wants. The absolution of NATO.
ironyman 9mo ago
The Danes would have allowed all those things without the annexation, think new sub pens for our Virginias, Space Force base expansions and so on. There is simply no need to piss off an ally with this nonsense.
- palata 9mo ago
  > There is simply no need to piss off an ally with this nonsense. After you militarily threaten multiple allies, do they still count as allies? Or at least, are you still seen as an ally by them?
  - Incipient 9mo ago
    I think the best outcome would really be the US' current allies are just waiting until trump goes and he doesn't break too much and the new person goes back to a more stable posture. It's probably a more realistic outcome however is that no one really trusts the US any more and trump has just hastened the decline as the EU looks inward more, and other areas move more quickly to get support from china.
    - troyvit 9mo ago
      I hope they are more long-sighted than that. They did the same thing with Bush II's "with us or against us" rhetoric and actions. Appease the POTUS while he's there and hope the next one is a little better. Obama was more conciliatory to our allies' needs, but the cycle has been like this since 2001. The US is getting less stable instead of more stable, so I don't know what Europe is hoping for.
      - palata 9mo ago
        > They did the same thing with Bush II's "with us or against us" I don't think that Bush II threatened to invade Europe, and that Europe responded by preparing for an invasion, though.
        9mo ago
JohnFen 9mo ago
The US can, and always has been able to, maintain its security interests in Greenland without trying to forcibly take it. The calls for doing so now are not about US security.
- mamonster 9mo ago
  >The US can, and always has been able to, maintain its security interests in Greenland without trying to forcibly take it. I think someone has shown Trump the Project Iceworm documents and he decided that it would be a great addition to the Golden Dome repertoire.
- mothballed 9mo ago
  Well of course, Greenland is a massive welfare drain, trying to forcibly take it when you already get to use it for defense is would be like marrying the $20 hooker for the 'free' services. You wouldn't buy the cow when you already get the milk cheaper than the farmer. The reason Trump wants Denmark is for vanity purposes. If Denmark actually can shitcan the place while making it look like a victory they would definitely do it. Although the only way I think they can pull that off is by convincing Greenland to become independent and then the US swooping in when Greenland realizes their free money hydrant has turned off and they need a new sugar daddy because all those minerals they're sitting on aren't actually worth a dime unless someone is dumb enough to try and use them in one of the most hostile inhabited environments on earth to mine them.
  - fifilura 9mo ago
    There are some truths in what you are saying. But I don't think Denmark wants to give up Greenland, I think they are ok with the money they pay (around $600 million per year). Denmark is a rich country so money is not a big deal.
mandeepj 9mo ago
> This is more than Trump being Trump. Correction: This is more than Trump not being Presidential!
hakunin 9mo ago
Somehow, "deep state" is always there as the god of Trump's failures. The concept of "deep state" should be excised from conversation now that we can clearly see the unilateral rule of this administration. At this point, I wish there was a deep state, but unfortunately there's just Trump. His personal idiosyncrasies explain things much better than any conspiracy theory ever could.
- AnimalMuppet 9mo ago
  No, there is a deep state. It's people who are in the government, who hold to the constitution and the rule of law, rather than implementing whatever wild idea Trump currently proposes that is illegal and/or unconstitutional, and who therefore work internally to block a bunch of Trump's plans. Or at least they must feel like the deep state to Trump. It's just that, for those who like the rule of law, those people are the good guys.
fzeroracer 9mo ago
It's stupider than any notion of the deep state. It's rich billionaire assholes like Ronald Lauder that pushed stuff like the annexation of Greenland because they have money-induced rotting brains and have never encountered pushback for anything in their lives. And if there's anything Trump loves more than gaudy fake gold, it's trying to be one of the big shots.
Jordan-117 9mo ago
Nonsense. What "deep stater" would think taking de jure control of Greenland would be worth destroying NATO and transatlantic relations broadly, especially when the US already has access to it for military purposes?

ndsipa_pomu 9mo ago

As well as distracting from the Epstein Files, the takeover of Greenland would be something that could destroy NATO which is one of Putin's aims.

pan69 9mo ago
I am starting to believe that this might actually be the objective. There is no other logical reason for the US to act this way (not that anything under Trump is logical anyway). They already have full access to Greenland for defence purposes (or pretty much any other purpose) under NATO. It's no secret that Trump is Russian aligned and that he has a intolerance (hatred?) for Europe.
- tastyface 9mo ago
  There is no mystery here. Trump clearly explained his motivation in a recent interview: "Donald Trump Says He Wants 'Ownership' of Greenland Because It's 'Psychologically Important for Me'" He’a a rapist and does not take no for an answer. That’s it. That’s *really* it. It’s yet another score to be settled from his first term in office. Same with his Nobel Prize fixation. I think a lot of people are having a really hard time grappling with the fact that the leader of a superpower is a literal maniac.

_DeadFred_ 9mo ago

When does it become enough for the fence sitters? What does it take? Donald Trump asked NATO to help us invade and take Greenland. The Euros that met with him said 'it's time to take up drinking' after the meeting. What line is too far for you? This is our President doing this stuff, you act like it's some stupid kid off on the sidelines. Before you argue some BS, the USA has WAY LESS soldiers stationed in Greenland than we did during the cold war. It isn't a serious concern, and if it was, we could...staff to the levels we previously did and that were welcome to be in Greenland.