7 ms·
European troops arrive in Greenland to boost the Arctic island's security
- fl7305 10mo agoCongratulations! For the first time since 1783, there are now "Hessians" (German state troops) in North America with their guns pointed at the United States.
- rawgabbit 10mo agoI am beginning to think "Greenland" is a wedge to undermine NATO; it is a ruse used to unravel the NATO alliance. If "Greenland" doesn't divide NATO, maybe the next ruse is for the US to unilaterally claim large chunks of the Arctic Ocean that violates the territorial sovereignty of other allies.
- mring33621 10mo agoYeah, it sure smells "Putin-y"
- lostlogin 10mo agoThe irony in needing to contain Russia by taking Greenland, also while bleeding Ukraine dry and appeasing Russia.
- JacoboJacobi 10mo agoThe strangest thing is that no one has learned from Ukraine and started buying Chines drones let alone larger arms deals as insurance against the threats in proximity.
- IAmGraydon 10mo agoThe entire world smells Putin-y and has for a while. His influence is everywhere, and I believe much is the sickly state the world is in currently is due to him.
- woodpanel 10mo agoHence, you don't hear anything negative from Putin about it.
- jdiaz97 10mo agoYes. Trump is a russian asset. 1. ‘The perfect target’: Russia cultivated Trump as asset for 40 years – ex-KGB spy. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/29/trump-russia-asset-claims-former-kgb-spy-new-book https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/29/trump-russia... 2. British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spie... 3. Now everyone knows that Putin was present when Trump shared intimate moments with "Bubba". They're beyond best friends. 4. Compare how Putin is treated by Trump, and how Zelensky is treated by Trump. 5. The first round of tariffs, every country on earth was included except Russia. Even countries that traded less than Russia-USA were included.
- gizajob 10mo agoImagine the dirt they must have on him…
- stickfigure 10mo ago> Trump is a russian asset. I used to think this was tinfoil hat territory. I'm starting to come round to "this is the only narrative that fits the facts".
- jdiaz97 10mo agoYep, even if you ignore this massive wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates... and look at everything from first principles, it's a logical conclusion. The simplest answer. Occam's Razor
- bulbar 10mo agoThe simplest conclusion is that Trump has a narcissistic disorder and everything he does is related to that. All of his actions are well explained by this. Of course, he can be a Russian asset to some extend at the same time.
- 10mo ago
- standardUser 10mo agoWho fucking knows with this guy. It feels pointless to speculate. Remember when he was obsessed with the Panama Canal? And the talk about relocating every person in Palestine? It reminds me of Hitler's writings, where he would divide up the world based on simplistic divisions that sounded like a 5-year-old playing an elaborate board game.
- o-o- 10mo agohttps://news.meaww.com/fact-check-did-donald-trump-take-out-a-full-page-newspaper-ad-slamming-us-foreign-policy-in-1987 https://news.meaww.com/fact-check-did-donald-trump-take-out-... > The ad’s central message—that US allies should pay their fair share—remains a core principle of Trump’s foreign policy today. His longstanding skepticism of NATO, confrontations with international leaders, and demands for more financial contributions from allied nations all stem from the ideas he publicly expressed in 1987.
- IAmGraydon 10mo agoAnd are you aware that he placed this ad immediately after his return from a questionable trip to Russia, and did not express these views before then?
- xorcist 10mo agoThe stated objectives for this administration was to be understood as: Weaken USD. Cheaper oil. Weaken NATO. This should surprise no one. Undermining NATO fits the now well known negotiation style perfectly, you can try to get a good deal from allies to put it back together, while simultaneously playing those allies against an alternative and opposite deal with Russia for doing business again. The latter has the added bonus of even cheaper oil. Neither is good for Ukraine and Taiwan unfortunately.
- consumer451 10mo ago> you can try to get a good deal from allies to put it back together There is no un-breaking this egg. Only the most deluded people in the world don't realize that there is no trust to be exchanged, for many generations at least. The most universal bad outcome is that many people had predicted, we are now living in a new age of accelerated nuclear proliferation thanks to the loss of Pax Americana.
- mmooss 10mo agoIMHO: The goal of the political movement (we really need a name for it after so many years in so many countries) is to replace the existing world order with a new one with them on top. The movement seems to include right-wing (semi-)authoritarians such as Trump and the GOP, Netanyahu, Putin, bin Salman (Saudi Arabia), lesser powers, and many American business interests including in SV. Leading Trump advisor Stephen Miller expressed one core position, which is that power rules the world - rather than human rights and votes, which is the fundamental of American tradition and law, and the current world order. So yes, policies like Venezuala and Greenland, as well as immigration policy, anti-science positions, pro-disinformation actions, etc. are intended for a broader political outcome, but it's much broader than NATO. They are playing for the whole thing. I'm surprised that more people on HN aren't very familiar with their strategy and goals.
- okanat 10mo agoSpeculating a cabal of authoritarians planning to change the world order is strictly in tinfoil hat territory. It is much more boring than that. Democracy is an unstable way of ruling societies and generating value out of people. Keeping it healthy requires not only elections but lots of "undemocratic" powerful institutions with unelected well-educated people in it (courts, agencies, foundations, bureaucrats). Those institutions need to have actual power to coerce. The goal of the democracy should be generating quite a bit people who will hold those positions. Managing economics such that there aren't any too big organizations that can significantly affect individuals' independent decision making is also required. That's the antitrust laws and unions for ya. When educational, scientific and social organs are undermined, the public becomes more susceptible to strongman figures that provide easy solutions to the degradation. When economy is mismanaged undereducated people are easily swayed, more educated people are easily coerced. It is statistical common human behavior to support autocrats, especially under stress. Autocrats themselves have a strong inherent understanding of power and great skills/intuition to detect the weakest. If you encoutered bullies in your life, you may have observed how their brain and the cult of personality works. It is fascinating that they can pick out the weak so easily. Like the bullies, the autocrats understand each other since they understand themselves. Our crappy happenstance is not a result of a strategy but the systematic behavior of bullies and, bullied and oppressed people. The Republicans pick on Venezuela and Europe and Canada since they know that those societies are weak and they are separated. They know from years of backstabbing experience that if they play the game right, they will get to enjoy one more praise, one more success, one more sadistic dopamine rush. They will get to enjoy eating one separated bison from the herd at a time. They know that attacking a strong bully like themselves will be hard and it will probably hurt. They won't get the same feeling of accomplishment. Without attacking the system itself, it is really hard to win against it. There needs to be strong external factors for established autocratic regimes to collapse by letting them be. Attackers need to be smart and nimble and more importantly systematic. Moreover the lines of defense are not uniform. There are many smaller bullies even in the weak. They have lots of economic incentives to keep their small serfdoms.
- eimrine 10mo ago> about 15 French soldiers from the mountain infantry unit were already in Nuuk for a military exercise. > Germany will deploy a reconnaissance team of 13 personnel to Greenland on Thursday, its Defense Ministry said. Any sarcastic comments about these numbers?
- Reventlov 10mo agoNo, because obviously it's not about numbers but about politics.
- myko 10mo agoIt's a tripwire force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force), and sickening that it is necessary
- palmotea 10mo ago> Any sarcastic comments about these numbers? I'll give it a try: Germany also sent 5,000 military hats. More seriously: I don't even think such a tiny contingent of troops would even work as a tripwire if Trump invades. Trump and his people probably don't have the self control, but if they did it seems like they could just bypass those troops and literally ignore them. I'm reminded of the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea: my recollection is many of the Ukrainians just surrendered without shots being fired, because their numbers were too small and their positions completely untenable.
- lostlogin 10mo ago> my recollection is many of the Ukrainians just surrendered without shots being fired A key detail is that they Europe and the US didn’t support Ukraine to fight. Neat, especially having facilitated Ukraine’s nuclear weapons being removed.
- vdupras 10mo agoThose soldiers don't need to die for the attack on them (that is, taking them as prisoners) to be an act of war, doesn't it?
- seanw444 10mo agoIf I wanted to convince NATO to take arctic security seriously without having to deploy troops and resources of my own, this is how I'd do it.
- woodpanel 10mo agoIf I wanted to permanently erode trust within the alliance, which by the way just lost 859 European soldiers into America's idiotic Afghanistan adventure, this is how I'd do it.
- jdiaz97 10mo agoIf that's what he wanted, he could've asked. He's no genius, like you're suggesting. They just want the rare minerals that people like Sam Altman are already investing on.
- okanat 10mo agoYeah rare minerals under permafrost and in a climate that makes operating many machines difficult. Trump just and underdeveloped idiot that is a waste of human genome and modern medicine who wants a medal and approval from fascist "friends" of him who are not just waste but a cancer that needs to be dealt with. He is just pathetic.
- bilbo0s 10mo agoWith 15 French mountain soldiers and 13 Germans? I think we've all allowed our emotions to blind us to the realities of arctic defense. Setting aside the fact that most of the business to be done so to speak would be offshore in any potential confrontation, Russia-US or EU-US. The very thought of defending a landmass as large and sparsely populated as Greenland with a handful of soldiers is laughable. The Europeans are obviously just trying to make a point. Will it work. My bet is no. It's only going to irk people in Washington. But it's clear this is not a serious attempt at Greenland's defense.
- epolanski 10mo agoYou know that they are not needed as there are 0 realistic threats to Greenland excluding the US. Neither China nor Russia would attack a NATO country, let alone the fact that they don't have the logistics and resources to conduct operations so far from home and so close to North America. Norfolk, the biggest military port in the world is 2200 miles from Greenland.
- epolanski 10mo agoThe excuse of China/Russia is beyond nonsense. 1. As part of Nato Greenland is already protected by such aggression. The idea of anybody triggering WW3 over Greenland is ludicrous as anything interesting there it's easily obtainable just by...putting money on the table. I'm sure Greenlanders will welcome royalties while you mine or do whatever in such a terrible environment. 2. Neither of the two has any military capabilities to conduct military operations in such a place and so distant from their countries. So close to North America moreover. Just to put it in perspective: Greenland is closer to Boston, and by a significant margin, than it is to any major Russian port. 3. While Russia has a long history of aggression and territorial expansion, anybody who's intimate with Chinese history knows well that an aggression on Greenland makes no sense and does not fit any pattern seen in the history of China. The countries that have legitimate reasons to worry about Chinese aggression are those that were part of China in the pre colonial era: Taiwan, Kyrgyzstan, most of southern Siberia and Mongolia. This is why, e.g. China has annexed Tibet, but never gave two damns about neighbouring countries it could grab in an afternoon like Nepal: never been part of China, they don't care.
- m4r1k 10mo agoAs a European, this is genuinely alarming. Headlines like this make me feel that NATO is effectively over at best, and that war may be approaching at worst. `”fundamental disagreement" between the Trump administration and European allies.`
- fl7305 10mo ago> NATO is effectively over at best Quite the opposite. It has already led to a hard core of NATO countries shifting gears quickly. If one or more other NATO countries attack them, it would push the hardcore NATO countries even closer together.
- lm28469 10mo agoLong term it probably even is better if the US just leave, especially if the next president is aligned with the current government, we might as well cut our losses early and restructure before they bully the rest of their allies.
- timeon 10mo ago> NATO is effectively over at best This, at least alliance with US, was stated by US on last years Munich conference and published in text by White House last December.
- lm28469 10mo agoGood riddance, De Gaulle was always right about americans, we might finally be able to get out and build our own stuff instead of being a bully's bitch forever. Given the current situation and trends I don't expect there will be anything good to expect from the US for a while.
- sunshine-o 10mo agoYes I am not sure people really have a grasp of what NATO is. NATO is just a military fair where Denmark, Belgium or Greece get scammed and order a dozen F35. It is gonna take a lot of hacking to have them attack their master, but John Conor did it in Terminator 2 so there is hope. And also a lot of people get some cushy jobs and contract there. They sometimes produce funny videos and documents like [0] The idea that you can takeover NATO without the US and repurpose it to fight a war is nonsense. This idea has probably been put in people head by having Mark Rutte, an aspiring pianist who worked in HR at Unilever, talking nonsense on TV all the time. - [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUeOJ5pMHiQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUeOJ5pMHiQ
- myko 10mo agoTo boost its security against the United States of America. The GOP is an abysmal failure.
- ChrisArchitect 10mo agoPreviously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46631848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46631848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46617108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46617108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46634263 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46634263
- jandrewrogers 10mo agoThat the US operates a large military base in Greenland kind of undermines the narrative that people are trying to push in these articles.
- s_dev 10mo agoAs others have pointed it out it's about splitting NATO. My real concern is Canada. Trump has made similar remarks about Canada like he did Greenland. If he takes Greenland it will be much harder for the EU should resupply Canada should the US see Canada is fully surrounded. How do Canadians view this?
- jandrewrogers 10mo agoWhat does it mean to "surround Canada" and why would anyone want to do it? Almost the entire population of Canada is huddled against the US land border. Greenland is very far away from where the action would be if the US "takes" Canada. There would likely be few shots fired; Canada lacks the ability to put up a credible defense. The EU has no capacity to resupply Canada in any case. The whole scenario makes bizarre assumptions. I don't think most Canadians consider the US "taking" Canada to be a serious scenario outside of echo chambers among the "too online" crowd. What would that gain the US that it doesn't already have?
- K0nserv 10mo agoWhat does the US gain from taking Greenland that it doesn't already have? If the US does invade an ally to acquire territory I think Canadians should be worried. In any case, what the US gains is the wrong perspective. This is about Trump and those around him wanting to build an empire and the American people, seemingly, letting them.
- FartinMowler 10mo agoAlthough the probability is closer to 0% than 100%, it is far enough away from 0% to have many Canadians concerned. As the midterm elections approach and things start looking like he's drowning, Trump will grasp for any convenient distraction, the bigger the better. Canada is uncomfortably on the short list. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/the-military-plans-for-a-volunteer-force-to-defend-canada/ https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/the-military-plans-for...
- nicbou 10mo agoIt saddens me to see how so many years of collaboration wasted on this. We were at peace, we worked together. What is this even for? Can't the US just focus on its existing problems instead of creating new ones?
- fabatka 10mo agoThat's exactly what Trump doesn't want, it would seem.
- tux3 10mo ago>What is this even for? Can't the US just focus on its existing problems That is exactly what it's for. Starting new problems distracts from the old problems at home. Always something new, never a moment to catch your breath and focus. Eventually, people will get tired, will stop paying as much attention, and hopefully forget about those older scandals.
- 113 10mo agoI mean, we were previously working together to invade countries in the middles east, killing millions of people. I wouldn't call that peaceful.
- mmooss 10mo agoTrump and others in the same political movement want to replace the world order with a new one controlled by them. This is not a problem, but a way to undermine the world order.
- compsciphd 10mo agoeveryone who has ever played Risk knows to move troops to the choke points :)