4 ms·
It’s not invading, yet. Just buying or psyopping is more likely than fighting NATO.
by prepend 9mo ago
It’s not invading, yet. Just buying or psyopping is more likely than fighting NATO.
- georgemcbay 9mo ago> It’s not invading, yet. Just buying or psyopping is more likely than fighting NATO. Threatening to invade (which the Trump administration has been explicitly doing) is about as damaging as invading in the long run, either way we have sent the message loud and clear that the US is no longer a reliable ally and everyone has to shift away from the post-WW2 world order.
- thatguy0900 9mo agoIf I threatened someone until they sold me something that they made very clear they did not want to sell noone would call it "Buying" and we shouldn't either. It would be extorting. Under no circumstances are we buying Greenland at this point, anything that happens is something else.
- fasbiner 9mo agoExtortion is the right word here. The problem is that virtually the entire new world and much of the old world was acquired by force and threats of force that has been legitimized over time. So yes, I think this is clearly extortion and any sale that takes would be coerced. But ever was it thus.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- thatguy0900 9mo agoFor sure in the future I'm sure the US will teach that it was a fair deal and nato was corrupt anyway but I hate to see the whitewashing of it going on already like it's a casual land purchase offer
- throw310822 9mo agoYou are also, for sure, the product of some rape down the line of your ancestors, as we are all. This doesn't make rape justifiable.
- prepend 9mo agoExtorting is more accurate. But definitely not invading.