4 ms·

The US would likely not have to fire a single shot. NATO would likely do nothing substantive. No economic repercussions. If anything this is a wake up call for

by rpiguy 9mo ago

The US would likely not have to fire a single shot. NATO would likely do nothing substantive. No economic repercussions. If anything this is a wake up call for Europe to come to grips with how ineffectual they have become. Any kind of financial maneuver any country would try against the US would mostly hurt them more. France and Spain are probably the most independent of the US economically but the other member states not so much. Any economic reaction would by symbolic or very short lived. Governments protect themselves not the people. All those government employees need tax revenue. All the rich people who run the world behind the scenes don’t want their assets to deflate. The EU could fracture over any kind of major retaliation. Estonia, Latvia, and Poland will want the US to stay in NATO at all costs with Putin next door. Germany is dependent on exports. Their entire economy could collapse without US trade. Don’t you feel the pantomime of it all? The leaders in Europe are saying what they absolutely have to say. Having the meetings they have to have. There will probably be some kind of deal reached eventually so the leaders of the Europe can appear to have done something slightly better than giving Greenland away.

ben_w 9mo ago
> NATO would likely do nothing substantive. No economic repercussions. At best, you still lose all your allies. At worst, why are you willing to make this gamble? You go immediately go from two nuclear armed nations who "threaten" US interests in Greenland, to four. > Any kind of financial maneuver any country would try against the US would mostly hurt them more. The former allies could cost you in the order of $1.3 trillion fairly directly. Worth it, to defend their sovereignty. Especially as the other half of that trade is things they're already saying they want to move away from. > All the rich people who run the world behind the scenes don’t want their assets to deflate. And you think the US doesn't have this exact category of rich people, who will pull the US back from this seppuku? There's a reason "TACO" was coined WRT Trump. > The EU could fracture over any kind of major retaliation. 1. And you think the US is unified right now? 2. And you think the EU wouldn't be concerned about fracture over failing to retaliate? > Don’t you feel the pantomime of it all? No. I am reorganising my assets on the assumption of a total, 100%, trade blockade. All potential backdoors in hardware and software being activated. All goods, all services, being subject to escalating tariffs to split the economies apart as fast as possible in order to show preparation and readiness for a hot war. With nukes being an open question by both sides, and MAD being relevant again, but preparing for that is beyond me. How would the US respond to Russia trying this BS to get Alaska back?
- Chance-Device 9mo ago
  That’s delusional. The EU won’t even deploy economic countermeasures against the US, let alone military resistance. The US could take Greenland by force tomorrow and the EU response would be a poetry recital.
  - ben_w 9mo ago
    > The US could take Greenland by force tomorrow and the EU response would be a poetry recital. If that's the best the EU can manage, the EU ends the same day, and all of the EU knows that. Ergo, they won't let that happen. Likewise, all of NATO except apparently part of the US, knows that the US taking Greenland by force means the end of NATO.
    - Chance-Device 9mo ago
      I don’t think these things work the way you think they work. Nobody really cares about Greenland. Nobody is willing to allow there to be real consequences, or even real inconveniences, as a result of anything to do with Greenland. The EU is primarily an economic and regulatory structure, not a military alliance. NATO is a paper tiger anyway, people will invent some justifications and keep doing business as usual.
      - ben_w 9mo ago
        > I don’t think these things work the way you think they work. Perhaps, but nobody reasonable would have forecast this situation in the first place, what Trump is doing here already wildly outside of any recent precedents for the USA's behaviour. > Nobody really cares about Greenland. Nobody should, the inhabitable parts are tiny, the rest is a massive ice sheet, the population wouldn't even half-fill the largest single stadium. > Nobody is willing to allow there to be real consequences, or even real inconveniences, as a result of anything to do with Greenland. Tell that to Trump, he's the one threatening military force to get an island he's already allowed to build whatever bases he wants on. There's no good reason for him to have burned his bridges like this. Even if he doesn't invade, he's already severely weakening relations with people who thought they were American allies, who have already come to American aid when asked. > The EU is primarily an economic and regulatory structure, not a military alliance. Primarily, yes, but it does also have a mutual defence clause. Never been tested, of course. Why would anyone be dumb enough to threaten an EU member state with military conquest? And yet, here we are. > NATO is a paper tiger anyway, people will invent some justifications and keep doing business as usual. Article 5 has been invoked exactly once, to aid the USA. NATO-minus-USA is going to be wild, almost certainly forces a lot of other members to rapidly develop nukes of their own even if this all goes "peacefully".

by rpiguy 9mo ago

ben_w 9mo ago

> NATO would likely do nothing substantive. No economic repercussions. At best, you still lose all your allies. At worst, why are you willing to make this gamble? You go immediately go from two nuclear armed nations who "threaten" US interests in Greenland, to four. > Any kind of financial maneuver any country would try against the US would mostly hurt them more. The former allies could cost you in the order of $1.3 trillion fairly directly. Worth it, to defend their sovereignty. Especially as the other half of that trade is things they're already saying they want to move away from. > All the rich people who run the world behind the scenes don’t want their assets to deflate. And you think the US doesn't have this exact category of rich people, who will pull the US back from this seppuku? There's a reason "TACO" was coined WRT Trump. > The EU could fracture over any kind of major retaliation. 1. And you think the US is unified right now? 2. And you think the EU wouldn't be concerned about fracture over failing to retaliate? > Don’t you feel the pantomime of it all? No. I am reorganising my assets on the assumption of a total, 100%, trade blockade. All potential backdoors in hardware and software being activated. All goods, all services, being subject to escalating tariffs to split the economies apart as fast as possible in order to show preparation and readiness for a hot war. With nukes being an open question by both sides, and MAD being relevant again, but preparing for that is beyond me. How would the US respond to Russia trying this BS to get Alaska back?

Chance-Device 9mo ago
That’s delusional. The EU won’t even deploy economic countermeasures against the US, let alone military resistance. The US could take Greenland by force tomorrow and the EU response would be a poetry recital.
- ben_w 9mo ago
  > The US could take Greenland by force tomorrow and the EU response would be a poetry recital. If that's the best the EU can manage, the EU ends the same day, and all of the EU knows that. Ergo, they won't let that happen. Likewise, all of NATO except apparently part of the US, knows that the US taking Greenland by force means the end of NATO.
  - Chance-Device 9mo ago
    I don’t think these things work the way you think they work. Nobody really cares about Greenland. Nobody is willing to allow there to be real consequences, or even real inconveniences, as a result of anything to do with Greenland. The EU is primarily an economic and regulatory structure, not a military alliance. NATO is a paper tiger anyway, people will invent some justifications and keep doing business as usual.
    - ben_w 9mo ago
      > I don’t think these things work the way you think they work. Perhaps, but nobody reasonable would have forecast this situation in the first place, what Trump is doing here already wildly outside of any recent precedents for the USA's behaviour. > Nobody really cares about Greenland. Nobody should, the inhabitable parts are tiny, the rest is a massive ice sheet, the population wouldn't even half-fill the largest single stadium. > Nobody is willing to allow there to be real consequences, or even real inconveniences, as a result of anything to do with Greenland. Tell that to Trump, he's the one threatening military force to get an island he's already allowed to build whatever bases he wants on. There's no good reason for him to have burned his bridges like this. Even if he doesn't invade, he's already severely weakening relations with people who thought they were American allies, who have already come to American aid when asked. > The EU is primarily an economic and regulatory structure, not a military alliance. Primarily, yes, but it does also have a mutual defence clause. Never been tested, of course. Why would anyone be dumb enough to threaten an EU member state with military conquest? And yet, here we are. > NATO is a paper tiger anyway, people will invent some justifications and keep doing business as usual. Article 5 has been invoked exactly once, to aid the USA. NATO-minus-USA is going to be wild, almost certainly forces a lot of other members to rapidly develop nukes of their own even if this all goes "peacefully".