6 ms·
Greenland Crisis
- moralestapia 9mo ago[flagged]
- jmclnx 9mo agoIf we had sane (or brave) people in congress, he would have been impeached and convicted by now and tossed out of office.
- watwut 9mo agoRepublican congressman uniformly support Trump and his agenda. He has full support of republican party. So do senate and so do republican supreme court justices. They stand up for this.
- telotortium 9mo agoThe Wikipedia article mentions a bipartisan delegation to Copenhagen in support of Denmark. Maybe they took along Republicans that have been a bee in the Trump administration’s bonnet, but it’s definitely not fair to say they uniformly support his agenda, only that they would rather support him than the Democrats.
- watwut 9mo agoRepublican congressman vote in support of Trump and his agenda with super rare exceptions. Most of the time, they all vote to support him. It is completely fair to say that. > only that they would rather support him than the Democrats. This literally counts as "uniformly supporting Trump". Nothing less. They are all in for Trump agenda. It is straightforwardly absurd to claim that this somehow represents someone against that agenda. And no, "I do it only because I prefer this over voting with people who are against it" does not changes anything on it. If you would rather support Trumps agenda then vote with Democrats, then you are supporting Trump. And no, it is not as if they had to make some ideological or ethical sacrifice by voting with Democrats here. They cant do it simply because they support Trump.
- telotortium 9mo ago> If you would rather support Trumps agenda then vote with Democrats, then you are supporting Trump. Okay, but I can just as easily say that you are pro-crime because you share a coalition with progressives that get district attorneys like Chesa Boudin elected (just this week the newly-elected Democratic state legislature in Virginia introduced bills to reduce the penalties for burglary, a violent crime - no normal person was asking for this). You have a point that anyone in a coalition supports the most extreme actions of that coalition, but if you can’t make any distinction between the intents of different actors in the coalition, the only option becomes total defeat of the other side. But that is difficult to achieve in practice, particularly with a near 50-50 party split like we have in the US today. Even when the US decisively defeated the Confederacy, there were still a lot of people that either sympathized with the South or at least thought an indefinite military occupation of the South wasn’t worth it (like the US tired of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan), which is why Reconstruction ended. So counting on total defeat of the other side is a fool’s errand, unless one side or the other executes a coup, which sadly is looking more and more likely. Trump supporters argue that the Democrats and their sympathizers in the Republican Party performed a soft coup during Covid and the 2020 election, which is why Trump has taken care to surround himself with loyalists this time around.
- jjkaczor 9mo ago[flagged]
- vee-kay 9mo agoIsn't he already convicted?
- jmclnx 9mo agoBy convicted I mean convicted by the Senate. After Congress impeaches the Pres., the Senate needs to have a trial and if they convict the Pres., he is removed from office. That did not happen in the first term.
- euribates 9mo agoAnd into the jail
- BolsunBacset 9mo agoIt is too short sighted to blame this all on Trump. The core issue is the West has abdicated its sovereignty and military to the US long ago.
- lumost 9mo agoAnd the US in turn abdicated its separation of powers. A US president lacks the ability to make treaties, or use military force without congressional authorization. In what world does the president have the authority to annex an autonomous territory from an ally?
- telotortium 9mo agoThe world where he does it and then tries to present it to Congress as a fait accompli. If the security concerns around Greenland are seen as legitimate enough, he’ll get his Democratic congressmen to approve it, particularly as it’s unlikely that it would become a state (too few people).
- vee-kay 9mo agoIn the world that thinks and does: "Might is Right". Oh wait, that's the history of humanity - especially the bloody brutal history of Colonialism & Imperialism. USA (rather The Five Eyes led by USA), EU, China are not just nations or blocs. They are Empires. And this is what Empires do best: war (war for oil/resources, war for territory, war for wealth & glory, war for slaves, etc.)
- wwweston 9mo agoThe core issue is that the current US leadership has abandoned its status as a former trustworthy leader that accepted cooperation and responsibility as key operating tenets. If anyone threatened to take your home by force if you didn’t sell at his favorite price, the sane social discussion would focus on their uncivil threat and pro-social responses, not on victim blaming “the core issue is that I’ve abdicated my ability to defend my house by force.” You could have a reasonable conversation about sovereign defense budgets and alliance contributions, but not while you’re threatening the sovereignty of an ally. And all of this will make American citizens less safe, not more. It’s madness. There’s nothing to be gained here for most people by threat of force or hybrid warfare.
- t1234s 9mo ago[flagged]
- greggoB 9mo agoNo? [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_Inuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_Inuit
- pengaru 9mo ago> Are Greenlanders paid by Denmark to live there in order to keep some sort of minimum population? Where were you educated?
- t1234s 9mo agoIt's a fair question. Greenland appears to be a very harsh place to live. Younger generations may not want to deal with that and go live in Europe.
- ianburrell 9mo agoSince Greenland is part of Denmark, Greenlanders are free to move to Denmark. There are 16k or so, but can't tell how many are Greenlandic or Danish heritage.
- yencabulator 9mo agoGreenlanders are EU citizens and can move quite freely in Europe, not just Denmark.
- fastasucan 9mo agoSome people don't mind living close to nature, but rather see that as a positive. And many people seek out the same environment they grew up in, as they are used to that. Isn't it like that where you live?
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- kelseyfrog 9mo agoIt would be the largest welfare state in the union.
- telotortium 9mo agoWelfare perhaps. State, almost certainly not. If this did come to pass, I wonder if the inhabitants would be US citizens or non-citizen nationals, like the population of American Samoa.
- nozzlegear 9mo agoNot sure about the US citizens versus non-citizen nationals (I had always thought American Samoans were citizens), but you're spot on that it would certainly not be a state. The people living in Greenland would almost certainly lean blue, and the republicans would never allow the Dems to gain more de facto seats in the house and senate.
- gherkinnn 9mo agoI don't think any of the Trump crowd thought as far as these legal ramifications. Send in the Little Green Men, annex, and figure things out as they happen.
- mrkeen 9mo ago> The US Geological Survey estimates that onshore northeast Greenland (including ice-covered areas) contains around 31 billion barrels of oil-equivalent in hydrocarbons https://theconversation.com/greenland-is-rich-in-natural-resources-a-geologist-explains-why-273022 https://theconversation.com/greenland-is-rich-in-natural-res...
- adventured 9mo agoThe US doesn't need oil, it's the world's largest producer and has enormous estimated recoverable oil reserves comparable to Venezuela or Russia. Greenland is either about Trump intentionally causing chaos with NATO for the benefit of Russia (depending on your politics), or it's the Pentagon & Co. looking to lock down strategic territory for the near future superpower stand-off with China, which will be a global conflict (and may involve China and Russia on one side). Controlling Greenland and Alaska would provide the US with enormous Arctic Ocean positioning. Now what does that have to do with China you may ask? Trade, transit and military asset positioning. The US is looking to secure what it regards as its hemisphere, while China is about to massively push outward globally with a projection navy. The US has less than ~20 years to lock down its hemisphere (again, what the US believes to be its hemisphere) before China starts showing up with its navy everywhere. There will be constant navy-navy challenges everywhere. China will constantly probe the US points of control, for all the obvious reasons. The US will want to keep China as far away as possible.
- michaelhoney 9mo agosoon he will be dead and the slow, painful, halting recovery will begin
- kevmauer 9mo agoHis mother lived to 88
- bravetraveler 9mo agoDid she eat as much McDonald's? Anyway, the cat is out of the bag. Problem goes far beyond the man.
- cthe 9mo agoPeople already thought once that Trumpism would disappear some years ago. They were wrong.
- dsfdsfsdfdsf 9mo agoThere are 30 million Americans who cheer on bombing Nuuk and killing Danish citizens... I think this is over! If you have any hopes of reestablishing any kind of relationship, you are delusional..
- TMWNN 9mo ago[flagged]
- tim333 9mo ago>Greenland is unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security. I think the US may just remain secure without owning Greenland. I mean it's done ok so far.
- threecheese 9mo agoShrinking of the ice caps is opening up a whole new theatre for trade, natural resource extraction, and more importantly conflict.
- UncleMeat 9mo ago"New spaces for trade and natural resource extraction" doesn't sound like "unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security" to me. As for conflict, what? The US already has military bases there and the only threat to continued military access to the area is that the US is acting like a fucking two year old and pissing off all of its allies. And imagine the worst case scenario. The US loses access to the land and sea in the entire region. How specifically does this dramatically change US security? Is a naval invasion launched from Greenland actually a thing people are worried about? Surely a better approach to maintain US security is, you know, a stable global order and military alliances with other powerful nations in the region?
- threecheese 8mo agoYou and I are most definitely aligned wrt reality, I was just saying expanding on the OPs argument. I believe diplomacy (plus a healthy dose of hegemony, and Alaska) is plenty for the US to be safe here. In that reality Canada/US relations are critical.
- adventured 9mo agoHow about if China buys Greenland or otherwise acquires a massive port on Greenland. Maybe China builds one of the world's largest military bases on Greenland with a century deal. China is going to end up being every bit as powerful as the US ever was, both economically and militarily. Nothing will be off the table in what's coming. Russia has never had a true global projection navy, China will have a navy that is plausibly going to be both larger and more powerful than the US navy with full global reach. That global reach will include the entire North and South American region. If you're the US you look to lock down Greenland and Panama, for starters.
- tim333 9mo agoIt's strange how Trump wants to be pally with Russia but attack America's closest allies like Canada and Denmark.
- oliwarner 9mo agoThe generous explanation is that Russia could be a cheap mineral supplier. That a destabilised West strengthens the offerings of US to its neighbours. That domestic xenophobia forces domestic hiring, manufacturing, job creation. But historically, he apes Putin's strongman routine. He wants to be him. Bibi too. Too powerful to be prosecuted. He's got a few years left, doesn't give a shit, and knows he can strip mine the US for his family before he goes.
- tim333 9mo agoThinking about it he's probably guilty of a few offences along the sex offence, corruption and money laundering lines so he's probably biased to folk that help him out and don't worry about that like Russia, and against those who police such things.
- tharmas 9mo agoThat's what a bully does: beat up on EASY targets.
- SaaSasaurus 9mo agoToday I had some fun digging into the Greenland tech startup ecosystem, or lack thereof https://www.siliconsnark.com/the-first-ever-deep-dive-into-greenlands-tech-startup-ecosystem/ https://www.siliconsnark.com/the-first-ever-deep-dive-into-g...
- amai 9mo agoDenmark could rent Greenland to the US, e.g. for 10 billion dollars a year. Wouldn‘t that be a great deal for our dealmaker?
- oliwarner 9mo agoThey could but they'd say that's not what the people of Greenland want. They don't want to be an owned territory when they're used to their autonomy. They don't want their land exploited for minerals and oil by the highest bidder. They don't want to be made a military target between the US and Russia. I'm not saying there isn't a deal to be made but it's got to be with the people of Greenland.
- bazoom42 9mo agoNo, Denmark cannot do that. Denmark does not own Greenland. Greenland has a parliament and manages its own domestic affairs. Denmark manages some domains like foreign and defense policy, but Greenland governs its own territory.
- incomingpain 9mo ago[flagged]
- lumost 9mo agoWhy is the USA forced to invade Canada?
- incomingpain 9mo ago>Why is the USA forced to invade Canada? If it can get federal control over greenland it doesnt need to take Canada. The case where Canada must be annexed is if Greenland somehow remains part of Denmark.
- lumost 9mo ago>The case where Canada must be annexed is if Greenland somehow remains part of Denmark. How does this follow? The US/Canada have previously made numerous mutual defense and land concession deals for joint infrastructure projects and defensive purposes. It's been USA policy for 150 years not to allow foreign interference in the Americas, and potential for Mexican or Canada to be used as grounds for continental attacks on the USA has been the cause of several pre-emptive wars. If the US desired a military port in the arctic, such a deal could assuredly be negotiated again. As Canada's #1 trading partner, we also have significant leverage on negotiating mineral access and equitable property rights. What does inheriting Canada's internal challenges including Quebec Succession discussions grant the USA? What makes the US "need" to own Canada?
- ndsipa_pomu 9mo agoI kind of hope that part of Europe's response it to start selling off its large amount of U.S. bonds. >Europe owns Greenland, it also owns a lot of Treasuries. We spent most of last year arguing that for all its military and economic strength, the US has one key weakness: it relies on others to pay its bills via large external deficits. Europe, on the other hand, is America’s largest lender: European countries own $8 trillion of US bonds and equities, almost twice as much as the rest of the world combined. >In an environment where the geoeconomic stability of the western alliance is being disrupted existentially, it is not clear why Europeans would be as willing to play this part. Danish pension funds were one of the first to repatriate money and reduce their dollar exposure this time last year. With USD exposure still very elevated across Europe, developments over the last few days have potential to further encourage dollar rebalancing. >. . . From our perspective the key thing to watch over the next few days will be whether the EU decides to activate its anti-coercion instrument by putting measures that impact capital markets on the table. >With the US net international investment position at record negative extremes, the mutual inter-dependence of European-US financial markets has never been higher. It is a weaponization of capital rather than trade flows that would by far be the most disruptive to markets. https://www.ft.com/content/beeaf869-ca12-4178-95a1-bfb69ee27ae4 https://www.ft.com/content/beeaf869-ca12-4178-95a1-bfb69ee27...
- weirdmantis69 9mo agoWhat do you think selling US bonds will do? Because selling US bonds is good for the US actually.
- roryirvine 9mo ago"I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the President or the Pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I'd want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody." Sure, maybe Trump's peculiar mix of ego and ignorance might mean he's one of the few exceptions to that rule - but if he were to actually try claiming that a bond rout is somehow good news in the middle of a market panic, the reaction from distressed would be investors would be hard even for him to ignore.
- 9mo ago