4 ms·

That sounds like a rhetoric for better negotiating power against Trump. Chinese are our adversaries (EDIT: enemies, they actually bankroll Russian invasion and

That sounds like a rhetoric for better negotiating power against Trump. Chinese are our adversaries (EDIT: enemies, they actually bankroll Russian invasion and supply weapons) and I hope president of France understands that.

koe123 9mo ago
Genuinely: why? I feel like they were our geopolitical adversary by proxy cause of USA, but is that still true?
afavour 9mo ago
> That sounds like a rhetoric for better negotiating power against Trump. In the Canadian example at least the deal is signed. It's not just words. > Chinese are our adversaries Increasingly the US is a European adversary. They are literally threatening to invade the territory of a European country! China isn't doing that. Very easy to dismiss it as the rantings of a madman but no-one is holding him back. People didn't take the tariff bluster seriously and then it became very real.
- foobarian 9mo ago
  I really don't get the Greenland thing. Is there some 4D chess reason for it? The US already has military bases there and could probably have as many more as they wanted if they just asked nicely. So the whole security thing is a pretext
  - afavour 9mo ago
    IMO the reason is that he is a senile old man lashing out at the world. I really don't think there's a lot to it beyond that. Everyone else goes along with it because they know the administration's entire legitimacy comes from Trump and if/when he's gone the whole house of cards will collapse. That or they have their own focuses (e.g. Stephen Miller) and are happy for Greenland to be a distraction while they get on with their own stuff.
  - nemomarx 9mo ago
    No one's really put out a strong case for it like that. You could argue it's a lot of land that's underpopulated and might be valuable in twenty years with global warming or something? But the simpler answer is that Trump seems to personally like the idea of adding a big landmass to the US for ego reasons. He talked about it last term too with the same excuses mostly.
    - Supermancho 9mo ago
      Probably to indelibly put his name on a piece of the US. How did we get Greenland? Trump.
    - senderista 9mo ago
      It's the Mercator projection's fault
  - jfengel 9mo ago
    There have been mumblings about mineral wealth, and about strategic bases. None of them really make a lick of sense. It does not look as if it's serious. But this is a deeply unserious administration, so it's hard to guess.
    - coffeebeqn 9mo ago
      If they want mineral rights those will be arranged easily with basic diplomacy and investment. They had 17 military bases there during the Cold War and that contract stands. Greenland is under NATO article 5 protection. There is no rational net-positive reason for this no matter what dimension you look in
    - graemep 9mo ago
      Possibly to deter Greenland from becoming independent, wt least without guarantees it will stay in NATO and economically within the western sphere.
      - deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
  - jpadkins 9mo ago
    if there were more valuable reasons, talking publicly about it would only drive up the price.
- xienze 9mo ago
  > Very easy to dismiss it as the rantings of a madman but no-one is holding him back. Does anyone really need to? We're not getting Greenland and everyone knows it, ESPECIALLY the people screeching the most about it. Trump's whole thing is giving the media lots of fresh meat to go wild over so they're distracted. I'm sure it's some sort of Sun Tzu thing he read about and has latched on to. However, this one in particular is really baffling in that he can't let it go and it just makes everything worse. > People didn't take the tariff bluster seriously and then it became very real. I mean, not really? There's been some tariffs here and there but nowhere near what was originally claimed, things have been walked back and forth multiple times, etc. That's really what's caused the most damage, the uncertainty moreso than the actual tariffs. And this is also something he's particular fixated on and I wish he'd drop since it's obvious it's not going to have the intended outcome.
  - notahacker 9mo ago
    > Does anyone really need to? It feels like the rest of the post answers your own question. Yes, Vance and basically everyone below him know full well that the US acquiring Greenland would be utterly pointless and utterly disastrous. But he won't let it go, and in the mean time he's doing lots of stuff with real world consequences like tariffs and incinerating alliances to try to get people to agree with his stupid idea. Can't even use it as a "negotiation chip" when its the fruits of actual completed negotiations being threatened and the US could put any military installations in Greenland they wanted if they said "please" instead of "we are going to take you over".
fooster 9mo ago
Chinese are Canadian adversaries mostly because of the US. The US more or less forced Canada to hold Meng Wanzhou, which caused a huge rise in diplomatic tensions and cost Canada billions. Some thanks we got for that.
- petcat 9mo ago
  Doesn't China own most of the real estate in Canada. Did USA cause that
  - Cornbilly 9mo ago
    >Doesn't China own most of the real estate in Canada. No.
  - rjrjrjrj 9mo ago
    Weird whataboutery
  - Supermancho 9mo ago
    For a time there was a large amount of Chinese money fleeing to Canada and the US, buying up coastland and other high value residential. Circa 2018ish, that reversed due to Xi Ping's mandates. Near Seattle, the Bellevue luxury market bottom fell out over a month long period. AFAIK, it never fully returned to the hey day levels of spending.
  - maxglute 9mo ago
    US buyers owns like 10x more real estate in Canada in $$$ terms than PRC buyers, and US tends to buy the strategic stuff like commercial/industry, something like 50% of all foreign controlled assets in Canada is controlled by US. VS PRC mostly buying houses, foreigners own like 5% of housing stock in Canada.
  - fooster 9mo ago
    > Doesn't China own most of the real estate in Canada. No. Why would you claim something that is easily refuted? 75-80% of all residences in Canada are owner occupied.
epolanski 9mo ago
I'm Italian/Polish, China has never done anything to me in history. Whereas I remember multiple times our allies pillaging and colonizing the country. Not a fan of their espionage, lack of IP respect and human rights record (albeit we should also look at ourselves on the last one as well). But those are things that could've been challenged diplomatically through economical levers imho. The only reason China suddenly became the enemy is because their GDP growth put them as the world's biggest economy in few decades and Washington wasn't happy with this.
traceroute66 9mo ago
> I hope president of France understands that I'm sure he does. But only a fool would piss off the Chinese. Both in Macron's own country and his region, there will be hundreds of companies who are already cut-off from Russia, Africa, Middle-East and Central Asia due to geopolitics. China doesn't care and is busy selling there. So what's left is the remainder of Asia, which is China's home turf where they are already ultra-competitive as they have the geographic advantage. And of course there will be companies in Macron's country and region using Chinese manufacturing or otherwise engaged in Chinese JVs to get access to sell to the Chinese market. So for Macron to go full-Trump on China would be a textbook case of cutting your nose to spite your face. The Chinese are masters at playing the long game and the West needs to be careful about knee-jerk short-termism actions.

koe123 9mo ago

Genuinely: why? I feel like they were our geopolitical adversary by proxy cause of USA, but is that still true?

afavour 9mo ago

> That sounds like a rhetoric for better negotiating power against Trump. In the Canadian example at least the deal is signed. It's not just words. > Chinese are our adversaries Increasingly the US is a European adversary. They are literally threatening to invade the territory of a European country! China isn't doing that. Very easy to dismiss it as the rantings of a madman but no-one is holding him back. People didn't take the tariff bluster seriously and then it became very real.

foobarian 9mo ago
I really don't get the Greenland thing. Is there some 4D chess reason for it? The US already has military bases there and could probably have as many more as they wanted if they just asked nicely. So the whole security thing is a pretext
- afavour 9mo ago
  IMO the reason is that he is a senile old man lashing out at the world. I really don't think there's a lot to it beyond that. Everyone else goes along with it because they know the administration's entire legitimacy comes from Trump and if/when he's gone the whole house of cards will collapse. That or they have their own focuses (e.g. Stephen Miller) and are happy for Greenland to be a distraction while they get on with their own stuff.
- nemomarx 9mo ago
  No one's really put out a strong case for it like that. You could argue it's a lot of land that's underpopulated and might be valuable in twenty years with global warming or something? But the simpler answer is that Trump seems to personally like the idea of adding a big landmass to the US for ego reasons. He talked about it last term too with the same excuses mostly.
  - Supermancho 9mo ago
    Probably to indelibly put his name on a piece of the US. How did we get Greenland? Trump.
  - senderista 9mo ago
    It's the Mercator projection's fault
- jfengel 9mo ago
  There have been mumblings about mineral wealth, and about strategic bases. None of them really make a lick of sense. It does not look as if it's serious. But this is a deeply unserious administration, so it's hard to guess.
  - coffeebeqn 9mo ago
    If they want mineral rights those will be arranged easily with basic diplomacy and investment. They had 17 military bases there during the Cold War and that contract stands. Greenland is under NATO article 5 protection. There is no rational net-positive reason for this no matter what dimension you look in
  - graemep 9mo ago
    Possibly to deter Greenland from becoming independent, wt least without guarantees it will stay in NATO and economically within the western sphere.
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
- jpadkins 9mo ago
  if there were more valuable reasons, talking publicly about it would only drive up the price.
xienze 9mo ago
> Very easy to dismiss it as the rantings of a madman but no-one is holding him back. Does anyone really need to? We're not getting Greenland and everyone knows it, ESPECIALLY the people screeching the most about it. Trump's whole thing is giving the media lots of fresh meat to go wild over so they're distracted. I'm sure it's some sort of Sun Tzu thing he read about and has latched on to. However, this one in particular is really baffling in that he can't let it go and it just makes everything worse. > People didn't take the tariff bluster seriously and then it became very real. I mean, not really? There's been some tariffs here and there but nowhere near what was originally claimed, things have been walked back and forth multiple times, etc. That's really what's caused the most damage, the uncertainty moreso than the actual tariffs. And this is also something he's particular fixated on and I wish he'd drop since it's obvious it's not going to have the intended outcome.
- notahacker 9mo ago
  > Does anyone really need to? It feels like the rest of the post answers your own question. Yes, Vance and basically everyone below him know full well that the US acquiring Greenland would be utterly pointless and utterly disastrous. But he won't let it go, and in the mean time he's doing lots of stuff with real world consequences like tariffs and incinerating alliances to try to get people to agree with his stupid idea. Can't even use it as a "negotiation chip" when its the fruits of actual completed negotiations being threatened and the US could put any military installations in Greenland they wanted if they said "please" instead of "we are going to take you over".

fooster 9mo ago

Chinese are Canadian adversaries mostly because of the US. The US more or less forced Canada to hold Meng Wanzhou, which caused a huge rise in diplomatic tensions and cost Canada billions. Some thanks we got for that.

petcat 9mo ago
Doesn't China own most of the real estate in Canada. Did USA cause that
- Cornbilly 9mo ago
  >Doesn't China own most of the real estate in Canada. No.
- rjrjrjrj 9mo ago
  Weird whataboutery
- Supermancho 9mo ago
  For a time there was a large amount of Chinese money fleeing to Canada and the US, buying up coastland and other high value residential. Circa 2018ish, that reversed due to Xi Ping's mandates. Near Seattle, the Bellevue luxury market bottom fell out over a month long period. AFAIK, it never fully returned to the hey day levels of spending.
- maxglute 9mo ago
  US buyers owns like 10x more real estate in Canada in $$$ terms than PRC buyers, and US tends to buy the strategic stuff like commercial/industry, something like 50% of all foreign controlled assets in Canada is controlled by US. VS PRC mostly buying houses, foreigners own like 5% of housing stock in Canada.
- fooster 9mo ago
  > Doesn't China own most of the real estate in Canada. No. Why would you claim something that is easily refuted? 75-80% of all residences in Canada are owner occupied.

epolanski 9mo ago

I'm Italian/Polish, China has never done anything to me in history. Whereas I remember multiple times our allies pillaging and colonizing the country. Not a fan of their espionage, lack of IP respect and human rights record (albeit we should also look at ourselves on the last one as well). But those are things that could've been challenged diplomatically through economical levers imho. The only reason China suddenly became the enemy is because their GDP growth put them as the world's biggest economy in few decades and Washington wasn't happy with this.

traceroute66 9mo ago

> I hope president of France understands that I'm sure he does. But only a fool would piss off the Chinese. Both in Macron's own country and his region, there will be hundreds of companies who are already cut-off from Russia, Africa, Middle-East and Central Asia due to geopolitics. China doesn't care and is busy selling there. So what's left is the remainder of Asia, which is China's home turf where they are already ultra-competitive as they have the geographic advantage. And of course there will be companies in Macron's country and region using Chinese manufacturing or otherwise engaged in Chinese JVs to get access to sell to the Chinese market. So for Macron to go full-Trump on China would be a textbook case of cutting your nose to spite your face. The Chinese are masters at playing the long game and the West needs to be careful about knee-jerk short-termism actions.