4 ms·

> But if the EU "decouples" from the US, there's no incentive for the US to not, for example, take over Greenland. I dunno, I think Denmark and its remaining

> But if the EU "decouples" from the US, there's no incentive for the US to not, for example, take over Greenland. I dunno, I think Denmark and its remaining allies, including at least two nuclear weapons states, might be able to provide some incentive for the US not to take over Greenland. > But the EU is sitting here telling us it's this huge problem that Russia is invading Ukraine, yet they're happy to increase cooperation and trading with China who is providing support to Russia for their invasion? No, they aren't happy being backed into that by the open threat of US aggression. They weren't too happy having to ally with the USSR against the Nazis, either, but, you sometimes you have to deal with the overwhelming immediate problem, first. > Maybe increasing trade will help China stop helping Russia's war against Ukraine Its not Russia’s aggression in Ukraine that the shift toward China is aimed at. > we could just look at that activity and say, well, maybe we shouldn't help the EU here and if they really think Ukraine is a problem they should take these other actions instead, whatever they may be. We aren't helping the EU, we are threatening an EU and NATO state (and another NATO state, and consequently an ally of many EU states) with invasion. That’s literally the source of the shift you are complaining about. Trying to use the response to justify the action it responds to is...mind-boggling mental gymnastics.

ericmay 9mo ago
> I dunno, I think Denmark and its remaining allies, including at least two nuclear weapons states, might be able to provide some incentive for the US not to take over Greenland. If there really was just a, damn the alliance we want Greenland approach - and there's not, the EU including its nuclear armed states would not be able to do a single thing about it. Let's not be delusional. There is absolutely no debating this. > No, they aren't happy being backed into that by the open threat of US aggression. They weren't too happy having to ally with the USSR against the Nazis, either, but, you sometimes you have to deal with the overwhelming immediate problem, first. To be clear, are you suggesting the United States in general is the "immediate problem" and not Russia's invasion of Ukraine? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view here very clearly before I respond and want to give you that opportunity. > Its not Russia’s aggression in Ukraine that the shift toward China is aimed at. Ok, but as long as you acknowledge that China is assisting Russia in the invasion of Ukraine and further trading with China only furthers that war and Russia's aims. > We aren't helping the EU, we are threatening an EU and NATO state (and another NATO state, and consequently an ally of many EU states) with invasion. That’s literally the source of the shift you are complaining about. Trying to use the response to justify the action it responds to is...mind-boggling mental gymnastics. The source of the shift didn't start there, nor will it really end there. But we are helping the EU immensely even when we're having a conflict about somewhere else. You can't make the claim that the EU gets to do this with respect to China but the US doesn't get to do it with the EU.
- dragonwriter 9mo ago
  > To be clear, are you suggesting the United States in general is the "immediate problem" and not Russia's invasion of Ukraine? No, I am suggesting that the United States, not China, poses the more immediate, direct threat to EU states and their treaty allies. Both the China and, under Trump, the US are also contributing to the problem of the Russian war in Ukraine, but that's not the comparison point.
  - ericmay 9mo ago
    Thanks for the clarification. Yes I unconditionally disagree with that assessment. > the US are also contributing to the problem of the Russian war in Ukraine This is factually incorrect.
- ben_w 9mo ago
  > If there really was just a, damn the alliance we want Greenland approach - and there's not, the EU including its nuclear armed states would not be able to do a single thing about it. I can't fully parse this sentence, because the first part, "If there really was just a, damn the alliance we want Greenland approach", that's exactly what it looked like to us, but the second part I can't make fit with that: "and there's not, the EU including its nuclear armed states would not be able to do a single thing about it." - are you saying the EU couldn't stop such a thing despite France having nukes? Because to me it looks like we stopped an invasion by putting a tripwire force on Greenland and telling the US "FAFO". Or that the US wasn't taking the "damn the alliance we want Greenland approach" because France has nukes? > To be clear, are you suggesting the United States in general is the "immediate problem" and not Russia's invasion of Ukraine? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view here very clearly before I respond and want to give you that opportunity. We have two immediate problems, China isn't one of them. Important point: Ukraine isn't in the EU or NATO. We're friends with Ukraine, we're not as far along the path as allies, not yet. Russia was the immediate problem because of what would happen if Ukraine lost, but the moment it started looking like the USA was about to actually invade Greenland, then the USA became an even higher priority. Because that's not "a friend", that's "us". > You can't make the claim that the EU gets to do this with respect to China but the US doesn't get to do it with the EU. China has not threatened to invade any EU or NATO territory, which is the specific "it" that the EU is upset that the US has done.

ericmay 9mo ago

> I dunno, I think Denmark and its remaining allies, including at least two nuclear weapons states, might be able to provide some incentive for the US not to take over Greenland. If there really was just a, damn the alliance we want Greenland approach - and there's not, the EU including its nuclear armed states would not be able to do a single thing about it. Let's not be delusional. There is absolutely no debating this. > No, they aren't happy being backed into that by the open threat of US aggression. They weren't too happy having to ally with the USSR against the Nazis, either, but, you sometimes you have to deal with the overwhelming immediate problem, first. To be clear, are you suggesting the United States in general is the "immediate problem" and not Russia's invasion of Ukraine? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view here very clearly before I respond and want to give you that opportunity. > Its not Russia’s aggression in Ukraine that the shift toward China is aimed at. Ok, but as long as you acknowledge that China is assisting Russia in the invasion of Ukraine and further trading with China only furthers that war and Russia's aims. > We aren't helping the EU, we are threatening an EU and NATO state (and another NATO state, and consequently an ally of many EU states) with invasion. That’s literally the source of the shift you are complaining about. Trying to use the response to justify the action it responds to is...mind-boggling mental gymnastics. The source of the shift didn't start there, nor will it really end there. But we are helping the EU immensely even when we're having a conflict about somewhere else. You can't make the claim that the EU gets to do this with respect to China but the US doesn't get to do it with the EU.

dragonwriter 9mo ago
> To be clear, are you suggesting the United States in general is the "immediate problem" and not Russia's invasion of Ukraine? No, I am suggesting that the United States, not China, poses the more immediate, direct threat to EU states and their treaty allies. Both the China and, under Trump, the US are also contributing to the problem of the Russian war in Ukraine, but that's not the comparison point.
- ericmay 9mo ago
  Thanks for the clarification. Yes I unconditionally disagree with that assessment. > the US are also contributing to the problem of the Russian war in Ukraine This is factually incorrect.
ben_w 9mo ago
> If there really was just a, damn the alliance we want Greenland approach - and there's not, the EU including its nuclear armed states would not be able to do a single thing about it. I can't fully parse this sentence, because the first part, "If there really was just a, damn the alliance we want Greenland approach", that's exactly what it looked like to us, but the second part I can't make fit with that: "and there's not, the EU including its nuclear armed states would not be able to do a single thing about it." - are you saying the EU couldn't stop such a thing despite France having nukes? Because to me it looks like we stopped an invasion by putting a tripwire force on Greenland and telling the US "FAFO". Or that the US wasn't taking the "damn the alliance we want Greenland approach" because France has nukes? > To be clear, are you suggesting the United States in general is the "immediate problem" and not Russia's invasion of Ukraine? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view here very clearly before I respond and want to give you that opportunity. We have two immediate problems, China isn't one of them. Important point: Ukraine isn't in the EU or NATO. We're friends with Ukraine, we're not as far along the path as allies, not yet. Russia was the immediate problem because of what would happen if Ukraine lost, but the moment it started looking like the USA was about to actually invade Greenland, then the USA became an even higher priority. Because that's not "a friend", that's "us". > You can't make the claim that the EU gets to do this with respect to China but the US doesn't get to do it with the EU. China has not threatened to invade any EU or NATO territory, which is the specific "it" that the EU is upset that the US has done.