3 ms·

I'm a bit sceptical. It feels like part of the white house narrative around greenland and conjuring up an image of threats. The link to Russia is weak and the C

I'm a bit sceptical. It feels like part of the white house narrative around greenland and conjuring up an image of threats. The link to Russia is weak and the Chinese military purposes are not substantiated ("Some fear China is...") I don't think this will make much impact on the EU allies The memory of the made-up WMDs in Iraq is still fresh.

aavci 9mo ago
The article did have a lot of opinion in it with limited information based on facts.
- postsantum 9mo ago
  They included the opinion of Kaja Kallas. She reads a lot of books and is very smart (according to her own words)
  - aavci 9mo ago
    I'm not saying it was completely lacking facts. I am more so referring to the less technical language such as "As winter began in the Arctic, China was celebrating a banner year there"
Supermancho 9mo ago
Most northern powers have been looking toward the thawing north passages for decades. The shortest distance from Portland, Maine to St Petersburg is about the width of the US. Greenland is of huge strategic value, holding a similar value to Alaska. The shortening of shipping lanes will shape global economics, as well as stoking the fears of other powers establishing footholds in northern regions, for the foreseeable future. China aggressively projects power, with a willingness to spend a large amount of effort (sand islands) for footholds. Notably, by the time the evidence of these artificial islands was observed, it was too late to reconsider. Russia does the same, when they have the resources. The US is not used to doing this and has historically fared poorly. Ofc there is worry.
- HWR_14 9mo ago
  Chinas sand islands are rejected by other countries. They fly over them withouty permission to reaffirm the consider them non-Chinese territory
  - Supermancho 9mo ago
    Power projection is not limited to national expansion. Strong words and casually flying over them, does not change the strategic or physical utility of the islands. The installations are still there.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]

aavci 9mo ago

The article did have a lot of opinion in it with limited information based on facts.

postsantum 9mo ago
They included the opinion of Kaja Kallas. She reads a lot of books and is very smart (according to her own words)
- aavci 9mo ago
  I'm not saying it was completely lacking facts. I am more so referring to the less technical language such as "As winter began in the Arctic, China was celebrating a banner year there"

Supermancho 9mo ago

Most northern powers have been looking toward the thawing north passages for decades. The shortest distance from Portland, Maine to St Petersburg is about the width of the US. Greenland is of huge strategic value, holding a similar value to Alaska. The shortening of shipping lanes will shape global economics, as well as stoking the fears of other powers establishing footholds in northern regions, for the foreseeable future. China aggressively projects power, with a willingness to spend a large amount of effort (sand islands) for footholds. Notably, by the time the evidence of these artificial islands was observed, it was too late to reconsider. Russia does the same, when they have the resources. The US is not used to doing this and has historically fared poorly. Ofc there is worry.

HWR_14 9mo ago
Chinas sand islands are rejected by other countries. They fly over them withouty permission to reaffirm the consider them non-Chinese territory
- Supermancho 9mo ago
  Power projection is not limited to national expansion. Strong words and casually flying over them, does not change the strategic or physical utility of the islands. The installations are still there.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]