> Greenland is important piece of land for US security - and the US has eyed it for a long time.
The US have the ability to do everything up to and including basing troops and missiles there, today, under treaty so it's unclear what is meant by the US need for "security."
That's what I don't get. We had a solid relationship with our fellow NATO country and that relationship left all the room in the world for collaboration, including what you're describing.
We're trashing that relationship not just with Denmark but with NATO. What gains do we see that can offset that?
I guess this is not just a rhetorical question, but what is more secure than stable relationships with existing allies?
All interesting questions that fall short unless you’re willing to assume the American president will act deliberately in the national interest. I feel we’ve clearly moved past that point.
The US can, and always has been able to, maintain its security interests in Greenland without trying to forcibly take it. The calls for doing so now are not about US security.
Well of course, Greenland is a massive welfare drain, trying to forcibly take it when you already get to use it for defense is would be like marrying the $20 hooker for the 'free' services. You wouldn't buy the cow when you already get the milk cheaper than the farmer.
The reason Trump wants Denmark is for vanity purposes.
If Denmark actually can shitcan the place while making it look like a victory they would definitely do it. Although the only way I think they can pull that off is by convincing Greenland to become independent and then the US swooping in when Greenland realizes their free money hydrant has turned off and they need a new sugar daddy because all those minerals they're sitting on aren't actually worth a dime unless someone is dumb enough to try and use them in one of the most hostile inhabited environments on earth to mine them.
There are some truths in what you are saying. But I don't think Denmark wants to give up Greenland, I think they are ok with the money they pay (around $600 million per year). Denmark is a rich country so money is not a big deal.
The Danes would have allowed all those things without the annexation, think new sub pens for our Virginias, Space Force base expansions and so on. There is simply no need to piss off an ally with this nonsense.
I think the best outcome would really be the US' current allies are just waiting until trump goes and he doesn't break too much and the new person goes back to a more stable posture.
It's probably a more realistic outcome however is that no one really trusts the US any more and trump has just hastened the decline as the EU looks inward more, and other areas move more quickly to get support from china.
I hope they are more long-sighted than that. They did the same thing with Bush II's "with us or against us" rhetoric and actions. Appease the POTUS while he's there and hope the next one is a little better. Obama was more conciliatory to our allies' needs, but the cycle has been like this since 2001. The US is getting less stable instead of more stable, so I don't know what Europe is hoping for.
> The US is getting less stable instead of more stable
> I hope they are more long-sighted than that
Quoting you out of order, but when one puts all three together what do you believe the long-term plan should be? America is, by your own admission, becoming less stable, and currently threatening annexation of multiple countries. What exactly do you think "less stable" looks like after this?
> I think the best outcome would really be the US' current allies are just waiting until trump goes and he doesn't break too much and the new person goes back to a more stable posture.
This seems to be what most of the EU leaders think. However, it's not plausible that Trump is an aberration, given that he's been elected twice. Europe/EU/the West need to understand that the US populace doesn't seem to care about their alliances any more.
And this is fine, that's their total democratic right, but there's going to be really large downstream consequences over time.
> I think the best outcome would really be the US' current allies are just waiting until trump goes and he doesn't break too much and the new person goes back to a more stable posture.
I’m afraid that ship has sailed. This was the general feeling during Bidens’ presidency. After Trump’s reelection, it’s clear that the USA is permanently one swing state away from electing a tyrant.
I think the rest of the world will need to see a widely held conviction of never again and fundamental changes to America’s democratic system, before trust can be rebuilt.
Luckily there are other defensive alliances in place.
The broad advantage of having a "felt of society" —mutually overlapping circles— as opposed to a "fabric of society", is that the latter is much easier to tear.
Not well developed would be to our advantage if the casus foederis were in a grey area.
(It's somewhat :lolsob: to note that Thucydides already distinguished between "stated reasons" and "real reasons" behind a conflict; remember "Remember the Maine!"
EDIT: looks like there may not even be a need to be part of an existing mutual defence alliance; sending troops to take part in Operation Arctic Endurance might suffice for an Art 51 response to invasion?
And what will we Europeans do if Denmark triggers article 5. A single US carrier group could stop all commercial traffic to Europe and a single USA submarine could keep the parody of navies we have in check.
Why? Because even if Oceania, Rasia, and Eastasia want to play 1984 sphere of influence games, we can probably position ourselves neutrally, to trade freely with all of them — and whenever one has designs on us, then the other two would naturally be forced to counter.
Somehow, "deep state" is always there as the god of Trump's failures. The concept of "deep state" should be excised from conversation now that we can clearly see the unilateral rule of this administration. At this point, I wish there was a deep state, but unfortunately there's just Trump. His personal idiosyncrasies explain things much better than any conspiracy theory ever could.
No, there is a deep state. It's people who are in the government, who hold to the constitution and the rule of law, rather than implementing whatever wild idea Trump currently proposes that is illegal and/or unconstitutional, and who therefore work internally to block a bunch of Trump's plans.
Or at least they must feel like the deep state to Trump. It's just that, for those who like the rule of law, those people are the good guys.
Nonsense. What "deep stater" would think taking de jure control of Greenland would be worth destroying NATO and transatlantic relations broadly, especially when the US already has access to it for military purposes?
It's stupider than any notion of the deep state. It's rich billionaire assholes like Ronald Lauder that pushed stuff like the annexation of Greenland because they have money-induced rotting brains and have never encountered pushback for anything in their lives. And if there's anything Trump loves more than gaudy fake gold, it's trying to be one of the big shots.
