> Germany will deploy a reconnaissance team of 13 personnel to Greenland on Thursday, its Defense Ministry said.
Any sarcastic comments about these numbers?
I'll give it a try: Germany also sent 5,000 military hats.
More seriously: I don't even think such a tiny contingent of troops would even work as a tripwire if Trump invades. Trump and his people probably don't have the self control, but if they did it seems like they could just bypass those troops and literally ignore them. I'm reminded of the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea: my recollection is many of the Ukrainians just surrendered without shots being fired, because their numbers were too small and their positions completely untenable.
A key detail is that they Europe and the US didn’t support Ukraine to fight. Neat, especially having facilitated Ukraine’s nuclear weapons being removed.
Question is, to whom this fact is more embarrasing: EU politicians or the US admin?
Because that would be 10 times stupid
He's no genius, like you're suggesting. They just want the rare minerals that people like Sam Altman are already investing on.
I think we've all allowed our emotions to blind us to the realities of arctic defense. Setting aside the fact that most of the business to be done so to speak would be offshore in any potential confrontation, Russia-US or EU-US. The very thought of defending a landmass as large and sparsely populated as Greenland with a handful of soldiers is laughable.
The Europeans are obviously just trying to make a point. Will it work. My bet is no. It's only going to irk people in Washington. But it's clear this is not a serious attempt at Greenland's defense.
Neither China nor Russia would attack a NATO country, let alone the fact that they don't have the logistics and resources to conduct operations so far from home and so close to North America. Norfolk, the biggest military port in the world is 2200 miles from Greenland.
Small force, symbolic stand: "Remember the Alamo", but "Remember Greenland" instead this time.
By the way, can you tell me the background and meaning of these phrases?
"Don't tread on me!"
"Live free or die"
"Give me liberty or give me death"
"From my cold, dead hands"
If there is a need to redesign the defense of Greenland I assume that would take more time.
I defer to Sir Humphrey on these matters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVYqB0uTKlE
"To create a disunited Europe"
Sure, you can convince a close friend of yours to take his home security much more seriously by telling him that you'll come by later and rob him at gunpoint.
But do you think he'll be even remotely friendly to you after that?
Trump isn't playing 3D chess, he's just a moron laying waste to the democratic values, traditions, and institutions that have enabled the US to succeed.
There's little difference between Trump and a Russian assert. He does the work of the Kremlin for free.
1. As part of Nato Greenland is already protected by such aggression. The idea of anybody triggering WW3 over Greenland is ludicrous as anything interesting there it's easily obtainable just by...putting money on the table. I'm sure Greenlanders will welcome royalties while you mine or do whatever in such a terrible environment.
2. Neither of the two has any military capabilities to conduct military operations in such a place and so distant from their countries. So close to North America moreover. Just to put it in perspective: Greenland is closer to Boston, and by a significant margin, than it is to any major Russian port.
3. While Russia has a long history of aggression and territorial expansion, anybody who's intimate with Chinese history knows well that an aggression on Greenland makes no sense and does not fit any pattern seen in the history of China.
The countries that have legitimate reasons to worry about Chinese aggression are those that were part of China in the pre colonial era: Taiwan, Kyrgyzstan, most of southern Siberia and Mongolia. This is why, e.g. China has annexed Tibet, but never gave two damns about neighbouring countries it could grab in an afternoon like Nepal: never been part of China, they don't care.
`”fundamental disagreement" between the Trump administration and European allies.`
Quite the opposite. It has already led to a hard core of NATO countries shifting gears quickly.
If one or more other NATO countries attack them, it would push the hardcore NATO countries even closer together.
This, at least alliance with US, was stated by US on last years Munich conference and published in text by White House last December.
My real concern is Canada. Trump has made similar remarks about Canada like he did Greenland. If he takes Greenland it will be much harder for the EU should resupply Canada should the US see Canada is fully surrounded. How do Canadians view this?
That is exactly what it's for. Starting new problems distracts from the old problems at home.
Always something new, never a moment to catch your breath and focus. Eventually, people will get tired, will stop paying as much attention, and hopefully forget about those older scandals.
For the first time since 1783, there are now "Hessians" (German state troops) in North America with their guns pointed at the United States.
rawgabbit•49m ago
mring33621•41m ago
lostlogin•39m ago
JacoboJacobi•7m ago
woodpanel•39m ago
jdiaz97•37m ago
1. ‘The perfect target’: Russia cultivated Trump as asset for 40 years – ex-KGB spy. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/29/trump-russia...
2. British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spie...
3. Now everyone knows that Putin was present when Trump shared intimate moments with "Bubba". They're beyond best friends.
4. Compare how Putin is treated by Trump, and how Zelensky is treated by Trump.
5. The first round of tariffs, every country on earth was included except Russia. Even countries that traded less than Russia-USA were included.
gizajob•23m ago
stickfigure•21m ago
I used to think this was tinfoil hat territory. I'm starting to come round to "this is the only narrative that fits the facts".
jdiaz97•18m ago
and look at everything from first principles, it's a logical conclusion. The simplest answer. Occam's Razor
idle_zealot•17m ago
Rather than specifically being a Russian asset, he's an asset to the last charismatic man he remembers speaking to.
fasbiner•6m ago
...you eventually end up in situation where most people agree that rule of law, political pluralism, free press and free speech, free inquiry and academic independence are luxuries we can no longer afford because of the foreign threat.
Because after all, we're under attack from evil people who want to destroy us! No compromise is possible and anybody who says they care about general principles is a fool or a traitor.
Trump has facilitated the continued transfer of tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons to Zelensky and accelerated the arming and training ukrainian forces in 2017.
Unless The Atlantic and Obama are in on the conspiracy as well, it's unclear why he would say this and express policy: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-oba...
Trying to explain the political and cultural problems of a country internally by reference to foreign plots has not once in history ended well or been evaluated as accurate by subsequent historians with no dog in that fight. The crisis of the present deserves real analysis, not conspiracy theories that crumble in the face of basic numeracy and mutually agreed upon facts. If you have counter-examples from before 2016, I'd love to discuss them and expand my worldview, otherwise I think it's prudent to go with the historical heuristic.
You are harming both yourself and the world by failing to distinguish between what is emotionally satisfying and what best fits the mutually agreed upon facts available without improvisationally multiplying entities that enlarge the scope of conspiracy without evidence.
standardUser•27m ago
o-o-•8m ago
> The ad’s central message—that US allies should pay their fair share—remains a core principle of Trump’s foreign policy today. His longstanding skepticism of NATO, confrontations with international leaders, and demands for more financial contributions from allied nations all stem from the ideas he publicly expressed in 1987.
xorcist•4m ago
This should surprise no one. Undermining NATO fits the now well known negotiation style perfectly, you can try to get a good deal from allies to put it back together, while simultaneously playing those allies against an alternative and opposite deal with Russia for doing business again. The latter has the added bonus of even cheaper oil. Neither is good for Ukraine and Taiwan unfortunately.