I am genuinely sorry that Atlanticism came down to a few hundred thousand of the dumbest Midwesterners we could find.

We all know they fall down by showing painted signs at street demos. /s

If we successfully revolt the US doesn't survive in any form to stabilize the world built around us and there is no guarantee that the ruling party isn't MAGA-like.

The rubicon was crossed. This is the new normal.

Sadly, if you look at polling, none of this is remotely unpopular with US Republican voters. Our country’s union is hanging on by tattered threads.

Maybe - just hear me out - if, instead of spending the last decades regulating idiotic things, destroying our industry to appease ignorant (or worse, traitorous) environmentalists, opening our borders to a flood of unchecked immigration that further damaged our social services and social fabric, weakening our military because Merkel didn’t want to spend money on it ( and instead pushed us into gas agreements with Russia) and constantly apologizing - effectively shooting ourselves in the foot out of some twisted sense of shame - for having modernized, democratized, and explored the planet, and instead, maybe, just maybe, we had spent that time strengthening our industry, society, and military, we wouldn’t now have to bow to Daddy USA.

The truth is that we are helpless without them and can’t even unite to stand up to Russia at present.

That's the EU's problem, not Trump's)

Your mistaking is in using rationality and logic.

> There is no sign that Canada and the European nations will be in a position to even put up a shadow of resistance to it.

Same for the US. There has been ample reporting about how there is no shipbuilding capacity in the US (but there still is in Europe).

It's pretty clear that going forward the only real military threat the rest of the world has to concern itself with is the USA.

But nooooo, they gotta buy the whole thing like it's Alaska or something.

I don't get it. Especially because now Russia/China will actually get real interested in the Arctic, plus that they now have an opportunity to disrupt the alliance and delegitimize NATO etc.

It could, at any time, reopen them and move troops there under existing agreements, or build more. Nobody would bat an eyelid.

To pretend this is about defence is nonsense. It’s about taking territory.

I don’t know why we got to be assholes. I prefer speaking softly and carrying a big stick.

If the US can extract Maduro, it can extract the leadership of Novo Nordisk, their lead scientists and all of their intellectual property.

/amused scenario

Hence Eli Lilly +40% in the last year and Novo -23%. Or on a longer timescale you can see the problem:

https://www.google.com/finance/quote/NVO:NYSE?sa=X&sqi=2&ved...

That was my thought as well. It's a dangerous rhetoric being displayed by USA. "We need this land for our security". Turns out, what if other powers start using the same rhetoric? Russia did it already for Ukraine, China might say "We need Taiwan for our security".. where does it stop and ultimately it leads absolutely nowhere good.

The US is allowed for decades to have a military presence on Greenland, but the US Army has been diminishing it's presence as the time went by.

[^1] With NATO, the security reason given by US makes no sense. And as for natural resources, I'm sure there are perfectly legal and inexpensive mechanisms that US can use to set up mining operations in Greenland.

Does not make sense. Denmark had already budgeted with a huge increase of military capabilities on Greenland. If US wanted more they could talk with their allied.

And the 'lol just pay them' argument is tone deaf and insulting to the Greenlanders. If you followed along you would know that they have already stated that they would not take money. To say nothing about the laws that governs the Kingdom and the process of leaving the it. Which can not be deferred by paying anyone. But I guess americans have a really hard time understanding the rule of law now.

The ideal for the US superpower right now, is to collapse Iran's regime while Russia is kept busy in Ukraine. It's unable to lend support to prop up its allies. The peace efforts are fake, meant to maintain a constant back and forth that never really goes anywhere. The US system has been focused on trying to strip Russia out of that region for decades, since before 9/11. Iraq was about Russia. Syria was about Russia. The first Gulf War was about decimating the Soviet supplied Iraqi army with the latest generation of US weapons, to put them to the test.

Most of the agenda exists from one administration to the next. The Pentagon works on its strategic aims across decades (see Bush & Obama & Trump and pivoting against China).

The US superpower is interested in the great power conflicts, it's not interested in Iraq because of oil, or Venezuela because of oil. It's about Russia and China, the other components (oil, chips, weapons, etc) are mere strategic calculations on the board.

Plus, punishing exactlty those Nato partners who are sending military there to see how to strengthen the defense. That shows you don't want Greenland stronger, militarily. You want it weaker to have less issues when you invade it.

You're going to pick better next time, right?

Yes. Ian Bremmer keeps pointing out that if the "law of the jungle" becomes the norm for relations between countries, the USA will not benefit as much as autocracies like China and Russia.

See https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TLhz6ZbrMuI for a more full-throated explanation from Ian.