Greenland

[Observe]

I honestly don't think Trump has any idea what it would mean for America if they were to be thrown out of NATO. He talks about needing Greenland for American security but if he starts a war with the rest of NATO it will be bye bye to all of those bases he has with those countries, the list of US bases in Germany alone is 46, there are the air bases, between the UK and Germany there are 11 of those, their naval bases in Spain, Italy, Greece, Iceland and others. Then you also have their early warning system, not to mention all the inelegance they get from NATO countries all gone, on another side note they have numerous weapon stashes all over the place and nuclear weapons in Germany, Italy and Turkey all gone. If they start a war with the rest of NATO, all of that equipment would be gone and in enemy hands overnight, not to mention the amount of personnel they would lose. It is pretty staggering what America will lose if they continue down the path they are being led by Trump, they will probably become the most vulnerable country on the planet, not the safest.

You are getting one thing a bit backwards: NATO is far more critical to Europe’s security than to America’s. Those U.S. bases in Europe are not charity for America - they are the backbone of European deterrence. If the U.S. withdrew, those countries wouldn’t suddenly be safer - they would lose infrastructure that Europe cannot replace quickly, if at all. Decades of underinvestment in European defense was possible precisely because the U.S. guaranteed security - at American tax-payers expense.

None of that is to say that I'm in favor of current events. I'm just pointing out that the U.S. uses NATO; it does not rely on it for survival. Europe relies on NATO - meaning the United States. A weakened NATO hurts Europe first, hardest, and longest.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that. Still, nothing is permanent ...

[felter]

I actually strongly believe that if those American bases were not here we would be a hell of a lot safer than we are right now, as the country that is right now the biggest threat to every person on this planet isn't Russia or China, it is America. You're acting as though none of us has any military, there are 32 countries in NATO and your arrogance thinks we are 100% dependent on America for our safety, how obnoxious can you get. We have our own troops, our own air force, our own navy, our own nuclear weapons and a lot of that equipment and personnel is way far superior to anything America has. SO don't get all we need you because we don't were better off without you especially right now.

Do you know what would happen if we all woke up tomorrow and America was gone, just disappeared without a trace, nothing that's what, life would go on people would just get on with things just like they always have, America is not a must-have without it, we'll all die, it's just like everywhere else, no more or less important, so get over yourself.

The thing that would make this world a way better place right now, is if Russia, China and America were to just vanish, we don't need them and the shit they bring along with them.

[Observe]

No one is saying Europe has no military or that Europeans are incapable. The point is about scale, integration, and deterrence, not arrogance. Europe has capable forces, but they are fragmented and heavily dependent on U.S. strategic airlift, refueling, missile defense, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, logistics, command-and-control etc. That isn’t my opinion; it’s reflected in decades of NATO planning and in the fact that most European states only began rearming seriously after Russia invaded Ukraine.

As for the idea that Europe would be “safer” without U.S. bases: history argues the opposite. The longest period of major-power peace in modern European history coincides exactly with sustained U.S. presence. Those bases don’t make Europe a target; they raise the cost of aggression so high that war becomes irrational. If the U.S. vanished tomorrow, life would indeed go on - but Europe would immediately face a harsher security environment, higher defense spending, nuclear proliferation pressures, and far greater risk of miscalculation. Saying “everyone would be fine” ignores both geography and history. This isn’t about America being indispensable to humanity - it’s about the uncomfortable reality that European security has depended on American power far more than the reverse.

[jlehtone]

Europe could be safer if there never had been US bases to lean on.
Then again, maybe there would be no Europe at all, if those forces had not been there.

[Chips]

I actually strongly believe that if those American bases were not here we would be a hell of a lot safer than we are right now, as the country that is right now the biggest threat to every person on this planet isn't Russia or China, it is America. You're acting as though none of us has any military, there are 32 countries in NATO and your arrogance thinks we are 100% dependent on America for our safety, how obnoxious can you get. We have our own troops, our own air force, our own navy, our own nuclear weapons and a lot of that equipment and personnel is way far superior to anything America has. SO don't get all we need you because we don't were better off without you especially right now.

Do you know what would happen if we all woke up tomorrow and America was gone, just disappeared without a trace, nothing that's what, life would go on people would just get on with things just like they always have, America is not a must-have without it, we'll all die, it's just like everywhere else, no more or less important, so get over yourself.

The thing that would make this world a way better place right now, is if Russia, China and America were to just vanish, we don't need them and the shit they bring along with them.

I get the dislike of the US attitude, who doesn't. But most of that is just plain not true. It is not fallacy that the US strength has helped keep Europe safe during the cold war. Similarly, it's US munitions that are keeping Ukraine in the fight. Europe is literally buying US weapons/ammo to gift to Ukraine.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/can-ukrai ... stions-ask

The US retains manufacture of munitions (shells) within the US army (partially), whereas in Europe, it's all controlled by companies. On top, the UK deterrent relies upon the US for servicing (the missiles), else it's redundant within a few years.

Most of Europe relies upon US produced airplanes (F35 - Italy, UK, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, Germany, Finland, Switzerland, Czech, Greece, Norway, Romania), F16 (Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Turkey, Romania) - and that's not even covering their non fighter/bomber craft - such as heavy lift, marine patrol and more. Then there's missiles / munitions overall.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-in ... self-alone

I've previously linked that Europe is near entirely dependent upon the US for both it's satellite capabilities (intelligence), intercept (intelligence), heavy lifting (transport) and command and control.

Sure, the EU can almost certainly "go it alone". But it's not accurate to portray that the US is redundant, or offered nothing per se. As for being technologically superior, that's not substantiated.

So it's not fair to say we'd have been better without them. Then again, we may have been forced to look after ourselves. Also, it's not fair to say the US has done this altruistically. It was *absolutely* in their best interests to curb the USSR and Communism with regards to their own interests. So... they've no place saying they've carried us. That was their desire all along, to ensure it protected *their* ideals.

[clakclak]

"Pentagon Places 1,500 Arctic-Trained Airborne Troops on Standby as Greenland Dispute Escalates". I doubt very much that this is a prelude to anything, but as far as signals go, this is quite one to send to countries you are in an alliance with.

I did not think I'd see the entire dumb Greenland aaga escalate to this degree.

Source: https://www.thedefensenews.com/news-det ... Escalates/

[chew-ie]

And escalating it does...

Trump says ‘there can be no going back’ on Greenland as private messages from Macron leaked

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... st-updates

On a sidenote, those are the times we are living in right now:

Posted an AI generated visual of himself planting the US flag on Greenland, saying it’s “US territory, est. 2026,” days after the US delegation agreed with Danish foreign minister for talks to be conducted behind closed doors, and not through threatening messages on social media.

Imagine that a few years back - that idiot would've been fired.

[Incubi]

Americans do not want to expand, not the liberals, not the conservatives. And certainty not the people pretending to be either. Even the extremist on either side do not want this.

https://thehill.com/policy/internationa ... uinnipiac/

I lost faith in our checks and balances, and my only hope right now is that the midterms put into power enough people that stand against Trump to force the checks and balances and reviews them for a more future proof checks and balances. The man discovered and abused a weakness in our system, and I can only hope the next president and congress fixes that. I worry that he will create a war to circumvent our checks and balances even further. Hopefully the world doesn't play into his hand. I am sure he is very convenient for anyone's anti American sentiment. Bigots tend to spread bigotry worldwide.

[Usenko]

I am sure he is very convenient for anyone's anti American sentiment. Bigots tend to spread bigotry worldwide.

That I can confirm, alas. In Australia you find a few people who think he's great (why, I do not know) but the vast majority of people think he's a moron - and unfortunately they assume that all America goes with him.

(Obviously, by the way I put this, you know that I'm not in the same category; I understand he represents what is actually a fairly small [if vocal] minority.)

[Gavrushka]

I am sure he is very convenient for anyone's anti American sentiment. Bigots tend to spread bigotry worldwide.

That I can confirm, alas. In Australia you find a few people who think he's great (why, I do not know) but the vast majority of people think he's a moron - and unfortunately they assume that all America goes with him.

(Obviously, by the way I put this, you know that I'm not in the same category; I understand he represents what is actually a fairly small [if vocal] minority.)

It's similar in the UK, and those same people celebrate every act he does that causes harm and distress. I use morality, my internal sense of right and wrong, to guide my actions and beliefs, but I've a feeling these people have that guidance inverted, seeing acts of altruism as 'weakness', acts of violence and harm as 'strength'.

I dunno, maybe that could be described as good versus evil?

[Chips]

Americans do not want to expand, not the liberals, not the conservatives. And certainty not the people pretending to be either. Even the extremist on either side do not want this.

https://thehill.com/policy/internationa ... uinnipiac/

I keep reading various polls that are published, and certainly see plenty of news channels (I even watched a Fox news one and it's as bad as watching Russian propaganda channels over the war in the Ukraine).

But do the American people *really* care? Plenty of hand wringing, but it appears very subdued looking from over the other side of the Atlantic. It's one thing to answer a poll, but it's another thing to show it - and so far it only appears polls. That's it.

Hear about "Mid-terms" as if it'll be a magical panacea, but that's 10 months away. Given the nation voted for a convicted felon; liable rapist; self-confessed sexual assaulter; claimed he'd be a dictator for a few days, and a provable serial liar... it isn't confidence inducing that by then they'll care unless in the middle of more serious aggro event. That assumes there'll even be a mid term. I've read polls saying ICE goes too far, but where's the public pressure? 1000 people protesting in a city of 1.5 million? A dozen polls saying it's unfavourable? Ineffective and absolutely ignorable. Where's the tipping point; is there a tipping point?

If the US gets Greenland, especially "peacefully" (any non-shots fired method, including actually using forces but being unopposed), even if it causes NATO to split, will the public remotely care about the damage done? From the European side of things, it seems baffling how subdued the population over there is, despite supposed objections to the current regimes methods... but do they only retrospectively get vocal?

Or have I just failed to see the right reporting of a ground swell. Not even heard much "opposition" from here

Wait to see what political bomb gets dropped today, or is he going to walk back somewhat. It's going to be a loooong haul if it is just all Epstein cover, but that may just be convenience.

[Falcrack]

I keep reading various polls that are published, and certainly see plenty of news channels (I even watched a Fox news one and it's as bad as watching Russian propaganda channels over the war in the Ukraine).

But do the American people *really* care? Plenty of hand wringing, but it appears very subdued looking from over the other side of the Atlantic. It's one thing to answer a poll, but it's another thing to show it - and so far it only appears polls. That's it.

Hear about "Mid-terms" as if it'll be a magical panacea, but that's 10 months away. Given the nation voted for a convicted felon; liable rapist; self-confessed sexual assaulter; claimed he'd be a dictator for a few days, and a provable serial liar... it isn't confidence inducing that by then they'll care unless in the middle of more serious aggro event. That assumes there'll even be a mid term. I've read polls saying ICE goes too far, but where's the public pressure? 1000 people protesting in a city of 1.5 million? A dozen polls saying it's unfavourable? Ineffective and absolutely ignorable. Where's the tipping point; is there a tipping point?

If the US gets Greenland, especially "peacefully" (any non-shots fired method, including actually using forces but being unopposed), even if it causes NATO to split, will the public remotely care about the damage done? From the European side of things, it seems baffling how subdued the population over there is, despite supposed objections to the current regimes methods... but do they only retrospectively get vocal?

Or have I just failed to see the right reporting of a ground swell. Not even heard much "opposition" from here

Wait to see what political bomb gets dropped today, or is he going to walk back somewhat. It's going to be a loooong haul if it is just all Epstein cover, but that may just be convenience.

The thing is, Trump is a blowhard and a coward. Especially when he meets real opposition. He isn't called TACO for nothing. If he feels the opposition from his supporters will evaporate, he will chicken out.

Yes, the American people would be very upset if this little adventure of his caused NATO to fracture. Even many of his supporters, enough that he will be very hesitant to follow through with his plans.

Trump tries to make outrageous demands as a negotiation tactic. If he aims far above what he thinks he can get, he might get something in the middle. I don't agree with this approach, I think it alienated friends and allies, but that is what I think he is doing here.

I think this whole situation may blow up in his face though, and he gets no concessions and only embarrassment. In that case, he will probably get very angry and go into irrational revenge mode, a mode he has spent the majority of his life in.

[clakclak]

Tariffs on Europe are off again.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/greenl ... pyATVCMrEv

[Gavrushka]

Tariffs on Europe are off again.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/greenl ... pyATVCMrEv

It's a little more than that, according to this article on Sky News, which suggests he did a triple climbdown and sold it as a victory.

Link The truth behind Trump's Greenland's 'deal'

[Usenko]

I didn't have "Gives a completely incoherent, embarrassing, rambling speech and then makes a humiliating unforced capitulation without the slightest gain" on my list of Trump's options, but I should have . . .

[Chips]

It did sound like it was a complete capitulation, but wait to see what he thinks is the agreement vs what will be. There's an article that's questioning if it includes "full sovereignty" over bases (i.e. the land a base is on technically owned by the US, free to do what it wants) and therefore bases placed over resources, is mineral rights. Surely not. Hopefully just more bases and coordinated collective work to patrol/protect the overall area.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/ ... -reactions

However, his "board of peace" sounds alarming.

The board, which gives Trump wide decision-making powers as chairman, is being billed by the US as a new international organisation for resolving conflicts.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp9jj1j74ggo

What we've seen so far is that the US should have absolutely *zero* decision-making powers over other countries sovereignty. Would it end up being a second "UN", but with the US holding overall sway? (also imagine the flipping tantrum next year if he doesn't get the peace prize after setting this thing up - I know over wars the UN can be useless given China/US/Russia are the security council, but still...) I guess until more is known we'd not have enough info to actually know wtf the point is.

[Usenko]

The devil is, as always, in the details. However, I ignore what Trump says (he's a liar, and in any case he rarely makes any sense). But what Rutte says is always very calculated - and anyone listening will be quite aware that what he describes was the existing status quo.

It's not impossible that there's been some razor blade in the fairy floss, but we currently have no reason to suspect that Trump has gained anything (and he's LOST a hell of a lot of good will to achieve nothing).

The curious thing about all this is that I'd put the chances of Trump becoming the first ever US president impeached and removed from office as significantly higher today than it was yesterday. I might be being optimistic here, but it's healthy optimism.

[fiksal]

I think Europe and Canada are still stuck with having troops there to discourage an attack from US, for at least of the duration of Trump's term or monarchy

[clakclak]

[...]

The board, which gives Trump wide decision-making powers as chairman, is being billed by the US as a new international organisation for resolving conflicts.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp9jj1j74ggo

What we've seen so far is that the US should have absolutely *zero* decision-making powers over other countries sovereignty. Would it end up being a second "UN", but with the US holding overall sway? [...]

Well maybe Belgium will be able to report to us if that is what is actually like, as American officials apparently got Belgium and Belarus mixed up and put the waffle lovers on the list of participants instead of Russia minor.

Source: https://www.belganewsagency.eu/us-mista ... d-of-peace

[fiksal]

it seems like Trump's team is picked right from a street... a racist street

also, aren't some of those countries on the US no-visa list? Good times