This isn’t really about Greenland’s strategic value; it’s about the category error. You can trade goods, sign treaties, and negotiate basing rights. You can’t “buy” a people or their sovereignty especially when they don’t consent. That’s why Europe responds with process and principle: normalize coercion-as-bargaining among allies and you’re reviving a pre-1945 model of politics Europe built institutions to prevent.
It’s also lose-lose for the US. There isn’t a positive outcome. If it’s dropped, the damage is “just” reputational and partly repairable. If it’s pursued: tariffs, threats, coercion. It burns trust inside NATO, accelerates European strategic decoupling, and hands a propaganda gift to every US adversary. A forced takeover would be a catastrophic own-goal: legitimacy crisis, sanctions/retaliation, and a long-term security headache the US doesn’t need.
And the deeper issue is credibility. The dollar’s reserve status and US financial leverage rest on the assumption that the US is broadly predictable and rule-bound. When you start treating allies like extractive targets, you’re not “winning” you’re encouraging everyone to build workarounds. Part of the postwar setup was that Europe outsourced a lot of hard security while the US underwrote the system; if the US turns that security guarantee into leverage against allies, you should expect Europe to reprice the relationship and invest accordingly.
The least-bad outcome is a face-saving off-ramp and dropping the whole line of inquiry. Nothing good comes from keeping it on the table.
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.
Autocracy isn't a switch you can flick. To establish one, you first have to win a protracted civil war, likely between loyalist paramilitary groups like ICE, the standing US Army and regional defense paramilitaries that would spring up. The likely result of this is a stalemate that leads to secession into separate countries.
Why? Russia didn't have a protracted civil war between 2000-ish and now?
Isn't Trump busy replacing US Army leadership with those loyal to him? Why would Army and ICE be on opposite sides?
Seems MAGA just have to continue the present course and apply just enough pressure to the election system to keep "winning" half-credibly and autocracy is there in not too many years.
I mean they are already past pardoning those attacking congress for not accepting the election result.
It is just a gradual process which is well underway, at what point would California and Washington suddenly prop up a militia?
Warren Buffett once said: "You can't make a good deal with a bad person"
Which is exactly the case as long as Trump is POTUS. There's no good deal to be made for Denmark, Greenland, or Europe in general. Trump is a bad person, and can not be trusted.
Any deal that is made will either be altered or voided. And he'll continue to move the goalposts.
There are two outcomes with Trump:
1) He tries to bully someone into submission, and keeps coming back for more if successful.
2) He is slapped so hard that he gives up entirely.
Unfortunately (2) is a bit shaky these days, as he views the US military as his personal muscle.
Yes, people expect SCOTUS to rebuff Trump on the tariffs. [0]
Lately SCOTUS has been providing stricter textual interpretations of Constitutional questions. Many of these have aligned with Trump administration arguments based on the power of the executive as outlined in Article II. The text says, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America," and, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." One of the key arguments is that Congress can't take that power away from him. For example, Congress can't tell him that he can't fire executive-branch staff, because the executive power rests with him, not with Congress.
One thing the Constitution is very clear on, though, is that only Congress can impose tariffs ("The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"). Furthermore, recent rulings of this Court have established the major questions doctrine, which says that even if Congress delegates the specifics of implementing its powers to the Executive branch, that delegation cannot be interpreted broadly. It can't be used to create new broad policies that Congress didn't authorize.
Therefore, because the text of the Constitution explicitly grants the right to impose tariffs to Congress /and/ Trump's imposition of tariffs is both very broad and very substantial, many people believe that SCOTUS will deny Trump's tariffs.
The case as argued is about Trump's right to issue tariffs under the IEEPA (a law Congress passed to give the President some ability to take economic actions due to international emergencies, which do not explicitly include tariffs), and there is some debate about what a negative ruling would mean for the return of tariffs to merchants who have paid them. Both of those points require careful consideration in the decision. Will the ruling limit itself to just tariffs issued under the IEEPA or to the President's ability to establish tariffs under other laws? If the Court rules against the tariffs, will the government be required to pay people back, and if so, to what extent? It's not surprising that the decision is taking some time to be released. There's a lot of considerations, and every one is a possible point for disagreement by the justices.
> One of the key arguments is that Congress can't take that power away from him. For example, Congress can't tell him that he can't fire executive-branch staff, because the executive power rests with him, not with Congress.
Just want to comment what an incredibly piss poor argument that is, because if you take it to its conclusion, it means all of the power rests with the Executive and none with the Legislature. That is, by definition, the Executive branch has all the people that actually "do stuff". If the executive has full, 100% control over the structure and rules of the branch, why bother even having a legislature in the first place if all the laws can be conveniently ignored or "reinterpreted".
You could argue Congress still has the power of impeach if they believe laws aren't being faithfully excited, but I'd argue that is much too much of a blunt instrument to say that laws should be able to constrain what a President can do within the executive branch.
Picking better next time won't be enough unless a lot of work is done to put in place safeguards to make it impossible for a future government to act the same way.
I think people should realize that, in a democracy, it is virtually impossible to put these safeguards in place if people at large don't want them.
The reason Trump is able to get away with so much right now is because Congress is letting him. They could easily constrain his tariff powers, or his warmongering powers (they actually were close to doing that WRT Venezuela before some Republican Senators caved like a bunch of wet blankets), but they don't, because this is what people voted for. Trump is so much more powerful in his second term because at this point everyone knew he was a convicted felon, they knew he fomented the attack on the Capitol, and still a majority of voters voted for him.
Safeguards only work of someone is willing to enforce them.
It may not be possible to do perfectly, but here are many things that can be done to make it harder.
E.g.:
- no direct elections of a president with such broad powers.
- Separating the head of state and head of government, and split their powers.
- Proportional representation to reduce the chance of the largest party obtaining so much power alone.
- Not letting the president appoint supreme court justices.
- No presidential pardons; basically removing the chance of getting out of protections against legal sanctions after leaving office, and removing one of the strongest means of protecting loyalists.
The US isn't uniquely vulnerable, but it is a whole lot more vulnerable than governments in countries where the head of government is easier to replace and have fewer powers vested in their own personal mandate.
A direct election of a single powerful leader is also fundamentally creating a less democratic system - it reduces the influence of a huge minority of the electorate far below what their numbers justify.
Indeed, but it might be many decades - once this lesson is first learned, it will take a long time to unlearn because it tends to become self-reinforcing.
To give an illustration of how long institutional memory over things like this can be:
As of when I went to primary school in Norway in the 1980's, we were still taught at length about the British blockade of Norway during the Napoleonic wars due to Denmark-Norway's entry into the war on Napoleons side and its impact on Norway (an enduring memory for many Norwegian school-children is having to learn the Norwegian epic poem "Terje Vigen" about a man evading the blockade).
Norwegian agricultural policy to this day has had a costly cross-party support for subsidies intended to provide at least a minimum of food idependence as a consequence of learning the hard way first during the Napoleonic wars with a reinforcement (though less serious) during WW2 of how important it can be.
A large part of the Norwegian negotiations for EEA entry, and Norways rejection of EU membership was centered around agricultural policy in part because of this history.
The importance of regional development and keeping agriculture alive even in regions that are really not suited to it is "baked in" to Norwegian politics in part because the subsidies means that on top of those who are about the food idependence a lot of people are financially benefiting from the continuation of those policies, or have lived shaped by it (e.g. local communities that would likely not exist if the farms had not been financially viable thanks to subsidies), so structures have been created around it that have a life of their own.
Conversely, a lot of support for the US in Europe rests on institutional memory of the Marshall Plan, with most of the generations with first hand experience of the impact now dead.
Create a replacement memory of the US becoming a hostile force, and that can easily embed itself for the same 3+ generations after the situation itself has been resolved.
Interesting; as a British person myself, we don't get taught any of that about Norway or Denmark, not even knowing that they were once joint together in a union.
I'm not surprised. From a British POV it was a relatively minor part of a much larger conflict that Britain was done with when Napoleon defeated, and Denmark-Norway was for most practical purposes treated as "just" Denmark, since Denmark was the more powerful part of the union by far.
From the Danish and Norwegian side, Britain annihilated or captured most of the Danish-Norwegian fleet because Britain expected Denmark-Norway to enter the war on Napoleons side (as a consequence, Denmark-Norway of course entered, but severely weakened), and Norway was blockaded and faced famine from 1808-1814.
After the war ended, the Norwegian mainland was handed over to Sweden (Iceland and Greenland were also Norwegian at that point, but stayed with Denmark), but Norway took advantage of the process and passed a constitution and briefly went to war against Sweden to force a better settlement, resulting in a relatively loose union. So this whole affair had a very significant effect on the formation of the Norwegian state.
Trump's passing and his admin getting tossed won't erase the memory that a good third of America was always happy with him and wanted what he actually did. America is now branded with MAGA in a way that will take generations to fade.
At this point, I'd say terms rather than generations.
I mean, I'm old enough to remember people saying "Never Forget" about 9/11, but it's barely in any discourse at this point, and that was a single generation ago and had two major wars a bunch of PoW scandals, war crime scandals that led to Manning, and domestic surveillance that led to Snowden. And yet, despite all that, I've only heard 9/11 mentioned exactly once since visiting NYC in 2017, and that was Steve Bannon and Giuliani refusing to believe that Mamdani was legitimate.
So, yeah, if Trump fades away this could be forgotten in 8 years or so; if this escalates to a war (I'm not confident, but if I had to guess I'd say 10% or so?), then I see it rising to the level of generations.
It's different. 9/11 was an outside foe, which was dismantled by US forces, and its leader was executed. America "won" against the perpetrators of 9/11 in the conventional sense.
You cannot defeat MAGA the same way: the "enemies" are among us, and they aren't going anywhere.
From my point of view as a European asking if myself if or when I will be able to trust the USA in the future, the Taliban is to Afghanistan as MAGA is to the USA.
You're the outsider, to me. The pre-9/11 Taliban were seen as "kinda weird but we can do deals, oh dear aren't they awful, never mind", the post-9/11 were not even worthy of talking to. The USA is currently in a similar "pre" state, an invasion would make it a "post" state.
There's how the people in general remember, and then there's how the politicians and the institutions remember. If nothing else, the changes in institutions will have effects reverberating for decades, with the most obvious institution being the military in each country that expected to fight a war under a NATO umbrella with an American general in charge.
If I'm a German or French or Swedish officer, especially if I'm suddenly in Greenland, I'm going to be thinking hard about the changes to come in the next few years so that they're not all dependent upon a friendly America. If nothing else, they're all getting ready now to operate without any Americans in the loop, since it might be Americans they're fighting. That means the entire NATO command structure, which presumes American dominance of it, is now an obstacle to avoid rather than a resource to share. Every PM is asking the head of their air force if they can fly their F-35s without the Americans knowing about it and possibly shutting them down remotely.
There's a story going around today in French newspapers about how French and Ukrainian intelligence fed US intelligence some false strategic info to see if it ended up in Russian hands, which it did within days. Now Ukraine is consciously breaking its relationship with US intelligence because it can't be trusted, while getting closer to French and German intelligence. I suspect that the UK is also carefully looking at what's shared via the Five Eyes and decided what it can/needs to withhold.
I'm saying "never forget" fades. That's a human condition we all share.
I mean, I live in Germany these days, and this country absolutely got the multi-generational thing, and I'm from the UK whose empire ditto, but… the UK doesn't spend much time thinking about the Falklands War and even less about the Cod Wars.
Nobody disagreed with that it eventually fades, they were all saying it is going to take decades. The consequence of 9/11 of was mostly TSAs, following the USA into wars and the erosion of privacy at the mention of terrorism. The first and the last are still ongoing and I think the current US admin is still using the latter as a narrative, the second one may come at an end currently, because the USA is trying to use it against its (former) allies.
What you describe is called "to historicize an event". The WW1 has been historicized by WW2 (some argue it's the same war). But not even WW2 has been historicized yet (at least in Europe) and it already ended 80 years in the past, so I doubt an atlantic conflict is going to be forgotten in the next few decades.
Edit: I originally linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicization, but this does not describes what I mean. It is weird, because the supposed German equivalent does. The German article is about a concept from the science of history, while the English article is about a literature concept.
Aye, and thanks for the link, will read the german version as per your edit.
> so I doubt an atlantic conflict is going to be forgotten in the next few decades.
If it gets to one, yes. Was writing late at night, so sloppily, sorry about that.
Right now, I think we're not that far gone yet. Absolutely agree it becomes as you say if it becomes hot war. Not sure about which step between will be the drop that overflows the bucket.
If we don't reduce conflict to mean military conflict, then I think there is definitely some diplomatic issue ongoing.
> Not sure about which step between will be the drop that overflows the bucket.
True, this is kind of the open question, because the EU both needs to be the adult in the room and deescalate, but also can't do compromises with territorial integrity otherwise it has already lost. This will of course have an impact on the "time to forget".
But I don't think if there is a uprising today in the US, Trump and the whole admin is gone next week and they improve their constitution, that the whole issue will just be forgotten. The whole pro-, neutral- or even contra USA debate has been ongoing for decades know. For example the trade deals aren't exactly concordant with EU law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schrems#Schrems_I) and the USA has been boycotting multilateral institutions, that the EU wants to have authority. I mean it is new that they openly sabotage the ICJ, but that they have the capability to do that is not.
Yeah, one thing the EU could do that wouldn't hurt them/us (much) would be to stop bringing up fake replacements for the data sharing agreements that get shot down.
The damage would mostly hit the top performers of the US stock market (amongst others) while not damaging the EU as much.
It'll probably be tariffs first though, followed by the ACI if things get really bad.
Sort of. Those of us outside the US are aware his support hasn’t cratered. There’s going to be the concern the US will just swap him out for someone similar.
If past history is anything to go by, the US will elect the current opposition, who won't be nearly strong enough to enact the reforms that would prevent an extremist party from returning to power in 4 years' time.
You have to be incredibly naive to give that much credibility to the US system. A lot more than just a switch of parties would be needed.
Personally I highly doubt a possible democratic would return a conquered Greenland. And even if it did, it would have to ensure that kind of derailment doesn't happen again. The opposition so far seems to be about as ineffectual as centrist parties across Europe at dealing with the far right.
For Americans, many foreigners use the word “government” where we would say “administration”. So, a “new government” or “the government falls”, would be a “new administration” or “the administration’s party loses the next election”.
Exactly. The fixes that would go some way to restore my trust are changed to the mechanisms surrounding the democratic process. Things like no more gerrymander, get rid of allowing corporations influencing the voting by flooding the system with money, somehow fix social media every ad is seen by everyone rather than allowing personalised lies be shown to specific voters, fix your electronic voting systems to a maintenance man with a screwdriver can't make new votes pop into existence (as happened once), stop disenfranchising voters - even to the extend of implementing compulsory voting. The distortions the USA allows now to the democratic process are beyond belief.
Oh, and a system that allows a politician to incite a mob to attack the sitting parliament, and get away without punishment, then pardon the perps is a joke.
And the opposition party has proven itself to be unable to take actions necessary to prevent this sort of thing. The democrats could have used the Biden administration as an opportunity to try Trump for his crimes and establish new boundaries on the power of the president. Instead they just hoped he would vanish into the night and left space for his return.
If the dems win in 2026 and 2028, what is there to stop a return to fascism and further collapse in 2032?
> and hands a propaganda gift to every US adversary.
This demonstrates, again, that Trump is the prime domestic enemy of the US. Where are the agencies that are sworn to protect the US against enemies foreign and domestic?
But it's not US who is in charge of US, unfortunately. It's Project 2025 who is in charge of US, and it has a vastly different win and lose criteria. For Project 2025 dissolving NATO, UN, WTO and whatever is a win. For Project 2025 weakening dollar is a win. For Project 2025 isolation in the Americas is win. And US is no longer in charge. Congress has voluntarily surrendered its power and others are following the lead. Project 2025 may or may not become future US, we'll see how it goes this year.
Greenland already has the right to independence from Denmark, via chapter 8 of the law for the self-governing of Greenland, that was enacted in 2009 [1]:
> The decision on Greenland's independence is made by the Greenlandic people.
Technically, the Danish government has to OK the decision, but this is largely viewed as a formality by Danish politicians, should Greenland choose to move forward with independence.
If it truly is a pure formality, why is the condition written into law? The legislative branch (the branch that writes and changes laws) can simply remove the condition of Danish acceptance, instead of proudly proclaiming that the condition of Danish acceptance is a pure formality.
“Optics” is the wrong frame: this is about legitimacy and consent. A referendum demanded by outsiders under pressure is just coercion with a procedural costume. Imagine Cuba proposing a referendum on Puerto Rico joining Cuba and calling it “bad optics” if people won’t play along, the absurdity is the premise, not the lack of voting.
Maybe that's the answer - the USA needs to hold a referendum on becoming a British colony again. It's 250 years since they declared independence, maybe they've changed their mind on having a king? (/s)
I fail to see what is damning here. What would you even hold a referendum on? Independence? Replacing the arrangement with Denmark with whatever unclear arrangement the US is proposing?
If you trust independent polls, you can get a pretty clear picture of where Greenlanders stood as of Feb. 2025:
Danish citizenship or independence are overwhelmingly favored over US citizenship in these polls. And for independence, only really if it does not affect living standard too bad. And there, it's hard to imagine the US being able to match Denmark's social security system...
I believe you write in good faith, and that you sincerely and non-agressively hold your opinion, and that you believe you don't lack a well known piece of information.
But first let me quote a short piece of text, and later in the comment I will reveal where it comes from.
"After World War II, colonial power was increasingly frowned upon on the international stage. To ease pressure from the United Nations, Denmark decided to reclassify Greenland, not as a colony, but as a region. A new Status that required Denmark to guarantee EQUAL LIVING STANDARDS for both Greenlanders and Danes."
Hold on to this "EQUAL LIVING STANDARDS".
So now on towards the poll.
Back when I was studying physics, one of the courses was statistics. Now statistics in physics or mathematical courses is very different from "statistics" in applied / social / political sciences where students are merely required to execute a procedure, like linear regression to fit a line, or the steps to calculate average and variance, ... Those are fixed formulas without rearranging terms and applying mathematical deduction to statistical statements. One can't fully grok statistics in this light form, it needs more rigorous foundations, only then can students learn to derive their own original conclusions in a correct manner and be able to see through the honest mistakes or manipulations of statistical results by others. The professor recommended a booklet called "How to Lie with Statistics". Of course the goal of the book is NOT to breed dishonest statisticians, but to show the myriad of ways statistical results are depicted and phrased to convey intentionally convey an incorrect impression or conclusion, so that we can detect and see through it.
One of the classic things is for example the distribution of top classes: consider mortality rates for different afflictions, lets pretend we buy into the mono-causal paradigm, so tree like, not DAG like. Then if some entity is embarrassed about the top entry, you can just split it up in similarily balanced subcases (instead of a category cancer, splitting it up into all the different kinds of cancer might result in say cardiovascular diseases becoming the top category, simply by splitting up the top class. (My example is arbitrary, I care naught about top mortality, personally).
A false dilemma (false trilemma etc.) is when all the options combined don't form the universe of possibilities, like "would you prefer pestilence or cholera"?
Please take a careful look at the actual poll options [0]:
1. I want independence unconditionally, regardless of the impact on the standard of living
2. I want independence, even if it would have a major negative impact on the standard of living
3. I want independence, even if it would have a small negative impact on my standard of living
4. I only want independence if it doesn't have a negative impact on my standard of living
5. I don't want independence
6. Don't know
It's almost like some Dane made up the vote-able categories and decided to troll the Greenlanders with a reference to the broken promise: LIVING STANDARDS ?!? Some Good Old forced contraception foisted of as the required EQUAL LIVING STANDARDS between Danes and Greenlanders ?!!
So we can classify already: Don't Know (option 6: 9%) vs Know (presumably options 1 through 5: 91% claim to know what they want), so far so good since we have mutually exclusive but exhaustive split.
Now consider the universe of possibilities for those who Know:
Those who know they want independence (from Denmark; options 1 through 4: 84% of all respondents) and those who know they don't want independence (from Denmark; option 5: 9% of all respondents)
So far so good.
Those who want independence (from Denmark) unconditionally (option 1: 18% of all respondents) and those who want independence (from Denmark) conditionally (option 2 through 4: 66%)
Here it gets vague because the boundaries one is asked to get classified in (divide and conquer style) are subjective: on condition there is no "major", "small" or "negative" impact on standard of living.
Is "negative impact" more or less negative than "small negative impact"? I want to see HN commenters discuss if "negative impact" is better or worse than "small negative impact".
This is just non-quantitative gerrymandering.
But let's ignore the gerrymandering: the phrasing is not neutral, as if it is a given there will be negative impact on standards of living!
Imagine the poll stated not the above but:
1. "I want independence unconditionally, regardless if the Danes perform a new round of population control as a goodbye present for old times sake"
2. "I want independence conditionally, regardless if the Danes perform a new major round of population control as a goodbye present for old times sake"
3. "I want independence unconditionally, regardless if the Danes perform a new small round of population control as a goodbye present for old times sake"
4. "I want independence unconditionally, regardless if the Danes perform a new round of population control as a goodbye present for old times sake"
It would be the exact same logical fallacy, but probably with different results, thousands of women (and men) would keelhaul their nearest Danish officials under the nearest ice shelf.
It's just insulting for an (unverifiable) poll to pull these tricks, especially if the poll was co-organized by a Danish newspaper.
> The poll, which was carried out by Verian on behalf of Danish newspaper Berlingske ...
Something else that is insulting: I saw pictures of immense crowds protesting Trump's comments, and read the number of protesters involved: practically the population count of whole Greenland... until I saw the fine print: the numbers were for a protest in Denmark, not Greenland!
Let people speak for themselves, and don't gerrymander polls, its just doubly insulting, and shows that the colonial mentality is still present, sigh!
that power goes both ways, what happens if the Greenland population demands the full list of doctors involved, what type of doctors: military or civilian?, their extradition for legal proceedings on Greenland soil, the confiscation of their pension funds, ... the whole shebang, or else --- who knows they might become a state joining a Union of States, perhaps EU perhaps US. The US has a similar history, from a similar time frame, but the Danish government took a remarkably longer time to even acknowledge what happened.
Check this documentary (about 30 minutes), horrendous crimes. And then "apologizing", apologizing is when all forms of help have been exhausted, instead of apologizing reveal the lists of doctors, so the Greenlanders can question them, who they got commands from, and were those people got their instructions from, extraditions, confiscation of their pension funds (think about it: having been raped by the doctor, or sedated (another crime if for non medical reasons). The normal order is acknowledge, then help, help, help, and only when all forms of help have been exhausted, apologize.
And Europe is angry how Trump plays the realpolitik game, but by not insisting a Greenland run referendum, but instead backing Denmark, they are playing the realpolitik game just as well, you know "maintaining good relations"
Recommended viewing (30 minutes), its where the quote comes from:
It doesn't seem to discuss Trump's "offer". Voting independence from Denmark is different from being given the option to join the United States.
As Chomsky would say "whenever there are multiple pictures, the darkest one tends to be closer to the truth". What if natural resources would be more expensive (for both US and EU) to buy if Greenland were independent, than if it were still half-colony of Denmark. Then EU and US would have a common interest in manipulating in the same direction the referendum you referenced (for independence). Both US and EU might have cheaper access to natural resources if the population votes no for independence. Good Cop Bad Cop stuff, to scare the population to stay subjugated (and enjoy imaginary protection from EU against imaginary threat from US).
his comment was not specific to Western nations, it would apply equally well to asian, african, south american, russian,northern, southern, ... nations, but you are right, he wouldn't treat Western nations with an exception, and that always makes the relevant population feel addressed, and this subjectively feels different, or being picked on with precision, but its just when a population feels addressed.
The referendum is on independence. Which they might want if they weren't under the threat of annexation. When given a choice between the US and Denmark, they chose Denmark, and might choose to go all in rejoin EU.
To people here just a week ago saying it was just insane joking and even MAGA didn't support it, something I pointed out didn't matter, we have moved from 'it's meme'ing' to 'here's why it's good' 'here's why it's needed' 'it's 4d chess' in less than a week. Please NEVER give an inch to this trash that will justify anything. Don't accept 'meme'ing' from an American President by saying 'it's Trump being Trump'. Push back on everything, everytime.
As the nazi's were happening, everyone was waiting for the 'one big thing' that was too big of a line cross. We have waited until the point the US is using it's power to take land. And everyone is still waiting for that 'big thing' or some line (even though we've passed countless lines already). MAGA freaked out over Epstein for what a decade? And suddenly when it's almost released they stopped caring. If MAGA dropped that almost instantly, MAGA is NEVER going to care about anything.
As a side note. Beware when exporting to the USA using UPS. Especially when having the receiver pay for imports and taxes. UPS does not enforce payment. They will hand out the package before receiving the taxes and tolls. Then, they force you, the exporter, to pay, since you’ve agreed to it by accepting their terms and conditions. I’ve learnt this the hard way.
Yup. Now people outside the US pay tariffs going both ways. Sending a package to the US? Pay the US tariffs for the receiver in advance. Getting a package from the US? Pay any tariffs/duties/taxes as per normal.
They typically do this because they don't have enough warehouse space to keep the packages temporarily, and also because it wouldn't be very Express if it adds another day or two.
But if the value is high or you've landed on their naughty list, they'll have you pay before receiving the package.
Republican politicians are ignoring their constituents.
It's quiet depressing, because a large number of them know they'll be just fine regardless what they do.
We, in Idaho, recently had a school voucher program rammed through even though a huge number of people called to oppose it. Like 90% against 10% for. They still signed it into law.
I wonder how the current events in Greenland will impact the safety and sovereignty of Taiwan.
The US is Taiwan’s most important military ally, even if that relationship remains unofficial. It is also the most critical power in the First Island Chain. If the US stopped being a global superpower, countries like Japan and South Korea might not be willing to aid in defending Taiwan on their own.
I wonder how the current events in Greenland will impact the safety and sovereignty of Taiwan.
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.
Diplomatic relationships are rarely about justice, because they are almost always about power and influence.
In fact, the US and its allies have been the only major powers advocating for a "rules-based international order." On the other side, you have Russia annexing Crimea in 2014, and China building artificial islands in the South China Sea to forcefully claim territory that isn't theirs under international law. Not to mention that all authoritarian states, by their very nature, are a clear violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defines democracy and freedom of speech as basic human rights.
But at the same time, the US doesn't need a moral justification to sanction China over AI hardware. It is, as always, about power and influence.
The worrying part is that the US is losing its global influence by threatening an ally over Greenland. If they ever resort to military measures, they would lose all influence over the EU, and that would leave Taiwan in a very dangerous spot.
China already claims Taiwan, and has for decades; the only thing keeping it practically separate is uncertainty over the outcome in various dimensions if China tries to take it militarily. I don't think there's any doubt that if they were sure they could take it relatively bloodlessly and without significant repercussion, they would do so immediately.
The US recognizes Taiwan as part of China since the 70’s though its position is quite ambiguous! I found this document by the US congress that explains the history behind the rather bizarre situation Taiwan finds itself today: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12503
Nope. The US One China Policy (not to be confused with China's One China Principle) only "acknowledges" China's claim over Taiwan. The wording is intended to be vague so that each side can interpret the meaning according to their own interests (like China claiming "acknowledge" actually means "recognize").
You're right, of course. What I'm saying is what happens if anyone with any lethal force proclaims they need territory which isn't theirs for their own security. Dangerous rhetoric and extremely dangerous precedent if this plays out.
Consider the following - Trump has tried again and again to make a business deal with dictators, regardless of the previous outcomes. And since he is in a steep mental decline he is not likely to change his ways fundamentally. He also repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction of having to protect "others" with USA army, at least for free as he sees it. He repeatedly tried to break NATO and break Ukrainian support.
I think it is likely that he wants to stop protecting Taiwan, give it up to China and then expect to make a deal with China to buy stuff manufactured on the island with money, afterwards. It would be totally in character for him and match his actual actions across the world.
True. Taiwan is an important ally, unofficially. The folks the US is feuding with right now are also allies, but officially. As are Japan and South Korea. It can't be encouraging.
IMO, China will get back Taiwan without firing a single shot, the US is slowly de-risking itself from it and will eventually make Taiwan redundant. After seeing how the US is "helping" Ukraine, will the Taiwanese think fighting an all-out war with allies like this is worth it? China doesn't have the same genocidal intentions russia has towards Ukraine, so less reasons for people to fight it out
Edt: would love some arguments instead of downvotes
Asking for an example is ill-posed, given that democracies are rather young constructs compared to the wider human history. Mind you, I am rooting for Taiwan, but I would expect something like what happened in Hong Kong rather than all-out war if the USA rug pulls Taiwan when it comes to support.
Europe has already signaled that they won't do anything when it comes to Taiwan.
Maybe if Xi dies and the next guy is more reasonable. A lot of the animosity towards China is a result of Xi's authoritarian turn a decade or so ago...
The problem with Taiwanese (I am one) is ideological, they see themselves as too socially different than mainland China. Reliance on US support, or TSMC as another popular absurd copium, for security guarantee, is not realistic, and any Taiwanese can see this now. Absent other ways to secure its self determination, Taiwan is stuck playing a thin-line game between a crazy eagle and a very possessive panda.
I 100% agree with what you say, no discussion on that. My argument is that, if/when push comes to shove, Taiwanese leadership will pick the peace option given past US behaviour.
Taiwan is a completely different situation with other priorities. It's on the other side of the globe and just one more remote interest like Israel. It's there not to directly improve US's security, like Greenland does, but to suppress China's.
As an Army veteran, I find this kind of keyboard warrioring to be insanely cringe.
The “last time” was 20 years after Mexico had secured their independence from Spain and a few years after fending the military was worn down fending off incursions from France. Mexico was barely able to control or defend northern territories from indigenous tribes at the time, never mind a full country’s military.
It was also nearly 180 years ago and has no bearing on modern conflict.
It has more upvotes and comments than anything else posted since it’s been posted 2 hours ago, and has been on the front page for an hour before disappearing
One thing I never heard a talk about. What would happen to all the US bases in the NATO countrys? I can't imagine the US could fly from NATOs countrys bases and attack Greenland and partner. Would for ex. germany attack Ramstein?
"Why should the U.S. continue to have access to these bases, or receive support from allies’ naval assets, air forces, or even intelligence services, if it tries to take sovereign territory from a NATO member like Denmark? "
You are right. But it's a matter of perspective. In the mainstream perspective those bases are based on contracts and a method of mutual security. But there is indeed also the perspective in Germany that those bases are factually occupying forces and given their history the option of having those bases removed have been limited.
And there is a kernel of truth in it. The USA likely wouldn't give up Ramstein under any circumstances safe the German military mobilizing against them, the base is (was?) too important for the US. When Trump invades Greenland we will see this play out (how the base stays active and Germany is powerless to stop that).
Novo nordisk's biggest mistake was refusing to create a direct to consumer business. Eli Lilly sells most of their product through their website at large discounts, this superior distribution method is largely how they were able to gain such a large market share. Their product is also better than ozempic, so that definitely helped too. But its not like Novo Nordisk was stuck with ozempic, they couldve developed new advancements as well.
Sure, it could blow up its economy and have the U.S. just switch to the existing domestic alternative, which also appears to be superior (tirzepatide).
To be clear, since I'm past the edit window: I think Ozempic is an amazing drug, it's just unfortunate how popular it is to hate on people for using a drug they need.
My understanding is that the hate is mostly related to influencers selling you weight loss products while hiding the fact they struggled until they found Ozempic, then to a lesser degree some people think it's cheating or w/e.
I think that was much more a cooperative agreement type situation than childish threats like we have now.
I'm not opposed to changes in territory in principle... but there's no principles involved in the current US administration acting out like a fragile child.
Threats are always a part of negotiations. There was also a proposal to trade Greenland for 1/3 of the Philippines (which the US got from Spain just for showing up to a war that nobody wanted).
Even all of the purely imperialistic stated reasons for taking Greenland make no sense.
National security? We already have the right to station as many troops there as we want! And we have actually removed troops recently.
Mineral rights? America is already richly endowed - its just impossible to access what we have when permitting is almost impossible. If there were actually valuable lodes in Greenland, it would probably be easier to mine now!
The only thing I can think of are the warm fuzzies you may feel as a despot to take land and enrage your allies.
The NYT asked him about this a couple weeks ago. Here's an article with some excerpts from that [1]. Key parts:
> President Donald Trump revealed in a new interview with The New York Times that his quest for full “ownership” of Greenland is "psychologically important” to him.
> During a two-hour sit-down with multiple Times reporters on Jan. 7, Trump was questioned about why he won't just send more American troops to Greenland — which is legal under a Cold War–era agreement — if his goal is to fend off foreign threats. The president replied by saying that he won't feel comfortable unless he owns the island.
> "Why is ownership important here?" Times national security correspondent David E. Sanger asked.
> "Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success," Trump, 79, replied. "I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base."
> White House correspondent Katie Rogers — whom Trump recently called "ugly, both inside and out" for writing a story about his age — chimed in to ask, "Psychologically important to you or to the United States?"
> “Psychologically important for me," Trump answered. "Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything."
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.
Sigh... this is real life and I hate it as an American. The Danes had over 50 [1] Danish lives wasted in the NATO mission in Afghanistan and Iraq and this is how we pay the Danes back when they had America's back, paid in blood.
Danes put up a courteous face right now to get through this, but the relationship to the US is permanently harmed. Even the most pro US politicians are saying the relationship will never go back to what it was before this.
Latest - Trump is writing to Norway, blaming his not getting the nobel prize:
>Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.
>“Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway? ...
It really is. We’ve put children with emotional problems in charge of the U.S. military and economy. Shameful and heartbreaking. I hope we can recover and rebuild alliances but I think that will be a multigenerational task.
No, posting quotas. This place became a dump where 4 responses down you get time-banned for nobody knows how long and the discussion gets nowhere. You get attacked left and right? Well, tough luck, can’t defend and explain yourself. Good luck when multiple people want to discuss anything with you. This used to be a thought provoking place. It’s a dump now.
The Americans on HN driving tech, science and innovation are enabling Trump to do this. Without you he would be nothing. Where is your integrity? Do you think having no allies makes you more safe?
Is this really the world you want?
Some, by working for companies (big tech) that have given little resistance to trump but rather funded his ball room, etc. Sadly, everyone quitting those companies would not really be a reasonable solution either, though there are more possible actions than that
Despite all the talk about military action, the fact is that Europe is one of the main trading partners of the US and holds a substantial share of US debt. Any invasion would be economic suicide, and I think even Trump realizes this.
Trump barely thinks about first order effects, much less second order. He probably doesn't know it's economic suicide. And when it happens he'll tell us both "nobody knows more than me" and "nobody knew global commerce was this complicated" and then he'll tell us he'll have a plan to fix it in two weeks
A mass selloff of US bonds will mean that the US can’t sell any more - because the market is suddenly flooded with bonds at a ‘discount’. This means that the US can’t take on any more debt (borrow money)
Why would you pay the US $10 when you can get the same thing from France for $8?
Or the US then has to issue bonds with massively inflated returns - i.e. pay a much higher interest rate.
On the other hand, China sold off most of theirs and nobody even noticed. I think you're exaggerating both how much EU holds and the potential effects of them selling it.
Sure but we were talking about just debt. Also the "rest of the world" is basically just China. I don't think it's a shocker that China isn't interested in betting on US companies.
This idea of waging financial war on the US seems very en vogue in Europe right now, but I think it's terribly shortsighted. Here's how I think it would go down:
1. EU countries coordinate a mass selloff of US debt, somehow even coercing private holders into a fire sale.
2. US bond prices consequently fall. EU holders lose tons of money on the sell side. US and Asian buyers rush to buy and get a sweetheart deal and massive risk-free returns, which starts crashing the stock market.
3. The Fed intervenes. They conjure up dollars from nothing and buy the bonds EU holders are selling at some discount, maybe 95 cents on the dollar. Those new dollars go into those countries' and banks' Master accounts at the Fed.
4a. EU countries' and banks' Master accounts are frozen. Maybe some portion of the funds are released every week in order to allow an orderly flow of value without too much market distortion. Or maybe given the act of financial war, those funds remain frozen indefinitely.
4b. Alternatively, their Master accounts are not frozen. Now, presumably EU didn't sell all their bonds just to hold non-yielding dollars. So they'll go to the forex markets and buy up Euros, massively strengthening the Euro and fucking up their export-based economies. Maybe they buy gold, or EU sovereign debt, or ECB steps in with mad QE. EU bond yields crater. EU holders lose more money on the buy side as whatever assets they purchase get more expensive. Inflation ensues.
5. US is furious and retaliates with financial warfare of their own. Or perhaps kinetic warfare. The ringleaders of the fire sale end up blindfolded and earmuffed on a US warship.
6. EU is in a much worse position than before, lost a ton of money on each leg, likely had tons more frozen, has pernicious inflation and/or diminished exports, cut off from the dollar system making currency reserve management and forex difficult and costly. The US is also now furious and looking to impose additional costs on EU however and wherever it can.
Since Trump can't walk away from NATO [1], could the claim on Greenland be a ruse to force the de-facto resolution of NATO?
He probably sees Europe as too meek to do anything more dramatic/substantial. And believes that without NATO, Europe would buy more US weapons that they now get "for free".
If indeed this turns out to be a ruse, Greenland conquest would not be Trump's end game. It would be just a performative confrontation to get rid of NATO 1.0. Who is really ready to start WW3 over Greenland?
After NATO 1.0 is declared dead and burried, Trump might as well backpedal and start negotiating NATO 2.0. Which would be light on US military commitments and heavy on European arm purchase commitments. And he seems to believe (not unjustifiably - see Nord Stream sabotage) that the European leaders are spineless enough to accept a NATO 2.0 deal.
This will not be unlike Trump's thinking: "I'll build a wall and the Mexicans will pay for it".
Wild theory, yes. But we live in wild times, unfortunately.
Buying weapons from an unreliable and possibly adversarial (former) partner would create strategic dependence and weaken Europe’s defense autonomy.
=> It would be stupid.
People are saying withhold ozempic, and sure maybe. But what about the 38 TRILLION in US debt. I'm sure the Europeans could dump that on whatever sucker wants to hold it - forcing rates into the stratosphere.
The sport who's leader shoved his head so far up Trump's ass he was able to taste his orange make-up. All for the sake of giving him a farce of a "peace" prize.
(I'm talking about FIFA in case you are not aware)
You argued it's good for the US to shrink out export markets so goods will be cheaper at home, and that Trump is doing 4d chess. I guess at least now you are being honest and just doing straight snark like a true Trump sycophant.
What are you talking about. Trumps US-EU trade deal has been halted, and a response to Trumps 1th. feb tariffs is being drawn up right now. EU not doing anything in your head, try following the news.
That's true for all governments who issue treasuries. For the US it's the kindness of the Japanese, the Chinese and the British. But mostly their own kindness.
Note that lots of the Treasury holdings are mostly hedge fund related, so it's not as clear who holds the longer-term paper (hopefully someone who knows more than me will jump in at this point and provide data).
They are either being paid, or they are so lost in propaganda that they're willing to do it >for free. They have more time that they are willing to waste on propaganda than you, unless you decide to dedicate every waking moment to a rebuttable you are behind the eight ball. Even then, they're probably in dozens of communities and threads at the same time, repeating the same garbage.
The only way this sort of rhetoric can be fought is at the level of moderation. This site has user-driven moderation, which in theory means that you can fight the tide this way, but in practice the authoritarians and fascists have access to these tools as well, and bad faith use is rarely punished, so these tools are less of a panacea and more of a race to who can down-vote who first.
The only other alternative is for the paid moderation of this site to put their foot down and say "We are not okay with fascists and authoritarian apologists on our site" and ban them. The admins of Hacker News are another on a very long list of social media site hosts who have decided to wash their hands of the responsibility. They don't care.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. If you decide you still want to engage, I recommend viewing the interaction through the lens of an attention economy; spend less time on a rebuttle than they did on their post, and only in places where you think it will actually be seen.
Correct, it's literally their main job to spew propaganda. As demonstrated repeatedly by power outages in st. petersburg, moscow and most recently iran.
Unless one verifies every single user by ID, there needs to be at least a platform-level detection of user jurisdiction and the application of appropriate penalties and limits to their activity.
You don't have to go that far, there's a lot easier solution - prefer socializing in spaces that actually vet their users to some degree and have humans who have an active hand in moderation.
It's the old way that social spaces on the internet used to work, and you don't need ID verification for that, you just need spaces that are conducive to that style of community-building. Think Discord, not Instagram. Think (invite-only) Mastodon, not Twitter. Think lobsters, not HN. Think Tildes, not Reddit.
> They have more time that they are willing to waste on propaganda than you
Yes, that's why I need others to help. There are actually less of them (bots) than us. There is one pretty strange "tiktok-like" site, that has the worst kind of people and memes out there showing up regularly, something like 4chan but for images, but somehow most trolls (there are trolls from many different groups operating there) still can't hold on and every such trolling post is pretty fast met with a big wave of downvotes and counter-comments.
> The only other alternative is for the paid moderation of this site to put their foot down and say "We are not okay with fascists and authoritarian apologists on our site" and ban them
The owners of that site can't manage such a big firehose of hate and most users say that they are racist degenerates (and they say they don't care if you are black or white racist, if you are racist they like you).
> The admins of Hacker News are another on a very long list of social media site hosts who have decided to wash their hands of the responsibility. They don't care.
They DO care and a lot of users here also care. Every stupid comment that I've seen could be from troll was very quickly downvoted and counter-commented. We didn't see a lot of them, because they are deleted pretty fast and often and trolls just can't get easy foothold here.
You are not going to change somebody's opinion if they submit to Twitter discourse. Not even getting screwed personally would change their opinion. Hard right wingers at any time in history learn in only one way.
Hard right wingers are a small minority. There also exist people that can change their opinion. If you don't engage with hard right wingers, a lot of people won't see ant counter-arguments and will be convinced that hard-right way is the majority view, is the right way, and will flock to that way of thinking. Engaging with right wingers on public forum is necessary, so that their voice is not the only one heard.
We're all underestimating the sheer number of people in russia who have a "career" in a while-collar job in some propaganda unit. It's a good way to work at the army but not having to actually fight at the front.
They pose as citizens of European, African, Asian or American countries online and try to steer discussion to subvert the local society. The Twitter location reveal showcases that it has an immense scale.
There are many examples such as Scottish independence movement going offline when iran goes offline.
On websites like HN and reddit you cannot even see where someone is originating from. But you can ALWAYS detect them by the cognitive biases they're using to drive their propaganda: false equivalency biase, false choice dilemmas, and so on.
> We're all underestimating the sheer number of people in russia who have a "career" in a while-collar job in some propaganda unit.
Yes, and there are more Russians than Ukrainians, yet somehow they can't overcome a smaller country in 4 years. Trolls want you to give up in countering them. Their work is about pushing propaganda AND demoralising people so that they give up fighting. When you think "why bother", they won.
Military recruitment ads seem perplexingly resistant to the trends of increasing diversity in advertising. And the minorities one might assume to feel slighted by the oversight, are noticeably silent about it.
"We'll see how long the US economy is going to last when it can't even fund its own government."
This is fantasy thinking, projection of a subjective wish.
The dollar is the global reserve currency and is under no serious threat to be displaced (and no, the dollar dropping back to where it was a couple of years ago vs the Euro, is not a meaningful event).
The US economy is by far the world's largest and now dwarfs the Eurozone.
To answer your question: the US economy is going to last a very long time yet. So far it has lasted hundreds of years. Please provide a comparison to any other economy that has lasted so long and done so well. You'll be able to name two or three examples maximum.
In the moment people tend to get hyper emotional, hyperbolic. They think something fundamental is changing. That's almost always nothing more than personal subjective projection of what they want to have happen, rather than an objective assessment of reality. Back in reality the US has survived and thrived through drastically worse than anything going on in the present. The Vietnam era was far worse both socially/culturally and economically. WW2 was drastically worse. The Civil War was drastically worse. The Great Depression was drastically worse. But oh yeah sure, the US superpower is about to end any day now.
Europe survived 2 devastating home wars in the last 100 years, a lot of it was under Soviet occupation, and has smaller natural deposits. The US economy is being propped-up by cheap credit and blitzscaling of tech, and the money is running out. Those companies have to start making money, and the european market is critical to that. The rest of the US market is stagnant at best. The US consumer market is being held up by the top 10% of spenders. The real US economy is disconnected from the stock market and GDP. The average US consumer is weak, and the US is not going to last a trade war with EU and China. Meanwhile the EU signing trade deals.
Those who died weren't still there after the war. Those of them who didn't have any children left behind were effectively genetically exterminated - ending millions of years of their genetic heritage. And cultural heritage.
It was the greatest disasters in the history of Europe, and the effects are still deeply felt. The world wars were the greatest idiocy in the history of humanity.
The European land mass is of course there. The European people(s) have been significantly altered from what they were and what they would have been if it wasn't for those wars.
The problem is deeper than economics. It’s the festering wound of reconstruction turning putrid. It doesn’t have to be the end of the US, but it certainly can be.
Also, I’m not sure the US economy was even great for most of the periods you mentioned. The question of if the US survives to have the same economic standing that it did in the 1800s is not that compelling
> The US economy is by far the world's largest and now dwarfs the Eurozone.
Nominal, Eurozone, yes.
But, being the reserve currency boosts the exchange rate all by itself. I'd argue that this acts as hysteresis, that it adds strength that keeps it a reserve currency longer than it would if there was no memory in the system. Therefore, if anything does induce a shock, the PPP rate is more relevant when considering who might displace it; this other currency (or currencies) would then also get the same hysteresis benefit.
The EU, PPP, is about the same as the US (30 T), and I'd argue that "the EU" is important measure for near-future stuff rather than the current Eurozone, because the EU has the no-specific-time-constraint preference to become all Eurozone… except for the bits that opted out. But also some more neighbours who opted in without being in the EU. It's weird.
China, PPP, it is bigger than the US, 40 T by PPP. Not quite as big as the gap between the US and India, but close enough I had to get the calculator out I can't eyeball the ratio on a linear graph: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/jfgbd60rb...
> To answer your question: the US economy is going to last a very long time yet. So far it has lasted hundreds of years. Please provide a comparison to any other economy that has lasted so long and done so well. You'll be able to name two or three examples maximum.
You didn't do well for all of those hundreds of years, if you squint hard enough to ignore the great depression you get to about 150 years, which basically means about the same as every other industrial economy that didn't have a war in the middle split it apart. If you don't do that (because the great depression really sucked), the half of Europe whose national boundaries explosively reorganised, and also the Soviet Union, wave hello.
The USSR is an important reference, because basically nobody saw the collapse coming until a year or two before it happened. It was unthinkable.
> In the moment people tend to get hyper emotional, hyperbolic. They think something fundamental is changing. That's almost always nothing more than personal subjective projection of what they want to have happen, rather than an objective assessment of reality.
All true.
> Back in reality the US has survived and thrived through drastically worse than anything going on in the present. The Vietnam era was far worse both socially/culturally and economically. WW2 was drastically worse. The Civil War was drastically worse. The Great Depression was drastically worse. But oh yeah sure, the US superpower is about to end any day now.
How many of those occasions did the US refuse to rule out military force with its primary set of allies in order to seize land supposedly to keep it safe from a nation that's now 33% richer than it is? The Civil War was not a time when y'all were a big player on the world stage, it was when Europe was busy carving everything up into colonies.
The US economy is currently to overwhelming extent a bunch of tech companies betting hard on that AI will revolutionize everything. With huge circular economy. Once that bubble bursts, you'll see where you really stand
What is not fundamental about the end of NATO? What is not fundamental about the US actively working to give up its role as global hegemon? The US may survive but that doesn't mean it's not fundamental.
I swear you yanks playing down every single thing that Trump does, as if history has ended, are insane.
The USA will reap what it is currently sowing and it frankly will deserve it.
Had Merkel not opened the border in 2015, Germany would be far worse off. If you ever set foot into a German retirement home, hospital, restaurant, random shop at the central station, cinema, xmas market, you name it, you realize that all those immigrants are currently carrying the economy.
She should get a prize for this instead of being blamed. Even if you don't care about the moral aspect of helping refugees.
In Germany, 23% of the people in working age, don't work [1]. The "refugees are carrying the economy", because you are effectively paying 23% of the local working age population (I'm here assuming you aren't paying refugees to go there and not work, right?) to slack. Remove their benefits and see how quickly you don't need to import people to do those jobs.
And no, I don't care about the "moral aspect" of not "helping refugees". If you care, you welcome them into your own place.
Also, notice how you didn't go into the gas deals Merkel did with Russia and forced upon the rest of the EU.
You can't just give any random job to any random person. Go out on the street, talk to the first homeless person and then tell me that for your mom's hip replacement surgery next week for which a Syrian doctor is scheduled, you rather see that person scheduled. And the rehab for which an Afghan immigrant is scheduled, you would prefer the homeless' friend next to him, smelling of Jägermeister. After you did that, we talk again.
Not the parent, but getting US to quit NATO won't help his European ambitions. Russia is weak now, and has solidified the European hostility for years to come.
"European hostility" is not going to matter when there's no EU. No matter how weak, Russia will always be stronger in terms of the number of warm bodies they are ready to throw into the meat grinder than any country in Europe.
UPD: If you don't believe me, look at the European right-wing leaders (including a sitting head of state, Meloni) currently banding up behind Orban, a widely known Putin's shill in Europe.
Dissolution of NATO has been his wet dream for decades.
Next up is dissolution of the EU; the hard-right shift all over Europe (that he gets some credit for by financing right-wing parties and propaganda) will eventually make that dream of his come true, too.
While Trump having a go at Denmark I'm sure pleases Putin other things are not going great his way. The lines in Ukraine are kind of static in spite of huge Russian losses, their economy is bad, their ally in Venezuela got arrested, their ships are getting boarded, the Iranian government is looking shaky.
Clearly the DJT's obsession with Greenland has to do with some short term gains of his billionaire friends and not real national interests. Similar to all his other recent shortsighted surprises. So, hold on for 3 years until he retreats into oblivion and the new POTUS reverses the situation. It happens constantly in my country when an incompetent and corrupt leadership causes temporary trouble but the next restores the longtime policy. In the meantime the 2028 Olympics will be the most interesting of the last decades.
You have no idea what it's like to be American right now. The propaganda information war that's being waged in us is overwhelming and it appears to be working. The world needs to start preparing for a reality where the US can no longer be relied on for security or economic stability. For the sake of all of us, I hope that our European allies are taking serious steps to become more independent from US power and security.
I know there is a lot of good and brave people in the US - I lived there for a long time and call many of your compatriots good friends.
We're trying our best over here, but y'all can't give up at home either. I know it sucks and it's hard, but don't give into the temptation to just tune out. If you don't like what is happening with your country, do your best to change it - don't wait for others to do it for you!
We are trying. Please realize that the second largest conflict (based on spending) in the world right now, behind the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is DJT’s ICE attacks on the US. That is how much he is spending to attack his own country. More than Israel spends to occupy Palestinians.
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 your country's union was a bad idea? Feels like it's allowed the regressive parts to keep control over the greater whole. Maybe y'all should've just let secession happen - at least the worst parts of America would've been contained.
The South wasn’t punished enough after the civil war is where a lot of this stems from. There was no cleaning house like what happened with Germany after WW2.
It's easy to look at the politics of individual states as a means of breaking things up if you ignore the economics. Things get very complicated, very quickly when you set a political threshold for breaking up the country.
Are you familiar with America's history with eugenics? Contemporary with Denmark's human rights abuses in Greenland you're bringing up (1960's–70's), America's government was doing very much the same thing, to their own vulnerable minorities.
> "Between the span of the 1930s to the 1970s, nearly one-third of the female population in Puerto Rico was sterilized; at the time, this was the highest rate of sterilization in the world.[120] "
> "An estimated 40% of Native American women (60,000–70,000 women) and 10% of Native American men in the United States underwent sterilization in the 1970s.[125]"
As a Dane, while slightly angry, and gravely concerned for the people of Greenland, I'm still more fearful of the safety and mental well-being of my US friends and colleague than I am for my own.
Our Congress and Supreme Court are beholden to him. State and Individual resistance will be treated as rebellion. The legal pathways have us waiting until elections. The line of succession is GOP 40 levels deeps.
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.
I hope you are right but I don't have any confidence in a Democratic party controlled Congress. I have never seen a meeker group of politicians. They will struggle to get everyone on board and some of them will defect and vote with Republicans like they did recently to end the government shutdown.
Legally speaking, the Republicans have been losing in court over and over. That doesn't mitigate the damage they're doing during the lag, and the consequences for breaking the law have never been as strong as they should be when officers of the law and elected officials are the ones breaking the law.
But it is important to acknowledge the wins. They do have an effect, and that's the only path we seem to have toward slowing down the march to autocracy.
The Americans you’re trying to reach are not here. They’re in Facebook and right wing social bubbles with a constant influx of fresh slop propaganda. It’s unprecedented in the fact that it’s affecting people at the family unit level with people tearing off into political parties within families that cut off all contact from each other.
I believe you’re right but at this point it’s a single issue cult for a lot of folks. For instance, I know a very rational, personable guy that seems generally progressive on a variety of social issues but calls for the extermination of trans people with a straight face. There’s no reasoning with these people, even the ones swayed by rational opinion in other parts of their life.
That sounds extreme. Do you mean extermination as in mass murder? Or do you just mean he rejects the underlying ideology and would like to see policy that does the same?
No, not without an amendment allowing a third term, but even if there were an amendment probably still a No because he is too old and his very blunt and impolitic manner is not sustainable long-term in national leadership.
According to the WSJ, thr President has lost about 8% of his voters, so he should make some adjustments.
WSJ POLL: 92% of people who voted for Trump in 2024 are giving him a positive job rating today, including 70% who “strongly approve”
Thanks for being honest. It is truly beyond my comprehension how someone can believe this. I don’t see how right and left can get along peacefully going forward when there is such a fundamental difference of core beliefs.
Do you agree that Trump instigated and directed the insurrection attempt as evidenced by him sending people to the Capitol, and making threatening phone calls to Senators while the mob advanced through the Capitol and the Senators and others begged him to tell the mob to go home?
I don’t wholly agree with that statement. He repeatedly asked for people to remain peaceful in the run up to J6.
Even in his infamous 70 minute speech on the day of (which by the way was still going when most of the protestors were already at the capitol) where he called on people to “fight like hell” he called for peaceful demonstration.
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
He did not call any senators. He called McCarthy and had a very heated conversation and when McCarthy told him to call off the protestors immediately the President barked back that he believed Antifa breached the capital, not his supporters (not true but that’s what the President believed at the time).
So you partially agree that Trump is an insurrectionist?
>He repeatedly asked for people to remain peaceful in the run up to J6.
>Even in his infamous 70 minute speech on the day of ... he called for peaceful demonstration.
One "I'm sure you will be peaceful" at the beginning of a 70 minute speech is not an instruction to be peaceful, it's verbal window dressing for a speech where he told the crowd the election had been stolen and if they did not fight like hell they wouldn't have a country any more. He then directed them specifically to election proceedings he was already working to end either via the false slates of electors or having Pence unilaterally call the election fraudulent. He and his lawyers had created and submitted utterly false vote results from the states, and he repeatedly, publicly and privately, pressured Mike Pence to (illegally) reject the count itself as fraudulent.
>He did not call any senators. He called McCarthy
You missed out the part where McCarthy told him they were his supporters and the President ominously replied, "Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.”
The most damning part of the timeline that indicates Trump's use of the violence to get his way is how long it took him to say anything to the protesters. Well over an hour since the capital was broken into Trump tweets: "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!" This tweet was made after aides had been "unsuccessfully trying for up to 20 minutes" to get him to release a calming tweet.
Two more generic calls for peace via Twitter as he watches violence on TV for hours and is begged by multiple parties to intervene. Finally he's talked into a video call because the delay has been achieved and no more pressure can be applied to the Senators after Ashley Babbitt was shot, and the crowd begins winding down.
Then another round of calls to allied Senators to pressure them to vote against certifying the vote.
And all this is before you get to testimony that asserts that Trump's team was aware of the participation of the literal insurrectionist Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, that Trump was informed many, many times by his people there was no stolen election and no evidence, and that multiple Trump staff sought and received pardons for their actions.
So what part of this whole situation reads like someone trying to stop a riot, rather than someone using it a situation they created as leverage over America's most sacred political process? If you think there’s an innocent explanation, what is it? Why all the delays, and pressure, and false electors?
I don't think anyone's ever assumed left wing consensus here. When's the last time you heard somebody here talk about public ownership of the means of production?
Would that it were so easy to blame the flyover states. Almost half the people who cast votes voted for this - and at the same time voted for the status quo legislators who opt not to keep him in check.
The blame extends equally to everybody who supported this but due to the way American elections are set up, those people on the margins are “how” this happened.
...among the people who voted. There are a lot of folks who opted out that bear responsibility for the way this country and its power is being dismantled.
He wouldn't win the popular vote today! Why is it that when you call yourself a Republican, you take a very narrow margin of victory and consider it a mandate to only listen to your fanbase? I bet it feels fun at first, and there are a few people who get very wealthy and powerful as a result, but reality always comes crashing back down.
I suppose that if the talk of suspending mid-term elections bears fruit, that changes the equation.
You can still call your congressman, senator, local political, councilman, or someone else, spend 30 mins watching a demonstration, donate $10 to Amnesty, tell a random dude in fatigues "grateful for your service but please don't invade Greenland". The more people that do these kind of things the harder it gets for the Fascists to brand those that do as left-wing terrorists.
I’ve been tear gassed. I’m out here trying. I just know it’s gonna get a lot worse before it gets better. The regime is losing its grip and the only way out that fascists know is to escalate the violence.
Invading Greenland is a symptom of us on the ground fighting back. It’s to prove to Americans that we’re now isolated.
There have been multiple instances of exactly what NRA members decry as federal tyranny: Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. At not a single one did any number of people exercising their second amendment right ever show up to actually do anything, even to peacefully protest.
The idea that the 2nd amendment exists to keep alive a threat of rebellion against a tyrannical gov't is a joke.
The truth is that on average Republicans have way more guns that Democrats.
Anecdata but… I’ve personally known many Republicans who have massive gun collections and even personal shooting ranges in their basement. I’ve never met a Democrat with any of that.
Only one side of this conflict is meaningfully armed and they are already in power.
Well 40% of the population or so approves of the administration, so it's more like "to save themselves from their government and 40% of the rest of the population". That means resorting to the 2A is, at the very best, a rather weak bet.
“Second Amendment solutions” are only OK to talk about if you’re a Republican (I.e. “Real American”).
I’m being sarcastic, for the record. Back during his first term, Trump talked about “second amendment people” doing something about liberal Supreme Court justices (iirc) and the right wing media treated everyone as crazy for thinking that was wildly inappropriate.
It's really interesting how the same propaganda is applied by fascist governments everywhere. The ones supporting the "nationalist" government are the patriots and the others are enemies
The average Waco wacko can’t possible to fight even a small contingent from the local national guard, let alone a military with trillions of dollars of meteriel
All the assault weapons you can store in your shed are useless when an f35 takes them out from 300 miles away.
Yes, that is exactly how the US "lost" in Vietnam: Not having air power take them out from 300 miles away. I put "lost" in scare quotes because that "loss" is debatable, but that's a debate for another time.
The broader context was that the Indochina War was partially concurrent with, and the bulk of the combat only a little more than a decade after, Chinese intervention in the Korean War. The White House was simply terrified of the Chinese and put all sorts of restrictions on US forces that effectively guaranteed the US could never win an outright military victory.
Hanoi was declared off-limits to US bombers while Soviet and Chinese materiel flooded into the DRV, foreign pilots (including Soviets and North Koreans) were allowed to operate with impunity, airbases just over the Chinese border were used as safe havens for combat missions yet were off-limits to US pilots, over 180k Chinese troops rotated through Vietnam operating AAA batteries and such, etc. etc.
So yes, US unwillingness (arguably, inability) to apply air power where it could actually achieve strategic effects played a very large role in ensuring the US could never win an outright military victory in Vietnam. It's an open question whether the proper application of air power could have enabled such an outright military victory.
Certainly the US could and would apply air power to any serious domestic insurrection. There would be no targeting restrictions for fear of foreign escalation. There would be no influx of foreign aid and materiel. There would be no foreign pilots flying training and combat missions and no foreign troops manning foreign SAMs. There would be no foreign safe havens for rebels.
The conditions that IMO prevented an outright US military victory in Vietnam simply do not exist in a domestic context. Barring the coordinated defection of a significant portion of the US military, any armed insurrection in the US would be quickly crushed.
An "armed insurrection" is not required to deter a state's monopoly on violence - even the mere decentralization of arms across the populace objectively accomplishes this impressive feat.
While you're remembering things you shouldn't forget, pay attention to how the Black Panthers are out in Philadelphia, and ICE isn't messing around over here. We chased those Patriot Front clowns out immediately, too.
But yeah, focus on the peaceful citizens making their voices heard, if that makes you feel more secure about how things are going.
Even if any of these claims were true (they aren’t) how exactly does that justify the US annexing an EU territory that clearly stated it does not want anything to do with the US?
Several European countries are also hosting American nukes on their soil. What happens to those in case the US starts an open war with those countries?
I think it is past time for Europe to ask the USA to leave their countries. That is something they can do which will significantly reduce the ability of the USA to project their power.
Rampant propaganda bots and consolidation of communications channels in the US is a real problem. Half the country is getting fascist cheerleading 24/7. When you can monopolize the communications channels there is effectively no free speech. Because dissenting views are priced out. Thanks to lax oversight on merging communication companies and the Citizens United decision that equates speech to money in politics, we are in the middle of it now.
Literally cannot. The asymmetry of technology which we have allowed to grow and flourish makes it infeasible. Flock and other manifestations of this beast sends shivers down spines and prevents any serious resistance.
Having an organization that collectively bargains for the employees would be very useful right about now. I know, I know... unions can be corrupted and next thing you know, it's a legalized mob.
Well, if my choice is that or "upskill myself" and "negotiate", while ignoring the inherent and overwhelming power asymmetry that exists between an employee and the employer, I'll go with the mob; at least they have my back.
Yes I'm being glib, but there's also some truth to that. Almost all of the reasons or arguments I've seen from those who oppose unions are based on some myth or combination of myths, such as:
- We don't need unions because we're 'well paid' (relatively speaking)
- Unions only value seniority
- Make it nye impossible to get rid of poor performers
- Dark money comes in and corrupts the nomination process, now the CEO's buddy runs the union and you don't even know this is controlled opposition
Okay I'm being facetious on that last one, but seriously. We are long, long overdue for a power shift that values the workers. Emphasis on values because that word value has been cooped to be synonymous with money, and it is anything but.
As a US citizen resident of Finland, I am proud of my adoptive country. I have been so far relatively neutral-to-
vaguely-supportive of MAGA wrt the culture wars, and I find Trump's posturing on Greenland appalling and disgraceful. Yes, we all know that Trump's MO is to demand something horrendous in order to secure something less horrendous, but there is no path from threatening an ally's sovereignty that leads to anything good for the US. Monstrous.
This isn’t an aberration, it’s a continuation. Trump has repeatedly done things that would have been disqualifying for any normal president: threatening allies, undermining institutions, abusing power, normalizing coercion. The reason this moment feels different to some people isn’t that the behavior changed, it’s that they’re finally among those bearing the downside. That normalization, enabled by years of “it doesn’t affect me” neutrality, is part of how we got here.
That's only part of it. It feels worse now because everything is visible. Information moves instantly. Evidence is public. Financial trails can be followed. Citizens now expect ethical behavior from their leaders as a baseline rather than a bonus. In earlier eras, people slept better largely because they didn’t know what was happening, not because leaders were more virtuous.
For decades now, elite self-dealing, institutional opacity, and captured power steadily eroded public trust. Trump did not arrive as a reformer. He arrived as a punishment mechanism. A stress test. Unfortunately, US elites are drawing the wrong lessons so far.
Watergate, Iran-Contra, Vietnam, and the Pentagon Papers were all exposed through mass media, and they triggered resignations, prosecutions, and electoral consequences. Nixon resigned for conduct far narrower than many of Trump’s actions. Reagan officials went to prison.
Trump didn’t reveal hidden corruption, he openly violated constraints that previous leaders still treated as binding. Calling him a “stress test” misstates causality. Stress tests expose weaknesses, they don’t require millions of people to excuse norm violations because the harm initially falls elsewhere. This wasn’t inevitability or opacity, it was a collective decision to lower standards.
What you’re describing is real, but it actually supports the opposite conclusion in my opinion. Watergate, Iran-Contra, Vietnam, and the Pentagon Papers were exposed because institutions, media, and elites still broadly agreed that certain lines existed. Nixon resigned because his own party, the courts, and the press treated those constraints as non-negotiable. Reagan officials went to prison because enforcement still mattered.
Trump sits downstream of intervening decades of tolerated elite self-dealing, regulatory capture, and partisan blindness that have trained voters to believe that rules only ever apply selectively. When people see one side excuse its own violations for years, it lowers trust in the legitimacy of enforcement itself. Trump’s novelty is the abandoning of pretense.
Calling him a symptom doesn’t excuse norm violations, but it does explain why so many people are willing to tolerate them. The collective decision to lower standards didn’t begin with Trump; it culminated in him. Stress tests don’t create weaknesses, they reveal where faith in the system has already eroded. That erosion happened long before 2016.
There has always been an ends-justify-the-means element across the entire electorate and political class. It isn’t unique to MAGA, and it isn’t new.
All of the United States law and jurisprudence is a kludge of principle and practicality and naked self-interest. It’s an accretion of ideals layered onto compromises, expediencies, and power struggles. The Constitution itself is a bundle of moral claims stitched together with practical concessions to slave states, property interests, and elite fears of democracy.
To me, unfortunately, the mid-to-late twentieth century norm of relatively principled incorruptibility now looks less like a permanent achievement and more like a historical exception.
That period stood in contrast to much of American history before it, which was more openly transactional and tolerant of self-dealing. Think robber barons, Jacksonian patronage, open graft, speculative profiteering, outright theft of public funds, Tammany Hall. Against that backdrop, the period from roughly the 1940s to the early 1970s stands out.
What feels so unsettling today may just be a quiet reversion toward older historical norms. I'm sad to think that what once felt like progress was always just a transient anomaly.
The only way for Europe forward is actual federalization. Unfortunately right wing parties will never let it happen so entire Europe is doomed to become marginalized by China and US.
Indeed, petty national topics that are used to create fake polarization against Brussels, is what is keeping us from realizing the federation we so desperately need. I am so tired of the endless, unbased right-wing arguments from nationalists against the EU, which only exist to distract from their own incompetencies.
Please don't instigate flamewars about the relative badness of superpowers on HN. We're here for curious conversation, not political/ideological battle.
Right, because an agency supposedly meant for "immigration enforcement" being sent to cities of the President's opponents so they can crackdown on protests and harass citizens is different... how? Is being persecuted for your religion worse than being persecuted for your political beliefs?
There is a secret police force actively patrolling the streets, going door-to-door asking for papers, shooting American citizens and your response is "it's not that bad"?
This frames escalation as if it’s an inevitable byproduct of “not cooperating,” but that’s a choice. Sanctuary policies generally limit voluntary local participation (e.g., detainers without judicial warrants), they don’t “block” federal enforcement.
“If you don’t want door-to-door, cooperate” is basically saying federal agencies get to punish jurisdictions for lawful policy choices by switching to more coercive tactics. That’s not normal enforcement; it’s politicized leverage. And once you normalize that logic, it won’t stay confined to immigration.
> “If you don’t want door-to-door, cooperate” is basically saying federal agencies get to punish jurisdictions for lawful policy choices by switching to more coercive tactics.
If you make any level noncooperation law against federal law enforcement, you are effectively creating the requirement that for the feds to enforce the law the federal government has to change their tactics. That’s not punishment, it’s just the effect of the decision you made.
> That’s not normal enforcement; it’s politicized leverage.
It’s not normal enforcement, but neither is noncooperation. Sanctuary cities are not the norm. It’s a form of political leverage too.
> And once you normalize that logic, it won’t stay confined to immigration.
Right…and you could also say the same thing about sanctuary policies too. So what if a city or area decided that they were going to be a sanctuary for people who violate the civil rights act? Would the federal government be justified in using different tactics in its enforcement of that law?
There are threads here you don’t want to accidentally pull because they will unravel whole sections of cloth that you want to keep intact.
You pretending that this is merely federal agents enforcing immigration laws is delusion. Thousands of agents being sent to one city and hundreds more promised after backlash is not immigration enforcement, it's punishment for dissent.
> If you don’t want the door to door enforcement, have your local officials become cooperative in enforcing the immigration laws
Since when did States need to "cooperate" with federal law enforcement to avoid masked thugs terrorizing the populace? Weren't right wingers all about States' Rights under Democrat administrations?
> So no, I am not going to downplay and dishonor the victims of the the human rights violations of China by comparing it to what is happening here
I didn't ask you to "downplay" human rights violations done by China, I asked if you thought one type of persecution was worse than the other. Clearly you don't have an issue with the persecution happening in the US, so thanks for making that clear at least.
If you don’t like a law, change it. If your representatives are not representing you, elect new representatives who will.
If you don’t want immigration enforcement, don’t elect someone who ran on that platform.
And, no…I do not believe that our enforcing immigration laws that were passed in a bi-partisan and supported as is by presidents from both parties and enforced by presidents from both parties are in any way, shape, or form equivalent of what China has done specifically to the Uyghurs.
“They rounded us up, forced us into labor camps, and sterilized all of us, but at least we could see their faces. That’s so much better than being sent back to your hometown by someone wearing a neck gaiter”
People speaking out against Trump and ICE are getting shot in the head. So I really see no difference.
ICE is sending brown people and people with accents to concentration/death camps. Say what you will about the Uyghurs, but China provided them with their own rooms and toilet facilities. ICE has been forcing detainees to drink toilet water and eat moldy bread [1]. All while hiring rapists and violent criminals for their enforcement.
Really, the US is actually worse than what China was at this point and China was bad.
China is still far more repressive as a system (and Xinjiang is in its own category). The point isn’t equivalence; it’s convergence. Democracies don’t have to become ‘China’ to become unrecognizable fast, what matters is whether coercive tools are being politicized, whether oversight still bites, and whether abuses have consequences.
Personally I don't feel its constructive to discuss who's worst, because there are many axis they could be compared on. But when it comes to internal human rights violations, China has infrastructure in place for industrial control of dissent. The US is not there but is currently on a crash course towards authoritarianism
We can hope that enough democrats win to cause gridlock and impede more harm. However, the democrats don't offer much in the way of substantive reform and have never demonstrated the stomach for taking bold stances. Whenever a candidate does come along and propose bold change, the institutional democratic party goes out of their way to sabotage or undercut them (think AOC, Sanders, Mamdani et al).
They aren't going to be able to stop the next generation of candidates. And they aren't signing up to run to maintain the institution. This year and 2028 has the potential to be the Democrat's "tea party" moment (except for decent policies instead of destroying the government policies). And it's long overdue.
I've heard this since I canvased for Obama in 2008, before I could even vote. At this point expecting change through the electoral system seems worse than a waste, its a vacuum thats sucks up the radical energy we need to get real change.
The party is already being taken over by the energy we need -- AOC, Mandami, and more. Trump going full fascist fuck is a catalyst. We can have the left-wing reaponse to the tea party that really changes the country back to decency. Or we can just sit around all defeatist and whining, because that's worked so well in the past.
I very much hope so. I changed my registration to decline to state. California has open primaries, so I can still vote in them, but I couldn't stomach being associated with stubborn, institutional failure.
The democrat establishment doesn't seem interested in change, they are like a softer version of politicians getting bought out by tech. Well-mannered, but ultimately not doing long-term thing in the interest of the wider country.
Good. Countries the size of the US don't need bold change. They need stability with change accomplished by a gentle shift in direction.
What bold change looks like is Trump. An anti-Trump government implementing bold change in the other direction would be bad too. Not as bad because more of their change would at least be toward things that would be good in the long run, but there would still be a lot of harm on the way by taking it too fast.
Framing all of us who voted for and support the President’s actions as ignorant is lazy and inaccurate. There’s plenty of us that objectively analyzed the state of the country, the state of the world, and agree with the vast majority of these actions.
this online discussion format is impossible :-( I can tell you with certainty I did not think at all what you just said.. I cannot even imagine how you get that impression
I would so much rather use arm twisting in background political discourse to open and public threats of military invasion on a nato ally. Those two are really not even comparable
The end result is the same - we have committed for 15 years now that we are pivoting East. And given some of the recent announcements in both the US and China, I think 2028 is going to be a very bleak year.
Edit: can't reply
> In one scenario nato breaks up...
It doesn't matter if we are in a US-China war WHICH HAS BEEN MY AND EVERY NATSEC STAFFER'S POINT SINCE 2009.
We do not care about Russia - you guys can easily handle them yourselves. On the other hand, you guys cannot support us in Kinmen, Luzon, Yonaguni, or Gageodo.
The EU actually has a great track record, it has been a massive unifying force. I think people tend to forget how shit things were even 30 years ago. I really hate this constant shitting on the EU for no concrete reasons.
It is crippled because nation states want to retain control, it is one of the main reasons. People act like 'EU politicians' should solve everything overnight, but the reality is that it is out of their purview in many cases. Only federalization would resolve this issue.
> I think people tend to forget how shit things were even 30 years ago.
About thirty years ago a European family could survive on a single salary and get by decently. Now they can't. So, I'm not sure what are you talking about.
> It is crippled because nation states want to retain control, it is one of the main reasons.
IMO it's crippled by the amount of poor decisions making and complete inability to handle even small-scale crisis somewhat successfully.
> Only federalization would resolve this issue.
On this, I agree. But given the decision making the last 15-20 years, that option is dead on arrival.
I'm sure you consider yourself a clever person, ever consider that the situation was more complex than your one line comment? That maybe it's possible the German banks were so happy to see a country that suddenly had the backup system of the European Central Bank, i.e. a country full of customers they could lend to, that they flooded it with offers of loans? That Greeks, like the sub-prime borrowers of the USA, thought "Well, if everyone is saying the future looks bright, why not borrow money and pay it back with the promised future income?".
That, if I knew my friend was going to be irresponsible with money but their parent was going to bail them out, why shouldn't I lend them money with interest? Is that irresponsible of me? Do I deserve to get all my money back, instead of suffering some of the losses as well? (In this highly simplicized example, I = German banks, my friend = the Greek society, their parents = the ECB. Not saying all of Greek society was irresponsible, but in aggregate, it was a risky "investment")
A lot of the Greek bailout could be summarized as the German government bailing out German banks with EU taxpayers' money...
Here's a long article about what happened when Germany got flooded with money in the 1870s: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/02/michael-pettis-syriz... . It's longer than your one line, maybe you'd rather hold on to your more succint (and maybe more intelligent) summary...
There is no right party, unfortunately. The Duopoly of Democrats and Republicans rely on this illusory idea of "the other side" to maintain a stranglehold on power for both parties. The sooner we give up that idea that one side is better than the other, the sooner we can hold "both sides" accountable. The Democrats are an absolutely corrupt shit show. As are the Republicans.
Each expansion of executive power is treated as unprecedented until it becomes normalized. Before Bush, indefinite detention without trial was unthinkable. Before Obama, the executive assassination of U.S. citizens without due process was unthinkable. Before Clinton, routine humanitarian war without congressional declaration was unthinkable. Each step is later reclassified as “different,” “necessary,” or “less bad,” each step decried by the "opposition" but excused by partisans.
The danger isn’t that one party does uniquely shocking things. It’s that both parties participate in a ratchet where norms only ever move in one direction supported by the rank and file. What looks like a false equivalence is actually a cumulative one: today’s outrage rests on yesterday’s precedents.
And it’s not even mainly about presidents. Fixating on the occupant of the office misses how much of this is legislative and bureaucratic drift. The real damage is often done through laws that quietly expand state power, normalize surveillance, weaken due process, or lock in perverse incentives. Presidents sign them, but Congress writes them, renews them, and funds them. That’s where the ratchet really lives.
USA PATRIOT Act (2001), Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994), FISA Amendments Act (2008), National Defense Authorization Acts with detention and secrecy expansions, Telecommunications Act (1996), Controlled Substances Act (1970), Defense of Marriage Act (1996), Welfare Reform Act / Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996). All terrible. All drafted and passed by both parties.
This is why “no one did X before” is the wrong metric. The system advances through laws and precedents that feel technical, temporary, or defensive at the time. Each one lowers the bar for the next. By the time something looks outrageous, the groundwork was laid years earlier by people insisting they were the reasonable alternative.
We can’t. It’s over. Laws don’t mean anything anymore. Even if we had a full democratic congress, they would just be ignored. The Trump administration has already been grooming people to accept congress is useless, beginning with the month long shutdown. And the Supreme Courts will just go along with whatever the president wants now.
The only thing congress can do is impeach and convict trump and his administration, thereby stripping him of his authority. Laws have been passed, judges have ruled, but all those are ignored. however, if he has no authority, then we get to find out who's on the side of the constitution and who is with trump and his allies.
There will be many loyalists who will just side with the Trump administration. And then what?
Turns out, when the law has failed, the only solution is a fight to the death. And after such a fight, we do not return to our normal state and live happily ever after, we remain deeply unstable and untrustworthy for decades to come.
If the Senate convicted, things would change. For one thing, I'm confident the military would not consider an impeached and convicted president as its commander in chief. And the prospect of the consequences of continuing to side with such a one would largely evaporate the availability of the administrative apparatus. Civil war would be a possible result, sure. But I disagree that such a Congress would simply be ignored and that ignoring it could be done while maintaining the means of continuing power.
This is catastrophizing, not analysis. If you genuinely feel this hopeless, that's worth examining as a signal about your own mental state rather than treating it as political insight.
Part of the reason we’re in this mess is that Americans bristle at getting told which is the “right” party to vote for by internationals, the media, existing politicians, institutions…
You know, if everybody shouts at you to not do a certain thing, maybe, just maybe, they could have your best interests in mind? But instead they are being portrayed as "globalists" or whatever the mouthbreathers in the flyover states spin up today.
That's of course a totally valid reason to destroy your institutions, international reputation, and of course the lives of many poor people in your country. Makes sense /s
We should not be allying with any oppressive and dictatorial states, the US is just rapidly sliding into becoming one, and nobody wants to acknowledge it because of the consequences it would imply. If you ask me, us Europeans need to find our self-confidence, we are more than able to compete, but too scared to take the risks and responsibilities to do so.
Don't get me wrong, I would love that! I would love for Europe to step up as world super power (union), a kin to the Non-Aligned Movement - but unfortunately I don't see it happening.
It starts from the bottom up, we need to make it a priority, it is part of the defeatist attitude we have, total lack of self-confidence. We need a 'Yes we can' movement.
What? Looking back at human history, real large-scale "lasting peace" only exist during the times one super power dominates before their inevitable falls.
Instead of writing long passages about how your native country or country of interest did some atrocities over last 100-200 years, let me just write: I don't care. I care about restoring world balance and establishing long lasting peace.
You can measure the success of a pathological narcissist by brain-minutes. A brain-minute is one human brain thinking about the narcissist for one minute, no matter whether the thought is admiration, confusion, disgust, anger, or fear. You can continue to amass brain-minutes even after you die, as long as people keep thinking about what a [saint | jerk] you were.
By this measure, he is in contention to become the most successful pathological narcissist in history. Which is his sole goal.
I don't like it, but all the time I spent writing this comment contributes to his brain-minute score. So does the time you spend reading it.
In theory, this perspective is similar to the advice to ignore the bully. In practice, we've let this one go on too long.
This is the right answer. I don't know why everyone is overreacting saying how the US democracy is dead and he will be in office forever.
He's just a narcissistic guy who wants to achieve some goals thw US had previously to show he's the only one who could do it, and to show what this great power can do (Iran, Venezuela, etc...)
I also think he's probably aware of his age and cognitive decline, so that's why he's in such a hurry to do everything as fast as possible. He's not the same as in 2017
It's also oddly self-defeating. If Greenland is made the 51st state (as proposed here: https://fine.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1...), it's reasonable to assume that the balance of power in the Senate would shift slightly, but significantly given how thin the majorities usually are. Politically, the two new senators would almost certainly be way to the left of the Republican party.
But on the other hand, Puerto Rico and various U.S. territories are still waiting for their senators to be seated (and voting rights in presidential elections, and in some cases, full citizenship rights).
Nah. He’s an asset of his American handlers. Stephen Miller is the person driving this Greenland thing (but what are his reasons?), Trump himself would’ve forgotten that the whole island exists if not reminded about it. Now, of course, it has also become an ego and legacy thing for Trump and he can’t walk back without being somehow convinced that he won even without getting Greenland. But that’s going to be almost impossible with Miller whispering into his ear.
I'm split three ways on this:
- he is a Russian asset
- he has serious dementia and the power brokers around him are doing what they can
- or, similar to 2 minus the dementia, he's just trying to grift and enrich himself and friends
Waiting on my passport for an EU country (already have citizenship) to figure out options.
If Trump were a Russian asset, would it look in any way different from how he's behaving today?
The thing I find morbidly fascinating is that all the Republicans I used to know, who were vehemently anti-Russia for decades, who worshiped at the altar of Ronald Reagan - have all become bootlicking Trump fanatics. It turns out, it was never about principles with so many of these people I knew - it was daddy issues, writ large.
He clearly has psychiatric involvement in his personality: NPD at least, psychopathic at worst. Both type of personalities are great manipulators who can deceive even the closest friends, more so the masses.
affected or marked by a persistent pattern of antisocial, impulsive, manipulative, and sometimes aggressive behaviour (not in current technical use).
"a psychopathic disorder"
Psychopathy, or psychopathic personality,[1] is a personality construct[2][3] characterized by impaired empathy and remorse, persistent antisocial behavior,[4] along with bold, disinhibited, and egocentric traits. These traits are often masked by superficial charm and immunity to stress,[5] which create an outward appearance of normality.[6][7][8][9][10]
psy· cho· path ˈsī-kə-ˌpath ˈsī-kō-
: a mentally unstable person
especially : a person having an egocentric and antisocial personality marked by a lack of remorse for one's actions, an absence of empathy for others, and often criminal tendencies
----
Seems spot on to me. You'll find a dictionary is your friend.
That I can agree with. Especially now that he's aging and is displaying clear signs of cognitive decline.
I can see he's also being increasingly influenced by his circle like Miller, also for the fact that unlike in 2017, there was no huge line of people coming to the administration, but after his first term now we have all these guys orbiting him trying to use him as a vehicle to push their policy.
And it seems to be fairly easy, just stoke him a bit saying "they don't want you to do this because they think you're weak!!"
And you can see it with the whole excessive gifting by foreign leaders. It works. Myself I'd be insulted because it feels so fake, but he seems to be unaware.
The guy's ego has blown up like crazy this past decade.
He's a malignant narcissist with dementia. Everything he does is a product of that and rationality isn't a necessary part of the bubble of grandeur he lives within. The bigger problem is the team of sociopaths he's now surrounded himself with who are doing the actual scheming.
>"I still can't tell whether Trump is actually an asset of Russia, or just insane."
Why do people keep looking for Putin under their bed in the mornings? Trump does not give a flying fuck about Putin. He has no problems sanctioning Russia. Trump just does what he wants to do. Meanwhile EU kept sucking up to him instead of standing up. Now the EU reaps what their rulers sowed.
This is utter bullshit. He has no problems hurting Russia as long as it safe for him. But Trump works for Trump only. Some other party benefitting or loosing is not his concern.
We've committed to leave NATO by 2027 [0] to rebalance in Asia. We don't care about Russia. We are worried about China.
> Which country is currently earning the most profits by selling weapons within NATO?
It doesn't matter, because no European nation can help us in Kinmen, Luzon, Yonaguni, or Gageodo.
Both us and China are inching towards a Cuban Missile Crisis level standoff in 2028 after the Taiwanese (January 2028) and Phillipines (May 2028) elections.
I would follow the money. Which country is currently earning the most profits by selling weapons within NATO?
From a cursory glance, 2/3 of all arm exports towards NATO country is done by the US. Buying weapons from other NATO countries is a part of being a member in NATO.
You are conveniently forgetting ~400 billion dollars[0] of Western military and economic aid to the Ukraine which is ~60% of the Lend-Lease program[1] during the last World War. So in some way this war is comparable to the WW2 with the Germany being on the wrong side of history again.
400 billion dollars and it's like 5% of actual Western capacity. Imagine how obliterated Russia would get if West actually tried! I really wish that Western world would finally start giving ACTUAL support and not just drip. Russia has been meddling with world peace for far too long, even before you've invaded Ukraine you kept meddling with elections and stirring uncertainty all around the world. Defending against unprovoked Russian aggression absolutely is being on the right side of history. It's a shame that country with history of so many great figures has become such a cesspool.
>Imagine how obliterated Russia would get if West actually tried!
Now you might ask yourself a question why the west hasn't tried. Like maybe the West doesn't want to be obliterated itself in the nuclear war.
>Russia has been meddling with world peace for far too long, even before you've invaded Ukraine you kept meddling with elections and stirring uncertainty all around the world.
You need to look in the mirror before accusing Russia of anything.
Maybe start by reading how the US meddled in Russian elections[0].
Imagine how comical it is to hear accusations that Russia somehow meddled in Western elections after such blunt intervention by Americans in Russian elections.
The West isn’t a real entity, it’s not coordinated like a state or a nation. I know they teach you from a very young age that the West is your enemy and things could be so much better if it weren’t for the West, but outside of Russia we don’t have the reverse obsession.
Western European countries reached out to you in the 90s and 2000s, tried building economic and cultural ties. I guess you were just playing along for your own benefit?
Besides things could be better if you weren’t governed by a kleptocratic mafia regime, which kills dissidents. But all those years looking at Putin’s portrait in school probably convinced you that he’s on your side.
>The West isn’t a real entity, it’s not coordinated like a state or a nation.
The EU and NATO look with surprise at your statement.
>I know they teach you from a very young age that the West is your enemy and things could be so much better if it weren’t for the West, but outside of Russia we don’t have the reverse obsession.
The fact that you believe in this "they teach you from a very young age" story tells quite clearly that you do have such an obsession.
Do they at least teach you that EU isn’t a state or a nation? Or that NATO has never fought a war against Russia? They should get the facts straight, usually it’s the framing that’s nefarious.
Russia can barely hold its own in a war against a neighboring country 30x smaller than them. Do people really still think they are a threat on the global stage anymore? China, yes, but their tactic is economic rather than military. And they are already winning in that front considering how dependent the rest of the world is on their manpower and manufacturing.
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.
Yesterday, it was "Russia is a threat to the whole of Europe so we need to rearm and borrow billions and send it to Ukraine"; today it's "Russia is so weak, they aren't a threat as they can barely handle Ukraine". Which is it? because this is confusing.
This comment shows why the damage done by Trump will be so hard to reverse, no matter who's in charge next. When Trump talks about taking Greenland, the answer should be "no, moron, it's effectively a part of NATO", and instead you get all this muddying analysis of the strategic signifficance of Greenland, history, and how the EU is weak.
Trump is a symptom. The US cannot be trusted because we will always be one US election away of this bullshit again, because there are a lot of people there that actually agree with this.
The EU should be untangling itself from the US as quickly as possible. Any dependency on it is a major security risk.
There wouldn't have been a problem if the US would've just done a deal go deploy all their stuff on Greenland, hell, even a whole autonomous military zone or something?
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.
Like Trump, I too am a (albeit, small-time) real estate guy. Ownership gives me tingles that renting could never give me. You rent a place for 30 years, diligently pay rent, and in the end you own nothing? Pshaw.
I get it, but the world doesn't run on hard power, it runs on soft power.
The US could simply invade Greenland if it actually refuses to let them stay there, or if an adversary tries to take it over.
That's why I'm so appalled. There is no such imminent threat which would force such a transaction to take place.
Subtle deals like the one I was talking about won't fly as justifications to take action against the US by Russia/China, nor will it up tensions unlike this drama.
I guess from the point of view of Europeans and Canada, the Arctic Circle is opening and Chinese, Russian and US pressure will increase. I hear they found a new powerful enemy recently.
>>I fully support the US taking Greenland by non-military means. Makes sense economically and militarily.
So their own wishes on the topic don't matter?
Also I cannot think of many worse fates for Danes than becoming American, yeah I'm sure they can't wait to have their privatised healthcare and Gestapo policing. What Americans want in this scenario matters less than what Russians want in regards to Ukraine.
>>The Danish colonials force-sterilized the native peoples of Greenland.
Would you like me to start listing all the things that Americans have done to both their own citizens in modern times(like injecting people with radioactive compounds just to see why would happen) and in the distant past to the native populations of Northern America?
I literally couldn't care less about what US "needs". Russia "needs" Ukraine and similarly no one should be respecting them for it. You Americans think you own the world - you don't.
>>This is pure national security and economic security pragmatism.
Yes and I'm sure Putin sells his war in the same way to his citizens.
>>and I don’t want my country to collapse economically or militarily so taking Greenland is easy to reconcile.
If you think taking Greenland will do anything of that sort then you are deeply delusional. Trump and the other fascists will stuff their pockets and the inevitable conflict that follows will make your defence companies rich.
>>We kept the Soviets at bay
I'm sorry, what are you talking about exactly? The Soviets that fought with you to defeat the Nazis? The Soviets you have subsidized with billions of dollars during WW2 with weapons and supplies to defeat Hitler? Those Soviets?
>>The US propped up Europe for 70 years after WW2 and paid for its defense
I assume you never actually sat down to think why that is, and if it might have something to do with the fact that US both wanted to do this and it was in their interest to continue doing so. To now say something as stupid as "the bill is due" is uneducated at best, malicious at worst.
Of course it was in our interests to do so. No empire acts otherwise.
We do not own the world, but we do own the worlds reserve currency, largest economy, are the guarantors of safe naval passage for most of the world, are the defenders of North America, Europe, and to a lesser extent Japan and South Korea. We send re-usable rockets to space. We are amazing.
Does any of this give us a direct claim to Greenland? No, but what claim did Denmark have over the native people when they invaded?
Roosevelt honestly thought the Soviets would be good partners post-war. He was wrong. Very wrong.
>>No, but what claim did Denmark have over the native people when they invaded?
If you really are American then I hope the irony of this question is not lost on you.
I guess talking to you is kinda like talking to a citizen of Germany circa 1939 who is saying that of course Poland should be taken, they have the best location in Europe with all trade between east and west going throught it, lots of natural resources, and after all why do the Slavs have claims to it, Prussians lived there too. I don't want to see my country collapse militarily and economically - and we are amazing too. Not the mention large portion of Poland was under German control during the 100 year long partition of Poland, surely they need to pay back for all the great stuff that we built there for them.
It just makes sense, doesn't it. America is powerful, of course it should take Greenland if it wants to - why shouldn't Denmark give it away, they owe you, right?
I suppose the only question is - are you ready to pick up a rifle and come and take it? Or just to send other young men do to it for you? Or is your plan just to destroy your alleged allies economically until they do what you want them to do?
I think my main regret at the moment is looking up to America as an adolescent, your cultural exports have really worked in that sense. You might have the best rockets around, but at the end of the day you're just a country of bullies.
The earths’ resources are finite and we are in a competition for them. Technology and AI make the race for energy even more intense.
If your country was as large as the US or China it too would likely be a “bully.”
France is still a bully in Africa when it wants to be.
I also bought into all our cultural exports as a child and believed we were going to war for freedom and Democracy. As I get older I see the truth. It was all geopolitics.
Freedom and Democracy were just icing on the cake if we managed to preserve it wherever we were sending our kids to die.
Europeans will really do anything except confront Russia and China.
A little history lesson: the US has defacto and dejure been defending Greenland since WWII (they've had a defence pact since Denmark fell to the Nazis). US bases have been on Greenland from then to the current day.
Even after Ukraine, Europe buys Russian gas. Even with all the threats from China towards Taiwan, Europeans are cozying up to them. And Europe still doesn't adequately defend itself, with a few exceptions.
While Trump is erratic in public, all recent US moves point to a confrontation with Russia/China in the near future. And Europe just sits by twiddling their thumbs. Feels like Eastern Europe and the Baltics are the only ones who take it seriously.
Yeah, we've been here before. Empires don't necessarily fall by the hand of their enemies as much as they fall by their own hands and hubris. See: UK, Germany, Russia, historical China and other asian countries, hell even the Romans, and so on and so forth, we've had it all. Trump is nothing new, just another fool in a long line of fools.
It is getting downvoted because it is a well known silly trope. Generally, success reinforces itself. That’s why there have been a bunch of countries that have had multi-generational streaks of repeated success. Eventually, this feedback look can fail, but it isn’t on some predictable four generation pattern.
> Eventually, this feedback look can fail, but it isn’t on some predictable four generation pattern.
Actually, it kind of is.
See The Fourth Turning and any other book based on the Strauss-Howe generational theory.
Is this theory air-tight and inviolable? No. Does it more or less support this “silly trope”? Yes. I think it’s safe to say that it is directionally correct.
If you think that it's just an imagination, the universe will make you physically feel what it really is. Not all at once, but gradually, drop by drop. And then, you'll learn the true meaning of another "meme" word: ignorance.
This is what they want you to believe. You are useful and convenient when you are malleable (to someone's else agenda aka "their choice"). Ideally, you should not practice any discernment at all, raise no questions, silence any suspicions. As if it's all by sheer coincidence and predefined by external forces ("chance").
It's not the truth. It's an observation, one of many. It does not look neat, it looks horrible. However, I am ok to give it a deeper nuanced appreciation than to just negate it right off the bat.
I think the administration's real goal isn't taking over Greenland. I think it's scaring the EU enough about the possibility the US might take over Greenland that the EU pays to fortify it so the US doesn't have to. (Somebody needs to fortify it, because the world is warming and it will become a strategically important trade choke point when a Northwest Passage opens up.)
Just like Trump being hot-and-cold on Ukraine. The administration's real goal isn't the US letting Russia take over Europe or even Ukraine. The goal is to scare the EU enough about the possibility the US might let Russia take over Europe or Ukraine that they start paying the expense of making sure that doesn't happen.
Greenland only has a population of 56k. If the US really wanted to buy Greenland, it should suggest a referendum whether Greenland should be annexed by the US, then pass a law that says the US will give each Greenlander $1 million if the referendum passes. I'm sure it would pass in a landslide and it would only cost $56 billion, which seems much lower than the price of trying to capture it militarily.
I don't know if I understand, grasp or agree with the geopolitics in your comment, but the weather in the north has indeed been getting nicer as of late; last summer I spent quite some time swimming in the beach without wearing thermal suits or anything at all really. So if anybody thinks that living in US is a tough bite to swallow lately, emigrating to Scandinavia or Iceland is not such a bad thing. Greenland though is still a little too tree-less and bare for my taste, and there my wild speculation[^1] is that the current US administration is looking for some harsh hell to set up forced labor camps to send anybody they don't like.
[^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 companies can use to set up mining operations in Greenland.
That would be a horrible deal for the Greenlanders, and they know it - there were polls recently and Vance was pretty much told that when he visited there.
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.
Up it to $5 million per Greenlander then. The US can afford to pull the trigger on a $250-$280 billion acquisition. The EU can't afford to counter it. To put that sum into perspective for the US economy: that's merely 2.x years of operating income for Google. There's no scenario where the people of Greenland reject that $250b offer in a free vote.
Where is that money coming from? The defense budget is 800B - this is a major budget item just throwing money in the trash along with most of your alliances
>US might take over Greenland that the EU pays to fortify it so the US doesn't have to
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 goal in Ukraine for the US is to bleed Russia. While Russia is busy in Ukraine, it's losing its influence and positions, from Syria to Iran.
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.
It’s also lose-lose for the US. There isn’t a positive outcome. If it’s dropped, the damage is “just” reputational and partly repairable. If it’s pursued: tariffs, threats, coercion. It burns trust inside NATO, accelerates European strategic decoupling, and hands a propaganda gift to every US adversary. A forced takeover would be a catastrophic own-goal: legitimacy crisis, sanctions/retaliation, and a long-term security headache the US doesn’t need.
And the deeper issue is credibility. The dollar’s reserve status and US financial leverage rest on the assumption that the US is broadly predictable and rule-bound. When you start treating allies like extractive targets, you’re not “winning” you’re encouraging everyone to build workarounds. Part of the postwar setup was that Europe outsourced a lot of hard security while the US underwrote the system; if the US turns that security guarantee into leverage against allies, you should expect Europe to reprice the relationship and invest accordingly.
The least-bad outcome is a face-saving off-ramp and dropping the whole line of inquiry. Nothing good comes from keeping it on the table.
reply