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.
See https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TLhz6ZbrMuI for a more full-throated explanation from Ian.
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.
A dissenting opinion from obstinate judges can drag this thing out until the end of the session.
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.
[0] https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/prediction-market-trade...
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.
You're going to pick better next time, right?
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.
Regardless, we are looking at a long time before the world doesn't look at our government in disgust (rightfully).
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.
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.
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.
If the dems win in 2026 and 2028, what is there to stop a return to fascism and further collapse in 2032?
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.
You cannot defeat MAGA the same way: the "enemies" are among us, and they aren't going anywhere.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/find-the-story-going-around...
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/trouve-les-articles-de-pres...
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?
> 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 you trust independent polls, you can get a pretty clear picture of where Greenlanders stood as of Feb. 2025:
[0] https://www.statista.com/chart/34174/greenlanders-who-would-... [1] https://www.veriangroup.com/news-and-insights/opinion-poll-g...
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...
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.
source:
[0] https://www.euractiv.com/news/virtually-no-greenlander-wants...
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/denmark-apologizes-for-abuse-of-greenl...
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:
Here's more on that constitution: https://www.naadsn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/26jan-2023-...
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).
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.
But if the value is high or you've landed on their naughty list, they'll have you pay before receiving the package.
> Bipartisan Legislation Prohibiting a U.S. Invasion of a NATO State Introduced
https://hoyer.house.gov/media/press-releases/bipartisan-legi...
It’s honestly just very difficult to communicate with Republican parts of the country on open, reddit-like social media.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Edt: would love some arguments instead of downvotes
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.
All those undocumented workers the US wants to keep out, they're really important to the US actually functioning.
Right now? Trump is risking a worldwar trying to save the dollar/energy/make the history books.
They can take Texas back while they're at it. Or perhaps Elon wants to take it.
"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? "
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-europe-greenlan...
That's literally what they are. American forces appeared in Germany in 1945.
De facto and de jure are two very, very different things...
(not saying the US forces are occupying Germany, just commenting on op's logic)
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).
So if the US decides to resign from NATO, they would likely face challenges directly with Germany regarding their existing agreement.
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
Also go EU!
Most things fall off the front page really fast, I know because I am now spending rather too much time on this site…
Hence Eli Lilly +40% in the last year and Novo -23%. Or on a longer timescale you can see the problem:
https://www.google.com/finance/quote/NVO:NYSE?sa=X&sqi=2&ved...
"Pricing power fell when someone else entered the market" isn't dropping a ball is why I ask.
Most people probably prefer a pill vs injections with needles.
If the US can extract Maduro, it can extract the leadership of Novo Nordisk, their lead scientists and all of their intellectual property.
/amused scenario
I'm a Finn.
I don’t know why we got to be assholes. I prefer speaking softly and carrying a big stick.
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.
With Trump in power they can grab it
(I'm talking about FIFA in case you are not aware)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The geographical land mass of Europe will of course survive anything bar a collision with another planet, if this is what you're referring to.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irene_Triplett
> To answer your question: the US economy is going to last a very long time yet. So far it has lasted hundreds of years.
How old is the US?
> The dollar is the global reserve currency and is under no serious threat to be displaced
Everybody leavs the dollar since a while.
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.
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
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.
She should get a prize for this instead of being blamed. Even if you don't care about the moral aspect of helping refugees.
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.
[1]: https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/employment-rate
EDIT: 23%
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employment-rate
Edit: also you can't do math well -- it's 100 - 77 = 23 (not 33)
Its so disappointing and tragic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-a...
This was 2020 and still some people who allgedely want to make America great again voted for him.
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.
> 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."
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/donald-trump-says-wants-...
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.
Only at Thule. The 2004 re-agreement rescinded the unrestricted establishment of bases:
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/04-806-Denm...
It significantly emasculated the 1951 agreement:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp#art2para...
"Exclusive: How Palantir's Alex Karp went full MAGA" [2]
Look at All In Podcast - tech VCs - they are all in support of this administration.
[1] https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...
[2] https://www.axios.com/2025/10/23/trump-alex-karp-palantir-ma...
Your mistaking is in using rationality and logic.
That's the EU's problem, not Trump's)
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.
They can literally print them
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.
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".
[1] https://www.dirittoue.info/u-s-legislation-restricts-preside...
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.
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!
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.
> "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]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States ("Eugenics in the United States")
If we successfully revolt the US doesn't survive in any form to stabilize the world built around us and there is no guarantee that the ruling party isn't MAGA-like.
The rubicon was crossed. This is the new normal.
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.
I am genuinely sorry that Atlanticism came down to a few hundred thousand of the dumbest Midwesterners we could find.
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.
Would he win the popular vote today? Hard to know. Only the kind of people who are willing to talk to pollsters end up in polls.
Both parties tend to claim a high moral position and definitive mandate from a narrow margin of victory.
Talk of suspending mandates, third terms, and invading Greenland are exactly how he keeps winning- talk past your goal, and retreat to victory.
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.
The idea that the 2nd amendment exists to keep alive a threat of rebellion against a tyrannical gov't is a joke.
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.
All the assault weapons you can store in your shed are useless when an f35 takes them out from 300 miles away.
Ah yes, and if I recall, that is how the US won in Vietnam ... oh wait. Your comment is a perfect example of the very problem I described.
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.
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.
Invading Greenland is a symptom of us on the ground fighting back. It’s to prove to Americans that we’re now isolated.
The assumption of left wing political consensus on this platform is astonishing at times.
Do you approve of the immigration enforcement?
Do you approve of the tariff antics?
Do you approve of Trump torching American reputation with her allies?
Was Jan 6 an attempt to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power?
Would you vote for Trump again?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes, but they were morons
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”
If you start believing you can’t get along then society just turns into a rush to slam the Overton window shut on your opposition. Don’t give up hope.
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?
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?
We all know they fall down by showing painted signs at street demos. /s
But yeah, focus on the peaceful citizens making their voices heard, if that makes you feel more secure about how things are going.
Refuse to buy from any company that supports the current administration (like Microsoft). End contracts where they exist.
I wonder whether UK media decide to hammer Farage over his Trump connections to screw Reform super hard.
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.
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.
Amongst the MAGA voters I know, ethical behavior is very much a “hope for” bonus than an expectation.
There is a lot of ends-justify-the-means rhetoric in that voter pool that I talk to.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46670275 and marked it off topic.
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"?
“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 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.
> 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
No Democrat president threatened to take over Greenland or took another head of state hostage without precedent.
Yes, they are corrupt and warmongers, but not nearly as harmful as the current Republican party.
Start preparing for the post-American world.
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.
The same ones currently blowing up shipwrecked survivors in the water in the Caribbean? A literal textbook example of a war crime? I’m not.
I really hope the US heals, quickly.
With Japan's artificial womb technology, sure! We can also create sperm or egg cells from just about anything and implant that into the womb.
ICE is gestapo. And I'll keep beating them down every chance I get. Can't screw with someone that mines nuclear materials very easily.
> With Japan's artificial womb technology
The down-mods are hilarious, BTW.
May the Almighty have mercy on the folly prevalent in our day.
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.
Russia is ~144 million people, I don't think there is 4.8 mil people in Ukraine tbh.
> There is no sign that Canada and the European nations will be in a position to even put up a shadow of resistance to it.
Same for the US. There has been ample reporting about how there is no shipbuilding capacity in the US (but there still is in Europe).
The EU should be untangling itself from the US as quickly as possible. Any dependency on it is a major security risk.
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.
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.
It could, at any time, reopen them and move troops there under existing agreements, or build more. Nobody would bat an eyelid.
To pretend this is about defence is nonsense. It’s about taking territory.
They were closed because the Cold War ended and they were no longer needed.
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.
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
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).
Waiting on my passport for an EU country (already have citizenship) to figure out options.
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.
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.
You could say that about a lot of people you don't like.
I'm not saying there's some traits, but we could say that about many people. He's narcissistic for sure and charismatic, but again...
If you want something more likely, look up NPD:
Key Characteristics
Grandiosity: Exaggerated sense of self-importance, achievements, and talents.
Need for Admiration: Constant craving for attention and praise.
Lack of Empathy: Inability or unwillingness to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
Sense of Entitlement: Unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment.
Exploitative Behavior: Taking advantage of others to achieve personal ends.
Envy: Often envious of others or believes others are envious of them.
Arrogance: Haughty, condescending attitudes or behaviors.
---
I'm just saying, clinical psychopathy is much more rare and extreme
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.
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.
> 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.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-sets-2...
Basically, we are leaving Europe because we no longer have a commitment there and concentrate on Asia and the Americas.
This has been a stated policy objective of ours for almost 2 decades now.
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.
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?
For a country 38 Trillion in debt this is priceless.
This is pure national security and economic security pragmatism.
The US propped up Europe for 70 years after WW2 and paid for its defense, while the leaders of European countries hollowed out their own capabilities for energy and defense.
We kept the Soviets at bay.
The bill is due - and I don’t want my country to collapse economically or militarily so taking Greenland is easy to reconcile.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Least we can do is downvote it.
Straight out of "Manipulators' Handbook 101".
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.
[^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.
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.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-defense-spending-3bbea1ccc6...
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
Does not make sense. Denmark had already budgeted with a huge increase of military capabilities on Greenland. If US wanted more they could talk with their allied.
And the 'lol just pay them' argument is tone deaf and insulting to the Greenlanders. If you followed along you would know that they have already stated that they would not take money. To say nothing about the laws that governs the Kingdom and the process of leaving the it. Which can not be deferred by paying anyone. But I guess americans have a really hard time understanding the rule of law now.
The ideal for the US superpower right now, is to collapse Iran's regime while Russia is kept busy in Ukraine. It's unable to lend support to prop up its allies. The peace efforts are fake, meant to maintain a constant back and forth that never really goes anywhere. The US system has been focused on trying to strip Russia out of that region for decades, since before 9/11. Iraq was about Russia. Syria was about Russia. The first Gulf War was about decimating the Soviet supplied Iraqi army with the latest generation of US weapons, to put them to the test.
Most of the agenda exists from one administration to the next. The Pentagon works on its strategic aims across decades (see Bush & Obama & Trump and pivoting against China).
The US superpower is interested in the great power conflicts, it's not interested in Iraq because of oil, or Venezuela because of oil. It's about Russia and China, the other components (oil, chips, weapons, etc) are mere strategic calculations on the board.
