US attack on Venezuela raises fears of future Greenland takeover(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
US attack on Venezuela raises fears of future Greenland takeover
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/04/greenland-denmark-us-venezuela-nicolas-maduro-donald-trump
206 comments
Legitimately: Could they actually do this? The EU still has so many dependencies on tech provided by the US that could be turned off pretty much immediately which would shut the country down. How are they supposed to fight back if their government stops because Microsoft shuts down their Azure accounts, Outlook, Teams, etc.?
Same goes the other way, the US has dependencies on Europe when it comes to various technologies, that would stop immediately if the US decides to be violent towards its allies. I'm sure Europe could survive without Microsoft Office, what would the US do if they stop being able to get machine tooling since that industry all but disappeared in the US, and the US doesn't have any allies left?
Russia has been theoretically cut off from advanced machinery for years, the west just started selling stuff to central asian countries who resell it to Russia and we all behave as if it's normal.
The truth is that Russia is suffering because of this, but they've been able to maintain a semblance of normality by building some parts themselves and obtaining the rest from China.
Their fleet of Boeing and Airbus jetliners is slowly falling apart. They're extracting chips from washing machines to put in missiles. They're even sending soldiers to the front lines in flimsy electric golf carts.
The sanctions are not working as well as the US hoped but they are working.
Their fleet of Boeing and Airbus jetliners is slowly falling apart. They're extracting chips from washing machines to put in missiles. They're even sending soldiers to the front lines in flimsy electric golf carts.
The sanctions are not working as well as the US hoped but they are working.
> Russia has been theoretically cut off from advanced machinery for years, the west just started selling stuff to central asian countries who resell it to Russia and we all behave as if it's normal.
China makes advanced machinery, and Russia also buys from them.
China makes advanced machinery, and Russia also buys from them.
It is normal because this has happened with every sanction. Russia is now forced to pay smugglers marked up prices for their stuff.
The whole thing has been a war of attrition from day one. What Putin can't buy is soldiers. Every day another 1000 casualties.
The whole thing has been a war of attrition from day one. What Putin can't buy is soldiers. Every day another 1000 casualties.
Putin can and has bought soldiers (Wagner Group and North Koreans).
And apparently Kenyans.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-23/kenyans-l...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-23/kenyans-l...
And apparently Indians. Unfortunately the worldwide supply of poor and desperate young men is virtually infinite so Russia will be able to recruit more mercenaries as long as they have cash from fossil fuel exports.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20251111-deceived-and-dep...
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20251111-deceived-and-dep...
Huh? Haas 100% supports Russia and does whatever they can to get them stuff. The owner personally is pro-Russia. F Haas, and f' Formula1 with the Haas racing team.
Haas Automation claims this is incorrect. I don't know what the truth is here but there seem to be two sides to the story.
https://www.haasf1team.com/news/team-statement
https://www.haasf1team.com/news/team-statement
The Department of the Treasury thinks they violated sanctions and they were required to pay over a million dollars in fines. I'm not sure how you make 'two side to the story' out of that?
https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/933956/download?inline
https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/933956/download?inline
> How are they supposed to fight back if their government stops because Microsoft shuts down their Azure accounts, Outlook, Teams, etc.?
Tell ASML that that they couldn't ship any new machines or parts to the US. Tell TSMC that if they want to receive ASML machines/parts they cannot send chips they make with ASML machines to the US.
There are US-made parts in ASML machines (AIUI). The two major chip design software companies are also American.
So we're in a M.A.D. situation when it comes to tech.
Tell ASML that that they couldn't ship any new machines or parts to the US. Tell TSMC that if they want to receive ASML machines/parts they cannot send chips they make with ASML machines to the US.
There are US-made parts in ASML machines (AIUI). The two major chip design software companies are also American.
So we're in a M.A.D. situation when it comes to tech.
> Tell TSMC that
Interesting. what would be in the best interests of Taiwan here? It seems Europe is even less likely to shield it from Chinese aggression/invasion.
Interesting. what would be in the best interests of Taiwan here? It seems Europe is even less likely to shield it from Chinese aggression/invasion.
Thank God our president is known for making cool, rational decisions, or else we might be screwed.
It's as if, like, the whole tech supply chain could crumble overnight.
The EU also has technologies the US is completely dependent on, advanced industries need European tech to function.
The tech stuff from the US is much easier to replace than the US developing litography machines on the level of ASML.
The tech stuff from the US is much easier to replace than the US developing litography machines on the level of ASML.
Is there any reason to believe the US wouldn't use force to address this?
I'm not the one you're asking, but how do you mean?
This scenario is that the EU and the US would be at war with one another, so each would of course use military means to deal with its deficiencies.
This scenario is that the EU and the US would be at war with one another, so each would of course use military means to deal with its deficiencies.
You can imagine anything from the US trying to steal any valuable materials or information related to lithography that it can, to actively destroying what it can't usefully steal, right? It's not like both sides would just sit there and declare foreign strategically-important companies off-limits.
Yes, of course. Both would presumably proceed in that way. Microchip factories etc. are very reasonable targets in a war.
Yes. There's been no invasion of Canada, which is actively waging retaliatory economic war on the US.
It seems naive to assume Canada isn't on Trump's shopping list given he has said the exact opposite in the past, though I'm also not sure I understand what you mean/what that had to do with my comment.
It's naive to think there isn't already a 5th column at work.
This guy:
https://provincialtimes.ca/questions-mount-over-jamil-jivani...
Is best buds with the VP:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trum...
Premiers are also being courted:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-danielle-smit...
And there's some sketchy things going on in her province:
https://www.desmog.com/2025/07/22/trump-officials-discussed-...
Honestly feels like we're asleep at the wheel as a country..
This guy:
https://provincialtimes.ca/questions-mount-over-jamil-jivani...
Is best buds with the VP:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trum...
Premiers are also being courted:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-danielle-smit...
And there's some sketchy things going on in her province:
https://www.desmog.com/2025/07/22/trump-officials-discussed-...
Honestly feels like we're asleep at the wheel as a country..
Yeah, our Premier is doing her best to be as lobbyist as she can, if it ain't American oil n gas she doesn't care.
I'm stupid, so I still haven't figured out how both of these petitions were approved, other than she really wants a referendum on separation.
https://www.thealbertan.com/innisfail-news/forever-canadian-...
https://lethbridgenewsnow.com/2026/01/02/citizen-petition-on...
I'm stupid, so I still haven't figured out how both of these petitions were approved, other than she really wants a referendum on separation.
https://www.thealbertan.com/innisfail-news/forever-canadian-...
https://lethbridgenewsnow.com/2026/01/02/citizen-petition-on...
What do you think a sucker punch is?
This whole thread is about the case where the US goes to war with the EU (taking Greenland is war, no matter how the Trump admin tries to spin it).
That's exactly what I'm talking about too. Some combination of intelligence/military operations would almost certainly target companies like ASML during war, no? Why would you assume its assets would stay intact and remain on the Europe side?
Would ASML be able to produce these machines without parts from the US? My guess is no, because they represent the culmination of decades of research across the entire developed world.
Some tech companies have been gaming this out. It's also an unspoken reason that hyperscalers are offering sovereign cloud initiatives.
Presumably EU governments require data to be in European datacenters. Those would be seized.
IBM split into subsidiaries with ww2, selling to both sides, didn’t do them any harm.
There are two large pharmaceutical companies named Merck, because of WWI. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merck_%26_Co.
> In 1887 a German-born, long-time Merck employee, Theodore Weicker, went to the United States to represent Merck Group.[8] In 1891, with $200,000 received from E. Merck, Weicker started Merck & Co., with headquarters in lower Manhattan. ...
> After the U.S. entered World War I, due to its German connections, Merck & Co. was the subject of expropriation under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.[10] The government seized 80 percent of the shares owned by the German parent company and sold it. ... Merck & Co. holds the trademark rights to the "Merck" name in the United States and Canada, while its former parent company retains the rights in the rest of the world; the right to use the Merck name was the subject of litigation between the two companies in 2016.
> In 1887 a German-born, long-time Merck employee, Theodore Weicker, went to the United States to represent Merck Group.[8] In 1891, with $200,000 received from E. Merck, Weicker started Merck & Co., with headquarters in lower Manhattan. ...
> After the U.S. entered World War I, due to its German connections, Merck & Co. was the subject of expropriation under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.[10] The government seized 80 percent of the shares owned by the German parent company and sold it. ... Merck & Co. holds the trademark rights to the "Merck" name in the United States and Canada, while its former parent company retains the rights in the rest of the world; the right to use the Merck name was the subject of litigation between the two companies in 2016.
I mean, war is war. You work on paper if you have to.
So of course we could.
So of course we could.
> Legitimately: Could they actually do this? The EU still has so many dependencies on tech provided by the US that could be turned off pretty much immediately which would shut the country down. How are they supposed to fight back if their government stops because Microsoft shuts down their Azure accounts, Outlook, Teams, etc.?
Or more relevantly: shuts down the flow of spare parts and supplies for military equipment.
Globalization makes this kind of stuff hard to reason about. The end result will probably be something like China can go to war (and win) whenever it wants, and no one else can fight without Chinese permission. The reason is the Chinese seems to be the only ones smart enough to prioritize manufacturing capacity and actually keeping their supply chains local, while everyone else's military supply chains will be low capacity and/or intersect with a Chinese choke point.
Or more relevantly: shuts down the flow of spare parts and supplies for military equipment.
Globalization makes this kind of stuff hard to reason about. The end result will probably be something like China can go to war (and win) whenever it wants, and no one else can fight without Chinese permission. The reason is the Chinese seems to be the only ones smart enough to prioritize manufacturing capacity and actually keeping their supply chains local, while everyone else's military supply chains will be low capacity and/or intersect with a Chinese choke point.
China lacks internal supply chains for many crucial commodities including fossil fuels, soybeans, iron, copper, fertilizers, etc. They are themselves quite vulnerable to import disruptions and have minimal capability to secure their sea lines of communication beyond the first island chain.
My guess is the Danes and EU would complain but not go to war and hope the thing gets reversed when the current president leaves office.
Isn't it If he leaves office at this point, or does it only sound like it from Europe?
They've been testing the waters for way to frequently with seemingly very little pushback... to me, a third presidency is basically guaranteed at this point - one way or another. If they need to falsify the results they'll rationalize it via the "stolen election"
If I was a gambling man I'd have already spend a few thousand on polymarket. I'm not though, so it'll abstain
They've been testing the waters for way to frequently with seemingly very little pushback... to me, a third presidency is basically guaranteed at this point - one way or another. If they need to falsify the results they'll rationalize it via the "stolen election"
If I was a gambling man I'd have already spend a few thousand on polymarket. I'm not though, so it'll abstain
> Isn't it If he leaves office at this point, or does it only sound like it from Europe?
While I appreciate your sentiment, we really need to stop with this specific type of pearl clutching.
The current president’s mental and physical condition is deteriorating rapidly. He will be lucky to make it through the current term in a functional state.
Adding another number of years to his time in office would mean that he almost literally would need to be propped up by his caretakers.
Is it possible? Sure. Is it probable? No, and it’s not even close, imho.
There is plenty of commentary that can be made about the political machine behind him, but let’s not project that to the dotard currently in office.
While I appreciate your sentiment, we really need to stop with this specific type of pearl clutching.
The current president’s mental and physical condition is deteriorating rapidly. He will be lucky to make it through the current term in a functional state.
Adding another number of years to his time in office would mean that he almost literally would need to be propped up by his caretakers.
Is it possible? Sure. Is it probable? No, and it’s not even close, imho.
There is plenty of commentary that can be made about the political machine behind him, but let’s not project that to the dotard currently in office.
"We don't need to worry about the guy making serious noises about an unconstitutional 3rd term because he might die in office" is a position that does not do anything about the problems that have allowed Trump to happen. Could even say it leaves fertile ground for the next populist authoritarian who comes along.
We must challenge the unitary executive theory. America is not intended to be a dictatorship or monarchy. It's not OK for Trump / those in his orbit to make comments about a 3rd term, it is a problem, it is something we need to take seriously.
We must challenge the unitary executive theory. America is not intended to be a dictatorship or monarchy. It's not OK for Trump / those in his orbit to make comments about a 3rd term, it is a problem, it is something we need to take seriously.
> “We don't need to worry about the guy making serious noises about an unconstitutional 3rd term because he might die in office" is a position that does not do anything about the problems that have allowed Trump to happen. Could even say it leaves fertile ground for the next populist authoritarian who comes along.
> We must challenge the unitary executive theory. America is not intended to be a dictatorship or monarchy. It's not OK for Trump / those in his orbit to make comments about a 3rd term, it is a problem, it is something we need to take seriously.
This is all covered in my last paragraph (which, imho, is a separate issue from the current president):
“There is plenty of commentary that can be made about the political machine behind him, but let’s not project that to the dotard currently in office.”
The current president isn’t smart enough to do what it takes to stay in office more than two terms. This is all the work of those around him.
To be more pointed, fixating on Trump rather than the political and social machine around him — which many people seem to do — is missing the forest for the trees.
> We must challenge the unitary executive theory. America is not intended to be a dictatorship or monarchy. It's not OK for Trump / those in his orbit to make comments about a 3rd term, it is a problem, it is something we need to take seriously.
This is all covered in my last paragraph (which, imho, is a separate issue from the current president):
“There is plenty of commentary that can be made about the political machine behind him, but let’s not project that to the dotard currently in office.”
The current president isn’t smart enough to do what it takes to stay in office more than two terms. This is all the work of those around him.
To be more pointed, fixating on Trump rather than the political and social machine around him — which many people seem to do — is missing the forest for the trees.
This isn't really trump, he's not the one with the plan, it's all project 2025 people, even Venezuela is a bullet point in it. There's about zero chance it ends with trump unless the cult of personality dies with him.
He's old and overweight. His presidency will end "one way or another".
Had America gone about it in another way and explained to its nato allies it needed to build more bases in Greenland it would have been done with barely a headline.
But that’s not what Trump wants.
But that’s not what Trump wants.
Zero sum games. If Greenland is independent, it would also get a percentage of the natural resources it extracts, which is money that the US oligarchy does not get.
Important note that Greenland is not in the EU (although Denmark is), so likely the EU would at first think this is not their concern. (I think this would be a wrong thing to think, but that's how it would be diffused at first.)
> so likely the EU would at first think this is not their concern.
No, the EU might not contain the top-of-the-top when it comes to people aware of what's going on, but not even EU is so dimwitted to brush aside an invasion of Greenland as "not our concern".
Not to mention that Greenland is an autonomous part of Denmark, and Denmark is very much a part of the EU.
No, the EU might not contain the top-of-the-top when it comes to people aware of what's going on, but not even EU is so dimwitted to brush aside an invasion of Greenland as "not our concern".
Not to mention that Greenland is an autonomous part of Denmark, and Denmark is very much a part of the EU.
They're not dimwitted, they're next-level cowards. Big difference. They will gladly take whatever Trump gives to them because they're more afraid about actually standing up for something.
> No, the EU might not contain the top-of-the-top when it comes to people aware of what's going on, but not even EU is so dimwitted to brush aside an invasion of Greenland as "not our concern".
So far the French president is welcoming what happened in Venezuela. How do you imagine he feels about the implications for Greenland and Europe?
So far the French president is welcoming what happened in Venezuela. How do you imagine he feels about the implications for Greenland and Europe?
I believe he offered to station French troops in Greenland
When? Link?
He confused the foreign minister with the president.
https://www.politico.eu/article/france-fm-jean-noel-barrot-f...
https://www.politico.eu/article/france-fm-jean-noel-barrot-f...
Actually, no. There's also NATO, but I guess 42.7 is stronger than article 5.
So when Denmark invokes article 5, nato members like the US will declare war on the US?
Article 5 does not, contrary to popular belief, require military response. Go read the wording. It basically requires members to do exactly what they would be already required to do: whatever they want.
Here is a link for those like me who have not read Article 5 before, with additional comments:
https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/coll...
https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/coll...
That sounds very silly. Obviously the US breaking its treaty obligations doesn't mean that everybody else will.
Not necessarily. Such an event would be a geopolitical reenactment of the Danish folk tale "The Emperor's New Clothes". Turns out the emperor isn't just naked he's still living in his parent's basement. And the emperor here is Europe and the parents are the US. Why would I as a German support a war over an island that has not just been criminally neglected by a supposed alley (Denmark), it is even politically and economically irrelevant (as of now). And not just that ... "we" have been begging the US to keep protecting us and for them Greenland is in that respect very much serving a purpose in line with that very military support. Europe is naked as it stands. I don't like it. But that's just how it is.
I find your analogy to be extremely strange. We are extremely well-armed. Greenland has also not been neglected in any way.
With regard to why you should care about Greenland, you've signed an agreement to do it, you are after all in NATO.
There has indeed been co-operation in protecting Greenland and this is very reasonable considering that the US has a presence there in the form of their military bases. I don't see this co-operation as begging.
With regard to why you should care about Greenland, you've signed an agreement to do it, you are after all in NATO.
There has indeed been co-operation in protecting Greenland and this is very reasonable considering that the US has a presence there in the form of their military bases. I don't see this co-operation as begging.
The disrespectful, colonialist treatment of Greenland by Denmark is sufficiently well documented. And if you think Europe stands a chance in a war against US then I don't even know what to say anymore ...
No one is calling for war, but it's not like that documented history happened in this century. Greenland had been part of Denmark since the vikings. Surely we can get past the history and talk in today's terms. The people of Greenland have a voice in Danish politics and both the people and politicians said NO to wanting to have US rule them and YES to stay with Denmark.
So yes, defending Greenland becomes a case of helping a people stay free and not invaded, no matter the enemy.
It's silly to say "well we have no chance against" because then you can end that with China, Russia or even India.
So yes, defending Greenland becomes a case of helping a people stay free and not invaded, no matter the enemy.
It's silly to say "well we have no chance against" because then you can end that with China, Russia or even India.
Europe has nuclear arms. Even Germay could, if the could get off their arses and get serious about defense.
Then you are the deluded one, because Europe has nukes and if Europe dissapears under US nukes, California turns into a big crater and NYC ceases to exist. Everyone - I repeat, everyone - losses. USA, Europe, China, the rest of the world. Everything lost like the Bronze Age, but far worse.
> Obviously they'd have to, but I'm curious about whether they'd do it on the first day, or whether they'd sort of wonder around half-understanding "is this war?"
It'll be a couple of days or weeks before actual realization happen, and it won't be because of the politicians, it'll be because of the massive demonstrations, protests and general strikes, that finally the governments will understand that something has to be done.
> I wonder how little people understand in general, whether war is so foreign to them that they can't react appropriately.
I think most of us got used to the idea that most others don't actually want war, and there is a lot of posturing going on. Wrongly, this was assumed of the current US administration too, which luckily changed really fast because of yesterday and previous actions.
Europe has a long history of devastating wars, the US not so much, and I think Europe tries much harder to avoid violent conflicts than the US (duh), so when you have an ally knocking on your door, presenting threats, Europe kind of defaults to thinking it's posturing, but if boots actually land on Greenland (outside of the existing base), I think the winds will change relatively quickly.
It'll be a couple of days or weeks before actual realization happen, and it won't be because of the politicians, it'll be because of the massive demonstrations, protests and general strikes, that finally the governments will understand that something has to be done.
> I wonder how little people understand in general, whether war is so foreign to them that they can't react appropriately.
I think most of us got used to the idea that most others don't actually want war, and there is a lot of posturing going on. Wrongly, this was assumed of the current US administration too, which luckily changed really fast because of yesterday and previous actions.
Europe has a long history of devastating wars, the US not so much, and I think Europe tries much harder to avoid violent conflicts than the US (duh), so when you have an ally knocking on your door, presenting threats, Europe kind of defaults to thinking it's posturing, but if boots actually land on Greenland (outside of the existing base), I think the winds will change relatively quickly.
No one does general strikes during wars, or really, strikes at all. At least we wouldn't here in Sweden.
I don't know what the trigger for these kinds of things would be, in case people were slow on the uptake-- maybe sabotage by American citizens, something like that.
I don't know what the trigger for these kinds of things would be, in case people were slow on the uptake-- maybe sabotage by American citizens, something like that.
I don’t think they will. As you say Europe avoids war as much as it can - it’s not going to go to war over the latest salmi tactic (base expansion in an uninhabited part of Greenland, then maybe a new base, then blockading of the towns.
Maybe Trump’s golf course in Scotland will sanctioned, that’s as far as it will go
The interacting question is how many bodies coming back under flags will it take before the american public say “enough”.
Maybe Trump’s golf course in Scotland will sanctioned, that’s as far as it will go
The interacting question is how many bodies coming back under flags will it take before the american public say “enough”.
Well UK is out on day one since we cannot fly F35s without signed sw updates to load the mission profile. Not that UK, France, EU have a hope of fighting independently of US since Suez anyway.
[deleted]
POTUS's deputy chief of staff, 21hrs ago:
> SOON
https://x.com/KatieMiller/status/2007541679293944266#m
https://xcancel.com/KatieMiller/status/2007541679293944266#m
> SOON
https://x.com/KatieMiller/status/2007541679293944266#m
https://xcancel.com/KatieMiller/status/2007541679293944266#m
CNN interviewed Stephen Miller last night:
Stephen Miller Asserts U.S. Has Right to Take Greenland
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46509694
Here is a clip:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tidejP41CBk
Stephen Miller Asserts U.S. Has Right to Take Greenland
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46509694
Here is a clip:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tidejP41CBk
Oof, that makes the fact people flagged this seriously fucked up...
I actually made an error and cannot edit it. I should have written "previous deputy press secretary."
Which would become a very interesting situation from a geopolitical POV.
Because Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, i.e. a NATO country.
Which means Denmark could declare war AND invoke NATO Article 5 against the United States:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."
https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resource...
Which means not only Denmark, but also Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom will immediately be in a state of war with a founding member of NATO - namely the United States. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO)
Because Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, i.e. a NATO country.
Which means Denmark could declare war AND invoke NATO Article 5 against the United States:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."
https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resource...
Which means not only Denmark, but also Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom will immediately be in a state of war with a founding member of NATO - namely the United States. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO)
My gut feeling is that it won't happen.
It will antagonise not only Denmark, but the whole of Europe - govs & people - to a point where USA might find it's all alone in the world.
That'll be the beginning of the end for the empire.
It will antagonise not only Denmark, but the whole of Europe - govs & people - to a point where USA might find it's all alone in the world.
That'll be the beginning of the end for the empire.
The beginning is already here, I think. At least things are very much not the same as they were a year ago.
Up until yesterday most of us felt the same about "Going into Venezuela and kidnap the president of a sovereign nation" but here we are. Sure, it was also not out of nowhere, but I don't think anyone thought Trump needed such an abrasive distraction from the internal conflicts in the nation.
> to a point where USA might find it's all alone in the world.
I think the US might be misleading itself if it doesn't realize that it already is. We still care for the people, but the government of the US has truly shown that it cannot be an ally today, and the rest of the world already realize this, seems the US is the last to understand it.
> to a point where USA might find it's all alone in the world.
I think the US might be misleading itself if it doesn't realize that it already is. We still care for the people, but the government of the US has truly shown that it cannot be an ally today, and the rest of the world already realize this, seems the US is the last to understand it.
I don't mean to downplay how terrible the current US administration is, but removing political leaders in Latin America has been a USA tradition and nobody really considers it odd. The US invading an allied country hasn't happened often.
US has pulled out soldiers from EU grounds.
EU restarted domestic production of millitary equipment.
Germany is making military draft mandatory again.
Noone believes US will help like they did before (we know it was a two way deal but still..)
The moment US left EU to Russia they are now all alone. NATO is just a name now.
EU restarted domestic production of millitary equipment.
Germany is making military draft mandatory again.
Noone believes US will help like they did before (we know it was a two way deal but still..)
The moment US left EU to Russia they are now all alone. NATO is just a name now.
There are still ~80000 US troops in Europe. NATO is blemished but still there.
Truly this attack on foreign soil is something without precedents for the USA. What's next, destabilize entire regions? Cause wars? Fund terrorists? Military occupation?
No matter what, let's not forget Ukraine is being attacked by evil Russia.
No matter what, let's not forget Ukraine is being attacked by evil Russia.
> Truly this attack on foreign soil is something without precedents for the USA. What's next, destabilize entire regions? Cause wars? Fund terrorists? Military occupation?
All those things have lots of precedent for the USA.
All those things have lots of precedent for the USA.
> Truly this attack on foreign soil is something without precedents for the USA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...
> Without precedent
Other than probably hundreds of similar scenarios over the past 250 years or so, sure.
Other than probably hundreds of similar scenarios over the past 250 years or so, sure.
You missed parent’s sarcasm
Oh. Yep. I’m just so used to HN seriously thinking Trump is some new kind of evil unleashed on the world— as opposed to just more of the same thing, wrapped up in a tackier and cruder wrapper— that I only read the first sentence and replied. That’s me being a bad HN denizen for the day.
But on the other hand, Trump's treatment of Europe so far – especially in his second term – would be entirely shocking to the sensibilities of any westerner anno 2015. I'm not so sure the US isn't already steaming willingly towards lonesomeness and antagonizing all of its former friends.
You’re right, but it’s like that kid at school who’s a bully and a d*ck but everyone tolerates and stays kinda friendly with because they’re a bit scared of him, and his parents have the best house for parties.
The US can probably go a lot further than they currently have, before a meaningful coalition of meaningful countries will do anything significant —even just economically or diplomatically— against them in return.
The US can probably go a lot further than they currently have, before a meaningful coalition of meaningful countries will do anything significant —even just economically or diplomatically— against them in return.
Trump has nothing to lose. He's almost 80, doesn't care for Europe or NATO, and is clearly desperate to be remembered for something significant.
Kidnapping Maduro doesn't really ensure his name in the history books. But if he annexes Greenland and/or Canada, then he's the next Jefferson or Jackson.
He might even rename Greenland+Canada to Trumpland.
Kidnapping Maduro doesn't really ensure his name in the history books. But if he annexes Greenland and/or Canada, then he's the next Jefferson or Jackson.
He might even rename Greenland+Canada to Trumpland.
> Kidnapping Maduro doesn't really ensure his name in the history books.
I genuinely think this one got them exactly what they wanted. They felt like manly men doing manly men things. Figuratively speaking, they got off on it, stroke egos, felt the excitement of watching the attack and feeling like being the ones who made it.
All those involved are very emotional guys. Not emotional as in liking romance, but emotional as in "driven by feelings and emotions". This made them feel good and manly.
I genuinely think this one got them exactly what they wanted. They felt like manly men doing manly men things. Figuratively speaking, they got off on it, stroke egos, felt the excitement of watching the attack and feeling like being the ones who made it.
All those involved are very emotional guys. Not emotional as in liking romance, but emotional as in "driven by feelings and emotions". This made them feel good and manly.
> He's almost 80, doesn't care for Europe or NATO
Or the US. All he cares about is himself.
Or the US. All he cares about is himself.
> All he cares about is himself.
Indeed. That's why I said he's desperate to be remembered. For something.
Indeed. That's why I said he's desperate to be remembered. For something.
I can't think of a realistic, non-cynical reason that doesn't begin and end with "oil" for even looking funny at Venezuela. The whole "drugs 'r bad" thing doesn't wash.
There are a couple of things I can think of. There's the human rights stuff with torture chambers and a third of the population leaving which doesn't seem to bother Trump but the Venezuelans don't much like.
There's also Maduro's dancing which seems to have been a thing oddly enough https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360920843/maduros-dancing...
There's also Maduro's dancing which seems to have been a thing oddly enough https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360920843/maduros-dancing...
Gotta be honest: "the human rights stuff with torture chambers" sounds like a bonus to a Trumpista. MAGA is not known for its progressive stance on human rights. More the opposite, really, as long as it's not them doing the suffering (or even being mildly inconvenienced).
And this will change now?
There already seems less dancing. Human rights I don't know. Rubio is saying "we all want to see" it. https://youtu.be/V8-tT22SJMo?t=44
Other countries are run by an oligarchy, the US is run by an oilygarchy.
You're thinking about it from a sane POV, but the people at the helm are insane. The only question is: would invading Greenland please Trump, yes or no?
Except that USA is already antagonizing Europe and literally talks about splitting it up, so that they can bully individual nations better.
It wont happen unless you want the US bases in Europe kicked out fast and every
terror atempt done by the US answered by a massive company expulsion from Europe
starting from Mastercard and Visa and everyone forced to migrate to local banks.
If you want a 1929 on steroids, do that.
If you want a 1929 on steroids, do that.
Will be interesting to see if Europe could actually replace things quickly
Mobile phones (android could be forked I guess, Apple would be out).
Payment processing - shouldn’t be a problem if the U.K. is on side, one industry which isn’t been completely bought by America
I suspect China will jump at the chance to assist and Europe will be stupid enough to take it.
Mobile phones (android could be forked I guess, Apple would be out).
Payment processing - shouldn’t be a problem if the U.K. is on side, one industry which isn’t been completely bought by America
I suspect China will jump at the chance to assist and Europe will be stupid enough to take it.
Alright everyone, we're going back to Ericsson phones!
Jokes aside, isn't pushing Europe into China's hands exactly what the USA doesn't want? Part of the motivation behind Venezuela was they were getting too cozy with China.
Jokes aside, isn't pushing Europe into China's hands exactly what the USA doesn't want? Part of the motivation behind Venezuela was they were getting too cozy with China.
Are you seriously arguing for consistency and reason from the Trump administration?
How is it stupid for Europe to accept assistance from China if the US starts a war with Europe?
Locking in to a China solution rather than standing alone. Just changes one master for another
The US doesn't stand alone either?
It's impossible to stand alone and still have access to all top tech in todays world. US will obviously rely much more on china without EU trade.
EU is currently dependent on US for software/cloud.
US is dependent on EU in advanced machinery, precision tooling and high end manufacturing equipment.
The US imports massive amounts of chemicals, drugs and vaccines from the EU.
Both regions would look to china for replacements probably.
A major downside and risk for Europe is that they would have to get the share LNG from the US from elsewhere, as it's not self sufficient energy wise, but this would most likely not come from China.
It's impossible to stand alone and still have access to all top tech in todays world. US will obviously rely much more on china without EU trade.
EU is currently dependent on US for software/cloud.
US is dependent on EU in advanced machinery, precision tooling and high end manufacturing equipment.
The US imports massive amounts of chemicals, drugs and vaccines from the EU.
Both regions would look to china for replacements probably.
A major downside and risk for Europe is that they would have to get the share LNG from the US from elsewhere, as it's not self sufficient energy wise, but this would most likely not come from China.
> Will be interesting to see if Europe could actually replace things quickly
“Quickly” is unlikely, but it has already started.
“Quickly” is unlikely, but it has already started.
The US did appoint a representative for Greenland a few weeks ago. It is not inconceiveable that at some point in the future they will let Denmark know that Greeland is a US territory and that’s that.
And realistically, if this happens, in the next 3 years there is nothing anyone can do anything about it.
We live in interesting times.
And realistically, if this happens, in the next 3 years there is nothing anyone can do anything about it.
We live in interesting times.
Post January it could be yet another impeachment, this time it might stick, especially if the project 25 people think trumps causing more harm than Vance.
Only harm trumps causing is Epstein fallout, Venezuela is even part of project 2025.
This is another lie - Venezuela is not mentioned at all in Project 2025. If you believe I'm wrong (and I'm not), please cite the chapter and page that the section on Venezuela is located in.
"The five countries on which the next
Administration should focus its attention and energy are China, Iran, Venezuela,
Russia, and North Korea."
> Katie Miller, the former administration official-turned-podcaster and wife of deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, posted an image on her X account on Saturday showing a map of Greenland colored by the American flag with a one-word caption: “SOON.” [0]
Great, the USA collectively decided to elect not only stupid arrogants, it selected the violent ones.
What's the goalpost now to call this administration fascist?
[0] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/03/trump-venezela-mexi...
Great, the USA collectively decided to elect not only stupid arrogants, it selected the violent ones.
What's the goalpost now to call this administration fascist?
[0] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/03/trump-venezela-mexi...
It's a YOLO presidency, so sure, why not? Time and time again we've cycled:
1. That's outrageous
2. He's joking
3. But what if he's not joking?
4. We're doing it
Nothing new to anyone who follows what goes on in the rest of the world. The West (mostly Europe) just sat in comfort until Putin and now Trump and they are still adjusting to the fact that the world is actually very hostile.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that ended up in acquiescence with America’s withdrawal from NATO.
I still don't understand why some people wanted to capture Putin so much and now against Maduro capture when clearly Maduro has done something uncomparably worse to the people in his country.
Greenland is of course a very different deal compared to Venezuela, it will be interesting to see the political push to the EU.
Greenland is of course a very different deal compared to Venezuela, it will be interesting to see the political push to the EU.
Sovereignty means wrongs done by a head of state outside of the borders of the state are more suitable for international response than wrongs done within the state. Probably including usurping the head of state position.
Also, charges of war crimes are more serious than charges of drug trafficing.
Also, charges of war crimes are more serious than charges of drug trafficing.
America did that whole “leader is bad let’s get him”, in Afghanistan and Iraq. We saw how that turned out.
Nobody cared when Putin or Trump were abusing their own citizens. It’s when they invade other countries where the problem begins.
Nobody cared when Putin or Trump were abusing their own citizens. It’s when they invade other countries where the problem begins.
> America did that whole “leader is bad let’s get him”, in Afghanistan and Iraq. We saw how that turned out.
Don't forget that the main countries who fought in the Iraq war were the US, UK, Australia, and Poland, with significant contributions from Spain, Denmark, The Netherlands, and Italy.
In Afganistan, countries fighting were the US, UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, France, Poland, The Netherlands, Turkey, Georgia, Romania, Denmark, Norway, Spain, New Zealand, South Korea.
Don't forget that the main countries who fought in the Iraq war were the US, UK, Australia, and Poland, with significant contributions from Spain, Denmark, The Netherlands, and Italy.
In Afganistan, countries fighting were the US, UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, France, Poland, The Netherlands, Turkey, Georgia, Romania, Denmark, Norway, Spain, New Zealand, South Korea.
That cycle is also referred to as "shifting the Overton window".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
I don't see this is happening, it's a tremendous death from removing a dictator who's authority was legitimate, to invading Greenland. I just don't see that and I think this is more click bait and rage bait. I don't agree with how it was done, but I'm glad to see maduro gone, but it's opened a very, very, very dangerous door.....
How is this click bait and rage bait? I think the article is quite reasonably telling the events leading up to and the response from Denmark.
The president says Greenland needs to be a part of the US, and he wont rule out using military force.
The wife of one of his cabinet members tweets a picture where Greenland belongs to the US and captions it "SOON".
How is Denmark supposed the respond when the president is actively threatening them?
You have been acclimated to having a president who says crazy things. This is not normal.
I think almost nobody sees it actually happening, but just the fact that he is saying these things is insane.
The president says Greenland needs to be a part of the US, and he wont rule out using military force.
The wife of one of his cabinet members tweets a picture where Greenland belongs to the US and captions it "SOON".
How is Denmark supposed the respond when the president is actively threatening them?
You have been acclimated to having a president who says crazy things. This is not normal.
I think almost nobody sees it actually happening, but just the fact that he is saying these things is insane.
Exactly, it is the whole 'normalization of deviance' thing all over again.
The Danish government takes the threat seriously:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g0zg974v1o
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g0zg974v1o
So does the rest of Europe on a high structural level. Individually things are more complex.
Right. Anyone who thinks this is not a real threat is sadly deluded.
However, if you think through the scenarios, the US is in a very strong military position and there's not much Denmark or the EU as a whole would be able to do about it. They could threaten a direct military response, on the basis of making the annexation more trouble than it's worth, but then you're just playing chicken with a significantly crazier enemy.
Most likely the EU would try to calm the waters, and offer a compromise peace / surrender plan along the lines of the one the US has offered Russia in Ukraine.
The biggest obstacle ought to be political opposition and public protests within the US itself, but right now the US government is in a position to just move fast and make things happen, what with the weak Congress and compliant Supreme Court.
I hope and believe it'll become much less likely after the midterms, with a Democrat-led Congress motivated to push back against the executive's excesses.
However, if you think through the scenarios, the US is in a very strong military position and there's not much Denmark or the EU as a whole would be able to do about it. They could threaten a direct military response, on the basis of making the annexation more trouble than it's worth, but then you're just playing chicken with a significantly crazier enemy.
Most likely the EU would try to calm the waters, and offer a compromise peace / surrender plan along the lines of the one the US has offered Russia in Ukraine.
The biggest obstacle ought to be political opposition and public protests within the US itself, but right now the US government is in a position to just move fast and make things happen, what with the weak Congress and compliant Supreme Court.
I hope and believe it'll become much less likely after the midterms, with a Democrat-led Congress motivated to push back against the executive's excesses.
It would start off with a complete boycott of anything US made and that will result in a lot of irreversible damage.
This is a path to madness and I'm really surprised that there are no saner heads in the US putting a stop to this before it gets even further out of control. I'm even more surprised at how many people in the US support this, either tacitly or even outright.
This is a path to madness and I'm really surprised that there are no saner heads in the US putting a stop to this before it gets even further out of control. I'm even more surprised at how many people in the US support this, either tacitly or even outright.
*illegitimate
Flagged? As in flagged we’re the US company, obviously Republican, obviously trump supporting? Or just ‘meh, sorry, more comments then the likes, cannot do anything’?
You won't be reading about the end of the world on HN either, it will be flagged as off topic. HN is a lot of good things but there are also some very annoying sharp edges and abuse of flagging privileges is definitely one of those. But you take the good with the bad.
I do agree, thanks for formulating this. A brief thought visited me, isn’t that how propaganda works? Like, you’re getting mostly correct info, with some things censored, others saturated.
Yes, that is part of it. And part of it is 'useful idiots' doing what the propagandists would do as well.
On HN you will find people from a lot of different countries with a lot of different viewpoints. The main reason politics (and religion) are mostly taboo on here is because those subjects tend to polarize and turn the place into yet another shithole. So I can see why there is a strong push to keep those off the site.
But at the same time I'm realistic enough to know that everything has a political angle and that you can not solve a problem like this by denying its existence. That just makes it a bigger problem.
The mods here have an un-enviable job, they walk a very fine line with an extremely smart audience, and they are doing an absolutely amazing job of it given that most people would fail in that position in about 30 seconds flat. It is as even handed as you could possibly make it. But flagging is not a moderator action, it is the users and I've seen them be abused more than once, either because of personal dislikes or because of brigading.
Even so, you'd be hard pressed to find a place with better discourse on a large variety of subjects.
On HN you will find people from a lot of different countries with a lot of different viewpoints. The main reason politics (and religion) are mostly taboo on here is because those subjects tend to polarize and turn the place into yet another shithole. So I can see why there is a strong push to keep those off the site.
But at the same time I'm realistic enough to know that everything has a political angle and that you can not solve a problem like this by denying its existence. That just makes it a bigger problem.
The mods here have an un-enviable job, they walk a very fine line with an extremely smart audience, and they are doing an absolutely amazing job of it given that most people would fail in that position in about 30 seconds flat. It is as even handed as you could possibly make it. But flagging is not a moderator action, it is the users and I've seen them be abused more than once, either because of personal dislikes or because of brigading.
Even so, you'd be hard pressed to find a place with better discourse on a large variety of subjects.
Of course flagged.
Because it is baseless fearmongering. US is not going to invade Greenland or Canada. For these two the ambition is clearly in diplomacy/marketing only.
I love how this is a community that talks about the singularity and transhumanism and all that sci-magick-fi nonsense as if it was going to happen next year, but a real geopolitical threat the likes of which have happened countless times in the last 500 years is considered impossible...
I love how you think that improbable capture of Canada is a real geopolitical threat, but losing the status of the dominant species apparently isn't. You think wars happened a lot? How many species were dominant before us and where are they all now?
I’d love to know exactly which clearly stated threats towards other sovereign nations we should take seriously, because it isn’t at all clear.
> a community that talks about the singularity and transhumanism
Some of the community do, a lot don't, probably the majority.
There's no contradiction if you assume there needn't be an overlap.
Some of the community do, a lot don't, probably the majority.
There's no contradiction if you assume there needn't be an overlap.
It can happen in multiple ways, doesn't need to be an invasion.
I also think there is no way this is actually going to happen, but its obviously big news in itself that Trump and people in his circles are not willing to rule it out and are actively hinting at it.
Its kind of ridiculous that we’re all just supposed to make our own interpretations when the president is just talking shit again or being serious.
I also think there is no way this is actually going to happen, but its obviously big news in itself that Trump and people in his circles are not willing to rule it out and are actively hinting at it.
Its kind of ridiculous that we’re all just supposed to make our own interpretations when the president is just talking shit again or being serious.
For all we know this was always discussed in certain circles. Trump could just be the first one to talk about it publicly.
It's not discussing wanting Greenland that is wrong, its threatening an ally about it through media instead of going about it in a diplomatic and friendly way. The motives also don't seem rational at all, but more about boosting Trumps ego and legacy. Trump obviously have an imperialism itch he is trying to scratch.
This is incredibly damaging for the USs reputation and alliance with the rest of the western world. A lot of European leaders are now one after one posting on X that Greenland belongs to Denmark.
Not excluding taking Greenland using military force would never have happened without Trump as president.
This is incredibly damaging for the USs reputation and alliance with the rest of the western world. A lot of European leaders are now one after one posting on X that Greenland belongs to Denmark.
Not excluding taking Greenland using military force would never have happened without Trump as president.
[deleted]
hum
wouldn't the dutch use force to fight the US if the US ever attempted that?
that could turn the EU into an enemy of the US
wouldn't the dutch use force to fight the US if the US ever attempted that?
that could turn the EU into an enemy of the US
> that could turn the EU into an enemy of the US
The EU is already an enemy in the eyes of the US, even though it isn't reciprocated.
Not sure what would happen if the US attacked Greenland, attacking a close ally you have literal agreements about protecting each other kind of forces NATO into new territory. My hunch is that the NATO would be dissolved, and everyone would have to team up against the aggressor.
The EU is already an enemy in the eyes of the US, even though it isn't reciprocated.
Not sure what would happen if the US attacked Greenland, attacking a close ally you have literal agreements about protecting each other kind of forces NATO into new territory. My hunch is that the NATO would be dissolved, and everyone would have to team up against the aggressor.
> My hunch is that the NATO would be dissolved, and everyone would have to team up against the aggressor.
And do what exactly against the US? You can’t invade it, geographically they can easily defend Greenland from any invasion force. And speaking of an invasion force, how many countries do you know that can deploy an expeditionary force strong enough to take on the US?
And do what exactly against the US? You can’t invade it, geographically they can easily defend Greenland from any invasion force. And speaking of an invasion force, how many countries do you know that can deploy an expeditionary force strong enough to take on the US?
US would be isolated with sanctions, EU may join to the BRICS (or a partial homologous?).
So I'm not sure if the above is his main intention, or if he is telling Greenland to join the EU (altruism? hmmm), or if we're witnessing how he sent his businesses bankrupt [1] , or if I'm missing something.
[1] https://archive.ph/mIJAA ( https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money-helpe... )
Trump specialises in sending his businesses, hotels and casinos bankrupt, to the point banks stopped lending him money, so he turned to the Russian oligarchy for funding.
So I'm not sure if the above is his main intention, or if he is telling Greenland to join the EU (altruism? hmmm), or if we're witnessing how he sent his businesses bankrupt [1] , or if I'm missing something.
[1] https://archive.ph/mIJAA ( https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money-helpe... )
Trump specialises in sending his businesses, hotels and casinos bankrupt, to the point banks stopped lending him money, so he turned to the Russian oligarchy for funding.
> EU may join to the BRICS (or a partial homologous?)
EU joining up with Russia, Iran, and China? Come on.
EU joining up with Russia, Iran, and China? Come on.
We are talking about an senary were the market and energy importation from US finish, that would push EU toward the East, Are you sure we will not return to Russia to supply that energy?
Or with other words, Do you think that what happened to the unfortunate Uranians is not related to cut Russian oligarchy tentacles over the EU through energy supply?
Or with other words, Do you think that what happened to the unfortunate Uranians is not related to cut Russian oligarchy tentacles over the EU through energy supply?
> Do you think that what happened to the unfortunate Uranians is not related to cut Russian oligarchy tentacles over the EU through energy supply?
Iran finances terrorism. They have nuclear weapons. They are in alliance with China and Russia.
It would truly be a moral catastrophe if the EU decides to join that side. A true moral catastrophe.
Iran finances terrorism. They have nuclear weapons. They are in alliance with China and Russia.
It would truly be a moral catastrophe if the EU decides to join that side. A true moral catastrophe.
Just following the US’s lead.
>>NATO would be dissolved...
This plays right into Putin's hands including everything else Trump has been doing to bring down the USA.
This plays right into Putin's hands including everything else Trump has been doing to bring down the USA.
At some point you have to stop appeasing and actually take a stand. I’m sure America will say they just need breathing room, I can see Starmer coming back from Florida with a note saying “peace in our time”.
In the latest national security strategy the US defined the EU as an enemy. Also, when you read the chats from that Signal group where a reporter was accidentally added, you can see the resentment those people feel towards the EU.
> In the latest national security strategy the US defined the EU as an enemy.
I would love for you to quote out of the document how you come to that conclusion? https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-N...
The section is "C. Promoting European Greatness", starting on p25.
I would love for you to quote out of the document how you come to that conclusion? https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-N...
The section is "C. Promoting European Greatness", starting on p25.
What? The whole Promoting European Greatness section is obviously an attack on the EU. They want to break it up.
It states the goal is to help Europe operate as a "group of aligned sovereign nations" rather than a unified political or economic entity.
It explicitly calls for "cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations."
It claims that the EU and other "transnational bodies" are responsible for a "stark prospect of civilizational erasure."
It attacks the EU’s regulatory framework, calling it "economic suicide" and "stifling regulation". Suggesting that the U.S. will prioritize trade and technology sharing with "aligned countries" that reject these EU standards, creating economic incentives for member states to break away from EU-wide rules.
It emphasizes building up "the healthy nations of central, eastern, and southern Europe"—specifically those that "want to restore their former greatness"
It states the goal is to help Europe operate as a "group of aligned sovereign nations" rather than a unified political or economic entity.
It explicitly calls for "cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations."
It claims that the EU and other "transnational bodies" are responsible for a "stark prospect of civilizational erasure."
It attacks the EU’s regulatory framework, calling it "economic suicide" and "stifling regulation". Suggesting that the U.S. will prioritize trade and technology sharing with "aligned countries" that reject these EU standards, creating economic incentives for member states to break away from EU-wide rules.
It emphasizes building up "the healthy nations of central, eastern, and southern Europe"—specifically those that "want to restore their former greatness"
>wouldn't the dutch use force
I don't know about the dutch, but the danes are probably a bit pissed, however Greenland wants to be independent from Denmark...so there's that:
https://theworld.org/stories/2025/09/15/greenlanders-largely...
I don't know about the dutch, but the danes are probably a bit pissed, however Greenland wants to be independent from Denmark...so there's that:
https://theworld.org/stories/2025/09/15/greenlanders-largely...
> 56% of Greenlanders answer that they would vote yes to Greenlandic independence if a referendum were held today, 28% would vote no, and 17% do not know what they would vote for.
Bit strong to say "Greelanders want to be independent" when it's only 56%, it's about half the ones surveyed. But more importantly:
> The results show that 85% of Greenlanders do not want to leave the Realm and become part of the United States, while 6% want to leave the Danish Realm and become part of the United States, whereas the remaining 9% are undecided.
Since a common tactic to gain a pretext for an invasion is "These people want to be independent!" I feel like it's important to point out than Greenlanders overwhelmingly don't want to be a part of the US, judging by that same survey you linked.
So if the choice were to be "Be a part of Denmark" or "Be a part of the US", the majority would stick with Denmark.
Also, the survey is from "22nd to 26th of January 2025", pretty much a year ago, with ~500 people answering, and I'm pretty sure the results would look different today, especially since yesterday.
Bit strong to say "Greelanders want to be independent" when it's only 56%, it's about half the ones surveyed. But more importantly:
> The results show that 85% of Greenlanders do not want to leave the Realm and become part of the United States, while 6% want to leave the Danish Realm and become part of the United States, whereas the remaining 9% are undecided.
Since a common tactic to gain a pretext for an invasion is "These people want to be independent!" I feel like it's important to point out than Greenlanders overwhelmingly don't want to be a part of the US, judging by that same survey you linked.
So if the choice were to be "Be a part of Denmark" or "Be a part of the US", the majority would stick with Denmark.
Also, the survey is from "22nd to 26th of January 2025", pretty much a year ago, with ~500 people answering, and I'm pretty sure the results would look different today, especially since yesterday.
>>While Greenlanders broadly support independence, there is a divide over how quickly it should happen.
https://www.arctictoday.com/the-seven-steps-to-greenlandic-i...
>>While a majority of Greenland's 57,000 inhabitants support independence, there is division over the timing and potential impact on living standards.
https://www.reuters.com/world/greenlands-leader-steps-up-pus...
As you can see here there's only one party (with 7.4%) in Greenland who is against independence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Greenlandic_general_elect...
One would say that paints a pretty clear picture.
>So if the choice were to be "Be a part of Denmark" or "Be a part of the US", the majority would stick with Denmark.
Or maybe the third choice..be independent?
https://www.arctictoday.com/the-seven-steps-to-greenlandic-i...
>>While a majority of Greenland's 57,000 inhabitants support independence, there is division over the timing and potential impact on living standards.
https://www.reuters.com/world/greenlands-leader-steps-up-pus...
As you can see here there's only one party (with 7.4%) in Greenland who is against independence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Greenlandic_general_elect...
One would say that paints a pretty clear picture.
>So if the choice were to be "Be a part of Denmark" or "Be a part of the US", the majority would stick with Denmark.
Or maybe the third choice..be independent?
> Or maybe the third choice..be independent?
As mentioned, I'd love to see another survey from this month. My guess, at least based on talking with some acquaintances who are Danish with ancestors in Greenland, is that many now realize that "independent" isn't a realistic choice, given the current circumstances. So it really is between "Denmark with the protection of NATO" or "US with the protection of US by itself".
As mentioned, I'd love to see another survey from this month. My guess, at least based on talking with some acquaintances who are Danish with ancestors in Greenland, is that many now realize that "independent" isn't a realistic choice, given the current circumstances. So it really is between "Denmark with the protection of NATO" or "US with the protection of US by itself".
>Denmark with the protection of NATO
Sorry to tell you but NATO IS the US, not France nor the Brits will do anything against the US.
But yeah, let the people of greenland decide and not like spain with the catalan independence movement.
Sorry to tell you but NATO IS the US, not France nor the Brits will do anything against the US.
But yeah, let the people of greenland decide and not like spain with the catalan independence movement.
Yes, of course, the organization with its bureaucratic center being in Belgium, and military headquarters also being in Brussels, IS obviously just the US and the US only.
I'm sorry to tell you, but the world is actually larger than the US, regardless of what your current media is trying to tell you. If the US actually dared to attack Denmark, an ally, I'm fairly certain France and The UK would stop being allies to the US, because suddenly "ally" doesn't mean anything anymore.
I'm sorry to tell you, but the world is actually larger than the US, regardless of what your current media is trying to tell you. If the US actually dared to attack Denmark, an ally, I'm fairly certain France and The UK would stop being allies to the US, because suddenly "ally" doesn't mean anything anymore.
>I'm sorry to tell you, but the world is actually larger than the US
Let me tell you since you think i am from the US, i am not.
>France and The UK would stop being allies to the US
No they don't because there's one other choice and that's china, the right of Denmark to keep Greenland is simply not important enough in a multi-polar world.
>bureaucratic center being in Belgium, and military headquarters also being in Brussels
Yes and you can bet that Belgium would rater lick Donald's boots then help Denmark.
Let me tell you since you think i am from the US, i am not.
>France and The UK would stop being allies to the US
No they don't because there's one other choice and that's china, the right of Denmark to keep Greenland is simply not important enough in a multi-polar world.
>bureaucratic center being in Belgium, and military headquarters also being in Brussels
Yes and you can bet that Belgium would rater lick Donald's boots then help Denmark.
Surely appeasement will work this time
Not important, fact is that no one will do anything against it. Reality vs Wishful thinking.
That independence is ready for them when they want it, they just wanted a slow transition. It's going according to their plan.
Obviously a huge superpower threatening them is a reason to want less independence not more, due to the military support possibilities.
Also, do you really think they will have independence under American flag? They will be a second-rate US state just like Puerto Rico is. People with no rights to vote, that are just considered good enough by the Americans to throw them a few toilet rolls for a photo-op when their country is ruined by natural disaster.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-helps-suffering-...
Obviously a huge superpower threatening them is a reason to want less independence not more, due to the military support possibilities.
Also, do you really think they will have independence under American flag? They will be a second-rate US state just like Puerto Rico is. People with no rights to vote, that are just considered good enough by the Americans to throw them a few toilet rolls for a photo-op when their country is ruined by natural disaster.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-helps-suffering-...
The want to be independent from Denmark but not as a dependent of the USA.
I wasn't aware Greenland was part of the Netherlands.
*Danish
Holland is a stupid lap dog of the US. They didn't even want to issue a statement condemning the Venezuela operation. It's the most strongly neoliberal country left in the EU since the British left. Also always falling over themselves to apologise for Israeli war crimes. This is why Rutte became SG of NATO, his neoliberal oligarch party was always an American lapdog.
I don't expect any kind of action from them about Greenland. Denmark maybe, they're also pretty right-wing but it affects them directly. And Spain which have much less of an issue giving a middle finger to Trump.
I don't expect any kind of action from them about Greenland. Denmark maybe, they're also pretty right-wing but it affects them directly. And Spain which have much less of an issue giving a middle finger to Trump.
The wife of a presidential aide saying something is not worthy news.
Well its not just her, its also the president. Maybe read the article next time.
True exaggeration. The US had the chance to take Norway before they become millionaires from fishermen. Greenland is a possible target but in the (very) far future. Venezuela is the current easy target which will suffer immensely from the Oil-curse syndrome.
Does Greenland have vast reserves of oil?
It's a point for defense against Russia, I think is the main argument (besides the rare metal one).
Take a look at a map of the world from the point of view of North Pole, and you'll understand why warmongers think it's an important point to hold: https://i.imgur.com/LE8DKGR.png
Take a look at a map of the world from the point of view of North Pole, and you'll understand why warmongers think it's an important point to hold: https://i.imgur.com/LE8DKGR.png
This argument has been rebuked over and over again. Denmark and the USA already have an agreement allowing the USA to establish military bases on Greenland [1]. There used to be a lot of USA military bases on Greenland and currently there is but one: Pituffik Space Base.
[1] https://www.eunews.it/en/2025/06/12/denmark-approves-militar...
[1] https://www.eunews.it/en/2025/06/12/denmark-approves-militar...
The US are already free to have bases on Greenland.
In fact the US has closed dozens of bases on Greenland since the 40s.
In fact the US has closed dozens of bases on Greenland since the 40s.
[deleted]
rare earth mineral deposits
Lots of Minerals and Gold, Trump loves gold like A LOT!
Obviously they'd have to, but I'm curious about whether they'd do it on the first day, or whether they'd sort of wonder around half-understanding "is this war?"
I've gotten an impression from the Danes through this whole affair that they're not getting it and I wonder how little people understand in general, whether war is so foreign to them that they can't react appropriately.