The US administration hates offshore wind farms more than DEI. I don't believe this was a shock as stated in the article.
The US is actually in a weird place where it has more oil (and natural gas) than any other country by far, but has competition everywhere when selling it and now refining capacity will soon drop to the point where the US will need to import millions of gallons of refined petroleum products per day, probably from Mexico and Asia, with tariffs.
SanjayMehta · 2h ago
He’s applied 50% tariffs on Indian products, but exempted petroleum and pharma.
Go figure.
So much for “Russian oil from India” funding “Putin’s unprovoked war.”
pandemic_region · 3h ago
I had a debate with my teenage daughters yesterday whether Trump was evil (all agreed), nice (all disagreed), stupid (they agreed, I did not). I explained that he's a fool wielding a very powerful tool. And we all suffer his greed. But in the end of the day, he's still a fool easily swayed by throwing a couple of dollars his way.
jacquesm · 3h ago
At some level the difference between malice and incompetence disappears and you should assume malice.
It seems pretty convincing. Greenland is such a small population it's hard to hide something like this.
ethbr1 · 2h ago
> Greenland is such a small population it's hard to hide something like this.
I remember reading some impressions of the dating scene in Iceland (almost 7x Greenland's population) and realizing just how well everyone knows of... well, everyone. (At least via friend of friend in cohorts)
A country of 56,800 isn't a great target for secretly conducting influence ops...
throw0101a · 1h ago
There are 'genetic ramifications' to small(er) population pools, "Kissing cousins? Icelandic app warns if your date is a relative":
HN readers from USA, what the hell is happening. How do we "get back to normal"?
JumpCrisscross · 4h ago
> what the hell is happening. How do we "get back to normal"?
To a certain degree, that is what’s happening. Denmark should bolster its military presence on Greenland, potentially up to and including by putting it under a nuclear umbrella. (Ideally European. Pragmatically, homegrown.)
jacquesm · 4h ago
Seeing the USA as a potential enemy in a shooting war is not 'normal'. It may be what it comes down to but as descendant of people who would not have been alive if not for the liberation of Western Europe and who was steeped in WWII lore this is not normal by any stretch of the imagination.
bryanrasmussen · 4h ago
in a view of world history it is totally normal that benevolent countries turn antagonistic over several generations, although very seldom such an abrupt turn where allies are concerned as this one has been.
Mad rulers are also quite normal for much of human history, the theory was that Democracy would relieve us of that particular problem.
aurareturn · 4h ago
Mad rulers are also quite normal for much of human history, the theory was that Democracy would relieve us of that particular problem.
This is one of the most insightful videos I've ever seen on society and governments. It describes Anacyclosis, where political systems evolve in a recurring sequence driven by corruption and decay.
Democracy will eventually decay. It's not permanent. You can see it now live where democracies elect more and more radical leaders.
the_other · 2h ago
"Democracy" will exist (as an idea) for a long time. What's currently happening in a lot of countries is that entrenched powers are actively disrupting the use of democracy in those countries, and some subsets of the populations of those countries are also losing trust in it as a useful system.
Even this "decay" isn't inherently "bad" (assuming you are pro-democracy). There are numerous other decision mechanisms, and many of them are inclusive and transparent. Some of them might work for various levels of civil organisation, should The People want to give them a try. If a country replaced its democratic voting system with one of these others, you could still call that a "decay of democracy", but it might actually be good for the country.
(For the record, I don't think authoritarianism and its associated decision systems are good for large, general purpose bodies like countries.)
joegibbs · 3h ago
Has there really ever been such a thing as a benevolent country? I think it only exists in subjective histories depending on who wins.
For instance the Romans are thought of as a great, cultured civilisation because their histories won out, but the Gauls and Carthaginians would’ve disagreed.
Like Lord Palmerston said, countries don’t have friends v or enemies, only interests. Russia and China get along well now, definitely didn’t 50 and 150 years ago, but did in intervening periods. Yet they would both consider themselves as in the right regardless.
JumpCrisscross · 2h ago
> Has there really ever been such a thing as a benevolent country?
Country? Probably not. Society? Yes. America’s treatment of Europe post-WWII, and even Japan and Germany, together with its restraint when it was the global nuclear hegemon, was benevolent.
bryanrasmussen · 2h ago
benevolent was perhaps the wrong word, but great powers in alignment with smaller powers can often be seen as benevolent by those smaller powers when what is really going on is their interests align at the moment, with a moment being multiple generations at a country scale of time.
jacquesm · 4h ago
> the theory was that Democracy would relieve us of that particular problem
I don't think that was the theory. I think the theory was something in the middle of the wisdom of the crowds and the fact that non-violent hand overs of power are less bad than violent ones.
The main flaw is that democracy can be undone by democracy whereas autocracy in principle can be made to last forever. Of course autocrats eventually kill the host organism so there too there is a built in fuse but it can take a long time (centuries?) to burn.
JumpCrisscross · 3h ago
> don't think that was the theory
I think Athenian democracy was explicitly built by Solon to relieve gridlock among entrenched, corrupted families.
jacquesm · 3h ago
We've moved on from that particular form of democracy (which many wouldn't even recognize as democracy other than in name). <Insert 'true Scotsman' fallacy reference here.>
JumpCrisscross · 2h ago
In part because pure democracy, even when by a minority of the population, is destabilising. Our founders (as well as other republics’) understood this and built anti-majoritarian checks into the system.
stahorn · 4h ago
I also think about this. With the amount of history I've read, I'm not surprised that suddenly there's autocrats that take power. I just wonder, is there some good example from history of what did turn the tide towards democrazy, liberalism, and humanism?
I think a lot of it has to do with inertia; people have made such a great job in the past in the wester world, with infrastructure, education, law, medicine, and so on, that even when real proper idiots take power, most things just continue being good enough. It takes a lot of time for idiots and autocrats to make their impact, which when (hopefully) voters will switch and get good people back in power.
RobotToaster · 4h ago
> as descendant of people who would not have been alive if not for the liberation of Western Europe and who was steeped in WWII lore this is not normal by any stretch of the imagination.
The liberation of Europe owes more to the Soviet Union than the USA, perhaps the current situation there foretells where we are heading with the USA?
flohofwoe · 3h ago
Europe would owe much more to the Soviet Union if the countries that were liberated by the Red Army wouldn't have remained occupied by the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union made it very clear multiple times (1953 in East Germany, 1956 in Hungary, 1968 in Czechoslovakia) that they are not going to leave without bloodshed.
saubeidl · 3h ago
They left Austria without bloodshed.
FirmwareBurner · 3h ago
They're still running it today but remotely from Russia. Putin was attending politicians' wedding there who then took jobs for Russian companies [1] and meeting chancellors for skiing, plus laundering their money through private banks and real estate purchases.
That's why they left, Austria agreed to became their trojan horse and lobbying arm in Europe, constantly torpedoing nuclear energy projects[2] and Schengen membership expansions.
The Soviet Union got their equipment and supplies mostly for free from the US.
All nations the Soviet Union “liberated” were not so sad when it finally fell and they were actually liberated.
throw0101a · 1h ago
> The Soviet Union got their equipment and supplies mostly for free from the US.
It is also estimated that 30-40%† of the tanks used in the Battle of Moscow were British (Matildas). The Soviets were especially dependent on US on (a) trucks, and (b) raw materials like aluminium.
† Alexander Hill, “British “Lend-Lease” Tanks and the Battle for Moscow, November–December 1941″, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 19:2.
philwelch · 4h ago
The Soviets never liberated anyone. Go ask the people of Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968 how liberated they felt. Or you could ask all the people murdered by border guards at the Berlin Wall.
TheAlchemist · 3h ago
You are both kind of right.
The Soviets helped in a major way to defeat the Germans - on par with the US.
But it's also true that they did not liberate anyone in Europe, just replaced the German occupation.
arethuza · 2h ago
If you leave aside their ghastly leadership there is no doubt to me that the people of the Soviet Union paid the highest price in defeating the Nazis.
philwelch · 2h ago
They paid the highest price precisely because their ghastly leadership was all too willing to sacrifice their lives for conquest.
FirmwareBurner · 3h ago
The Soviet "liberation" story you hear only from western Europeans who never had to live under the soviets so in their history books they're the good guys for defeating Germany.
saubeidl · 3h ago
As a Central European, the Soviets liberated my ancestors.
FirmwareBurner · 3h ago
Did they also live under Soviet rule after?
saubeidl · 3h ago
They did for a decade - after that they were given their freedom. Isn't that what liberation means?
saubeidl · 3h ago
Factually not true. The Soviets liberated Austria.
flohofwoe · 3h ago
Austria could have ended up divided by the Iron Curtain like East- and West-Germany, I wonder if you would view the Soviets the same way today if that had happened and your ancestors were on the wrong side of the wall.
saubeidl · 50m ago
But it didn't, that's the entire point of this counterexample.
JumpCrisscross · 3h ago
> liberation of Europe owes more to the Soviet Union than the USA
It really doesn’t. If America abandoned Britain the Nazis would have had a one-front war.
docdeek · 4h ago
How would that work? The options for a European nuclear umbrella would be a choice between Russia (practically impossible), the UK (unlikely to be outside of US influence) or France (only EU nuclear power). A homegrown nuclear weapon would mean pulling out of the NPT and quite possibly giving a state like the US pretext to annex Greenland in the face of Denmark seeking nucear weapons.
rsynnott · 1h ago
France has previously indicated that it's willing to make its nuclear umbrella available to other EU countries, though precisely under what terms is unclear.
JumpCrisscross · 3h ago
> homegrown nuclear weapon would mean pulling out of the NPT
Build then pull. Or don’t. It’s a treaty from a falling world order.
> quite possibly giving a state like the US pretext to annex Greenland
If you believe America would wait for pretext, you don’t need the umbrella.
jmclnx · 29m ago
Canada ? Canada could allow France and maybe the UK to put sites on their soil. That would piss of Trump, always a good thing and will give Canada some security.
Also, Denmark should now kick the US Military Sites off Greenland until the US climbs out if its psychotic break.
aurareturn · 4h ago
nuclear umbrella would be a choice between Russia (practically impossible)
Would be one of the bigger plot twists in history. I wouldn't rule it out. I think it has a decent chance of happening. Maybe 10%?
Let's say the Russia/Ukraine war is over. Russia mends its ties with Europe and says it will be good from now on. The US is ready to annex Greenland. Denmark is powerless and will lose Greenland. Russia calls Denmark and says it can help. If you're Denmark, what would you do?
docdeek · 4h ago
I think that the chance of an EU and NATO member aligning themselves with Russia would be a lot lower than a 1 in 10.
aurareturn · 4h ago
What if a NATO member is suddenly hostile to you and Russia says it can help you? Russia probably does not want the US to have Greenland.
It would certainly trigger a collapse of NATO. But if the US is serious about taking Greenland, that automatically starts the collapse anyway, right?
Anyway, just all hypotheticals. Interesting to think about. I don't think chances are 0. History has shown us that countries make surprising decisions, including allying with historic enemies, when pushed against the wall.
polotics · 3h ago
Well eventualy one would hope the Putin Mafia dies out and the Russian Diaspora manages to turn that country back to a happier place than its current child-abducting state. There are many good russians, there is an actual society under the madness, look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_0E9IzXT34
egman_ekki · 4h ago
You're giving a 10% chance to Denmark allying with Russia over a threat from US? Even right-wing parties in Dk aren't really pro-Russian, so I'd say the chance is closer to 0 than 10%.
rsynnott · 1h ago
I mean, France would still be a far more obvious partner under those circumstances.
vintermann · 3h ago
According to lesser evil politics, if people actually believed in it, it wouldn't take that much to choose Putin over Trump. Putin getting better may not be so likely, but Trump has a lot of time to get worse.
But people don't actually believe in lesser evil politics, they believe in loyalty (to sides, not to principles). That goes for both politicians and people. Danish politicians will not switch geopolitical alliances, and they'd honestly be color-revolutioned out if they tried, without even the CIA having to lift a finger.
aurareturn · 3h ago
I don't know much about the Danes. But if in the next 2 years, anti-Trump/American propaganda fills the media, the US is very serious about taking Greenland, wouldn't they be more open to support their politicians for signing some agreement with Russia to guarantee Greenland's position?
jacquesm · 3h ago
Danes aren't stupid. They know that guarantees from Russia are not worth the paper they are printed on. Besides that they are in the EU, part of Scandinavia and whatever is left of NATO without the USA. Between all of these there are parts of a solution to be found that include neither the USA or Russia, which would be far better for Europe in the long term. Ukraine is a test case about whether or not the remainder of the free world can be salamied or not, that's the Russian side of it (and who knows, maybe the Baltics or more likely Moldavia would be next) and Greenland or Canada are the same thing from the United States' side.
vintermann · 2h ago
No, I don't think so. Not until Trump actually invaded Greenland would Danes maybe consider Putin (or Xi Jinping) an option.
Anti-US propaganda won't fill Danish newspapers, for the aforementioned loyalty reasons. Media people in Denmark (as elsewhere in the West) identify on a personal level with the sensible establishment. Sure, it's awkward that Trump isn't part of that and is currently in charge in the US, but they are convinced things will go back to normal over there, and then it'd be really embarrassing to have failed the loyalty test to the US. "Losing your glove" and all that.
aurareturn · 2h ago
Once they lose Greenland, what's the point of allying with Russia or China then? You have to do it before you lose Greenland.
tomp · 3h ago
I mean, this is literally the story of Ukraine in 2014. Putin gave them a better deal than the West. The US organized protests and toppled the government.
Why wouldn't the US do the same in Denmark or any other Western country?
CyberDildonics · 14m ago
Are you saying that russia invading ukraine in february 2014 to take crimea was putin "giving them a better deal than the west" ?
tomp · 8m ago
No, before that. Russias trade deal was better than EU's, and the loan agreement better than IMF's. It's all on Wikipedia, and news articles.
> I mean, this is literally the story of Ukraine in 2014. Putin gave them a better deal than the West.
What a load of tripe.
westpfelia · 4h ago
legally Denmark can't have its own nukes. They can only borrow in a sense, nukes as a member of NATO. The US who is a main contributor towards that.
I agree something needs to be done but as it stands its not a easy solution. And I would assume if Denmark through nato put nukes on Greenland the US (and I would assume Canada) would treat it as some level of Cuban Missle Crisis.
Swenrekcah · 4h ago
This is rationalising of insane and dangerous behaviour.
Who is it that Denmark should consider their enemy in this situation?
Is it normal in your mind that the US should be considered the enemy?
SanjayMehta · 2h ago
I’m curious to know your views on The Ukraine.
SanjayMehta · 2h ago
Does article 5 apply if a NATO member attacks another NATO member?
0x_rs · 4h ago
You don't "get back to normal". 77 million people voted for this, and 90 million more did not care enough to stop it. This is the "normal" now, what they voted for, and you don't just forget about it.
pandemic_region · 3h ago
I doubt they voted for _this_. They voted for a vague promise of a better life through some cool sounding measures, at the time. Now that people are starting to realize the demon they have given full power to, I doubt he would win another (unrigged) election.
jacquesm · 3h ago
That's the problem with ratchets. They click and then there is no going back. I always thought that votes should come with an elastic band.
nobodyandproud · 2h ago
I think many did vote exactly for this.
Some of the things Trump has done—like tariffs—I actually agree with.
Sometimes you need to do stuff out of left field to break out of a rut.
But the purging of good civil servants is what enables Trump. And many of his voters fervently believe these civil servants are “the swamp”.
mna_ · 3h ago
Americans have been doing things like this for a while. It's just that they're doing it to their "allies" now.
AndyMcConachie · 3h ago
There is no going back to "normal". The American Empire is failing, the imperial boomerang is in full effect, and it will continue to destroy American democracy from within.
Revolution is required.
mcosta · 3h ago
Who is going to fight the revolution?
elktown · 3h ago
You'd be surprised how many people here will just continue to downplay any kind of anti-democratic creep all the way to its abolishment. And Trump is even a vulgar example rather than a smooth one.
Privileged people have a bad habit of assuming they'll be outside of any significantly adverse effects - or may even think "Well, this kinda sucks, but maybe this is actually pretty good for my wallet (read: social-economical status)".
Hikikomori · 4h ago
Military coup and throwing the fascists in jail. There's no going back or adjusting course otherwise, people like this will only keep going unless punished. Yet we keep going with appeasement.
nobodyandproud · 2h ago
As much as I take a centrist position; I can’t see a solution that doesn’t involve a civil war that some of the American white supremacists have been begging for.
The project 2025 mandate for leadership enabled a dictator in the making to establish himself.
The Republican Congress removed the checks in the Supreme Court during Trump’s first term; and refuse to legislate in a way that works against Trump.
And this second term, he’s been purging all of the civil servants who are more loyal to the mission than to him.
What I’m dreading is 2028: Will he make good on his threat to go for a third term? Will most of the nation be too apathetic?
sneak · 4h ago
We wait. Trump is not in great health and he’s quite old, and constitutional term limits will have him out in a few years.
In case he tries another coup, one thing you could do is organize and obtain arms (and train with them) and have you and your group, as well as any other groups you can muster, near DC around late January 2029. The rule of law cannot be taken for granted.
There is only one language that tyrants speak.
fifticon · 4h ago
There is a problem with this. Trump is just a wrecking ball. The problem is not the ball, the problem is the holes it leaves behind. Whoever replaces Trump, will arrive in the driver's seat of a vehicle which has had plenty of its safety rails removed or disabled.
The problem is what happens, when a more capable, less octagenarian replacement arrives.
sneak · 4m ago
Not all of us agreed with the previous size of the US federal government. The ideas behind draining the swamp and DOGE were reasonable; the problem is that the POTUS has nowhere near the power to achieve it. You cannot dismantle the government using the government.
Much of what Trump destroyed should never have been built in the first place. Most of the damage he has wrought is not from his actual platform, but from his sheer stupidity. Covid and Russia both come to mind immediately, but also the irreparable harm he has done to the ~century-old carefully crafted global illusion of American legitimacy.
As we know, stupidity is far more harmful to society than malice, as malice is at least zero-sum: someone gains when you lose.
SanjayMehta · 2h ago
Vance.
aurareturn · 3h ago
In case he tries another coup, one thing you could do is organize and obtain arms (and train with them) and have you and your group, as well as any other groups you can muster, near DC around late January 2029. The rule of law cannot be taken for granted.
That's the risk of civil war many have feared. There will be armed groups ready to defend the constitution and then there will be opposition groups ready to defend Trump.
ethbr1 · 2h ago
Isolated skirmishes do not a civil war make.
If there had been an armed conflict outside the Capitol on Jan 6 between pro and anti Trump citizen groups, American democracy would have been better served.
Meet strength with strength. Some progressives forgot that.
jacquesm · 3h ago
He does not have to try another coup, he already succeeded.
krapp · 3h ago
He didn't even need to try the first one. The moment the Democrats put Joe Biden up instead of someone the left actually cared about it was a fait accompli that Trump would win a second term.
subscribed · 3h ago
If Trump expires, Vance will take the helm. He's propped by the well known military contractor.
Behind his back, the same ghoul (Miller) will still be holding the reins.
Trump was a catalyst for Project 2025, he's no longer instrumental im afraid.
jacquesm · 3h ago
And Thiel. At least Musk is mostly neutralized (for now).
aurareturn · 3h ago
If Trump expires, Vance will take the helm.
I don't ever see a world where Vance is president and Trump is still here. I think Vance will try to resign as president (suppose Vance wins election) and then give it back to Trump. That's actually one of the ideas people have debated on how Trump can stay on for a 3rd term. Still technically illegal but who knows?
lycopodiopsida · 4h ago
We cut all ties with USA and consider them what they de facto are - a rogue state, resembling putinist russia more and more.
I've never seen a country disasembling itself with such speed. It took Putin 20 years to get the country and society to where it is now, I am not sure USA will be in a better state after 4 years full with nepotism, oligarchy, anti-scientific freaks in administration, corruption and ignoring laws on a daily basis.
Swenrekcah · 4h ago
That is what the despots want. The way for democracy to survive is by keeping in contact and business with the regular population where possible, but with enough independent strength to not have to bow to the despotic governments.
casenmgreen · 4h ago
I've read it took Putin something like four years.
He came into power 1st Jan 2000, and by 2004 people were no longer speaking openly, from fear.
lycopodiopsida · 4h ago
We can say there were autocratic tendencies from the beginning, as well as "tightening the screws", but he went full batshit insane only somewhere after the Maidan revolution.
0dayz · 4h ago
No it started on the day of a particular nato meeting (Munich) where putin gave a bizarre speech.
Even though I tend to criticise the state of Linux on the desktop, because I care to be able to buy a 100% fully functionable GNU/Linux laptop at the local shopping mall and not some strange shop online, if we want to cut ties, we also must do the same with all technology "Made in US", and to an extreme also includes FOSS contributions.
aurareturn · 4h ago
Maybe Trump found Hitler's fascism playbook. Part of it is to acquire new territory to stay popular. I'm guessing the US will make at least one serious attempt at annexing new land before Trump's term is over. Panama, Canada, or Greenland maybe?
Edit: Getting downvoted now. No clue why. It's not me who is making these suggestions. This administration has literally said these things themselves. If you downvote me, at least have the balls to explain why.
bertili · 4h ago
This has the be the answer. If the approval rating tanks, you gotta disrupt.
But I'm trying to understand this... any American here who can elaborate how he would feel "great again" and re-vote for GOP if the US flag was planted in the center of Nuuk?
westpfelia · 4h ago
Same reason any leader throughout time has planted flags.
VWWHFSfQ · 3h ago
It's all so ironic considering Denmark took control of Greenland purely by conquest/claim and many Greenlanders view it historically as colonial/imperial.
But now Denmark is apparently upset that an even bigger, greedier bully is trying to take it from them?
I don't care about it one way or the other. I imagine an agreement will be made where USA gets something like 80% of the resource rights in exchange for Denmark getting to keep the title and then we'll all forget about this.
aurareturn · 3h ago
It's all so ironic considering Denmark took control of Greenland purely by conquest/claim and many Greenlanders view it historically as colonial/imperial.
Isn't that what the US is doing based on this article? Create a bit of story around the people of Greenland wanting to free themselves from Denmark (even if just minority of Greenland believes so) and then come in as the hero?
VWWHFSfQ · 3h ago
Yes and it's unfortunate that Greenlanders don't get a say in who their conqueror is.
But Denmark isn't the one that should be complaining about their ill-gotten loot being taken from them.
jimkleiber · 4h ago
I wonder what percentage of this can be attributed to "covid killed a lot of Americans (and emotionally destroyed more), covid was brought to the US by foreigners, we can no longer trust foreigners."
I think processing our feelings around covid could help a lot.
krapp · 4h ago
I think very little. Americans have been deeply prejudiced against foreigners ever since the founding of the country, every wave of immigration since the first has been met with hostility and violence. Trump was initially elected on a wave of xenophobic fear and hatred of South American immigrants. No, not just illegal immigrants either - that's a smokescreen.
I do think you're right that the effects of covid will have long lasting cultural and political consequences, but the zeitgeist behind the backlash was already well established, and one must remember intentionally orchestrated to benefit certain political interests.
Yeul · 4h ago
I think that's kinda unfair. There are civilized states like New York and California.
Unfortunately the US has a strange system in which the most populous and economically vital parts of the country have the least influence in Washington...
krapp · 3h ago
>Unfortunately the US has a strange system in which the most populous and economically vital parts of the country have the least influence in Washington...
We had to keep the slaveowning states happy or else they might secede - wait...
It keeps populist demagogues from taking over - wait...
I got nothing.
FirmwareBurner · 3h ago
>There are civilized states like New York and California
What makes them more civilized than the other states? I think this elitist atitudine is exactly what got Trump supported from the other states.
At least in my life I've never met anyone who would like me if I declared myself more civilized than them and they wouldn't spite me back for it.
There's probably a good reason South Park crators depicted Californians as smelling their own farts in that episode.
myvoiceismypass · 2h ago
> What makes them more civilized than the other states?
We can start with the fact that NY & CA still protect women's right to choose.
curt15 · 4h ago
> The earlier May report in the Wall Street Journal also referred to learning more about Greenland's independence movement, as well as attitudes to American mineral extraction.
> At the time, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard did not deny the report but accused the Journal of "breaking the law and undermining our nation's security and democracy".
lolwut
aurareturn · 3h ago
If the US shows more signs or actually takes Greenland, it will trigger many countries around the world to do the same. China will certainly say it now has the right to take Taiwan because if the US can annex a territory, why not us?
Could lead to a very tumultuous decade.
rich_sasha · 1h ago
From a game theory PoV this is interesting.
Remember Jan 2025? US back then was allied to Europe, Japan, Australia and a bunch of other places. And these places, largely due to their own volition, outsourced their security to the US (it was a mutually agreed but stupid decision for non-USians).
Now Trump, stupidly or not, is using this leverage to extort things: money, land, power, influence.
The question is: should you start treating the US as a hostile power now, hope to stem this quickly, but potentially aggregate the hostile power more? Or should you go along, make some concessions, hope he goes away.
It is a little like Sudetenland, except we're not 20 years after a world war co-started by the US. And US is still largely a democratic country. What would make the pro-Trump camp lose the next election? Etc etc
aaomidi · 1m ago
> US is still largely a democratic country
Having fixed elections from a pool of candidates that have been pre approved by people you don’t know does not make for a democracy
saubeidl · 42m ago
The correct move is Russian-style hybrid warfare against the US. Botnets manipulating social media with pro-European viewpoints. Paying opposition politicians. Inciting unrest to paralyze the regime. Etc etc.
SanjayMehta · 2h ago
The king for 4 years has managed to turn everyone against the US. And he’s only 1/8 of the way through.
(But Pakistan has nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize, that’s something.)
LatteLazy · 4h ago
The US has spent decades preventing and delaying the EU becoming a defacto state with a single army and significant foreign policy.
Now trump is driving its creation in a single term.
tomp · 3h ago
Do you have any source for that?
From my perspective, as an European, there's plenty of forces / population within the EU that doesn't want federalization.
Even myself, I'm generally pro-federalization (necessary to solve some structural problems, border, army, money), I definitely don't want to give even more power to Germany (biggest and most powerful EU country), so the only way forward would be for Germany to massively diminish their power... but then they probably wouldn't want that.
LatteLazy · 2h ago
I think we’re at risk of confusing 2 issues here
1. Has the pressure for more intervention and an EU armed forces gone up?
2. What will that look like, who will pay for it, who will control it, will Germany dominate it etc
I am just saying trump is driving point (1). How or whether (2) is solved is another matter and a more complex thing.
I personally think as need goes up, ways are found. So far people have been unwilling because the points above (2) outweigh the need (1). If trump invaded Greenland then I imagine people would be much more willing to engage even if it meant paying, accepting German leadership (or Germany accepting less oversight despite paying?) etc.
We have already seen France unilaterally extend its nuclear umbrella.
That is what happened with finances: Germany wouldn’t accept EU wide debt, and many countries wouldn’t accept German style fiscal constraints. Then the euro crisis forced both sides to compromise and here we are with both.
I hope it doesn’t take an actual military crisis to force the matter here. But one (two actually, trump on one side, Russia on the other) is looking available…
lycopodiopsida · 2h ago
I see EU as a failing project exactly because everyone can veto, so every decision is watered down until it means nothing. I can rather imagine that the current EU will be silently given up and something like EU-2 will be formed instead, including France, Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, etc. Because current state of affairs is not satisfying, independent of being an EU proponent or sceptic. The mole which is Orban's Hungary shows that current decision mechanics are not viable. The EU has to account for the opinion of a corrupt mafia state, it cannot work.
There is also no german leadership. Germany does not want to lead - it has enough of own problems and it is not like external affairs count that much in german politics, as a usual deflection tactic.
Regarding fiscal politics - current administration is willing to make big debts, so it should not be an issue.
tomp · 5m ago
This is contradictory:
> The US has spent decades preventing and delaying the EU becoming a defacto state
> I am just saying trump is driving [pressure for EU armed forces]
So which is it, is US stopping EU from federalizing, or accelerating it?
The best possible reading is, before Trump US was stopping, now it's accelerating, but that's what I asked - what's your source / data / facts / circumstantial evidence that US used to try to prevent / delay EU federalizing?
I don't see it, or if there was, it was completely in-consequential, because there was enough hesitancy within EU already.
consp · 3h ago
Same story as Putin trying to weaken NATO. The two might have given the nudge towards a EU army or at least a more tightly integrated defence force. Spending will be through the roof for at least the coming two decades.
AndyMcConachie · 3h ago
Russia weaken NATO? Wut?
Denmark is in NATO. What does NATO even mean if the leader of NATO (USA) is attempting to take territory from another NATO country?
The point of NATO is to keep Europe tied to and subservient to the USA (ie. Atlanticism). Or at least that used to be the point of NATO. I have no idea what the point of it is now.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/25/rsted-sh...
The US is actually in a weird place where it has more oil (and natural gas) than any other country by far, but has competition everywhere when selling it and now refining capacity will soon drop to the point where the US will need to import millions of gallons of refined petroleum products per day, probably from Mexico and Asia, with tariffs.
Go figure.
So much for “Russian oil from India” funding “Putin’s unprovoked war.”
It seems pretty convincing. Greenland is such a small population it's hard to hide something like this.
I remember reading some impressions of the dating scene in Iceland (almost 7x Greenland's population) and realizing just how well everyone knows of... well, everyone. (At least via friend of friend in cohorts)
A country of 56,800 isn't a great target for secretly conducting influence ops...
* https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/kissing-cousins-icelandic-a...
> Íslendingabók. Although it being used to ensure we don't accidentally have sex with our relatives is not true, it's a database of lineages.
* https://old.reddit.com/r/Iceland/comments/12tpn4o/what_is_th...
To a certain degree, that is what’s happening. Denmark should bolster its military presence on Greenland, potentially up to and including by putting it under a nuclear umbrella. (Ideally European. Pragmatically, homegrown.)
Mad rulers are also quite normal for much of human history, the theory was that Democracy would relieve us of that particular problem.
This is one of the most insightful videos I've ever seen on society and governments. It describes Anacyclosis, where political systems evolve in a recurring sequence driven by corruption and decay.
Democracy will eventually decay. It's not permanent. You can see it now live where democracies elect more and more radical leaders.
Even this "decay" isn't inherently "bad" (assuming you are pro-democracy). There are numerous other decision mechanisms, and many of them are inclusive and transparent. Some of them might work for various levels of civil organisation, should The People want to give them a try. If a country replaced its democratic voting system with one of these others, you could still call that a "decay of democracy", but it might actually be good for the country.
(For the record, I don't think authoritarianism and its associated decision systems are good for large, general purpose bodies like countries.)
For instance the Romans are thought of as a great, cultured civilisation because their histories won out, but the Gauls and Carthaginians would’ve disagreed.
Like Lord Palmerston said, countries don’t have friends v or enemies, only interests. Russia and China get along well now, definitely didn’t 50 and 150 years ago, but did in intervening periods. Yet they would both consider themselves as in the right regardless.
Country? Probably not. Society? Yes. America’s treatment of Europe post-WWII, and even Japan and Germany, together with its restraint when it was the global nuclear hegemon, was benevolent.
I don't think that was the theory. I think the theory was something in the middle of the wisdom of the crowds and the fact that non-violent hand overs of power are less bad than violent ones.
The main flaw is that democracy can be undone by democracy whereas autocracy in principle can be made to last forever. Of course autocrats eventually kill the host organism so there too there is a built in fuse but it can take a long time (centuries?) to burn.
I think Athenian democracy was explicitly built by Solon to relieve gridlock among entrenched, corrupted families.
I think a lot of it has to do with inertia; people have made such a great job in the past in the wester world, with infrastructure, education, law, medicine, and so on, that even when real proper idiots take power, most things just continue being good enough. It takes a lot of time for idiots and autocrats to make their impact, which when (hopefully) voters will switch and get good people back in power.
The liberation of Europe owes more to the Soviet Union than the USA, perhaps the current situation there foretells where we are heading with the USA?
That's why they left, Austria agreed to became their trojan horse and lobbying arm in Europe, constantly torpedoing nuclear energy projects[2] and Schengen membership expansions.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56280898
[2] https://www.euractiv.com/section/eet/news/austria-gears-up-t...
The Soviet Union got their equipment and supplies mostly for free from the US.
All nations the Soviet Union “liberated” were not so sad when it finally fell and they were actually liberated.
It is also estimated that 30-40%† of the tanks used in the Battle of Moscow were British (Matildas). The Soviets were especially dependent on US on (a) trucks, and (b) raw materials like aluminium.
† Alexander Hill, “British “Lend-Lease” Tanks and the Battle for Moscow, November–December 1941″, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 19:2.
The Soviets helped in a major way to defeat the Germans - on par with the US.
But it's also true that they did not liberate anyone in Europe, just replaced the German occupation.
It really doesn’t. If America abandoned Britain the Nazis would have had a one-front war.
Build then pull. Or don’t. It’s a treaty from a falling world order.
> quite possibly giving a state like the US pretext to annex Greenland
If you believe America would wait for pretext, you don’t need the umbrella.
Also, Denmark should now kick the US Military Sites off Greenland until the US climbs out if its psychotic break.
Let's say the Russia/Ukraine war is over. Russia mends its ties with Europe and says it will be good from now on. The US is ready to annex Greenland. Denmark is powerless and will lose Greenland. Russia calls Denmark and says it can help. If you're Denmark, what would you do?
It would certainly trigger a collapse of NATO. But if the US is serious about taking Greenland, that automatically starts the collapse anyway, right?
Anyway, just all hypotheticals. Interesting to think about. I don't think chances are 0. History has shown us that countries make surprising decisions, including allying with historic enemies, when pushed against the wall.
But people don't actually believe in lesser evil politics, they believe in loyalty (to sides, not to principles). That goes for both politicians and people. Danish politicians will not switch geopolitical alliances, and they'd honestly be color-revolutioned out if they tried, without even the CIA having to lift a finger.
Anti-US propaganda won't fill Danish newspapers, for the aforementioned loyalty reasons. Media people in Denmark (as elsewhere in the West) identify on a personal level with the sensible establishment. Sure, it's awkward that Trump isn't part of that and is currently in charge in the US, but they are convinced things will go back to normal over there, and then it'd be really embarrassing to have failed the loyalty test to the US. "Losing your glove" and all that.
Why wouldn't the US do the same in Denmark or any other Western country?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25427706
What a load of tripe.
I agree something needs to be done but as it stands its not a easy solution. And I would assume if Denmark through nato put nukes on Greenland the US (and I would assume Canada) would treat it as some level of Cuban Missle Crisis.
Who is it that Denmark should consider their enemy in this situation? Is it normal in your mind that the US should be considered the enemy?
Some of the things Trump has done—like tariffs—I actually agree with.
Sometimes you need to do stuff out of left field to break out of a rut.
But the purging of good civil servants is what enables Trump. And many of his voters fervently believe these civil servants are “the swamp”.
Revolution is required.
Privileged people have a bad habit of assuming they'll be outside of any significantly adverse effects - or may even think "Well, this kinda sucks, but maybe this is actually pretty good for my wallet (read: social-economical status)".
The project 2025 mandate for leadership enabled a dictator in the making to establish himself.
The Republican Congress removed the checks in the Supreme Court during Trump’s first term; and refuse to legislate in a way that works against Trump.
And this second term, he’s been purging all of the civil servants who are more loyal to the mission than to him.
What I’m dreading is 2028: Will he make good on his threat to go for a third term? Will most of the nation be too apathetic?
In case he tries another coup, one thing you could do is organize and obtain arms (and train with them) and have you and your group, as well as any other groups you can muster, near DC around late January 2029. The rule of law cannot be taken for granted.
There is only one language that tyrants speak.
Much of what Trump destroyed should never have been built in the first place. Most of the damage he has wrought is not from his actual platform, but from his sheer stupidity. Covid and Russia both come to mind immediately, but also the irreparable harm he has done to the ~century-old carefully crafted global illusion of American legitimacy.
As we know, stupidity is far more harmful to society than malice, as malice is at least zero-sum: someone gains when you lose.
If there had been an armed conflict outside the Capitol on Jan 6 between pro and anti Trump citizen groups, American democracy would have been better served.
Meet strength with strength. Some progressives forgot that.
Behind his back, the same ghoul (Miller) will still be holding the reins.
Trump was a catalyst for Project 2025, he's no longer instrumental im afraid.
I've never seen a country disasembling itself with such speed. It took Putin 20 years to get the country and society to where it is now, I am not sure USA will be in a better state after 4 years full with nepotism, oligarchy, anti-scientific freaks in administration, corruption and ignoring laws on a daily basis.
He came into power 1st Jan 2000, and by 2004 people were no longer speaking openly, from fear.
Which 1 year after he invaded Georgia.
Edit: Getting downvoted now. No clue why. It's not me who is making these suggestions. This administration has literally said these things themselves. If you downvote me, at least have the balls to explain why.
But I'm trying to understand this... any American here who can elaborate how he would feel "great again" and re-vote for GOP if the US flag was planted in the center of Nuuk?
But now Denmark is apparently upset that an even bigger, greedier bully is trying to take it from them?
I don't care about it one way or the other. I imagine an agreement will be made where USA gets something like 80% of the resource rights in exchange for Denmark getting to keep the title and then we'll all forget about this.
But Denmark isn't the one that should be complaining about their ill-gotten loot being taken from them.
I think processing our feelings around covid could help a lot.
I do think you're right that the effects of covid will have long lasting cultural and political consequences, but the zeitgeist behind the backlash was already well established, and one must remember intentionally orchestrated to benefit certain political interests.
Unfortunately the US has a strange system in which the most populous and economically vital parts of the country have the least influence in Washington...
We had to keep the slaveowning states happy or else they might secede - wait...
It keeps populist demagogues from taking over - wait...
I got nothing.
What makes them more civilized than the other states? I think this elitist atitudine is exactly what got Trump supported from the other states.
At least in my life I've never met anyone who would like me if I declared myself more civilized than them and they wouldn't spite me back for it.
There's probably a good reason South Park crators depicted Californians as smelling their own farts in that episode.
We can start with the fact that NY & CA still protect women's right to choose.
> At the time, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard did not deny the report but accused the Journal of "breaking the law and undermining our nation's security and democracy".
lolwut
Could lead to a very tumultuous decade.
Remember Jan 2025? US back then was allied to Europe, Japan, Australia and a bunch of other places. And these places, largely due to their own volition, outsourced their security to the US (it was a mutually agreed but stupid decision for non-USians).
Now Trump, stupidly or not, is using this leverage to extort things: money, land, power, influence.
The question is: should you start treating the US as a hostile power now, hope to stem this quickly, but potentially aggregate the hostile power more? Or should you go along, make some concessions, hope he goes away.
It is a little like Sudetenland, except we're not 20 years after a world war co-started by the US. And US is still largely a democratic country. What would make the pro-Trump camp lose the next election? Etc etc
Having fixed elections from a pool of candidates that have been pre approved by people you don’t know does not make for a democracy
(But Pakistan has nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize, that’s something.)
Now trump is driving its creation in a single term.
From my perspective, as an European, there's plenty of forces / population within the EU that doesn't want federalization.
Even myself, I'm generally pro-federalization (necessary to solve some structural problems, border, army, money), I definitely don't want to give even more power to Germany (biggest and most powerful EU country), so the only way forward would be for Germany to massively diminish their power... but then they probably wouldn't want that.
1. Has the pressure for more intervention and an EU armed forces gone up?
2. What will that look like, who will pay for it, who will control it, will Germany dominate it etc
I am just saying trump is driving point (1). How or whether (2) is solved is another matter and a more complex thing.
I personally think as need goes up, ways are found. So far people have been unwilling because the points above (2) outweigh the need (1). If trump invaded Greenland then I imagine people would be much more willing to engage even if it meant paying, accepting German leadership (or Germany accepting less oversight despite paying?) etc.
We have already seen France unilaterally extend its nuclear umbrella.
That is what happened with finances: Germany wouldn’t accept EU wide debt, and many countries wouldn’t accept German style fiscal constraints. Then the euro crisis forced both sides to compromise and here we are with both.
I hope it doesn’t take an actual military crisis to force the matter here. But one (two actually, trump on one side, Russia on the other) is looking available…
There is also no german leadership. Germany does not want to lead - it has enough of own problems and it is not like external affairs count that much in german politics, as a usual deflection tactic.
Regarding fiscal politics - current administration is willing to make big debts, so it should not be an issue.
> The US has spent decades preventing and delaying the EU becoming a defacto state
> I am just saying trump is driving [pressure for EU armed forces]
So which is it, is US stopping EU from federalizing, or accelerating it?
The best possible reading is, before Trump US was stopping, now it's accelerating, but that's what I asked - what's your source / data / facts / circumstantial evidence that US used to try to prevent / delay EU federalizing?
I don't see it, or if there was, it was completely in-consequential, because there was enough hesitancy within EU already.
Denmark is in NATO. What does NATO even mean if the leader of NATO (USA) is attempting to take territory from another NATO country?
The point of NATO is to keep Europe tied to and subservient to the USA (ie. Atlanticism). Or at least that used to be the point of NATO. I have no idea what the point of it is now.