I wasn't gonna do another thread. Or a poll, for that matter. Because let's face it: this is just another diversion from the Epstein files. Or the growing international discontempt for the kidnapping of Maduro. Or his declining popularity. Or...pretty much anything Trump utters on a daily basis now. It's a nothingburger, and I dare anyone to claim otherwise.
But there's a difference: NATO's existence itself is at stake over this nothingburger.
I'm no expert, but NATO is essentially an alliance that means that an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all members. It's strength in numbers. Friends backing friends. That idea.
It's not exactly a secret that Trump is at best sceptical on NATO, claiming that the US does all the heavy lifting and the other countries just mooch off of it. And unlike most of his trolling, there's something of truth within that. On his first term, it was a wake-up call for the EU that the US might not always be that reliable partner against any NATO threats (meaning: Russia).
Of course that doesn't mean he's factually right. The EU has since increased the military spending budget, but the fact that EU pumped more money in THEIR OWN weapons rather than buying USA ones had diplomats going "no! don't increase membership participation like THAT!!!".
But I digress. The point is: US NATO membership has been shaky under Trump's regime at best. Maduro's kidnapping didn't help(1). And now Greenland...
Donald wanting Greenland was one of the more absurd things of his first first term. I think I even had some rant/blog about it back then. And until it escalated, it was one of the more harmless scandals in this second term. Remember what he did in his first term?
DT: I want Greenland!
Greenland: nope!
DT: then I won't visit your stupid summit.
That's why I wasn't taking his current rhetoric serious right now. Betweenn at least his dementia, Epstein, ICE scandals and actions regarding Maduro he just throws out any distraction he can ("denounce antifa!". "Let's reverse the food pyramid". "perhaps Greenland will change the front news page?" And so on). But the thing is: Greenland is a part of Denmark, and Denmark is...you guessed it: a part of NATO.
Remember that "an attack on one NATO ally is an attack on all of them?". If any non-NATO member did Trump's invasion rhetoric, he would just be "yet another dictator". But under NATO chapter, any action from the US against Greenland would require immediate action from all NATO members...including the US itself.
Think of it this way: if Ursula Von Der Leyen made claims like "we must have Florida, whether they like it or not", we wouldn't be talking semantics like "but acksually Florida is an independent state that is a member state of the United States" either. Everyone would be all like "whoah! Don't threaten the USA, lady!". Yes, including me. This is the same: Greenland's part of Denmark, end of story.
"but we care about Greenland"
No you don't. Denmark yearly pays about half Greenland's BNP. You're not.
"Minerals and oil!"
Nope again. Yes, it's there. No, Greenland isn't green. It's snow and ice. The costs to dig up anything is far worse than in Venezuela, which is exactly the reason why it's still there.
"Russia and China will beat us!"
No you don't. You already have military bases there. You already have exploitation rights. Seeing perks of being NATO member yet?
"we can't have Russia as neighbors"
Take a good look at a world map. And ask yourself why you had a meeting with Putin in Alaska.
Of course, none of that matters because Trump surrounds himself with yes-men and yes-journalists. Unlike his first term, nobody tells him these things. And what does the EU do?
*sigh*
We (the EU) send in troops to "defend Greenland". Perhaps a hundred troops in total. To do nothing but to show your dictator that we're not going to give up on an ACTUAL ally.
So what does Trump do? Suggest tariffs on countries when they refuse to sell Greenland. I could mock him saying that the EU is already tariffed, but this is serious. An open attack, annexation or (why the hell not?) another kidnapping of the prime minister that dared say they'd rather be part of Denmark would all trigger NATO charter. The decision on tariff could spark that as well, though probably on the same level (meaning: taxes on US goods).
As said: Trump was already planning to exit NATO, so this is just a plot for it. Over a country most wouldn't be able to spot on a world map(2). And apparently because some friend of his suggested it'd be a cool idea to have it in his first term.
To round this off: I'm curious to your stance. As far as I can tell, hardly anyone agrees with this course of action, and I can't see anyone even bringing up an argument that makes even a slight bit of sense. But this nothingburger somehow becomes a wedge that splits the US from NATO...and potentially putting them against each other. Shouldn't that be a reason to stop him?
...
Correction: shouldn't that be YET ANOTHER reason to stop him? (no, I haven't forgotten he's a convict, pedophile, 2 times terrorist and more)
EDIT: changed some 'we''s to "the EU". As a Belgian, that's the group I live in. Sorry for confusion.
(1): I should mention that the EU's stance is that we don't recognize Maduro's election victory. That doesn't stop us from denouncing kidnapping people
(2): sorry for the offense, but it speaks to the general US citizen intelligence that he's not brutally mocked for his claim that Greenland is somehow geographically important regarding Russia.
But there's a difference: NATO's existence itself is at stake over this nothingburger.
I'm no expert, but NATO is essentially an alliance that means that an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all members. It's strength in numbers. Friends backing friends. That idea.
It's not exactly a secret that Trump is at best sceptical on NATO, claiming that the US does all the heavy lifting and the other countries just mooch off of it. And unlike most of his trolling, there's something of truth within that. On his first term, it was a wake-up call for the EU that the US might not always be that reliable partner against any NATO threats (meaning: Russia).
Of course that doesn't mean he's factually right. The EU has since increased the military spending budget, but the fact that EU pumped more money in THEIR OWN weapons rather than buying USA ones had diplomats going "no! don't increase membership participation like THAT!!!".
But I digress. The point is: US NATO membership has been shaky under Trump's regime at best. Maduro's kidnapping didn't help(1). And now Greenland...
Donald wanting Greenland was one of the more absurd things of his first first term. I think I even had some rant/blog about it back then. And until it escalated, it was one of the more harmless scandals in this second term. Remember what he did in his first term?
DT: I want Greenland!
Greenland: nope!
DT: then I won't visit your stupid summit.
That's why I wasn't taking his current rhetoric serious right now. Betweenn at least his dementia, Epstein, ICE scandals and actions regarding Maduro he just throws out any distraction he can ("denounce antifa!". "Let's reverse the food pyramid". "perhaps Greenland will change the front news page?" And so on). But the thing is: Greenland is a part of Denmark, and Denmark is...you guessed it: a part of NATO.
Remember that "an attack on one NATO ally is an attack on all of them?". If any non-NATO member did Trump's invasion rhetoric, he would just be "yet another dictator". But under NATO chapter, any action from the US against Greenland would require immediate action from all NATO members...including the US itself.
Think of it this way: if Ursula Von Der Leyen made claims like "we must have Florida, whether they like it or not", we wouldn't be talking semantics like "but acksually Florida is an independent state that is a member state of the United States" either. Everyone would be all like "whoah! Don't threaten the USA, lady!". Yes, including me. This is the same: Greenland's part of Denmark, end of story.
"but we care about Greenland"
No you don't. Denmark yearly pays about half Greenland's BNP. You're not.
"Minerals and oil!"
Nope again. Yes, it's there. No, Greenland isn't green. It's snow and ice. The costs to dig up anything is far worse than in Venezuela, which is exactly the reason why it's still there.
"Russia and China will beat us!"
No you don't. You already have military bases there. You already have exploitation rights. Seeing perks of being NATO member yet?
"we can't have Russia as neighbors"
Take a good look at a world map. And ask yourself why you had a meeting with Putin in Alaska.
Of course, none of that matters because Trump surrounds himself with yes-men and yes-journalists. Unlike his first term, nobody tells him these things. And what does the EU do?
*sigh*
We (the EU) send in troops to "defend Greenland". Perhaps a hundred troops in total. To do nothing but to show your dictator that we're not going to give up on an ACTUAL ally.
So what does Trump do? Suggest tariffs on countries when they refuse to sell Greenland. I could mock him saying that the EU is already tariffed, but this is serious. An open attack, annexation or (why the hell not?) another kidnapping of the prime minister that dared say they'd rather be part of Denmark would all trigger NATO charter. The decision on tariff could spark that as well, though probably on the same level (meaning: taxes on US goods).
As said: Trump was already planning to exit NATO, so this is just a plot for it. Over a country most wouldn't be able to spot on a world map(2). And apparently because some friend of his suggested it'd be a cool idea to have it in his first term.
To round this off: I'm curious to your stance. As far as I can tell, hardly anyone agrees with this course of action, and I can't see anyone even bringing up an argument that makes even a slight bit of sense. But this nothingburger somehow becomes a wedge that splits the US from NATO...and potentially putting them against each other. Shouldn't that be a reason to stop him?
...
Correction: shouldn't that be YET ANOTHER reason to stop him? (no, I haven't forgotten he's a convict, pedophile, 2 times terrorist and more)
EDIT: changed some 'we''s to "the EU". As a Belgian, that's the group I live in. Sorry for confusion.
(1): I should mention that the EU's stance is that we don't recognize Maduro's election victory. That doesn't stop us from denouncing kidnapping people
(2): sorry for the offense, but it speaks to the general US citizen intelligence that he's not brutally mocked for his claim that Greenland is somehow geographically important regarding Russia.
Last edited by Taleweaver,
You know your writing sucks when chatGPT can write better excuses.
