you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 62 points 10 months ago* (64 children)

I think there's a pretty good case to be made that NATO would be effectively dissolved if the United States attacked Greenland.

the attack would likely be tolerated by the other NATO members, and so the agreement would no longer have meaning.

  • source
  • hideshow 64 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    Such is the point. There's a reason Donnie started his first term so aggressively picking fights with Canada and Norway. Fulfilling Putin's wish.

    Also diverts attention from Ukraine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    It really does look like it. Big Oligarchy (Putin among them) saw our supposed "shining city on a hill" and paid their boy to set that city on fire, sabotage its foundations, and scare away the populace.

    Assets are much cheaper, and less uppity, in times of chaos.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (57 children)

    Not sure where you get the feeling that the attack would be tolerated by the EU or Canada. What does tolerated mean to you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 57 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago* (6 children)

    Speaking as a Canadian and repeating a comment from a few days ago that was in a different context.

    If Trump/US invaded Greenland.

    Pollievre (leader of Conservative party) - "yes Daddy invade them!"

    Carney (leader of Liberal party & Canadian Government currently) - "Canada is alarmed by these actions and will continue to work collaboratively with its international partners to find a solution."

    We all know the Liberal response is the better one but it still means absolutely jack shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    I happen to think you're wrong. It would be political suicide. Carney has been working feverishly to diversify, and he would recognize that the majority of Canadians are done with the US. We either act decisively at Greenland, or we are finished. And if the people decide on that policy, it doesn't really matter what the PM wants to do.

    I'm ready to sacrifice, because this is existential for us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I agree with you on what we'll hear, but I second the other comment: besides the speeches, Carney will move Canada further away from the US.
    He started doing so without saying it too loudly. Only an idiot would not see it. The good thing is only one idiot needs to be fooled.

    To escalate, he has multiple levers at his disposal: the everlasting hesitation between F35 and Gripen purchase, the tariffs on Chinese EV (if they were repelled, US car makers could be driven out of Canada's market within just a few years). And of course dumping US bonds, but that would hurt Canada too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    How can Canada move away from the US? Our economies are heavily integrated we're eachother's biggest trading partners.

    Canada makes parts for US cars, thats the justification used to follow US tariffs on chinese EVs, what hurts our big 4 hurts your factories.

    Militarily its even worse. Unless you imagine Canada throwing out all the weapons systems which depend on US manufacturing and buying European(where they exist), Chinese, and Russian(the US would probably start pirating your cargo ships) systems instead, Canada's options are be a part if America's military force or not have modern weapons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Trump is actively trying to kill Canada's car industry. So if China is willing to do so, Canada should lift the tariffs on their EVs in exchange for a quota of cars or components made in Canada.
    Long term, it is probably a better strategy as US car makers are falling so much behind on EVs they could go down in the coming years, especially if they hang on petro-cars.

    As for the military, it's never too late to start doing the right thing and diversify its sourcing. No more 100% US by default, and require guarantees on supply and independence.
    Europe and other countries have very good and modern equipments also, mind you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Europe is in the same situation, having depended on America for core systems like modern jets and CIC. The only thing they have going is it would be much more difficult to occupy them beyond what their leaders already agree to.

    If yall did start economicly decoupling, buying Chinese hardware, and training everyone to wage an asymetric war a la Finland, the calculus for the people who want Canada to remain a US vassal shifts to "OK, we can accept a hostile state on our border, or we can have a 3 day special operation and drive right to Kiev~~~~TorontoOttawa and be welcomed as liberators. And the longer we wait, the more difficult option 2 will be."

    While helping dismantle the evil empire is unambiguously good for humanity, I genuinely don't think you have a better option than accept whatever yall are subject to.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (16 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Global instability from a Europe-North American war would likely cause a lot of conflicts around the world. Want it or not, the whole world is dependent on eachother, and if exports from North America and Europe get unstable, they rest of the world will be hit. Just like if exports from China were to get disrupted the rest of the world would also get fucked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (5 children)

    An actual Europe/US war would raze the world to cinders

    Why? Nobody except maybe Russia would want any part in that clusterfuck except to sell weapons, and Russia can barely take the Russian speaking part of Ukraine at the cost of significant long term growth.

    An Africa without massively unequel leverage might actually develop their means of production instead of shipping gold ore and cocoa to Europe, a South America free of America might be able to assert itself instead of whatever the fuck Chile has been doing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 10 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    Again, why would Mexico, Brazil, China, India want anything to do with our suprise murder suicide?

    A US-EU war would have the rest of the world staying tf away, since they have nothing at all to gain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

    Let's be clear, the US is starting it.

    And when the rest of the world, like Canada, sells off their Tbonds and crashes the US economy, nationalizes US assets including patents, sells off US dollars reserves and cuts off exports - including hydro power, potash, oil, aluminum, and uranium, to name just a few from Canada - I guarantee the US will notice. Even one of these will be enough for the US to become the aggressor.

    Greenland may seem minor, but where Greenland goes, Canada goes. For my country this is existential. And frankly, I can only assume you have typical American hubris if you assume the US will be allowed to do whatever they want.

    Americans who enable this are entitled, spoiled, arrogant children who don't understand a) how dependent they are on the other countries, b) how a threat to their pampered asses really looks and feels, and c) that the upcoming fight for other countries is existential, and not just for more treasure. Americans are fighting and dying for more profits for their billionaires and maybe a new iPhone. They're fighting to protect a billionaire conman who fucks kids. The rest of the world is fighting for their existence. You tell me who is more motivated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    No I don't but I'm tired of hearing Americans try to absolve themselves by pointing out the very obvious cause, as if identifying the problem of wealth inequality turns enemies into friends, or suddenly and magically means my country isn't being threatened by half of the US population. Sorry, some of them are too far gone, and no amount of enlightenment is going to change the fact that I can't trust the country that they control right now. I'm allowed to call that out and I'm allowed to be pissed.

    And at the same time I'm allowed to cheer when I see angry Americans that are fighting back. I know there are good ones but I don't think the ones that play the rhetorical absolution trick are owed anything for pointing out something that we all already knew, that we had been saying for decades, and that doesn't do anything to help now.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

    Foreign officials making statements condemning the act, but not actually pursuing any consequences for the US. What they've been doing this whole time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (5 children)

    What exactly? Describe what actions the US has taken, and the milquetoast responses from the world. I'm sure they will all be equivalent to an occupation and theft of a sovereign country that belongs to the EU, as well as a signatory to NATO.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    That's a fair point, this is another level. But the US spends much, much more on its military than all of Europe and Canada combined.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Their economy depends on the other countries around the world. What do you suppose happens when the countries dump TBonds and the US dollar? What happens when the agriculture industry is destroyed when the potash stops? There are so many trade dependencies that disappear.

    The US has had a golden ticket and they would throw it away. No more printing money. Good luck maintaining all of that military, especially spread out all over the world.

    It's frankly astonishing that the citizens of the US don't understand that they established these systems of trade and finances to benefit them and make their country rich and so they could get low priced goods and abundance, and they got spoiled by it and assumed it was all due to their greatness. But they're heavily dependent on it and it's a different world once it's gone.

    The very definition of born on third and thought they hit a triple.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    That would also crush EUs economy, and hurt all the wealthy/politicians. Many citizens would get angry, and probably vote the status quo out of power.

    I agree that it still should be done, because the alternative would likely be worse. But, I think it's unlikely to happen because the people who benefit the most from the way things are won't willingly let it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Complete and total cessation of trade with the US is extremely unlikely. Countries that have done worse still regularly engage in trade. Even if all of Europe stopped buying and selling with the US, Europe is 500 million people on a planet with 7 billion.

    No, it still wouldn't be good for anybody and Trump and his supporters are deluded dingbats but it wouldn't isolate the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 10 months ago* (8 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 3 points 10 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (14 children)

    You think UK/France will nuke DC over Greenland?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (12 children)

    No. Do you think nukes are the only option?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    I don't think there is anything in the French arsenal shy of a nuclear weapon that could deter a US advance.

    I also haven't seen anything to suggest the UK would oppose a US occupation of Greenland. If anything, they'd more likely offer a deal to facilitate it - especially if Parliament falls to Reform UK in the next few years

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (5 children)

    The US cannot win a protracted war with the rest of the world.

    Since Its Birth the USA has only had 17 years of peace. None of those years have occurred since 1941. I don't know how else you describe "a protracted war with the rest of the world", but given the enormous economic growth over the last 85 years and the near-endless multi-theater conflicts the US has been engaged in over that period, I would say it can and it has.

    Unless they’re planning to destroy everything and kill everyone.

    The great thing about war is that it churns the economy. And Americans care more about economic growth than any other domestic policy. Would be a shame if everything was destroyed and everyone killed, because then we'd have nothing to enact war on in the following fiscal quarter.

    Much easier to just keep the wars at a low simmer and "lose" them endlessly, while contractors and arms dealers grow fatter and happier ad infinitum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    The US has never really sacrificed in a war.

    Idk about that...

    Pretty much a joke that the American public sector is a trainwreck thanks to how much we've squandered invading overseas.

    Plenty of Americans have suffered and died to poverty, neglect, and the hideous environmental impact of the MIC, because so much of our economy is routed into immiserating others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    They’ve never had any threat of invasion or hostility inside their borders

    Do you think a European army is going to pull a D-Day across an ocean controlled by a navy 10x larger than all their forces combined?

    The logistics of d-day and the following weeks were insane, and that was like 75 miles off allied coast protected by the 2 largest navies in the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    The US cannot win a protracted war with the rest of the world.

    Europe is not the "rest of the world". They sit high and mighty now in judgement after raping the rest of the planet for 500 years and then culminating that in the two most destructive wars in human history and the greatest atrocity in the Holocaust. But it's also a group of countries that spend far, far less on their militaries combined than the US does.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago*

    NATO is outward facing. It can't handle internal conflict.

    We already tested this when Turkiye and Greece began militarizing in the Aegan Sea back in the 1970s. They've grown progressively more hostile for decades, with a number of barely averted military engagements.

    The agreement would continue to have meaning with respect to external entities - African, Middle Eastern, Russian, and Chinese conflicts. But all the member states can do is roll over (or actively facilitate territory seizure) when they're threatened by their largest member

  • source
  • parent