46
Trump says he reached Greenland deal ‘framework’ with NATO, backs off Europe tariffs (www.cnbc.com)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 9 months ago (12 children)

Unclear what he means at this point, my hunch is it means allowing for a larger US military presence in Greenland but no transfer of ownership, watching a live interview with Trump now and he’s definitely avoiding any implication that Greenland will be “owned” by the US.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    A lot of what Trump wanted Greenland for was already available to him had he asked nicely (and not had a reputation as a nazi freak). I'm sure he'll chalk up "using NATO for its intended purpose as it was originally designed" as some kind of negotiation triumph. The better question might be what the rest of Europe plans to do in anticipation of his next flip-flop and reckless power grab.

    Currently, Trump's team is drawing up plans to issue asylum claims to British Jews, on the grounds that they are a persecuted minority within the country and need special protection within the US. As the hysteria around anti-semitism in England crests, one has to wonder what his next move will be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    It is dumb for any nation to think that adding more USA military personnel/weapons/bases is somehow a good idea. I mean, seems like once the build-up is high enough, that all the main parts for actually taking the land is done. Seems like the plan is to squat long enough to just claim it is now part of the USA.

    Given how deeply USA tech is in NATO weapons/equipment, it would mean the back doors/kill switches just need to be flipped (just like the constant accusations about Chinese equipment). Which would make forcing the USA out is at least much much harder. Not to mention the very high likely hood of much more open USA promises to "defend" with nukes.

    Even if Trump himself is just playing an over the top haggling game of chicken to force deals he actually wants (freak them out bad enough to give much more just to think they are calming him down). His true believers that follow him would certainly be taking it further and 100% mean it once they take power. Getting the vibe WW3 will be the axis of USA and Israel vs literally the rest of the world.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

    The USA does not have secret remote kill switches in its military exports. This is a crazy myth that doesn't make any sense. For the F35, the US controls all spare parts distribution (for a maintenance intensive aircraft). They could just cut a country off from spares and ground their plane. They don't need a massive built in vulnerability.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    That maybe so, but most of the present day expensive tech, like F-35s or the drones, or the missiles, need access to proprietary USian software bundles. Even if the client country gets to keep compiled binaries in air gapped private networks and make it work, they're still running a losing race being cut off from updates.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    Yes exactly. That's my point. Why would the US (or any country exporting complex defense products) need a Killswitch when they can just cut off support and make your equipment quickly useless.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Fair point but I find it bold to assume that people do stuff only because they need do. We also do plenty of stuff just because we can.

    And if you have a tractor company that includes kill switches in its equipment ( https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/john-deere-remotely-disables-tractors-stolen-in-ukraine-by/427045 ) it’s hard to rule out that a Defense department, which probably pays handsomely a certain number people to be actively paranoid, would refrain from doing so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    This whole nonsense could have been avoided if dumbfuck would have just petitioned to install more military bases in Greenland in cooperation with our allies rather than bully and threaten them and almost start a war... but oh no.. dumbfuck pedophile rapist in queen just loves chicanery and to be in control of everything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I could be wrong, but I think the US agreement with Denmark gives the US the ability to just build a new base if it wants to. He could have just done it.

    I think there are 2 reasons why he didn't go this route:

    1. Bringing in a new state would be a big political win for him.
    2. Greenland is rich in mineral deposits that the US can't have without making Greenland part of its territory.
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago*

    Personally, I choose to believe he was just zoning out one day during a meeting with a big Mercator-projected map on display and he was like “wtf is this bigass piece of land right next door? Whatcha mean this isn’t an actual country? Let’s claim it then!” Then his yes-men counselors all came up with actual strategic reasons for this (minerals, halfway between the US and Russia, etc…)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)