By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
"The Greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"
However, we have Devils' cropping up left right and centre currently. I'd hope that a lot of this is misdirection and posturing to keep focus of other real aims.
However, European leaders need to reflect on history and not be passive. When negotiating it needs to be from a position of relative power not just paper threats.
It would be super interesting to understand the discussions going on through diplomatic channels currently.
Either way as mentioned above, an expedition to Greenland with their approval would be a statement.NATO overall cannot just sit back and let itself be dismantled by the despots behind Trump.
Equally as the quote goes "The greater the intellect, the more ease in its misdirection"
Whether the Greenland comments are misdirecting from Venezuela (which on the face of it is going to be a complete mess US wise) or Epstein or indeed other areas.
The fact is that the US is no longer a trusted partner and needs to now be treated as such. The EU and Europe are not irrelevant akin to some of the posts above but maybe the current antics will galvanise an approach that has been needed for some time.
1
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 10:24 - Jan 7 with 829 views
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 22:11 - Jan 6 by mellowblue
From an operations p.o.v the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, head of NATO's Allied Command Operations has always been an American so the US still has plenty of clout within NATO.
There's no doubt about that but for some in this thread to say that Europe and their place in NATO is irrelevant is nonsense, Putin would not get so testy about having NATO allies right on Russia's borders otherwise. Or, having made so much noise, quietly accept it when previously non-aligned nations join NATO.
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 18:50 - Jan 6 by Pinewoodblue
The US has a checkered history with regards to past activities in Greenland as this Al Jazeera report, over four years old, shows
Anyone who thinks Trumps interest is solely about defending USA needs to think again. It is more about oil & Gas off the west cost of Greenland; about access to rare earth minerals and anything that can be mined.
NATO may be the biggest military grouping but it isn’t the only one involving European militaries. Perhaps it is time for the Joint Expeditionary Force to carry out an exercise in Greenland. Only drawback it is lead by UK and can’t see Starmer doing anything for fear of upsetting the Trumpster.
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 19:24 - Jan 6 by Churchman
In 1982 (Falklands War period) GDP defence spend was 5%. By Gulf War 1 in 1991 it was down to 3.8%. It’s now down to just over 2% with an empty promise to bump it up to 2.5 by 2027. Whoopee. That’ll make Trump and Putin tremble.
We are just not serious about it. I get that in a £3.5tn economy that there will be priorities including party politics to satisfy, but defence just is not important to the politicians either now or to the ghastly criminals that preceded them.
We live in an age of might is right yet U.K. politicians are still thinking old world order, peace dividend and fobbing off responsibility for its defence on the US like a parasite despite knowing what Putin, Xi, and Trump are and will do. Crazy.
'The UK and France have signed a declaration of intent on deploying troops in Ukraine if a peace deal is made with Russia, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has announced.'
We might not be spending as much as you want on defence but there is spending, and more importantly true diplomacy to prevent further escalation and madness. Note that we are promising actual troops and not p!ssing billions up against a wall on some blue sky weaponry ideas...
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 22:42 - Jan 6 by mellowblue
Given the expectation that the outer fringes of the Arctic will be ice free one day which will allow open up navigation for trade purposes and future potential oil/gas extraction, I think the US want to firm up their influence there in response to Russia's interest and maritime and naval investment there. taking over Greenland would conveniently serve that purpose.
You are a little out of date there, the fringes of the Arctic are already ice free to a significant extent and opening up much more to commercial shipping. I Googled this and got an AI response:
'The fringes of the Arctic are significantly more ice-free now, especially in summer, with September sea ice extent shrinking by over 40% since the late 1970s, reaching record lows, and the oldest, thickest ice disappearing by 95%. While the entire Arctic isn't completely ice-free in summer, projections suggest it could become reliably ice-free (less than 1 million sq km) within a decade or two, with most remaining ice clinging to coastlines and the Last Ice Area near Greenland and Canada.'
Whilst all of this has a bearing on the United States (especially Alaska) it is Canada that is most at threat and as a Commonwealth nation as well as a NATO partner the United Kingdom should be preparing to give whatever aid is asked for (from whatever 'superpower' threat presents itself.)
'The UK and France have signed a declaration of intent on deploying troops in Ukraine if a peace deal is made with Russia, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has announced.'
We might not be spending as much as you want on defence but there is spending, and more importantly true diplomacy to prevent further escalation and madness. Note that we are promising actual troops and not p!ssing billions up against a wall on some blue sky weaponry ideas...
How long until Putin says that isn't acceptable and Trump caves?
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 10:53 - Jan 7 by StokieBlue
Why would Denmark give up resources or territory to secure a defence pact for Ukraine?
I don't see how that makes sense or why they would do it. It's a Danish decision not EU one.
SB
I did talk about some sort of deal, not necessarily completely giving it up.
But at the moment the defence of the Ukraine is of higher priority than the fate of Greenland, so if the fate of Greenland were the sticking point, it might be very difficult for Denmark (even with European support) to refuse.
Of course, I am only thinking out-loud , but at the same trying to second-guess the sort of Machiavellian things that the US might get up to, given they are making a big thing about Greenland and when it comes to Trump very little seems to be off the table.
[Post edited 7 Jan 11:16]
0
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 11:16 - Jan 7 with 683 views
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 11:12 - Jan 7 by DJR
I did talk about some sort of deal, not necessarily completely giving it up.
But at the moment the defence of the Ukraine is of higher priority than the fate of Greenland, so if the fate of Greenland were the sticking point, it might be very difficult for Denmark (even with European support) to refuse.
Of course, I am only thinking out-loud , but at the same trying to second-guess the sort of Machiavellian things that the US might get up to, given they are making a big thing about Greenland and when it comes to Trump very little seems to be off the table.
[Post edited 7 Jan 11:16]
Is the defence of the Ukraine a higher priority than Denmark keeping it's territorial integrity to the Danes? I doubt it.
Should the UK give up Scotland to ensure the defence of the Ukraine? Or the rights to all the resources off is coast?
Clearly we shouldn't so why should the Danes?
I think it's a strange take to be honest.
SB
1
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 11:21 - Jan 7 with 667 views
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 11:10 - Jan 7 by J2BLUE
How long until Putin says that isn't acceptable and Trump caves?
Everything in politics, international diplomacy and warfare is contingent. Macron has managed to put together a statement of intent that wasn't there before and if Putin or Trump react to it then they are playing second fiddle.
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 11:12 - Jan 7 by DJR
I did talk about some sort of deal, not necessarily completely giving it up.
But at the moment the defence of the Ukraine is of higher priority than the fate of Greenland, so if the fate of Greenland were the sticking point, it might be very difficult for Denmark (even with European support) to refuse.
Of course, I am only thinking out-loud , but at the same trying to second-guess the sort of Machiavellian things that the US might get up to, given they are making a big thing about Greenland and when it comes to Trump very little seems to be off the table.
[Post edited 7 Jan 11:16]
See my reply to MellowBlue before suggesting that Greenland is less, strategically, important than Ukraine. You may be right if you are Turkish or Central European but wrong if you are Canadian...or Greenlander.
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 11:25 - Jan 7 by WeWereZombies
See my reply to MellowBlue before suggesting that Greenland is less, strategically, important than Ukraine. You may be right if you are Turkish or Central European but wrong if you are Canadian...or Greenlander.
My comment was looking at it from a European point of view.
0
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 11:37 - Jan 7 with 583 views
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 11:06 - Jan 7 by Samuelowen88
Well Russia are now apparently sending warships to defend the tanker Trump wants to seize....
This is going to end well.
It makes you wonder whether that ship is really completely empty... I can;t understand why US and Russian military would be so interested in a manky old tanker...
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 16:45 - Jan 6 by Swansea_Blue
And it’s not as if the US can’t do pretty much what they want in Greenland already. Denmark has always turned a blind eye. They conveniently ignored it when the US wanted to store nuclear material there. Bases anre not a problem, nor naval patrols. Apparently the US can prospect for natural resources too (mining them might be a different issue, I’m not sure).
I struggle to unwrap the motivation. There’s a part that’s very obviously about Trump wanting to enrich himself and his inner circle and donors. But that’s overlaid by an almost childlike response to not being able to get what he wants. It’s very bizarre. He really is the smallest of men.
This is spot on.
There are long established agreements between Denmark/ Greenland and the US that the US can have as many military based there as they want or need. (Denmark doesn’t have to turn a blind eye) Also Greenland are perfectly happy and willing to have the US as their preferred partner for developing mineral extractions.
What does this leave as the real objective?
0
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 12:29 - Jan 7 with 460 views
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 10:53 - Jan 7 by WeWereZombies
You are a little out of date there, the fringes of the Arctic are already ice free to a significant extent and opening up much more to commercial shipping. I Googled this and got an AI response:
'The fringes of the Arctic are significantly more ice-free now, especially in summer, with September sea ice extent shrinking by over 40% since the late 1970s, reaching record lows, and the oldest, thickest ice disappearing by 95%. While the entire Arctic isn't completely ice-free in summer, projections suggest it could become reliably ice-free (less than 1 million sq km) within a decade or two, with most remaining ice clinging to coastlines and the Last Ice Area near Greenland and Canada.'
Whilst all of this has a bearing on the United States (especially Alaska) it is Canada that is most at threat and as a Commonwealth nation as well as a NATO partner the United Kingdom should be preparing to give whatever aid is asked for (from whatever 'superpower' threat presents itself.)
I was visualizing the fringes being ice-free all year round which might take decades (or maybe never) assuming global warming keeps apace, I am guessing it would still a bit treachorous for mainstream shipping. Re Canada, you are correct, they would be completely hemmed in by the US, assuming Greenland succumbs. There were some famous plans from the 1920s to invade Canada which when discovered were dressed up as theoretical exercises. But the detail suggested that there was considerable planning maybe for when the British Empire eventually crumbled and an opportunity raised it's head. I reckon Canada being fiercely independant would be hard to fully take.
0
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:01 - Jan 7 with 406 views
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 11:54 - Jan 7 by giant_stow
It makes you wonder whether that ship is really completely empty... I can;t understand why US and Russian military would be so interested in a manky old tanker...
It's clearly not empty.
The US don't spend the resources to position assets to grab a tanker that's empty, old and far from the US and the Russians don't suddenly change the registration to Russian and have it fly a Russian flag if it's empty.
Rumours are it's been boarded, quite a step given its now a Russian registered vessel.
SB
0
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:23 - Jan 7 with 358 views
"Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:01 - Jan 7 by StokieBlue
It's clearly not empty.
The US don't spend the resources to position assets to grab a tanker that's empty, old and far from the US and the Russians don't suddenly change the registration to Russian and have it fly a Russian flag if it's empty.
Rumours are it's been boarded, quite a step given its now a Russian registered vessel.
SB
This seems to be excessive, even if it was full of oil?
give some good background on the Marinera in particular (that's the one currently in the North Atlantic) and the other tankers that have left Venezuela sharpish in the past few days.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
