glenn239

Carney sends a "Hamilton Hello" to Trump on the trade front. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy59pvkqvl5o Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Canadian PM Mark Carney have announced lower tariffs, signalling a reset in their countries' relationship after a key meeting in Beijing.

Trump has changed since the assassination attempt during the election campaign. He stated recently that Greenland is going American either the easy way or the hard way. He said that the only restraint he accepts on his own actions is his own mortality. There are reports that the Pentagon has completed and submitted planning for the occupation of Greenland. None of this proves what Trump will or will not do, but it does suggest that if the EU is serious about being taken seriously, they should move forces to Greenland now. So do I. Not just troops, but also a pack of French and British nuclear submarines off the coast and some tactical nuclear weapons and airpower. All peaceful, just for exercise. I think Poland's national interest is to maintain its economic links to the EU and its political links with the United States, using any EU-US tensions to increase Polish leverage over both. The more such tensions, the better for Poland. Yes, actually. You've posted the first coherent European opinion on the crisis that's not just more whining and other pathetic nonsense.

Who knows what will happen, but at the moment it looks like the protests are winding down, the Israelis have cold feet, and the Arabs aren't stupid enough to risk their oil infrastructure and lines of communications to support a Trump war of aggression on Iran.

China submits application to launch 200,000 satellites into orbit in two constellations, China's 200,000 satellite proposal sparks global alarm

Trump has threatened to take Greenland by force if necessary. So your claims that you "don't believe" this or that is irrelevant. The threat has been issued. And no, Denmark does not have to call Article 5 for the EU to send more troops to Greenland. You evaded the question. At this point the EU has sufficient cause to conclude that a US invasion of Greenland is possible, perhaps even likely. (Threats made, capabilities in place, and reports that the Pentagon has already submitted plans for the occupation to the White House). You still didn't say whether you support the EU moving troops into Greenland. Do you think I'd fail to notice that omission? I think that Poland's national interests and ambitions are to cooperate with the United States at the expense of NATO and the EU. I think from your comments you think the same thing.

We indeed may be on Trump's list, and if so, judging from your Neville-like odor with Greenland, we here in Canada already fully realize that we are on our own. I myself have never in my life considered that Europe would lift a finger for Canada if it were the case that the US itself was the threat. As it pertains to Greenland, for Canada, I think that fact decides the issue. We will mind our own interests, we are in the American sphere and we have our own problems to tend to. Your unrealistic ideas about NATO, globalism, and Ukraine are now fully exposed as the flaccid garbage that they always were. NATO is in taters, Globalism is dead, and Ukraine has lost the war. That is the exact outcome I told you would happen 12 years ago.

It is precisely because Greenland is in the EU's sphere of influence that I myself conclude the EU needs to pour troops into Greenland. I understand that this has many legal and precedent hurdles involved, but so be it. You see, Trump is out on a limb on this one with Congressional support best described as thin. If the EU has two dog sleds in Greenland he might pull it off. If they send 15,000 troops and a dozen tactical nuclear weapons, with a bunch of French and British nuclear attack boats on patrol around the GIUK Gap, then I think Trump backs off. And here's you, another European poster that yaps endlessly about principles and defending NATO prestige and sovereignty, who in 15 pages hasn't peeped a word about defending Greenland. I never quite bought a word you've said about your principles, I've always thought that you're for Polish interests and the rest was a stalking horse. I get the sense that Polish interests in this one are to roll over on Denmark in favor of Trump, and then I read your comments here and I get no sense you're for the EU making a stand in Greenland.

The Ukraine war's origins are a murky mess of history, circumstances, Russian revisionism and NATO expansion. This situation is a clear case of pure aggression aiming to divide and weaken the EU by picking an issue - Greenland - in which the EU consensus will be confused. I'm struck by the fact that not a single European poster, including yourself, in 15 pages of this discussion even hinted at the idea that the EU would fight for Greenland. It was page after page of bargaining, whining, convincing. You yourself blather about Munich endlessly on this site, but in this situation where the UK is clearly facing a Munich-like dilemma between a hard line and appeasing an aggressor, you didn't say a peep about Munich, or Appeasement, or even express your personal opinion that the EU must fight if necessary. In terms of your comments here, I also didn't have the notion of the United States being on the radar as a threat to the EU. But I did have the concept that the EU was making a very bad mistake with its Ukraine policy. You got into bed too far with the Americans for a project of no actual interest to the EU.

The question is which Gulf State countries will support US operations, given that there is no case to be made that an attack is defensive in nature.

Obviously, it did not.

FYI, your posts on this thread have been on point.

Having read 15 pages of this thread, one thing seems certain - if Trump wants Canada, European NATO offers nothing for our protection. Not one European poster has drawn the obvious comparison to Munich, or indicated that the EU should send forces to Greenland. Myself, I think the immediate deployment of some British and French tactical nuclear warheads to Greenland along with 10,000 or so troops, and the immediate evacuation of most of the civilian population, this might send a message.

Seems like a lot of very long wordy posts trying to convince America to be reasonable. And yet, no clear statements on where you actually stand if the threat manifests itself. If the US were to invade Greenland the EU either appeases Trump or fights. Which do you personally prefer Europe does if Trump sends in troops?

That capability is a direct consequence of Iran learning from Israel's attack in 2025.

China will or will not assist Iran. If the latter, then Russian options are curtailed by that fact.