Statement by Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands,Norway,Sweden,UK
presidentti.fiThis isn’t really about Greenland’s strategic value; it’s about the category error. You can trade goods, sign treaties, and negotiate basing rights. You can’t “buy” a people or their sovereignty especially when they don’t consent. That’s why Europe responds with process and principle: normalize coercion-as-bargaining among allies and you’re reviving a pre-1945 model of politics Europe built institutions to prevent.
It’s also lose-lose for the US. There isn’t a positive outcome. If it’s dropped, the damage is “just” reputational and partly repairable. If it’s pursued: tariffs, threats, coercion. It burns trust inside NATO, accelerates European strategic decoupling, and hands a propaganda gift to every US adversary. A forced takeover would be a catastrophic own-goal: legitimacy crisis, sanctions/retaliation, and a long-term security headache the US doesn’t need.
And the deeper issue is credibility. The dollar’s reserve status and US financial leverage rest on the assumption that the US is broadly predictable and rule-bound. When you start treating allies like extractive targets, you’re not “winning” you’re encouraging everyone to build workarounds. Part of the postwar setup was that Europe outsourced a lot of hard security while the US underwrote the system; if the US turns that security guarantee into leverage against allies, you should expect Europe to reprice the relationship and invest accordingly.
The least-bad outcome is a face-saving off-ramp and dropping the whole line of inquiry. Nothing good comes from keeping it on the table.
> It’s also lose-lose for the US.
Yes. Ian Bremmer keeps pointing out that if the "law of the jungle" becomes the norm for relations between countries, the USA will not benefit as much as autocracies like China and Russia.
See https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TLhz6ZbrMuI for a more full-throated explanation from Ian.
Not the case if the US joins the autocracies.
The US will be worse off as an isolated autocracy.
Autocracy isn't a switch you can flick. To establish one, you first have to win a protracted civil war, likely between loyalist paramilitary groups like ICE, the standing US Army and regional defense paramilitaries that would spring up. The likely result of this is a stalemate that leads to secession into separate countries.
Why? Russia didn't have a protracted civil war between 2000-ish and now?
Isn't Trump busy replacing US Army leadership with those loyal to him? Why would Army and ICE be on opposite sides?
Seems MAGA just have to continue the present course and apply just enough pressure to the election system to keep "winning" half-credibly and autocracy is there in not too many years.
I mean they are already past pardoning those attacking congress for not accepting the election result.
It is just a gradual process which is well underway, at what point would California and Washington suddenly prop up a militia?
>Autocracy isn't a switch you can flick.
Plenty of precedents for Autocrats to assume power in legit democracies and seem to flick it handily enough.
Hitler, Mussolini, Putin, Erdogan, Orban etc.
No battles or violence, just democracies that become autocracies through election.
Warren Buffett once said: "You can't make a good deal with a bad person"
Which is exactly the case as long as Trump is POTUS. There's no good deal to be made for Denmark, Greenland, or Europe in general. Trump is a bad person, and can not be trusted.
Any deal that is made will either be altered or voided. And he'll continue to move the goalposts.
There are two outcomes with Trump:
1) He tries to bully someone into submission, and keeps coming back for more if successful.
2) He is slapped so hard that he gives up entirely.
Unfortunately (2) is a bit shaky these days, as he views the US military as his personal muscle.
Regarding option (2), isn’t SCOTUS supposed to rule on the legality of Trump’s tariffs soon?
That's what people have thought, but it's being dragged out for whatever reason. The latest it will come is July.
A dissenting opinion from obstinate judges can drag this thing out until the end of the session.
Are people expecting to SCOTUS rebuff Trump? So far it seems that they're good to go on any Trumpian designs.
Yes, people expect SCOTUS to rebuff Trump on the tariffs. [0]
Lately SCOTUS has been providing stricter textual interpretations of Constitutional questions. Many of these have aligned with Trump administration arguments based on the power of the executive as outlined in Article II. The text says, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America," and, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." One of the key arguments is that Congress can't take that power away from him. For example, Congress can't tell him that he can't fire executive-branch staff, because the executive power rests with him, not with Congress.
One thing the Constitution is very clear on, though, is that only Congress can impose tariffs ("The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"). Furthermore, recent rulings of this Court have established the major questions doctrine, which says that even if Congress delegates the specifics of implementing its powers to the Executive branch, that delegation cannot be interpreted broadly. It can't be used to create new broad policies that Congress didn't authorize.
Therefore, because the text of the Constitution explicitly grants the right to impose tariffs to Congress /and/ Trump's imposition of tariffs is both very broad and very substantial, many people believe that SCOTUS will deny Trump's tariffs.
The case as argued is about Trump's right to issue tariffs under the IEEPA (a law Congress passed to give the President some ability to take economic actions due to international emergencies, which do not explicitly include tariffs), and there is some debate about what a negative ruling would mean for the return of tariffs to merchants who have paid them. Both of those points require careful consideration in the decision. Will the ruling limit itself to just tariffs issued under the IEEPA or to the President's ability to establish tariffs under other laws? If the Court rules against the tariffs, will the government be required to pay people back, and if so, to what extent? It's not surprising that the decision is taking some time to be released. There's a lot of considerations, and every one is a possible point for disagreement by the justices.
[0] https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/prediction-market-trade...
> One of the key arguments is that Congress can't take that power away from him. For example, Congress can't tell him that he can't fire executive-branch staff, because the executive power rests with him, not with Congress.
Just want to comment what an incredibly piss poor argument that is, because if you take it to its conclusion, it means all of the power rests with the Executive and none with the Legislature. That is, by definition, the Executive branch has all the people that actually "do stuff". If the executive has full, 100% control over the structure and rules of the branch, why bother even having a legislature in the first place if all the laws can be conveniently ignored or "reinterpreted".
You could argue Congress still has the power of impeach if they believe laws aren't being faithfully excited, but I'd argue that is much too much of a blunt instrument to say that laws should be able to constrain what a President can do within the executive branch.
Have they considered giving trump a Eurovision award so that he goes away?
Humoring his whims only encourages him to come back fore more.
The US has some grace here as most of the negative feelings towards it dies with it's government.
You're going to pick better next time, right?
Picking better next time won't be enough unless a lot of work is done to put in place safeguards to make it impossible for a future government to act the same way.
I think people should realize that, in a democracy, it is virtually impossible to put these safeguards in place if people at large don't want them.
The reason Trump is able to get away with so much right now is because Congress is letting him. They could easily constrain his tariff powers, or his warmongering powers (they actually were close to doing that WRT Venezuela before some Republican Senators caved like a bunch of wet blankets), but they don't, because this is what people voted for. Trump is so much more powerful in his second term because at this point everyone knew he was a convicted felon, they knew he fomented the attack on the Capitol, and still a majority of voters voted for him.
Safeguards only work of someone is willing to enforce them.
It may not be possible to do perfectly, but here are many things that can be done to make it harder.
E.g.:
- no direct elections of a president with such broad powers.
- Separating the head of state and head of government, and split their powers.
- Proportional representation to reduce the chance of the largest party obtaining so much power alone.
- Not letting the president appoint supreme court justices.
- No presidential pardons; basically removing the chance of getting out of protections against legal sanctions after leaving office, and removing one of the strongest means of protecting loyalists.
The US isn't uniquely vulnerable, but it is a whole lot more vulnerable than governments in countries where the head of government is easier to replace and have fewer powers vested in their own personal mandate.
A direct election of a single powerful leader is also fundamentally creating a less democratic system - it reduces the influence of a huge minority of the electorate far below what their numbers justify.
That or decades of picking better.
Regardless, we are looking at a long time before the world doesn't look at our government in disgust (rightfully).
Indeed, but it might be many decades - once this lesson is first learned, it will take a long time to unlearn because it tends to become self-reinforcing.
To give an illustration of how long institutional memory over things like this can be:
As of when I went to primary school in Norway in the 1980's, we were still taught at length about the British blockade of Norway during the Napoleonic wars due to Denmark-Norway's entry into the war on Napoleons side and its impact on Norway (an enduring memory for many Norwegian school-children is having to learn the Norwegian epic poem "Terje Vigen" about a man evading the blockade).
Norwegian agricultural policy to this day has had a costly cross-party support for subsidies intended to provide at least a minimum of food idependence as a consequence of learning the hard way first during the Napoleonic wars with a reinforcement (though less serious) during WW2 of how important it can be.
A large part of the Norwegian negotiations for EEA entry, and Norways rejection of EU membership was centered around agricultural policy in part because of this history.
The importance of regional development and keeping agriculture alive even in regions that are really not suited to it is "baked in" to Norwegian politics in part because the subsidies means that on top of those who are about the food idependence a lot of people are financially benefiting from the continuation of those policies, or have lived shaped by it (e.g. local communities that would likely not exist if the farms had not been financially viable thanks to subsidies), so structures have been created around it that have a life of their own.
Conversely, a lot of support for the US in Europe rests on institutional memory of the Marshall Plan, with most of the generations with first hand experience of the impact now dead.
Create a replacement memory of the US becoming a hostile force, and that can easily embed itself for the same 3+ generations after the situation itself has been resolved.
Interesting; as a British person myself, we don't get taught any of that about Norway or Denmark, not even knowing that they were once joint together in a union.
I'm not surprised. From a British POV it was a relatively minor part of a much larger conflict that Britain was done with when Napoleon defeated, and Denmark-Norway was for most practical purposes treated as "just" Denmark, since Denmark was the more powerful part of the union by far.
From the Danish and Norwegian side, Britain annihilated or captured most of the Danish-Norwegian fleet because Britain expected Denmark-Norway to enter the war on Napoleons side (as a consequence, Denmark-Norway of course entered, but severely weakened), and Norway was blockaded and faced famine from 1808-1814.
After the war ended, the Norwegian mainland was handed over to Sweden (Iceland and Greenland were also Norwegian at that point, but stayed with Denmark), but Norway took advantage of the process and passed a constitution and briefly went to war against Sweden to force a better settlement, resulting in a relatively loose union. So this whole affair had a very significant effect on the formation of the Norwegian state.
Most people do not understand this.
Even if the US does that, trust arrives on foot, but leaves on horseback, so it will take years to get back to the old state of affairs.
Decades, more likely.
Not American. Also: reputational damage isn’t a skin that sheds when a government changes; allies and markets adapt structurally.
Trump's passing and his admin getting tossed won't erase the memory that a good third of America was always happy with him and wanted what he actually did. America is now branded with MAGA in a way that will take generations to fade.
At this point, I'd say terms rather than generations.
I mean, I'm old enough to remember people saying "Never Forget" about 9/11, but it's barely in any discourse at this point, and that was a single generation ago and had two major wars a bunch of PoW scandals, war crime scandals that led to Manning, and domestic surveillance that led to Snowden. And yet, despite all that, I've only heard 9/11 mentioned exactly once since visiting NYC in 2017, and that was Steve Bannon and Giuliani refusing to believe that Mamdani was legitimate.
So, yeah, if Trump fades away this could be forgotten in 8 years or so; if this escalates to a war (I'm not confident, but if I had to guess I'd say 10% or so?), then I see it rising to the level of generations.
It's different. 9/11 was an outside foe, which was dismantled by US forces, and its leader was executed. America "won" against the perpetrators of 9/11 in the conventional sense.
You cannot defeat MAGA the same way: the "enemies" are among us, and they aren't going anywhere.
From my point of view as a European asking if myself if or when I will be able to trust the USA in the future, the Taliban is to Afghanistan as MAGA is to the USA.
You're the outsider, to me. The pre-9/11 Taliban were seen as "kinda weird but we can do deals, oh dear aren't they awful, never mind", the post-9/11 were not even worthy of talking to. The USA is currently in a similar "pre" state, an invasion would make it a "post" state.
There's how the people in general remember, and then there's how the politicians and the institutions remember. If nothing else, the changes in institutions will have effects reverberating for decades, with the most obvious institution being the military in each country that expected to fight a war under a NATO umbrella with an American general in charge.
If I'm a German or French or Swedish officer, especially if I'm suddenly in Greenland, I'm going to be thinking hard about the changes to come in the next few years so that they're not all dependent upon a friendly America. If nothing else, they're all getting ready now to operate without any Americans in the loop, since it might be Americans they're fighting. That means the entire NATO command structure, which presumes American dominance of it, is now an obstacle to avoid rather than a resource to share. Every PM is asking the head of their air force if they can fly their F-35s without the Americans knowing about it and possibly shutting them down remotely.
There's a story going around today in French newspapers about how French and Ukrainian intelligence fed US intelligence some false strategic info to see if it ended up in Russian hands, which it did within days. Now Ukraine is consciously breaking its relationship with US intelligence because it can't be trusted, while getting closer to French and German intelligence. I suspect that the UK is also carefully looking at what's shared via the Five Eyes and decided what it can/needs to withhold.
Sources? I couldn't find anything with Perplexity:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/find-the-story-going-around...
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/trouve-les-articles-de-pres...
https://medium.com/the-dock-on-the-bay/ukraine-ran-sting-on-...
However, in finding that, I've found some outlets disavowing the story, so treat it as unproven:
https://unn.ua/en/news/did-ukraine-allegedly-provide-the-us-...
9/11 - and the US response to it - is still very much remembered by people outside of US as an example of how US foreign policy works in practice.
You are talking about the US, the others do not.
I'm saying "never forget" fades. That's a human condition we all share.
I mean, I live in Germany these days, and this country absolutely got the multi-generational thing, and I'm from the UK whose empire ditto, but… the UK doesn't spend much time thinking about the Falklands War and even less about the Cod Wars.
Nobody disagreed with that it eventually fades, they were all saying it is going to take decades. The consequence of 9/11 of was mostly TSAs, following the USA into wars and the erosion of privacy at the mention of terrorism. The first and the last are still ongoing and I think the current US admin is still using the latter as a narrative, the second one may come at an end currently, because the USA is trying to use it against its (former) allies.
What you describe is called "to historicize an event". The WW1 has been historicized by WW2 (some argue it's the same war). But not even WW2 has been historicized yet (at least in Europe) and it already ended 80 years in the past, so I doubt an atlantic conflict is going to be forgotten in the next few decades.
Edit: I originally linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicization, but this does not describes what I mean. It is weird, because the supposed German equivalent does. The German article is about a concept from the science of history, while the English article is about a literature concept.
Aye, and thanks for the link, will read the german version as per your edit.
> so I doubt an atlantic conflict is going to be forgotten in the next few decades.
If it gets to one, yes. Was writing late at night, so sloppily, sorry about that.
Right now, I think we're not that far gone yet. Absolutely agree it becomes as you say if it becomes hot war. Not sure about which step between will be the drop that overflows the bucket.
> Right now, I think we're not that far gone yet.
If we don't reduce conflict to mean military conflict, then I think there is definitely some diplomatic issue ongoing.
> Not sure about which step between will be the drop that overflows the bucket.
True, this is kind of the open question, because the EU both needs to be the adult in the room and deescalate, but also can't do compromises with territorial integrity otherwise it has already lost. This will of course have an impact on the "time to forget".
But I don't think if there is a uprising today in the US, Trump and the whole admin is gone next week and they improve their constitution, that the whole issue will just be forgotten. The whole pro-, neutral- or even contra USA debate has been ongoing for decades know. For example the trade deals aren't exactly concordant with EU law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schrems#Schrems_I) and the USA has been boycotting multilateral institutions, that the EU wants to have authority. I mean it is new that they openly sabotage the ICJ, but that they have the capability to do that is not.
Yeah, one thing the EU could do that wouldn't hurt them/us (much) would be to stop bringing up fake replacements for the data sharing agreements that get shot down.
The damage would mostly hit the top performers of the US stock market (amongst others) while not damaging the EU as much.
It'll probably be tariffs first though, followed by the ACI if things get really bad.
Sort of. Those of us outside the US are aware his support hasn’t cratered. There’s going to be the concern the US will just swap him out for someone similar.
If past history is anything to go by, the US will elect the current opposition, who won't be nearly strong enough to enact the reforms that would prevent an extremist party from returning to power in 4 years' time.
You have to be incredibly naive to give that much credibility to the US system. A lot more than just a switch of parties would be needed.
Personally I highly doubt a possible democratic would return a conquered Greenland. And even if it did, it would have to ensure that kind of derailment doesn't happen again. The opposition so far seems to be about as ineffectual as centrist parties across Europe at dealing with the far right.
As long as the clinically insane trumpie population exists, the USA cannot be trusted.
For Americans, many foreigners use the word “government” where we would say “administration”. So, a “new government” or “the government falls”, would be a “new administration” or “the administration’s party loses the next election”.
Except that everyone can see that the US is capable of putting this kind of government into power, and could do so again and again.
Exactly. The fixes that would go some way to restore my trust are changed to the mechanisms surrounding the democratic process. Things like no more gerrymander, get rid of allowing corporations influencing the voting by flooding the system with money, somehow fix social media every ad is seen by everyone rather than allowing personalised lies be shown to specific voters, fix your electronic voting systems to a maintenance man with a screwdriver can't make new votes pop into existence (as happened once), stop disenfranchising voters - even to the extend of implementing compulsory voting. The distortions the USA allows now to the democratic process are beyond belief.
Oh, and a system that allows a politician to incite a mob to attack the sitting parliament, and get away without punishment, then pardon the perps is a joke.
And the opposition party has proven itself to be unable to take actions necessary to prevent this sort of thing. The democrats could have used the Biden administration as an opportunity to try Trump for his crimes and establish new boundaries on the power of the president. Instead they just hoped he would vanish into the night and left space for his return.
If the dems win in 2026 and 2028, what is there to stop a return to fascism and further collapse in 2032?
True after the first Trump administration. But now? I doubt it.
Sure you can buy territory, like the Danish West Indies
What you're describing is a Q2 problem. This meeting is about Q1 goals. Please stay on the topic.
> and hands a propaganda gift to every US adversary.
This demonstrates, again, that Trump is the prime domestic enemy of the US. Where are the agencies that are sworn to protect the US against enemies foreign and domestic?
But it's not US who is in charge of US, unfortunately. It's Project 2025 who is in charge of US, and it has a vastly different win and lose criteria. For Project 2025 dissolving NATO, UN, WTO and whatever is a win. For Project 2025 weakening dollar is a win. For Project 2025 isolation in the Americas is win. And US is no longer in charge. Congress has voluntarily surrendered its power and others are following the lead. Project 2025 may or may not become future US, we'll see how it goes this year.
> You can’t “buy” a people or their sovereignty especially when they don’t consent
Who said they don't consent ? There was no referendum. /s
As a side note. Beware when exporting to the USA using UPS. Especially when having the receiver pay for imports and taxes. UPS does not enforce payment. They will hand out the package before receiving the taxes and tolls. Then, they force you, the exporter, to pay, since you’ve agreed to it by accepting their terms and conditions. I’ve learnt this the hard way.
Also been hit with this using DHL. Doing trade with the USA is such a gamble now with so much uncertainty.
Yup. Now people outside the US pay tariffs going both ways. Sending a package to the US? Pay the US tariffs for the receiver in advance. Getting a package from the US? Pay any tariffs/duties/taxes as per normal.
That explains why they gave me the package and then sent me a bill for import duties a month later.
They typically do this because they don't have enough warehouse space to keep the packages temporarily, and also because it wouldn't be very Express if it adds another day or two.
But if the value is high or you've landed on their naughty list, they'll have you pay before receiving the package.
US voters, please be aware that this bill has been introduced in the House. Maybe call you reps to voice support? Democracy is not dead yet.
> Bipartisan Legislation Prohibiting a U.S. Invasion of a NATO State Introduced
https://hoyer.house.gov/media/press-releases/bipartisan-legi...
The vast majority of folks this message will reach are in tech heavy cities… almost all of which have Democratic Party representatives.
It’s honestly just very difficult to communicate with Republican parts of the country on open, reddit-like social media.
Republican politicians are ignoring their constituents.
It's quiet depressing, because a large number of them know they'll be just fine regardless what they do.
We, in Idaho, recently had a school voucher program rammed through even though a huge number of people called to oppose it. Like 90% against 10% for. They still signed it into law.
It's all very disheartening.
Same happened in Texas.
Can't Trump veto this? Will it have a veto proof majority?
I wonder how the current events in Greenland will impact the safety and sovereignty of Taiwan.
The US is Taiwan’s most important military ally, even if that relationship remains unofficial. It is also the most critical power in the First Island Chain. If the US stopped being a global superpower, countries like Japan and South Korea might not be willing to aid in defending Taiwan on their own.
I wonder how the current events in Greenland will impact the safety and sovereignty of Taiwan.
That was my thought as well. It's a dangerous rhetoric being displayed by USA. "We need this land for our security". Turns out, what if other powers start using the same rhetoric? Russia did it already for Ukraine, China might say "We need Taiwan for our security".. where does it stop and ultimately it leads absolutely nowhere good.
Diplomatic relationships are rarely about justice, because they are almost always about power and influence.
In fact, the US and its allies have been the only major powers advocating for a "rules-based international order." On the other side, you have Russia annexing Crimea in 2014, and China building artificial islands in the South China Sea to forcefully claim territory that isn't theirs under international law. Not to mention that all authoritarian states, by their very nature, are a clear violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defines democracy and freedom of speech as basic human rights.
But at the same time, the US doesn't need a moral justification to sanction China over AI hardware. It is, as always, about power and influence.
The worrying part is that the US is losing its global influence by threatening an ally over Greenland. If they ever resort to military measures, they would lose all influence over the EU, and that would leave Taiwan in a very dangerous spot.
China already claims Taiwan, and has for decades; the only thing keeping it practically separate is uncertainty over the outcome in various dimensions if China tries to take it militarily. I don't think there's any doubt that if they were sure they could take it relatively bloodlessly and without significant repercussion, they would do so immediately.
The US recognizes Taiwan as part of China since the 70’s though its position is quite ambiguous! I found this document by the US congress that explains the history behind the rather bizarre situation Taiwan finds itself today: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12503
Nope. The US One China Policy (not to be confused with China's One China Principle) only "acknowledges" China's claim over Taiwan. The wording is intended to be vague so that each side can interpret the meaning according to their own interests (like China claiming "acknowledge" actually means "recognize").
You're agreeing with what I said. "Acknowledges" can be understood as "recognizes" but like I said, it's ambiguous intentionally (as you agreed).
> The US recognizes Taiwan as part of China ... though its position is quite ambiguous!
I wouldn't describe that position using the word "recognize". It is more accurate to use the official term "acknowledge" instead.
You're right, of course. What I'm saying is what happens if anyone with any lethal force proclaims they need territory which isn't theirs for their own security. Dangerous rhetoric and extremely dangerous precedent if this plays out.
Consider the following - Trump has tried again and again to make a business deal with dictators, regardless of the previous outcomes. And since he is in a steep mental decline he is not likely to change his ways fundamentally. He also repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction of having to protect "others" with USA army, at least for free as he sees it. He repeatedly tried to break NATO and break Ukrainian support.
I think it is likely that he wants to stop protecting Taiwan, give it up to China and then expect to make a deal with China to buy stuff manufactured on the island with money, afterwards. It would be totally in character for him and match his actual actions across the world.
True. Taiwan is an important ally, unofficially. The folks the US is feuding with right now are also allies, but officially. As are Japan and South Korea. It can't be encouraging.
The situation with Taiwan will explode because putinism is being normalized. Welcome to the dark era.
How do current events affect the US being a global superpower?
IMO, China will get back Taiwan without firing a single shot, the US is slowly de-risking itself from it and will eventually make Taiwan redundant. After seeing how the US is "helping" Ukraine, will the Taiwanese think fighting an all-out war with allies like this is worth it? China doesn't have the same genocidal intentions russia has towards Ukraine, so less reasons for people to fight it out
Edt: would love some arguments instead of downvotes
> will the Taiwanese think fighting an all-out war with allies like this is worth it?
What example do you know of a democratic country collectively "accepting" invasion by a dictatorship because being free is "not worth it"?
I can't really come up with anything.
Asking for an example is ill-posed, given that democracies are rather young constructs compared to the wider human history. Mind you, I am rooting for Taiwan, but I would expect something like what happened in Hong Kong rather than all-out war if the USA rug pulls Taiwan when it comes to support. Europe has already signaled that they won't do anything when it comes to Taiwan.
Maybe if Xi dies and the next guy is more reasonable. A lot of the animosity towards China is a result of Xi's authoritarian turn a decade or so ago...
That's true, we'll see if China is able to play the long game
The problem with Taiwanese (I am one) is ideological, they see themselves as too socially different than mainland China. Reliance on US support, or TSMC as another popular absurd copium, for security guarantee, is not realistic, and any Taiwanese can see this now. Absent other ways to secure its self determination, Taiwan is stuck playing a thin-line game between a crazy eagle and a very possessive panda.
I 100% agree with what you say, no discussion on that. My argument is that, if/when push comes to shove, Taiwanese leadership will pick the peace option given past US behaviour.
Taiwan is a completely different situation with other priorities. It's on the other side of the globe and just one more remote interest like Israel. It's there not to directly improve US's security, like Greenland does, but to suppress China's.
I think Mexico should take back California. They need it, and I’m sure they appreciate it more.
And give Alaska back to Russia, while we're at it. Or maybe Canada has a better use for it.
There is a difference, since Greenland was never part of the USA…
Why is this not on the front page anymore??
It has more upvotes and comments than anything else posted since it’s been posted 2 hours ago, and has been on the front page for an hour before disappearing
Also go EU!
> Why is this not on the front page anymore??
Most things fall off the front page really fast, I know because I am now spending rather too much time on this site…
Well might want to upvote this dedicated post then https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46676092
One thing I never heard a talk about. What would happen to all the US bases in the NATO countrys? I can't imagine the US could fly from NATOs countrys bases and attack Greenland and partner. Would for ex. germany attack Ramstein?
There's talk of removing base access:
"Why should the U.S. continue to have access to these bases, or receive support from allies’ naval assets, air forces, or even intelligence services, if it tries to take sovereign territory from a NATO member like Denmark? "
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-europe-greenlan...
At some point Germany and others will feel the US presence on their soil being occupation forces and not joint NATO forces.
>being occupation forces
That's literally what they are. American forces appeared in Germany in 1945.
They’re not occupying forces. There is a status of forces agreement between the two countries.
You are right. But it's a matter of perspective. In the mainstream perspective those bases are based on contracts and a method of mutual security. But there is indeed also the perspective in Germany that those bases are factually occupying forces and given their history the option of having those bases removed have been limited.
And there is a kernel of truth in it. The USA likely wouldn't give up Ramstein under any circumstances safe the German military mobilizing against them, the base is (was?) too important for the US. When Trump invades Greenland we will see this play out (how the base stays active and Germany is powerless to stop that).
So the occupier and country occupied signed an legal agreement making the occupation officially legal?
De facto and de jure are two very, very different things...
(not saying the US forces are occupying Germany, just commenting on op's logic)
AFAIK, US bases / equipment / etc. are negotiated with the host countries, and in that sense not directly controlled by NATO.
So if the US decides to resign from NATO, they would likely face challenges directly with Germany regarding their existing agreement.
Yes, in case of an actual war the US soldiers on those bases would quickly become prisoners of war.
Can't Denmark just stop selling ozempic or so to the US? Would be an uproar in no time.
Eli Lilly has GLP-1 injectables and will have an oral pill this year. Novo Nordisk has already dropped that ball.
Hence Eli Lilly +40% in the last year and Novo -23%. Or on a longer timescale you can see the problem:
https://www.google.com/finance/quote/NVO:NYSE?sa=X&sqi=2&ved...
What should they have done differently to prevent a competitor from entering a valuable market?
"Pricing power fell when someone else entered the market" isn't dropping a ball is why I ask.
I think they meant dropped the ball on oral intake.
Most people probably prefer a pill vs injections with needles.
Novo nordisk's biggest mistake was refusing to create a direct to consumer business. Eli Lilly sells most of their product through their website at large discounts, this superior distribution method is largely how they were able to gain such a large market share. Their product is also better than ozempic, so that definitely helped too. But its not like Novo Nordisk was stuck with ozempic, they couldve developed new advancements as well.
Sure, it could blow up its economy and have the U.S. just switch to the existing domestic alternative, which also appears to be superior (tirzepatide).
Doesn't Ozempic already have competition on the market?
Or ASML devices
Not really, probably a majority of Americans look down on people using Ozempic
To be clear, since I'm past the edit window: I think Ozempic is an amazing drug, it's just unfortunate how popular it is to hate on people for using a drug they need.
My understanding is that the hate is mostly related to influencers selling you weight loss products while hiding the fact they struggled until they found Ozempic, then to a lesser degree some people think it's cheating or w/e.
In the hypothetical amused scenario: no, that won't work, there are several alternatives now.
If the US can extract Maduro, it can extract the leadership of Novo Nordisk, their lead scientists and all of their intellectual property.
/amused scenario
I would like to live in less historical times.
I'm a Finn.
Same, American.
I don’t know why we got to be assholes. I prefer speaking softly and carrying a big stick.
Annexing territory was actually way more common back then. US bought the US Virgin Islands from Denmark at around that time.
I think that was much more a cooperative agreement type situation than childish threats like we have now.
I'm not opposed to changes in territory in principle... but there's no principles involved in the current US administration acting out like a fragile child.
Threats are always a part of negotiations. There was also a proposal to trade Greenland for 1/3 of the Philippines (which the US got from Spain just for showing up to a war that nobody wanted).
True. But if the shit gets real, you guys are the best in the world to deal with it. Plenty of Russians at the bottom of the lakes to attest that.
Even all of the purely imperialistic stated reasons for taking Greenland make no sense.
National security? We already have the right to station as many troops there as we want! And we have actually removed troops recently.
Mineral rights? America is already richly endowed - its just impossible to access what we have when permitting is almost impossible. If there were actually valuable lodes in Greenland, it would probably be easier to mine now!
The only thing I can think of are the warm fuzzies you may feel as a despot to take land and enrage your allies.
The NYT asked him about this a couple weeks ago. Here's an article with some excerpts from that [1]. Key parts:
> President Donald Trump revealed in a new interview with The New York Times that his quest for full “ownership” of Greenland is "psychologically important” to him.
> During a two-hour sit-down with multiple Times reporters on Jan. 7, Trump was questioned about why he won't just send more American troops to Greenland — which is legal under a Cold War–era agreement — if his goal is to fend off foreign threats. The president replied by saying that he won't feel comfortable unless he owns the island.
> "Why is ownership important here?" Times national security correspondent David E. Sanger asked.
> "Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success," Trump, 79, replied. "I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base."
> White House correspondent Katie Rogers — whom Trump recently called "ugly, both inside and out" for writing a story about his age — chimed in to ask, "Psychologically important to you or to the United States?"
> “Psychologically important for me," Trump answered. "Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything."
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/donald-trump-says-wants-...
> National security?
Plus, punishing exactlty those Nato partners who are sending military there to see how to strengthen the defense. That shows you don't want Greenland stronger, militarily. You want it weaker to have less issues when you invade it.
> We already have the right to station as many troops there as we want!
Only at Thule. The 2004 re-agreement rescinded the unrestricted establishment of bases:
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/04-806-Denm...
It significantly emasculated the 1951 agreement:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp#art2para...
It is dividing EU military resources, which potentially weakens the security of EU states against a potential invasion.
I think it's as simple as USA plus Canada plus Greenland equals bigliest country in the world
Destroying NATO is surely the goal.
One motivation is surely to humilate the European leaders which they despise.
There is a conspiracy theory Trump is under active control by blackmail by the Russian government. Moments like this make you wonder.
Sigh... this is real life and I hate it as an American. The Danes had over 50 [1] Danish lives wasted in the NATO mission in Afghanistan and Iraq and this is how we pay the Danes back when they had America's back, paid in blood.
Its so disappointing and tragic.
Danes put up a courteous face right now to get through this, but the relationship to the US is permanently harmed. Even the most pro US politicians are saying the relationship will never go back to what it was before this.
Trump has no respect for anything. He even derided US veterans. I have no idea how any patriotic person can support him.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-a...
This was 2020 and still some people who allgedely want to make America great again voted for him.
Latest - Trump is writing to Norway, blaming his not getting the nobel prize:
>Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.
>“Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway? ...
Nuts!
It really is. We’ve put children with emotional problems in charge of the U.S. military and economy. Shameful and heartbreaking. I hope we can recover and rebuild alliances but I think that will be a multigenerational task.
Goodness look at all the dead threads in here. Am I smelling bot activity?
No, posting quotas. This place became a dump where 4 responses down you get time-banned for nobody knows how long and the discussion gets nowhere. You get attacked left and right? Well, tough luck, can’t defend and explain yourself. Good luck when multiple people want to discuss anything with you. This used to be a thought provoking place. It’s a dump now.
The Americans on HN driving tech, science and innovation are enabling Trump to do this. Without you he would be nothing. Where is your integrity? Do you think having no allies makes you more safe? Is this really the world you want?
How are US tech folks more enabling Trump than anybody else who pays tax there?
Some, by working for companies (big tech) that have given little resistance to trump but rather funded his ball room, etc. Sadly, everyone quitting those companies would not really be a reasonable solution either, though there are more possible actions than that
"Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, spent more than $290 million supporting Donald Trump and his MAGA allies on the campaign trail last year." [1]
"Exclusive: How Palantir's Alex Karp went full MAGA" [2]
Look at All In Podcast - tech VCs - they are all in support of this administration.
[1] https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...
[2] https://www.axios.com/2025/10/23/trump-alex-karp-palantir-ma...
Context was "The Americans on HN driving tech, ...". I'm not sure that includes Elon.
Despite all the talk about military action, the fact is that Europe is one of the main trading partners of the US and holds a substantial share of US debt. Any invasion would be economic suicide, and I think even Trump realizes this.
I'm not convinced trump cares about economic suicide at all
Trump barely thinks about first order effects, much less second order. He probably doesn't know it's economic suicide. And when it happens he'll tell us both "nobody knows more than me" and "nobody knew global commerce was this complicated" and then he'll tell us he'll have a plan to fix it in two weeks
You're talking about someone who effused about the healing effects of ivermectin at a time when half a million of his countrymen had died of Covid.
> Any invasion would be economic suicide, and I think even Trump realizes this.
Your mistaking is in using rationality and logic.
>holds a substantial share of US deb
That's the EU's problem, not Trump's)
A mass selloff of US bonds will mean that the US can’t sell any more - because the market is suddenly flooded with bonds at a ‘discount’. This means that the US can’t take on any more debt (borrow money)
Why would you pay the US $10 when you can get the same thing from France for $8?
Or the US then has to issue bonds with massively inflated returns - i.e. pay a much higher interest rate.
>This means that the US can’t take on any more debt (borrow money)
They can literally print them
On the other hand, China sold off most of theirs and nobody even noticed. I think you're exaggerating both how much EU holds and the potential effects of them selling it.
China sold off their holdings pretty slowly as they didn’t want to drive the price down
Deutsche Bank made a statement recently that Europe holds about double what the rest of the world does combined in US bonds and equity.
Europe holds $8 trillion out of 38 trillion… they can move the market
Sure but we were talking about just debt. Also the "rest of the world" is basically just China. I don't think it's a shocker that China isn't interested in betting on US companies.
Nah, China only holds about 600bn these days. Besides European sovereign holdings, most of the rest would be non-sovereign.
Yup, that's my point. They sold off lots of debt and nobody noticed so EU doing the same won't matter.
>and nobody noticed
You didn't notice. Look at the interest rate chart[1]
[1] https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/interest-expense-avg-interes...
This idea of waging financial war on the US seems very en vogue in Europe right now, but I think it's terribly shortsighted. Here's how I think it would go down:
1. EU countries coordinate a mass selloff of US debt, somehow even coercing private holders into a fire sale.
2. US bond prices consequently fall. EU holders lose tons of money on the sell side. US and Asian buyers rush to buy and get a sweetheart deal and massive risk-free returns, which starts crashing the stock market.
3. The Fed intervenes. They conjure up dollars from nothing and buy the bonds EU holders are selling at some discount, maybe 95 cents on the dollar. Those new dollars go into those countries' and banks' Master accounts at the Fed.
4a. EU countries' and banks' Master accounts are frozen. Maybe some portion of the funds are released every week in order to allow an orderly flow of value without too much market distortion. Or maybe given the act of financial war, those funds remain frozen indefinitely.
4b. Alternatively, their Master accounts are not frozen. Now, presumably EU didn't sell all their bonds just to hold non-yielding dollars. So they'll go to the forex markets and buy up Euros, massively strengthening the Euro and fucking up their export-based economies. Maybe they buy gold, or EU sovereign debt, or ECB steps in with mad QE. EU bond yields crater. EU holders lose more money on the buy side as whatever assets they purchase get more expensive. Inflation ensues.
5. US is furious and retaliates with financial warfare of their own. Or perhaps kinetic warfare. The ringleaders of the fire sale end up blindfolded and earmuffed on a US warship.
6. EU is in a much worse position than before, lost a ton of money on each leg, likely had tons more frozen, has pernicious inflation and/or diminished exports, cut off from the dollar system making currency reserve management and forex difficult and costly. The US is also now furious and looking to impose additional costs on EU however and wherever it can.
EU has a much better tool ready, the anti coercion instrument. Party leaders in EU have been talking over the weekend about deploying it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Coercion_Instrument
No, that's the member states' problem, not of the EU. The debt is not shared.
There's an aspect of mutually assured destruction; Europe could crash the dollar, but at _huge_ cost.
Since Trump can't walk away from NATO [1], could the claim on Greenland be a ruse to force the de-facto resolution of NATO?
He probably sees Europe as too meek to do anything more dramatic/substantial. And believes that without NATO, Europe would buy more US weapons that they now get "for free".
[1] https://www.dirittoue.info/u-s-legislation-restricts-preside...
I'm not sure how attacking Greenland would accomplish the goal of more European spending on US weapons.
If indeed this turns out to be a ruse, Greenland conquest would not be Trump's end game. It would be just a performative confrontation to get rid of NATO 1.0. Who is really ready to start WW3 over Greenland?
After NATO 1.0 is declared dead and burried, Trump might as well backpedal and start negotiating NATO 2.0. Which would be light on US military commitments and heavy on European arm purchase commitments. And he seems to believe (not unjustifiably - see Nord Stream sabotage) that the European leaders are spineless enough to accept a NATO 2.0 deal.
This will not be unlike Trump's thinking: "I'll build a wall and the Mexicans will pay for it".
Wild theory, yes. But we live in wild times, unfortunately.
"Europe would buy more US weapons"
Buying weapons from an unreliable and possibly adversarial (former) partner would create strategic dependence and weaken Europe’s defense autonomy. => It would be stupid.
People are saying withhold ozempic, and sure maybe. But what about the 38 TRILLION in US debt. I'm sure the Europeans could dump that on whatever sucker wants to hold it - forcing rates into the stratosphere.
According to a Deutsche Bank report Europe holds about $8 trillion of that debt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMPe_e-WRMk&t=1s clear statement from Greenland's own too
If the EU is good at one thing, its definitely putting out statements.
The real message would be to pull out of the world cup.
Even if that happened I don’t think the USA would have a shot at the trophy.
I don't think anyone would care about these games if the European and Latin American teams decided not to come.
> I don’t think the USA would have a shot at the trophy
With Trump in power they can grab it
World cup of what sport? If the message is to Trump, I assume golf?
The sport who's leader shoved his head so far up Trump's ass he was able to taste his orange make-up. All for the sake of giving him a farce of a "peace" prize.
(I'm talking about FIFA in case you are not aware)
It would be extremely funny if they were to end one of these statements with "thank you for your attention to this matter"
Except that’s just normalizing his behaviors.
It’s not. It’s mocking.
I like my politicians to be professional.
"tHAnK yOu fOR yOuR ATteNTiOn to tHIs mATtER" then
You argued it's good for the US to shrink out export markets so goods will be cheaper at home, and that Trump is doing 4d chess. I guess at least now you are being honest and just doing straight snark like a true Trump sycophant.
What are you talking about. Trumps US-EU trade deal has been halted, and a response to Trumps 1th. feb tariffs is being drawn up right now. EU not doing anything in your head, try following the news.
And slow Bureaucracy :)
When Trump said NATO allies needed to increase defense spending, did he mean it to protect against US?
Why even make a deal with the US now if Trump just changes his mind like some senile old man?
Putin is laughing his head off. Everything he could have ever dreamed of is playing out right now.
And he's still no better off.
In what context? Personally? In rebuilding the Soviet Union? Or in the war?
Not the parent, but getting US to quit NATO won't help his European ambitions. Russia is weak now, and has solidified the European hostility for years to come.
"European hostility" is not going to matter when there's no EU. No matter how weak, Russia will always be stronger in terms of the number of warm bodies they are ready to throw into the meat grinder than any country in Europe.
UPD: If you don't believe me, look at the European right-wing leaders (including a sitting head of state, Meloni) currently banding up behind Orban, a widely known Putin's shill in Europe.
Dissolution of NATO has been his wet dream for decades. Next up is dissolution of the EU; the hard-right shift all over Europe (that he gets some credit for by financing right-wing parties and propaganda) will eventually make that dream of his come true, too.
While Trump having a go at Denmark I'm sure pleases Putin other things are not going great his way. The lines in Ukraine are kind of static in spite of huge Russian losses, their economy is bad, their ally in Venezuela got arrested, their ships are getting boarded, the Iranian government is looking shaky.
Looks like Chamberlain is refusing the Sudetenland annexation. At least for the moment.
Clearly the DJT's obsession with Greenland has to do with some short term gains of his billionaire friends and not real national interests. Similar to all his other recent shortsighted surprises. So, hold on for 3 years until he retreats into oblivion and the new POTUS reverses the situation. It happens constantly in my country when an incompetent and corrupt leadership causes temporary trouble but the next restores the longtime policy. In the meantime the 2028 Olympics will be the most interesting of the last decades.
Trump's domestic policy is a failure and taking drastic abroad (as many past administrations have done as a distraction) is also failing.
Americans, your Mad King is putting us all in grave danger. Would you please do something about it?
You have no idea what it's like to be American right now. The propaganda information war that's being waged in us is overwhelming and it appears to be working. The world needs to start preparing for a reality where the US can no longer be relied on for security or economic stability. For the sake of all of us, I hope that our European allies are taking serious steps to become more independent from US power and security.
I know there is a lot of good and brave people in the US - I lived there for a long time and call many of your compatriots good friends.
We're trying our best over here, but y'all can't give up at home either. I know it sucks and it's hard, but don't give into the temptation to just tune out. If you don't like what is happening with your country, do your best to change it - don't wait for others to do it for you!
Is 2026 the year of Polish nukes?
We are trying. Please realize that the second largest conflict (based on spending) in the world right now, behind the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is DJT’s ICE attacks on the US. That is how much he is spending to attack his own country. More than Israel spends to occupy Palestinians.
Sadly, if you look at polling, none of this is remotely unpopular with US Republican voters. Our country’s union is hanging on by tattered threads.
[flagged]
The South wasn’t punished enough after the civil war is where a lot of this stems from. There was no cleaning house like what happened with Germany after WW2.
It's easy to look at the politics of individual states as a means of breaking things up if you ignore the economics. Things get very complicated, very quickly when you set a political threshold for breaking up the country.
[flagged]
As a Dane, while slightly angry, and gravely concerned for the people of Greenland, I'm still more fearful of the safety and mental well-being of my US friends and colleague than I am for my own.
A Dane not in Greenland I suppose.
Yes, living and working in Greenland would most likely make me concerned for my future.
Our Congress and Supreme Court are beholden to him. State and Individual resistance will be treated as rebellion. The legal pathways have us waiting until elections. The line of succession is GOP 40 levels deeps.
If we successfully revolt the US doesn't survive in any form to stabilize the world built around us and there is no guarantee that the ruling party isn't MAGA-like.
The rubicon was crossed. This is the new normal.
I hope you are right but I don't have any confidence in a Democratic party controlled Congress. I have never seen a meeker group of politicians. They will struggle to get everyone on board and some of them will defect and vote with Republicans like they did recently to end the government shutdown.
Blame all the HNers who voted for this admin because they "didn't want any woke business regulations" or whatever.
Republicans love this, legally speaking we can do nothing.
Legally speaking, the Republicans have been losing in court over and over. That doesn't mitigate the damage they're doing during the lag, and the consequences for breaking the law have never been as strong as they should be when officers of the law and elected officials are the ones breaking the law.
But it is important to acknowledge the wins. They do have an effect, and that's the only path we seem to have toward slowing down the march to autocracy.
The Americans you’re trying to reach are not here. They’re in Facebook and right wing social bubbles with a constant influx of fresh slop propaganda. It’s unprecedented in the fact that it’s affecting people at the family unit level with people tearing off into political parties within families that cut off all contact from each other.
You'd be surprised how many people on HN voted for this. A lot of people seem to only care about their stock portfolio, and Trump makes number go up.
I believe you’re right but at this point it’s a single issue cult for a lot of folks. For instance, I know a very rational, personable guy that seems generally progressive on a variety of social issues but calls for the extermination of trans people with a straight face. There’s no reasoning with these people, even the ones swayed by rational opinion in other parts of their life.
That sounds extreme. Do you mean extermination as in mass murder? Or do you just mean he rejects the underlying ideology and would like to see policy that does the same?
Lined up against the wall
That's crazy, even the right-wingers aren't usually that heinous in their views.
Unfortunately our federal government is more than powerful enough to take Greenland and mow us all down.
I am genuinely sorry that Atlanticism came down to a few hundred thousand of the dumbest Midwesterners we could find.
Would that it were so easy to blame the flyover states. Almost half the people who cast votes voted for this - and at the same time voted for the status quo legislators who opt not to keep him in check.
The blame extends equally to everybody who supported this but due to the way American elections are set up, those people on the margins are “how” this happened.
It’s easier to blame the heartland than it is to think about why it happened that way, isn’t it?
I’ve long since stopped giving a fuck about why these people are the way they are.
enjoy the decline then I suppose
He won the popular vote.
...among the people who voted. There are a lot of folks who opted out that bear responsibility for the way this country and its power is being dismantled.
He wouldn't win the popular vote today! Why is it that when you call yourself a Republican, you take a very narrow margin of victory and consider it a mandate to only listen to your fanbase? I bet it feels fun at first, and there are a few people who get very wealthy and powerful as a result, but reality always comes crashing back down.
I suppose that if the talk of suspending mid-term elections bears fruit, that changes the equation.
The people who opted out do bear responsibility.
Would he win the popular vote today? Hard to know. Only the kind of people who are willing to talk to pollsters end up in polls.
Both parties tend to claim a high moral position and definitive mandate from a narrow margin of victory.
Talk of suspending mandates, third terms, and invading Greenland are exactly how he keeps winning- talk past your goal, and retreat to victory.
...with a plurality, not a majority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
You can still call your congressman, senator, local political, councilman, or someone else, spend 30 mins watching a demonstration, donate $10 to Amnesty, tell a random dude in fatigues "grateful for your service but please don't invade Greenland". The more people that do these kind of things the harder it gets for the Fascists to brand those that do as left-wing terrorists.
I’ve been tear gassed. I’m out here trying. I just know it’s gonna get a lot worse before it gets better. The regime is losing its grip and the only way out that fascists know is to escalate the violence.
Invading Greenland is a symptom of us on the ground fighting back. It’s to prove to Americans that we’re now isolated.
Don't the Americans have the second amendment to save themselves from their government?
There have been multiple instances of exactly what NRA members decry as federal tyranny: Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. At not a single one did any number of people exercising their second amendment right ever show up to actually do anything, even to peacefully protest.
The idea that the 2nd amendment exists to keep alive a threat of rebellion against a tyrannical gov't is a joke.
The truth is that on average Republicans have way more guns that Democrats.
Anecdata but… I’ve personally known many Republicans who have massive gun collections and even personal shooting ranges in their basement. I’ve never met a Democrat with any of that.
Only one side of this conflict is meaningfully armed and they are already in power.
Well 40% of the population or so approves of the administration, so it's more like "to save themselves from their government and 40% of the rest of the population". That means resorting to the 2A is, at the very best, a rather weak bet.
The second amendment almost ended the current government.
“Second Amendment solutions” are only OK to talk about if you’re a Republican (I.e. “Real American”).
I’m being sarcastic, for the record. Back during his first term, Trump talked about “second amendment people” doing something about liberal Supreme Court justices (iirc) and the right wing media treated everyone as crazy for thinking that was wildly inappropriate.
It's really interesting how the same propaganda is applied by fascist governments everywhere. The ones supporting the "nationalist" government are the patriots and the others are enemies
Apparently the right to port arms doesn't apply to take down dictorships.
We all know they fall down by showing painted signs at street demos. /s
don't forget the pink hats and furry costumes
While you're remembering things you shouldn't forget, pay attention to how the Black Panthers are out in Philadelphia, and ICE isn't messing around over here. We chased those Patriot Front clowns out immediately, too.
But yeah, focus on the peaceful citizens making their voices heard, if that makes you feel more secure about how things are going.
Literally cannot. The asymmetry of technology which we have allowed to grow and flourish makes it infeasible. Flock and other manifestations of this beast sends shivers down spines and prevents any serious resistance.
You can protest or go on strike, for example.
Refuse to buy from any company that supports the current administration (like Microsoft). End contracts where they exist.
Trump wants civil unrest, it allows him to justify his use of military force against the populace.
You can also put a bumper sticker on your car decrying world events and this would have about as much effect as your suggestions.
striking is extremely tangible compared to protesting
This thread is about effectiveness, not tangibility (which ironically proves my point).
General strikes are extremely effective
I guess I'll be the one to say it:
Having an organization that collectively bargains for the employees would be very useful right about now. I know, I know... unions can be corrupted and next thing you know, it's a legalized mob.
Well, if my choice is that or "upskill myself" and "negotiate", while ignoring the inherent and overwhelming power asymmetry that exists between an employee and the employer, I'll go with the mob; at least they have my back.
Yes I'm being glib, but there's also some truth to that. Almost all of the reasons or arguments I've seen from those who oppose unions are based on some myth or combination of myths, such as: - We don't need unions because we're 'well paid' (relatively speaking) - Unions only value seniority - Make it nye impossible to get rid of poor performers - Dark money comes in and corrupts the nomination process, now the CEO's buddy runs the union and you don't even know this is controlled opposition
Okay I'm being facetious on that last one, but seriously. We are long, long overdue for a power shift that values the workers. Emphasis on values because that word value has been cooped to be synonymous with money, and it is anything but.
As a US citizen resident of Finland, I am proud of my adoptive country. I have been so far relatively neutral-to- vaguely-supportive of MAGA wrt the culture wars, and I find Trump's posturing on Greenland appalling and disgraceful. Yes, we all know that Trump's MO is to demand something horrendous in order to secure something less horrendous, but there is no path from threatening an ally's sovereignty that leads to anything good for the US. Monstrous.
This isn’t an aberration, it’s a continuation. Trump has repeatedly done things that would have been disqualifying for any normal president: threatening allies, undermining institutions, abusing power, normalizing coercion. The reason this moment feels different to some people isn’t that the behavior changed, it’s that they’re finally among those bearing the downside. That normalization, enabled by years of “it doesn’t affect me” neutrality, is part of how we got here.
That's only part of it. It feels worse now because everything is visible. Information moves instantly. Evidence is public. Financial trails can be followed. Citizens now expect ethical behavior from their leaders as a baseline rather than a bonus. In earlier eras, people slept better largely because they didn’t know what was happening, not because leaders were more virtuous.
For decades now, elite self-dealing, institutional opacity, and captured power steadily eroded public trust. Trump did not arrive as a reformer. He arrived as a punishment mechanism. A stress test. Unfortunately, US elites are drawing the wrong lessons so far.
Watergate, Iran-Contra, Vietnam, and the Pentagon Papers were all exposed through mass media, and they triggered resignations, prosecutions, and electoral consequences. Nixon resigned for conduct far narrower than many of Trump’s actions. Reagan officials went to prison.
Trump didn’t reveal hidden corruption, he openly violated constraints that previous leaders still treated as binding. Calling him a “stress test” misstates causality. Stress tests expose weaknesses, they don’t require millions of people to excuse norm violations because the harm initially falls elsewhere. This wasn’t inevitability or opacity, it was a collective decision to lower standards.
What you’re describing is real, but it actually supports the opposite conclusion in my opinion. Watergate, Iran-Contra, Vietnam, and the Pentagon Papers were exposed because institutions, media, and elites still broadly agreed that certain lines existed. Nixon resigned because his own party, the courts, and the press treated those constraints as non-negotiable. Reagan officials went to prison because enforcement still mattered. Trump sits downstream of intervening decades of tolerated elite self-dealing, regulatory capture, and partisan blindness that have trained voters to believe that rules only ever apply selectively. When people see one side excuse its own violations for years, it lowers trust in the legitimacy of enforcement itself. Trump’s novelty is the abandoning of pretense. Calling him a symptom doesn’t excuse norm violations, but it does explain why so many people are willing to tolerate them. The collective decision to lower standards didn’t begin with Trump; it culminated in him. Stress tests don’t create weaknesses, they reveal where faith in the system has already eroded. That erosion happened long before 2016.
> Citizens now expect ethical behavior from their leaders as a baseline rather than a bonus.
Amongst the MAGA voters I know, ethical behavior is very much a “hope for” bonus than an expectation.
There is a lot of ends-justify-the-means rhetoric in that voter pool that I talk to.
There has always been an ends-justify-the-means element across the entire electorate and political class. It isn’t unique to MAGA, and it isn’t new.
All of the United States law and jurisprudence is a kludge of principle and practicality and naked self-interest. It’s an accretion of ideals layered onto compromises, expediencies, and power struggles. The Constitution itself is a bundle of moral claims stitched together with practical concessions to slave states, property interests, and elite fears of democracy.
To me, unfortunately, the mid-to-late twentieth century norm of relatively principled incorruptibility now looks less like a permanent achievement and more like a historical exception.
That period stood in contrast to much of American history before it, which was more openly transactional and tolerant of self-dealing. Think robber barons, Jacksonian patronage, open graft, speculative profiteering, outright theft of public funds, Tammany Hall. Against that backdrop, the period from roughly the 1940s to the early 1970s stands out.
What feels so unsettling today may just be a quiet reversion toward older historical norms. I'm sad to think that what once felt like progress was always just a transient anomaly.
It stopped people asking about the Epstein files.
... I don't think it stopped people from talking about it, though. That gambit has failed.
Sorry Europe. Our clown in chief will do everything to cover the Epstein files.
Trump is gonna end up destroying EU right wing parties which have been very pro-Trump exactly like he did to Pollievre.
I wonder whether UK media decide to hammer Farage over his Trump connections to screw Reform super hard.
Danish right wingers that rubbed shoulders with MAGA are trying to bury their pro trump stuff hard right now.
Farage has weaseled a distance from Trump, especially after Diego Garcia, which he is still pissed off about.
Trump wants to normalize Putinism. It's beyond disgusting. He should end up in prison for it.
He should already be in prison NOW. He’s a convicted felon.
He might end up there next year.
Too much credit. Thigs like this were done way before Putin came to power.
It was done, but it wasn't normalized. These crooks want to present it as normal. There should be a very strong push against this garbage.
It was normalized. It is just the first time in modern history when it happens to "wrong people"
The prior art was that Austrian guy who just wanted to become a painter but was rejected from joining a school.
The only way for Europe forward is actual federalization. Unfortunately right wing parties will never let it happen so entire Europe is doomed to become marginalized by China and US.
Indeed, petty national topics that are used to create fake polarization against Brussels, is what is keeping us from realizing the federation we so desperately need. I am so tired of the endless, unbased right-wing arguments from nationalists against the EU, which only exist to distract from their own incompetencies.
"I'm in the Empire Business"
[flagged]
Please don't instigate flamewars about the relative badness of superpowers on HN. We're here for curious conversation, not political/ideological battle.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46670275 and marked it off topic.
[flagged]
Let's hope you Americans will vote for the right party in the upcoming midterms. And let's hope you will even get the chance to do so.
We can hope that enough democrats win to cause gridlock and impede more harm. However, the democrats don't offer much in the way of substantive reform and have never demonstrated the stomach for taking bold stances. Whenever a candidate does come along and propose bold change, the institutional democratic party goes out of their way to sabotage or undercut them (think AOC, Sanders, Mamdani et al).
They aren't going to be able to stop the next generation of candidates. And they aren't signing up to run to maintain the institution. This year and 2028 has the potential to be the Democrat's "tea party" moment (except for decent policies instead of destroying the government policies). And it's long overdue.
I've heard this since I canvased for Obama in 2008, before I could even vote. At this point expecting change through the electoral system seems worse than a waste, its a vacuum thats sucks up the radical energy we need to get real change.
The party is already being taken over by the energy we need -- AOC, Mandami, and more. Trump going full fascist fuck is a catalyst. We can have the left-wing reaponse to the tea party that really changes the country back to decency. Or we can just sit around all defeatist and whining, because that's worked so well in the past.
I very much hope so. I changed my registration to decline to state. California has open primaries, so I can still vote in them, but I couldn't stomach being associated with stubborn, institutional failure.
The democrat establishment doesn't seem interested in change, they are like a softer version of politicians getting bought out by tech. Well-mannered, but ultimately not doing long-term thing in the interest of the wider country.
Good. Countries the size of the US don't need bold change. They need stability with change accomplished by a gentle shift in direction.
What bold change looks like is Trump. An anti-Trump government implementing bold change in the other direction would be bad too. Not as bad because more of their change would at least be toward things that would be good in the long run, but there would still be a lot of harm on the way by taking it too fast.
self-parody -- the levels of political ignorance among American voters is constantly displayed
Framing all of us who voted for and support the President’s actions as ignorant is lazy and inaccurate. There’s plenty of us that objectively analyzed the state of the country, the state of the world, and agree with the vast majority of these actions.
this online discussion format is impossible :-( I can tell you with certainty I did not think at all what you just said.. I cannot even imagine how you get that impression
There is no right party, unfortunately. The Duopoly of Democrats and Republicans rely on this illusory idea of "the other side" to maintain a stranglehold on power for both parties. The sooner we give up that idea that one side is better than the other, the sooner we can hold "both sides" accountable. The Democrats are an absolutely corrupt shit show. As are the Republicans.
Each expansion of executive power is treated as unprecedented until it becomes normalized. Before Bush, indefinite detention without trial was unthinkable. Before Obama, the executive assassination of U.S. citizens without due process was unthinkable. Before Clinton, routine humanitarian war without congressional declaration was unthinkable. Each step is later reclassified as “different,” “necessary,” or “less bad,” each step decried by the "opposition" but excused by partisans. The danger isn’t that one party does uniquely shocking things. It’s that both parties participate in a ratchet where norms only ever move in one direction supported by the rank and file. What looks like a false equivalence is actually a cumulative one: today’s outrage rests on yesterday’s precedents.
And it’s not even mainly about presidents. Fixating on the occupant of the office misses how much of this is legislative and bureaucratic drift. The real damage is often done through laws that quietly expand state power, normalize surveillance, weaken due process, or lock in perverse incentives. Presidents sign them, but Congress writes them, renews them, and funds them. That’s where the ratchet really lives.
USA PATRIOT Act (2001), Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994), FISA Amendments Act (2008), National Defense Authorization Acts with detention and secrecy expansions, Telecommunications Act (1996), Controlled Substances Act (1970), Defense of Marriage Act (1996), Welfare Reform Act / Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996). All terrible. All drafted and passed by both parties.
This is why “no one did X before” is the wrong metric. The system advances through laws and precedents that feel technical, temporary, or defensive at the time. Each one lowers the bar for the next. By the time something looks outrageous, the groundwork was laid years earlier by people insisting they were the reasonable alternative.
I think that's a false equivalent.
No Democrat president threatened to take over Greenland or took another head of state hostage without precedent.
Yes, they are corrupt and warmongers, but not nearly as harmful as the current Republican party.
We can’t. It’s over. Laws don’t mean anything anymore. Even if we had a full democratic congress, they would just be ignored. The Trump administration has already been grooming people to accept congress is useless, beginning with the month long shutdown. And the Supreme Courts will just go along with whatever the president wants now.
Start preparing for the post-American world.
This is self-destructive defeatism. It is also flat wrong on its substantive points.
The only thing congress can do is impeach and convict trump and his administration, thereby stripping him of his authority. Laws have been passed, judges have ruled, but all those are ignored. however, if he has no authority, then we get to find out who's on the side of the constitution and who is with trump and his allies.
There will be many loyalists who will just side with the Trump administration. And then what?
Turns out, when the law has failed, the only solution is a fight to the death. And after such a fight, we do not return to our normal state and live happily ever after, we remain deeply unstable and untrustworthy for decades to come.
If the Senate convicted, things would change. For one thing, I'm confident the military would not consider an impeached and convicted president as its commander in chief. And the prospect of the consequences of continuing to side with such a one would largely evaporate the availability of the administrative apparatus. Civil war would be a possible result, sure. But I disagree that such a Congress would simply be ignored and that ignoring it could be done while maintaining the means of continuing power.
> I'm confident the military would not consider an impeached and convicted president as its commander in chief.
The same ones currently blowing up shipwrecked survivors in the water in the Caribbean? A literal textbook example of a war crime? I’m not.
This is catastrophizing, not analysis. If you genuinely feel this hopeless, that's worth examining as a signal about your own mental state rather than treating it as political insight.
Part of the reason we’re in this mess is that Americans bristle at getting told which is the “right” party to vote for by internationals, the media, existing politicians, institutions…
You know, if everybody shouts at you to not do a certain thing, maybe, just maybe, they could have your best interests in mind? But instead they are being portrayed as "globalists" or whatever the mouthbreathers in the flyover states spin up today.
I really hope the US heals, quickly.
That's of course a totally valid reason to destroy your institutions, international reputation, and of course the lives of many poor people in your country. Makes sense /s
Europeans will really do anything except confront Russia and China.
A little history lesson: the US has defacto and dejure been defending Greenland since WWII (they've had a defence pact since Denmark fell to the Nazis). US bases have been on Greenland from then to the current day.
Even after Ukraine, Europe buys Russian gas. Even with all the threats from China towards Taiwan, Europeans are cozying up to them. And Europe still doesn't adequately defend itself, with a few exceptions.
While Trump is erratic in public, all recent US moves point to a confrontation with Russia/China in the near future. And Europe just sits by twiddling their thumbs. Feels like Eastern Europe and the Baltics are the only ones who take it seriously.
If only there had been a similar showing when it was Venezuela being threatened.
"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times."
Yeah, we've been here before. Empires don't necessarily fall by the hand of their enemies as much as they fall by their own hands and hubris. See: UK, Germany, Russia, historical China and other asian countries, hell even the Romans, and so on and so forth, we've had it all. Trump is nothing new, just another fool in a long line of fools.
You are getting downvoted because people see their own reflection in that statement. And they don't like what they are seeing.
It is getting downvoted because it is a well known silly trope. Generally, success reinforces itself. That’s why there have been a bunch of countries that have had multi-generational streaks of repeated success. Eventually, this feedback look can fail, but it isn’t on some predictable four generation pattern.
> Eventually, this feedback look can fail, but it isn’t on some predictable four generation pattern.
Actually, it kind of is.
See The Fourth Turning and any other book based on the Strauss-Howe generational theory.
Is this theory air-tight and inviolable? No. Does it more or less support this “silly trope”? Yes. I think it’s safe to say that it is directionally correct.
I don’t think that book was well regarded by historians. It’s more of a pop-sociology thing, right?
It's most likely because people just assume it's a misogynist quote.
Thinking in memes isn’t going to lead us to a better world.
Least we can do is downvote it.
The thing itself speaks seemingly a truth though: growing up too coddled will risk a twisted perspective of what you deserve and what's a given.
Seemingly? Do you have any indication that this is a consistent pattern in the world outside of imagination?
Rich kids with inherited wealth are always perfectly fine and reasonable people?
They overwhelmingly do better than their poorer peers, yes. Anectdote vs statistics.
If you think that it's just an imagination, the universe will make you physically feel what it really is. Not all at once, but gradually, drop by drop. And then, you'll learn the true meaning of another "meme" word: ignorance.
Or you’ll find out that strong men thinking in memes create even worse times.
In any case, that's the beauty of life: we live the consequences. Both sweet and bitter, depending on choices of the past.
Most of what happens to us is by chance, not by choice. And when it's by choice, its often not our own choice.
This is what they want you to believe. You are useful and convenient when you are malleable (to someone's else agenda aka "their choice"). Ideally, you should not practice any discernment at all, raise no questions, silence any suspicions. As if it's all by sheer coincidence and predefined by external forces ("chance").
Straight out of "Manipulators' Handbook 101".
You're the one not raising questions about this nonsensical maxim. It seems neat to you so you accept it as truth uncritically.
It's not the truth. It's an observation, one of many. It does not look neat, it looks horrible. However, I am ok to give it a deeper nuanced appreciation than to just negate it right off the bat.
The annoying part is when I’ve got to live with the consequences of someone else’s choices.
Thinking in memes is exactly what the right is doing. It’s short, succinct and pretty much a termination point for all further thought on the matter.
When the next terrorist attack happens on US soil, who will be surprised?
I think the administration's real goal isn't taking over Greenland. I think it's scaring the EU enough about the possibility the US might take over Greenland that the EU pays to fortify it so the US doesn't have to. (Somebody needs to fortify it, because the world is warming and it will become a strategically important trade choke point when a Northwest Passage opens up.)
Just like Trump being hot-and-cold on Ukraine. The administration's real goal isn't the US letting Russia take over Europe or even Ukraine. The goal is to scare the EU enough about the possibility the US might let Russia take over Europe or Ukraine that they start paying the expense of making sure that doesn't happen.
Greenland only has a population of 56k. If the US really wanted to buy Greenland, it should suggest a referendum whether Greenland should be annexed by the US, then pass a law that says the US will give each Greenlander $1 million if the referendum passes. I'm sure it would pass in a landslide and it would only cost $56 billion, which seems much lower than the price of trying to capture it militarily.
I don't know if I understand, grasp or agree with the geopolitics in your comment, but the weather in the north has indeed been getting nicer as of late; last summer I spent quite some time swimming in the beach without wearing thermal suits or anything at all really. So if anybody thinks that living in US is a tough bite to swallow lately, emigrating to Scandinavia or Iceland is not such a bad thing. Greenland though is still a little too tree-less and bare for my taste, and there my wild speculation[^1] is that the current US administration is looking for some harsh hell to set up forced labor camps to send anybody they don't like.
[^1] With NATO, the security reason given by US makes no sense. And as for natural resources, I'm sure there are perfectly legal and inexpensive mechanisms that US companies can use to set up mining operations in Greenland.
That would be a horrible deal for the Greenlanders, and they know it - there were polls recently and Vance was pretty much told that when he visited there.
The US is allowed for decades to have a military presence on Greenland, but the US Army has been diminishing it's presence as the time went by.
Up it to $5 million per Greenlander then. The US can afford to pull the trigger on a $250-$280 billion acquisition. The EU can't afford to counter it. To put that sum into perspective for the US economy: that's merely 2.x years of operating income for Google. There's no scenario where the people of Greenland reject that $250b offer in a free vote.
Sure they would, because it's fucking stupid. There's no need to entertain such fucking stupid thoughts, just say no to how stupid it is and move on.
Where is that money coming from? The defense budget is 800B - this is a major budget item just throwing money in the trash along with most of your alliances
Dear Leader already asked for something like 1.6 trillion for the military budget, but that probably doesn't even cover this.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-defense-spending-3bbea1ccc6...
Politically if he gave out $5mil per Danish citizen in Greenland he would face an actual revolt at home.
They still wouldn't want to live in the Nazi Shithole then. This approach might work under another administration
>US might take over Greenland that the EU pays to fortify it so the US doesn't have to
Does not make sense. Denmark had already budgeted with a huge increase of military capabilities on Greenland. If US wanted more they could talk with their allied.
And the 'lol just pay them' argument is tone deaf and insulting to the Greenlanders. If you followed along you would know that they have already stated that they would not take money. To say nothing about the laws that governs the Kingdom and the process of leaving the it. Which can not be deferred by paying anyone. But I guess americans have a really hard time understanding the rule of law now.
The goal in Ukraine for the US is to bleed Russia. While Russia is busy in Ukraine, it's losing its influence and positions, from Syria to Iran.
The ideal for the US superpower right now, is to collapse Iran's regime while Russia is kept busy in Ukraine. It's unable to lend support to prop up its allies. The peace efforts are fake, meant to maintain a constant back and forth that never really goes anywhere. The US system has been focused on trying to strip Russia out of that region for decades, since before 9/11. Iraq was about Russia. Syria was about Russia. The first Gulf War was about decimating the Soviet supplied Iraqi army with the latest generation of US weapons, to put them to the test.
Most of the agenda exists from one administration to the next. The Pentagon works on its strategic aims across decades (see Bush & Obama & Trump and pivoting against China).
The US superpower is interested in the great power conflicts, it's not interested in Iraq because of oil, or Venezuela because of oil. It's about Russia and China, the other components (oil, chips, weapons, etc) are mere strategic calculations on the board.
Ah yes, the "Donald Trump is playing 4D chess" story his supporters have been repeating since 2016.
This comment assumes Trump has some grand plan and is playing 4D chess.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
I wonder how Americans will feel if they get treated like how Muslims were treated after 9/11
How were Muslims treated? I don't remember anything other than isolated incidents.
Oh geez I didn't mean in that way. More the social stigma that permeated in that time.