This 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.
its bad optics for both US and Europe that neither side insists on holding a referendum, how can I know what the local population wants for themselves?
Its damning when neither Europe nor US insists on a referendum, and the population in Greenland is the new soccer ball...
> 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.
Yes. US is burning a lot of goodwill and soft power in the last year.
For a lot of countries China doesn't seem so bad now. Specially when the the difference between human rights in US and China are becoming smaller
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.
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.
Not American. Also: reputational damage isn’t a skin that sheds when a government changes; allies and markets adapt structurally.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The situation with Taiwan will explode because putinism is being normalized. Welcome to the dark era.
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.
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).
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
Doesn't Ozempic already have competition on the market?
Not really, probably a majority of Americans look down on people using Ozempic
If everyone in EU aggrees to not let their teams attend Fifa World Cup this year trump would be quite mad, maybe that’s an option.
Also why is this post not on the front page anymore even tho it should be when looked at points, comments and time?
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?
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.
Yes, in case of an actual war the US soldiers on those bases would quickly become prisoners of war.
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 Mexico should take back California. They need it, and I’m sure they appreciate it more.
I think they should try. Conflict with the US worked out so well last time. How much territory do they want to lose this time?
As an Army veteran, I find this kind of keyboard warrioring to be insanely cringe.
The “last time” was 20 years after Mexico had secured their independence from Spain and a few years after fending the military was worn down fending off incursions from France. Mexico was barely able to control or defend northern territories from indigenous tribes at the time, never mind a full country’s military.
It was also nearly 180 years ago and has no bearing on modern conflict.
Fragility like this is not a small cause of this mess
Like most things.. risk-reward.. and different times. 180 years ago, the dollar and power was different.
Right now? Trump is risking a worldwar trying to save the dollar/energy/make the history books.
They can take Texas back while they're at it. Or perhaps Elon wants to take it.
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.
World cup of what sport? If the message is to Trump, I assume golf?
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.
"tHAnK yOu fOR yOuR ATteNTiOn to tHIs mATtER" then
It’s not. It’s mocking.
I like my politicians to be professional.
This "EU is weak" rhetoric straight from right-wing Twitter is exactly what's fueling Trump and Miller. China already called Trump's bluff, EU will too. We'll see how long the US economy is going to last when it can't even fund its own government.
Don't worry, we've not funded our government for a while now. National debt out front should have told ya
You are reliant on the kindness of strangers to fund your government spending.
That's true for all governments who issue treasuries. For the US it's the kindness of the Japanese, the Chinese and the British. But mostly their own kindness.
Don't worry, you're either arguing with useful idiots or pathetic SOBs working in a propaganda unit in russia.
The problem is that if no one responds to such idiots, even more idiots might be swayed into their direction.
"We'll see how long the US economy is going to last when it can't even fund its own government."
This is fantasy thinking, projection of a subjective wish.
The dollar is the global reserve currency and is under no serious threat to be displaced (and no, the dollar dropping back to where it was a couple of years ago vs the Euro, is not a meaningful event).
The US economy is by far the world's largest and now dwarfs the Eurozone.
To answer your question: the US economy is going to last a very long time yet. So far it has lasted hundreds of years. Please provide a comparison to any other economy that has lasted so long and done so well. You'll be able to name two or three examples maximum.
In the moment people tend to get hyper emotional, hyperbolic. They think something fundamental is changing. That's almost always nothing more than personal subjective projection of what they want to have happen, rather than an objective assessment of reality. Back in reality the US has survived and thrived through drastically worse than anything going on in the present. The Vietnam era was far worse both socially/culturally and economically. WW2 was drastically worse. The Civil War was drastically worse. The Great Depression was drastically worse. But oh yeah sure, the US superpower is about to end any day now.
Europe survived 2 devastating home wars in the last 100 years, a lot of it was under Soviet occupation, and has smaller natural deposits. The US economy is being propped-up by cheap credit and blitzscaling of tech, and the money is running out. Those companies have to start making money, and the european market is critical to that. The rest of the US market is stagnant at best. The US consumer market is being held up by the top 10% of spenders. The real US economy is disconnected from the stock market and GDP. The average US consumer is weak, and the US is not going to last a trade war with EU and China. Meanwhile the EU signing trade deals.
"survived" - millions and millions were killed.
The geographical land mass of Europe will of course survive anything bar a collision with another planet, if this is what you're referring to.
Don't forget, wars really end much much later. The civil war endet in 31. March 2020
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irene_Triplett
> To answer your question: the US economy is going to last a very long time yet. So far it has lasted hundreds of years.
How old is the US?
> The dollar is the global reserve currency and is under no serious threat to be displaced
Everybody leavs the dollar since a while.
The US economy is currently to overwhelming extent a bunch of tech companies betting hard on that AI will revolutionize everything. With huge circular economy. Once that bubble bursts, you'll see where you really stand
The problem is deeper than economics. It’s the festering wound of reconstruction turning putrid. It doesn’t have to be the end of the US, but it certainly can be.
Also, I’m not sure the US economy was even great for most of the periods you mentioned. The question of if the US survives to have the same economic standing that it did in the 1800s is not that compelling
> They think something fundamental is changing
What is not fundamental about the end of NATO? What is not fundamental about the US actively working to give up its role as global hegemon? The US may survive but that doesn't mean it's not fundamental.
I swear you yanks playing down every single thing that Trump does, as if history has ended, are insane.
The USA will reap what it is currently sowing and it frankly will deserve it.
Perhaps the EU shouldn’t be posting this stuff if they don’t want to be perceived that way.
1 glance at the timeline shows this is a pro-Russian Twitter account.
One of the best things about this trade war is that we may finally be able to ban toxic yank shit like X full of retarded crap that only Americans are stupid enough to take seriously. Get fucked.
and you people wonder why we don’t want this x cancer in the EU, fuck off
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 :)
Why don't you go charge your iPhone with your USB-C charger, that 3rd party app store is draining it's battery.
Still the funniest thing when Americans hate our democratic freedom to decide how companies that sell products here have to behave. Go EU!
Looks like Chamberlain is refusing the Sudetenland annexation. At least for the moment.
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.
I think it's as simple as USA plus Canada plus Greenland equals bigliest country in the world
> 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.
It is dividing EU military resources, which potentially weakens the security of EU states against a potential invasion.
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 and the discussion gets nowhere.
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.
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
> 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 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.
>This means that the US can’t take on any more debt (borrow money)
They can literally print them
No, that's the member states' problem, not of the EU. The debt is not shared.
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...
Why even make a deal with the US now if Trump just changes his mind like some senile old man?
When Trump said NATO allies needed to increase defense spending, did he mean it to protect against US?
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 negative European response for years to come.
Trump's domestic policy is a failure and taking drastic abroad (as many past administrations have done as a distraction) is also failing.
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.
This comment assumes Trump has some grand plan and is playing 4D chess.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
>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.
Ah yes, the "Donald Trump is playing 4D chess" story his supporters have been repeating since 2016.
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.
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.
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?
"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...
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.
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.
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.
Maybe your country's union was a bad idea? Feels like it's allowed the regressive parts to keep control over the greater whole. Maybe y'all should've just let secession happen - at least the worst parts of America would've been contained.
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.
I encourage you to watch or read the Handmaid’s Tale if you want to see what that could look like.
Pretty rich considering Denmark force-sterilized the native peoples of Greenland. Leftist/Communist governments are far more likely to dictate birth policy than any right wing government. See also the One Child Policy in China.
Are you familiar with America's history with eugenics? Contemporary with Denmark's human rights abuses in Greenland you're bringing up (1960's–70's), America's government was doing very much the same thing, to their own vulnerable minorities.
> "Between the span of the 1930s to the 1970s, nearly one-third of the female population in Puerto Rico was sterilized; at the time, this was the highest rate of sterilization in the world.[120] "
> "An estimated 40% of Native American women (60,000–70,000 women) and 10% of Native American men in the United States underwent sterilization in the 1970s.[125]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States ("Eugenics in the United States")
I am aware. Happened when the government was mostly controlled by Democrats/leftists. Makes sense they were against desegregation.
There were never any leftists in control of the US government. Please don't spread FUD.
Those sterilized during Nazi rule would like a word.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don't the Americans have the second amendment to save themselves from their government?
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
It was effectively neutered in almost all juristictions, mostly with "assault" weapon bans.
The average Waco wacko can’t possible to fight even a small contingent from the local national guard, let alone a military with trillions of dollars of meteriel
All the assault weapons you can store in your shed are useless when an f35 takes them out from 300 miles away.
> an f35 takes them out from 300 miles away.
Ah yes, and if I recall, that is how the US won in Vietnam ... oh wait. Your comment is a perfect example of the very problem I described.
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.
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.
Blame all the HNers who voted for this admin because they "didn't want any woke business regulations" or whatever.
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).
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.
Has nothing to do with my stock portfolio but I do appreciate you acknowledging that plenty of Hacker News readers like me are conservative.
The assumption of left wing political consensus on this platform is astonishing at times.
I don't think anyone's ever assumed left wing consensus here. When's the last time you heard somebody here talk about public ownership of the means of production?
Well I'm here but my comments get down voted and flagged. Hn is its own bubble. AMA
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.
"I'm in the Empire Business"
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.
> 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.
It stopped people asking about the Epstein files.
... I don't think it stopped people from talking about it, though. That gambit has failed.
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.
The prior art was that Austrian guy who just wanted to become a painter but was rejected from joining a school.
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"
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
Personally I find all of the pretense and posturing around these issues both comical and concerning. The Arctic Circle is opening, and Chinese and Russian pressure will increase. At this time, there is no sign that Canada and the European nations will be in a position to even put up a shadow of resistance to it.
Russia can barely hold its own in a war against a neighboring country 30x smaller than them. Do people really still think they are a threat on the global stage anymore? China, yes, but their tactic is economic rather than military. And they are already winning in that front considering how dependent the rest of the world is on their manpower and manufacturing.
It's pretty clear that going forward the only real military threat the rest of the world has to concern itself with is the USA.
> Personally I find all of the pretense and posturing around these issues both comical and concerning
> There is no sign that Canada and the European nations will be in a position to even put up a shadow of resistance to it.
Same for the US. There has been ample reporting about how there is no shipbuilding capacity in the US (but there still is in Europe).
Don't worry, the US is ordering icebreakers from Finland (which will now get hit by with a 25% tariff).
There wouldn't have been a problem if the US would've just done a deal go deploy all their stuff on Greenland, hell, even a whole autonomous military zone or something?
But nooooo, they gotta buy the whole thing like it's Alaska or something.
I don't get it. Especially because now Russia/China will actually get real interested in the Arctic, plus that they now have an opportunity to disrupt the alliance and delegitimize NATO etc.
They don’t even need a deal, the agreements have been in place since sometime in the 1950s.
Like Trump, I too am a (albeit, small-time) real estate guy. Ownership gives me tingles that renting could never give me. You rent a place for 30 years, diligently pay rent, and in the end you own nothing? Pshaw.
I get it, but the world doesn't run on hard power, it runs on soft power.
The US could simply invade Greenland if it actually refuses to let them stay there, or if an adversary tries to take it over.
That's why I'm so appalled. There is no such imminent threat which would force such a transaction to take place.
Subtle deals like the one I was talking about won't fly as justifications to take action against the US by Russia/China, nor will it up tensions unlike this drama.
Trump wants to acquire Greenland and rent it back to the Greenlanders.
I guess from the point of view of Europeans and Canada, the Arctic Circle is opening and Chinese, Russian and US pressure will increase. I hear they found a new powerful enemy recently.
If only there was some sort of military alliance that covered the northern Atlantic.
This comment shows why the damage done by Trump will be so hard to reverse, no matter who's in charge next. When Trump talks about taking Greenland, the answer should be "no, moron, it's effectively a part of NATO", and instead you get all this muddying analysis of the strategic signifficance of Greenland, history, and how the EU is weak.
Trump is a symptom. The US cannot be trusted because we will always be one US election away of this bullshit again, because there are a lot of people there that actually agree with this.
The EU should be untangling itself from the US as quickly as possible. Any dependency on it is a major security risk.
The US used to have multiple military bases in Greenland during the Cold War. It has closed most of them and is down to one.
It could, at any time, reopen them and move troops there under existing agreements, or build more. Nobody would bat an eyelid.
To pretend this is about defence is nonsense. It’s about taking territory.
The Danish demanded we close those bases and get out fast or they might still be there.
As far as I know that is not true. Source?
When the next terrorist attack happens on US soil, who will be surprised?
> ... principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity
What about the US itself? Is it allowed sovereignty and territorial integrity or should the borders be wide open to tens of millions of illegals?
And what about the UK? And France?
Where are the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity for these countries vs the mass illegal migrations?
Or do these concept only exist in the mind of europeans when the US want to seize Groenland but do not exist when we're talking about the middle-east and africa massively moving into the EU (and US to some extent)?