I am beginning to think "Greenland" is a wedge to undermine NATO; it is a ruse used to unravel the NATO alliance. If "Greenland" doesn't divide NATO, maybe the next ruse is for the US to unilaterally claim large chunks of the Arctic Ocean that violates the territorial sovereignty of other allies.
1. As part of Nato Greenland is already protected by such aggression. The idea of anybody triggering WW3 over Greenland is ludicrous as anything interesting there it's easily obtainable just by...putting money on the table. I'm sure Greenlanders will welcome royalties while you mine or do whatever in such a terrible environment.
2. Neither of the two has any military capabilities to conduct military operations in such a place and so distant from their countries. So close to North America moreover. Just to put it in perspective: Greenland is closer to Boston, and by a significant margin, than it is to any major Russian port.
3. While Russia has a long history of aggression and territorial expansion, anybody who's intimate with Chinese history knows well that an aggression on Greenland makes no sense and does not fit any pattern seen in the history of China.
The countries that have legitimate reasons to worry about Chinese aggression are those that were part of China in the pre colonial era: Taiwan, Kyrgyzstan, most of southern Siberia and Mongolia. This is why, e.g. China has annexed Tibet, but never gave two damns about neighbouring countries it could grab in an afternoon like Nepal: never been part of China, they don't care.
As a European, this is genuinely alarming. Headlines like this make me feel that NATO is effectively over at best, and that war may be approaching at worst.
`”fundamental disagreement" between the Trump administration and European allies.`
It saddens me to see how so many years of collaboration wasted on this. We were at peace, we worked together. What is this even for? Can't the US just focus on its existing problems instead of creating new ones?
11 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 31.2 ms ] thread> Germany will deploy a reconnaissance team of 13 personnel to Greenland on Thursday, its Defense Ministry said.
Any sarcastic comments about these numbers?
1. As part of Nato Greenland is already protected by such aggression. The idea of anybody triggering WW3 over Greenland is ludicrous as anything interesting there it's easily obtainable just by...putting money on the table. I'm sure Greenlanders will welcome royalties while you mine or do whatever in such a terrible environment.
2. Neither of the two has any military capabilities to conduct military operations in such a place and so distant from their countries. So close to North America moreover. Just to put it in perspective: Greenland is closer to Boston, and by a significant margin, than it is to any major Russian port.
3. While Russia has a long history of aggression and territorial expansion, anybody who's intimate with Chinese history knows well that an aggression on Greenland makes no sense and does not fit any pattern seen in the history of China.
The countries that have legitimate reasons to worry about Chinese aggression are those that were part of China in the pre colonial era: Taiwan, Kyrgyzstan, most of southern Siberia and Mongolia. This is why, e.g. China has annexed Tibet, but never gave two damns about neighbouring countries it could grab in an afternoon like Nepal: never been part of China, they don't care.
`”fundamental disagreement" between the Trump administration and European allies.`
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46631848
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46617108
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624266
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46634263
For the first time since 1783, there are now "Hessians" (German state troops) in North America with their guns pointed at the United States.