Trump annexing Greenland

Stick to your party. Call it the "human rights" party for all I care. Just understand that I'm not joining it.

You weren't invited.

You've never been invited to a party.

You never will be.

Trump is good at finding excuses to invade a country. Seriously, what did Greenland do? Who the hell wakes up one day and thinks "we should invade Greenland"?

So what happens when one NATO country invades another? When non-NATO country invades a NATO country, the country in NATO gets to activate NATO's defense, and gets defended by all NATO countries.

But yeah, they didn't predict the scenario where Americans elect some retard who invades another member of NATO and creates an impossible to solve scenario where activating NATO defense leads to collapse of NATO.

Don't see it happening. That would be stupid.

I think Trump is using his comments as a mantra to make it come true. If you say something for sure as though you are going to do it no matter what, it will materialise.

I believe Trump is at war with china and russia and want to deny them the hemisphere.

People get hung up on Trump’s personality and miss that underneath, the worldview is blunt but legible: you don’t have to win everywhere on the globe, but you just can’t let geopolitical powerhouse rivals set up shop nearby where it permanently breaks you.

Can't he do this to Cuba? The Bahamas? I'd like to get some nice beaches out of the ordeal. Let's keep with the Caribbean theme and steer clear of the Arctic. Swaying palms, sugarcane, and cigars are more my speed.

I believe the USA had some kind of crisis in the 60's where Russia agreed to not colonize Cuba. USA has no such agreements elsewhere in their hemisphere.

People get hung up on Trump’s personality and miss that underneath, the worldview is blunt but legible

No, it’s really not. The world is a complex and nuanced place, which means anyone can rationalize a position on any given issue and make it sound defensible. That is what makes Trump so dangerous, he brings this fake made for TV genius persona to really stupid ideas, and because people actually think he’s smart he’s able to get away with spreading them.

All of the benefits Trump is talking about with respect to Greenland, the US is already enjoying, and invading them would almost certainly topple NATO and along with it, the international world order we created after WW2 to which we have been its primary beneficiary. It’s a monumentally stupid move, but Trump doesn’t have the attention span to be able to understand that.

My bias is agaisnt stealing land from our allies. But r so sure the rest of nato suddenly drop the usa ? That'd be like walking right into putins arms, potentially.

I'd argue that NATO no longer has America's shared interests down many dimensions, socially, economically, or security-wise, especially if you define “shared interests” as aligned incentives rather than historical commitments. In fact, investing capital into NATO is without question, a path toward a regression of American power. Every dollar sent to prop up NATO's interests is money that cannot then be used for American interests to contain Russia or China, and may indirectly help prop them up through bad NATO actors, of which there are many.

NATO lets Americans feel like power is being exercised collectively rather than decisively. It scratches to itch for Americans raised to believe collectivism is an inherent good in all cases. It feels safer, more moral, more “international.” But safety and virtue don’t equal strength. National power grows when invested capital produces real global leverage, not when it preserves comforting emotional structures.

So when people say “NATO makes America great,” what they usually mean is “NATO makes America feel legitimate.” Those are not the same thing. For a nuanced person, when NATO incentives diverge far enough from America's interests, legitimacy becomes a money sink, and not a force multiplier. See German purchases of Russian petroleum for Exhibit A.

For someone who declared this a nuanced issue, you don't show it here.

NATO, like all things needs to be constantly updated to get with the current times. NATO has changed a lot, and so has America.

The key point isn’t “NATO bad” or “NATO good.” It’s that static institutions in a dynamic world decay into inertia due to basic entropy. NATO appears unable to realign incentives with current American interests. Updating involvement in NATO and with allies isn’t optional; it’s mandatory. Otherwise, maintenance becomes regression by default. The institution of NATO is propped up with bureaucratic legitimacy and not actual policies that help America. A case in point is the Euro tariff policy implemented in 1968. The European Union has, for over half a century, enforced a unified tariff wall against everyone outside the bloc, including the U.S., which is a key part of NATO, while simultaneously benefiting from U.S. security guarantees through NATO. That’s not a beneficial alignment. That’s structural asymmetry since 1968.

I believe Trump is at war with china and russia and want to deny them the hemisphere.

People get hung up on Trump’s personality and miss that underneath, the worldview is blunt but legible: you don’t have to win everywhere on the globe, but you just can’t let geopolitical powerhouse rivals set up shop nearby where it permanently breaks you.

So, the message to China and Russia is this is our hemisphere, and we will do what we want militarily in our hemisphere, you stay in your hemispheres.

Trump just authorized China to take Taiwan, and Russia to take Ukraine.

And the message to American Citizens is don't get in ICE's way or they will shoot you in the face.

If Trump doesn't get the Nobel Peace Prize soon, he is gonna bomb the shit out of Sweden.

Let's be realistic. The only thing stopping China from taking Taiwan is Taiwan. USA isn't in any position to do anything about that in any practical manner except to deny China any US interests in Taiwan by securing assets in a practical manner. It's the difference between deterrence theater and deterrence reality. And Ukraine was lost in 2014 to US interests, whether the US recognized it or not. It was lost because the country fractured internally in a way that permanently broke U.S. leverage. Everything since then has been a monumental money sink, intended or not.

And I find it wildly humorous that your party does a performative song and dance on your capital steps one day out of the calendar year supporting law enforcement, and then goes on mass media to tell Americans that it is okay to attack them the other 364 days. Leaders model behavior, and when they publicly obstruct, delegitimize, or expel a law-enforcement agency, they are teaching the public what is socially acceptable. The blood is on their hands for attempting a mini-civil war against the federal government for short-term political gains.

So, the message to China and Russia is this is our hemisphere, and we will do what we want militarily in our hemisphere, you stay in your hemispheres.

This isn't a new message; the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary have been around a lot longer than Trump.

But r so sure the rest of nato suddenly drop the usa ?

It’s not that simple. NATO would still exist, possibly in its current form, but it would be rendered effectively useless. NATO is a military alliance, think of it as an international gang formed through a common interest in world peace. It is only as strong as the commitment each member state (especially the more powerful ones) have to the alliance. The US suddenly deciding to attack unprovoked a NATO ally destroys that trust in an instant. And being the most powerful state in the group as well as the global leader of this effort, that would cause trust in the entire institution to fail.

If Putin then decides to attack Poland, what will the rest of NATO do? Will they stand up and engage in war with Russia? Not unless they trust that the rest of their allies will be there to have their back. Without that, no one responds and the alliance is officially toppled.

I'd argue that NATO no longer has America's shared interests down many dimensions, socially, economically, or…

NATO is a military alliance. It has nothing to do with aligning social or economic interests, that’s something else entirely.

Or militarily. Since it doesn't care about keeping Russia in check, or is actually actively building Russia up like Germany is, there is no need to support them anymore, as it's indirectly helping Russia.

If Putin then decides to attack Poland, what will the rest of NATO do?

Probably the same since 2014. Harsh words and open palms waiting for the cash. This is why Poland is building their own military since 2014 because they already know NATO is a scam agreement and wholly unreliable.

Someone is desperate for attention (and it's the person who used this line first, aka you)!

LOL, you have turned boring posts that nobody cares about into an art form, I'm sure your desperation comes from knowing nobody gives a shit.

All of your posts say the same thing, "Mommy Mommy, look at me, look at me".

But nobody gives a shit.

Since it doesn't care about keeping Russia in check, or is actually actively building Russia up like Germany is, there is no need to support them anymore, as it's indirectly helping Russia.

You are deeply ignorant about the topics you speak of. The very reason NATO exists is because of the threat Russia poses on the international stage, and it’s destruction is Putin’s greatest dream, which is certainly one of the biggest reasons he launched a cyber campaign in 2016 to elect Trump.

This is why Poland is building their own military since 2014 because they already know NATO is a scam agreement and wholly unreliable.

How is it a scam? When has NATO ally ever been attacked and its member states did not respond?

My bias is agaisnt stealing land from our allies. But r so sure the rest of nato suddenly drop the usa ?

They would have no choice but to drop the US from NATO, fundamentally the NATO agreement is that anyone who attacks a NATO country is attacking all NATO countries and become the enemy of all of NATO. If Trump moves against Greenland, he is demonstrating that the US is no longer part of NATO. It would also demonstrate the US is no longer honoring the Monrow Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary. Trump's messaging is clearly that he will not be constrained by the NATO agreement, the Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt Corollary, International Law, or the US Constitution. Trump's consistent second term message is that he will not honor the international agreements the US has in place.

That'd be like walking right into putins arms, potentially.

That is probably Trump's intent, he has not hidden his desire to pull out of NATO, and he has stated multiple times that as far as the US is concerned, Putin can do whatever he wants.

Trump has made it pretty clear to our allies that he doesn't care about the interests of our allies, which is to say, we are no longer their ally. Trump has turned America First into America alone; he has pretty much convinced the entire world that the US can't be trusted.

Objectively, if NATO were a sufficient and reliable standalone defense mechanism, then Poland would have had zero incentive to go full Israel/Swiss with their military buildup since 2014. The fact that Poland did exactly that is strong evidence that alliances are not trusted to stop first contact, only to allegedly shape what happens after it. As a deterrent tool, it's proven not nearly as reliable as the actual military buildup Poland chose to rely on. Putin tested the resolve of NATO in 2014 and predicted this correctly. NATO is, evidently, since 2014, a dog-and-pony show meant to fool the uneducated, but for the sake of argument, I will steelman your position that NATO remains a valid vehicle for logistical support in the region. That still leaves NATO sorely lacking in value for deterrence. For those Americans and Canadians indoctrinated into feeling secure over actual security, NATO is a no-risk fan club. Poland obviously can't afford that cost-benefit analysis. The US and Canada should have withdrawn the very year NATO members imposed the Eurozone tariff, or at least after the 2014 failures, because the costs of such a tariff far outweigh the deterrence benefits of NATO then and today. Maybe the pre-2014 fees to the Eurozone were worth it when the paper tiger still held some bite, but definitely not after 2014. To steelman your argument, the 2014 NATO response in Poland should have been to quickly build up UK/French/German bases in Poland and NATO troops massively assembled in hundreds of thousands along the border instead of having Poland go at it alone. That's not a practical functioning alliance. Instead, what happened was rhetoric and toothless sanctions. Symbolism optimized for theoretical alliance cohesion, not practical battlefield math. Poland correctly read that as: no one in NATO is going to absorb the first hit for us.

And here you are, commenting.

So why would 100k Americans want to go live in a freezer?

So why would Trump et al want to annexe a freezer.

Hmmm I'm guessing it's rather a lot to do with what's stored under the freezer.

That and global megalomaniacal paranoia.

Trump is strongly interested in taking Greenland. The main reason is that he is worried about the situation which China or Russia might invade

Greenland in the future. Trump ``wants to take over Greenland either by buying the autonomous island territory or by using military force ,

calling it a matter of national security despite fierce pushback from Greenland,Denmark and European allies.`` 1)

Trump thinks that Greenland has great oil resources. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee says

that ``there is no reason for a negotiation around who controls Greenland because Greenland and the United States and Denmark have been

allies. We share same values, we have worked cooperatively together. `` 2)

Vice President Vance says that ``we know that there are hostile adversaries that have shown a lot of interest in that particular territory, that

particular slice of the world.``3)

These days the leaders of Great Powers Like the U.S., China and Russia are exerting enormous influence in regions or areas which would

bring about many benefits for them from the global viewpoint of economy, politics, commerce and trade in the future.

In particular, the U.S. President Trump prioritizes on exerting hegemonic power by strengthening further diplomatic and military power which

surpasses that of China and Russia.

1), 2), 3) ABC News, January 10, 2026.

So why would 100k Americans want to go live in a freezer?

If we wanted to do that, we certainly don't need to go all the way to Greenland, there's a frozen wasteland just across our northern border.

So why would Trump et al want to annexe a freezer.

Hmmm I'm guessing it's rather a lot to do with what's stored under the freezer.

That's certainly the trend lately, conquer Venezuela, take the oil, conquer Greenland, and take the resources, it's the main thrust of Trump's foreign policy.

That and global megalomaniacal paranoia.

That goes without saying, first thing he'll do is rename it, Donaldland, Trumpistan, something like that, THEN he will loot it.