I have to assume that MAGA thinks they are tough, and because their free speech blocks out anything they disagree with, they haven't realised the utter ridicule being piled on them for Trump accepting the Peace Prize and now threatening to impose tariffs on his own people for NATO members defending NATO members.
Starmer has held this line that Trumpler is our ally and can do business. Please can that now be dropped?
Starmer's position is impossible - of course - and the only course for the moment it broadly to keep in line - it doesn't have to be exact - with the approach of France and Germany in particular and Canada/EuroNATO in general. We shall be in a n impossible position together. What is not good, unless you absolutely have to is: https://www.johndclare.net/images/wwii1.alone.jpg
Starmers position is simple - made so by Trump.
Trump is President of the United States and has issued an ultimatum to his NATO allies. NATO is quickly pulling together into a form excluding the US.
This isn’t going to be military war. Trump doesn’t need military action to steal Greenland. And NATO isn’t going to get into a battle with the US.
What we need to do now is unanimously and directly tell Trump why happens next. We eject the US from NATO. And we eject the US from our financial systems. US Treasury Bonds are going to zero and with it the US economy.
European nations should remove their national soccer teams from the World Cup and encourage clubs to refuse to release players for non European nations, where contracts permit, until this is solved.
Trump intervention being seen as attempt at trading Greenland as a price for Western security [Nato] & economic [tariff deals] alliance…
Europe at this time, responding with uncharacteristic uniformity, from London to Berlin:
“No, Non, Nein”:
In the same thread, it’s Mark Carney to blame !!
“ Did Mark Carney turning up in Beijing, and increasing trade with Xi when world had been warned by US admin “it’s China vs the world”, essentially serve as an “emperors new clothes” moment for world power, and help provoke this utterly astonishing intervention from Pres Trump?”
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
His base is like 35% at best at the moment.
If 75% of Americans are opposed to taking Greenland, then that means that either the MAGA base is smaller than that, or a chunk of MAGA is not onboard.
Even the president’s partisans are about evenly divided, with 50% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents saying they support it and 50% opposed. Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are deeply against the move, with 94% opposed overall, including 80% who say they strongly oppose it. About 8 in 10 independents who don’t lean toward either party are also opposed.
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
You are absolutely right. The PB consensus embarrassing themselves tonight by not understanding the intellectual basis of what Trump is doing.
That's a very odd interpretation. I agree with Dura Ace's comment completely about it being popular with his base and that others like the UK might get behind such international dick waving if it had the power to do so, so by your logic I do understand the intellectual basis of it. I nonetheless think it is irrational, pretextual, and damaging.
Indeed, Dura's comments appears to support the idea the purported 'intellectual' reasons you've raised are not real, just pretexts, by framing it as popular as an exercise of might and of 'owning' the EU/libs etc, not because the security justifications he's rasied are genuine.
So do you think the justifications of Trump are real or not, since your comments now appear to support both that they are, but also that they are not because the prior comment is that it is popular for reasons that have nothing to do with Trump's justifications.
Trump intervention being seen as attempt at trading Greenland as a price for Western security [Nato] & economic [tariff deals] alliance…
Europe at this time, responding with uncharacteristic uniformity, from London to Berlin:
“No, Non, Nein”:
In the same thread, it’s Mark Carney to blame !!
“ Did Mark Carney turning up in Beijing, and increasing trade with Xi when world had been warned by US admin “it’s China vs the world”, essentially serve as an “emperors new clothes” moment for world power, and help provoke this utterly astonishing intervention from Pres Trump?”
I have to assume that MAGA thinks they are tough, and because their free speech blocks out anything they disagree with, they haven't realised the utter ridicule being piled on them for Trump accepting the Peace Prize and now threatening to impose tariffs on his own people for NATO members defending NATO members.
Starmer has held this line that Trumpler is our ally and can do business. Please can that now be dropped?
Starmer's position is impossible - of course - and the only course for the moment it broadly to keep in line - it doesn't have to be exact - with the approach of France and Germany in particular and Canada/EuroNATO in general. We shall be in a n impossible position together. What is not good, unless you absolutely have to is: https://www.johndclare.net/images/wwii1.alone.jpg
Starmers position is simple - made so by Trump.
Trump is President of the United States and has issued an ultimatum to his NATO allies. NATO is quickly pulling together into a form excluding the US.
This isn’t going to be military war. Trump doesn’t need military action to steal Greenland. And NATO isn’t going to get into a battle with the US.
What we need to do now is unanimously and directly tell Trump why happens next. We eject the US from NATO. And we eject the US from our financial systems. US Treasury Bonds are going to zero and with it the US economy.
Is that what he wants?
I am far from being a Starmer fan, but he does feel strongly about the law.
European nations should remove their national soccer teams from the World Cup and encourage clubs to refuse to release players for non European nations, where contracts permit, until this is solved.
There is precedent. The Moscow Olympics.
Le Royaume-Uni didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics.
Just Scotland's luck, qualify for their first world cup in 28 years then have to boycott it because of the mango Mussolini.
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
His base is like 35% at best at the moment.
If 75% of Americans are opposed to taking Greenland, then that means that either the MAGA base is smaller than that, or a chunk of MAGA is not onboard.
That's probably a reason for the escalation of the tariffs - frame the reaction from the EU as 'attacking' america, and shore up the MAGA base a bit, since they won't like that even if they do not like or understand the Greenland project.
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
You do know there are only 56,000 Greenlanders with about 20,000 in Nuuk
It is approx 9 times the size of the UK
Taking on the US in an armed conflict is nonsense
Yes, defending such a place is difficult, but that works both ways. Sure the US Marines could take Nuuk, but if the Scandanavians and Germans land troops somewhere on that long coastline and announce Danish sovereignty, what are the USA going to do? Shoot them?
We should probably reactivate Blue Streak 21stC version and look at our own missile delivery system for both the RN and RAF.
The Americans don't exactly have a history of being reliable in sharing "their" (ours, orginally) nuclear technology anyway.
I'd be amazed if there isn't already some work going on in that area.
We know that work has started on a British version of ATACMS (called Project Nightfall).
I think air force/navy missiles are an area of relative British defence strength, but there are issues in terms of being reliant on the US for some components (e.g. for Storm Shadow).
It was notable that the RFI for Project Nightfall specified that it had to be free of such constraints.
I don't think it's actually possible to build a modern missile without at least some components having US involvement. For example, missiles almost always use fairly powerful FPGA chips - there are only six companies making such chips, five are American and one is Chinese.
Even throwing piles of money at them, a European supplier would take 5-10 years to be in the position to provide alternatives.
A ballistic missile does not require heavy compute capability. Your mobile phone is many orders of magnitude better than the D-17B.
Not trying to be an arse about this, but that comment suggests you don't know much about FPGAs. Compute power is not their point.
Crack open an modern missile and you'll find multiple FPGAs inside. Older ones (1980s) will generally use DSPs, but anything designed in the last 20 years is using FPGAs - even Russian missiles use them now, there are images of crashed ones in Ukraine that use US supplied FPGAs.
FPGAs are superb at parallel processing of real time data in timescales that not even the most powerful CPU can match. The latency difference is orders of magnitude lower - nanoseconds vs seconds. For a guidance system that's having to pull in data from many sensors - radar, IR, GPS, etc - and process it in real time to control a missile flying at possibly thousands of miles per hour, no CPU can do that anything like as effectively as an FPGA.
They are used so much in defence and aerospace it's actually difficult to get a job in the UK programming FPGAs anywhere but those sectors.
(I program FPGAs and design custom hardware around them for a living, btw. It's a subject I can be tremendously boring on.
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
You are absolutely right. The PB consensus embarrassing themselves tonight by not understanding the intellectual basis of what Trump is doing.
There is no intellectual basis. It’s animal instinct.
The honest mindset, Trump and thinkers around him are introducing to the America’s, is the past being a raft you cannot ride forever - it’s another reason they genuinely hated Biden as being bad for America. Where now Europe is already an economic and philosophical competitor of the America’s, and so focussing on US needs first, specifically prepare for what America needs for its own future security, and the mineral resources actually ties in with security.
They don’t consider economic and philosophical rivals as being ongoing friends, at all. You might not like where they are taking it, but it’s still an honest mindset. And genuinely very intellectual, as most things are that are so forward looking.
The fact Europe is a challenging economic competitor to the America’s, you are not going to dispute that?
But, add to it Philosophical rivals are not remotely agreeing with us on Freedom - they keep honestly explaining their differences to us, are you not listening?
The rulers over the Golden Age of the America’s won’t agree with Europe on liberal democracy either, it seems. Even this side of the pond are doubts about liberal democracy, whether it suited a time and place that’s now passing.
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
You do know there are only 56,000 Greenlanders with about 20,000 in Nuuk
It is approx 9 times the size of the UK
Taking on the US in an armed conflict is nonsense
Yes, defending such a place is difficult, but that works both ways. Sure the Marines could take Nuuk, but if the scandanavians and Germans land troops somewhere on that ling coastline and announce Danish sovereignty, what are the USA going to do? Shoot them?
They shoot everyone else, including random people in the streets. Why should this be any different?
European nations should remove their national soccer teams from the World Cup and encourage clubs to refuse to release players for non European nations, where contracts permit, until this is solved.
There is precedent. The Moscow Olympics.
Le Royaume-Uni didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics.
Just Scotland's luck, qualify for their first world cup in 28 years then have to boycott it because of the mango Mussolini.
I have to assume that MAGA thinks they are tough, and because their free speech blocks out anything they disagree with, they haven't realised the utter ridicule being piled on them for Trump accepting the Peace Prize and now threatening to impose tariffs on his own people for NATO members defending NATO members.
Starmer has held this line that Trumpler is our ally and can do business. Please can that now be dropped?
Starmer's position is impossible - of course - and the only course for the moment it broadly to keep in line - it doesn't have to be exact - with the approach of France and Germany in particular and Canada/EuroNATO in general. We shall be in a n impossible position together. What is not good, unless you absolutely have to is: https://www.johndclare.net/images/wwii1.alone.jpg
Starmers position is simple - made so by Trump.
Trump is President of the United States and has issued an ultimatum to his NATO allies. NATO is quickly pulling together into a form excluding the US.
This isn’t going to be military war. Trump doesn’t need military action to steal Greenland. And NATO isn’t going to get into a battle with the US.
What we need to do now is unanimously and directly tell Trump why happens next. We eject the US from NATO. And we eject the US from our financial systems. US Treasury Bonds are going to zero and with it the US economy.
Is that what he wants?
He would see this country burn if he could be king of the ashes - Game of Thrones
Not literally, I am sure. Getting out of NATO (thus ending it) seems like a pretty clear goal, or at least pulling back massively from it. This seems like a chaotic way to achieve that, but possibly as a means of further painting NATO as an obstacle/enemy among the GOP to embed the long term policy?
I very much doubt he wants to harm the economy, since that is the one thing that might actually hurt his popularity among those that matter to him. But would he bet that the USA can weather economic fights better than the EU and UK can? Possibly.
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
You are absolutely right. The PB consensus embarrassing themselves tonight by not understanding the intellectual basis of what Trump is doing.
That's a very odd interpretation. I agree with Dura Ace's comment completely about it being popular with his base and that others like the UK might get behind such international dick waving if it had the power to do so, so by your logic I do understand the intellectual basis of it. I nonetheless think it is irrational, pretextual, and damaging.
Indeed, Dura's comments appears to support the idea the purported 'intellectual' reasons you've raised are not real, just pretexts, by framing it as popular as an exercise of might and of 'owning' the EU/libs etc, not because the security justifications he's rasied are genuine.
So do you think the justifications of Trump are real or not, since your comments now appear to support both that they are, but also that they are not because the prior comment is that it is popular for reasons that have nothing to do with Trump's justifications.
I believe they believe it.
It’s not just one person is it “Trump” is shorthand for a philosophical Nationalist/Imperialist movement. So tackle it on that basis, where is their thinking and view point a mistake?
The fact Europe is a challenging economic competitor to the America’s, are we going to dispute that?
But, add to it Philosophical rivals not remotely agreeing with us on Freedom - they keep honestly explaining their differences to us.
And don’t agree with Europe on liberal democracy either, by how they abuse and disrespect it, not cherish and nourish it. Even this side of the pond are doubts now about liberal democracy. Was it suited a time and place that’s now passing?
Can you be in a security alliance with people you don’t agree with on Democracy, Freedom, Social Justice?
Can you ever be comfortable in Security Alliance with people trying to screw you economically>.
So, let’s treat it as intellectual, and on basis they believe and passionate about it. How do we tear it down?
European nations should remove their national soccer teams from the World Cup and encourage clubs to refuse to release players for non European nations, where contracts permit, until this is solved.
There is precedent. The Moscow Olympics.
Le Royaume-Uni didn't boycott the Moscow Olympics.
Just Scotland's luck, qualify for their first world cup in 28 years then have to boycott it because of the mango Mussolini.
They should just get all the players to change their names by deed poll to Boycott.
All key European leaders now said they won’t go along with this. So if the objective was coercion it has already failed. (This is not a US miscalculation- its a very Trumpian one).
I cannot wait for the reaction when the Supreme Court explains that, somehow, Trump does have the authority to impose and change tariffs at will and on a whim.
It will need to be carefully crafted so a future decision can claw it back a little as needed.
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
You do know there are only 56,000 Greenlanders with about 20,000 in Nuuk
It is approx 9 times the size of the UK
Taking on the US in an armed conflict is nonsense
Yes, defending such a place is difficult, but that works both ways. Sure the US Marines could take Nuuk, but if the Scandanavians and Germans land troops somewhere on that long coastline and announce Danish sovereignty, what are the USA going to do? Shoot them?
I have to assume that MAGA thinks they are tough, and because their free speech blocks out anything they disagree with, they haven't realised the utter ridicule being piled on them for Trump accepting the Peace Prize and now threatening to impose tariffs on his own people for NATO members defending NATO members.
Starmer has held this line that Trumpler is our ally and can do business. Please can that now be dropped?
Starmer's position is impossible - of course - and the only course for the moment it broadly to keep in line - it doesn't have to be exact - with the approach of France and Germany in particular and Canada/EuroNATO in general. We shall be in a n impossible position together. What is not good, unless you absolutely have to is: https://www.johndclare.net/images/wwii1.alone.jpg
Starmers position is simple - made so by Trump.
Trump is President of the United States and has issued an ultimatum to his NATO allies. NATO is quickly pulling together into a form excluding the US.
This isn’t going to be military war. Trump doesn’t need military action to steal Greenland. And NATO isn’t going to get into a battle with the US.
What we need to do now is unanimously and directly tell Trump why happens next. We eject the US from NATO. And we eject the US from our financial systems. US Treasury Bonds are going to zero and with it the US economy.
Is that what he wants?
Unfortunately, the UK (or mostly its financial institutions) is now the second largest holder of US Treasury bonds in the world, ahead of China, with a staggering $807bn held.
Any sudden collapse in European appetite to hold US Treasury bonds is quite possibly going to lead to the UK financial sector being dragged down by the losses incurred.
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
You do know there are only 56,000 Greenlanders with about 20,000 in Nuuk
It is approx 9 times the size of the UK
Taking on the US in an armed conflict is nonsense
Yes, defending such a place is difficult, but that works both ways. Sure the US Marines could take Nuuk, but if the Scandanavians and Germans land troops somewhere on that long coastline and announce Danish sovereignty, what are the USA going to do? Shoot them?
Cut their logistics tail and drone them until they surrender. Summary execution. Pink snow. Welcome to 2026.
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
I'll make a prediction - if the US does acquire Greenland by whatever means, no future President will ever return it.
Tim Miller @Timodc · 1h The good news is we still have a few allies. El Salvador. Qatar. Saudi. Hungary. Possibly Honduras if they push forward on the crypto city.
I have to assume that MAGA thinks they are tough, and because their free speech blocks out anything they disagree with, they haven't realised the utter ridicule being piled on them for Trump accepting the Peace Prize and now threatening to impose tariffs on his own people for NATO members defending NATO members.
Starmer has held this line that Trumpler is our ally and can do business. Please can that now be dropped?
The /r/Conservative subreddit, a place that normally defends or ignores EVERYTHING Trump says or does and is very MAGA, is for once overwhelmingly against what Trump is doing regarding Greenland. These people go out to bat for Trump with the Epstein allegations, but even they can see that the Greenland stuff is completely bonkers.
That happens quite regularly on that subreddit. The Mods will claim it's being brigaded and will adjust their filters to make sure everyone toes the MAGA line, whether it's murdering US citizens, statutory rape, or invading Greenland.
I cannot wait for the reaction when the Supreme Court explains that, somehow, Trump does have the authority to impose and change tariffs at will and on a whim.
It will need to be carefully crafted so a future decision can claw it back a little as needed.
Will they though. Kavanaugh and ABC both seem to make there own minds up about things.
We should probably reactivate Blue Streak 21stC version and look at our own missile delivery system for both the RN and RAF.
The Americans don't exactly have a history of being reliable in sharing "their" (ours, orginally) nuclear technology anyway.
I'd be amazed if there isn't already some work going on in that area.
We know that work has started on a British version of ATACMS (called Project Nightfall).
I think air force/navy missiles are an area of relative British defence strength, but there are issues in terms of being reliant on the US for some components (e.g. for Storm Shadow).
It was notable that the RFI for Project Nightfall specified that it had to be free of such constraints.
I don't think it's actually possible to build a modern missile without at least some components having US involvement. For example, missiles almost always use fairly powerful FPGA chips - there are only six companies making such chips, five are American and one is Chinese.
Even throwing piles of money at them, a European supplier would take 5-10 years to be in the position to provide alternatives.
A ballistic missile does not require heavy compute capability. Your mobile phone is many orders of magnitude better than the D-17B.
Not trying to be an arse about this, but that comment suggests you don't know much about FPGAs. Compute power is not their point.
Crack open an modern missile and you'll find multiple FPGAs inside. Older ones (1980s) will generally use DSPs, but anything designed in the last 20 years is using FPGAs - even Russian missiles use them now, there are images of crashed ones in Ukraine that use US supplied FPGAs.
FPGAs are superb at parallel processing of real time data in timescales that not even the most powerful CPU can match. The latency difference is orders of magnitude lower - nanoseconds vs seconds. For a guidance system that's having to pull in data from many sensors - radar, IR, GPS, etc - and process it in real time to control a missile flying at possibly thousands of miles per hour, no CPU can do that anything like as effectively as an FPGA.
They are used so much in defence and aerospace it's actually difficult to get a job in the UK programming FPGAs anywhere but those sectors.
(I program FPGAs and design custom hardware around them for a living, btw. It's a subject I can be tremendously boring on.
I have worked on FPGAs as well.
You do not need lots of compute power - either parallelism or series - to guide a *ballistic* missile.
Ballistic missiles generally have no sensors - just the inertial navigation system. This can be done with computer hardware from the 1960 and 70s.
This is part of why Nightfall can be cheap - it's probably going to be a single stage solid with inertial guidance. Given the range, it may well not need GPS.
Trump intervention being seen as attempt at trading Greenland as a price for Western security [Nato] & economic [tariff deals] alliance…
Europe at this time, responding with uncharacteristic uniformity, from London to Berlin:
“No, Non, Nein”:
In the same thread, it’s Mark Carney to blame !!
“ Did Mark Carney turning up in Beijing, and increasing trade with Xi when world had been warned by US admin “it’s China vs the world”, essentially serve as an “emperors new clothes” moment for world power, and help provoke this utterly astonishing intervention from Pres Trump?”
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
You do know there are only 56,000 Greenlanders with about 20,000 in Nuuk
It is approx 9 times the size of the UK
Taking on the US in an armed conflict is nonsense
Yes, defending such a place is difficult, but that works both ways. Sure the US Marines could take Nuuk, but if the Scandanavians and Germans land troops somewhere on that long coastline and announce Danish sovereignty, what are the USA going to do? Shoot them?
Well, allies do have incidents from time to time. But I cannot see a circumstances where Europeans take on the USA, even if there would be immediate and actually genuine diplomatic consequences to an invasion.
Some things never change though American MPs were not well regarded by Australians because the Australians thought they were arrogant and used batons at the least provocation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brisbane
Britain should repurchase America. After all, it was ours once, and it would enhance our North Atlantic security. If you don’t sell it to us, President Trump, we’re going to impose tariffs on the U.S. and any country who supports you in resisting this very good deal. Fair?
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
You do know there are only 56,000 Greenlanders with about 20,000 in Nuuk
It is approx 9 times the size of the UK
Taking on the US in an armed conflict is nonsense
Yes so the US has to occupy all that land with a hostile population who know it and could be prepared to kill to defend it and not to mention by this point Trump would almost certainly be being impeached anyway.
If German and Danish troops etc are arriving in Greenland in theory at least they are already preparing to engage the US if Trump invaded
I have to assume that MAGA thinks they are tough, and because their free speech blocks out anything they disagree with, they haven't realised the utter ridicule being piled on them for Trump accepting the Peace Prize and now threatening to impose tariffs on his own people for NATO members defending NATO members.
Starmer has held this line that Trumpler is our ally and can do business. Please can that now be dropped?
Starmer's position is impossible - of course - and the only course for the moment it broadly to keep in line - it doesn't have to be exact - with the approach of France and Germany in particular and Canada/EuroNATO in general. We shall be in a n impossible position together. What is not good, unless you absolutely have to is: https://www.johndclare.net/images/wwii1.alone.jpg
Starmers position is simple - made so by Trump.
Trump is President of the United States and has issued an ultimatum to his NATO allies. NATO is quickly pulling together into a form excluding the US.
This isn’t going to be military war. Trump doesn’t need military action to steal Greenland. And NATO isn’t going to get into a battle with the US.
What we need to do now is unanimously and directly tell Trump why happens next. We eject the US from NATO. And we eject the US from our financial systems. US Treasury Bonds are going to zero and with it the US economy.
Is that what he wants?
He would see this country burn if he could be king of the ashes - Game of Thrones
Not literally, I am sure. Getting out of NATO (thus ending it) seems like a pretty clear goal, or at least pulling back massively from it. This seems like a chaotic way to achieve that, but possibly as a means of further painting NATO as an obstacle/enemy among the GOP to embed the long term policy?
I very much doubt he wants to harm the economy, since that is the one thing that might actually hurt his popularity among those that matter to him. But would he bet that the USA can weather economic fights better than the EU and UK can? Possibly.
NATO doesn’t end here. It changes, sure. America is flipping sides. But we still have Canada and Greenland across that side of the Atlantic.
The bizarrest of the bizarre is that MAGA seems convinced that NATO *is* America.
I cannot wait for the reaction when the Supreme Court explains that, somehow, Trump does have the authority to impose and change tariffs at will and on a whim.
It will need to be carefully crafted so a future decision can claw it back a little as needed.
Will they though. Kavanaugh and ABC both seem to make there own minds up about things.
Certainly they are not completely supine to Trump, as well they shouldn't be - as nakedly partisan as all the Justices can be at times there is unanimity on plenty of things, and even though they are all politicians in robes first and jurists second, they are all at least intelligent and should be able to take a longer term view of things by nature of their positions, so can see short term 'losses' for their side can be worth it.
But when they have taken some of the more extreme interpretations of presidential authority from the range of opinions out there, nothing is off the table completely.
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
Armed resistance? The population of Greenland is about that of a small British town, roughly that of Canterbury (just the settlement proper, not even the wider district) so we’re not taking a huge number of potential Maquisards.
So? It is a vast land to hide out in and take potshots at invading troops, blow up their infrastructure etc and then melt back into the icy tundra and igloos
I have to assume that MAGA thinks they are tough, and because their free speech blocks out anything they disagree with, they haven't realised the utter ridicule being piled on them for Trump accepting the Peace Prize and now threatening to impose tariffs on his own people for NATO members defending NATO members.
Starmer has held this line that Trumpler is our ally and can do business. Please can that now be dropped?
Starmer's position is impossible - of course - and the only course for the moment it broadly to keep in line - it doesn't have to be exact - with the approach of France and Germany in particular and Canada/EuroNATO in general. We shall be in a n impossible position together. What is not good, unless you absolutely have to is: https://www.johndclare.net/images/wwii1.alone.jpg
Starmers position is simple - made so by Trump.
Trump is President of the United States and has issued an ultimatum to his NATO allies. NATO is quickly pulling together into a form excluding the US.
This isn’t going to be military war. Trump doesn’t need military action to steal Greenland. And NATO isn’t going to get into a battle with the US.
What we need to do now is unanimously and directly tell Trump why happens next. We eject the US from NATO. And we eject the US from our financial systems. US Treasury Bonds are going to zero and with it the US economy.
Is that what he wants?
He would see this country burn if he could be king of the ashes - Game of Thrones
Not literally, I am sure. Getting out of NATO (thus ending it) seems like a pretty clear goal, or at least pulling back massively from it. This seems like a chaotic way to achieve that, but possibly as a means of further painting NATO as an obstacle/enemy among the GOP to embed the long term policy?
I very much doubt he wants to harm the economy, since that is the one thing that might actually hurt his popularity among those that matter to him. But would he bet that the USA can weather economic fights better than the EU and UK can? Possibly.
NATO doesn’t end here. It changes, sure. America is flipping sides. But we still have Canada and Greenland across that side of the Atlantic.
The bizarrest of the bizarre is that MAGA seems convinced that NATO *is* America.
NATO without America is not exactly the same level though, is it? Not nothing, but there's only one superpower in it after all.
Farage is a traitor . Anyone voting for him should be interned as a threat to the country like what the US did to the Japanese in WW2 .
We also used internment in both world wars. They teach it in GCSE British racism history.
The Mountbatten’s were interned WWI with other Germans - but not my family (fathers side). I guess we must have spoken better English so weren’t thought of as German.
Maybe they were worried Moonrabbits might have lunar tics with them?
It was like a Saxon invasion about one thousand years late. Must have slept in, or something. Stayed in Suffolk first, before moving to North Yorkshire, where locals must have thought any weirdness was Suffolk Weirdness. 🤷♀️
I have to assume that MAGA thinks they are tough, and because their free speech blocks out anything they disagree with, they haven't realised the utter ridicule being piled on them for Trump accepting the Peace Prize and now threatening to impose tariffs on his own people for NATO members defending NATO members.
Starmer has held this line that Trumpler is our ally and can do business. Please can that now be dropped?
The /r/Conservative subreddit, a place that normally defends or ignores EVERYTHING Trump says or does and is very MAGA, is for once overwhelmingly against what Trump is doing regarding Greenland. These people go out to bat for Trump with the Epstein allegations, but even they can see that the Greenland stuff is completely bonkers.
That happens quite regularly on that subreddit. The Mods will claim it's being brigaded and will adjust their filters to make sure everyone toes the MAGA line, whether it's murdering US citizens, statutory rape, or invading Greenland.
Ah, formerly know as the 'lefty splinter group' method.
I have to assume that MAGA thinks they are tough, and because their free speech blocks out anything they disagree with, they haven't realised the utter ridicule being piled on them for Trump accepting the Peace Prize and now threatening to impose tariffs on his own people for NATO members defending NATO members.
Starmer has held this line that Trumpler is our ally and can do business. Please can that now be dropped?
Starmer's position is impossible - of course - and the only course for the moment it broadly to keep in line - it doesn't have to be exact - with the approach of France and Germany in particular and Canada/EuroNATO in general. We shall be in a n impossible position together. What is not good, unless you absolutely have to is: https://www.johndclare.net/images/wwii1.alone.jpg
Starmers position is simple - made so by Trump.
Trump is President of the United States and has issued an ultimatum to his NATO allies. NATO is quickly pulling together into a form excluding the US.
This isn’t going to be military war. Trump doesn’t need military action to steal Greenland. And NATO isn’t going to get into a battle with the US.
What we need to do now is unanimously and directly tell Trump why happens next. We eject the US from NATO. And we eject the US from our financial systems. US Treasury Bonds are going to zero and with it the US economy.
Is that what he wants?
Unfortunately, the UK (or mostly its financial institutions) is now the second largest holder of US Treasury bonds in the world, ahead of China, with a staggering $807bn held.
Any sudden collapse in European appetite to hold US Treasury bonds is quite possibly going to lead to the UK financial sector being dragged down by the losses incurred.
Oh don’t worry I know - it will be Armageddon. My point is that if Trump thinks they can do what they want, there is always Operation Samson. We may well be enmeshed in their mess. But quite frankly if he keeps going it’s all going to come down anyway.
What can the allies do? Openly plan and then enact how we decouple. Start trading oil in Euro and Yuan. Announce a phased exit of US debt. We have all these fintech outfits and crypto - must be possible to create a non-US payments system quickly.
Boycott. Divest. Sanction. Just enough to fuck over US consumers so it hurts bad enough to overthrown this regime.
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
Armed resistance? The population of Greenland is about that of a small British town, roughly that of Canterbury (just the settlement proper, not even the wider district) so we’re not taking a huge number of potential Maquisards.
So? It is a vast land to hide out in and take potshots at invading troops, blow up their infrastructure etc and then melt back into the icy tundra and igloos
Britain should repurchase America. After all, it was ours once, and it would enhance our North Atlantic security. If you don’t sell it to us, President Trump, we’re going to impose tariffs on the U.S. and any country who supports you in resisting this very good deal. Fair?
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
You do know there are only 56,000 Greenlanders with about 20,000 in Nuuk
It is approx 9 times the size of the UK
Taking on the US in an armed conflict is nonsense
Yes so the US has to occupy all that land with a hostile population who know it and could be prepared to kill to defend it and not to mention by this point Trump would almost certainly be being impeached anyway.
If German and Danish troops etc are arriving in Greenland in theory at least they are already preparing to engage the US if Trump invaded
You really do not have a clue to the geography of this immense and barely populated country
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
You do know there are only 56,000 Greenlanders with about 20,000 in Nuuk
It is approx 9 times the size of the UK
Taking on the US in an armed conflict is nonsense
Yes so the US has to occupy all that land with a hostile population who know it and could be prepared to kill to defend it and not to mention by this point Trump would almost certainly be being impeached anyway.
If German and Danish troops etc are arriving in Greenland in theory at least they are already preparing to engage the US if Trump invaded
You really do not have a clue to the geography of this immense and barely populated country
Native Greenlanders will certainly have more than a clue than the average invading Yank from Missouri or Texas
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
Armed resistance? The population of Greenland is about that of a small British town, roughly that of Canterbury (just the settlement proper, not even the wider district) so we’re not taking a huge number of potential Maquisards.
So? It is a vast land to hide out in and take potshots at invading troops, blow up their infrastructure etc and then melt back into the icy tundra and igloos
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
Armed resistance? The population of Greenland is about that of a small British town, roughly that of Canterbury (just the settlement proper, not even the wider district) so we’re not taking a huge number of potential Maquisards.
So? It is a vast land to hide out in and take potshots at invading troops, blow up their infrastructure etc and then melt back into the icy tundra and igloos
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
Armed resistance? The population of Greenland is about that of a small British town, roughly that of Canterbury (just the settlement proper, not even the wider district) so we’re not taking a huge number of potential Maquisards.
So? It is a vast land to hide out in and take potshots at invading troops, blow up their infrastructure etc and then melt back into the icy tundra and igloos
There wouldn't be a single one left after 48 hours of thermal-imaging drones...
The US would empty Greenland and give them a place in Alaska.
I have to assume that MAGA thinks they are tough, and because their free speech blocks out anything they disagree with, they haven't realised the utter ridicule being piled on them for Trump accepting the Peace Prize and now threatening to impose tariffs on his own people for NATO members defending NATO members.
Starmer has held this line that Trumpler is our ally and can do business. Please can that now be dropped?
Starmer's position is impossible - of course - and the only course for the moment it broadly to keep in line - it doesn't have to be exact - with the approach of France and Germany in particular and Canada/EuroNATO in general. We shall be in a n impossible position together. What is not good, unless you absolutely have to is: https://www.johndclare.net/images/wwii1.alone.jpg
Starmers position is simple - made so by Trump.
Trump is President of the United States and has issued an ultimatum to his NATO allies. NATO is quickly pulling together into a form excluding the US.
This isn’t going to be military war. Trump doesn’t need military action to steal Greenland. And NATO isn’t going to get into a battle with the US.
What we need to do now is unanimously and directly tell Trump why happens next. We eject the US from NATO. And we eject the US from our financial systems. US Treasury Bonds are going to zero and with it the US economy.
Is that what he wants?
He would see this country burn if he could be king of the ashes - Game of Thrones
Not literally, I am sure. Getting out of NATO (thus ending it) seems like a pretty clear goal, or at least pulling back massively from it. This seems like a chaotic way to achieve that, but possibly as a means of further painting NATO as an obstacle/enemy among the GOP to embed the long term policy?
I very much doubt he wants to harm the economy, since that is the one thing that might actually hurt his popularity among those that matter to him. But would he bet that the USA can weather economic fights better than the EU and UK can? Possibly.
NATO doesn’t end here. It changes, sure. America is flipping sides. But we still have Canada and Greenland across that side of the Atlantic.
The bizarrest of the bizarre is that MAGA seems convinced that NATO *is* America.
NATO without America is not exactly the same level though, is it? Not nothing, but there's only one superpower in it after all.
You miss the elephant in the room - What is America? It’s a superpower because it’s culturally embedded everywhere. That ends. Because its currency is a global reserve. That ends. Because it is at the heart of global trade. That ends.
What’s left? Military power? Will be busy fighting the civil war. Nukes? Please.
We were a superpower and then abruptly we weren’t. This is the end of the American empire, wherever the Trump story takes us. Done. We won’t trust them again.
European nations should remove their national soccer teams from the World Cup and encourage clubs to refuse to release players for non European nations, where contracts permit, until this is solved.
There is precedent. The Moscow Olympics.
Boycotting the World Cup means more chance of USA winning, just like America cleaned up in the LA Olympics when the Eastern bloc stayed away. America winning is good for Trump.
Britain should repurchase America. After all, it was ours once, and it would enhance our North Atlantic security. If you don’t sell it to us, President Trump, we’re going to impose tariffs on the U.S. and any country who supports you in resisting this very good deal. Fair?
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
Armed resistance? The population of Greenland is about that of a small British town, roughly that of Canterbury (just the settlement proper, not even the wider district) so we’re not taking a huge number of potential Maquisards.
So? It is a vast land to hide out in and take potshots at invading troops, blow up their infrastructure etc and then melt back into the icy tundra and igloos
There wouldn't be a single one left after 48 hours of thermal-imaging drones...
The US would empty Greenland and give them a place in Alaska.
Well at that point the US could already be at war with the rest of Nato and certainly would be at war with Denmark who would in turn be bombing US troops who entered Greenland and Greenlanders aren't stupid enough to stand around in towns being droned, they would head off into the tundra and form a resistance.
Meanwhile, Trump would likely be facing trial and likely conviction in the US Senate having already been impeached by the US House
I have to assume that MAGA thinks they are tough, and because their free speech blocks out anything they disagree with, they haven't realised the utter ridicule being piled on them for Trump accepting the Peace Prize and now threatening to impose tariffs on his own people for NATO members defending NATO members.
Starmer has held this line that Trumpler is our ally and can do business. Please can that now be dropped?
Starmer's position is impossible - of course - and the only course for the moment it broadly to keep in line - it doesn't have to be exact - with the approach of France and Germany in particular and Canada/EuroNATO in general. We shall be in a n impossible position together. What is not good, unless you absolutely have to is: https://www.johndclare.net/images/wwii1.alone.jpg
Starmers position is simple - made so by Trump.
Trump is President of the United States and has issued an ultimatum to his NATO allies. NATO is quickly pulling together into a form excluding the US.
This isn’t going to be military war. Trump doesn’t need military action to steal Greenland. And NATO isn’t going to get into a battle with the US.
What we need to do now is unanimously and directly tell Trump why happens next. We eject the US from NATO. And we eject the US from our financial systems. US Treasury Bonds are going to zero and with it the US economy.
Is that what he wants?
He would see this country burn if he could be king of the ashes - Game of Thrones
Not literally, I am sure. Getting out of NATO (thus ending it) seems like a pretty clear goal, or at least pulling back massively from it. This seems like a chaotic way to achieve that, but possibly as a means of further painting NATO as an obstacle/enemy among the GOP to embed the long term policy?
I very much doubt he wants to harm the economy, since that is the one thing that might actually hurt his popularity among those that matter to him. But would he bet that the USA can weather economic fights better than the EU and UK can? Possibly.
NATO doesn’t end here. It changes, sure. America is flipping sides. But we still have Canada and Greenland across that side of the Atlantic.
The bizarrest of the bizarre is that MAGA seems convinced that NATO *is* America.
NATO without America is not exactly the same level though, is it? Not nothing, but there's only one superpower in it after all.
You miss the elephant in the room - What is America? It’s a superpower because it’s culturally embedded everywhere. That ends. Because its currency is a global reserve. That ends. Because it is at the heart of global trade. That ends.
What’s left? Military power? Will be busy fighting the civil war. Nukes? Please.
We were a superpower and then abruptly we weren’t. This is the end of the American empire, wherever the Trump story takes us. Done. We won’t trust them again.
Soft power may get overblown sometimes, but it does feel like America is sacrificing an awful lot of goodwill and future co-operation for an island they can already do whatever they want with. Yes yes, maybe they actually believe owning it is incredibly important, but even if they do there must be a price tag they have on that, and costs are not just in currency.
They'll still have the power to bully 'allies' to do things, but many an imperial power in history has learned that if your allies, subjects, and subordinates, obey you because you'll stab them in the face if they don't, they can trip you up at inconvenient moments if they think they can get away with it.
That's the weird thing about this new found love of might makes right thinking. Sure, the mighty have always done what they are able to, but the USA has for a long time managed to get people to, more or less, want to do what they want.
Set the rules of the game and you win just by getting others to play with you.
We have had a lot of opinion polls in recent years showing growing support for strongman-type leaders precisely because people didn't want them to be reined in, because people were told that the problem was the blob/deep state/bureaucrats standing in the way of the obvious changes that need to be made to fix things.
Well. Now we see why democratic systems developed over centuries had lots of ways to rein in individuals with Executive power from doing whatever the hell they wanted.
No-one said democracy was easy. But it's better than relying on a strongman leader to stay sane and committed to the collective, rather than their personal, interest.
Tim Miller @Timodc · 1h The good news is we still have a few allies. El Salvador. Qatar. Saudi. Hungary. Possibly Honduras if they push forward on the crypto city.
We have had a lot of opinion polls in recent years showing growing support for strongman-type leaders precisely because people didn't want them to be reined in, because people were told that the problem was the blob/deep state/bureaucrats standing in the way of the obvious changes that need to be made to fix things.
Well. Now we see why democratic systems developed over centuries had lots of ways to rein in individuals with Executive power from doing whatever the hell they wanted.
No-one said democracy was easy. But it's better than relying on a strongman leader to stay sane and committed to the collective, rather than their personal, interest.
They get some stick, but the Founding Fathers did a reasonable job setting up a system that, with some pretty notable testing moments, has mostly cobbled through for so long.
European nations should remove their national soccer teams from the World Cup and encourage clubs to refuse to release players for non European nations, where contracts permit, until this is solved.
There is precedent. The Moscow Olympics.
Boycotting the World Cup means more chance of USA winning, just like America cleaned up in the LA Olympics when the Eastern bloc stayed away. America winning is good for Trump.
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
Armed resistance? The population of Greenland is about that of a small British town, roughly that of Canterbury (just the settlement proper, not even the wider district) so we’re not taking a huge number of potential Maquisards.
So? It is a vast land to hide out in and take potshots at invading troops, blow up their infrastructure etc and then melt back into the icy tundra and igloos
I’m not sure that “melt” is the word I’d use in respect of Greenland…
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
You do know there are only 56,000 Greenlanders with about 20,000 in Nuuk
TBH that works just as well without the last two words
They have power. The GOP refuse to use it because they are spineless cowards and useful idiots who it turns out don't believe in anything.
Yes, but largely as their careers would end if they did. Still cowardly, but still largely true.
It's notable to me that most of the handful of GOP reps and Senators who have openly or not so openly not been huge fans of Trump have just quietly retired. The number that can be named as having continued to speak out can fit on one hand.
The only GOP figure I can think of offhand who Trump really went after pretty hard at times who did not really push back and yet is still there is Brian Kemp, the Governor of Georgia.
I assume he's as conservative as they come and not anti-MAGA, but Trump really went after him at times (I would guess for not stopping the legal cases in the state somehow and probably blaming him for two Democrats getting elected to the Senate there).
Europe versus USA over Greenland, like two bald men fighting for a comb
I'm concerned that China and Russia may be the winners from this. The West needs to stick together somehow.
They definitely have been. Some have been wanting a more multi-polar world, but such a one would always have been more combative, and America (it is not simply a Trump thing, he is just leading it), is wanting to go it alone.
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
Armed resistance? The population of Greenland is about that of a small British town, roughly that of Canterbury (just the settlement proper, not even the wider district) so we’re not taking a huge number of potential Maquisards.
So? It is a vast land to hide out in and take potshots at invading troops, blow up their infrastructure etc and then melt back into the icy tundra and igloos
You can't really hide out in most of Greenland. It's a vast ice sheet 3km tall. It would be a bit like trying to fight a guerilla war on the surface of Mars.
Mafia takeover of America complete. Trump has told countries that want to serve on his Gaza Board of Peace they will have to pay $1 billion to be permanent members.
Mafia takeover of America complete. Trump has told countries that want to serve on his Gaza Board of Peace they will have to pay $1 billion to be permanent members.
Do they have to also say it as "one beeeeeeeeeellllioooooonnnnn dollars?"
It's certainly been a long... *checks date*... 17 days of January 2026 with Trump as President.
There's a political science chap I watch sometimes on Youtube called William Spaniel, does a lot of stuff on Ukraine and also on other geopolitical topics, who has posted a video almost every day in 2026, including one just an hour ago.
Content creators must get burnt out, and I don't know how people manage to watch news channels every day.
TBH that works just as well without the last two words
They have power. The GOP refuse to use it because they are spineless cowards and useful idiots who it turns out don't believe in anything.
Yes, but largely as their careers would end if they did. Still cowardly, but still largely true.
It's notable to me that most of the handful of GOP reps and Senators who have openly or not so openly not been huge fans of Trump have just quietly retired. The number that can be named as having continued to speak out can fit on one hand.
The only GOP figure I can think of offhand who Trump really went after pretty hard at times who did not really push back and yet is still there is Brian Kemp, the Governor of Georgia.
I assume he's as conservative as they come and not anti-MAGA, but Trump really went after him at times (I would guess for not stopping the legal cases in the state somehow and probably blaming him for two Democrats getting elected to the Senate there).
The correct answer is that my moral ethics and my reputation in the history books is more important than another term in office.
Spineless.
Pathetic.
I have no doubt this GOP congress will be reviled like no other for a hundred years.
Russia loves Trump’s message on Greenland, as Putin has openly said. It is worth asking whether this was a Russian idea. It certainly divides and could destroy NATO, and it distracts from Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine. https://x.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/2012338402264301934
Trump has also sent another post calling for Biden's staff to be arrested. He is out of his mind.
No worries, if anything happens to him there's always...JD Vance, who seems to hate Europe on a more intellectual level, rather than because it won't give him peace prizes and a new island.
Trump has also sent another post calling for Biden's staff to be arrested. He is out of his mind.
No worries, if anything happens to him there's always...JD Vance, who seems to hate Europe on a more intellectual level, rather than because it won't give him peace prizes and a new island.
At some point Vance may conclude if he ever is going to be POTUS the only way is the 25th.
I have to assume that MAGA thinks they are tough, and because their free speech blocks out anything they disagree with, they haven't realised the utter ridicule being piled on them for Trump accepting the Peace Prize and now threatening to impose tariffs on his own people for NATO members defending NATO members.
Starmer has held this line that Trumpler is our ally and can do business. Please can that now be dropped?
Starmer's position is impossible - of course - and the only course for the moment it broadly to keep in line - it doesn't have to be exact - with the approach of France and Germany in particular and Canada/EuroNATO in general. We shall be in a n impossible position together. What is not good, unless you absolutely have to is: https://www.johndclare.net/images/wwii1.alone.jpg
Starmers position is simple - made so by Trump.
Trump is President of the United States and has issued an ultimatum to his NATO allies. NATO is quickly pulling together into a form excluding the US.
This isn’t going to be military war. Trump doesn’t need military action to steal Greenland. And NATO isn’t going to get into a battle with the US.
What we need to do now is unanimously and directly tell Trump why happens next. We eject the US from NATO. And we eject the US from our financial systems. US Treasury Bonds are going to zero and with it the US economy.
Is that what he wants?
Unfortunately, the UK (or mostly its financial institutions) is now the second largest holder of US Treasury bonds in the world, ahead of China, with a staggering $807bn held.
Any sudden collapse in European appetite to hold US Treasury bonds is quite possibly going to lead to the UK financial sector being dragged down by the losses incurred.
Oh don’t worry I know - it will be Armageddon. My point is that if Trump thinks they can do what they want, there is always Operation Samson. We may well be enmeshed in their mess. But quite frankly if he keeps going it’s all going to come down anyway.
What can the allies do? Openly plan and then enact how we decouple. Start trading oil in Euro and Yuan. Announce a phased exit of US debt. We have all these fintech outfits and crypto - must be possible to create a non-US payments system quickly.
Boycott. Divest. Sanction. Just enough to fuck over US consumers so it hurts bad enough to overthrown this regime.
It's a strategic necessity for us now. This crisis may blow over, and not every President will be Trump. But if they would get to this point and might do more, the very fact they will flip on a dime about it demonstrates we cannot make long terms plans assuming all will be well.
We have had a lot of opinion polls in recent years showing growing support for strongman-type leaders precisely because people didn't want them to be reined in, because people were told that the problem was the blob/deep state/bureaucrats standing in the way of the obvious changes that need to be made to fix things.
Well. Now we see why democratic systems developed over centuries had lots of ways to rein in individuals with Executive power from doing whatever the hell they wanted.
No-one said democracy was easy. But it's better than relying on a strongman leader to stay sane and committed to the collective, rather than their personal, interest.
They get some stick, but the Founding Fathers did a reasonable job setting up a system that, with some pretty notable testing moments, has mostly cobbled through for so long.
Can you imagine how Jefferson and the rest would react to it being Trump - Trump! - who brought the Constitution they'd crafted collapsing into ruins?
Mafia takeover of America complete. Trump has told countries that want to serve on his Gaza Board of Peace they will have to pay $1 billion to be permanent members.
Eh? The Board of Peace is individuals like Tony Blair???
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
Armed resistance? The population of Greenland is about that of a small British town, roughly that of Canterbury (just the settlement proper, not even the wider district) so we’re not taking a huge number of potential Maquisards.
So? It is a vast land to hide out in and take potshots at invading troops, blow up their infrastructure etc and then melt back into the icy tundra and igloos
You can't really hide out in most of Greenland. It's a vast ice sheet 3km tall. It would be a bit like trying to fight a guerilla war on the surface of Mars.
Trump can take it at will whenever he wants as resistance would be futile
Never mind, John Swinney expects a majority SNP Holyrood in May and will demand a referendum on independence
@HYUFD will have all his time taken up on his tank invasion of Scotland from Epping !!!!
We have had a lot of opinion polls in recent years showing growing support for strongman-type leaders precisely because people didn't want them to be reined in, because people were told that the problem was the blob/deep state/bureaucrats standing in the way of the obvious changes that need to be made to fix things.
Well. Now we see why democratic systems developed over centuries had lots of ways to rein in individuals with Executive power from doing whatever the hell they wanted.
No-one said democracy was easy. But it's better than relying on a strongman leader to stay sane and committed to the collective, rather than their personal, interest.
They get some stick, but the Founding Fathers did a reasonable job setting up a system that, with some pretty notable testing moments, has mostly cobbled through for so long.
Can you imagine how Jefferson and the rest would react to it being Trump - Trump! - who brought the Constitution they'd crafted collapsing into ruins?
The sad truth is they were just not cynical enough about human nature.
To be fair this is a once in 200 year event but even so...
Russia loves Trump’s message on Greenland, as Putin has openly said. It is worth asking whether this was a Russian idea. It certainly divides and could destroy NATO, and it distracts from Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine. https://x.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/2012338402264301934
It was claimed last year Russia had sought to stir all this up. No idea if that is true, but if it was then kudos to whatever Kremlin spook came up with that plan, there'll probably be a movie about it in 50 years, like Operation Mincemeat.
Nearly five years ago, Russia reportedly floated the idea of the US purchasing Greenland in a fake fundraising letter sent to Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, according to Danish intelligence.
The accusations reemerged on social media over the weekend, just days before Trump’s inauguration.
On January 7, US President-elect Donald Trump stated that he would not dismiss the possibility of using military or economic measures to acquire the Danish overseas territory of Greenland after assuming office on January 20.
trump to Europe: "Give US Greenland or I will make Americans pay more for your goods".
He still seems to think we pay the tariffs rather than the importer.
FTSE100 company and exporter of goods manufactured in Britain to the US, Games Workshop, has absorbed 100% of the cost of tariffs charged on their exports to the US. That represents 2% off their profit margin, averaged over their global sales.
That's less profit returned to investors in dividends, less tax paid to the Exchequer.
The same is true for lots of companies selling goods to the US.
Mafia takeover of America complete. Trump has told countries that want to serve on his Gaza Board of Peace they will have to pay $1 billion to be permanent members.
Eh? The Board of Peace is individuals like Tony Blair???
I think this refers to the Arab states.
It's another grift, and no doubt the money is intended to go into some offshore account controlled by Trump.
We have had a lot of opinion polls in recent years showing growing support for strongman-type leaders precisely because people didn't want them to be reined in, because people were told that the problem was the blob/deep state/bureaucrats standing in the way of the obvious changes that need to be made to fix things.
Well. Now we see why democratic systems developed over centuries had lots of ways to rein in individuals with Executive power from doing whatever the hell they wanted.
No-one said democracy was easy. But it's better than relying on a strongman leader to stay sane and committed to the collective, rather than their personal, interest.
They get some stick, but the Founding Fathers did a reasonable job setting up a system that, with some pretty notable testing moments, has mostly cobbled through for so long.
Can you imagine how Jefferson and the rest would react to it being Trump - Trump! - who brought the Constitution they'd crafted collapsing into ruins?
Trump's actions are what is testing the Constitution, sure.
But there are a decent number of mechanisms there to stop someone like Trump. The trouble is that those whose job it is to activate those mechanisms can't or won't do so. And that is what is destroying the Constitution.
I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.
Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.
Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included
Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.
Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.
You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.
Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict
Armed resistance? The population of Greenland is about that of a small British town, roughly that of Canterbury (just the settlement proper, not even the wider district) so we’re not taking a huge number of potential Maquisards.
So? It is a vast land to hide out in and take potshots at invading troops, blow up their infrastructure etc and then melt back into the icy tundra and igloos
You can't really hide out in most of Greenland. It's a vast ice sheet 3km tall. It would be a bit like trying to fight a guerilla war on the surface of Mars.
You certainly can hide in the areas near the town, breaking in from time to time to destroy property, seize provisions and kill US troops occupying it
Comments
Trump is President of the United States and has issued an ultimatum to his NATO allies. NATO is quickly pulling together into a form excluding the US.
This isn’t going to be military war. Trump doesn’t need military action to steal Greenland. And NATO isn’t going to get into a battle with the US.
What we need to do now is unanimously and directly tell Trump why happens next. We eject the US from NATO. And we eject the US from our financial systems. US Treasury Bonds are going to zero and with it the US economy.
Is that what he wants?
There is precedent. The Moscow Olympics.
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/15/politics/greenland-cnn-poll
Even the president’s partisans are about evenly divided, with 50% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents saying they support it and 50% opposed. Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are deeply against the move, with 94% opposed overall, including 80% who say they strongly oppose it. About 8 in 10 independents who don’t lean toward either party are also opposed.
Indeed, Dura's comments appears to support the idea the purported 'intellectual' reasons you've raised are not real, just pretexts, by framing it as popular as an exercise of might and of 'owning' the EU/libs etc, not because the security justifications he's rasied are genuine.
So do you think the justifications of Trump are real or not, since your comments now appear to support both that they are, but also that they are not because the prior comment is that it is popular for reasons that have nothing to do with Trump's justifications.
Just Scotland's luck, qualify for their first world cup in 28 years then have to boycott it because of the mango Mussolini.
Crack open an modern missile and you'll find multiple FPGAs inside. Older ones (1980s) will generally use DSPs, but anything designed in the last 20 years is using FPGAs - even Russian missiles use them now, there are images of crashed ones in Ukraine that use US supplied FPGAs.
FPGAs are superb at parallel processing of real time data in timescales that not even the most powerful CPU can match. The latency difference is orders of magnitude lower - nanoseconds vs seconds. For a guidance system that's having to pull in data from many sensors - radar, IR, GPS, etc - and process it in real time to control a missile flying at possibly thousands of miles per hour, no CPU can do that anything like as effectively as an FPGA.
They are used so much in defence and aerospace it's actually difficult to get a job in the UK programming FPGAs anywhere but those sectors.
(I program FPGAs and design custom hardware around them for a living, btw. It's a subject I can be tremendously boring on.
They don’t consider economic and philosophical rivals as being ongoing friends, at all. You might not like where they are taking it, but it’s still an honest mindset. And genuinely very intellectual, as most things are that are so forward looking.
The fact Europe is a challenging economic competitor to the America’s, you are not going to dispute that?
But, add to it Philosophical rivals are not remotely agreeing with us on Freedom - they keep honestly explaining their differences to us, are you not listening?
The rulers over the Golden Age of the America’s won’t agree with Europe on liberal democracy either, it seems. Even this side of the pond are doubts about liberal democracy, whether it suited a time and place that’s now passing.
He would see this country burn if he could be king of the ashes - Game of Thrones
Not literally, I am sure. Getting out of NATO (thus ending it) seems like a pretty clear goal, or at least pulling back massively from it. This seems like a chaotic way to achieve that, but possibly as a means of further painting NATO as an obstacle/enemy among the GOP to embed the long term policy?
I very much doubt he wants to harm the economy, since that is the one thing that might actually hurt his popularity among those that matter to him. But would he bet that the USA can weather economic fights better than the EU and UK can? Possibly.
@DanielJHannan
·
47m
This is demented. Outright batshit crazy. Where are the adults in the room? Why will no one rein him in?
https://x.com/DanielJHannan/status/2012628185012146238
It’s not just one person is it “Trump” is shorthand for a philosophical Nationalist/Imperialist movement. So tackle it on that basis, where is their thinking and view point a mistake?
The fact Europe is a challenging economic competitor to the America’s, are we going to dispute that?
But, add to it Philosophical rivals not remotely agreeing with us on Freedom - they keep honestly explaining their differences to us.
And don’t agree with Europe on liberal democracy either, by how they abuse and disrespect it, not cherish and nourish it. Even this side of the pond are doubts now about liberal democracy. Was it suited a time and place that’s now passing?
Can you be in a security alliance with people you don’t agree with on Democracy, Freedom, Social Justice?
Can you ever be comfortable in Security Alliance with people trying to screw you economically>.
So, let’s treat it as intellectual, and on basis they believe and passionate about it. How do we tear it down?
All key European leaders now said they won’t go along with this. So if the objective was coercion it has already failed. (This is not a US miscalculation- its a very Trumpian one).
https://bsky.app/profile/ldfreedman.bsky.social/post/3mcnjoalcjk24
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
1h
If only Congress had some power over tariffs.
https://x.com/BillKristol/status/2012610804974043254
It will need to be carefully crafted so a future decision can claw it back a little as needed.
About ten years too late on the geopolit6cal orientation, there.
It's never too late to learn, I suppose.
More likely put 1000% tariffs on them
This is a dangerous moment in time
Any sudden collapse in European appetite to hold US Treasury bonds is quite possibly going to lead to the UK financial sector being dragged down by the losses incurred.
"I wouldn't start from there mate."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougmelville/2026/01/04/with-the-us-debt-a-staggering-38-trillion-dollars-who-exactly-do-we-owe/
Tim Miller
@Timodc
·
1h
The good news is we still have a few allies. El Salvador. Qatar. Saudi. Hungary. Possibly Honduras if they push forward on the crypto city.
https://x.com/Timodc/status/2012618141545779658
(I know he uses Trump Social now, I assume it never had a small limit)
There's no such "trade".
It's a piece of extortion. Giving in to it doesn't secure anything.
https://polymarket.com/predictions/greenland
I don't know whether to be pleased or worried that -- currently -- the bettors agree with my 10 percent guess on an invasion.
(Found in an article worrying about insider trading in such markets:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/01/15/polymarket-maduro-insider-trading/
A worry I share.)
You do not need lots of compute power - either parallelism or series - to guide a *ballistic* missile.
Ballistic missiles generally have no sensors - just the inertial navigation system. This can be done with computer hardware from the 1960 and 70s.
This is part of why Nightfall can be cheap - it's probably going to be a single stage solid with inertial guidance. Given the range, it may well not need GPS.
Some things never change though
American MPs were not well regarded by Australians because the Australians thought they were arrogant and used batons at the least provocation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brisbane
Britain should repurchase America. After all, it was ours once, and it would enhance our North Atlantic security. If you don’t sell it to us, President Trump, we’re going to impose tariffs on the U.S. and any country who supports you in resisting this very good deal. Fair?
https://x.com/piersmorgan/status/2012632397884322292
If German and Danish troops etc are arriving in Greenland in theory at least they are already preparing to engage the US if Trump invaded
The bizarrest of the bizarre is that MAGA seems convinced that NATO *is* America.
But when they have taken some of the more extreme interpretations of presidential authority from the range of opinions out there, nothing is off the table completely.
What can the allies do? Openly plan and then enact how we decouple. Start trading oil in Euro and Yuan. Announce a phased exit of US debt. We have all these fintech outfits and crypto - must be possible to create a non-US payments system quickly.
Boycott. Divest. Sanction. Just enough to fuck over US consumers so it hurts bad enough to overthrown this regime.
We don't want the bloody place.
If Duncan Disorderly did time in Scotland(under local laws) for an enthusiastic challenge then surely this plank needs to do time.
https://x.com/ifan_tomos/status/2012582482298781874?s=61
The US would empty Greenland and give them a place in Alaska.
What’s left? Military power? Will be busy fighting the civil war. Nukes? Please.
We were a superpower and then abruptly we weren’t. This is the end of the American empire, wherever the Trump story takes us. Done. We won’t trust them again.
It's certainly been a long... *checks date*... 17 days of January 2026 with Trump as President.
Meanwhile, Trump would likely be facing trial and likely conviction in the US Senate having already been impeached by the US House
They'll still have the power to bully 'allies' to do things, but many an imperial power in history has learned that if your allies, subjects, and subordinates, obey you because you'll stab them in the face if they don't, they can trip you up at inconvenient moments if they think they can get away with it.
That's the weird thing about this new found love of might makes right thinking. Sure, the mighty have always done what they are able to, but the USA has for a long time managed to get people to, more or less, want to do what they want.
Set the rules of the game and you win just by getting others to play with you.
Well. Now we see why democratic systems developed over centuries had lots of ways to rein in individuals with Executive power from doing whatever the hell they wanted.
No-one said democracy was easy. But it's better than relying on a strongman leader to stay sane and committed to the collective, rather than their personal, interest.
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/2012482827992932718?s=61
It would be an effective statement too.
It's notable to me that most of the handful of GOP reps and Senators who have openly or not so openly not been huge fans of Trump have just quietly retired. The number that can be named as having continued to speak out can fit on one hand.
The only GOP figure I can think of offhand who Trump really went after pretty hard at times who did not really push back and yet is still there is Brian Kemp, the Governor of Georgia.
I assume he's as conservative as they come and not anti-MAGA, but Trump really went after him at times (I would guess for not stopping the legal cases in the state somehow and probably blaming him for two Democrats getting elected to the Senate there).
Mafia takeover of America complete. Trump has told countries that want to serve on his Gaza Board of Peace they will have to pay $1 billion to be permanent members.
Content creators must get burnt out, and I don't know how people manage to watch news channels every day.
Spineless.
Pathetic.
I have no doubt this GOP congress will be reviled like no other for a hundred years.
https://x.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/2012338402264301934
Can he take the cabinet with him?
Never mind, John Swinney expects a majority SNP Holyrood in May and will demand a referendum on independence
@HYUFD will have all his time taken up on his tank invasion of Scotland from Epping !!!!
***EXCLUSIVE*** with
@AlbertoNardelli
Donald Trump has told countries that want to serve on his Board of Peace they will have to ***pay $1 billion*** to be permanent members
Bloomberg has obtained the draft charter. It appears to suggest ***Trump himself would control the money***, sources say
The charter would be considered unacceptable to most countries who could have potentially joined the board, sources say
Netanyahu has rejected the terms
Several nations strongly oppose the draft of Trump’s charter and are working on collectively pushing back against the proposals, sources said
They are concerned Trump is trying to build a rival to the United Nations that’s about more than Gaza and that he would totally control
It means that despite Trump’s advertising of the Board of Peace, in fact it does not have the support of key regional or global players
https://x.com/alexwickham/status/2012648003165638940?s=20
To be fair this is a once in 200 year event but even so...
Nearly five years ago, Russia reportedly floated the idea of the US purchasing Greenland in a fake fundraising letter sent to Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, according to Danish intelligence.
The accusations reemerged on social media over the weekend, just days before Trump’s inauguration.
On January 7, US President-elect Donald Trump stated that he would not dismiss the possibility of using military or economic measures to acquire the Danish overseas territory of Greenland after assuming office on January 20.
In 2022, the Danish Security and Intelligence Service determined that the 2019 letter was a forgery, likely orchestrated by Russia. A Danish intelligence report suggested that Moscow aimed to create tension between Denmark, the US, and Greenland. Moscow denied the accusations in an email to Reuters.
https://united24media.com/latest-news/russia-forged-letter-in-2019-claiming-us-wanted-to-buy-greenland-5055
That's less profit returned to investors in dividends, less tax paid to the Exchequer.
The same is true for lots of companies selling goods to the US.
It's another grift, and no doubt the money is intended to go into some offshore account controlled by Trump.
But there are a decent number of mechanisms there to stop someone like Trump. The trouble is that those whose job it is to activate those mechanisms can't or won't do so. And that is what is destroying the Constitution.