This isn’t about defending Greenland militarily, but about increasing the diplomatic cost to the US to use any force. That’s why other European countries are also sending a few troops.
The political message from Europe has to be clear and forceful: If you touch Greenland, that will be the end of US military bases on the European continent (including Ramstein). Also economic sanctions and asset freezes/seizures for the Trump clan and key members of the administration.
Will that hurt europe? Will it erode our security guarantees against Russia?
Yeah a lot.
But rather be on clear terms now and plan accordingly, than remaining Trumps bitch and very likely be let down anyways when push comes to shove
Europe does not need america. Not if they get their shit together, forestall their own fascist coups at the ballot by fielding real leaders with popular reform. They will not of course though. The western establishment is as dumb and corrupt as the democrats though so will fall.
No-one “needs” anyone but economics aren’t a zero-sum game and both the EU and the US benefited enormously from our economic and military ties, and cutting those ties will be painful and the faster it happens the more painful it will be.
If we employ the economic nukes against the US right now, we will lose most digital payment systems for a few weeks as countries and bunks rush to implement Wero and the digital Euro, and we will face strong gas shortages as we currently rely on the US to make up for Russia’s. Europe and NA would immediately enter into a deep recession.
The payment systems are a hugely understated threat but are being worked on actively. The fossil fuels aren’t understated but we also lack short-term solutions as electrification takes time (but also we aren’t doing nearly enough).
However it is true that the EU is profoundly neoliberal and that ideology is very ill-equipped to deal with a fragmented world order in which free trade is no longer the default. Those assumptions are being challenged, however the far-right seems primed to bring about the populist “solution” of turning Europe into a bunch of mini-Russias.
Well that natural gas is blood gas. Fracked from lands, oil majors poison aqifers and destabilize faults, and deny it, leaving homeowners with poisoned aquifers, and air.
So that is best case scenario for regular people in the US, to keep prices down below where oil majors pay politicians to send us to an early grave for a buck.
I live on shale, luckily the wells were a bust so they went to greener pastures for now. They are busy turning environmental protesters, into terrorists, state by state and feds are working on it.
It would be a perfect chance to get into renewables. Obviously you will instead do nuclear but this could be an opportunity to bypass fossil fuels and generate electicity from temperature differences with mediums that boil in that range. You could heat with that. Also more geothermal, starting out with air brought to ground temperature of 50 f year round 6 feet down.
Getting off us payments has to be done, the world needs competition, the us is abusing sanctions more every year. It will help everyone getting competition in there, and tech. But your politicians are surrendering you to tech with age checks and chat control and however else they retrofit that rejected trojan horse into a trojan sheep your influencers keep trying to convince you all to bring inside the walls.
Seriously, you need new popular politicians or will follow the us, and uk.
I agree fossil fuels are bad and renewables are good, but electric heat pumps aren’t going to be deployed in every house over the summer no matter how violent the price shock. To go green we need industrial capacity, lots of it, and a ton of political will that the far-right simply does not possess because they’d rather buy Russian gas in exchange for campaign financing.
Central heating and cooling. Pool resources, funding streams, build one geothermal to service a bunch of homes. Not a cure all, but it could make jobs too.
Then looking at new ways to make energy like the temperature differences.
It is not theoreticsl, oil just quashed it. The us navy has for decades had floating generators for tropical waters boiling and cooling ammonia at 80f surface and 60f below temps.
Other mediums could be utilized, and you guys need energy, it is the perfect time to go around big oil if you could keep them from sabotaging it. Where a river meets a lake or ocean, ground to water temperatures, energy could be added to help it along. While water expands the most at 16k volume, others expand as well.
The political message from Europe has to be clear and forceful: If you touch Greenland, that will be the end of US military bases on the European continent (including Ramstein).
Nobody actually said that, there’s an US military base in greenland already.
Yeah but that’s the point. Either you run your bases in cooperation with the host countries, or your established military presence becomes too great of a threat to the sovereignty of the host country to be allowed to continue
That’s what’s so fucked up about all this. USA have downsized their military presence on Greenland by 99% since its peak. Neither Greenland, nor Denmark has opposed them to scale up again. They (Denmark/Greenland) have also declared they’re willing to let US mine for resources.
This seems like nothing but a fixation in Trump about increasing US land area, to boost his personal legacy.
This isn’t about defending Greenland militarily, but about increasing the diplomatic cost to the US to use any force. That’s why other European countries are also sending a few troops.
The political message from Europe has to be clear and forceful: If you touch Greenland, that will be the end of US military bases on the European continent (including Ramstein). Also economic sanctions and asset freezes/seizures for the Trump clan and key members of the administration.
Will that hurt europe? Will it erode our security guarantees against Russia? Yeah a lot.
But rather be on clear terms now and plan accordingly, than remaining Trumps bitch and very likely be let down anyways when push comes to shove
Europe does not need america. Not if they get their shit together, forestall their own fascist coups at the ballot by fielding real leaders with popular reform. They will not of course though. The western establishment is as dumb and corrupt as the democrats though so will fall.
No-one “needs” anyone but economics aren’t a zero-sum game and both the EU and the US benefited enormously from our economic and military ties, and cutting those ties will be painful and the faster it happens the more painful it will be.
If we employ the economic nukes against the US right now, we will lose most digital payment systems for a few weeks as countries and bunks rush to implement Wero and the digital Euro, and we will face strong gas shortages as we currently rely on the US to make up for Russia’s. Europe and NA would immediately enter into a deep recession.
The payment systems are a hugely understated threat but are being worked on actively. The fossil fuels aren’t understated but we also lack short-term solutions as electrification takes time (but also we aren’t doing nearly enough).
However it is true that the EU is profoundly neoliberal and that ideology is very ill-equipped to deal with a fragmented world order in which free trade is no longer the default. Those assumptions are being challenged, however the far-right seems primed to bring about the populist “solution” of turning Europe into a bunch of mini-Russias.
Well that natural gas is blood gas. Fracked from lands, oil majors poison aqifers and destabilize faults, and deny it, leaving homeowners with poisoned aquifers, and air.
So that is best case scenario for regular people in the US, to keep prices down below where oil majors pay politicians to send us to an early grave for a buck.
I live on shale, luckily the wells were a bust so they went to greener pastures for now. They are busy turning environmental protesters, into terrorists, state by state and feds are working on it.
It would be a perfect chance to get into renewables. Obviously you will instead do nuclear but this could be an opportunity to bypass fossil fuels and generate electicity from temperature differences with mediums that boil in that range. You could heat with that. Also more geothermal, starting out with air brought to ground temperature of 50 f year round 6 feet down.
Getting off us payments has to be done, the world needs competition, the us is abusing sanctions more every year. It will help everyone getting competition in there, and tech. But your politicians are surrendering you to tech with age checks and chat control and however else they retrofit that rejected trojan horse into a trojan sheep your influencers keep trying to convince you all to bring inside the walls.
Seriously, you need new popular politicians or will follow the us, and uk.
I agree fossil fuels are bad and renewables are good, but electric heat pumps aren’t going to be deployed in every house over the summer no matter how violent the price shock. To go green we need industrial capacity, lots of it, and a ton of political will that the far-right simply does not possess because they’d rather buy Russian gas in exchange for campaign financing.
Central heating and cooling. Pool resources, funding streams, build one geothermal to service a bunch of homes. Not a cure all, but it could make jobs too.
Then looking at new ways to make energy like the temperature differences.
It is not theoreticsl, oil just quashed it. The us navy has for decades had floating generators for tropical waters boiling and cooling ammonia at 80f surface and 60f below temps.
Other mediums could be utilized, and you guys need energy, it is the perfect time to go around big oil if you could keep them from sabotaging it. Where a river meets a lake or ocean, ground to water temperatures, energy could be added to help it along. While water expands the most at 16k volume, others expand as well.
Nobody actually said that, there’s an US military base in greenland already.
Yeah but that’s the point. Either you run your bases in cooperation with the host countries, or your established military presence becomes too great of a threat to the sovereignty of the host country to be allowed to continue
That’s what’s so fucked up about all this. USA have downsized their military presence on Greenland by 99% since its peak. Neither Greenland, nor Denmark has opposed them to scale up again. They (Denmark/Greenland) have also declared they’re willing to let US mine for resources.
This seems like nothing but a fixation in Trump about increasing US land area, to boost his personal legacy.
It is putin’s bidding, prez does not have the juice to pull out of nato otherwise.
Germany became what it is with US helpin a looot, how will they go against them?
Cutting off their utilities and access to the surrounding areas.
But while Europe is busy with Greenland, at the home front the door is wide open, unprotected from the threats from the east.
You have to meet the enemy where they land. Trump getting Denmark without a fight is same as Russia getting it without a fight.
That’s a thing they’re of course considering. European nationa obviously won’t send 100 000 troops to Greenland.