New York Times gift articles

1368 readers

190 users here now

Share your New York Times gift articles links here.

Rules:

Only post New York Times gift article links.

Info:

The NYT Open Team. (2021-06-23). “A New Way to Share New York Times Stories”. open.nytimes.com.
“Gift Articles for New York Times Subscribers”. (n.d.). help.nytimes.com.

Tip:

Google "unlocked_article_code" and limit search results to the past week.
Mastodon: Use control-F or ⌘-F to search this page. (ref)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

baltakatei@sopuli.xyz

Denmark Tells Trump to ‘Stop the Threats’ About Greenland (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 5 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Danish prime minister told President Trump to back down after he repeated his threat to acquire Greenland in the wake of the U.S. military raid in Venezuela.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Lembot_0006@programming.dev 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What will happen if Trump won't "stop the threats"?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

https://www.globalfirepower.com/coalitions.php

That's a pretty good way to eyeball it.

But realistically it'll be some kind of WW3 scenario pretty quickly, Denmark is a founding NATO member, and has a shit ton of alliances. We'd have Russia, China, and US somewhat supporting each other, but trying to gobble up as much land as they can individually during the chaos. Then a NATO/EU coalition trying to stop them. And a lot of civil unrest everywhere else as each group tries to install dictators as allies.

And even if Russia/China/US win, they'll just eventually turn on each other in giant meat grinder land wars over terrority for the sake of terrority.

It's not going to be good for anyone.

There's also the whole thing where kind of the biggest point about NATO is "if any of gets invaded, we'll nuke the invader back the Flintstones"

The role of NATO’s nuclear forces The fundamental purpose of NATO’s nuclear forces is for deterrence. Nuclear weapons are unique and the circumstances under which NATO might have to use nuclear weapons are extremely remote. Furthermore, any employment of nuclear weapons against NATO would fundamentally alter the nature of a conflict.

Should the fundamental security of any NATO Ally be threatened, NATO has the capabilities and the resolve to impose costs on the adversary that would be unacceptable and far outweigh the benefits that any adversary could hope to achieve.

https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/deterrence-and-defence/natos-nuclear-deterrence-policy-and-forces

Putin is pushing trump to take Greenland, because the US is the least likely country for NATO to nuke.

Once they don't nuke America, that's his greenlight on NATO countries.

But NATO leaders know the consequences of not following thru.

Like, people been saying "trump will start ww3" for over a decade, but we're at like 11:59:59, it's very plausible it happens now, and we won't know until missiles are headed to either DC or Florida, probably both. Because NATO leaders will know before the American public or likely even Congress.