politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark, one of the founding members of NATO along with the US.
Attacking, invading, operating in, or otherwise taking military action against Greenland will at best destabilize and delegitimize NATO, and at worst prompt a full military response from NATO member states against the United States Military, the largest and most powerful armed force in history several times over, with a budget an order of magnitude larger than the rest of the world combined.
I cannot overstate how horrifically, hilariously bad this would be:
It would begin an escalating conflict that would give China the perfect distraction to invade Taiwan, and remove the support that Ukraine desperately requires to continue defending against Russia.
To avoid war, Denmark and NATO would be forced to concede and appease Trump as Chamberlain did with Hitler, further emboldening Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping to continue their totalitarian regimes and campaigns which literally amount to no less than cartoonishly evil total world domination.
In full scale conflict, NATO states would be faced with a losing battle in which their only recourse would quickly become the use of nuclear weapons.
This absolutely cannot happen. Our only window to stop the Trump regime’s utterly Fascist-with-a-capital-F designs by conventional political means is rapidly closing. Once the American military is in Denmark without their consent, my advice is to start looking at options for your own survival of WWIII.
That would be the end of NATO. Which means it's the US on one side an the rest of the world on the other. Except Israel, of course.
But on the plus side, the members could start their own alliance named "Now Excluding America Treaty Organization". I way on the plus side because the acronym would spell out "NEATO"
And the US and Russia will start their own Friendship Union. Like the G7, except only two of them.
We can call it FU2
It won't work out this way, no matter what happens.
Pacific Rim nations will probably stick with US interests over European interests, because the US is the only thing between them and China (at the moment). Europe doesn't have the global presence or the interest to operate in the Pacific. This includes: Taiwan, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, the Philippines, etc. Even if the US is showing itself to be a less reliable partner, it is still not (yet) an active threat to their interests the way that China is.
Ukraine under Zelensky won't just surrender to Russia and will probably tolerate a lot from the US in order to continue their defense efforts unless they are somehow offered EU membership/protection explicitly. I could see Ukraine breaking ties with the US if it meant joining the EU.
The above might give Trump the excuse to say openly that Ukraine "didn't want peace" (via surrendering to Russia) and then declaring open support for Russia in the name of "peace". Then it's an out-and-out US-Russia partnership.
China will continue to pretend neutrality, continue to manipulate its rivals into destabilizing, continue using its neighbor countries to export its environmental disasters, and then invade Taiwan. If that doesn't provoke direct conflict with the US, the rest of the Pacific Rim starts to look really vulnerable.
South America is... complicated. Obviously a lot of nations like The Dominican Republic and Colombia would side against the US with Venezuela. Argentina wouldn't. Is Venezuela under direct US control/occupation at this point? Brazil is a founding member of BRICS, so they're probably aligning with China and/or Russia, but they'll probably stick to conflict avoidance as much as possible.
India might make some public statements of condemnation of imperialistic behavior to score political points, but that would be it. The only way they get involved in any conflict is if China is on the other side (or maybe Pakistan, but that's more complicated).
Iran is in so much trouble right now with Tehran being completely out of water, and the internal economic strife. They're still a power in the region, but not really in a position to influence things beyond their borders.
Canada won't support US aggressive actions, but will also do almost anything to avoid direct conflict with the US. That's a very difficult position which will produce confusing, noncommittal and seemingly self-contradictory actions and statements.
Africa...? No idea, really.
Haven't been paying attention to the Iran protests. Knew they were running out soon but didn't know it happened.
Also, Greenland/Denmark is member of EU who have a similar clause to article 5.
Even if NATO could possibly immediately dissolve to avoid responding to Article 5, I'm guessing the EU is more robust.
I was taking you slightly seriously until you called China totalitarian which is so probably false as to draw into question every other point of analysis you have here.