this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
73 points (100.0% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14325 readers
602 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wait, he's folding on invasion plans now?
Is he asking if they're fake friends? Is he trying to say he's just testing the relationship?
What Trump says today may have no bearing on what he says tomorrow. Hell, just a couple hours later he might contradict himself. Greenland is like a small store and Trump is a delusional, impatient, senile Mafioso godfather. Trump could easily and simply squeeze Greenland for more protection money. But he keeps changing the rules.
I'll buy Greenland. You know what? I'll take Greenland by force and run it myself. You know what? I'll leave Greenland alone. You know what? I'll do whatever I want so I'll do whatever I want!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNs7ZhGF71c
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
I don't think there were any serious invasion plans, the whole point is to purchase Greenland.
Look at the military budgets of the rest of NATO vs the United States. The US spends considerably more, more than double, than the rest of NATO combined, despite having half the population. Even in % of GDP, only the USA, Greece and Poland were above 3% before Trump started his second term. In terms of technology, NATO is 100% reliant on the USA for stealth aircraft, strategic bombers, and numerous other things. This is not a sustainable state, an alliance cannot be this one sided long term. Look at what European NATO members were doing during the cold war vs now. The UK had its own strategic bombers, a large air force, forward deployed tank battalions to West Germany. Now, most of that is gone.
Is NATO even really an “alliance” in the true sense though? Or just a formalisation of american imperial hierarchy
Debatable, they've never used their military power for collective defence of a member(libs will debate this as article 5 was invoked to 'protect' America by the NATO invasion of Afghanistan, but imo that doesn't count as a defence since it wasn't fighting on American soil and was essentially a 'pre-emptive strike' to prevent further Al-Qaeda attacks(accepting the official 9/11 story, and ignoring the Taliban's over to hand bin-laden over to a neutral country for evidence-based prosecution, and taking the US's casus belli as legitimate) despite the Al-Qaeda cell allegedly responsible operating out of Germany and having no Afghan members ), only for aggressive military acts that support the US's geopolitical ambitions
'An alliance led by the US to enforce its empire' maybe accurate, but I guess 'organisation' or something similar better describes the unequal nature of member states as 'alliance' suggests members are equalish peers
Art of the Deal 101: Use leverage or perceived leverage to threaten the other party in order to get a better deal. Irrelevant that the net result is the destabilization of modern society, if he saves a buck and gets to swing his orange, shriveled dick around. He's been doing it since day one.
Hard to say which of his threats are real until he backtracks, though. I would not have guessed actually kidnapping Maduro, for example. But, you've got tactibro Hegseth frothing to be seen as tough and likely stoking the fires which changes the equation a bit.