The events of the past 12 months, culminating in Venezuela and now Greenland, has made me reevaluate a lot of my beliefs about unimpeded competition between free agents (i.e. a free market) leading to the best and most peaceful outcomes. Clearly, a few participants becoming disproportionately powerful is a failure mode.
The way I've tried to reconcile my beliefs with what are clearly contradictory observations in the real world is: markets/competition are dependent on a substrate of social contract, and that substrate must precede market dynamics and must not be subject to them. When market dynamics leak into the foundation on which the market is built (the social contract, culture, law, norms), then the system starts moving toward raw competition, which is the same as war. Which is what I think what's happening now.
All "free market" ideals require no/low barriers to entry in order for the market to be "self regulating". Said absence of barriers to entry almost never exists, hence the idea of completely free markets is completely naive - you need regulation.
Markets also cannot account for externalities. If those externalities are something you care about (e.g. the environment you live in) - you need regulation.
Economies of scale abound in most markets, and this tends towards monopolies and regulatory capture. If you don't want monopolies, because you value your freedom as a consumer - you need regulation.
This is very basic economics - I wish it was more widely taught.
It more basic than that, it is what used to be considered common sense. The United States has screwed basic education, effective communications is not even taught - the seed of common sense, and has been producing intellectually crippled wage slaves for that last 40+ years. It's going to require a culture revolution to pull out of this nose civilization-wide dive, and that revolution is not going to happen in the USA.
I have really noticed that over the past year or two. A worrying number of Americans seem to lack even basic knowledge of the world outside America or even have the ability to think seriously about the long term consequences of decisions. That's not saying all Americans are this way - far from it - but it does seem that a critical mass has been reached. Things like Trump are only symptoms of this, and I cannot see any realistic way the situation can be salvaged.
Add to that, few Americans know history beyond the American History (propaganda) they were taught in elementary school and have little to no interest in history at all, and if they do it's battles and war and glory nonsense. Few Americans can even conceive of the concept of their location in history. Far too many 'mericans think the Earth is Biblical's aged to be around 6K years... A critical number of them too, enough to keep abject morons in government offices.
Is it really basic economics that free market leads to monopolies? I thought this is not something where there is a strong consensus about ; free market advocates will actually argue that this is regulation that leads to monopolies.
Of course they lead to monopolies. If you start with a large number of equally capable suppliers and one somehow gains an edge then that one will be more profitable than the rest allowing it to invest and reduce its costs. This makes it even more competitive and provides a positive feedback loop. Eventually its competitors go bankrupt or get bought out by it.
Regulation can certainly exacerbate the problem, for instance rules that have a fixed annual cost or where the costs do not increase in line with volume favour larger concerns.
The idea that a totally free market can exist is a fantasy based on assumptions that simply cannot hold water. Regulation is necessary in order to prevent the powerful from abusing the weak. The fact that there are poor regulations does not invalidate the concept.
But that isn't happening though, you have local specialists everywhere that global giants still can't outcompete. Amazon is only dominant in USA and so on, they mostly just dominate a regulatory environment and can't compete well outside of it.
Amazon does a lot these days, are you talking about their ground satellite terminal service? Grocery Service? What about Online Pharmacy? Do you need to buy a car? Would you like some satellite internet? Do you need a k8s cluster, they'll even handle lifecycle management for you. They also seem well on their way toward seriously hurting the USPS, FedEx, and UPS, and will be outpacing the entire US Postal Service in total volume as of 2028. Would you like to watch a movie or buy an album? Health insurance?
I'm of course talking about maybe 1/50th of the services they offer these days, it is extensive.
Amazon has over 50% of the German e-commerce market, is also #1 in Italy and Spain.
Japan and India have also been getting investments, now that they've established a presence in such a massive scope of industries in the largest economy in the world.
Next year (2027) or maybe 2028 should see them have as a global internet provider ala StarLink.
In the UK, Germany, and Australia, Amazon has around 70% of the audiobook market.
Amazon.com is the world's largest global bookstore.
Twitch controls 70% of the game streaming market except for China.
Give it ~4 years and Amazon will be dominating UK and India delivery and private delivery services.
I didn't say that free markets lead to monopolies: I qualified that with the need for economies of scale. Those may not exist - but look at most of the markets you interact with in your daily life and try and find the ones that don't.
I'm not aware of how regulation of competitive markets would lead to monopoly. Are you referring to "regulation" in the form of state-endorsed/controlled monopolies? Those usually exist in situations where barriers to entry and economies of scale are so high that the state is simply "getting ahead" of the inevitable monopoly (e.g. national infrastructure).
Of course, corruption could also be what you mean by "regulation" that leads to monopolies, but all of this is predicate on the absence of corruption or cartels. If that's not the case you can throw all your assumption out of the window anyway.
> I'm not aware of how regulation of competitive markets would lead to monopoly
Competitive markets will always tend toward monopoly because that is the state at which the highest profits can be extracted. Regulation can, in some cases, help push it a bit faster in that direction by making barriers to enter the market even more onerous and expensive thus limiting or even eliminating new competitors. This allows the existing large competitors to either continue to knock out or buy up smaller ones, and the few remaining large ones to either merge to a single entity or settle into a state of non-competitive action (effectively collusion) where the market then either is or behaves as a monopoly.
Agreed! That sort of technical regulation needs corresponding market regulation to go with it to prevent monopoly (something we see very little of now).
Depends on what you call a "free market". The usual understanding is that a free market relies on the participants having sufficient information and being able to trade freely. However, the necessary information is usually hidden by sellers so that buyers can't make a "rational" decision in what to purchase (see The Market for Lemons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons).
Trading freely is compromised as well as markets will almost always favour the larger purchaser and so there's an incentive for companies to become every larger in order to consolidate power and profits.
So, it's not so much that free markets lead to monopolies, but our bastardised version of free markets that lead to monopolies.
Also, free market advocates are rarely advocates of actually free markets, but instead advocates of asymmetric markets that favour the large incumbents.
Yes, there's an entire body of work, starting with Ayn Rand, that vehemently argues that government interference in the economy is what leads to monopolies.
The person you're replying to was using an example to show how there isn't consensus, they weren't saying they agree with Ayn Rand. In fact, given their tone, if I had to make I guess, I'd say they disagree with her take.
I think we've been far too generous in the last decade with whose opinion is relevant to whether there is a meaningful "consensus" on a matter or not. Hence why I say that Ayn Rand is to economics as geocentrists are to astronomy - they're simply not relevant to a definition of consensus that has any value to me.
My opinion of Ayn Rand is no more flattering than yours, but I accept that she has quite a few powerful 'followers'. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few of the current administration were big Ayn Rand fans. Their opinions may be absurd but, sadly, they are also relevant.
>Markets also cannot account for externalities. If those externalities are something you care about (e.g. the environment you live in) - you need regulation.
Markets account for externalities via ownership and torts. This was gutted in the 1800s in the US where a judge ruled people couldn't sue for the impact of environmental pollution, in the name of the "greater good" of industrialization.
I'd disagree with the framing of this: The ownership and torts _were_ the regulation. I'm using a narrow definition of "market" that really only concerns supply and demand (because this is what "free market" ideals all revolve around).
I've arrived at the opposite conclusion. The root cause of conflict is decentralized power, which is the prediction of realism. Conflict occurs because of security competition, but security competition is only possible when powers are equally matched and trapped in a Prisoner's Dilemma dynamic.
You can sense check this by running through various historic eras. Consider the eras before any nation states, when power was at its most decentralized. That was also when conflict deaths were at their peak due to tribal warfare.
Then move on to the era of kingdoms and then nation-states, and conflict deaths decrease because power centralization increases. Intra-national conflict goes to zero because of a monopoly on violence over that local geography, leaving only inter-national conflict in the structurally anarchic power vacuum.
The peace of the 90s was because the United States was completely dominant and had no reason to do anything because it controlled everything. As the United States declines and power decentralization increases, moves such as denying China access to oil from Venezuela become actions that are deemed necessary in the new security environment. Or a clash between Thailand and Cambodia becomes a thing that can happen, because there is an absence of a big dog to lay down the law, as unjust as that law may be.
The analogy would be a country with multiple privately owned police forces and no single power. You're going to get conflict. It's a structural phenomenon of how power vacuums work when you plop humans inside of them, and it has nothing to do with morality or markets.
In the last 100 years, we managed to prove that cooperation beats competition.
Of course we do have competition, but where it has worked the best, it has been done in the context of cooperation, economic trade that follows norms and laws.
It's worth little at its current flows, but this ignores the temporal dimension which is where stock is more important because the flows can be built up over time. Only 20%-30% of China's oil is secure, the rest suffers from the Malacca dilemma which is why the US focuses on naval power projection as part of its Pacific containment policy, a lesson they learned with the oil blockade against Japan in WW2.
Oil is also not the only security dimension, the other dimension is to deny China a physical staging ground near to US territory for air, missiles or radar and SIGINT. Not a problem right now, but again these calculations need to involve the temporal dimension. If you believe there's a 25% chance of conflict over Taiwan, using the status quo of peace to justify decision-making is an "assume the best" doctrine which is a terrible security doctrine.
This isn't to say that security calculations are the only factor involved in this Venezuela operation. It is one piece of it. It's also somewhat besides the point because I am discussing underlying causal mechanisms, not fixating on a specific conflict.
As for how this relates to those mechanisms: the only reason these "security calculations" are even considered is because the US no longer holds a monopoly on world power. In the 1990s, it was a foregone conclusion. In that security, "cooperation" could occur. Then liberals osberve that cooperation and mistake it as the cause, when it's really the effect.
The specifics do matter if your argument is that some actions are a complex response to something and then the specifics are that the actions are stupid and nearly random.
This is an excellent counterargument. I was stumped for a bit until I noticed that your argument introduces a new variable that changes the equation: number of conflict deaths. Theoretically, it is possible to have a system of perfect enslavement where the number of conflict deaths are zero. But in such a system, low conflict deaths are a poor proxy to quality of life.
The basis of this is flawed because the "peace" started several decades before the 90s, and completely neglects the role of Mutually Assured Destruction in creating that peace. If anything, America's position was detrimental to that peace because it allowed it to wage its own unilateral wars.
This continues to be the case now. The main difference is that in the 90s, the opposition to Vietnam was still fresh enough in the average American mind. I suspect what we're seeing now is the effect of that memory fading.
Citizens are subjects, they have active voice. You may mean something deeper, but others will happily support only the “active voice” part. Corporations must not have it.
But in certain sense you are right. Corporate management should behave as citizens, and their citizen duties must be superior to their duties to shareholders.
> Beyond following the law, what are citizen duties?
Simple example: let’s say there’s an environmental law preventing corporation to make more profits. The good citizen should not try lobbying to repeal this law, even if this would be perfectly legal and lead to better outcome for shareholders. If CEO acts as good citizen and refuses to follow advice of the board and take this route, this should be legally defensible position.
OK but that would conflict with the charters of most companies. The charter instructs directors/officers to make profit for shareholders. It would be a significant undertaking to compel every company to somehow become a public benefit corporation.
Individualism is just a polite word for selfishness and a lack of empathy, and it's at the root of many of America's cultural and political problems. We're supposed to be a nation, not 300 million cowboys suffering the indignity of one another's trespass. We can't even fix our basic infrastructure because no one wants to spend their taxes on anything that benefits anyone but themselves. We can't have decent healthcare because it would be "socialist." But we'll shoot each other in the streets because nothing projects individual power more than a loaded gun.
There is a way to be a cohesive society without being assholes to each other. The United States somehow managed that before - more or less. I would not blame "individualism" directly, but we ARE in a timeline where a lot of people strive to be the worst versions of themselves.
Sounds like a copout, but I do insist that many of modern ills can be traced directly to the cancer that is social media. Monetizing rage cannot end well.
I suspect that the US managed its cohesion by keeping everyone but white straight Christian protestant men far from cultural and political power. It's easy to be cohesive when everyone looks, acts and thinks like you, and when the white establishment controls the media and sets cultural norms. Not that I'm advocating for a return to this at all - there are examples outside of the US where multiculturalism works. It just seems to be the case that the US has never really been comfortable living by its principles.
And this is one part of society's ills that I will kind of blame on social media, although not in the way you and a lot of HN people intend. I think a lot of the strife in our modern society comes not from social media algorithms driving outrage so much as other groups simply being able to gain visibility as the centralized media establishment gave way to the far less centralized structure of the web. To people who have grown up their entire life with only rare, token (and often stereotyped) representation of other races, religions and orientations, equality can seem like oppression.
But I do think that blaming social media is kind of a copout, because the argument tends to be that people are being manipulated and controlled by an addiction or a form of mind control, as if they don't have agency or free will. A lot of the discourse around social media right now seems to use the same hyperbole that one might have seen during the Satanic Panic, or any number of previous social panics. But I don't think social media is the problem per se (nor do I think regulating social media would be an effective solution.) I think the problem is what social media exposes in society - exposes, not creates. That's a far more difficult problem to solve because it means reconciling with some deeply systemic issues that a lot of people still don't even want to admit exist.
It isn't, though. Individualism also means things like dying your hair green and being generally fun and original. You can say "selfishness" instead, it's a perfectly good word, and there's no reason to worry about being impolite ... unless you're conforming.
I had similar thoughts, and my conclusion is that competition is an inherently unstable state of affairs: at some point somebody wins, and they will try very hard to prevent any further competitors from arising.
Indeed, competition is undesirable for all participants involved: everybody wants to win and exploit the rest for their own gain. Note that this is the only way to make competition work and result in its temporary benefits (if nobody wants to win, nobody will compete).
So there must be a system to keep the competition going and preventing the rise of a definitive and exploitative winner, and the existence of this system has to be accepted by the competitors. But why would serious competitors accept a system that prevents them from winning?
This is a really interesting take, I've been thinking very similarly.
I think there's a tendency to think of 'free markets' as having a lot more scope than they do - almost no countries allow free markets to determine the flow of people and restrict who can enter the country in some way. Similarly, nobody suggests the free market is a good way to regulate child labor.[0]
Especially in the US, there's a been a rapid erosion of other power structures like democracy, law, unions, etc that might serve as checks or balances against raw material interest. I think 'capitalism' often gets misclassified as 'pure competition', but it's probably better thought of as 'pure competition through regulated trade'. Pure competition, with no regulations to define a market, sounds more to me like what predated the industrial revolution (something more along the lines of feudalism)
[0] I took both these example from Ha-Joon Chang's Economics a Users Guide.
You're comparing one leader sending special forces in to capture another leader to a free market? That's not a market, it's a brawl. Markets take place within civil societies. "Raw competition is the same as war", well OK, but that's got nothing to do with trade.
Stephen Miller's very recent Jake Tapper CNN interview adds evidence to the argument POWER is king and LAW is nowhere near as important.. to his .. ahem .. the Trump administration.
So, it'll continue to be reality, for as long as Trumpism reigns in USA.
When I was young, back in school, I asked my teacher why the main purpose of a company is to grow. Their response was: "Because it has to be."
I don't think we need unlimited growth. Or, better: We CANNOT have unlimited growth, because there is a natural limit to the resources that are available. We, as a society, should do better than this. And that is what worries me: The sheer ignorance (or unawareness?) people have about their surroundings. I'm not sure if it is malicious, or just a coping strategy. But instead of looking into the real cause that lead to certain events, be it the environment, economical or political, people quickly blame minorities for all the bad that is happening, breastfed by the narrative that people like to repeat over and over again - "because it has always been like that".
For the longest time, I tried to counterargue and explain, why certain things are the way they are, and offered another perspective. But ears have become deaf, more than before.
Well, a company has to grow. If it doesn't, it'll be devoured by those who do and show pleasing YoY metrics to their shareholders and prospective investors. Simply imagine you are an investor. Which company would you put your money in? And since the world is limited a company cannot afford not growing if it wants to survive. Government regulation is impossible, because there are other governments which happily let their companies to grow and outcompete foreign companies.
Sure, the Melian order of the world is something one could consider as always there. Still, how much of Thucydides still applies when cheap drones, nuclear MAD, and environmental tragedy-of-the-commons are taken into account?
True, but after this led to the disasters of WW1 and WW2, there was a genuine international effort to constrain it. Of course, it was a deeply imperfect system, especially with the cold war going on, but it was still an improvement on the naked imperialism and genocide that preceded it. Unfortunately, it appears we're rapidly regressing to the former situation, except this time with atomic weapons.
The vast majority of people aren't empathetic enough to learn from experiences they didn't live through themselves. Yet I'm still surprised that the death of the living memory of WW1 and WW2 would take effect this quickly.
The problem is that people aren't effectively taught about the lead up to these wars as much as they are of what happened during them. At least that was my experience when I was taught about them in class.
People don't have a proper reference point of what is currently happening. Once a war starts it is already too late.
I am in the exact same camp. My belief in free markets has been completely shattered and my political stance on several subjects has changed dramatically over the last years.
I no longer believe in the free market at all.
Of course this isn't the result of a single isolated event. Our lives are poems that constantly re-write and scrutinize themselves after all, like living ink that breathes new pages anew. But if I had to pinpoint one very specific period with a very measurable effect on my position it was the whole Elon Musk saga (DOGE+"heart salute"). A lunatic billionaire seemingly doing what he wants, rewriting narratives, making up facts, history, and saying things which were so evidently false, and showing up next to a president as if he were himself president, never having been elected, was shocking.
I used to really believe that "money followed what was good for society". There would be outliers and some noise, but overall these would be well correlated. I now look back and wonder how absolutely naive of me that was. Billionaires should not be allowed. They are a disgrace to the system. It's actually vile and disgusting to have them in our society.
I'm not an american and I used to dream of going to the USA, perhaps even living there. I now want to stay as far away from it as possible, and view the supposed american dream as either a past reality or effective propaganda I bought into previously. Maybe that's better for america and it's what they need to grow, who knows.
If anything it is crisis of elites in US. Since the second world war US has held dominant hand over its subjects (most of the world). But the elites were always smart enough to hide the amount of power, they marketed US well and understand to negotiate somewhat fairly and give some scraps to the rest (allow creating some elites in other countries). It was a straightforward deal.
But now the elites in US are just not very smart or savvy. Introduction of the tech class that are people who simply won a lottery (or scammed their way up) and are otherwise absolutely arrogant and clueless about the world. The deal just can't work anymore. It can't work because there is no deal with someone who thinks they deserve everything. The balance is off and you are now dealing with children with golden toilets OR self mythologizing guys whos deepest political analysis come from few scifi books they've read 20 years ago.
So the only solution to this current manufactured political clown shitshow is a one world government, which is exactly the goal of the scenarists behind it.
We'll see much worse chapters of this shitshow before the last spectator admits the fallacy of dismissing this as a conspiracy theory.
There's capitalism and then there's communism. Both have proven to not work which leaves us with...
Countries are bad but even the sci-fi authors know the only way to change this is literally an alien invasion. Until then, instead of expecting good from our governments (wherever we live) shouldn't we just assume the worst and go from there? Since switching to that mentality life has been much more pleasant personally.
>The events of the past 12 months, culminating in Venezuela and now Greenland, has made me reevaluate a lot of my beliefs about unimpeded competition between free agents (i.e. a free market) leading to the best and most peaceful outcomes.
What have markets got to do with it? For as long as humans have been recording history, states have been annexing weaker states, regardless of economic system. It's absurd to blame free markets for this.
They led to the rise of powerful oligarchs who now very obviously steer the country (and the world) in a violent direction that I don't believe benefits many, except themselves of course.
Because I believe that causes of events are other events, and not objects. To blame an event (or a series of events) on a person (or a group of people) is a premature causality sink (e.g. "Why did X do evil thing? Because X is an evil person" -- this is not an explanation, it just puts an end to rational inquiry).
There are a few things that confuse me about this potential acquisition:
1. You won't govern it. Greenland has it's own Self-Government Act. [0]
2. You won't own the land. Almost all land is owned by the State. [1]
3. The Danes have no special land ownership rights. [2]
4. Land use rights, however, are granted for different activities (fishing, mining) subject to approval. [3]
I'd imagine none of this changes under a new owner. Why the can't the US just sign up for mining rights already? It seems like that's exactly what it would have to do post acquisition--unless of course the US also plans to bulldoze Greenland's sovereignty.
I'm genuinely interested if anyone can provide color.
> > It seems like that's exactly what it would have to do post acquisition--unless of course the US also plans to bulldoze Greenland's sovereignty.
I don't want to repeat what others are saying, but how on earth could you not consider that all of the existing rules, laws and agreements just go in the trash under a new "owner"? Of course the US plans to bulldoze Greenland's sovereignty, goodness me.
To be fair the US acquired American Samoa and kept a lot of their law in place even to the point you can do stuff in American Samoa that would be unconstitutional like limit power of women in some of the tribal councils (sorry they have a better name but I've forgotten), do not provide 2nd amendment protections required inside the USA, and limit ownership of land based on ethnic lines.
The USA also for instance rehabilitated Philippines from Japanese rape islands into an independent nation by taking them as a territory.
What I wonder is about the second order effects. I mean, I'm pretty far from Denmark but here the talk is pretty much like an existential crisis.
Even if the US does nothing about it, seems that many people has finally realized that Europe has no allies.
This has a lot of implications regarding the Pax Americana, the US/EU financial system, Eurasia, and many others.
I don't see any positive outcome for the west in general. Europe in particular is screwed but besides short-term gains I don't think the US is going to be able to sustain anything but very fragile and transactional alliances, if any.
>I don't see any positive outcome for the west in general. Europe in particular is screwed but besides short-term gains I don't think the US is going to be able to sustain anything but very fragile and transactional alliances, if any.
Europe became the forefront of human civilization, the home of the renaissance and the industrial revolution, because of internal competition between states (as opposed to the large centralized autocracies of Asia and the Middle East). In the long term more competition will ultimately be a good thing for Europe, forcing it to stop resting on its laurels, to start innovating and growing again.
> Even if the US does nothing about it, seems that many people has finally realized that Europe has no allies.
Indeed. But just because EU thinks too high of themselves and is turning down their last natural allies that is the South American/Mercosur countries. So whatever happens to EU is their own fault
Europe and the EU are two different things. The EU is already having it's own credibility crisis inside the EU, and there are already heavy pushes for reform.
The conversation is completely different in Germany, Poland, Italy and Spain, for example.
The EU has enacted pretty stupid policies but I don't think the status quo was about to last a lot. Now with the Greenland issue things are about to speed up.
My guess is that, because they shaked hands with conservative leaders in Europe, the White house thinks this is going to benefit them.
I don't think this is going to be the case mid term.
What are you talking about. There's little real opposition to the EU-Mercosur trade deal. It'll be ratified this year. The EU is the largest source of foreign direct investment in Mercosur.
> unless of course the US also plans to bulldoze Greenland's sovereignty.
It's probably not helpful for me to speculate, but surely this? If the US is truly prepared to invade another ally's territory for material gain, I'd assume the idea that they'd honor other existing laws is unlikely.
I don't see how it would actually work in practice. Can Trump really destroy Greenland's democracy via executive order? Surely Congress or the courts would have something to say about it? And even if not, how are you going to deal with all the people there? If Trump is ruling Greenland via executive order, then he is just a dictator, what happens to the people? It would end up as a long running sore and a terrible blemish on America's reputation.
Yeah, for what its worth I agree. But I can't see how those arguments would apply to abolishing Greenlands law, but not to invading and claiming ownership in the first place.
If the US doesn't have checks and balances to stop it invading a democratic ally with no cause, then I don't know what checks and balancing meaningfully can be said to exist.
> Surely Congress or the courts would have something to say about it?
my sense is that Trump feels to be above the law right now, having ordered the operation to seize Maduro without Congressional approval (illegal under U.S. constitutional law). Trump's reasoning was that "Congress has a tendency to leak", and so to him congress seems little more than background noise.
> Surely Congress or the courts would have something to say about it?
The entire mode of operation for the current administration is to ignore such things whenever they don't blindly rubber stamp or get out of the way. It has been very successful for them.
The man in charge has said in the past that he admired dictators. Many did not pay attention to this.
Congress is easy to takeover by a political party and this happens cyclically, so no one was surprised by that.
People also ignored gerrymandering because both major political parties do that, and historically it can be undone.
However, the takeover and stacking of the judicial branch with political cronies was another definite warning sign. People that were paying attention noticed this came first, because it’s the brakes that can slow an administration from getting out of control. The brake lines were effectively cut.
If you’ve studied German history and World War II, you know that Hitler didn’t just happen. There was an imperialist history. Though not typically stated in this way, the U.S. has historically been an empire for much of the 20th century, if you consider bases around the world and involvement in world conflicts (and the same could be said about some other countries, NATO, UN, etc.)
The American people cannot rise up against its own government in any substantial way when (1) families are split with half of the people are brainwashed, and (2) they think that things can be undone after N years by voting that party out (but the opposing party can not pivot to undo the economic and world political damage done by the current administration).
Most dictators were not known from the beginning of their reign as evil incarnate.
Americans keep hoping to see in the news that someone will stop this, but they suspect that if they were to try to stop it, they and their families would eventually be punished or killed. So, they’re all just waiting a few years hoping that it will be undone, and that surely the military will not let the U.S. takeover a country that does not have a despotic leader; that would break the longstanding U.S. trend of only getting very involved publically at least if they are taking the stance of the respected jock defending the little kid getting beat up.
Everything that's been said publicly is just pretence, just like Maduro's/Venezuela's supposed drug trafficking. This is about Trump being and old man in his waning days who wants to create a legacy. Those around him have ambitions of empire.
You're overthinking this. These are just stupid people. Think of the dumbest uncle you have ranting online over some ridiculous story. These are the people making these decisions, and they're putting about the same amount of planning into them.
The president said the reason we toppled Venezuela was for oil. We're past false pretenses. His apparatus still comes up with the false pretenses, but it seems like it's more out of habit and stemming revolution more than acting on the president's behalf.
The whole meme of "America isn't a country, it's three corporations wearing a trench coat" seems to have been mostly correct, albeit that trench coat is starting to look a lot less like a modern trench coat and more like an actual Trench Coat.
Honestly, for a "terrorist" he was treated quite nicely. You would think there would have been photos of him captured with a black eye or something but it is just a picture of him holding a water bottle. Then they made the vice-president the new president. I feel like the Prime Minister of Greenland won't be treated as nicely.
or wmd, or poor locals need saving from chemical weapons attacks from their own govt. the funniest spin i heard was some clown trying to say that by taking greenland the us would be strengthening nato!
Mining in Arctic is a technical nightmare. Typical alloys become brittle in these temperatures, darkness severely limits operations and/or workplace accidents, transport requires ice-breakers, permafrost is fundamentally unstable (heat from buildings melts it, causing sinking), and you need to pay people a lot to work there.
This is unironically the plan some Norwegian politicians came up with. They were thinking about sending asylum seekers and/or difficult to eject immigrants to Svalbard.
As a Swede I must confess I don't know much about Greenland. But if Denmark goes all-in on Greenland, you can bet the other Nordic countries will be involved too.
Not sure how this will play out. Really strange situation and as I said I don't even know how much Denmark cares about Greenland. Any Danes here that can tell us more?
I'm Danish, we don't really care about whether or not Greenland is a part of our Kingdom (I'm sure some people do but it's certainly not the majority in my opinion). That being said it's not like it's ours to sell or give away, so it would be more relevant to ask someone from Greenland. I think the most likely outcome is that Greenland decides to leave our Kingdom and become something like the Marshall Isles.
The whole national security part is a lie though. The US can already do whatever they want up there. Well except for having nuclear weapons, but they'd probably be allowed if they asked.
I think some of our politicians care that they'd lose any form of geopolitical relevance without Greenland, but it's not like our population in general supports that.
I can't help wondering if that's really what all of this is about - the Nordics can't really fight the US and Russia at the same time (though given their history I suspect they'd try).
But they are not fighting russia. Also putin can't really fight anywhere else but Ukraine. Special operation in Baltic state is maximum of russian ability unless there is a ceasefire in Ukraine.
Not yet no (and I seriously hope that it will never happen), but a ceasefire in Ukraine looks like it might happen tying down troops from the UK, France and others and then a threat to Greenland from the US drawing off more troops and attention perhaps leaving Russia open to attack one of the Baltic states?
That would deter even the United States, I believe. The problem I see if it's worth it. As I said, as a Swede I don't really care about Greenland, but Denmark is part of the Nordic Family.
The US has military bases all around Europe from which they would be able to do actions to keep NATO from mobilising.
In 2024 I spent a day protesting outside the Swedish parliament against US base also in Sweden.
We warned about Trump probably winning the US election and how unpredictable he is, but the proponents disregarded all our arguments: "Trump being president again? Pfft.. That will never happen", "Provision for US leaving NATO? Pfft. They won't", "Rule against nukes on Swedish soil? Pfft. The US are our friends and will respect our wishes.". The vote passed, and here we are.
The resources are currently under ice - but fear not. US is working hard at it by sabotaging green energy, drilling like crazy, and now also expanding it's oil reserves in the Venezuelan colony. It is a smart, pragmatic and self-consistent approach. Just for a different utility function.
Honestly, as someone who firmly opposes what Putin did, there were better "historical justifications" for Russia to annex Crimea than for the USA to colonize Greenland, a territory that has never been part of the USA. The idea of invading an ally's territory just to steal its resources is particularly shameful and disgusting.
Denmark would likely low key love to shitcan greenland. They are a massive money drain, welfare state. Their minerals exist but not enough to turn the place net positive to their colonizer.
If Denmark could come "steal" something like the Pine Ridge Reservation in the Dakotas, it would be an imperfect analogy. As long as we could lose it while still saving face, it would be absolutely amazing economically for the USA.
Denmark sent about 4,3 Billion Danish Krona to Greenland last year, this is about 0.6% of Denmark's budget. For a nation that made a surplus of about 130 Billion in 2025 it does not seem like a something Danes in general want or need to shitcan.
Most people in Greenland want Independence from Denmark. They consider themselves foreigners to the country and yet devour 0.6% of their surplus.
IMO it is foolish both for USA and Denmark to take them. Cut them loose as they desire and let them trade their minerals which they will surely do as soon as they realize their free lunch is gone. You would still get the thing you want it for, the greenlander are happy they are free of the colonizers, and it likely wouldn't change things militarily as they would absolutely sign a defense treaty as soon as you hand them the pen.
Clearly the only people not being represented are Greenlanders since Danes generally see Greenlanders as family to be respected and Greenlanders want to be gone, yet this hasn't happened.
This is basically a fight between government of Greenland, government of Denmark, and government of USA all acting generally against the wishes of their own populace. And somehow the dumbest of all options, the USA acquiring them, seems to be one of the more likely scenarios that actually ends up happening.
One similarity is, if I'm correct, Russia claimed that the naval base of Sevastopol was vital for Russian security.
The protection of the population and the illegitimacy of the current government was an argument developed by Russia at the time, it has not been yet by USA but I suspect this might start develop in the next few weeks.
The common ingredients to justify an invasion/annexation is a mix of:
- Self-Defense, security
- Historical, Geographical claims
- Protection of the population
- Moral sugar coating (we had no choice)
Greenland was not part of the USA for a 150 years. It is also not mostly populated by ethnic Americans who speak English as their mother tongue. Nor is there a large American military base there that Greenland / Denmark is trying to evict them from and potentially hand over to a geopolitical adversary. Greenland is also an island a couple thousand miles away from Denmark.
Honestly, it is such a surprise that the difference is not obvious.
You are clearly wrong. Both Trumpism and Putinism are reactive ultra-conservative ideologies. Annexation of Crimea was motivated largely by Russia's "legitimate security concerns". Russian propaganda was busy convincing the population that Crimea gives strategic control over Black Sea region and if Russia didn't intervene, there would have been NATO bases on the peninsula after the Maiden revolution. Trump and his sycophants are saying the same thing: American security, Arctic, and American geopolitical foes: China and Russia.
My prediction of how a hostile takeover would work out - i.e. all US offers to purchase Greenland are flat rejected:
0. USA invades Greenland by shipping thousands of troops there, Denmark does the same. I don't believe there will be any direct conflict, but rather that US simply declares they now control Greenland.
1. Denmark invokes a number of NATO articles, immediately.
2. NATO crisis, all members meet in hopes to work it out.
3. Trump won't budge. USA uses their veto right on all possible interventions. NATO still stands, but is at this point in complete turmoil, and effectively toothless.
4. Allies of Denmark, probably EU too, puts pressure on the US to step back. Economic sanctions against US.
5. Sanction war starts between USA and parts of western Europe.
6. Congress does not authorize Trumps use of military, and Trump must withdraw within 90 days.
7. Trump vetoes this. Pulls the "make me" card when threatened. Trump argues that he can use funds as he wishes, dragged to court. The case is fast-tracked to supreme court.
8. If US economy crashes, Trump might be successfully impeached and removed. If not, he'll just continue.
9. Cold front between US and Europe. China tries to strengthen economic ties with Europe to fill the gap that has been hit by US sanctions. Who knows what Russia does - likely a new European military organization has grown out of this.
10. Eventually Trump leaves office, a sooner or later a new democratic president takes over, and reverses everything. Gives back Greenland to Denmark, does everything to mend relations with Europe.
As a European, I don't think the relations can be fully mended, especially if points 0-9 come to pass! Even where we stand right now, I want my government—in conjunction with other European countries—to be planning for a long, slow process of decoupling our dependency on the US.
Yes, that's the dangerous thing about this. Even if most European leaders understand that Trump might be a once-in-a-century anomaly, the seed has been planted. Who knows when the next one comes around?
Trump, on the other hand, is a huge stress-tester of the US system. He knows that seemingly no mater what he does, he might just face impeachment, but not removal. So his go-to strategy is to break laws, and challenge them in court. All the way up to supreme court.
This is why all the checks and balances are sort-of useless at the moment. We know Trump will just ignore them, instruct people to ignore them, and challenge them. And even if he's doing blatantly illegal stuff that would land his cronies in jail, the DOJ won't go after them.
Trump understands that he will never, ever serve a single day in jail. He'll argue that everything he's doing, he's doing as a president, and with the immunity that comes with it. He'll issue pre-emptive pardons for his cronies, and probably himself. Wouldn't surprise me if he ends up stepping down toward the end of his term, and Vance also issues pardons for Trump.
He's emboldened, knows that he's untouchable, and is easily manipulated by his orbiters. And, frankly, I believe he has limited time left - he's not a man that will live to be 100.
>6. Congress does not authorize Trumps use of military, and Trump must withdraw within 90 days.
No US president, regardless of party, has ever recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. When a president sends reports to Congress of the sort the act mandates, the report typically includes a disclaimer stating as much.
>If US economy crashes
Any European attempt to "crash" the US economy would result in worse results for Europe.
Only 7% of US GDP comes from foreign trade, by far the smallest of any developed nation. The US is Denmark's largest export customer, while Denmark is almost insignificant as a US customer.
Example: One often-suggested penalty against the US is Novo Nordisk suspending sales to Americans. Even setting aside the fact that the US's Lilly's own GLP-1 has handily commercially outperformed Ozempic (as seen in their relative stock prices), the US was *57%* of Novo Nordisk's sales in 2024. <https://www.novonordisk.com/content/dam/nncorp/global/en/inv...>
The US stock market is being carried by tech companies. Any large-scale sanctions against Europe would hit said tech firms hard, for no other reason than that they need all the customers they can get. Crashing the stock market could in turn induce panic, which in the end will reflect poorly on the president.
The whole goal of such a (economic) war would be to make US senators and congressmen take a stand, and decide if enough is enough. Americans vote with their pocketbooks. Just introducing extra tariffs on specific industries and companies in specific states can be politically devastating. Now imagine full-blown sanctions.
Not to mention that US competition will happily step up to take their lunch, while all this going on. China will instantly jump on that opportunity. US firms will also recognize that sanctions on things like tech will drive innovation in Europe to fill that void, in tandem with what China and others have to offer.
Will both recover? Yes, probably. But hopefully Trump will be out, as that will be the main objective.
I point out that any European attempt at economic warfare against the US would inevitably affect both sides, and that the US is much less dependent on foreign trade than Europe ... and yet you again speak as if any impact would be solely on the US. "Panic", "Politically devastating", etc., as if only the US has upsettable investors and distressed electorate.
>Now imagine full-blown sanctions.
This would surely result in formal American withdrawal from NATO.
"The US invading Greenland would destroy NATO!", you say. I don't believe that the US would invade Greenland militarily; it will likely buy it, or obtain some sort of ironclad investment rights not dependent on whether Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark or independent. But let's say that the US does, and NATO dissolves.
It comes down to net benefits. Would owning Greenland be more valuable for American national security, than the current NATO status quo of the US being willing to to accept its own cities being nuked if Russia invades Western Europe?
The calculus made more sense (if it ever did) during the Cold War, when NATO ended at Germany's eastern border. Does it make sense now, when Montenegro is a NATO member? I strongly suspect that the answer is not one that the rest of NATO would want to hear, regardless of the Ukraine War.
No, I didn't say that US invading Greenland would destroy NATO. It would cause a crisis, yes, but it's complex - members can only withdraw, no members can be expelled from NATO. And for withdrawals, it takes one year from notification to official withdrawal.
To complicate things further, there have been put up safeguards in the US to "Trump-proof" a withdrawal. Would Trump ignore these? Likely. But it would be challenged in court.
What likely would happen, is that NATO just lies dormant. And if the US successfully withdraws, it would set in motion things that are not resolved overnight. The US have bases, servicemen, caches of equipment, etc. spread across allied countries. And while most of these are covered by deals made with the host-countries, there's a pretty good likelihood those deals would have to be re-negotiated in the even US becomes hostile to allies. US pulling out of NATO because they don't see the value is one thing, US pulling out of NATO because they've become enemies of another NATO-ally is a completely different mater, as far as future deals go.
But then again, US taking Greenland by force is the absolute worst outcome - as far as the Greenland scenario goes. I truly do not think Trump will try that, anytime soon.
It's extremely, profoundly unprofessional to threaten a country with force. But that's how Trump operates. He makes big no-so veiled threats ("Would be a shame if...", "We have options...") to force the other party to negotiation, and then tries to low-ball. He's treating international relations the same way he treats business/real-estate deals. That's how he's always done business.
And as a bonus for him, it is taking up the news headlines.
My guess is that US and Denmark will meet, US will push on with offering to buy Greenland, Denmark will say no, but maybe they will buy some extra US equipment (they're already buying P-8 Poseidon surveillance aircraft to patrol the maritime area surround Greenland) or similar. Trump will announce this deal, and we won't hear anything about Greenland in another 6-12 months.
An investment broker comes to an old German still keeping money in a bank.
- Look, Americans announced plans to get Greenland and extract all the resources! It's time to invest in the stock market!
- But what if Denmark disagrees?
- Don't worry! America will just take it anyway!
- And if Denmark resists?
- Then America will invade!
- But what if NATO collapses when America attacks a member state?
- Well... then America won't survive alone in a hostile world.
- And if America collapses?
- Mein Herr... then surely it's worth losing a few thousand euros just to watch that spectacle, no?
By the time those resources are accessible, we'll be in a major flood disaster on all our coasts. Why don't we just leave this bit of resource alone for the sake of land that actually supports life.
It all hinges on the midterms. Things will become clearer as to how they are going in about the next 6 months or so. There is a real chance that Trump’s faction may have finally caused to much damage for even his base. But never underestimate the impulse for knee-jerk voting or the opposition’s capacity to save its enemy from its own mistakes.
We will see how much that holds this midterm. Trump has wrecked so many things though, it’s hard to tell how things will go, cling on out of desperation or throw him overboard to the sharks?
How do you figure? This show is actually going to be rather boring. The setup has long been completed and Europe will not even squeal all that much.
What, with the Ukraine trap and the narrative hole of Russia marching on Paris, Europe is going to do what against America for taking Greenland? Europe walked itself into a trap and it has no clue it’s even happening.
There is a tiny chance something else is being done, but it’s such a small chance it’s not even worth mentioning. Reality is that this thing we still call America is starving hungry and it smells European blood in the water, and is furiously rubbing its hands over Greenland’s resources and Arctic access. And no, Europeans, the Democrats will also devour you now that they’ve also smelled the money in the Potomac. The Empire must eat.
No, Europe is already drugged, muzzled, and strapped to the table… it will be over soon, Europe.
Europe has not just "cheered on". There were demonstrations throughout Europe against the wars in the middle east and both e.g. France and Germany openly opposed the war in Iraq.
The Europeans I know (from all over) have generally been opposed to American geopolitics both in the Middle East, South East Asia, and South America. The US has traditionally been seen as an ally, but that doesn't mean we "cheer on" its actions.
Because there are many financial and military interests, it is very hard to do much for e.g. the EU, and the politicians are very careful with their words. Just as it is for the rest of the world...
Note: Europe is not a single entity but a continent full of different countries including (part of) Russia. Even the EU doesn't really have one single foreign policy.
Many EU countries did send troops did it not? And what happened when it became clear the war was a farce? There were zero consequences right? It's a "told ya" moment for a lot of asian countries who didn't fully trust the US.
Some European allies joined US in the Iraq war for the initial invasion: UK, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Denmark. The "Coalition of the willing" was larger, though.
Many opposed it. Remember "Freedom fries"?
As for Afghanistan, that's a completely different thing. US invoked article 5.
Yep I vividly remember Tony Blair supporting the war. Millions dead. People just went on with their lives with a "oops". I'm just saying this behaviour is nothing new. Might makes right I guess.
You are right. People went on with their lives, just as they did in many other parts of the world, but I don't think what happened is forgotten -- Not even in the US.
Btw. as far as I remember neither China, India, Russia, nor practically any other nation stopped trading with the US over the war in Iraq. Maybe I am wrong about that.
Small detail on casualties in Iraq: the estimates listed on Wikipedia range from 150K to about 1 million (1).
> Btw. as far as I remember neither China, India, Russia, nor practically any other nation stopped trading with the US over the war in Iraq. Maybe I am wrong about that.
Yep. Because countries only care about themselves. The US is too important economically. But are you saying that Europe like India and China does stuff that benefits them and isn't a better standard morally?
Neither Europe nor EU is a single country with a single foreign policy. There are around 40 different small and large countries in Europe each with their own foreign policy, history, culture and language. Two of the countries are currently at war with each other (if we still include Russia in Europe). Historically, Europe is a continent of wars and full of disagreement, where countries have done much to benefit themselves.
I really don't know much of what is happening in China or India or how you would ever measure something as subjective as morality. The point was, that it isn't just European (or EU) nations that don't stand up to the US. Nobody really dare -- Even those other heavy-weights. So it doesn't seem fair to me to single Europe (European nations) out for not doing anything.
I would say that Europe has a lot of bad history and guilt and we know it. And there is an aspiration in many of the European countries to be better and do "the right thing" now, but it is definitely debatable whether those countries actually do it, or if we even know what "right" is.
I don't think Europe should feel guilt or anything about their history. They are just operating like every other region prioritising their own citizens first.
I just hope all of this is a nothingburger. The last thing the world needs is a war between the west. But looks like globalisation is going to slow down regardless. Sad.
Yes. You are right. Unfortunately, many countries that were/are part of EU sent forces to Iraq (not all).
You mention that Asia was suspicious, but the "coalition of willing" actually included Asian countries such as Phillippines, South Korea, Japan, Uzbekistan, Singapore.
I believe the current overarching feeling in Europe is that we were mislead by the US administration more than our own politicians. Already back then, there was quite a lot of skepticism and significant doubt in the media all over Europe about the justification of that war. Also in the coalition countries.
And Indeed, there were no consequences later. But what should have been done and by whom at that point? How do you prove that it was deliberately misleading? Why would it be the job of nations of Europe or EU?
I agree that it wasn't pretty, and that the European nations and EU should have opposed more, but even as it was back then, it was not a clear "cheering on" moment. I remember having discussions about Iraq with people from Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, Germany, and France back when the invasion started. Although a large group did support the war (I think many were still emotionally affected by 9/11), I actually don't remember talking to any one of them.
The reality is that the US is the most powerful geopolitical entity and Europe is a continent consisting of many individual countries. Even the EU is a divided group of nations, and even if united would not be as powerful as the US is currently.
> And Indeed, there were no consequences later. But what should have been done and by whom at that point?
Reparations?
> How do you prove that it was deliberately misleading?
Are you denying the fact that countries didn't know? Many EU countries did indeed stay out of the conflict after all. Are you saying the incredible intelligence agencies of western countries were simply oblivious?
> Why would it be the job of nations of Europe or EU?
Because you sent troops? And because people there genuinely think they are the good guys?
> I remember having discussions about Iraq with people from Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, Germany, and France back when the invasion started.
Would you let Russia off the hook for Ukraine then? After all the people there are under dictatorial rule. I'm sure there are large groups of people there who oppose the war.
> The reality is that the US is the most powerful geopolitical entity and Europe is a continent consisting of many individual countries. Even the EU is a divided group of nations, and even if united would not be as powerful as the US is currently.
I completely agree. The US is too powerful. I'm just saying it shouldn't come as a complete surprise that they would one day target Europe as well. Unfortunately might makes right. I just hope the US comes to their senses.
It seems a distinction needs to be made between what is being discussed. The ruling class of Europe has cheered it on, even if the peasants complained; but as with so many other things, it’s wholly irrelevant what the peasants want, as you highlight. Americans also were 90%+ opposed to entering WWI and WWII and Vietnam, but that doesn’t change that it was done to serve ruling class objectives.
That’s long been the system; the peasants are manipulated or forced to enter into the meat grinder for the ruling class. See the Ukraine for reference.
But rejoice, soon robots and drones with fight each other instead … or maybe get rid of “useless eaters” more efficiently? It could go either way, or both.
The thing is, Europe is kinda special. Cascade effects of America forcefully taking over Greenland will be by orders of magnitude more painful to Americans than Brexit was to Britain. America flipping from an ally to an adversary will trigger huge economic decoupling and it is practically certain that dollar will immediately loose its weight and USA may even default on its debt after that. Yes, Europe is going to suffer too, but I have a gut feeling that European citizens will still do better.
Can't wait for the CNN headlines: "DANES CHEER AS TYRAN PRIME MINISTER CAPTURED", "DANES WELCOME FOREIGN LIBERATORS", "DANISH ECONOMY TO BOOM WITH FREE MARKETS REFORMS"
This doesn't really align with CNN's view, but may apply to another even more popular US news channel that seems to be much more aligned with the current administration...
Greenland and Denmark are not the same. Greenland is a self-governed territory under the Kingdom of Denmark. The US administration wishes to take over Greenland from Denmark completely. So you should replace your headlines with "Greenland" and "Greenlanders".
Note: There have already been discussions about making Greenland independent from Denmark, but there is uncertainty over how to handle economic and defense situations. Greenland currently receives significant support (about $10000-15000 per capita yearly) from Denmark. So it is not clear how the country would run without that.
>Greenland currently receives significant support (about $10000-15000 per capita yearly) from Denmark. So it is not clear how the country would run without that.
Greenland absolutely positively cannot run without outside subsidy. Pacific islands (barely) function as independent countries because their tiny populations are commensurate with their small areas. Greenland's 50,000 people live on an island three times the size of Texas.
Currently that subsidy comes in the form of €600 million in annual funds from Copenhagen. Now Washington has emerged as a potential outbidder.
As if such a pesky geographic detail ever stopped USA from invading Afghanistan when fifteen Saudi, two UAE, and one Lebanese nationals attacked them in 2001.
As a European. I'm starting to hate the US. Not dislike. Hate.
For months I thought they can't possibly allow the orange clown to ruin their country any further. But the country is clearly spiralling out of control. And I'm starting to hate the whole culture.
Now if a part of the population did anything other than comment online. If they took to the streets or did anything substantial in protest. But no. Crickets. So to me, every US citizen is at least partly complicit.
For years, I already noticed I subconsciously did not like action movies that featured CIA / FBI / US Military anymore. And I gradually moved away from all US based infrastructure in my projects because it strategically made sense.
But these past weeks it tipped over in actual disgust. For me, there's no difference between the US, China and Russia anymore. The US will probably take Greenland. China will take Taiwan. Russia will take Ukraine.
And Europe needs to unite further and prepare for war, or risk being torn apart by the new axis of evil.
The No Kings protests are large and have been occurring over the last year. It’s disingenuous to imply the population is doing nothing but comment online. The US is a large country with the third largest population in the world. It’s not homogenous.
Despite all that, it’s probably still prudent to decouple from the US.
there is good reason to believe that mineral prices would have to climb 30% above current prices and stay there, before greenland's resources would become profiable, which in the scenario bieng presented, would then also have to cover the 600 million/yr subsidy that Denmark currently provides to Greenland.
there are only two active mines there, both very specialised, and quite small on a tonage basis and a handfull of somewhat promising sites that could be developed useing conventional technology, the rest is speculative, and will remain that way, sitting under miles of ice. Speaking of specualtion, it is so cold on top of the ice sometimes that people have suggested that there the possibilty of CO² ice forming naturaly, but there is no way for humans to get to those places, so it will remain an esoteric debate for now.
Per Greenlandic laws, they own the mineral rights. They can license rights to others, and Denmark will also receive a portion of the profits.
Unfortunately, this is the model that American conservatives and billionaires hate. The idea that a country is entitled to their own resources is repulsive to them. This is also one of the things fundamental things where American vs Nordic mindsets are worlds apart.
It is arguably also the real reason why US attacked Venezuela.
Yes, those crazy Americans who are so loyal to America and not any other country at all, really hate it when other people have things that God promised to them instead.
I would guess it is a reference to EU conceding to Trump's tariffs such as https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czxpdv5x54ko and general lax treatment of how cosy he and Putin is with each other.
Is this not Trump's usual negotiation strategy? Start with outrageous, totally unacceptable demands and then slowly dial back while everyone else runs around like headless chickens. Ends with him in a much better position than if he had approached things in a rational manner?
Greenland is extremely and much more than to any other country important to the US . Close geographical proximity, similarity with and existent experience from Alaska, bridge to sensitive regions of Russia and in the end of the tunnel a rich underground that hardly any other can extract. Ongoing climate improvement play a role, may be definitive. The potential take over is relatively easy (not like Canada): 50000 indigenous people that can be bribed, terrorised, forced or persuaded. Denmark is more like a distant relative than a mother nation. It will be a fascinating scene.
The events of the past 12 months, culminating in Venezuela and now Greenland, has made me reevaluate a lot of my beliefs about unimpeded competition between free agents (i.e. a free market) leading to the best and most peaceful outcomes. Clearly, a few participants becoming disproportionately powerful is a failure mode.
The way I've tried to reconcile my beliefs with what are clearly contradictory observations in the real world is: markets/competition are dependent on a substrate of social contract, and that substrate must precede market dynamics and must not be subject to them. When market dynamics leak into the foundation on which the market is built (the social contract, culture, law, norms), then the system starts moving toward raw competition, which is the same as war. Which is what I think what's happening now.
All "free market" ideals require no/low barriers to entry in order for the market to be "self regulating". Said absence of barriers to entry almost never exists, hence the idea of completely free markets is completely naive - you need regulation.
Markets also cannot account for externalities. If those externalities are something you care about (e.g. the environment you live in) - you need regulation.
Economies of scale abound in most markets, and this tends towards monopolies and regulatory capture. If you don't want monopolies, because you value your freedom as a consumer - you need regulation.
This is very basic economics - I wish it was more widely taught.
It more basic than that, it is what used to be considered common sense. The United States has screwed basic education, effective communications is not even taught - the seed of common sense, and has been producing intellectually crippled wage slaves for that last 40+ years. It's going to require a culture revolution to pull out of this nose civilization-wide dive, and that revolution is not going to happen in the USA.
I have really noticed that over the past year or two. A worrying number of Americans seem to lack even basic knowledge of the world outside America or even have the ability to think seriously about the long term consequences of decisions. That's not saying all Americans are this way - far from it - but it does seem that a critical mass has been reached. Things like Trump are only symptoms of this, and I cannot see any realistic way the situation can be salvaged.
Add to that, few Americans know history beyond the American History (propaganda) they were taught in elementary school and have little to no interest in history at all, and if they do it's battles and war and glory nonsense. Few Americans can even conceive of the concept of their location in history. Far too many 'mericans think the Earth is Biblical's aged to be around 6K years... A critical number of them too, enough to keep abject morons in government offices.
Is it really basic economics that free market leads to monopolies? I thought this is not something where there is a strong consensus about ; free market advocates will actually argue that this is regulation that leads to monopolies.
Of course they lead to monopolies. If you start with a large number of equally capable suppliers and one somehow gains an edge then that one will be more profitable than the rest allowing it to invest and reduce its costs. This makes it even more competitive and provides a positive feedback loop. Eventually its competitors go bankrupt or get bought out by it.
Regulation can certainly exacerbate the problem, for instance rules that have a fixed annual cost or where the costs do not increase in line with volume favour larger concerns.
The idea that a totally free market can exist is a fantasy based on assumptions that simply cannot hold water. Regulation is necessary in order to prevent the powerful from abusing the weak. The fact that there are poor regulations does not invalidate the concept.
But that isn't happening though, you have local specialists everywhere that global giants still can't outcompete. Amazon is only dominant in USA and so on, they mostly just dominate a regulatory environment and can't compete well outside of it.
Amazon does a lot these days, are you talking about their ground satellite terminal service? Grocery Service? What about Online Pharmacy? Do you need to buy a car? Would you like some satellite internet? Do you need a k8s cluster, they'll even handle lifecycle management for you. They also seem well on their way toward seriously hurting the USPS, FedEx, and UPS, and will be outpacing the entire US Postal Service in total volume as of 2028. Would you like to watch a movie or buy an album? Health insurance?
I'm of course talking about maybe 1/50th of the services they offer these days, it is extensive.
"competing"
I'm not aware of any country besides the US in which Amazon dominates in anything.
Amazon has over 50% of the German e-commerce market, is also #1 in Italy and Spain.
Japan and India have also been getting investments, now that they've established a presence in such a massive scope of industries in the largest economy in the world.
Next year (2027) or maybe 2028 should see them have as a global internet provider ala StarLink.
In the UK, Germany, and Australia, Amazon has around 70% of the audiobook market.
Amazon.com is the world's largest global bookstore.
Twitch controls 70% of the game streaming market except for China.
Give it ~4 years and Amazon will be dominating UK and India delivery and private delivery services.
I didn't say that free markets lead to monopolies: I qualified that with the need for economies of scale. Those may not exist - but look at most of the markets you interact with in your daily life and try and find the ones that don't.
I'm not aware of how regulation of competitive markets would lead to monopoly. Are you referring to "regulation" in the form of state-endorsed/controlled monopolies? Those usually exist in situations where barriers to entry and economies of scale are so high that the state is simply "getting ahead" of the inevitable monopoly (e.g. national infrastructure).
Of course, corruption could also be what you mean by "regulation" that leads to monopolies, but all of this is predicate on the absence of corruption or cartels. If that's not the case you can throw all your assumption out of the window anyway.
> I'm not aware of how regulation of competitive markets would lead to monopoly
Competitive markets will always tend toward monopoly because that is the state at which the highest profits can be extracted. Regulation can, in some cases, help push it a bit faster in that direction by making barriers to enter the market even more onerous and expensive thus limiting or even eliminating new competitors. This allows the existing large competitors to either continue to knock out or buy up smaller ones, and the few remaining large ones to either merge to a single entity or settle into a state of non-competitive action (effectively collusion) where the market then either is or behaves as a monopoly.
Agreed! That sort of technical regulation needs corresponding market regulation to go with it to prevent monopoly (something we see very little of now).
> I'm not aware of how regulation of competitive markets would lead to monopoly.
It depends what you mean by regulation, right?
Many industries have extremely onerous and costly regulation which creates barriers for new entrants to those markets.
Yes onerous regulation can definitely hurt the competitiveness of a market, it is just another barrier to entry.
Depends on what you call a "free market". The usual understanding is that a free market relies on the participants having sufficient information and being able to trade freely. However, the necessary information is usually hidden by sellers so that buyers can't make a "rational" decision in what to purchase (see The Market for Lemons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons).
Trading freely is compromised as well as markets will almost always favour the larger purchaser and so there's an incentive for companies to become every larger in order to consolidate power and profits.
So, it's not so much that free markets lead to monopolies, but our bastardised version of free markets that lead to monopolies.
Also, free market advocates are rarely advocates of actually free markets, but instead advocates of asymmetric markets that favour the large incumbents.
Yes, there's an entire body of work, starting with Ayn Rand, that vehemently argues that government interference in the economy is what leads to monopolies.
There are entire bodies of work that argue against the heliocentric nature of the solar system - that doesn't make them credible or relevant.
The person you're replying to was using an example to show how there isn't consensus, they weren't saying they agree with Ayn Rand. In fact, given their tone, if I had to make I guess, I'd say they disagree with her take.
I think we've been far too generous in the last decade with whose opinion is relevant to whether there is a meaningful "consensus" on a matter or not. Hence why I say that Ayn Rand is to economics as geocentrists are to astronomy - they're simply not relevant to a definition of consensus that has any value to me.
My opinion of Ayn Rand is no more flattering than yours, but I accept that she has quite a few powerful 'followers'. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few of the current administration were big Ayn Rand fans. Their opinions may be absurd but, sadly, they are also relevant.
and that the earth is flat.
>Markets also cannot account for externalities. If those externalities are something you care about (e.g. the environment you live in) - you need regulation.
Markets account for externalities via ownership and torts. This was gutted in the 1800s in the US where a judge ruled people couldn't sue for the impact of environmental pollution, in the name of the "greater good" of industrialization.
I'd disagree with the framing of this: The ownership and torts _were_ the regulation. I'm using a narrow definition of "market" that really only concerns supply and demand (because this is what "free market" ideals all revolve around).
Rule of law and precedent are considered quaint and optional now.
But this centuries-old decision not encapsulated as a constutional amendment is binding?
Nope.
I've arrived at the opposite conclusion. The root cause of conflict is decentralized power, which is the prediction of realism. Conflict occurs because of security competition, but security competition is only possible when powers are equally matched and trapped in a Prisoner's Dilemma dynamic.
You can sense check this by running through various historic eras. Consider the eras before any nation states, when power was at its most decentralized. That was also when conflict deaths were at their peak due to tribal warfare.
Then move on to the era of kingdoms and then nation-states, and conflict deaths decrease because power centralization increases. Intra-national conflict goes to zero because of a monopoly on violence over that local geography, leaving only inter-national conflict in the structurally anarchic power vacuum.
The peace of the 90s was because the United States was completely dominant and had no reason to do anything because it controlled everything. As the United States declines and power decentralization increases, moves such as denying China access to oil from Venezuela become actions that are deemed necessary in the new security environment. Or a clash between Thailand and Cambodia becomes a thing that can happen, because there is an absence of a big dog to lay down the law, as unjust as that law may be.
The analogy would be a country with multiple privately owned police forces and no single power. You're going to get conflict. It's a structural phenomenon of how power vacuums work when you plop humans inside of them, and it has nothing to do with morality or markets.
In the last 100 years, we managed to prove that cooperation beats competition.
Of course we do have competition, but where it has worked the best, it has been done in the context of cooperation, economic trade that follows norms and laws.
Too bad we gave stupid people power.
This is the liberal view of security, yes, but in my opinion it's naive and it lacks explanatory power, for the reasons I gave in my previous post.
But for example, Venezuelan oil is worth very little to China. It's literally stupid to use violence to prevent them from accessing it.
Meanwhile it's sort of becoming very clear that Venezuela is about Cuba.
It's worth little at its current flows, but this ignores the temporal dimension which is where stock is more important because the flows can be built up over time. Only 20%-30% of China's oil is secure, the rest suffers from the Malacca dilemma which is why the US focuses on naval power projection as part of its Pacific containment policy, a lesson they learned with the oil blockade against Japan in WW2.
Oil is also not the only security dimension, the other dimension is to deny China a physical staging ground near to US territory for air, missiles or radar and SIGINT. Not a problem right now, but again these calculations need to involve the temporal dimension. If you believe there's a 25% chance of conflict over Taiwan, using the status quo of peace to justify decision-making is an "assume the best" doctrine which is a terrible security doctrine.
This isn't to say that security calculations are the only factor involved in this Venezuela operation. It is one piece of it. It's also somewhat besides the point because I am discussing underlying causal mechanisms, not fixating on a specific conflict.
As for how this relates to those mechanisms: the only reason these "security calculations" are even considered is because the US no longer holds a monopoly on world power. In the 1990s, it was a foregone conclusion. In that security, "cooperation" could occur. Then liberals osberve that cooperation and mistake it as the cause, when it's really the effect.
The specifics do matter if your argument is that some actions are a complex response to something and then the specifics are that the actions are stupid and nearly random.
This is an excellent counterargument. I was stumped for a bit until I noticed that your argument introduces a new variable that changes the equation: number of conflict deaths. Theoretically, it is possible to have a system of perfect enslavement where the number of conflict deaths are zero. But in such a system, low conflict deaths are a poor proxy to quality of life.
The basis of this is flawed because the "peace" started several decades before the 90s, and completely neglects the role of Mutually Assured Destruction in creating that peace. If anything, America's position was detrimental to that peace because it allowed it to wage its own unilateral wars.
This continues to be the case now. The main difference is that in the 90s, the opposition to Vietnam was still fresh enough in the average American mind. I suspect what we're seeing now is the effect of that memory fading.
That's right. Entities must be acting as CITIZENS, first and foremost, bound by laws, norms, and shame.
Shame, the glue of civilization, as I call it, is quickly disappearing. The Nothing Matters LOL world is bound to decompose.
Entities acting as citizens is the exact failure mode of USA. They are not citizens, they are objects of regulation.
So are the citizens.
Don't get me started on "corporations are people" bullshit. I use "citizen" with a much deeper meaning.
Citizens are subjects, they have active voice. You may mean something deeper, but others will happily support only the “active voice” part. Corporations must not have it.
But in certain sense you are right. Corporate management should behave as citizens, and their citizen duties must be superior to their duties to shareholders.
Corporate charters require companies follow the law and make profit. Beyond following the law, what are citizen duties?
Public benefit corporations seem to go nowhere far enough. And I wonder if the language is intentionally vague at the outset.
For example:
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/business/FAQs/pbc.html
> Beyond following the law, what are citizen duties?
Simple example: let’s say there’s an environmental law preventing corporation to make more profits. The good citizen should not try lobbying to repeal this law, even if this would be perfectly legal and lead to better outcome for shareholders. If CEO acts as good citizen and refuses to follow advice of the board and take this route, this should be legally defensible position.
OK but that would conflict with the charters of most companies. The charter instructs directors/officers to make profit for shareholders. It would be a significant undertaking to compel every company to somehow become a public benefit corporation.
Yes. And I agree with OC here that this should have been different.
I wonder whether this is a side effect of the self esteem movement, and the whole "don't care about what others think of you" ethos.
Individualism is the word. Adam Curtis' "The Century Of Self" is nice to watch on that topic, it's always available on Youtube somehow.
Conformity sucks though. The trend of attacking individualism is creepy.
Collectivism and conformity is not the same.
Individualism is just a polite word for selfishness and a lack of empathy, and it's at the root of many of America's cultural and political problems. We're supposed to be a nation, not 300 million cowboys suffering the indignity of one another's trespass. We can't even fix our basic infrastructure because no one wants to spend their taxes on anything that benefits anyone but themselves. We can't have decent healthcare because it would be "socialist." But we'll shoot each other in the streets because nothing projects individual power more than a loaded gun.
There is a way to be a cohesive society without being assholes to each other. The United States somehow managed that before - more or less. I would not blame "individualism" directly, but we ARE in a timeline where a lot of people strive to be the worst versions of themselves.
Sounds like a copout, but I do insist that many of modern ills can be traced directly to the cancer that is social media. Monetizing rage cannot end well.
I suspect that the US managed its cohesion by keeping everyone but white straight Christian protestant men far from cultural and political power. It's easy to be cohesive when everyone looks, acts and thinks like you, and when the white establishment controls the media and sets cultural norms. Not that I'm advocating for a return to this at all - there are examples outside of the US where multiculturalism works. It just seems to be the case that the US has never really been comfortable living by its principles.
And this is one part of society's ills that I will kind of blame on social media, although not in the way you and a lot of HN people intend. I think a lot of the strife in our modern society comes not from social media algorithms driving outrage so much as other groups simply being able to gain visibility as the centralized media establishment gave way to the far less centralized structure of the web. To people who have grown up their entire life with only rare, token (and often stereotyped) representation of other races, religions and orientations, equality can seem like oppression.
But I do think that blaming social media is kind of a copout, because the argument tends to be that people are being manipulated and controlled by an addiction or a form of mind control, as if they don't have agency or free will. A lot of the discourse around social media right now seems to use the same hyperbole that one might have seen during the Satanic Panic, or any number of previous social panics. But I don't think social media is the problem per se (nor do I think regulating social media would be an effective solution.) I think the problem is what social media exposes in society - exposes, not creates. That's a far more difficult problem to solve because it means reconciling with some deeply systemic issues that a lot of people still don't even want to admit exist.
It isn't, though. Individualism also means things like dying your hair green and being generally fun and original. You can say "selfishness" instead, it's a perfectly good word, and there's no reason to worry about being impolite ... unless you're conforming.
I had similar thoughts, and my conclusion is that competition is an inherently unstable state of affairs: at some point somebody wins, and they will try very hard to prevent any further competitors from arising.
Indeed, competition is undesirable for all participants involved: everybody wants to win and exploit the rest for their own gain. Note that this is the only way to make competition work and result in its temporary benefits (if nobody wants to win, nobody will compete).
So there must be a system to keep the competition going and preventing the rise of a definitive and exploitative winner, and the existence of this system has to be accepted by the competitors. But why would serious competitors accept a system that prevents them from winning?
Monopolies are unstable (too). They just last for an annoyingly long time.
I mean, not really? They don't decay naturally, all the ones I can think of had to be manually dismantled through State interventions.
This is a really interesting take, I've been thinking very similarly.
I think there's a tendency to think of 'free markets' as having a lot more scope than they do - almost no countries allow free markets to determine the flow of people and restrict who can enter the country in some way. Similarly, nobody suggests the free market is a good way to regulate child labor.[0]
Especially in the US, there's a been a rapid erosion of other power structures like democracy, law, unions, etc that might serve as checks or balances against raw material interest. I think 'capitalism' often gets misclassified as 'pure competition', but it's probably better thought of as 'pure competition through regulated trade'. Pure competition, with no regulations to define a market, sounds more to me like what predated the industrial revolution (something more along the lines of feudalism)
[0] I took both these example from Ha-Joon Chang's Economics a Users Guide.
You're comparing one leader sending special forces in to capture another leader to a free market? That's not a market, it's a brawl. Markets take place within civil societies. "Raw competition is the same as war", well OK, but that's got nothing to do with trade.
Perhaps we need the equivalent of the concept of anti-monopoly regulations on an international scale.
Who on earth is going to police and enforce this? The UN? At this point they are just performative theatre.
Stephen Miller's very recent Jake Tapper CNN interview adds evidence to the argument POWER is king and LAW is nowhere near as important.. to his .. ahem .. the Trump administration.
So, it'll continue to be reality, for as long as Trumpism reigns in USA.
When I was young, back in school, I asked my teacher why the main purpose of a company is to grow. Their response was: "Because it has to be."
I don't think we need unlimited growth. Or, better: We CANNOT have unlimited growth, because there is a natural limit to the resources that are available. We, as a society, should do better than this. And that is what worries me: The sheer ignorance (or unawareness?) people have about their surroundings. I'm not sure if it is malicious, or just a coping strategy. But instead of looking into the real cause that lead to certain events, be it the environment, economical or political, people quickly blame minorities for all the bad that is happening, breastfed by the narrative that people like to repeat over and over again - "because it has always been like that".
For the longest time, I tried to counterargue and explain, why certain things are the way they are, and offered another perspective. But ears have become deaf, more than before.
I'm tired.
Well, a company has to grow. If it doesn't, it'll be devoured by those who do and show pleasing YoY metrics to their shareholders and prospective investors. Simply imagine you are an investor. Which company would you put your money in? And since the world is limited a company cannot afford not growing if it wants to survive. Government regulation is impossible, because there are other governments which happily let their companies to grow and outcompete foreign companies.
* But plants need electrolytes to grow?! It's what they crave! *
Companies don't need to have shareholders.
Maybe that very shareholder market is the problem.
Yup, markets need regulation.
Always has been. Big powers have always been meddling in other nations.
"The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must" Thucydides
Sure, the Melian order of the world is something one could consider as always there. Still, how much of Thucydides still applies when cheap drones, nuclear MAD, and environmental tragedy-of-the-commons are taken into account?
https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/04/the-realists-gr... ...
True, but after this led to the disasters of WW1 and WW2, there was a genuine international effort to constrain it. Of course, it was a deeply imperfect system, especially with the cold war going on, but it was still an improvement on the naked imperialism and genocide that preceded it. Unfortunately, it appears we're rapidly regressing to the former situation, except this time with atomic weapons.
The vast majority of people aren't empathetic enough to learn from experiences they didn't live through themselves. Yet I'm still surprised that the death of the living memory of WW1 and WW2 would take effect this quickly.
The problem is that people aren't effectively taught about the lead up to these wars as much as they are of what happened during them. At least that was my experience when I was taught about them in class.
People don't have a proper reference point of what is currently happening. Once a war starts it is already too late.
I am in the exact same camp. My belief in free markets has been completely shattered and my political stance on several subjects has changed dramatically over the last years.
I no longer believe in the free market at all.
Of course this isn't the result of a single isolated event. Our lives are poems that constantly re-write and scrutinize themselves after all, like living ink that breathes new pages anew. But if I had to pinpoint one very specific period with a very measurable effect on my position it was the whole Elon Musk saga (DOGE+"heart salute"). A lunatic billionaire seemingly doing what he wants, rewriting narratives, making up facts, history, and saying things which were so evidently false, and showing up next to a president as if he were himself president, never having been elected, was shocking.
I used to really believe that "money followed what was good for society". There would be outliers and some noise, but overall these would be well correlated. I now look back and wonder how absolutely naive of me that was. Billionaires should not be allowed. They are a disgrace to the system. It's actually vile and disgusting to have them in our society.
I'm not an american and I used to dream of going to the USA, perhaps even living there. I now want to stay as far away from it as possible, and view the supposed american dream as either a past reality or effective propaganda I bought into previously. Maybe that's better for america and it's what they need to grow, who knows.
If anything it is crisis of elites in US. Since the second world war US has held dominant hand over its subjects (most of the world). But the elites were always smart enough to hide the amount of power, they marketed US well and understand to negotiate somewhat fairly and give some scraps to the rest (allow creating some elites in other countries). It was a straightforward deal.
But now the elites in US are just not very smart or savvy. Introduction of the tech class that are people who simply won a lottery (or scammed their way up) and are otherwise absolutely arrogant and clueless about the world. The deal just can't work anymore. It can't work because there is no deal with someone who thinks they deserve everything. The balance is off and you are now dealing with children with golden toilets OR self mythologizing guys whos deepest political analysis come from few scifi books they've read 20 years ago.
So the only solution to this current manufactured political clown shitshow is a one world government, which is exactly the goal of the scenarists behind it.
We'll see much worse chapters of this shitshow before the last spectator admits the fallacy of dismissing this as a conspiracy theory.
There's capitalism and then there's communism. Both have proven to not work which leaves us with...
Countries are bad but even the sci-fi authors know the only way to change this is literally an alien invasion. Until then, instead of expecting good from our governments (wherever we live) shouldn't we just assume the worst and go from there? Since switching to that mentality life has been much more pleasant personally.
>The events of the past 12 months, culminating in Venezuela and now Greenland, has made me reevaluate a lot of my beliefs about unimpeded competition between free agents (i.e. a free market) leading to the best and most peaceful outcomes.
What have markets got to do with it? For as long as humans have been recording history, states have been annexing weaker states, regardless of economic system. It's absurd to blame free markets for this.
They led to the rise of powerful oligarchs who now very obviously steer the country (and the world) in a violent direction that I don't believe benefits many, except themselves of course.
> The way I've tried to reconcile my beliefs with what are
Why are you doing this "effort" to alienate yourself in place of blaming the country and government responsible for this?
Because I believe that causes of events are other events, and not objects. To blame an event (or a series of events) on a person (or a group of people) is a premature causality sink (e.g. "Why did X do evil thing? Because X is an evil person" -- this is not an explanation, it just puts an end to rational inquiry).
There are a few things that confuse me about this potential acquisition:
1. You won't govern it. Greenland has it's own Self-Government Act. [0]
2. You won't own the land. Almost all land is owned by the State. [1]
3. The Danes have no special land ownership rights. [2]
4. Land use rights, however, are granted for different activities (fishing, mining) subject to approval. [3]
I'd imagine none of this changes under a new owner. Why the can't the US just sign up for mining rights already? It seems like that's exactly what it would have to do post acquisition--unless of course the US also plans to bulldoze Greenland's sovereignty.
I'm genuinely interested if anyone can provide color.
[0]: https://english.stm.dk/the-prime-ministers-office/the-unity-...
[1]: https://www.city-journal.org/article/learning-from-greenland
[2]: https://www.thelocal.dk/20251114/greenland-limits-foreigners...
[3]: https://govmin.gl/exploration-prospecting/get-an-exploration...
> > It seems like that's exactly what it would have to do post acquisition--unless of course the US also plans to bulldoze Greenland's sovereignty.
I don't want to repeat what others are saying, but how on earth could you not consider that all of the existing rules, laws and agreements just go in the trash under a new "owner"? Of course the US plans to bulldoze Greenland's sovereignty, goodness me.
To be fair the US acquired American Samoa and kept a lot of their law in place even to the point you can do stuff in American Samoa that would be unconstitutional like limit power of women in some of the tribal councils (sorry they have a better name but I've forgotten), do not provide 2nd amendment protections required inside the USA, and limit ownership of land based on ethnic lines.
The USA also for instance rehabilitated Philippines from Japanese rape islands into an independent nation by taking them as a territory.
What I wonder is about the second order effects. I mean, I'm pretty far from Denmark but here the talk is pretty much like an existential crisis.
Even if the US does nothing about it, seems that many people has finally realized that Europe has no allies.
This has a lot of implications regarding the Pax Americana, the US/EU financial system, Eurasia, and many others.
I don't see any positive outcome for the west in general. Europe in particular is screwed but besides short-term gains I don't think the US is going to be able to sustain anything but very fragile and transactional alliances, if any.
>I don't see any positive outcome for the west in general. Europe in particular is screwed but besides short-term gains I don't think the US is going to be able to sustain anything but very fragile and transactional alliances, if any.
Europe became the forefront of human civilization, the home of the renaissance and the industrial revolution, because of internal competition between states (as opposed to the large centralized autocracies of Asia and the Middle East). In the long term more competition will ultimately be a good thing for Europe, forcing it to stop resting on its laurels, to start innovating and growing again.
> In the long term more competition will ultimately be a good thing for Europe
Leaving aside the deaths of millions of people through warfare, then, maybe, but still doubtful.
Now we compete with the whole world. I don't see much "resting in its laurels" nowadays. Have you traveled across Europe the last decade?
There's no resting, just a declive.
> Even if the US does nothing about it, seems that many people has finally realized that Europe has no allies.
Indeed. But just because EU thinks too high of themselves and is turning down their last natural allies that is the South American/Mercosur countries. So whatever happens to EU is their own fault
Europe and the EU are two different things. The EU is already having it's own credibility crisis inside the EU, and there are already heavy pushes for reform.
The conversation is completely different in Germany, Poland, Italy and Spain, for example.
The EU has enacted pretty stupid policies but I don't think the status quo was about to last a lot. Now with the Greenland issue things are about to speed up.
My guess is that, because they shaked hands with conservative leaders in Europe, the White house thinks this is going to benefit them.
I don't think this is going to be the case mid term.
What are you talking about. There's little real opposition to the EU-Mercosur trade deal. It'll be ratified this year. The EU is the largest source of foreign direct investment in Mercosur.
Can you give an example of natural ally in south America that has been turned down?
> unless of course the US also plans to bulldoze Greenland's sovereignty.
It's probably not helpful for me to speculate, but surely this? If the US is truly prepared to invade another ally's territory for material gain, I'd assume the idea that they'd honor other existing laws is unlikely.
I don't see how it would actually work in practice. Can Trump really destroy Greenland's democracy via executive order? Surely Congress or the courts would have something to say about it? And even if not, how are you going to deal with all the people there? If Trump is ruling Greenland via executive order, then he is just a dictator, what happens to the people? It would end up as a long running sore and a terrible blemish on America's reputation.
Yeah, for what its worth I agree. But I can't see how those arguments would apply to abolishing Greenlands law, but not to invading and claiming ownership in the first place.
If the US doesn't have checks and balances to stop it invading a democratic ally with no cause, then I don't know what checks and balancing meaningfully can be said to exist.
Hopefully we won't find out.
> Surely Congress or the courts would have something to say about it?
my sense is that Trump feels to be above the law right now, having ordered the operation to seize Maduro without Congressional approval (illegal under U.S. constitutional law). Trump's reasoning was that "Congress has a tendency to leak", and so to him congress seems little more than background noise.
> Surely Congress or the courts would have something to say about it?
The entire mode of operation for the current administration is to ignore such things whenever they don't blindly rubber stamp or get out of the way. It has been very successful for them.
The blind spot causing your confusion is that you “imagine none of this change under a new owner”. I’m almost flabbergasted by it.
The owner decides the rules.
> It seems like that's exactly what it would have to do post acquisition--unless of course the US also plans to bulldoze Greenland's sovereignty.
That is how acquisition of territory works. When it becomes US land, US laws apply. Not whatever laws were in place before. What were you expecting?
It may not just be about the minerals....
It could be about leaving NATO.
US (Trump) feels they need Greenland for "security".
They currently have (almost complete) access to use Greenland via NATO and the existing agreements with Denmark. So there is no need to extend this.
However, if the US would want to leave NATO, they would no longer have access to Greenland under existing agreement.
Therefore, if the US wants to leave NATO and still use Greenland (both militarily and for resources), they need to acquire Greenland.
Acquiring Greenland would allow the US to control the entire western hemisphere, leave NATO, and abandon the eastern hemisphere entirely.
The man in charge has said in the past that he admired dictators. Many did not pay attention to this.
Congress is easy to takeover by a political party and this happens cyclically, so no one was surprised by that.
People also ignored gerrymandering because both major political parties do that, and historically it can be undone.
However, the takeover and stacking of the judicial branch with political cronies was another definite warning sign. People that were paying attention noticed this came first, because it’s the brakes that can slow an administration from getting out of control. The brake lines were effectively cut.
If you’ve studied German history and World War II, you know that Hitler didn’t just happen. There was an imperialist history. Though not typically stated in this way, the U.S. has historically been an empire for much of the 20th century, if you consider bases around the world and involvement in world conflicts (and the same could be said about some other countries, NATO, UN, etc.)
The American people cannot rise up against its own government in any substantial way when (1) families are split with half of the people are brainwashed, and (2) they think that things can be undone after N years by voting that party out (but the opposing party can not pivot to undo the economic and world political damage done by the current administration).
Most dictators were not known from the beginning of their reign as evil incarnate.
Americans keep hoping to see in the news that someone will stop this, but they suspect that if they were to try to stop it, they and their families would eventually be punished or killed. So, they’re all just waiting a few years hoping that it will be undone, and that surely the military will not let the U.S. takeover a country that does not have a despotic leader; that would break the longstanding U.S. trend of only getting very involved publically at least if they are taking the stance of the respected jock defending the little kid getting beat up.
> 1. You won't govern it. Greenland has it's own Self-Government Act. [0]
It may be governed the way of the Gambino family governing New York city: by receiving envelopes.
They are probably thinking of Alaska or Louisiana Purchase, i.e. not just buying the land within Denmark, but territory transfer.
Everything that's been said publicly is just pretence, just like Maduro's/Venezuela's supposed drug trafficking. This is about Trump being and old man in his waning days who wants to create a legacy. Those around him have ambitions of empire.
You're overthinking this. These are just stupid people. Think of the dumbest uncle you have ranting online over some ridiculous story. These are the people making these decisions, and they're putting about the same amount of planning into them.
[flagged]
Hold on. In a few days we are going to find some narco-terrorists there as well.
The president said the reason we toppled Venezuela was for oil. We're past false pretenses. His apparatus still comes up with the false pretenses, but it seems like it's more out of habit and stemming revolution more than acting on the president's behalf.
It has enough oil and gas reserves to warrant some freedom™. People there need democracy for God's sake!
The whole meme of "America isn't a country, it's three corporations wearing a trench coat" seems to have been mostly correct, albeit that trench coat is starting to look a lot less like a modern trench coat and more like an actual Trench Coat.
The Emperor's New Trench Coat
Honestly, for a "terrorist" he was treated quite nicely. You would think there would have been photos of him captured with a black eye or something but it is just a picture of him holding a water bottle. Then they made the vice-president the new president. I feel like the Prime Minister of Greenland won't be treated as nicely.
Have you seen how much white powder there is in Greenland?
Make Greenland green again!
or wmd, or poor locals need saving from chemical weapons attacks from their own govt. the funniest spin i heard was some clown trying to say that by taking greenland the us would be strengthening nato!
Speaking of wmd - there are probably secret nuclear missile bases buried under the ice...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Century
nice find
Some say Maduro's long-lost Danish cousin lives there.
Mining in Arctic is a technical nightmare. Typical alloys become brittle in these temperatures, darkness severely limits operations and/or workplace accidents, transport requires ice-breakers, permafrost is fundamentally unstable (heat from buildings melts it, causing sinking), and you need to pay people a lot to work there.
I wouldn't be too worried, ICE is collecting the workforce as we speak.
This is unironically the plan some Norwegian politicians came up with. They were thinking about sending asylum seekers and/or difficult to eject immigrants to Svalbard.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norwegian-po...
High-res versions of the map
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/f40c2c69-b...
another map
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/7658bbc3-7...
source
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL10...
As a Swede I must confess I don't know much about Greenland. But if Denmark goes all-in on Greenland, you can bet the other Nordic countries will be involved too.
Not sure how this will play out. Really strange situation and as I said I don't even know how much Denmark cares about Greenland. Any Danes here that can tell us more?
I'm Danish, we don't really care about whether or not Greenland is a part of our Kingdom (I'm sure some people do but it's certainly not the majority in my opinion). That being said it's not like it's ours to sell or give away, so it would be more relevant to ask someone from Greenland. I think the most likely outcome is that Greenland decides to leave our Kingdom and become something like the Marshall Isles.
The whole national security part is a lie though. The US can already do whatever they want up there. Well except for having nuclear weapons, but they'd probably be allowed if they asked.
I think some of our politicians care that they'd lose any form of geopolitical relevance without Greenland, but it's not like our population in general supports that.
"other Nordic countries will be involved"
I can't help wondering if that's really what all of this is about - the Nordics can't really fight the US and Russia at the same time (though given their history I suspect they'd try).
But they are not fighting russia. Also putin can't really fight anywhere else but Ukraine. Special operation in Baltic state is maximum of russian ability unless there is a ceasefire in Ukraine.
Not yet no (and I seriously hope that it will never happen), but a ceasefire in Ukraine looks like it might happen tying down troops from the UK, France and others and then a threat to Greenland from the US drawing off more troops and attention perhaps leaving Russia open to attack one of the Baltic states?
What do you mean by all-in?
Military action?
Yes. Something like moving parts of the Nordic Air Force closer to Greenland (maybe Iceland, or even Greenland itself?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpGhd90y-BE
That would deter even the United States, I believe. The problem I see if it's worth it. As I said, as a Swede I don't really care about Greenland, but Denmark is part of the Nordic Family.
Interesting. This is the first I've heard of this combined airforce.
(Aside: it might deter the rational elements in the US military but they're led by this chap Trump.)
The US has military bases all around Europe from which they would be able to do actions to keep NATO from mobilising.
In 2024 I spent a day protesting outside the Swedish parliament against US base also in Sweden. We warned about Trump probably winning the US election and how unpredictable he is, but the proponents disregarded all our arguments: "Trump being president again? Pfft.. That will never happen", "Provision for US leaving NATO? Pfft. They won't", "Rule against nukes on Swedish soil? Pfft. The US are our friends and will respect our wishes.". The vote passed, and here we are.
The resources are currently under ice - but fear not. US is working hard at it by sabotaging green energy, drilling like crazy, and now also expanding it's oil reserves in the Venezuelan colony. It is a smart, pragmatic and self-consistent approach. Just for a different utility function.
This is Crimea 2.0. The ideological basis behind the annexation is identical in both instances.
It actually reminds me more of the Falklands War...
Honestly, as someone who firmly opposes what Putin did, there were better "historical justifications" for Russia to annex Crimea than for the USA to colonize Greenland, a territory that has never been part of the USA. The idea of invading an ally's territory just to steal its resources is particularly shameful and disgusting.
> a territory that has never been part of the USA
Not only has Greenland never been part of the USA, it has been part of Denmark for longer than the USA has even existed.
Denmark would likely low key love to shitcan greenland. They are a massive money drain, welfare state. Their minerals exist but not enough to turn the place net positive to their colonizer.
If Denmark could come "steal" something like the Pine Ridge Reservation in the Dakotas, it would be an imperfect analogy. As long as we could lose it while still saving face, it would be absolutely amazing economically for the USA.
Denmark sent about 4,3 Billion Danish Krona to Greenland last year, this is about 0.6% of Denmark's budget. For a nation that made a surplus of about 130 Billion in 2025 it does not seem like a something Danes in general want or need to shitcan.
Most people in Greenland want Independence from Denmark. They consider themselves foreigners to the country and yet devour 0.6% of their surplus.
IMO it is foolish both for USA and Denmark to take them. Cut them loose as they desire and let them trade their minerals which they will surely do as soon as they realize their free lunch is gone. You would still get the thing you want it for, the greenlander are happy they are free of the colonizers, and it likely wouldn't change things militarily as they would absolutely sign a defense treaty as soon as you hand them the pen.
It's clearly your own opinion, but somehow you comment like you're representing Denmark here.
Clearly the only people not being represented are Greenlanders since Danes generally see Greenlanders as family to be respected and Greenlanders want to be gone, yet this hasn't happened.
This is basically a fight between government of Greenland, government of Denmark, and government of USA all acting generally against the wishes of their own populace. And somehow the dumbest of all options, the USA acquiring them, seems to be one of the more likely scenarios that actually ends up happening.
[dead]
There is no similarity whatsoever.
One similarity is, if I'm correct, Russia claimed that the naval base of Sevastopol was vital for Russian security.
The protection of the population and the illegitimacy of the current government was an argument developed by Russia at the time, it has not been yet by USA but I suspect this might start develop in the next few weeks.
The common ingredients to justify an invasion/annexation is a mix of: - Self-Defense, security - Historical, Geographical claims - Protection of the population - Moral sugar coating (we had no choice)
Greenland was not part of the USA for a 150 years. It is also not mostly populated by ethnic Americans who speak English as their mother tongue. Nor is there a large American military base there that Greenland / Denmark is trying to evict them from and potentially hand over to a geopolitical adversary. Greenland is also an island a couple thousand miles away from Denmark.
Honestly, it is such a surprise that the difference is not obvious.
You are clearly wrong. Both Trumpism and Putinism are reactive ultra-conservative ideologies. Annexation of Crimea was motivated largely by Russia's "legitimate security concerns". Russian propaganda was busy convincing the population that Crimea gives strategic control over Black Sea region and if Russia didn't intervene, there would have been NATO bases on the peninsula after the Maiden revolution. Trump and his sycophants are saying the same thing: American security, Arctic, and American geopolitical foes: China and Russia.
[flagged]
Please don't post personal attacks on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're aiming for much better than this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Absolutely worth invading allies over. I have no possible idea how this could backfire for the whole world.
My prediction of how a hostile takeover would work out - i.e. all US offers to purchase Greenland are flat rejected:
0. USA invades Greenland by shipping thousands of troops there, Denmark does the same. I don't believe there will be any direct conflict, but rather that US simply declares they now control Greenland.
1. Denmark invokes a number of NATO articles, immediately.
2. NATO crisis, all members meet in hopes to work it out.
3. Trump won't budge. USA uses their veto right on all possible interventions. NATO still stands, but is at this point in complete turmoil, and effectively toothless.
4. Allies of Denmark, probably EU too, puts pressure on the US to step back. Economic sanctions against US.
5. Sanction war starts between USA and parts of western Europe.
6. Congress does not authorize Trumps use of military, and Trump must withdraw within 90 days.
7. Trump vetoes this. Pulls the "make me" card when threatened. Trump argues that he can use funds as he wishes, dragged to court. The case is fast-tracked to supreme court.
8. If US economy crashes, Trump might be successfully impeached and removed. If not, he'll just continue.
9. Cold front between US and Europe. China tries to strengthen economic ties with Europe to fill the gap that has been hit by US sanctions. Who knows what Russia does - likely a new European military organization has grown out of this.
10. Eventually Trump leaves office, a sooner or later a new democratic president takes over, and reverses everything. Gives back Greenland to Denmark, does everything to mend relations with Europe.
> does everything to mend relations with Europe.
As a European, I don't think the relations can be fully mended, especially if points 0-9 come to pass! Even where we stand right now, I want my government—in conjunction with other European countries—to be planning for a long, slow process of decoupling our dependency on the US.
Yes, that's the dangerous thing about this. Even if most European leaders understand that Trump might be a once-in-a-century anomaly, the seed has been planted. Who knows when the next one comes around?
Trump, on the other hand, is a huge stress-tester of the US system. He knows that seemingly no mater what he does, he might just face impeachment, but not removal. So his go-to strategy is to break laws, and challenge them in court. All the way up to supreme court.
This is why all the checks and balances are sort-of useless at the moment. We know Trump will just ignore them, instruct people to ignore them, and challenge them. And even if he's doing blatantly illegal stuff that would land his cronies in jail, the DOJ won't go after them.
Trump understands that he will never, ever serve a single day in jail. He'll argue that everything he's doing, he's doing as a president, and with the immunity that comes with it. He'll issue pre-emptive pardons for his cronies, and probably himself. Wouldn't surprise me if he ends up stepping down toward the end of his term, and Vance also issues pardons for Trump.
He's emboldened, knows that he's untouchable, and is easily manipulated by his orbiters. And, frankly, I believe he has limited time left - he's not a man that will live to be 100.
10.
That's more hopeful than my thoughts of world war III and the Trump family presidency. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong.
>6. Congress does not authorize Trumps use of military, and Trump must withdraw within 90 days.
No US president, regardless of party, has ever recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. When a president sends reports to Congress of the sort the act mandates, the report typically includes a disclaimer stating as much.
>If US economy crashes
Any European attempt to "crash" the US economy would result in worse results for Europe.
Only 7% of US GDP comes from foreign trade, by far the smallest of any developed nation. The US is Denmark's largest export customer, while Denmark is almost insignificant as a US customer.
Example: One often-suggested penalty against the US is Novo Nordisk suspending sales to Americans. Even setting aside the fact that the US's Lilly's own GLP-1 has handily commercially outperformed Ozempic (as seen in their relative stock prices), the US was *57%* of Novo Nordisk's sales in 2024. <https://www.novonordisk.com/content/dam/nncorp/global/en/inv...>
The US stock market is being carried by tech companies. Any large-scale sanctions against Europe would hit said tech firms hard, for no other reason than that they need all the customers they can get. Crashing the stock market could in turn induce panic, which in the end will reflect poorly on the president.
The whole goal of such a (economic) war would be to make US senators and congressmen take a stand, and decide if enough is enough. Americans vote with their pocketbooks. Just introducing extra tariffs on specific industries and companies in specific states can be politically devastating. Now imagine full-blown sanctions.
Not to mention that US competition will happily step up to take their lunch, while all this going on. China will instantly jump on that opportunity. US firms will also recognize that sanctions on things like tech will drive innovation in Europe to fill that void, in tandem with what China and others have to offer.
Will both recover? Yes, probably. But hopefully Trump will be out, as that will be the main objective.
I point out that any European attempt at economic warfare against the US would inevitably affect both sides, and that the US is much less dependent on foreign trade than Europe ... and yet you again speak as if any impact would be solely on the US. "Panic", "Politically devastating", etc., as if only the US has upsettable investors and distressed electorate.
>Now imagine full-blown sanctions.
This would surely result in formal American withdrawal from NATO.
"The US invading Greenland would destroy NATO!", you say. I don't believe that the US would invade Greenland militarily; it will likely buy it, or obtain some sort of ironclad investment rights not dependent on whether Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark or independent. But let's say that the US does, and NATO dissolves.
It comes down to net benefits. Would owning Greenland be more valuable for American national security, than the current NATO status quo of the US being willing to to accept its own cities being nuked if Russia invades Western Europe?
The calculus made more sense (if it ever did) during the Cold War, when NATO ended at Germany's eastern border. Does it make sense now, when Montenegro is a NATO member? I strongly suspect that the answer is not one that the rest of NATO would want to hear, regardless of the Ukraine War.
No, I didn't say that US invading Greenland would destroy NATO. It would cause a crisis, yes, but it's complex - members can only withdraw, no members can be expelled from NATO. And for withdrawals, it takes one year from notification to official withdrawal.
To complicate things further, there have been put up safeguards in the US to "Trump-proof" a withdrawal. Would Trump ignore these? Likely. But it would be challenged in court.
What likely would happen, is that NATO just lies dormant. And if the US successfully withdraws, it would set in motion things that are not resolved overnight. The US have bases, servicemen, caches of equipment, etc. spread across allied countries. And while most of these are covered by deals made with the host-countries, there's a pretty good likelihood those deals would have to be re-negotiated in the even US becomes hostile to allies. US pulling out of NATO because they don't see the value is one thing, US pulling out of NATO because they've become enemies of another NATO-ally is a completely different mater, as far as future deals go.
But then again, US taking Greenland by force is the absolute worst outcome - as far as the Greenland scenario goes. I truly do not think Trump will try that, anytime soon.
It's extremely, profoundly unprofessional to threaten a country with force. But that's how Trump operates. He makes big no-so veiled threats ("Would be a shame if...", "We have options...") to force the other party to negotiation, and then tries to low-ball. He's treating international relations the same way he treats business/real-estate deals. That's how he's always done business.
And as a bonus for him, it is taking up the news headlines.
My guess is that US and Denmark will meet, US will push on with offering to buy Greenland, Denmark will say no, but maybe they will buy some extra US equipment (they're already buying P-8 Poseidon surveillance aircraft to patrol the maritime area surround Greenland) or similar. Trump will announce this deal, and we won't hear anything about Greenland in another 6-12 months.
> Any European attempt to "crash" the US economy would result in worse results for Europe.
So what? We'll recover.
[dead]
An investment broker comes to an old German still keeping money in a bank.
By the time those resources are accessible, we'll be in a major flood disaster on all our coasts. Why don't we just leave this bit of resource alone for the sake of land that actually supports life.
No. The factory must grow.
Ok, so there are hardly any mines on Greenland today. Why would that change? There are easier places to put a mine and make it profitable.
Look at Svalbard. There used to be mines but they closed down.
And those rare earth metals. They are called that because they are heavily diluted. Not because they are rare to find.
America starting to treat Europe like it has treated the rest of the world all this time. Weird timeline.
International law was nice while we had it.
.. and fentanyl for sure right? surely its the largest producer of fentanyl.. or is it cocaine? hold on whats that drug ICE? ah thats it..
Well flying over it the place does seem covered in white powder?
Can we please wait till at least Q2 with another historic event? I'm getting tired.
At this point I'll even accept 1 single week without any historic events...
We've got two more years of this at least, buckle in.
It all hinges on the midterms. Things will become clearer as to how they are going in about the next 6 months or so. There is a real chance that Trump’s faction may have finally caused to much damage for even his base. But never underestimate the impulse for knee-jerk voting or the opposition’s capacity to save its enemy from its own mistakes.
We will see how much that holds this midterm. Trump has wrecked so many things though, it’s hard to tell how things will go, cling on out of desperation or throw him overboard to the sharks?
I have literally zero hope for the democrats to step in and make things right, even if they get Congress, which they probably will.
Yeah, I need to catch up on my reading of the Epstein files.
Greenland is set to be the greatest show on earth.
Interesting times.
How do you figure? This show is actually going to be rather boring. The setup has long been completed and Europe will not even squeal all that much.
What, with the Ukraine trap and the narrative hole of Russia marching on Paris, Europe is going to do what against America for taking Greenland? Europe walked itself into a trap and it has no clue it’s even happening.
There is a tiny chance something else is being done, but it’s such a small chance it’s not even worth mentioning. Reality is that this thing we still call America is starving hungry and it smells European blood in the water, and is furiously rubbing its hands over Greenland’s resources and Arctic access. And no, Europeans, the Democrats will also devour you now that they’ve also smelled the money in the Potomac. The Empire must eat.
No, Europe is already drugged, muzzled, and strapped to the table… it will be over soon, Europe.
For decades Europe has cheered on, if not actively aided as America bullied smaller nations. Now they’ve come to realise they aren’t so special.
Europe has not just "cheered on". There were demonstrations throughout Europe against the wars in the middle east and both e.g. France and Germany openly opposed the war in Iraq.
The Europeans I know (from all over) have generally been opposed to American geopolitics both in the Middle East, South East Asia, and South America. The US has traditionally been seen as an ally, but that doesn't mean we "cheer on" its actions.
Because there are many financial and military interests, it is very hard to do much for e.g. the EU, and the politicians are very careful with their words. Just as it is for the rest of the world...
Note: Europe is not a single entity but a continent full of different countries including (part of) Russia. Even the EU doesn't really have one single foreign policy.
Many EU countries did send troops did it not? And what happened when it became clear the war was a farce? There were zero consequences right? It's a "told ya" moment for a lot of asian countries who didn't fully trust the US.
Some European allies joined US in the Iraq war for the initial invasion: UK, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Denmark. The "Coalition of the willing" was larger, though.
Many opposed it. Remember "Freedom fries"?
As for Afghanistan, that's a completely different thing. US invoked article 5.
Yep I vividly remember Tony Blair supporting the war. Millions dead. People just went on with their lives with a "oops". I'm just saying this behaviour is nothing new. Might makes right I guess.
You are right. People went on with their lives, just as they did in many other parts of the world, but I don't think what happened is forgotten -- Not even in the US.
Btw. as far as I remember neither China, India, Russia, nor practically any other nation stopped trading with the US over the war in Iraq. Maybe I am wrong about that.
Small detail on casualties in Iraq: the estimates listed on Wikipedia range from 150K to about 1 million (1).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
> Btw. as far as I remember neither China, India, Russia, nor practically any other nation stopped trading with the US over the war in Iraq. Maybe I am wrong about that.
Yep. Because countries only care about themselves. The US is too important economically. But are you saying that Europe like India and China does stuff that benefits them and isn't a better standard morally?
Neither Europe nor EU is a single country with a single foreign policy. There are around 40 different small and large countries in Europe each with their own foreign policy, history, culture and language. Two of the countries are currently at war with each other (if we still include Russia in Europe). Historically, Europe is a continent of wars and full of disagreement, where countries have done much to benefit themselves.
I really don't know much of what is happening in China or India or how you would ever measure something as subjective as morality. The point was, that it isn't just European (or EU) nations that don't stand up to the US. Nobody really dare -- Even those other heavy-weights. So it doesn't seem fair to me to single Europe (European nations) out for not doing anything.
I would say that Europe has a lot of bad history and guilt and we know it. And there is an aspiration in many of the European countries to be better and do "the right thing" now, but it is definitely debatable whether those countries actually do it, or if we even know what "right" is.
I don't think Europe should feel guilt or anything about their history. They are just operating like every other region prioritising their own citizens first.
I just hope all of this is a nothingburger. The last thing the world needs is a war between the west. But looks like globalisation is going to slow down regardless. Sad.
Yes. You are right. Unfortunately, many countries that were/are part of EU sent forces to Iraq (not all).
You mention that Asia was suspicious, but the "coalition of willing" actually included Asian countries such as Phillippines, South Korea, Japan, Uzbekistan, Singapore.
I believe the current overarching feeling in Europe is that we were mislead by the US administration more than our own politicians. Already back then, there was quite a lot of skepticism and significant doubt in the media all over Europe about the justification of that war. Also in the coalition countries.
And Indeed, there were no consequences later. But what should have been done and by whom at that point? How do you prove that it was deliberately misleading? Why would it be the job of nations of Europe or EU?
I agree that it wasn't pretty, and that the European nations and EU should have opposed more, but even as it was back then, it was not a clear "cheering on" moment. I remember having discussions about Iraq with people from Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, Germany, and France back when the invasion started. Although a large group did support the war (I think many were still emotionally affected by 9/11), I actually don't remember talking to any one of them.
The reality is that the US is the most powerful geopolitical entity and Europe is a continent consisting of many individual countries. Even the EU is a divided group of nations, and even if united would not be as powerful as the US is currently.
> And Indeed, there were no consequences later. But what should have been done and by whom at that point?
Reparations?
> How do you prove that it was deliberately misleading?
Are you denying the fact that countries didn't know? Many EU countries did indeed stay out of the conflict after all. Are you saying the incredible intelligence agencies of western countries were simply oblivious?
> Why would it be the job of nations of Europe or EU?
Because you sent troops? And because people there genuinely think they are the good guys?
> I remember having discussions about Iraq with people from Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, Germany, and France back when the invasion started.
Would you let Russia off the hook for Ukraine then? After all the people there are under dictatorial rule. I'm sure there are large groups of people there who oppose the war.
> The reality is that the US is the most powerful geopolitical entity and Europe is a continent consisting of many individual countries. Even the EU is a divided group of nations, and even if united would not be as powerful as the US is currently.
I completely agree. The US is too powerful. I'm just saying it shouldn't come as a complete surprise that they would one day target Europe as well. Unfortunately might makes right. I just hope the US comes to their senses.
It seems a distinction needs to be made between what is being discussed. The ruling class of Europe has cheered it on, even if the peasants complained; but as with so many other things, it’s wholly irrelevant what the peasants want, as you highlight. Americans also were 90%+ opposed to entering WWI and WWII and Vietnam, but that doesn’t change that it was done to serve ruling class objectives.
That’s long been the system; the peasants are manipulated or forced to enter into the meat grinder for the ruling class. See the Ukraine for reference.
But rejoice, soon robots and drones with fight each other instead … or maybe get rid of “useless eaters” more efficiently? It could go either way, or both.
The thing is, Europe is kinda special. Cascade effects of America forcefully taking over Greenland will be by orders of magnitude more painful to Americans than Brexit was to Britain. America flipping from an ally to an adversary will trigger huge economic decoupling and it is practically certain that dollar will immediately loose its weight and USA may even default on its debt after that. Yes, Europe is going to suffer too, but I have a gut feeling that European citizens will still do better.
Can't wait for the CNN headlines: "DANES CHEER AS TYRAN PRIME MINISTER CAPTURED", "DANES WELCOME FOREIGN LIBERATORS", "DANISH ECONOMY TO BOOM WITH FREE MARKETS REFORMS"
This doesn't really align with CNN's view, but may apply to another even more popular US news channel that seems to be much more aligned with the current administration...
Greenland and Denmark are not the same. Greenland is a self-governed territory under the Kingdom of Denmark. The US administration wishes to take over Greenland from Denmark completely. So you should replace your headlines with "Greenland" and "Greenlanders".
Note: There have already been discussions about making Greenland independent from Denmark, but there is uncertainty over how to handle economic and defense situations. Greenland currently receives significant support (about $10000-15000 per capita yearly) from Denmark. So it is not clear how the country would run without that.
>Greenland currently receives significant support (about $10000-15000 per capita yearly) from Denmark. So it is not clear how the country would run without that.
Greenland absolutely positively cannot run without outside subsidy. Pacific islands (barely) function as independent countries because their tiny populations are commensurate with their small areas. Greenland's 50,000 people live on an island three times the size of Texas.
Currently that subsidy comes in the form of €600 million in annual funds from Copenhagen. Now Washington has emerged as a potential outbidder.
I guess we should be praying for Jens-Frederik Nielsen's family now
He shouldn't have terrorized USA with stuff like Hygge and Ozempic and those Vestas cancer-causing wind propellers!
Jens-Frederik Nielsen is the PM of Greenland, while all the things you mention are from Denmark.
As if such a pesky geographic detail ever stopped USA from invading Afghanistan when fifteen Saudi, two UAE, and one Lebanese nationals attacked them in 2001.
Or so they say, judging by the passports that survived the carnage and inferno
Don’t worry, he will be bought off and will profit quite nicely with a nice looking pile of dollars, if he hasn’t already accepted.
As a European. I'm starting to hate the US. Not dislike. Hate.
For months I thought they can't possibly allow the orange clown to ruin their country any further. But the country is clearly spiralling out of control. And I'm starting to hate the whole culture.
Now if a part of the population did anything other than comment online. If they took to the streets or did anything substantial in protest. But no. Crickets. So to me, every US citizen is at least partly complicit.
For years, I already noticed I subconsciously did not like action movies that featured CIA / FBI / US Military anymore. And I gradually moved away from all US based infrastructure in my projects because it strategically made sense.
But these past weeks it tipped over in actual disgust. For me, there's no difference between the US, China and Russia anymore. The US will probably take Greenland. China will take Taiwan. Russia will take Ukraine.
And Europe needs to unite further and prepare for war, or risk being torn apart by the new axis of evil.
> And Europe needs to unite further and prepare for war, or risk being torn apart by the new axis of evil.
As a Brit, I am praying that we rejoin the EU because it's never looked so necessary.
Don't ever let them tell you it can't be done.
The No Kings protests are large and have been occurring over the last year. It’s disingenuous to imply the population is doing nothing but comment online. The US is a large country with the third largest population in the world. It’s not homogenous.
Despite all that, it’s probably still prudent to decouple from the US.
Only 1.2–1.8% of the U.S. population attended a No Kings Day event.
I share your anger at the US' decent into authoritarianism, but 1.8% is nearly 1 in 50. That's pretty huge for a protest by most counts.
there is good reason to believe that mineral prices would have to climb 30% above current prices and stay there, before greenland's resources would become profiable, which in the scenario bieng presented, would then also have to cover the 600 million/yr subsidy that Denmark currently provides to Greenland. there are only two active mines there, both very specialised, and quite small on a tonage basis and a handfull of somewhat promising sites that could be developed useing conventional technology, the rest is speculative, and will remain that way, sitting under miles of ice. Speaking of specualtion, it is so cold on top of the ice sometimes that people have suggested that there the possibilty of CO² ice forming naturaly, but there is no way for humans to get to those places, so it will remain an esoteric debate for now.
Per Greenlandic laws, they own the mineral rights. They can license rights to others, and Denmark will also receive a portion of the profits.
Unfortunately, this is the model that American conservatives and billionaires hate. The idea that a country is entitled to their own resources is repulsive to them. This is also one of the things fundamental things where American vs Nordic mindsets are worlds apart.
It is arguably also the real reason why US attacked Venezuela.
Yes, those crazy Americans who are so loyal to America and not any other country at all, really hate it when other people have things that God promised to them instead.
[dead]
What could become an economic boom will become a century of humiliation for Europe
Well done Europeans, catering to Trump
Could you please explain how does Europe cater to Trump and how does it make him more likely to invade Greenland?
I would guess it is a reference to EU conceding to Trump's tariffs such as https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czxpdv5x54ko and general lax treatment of how cosy he and Putin is with each other.
Is this not Trump's usual negotiation strategy? Start with outrageous, totally unacceptable demands and then slowly dial back while everyone else runs around like headless chickens. Ends with him in a much better position than if he had approached things in a rational manner?
Yep, it is, except Trump is a thug that also use military force, which is not negotiation at all.
Greenland is extremely and much more than to any other country important to the US . Close geographical proximity, similarity with and existent experience from Alaska, bridge to sensitive regions of Russia and in the end of the tunnel a rich underground that hardly any other can extract. Ongoing climate improvement play a role, may be definitive. The potential take over is relatively easy (not like Canada): 50000 indigenous people that can be bribed, terrorised, forced or persuaded. Denmark is more like a distant relative than a mother nation. It will be a fascinating scene.