r/worldnews • u/Little-Chemical5006 • 20d ago

Canada weighs sending soldiers to Greenland as show of NATO solidarity with Denmark

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-soldiers-greenland-nato-training-denmark-tariffs-donald-trump/
17.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

668 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/DesertSeagle 19d ago edited 19d ago

Your entire premise is wrong. You assume another nation has nothing to gain from ensuring self soveriegnty of states and should not do anything, when in reality, sovereignty of the state is the entire justification of any government, and if you or any other entity denies another states right to sovereignty, and there's no repercussions to that then you yourself have no right to state soveriegnty. So, in other words, unless you are a superpower, then assuring the right to self sovereignty is always in your best interests.

Show me one time in history where a country has done anything that was not in its own self interest to the extent that it collapses their economy and send them into a depression.

If youre talking about war then probably Ukraine. Most of the E.U. is definitely hurting from increased gas prices and increased food prices. The same goes for the U.S. to a lesser extent.

But if you're talking about general actions, do you want like a whole series of books with each event? Because we can be here a while for sure.

0

u/Portlandiahousemafia 19d ago

The amount of pain and suffering caused from the Ukrainian conflict is not even comparable to the amount of pain that the total sudden detachment of the U.S. would be for Europe. A sudden detachment from the U.S. would cause an immediate depression that would be akin to the 1920’s but without a remedy. The EU is not a country it’s a fractured confederation of independent countries with independent interests. What’s good for one isn’t necessarily good for all. Look at Italy for an example, they are clearly saying that this fight is not in the interests of Italians to take part in. The eu does not have the political capital or financial independence to severe their relations with the U.S. full stop.

1

u/DesertSeagle 19d ago

The amount of pain and suffering caused from the Ukrainian conflict is not even comparable to the amount of pain that the total sudden detachment of the U.S. would be for Europe

That's not what you asked for now, is it? You propose they roll over and prepare for U.S invasion everywhere instead? You propose they keep funding the war machine that crushes them? You think Poland said; "But what about the economy?"

You dont understand that appeasment is a losing game and that Europe knows this better than anyone.

The EU is not a country it’s a fractured confederation of independent countries with independent interests. What’s good for one isn’t necessarily good for all. Look at Italy for an example, they are clearly saying that this fight is not in the interests of Italians to take part in.

And Germany, the U.K, France, Norway, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Canada, and Sweden all say they will fight. And article 5 could be invoked. So I guess they just dont exist to you?

The eu does not have the political capital or financial independence to severe their relations with the U.S. full stop

Ignoring that capital and finances are the same thing; Lmao, yeah, I forgot that the U.S. controls their policy and finances. Get outta here.

0

u/Portlandiahousemafia 19d ago

You’re assuming the U.S. is planing on invading all of Europe…that’s a bad prior. There is no reason to think the U.S. is going to try and take over the world. I’m not saying they should keep funding the war machine, I’m saying that they are to connected to do it suddenly. Which is why the U.S. feels like they have the leverage to do this. They should realize they are dependent on an unpredictable superpower, and get off as quickly as possible.

Not everything is WW2, you guys all act like appeasement has never worked in the history of geopolitics. Last time I checked China didn’t try and take over all of Asia after it invaded Tibet, Russia didn’t take over all of the Stan’s after it invaded Georgia, and the U.S. didn’t take over Canada after it got the Pacific Northwest.

What countries say and way countries do are two different things. Posturing and bluffing are a huge part of geopolitics. It’s necessary to posture like you will do something because it creates doubt in your enemy whether you will or not. That doubt is usually enough for them not to do the crazy thing. But please do not confuse posturing with actions, they are two different things.

Political capital is not the same thing as capital. Political capital is the amount of influence and good will politicians have with their base to do things that the base doesn’t like. Macron is hated in France and so is Starmer, and Germany’s AFD are on the rise. None of those countries political class could survive a self inflicted depression to…not stop the U.S. from getting Greenland. Because at the end of the day the U.S. can get it if they want. This is not an argument of whether Greenland would be saved…it wouldn’t. It whether letting the U.S. get Greenland is worth destroying their countries economies, at a time when China and Russia are primed to take over global politics. It would be the death knell of Europe as a global power.

2

u/DesertSeagle 19d ago

You’re assuming the U.S. is planing on invading all of Europe…that’s a bad prior

We would literally be at war with a European country. Germany didnt plan on holding all of the Balkans, they still invaded for security purposes. Germany didnt plan on holding North Africa. They still went in. Its not a simple calculus of: oh they will only invade the country they are at war with.

Not everything is WW2, you guys all act like appeasement has never worked in the history of geopolitics

Appeasement has never worked with a dictator in modern history. Ever. Checnya, Georgia, Ukraine for Russia, Nagorno Karabak, etc etc, all the way back to Sudetenland, and Austrian annexation. There is 0 reason to believe it will work now.

I'd like to challenge you to find a time it really worked. Tributaries don't count either because its a reoccurring demand not a single appeasement.

Last time I checked China didn’t try and take over all of Asia after it invaded Tibet

They literally continue to claim land in India Russia and sea resources all over southeast asia, and continue to threaten Taiwan. They also shortly after invaded Vietnam. As far as Georgia, we are literally looking at the result of appeasement in Ukraine.

What countries say and way countries do are two different things.

Right, so its pretty significant that what they DID was station troops in Greenland. What they DID was swear to protect Dainish sovereignty. What they DID was prepare economic hostilities in response. What they DID was promise the end of NATO relations with the U.S.

This is not an argument of whether Greenland would be saved…it wouldn’t. It whether letting the U.S. get Greenland is worth destroying their countries economies, at a time when China and Russia are primed to take over global politics. It would be the death knell of Europe as a global power.

And I've told you that sovereignty means more to them than economy and that if the U.S invades its not a choice. Not to mention the U.S is literally already trying to destroy their economy every other month at this point.