Post New

So...the convict has decided that the US should own Greenland and the Panama Canal, and is not ruling out the use of military force. Wow. I knew he was a complete moron, but I didn't see this one coming. Greenland is a territory of Denmark, and we handed over control of the Canal after the lease with Panama expired.

As usual, he's proposing an illegal action(s). That would also make us a pariah nation, similar to Putin/Russia/Soviet Union.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-biden-offshore-dr...

Liz Cheney hasn't met a war she didn't like. Mind you, Israel doesn't egg this one on so maybe she's less enthusiastic.

Why does President Musk want to conquer Greenland?...

Reminder from NPR: "Greenland has rare earth minerals (Trump/Musk) wants...key ingredients in smartphones, MRI’s and electric cars."

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/24/781598549/greenland...

Why does President Musk want to conquer Greenland?...

Reminder from NPR: "Greenland has rare earth minerals (Trump/Musk) wants...key ingredients in smartphones, MRI’s and electric cars."
****

GOOD! We could use that stuff.

Let's be European, and take it.

GOOD! We could use that stuff.

Would we rather:

1. Buy rare Earth materials from China, or
2. Source them someplace more benign?

I'd like Door #2.

1. Buy rare Earth materials from China, or
2. Source them someplace more benign?

Greenland already is benign.

And Denmark ain’t selling.

And Denmark ain’t selling.

Why wouldn't they sell us rare Earths?

Why wouldn't they sell us rare Earths?

They're not selling us Greenland. The territory. Trump isn't talking about buying mined resources from Greenland; he's discussing annexing Greenland out of Danish control and making it a possession (a territory or state) of the U.S.

Denmark is unlikely to go along with that.

So...the convict has decided that the US should own Greenland and the Panama Canal, and is not ruling out the use of military force. Wow. I knew he was a complete moron, but I didn't see this one coming.

The thing about Trump, and one of so many reasons he's unsuited to be our President, is he may just be making outrageous statements to try to steal some of the TV news airtime away from Jimmy Carter. You never know when he's serious, and when he's just trying to get the attention he craves so much.

.

Why wouldn't they sell us rare Earths?

My lack of clarity. Sorry.

Denmark ain’t selling Greenland.

They're not selling us Greenland. The territory. Trump isn't talking about buying mined resources from Greenland; he's discussing annexing Greenland out of Danish control and making it a possession (a territory or state) of the U.S.

Denmark is unlikely to go along with that.

Trump I doubt very much really wants Greenland. What he wants is something else.

Trump I doubt very much really wants Greenland. What he wants is something else.

Perhaps, but what he's been saying is that he wants Greenland:

Since winning the 2024 presidential election, Trump has touted a strategic interest for the U.S. in purchasing Greenland, an Arctic island that is part of Danish territory, reiterating his desire to acquire it last month. It's not a new idea for Trump: A gambit to purchase Greenland was mocked when it came up during his first term in office. His eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was on the ground Tuesday filming for a documentary accompanied by at least two incoming White House officials.

“Well, we need greater national security purposes. I’ve been told that for a long time, long before I even ran,” Trump told reporters. “You have approximately 45,000 people there. People really don’t even know that Denmark has any legal right to it, but if they do, they should give it up because we need it for national security.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trum...

He seems to be taking this seriously. I don't think Denmark would consider committing "Alaska 2.0," so I'm not sure how seriously they'll take it, but Trump is talking about this as though it's something he really wants to happen.

He seems to be taking this seriously. I don't think Denmark would consider committing "Alaska 2.0," so I'm not sure how seriously they'll take it, but Trump is talking about this as though it's something he really wants to happen.

They're not going to sell us Greenland, not with Trump so openly talking about it. Trump knows that, which is why this is likely cover for whatever it is he really wants.

As usual, he's proposing an illegal action(s). That would also make us a pariah nation, similar to Putin/Russia/Soviet Union.

And Trump would say: "What's wrong with being like Putin's Russia?" He wants to grift like Putin and he probably will. The oligarchs are all rolling over for him.

They're not going to sell us Greenland, not with Trump so openly talking about it. Trump knows that, which is why this is likely cover for whatever it is he really wants.

I mean - is there anything to suggest that? It's an idea that he floated in his first term, and he's been pretty unequivocal in his public statements.

I agree that this is an unrealistic idea, being pursued in an unrealistic manner to boot. But that doesn't mean that there has to be some deeper, craftier, less unrealistic goal involved. It might just be that Trump's floating an unrealistic idea that won't go anywhere.

Again, this isn't the first time he's brought this up - and there wasn't any deeper purpose being pursued five years ago. He just thought it would be a good idea to try to buy Greenland from the Danes.

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-reveals-in...

He seems to be taking this seriously. I don't think Denmark would consider committing "Alaska 2.0," so I'm not sure how seriously they'll take it...

And there is a resident population in Greenland, small though it is, but I doubt they want to be taken over by the US.

DOPE Would we rather:

1. Buy rare Earth materials from China, or
2. Source them someplace more benign?

I'd like Door #2.

We are already building a rare earth refinery down in Texas. A US firm has partnered with an Australian firm that has the IP necessary to operate the plant - supported by the US. The US made a mistake in investing in Mountain Pass because it isn't great ore and they don't have the IP. So Mountain Pass ships its ore to China to be processed.

Help both Greenland and Canada get to the mining, processing, and production stage. Lynas has the IP, so team up with them to cut out a couple of years.

So the answer the US went with Mountain Pass to shore up the vulnerability and it was a bomb. Lynas is the Real McCoy because they have good deposits with the right 401k liberals with the right culture. ;P

Why does President Musk want to conquer Greenland?...

Cold weather is good for server farms.

And there is a resident population in Greenland, small though it is, but I doubt they want to be taken over by the US.

Sure. And you know that, and I know that, but it's entirely possible that Trump just isn't thinking about the possibility that these citizens of an autonomous nation might not want to sell themselves to the U.S. We're awesome! We're the best! Who wouldn't want to become the next American Samoa?

I don't think he's got some deep master plan, here. He's just taking a flier on maybe pulling a "Seward's Folly" redux and ending up with an incredibly valuable addition to the territory of the U.S. Because he tends to spew his thoughts in his trademark "weave," that idea gets announced to a bunch of reporters rather than being credibly discussed internally and possibly with the government of Greenland first.

I think his Fraudulency is making all the Canda, Greenland, Panama noise to distract from the authoritarian and kleptocratic things he will be doing in the U.S.

I mean - is there anything to suggest that? It's an idea that he floated in his first term, and he's been pretty unequivocal in his public statements.

Nobody skilled in negotiation goes in expecting to get what they want in the first proposal. You know that, counselor. So what you do is go in with a maximalist, ridiculous request that you know they'll say no to...thus when you ask for thing you really want you're not making that your top offer.

Let's put it this way. Do you guys really believe there's even a 0.0000000000000000001% chance that Canada and the US merge?

So bringing this back to Greenland: Let's not focus on the buy Greenland from Denmark thing because that's not likely to happen. The far more interesting questions are

-What would we really want from Greenland?
-To what aim would that service? Military? Economic? Political? Etc.

We are already building a rare earth refinery down in Texas.

That's great, but we also need mines that are either in the US -or- not vulnerable to a sea lane that's soon to be filled with Chinese subs and aircraft.

-What would we really want from Greenland?
-To what aim would that service? Military? Economic? Political? Etc.

Hmm. We may have some partial answers already:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzl19n9eko

The Danish government has announced a huge boost in defence spending for Greenland, hours after US President-elect Donald Trump repeated his desire to purchase the Arctic territory.

Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen said the package was a "double digit billion amount" in krone, or at least $1.5bn (£1.2bn).

He described the timing of the announcement as an "irony of fate". On Monday Trump said ownership and control of the huge island was an "absolute necessity" for the US.

Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory, is home to a large US space facility and is strategically important for the US, lying on the shortest route from North America to Europe. It has major mineral reserves.

Poulsen said the package would allow for the purchase of two new inspection ships, two new long-range drones and two extra dog sled teams.

It would also include funding for increased staffing at Arctic Command in the capital Nuuk and an upgrade for one of Greenland's three main civilian airports to handle F-35 supersonic fighter aircraft.

"We have not invested enough in the Arctic for many years, now we are planning a stronger presence," he said.

Well. I think we have one of our answers.

And one more post on why Greenland is important. Any fans of Tom Clancy will recognize what the G-I-UK line is. The "G" stands for "Greenland":
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-giuk-gap-the-c...

The GIUK Gap remains relevant as a chokepoint for the Russian Navy
However, as the war in Ukraine shows, NATO has to remain vigilant, and the era of the Peace Dividend is long over in Europe. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), the alleged potency of modern Russian submarines has increased significantly while Western advantages in relative detection ranges have narrowed. Concomitantly, the Alliance’s ASW has been suffering a direct consequence of the decline in the numbers of operational submarines and other ASW-oriented vessels: the “erosion of operator skills”.

Therefore, as the IISS argues, one of the changes since the Cold War era is that rather than focusing on large numbers of enemy submarines dashing across the GIUK Gap, the current scenario is marked by “small numbers of high-capability assets seeking a strategic advantage”.

Moreover, despite several challenges, Russia continues seeking a “blue-water” naval capacity, meaning that the GIUK Gap will remain relevant despite the growing capabilities of long-range precision strike weapons. Another point contributing to the continued relevance of NATO’s Northern Flank and GIUK Gap is the disposition of the Russian Navy.

Based on the Kola Peninsula, the Northern Fleet is the most capable Russian naval formation, bearing the assets considered the pride of the Navy, especially within the submarine force. Thus, the Gap remains a crucial chokepoint as long as the Russian Navy tries to venture outside the Barents and White seas.

Russians are one thing. In any broader conflict, you'll see Chinese subs start to operate out of the Barents Sea and/or start to get good at transiting the polar ice cap on their way to interdict shipping in the North Atlantic.

Again, this isn't the first time he's brought this up - and there wasn't any deeper purpose being pursued five years ago.

That would have been in August 2019. In that time frame, the trials of Roger Stone and Harvey Weinstein were ramping up. In keeping with a theory mentioned up thread (regarding the Carter memorials) it might have been something to push those trials out of the headlines and keep himself front and center.

There is nothing a narcissist like Trump likes more than being the center of attention.

--Peter

Do you guys really believe there's even a 0.0000000000000000001% chance that Canada and the US merge?

Dope, the possibility is never zero. Got it?

As usual, he's proposing an illegal action(s).

Yes, but remember it's only illegal internationally (and who care what any other nation says?). Any official act by a President is legal now.

:-|

Pete

We are already building a rare earth refinery down in Texas.

That's great

Did you read what I said Dope? Canada and Greenland have good deposits, we have some deposits. Those are good places. Set aside your ideas about Chinese subs and aircraft and Greenland.

Where do you think we will get the ore from for the Texas plant. China?

Did you read what I said Dope? Canada and Greenland have good deposits, we have some deposits. Those are good places. Set aside your ideas about Chinese subs and aircraft and Greenland.


Sure. Multiple things can be true at once. You know who else has loads of Arctic real estate that they don’t bother to defend also?

Nobody skilled in negotiation goes in expecting to get what they want in the first proposal. You know that, counselor. So what you do is go in with a maximalist, ridiculous request that you know they'll say no to...thus when you ask for thing you really want you're not making that your top offer.
Come on now... I'm going to kill you and take all your stuff isn't really an opening negotiating position. It is just crazy talk.

The Danish have said... "Greenland is not for sale, and will never be for sale. It is not up to the US to decide what will happen, it is up to us. It's a Trump stunt, it is what he has done many times before. The US is showing in a disrespectful way that they would like to be buying or controlling Greenland...

It doesn't sound like Trump is on the road to success.
Alan

GOOD! We could use that stuff.

Would we rather:

1. Buy rare Earth materials from China, or
2. Source them someplace more benign?

I'd like Door #2. - Dope

-----------------

Apart from Greenlands natural resources, the USA has a genuine security interest in how we and not Denmark, is going to control this shipping implications of this strategic asset. Does anybody prefer it to be China or Russia?

https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2024/1...

The Arctic Trilemma: The United States Must Compete for the Transpolar Sea Route

Maritime trade channels essential for America’s globalized economy lie in the crossfire of security threats. Examples abound: in the Middle East, Iran has seized ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz and has employed Houthi rebels as proxies in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait to target commercial vessels and disrupt trade. The Suez Canal is threatened by the spillover of regional instability with the Israel-Hamas war, while the Strait of Malacca is dominated and increasingly militarized by Beijing. The common denominator is clear: global trade routes are under siege and the United States must look for feasible alternatives.

The United States may turn its attention to the North for alternative trade routes: The Northern Sea Route (NSR) and Northwest Passage (NWP). These trade routes are gaining strategic relevance with the ever faster recession of the Arctic ice shield. The United States is an Arctic power; its direct access to the region and national security objectives in the Arctic give the United States a say in the region’s future.

... more at link

You never know when he's serious, and when he's just trying to get the attention he craves so much. = Carplan

----------------

Think of it as a tactic to gain an advantage in upcoming negotiations.

>>Why wouldn't they sell us rare Earths?<<

My lack of clarity. Sorry.

Denmark ain’t selling Greenland. - Bill

----------------

Is Denmark selling anybody rare earths. They don't appear to have the mining, overland transport, and export infrastructure for that. Their primary industry is fishing...

"As of 2024, the estimated population of Greenland is approximately 56,699 people. The majority of the population is concentrated in coastal areas, particularly in the capital city, Nuuk."

Sure. And you know that, and I know that, but it's entirely possible that Trump just isn't thinking about the possibility that these citizens of an autonomous nation might not want to sell themselves to the U.S. We're awesome! We're the best! Who wouldn't want to become the next American Samoa? - albaby

-----------------

This was being discussed on NPR today. One "expert" expressed that the local population is comprised of multi generation fishermen who take pride in hard work self sufficiency. They don't care for the socialist flavored governance that is forced on them from Denmark and if given a choice, many would choose the USA.

Sure. Multiple things can be true at once. You know who else has loads of Arctic real estate that they don’t bother to defend also?

The defense chat is a distraction. It's being developed, and, as is usual it's nowhere near where everyone wants it to be. Partner with Canada and Greenland to develop the extraction and processing.

You guys are all doing The Thing. The Thing where you take Trump literally, and predictably freak out on what he's saying.

He seems to have hit one goal already:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzl19n9eko

With respect to Canada, how much effort does anyone believe they expend to patrol the Arctic?

He seems to have hit one goal already:

No, they've already stated it's ironic timing and usually those "things" are proposed and discussed far in advance of the anniouncement so it's believable.

Actually, The Thing is people claiming T doesn't mean anything he says and then gloming on to any development they think is positive and that becomes one of his goals. He meant to do that. And anything negative that happens is attributed to the Dems.

I think he's just speaking off the cuff and that's a terrible way to run foreign policy, but if it creates distractions from his ineptitude all is well in Trumpyland. The fact that his minions continually come out here and gaslight us like this speaks volumes.

With respect to Canada, how much effort does anyone believe they expend to patrol the Arctic?

That's no relevant Dope. As long as it's with a friendly country we're fine. So Australia, Canada, and Greenland are just fine. You want to leap to WW3 and your idea seems to be that the deposits and processing need to be in the heartland of America surrounded by missiles.

No.

We just need the deposits and processing to be in friendly areas that won't go along with China - allies. Which leads us to the benefit of alliances... trade alliances and defense alliances - both of which Trump has shown he doesn't understand.

Now friendly areas like Taiwan that China has expressly and historically said are theirs and rattles its sabers over periodically are different.

Actually, The Thing is people claiming T doesn't mean anything he says and then gloming on to any development they think is positive and that becomes one of his goals. He meant to do that. And anything negative that happens is attributed to the Dems.

This. Trump is unafraid of speaking extemporaneously on anything that comes to mind, and relatively unfiltered when he does. He loves throwing spaghetti against the wall, so to speak. And then he loves drawing circles around the bullet holes, to use another metaphor. If anything positive happens any time after he's muddled about on a topic, he can take credit for it; if anything negative happens, he'll ignore it or blame it on something else.

More generally, while most politicians (and most recent Democrats like Biden and Harris) are order muppets, Trump is a chaos muppet. He genuinely believes that stirring the pot and shaking things up and acting unexpectedly and "disorderly" (not meant as a disparagement, just a description) leads to positive outcomes. He doesn't seem to credit the conventional wisdom that reliability and predictability from the Executive (at least on foreign policy matters) is necessarily a good thing.

His supporters and his critics will (inevitably) view the results differently. Critics, like myself, view what Trump is doing as burning decades of accumulated American investments in building up bilateral alliances with foreign partners (like Canada or the EU) in exchange for some short term gains. We're much stronger than any of our allies, so there's always some near-term benefit to our being willing to flex our muscles and rattle our sabers against them, and not just our geopolitical adversaries (especially since they don't really have many sabers to speak of). But the downside to that is that those allies then stop regarding the U.S. as a dependable or reliable partner, they start treating us that way and building up their own sabers and muscles, and we find ourselves in a world with fewer reliable friends and fewer countries that really need us.

The United States is an Arctic power; its direct access to the region and national security objectives in the Arctic give the United States a say in the region’s future.

All understandable. We already have a military base on Greenland (Space Force). Negotiating with Greenland, Denmark and NATO to establish a more robust ground/air/sea presence would be in everyone’s interests. But threatening to invade/annex/buy Greenland simply reveals Trump’s dictatorial tendencies and reduces the chances for a strategic partnership in the region.

He seems to think that the same intimidation tactics he used in New York real estate and court room lawfare can work in international diplomacy.

That’s a recipe for disaster and turning the US into a pariah nation.

But it’s certainly how Putin does things.

Why are the world leaders genuflecting in Pariah America - at Pariah Mar o Lago?

Actually, I saw Perun do a segment on Canadian defense, particularly as the Arctic ice recedes. This is going to pose some additional challenges for them (e.g. they need more Coast Guard and icebreakers). Especially as several nations try to stake a claim to the Arctic (especially Russia).

So, yes, they are going to have to start patrolling their northern islands (not really a border), lest someone squat and say 'this is ours now'.

Now friendly areas like Taiwan that China has expressly and historically said are theirs and rattles its sabers over periodically are different.

I suspect the convict will roll-over. However, it would be great if he continued support of Taiwan, recognized them as an independent country (Xi will go apoplectic), and continue asserting free navigation in the SCS (plus support the Philippines, and refuse to accept China's "dotted line"). He is enough of bumbler that he may just recognize Taiwan if Xi annoys him. He certainly didn't care that moving our embassy to Jerusalem was going to cause an uproar.

Is Denmark selling anybody rare earths. They don't appear to have the mining, overland transport, and export infrastructure for that. Their primary industry is fishing...


The way to address that issue is trade deals with an overlay of security commitments., not in holding the threat of invasion and annexation over their heads.

Tellingly, Trump unleashed a quadruple threat in a matter of only a few days- threatening Greenland, Canada, Mexico and Panama.

Every single one of these threats CAN BE JUSTIFIED with strategic reasons- just as Hitler justified his threats against the Ruhr Valley, Sudetenland and Austria…. And then acted upon those threats.

Just as Japan justified its conquest of eastern China, Indochina and oil-rich Indonesia.

Just as Putin today justifies his attempted rape of Ukraine….and by funny coincidence, the areas of conquered Ukraine are the most industrialized and resource rich.

Strategic reasons are ALWAYS given to justify invasion and annexation.

But in a nuclear armed world, that can prove fatal for everyone.

This was being discussed on NPR today. One "expert" expressed that the local population is comprised of multi generation fishermen who take pride in hard work self sufficiency. They don't care for the socialist flavored governance that is forced on them from Denmark and if given a choice, many would choose the USA.

Then let them gather and petition their government for redress.


We should stay OUT of that internal debate, rather than going off half cocked and claiming that WE best represent the aspirations of Greenland’s population.

That IS the argument of dictators. It’s Hitler rushing into Czechoslovakia to save ethnic Germans. It’s Putin rushing into Ukraine to save ethnic Russians. It’s the design of Xi who wishes to rush into Taiwan to reunite that “wayward” province because the Chinese are “one people”.

Either we have an international order based on rules, or we do not. If we do not, get ready for the future that the establishment of an international order sought to prevent.

"Nobody skilled in negotiation goes in expecting to get what they want in the first proposal. You know that, counselor. So what you do is go in with a maximalist, ridiculous request that you know they'll say no to...thus when you ask for thing you really want you're not making that your top offer." - Dope

Dope, that is dumb even for you.

Trump is threatening war with an ally over territory it controls. It is obvious from past exchanges that you don't have a really good grasp on foreign relations so I will help you out. Threatening the use of force is not something to just toss around carelessly. Especially when a person is about to become the leader of the country with the strongest military in the world and lots of nukes. You are trying to just pretend it is Trump being Trump and he shouldn't be taken seriously. Unfortunately Trump is as ignorant at international relations as you are. You both do not realize that reputation matters and countries have long memories. Thanks to Trump we have already reached the point that our allies do not trust the U.S.

Is Denmark selling anybody rare earths. They don't appear to have the mining, overland transport, and export infrastructure for that. Their primary industry is fishing...

My limited understanding is that they are not selling anyone rare earths. It's actually a point of contention in relations between Greenland, Denmark, and the EU's economic security goals.

For a long time, the remoteness and the lack of industrial infrastructure you identify kept anyone from being interested in mining rare earths there. That changed in the late 2010's, when China came sniffing around and started looking at possibly investing in projects there.

Bust that didn't go anywhere. Apparently, mining rare earth elements is really nasty and dirty work. It seems the mining processes end up generating a lot of environmental damage, particularly because of naturally occurring radioactive materials that are located in the same deposits as the rare earths. So Greenlanders are really skittish about it, skeptical that mining can coexist with their established fishing industry (and way of life).

Greenland is a mostly autonomous region within the Danish kingdom, so it's their call. And in 2021 their government pretty much prohibited any mining activities. Because rare earths are economically important, both Denmark and the broader EU have tried to offer regulatory incentives and protections to the Greenlanders to change their mind. With no success so far. There's apparently a desire among Greenlanders to be independent from Denmark, and the main obstacle is their economic reliance on support payments from the kingdom (their economy isn't big enough to be self-sufficient). If there were a massive windfall from mineral extraction that might allow them to gain independence, but it doesn't seem to have been enough to get them to change their minds so far.

We should stay OUT of that internal debate, rather than going off half cocked and claiming that WE best represent the aspirations of Greenland’s population. ,/I>

---------------

What is best for the USA is to put our own security interests at the top of the list. That does not justify any invasion or occupation on our part but does point out to interested parties there is a legitimate USA concern that must addressed in whatever outcome is negotiated.

What is best for the USA is to put our own security interests at the top of the list. That does not justify any invasion or occupation on our part but does point out to interested parties there is a legitimate USA concern that must addressed in whatever outcome is negotiated.

Why must it be addressed?

If we're going to follow a policy of "America First," the corollary to that policy is that other nations will (and should) act similarly. So Greenland would pursue a "Greenland First" position, irrespective of whatever our security interests are. Why would we expect that negotiations among the interested parties must address the concerns of other nations, like the US?

So Greenland would pursue a "Greenland First" position, irrespective of whatever our security interests are. - albaby

-------------

Why does the concept of self interest stick in the craw of progressives. What sane country would not put its own interest first. That doe not rule out a country deciding that pursuing and expanding certain international relationships as the best course to achieve it own interests but to imply that having those interests is some sort of violation of international morality is not the best backdrop for policy.

Why does the concept of self interest stick in the craw of progressives.

It doesn't. That's the point. As you note, every country always follows policies with its own interests in mind, and always recognizes the possibility that pursuing and expanding international relationships might be the best course in those contexts.

But America has always done this. Democrats always did this. Democrats have often regarded pursuing and expanding international relationships as a very important part of pursuing our national interests, to be sure - but that's why they pursued various foreign policy objectives. Presumably, the doctrine of "America First" has meaning. It can't simply mean that America has interests - no person on earth has ever argued otherwise. If it means anything, it must mean that American interests have to be prioritized above the interests of other countries in a way that is different than we historically have done.

So if we're advocating that type of reorientation, why would Greenland do anything different? Why wouldn't they follow "Greenland First" - and if their national interests don't involve taking our security interests into account, they wouldn't (and presumably shouldn't) do so?

Why must it be addressed?

Because we foot the lion's share of the bill, that's why. Countries are either partners or they aren't.

Why would we expect that negotiations among the interested parties must address the concerns of other nations, like the US?

You guys are all making the same mistake: you're assuming that the status quo is acceptable. It isn't, not if anyone is serious about confronting China in 2027+.

You guys are all making the same mistake: you're assuming that the status quo is acceptable. It isn't, not if anyone is serious about confronting China in 2027+.

I'm not assuming that the status quo is acceptable to us. I was just wondering why Greenland would have to accommodate our national security interests in their policy decisions, rather than pursuing a "Greenland First" policy? If it's in their national interest to help us confront China, they'll do that. If it's not, why would we have an expectation that they would put America's interests ahead of Greenland's?

<Trump> seems to think that the same intimidation tactics he used in New York real estate and court room lawfare can work in international diplomacy.

Trump's RE aquisition 'tactics' were a dismal failure in California. The Palos Verdes golf course being the exception (a geologically sketchy property). The PV community hates his confrontational assholeness.

Hence his blatant hatred for the state.

And then he loves drawing circles around the bullet holes, to use another metaphor.

Called the "Texas Sharpshooter fallacy", by the way.

Why does the concept of self interest stick in the craw of progressives.

Why makes Trump's interests more important than the self-interests of the Greenlanders/Danes?

Trump's just a wannabe strongman trying to emulate the strongmen he professes to admire.

Whatta shitshow!

I'm not assuming that the status quo is acceptable to us. I was just wondering why Greenland would have to accommodate our national security interests in their policy decisions, rather than pursuing a "Greenland First" policy? If it's in their national interest to help us confront China, they'll do that. If it's not, why would we have an expectation that they would put America's interests ahead of Greenland's?

Because our interests coincide with theirs, very nearly identically in the areas of security. And they're a NATO partner, meaning they're treaty-bound to contribute to the collective defense.

Do they want Chinese corporations extracting minerals from their soil, with their stellar track record of good business practices and environmental stewardship?

Or how about Russians routinely violating their economic exclusion zones along the arctic?

His supporters and his critics will (inevitably) view the results differently. Critics, like myself, view what Trump is doing as burning decades of accumulated American investments in building up bilateral alliances with foreign partners (like Canada or the EU) in exchange for some short term gains. We're much stronger than any of our allies, so there's always some near-term benefit to our being willing to flex our muscles and rattle our sabers against them, and not just our geopolitical adversaries (especially since they don't really have many sabers to speak of). But the downside to that is that those allies then stop regarding the U.S. as a dependable or reliable partner,they start treating us that way and building up their own sabers and muscles, and we find ourselves in a world with fewer reliable friends and fewer countries that really need us.

This. I agree with you.

Here's an example of how some of the NATO powers are paper tigers. Let's take Germany.
https://www.dw.com/en/limited-number-of-weapons-in...

Number of combat-ready items in the inventory / total of items in the inventory:

Fighter jets: 39 of 128
Transport aircraft: 3 out of 15
Attack helicopter: 12 of 62

Frigates:5 of 13
Submarines: 0 of 6

Does this seem like an outfit that's ready to step in and defend NATO in the event of an emergency?

It's Germany not ready to right.

It's Germany that's been buying energy from Russia


Yet Trump is Putin's boy right?

Your attempts to sane-wash Trump are pathetic.

I've come to think that NO MATTER WHAT Trump does you will have to rationalize it...ineffectively. That is what members of a cult do for their guru. Critical thinking goes out the window.

Because our interests coincide with theirs, very nearly identically in the areas of security. And they're a NATO partner, meaning they're treaty-bound to contribute to the collective defense.

Do they want Chinese corporations extracting minerals from their soil, with their stellar track record of good business practices and environmental stewardship?

Or how about Russians routinely violating their economic exclusion zones along the arctic?

Because our interests coincide with theirs, very nearly identically in the areas of security. And they're a NATO partner, meaning they're treaty-bound to contribute to the collective defense.

Sure - they have to follow what they've already agreed to. But in their internal disputes with Denmark and the EU, why wouldn't they pursue "Greenland First" in any matters that they're not already obligated to do so, to the same extent that we are changing our foreign policy approach to being "America First"?

Do they want Chinese corporations extracting minerals from their soil, with their stellar track record of good business practices and environmental stewardship?

As noted upthread, they don't - and haven't allowed them to, having passed legislation in 2021 that barred nearly all such mining. But if they reverse course and decide that they'd allow mining by whatever nation offers them the best deal ("Greenland First!"), why wouldn't they follow their national self-interest rather than prioritizing America's interests?

It's Germany not ready to right.

It's Germany that's been buying energy from Russia


Yet Trump is Putin's boy right?

I've stopped responding to the TRUMPUTINPUTINTRUMP stuff because it's arrant nonsense. It IS a great indicator of who spends how much time thinking through what NATO is for and what the word "alliance" means.

The general point that Trump is aiming at is the same one that he harped on during his first term: NATO is a shell of an alliance because many of its members don't contribute much other than another color flag to have in the logo.

Why liberals question this or argue anything to the contrary is just a mystery...unless you consider my point above.

Sure - they have to follow what they've already agreed to.

And are they? The answer is NO in many cases.

But in their internal disputes with Denmark and the EU, why wouldn't they pursue "Greenland First" in any matters that they're not already obligated to do so, to the same extent that we are changing our foreign policy approach to being "America First"?

It's in America's interest to keep the Atlantic sea lines of communication (SLOC) open.
It's in Denmark's/Greenland's interest to keep the Atlantic SLOC open.

It's in America's interest to not have Russian and Chinese Naval and air activity operating with impunity in the Arctic.
It's in Denmark's/Greenland's interest to not have Russian and Chinese Naval and air activity operating with impunity in the Arctic.

It's in America's interest to source and trade certain strategic materials from secure, trustworthy partners.
It's in Denmark's/Greenland's interest to source and trade certain strategic materials from secure, trustworthy partners.

Hmm. It seems that "America First" just so happens to coincide with a lot of "Denmark first" or "UK first" or "Germany first".

But if they reverse course and decide that they'd allow mining by whatever nation offers them the best deal ("Greenland First!"), why wouldn't they follow their national self-interest rather than prioritizing America's interests?

Sure. They could sign on to the Belt and Road initiative full-bore. They could take all kinds of Chinese money, let the Chinese start transporting in loads of stuff into Greenland.

Maybe the Chinese start dragging their anchors across comm lines the way they are in Norway and in Taiwan, cutting vital communication links while they're at it.

Hmm. It seems that "America First" just so happens to coincide with a lot of "Denmark first" or "UK first" or "Germany first".

Sure. We're allies for a reason. Our interests coincide a lot. If they always coincided, there wouldn't be any meaning behind a slogan like "America First." Where foreign policy gets relevant is where they don't entirely align.

Like, say, if we want to insist that Denmark should sell us Greenland, and Denmark might decide that's not in their interests. Or if there's an internal dispute between Denmark and Greenland about various matters (like mining rare earth minerals), and what might be in the U.S.' security interest (Greenland mining lots of rare earth minerals) might not be in what they think is their own best interest (preserving the environment).

If you advocate that a nation's foreign policy approach should be somehow more directed to prioritizing that nation's interests rather than those of allies (like "America First"), then it's kind of hard to insist that they shouldn't do the same.

Sure. We're allies for a reason. Our interests coincide a lot. If they always coincided, there wouldn't be any meaning behind a slogan like "America First." Where foreign policy gets relevant is where they don't entirely align.

Absolutely.
For example: Does it align with our foreign policy needs when NATO countries prioritize their social safety nets and neglect spending on their military commitments?

The Royal Navy:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/603297/type-of...

Whoa. 80 ships??? Man, that's some sea power projection there. Of course of the 80 they have 16 "inshore patrol vessels" so the real number is 64. Most impressive is the grand total of 1 fleet replenishment ships...which means what they do have isn't going to spend much time at sea.

If you advocate that a nation's foreign policy approach should be somehow more directed to prioritizing that nation's interests rather than those of allies (like "America First"), then it's kind of hard to insist that they shouldn't do the same.

If one wanted to take the Maximalist view of "America First" and assign only the worst motives to what Trump is saying, then sure. But a realistic reading of the world situation would cause any serious student of foreign policy to reject such a posture.

Let's put a fine point on this.

Either national security is a thing or it is not a thing.
Either the new Axis of China/Russia/+some failed states is a global security concern or it is not.

If the answer to either of the above is "yes, it's a thing" or "yes, the new Axis powers are a threat" then certain actions must be taken. It really is that simple. You can live in Barack Obama's understanding of the world or Henry Kissinger's. Rational people choose Kissinger; sadly, democrats and a lot of the WEF-wannabes in european cabinets think they can make Obama's work.

Spoiler alert: they can't.

Actually, I saw Perun do a segment on Canadian defense, particularly as the Arctic ice recedes. This is going to pose some additional challenges for them (e.g. they need more Coast Guard and icebreakers). Especially as several nations try to stake a claim to the Arctic (especially Russia).

So, yes, they are going to have to start patrolling their northern islands (not really a border), lest someone squat and say 'this is ours now'.

Yes, but Dope is referencing military conflict up to WW3 and cutting off our access via water, which doesn't apply to most of Canada. There's only one good deposit on the islands, the rest ( a dozen or so) are in the Canadian land mass. And I'm not sure how it would work with any deposits on the Indian lands up there (the island is owned by indigenous people).

So Dope could be referencing the Chinese harassing us shipping ore from Australia to Texas for processing, or from Greenland, but he'll glom onto anything.

Right now, saying deposits in friendly territory are not desirable due to some potential armed conflict with China is indulging speculation. China has already restricted processing and banned processing technology from leaving China. The processing is the key, China has a lock on that, but Lynas has been producing and making a profit now for years. China lowered the price of rare earths to hinder competition outside of China. Many Chinese internal producers were losing money at those prices - but Lynas was profitable at those prices.

So we cut out a couple of years by partnering with Lynas and we get a look at their IP. What's different with rare earths is you have to tailor the processing plant you build to the ore as it's various mixtures embedded in different materials.

If one wanted to take the Maximalist view of "America First" and assign only the worst motives to what Trump is saying, then sure. But a realistic reading of the world situation would cause any serious student of foreign policy to reject such a posture.

It's not a maximalist view.

For "America First" to have any meaning, it has to signify something more than just acknowledging that America has interest and those should be taken into consideration in our foreign policy. Because no one has every disagreed with that, ever.

Presumably it reflects a change in our foreign and economic policy - reprioritizing the importance of America's direct interests relative to those interests we pursue by taking into account the interests of our allies. Of course that doesn't mean that we're going to start treating a nation like Canada as an enemy, but it means we're going to start treating them more as a rival for economic and foreign policy position than we have historically. Denmark as well.

But it's irrational to think that we can pursue that type of foreign and economic policy and not expect other countries to respond in kind. That somehow we can de-emphasize their interests in our calculus without having them de-emphasize our interests in theirs.

Of course it's a spectrum, not a binary. But if we're shifting the way we treat other countries along that "Allies-Rivals-Adversaries" spectrum so that we can put "America First," we have to expect that they'll respond in kind.

Either national security is a thing or it is not a thing.
Either the new Axis of China/Russia/+some failed states is a global security concern or it is not.

No one disputes that national security is a thing. Nor that the new Axis of China/Russia and a few failed states is a global security concern.

If the answer to either of the above is "yes, it's a thing" or "yes, the new Axis powers are a threat" then certain actions must be taken.

Sure - but the question is what "certain actions" are the smart choices to take in response to the threat, and which ones aren't.

Antagonizing European allies in order to try to get them to sell you Greenland, along with refusing to rule out the use of force against a NATO member, is probably not a beneficial tactic. It will have negative effects on your ability to respond to thwart the China/Russia Axis. For the obvious reason that global security concerns usually need to be addressed globally, with cooperation of lots of countries.

You have speculated that Trump is antagonizing our European allies for some other, unstated goal. You've mentioned the unrelated issue of European nations' defense spending, for example. Maybe Trump thinks that by acting erratically in this way, the other members of NATO might (perhaps) decide that the U.S. is not necessarily a reliable partner, and therefore feel less secure under the NATO umbrella, and therefore increase their defense spending. But that would still be a dumb choice of "certain actions" to take - because undermining the reliability of the U.S. amongst our allies probably causes more damage than their increased defensive expenditures benefits our global security, relative to other options to get them to increase their defense spending.

You might not want to invoke Kissinger here, BTW. He might have been more of a practitioner of realpolitik than Obama, but he wouldn't do something as dumb as publicly refuse to disclaim the use of force against a NATO member.

So Dope could be referencing the Chinese harassing us shipping ore from Australia to Texas for processing, or from Greenland, but he'll glom onto anything.

Yeah, that sea lanes of communication thing. Who cares, amirite?

What's different with rare earths is you have to tailor the processing plant you build to the ore as it's various mixtures embedded in different materials.


You also need to *source* the minerals from someplace that you can do business with in the event of a conflict. You keep mentioning some Aussie companies, and that's fine, but we need more. China controls about ~70% of the worldwide rare earth market, and that won't do.

For "America First" to have any meaning, it has to signify something more than just acknowledging that America has interest and those should be taken into consideration in our foreign policy. Because no one has every disagreed with that, ever.

Half of America's major political parties disagree with America First in any sense of the term. Look at how the democrats go nuts at literally any policy that promotes home grown fossil fuels production, for example.

One might counter and say "But the democrats are playing the long game and are looking out for the planet" which doesn't fly when one considers the rare earth argument we're having right how: All that stuff benefits...China.

Presumably it reflects a change in our foreign and economic policy - reprioritizing the importance of America's direct interests relative to those interests we pursue by taking into account the interests of our allies. Of course that doesn't mean that we're going to start treating a nation like Canada as an enemy, but it means we're going to start treating them more as a rival for economic and foreign policy position than we have historically. Denmark as well.

It means no such thing.
What it means is that we're no longer going to willingly bankroll the lifestyles of our partners to the detriment of quality of life or America's national security posture for the simple reason that we can't afford it any longer.

But it's irrational to think that we can pursue that type of foreign and economic policy and not expect other countries to respond in kind.

The status quo in so many areas has been warped to a point so as to not be sustainable. Do you think America can keep footing the bill for defending all of Europe and Canada, all by ourselves? Forever?

Dope: If the answer to either of the above is "yes, it's a thing" or "yes, the new Axis powers are a threat" then certain actions must be taken.

Albaby1: Sure - but the question is what "certain actions" are the smart choices to take in response to the threat, and which ones aren't.

And who believes that Trump will take the 'smart actions'? In his first administration there were people in the Whitehouse and in his cabinet that prevented Trump from acting on his worst impulses...at least some of the time.

There is a reason Putin wanted Trump in the Whitehouse and why he is gleeful about Trump's victory. If Trump really cared about US security he would not be alienating our truest allies and threatening NATO.

Dope, I do not understand your belief that Trump will do the right things for our nation's security. Mr transactional is mainly focused on what it in it for HIM.

No one disputes that national security is a thing. Nor that the new Axis of China/Russia and a few failed states is a global security concern.

There's "concern" and then there's "urgent" concern.
There is not a single democrat politician that views China as an urgent concern. Before somebody around here tries to say, "bbbbut Joe Biden...", please don't as all I have to do is point to the US Navy as my counterexample of why nobody on the left side of the aisle gives a rip. Or, if I'm feeling charitable, believes that the time is now to take action in any real way.

They don't.

Antagonizing European allies in order to try to get them to sell you Greenland, along with refusing to rule out the use of force against a NATO member, is probably not a beneficial tactic.

Why are you assuming that selling us Greenland is the real goal? Can we even afford it?
Why not get the Danes to make upgrades in certain areas, upgrades that are mutually beneficial in terms of trade and security?

But that would still be a dumb choice of "certain actions" to take - because undermining the reliability of the U.S. amongst our allies probably causes more damage than their increased defensive expenditures benefits our global security, relative to other options to get them to increase their defense spending.

"Undermining US reliability"? Huh? No. It's called reality. Here, let's have some numbers help us out.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1294309/us-tro...

As late as 1989 we had north of 300,000 US troops stationed in Europe. Now it's more like ~63,000.

Do we have the ability today to ferry 300,000 troops plus their equipment someplace on the globe? Not easily, and not nearly what we used to have.

The reality is that if Shit Kicks Off someplace, the US has a vastly limited ability to project power for a sustained period of time. Therefore, our security partners need to be much more involved than we have allowed them to be for the past 30 years.

Half of America's major political parties disagree with America First in any sense of the term. Look at how the democrats go nuts at literally any policy that promotes home grown fossil fuels production, for example.

Because they disagree that it is in America's interest to promote home grown fossil fuels production. They believe that climate change poses vast threats to U.S. interests, that the only way to arrest climate change is through global coordinated action, and that the only way to accomplish that global coordinated action is by the U.S. taking the lead in reducing fossil fuel production.

That's entirely a "Let's advance American interests" policy. I happen to disagree with it (I don't think the second and third steps are plausible), but it's genuinely motivated by strategy to pursue what they believe is the best path to protect American interests.

What it means is that we're no longer going to willingly bankroll the lifestyles of our partners to the detriment of quality of life or America's national security posture for the simple reason that we can't afford it any longer.

We could "afford" to continue our present tariff structure with Canada going forward. We can "afford" to continue to not own Greenland. The changes that Trump is proposing are choices, not necessities - and there's very good arguments against nearly all of them. I don't expect you to find the arguments persuasive (for example, that it's actually better for U.S. security for a western Europe filled with historically hostile and warring countries have smaller national armies and the U.S. to be in charge of most of the heavy military forces there, rather than the other way around). Simply to recognize that rejecting Trump's vision of foreign policy doesn't mean putting America's interest "second," or whatever the flip side is to "America First."

The status quo in so many areas has been warped to a point so as to not be sustainable. Do you think America can keep footing the bill for defending all of Europe and Canada, all by ourselves? Forever?

Do you really believe that was true? European defense spending in 2015 was approximately $328 billion. Other inarguable members of "team West" - Canada, South Korea, Australia, Japan, Israel - spent another $120 billion. For a combined total of about $450 billion. U.S. defense spending that year was about $596 billion. Hardly "all by ourselves." U.S. spending on defense in 2015 was about 3.3% of GDP, which is basically a single percentage point above the global average of 2.2%. Again, hardly anything unsustainable - and a position that comes with lots of national security perquisites, since he who pays the piper calls the tune.

https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/EMBARGO%...

Because they disagree that it is in America's interest to promote home grown fossil fuels production. They believe that climate change poses vast threats to U.S. interests, that the only way to arrest climate change is through global coordinated action, and that the only way to accomplish that global coordinated action is by the U.S. taking the lead in reducing fossil fuel production.

That's merely one example. Which political party supports mass, unchecked immigration? Or routinely has people with guest credentials and speaker invites to Davos?

We could "afford" to continue our present tariff structure with Canada going forward. We can "afford" to continue to not own Greenland.

Nobody really wants to buy Greenland. On Canada's tariffs, what Trump is talking about is the current trade deficit between us and them.

Simply to recognize that rejecting Trump's vision of foreign policy doesn't mean putting America's interest "second," or whatever the flip side is to "America First."

The other side has yet to articulate a coherent vision/strategy/single goal of what America's national security posture should be other than "The opposite of what the Orange guy wants".

Here's an Outstanding metaphor for what the democrats think along these lines:

https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/the-issues/na...
Oops! We couldn't find the page you were looking for.
Don't worry, there's still plenty to do!

Donate Volunteer

LOL!

Hardly "all by ourselves."

Yes, mostly by ourselves. The European position on continental security is to defend Europe right down to the last Pole or American. That's why they all shat bricks when Putin invaded the Ukraine.

There's "concern" and then there's "urgent" concern.
There is not a single democrat politician that views China as an urgent concern.

Most of them view China as an urgent concern. They don't necessarily share the view that firing up the Pacific Fleet to "take action in a real way" is the right way to address that urgent concern. China's a major threat that needs to be contained using a lot of different tactics and measures - and not everyone's going to agree with them. You think the Navy needs upgrading? Okay - and others think that a massive commitment to defending Ukraine and an equally unambiguous commitment to Taiwan's defense are also essential elements to make sure that China doesn't get the wrong idea about whether the West is serious about stopping them from following Russia's lead in trying to reclaim "their" historical land.

Disagreement about the priorities and methods of countering a threat is not the same as disagreeing that the threat is real and "urgent."

Why are you assuming that selling us Greenland is the real goal? Can we even afford it?
Why not get the Danes to make upgrades in certain areas, upgrades that are mutually beneficial in terms of trade and security?

I'm not assuming that - it's simply the only goal that Trump has assert. So he's antagonized our allies and declined to rule out the application of military force against a fellow NATO member for the sole stated purpose of trying to get Greenland.

And the Danes? Seriously? The 26th largest country in Europe? What possible "upgrades" in our Danish trade and security are you talking about that are worth antagonizing all of the EU and NATO like this? That they might increase their military spending to 2% of GDP, which would be an increase of....nothing, because they're already at 2% of GDP?

There's nothing the Danes have that is of any material security interest to us except possibly Greenland.

Which political party supports mass, unchecked immigration? Or routinely has people with guest credentials and speaker invites to Davos?

Which political party has undermined the collective global response to Russian aggression in Europe? Or wants to reduce American dominance in the military theatre there?

Just because a political party holds a position that you believe is bad doesn't mean they don't believe in advancing American interests. They just might have a different theory on how best to advance those interests.

Nobody really wants to buy Greenland.

Trump does. He explored doing it in his first term. For the same reason that Harry Truman explored buying it back in the day, actually - like Alaska, it would be a significant resource for the country if we could get it done. The idea that it would be beneficial to the U.S. if Denmark ceded Greenland is a pretty smart one. Trump is just being an idiot and undermining U.S. interests in how he is approaching it.

Since it's not consistent with many folks' worldview to think that Trump could do something idiotic or that undermines U.S. interests, they imagine that there has to be some other reason - some other thing that's going on where Trump might actually be doing something clever. But Denmark is a very tiny country with almost no material security or economic impacts on the United States except for its control of Greenland. So there isn't anything there.

The European position on continental security is to defend Europe right down to the last Pole or American. That's why they all shat bricks when Putin invaded the Ukraine.

Again, just not true. European defense spending in 2015 (before Trump) was $328 billion, compared to U.S. $596 expenditures globally. So it's dead certain that Europe was spending more to defend Europe than the U.S. was spending to defend Europe. The UK and France alone spent more than Russia's entire military expenditure (and above the 2% of their GDP, if you're wondering).

Most of them view China as an urgent concern. They don't necessarily share the view that firing up the Pacific Fleet to "take action in a real way" is the right way to address that urgent concern.

You don't need a Navy until you do. I suggest you take a look at the current operational tempo out there and ask yourself if we have enough ships to the do the jobs we're doing now.

There's nothing the Danes have that is of any material security interest to us except possibly Greenland.

Are you aware of the NATO assets in Greenland? And what they mean to many things? Here's one hint. Many rocket launches from the Russkies and Chinese assume polar orbits.

Which political party has undermined the collective global response to Russian aggression in Europe? Or wants to reduce American dominance in the military theatre there?

The one that understands that the Russians no long have the capability to project power globally and that the other main adversary is rapidly acquiring the capability to do so. Versus the one that thinks emptying out the US Treasury is a good idea.

Just because a political party holds a position that you believe is bad doesn't mean they don't believe in advancing American interests. They just might have a different theory on how best to advance those interests.

Politicians make really bad short term decisions all the time. It was never a good idea to give the Chinese rocket technology, yet we did it.

Again, just not true. European defense spending in 2015 (before Trump) was $328 billion, compared to U.S. $596 expenditures globally. So it's dead certain that Europe was spending more to defend Europe than the U.S. was spending to defend Europe. The UK and France alone spent more than Russia's entire military expenditure (and above the 2% of their GDP, if you're wondering).

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf...

Look at Graph 2. The very picture of the word "Deadbeat". And yes, many of these outfits shat cornerstone-sized bricks when Putin rolled into the Ukraine...hence the big spike in countries actually doing something starting in 2023.

Are you aware of the NATO assets in Greenland? And what they mean to many things? Here's one hint. Many rocket launches from the Russkies and Chinese assume polar orbits.

Which is why it's great that Denmark is a NATO member and ally, and why it's great that the U.S. has a military base in Greenland. Awesome! We already have all that - and a few bilateral defense agreements with Denmark as well.

What possible strategic goal could Trump be pursuing that we don't already have that's worth antagonizing the entire NATO alliance this way? Greenland and Denmark are already NATO members and allies of the U.S., already fulling meeting their NATO commitments to defense expenditures.

You've handwaved to the idea that Trump must have some different true goal, since his stated goal is so foolhardy. But what could it possibly be that's worth this detriment?

The one that understands that the Russians no long have the capability to project power globally and that the other main adversary is rapidly acquiring the capability to do so. Versus the one that thinks emptying out the US Treasury is a good idea.

Versus the one that understands that the Chinese are intently monitoring how the West responds to a military effort to seize territory as a way of assessing their position in Taiwan and other areas in the Asian theater.

See? People can disagree on tactics without denying that America has interests that need protecting.

Politicians make really bad short term decisions all the time.

Of course. But that doesn't mean that the person making the bad decision intended the decision to be bad. That people who advocate national security policies that you disagree with must actually just not care about the U.S. national security interest, rather than simply having different ideas about how to advance our national security than you do.

Look at Graph 2. The very picture of the word "Deadbeat".

How, exactly? Nearly every country in Europe is higher than the target 2% defense expenditure. Most of those are also above the equipment proportion as well. There's nothing in the graph to indicate size of GDP, but European expenditures on their own defense are collectively larger than U.S. expenditures on the continent. Even ex-Poland.

The U.S. isn't out there defending Europe on our own, Dope. EU military expenditures are sizable, and not just in Poland.

Which is why it's great that Denmark is a NATO member and ally, and why it's great that the U.S. has a military base in Greenland. Awesome! We already have all that - and a few bilateral defense agreements with Denmark as well.

Think maybe some port upgrades might come in handy? Or maybe we might want to look at extracting minerals from Greenland?

In Graph 4 we see that the Danes have roughly doubled their defense spending from 2014-2024. Good for them in finally living up to their treaty obligations after oh, only about 70 years. Better late than never, amirite?

You've handwaved to the idea that Trump must have some different true goal, since his stated goal is so foolhardy. But what could it possibly be that's worth this detriment?

You put much more stock in the Truth Social and press conference rants than I do. I could care less what Trump says in public. What matters is what gets said at the negotiating table, and what actions are taken in real life.

So far, we have this:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-buy-greenlan...

And I get that they're required to say "We didn't do this because Cheeto Hitler told us to". I look at the endgame, not the process. If offending some diplomats in tailored suits is what it takes to get other countries to do the right things then let them say Well I never! until the end of time.

Versus the one that understands that the Chinese are intently monitoring how the West responds to a military effort to seize territory as a way of assessing their position in Taiwan and other areas in the Asian theater.

Right, they're totally the same scenario with totally the same economic consequences to world trade if something were to hit the fan.

See? People can disagree on tactics without denying that America has interests that need protecting.

Sure. Let's also be clear on a few things, lest they be conflated into generalities: Getting the Ukrainians to off most of Putin's standing army (so that we don't have to) is a good thing. Capturing the Russians' latest toys and getting to tear them apart is a good thing. Getting to observe how a lot of Chinese equipment fares in wartime conditions is a good thing. And so is being able to watch the drone era of warfare unfold without actually participating in it. All pluses for us.

Those pluses only run so far. Are you willing to send the Air Force's entire allotment of A-10s and F-16s over there? How about emptying the Army's supply of M1 tanks? The answer is of course "No", and that's where the crux of the debate is - how willing are you to degrade America's combat readiness when the Germans/French could be supplying more?

But that doesn't mean that the person making the bad decision intended the decision to be bad. That people who advocate national security policies that you disagree with must actually just not care about the U.S. national security interest, rather than simply having different ideas about how to advance our national security than you do.

Does this standard apply to Trump?

Nearly every country in Europe is higher than the target 2% defense expenditure.

Sure, after merely being a member of the alliance for the past 70 years. Are defense capabilities built up overnight?

The U.S. isn't out there defending Europe on our own, Dope.

Those 39 fighter jets the Germans have will go really far if they're needed, won't they? Ditto their 0 submarines.

Have you looked at who is doing 100% of the fighting in the Red Sea?

Does this standard apply to Trump?

Sure! I have zero doubt that he is sincere in his conviction that immigration policies are too lax, his belief that tariffs are good economic policy, that being erratic and unpredictable is (on net) a good trait for a head of state to have, and a host of other issues. I disagree with many of his stances, but I credit that he believes that the U.S. has certain problems and he thinks his solutions are good ones.

Sure, after merely being a member of the alliance for the past 70 years. Are defense capabilities built up overnight?

Again, back in 2015 European expenditures on the military were higher than U.S. expenditures in Europe. The depiction of European nations as not contributing meaningfully to their own defense is false. Reasonable minds can disagree over whether they should have larger militaries than they do (given the rise of nationalism on the Continent, I'm not sure that's a good idea anymore if ever it was). But the idea that they aren't material participants in their own defense is false.

Those 39 fighter jets the Germans have will go really far if they're needed, won't they? Ditto their 0 submarines.

Have you looked at who is doing 100% of the fighting in the Red Sea?

Last I checked the Red Sea wasn't in Europe. And considering the last time Germany was really out there with their submarine fleet, I'm kind of glad they don't have any.

The depiction of European nations as not contributing meaningfully to their own defense is false.

As they say, ball don’t lie. 39 fighter jets is a joke.

Last I checked the Red Sea wasn't in Europe. And considering the last time Germany was really out there with their submarine fleet, I'm kind of glad they don't have any.

The Red Sea is a critical trade
Route. You don’t get to have a functioning economy if the goods you need are sunk by terrorists with Iranian missiles.


How many NATO ships really did anything in the Red Sea?

Hardly "all by ourselves." U.S. spending on defense in 2015 was about 3.3% of GDP, which is basically a single percentage point above the global average of 2.2%.

-----------

Fun with Math. U.S. spending on defense in 2015 was about 3.3% of GDP, which is basically fifty percent more than the global average of 2.2%.

Last I checked the Red Sea wasn't in Europe. And considering the last time Germany was really out there with their submarine fleet, I'm kind of glad they don't have any.

Gemany manufactures some of the best diesel boats in the world- mostly for export, but they’re top notch.

Dope: Which political party supports mass, unchecked immigration?

No. The Democratic Party is not in favor of unchecked immigration. They worked to create a bipartisan immigration reform bill and then Trump killed it.

You are so blinded by your partisanship that you refuse to see what is patently true.

You post so much nonsense.

They worked to create a bipartisan immigration reform bill and then Trump killed it.
****

Why. are Democrats so xenophobic that they wanted billions to keep immigrants out? Don't you know that other than Natives - we're all immigrants?


Yes, you did go Trumpy on the immigration bill and Kamala did want to throw people out of America - you are right on both.

Did you ever think you'd be too Right Wing - for George W Bush?

(I know, you've forgotten Bush hate ---but think back - it was big for you :)

Say hi to David Duke, save me some biscuits and gravy.

BTW you might want to take a weekend off from Civil War re-enactments.

Take a day off from Monster Truck racing.

Skip the next gun and rifle show.

See Hamilton.

"Immigrants get the job done"

Ges, you anti-immigrant folk need to look in the mirror. There are no illegal human beings.

I’ll just note that Don Jr. has been traipsing around Greenland lately, looking over the merchandise.

I’d suggest that Greenland go back to Viking times, when they would have cut off his head and sent it back as a message.

Make Vikings Great Again!

Dope: Which political party supports mass, unchecked immigration?

The republican party. 100%. If not for Trump the problem would be solved...

Fear mongering insurrectionist Donald Trump killed the bipartisan bill that would have addressed the border problem because he knew it was the only issue he had...
He said, "The Senate is better off not making a deal, even if it means the country will close up for a while."

Life long Republican Mitt Romney summed up the situation nicely...
"The border is a very important issue for Donald Trump, and the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and congresspeople that
he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Joe Biden (Kamala Harris) for it is really appalling."

BTW The bill was fully endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the Wall Street Journal and supported by 66% of Americans.

"First, they fascinate the fools. Then they muzzle the intelligent." ~Bertrand Russell

As they say, ball don’t lie. 39 fighter jets is a joke.

Yeah, ball don't lie - European nations are spending hundreds of billions of dollars per year on their own defense, more than the U.S.

Germany doesn't have a lot of fighter jets? Why should they? Fighter jets are literally among the most mobile pieces of military equipment that exist - you don't need every NATO country to have their own fighter jets, so long as enough are available to NATO forces. Since the U.S. has such a huge Air Force (and air bases in Germany), it would be a massive misallocation of defense resources for Germany to try to build up sizable air resources other than what might need to be immediately on hand.

How many NATO ships really did anything in the Red Sea?

The U.S. is part of NATO, so I'd say - nearly all the ships that engaged were part of NATO? NATO isn't intended to replace the armed forces of the member nations the way our national army replaced the state militias/armies that existed in colonial days. NATO exercises military power through the forces of its members, for the most part. There are independent forces that are entirely under NATO, an arrangement that can be important diplomatically since it allows NATO to engage in operations without them being necessarily a national operation. But generally, NATO works through its member militaries.

Yeah, ball don't lie - European nations are spending hundreds of billions of dollars per year on their own defense, more than the U.S.

Then where is the money going? 0 submarines. Barely 100 tanks.

The U.S. is part of NATO, so I'd say - nearly all the ships that engaged were part of NATO? NATO isn't intended to replace the armed forces of the member nations the way our national army replaced the state militias/armies that existed in colonial days. NATO exercises military power through the forces of its members, for the most part. There are independent forces that are entirely under NATO, an arrangement that can be important diplomatically since it allows NATO to engage in operations without them being necessarily a national operation. But generally, NATO works through its member militaries.

Okay, I'll answer my own question: The US Navy was joined by maybe 2-3 ships, 1 each from the UK, France and Italy. That was it.

NATO Navies don't really exist; there's the US Navy - woefully undersized for what it needs to do - and nobody else.

Then where is the money going? 0 submarines. Barely 100 tanks.

The money is being spent on the military.

You keep looking at just Germany. The combined countries of Europe have between them about 5,000 tanks, give or take (though that's pre-Ukraine; I expect some have been sold to them). That's roughly the same number that the U.S. has.

The EU nations also have about 1.9 million active-duty personnel combined. That's also sizably larger than the U.S.

NATO Navies don't really exist; there's the US Navy - woefully undersized for what it needs to do - and nobody else.

Again, the U.S. is part of NATO. European countries don't have naval forces that are sizable relative to the U.S., for the obvious reason that Russia is cursed by geography.

Okay - that doesn't really make it obvious. But the reason that European military forces look the way they do - the reason that European history looks the way it does - is because of geography. Russia doesn't have access to an ice-free naval base to support a blue-water navy, and the entire western border is connected to all the countries of Europe by the Great European plain. If the Carpathian Mountains went all the way to the Baltic Sea, then European history would be very very different. But it doesn't. It's basically flat as a bowling alley from Brest on the Atlantic to Moscow.

What that means is that Russia does not, and never will, have much of a navy to speak of - but they always will have a massive army on their Western Front, because there is zero geography to protect them from invasion from the West. And that's why Europe's defenses don't really have a major naval component, and why their tank divisions are mostly in Poland (because the Carpathians basically channel any mechanized divisions through Poland if they want to reach Europe).

If you tell me that you think Europe should be spending more money on defense, there's certainly merit to that position. If you tell me that Europe isn't contributing at all to their defense, that's simply false.

Another reason Europe doesn't have extensive navies is that the colonial period is long gone. They used to have navies to protect their overseas interests (colonies), but that pretty much isn't an issue now. I think the UK probably has the largest navy in Europe. They have a few carriers, and several smaller ships, plus some subs (including nuclear subs). Some other nations have coastal defense subs (diesel), such as Sweden. They really have no need to project power, so not much call for a navy of any size. As you say, their primary concern is land-based. With the fall of Syria, the Russians no longer have a sub base in the Med, so that threat is further reduced.

You keep looking at just Germany. The combined countries of Europe have between them about 5,000 tanks, give or take (though that's pre-Ukraine; I expect some have been sold to them). That's roughly the same number that the U.S. has.

Here's NATO's tank strength, largely confined to...the US, Turkey and Greece.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1294391/nato-t...

Note that this isn't the number of combat ready tanks (that's much smaller).

What that means is that Russia does not, and never will, have much of a navy to speak of - but they always will have a massive army on their Western Front, because there is zero geography to protect them from invasion from the West. And that's why Europe's defenses don't really have a major naval component, and why their tank divisions are mostly in Poland (because the Carpathians basically channel any mechanized divisions through Poland if they want to reach Europe).

Huh? You're aware that the Russians have traditionally had a large submarine force, right?

Here's NATO's tank strength, largely confined to...the US, Turkey and Greece.

And Poland.

Again, geography. There are really only two overland paths from Russia into Europe that you can move mechanized divisions through. The first is the Great European Plain, which was discussed above - the large flat plateau that runs from France to Russia. It only goes through Poland. Everything south of that is blocked by the Carpathian and Balkan mountains. The only other overland path is through Georgia along the southern shore of the Black sea, skirt around the south of the Rodope mountains and along the north edge of the Aegean sea and up through Hungary. Which is through Turkey and Greece.

Which is why the tank divisions are in Poland, Turkey, and Greece. The three land bridges to Russian territory. Turkey and Greece have oversized tank brigades to protect each against the other as well.

Huh? You're aware that the Russians have traditionally had a large submarine force, right?

Oh, sure. And they do have a navy, of course. But they don't have much of a blue water navy at all. Their fleet is almost entirely small ships, really suited for waterbodies like the Black Sea and smaller. Subs are important counter-naval assets, but they're not going to provide a huge amount of direct support for a European invasion.

And Poland.

The Poles don't need to be told about the Russians and what they're like, so they've always been a NATO member that spends what it should.

NATO is also a global force; it doesn't just align itself against the Russians.

Subs are important counter-naval assets, but they're not going to provide a huge amount of direct support for a European invasion.

Subs are for sea lane denial. Why do you suppose we have hydrophone arrays along the ocean floor in the G-I-UK gap?

The Poles don't need to be told about the Russians and what they're like, so they've always been a NATO member that spends what it should.

NATO is also a global force; it doesn't just align itself against the Russians.

Sure. But you were arguing that the lack of stuff that these specific NATO countries are missing in their individual arsenals means that they don't take their national defense commitments seriously. And that's wrong. They spend collectively about a quarter trillion dollars on national defense. Most of the EU nations have invested heavily in their non-mechanized army divisions, because that's what makes sense. Your armored divisions are concentrated in the handful of countries that are on the NATO border with Russia (Poland, Turkey, Greece - and it won't surprise you that Finland's got a lot of tanks for a small country), and you don't emphasize your navy because the primary threat you're defending against lacks the naval resources to invade you that way.

Subs are for sea lane denial. Why do you suppose we have hydrophone arrays along the ocean floor in the G-I-UK gap?

Sure, but it's not like the EU member states don't have subs themselves - or counter-submarine naval capabilities. The navies of the EU member states are roughly the same size (collectively) as Russia, and roughly the same number of submarines (about 65 for Russia and the EU powers). I don't *think* any of them are nuclear powered ballistic missile subs (which make up about a quarter of Russia's sub fleet, as part of their nuclear deterrent), so they probably have more subs intended for sea lane denial than the Russians.

Europe has a very sizable military. If you think it should be somewhat bigger, I think there's an argument to be made for that (and against it) - but the notion that they don't have any material military forces to defend themselves is simply wrong.

Sure. But you were arguing that the lack of stuff that these specific NATO countries are missing in their individual arsenals means that they don't take their national defense commitments seriously.

And...they haven't, for the better part of 70 years. You can't point to budget increases that happened in the last 12-24 months and claim they've been dedicated members of NATO, sorry.


Most of the EU nations have invested heavily in their non-mechanized army divisions, because that's what makes sense.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countri...

You mean like this? France's Army is 45% smaller than it was in 1989.

and you don't emphasize your navy because the primary threat you're defending against lacks the naval resources to invade you that way.

I'm sorry, but this is just a fundamental mistake you're making. Does Europe source and supply everything they need to function as a society natively? Or do they import a lot of materiel and gear?

Since it's the latter, how do you think that stuff gets to them? Is it all flown in?

How about this stuff? https://www.britannica.com/video/Overview-tankers-...

How well equipped are NATO navies at stopping a Russian or a Chinese sub from blowing one of these to kingdom come?

Sure, but it's not like the EU member states don't have subs themselves - or counter-submarine naval capabilities. The navies of the EU member states are roughly the same size (collectively) as Russia, and roughly the same number of submarines (about 65 for Russia and the EU powers).

You're aware that in undersea warfare the advantage is to the attacker, right? NATO navies have to defend literally hundreds of millions of square kilometers.

Oh, sure. And they do have a navy, of course. But they don't have much of a blue water navy at all. Their fleet is almost entirely small ships, really suited for waterbodies like the Black Sea and smaller. Subs are important counter-naval assets, but they're not going to provide a huge amount of direct support for a European invasion.

And the quality is questionable. They still haven't been able to get their new carrier to work. And the Ukranians sunk their flagship (and several others) in the Black Sea. Their navy is having...issues...

But a good summary of the strategic situation on land.

Also, the longer Russia is mired in Ukraine, the better for everyone else (not to be cold about what is happening to Ukrainians). I've seen estimates of ~500K casualties for Russia. Numbers are a bit difficult to come by since Russia doesn't publicize them, but that's a common estimate (as of the end of 2024). Plus materiel losses that have forced them to tap their storage yards for ancient hardware. Per satellite photos, those mothball yards are emptying quickly. Russia will not quickly recover when this is over, and certainly not while it's ongoing. I'm also reading that their economy is getting bad.

You can't point to budget increases that happened in the last 12-24 months and claim they've been dedicated members of NATO, sorry.

The figures I first posted upthread were from 2015. Combined defense expenditures even before Trump took office were well north of $200 billion annually.

You mean like this? France's Army is 45% smaller than it was in 1989.

Yeah, and the Soviet Red Army was 4x bigger than it is today back in 1989, also.

And once more you're picking out a single country, rather than looking at Europe collectively. So here's the same chart, but this time for all of Europe - and you can see that their active duty military has more personnel than the United States!

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countri...

None of this supports what you're trying to imply - that EU isn't devoting massive amounts of resources to its own national defense. That's simply false. They've got more troops than the U.S. does globally - and while they don't match our global expenditures (no country on earth does), their expenditures of more than $200 billion per year mean that they're spending more in defending Europe than we are.

Again, the notion that the defense of Europe is proceeding almost entirely on the U.S.' dime is just flat out wrong.

Since it's the latter, how do you think that stuff gets to them? Is it all flown in?

No, but Europe's got a pretty solid industrial base. If they moved to a wartime footing, their own domestic resources and industrial/manufacturing capability would be pretty sizable against an invading force. And again, Europe's got the same size navy and roughly the same number of subs that Russia has - so they're on equal footing in terms of naval warfare, with both Russia and Europe having the ability to project power at sea. Since NATO also includes the US and Canada, any supply lines coming across the Atlantic would also have the benefit of US and Canadian naval support - and if you want to add in the Aussie naval fleet (they're a member too!), they've got the 15th largest navy in the world.

Again, no one disputes that European military power isn't the size of that of the U.S. No one's is. Or even that there exists an argument that Europe could spend some more on defense. Just that your argument that European military expenditures are tiny is flat-out wrong. Collectively, the military forces of Europe are pretty enormous - probably the second or third largest in the world, behind only the U.S. and (perhaps) China.

No, but Europe's got a pretty solid industrial base.

Do they. What about their energy infrastructure?

Again, the notion that the defense of Europe is proceeding almost entirely on the U.S.' dime is just flat out wrong.

The Europeans are entirely dependent on the US Navy to guard trade routes and protect the sea lanes. Fact. Not a particularly disputable one.

Are they even capable of handling an extended conflict? Absolutely not. Witness France:

https://warontherocks.com/2023/04/why-the-french-a...

To their credit, their new Chief of Staff is thinking about this:
On Feb. 13, the chief of staff of the French army, Gen. Pierre Schill, presented to a group of journalists his new vision for the French army’s path forward. Interestingly, Schill’s response to the quality versus mass dilemma is to stay the course, largely by investing in the army’s ability to do better what it was already designed to do, in other words work to enhance its quality.

...but his plan is:
https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/...

The army learns the lessons of the war in Ukraine
The chief of staff of the army announced, on Monday, the establishment of a new organization in which the "melee" regiments (tanks, infantry) will be reduced, in favor, in particular, of those specialized in cyber and drones.

Basically they're going to try to do more with less. The armies of Europe are primarily expeditionary forces; they can't fight on a sustained basis.


Again, no one disputes that European military power isn't the size of that of the U.S. No one's is.

Excellent, as no one has made that argument.

Just that your argument that European military expenditures are tiny is flat-out wrong.

In recent years they've improved. They're still not where they should be.

In late January, Macron announced his government’s intention to significantly increase France’s defense budget. In his speech, he underlined the need to boost France’s stocks and re-invest in the military’s supporting forces, what often is referred to as the “tail,” which historically has been greatly reduced to retain as much of the “tooth” as possible. After Macron’s speech, Goya complained that simply rebuilding the military would soak up all the new money, leaving none left to grow the force. The new proposed Military Programming Law, released this April, confirms his view. Though it calls for spending €413 billion ($465.15 billion) over the next five years, the new law in fact does not call for growing the force, although it does mandate significant boosts to France’s drone fleet and air defense capabilities, along with more spending on intelligence, counter-landmine capabilities, and cyber.

Do they. What about their energy infrastructure?

Probably adequate to manage a shift to a wartime footing. There's no way Russia could completely seal off the entire continent, especially since Europe's navy is - again - equal to that of Russia, and they would be joined by other NATO members with naval resources (like the U.S. and Canada). Their subs could harry those supply lines, but those supply lines would also be protected by escorting navy vessels - and while counter-sub maneuvers are tough, subs are not invincible.

In recent years they've improved.

They've always been massive. Again, the $200+ billion that I cited further up the thread was from 2015. Not "in recent years" - from before Trump or Biden took office.

Whether you think they should be bigger is a separate question from whether they are insubstantial. They are not insubstantial - again, Europe spends more on its combined military and has more active duty personnel than nearly any military on earth, save only the U.S. and (perhaps) the Chinese.

Could France alone fight off Russia? Of course not. They've never been able to do that, and never would be able to do that. But could all of the military forces contribute significantly to the defense of the continent against a Russian invasion, working as part of a NATO force that included US power? Absolutely - both now and in 2015 and probably at every time relevant to this discussion.

Could they spend more? Sure. Are they spending an insignificant amount? Absolutely not.

Probably adequate to manage a shift to a wartime footing.

Uh, huh.

Their subs could harry those supply lines, but those supply lines would also be protected by escorting navy vessels

Sure. Who replenishes them at sea?

Could France alone fight off Russia? Of course not.

France's military is currently built to handle colonial action in Africa. They're not strong enough to beat even a peer country:

https://lavoiedelepee.blogspot.com/2023/01/pour-un...

After twenty-five years of crisis and despite the hiatus of 2017-2018, the French armed forces have regained their colours after having been on the verge of collapse. It should be remembered that our leaders had seriously considered in 2013 reducing the annual defence budget to around 31 billion euros until 2019 and even less if affinities with Bercy. The terrorist attacks of 2015 finally reversed the trend and in 2019 the budget was actually 35.9 billion, to reach 44 billion in 2023.

...which takes care of your point about "always been massive".

The French Air and Space Force has lost half of its personnel and half of its combat aircraft. The excellence and versatility of the Rafale aircraft has largely compensated for this loss of volume, but while the Rafale can do many things, even at long distances, they cannot be everywhere. The air intelligence capacity has increased. The transport and air-to-air refuelling capacity has diminished to the point of becoming critical (read: we are obliged to call on the Americans when it exceeds a certain threshold). Things are improving but remain insufficient.

Read that last sentence.

Be credible means being strong, and we are neither one nor the other, if we cannot do anything important without the Americans and if we do not have divisions to throw at the enemy on very short notice and without faltering. Operation Serval in Mali was remarkable in every way, from the political will to the tactical implementation of the air-land forces. The problem is, whether we like it or not, we will not have to face only small armed organizations with a total of 3,000 light combatants. We must therefore at least first of all completely reconstitute our existing brigades with all their equipment, re-form command and support regiments, put support back into the regiments, create mountains of iron ammunition and all the things necessary to fight on a large scale. We must reform reserve corps as quickly as possible, which can eventually be engaged in Operations. To do things quickly, loudly and far, we also need to rethink our transport equipment, from heavy helicopters to strategic transport aircraft, a huge neglected project.

So no. Not massive.
Having a military is so much more than fighter planes (which the Euros don't have that many they can deploy) or dudes with rifles.

Who replenishes them at sea?

??? They would dock. At port. The same way that naval vessels (other than nuclear subs) have generally been replenished.

...which takes care of your point about "always been massive".

I have been talking about Europe. Not France, or any other single country that you can find someone disparaging their military readiness. Europe. Collectively.

Whether France was individually "considering" trimming their military budget (no word on whether they did that?), the collective military budget of Europe was massive at that time. Yes, any single country within that collective will be small relative to global superpowers like Russia or China - which is why they don't plan for their defense as individual countries, but as participants in NATO in alliance with all the other members.

You just can't accept that Europe were spending more than two hundred billions of dollars for their own defense even before Trump took office - or that they've consistently had more active duty soldiers than the U.S. for the last several decades. That's inconsistent with what you've been led to believe about European defense forces....but it's true. So you keep citing factoids or columns about a single aspect of a single country's military (first Germany, then France) rather than address the fact that the collective contributions of Europe to their own defense have consistently been very large.

??? They would dock. At port. The same

lol, okay.
The same way that naval vessels (other than nuclear subs) have generally been replenished.

No. The US Navy replenishes at sea.

have been talking about Europe. Not France, or any other single country that you can find someone disparaging their military readiness. Europe. Collectively.

France has the most capable military in Europe and it can’t fight a peer nation, much less somebody more serious like the Chinese.

You just can't accept t

Dude. *You* can’t accept that the Europeans can’t deploy for more than 5 minutes. They haven’t kept up.

I’ve not even brought out the interesting statistics yet.

Tell me. Who contributed what during Desert Storm?

France has the most capable military in Europe and it can’t fight a peer nation

How is that possible? If France has the most capable military in Europe, wouldn't it be able to successfully fight any other nation in Europe?

Dude. *You* can’t accept that the Europeans can’t deploy for more than 5 minutes. They haven’t kept up.

Two things: first, you haven't provided anything to show that. No assessment of European military capabilities - just some random jabs at France. And second, their defense isn't - and shouldn't - be oriented towards independently deploying outside of Europe. None of the European nations are, in this day and age, global powers. They will never be able to project power on a global stage on their own - they're too small on their own to compete with the U.S. or China or Russia. Their military readiness ought to be directed primarily towards participating in a collective defensive effort within the Continent.

Who contributed what during Desert Storm?

Has no bearing on anything. Israel's got one of the better armed forces in the world, and they didn't contribute anything directly to Desert Storm. That measures just what nations chose to contribute, not what their military capabilities are. Or were, I should say - that was 34 years ago, now.

How is that possible? If France has the most capable military in Europe, wouldn't it be able to successfully fight any other nation in Europe?

How is that possible? I've showed you how.
You're equating dollars with combat capability, which isn't correct. I've shown you France's (and others') current military capabilities.

Two things: first, you haven't provided anything to show that.

Okay, you're not looking at anything I'm showing you, which is your right.
France doesn't have the ability to tank their aircraft, they have to rely on the US for that.

Has no bearing on anything.

Has plenty of bearing on lots of stuff. In 1990 the European powers had roughly 2x the militaries they have now...and they didn't contribute a ton of things to DS. Go look at the Kosovo Air Campaign and see who flew how many sorties.

I'll leave the last reply to you. I'd suggest you acquaint yourself with the force structures of the various NATO countries, who can deploy where, for how long, and how might Europe fare against a first-world peer nation.

You just can't accept that

Dope never accepts something that runs counter to the propaganda he so lavishly consumes, even when confronted with overwhelming facts. He’ll poke around somewhere beneath the surface until he finds a tiny shard of contradictory evidence and then rears back with “J’accuse!” .

No matter what, and no matter how long, you cannot find a way to dent his seriously demented armor. I applaud you for continuing to try, and I wish you only the best, but I’m hoping you realize it’s a hopeless and thankless task to try to improve someone’s understanding who refuses to accept anything that they don’t already agree with.

How is that possible? I've showed you how.

You said that France has the most capable military in Europe.

If France has the most capable military in Europe, how would they be unable to fight against another European country? By your statement, France has the more capable military than their opponent.

Okay, you're not looking at anything I'm showing you, which is your right.

I have. You've showed me nothing but a few articles about France. Nothing about Europe.

In 1990 the European powers had roughly 2x the militaries they have now...and they didn't contribute a ton of things to DS.

Again, neither did Israel. Or China, for that matter. That doesn't mean that either Israel or China don't have powerful militaries today - or even that they didn't have powerful militaries back then.

I'd suggest you acquaint yourself with the force structures of the various NATO countries, who can deploy where, for how long, and how might Europe fare against a first-world peer nation.

Nearly all of the "first world peer nations" are in Europe. China and Russia aren't first world countries, nor are they peers. Stipulate that the U.S. can defeat the EU, just like they can defeat any other military on the planet. What other country do you think could defeat the combined armies of the entire European continent if they tried to invade? Don't just handwave - which country on earth other than the three I've mentioned (Russia, China, US) could Europe not defend against an invasion?

Dope never acce

And this is why you are and will forever be a second-stringer: you can’t, even with overwhelming lib numerical superiority, hang with 4 to 5 righties.

It’s not our fault we know so much more about the world than allegedly highly sophisticated libs.

Sad.

You're right, Dope is wrong. Probably his sources of info.

Here is a comparison of NATO (which does include the US) vs Russia. No contest.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293174/nato-r...

If you exclude the US, it's a bit more of a mixed bag:

https://armedforces.eu/compare/country_European_Un...

EU would exclude Britain, by the way (since Brexit).

This may be pre-invasion since the Russia tank count is pretty high. They don't have 12K tanks today, even if you include mothball yards. And the mothball yards were filled with obsolete tanks. They have very few T90s, which is the latest/greatest. Some reports say they've lost all of them. Others say as many as 50, though not the T90M (brand new).

No matter what, and no matter how long, you cannot find a way to dent his seriously demented armor. I applaud you for continuing to try, and I wish you only the best, but I’m hoping you realize it’s a hopeless and thankless task to try to improve someone’s understanding who refuses to accept anything that they don’t already agree with

But, though Dope seldom adds anything of value, his posts give albaby1 a reason to explain things and I get a lot out of that.

I would estimate in the back and forth between Dope and albaby1 an objective debate judge would have to award albaby1 an almost 100% victory.

Dope is wrong. Probably his sources of info.

Here is a comparison of NATO (which does include the US) vs Russia. No contest.

No, you guys aren't reading anything I'm posting. I'm done.

Russia isn't really a threat to NATO anymore.

Russia isn't really a threat to NATO anymore.

The one link I provided showed that, so long as the US remains in NATO. Also, so long as Putin continues his war, which is draining Russian military assets and resources.**

But countries like Poland still need to be wary, which is why they are sending so much aid to Ukraine.

China is a threat in the SCS region, but that is far away from Europe. You could argue they would need navies for that, and Britain does have one. The others, mostly for coastal defense (like Sweden's "navy"). The Chinese army is no threat to Europe.



**Assuming he doesn't go nuclear...then Russia is a threat to everyone, but it would be suicide (MAD).

Post New

Tax Strategies FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.