this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2026
508 points (97.7% liked)

World News

51843 readers
2290 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

US President Donald Trump’s abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 3 has emboldened him to proceed with the annexation of Greenland, a Danish-owned, self-governed territory, spelling the effective end of NATO and furthering Russia’s war aims in Ukraine, experts tell Al Jazeera.

“The move on Venezuela illustrates the Trump administration’s determination to dominate the Western Hemisphere – of which Greenland geographically is a part,” said Anna Wieslander, Northern Europe director for the Atlantic Council, a think tank.

“If the United States decides to attack another NATO country, then everything would stop – that includes NATO and therefore post-World War II security,” Frederiksen said.

“The pandering to Trump has been an element of our strategy over the last year, leaving observers hoping, but not entirely trusting, that another element of the strategy is preparing urgently for the final rupture with the United States,” Giles said.

Giles told Al Jazeera that Europe’s best option was to place a military deterrent on Greenland now, believing that putting allied troops in the Baltic States and Poland after 2017 deterred a Russian attack there.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ProfThadBach@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Why can't NATO still exist without the US? The alliance could still stick together even if the US shits the bed. God damn why am I typing this? WW3 is about to start and I have no idea what the fuck is going on in my country anymore.

[–] jed@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 5 hours ago

Canada needs nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the American threat. Inshallah.

[–] wulrus@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago

Challenging, but not impossible. I think the military budget of all other NATO members combined would just be about the same as the US. However, it's not like every country has its own independent "mix of everything"; they are supposed to work supplemental. What makes things worse is proprietary hardware and software in modern equipment such as planes. I'm not sure to which degree it would even be technically possible to use it to defend against the USA.

Then there is the nuclear weapon problem. France and UK would have to really stand their ground and follow through with nuclear retaliation. That means that even when the USA or Russia just use a small tactical nuke in Poland, Greenland or wherever, they'd have to use one of their few strategic nukes to destroy something big, possibly dooming Paris. The downside of the idea of mutually assured destruction always was that it only works with somewhat reasonable people who REALLY are not willing to take their entire civilisation with them. But since Stalin, there have never been nutjobs like Trump or Putin in charge, neither in the USSR, nor US, nor Russia.

A victorious Ukraine would certainly be an incredible asset to have in NATO, with all those battle-hardened, highly educated people.

But all things considered, might as well give it a try.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de -5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Because nobody in Europe wants to fight

[–] RaskolnikovsAxe@lemmy.ca 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

You are deluding yourself.

The US is doing this with the aim of surviving and thriving. They are chasing treasure, land and the dream of a better life after. Those are not goals that motivate people to fight.

For Europe, as for Canada, this fight is existential. There is nothing people are not willing to do in an existential fight.

You're out of your mind if you think the US has the upper hand here.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 3 points 21 hours ago

Europe has two choices - fight or die