312
Trump says Greenland will be under US control by the time he leaves office
(www.the-independent.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2026
312 points (96.7% liked)
Europe
11743 readers
695 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Dude should read into what traditional casus belli can be caused by, notably one of those things is preemptive war caused by repeated threats to invade.
I don't think it will be to Denmark's advantage to attack the US. Trump is full of shit anyway.
His diaper sure is.
If Denmark pushes EU to an economic war, then the USD is no longer the petrol dollar and will crash immediately.
The US relies in Europe for their economy to a greater deal than the EU relies on the US. But an economic war between the worlds two largest economies will cause global economic instability for a bit.
Personally I were shocked EU didn't attack the petrol dollar at the beginning of the Hormuz closure, as that was the easy way to keep energy flowing out of the strait.
Denmark has allowed the US to have new bases in Denmark while the US was threatening Greenland. The EU is made up of countries and many have good relations with the US.
Several EU countries have been distancing themselves from the US for the past year and a half, but apparently they didn't feel prepared for cutting contact this spring.
Was it three trade agreements signed since Trump went to office? Mercosur, India and Australia iirc. They've all been laying around in a drawer, with minor details missing. Boom, they're all good now.
That's not at random, that's Europe positioning itself to not rely on the US. The continent has been awakened and the drift away is going to happen. The US wanted to be isolated, they can't stop the movement now.
India is going to replace a fair share of the reliance Europe has on the US. But Africa is right there next door screaming for investment, no need to invest in the US
Mercosur wasn't signed in Colombia at the initially planned date. That looked like US influence.
India is built up against China, with an extreme right government that looks US made.
Australia is big but with a small population. That looks more like a support of the American shift to Asia since it came with a defence agreement if I remember correctly.
So why don't we invest?
https://feddit.org/post/33508934
We honor the US embargo. There is no independence.
But it's a democracy which is moving in the right direction in terms of personal freedoms.
Looking at the official statement, it's a direct jab against the US turning away from a rules based order. This agreement is not to glaze the US, far from it.
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/australia/eu-and-australia-strengthen-relations-security-and-defence-partnership-and-trade-agreement_en?s=163
We are, but we should be investing more. And more importantly, we should cleverly flood the Arabic peninsula with euroes through energy trade. To make Saudi Arabia assert its soft power in Africa and weaken the US in the process.
There's no way we can break a US blockade on Cuba, just like the US successfully can't invade France. Distance is a hell of an issue.
Cuba is too insignificant to cause a greater international reaction
That's a nice benefit but we can't use the Indian trade agreement as an example of European independence if it serves the US strategy.
As opposed to the multipolar order. This is not opposing the US. France, and thus the EU, were not so long ago excluded from a nuclear submarine deal. I doubt that Australia switched to relying on the EU.
I don't think Saudi Arabia can be bought like that. Saudi Arabia was made by the US. Also, how would the EU benefit? Saudi Arabia most likely has their own goals.
True, but we could try to deliver and more prominently rub it in that the US are violating international law.
That's when international law matters. If we don't defend it or at least try, we signal that it is only there to suppress the ambitions of small countries.
It serves European strategy, as one step to further isolate Russia, to ensure countries we're closer aligned to are in better positions. Of the three global tigers (China, India, USA), India is the lesser evil.
Sure India counters China in regional presence, but that's not the ways USA cares about countering China. India would honestly trade Taiwan for complete soft control of Southeast Asia.
That doesn't exist, there's at least 4 polars today. Usa, China, India and EU. There could be arguments for the Arabic peninsula being a 5th major polar.
Trading energy in euroes, would make more euroes float and make the euro as a currency stronger. The more a currency is adapted, the stronger it is.
It's the entire tenant behind US growth, the petrodollar. Making the world swim in dollars, which they end up investing back in the US and the US can then buy new shit overseas. The Euro would achieve a similar effect if it bought its energy in euroes, with a third intermediary being Africa. Saudi Arabia would invest in Africa, Africa would buy a mix of food and industrial equipment in Europe and the triangle trade is in motion
fair
An idealists statement, but it's not how the world spins around
What is the way?
I am not sure if Europe is independent. If we were independent we wouldn't stay silent about Cuba.
India is big, but are they on the same technological level?
The US is just stopping the dollar dominance. Europe would have the same problem: everything is produced elsewhere so we are forced to develop the most advanced weapons without practical skills and a reliable supply.
Building our future on exploiting Africa again is possible but not reliable. China could and will make the better offers. Same for them buying Arabian energy.
Which shows that we only support countries for materialistic reasons. We continue to be the colonial powers. That costs us credibility. Why should countries prefer us over China?
They don't have to attack anyone, wars can happen without any violence just peace talks and treaties.
Wars without violence? I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Isn't war by definition violent?
Hybrid war isn't. You can attack an enemy's interests: harm their economy, flood them with refugees beyond their ability to cope, throw up obstacles to their normal foreign trade, etc.
He needs WW3 to stay in office, the U.S. will be alone against everyone, they will be decimated.
No, not true. At least the middle part. Russia also hates the EU.
In the USA, there is no "staying in office" after your term is up when you don't win an election.
Hahahaha. He literally attempted to coup the government very recently.
The beauty is that most countries are involved in conflicts that force them to cooperate with the US. The US have done their homework.