Should the US Invade Greenland (Denmark) & Panama

[Verbose]

With the US officially considering expansion to non-US territories, that de facto means it no longer recognize the principle of inviolability of borders which governed international law since world war 2.

And before some guy believing he's smarter than he is tells me that this principle never applied, it must be well-understood first. What it is saying isn't that a subdivision from a larger sovereign state cannot become independent from that state. It also doesn't say that a country cannot military intervene in a foreign one to overturn its governement. It says that a country cannot expand to a foreign territory without the consent of that territory. That is because Saddam Hussein violated that principle when he invaded Kuwait that he faced an international coalition against him. Also, when Russia invaded Crimea, and later the whole South East of Ukraine, that is the reason why he organized pseudo-referendums to justify the "consent" of invaded territories.

Trump doesn't. And should Trump actually pursue this – it's a gift to Putin.

Also, should the US somehow make off with Greenland, quite possibly Russia will take Svalbard in retaliation, which then involves the Norwegians.

Trump has to decide if he, and his USA, really is the enemy of Europe? Musk is, we already know.

If Greenland is the bridge here, and Trump might go for it – considering Greenlanders have expressed interest in the idea of greater cooperation with Canada (not the US, way too exploitative in its predilictions), maybe the EU should look into a package-deal for both Greenland and Canada – as a counter-weight to Trump's US? Trump has been talking smack about Canada as well.

In the end. Europe needs it's own defense architecture independent of the US, and possibly against also the US, which might or might not include Greenland. But if so, it would be simplified if it then also included Canada. It is about future competition over the Arctic region. Denmark and Norway the intention might be to just push out, legality or no, Russia is already positioning itself. And even Canada might go on Trump's chopping block – unless there is actual push-back and alternatives.

The Arctic Council has kind of imploded already after Russia going rouge in Ukraine. If the US also goes rouge as well, there's nothing left. Or possibly a wind-up for Trump's style of transactional politics that would instead reward Putin's Russia.

The Arctic Council in Danger

www.highnorthnews.com

 

[Senethro]

Are that pair of losers about to abandon their attempted theft of Kosovo from Serbia into the franco-german co-prosperity sphere?

Lol

Picking your positions based on your enemies does lead to some wackiness

 

[banzay13]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1877042548402749758

Trump explain about 51 Canada state. Watch out for Alex J commercial at the end
Comments in thread also intresting

 

[Nick723]

If Trump has one clear policy position it’s that he’s obsessed with trade deficits. Back to the mercantilist view of the world!

 

[Thorgalaeg]

A nice thought, except that he's the incoming President of the United States. Again.

Meaningless =\= irrelevant

 

[Gorbles]

Meaningless =\= irrelevant

I said it was a nice thought. But in both cases, he's still the incoming POTUS.

 

[Lexicus]

With the US officially considering expansion to non-US territories, that de facto means it no longer recognizes the principle of inviolability of borders which governed international law since world war 2.

And before some guy tells me that this principle never applied, it must be well-understood first. What it is saying isn't that a subdivision from a larger sovereign state cannot become independent from that state. It also doesn't say that a country cannot military intervene in a foreign one to overturn its governement. It says that a country cannot expand to a foreign territory without the consent of that territory. That is because Saddam Hussein violated that principle when he invaded Kuwait that he faced an international coalition against him. Also, when Russia invaded Crimea, and later the whole South East of Ukraine, that is the reason why he organized pseudo-referendums to justify the "consent" of invaded territories.

You really should Google "Israel" sometime, lol

 

[Verbose]

You really should Google "Israel" sometime, lol

We have whole threads about Israel already – just wait until Trump gets around to endorsing Israeli actions...

But in the mean time: Why should US whataboutism be any less annoying that Russian whataboutism?

 

[Kyriakos]

I am sure Eu will sanction the US if the latter annexes parts of the arctic.
We don't need even US energy anyway, we have enough castles to destroy and rely on dynamic one.
We may not be a country, but clearly if it comes to war we all will fight for each other - this includes even the defense of Greenland.
It's the thought that counts.

 

[Lexicus]

We have whole threads about Israel already – just wait until Trump gets around to endorsing Israeli actions...

But in the mean time: Why should US whataboutism be any less annoying that Russian whataboutism?

Yeah, imagine what it would be like to have a US government that endorses Israeli actions...

 

[Marla_Singer]

You really should Google "Israel" sometime, lol

Israel is a more specific case, with a partition plan adopted at the UN in 1948 and never applied. Before that, mandatory Palestine was the official borders to be respected and the problem is within those. There's the case of Golan Heights but up until very recently with Netanyahu, Israel had never claimed full annexation.

You can try finding any counter-examples you want, the fact is we're entering a new age of international law. The old world order inherited from 1945 is gone.

 

[Gorbles]

We have whole threads about Israel already – just wait until Trump gets around to endorsing Israeli actions...

We have whole threads about Russia as well.

Israel is a more specific case, with a partition plan adopted at the UN in 1948 and never applied. Before that, mandatory Palestine was the official borders to be respected and the problem is within those. There's the case of Golan Heights but up until very recently with Netanyahu, Israel had never claimed full annexation.

Jerusalem Law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Although the law did not use the term, the Israeli Supreme Court interpreted the law as an effective annexation of East Jerusalem.[1] The United Nations Security Council condemned the attempted change in status to Jerusalem and ruled the law "null and void" in United Nations Security Council Resolution 478.

While I do think we're entering something that could be described as a "new age", and that's how it may appear, it's been in the makings for a while. "do as we say, not as we do" rarely works out in the long-run.

 

[Marla_Singer]

While I do think we're entering something that could be described as a "new age", and that's how it may appear, it's been in the makings for a while. "do as we say, not as we do" rarely works out in the long-run.

So if I follow what you're trying to say, the fact that Israel annexed East Jerusalem means there's nothing changed with Russia triggering full annexation of Ukraine and that the US should be free to make its territorial market among its neighbors. I have no idea where such stupid logic will lead us to, but certainly nothing good.

Palestine only benefits of partial sovereignty recognition. Israel, with the support of the US, always played with the disputed border between Israel and occupied territories in order to justify expansion over Palestine territories. That's something very different in nature that fully annexing an universally recognized country such as Ukraine, or even territory such as Greenland.

 

[banzay13]

We have whole threads about Russia as well.

Jerusalem Law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

While I do think we're entering something that could be described as a "new age", and that's how it may appear, it's been in the makings for a while. "do as we say, not as we do" rarely works out in the long-run.

G1 order couldn't run forever. We'll, maybe it was possible, but many mistakes was made. Greed...

 

[Verbose]

We have whole threads about Russia as well.

Anything involving the Arctic directly involves Russia – but not Israel.

 

[Gorbles]

So if I follow what you're trying to say, the fact that Israel annexed East Jerusalem means there's nothing changed with Russia triggering full annexation of Ukraine and that the US should be free to make its territorial market among its neighbors. I have no idea where such stupid logic will lead us to, but certainly nothing good.

I don't think that's what I said at all, but if you want to call it "stupid", I'm not sure there's much worth in explaining what you missed. This apparent dissonance caused by a seeming need to find exceptions for A but not B is part of why we're here.

Anything involving the Arctic directly involves Russia – but not Israel.

Oh, contextually relating to Greenland, sure. But I don't think Russia is going to invade Greenland, nor would I think Putin would care about Trump actually trying to. Depends on the rate of material extraction I guess. A quick Google suggests its low, which means it might not be seen as appealing as US' historic foreign oil interests.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I don't think that's what I said at all, but if you want to call it "stupid", I'm not sure there's much worth in explaining what you missed. This apparent dissonance caused by a seeming need to find exceptions for A but not B is part of why we're here.

What is the purpose of that speech beyond serving your narcissism in pretending to have the moral high ground?
This brings nothing good to the world, only justifications for dictators to crap even more this world.

 

[Kyriakos]

He is arguing that if we are to examine something on account of its qualities, and declare it as inherently negative, there should be no importance given to who does it. To factions and teams and sides. Narcissism tends to imply precedence - of your chosen side.

 

[Lexicus]

Palestine only benefits of partial sovereignty recognition. Israel, with the support of the US, always played with the disputed border between Israel and occupied territories in order to justify expansion over Palestine territories. That's something very different in nature that fully annexing an universally recognized country such as Ukraine, or even territory such as Greenland.

This actually gets to the heart of the matter. There is in fact no difference "in nature" between what Russia is doing in Ukraine and what Israel has done over the 80 years of its existence. The difference is in how you and many other people think about it, as demonstrated by the phrase "universally recognized."

The entire point here, of course, is that Israel's aggression takes place in territory that most Westerners think of as "colonial", outside the sphere of civilization inside which the "rules-based order" fully applies.

As an aside, it sure would be funny reading all the discourse if the UN or some other "independent" third party drew up a "partition plan" for Ukraine that involved part of Ukrainian territory being carved off for a "Russian state".

 

[Marla_Singer]

This actually gets to the heart of the matter. There is in fact no difference "in nature" between what Russia is doing in Ukraine and what Israel has done over the 80 years of its existence. The difference is in how you and many other people think about it, as demonstrated by the phrase "universally recognized."

The entire point here, of course, is that Israel's aggression takes place in territory that most Westerners think of as "colonial", outside the sphere of civilization inside which the "rules-based order" fully applies.

As an aside, it sure would be funny reading all the discourse if the UN or some other "independent" third party drew up a "partition plan" for Ukraine that involved part of Ukrainian territory being carved off for a "Russian state".

Russia recognized independence of Ukraine in 1991. Israel never recognized independence of Palestine. That makes a big difference. And I'm not saying that in trying to defend Israel, of which I totally reject the current politics, only because I care more about facts than personal feelings. I'm not interested in speeches driven by emotion.