The US is trying to squeeze the Danes to get hold of Greenland.
Technically this is done by the Biden admin but obviously coordinated with the incoming Trump admin who has made their attention of using trade to squeeze Denmark in order to get full control of Greenland very clear.
But I guess politicians are much cheaper than that.
All of these trillions are imaginary numbers buried in ice
Why would the Biden administration coordinate with Trump in an attempt to control Greenland? That makes no sense.
The Danes agreed that Greenland can become independent if supported by a national referendum. Apparently there is a decent amount of interest in that idea.
So the US can come in and say "hey, instead of independent, you could be in a union with the US". There is enough interest in that that it's a serious concern for the Danes.
To be fair we learned it from watching Dad (England).
> unstable authoritarian regime
How is it unstable?
> apparently just because
Territorial waters and exclusive economic zone claims grant amazing access to the arctic.
> something the US wants
It's really just the moneyed interests inside of it. China and Russia seem to have the same bent for the same reasons. It was recently unusual in Iraq since the federal corruption had risen to such a level, enabled by 9/11, that lackies for these interests somehow found themselves directly employed by government.
I prefer nuance over hyperbole.
I'll bite - the guy taking office soon recently attempted a coup and his party backs him no matter what action he takes despite his rampant criminality.
There have been at least 2 assassination attempts on this individual recently (by folks who ostensibly supported him previously) and had one been successful who knows what his remaining supporters would have done in response.
The USA is teetering.
This is just more hyperbole and relies on a highly subjective interpretation of a single tweet and blithe expansion of the accepted definition of coup. The least generous but realistic interpretation of those actions is that through poor word choices he incited a riot. You can credibly debate that this was criminal and intentional but to call it an example of a "coup" is flatly absurd.
> his party backs him no matter what
There is astounding and readily available evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure why you think there hasn't been or isn't currently Republican Party members that despise him and openly attempt to undermine him. They're not particularly difficult to find.
> despite his rampant criminality.
It seems like the majority of his actions are within the law. I understand you disagree with his administrative prerogatives but this lens is extremely distorted.
> at least 2 assassination attempts on this individual recently
How that implicates "stability" of a nation is beyond me. Are you prepared to label all prior presidents with successful or unsuccessful assassination attempts as being "unstable?" Is that your bar? Do you not see any connection between your widely held extreme points of view and these extreme actions?
Finally.. what is the source of this instability? That he won an election? That's an odd understanding of politics. One that I think is projected by lazy "news" channels that find it easier to market outrage than they do facts.
> and had one been successful who knows what his remaining supporters would have done in response.
From hyperbole into historically detached flights of fancy.
> The USA is teetering.
All actual available evidence is to the contrary. The economy is strong and the social order isn't. Qui bono? Perhaps you shouldn't focus so much on domestic politics.
The Jan 6 committee laid it out in detail but if not for Mike Pence having a shred of integrity trump's plan would have led to the state delegations in the House selecting the "winner" of the 2020 election. That's a coup attempt. It was well documented.
When we recently made agreements with the US to allow them to store some of their weapons here in case of a crisis we did this, the mutual concern was Russia. The weapons stored are presumably also of types useful for dealing with Russia.
We Europeans have nuclear weapons as well, so there's no possibility of the US preventing any uncivilized violence-- we do in fact have very real autonomy.
The US probably did blow up Nordstream; but this is very simply that it's easy to make the right choice when you're not paying for it, so this isn't some example of better American morality. Poland has a formal alliance with us and we would have to defend them by all means at our disposal.
But, taking into account the sale of oil fund assets by Azerbaijan and the corresponding increase in military spending I assume more pipelines will soon have to be blown up, only this time it'll be the UK who adds its complaints to those of Germany and the other gas dependent countries. The Armenians might even have to do it themselves, rather than relying on help from others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/06/...
However, I mostly think you did it because you said you would, and I kind of trust you when you do things like that. When your leaders try to communicate their intentions, they usually mean what they say and it's not terribly complicated.
The US talk about agreement with the EU view that this is somehow a brazen and dangerous sabotage is pretty funny though, because this kind of thing is absolutely legal-- completely, not like 'Oh, this is disputable', but completely. The useless German arrest warrant that was issued was funny too. Neither of these two mean anything, but I get the impression that everybody knows it's legal and wish it weren't. They know that the Armenians can blow up Turkstream and the Georgian pipelines, even with the slightest provocation, since there's no ceasefire agreement and all their big investments can be destroyed in an instant with unhappy Brits as a likely result.
You don't even need an order. If your country is occupied by another country or at war, and you can damage infrastructure useful for the enemy war effort, whether in export of energy or the electrical grid or anything like that, you don't need an order, you should just do it. Attacks on things in international waters is obviously permitted. If it belongs the enemy and you can attack it, you probably should. It's more complicated if it's in a neutral country, and then it might actually be illegal, but otherwise-- do the work and put on some distinctive marking for the attack itself, and there's nothing to complain about.
It's something that anyone who has lived in a smaller country with a neighbour that could possibly make war upon them drills into their own heads when they first read their grandparent's old 1950s military manuals.
Of course, if the US really did warn, then it may be as you say-- after all, why warn of what one would oneself plan to do, but people can be tricky, so there isn't a guarantee there either, especially if the explosives are pre-planted.
I'm reminded of the weird US accusations against Russia right after the event though, now that I read the article again, and that's another reason to suspect the US. Imagine that you're in an Agatha Christie novel and somebody says stupid things to you. There's only one conclusion-- he wants you to think stupid things. The article also contains some of this kind of stupid about 1/3 in and it's right when it starts discussing this kind of thing, so, no it's 100% the US. You don't talk like this, or reason like this, unless you did it. It even has one of those 'how did you know the parts you weren't there for' problems.
I can see few parts in US for example wanting independence under certain conditions. Or US could have given kurds Kurdistan in the middle east with all that crap it caused in past 2 decades, largely stabilizing (big part of) the region. Clearly not policy US cares about much, so lets stop pretending actual wants or needs of Greenland population are anybody's concern here.