To a certain degree, that is what’s happening. Denmark should bolster its military presence on Greenland, potentially up to and including by putting it under a nuclear umbrella. (Ideally European. Pragmatically, homegrown.)
Mad rulers are also quite normal for much of human history, the theory was that Democracy would relieve us of that particular problem.
Mad rulers are also quite normal for much of human history, the theory was that Democracy would relieve us of that particular problem.
This is one of the most insightful videos I've ever seen on society and governments. It describes Anacyclosis, where political systems evolve in a recurring sequence driven by corruption and decay.
Democracy will eventually decay. It's not permanent. You can see it now live where democracies elect more and more radical leaders.
Even this "decay" isn't inherently "bad" (assuming you are pro-democracy). There are numerous other decision mechanisms, and many of them are inclusive and transparent. Some of them might work for various levels of civil organisation, should The People want to give them a try. If a country replaced its democratic voting system with one of these others, you could still call that a "decay of democracy", but it might actually be good for the country.
(For the record, I don't think authoritarianism and its associated decision systems are good for large, general purpose bodies like countries.)
Can a (more or less) two party system where the population hovers around 50/50 support for each side truly be called a democracy?
Unless democracy has never existed, and thus has evidence for being unable to exist, sort of like communism, yes. It’s flawed. But it’s more than in line with historic systems. (Not all of which failed due to populism.)
I don't think that was the theory. I think the theory was something in the middle of the wisdom of the crowds and the fact that non-violent hand overs of power are less bad than violent ones.
The main flaw is that democracy can be undone by democracy whereas autocracy in principle can be made to last forever. Of course autocrats eventually kill the host organism so there too there is a built in fuse but it can take a long time (centuries?) to burn.
I think Athenian democracy was explicitly built by Solon to relieve gridlock among entrenched, corrupted families.
For instance the Romans are thought of as a great, cultured civilisation because their histories won out, but the Gauls and Carthaginians would’ve disagreed.
Like Lord Palmerston said, countries don’t have friends v or enemies, only interests. Russia and China get along well now, definitely didn’t 50 and 150 years ago, but did in intervening periods. Yet they would both consider themselves as in the right regardless.
Country? Probably not. Society? Yes. America’s treatment of Europe post-WWII, and even Japan and Germany, together with its restraint when it was the global nuclear hegemon, was benevolent.
From that society? The people who were in power when we were the global nuclear hegemon?
My point is societies corrupt, and great societies emerge from the corrupted. America before and after was not benevolent. The Americans at the helm during and at the end of WW2 were, as an aggregate, as expressed through our republic, benevolent. (Benevolence doesn’t require faultlessness.)
The Empire bit the dust, Europe ruined - and the US and CSSR divided the world upon themselves.
It is not narrative for us to hear, as there have been many sacrifice that came to liberation of Europe. It is much easier to see them trough less less of the good guys, the liberators. But there are many sides to history: it also was a change of guard in the strategic geopolitical sense… and even after WW2, the US did a lot to accelerate the Empire’s demise …
I think a lot of it has to do with inertia; people have made such a great job in the past in the wester world, with infrastructure, education, law, medicine, and so on, that even when real proper idiots take power, most things just continue being good enough. It takes a lot of time for idiots and autocrats to make their impact, which when (hopefully) voters will switch and get good people back in power.
The liberation of Europe owes more to the Soviet Union than the USA, perhaps the current situation there foretells where we are heading with the USA?
That's why they left, Austria agreed to became their trojan horse and lobbying arm in Europe, constantly torpedoing nuclear energy projects[2] and Schengen membership expansions.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56280898
[2] https://www.euractiv.com/section/eet/news/austria-gears-up-t...
The Soviet Union got their equipment and supplies mostly for free from the US.
All nations the Soviet Union “liberated” were not so sad when it finally fell and they were actually liberated.
It is also estimated that 30-40%† of the tanks used in the Battle of Moscow were British (Matildas). The Soviets were especially dependent on US on (a) trucks, and (b) raw materials like aluminium.
† Alexander Hill, “British “Lend-Lease” Tanks and the Battle for Moscow, November–December 1941″, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 19:2.
The Soviets helped in a major way to defeat the Germans - on par with the US.
But it's also true that they did not liberate anyone in Europe, just replaced the German occupation.
This is sort of like arguing Belgian colonialism was fine because there was one village they forgot to enslave.
Also, we were jointly occupied [1]. (Austrian-Indian American.) The reason we weren’t Polanded is the Allies, who controlled part of us at the end of the war, argued we were victims of Anschluss. If the Soviets controlled Austria, it wouldn’t have been spared.
> The Soviets never liberated anyone
A universal statement can be disproven by a single counterexample.
Sure. Pedantically. To the extent we can say Belgian colonialism was great.
Saying the Soviets were fine is a stupid argument if the best you can come up with is Australia wasn’t fucked because the Allies got half of it first and then forced Moscow not to fuck it.
And Allies gave others in the country their freedom. And pushed the Austrian constitution in other ways. What you’re saying would be like a West German arguing Germany was mostly liberated by the Allies, because they happen to be on the side that they got to first.
I'm not denying that. I'm just saying it's wrong to say the soviets never did.
Oh yeah, just ask Poland about it! F*cking revisionist
It really doesn’t. If America abandoned Britain the Nazis would have had a one-front war.
Build then pull. Or don’t. It’s a treaty from a falling world order.
> quite possibly giving a state like the US pretext to annex Greenland
If you believe America would wait for pretext, you don’t need the umbrella.
Also, Denmark should now kick the US Military Sites off Greenland until the US climbs out if its psychotic break.
nuclear umbrella would be a choice between Russia (practically impossible)
Let's say the Russia/Ukraine war is over. Russia mends its ties with Europe and says it will be good from now on. The US is ready to annex Greenland. Denmark is powerless and will lose Greenland. Russia calls Denmark and says it can help. If you're Denmark, what would you do?
It would certainly trigger a collapse of NATO. But if the US is serious about taking Greenland, that automatically starts the collapse anyway, right?
Anyway, just all hypotheticals. Interesting to think about. I don't think chances are 0. History has shown us that countries make surprising decisions, including allying with historic enemies, when pushed against the wall.
But people don't actually believe in lesser evil politics, they believe in loyalty (to sides, not to principles). That goes for both politicians and people. Danish politicians will not switch geopolitical alliances, and they'd honestly be color-revolutioned out if they tried, without even the CIA having to lift a finger.
Anti-US propaganda won't fill Danish newspapers, for the aforementioned loyalty reasons. Media people in Denmark (as elsewhere in the West) identify on a personal level with the sensible establishment. Sure, it's awkward that Trump isn't part of that and is currently in charge in the US, but they are convinced things will go back to normal over there, and then it'd be really embarrassing to have failed the loyalty test to the US. "Losing your glove" and all that.
Unless the weapons are under Copenhagen’s control, they’re Potemkin protection. Paris won’t risk its economy being destroyed by sanctions, much less its military destroyed by the American war machine, to protect Danish interests in Greenland.
Why wouldn't the US do the same in Denmark or any other Western country?
What a load of tripe.
I agree something needs to be done but as it stands its not a easy solution. And I would assume if Denmark through nato put nukes on Greenland the US (and I would assume Canada) would treat it as some level of Cuban Missle Crisis.
Who is it that Denmark should consider their enemy in this situation? Is it normal in your mind that the US should be considered the enemy?