@cardcrimson: please re-read my last comment. There’s nothing ludicrous about acquiring Greenland. Sounds great. Let’s negotiate. If the price is reasonable and if they are agreeable to it, then let’s do it. The point both you and Mick completely missed or ignored: you don’t threaten friendly, peaceful, democratic allies as a negotiation tactic.
Going back to WW2, we historically had as many as 47 military bases on Greenland, depending on how you count. With one or two exceptions, we gradually shut them all down and withdrew for various reasons. Some were unnecessary due to technology advances, priorities changed, etc. But we were not forced out; we weren’t expelled. And if we want more military bases there, Greenland would almost certainly come to some reasonable arrangement. We do not need to threaten them. Do you not see how imperialistic and insane that is?
Regarding Mick’s point about failing to meet the 2% defense budget, I agree. I’ve argued on other platforms (and maybe here) that Trump happens to be right about that — and Europe needs to increase their spending. However, that is not an excuse to threaten annexation of their territory by force. You want to give them a deadline? Fine. Tell them we will withdraw from NATO if they don’t meet these obligations by such and such date. How about 2027? But you don’t just start threatening military aggression. I mean WTF. How do you guys not understand this? Or if you do, maybe you can agree that it’s fucked up.
@Mick: two other points about the 2% thing:
First some history and context about that number: The 2% of GDP defense spending target for NATO members is not a legal requirement but a political guideline introduced in 2006 to encourage adequate military investment. It gained prominence after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, when NATO leaders at a Wales Summit agreed to aim for 2% within a decade. At the time it was framed as an aspirational goal rather than a binding obligation. In 2023, at the Vilnius Summit, NATO updated the language to call the 2% a “minimum” spending level, but still without enforcement mechanisms. Spending has indeed increased significantly in recent years — though most NATO countries have still fallen short of the target. As much as I agree they should increase their defense, NATO membership does not require countries to meet the 2% threshold, and failing to do so does not violate any treaty obligations.
Second: when it comes to the recent conflict in Ukraine, Europe collectively has spent significantly more than the USA in the last few years. You want to criticize them about budget obligations? Fine. But they are stepping up more than the US financially now.
Of course, the rationale for abandoning Ukraine and Europe is not actually about this 2% budget thing. That is just a red herring. If it were an actual imperative, Trump and the people in his administration would not be supporting the party in Germany which advocates for less defense spending. They would not aim their most vocal criticism at Poland, which spends more than double the 2% and more than the US, as a percentage, on defense.
NO MALARKEY