A bad as the Iraq War was, I never bought the argument it was an example of US "imperialism," since the (wildly optimistic) postwar vision by the Bush Administration of Iraq resembled post-WW2 Germany and Japan rather than a typical 18th Imperial occupation. The Bush Administration also justified the invasion on the (exaggerated but real) threat Saddam Hussein posed to neighboring countries and, to a lesser extent, American interests.
However, it's hard to see Trump's designs on Greenland, or the Panama Canal, as anything but an expression of naked imperialism. Greenland poses no threat to the US whatsoever and any of the supposed benefits from annexation of Greenland could easily be had with Denmark and the Greenland government as they currently stand. Trump's desire to make territorial annexation part of his "legacy" is plainly an imperialist sentiment by design.
Less deadly in the short term obviously, but I'm not sure what it will mean going forward.
If it leads to the dismantling of NATO, global rearmament on a massive scale (including the expansion of existing nuclear arsenals and the spread of nuclear weapons to presently non-nuclear nations), and a general breakdown in civilised behaviour between nations - a sort of 'might is right' mindset - then who knows what will follow.
Over 60 private US security firms were employed by the US in the Iraq war. Mercenaries have no real interest in peace, freedom and civil rights - they feed on conflicts! When we witnessed Powell presenting 'proof', that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, in the UN Security Council directly on TV in 2003, it seemed obvious, that Powell was unsure about this 'proof', but the private security firms like Blackwater went to earn a fortune. France was one of the few Nations to directly oppose the USA on that occasion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyyhvgZpleo
We are clearly moving into a world where any pretence of a rules based order is exposed as a sham. The three most powerful nations in the world all have territorial ambitions - two always had, and the US sounds like it has joined them. Is imperialism back in vogue?
The consequences of a US annexation of Greenland could be very far reaching. Such an act has the potential to trigger a sequence of events which will lead to the collapse of the supranational institutions dependent on the concept of 'international law', a global rush to rearm (much of which will be nuclear - ending any hope of nuclear non-proliferation), and the formation of new alliances and power blocs to replace those that are ended by the Greenland invasion.
It's hard to see where the instability caused by such an action will end. I don't think it will make any of us safer or more prosperous.
Yes, the "rules-based international order" was always a sham, a cover for tacit US-EU empire under the auspices of global humanitarianism, something so absurd only Americans would believe it. Remember, in the last decade of the last century, the US bombed Serbia for months and peeled off Kosovo from it so it could plant a huge Nato base there. In the first decade of this century, the US invaded Iraq on the basis of lies about WMD and Saddam's involvement in 9/11. Up to 500k Iraqis died. Nary a case at the ICC. In the second decade, Obama launched Operation Timber Sycamore to get around Congress and promote regime change in Syria, in a civil war that create 600k victims. (Now that Assad is gone, we have a jihadi regime there.) Hillary and the EU orchestrated the murder of Gaddafi after he had already complied with American terms of disarmament, plunging Libya into a jihadi state of chaos from which it has still not emerged. And of course the US engineered regime change in Ukraine in order to move the most extremist Galicians into control of the political environment (running in the background of intelligence and police agencies and the army and militias), for the sake of an eventual proxy war with Russia. Imperialism is not back; it never went away. And the "humanitarian" pretenses of international law, going back to the League of Nations, the Versailles Treaty, and the Kellogg-Briand Pact, have done far more to entail war than to stop it. Good not to forget as we indulge our high dudgeon. Realism, not moralism, is a far better guarantor of peace between great powers. The so-called rules-based international order was in fact the most arbitrary that's ever been conceived.
>The "Long Peace" is a term for the unprecedented historical period of relative global stability following the end of World War II in 1945 to the present day.[1][2] The period of the Cold War (1947–1991) was marked by the absence of major wars between the superpowers of the period, the United States and the Soviet Union.[1][3][4] John Lewis Gaddis first used the term in 1986,[5][6] stressing that the period of "relative peace" has twice outlasted the interwar period by now. The Cold War, with all its rivalries, anxieties and unquestionable dangers, has produced the longest period of stability in relations among the great powers that the world has known in the 20th century; it now compares favorably as well with some of the longest periods of great-power stability in all of modern history.[5]
If not outright imperialism, then certainly the bullying of weaker nations by stronger ones has been pretty standard behaviour despite 'international law' (and in some cases, because of it).
The collapse of the Soviet empire led to a brief period of unquestioned western hegemony and it is our misfortune that we responded with hubris rather than humility. A great opportunity went begging.
Suddenly we lost sight of the simple fact that there were alternative forms of government to democracy, and that we did not have the right to impose our systems on others. If the people of a nation wished to change its government to a western style democracy, then it had to be up to them to accomplish it through their own efforts (we could help with funding after the fact). Our 'humanitarian' interventions were often just a fig leaf for ideological motivated wars.
So, realpolitik is now front and centre, and we are going to have to get used to viewing the world through a very different lens.
You are probably right that it won't makes us safer or more prosperous, though a multipolar world organized around regional empires might well be more stable than the neo-con neo-liberal order is, with its teleology of endless "humanitarian" war in the name of a global empire of "humanity." Stable in the Orwellian sense, where war is peace between Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia.
Imperialism never went out of vogue. It’s simply been done by nonprofits, foreign aid, and intelligence agencies manipulating the political and media landscapes of dozens of countries. What is more important to our globalist rulers, would you say? Feminism, gay rights, educational equity, and free trade… or national and indigenous identities? That is imperialism, and it has affected and constrained the lives and futures of the citizens of Africa, Asia, and Latin America FAR more than the 19th-century European version, which mainly focused on territorial ownership and political control.
Agree! The outcome of forced annexation is beyond doubt but even so, the optics will be terrible (& the U.S. will not be able to hide from the world’s cameras): gunfire, even bombardment of Greenlanders resisting invasion will be denounced worldwide as nothing less than murder. The U.S. will not escape deserved opprobrium if it does this. But that’s the least of it: everywhere, EVERYWHERE there will be reverberations. Japan, South Korea and Poland will rush for the bomb (& achieve it fast too - they all have excellent civilian nuclear capabilities). Trump might not care; he will be happy with his “sphere of influence” behind the oceans (though with extremely hostile immediate neighbours) but it will be a Hobbesian world and an unstable one too. It’s not only the malignancy of the Trump cult, it’s the stupidity.
Exactly. NATO should have ended thirty years ago, and so-called "international law"--made by no elected legislature and enforced by no law enforcement agency--is worth about as much as used toilet paper.
Because a war of aggression -- particularly against a peaceful and loyal ally -- has been against international law since the United Nations Charter was adopted, if not since the Nuremberg Trials. US ratification of the Charter made it part of US law, as well.
Trump's mass firing of the JAGs (Judges Advocate General, the legal advisors of the line officers) was the clearest possible indication of his illegal intent. However, as General Hertling writes, the entire officer corps and the common soldiers are all trained to understand and respect the laws of war. So the question will be how deep the rot and corruption go.
>"I think everybody now will have a fear of 'well, if I follow this Trump guidance, is the next administration going to fire me?'" the officer said. "We're trying to be apolitical."
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If your legal advisor is gone, that doesn't stop you from being prosecuted by the next administration.
How about working with some of those fired JAGs to produce an open source legal advice LLM, which can be downloaded on a soldier's phone and lets them consult to see if an order would be considered illegal?
Nothing in their LDRSHIP principles suggests international law is recognized as “law”. Our constitution still reigns supreme and above international law for American citizens and nothing precludes wars or land expansion.
What happened in Iraq when we were debating the legitimacy of executive power starting a war prior to congressional approval? Or any of the number of dirty (illegal) operations carried out in Middle East and South America? I don’t remember any soliders putting the brakes on and refusing their commands because of “morality” or international law.
Tell me about one time when a soldier deferred to these “values” in contradiction of a command, and I’ll tell you about a dishonorable discharge (at best).
The answer to that is complicated, but to (perhaps over-) simplify, a war is legal in international law if it's in response to an actual attack or invasion (e.g. Ukraine defending itself from Russian invasion) or it's authorized by the UN Security Council. US law recognizes those categories and in addition, wars formally declared by Congress; the last one was World War II. Congress can also authorize military action under the War Powers Act, but an aggression ordered by the President alone would not qualify.
Seriously? Please explain how you think that the case of Bush and Sadaam Hussein provides a legal justification for invading Denmark. This should be good.
Actually it goes back to the League of Nations and the Kellogg Pact, major contributing causes to WWII.
International law, whatever that is--it has already changed multiple times over the last century or so, and is not innocent of worsening conflicts it was supposed to make better--does not alas override geopolitical reality on a geographically closed globe.
All international law is based on the balance of power that prevails at the time it is written. It is designed (at best) to provide a context for conflict resolution. The "rules-base international" utopia does not do that, as the war in Ukraine clearly demonstrates.
Speak for yourself. The post-WWII regime of international law, especially the post-Cold War part of it when American empire went wild, is now over for better or worser.
You are speaking as if an illegal annexation of Greenland were already a fact, because TDS.
Treaties are considered law. Attacking any member of NATO would be an obvious violation of their treaty and therefore illegal. To do it legally, the United States would have to formally withdraw first
That is actually a very good point, and I write this as a European who thinks we should defend Greenland and any other European territory against every foreign invader.
Louis, all soldiers take an oath to obey the Constitution. He is the Commander-in-Chief, but he must act in accordance with the Constitution, and in so many ways, he isn’t. ,
I merely make the point that the legality of an order is far less clear than, say, Al Brown's personal feelings or outrage.
As fort Trump's violations of the Constitution, you'll have to be specific on that. I see a lot of litigated cases, many of which he is winning, not because he is morally right but because "the Constitution. gives him that power," even if it is wrongly deployed.
The Constitution is not a guarantee of morality or justice but of legality, and Trump's actions might enjoy broad legitimacy without being "good" decisions.
As a u.s. citizen, let it be known, I fully support the NATO peace treaty and abhor trumps threats to take Greenland. 70% of Americans feel the same as I do. This is beginning to feel like a irl game of Stratego between Trump and Putin. Pray for Peace people everywhere.
Which, because invading Canada would be difficult to say the least results in nuclear saber rattling "Give us your land or we point out big kit at Toronto".
Not saying this will happen, but I wouldn't have thought it at all possible before Jan 20 and I was pretty sure we were going full Orban long before that.
US companies can take out all the mining concessions they want. It cost.around 5000 USD. Many companies from across the world have done so, including twenty something Canadian and nine Indian. Only one US company has done so. However, only one actual mine is active in Greenland. The Greenlandic governmet has a Minister for Natural resources those job it is to attract foreign investment. It is hard going. Why? Because to mine in Greenland you need ro build an harbour, a road and a city. And import a workforce. Before you start mining at all. Sofar it has not been seen as profitable.
And although noone thinks Denmark will put up armed resistance in case if an american invasion, the 'tiny" Danish armed forces have as much combat experience as the americans.
Lastly, Greenland is awash with weapons. Hunting is part of everyday life.
Europe's overall economic and societial posture is about as far as it could be from a true war footing. My guess is that in reality a US invasion of Greenland would over as quickly as it began.
It's about a lot more than spending money. For good or for ill countries like the U.K, France and Germany are completely dependent on small professional armed forces, albeit with impressive capabilities for their size. The whole posture presupposes that the US will provide the mass required. A serious conflict with a developed power, let alone a superpower would require mass mobilisation at a scale that their populations wouldn't currently accept. As good as the British or Franch armed forces are, they can barely muster decent professional infantry beyond brigade strength. It's possible to detect already with Ukraine that Western European countries are positioning to supply air power, platforms, intelligence, advice and a nuclear umbrella, but not the half a million troops that would be required wiin a serious war in Europe. It looks like Poland et al are going to be asked to do that. In my own country cities go up in flames because the police shoot an armed robber, the idea that people will sign up to die face down in the mud for democracy is a fantasy.
You are right if you assume that the US would start a shooting war against Denmark tomorrow. It’s a different story in 5 years, and yet another one in 10 years. Also, the economic harm that the democratic nations can inflict on the US is not to be underestimated.
This is consistent with Trump’s negotiating strategy: threaten, apply pressure, then negotiate the financial terms. This may happen, but only when Denmark and Greenland submit to getting some cut of the action. Trump wants them to believe they have no other choice.
Yet another way for Trump to destroy American democracy, risk a world conflagration and bring life on the planet to its knees. If the U.S. takes Greenland by force, Russia retakes Eastern Europe, and China Taiwan, an unstable world will either face three dangerous autocracies wanting more and more, while staring at each other in anger and aggression, or three unconstrained autocracies consuming irreplaceable resources, wrecking ecological havoc as the Earth burns. Or all of the above.
"Three unconstrained autocracies consuming irreplaceable resources" -- each constrained to its own sphere of influence. Got a problem with that? Who put you in charge of "The Planet"?
Trump has already pulled the US out of NATO, he just hasn't sent out the memo yet. He clearly is not interested in expending US blood and treasure to protect Europe or Canada unless there is a net positive material benefit for the US - a very high bar. I don't believe for a second that he feels any obligation to abide by Article 5 of the NATO treaty. He doesn't even feel obligated to abide by the terms of the agreement he personally negotiated with Canada and Mexico during his first term!
This is amateur phycological analysis of Trump by someone suffering TDS. It is stupid fear mongering. No, the US under Trump will never invade Greenland to expand US territory. But it might spend all that canceled Democrat NGO money to make an offer to buy it.
You have to be low on the communication capability spectrum to lack the ability to understand the meaning and motivation of what Trump says at this point. TDS tends to destroy that capability. But I checked, and Trump has never said we will invade Greenland to take it over. It would take a real idiot to make that case.
You didn’t read Yascha’s post, or perhaps fully comprehend it. In Trump’s own words:
“We need Greenland for national security and even international security, and we’re working with everybody involved to try and get it. But we need it, really, for international world security. And I think we’re going to get it. One way or the other, we’re going to get it.”
"Since the 19th century, the United States has considered, and made, several attempts to purchase the island of Greenland from Denmark, as it did with the Danish West Indies in 1917. There were notable internal discussions within the U.S. federal government about acquiring Greenland in 1867, 1910, 1946, 1955, 2019, and 2025, and acquisition has been advocated by American secretaries of state William H. Seward and James F. Byrnes, privately by Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, and publicly by President Donald Trump, among others. After World War II, the United States secretly offered to buy Greenland; there was public discussion about purchasing the island during Trump's first term in 2019 and again after Trump's 2024 reelection, as part of his American expansionism policy."
The estimated price of Greenland is about $60 billion. 20% of the fucking waste of Ukraine spending and would do more to thwart Russian expansion. TDS is eating all your brains. Seek help!
Trump: “We’ll get Greenland. Yeah, 100%. We have an obligation to protect the world. This is world peace, this is international security.... I never take military force off the table. But I think there’s a good possibility that we could do it without military force”. (direct quotes from yesterday's interview).
Pretty hard to read that and come up with "the US under Trump will never invade Greenland to expand US territory." I understand the plain meaning of words, apparently you do not.
This has nothing to do with "thwarting Russian expansion" for the simple reason that the US can put all the bases on Greenland that it wants, just for the asking. No $60B required.
And it doesn't even matter if Denmark knuckles under to military threats at the 11th hour and agrees to a mafia-style "an offer they can't refuse". Trump is basically saying: "Either your brains or your signature is going to be on this contract.", and a "forced sale" would be perceived as de facto annexation and would have every single negative outcome that an invasion would.
Holy fuck… you really are rhetorically the equivalent of a stormtrooper who can’t shoot a bullseye one inch in front of their face.
Just to let you know that the mere fact that your mandarin of a dear leader is even considering a military annexation of a territory of an ally if he doesn’t get it through other means is a cause for concern. Your tired TDS canard is well past its expiry date, and has all the rhetorical effectiveness of calling someone a poopyhead.
"Either your brains or your signature is going to be on this contract". That's the "offer" that Trump is making. That's not an exaggeration, that is the literal meaning of his plainly spoken words about the use of military force on Greenland. I do not feel the need to whitewash this, but apparently you do.
This all boils down to vanity. He wants to be able to rename it MAGAland or Trumpland. There is no other factors at play. The Dbag is playing monopoly IRL.
So assuming this is true, what should we do about it?
Right now, when I see Europeans and Canadians commenting about this online, they say things like: "You Americans voted for this. You've got to own it."
But in a certain sense, that's not actually true. Trump didn't campaign on any plans for Canada, Greenland, or Panama. And his aggressive policies towards these countries don't seem to poll well in the US, either.
I think a better narrative would be something like: "Trump hoodwinked the American people by not mentioning his invasion plans during the campaign. He campaigned on peace through strength, not imperialism. He doesn't have the voter's mandate for this. If Trump Jr wants to run on it in 2028, go ahead. Until then, forget it." Ultimately politicians are concerned with their popularity. I think this rhetorical strategy stands a better chance of driving a wedge between Trump and his supporters.
And if his poll numbers actually drop far enough, ultimately something like impeachment could become viable (although realistically, I would expect Trump to course-correct long before that point, given his low need for consistency).
If you accuse Trump supporters of voting for this, they are more likely to "own it" as instructed, and double down just as they have historically. (Side note, we need a term for this double-down phenomenon: "inverse TDS" perhaps?) It seems both more truthful, and pragmatically more useful, to point out that Americans did not, in fact, vote for this approach to foreign policy.
"Right now, when I see Europeans and Canadians commenting about this online, they say things like: "You Americans voted for this. You've got to own it.""
Canadian here. FWIW that's never been my view. A lot of people voted for Trump based on the 3 "I's" of immigration, inflation, and identity politics (and I understand their concerns in all those areas so who am I to judge). The I of "Invade Canada" wasn't on the list.
If Trump is foolish enough to invade Greenland, that’s the end of America. There will be worldwide boycotts of American services and products. US multinationals such as Apple, McDonald’s, Walmarts, Meta, Amazon, etc will have virtually zero overseas revenue. The US stock market value will get cut in half or more in a matter of days and unemployment will surge to 40%. Great Depression 2.0 will commence.
The most effective way to ensure the US has enduring access to Greenland is to remain on friendly terms with Denmark. It’s worked great for a long time. Buying it is fiscally irresponsible, but at least legitimate; for the right investment, in their infrastructure, I’m sure the residents could be persuaded to support it.
But invading? Probably more expensive than buying it and even less effective than outright abandoning our current bases.
Strategically vital? Sure, but the US doesn't even need to buy it...they could have all the bases that they want in Greenland for free.
The US goal is to unmistakably and irreversibly break the rules based international order, and all the existing alliances of the US, especially NATO. This would do it.... there would be no putting them back together after this. No subsequent administration could unring this bell. The more I think about it the more sense it makes (from Trump's POV)... he hates other liberal democracies above all and what better way to spite all of them than this?
A bad as the Iraq War was, I never bought the argument it was an example of US "imperialism," since the (wildly optimistic) postwar vision by the Bush Administration of Iraq resembled post-WW2 Germany and Japan rather than a typical 18th Imperial occupation. The Bush Administration also justified the invasion on the (exaggerated but real) threat Saddam Hussein posed to neighboring countries and, to a lesser extent, American interests.
However, it's hard to see Trump's designs on Greenland, or the Panama Canal, as anything but an expression of naked imperialism. Greenland poses no threat to the US whatsoever and any of the supposed benefits from annexation of Greenland could easily be had with Denmark and the Greenland government as they currently stand. Trump's desire to make territorial annexation part of his "legacy" is plainly an imperialist sentiment by design.
Greenland grab would be both more nakedly imperialistic than Iraq but far, far, far less deadly
Less deadly in the short term obviously, but I'm not sure what it will mean going forward.
If it leads to the dismantling of NATO, global rearmament on a massive scale (including the expansion of existing nuclear arsenals and the spread of nuclear weapons to presently non-nuclear nations), and a general breakdown in civilised behaviour between nations - a sort of 'might is right' mindset - then who knows what will follow.
Over 60 private US security firms were employed by the US in the Iraq war. Mercenaries have no real interest in peace, freedom and civil rights - they feed on conflicts! When we witnessed Powell presenting 'proof', that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, in the UN Security Council directly on TV in 2003, it seemed obvious, that Powell was unsure about this 'proof', but the private security firms like Blackwater went to earn a fortune. France was one of the few Nations to directly oppose the USA on that occasion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyyhvgZpleo
If the US hired mercenaries in WW2, would that have turned WW2 into an imperialist war?
We are clearly moving into a world where any pretence of a rules based order is exposed as a sham. The three most powerful nations in the world all have territorial ambitions - two always had, and the US sounds like it has joined them. Is imperialism back in vogue?
The consequences of a US annexation of Greenland could be very far reaching. Such an act has the potential to trigger a sequence of events which will lead to the collapse of the supranational institutions dependent on the concept of 'international law', a global rush to rearm (much of which will be nuclear - ending any hope of nuclear non-proliferation), and the formation of new alliances and power blocs to replace those that are ended by the Greenland invasion.
It's hard to see where the instability caused by such an action will end. I don't think it will make any of us safer or more prosperous.
Yes, the "rules-based international order" was always a sham, a cover for tacit US-EU empire under the auspices of global humanitarianism, something so absurd only Americans would believe it. Remember, in the last decade of the last century, the US bombed Serbia for months and peeled off Kosovo from it so it could plant a huge Nato base there. In the first decade of this century, the US invaded Iraq on the basis of lies about WMD and Saddam's involvement in 9/11. Up to 500k Iraqis died. Nary a case at the ICC. In the second decade, Obama launched Operation Timber Sycamore to get around Congress and promote regime change in Syria, in a civil war that create 600k victims. (Now that Assad is gone, we have a jihadi regime there.) Hillary and the EU orchestrated the murder of Gaddafi after he had already complied with American terms of disarmament, plunging Libya into a jihadi state of chaos from which it has still not emerged. And of course the US engineered regime change in Ukraine in order to move the most extremist Galicians into control of the political environment (running in the background of intelligence and police agencies and the army and militias), for the sake of an eventual proxy war with Russia. Imperialism is not back; it never went away. And the "humanitarian" pretenses of international law, going back to the League of Nations, the Versailles Treaty, and the Kellogg-Briand Pact, have done far more to entail war than to stop it. Good not to forget as we indulge our high dudgeon. Realism, not moralism, is a far better guarantor of peace between great powers. The so-called rules-based international order was in fact the most arbitrary that's ever been conceived.
>The "Long Peace" is a term for the unprecedented historical period of relative global stability following the end of World War II in 1945 to the present day.[1][2] The period of the Cold War (1947–1991) was marked by the absence of major wars between the superpowers of the period, the United States and the Soviet Union.[1][3][4] John Lewis Gaddis first used the term in 1986,[5][6] stressing that the period of "relative peace" has twice outlasted the interwar period by now. The Cold War, with all its rivalries, anxieties and unquestionable dangers, has produced the longest period of stability in relations among the great powers that the world has known in the 20th century; it now compares favorably as well with some of the longest periods of great-power stability in all of modern history.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Peace
If not outright imperialism, then certainly the bullying of weaker nations by stronger ones has been pretty standard behaviour despite 'international law' (and in some cases, because of it).
The collapse of the Soviet empire led to a brief period of unquestioned western hegemony and it is our misfortune that we responded with hubris rather than humility. A great opportunity went begging.
Suddenly we lost sight of the simple fact that there were alternative forms of government to democracy, and that we did not have the right to impose our systems on others. If the people of a nation wished to change its government to a western style democracy, then it had to be up to them to accomplish it through their own efforts (we could help with funding after the fact). Our 'humanitarian' interventions were often just a fig leaf for ideological motivated wars.
So, realpolitik is now front and centre, and we are going to have to get used to viewing the world through a very different lens.
You are probably right that it won't makes us safer or more prosperous, though a multipolar world organized around regional empires might well be more stable than the neo-con neo-liberal order is, with its teleology of endless "humanitarian" war in the name of a global empire of "humanity." Stable in the Orwellian sense, where war is peace between Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia.
Imperialism never went out of vogue. It’s simply been done by nonprofits, foreign aid, and intelligence agencies manipulating the political and media landscapes of dozens of countries. What is more important to our globalist rulers, would you say? Feminism, gay rights, educational equity, and free trade… or national and indigenous identities? That is imperialism, and it has affected and constrained the lives and futures of the citizens of Africa, Asia, and Latin America FAR more than the 19th-century European version, which mainly focused on territorial ownership and political control.
Agree! The outcome of forced annexation is beyond doubt but even so, the optics will be terrible (& the U.S. will not be able to hide from the world’s cameras): gunfire, even bombardment of Greenlanders resisting invasion will be denounced worldwide as nothing less than murder. The U.S. will not escape deserved opprobrium if it does this. But that’s the least of it: everywhere, EVERYWHERE there will be reverberations. Japan, South Korea and Poland will rush for the bomb (& achieve it fast too - they all have excellent civilian nuclear capabilities). Trump might not care; he will be happy with his “sphere of influence” behind the oceans (though with extremely hostile immediate neighbours) but it will be a Hobbesian world and an unstable one too. It’s not only the malignancy of the Trump cult, it’s the stupidity.
Exactly. NATO should have ended thirty years ago, and so-called "international law"--made by no elected legislature and enforced by no law enforcement agency--is worth about as much as used toilet paper.
In the final extremity, it may come down to whether or not Trump can find enough officers and troops willing to obey illegal orders.
Yes, this would be a good time for military commanders to remind their troops of the duty to disobey illegal orders.
What makes you think such orders would be illegal?
Because a war of aggression -- particularly against a peaceful and loyal ally -- has been against international law since the United Nations Charter was adopted, if not since the Nuremberg Trials. US ratification of the Charter made it part of US law, as well.
Do our soliders read and follow international law, or the commands of their officers?
Gen. Mark Hertling provides an excellent answer to this question: https://open.substack.com/pub/thebulwark/p/i-helped-the-army-remember-its-values-american-values-thanksgiving?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=7obld
Trump's mass firing of the JAGs (Judges Advocate General, the legal advisors of the line officers) was the clearest possible indication of his illegal intent. However, as General Hertling writes, the entire officer corps and the common soldiers are all trained to understand and respect the laws of war. So the question will be how deep the rot and corruption go.
>"I think everybody now will have a fear of 'well, if I follow this Trump guidance, is the next administration going to fire me?'" the officer said. "We're trying to be apolitical."
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/02/24/people-are-very-scared-trump-administration-purge-of-jag-officers-raises-legal-ethical-fears.html
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If your legal advisor is gone, that doesn't stop you from being prosecuted by the next administration.
How about working with some of those fired JAGs to produce an open source legal advice LLM, which can be downloaded on a soldier's phone and lets them consult to see if an order would be considered illegal?
Where are the #resist people when you need them?
Nothing in their LDRSHIP principles suggests international law is recognized as “law”. Our constitution still reigns supreme and above international law for American citizens and nothing precludes wars or land expansion.
What happened in Iraq when we were debating the legitimacy of executive power starting a war prior to congressional approval? Or any of the number of dirty (illegal) operations carried out in Middle East and South America? I don’t remember any soliders putting the brakes on and refusing their commands because of “morality” or international law.
Tell me about one time when a soldier deferred to these “values” in contradiction of a command, and I’ll tell you about a dishonorable discharge (at best).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jr.
I don't recall him being disappeared in the middle of the night.
Is war legal?
The answer to that is complicated, but to (perhaps over-) simplify, a war is legal in international law if it's in response to an actual attack or invasion (e.g. Ukraine defending itself from Russian invasion) or it's authorized by the UN Security Council. US law recognizes those categories and in addition, wars formally declared by Congress; the last one was World War II. Congress can also authorize military action under the War Powers Act, but an aggression ordered by the President alone would not qualify.
They invaded Iraq.
Seriously? Please explain how you think that the case of Bush and Sadaam Hussein provides a legal justification for invading Denmark. This should be good.
We lied about Iraq having WMD and then invaded because we felt like it.
There was also a vote by congress to authorize military force. It came back to haunt Hillary Clinton.
Actually it goes back to the League of Nations and the Kellogg Pact, major contributing causes to WWII.
International law, whatever that is--it has already changed multiple times over the last century or so, and is not innocent of worsening conflicts it was supposed to make better--does not alas override geopolitical reality on a geographically closed globe.
All international law is based on the balance of power that prevails at the time it is written. It is designed (at best) to provide a context for conflict resolution. The "rules-base international" utopia does not do that, as the war in Ukraine clearly demonstrates.
That's an unusually long statement by a troll. Over and out.
Speak for yourself. The post-WWII regime of international law, especially the post-Cold War part of it when American empire went wild, is now over for better or worser.
You are speaking as if an illegal annexation of Greenland were already a fact, because TDS.
Treaties are considered law. Attacking any member of NATO would be an obvious violation of their treaty and therefore illegal. To do it legally, the United States would have to formally withdraw first
That is actually a very good point, and I write this as a European who thinks we should defend Greenland and any other European territory against every foreign invader.
Louis, all soldiers take an oath to obey the Constitution. He is the Commander-in-Chief, but he must act in accordance with the Constitution, and in so many ways, he isn’t. ,
I merely make the point that the legality of an order is far less clear than, say, Al Brown's personal feelings or outrage.
As fort Trump's violations of the Constitution, you'll have to be specific on that. I see a lot of litigated cases, many of which he is winning, not because he is morally right but because "the Constitution. gives him that power," even if it is wrongly deployed.
The Constitution is not a guarantee of morality or justice but of legality, and Trump's actions might enjoy broad legitimacy without being "good" decisions.
Someone should start a nonprofit focused on educating American soldiers about illegal orders and what to do if you get one
As a u.s. citizen, let it be known, I fully support the NATO peace treaty and abhor trumps threats to take Greenland. 70% of Americans feel the same as I do. This is beginning to feel like a irl game of Stratego between Trump and Putin. Pray for Peace people everywhere.
We live in a world infested with top-notch nut cases. It's crazy that so many of them pretend to be our rulers and masters.
I don’t think they’re pretending. Last I checked—yep, still true—they are.
We’re acting EXACTLY like Russia did in the run-up to their invasion of Ukraine. It’s unconscionable.
That parallel has not gone unnoticed up here in Canada.
Which, because invading Canada would be difficult to say the least results in nuclear saber rattling "Give us your land or we point out big kit at Toronto".
Not saying this will happen, but I wouldn't have thought it at all possible before Jan 20 and I was pretty sure we were going full Orban long before that.
US companies can take out all the mining concessions they want. It cost.around 5000 USD. Many companies from across the world have done so, including twenty something Canadian and nine Indian. Only one US company has done so. However, only one actual mine is active in Greenland. The Greenlandic governmet has a Minister for Natural resources those job it is to attract foreign investment. It is hard going. Why? Because to mine in Greenland you need ro build an harbour, a road and a city. And import a workforce. Before you start mining at all. Sofar it has not been seen as profitable.
And although noone thinks Denmark will put up armed resistance in case if an american invasion, the 'tiny" Danish armed forces have as much combat experience as the americans.
Lastly, Greenland is awash with weapons. Hunting is part of everyday life.
Who says Denmark and Europe will not defend Greenland?
Europe's overall economic and societial posture is about as far as it could be from a true war footing. My guess is that in reality a US invasion of Greenland would over as quickly as it began.
Don’t assume that things have not changed since Trump started attacking Europe.
It's about a lot more than spending money. For good or for ill countries like the U.K, France and Germany are completely dependent on small professional armed forces, albeit with impressive capabilities for their size. The whole posture presupposes that the US will provide the mass required. A serious conflict with a developed power, let alone a superpower would require mass mobilisation at a scale that their populations wouldn't currently accept. As good as the British or Franch armed forces are, they can barely muster decent professional infantry beyond brigade strength. It's possible to detect already with Ukraine that Western European countries are positioning to supply air power, platforms, intelligence, advice and a nuclear umbrella, but not the half a million troops that would be required wiin a serious war in Europe. It looks like Poland et al are going to be asked to do that. In my own country cities go up in flames because the police shoot an armed robber, the idea that people will sign up to die face down in the mud for democracy is a fantasy.
You are right if you assume that the US would start a shooting war against Denmark tomorrow. It’s a different story in 5 years, and yet another one in 10 years. Also, the economic harm that the democratic nations can inflict on the US is not to be underestimated.
This is consistent with Trump’s negotiating strategy: threaten, apply pressure, then negotiate the financial terms. This may happen, but only when Denmark and Greenland submit to getting some cut of the action. Trump wants them to believe they have no other choice.
Yet another way for Trump to destroy American democracy, risk a world conflagration and bring life on the planet to its knees. If the U.S. takes Greenland by force, Russia retakes Eastern Europe, and China Taiwan, an unstable world will either face three dangerous autocracies wanting more and more, while staring at each other in anger and aggression, or three unconstrained autocracies consuming irreplaceable resources, wrecking ecological havoc as the Earth burns. Or all of the above.
"Three unconstrained autocracies consuming irreplaceable resources" -- each constrained to its own sphere of influence. Got a problem with that? Who put you in charge of "The Planet"?
We live under the tyranny of derangement. Jfc
Trump has already pulled the US out of NATO, he just hasn't sent out the memo yet. He clearly is not interested in expending US blood and treasure to protect Europe or Canada unless there is a net positive material benefit for the US - a very high bar. I don't believe for a second that he feels any obligation to abide by Article 5 of the NATO treaty. He doesn't even feel obligated to abide by the terms of the agreement he personally negotiated with Canada and Mexico during his first term!
This is amateur phycological analysis of Trump by someone suffering TDS. It is stupid fear mongering. No, the US under Trump will never invade Greenland to expand US territory. But it might spend all that canceled Democrat NGO money to make an offer to buy it.
like other accusations of TDS, this may not age well
Oh, so now it's "TDS" to take the plain meaning of Trump's words seriously?
You have to be low on the communication capability spectrum to lack the ability to understand the meaning and motivation of what Trump says at this point. TDS tends to destroy that capability. But I checked, and Trump has never said we will invade Greenland to take it over. It would take a real idiot to make that case.
You didn’t read Yascha’s post, or perhaps fully comprehend it. In Trump’s own words:
“We need Greenland for national security and even international security, and we’re working with everybody involved to try and get it. But we need it, really, for international world security. And I think we’re going to get it. One way or the other, we’re going to get it.”
Oh fuck.
"Since the 19th century, the United States has considered, and made, several attempts to purchase the island of Greenland from Denmark, as it did with the Danish West Indies in 1917. There were notable internal discussions within the U.S. federal government about acquiring Greenland in 1867, 1910, 1946, 1955, 2019, and 2025, and acquisition has been advocated by American secretaries of state William H. Seward and James F. Byrnes, privately by Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, and publicly by President Donald Trump, among others. After World War II, the United States secretly offered to buy Greenland; there was public discussion about purchasing the island during Trump's first term in 2019 and again after Trump's 2024 reelection, as part of his American expansionism policy."
The estimated price of Greenland is about $60 billion. 20% of the fucking waste of Ukraine spending and would do more to thwart Russian expansion. TDS is eating all your brains. Seek help!
The current conversation has gone thusly:
Trump: "I want to buy Greenland"
Denmark: "It's not for sale".
Trump: “We’ll get Greenland. Yeah, 100%. We have an obligation to protect the world. This is world peace, this is international security.... I never take military force off the table. But I think there’s a good possibility that we could do it without military force”. (direct quotes from yesterday's interview).
Pretty hard to read that and come up with "the US under Trump will never invade Greenland to expand US territory." I understand the plain meaning of words, apparently you do not.
This has nothing to do with "thwarting Russian expansion" for the simple reason that the US can put all the bases on Greenland that it wants, just for the asking. No $60B required.
And it doesn't even matter if Denmark knuckles under to military threats at the 11th hour and agrees to a mafia-style "an offer they can't refuse". Trump is basically saying: "Either your brains or your signature is going to be on this contract.", and a "forced sale" would be perceived as de facto annexation and would have every single negative outcome that an invasion would.
Holy fuck… you really are rhetorically the equivalent of a stormtrooper who can’t shoot a bullseye one inch in front of their face.
Just to let you know that the mere fact that your mandarin of a dear leader is even considering a military annexation of a territory of an ally if he doesn’t get it through other means is a cause for concern. Your tired TDS canard is well past its expiry date, and has all the rhetorical effectiveness of calling someone a poopyhead.
He’s suffering from Trump Devotion Syndrome.
👎
Here’s the fucking catch… what would you think Orange Man would do if Greenland refuses?
Nothing, except keep making the case because stupid people sometimes need some time to slowing get what the smart people do immediately.
Damn are you denser than lead.
Must feel good having all the humility of a pathological narcissist, eh? Just like your spray tanned lover in the White House.
Ever seen The Godfather?
"Either your brains or your signature is going to be on this contract". That's the "offer" that Trump is making. That's not an exaggeration, that is the literal meaning of his plainly spoken words about the use of military force on Greenland. I do not feel the need to whitewash this, but apparently you do.
You are not living in any reality. Probably spend way too much screen time watching entertainment and playing video games.
This is non-responsive. We're done here.
Better than spending your time gargling the balls of the Mandarin Idiocrat like you.
Did you write that after getting off your knees swallowing Biden?
I can’t believe how little respect you have for your own president.
This all boils down to vanity. He wants to be able to rename it MAGAland or Trumpland. There is no other factors at play. The Dbag is playing monopoly IRL.
So assuming this is true, what should we do about it?
Right now, when I see Europeans and Canadians commenting about this online, they say things like: "You Americans voted for this. You've got to own it."
But in a certain sense, that's not actually true. Trump didn't campaign on any plans for Canada, Greenland, or Panama. And his aggressive policies towards these countries don't seem to poll well in the US, either.
I think a better narrative would be something like: "Trump hoodwinked the American people by not mentioning his invasion plans during the campaign. He campaigned on peace through strength, not imperialism. He doesn't have the voter's mandate for this. If Trump Jr wants to run on it in 2028, go ahead. Until then, forget it." Ultimately politicians are concerned with their popularity. I think this rhetorical strategy stands a better chance of driving a wedge between Trump and his supporters.
And if his poll numbers actually drop far enough, ultimately something like impeachment could become viable (although realistically, I would expect Trump to course-correct long before that point, given his low need for consistency).
If you accuse Trump supporters of voting for this, they are more likely to "own it" as instructed, and double down just as they have historically. (Side note, we need a term for this double-down phenomenon: "inverse TDS" perhaps?) It seems both more truthful, and pragmatically more useful, to point out that Americans did not, in fact, vote for this approach to foreign policy.
"Right now, when I see Europeans and Canadians commenting about this online, they say things like: "You Americans voted for this. You've got to own it.""
Canadian here. FWIW that's never been my view. A lot of people voted for Trump based on the 3 "I's" of immigration, inflation, and identity politics (and I understand their concerns in all those areas so who am I to judge). The I of "Invade Canada" wasn't on the list.
If Trump is foolish enough to invade Greenland, that’s the end of America. There will be worldwide boycotts of American services and products. US multinationals such as Apple, McDonald’s, Walmarts, Meta, Amazon, etc will have virtually zero overseas revenue. The US stock market value will get cut in half or more in a matter of days and unemployment will surge to 40%. Great Depression 2.0 will commence.
Greenland is strategically vital.
The most effective way to ensure the US has enduring access to Greenland is to remain on friendly terms with Denmark. It’s worked great for a long time. Buying it is fiscally irresponsible, but at least legitimate; for the right investment, in their infrastructure, I’m sure the residents could be persuaded to support it.
But invading? Probably more expensive than buying it and even less effective than outright abandoning our current bases.
Strategically vital? Sure, but the US doesn't even need to buy it...they could have all the bases that they want in Greenland for free.
The US goal is to unmistakably and irreversibly break the rules based international order, and all the existing alliances of the US, especially NATO. This would do it.... there would be no putting them back together after this. No subsequent administration could unring this bell. The more I think about it the more sense it makes (from Trump's POV)... he hates other liberal democracies above all and what better way to spite all of them than this?