this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2026
205 points (99.0% liked)

World News

51924 readers
2539 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In a statement, the White House told the BBC that Trump had made clear that acquiring Greenland was a "national security priority".

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PedroMaldonado@lemmy.world 64 points 1 week ago (5 children)

WE.DONT.WANT.GREENLAND. wtf is going on here?? How are we turning into the bad guys here????? WHO ASKED FOR THIS??

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago
[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 76 points 1 week ago (1 children)

1/3 of the population who voted red and 1/3 of the population who didn't vote because "voting doesn't matter"

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

236M of America's 343M residents were eligible to vote. So we're talking about 70% of the population, baseline.

Of the eligible pool, only 174M were legally registered, because our voter registration system is archaic and deliberately exclusionary. We also nixed mail in voting after 2020, driving down participation for rural and minority communities enormously (because our voting infrastructure is dogshit). This depressed actual turnout to 153M.

Of that 153M, it broke out 77M Trump and 75M Kamala. But get under the hood and recognize only five states actually mattered by vote margin - Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Georgia. Every absent voter in California turning out for Harris couldn't help her. Record turnout in Texas helped Trump more than Biden in 2020.

Of the five swing states, four (excluding Georgia) produced statewide wins for Democrats. These were winnable elections for Team D. They came within a razor thin margin - less than 2% of total votes each - at both Presidential and state levels.

And yet Harris was so fucking unpopular that people refused to vote for her in states other Democrats won.

Let that sink in.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago

And yet Harris was so fucking unpopular that people refused to vote for her in states other Democrats won.

Either that or there was election fraud in the Presidential race that was absent in the down-ballot races.

I'm not saying I think that's what happened, but I do think there were enough statistical anomalies to warrant an investigation.

[–] demonsword@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And yet Harris was so fucking unpopular that people refused to vote for her in states other Democrats won.

Is that really surprising, considering that she said herself that she wouldn't deviate from anything Biden did before?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Biden got an extra 6M votes.

Of course, Biden had to slog through a primary with stiff opposition from a socialist challenger. Meanwhile, Harris was handed the nomination absent any democratic input.

So, who can say?

[–] demonsword@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Some other things to consider are misogyny and racism. I mean, at least in the US she is considered "black".

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

States that happily vote for Joni Ernest and Sarah Huckabee Sanders don't get to write themselves off as misogynist.

Conservatives that nominated Hershall Walker and Tim Scott and Wesley Hunt don't get to hide behind the race card.

If Harris were a Republican, she'd be doing fine.

[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

The US citizens when they elected Trump, again. Apparently voting matters.

[–] NotSteve_@piefed.ca 20 points 1 week ago

How are we turning into the bad guys here

The US?? The US has been like this for a long long time but you guys have just dropped the charade and started attacking countries closer to home. Trump's just too much of an idiot to come up with a half-believable sounding casus belli

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

WHO ASKED FOR THIS?

The Trump regime's sponsors, Israel, and Russia.

Probably

[–] Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 59 points 1 week ago

Whatever this bullshit timeline is, I want off it.

[–] i_am_not_a_robot@feddit.uk 25 points 1 week ago (8 children)
[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 42 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Strategic positioning and resources that weren't available prior to the effects of climate change.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Trump doesnt actually care about any of that since that is only going to matter long after he's gone. He's old and unhealthy and feeling his mortality. If he actually manages to increase US territory then he will have an actual tangible legacy, that's why he wants it.

Instigating external conflicts to distract from domestic issues is a long-standing tradition of shitty leaders throughout history, and that is the other dimension to this.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

This is absolutely true but not mutually exclusive to the interests of the powers behind trump.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world -4 points 1 week ago

Are you under the impression Trump is still in charge?

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Trump doesn't, but the people who whisper in his ear do

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (5 children)
[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

To dismantle NATO and generally weaken the west.

It is also a theoretically strategic important location for a future northern route between Europe, Asia, and North America if/when the polar icecaps melt.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It gives a direct route from the USA through the Arctic to the entire coastline of Northern Europe and Russia, and it places the USA on every side of Canada, surrounding it. So it makes it easier for the USA's military to reach Europe, Russia and Asia, and easier to seize Canada by force, should Trump decide to follow through on his threats.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago

Sadly I think we’re gonna see NATO fall apart when article 5 is triggered. Even if another NATO ally attacks a NATO ally, that wouldn’t dissolve it. What will is when the attacked nation enacts the article and no one is willing to help. Especially if the aggressor is the US.

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Control of the Arctic circle. We expect shipping lanes to open up and new access natural resources. Thanks to climate change.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

These motherfuckers think it will still be business as usual with mining, farming, shipping when climate change has melted the North Pole.

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago

The powers that be are eyeing up territory that may become valuable in a warmer planet. I think they have a pretty good idea what's in store.

More war ahead.

[–] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

I asked this question a couple weeks ago. Seems like the real answer is rare earth elements.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I recall reading something about an old technocracy thing that Elon dad loved, and as I recall Elon fell in love with the idea

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Ultimately its in these neanderthal brains that since global warming is happening and these morons are too poor to move to New Zealand or have their own megayacht then building a bunker in Greenland is their next best option. I think they got the subliminal idea from a movie that was about their shrinking dicks.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A few reasonAs the polar ice caps melt even more and war likely ramps up, having a very large base of operations in the North Atlantic has a lot of strategic value. That makes the generals like it.

The oligarchs like it because, as global warming intensifies, Greenland will likely be prime real estate. It is similar to why they want to annex Canada.

And putin wants it because it will likely kill NATO and the EU. Because Greenland is... weird. It is technically part of Denmark but also isn't. It is an ally of the EU but it isn't actually IN the EU. So it will be very easy for the EU to basically say "We don't want a war. Whatever. Take one for the team Denmark" which will pretty much guarantee its death because no nation will trust any other nation to "have their back" in the event of a war.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It also means the USA militarily surrounds Canada on every side, which is significant given Trump's frequently expressed desire to annex Canada.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I'm.... "optimistic" is not at all the right word considering how depressing all of this is.

But I'm Something that the US has no intentions of using military force against Canada (so just economic and political...). trump can demand whatever he wants but even the lowly colonels will soil themselves at the thought and find ways to refuse.

Because starting a war in The Middle East or Venezuela or even Europe is one thing. Pretty much nothing can actually hurt the continental US without fighting through a fleet of aircraft carriers and all our airbases.

Whereas Canada and Mexico share pretty massive borders with us. If they want to retaliate, they will.


Of course... its trump so he might very well just tell people on twitter to go throw pipe bombs across the border to get the war he wants.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Fighting Canada would go about as well as Russia into Ukraine, with less fighters and an ineffective Navy.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

Oh. It would go about 4.45x worse (ignoring Alaska). And russia can't even properly protect their border and prevent Ukrainian strike teams from crossing it.

Putin told him to do it.

[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Not rellevant. There is no good reason for wanting to take over another country

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

*rellllevant

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world -4 points 1 week ago

What?! Of course there are reasons, loads of them. We're not talking about morality here.

[–] NotSteve_@piefed.ca 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It serves as a base to block European assistance for the American invasion of us in Canada, along with Mexico and any other country Americans decide they want

Warmongering cespit of a country

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

This is a good video on the topic - 2 years old so not just based on this week’s hubbub.

https://youtu.be/sxRdKRORYoA

[–] rayyy@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago

Greed and power mostly.

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

This is being done for two reasons

  1. To distract from Epstein
  2. Because it’s good for Russia
[–] medicsofanarchy@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (3 children)

And the crappy part is, was can't protest by burning the white house because trump's already trashed it

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 week ago

I mean... there is a shitty golf course he loves a lot more than anything outside of his daughter's snatch.

[–] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Gotta completely desecrate it so it doesn’t come back as a zombie. Canada, the e-vites are in your inboxes since you know how to throw a proper bbq.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 4 points 1 week ago

Eh we still can, for giggles and shits if nothing else.

[–] BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 week ago

We STRONGLY Don't 100% like this!

-The EU!