this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2026
502 points (97.7% liked)

World News

51953 readers
2929 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
 

US President Donald Trump’s abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 3 has emboldened him to proceed with the annexation of Greenland, a Danish-owned, self-governed territory, spelling the effective end of NATO and furthering Russia’s war aims in Ukraine, experts tell Al Jazeera.

“The move on Venezuela illustrates the Trump administration’s determination to dominate the Western Hemisphere – of which Greenland geographically is a part,” said Anna Wieslander, Northern Europe director for the Atlantic Council, a think tank.

“If the United States decides to attack another NATO country, then everything would stop – that includes NATO and therefore post-World War II security,” Frederiksen said.

“The pandering to Trump has been an element of our strategy over the last year, leaving observers hoping, but not entirely trusting, that another element of the strategy is preparing urgently for the final rupture with the United States,” Giles said.

Giles told Al Jazeera that Europe’s best option was to place a military deterrent on Greenland now, believing that putting allied troops in the Baltic States and Poland after 2017 deterred a Russian attack there.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 79 points 6 days ago (31 children)

What experrs? American experts?

They're kind of forgetting the big elephant in the room that is the fact a lot of US foreign debt is owned by Japan and China, with the majority of the rest of it being held by countries that will be very very pissed off with this move.

If trump is stupid enough to pull the trigger, and those countries decide that a potential physical war is becoming inevitable, they'll for sure dump all of that debt, all at once; killing the US economy and it's ability to make war. War needs fuel. Despite Venzuela, Trump won't have enough of it once his economy tanks.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 47 points 6 days ago

Here's a recent article on the chances the USD continues as the world's reserve currency.

Ps it's not looking great.

https://www.ftadviser.com/content/5cbf339b-7c4d-464b-8c2a-0c7409e515a0

Archive link

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 24 points 6 days ago

Europe should prepare to tell Trump to go fuck himself.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 15 points 6 days ago

Yeah I think the ordering on that is China, Japan, UK, Canada in terms of the countries that hold US bonds.

A diplomatic delegation came to Canada recently and then Mark Carney went to China. Maybe just coincidence, or maybe not.

Tanking the bonds is essentially the economic equivalent of a nuke. You don't want to use it because there will be fallout which isn't good for anyone. But the US actually using military force on Greenland would be a circumstance where you might push the button on that. China has some business interests in Greenland, and generally the US just invading places based solely on the whims of a deranged old man is worse for everyone than the economic fallout from tanking the bonds.

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] smiletolerantly@awful.systems 38 points 6 days ago

Let's hope the same thing will happen if/when the US tries to take Greenland; but honestly, I'm not optimistic. At least here in Germany, politicians and businesses are so used to licking the US' boot that I have a hard time imagining a seismic shift. Not to mention that thanks to our dependence on US software, we're incredibly vulnerable.

Still. One can hope.

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 52 points 6 days ago (13 children)

End of NATO. Putin's wet dream. 

[–] abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I mean Donald Trump is working for Vladimir Putin come on

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] observes_depths@aussie.zone 33 points 6 days ago (8 children)

I just want to say it won't end Nato. Nato countries will stick together, but the USA will be out, alone, isolated, another rouge state just like Russia. That is until Americans grow a spine and either throw Trump out by election, by force, or by crashing the economy.

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Considering this year started 10 days ago, I don't think we have enough time til the election in 3 years.

And then they may elect Mr Beast or some other rich dude.

[–] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 11 points 6 days ago (2 children)

And then they may elect Mr Beast

I can't wait for welfare to be replaced by "Survive 30 days in Guantanamo, win $500,000", and "100 people in Alligator Alcatraz. Last one standing wins $1,000,000".

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ProfThadBach@lemmy.world 29 points 6 days ago (5 children)

Why can't NATO still exist without the US? The alliance could still stick together even if the US shits the bed. God damn why am I typing this? WW3 is about to start and I have no idea what the fuck is going on in my country anymore.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 31 points 6 days ago (9 children)

NATO won't end, only the US being part of NATO will end.

In fact if NATO didn't already exist, something just like it would be formed if the US starts invading countries just because a crazy old man thinks the world map is a colouring book.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] itisileclerk@lemmy.world 25 points 6 days ago (16 children)

End of NATO means:

  1. Russia will go all in in Ukraine, Moldavia and baltic states
  2. Turkey and Greece will go to war.
  3. Israel will bomb everybody just in case
  4. China will get Taiwan
  5. USA will bomb Mexico
  6. Israel will nuke someone
  7. ...
[–] UsoSaito@feddit.uk 11 points 6 days ago

And this is why billionaires have been building bunkers.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] discocactus@lemmy.world 24 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Germany needs to boot the US out of all the military installations there.

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 14 points 6 days ago

Germany helped the usa become the beast it is and is the inspiration for the current situation (funny when the usa inspired Germany first).

The right wing parties in Europe will help the usa.

[–] fort_burp@feddit.nl 14 points 5 days ago

The pandering to Trump has been an element of our strategy over the last year

[–] roserose56@lemmy.zip 17 points 6 days ago (11 children)

Meaning while, USA citizens are waiting for mid term elections! Trump most likely will leave or court will do something. Sit and watch, do nothing.

[–] GardenGeek@europe.pub 12 points 6 days ago (2 children)

The feudalists behind Trump made the mistake to give the population a chance to bring him down once... they won't repeat it. Also, if I remember correctly the SCOTUS granted the POTUS immunity for any action commited during his presidency. So whether Trump an others will be helf accountable his highly questionable to me... even if he loses the election in 3 years.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Trump will be free but every fucking one of his minions will not ... because they don't have the same immunity.

If there's a power shift after midterms and the Dems make inroads, be prepared to watch Trump scream bloody murder 'cause he can't always have his own way.

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 8 points 5 days ago

dems aren't going to do shit lol

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] mlg@lemmy.world 23 points 6 days ago

Gonna keep spamming this cuz I made it a year ago and it sat in a random folder on my PC for the perfect time lol

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca 10 points 5 days ago

Some countries in Europe are starting to, and given what Europe is, that's probably the best they can start doing.

At least because they made sure to show us their hand at their latest sonic weapons and information warfare used to shut down weapons that was used in the Venezuela attack. They would probably go the same route with Europe, trying to behead whatever strategic target is going to get them what they want, because they can't go for a prolonged conflict either.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 19 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The US has dominated the Western hemisphere for 70 years. Moving to snatch-and-grab military adventurism suggests that is no longer the case.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

I knew this would happen eventually, I just thought it would happen after my lifetime

[–] Bullerfar@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago (2 children)

We are seriously in a good position right now in EU believe it or not. Trump has been a wakeup call, and we are already mobilizing faster than - ever? - however, imagine being Canada, australia, Japan, etc. Countries far far away from Europe. If nato dies, Europe makes a new defense alliance, focussing on having troops on the, continent. Canada and australia needs to come closer to Europe. Trade wise, militiary wise, political, if they don't wanna get sucked up in the strongest superpower nearby, even if they have anything in common or not.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 29 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Maybe America has to be understood as the logical conclusion of Western European geopolitical and moral ideology, and maybe it has to hurt Europeans (I'm French living in the UK, DW, it'll hurt me too but such is life) for us to finally consider some sort of ideological revolution that produces something that's diametrically opposed to what's currently embraced. I mean, it's not like we wouldn't be doing whatever America has been doing for at least 70 years if we had their power level, lol, history shows that clearly, so for this all to end because it must ("THIS SICILIAN THING THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR 2000 YEARS!") our minds have to undergo a drastic collective change.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cloudstash@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Prepare yourself. Go buy a good quality action camera.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If it really happens, shut down all the US military installations in Europe and European territories. The Red Coats should tell the US to leave Diego Garcia too.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago

They can't even shut down the base in Greenland. There's a reason DeGaulle kicked the US out in 1966. And why Okinawa residents have been lobbying to shut down the local base for decades.

Europeans have been under military occupation since the end of WW2, telling themselves the gun pointed at the back of their heads was aimed at the USSR, even after it dissolved.

Now they're going to have to deal with a foreign hostile occupation whose roots have grown deep

[–] DarkSideOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago (6 children)
[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 33 points 6 days ago (5 children)

I think it's more that Americans are stupid.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Putins had his hand in ensuring that happened for the latest generation as well.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 21 points 6 days ago (2 children)

It was Americans that created a culture where people will believe anything as long certain symbols are referenced. Throw in a flag or a cross and they'll believe any bullshit.

Americans made themselves stupid, Putin just exploited that stupidity.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 11 points 6 days ago

Yep, he played everyone perfectly. Used economical ambition to neutralize Germany, nationalism to defeat UK and stupidity to take over US.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] DeICEAmerica@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Experts.... who the fuck are these experts.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] N0t_5ure@lemmy.world 22 points 6 days ago (17 children)

Here is how the Greenland issue will likely play out. Trump doesn't live in the real world and is too dumb to see the downside to what he is doing, so he will get Greenland one way or the other. The reasonable people on the other side see this, and have poor options. Either they sell Trump Greenland, notwithstanding all the reasons that this would be improper and unnecessary, or they stand firm and Trump moves in and takes it, which would effectively be an attack on a NATO country and trigger article 5. This would end NATO as we know it, as the U.S. would no longer be part of it (which Russia would love to see). If Denmark sells Greenland to the U.S. to appease Trump, they get some money and the fig leaf of NATO remains, as there is no attack on a NATO country. I believe that the latter course is more likely, as appeasement will disrupt the status quo much less, and history shows that appeasement of fascists is usually the first course of action (see, e.g., Chamberlain's approach towards Nazi Germany in the 1930s.) Of course, this will only embolden Trump and his followers, as it will be seen as Trump's great success.

Incidentally, if Trump were smart, what he would do is immediately start building up the base that the U.S. already has, and then get Denmark to agree to several additional bases, ideally in every town on the island, ostensibly to protect U.S. security interests. Then, use the bases to start pumping money into the local economy. Each base would have construction projects, personnel to feed and entertain, etc., etc. Suddenly, the locals would see dollars flowing into their pockets and their communities prosper. The U.S. could offer each citizen of Greenland $1 million tax free dollars if the country joins the U.S., and pressure Denmark to let Greenland put it to the vote. The population of Greenland is only 56,831, so the cost to purchase would be less than $57 billion. If Denmark balks, simply declare Greenland part of the U.S. and it's citizens U.S. citizens, and make Denmark the bad guy for trying to strip Greenland of it's right of self determination. If it goes to the vote, it seems highly probable that a majority the citizens would take the financial windfall and Greenland would become part of the U.S.. On the outside chance that the citizens voted against their own financial interests, well, the U.S. would already have a ton of military already in place, and show its true colors and take it anyway. With this strategy, the U.S. could at least pretend to be the good guy.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If he was smart then he would just start mining, no one is opposing it.

If he was knowledgeable, he'd know it's a dead end trying to mine stuff up there.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 23 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Nobody cares about mining anything in Greenland. Nobody actually cares about any resource in Greenland, or even the people in Greenland. Not strategically, anyway, before anyone gets it twisted. Rare earths, fine, whatever, that's just a marginal distraction.

Greenland is the fence post on one side of the gate which allows NATO to control Russia's potential naval passage into the Atlantic. At present Russia functionally cannot project any naval force to western Europe without literally going the long way around, all the way around Asia and Africa and past the tip of Cape Town, etc. Not at all coincidentally, the vestiges of the Cold War are why the US has always been so keen to maintain a military presence on Greenland in the first place.

With Greenland out of the picture and the US theoretically also on Russia's side rather than NATO, Putin stands a much greater chance of being able to get his warships into the Atlantic by hugging the coast of Greenland and then subsequently threaten the rest of Europe.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Yoz@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago (13 children)

I think EU should cut off US completely and BRICS should form then EU and BRICS should do trade. Ban all US social media and boycott anything that's made in US

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 12 points 6 days ago

I'm one of those experts but I've been saying Europe should prepare for end of NATO ever since Trump won for the first time.

[–] lordskramz@sh.itjust.works 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I hope the US loses all international rights if this happens. It has too many.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 6 days ago (4 children)

I don't think NATO is going to end, I think what's going to happen is NATO is going to turn on America if Greenland gets annexed. That is how I think World War III is going to start.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

That would be the ultimate win for Putin: Destruction of the NATO.

load more comments
view more: next ›