Greenland won't be under Russian or Chinese control, and the idea of Greenland independence is a pretty naive and stupid one. But, as I said, Denmark pretty much can't sell Greenland to the US, in the same way that I can't fly.
Seems to me that Trump needs to make a proper public offer to the actual people of greenland, something that measurably improves their lives, and then let them decide.
Greenland will never be under Russian or Chinese control simply because the United States would never allow that to happen. If any such threat ever materialized the U.S. would simply annex it. I'm not sure the Chinese would want to fight a war in America's backyard over a giant icicle. I know the Russians wouldn't.
I've often said that one can only claim to own something to the extent one can defend it from theft or destruction. That is why all these Chinese military bases sprinkled around the World don't bother me. As applied to Greenland, Denmark can hardly claim to own it. The only reason the Danes have nominal control over Greenland is that (a) no one has decided to take it from them, and (b) the Greenlanders themselves aren't minded to just declare independence. The Danes are helpless to prevent either of these things.
If push came to shove, the U.S. would control Greenland, as if it doesn't already.
See ETM on the ASX. This is a massive deposit at Kjanefeld of rare earths and uranium, now underwritten by a Chinese company, as the company has not been able to get a mining licence because of the uranium in the ore.
This is the same strategy as the Belt and Road Initiative, and (see Sri Lanka) does play into Chinese hands.
In Canada, globalist Mark Carney has no intention of annexing Ste. Pierre et Miquelon, as they are held by France which does have nuclear weapons. We are not certain If President Trump has designs on the islands!
It's called seizing the initiative, which is important in all areas of human endeavor.
As far as Europe is concerned, I and many Americans have lost a great deal of respect for the lands that our forefathers emigrated from. Western Europe, especially, seems to be filled with what Kurt Schlichter just called impotent euro-eunuchs, whose great-grandfathers once conquered the world, but who now cannot be bothered to either breed or defend their inheritance from people who do nothing but breed and take other people‘s inheritance.
Along those lines, as someone who worked closely with NATO for a dozen years as a senior US military officer, I am skeptical of "European states like Germany could fund their own defence entirely. It would hurt a little but we really could". It's like saying, "you know we have a 1/2 Trillion dollars of fraud in government payments in the US, but we really could stop it, even though we haven't for 40 years and it's getting worse every year"
There is a difference between realizing difficulty and mentally shackling oneself to failure because of difficulty. Defeatism like this serves no purpose in any respect.
The best and the brightest who have been running the institutions in the West since the Second World War have been pushing both birth control and entitlement programs at the same time; how anyone thought this would end up anywhere else but in our current state of affairs is the real mystery.
You’re losing respect for Europe for having the same policies and posture as we did prior to Jan 21, 2025. We are about one year away from all that, and there is a powerful constituency actively working to drag us back: nothing is assured at this point. Have some more humility.
I might disagree a bit on the true Trump premise. His agenda, as outlined in the US official documents you (quite rightfully) cite, is based first and foremost on "America First." True, he would rather not kill the American Empire in Europe. Nearly everything he and Bessent (et al) do and say can be seen in the light of "Economic security is national security," a theme Bessent has uttered almost constantly. To them, these are one and the same problem. They want to isolate China, economically and militarily. This is the main (not the headline) justification of both Venezuela and Greenland. Trump would rather drag Europe along, kicking and screaming if necessary, but he will go it alone if necessary. Anti-China takes precedence over pro-Europe. As to whether this is wise or even possible, I will abstain for now. As you say, sine ira et studio.
Excellent piece sir. And yes...we Americans derive a huge benefit from Empire in the form you suggest. Mainly that we live in the country that prints the world's reserve currency. The problem is that most of us have no idea what that means nor the ramifications of what would happen if (and when) that were ever to change. We have in many ways become completely disconnected from this reality. I don't know if that makes us 'spoiled', or just naive ?
My POV as a female American born in 1960, I have no shame in stating I have benefitted from an system where I observed and then seized opportunities that would bring me far greater prosperity than my parents or grandparents pursued. It was not easy but I paid attention. I chose to get an accounting degree (not many females doing that) at night (full time job so no college debt) and worked in the international accounting field. I HAD to stay attentive and adapt for survival. As a result, I've had a life filled with extraordinary adventure, provided excellent opportunities for my children, attained a comfortable level of financial 'security', freedom to learn equal to my curiosity, and practice my faith without hostility.
I also recognize that 'nothing lasts forever' and the gluttonous greed of the American leadership's bold wealth transfers will likely be its comeuppance. Personally, I am positioning myself for the slow, steady decline. Being attentive and adaptable does not mean I will avoid the despised surveillance state, it means I must be careful...weigh the risks and benefits and be prudent while maintaining integrity. A balancing act. I looking forward with calm reason and a heavy dose of suspicion, because I understand I don't have a perfect plan but I intend, with God's multiplying effect, to have a soft landing.
As far as "Europe" is concerned, the extraordinary stupid, destructive policies of leadership and the willingness of its inhabitants to watch the destruction of their history, culture, infrastructure, jobs, language, families, faith, and finances rapidly decay, is astounding to me (as it is here in USA to a slightly lesser degree because we are the hegemon). I hope the wise and shrewd inhabitants find and act upon any opportunities available to thrive in the next era. Shrewdness is not inherently evil. Luke 16.1-13
I think the smarter portion of the Americans(!) who want to break this machine understand that is that it is in some ways cozy, but as many cozy things a mechanism for degeneration. America used to be “the factory of the free world”. There is a new factory of the world, and “free” has left the room.
Another important point is that the purchasing power that was won by being the reserve currency is great for the “average American” but decidedly ambivalent for the “median American” – whatever x choose, 10, 1, .1 – the top x% Americans have pulled away massively from the bottom (100-x)% Americans. It’s great when the USD gains in purchasing power, but less great when the same mechanism ensures that there’s only low-level service jobs, if any, around.
That Latin is some tricksy language, ain't it? "Ira" means what one would surmise but "studio?" Quite a surprise that was!
Why must you force me to look like a slimy sycophant now and again? I love every Substacker whose work I go so far as to pay for but I love you the mostest.
And if you have lost people who had been counted your friends because you have that rare thing, integrity, well I guess you're best off without them because they must not have that quality themselves.
The statement “The Americans fought in two European wars for the express purpose of winning an empire for themselves,” taken in isolation, is very high-minded hyperbole, indeed.
Speaking specifically to WWII, the U.S. entered and fought in Europe to stop unfettered German Nazi aggression from conquering any number of European countries.
The U.S. was not interested in building colonial “empires” as those already commonly established by Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Dutch Netherlands (others I might have overlooked ?). Americans paid a very high price to secure liberty for those European nations who could not defend themselves from the Nazis.
And let no one forget the immense postwar emergency efforts made to Europe by the U.S., including the Marshall Plan (rebuilt flattened European economies) and the Berlin Airlift (stabilize against Russian aggression in defeated Germany).
Obviously the U.S. has a continuing interest in seeing a return on our investments in Europe, but we also understand the beneficial gains free European nations might (hopefully) accrue to themselves. As this Substack’s author is currently detailing, today’s Europe is largely in a self-imposed economic and cultural suicide. Many Americans, myself included, are grieved by this collective European direction. We also largely view the Trump administration’s positions on immigration, free speech, regulatory overreach, sustainable economic energy, and world geopolitical stability to be correctly needed in both the U.S. and Europe.
As an American, I enjoy subscribing to this Substack, to better understand European politics, economics, energy and culture. I look forward to reading this Substack in the future.
I am just restating some elements of Mackinder's 'heartland theory,' maybe imperfectly. Basically, the British Empire has had a longstanding interest in preventing the emergence of rivals on the continent; the Americans inherited this interest as the next great naval power in the course of the world wars. This is ultimately why the US fought in Europe. Obviously it didn't help that the National Socialists used highly aggressive tactics, but the effort to forestall a rival continental power would've been necessary as soon as Germany reindustrialised in any event. The United States is a great power and has pursued global hegemony ruthlessly, whether you want to call the resulting structures empire or something else, is I think mostly semantic. This is not bad and not intended as criticism; mostly I think the US have been a benevolent power as far as us Euros are concerned, and if it's not the Americans other great powers will swell to take their place.
eugyppius, your point(s) are well made and well taken.
I subscribe to the quote/position widely attributed to Henry Kissinger: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” So I say NO to the idea of “American empire” and say YES to “American interests.”
Even with no shortage of problems, America is still the world’s best hope as we pursue our interests as best we are able to understand them. And Americans largely consider this a very grave responsibility. Thank you.
As a fellow American and longtime subscriber to eugyppius, I see this viewpoint frequently, and to me, like you, it is a bit suspect. Empires are there for the tribute, and to use the dollar's place as the world's reserve currency as proxy for tribute is misplaced. Yes, it is a benefit we realize, but it's a second-order effect and really wasn't the cause of our entry into either of last century's world wars. Somebody has to be the policeman and who else has the bluewater navy required? Love eugyppius though.
“Because the American presence in Europe for structural reasons has caused a degeneration and artificially boosted the global system of political vandalism known as the international left, I think it would be good for the Americans to leave and for the Europeans to have their own history,…”
Hah. I did not see you coming to that conclusion. Most interesting.
What concerns me most with each passing day, is the Left’s - both here and in Europe - increasingly violent and deranged escalations born out of their fear of losing ever more power, possibly permanently.
The populist movements are sweeping the world, and coming for them, and they know it. Only they don’t seek compromise, but rather to dig in, and devise ever greater radical machinations.
Spain actually granting citizenship to ALL of their illegal immigrants portends nothing good for their future nor Europe’s. If other EU countries decide to follow suit, the handwriting then will be irrevocably etched upon their walls.
Trump wants Greenland for a variety of reasons, but one, which is only whispered in the shadows, is to protect the US, not just from China or Russia, but from Europe when it falls.
Things are changing quite a bit! Trump and his people make the West European elites squirm, the Democrats cry like babies ... if you have the taste for this sort of thing, it's amusing. He is sometimes surface performative just to stir things up ... I personally believe he is a vehicle of history, like the Epstein files are acting to destroy parts of the elite, to expose them to destruction ... what we see are vehicles to break up the old order of things.
Which is the key thing we most wanted him to do, break the old system. And many don’t even realize how effective those precise tactics are: “Oh, if only he wouldn’t…”
What we DO want is competent leadership in Europe, of whatever political stripe. There is shockingly little on display, either in government currently - or more worryingly - waiting on the sidelines.
Trump II is different from Trump I and from any opposition party in Europe in its competence. You may not like what is being done, but you must acknowledge the effectiveness. I don't see anything in Europe to give me hope that something similar can happen there.
DEI became more important than merit in all decisions related to advancement in life: academic placement, hiring, promotion, etc.
DEI was promised to widen the net to include previously overlooked talent and result in more qualified candidates for everything. Instead, it resulted in across-the-board lowering of standards and acceptance of incompetence.
Social promotions, participation trophies, "multiple intelligences," equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity, and refusal to enforce responsibility... all culminating in the insane fantasy that our strength comes from "diversity" rather than competence.
There is no Disney version of Origin of Species, in which everybody lives happily ever after.
((Recently, I have realized that there IS a Disney Version -- it's called The Island of Misfit Toys. The toys survive thanks only to a competent savior -- a poor model for any society in which you have to live.))
Sorry to hear you are losing subscribers just for stating a difference of opinion. I have only ever cancelled one Substack for that type of reason, Sy Hersch after he went on about the head of Hezbollah being a man of peace. Not going to fund that.
There are other substacks where i agree on some but not all, basically all of them, if i cancelled everyone i disagree with on something that would leave nothing to read or think about.
Certainly this Stack presents an entirely different view of europe since 1945 than i get anywhere else, which is gold.
As a canadian, we are also left parsing Trump's comments, nice to get an outside look at them.
If you lost friends over your opinions about something as mild as Greenland, they weren't your friends. They were your acquaintances who enjoyed your company because your opinions made them feel better about theirs.
It's probably unwise to attempt a literal interpretation of Donald Trump's utterances. Some are performative, some are ironic ("He's doing a great job"), a few are sincerely meant ("He's doing a great job" version 2), some may be careless while others are intentionally unsettling or disruptive. His yo-yoing line on Britain's Chagos give-away is an example of just keeping the pot simmering while his ultimate position may be settled one way or another.
"Without bitterness or partiality" is what the Roman historian, Tacitus, declared in his Introduction to the Roman history contained in his Annals. Too bad all too many writers get carried away with their own sense of self importance and thereby fail to see the world flat on without any hagiographical squint.
> European states like Germany could fund their own defence entirely. It would hurt a little but we really could; despite all the catastrophic policies of the last 20 years we still have a large and highly advanced economy. The reason we don’t do that, is because nobody wants us to. The Federal Republic is forbidden by treaty from building its own nuclear arsenal, for example. Otherwise, were we to develop a totally independent military, our rulers would begin pursuing their own autonomous geopolitical strategy, which is something neither our neighbours nor the Americans want.
I've said it before, and you've said it before, and I know we're both on the same page on this. I also know how stupid it is to just restate your own words back at you, as if they're mine. But, I need to underscore this.
Your quoted line is one of the things that has most annoyed me about the conversation (that everyone else has) around this subject. It is absolutely true that European states have much more lavish social programs than they would be able to afford if they funded their own defense. But calling that "taking advantage of America" (you are not; you are responding to people who do) is so wrong as to be bordering on malicious. It leaves out the incredibly important detail that you highlight here that a) America imposed this state of affairs on Europe; and b) specifically s they'd never have armies.
I think it is a very legitimate question to ask, whether or not America is getting value out of this deal. But in analyzing that, to cast the Europeans as villains in this arrangement is a grotesque twisting of the facts. They're doing what they were forced at gunpoint to do, by America. America might regret this decision, but America made it. Europe did not.
I hate that I have to defend Europe here but, facts and truth are more important. I'm glad you are the intellectually honest writer that you are
One thing I think seems to evade many of your readers is that the world, and in fact opinions on events and how things should progress, look very, very different depending on whether you are a US citizen or not, even if completely otherwise politically aligned, and all the downstream thinking and conclusions that come with it
A US citizen may turn his nose up at the Empire, and decry the ugly methods and tactics being used, but never in his wildest dreams would he ever consider giving it up, and there rears the double edged sword of exceptionalism. Whereas readers here who hail from anywhere else are perfectly capable of imaging such a world, with the pros and cons associated with it.
But how did this “ fracas “ start?
Greenland has dilapidated airports. Greenland asked Denmark to fix them up
Denmark said they they did not have the money to fix the airports.
Red China said they would fix them up and put a little base there.
Denmark found the money.
Trump, seeing a distressed property, offered to take Greenland off Denmark’s hands.
Denmark was insulted.
Trump was ridiculed and said that the USA did not want Greenland under Chinese influence.
Trump claimed it was a security issue.
Had Obama or FJB made the same offer, they would be hailed as forward-looking.
statesmen.
Greenland cannot be under Russian or Chinese control.
Here we are. The issue is what happens going forward.
Greenland won't be under Russian or Chinese control, and the idea of Greenland independence is a pretty naive and stupid one. But, as I said, Denmark pretty much can't sell Greenland to the US, in the same way that I can't fly.
Couldn't Greenland gain its independence in order to offer itself to the US? A purely theoretical question.
Seems to me that Trump needs to make a proper public offer to the actual people of greenland, something that measurably improves their lives, and then let them decide.
If they like it, then they can force the issue
My thought too. Greenland could share financially in the development of its natural resources, like Alaskans do.
Greenland will never be under Russian or Chinese control simply because the United States would never allow that to happen. If any such threat ever materialized the U.S. would simply annex it. I'm not sure the Chinese would want to fight a war in America's backyard over a giant icicle. I know the Russians wouldn't.
I've often said that one can only claim to own something to the extent one can defend it from theft or destruction. That is why all these Chinese military bases sprinkled around the World don't bother me. As applied to Greenland, Denmark can hardly claim to own it. The only reason the Danes have nominal control over Greenland is that (a) no one has decided to take it from them, and (b) the Greenlanders themselves aren't minded to just declare independence. The Danes are helpless to prevent either of these things.
If push came to shove, the U.S. would control Greenland, as if it doesn't already.
See ETM on the ASX. This is a massive deposit at Kjanefeld of rare earths and uranium, now underwritten by a Chinese company, as the company has not been able to get a mining licence because of the uranium in the ore.
This is the same strategy as the Belt and Road Initiative, and (see Sri Lanka) does play into Chinese hands.
In Canada, globalist Mark Carney has no intention of annexing Ste. Pierre et Miquelon, as they are held by France which does have nuclear weapons. We are not certain If President Trump has designs on the islands!
He does not.
It's called seizing the initiative, which is important in all areas of human endeavor.
As far as Europe is concerned, I and many Americans have lost a great deal of respect for the lands that our forefathers emigrated from. Western Europe, especially, seems to be filled with what Kurt Schlichter just called impotent euro-eunuchs, whose great-grandfathers once conquered the world, but who now cannot be bothered to either breed or defend their inheritance from people who do nothing but breed and take other people‘s inheritance.
I mean, kiss your future Auf Wiedersehen.
Along those lines, as someone who worked closely with NATO for a dozen years as a senior US military officer, I am skeptical of "European states like Germany could fund their own defence entirely. It would hurt a little but we really could". It's like saying, "you know we have a 1/2 Trillion dollars of fraud in government payments in the US, but we really could stop it, even though we haven't for 40 years and it's getting worse every year"
There is a difference between realizing difficulty and mentally shackling oneself to failure because of difficulty. Defeatism like this serves no purpose in any respect.
The best and the brightest who have been running the institutions in the West since the Second World War have been pushing both birth control and entitlement programs at the same time; how anyone thought this would end up anywhere else but in our current state of affairs is the real mystery.
You’re losing respect for Europe for having the same policies and posture as we did prior to Jan 21, 2025. We are about one year away from all that, and there is a powerful constituency actively working to drag us back: nothing is assured at this point. Have some more humility.
I might disagree a bit on the true Trump premise. His agenda, as outlined in the US official documents you (quite rightfully) cite, is based first and foremost on "America First." True, he would rather not kill the American Empire in Europe. Nearly everything he and Bessent (et al) do and say can be seen in the light of "Economic security is national security," a theme Bessent has uttered almost constantly. To them, these are one and the same problem. They want to isolate China, economically and militarily. This is the main (not the headline) justification of both Venezuela and Greenland. Trump would rather drag Europe along, kicking and screaming if necessary, but he will go it alone if necessary. Anti-China takes precedence over pro-Europe. As to whether this is wise or even possible, I will abstain for now. As you say, sine ira et studio.
Good analysis!
Pretty good, but I disagree that Trump's foreign policy is based on "America First", for he is a Zionist and puts America second.
Excellent piece sir. And yes...we Americans derive a huge benefit from Empire in the form you suggest. Mainly that we live in the country that prints the world's reserve currency. The problem is that most of us have no idea what that means nor the ramifications of what would happen if (and when) that were ever to change. We have in many ways become completely disconnected from this reality. I don't know if that makes us 'spoiled', or just naive ?
My POV as a female American born in 1960, I have no shame in stating I have benefitted from an system where I observed and then seized opportunities that would bring me far greater prosperity than my parents or grandparents pursued. It was not easy but I paid attention. I chose to get an accounting degree (not many females doing that) at night (full time job so no college debt) and worked in the international accounting field. I HAD to stay attentive and adapt for survival. As a result, I've had a life filled with extraordinary adventure, provided excellent opportunities for my children, attained a comfortable level of financial 'security', freedom to learn equal to my curiosity, and practice my faith without hostility.
I also recognize that 'nothing lasts forever' and the gluttonous greed of the American leadership's bold wealth transfers will likely be its comeuppance. Personally, I am positioning myself for the slow, steady decline. Being attentive and adaptable does not mean I will avoid the despised surveillance state, it means I must be careful...weigh the risks and benefits and be prudent while maintaining integrity. A balancing act. I looking forward with calm reason and a heavy dose of suspicion, because I understand I don't have a perfect plan but I intend, with God's multiplying effect, to have a soft landing.
As far as "Europe" is concerned, the extraordinary stupid, destructive policies of leadership and the willingness of its inhabitants to watch the destruction of their history, culture, infrastructure, jobs, language, families, faith, and finances rapidly decay, is astounding to me (as it is here in USA to a slightly lesser degree because we are the hegemon). I hope the wise and shrewd inhabitants find and act upon any opportunities available to thrive in the next era. Shrewdness is not inherently evil. Luke 16.1-13
Agree, sine ira et studio.
Per Google Translate: "without anger and without bias".
I think the smarter portion of the Americans(!) who want to break this machine understand that is that it is in some ways cozy, but as many cozy things a mechanism for degeneration. America used to be “the factory of the free world”. There is a new factory of the world, and “free” has left the room.
Another important point is that the purchasing power that was won by being the reserve currency is great for the “average American” but decidedly ambivalent for the “median American” – whatever x choose, 10, 1, .1 – the top x% Americans have pulled away massively from the bottom (100-x)% Americans. It’s great when the USD gains in purchasing power, but less great when the same mechanism ensures that there’s only low-level service jobs, if any, around.
BRICS has already elcipsed $1T in International Trade....the 'toilet paper' is being flushed!
That Latin is some tricksy language, ain't it? "Ira" means what one would surmise but "studio?" Quite a surprise that was!
Why must you force me to look like a slimy sycophant now and again? I love every Substacker whose work I go so far as to pay for but I love you the mostest.
And if you have lost people who had been counted your friends because you have that rare thing, integrity, well I guess you're best off without them because they must not have that quality themselves.
Great summation and a very useful one.
E is perhaps my mostest favorite. 🥂Cheers!
The statement “The Americans fought in two European wars for the express purpose of winning an empire for themselves,” taken in isolation, is very high-minded hyperbole, indeed.
Speaking specifically to WWII, the U.S. entered and fought in Europe to stop unfettered German Nazi aggression from conquering any number of European countries.
The U.S. was not interested in building colonial “empires” as those already commonly established by Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Dutch Netherlands (others I might have overlooked ?). Americans paid a very high price to secure liberty for those European nations who could not defend themselves from the Nazis.
And let no one forget the immense postwar emergency efforts made to Europe by the U.S., including the Marshall Plan (rebuilt flattened European economies) and the Berlin Airlift (stabilize against Russian aggression in defeated Germany).
Obviously the U.S. has a continuing interest in seeing a return on our investments in Europe, but we also understand the beneficial gains free European nations might (hopefully) accrue to themselves. As this Substack’s author is currently detailing, today’s Europe is largely in a self-imposed economic and cultural suicide. Many Americans, myself included, are grieved by this collective European direction. We also largely view the Trump administration’s positions on immigration, free speech, regulatory overreach, sustainable economic energy, and world geopolitical stability to be correctly needed in both the U.S. and Europe.
As an American, I enjoy subscribing to this Substack, to better understand European politics, economics, energy and culture. I look forward to reading this Substack in the future.
I am just restating some elements of Mackinder's 'heartland theory,' maybe imperfectly. Basically, the British Empire has had a longstanding interest in preventing the emergence of rivals on the continent; the Americans inherited this interest as the next great naval power in the course of the world wars. This is ultimately why the US fought in Europe. Obviously it didn't help that the National Socialists used highly aggressive tactics, but the effort to forestall a rival continental power would've been necessary as soon as Germany reindustrialised in any event. The United States is a great power and has pursued global hegemony ruthlessly, whether you want to call the resulting structures empire or something else, is I think mostly semantic. This is not bad and not intended as criticism; mostly I think the US have been a benevolent power as far as us Euros are concerned, and if it's not the Americans other great powers will swell to take their place.
eugyppius, your point(s) are well made and well taken.
I subscribe to the quote/position widely attributed to Henry Kissinger: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” So I say NO to the idea of “American empire” and say YES to “American interests.”
Even with no shortage of problems, America is still the world’s best hope as we pursue our interests as best we are able to understand them. And Americans largely consider this a very grave responsibility. Thank you.
As a fellow American and longtime subscriber to eugyppius, I see this viewpoint frequently, and to me, like you, it is a bit suspect. Empires are there for the tribute, and to use the dollar's place as the world's reserve currency as proxy for tribute is misplaced. Yes, it is a benefit we realize, but it's a second-order effect and really wasn't the cause of our entry into either of last century's world wars. Somebody has to be the policeman and who else has the bluewater navy required? Love eugyppius though.
Fine piece. I chuckled at the perfect analogy between a soaring penguin and the Pretentious European Union. Neither was meant to fly.
I am mortified that I did not immediately twig to the incongruity of a flying penguin.
“Because the American presence in Europe for structural reasons has caused a degeneration and artificially boosted the global system of political vandalism known as the international left, I think it would be good for the Americans to leave and for the Europeans to have their own history,…”
Hah. I did not see you coming to that conclusion. Most interesting.
What concerns me most with each passing day, is the Left’s - both here and in Europe - increasingly violent and deranged escalations born out of their fear of losing ever more power, possibly permanently.
The populist movements are sweeping the world, and coming for them, and they know it. Only they don’t seek compromise, but rather to dig in, and devise ever greater radical machinations.
Spain actually granting citizenship to ALL of their illegal immigrants portends nothing good for their future nor Europe’s. If other EU countries decide to follow suit, the handwriting then will be irrevocably etched upon their walls.
Trump wants Greenland for a variety of reasons, but one, which is only whispered in the shadows, is to protect the US, not just from China or Russia, but from Europe when it falls.
God have mercy.
Things are changing quite a bit! Trump and his people make the West European elites squirm, the Democrats cry like babies ... if you have the taste for this sort of thing, it's amusing. He is sometimes surface performative just to stir things up ... I personally believe he is a vehicle of history, like the Epstein files are acting to destroy parts of the elite, to expose them to destruction ... what we see are vehicles to break up the old order of things.
Which is the key thing we most wanted him to do, break the old system. And many don’t even realize how effective those precise tactics are: “Oh, if only he wouldn’t…”
What we DO want is competent leadership in Europe, of whatever political stripe. There is shockingly little on display, either in government currently - or more worryingly - waiting on the sidelines.
Trump II is different from Trump I and from any opposition party in Europe in its competence. You may not like what is being done, but you must acknowledge the effectiveness. I don't see anything in Europe to give me hope that something similar can happen there.
John, what do you think the root cause of the incompetency truly is? Incompetency is the fruit of what bad tree?
DEI became more important than merit in all decisions related to advancement in life: academic placement, hiring, promotion, etc.
DEI was promised to widen the net to include previously overlooked talent and result in more qualified candidates for everything. Instead, it resulted in across-the-board lowering of standards and acceptance of incompetence.
A feminized society.
Social promotions, participation trophies, "multiple intelligences," equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity, and refusal to enforce responsibility... all culminating in the insane fantasy that our strength comes from "diversity" rather than competence.
There is no Disney version of Origin of Species, in which everybody lives happily ever after.
((Recently, I have realized that there IS a Disney Version -- it's called The Island of Misfit Toys. The toys survive thanks only to a competent savior -- a poor model for any society in which you have to live.))
Yes. A femiinized society. Look at the examples of the males in charge. Macron is a good example.
Sorry to hear you are losing subscribers just for stating a difference of opinion. I have only ever cancelled one Substack for that type of reason, Sy Hersch after he went on about the head of Hezbollah being a man of peace. Not going to fund that.
There are other substacks where i agree on some but not all, basically all of them, if i cancelled everyone i disagree with on something that would leave nothing to read or think about.
Certainly this Stack presents an entirely different view of europe since 1945 than i get anywhere else, which is gold.
As a canadian, we are also left parsing Trump's comments, nice to get an outside look at them.
Carry on.
Looking at geography, why isn’t Greenland part of Canada? 🇨🇦
We can't protect what we have already, the reality is without the usa someone would have taken our north already.
We also have had our own squabbles with the Danes over a fly spec island called Hans island between Greenland and Baffin.
So if the usa takes greenland do they also take Hans, defended by a single starving polar bear?
Sounds like a good basis for alliance of Canada and USA to grab some territory from Denmark to “ save the bears “ 🐻
Which "we" is that?
Canada, obviously
If you lost friends over your opinions about something as mild as Greenland, they weren't your friends. They were your acquaintances who enjoyed your company because your opinions made them feel better about theirs.
It's probably unwise to attempt a literal interpretation of Donald Trump's utterances. Some are performative, some are ironic ("He's doing a great job"), a few are sincerely meant ("He's doing a great job" version 2), some may be careless while others are intentionally unsettling or disruptive. His yo-yoing line on Britain's Chagos give-away is an example of just keeping the pot simmering while his ultimate position may be settled one way or another.
"Without bitterness or partiality" is what the Roman historian, Tacitus, declared in his Introduction to the Roman history contained in his Annals. Too bad all too many writers get carried away with their own sense of self importance and thereby fail to see the world flat on without any hagiographical squint.
> European states like Germany could fund their own defence entirely. It would hurt a little but we really could; despite all the catastrophic policies of the last 20 years we still have a large and highly advanced economy. The reason we don’t do that, is because nobody wants us to. The Federal Republic is forbidden by treaty from building its own nuclear arsenal, for example. Otherwise, were we to develop a totally independent military, our rulers would begin pursuing their own autonomous geopolitical strategy, which is something neither our neighbours nor the Americans want.
I've said it before, and you've said it before, and I know we're both on the same page on this. I also know how stupid it is to just restate your own words back at you, as if they're mine. But, I need to underscore this.
Your quoted line is one of the things that has most annoyed me about the conversation (that everyone else has) around this subject. It is absolutely true that European states have much more lavish social programs than they would be able to afford if they funded their own defense. But calling that "taking advantage of America" (you are not; you are responding to people who do) is so wrong as to be bordering on malicious. It leaves out the incredibly important detail that you highlight here that a) America imposed this state of affairs on Europe; and b) specifically s they'd never have armies.
I think it is a very legitimate question to ask, whether or not America is getting value out of this deal. But in analyzing that, to cast the Europeans as villains in this arrangement is a grotesque twisting of the facts. They're doing what they were forced at gunpoint to do, by America. America might regret this decision, but America made it. Europe did not.
I hate that I have to defend Europe here but, facts and truth are more important. I'm glad you are the intellectually honest writer that you are
One thing I think seems to evade many of your readers is that the world, and in fact opinions on events and how things should progress, look very, very different depending on whether you are a US citizen or not, even if completely otherwise politically aligned, and all the downstream thinking and conclusions that come with it
A US citizen may turn his nose up at the Empire, and decry the ugly methods and tactics being used, but never in his wildest dreams would he ever consider giving it up, and there rears the double edged sword of exceptionalism. Whereas readers here who hail from anywhere else are perfectly capable of imaging such a world, with the pros and cons associated with it.