this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2026
518 points (97.8% liked)

World News

52363 readers
3441 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 84 points 2 weeks ago (34 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 48 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 weeks ago

this fills my heart with joy

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 25 points 2 weeks ago

Europe should prepare to tell Trump to go fuck himself.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 weeks 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 (31 replies)
[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 53 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

End of NATO. Putin's wet dream. 

[–] abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean Donald Trump is working for Vladimir Putin come on

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] perestroika@slrpnk.net 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

...and an EU-China alliance, Trump's nightmare alliance, with China mediating and resolving disputes in northern Eurasia, including the Russia-Ukraine war, likely with mere words.

He should know that if he blows up NATO, it's coming.

US analysts should tell him that this potential alliance would have several times the industrial capacity and scientific potential of the US, and if that doesn't count, it would also have ~ 1000 nuclear warheads.

(The alliance would be stable since potential allies would be far from each other, safely separated by a large nuclear armed gas station which also claims alliance with China, but China supplies drone parts to both sides.)

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

China is not some all powerful country, nor is it altruistic.

The end of Russia's war in Ukraine is the end of Putin. Do you think Putin will basically kill himself because of a word from China?

And you're thinking too small. There is a lot of diplomacy going on between every country in the world. Mark Carney is in China at this very moment. There are other delegations in India. Japan, Korea, and China are working together a little more now, and they hate one another. Everyone is making temporary alliances. It's shaping up to be US and Russia vs. the world.

Trump is trading NATO, the most powerful alliance in history, for Russia, a collapsing country.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] smiletolerantly@awful.systems 38 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] observes_depths@aussie.zone 33 points 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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)
[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 31 points 2 weeks ago (3 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.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

TBH the change can be pretty small, albeit revolutionary.

Actually embrace the humanitarian values of enlightenment. Gain some class consciousness. Remove the dictatorship of the capital by seizing the means of production. Consider other peoples of the world as equals and allies rather than dumb weaklings to be taught a lesson and/or exploited.

It all fits in a very long and established european tradition. Remember that Marx, Engels, Liebknecht, Luxemburg, Kropotkin, and Lenin were all europeans.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 31 points 2 weeks 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 26 points 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago

And this is why billionaires have been building bunkers.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] discocactus@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 14 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks 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

[–] N0t_5ure@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago (2 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 33 points 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago (2 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.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So Greenland is vital for Europe's security, but not exactly for the US...great...

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago

Yes. And also while we're at it, just remember who has been whispering in Trump's ear all the goddamn time.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 13 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

Man if the US offered me 1 million to take my province I’d change my tune so fast though. I’d be like “sweet thanks you fat idiot fucks” and then I would use that money to move somewhere far away from this stupidity immediately.

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 16 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

You really think there's anywhere that's far enough away?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 19 points 2 weeks 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)
[–] Yoz@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks 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)
[–] DarkSideOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)
[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 33 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

I think it's more that Americans are stupid.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 weeks 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 12 points 2 weeks 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)
[–] roserose56@lemmy.zip 17 points 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago (4 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] fort_burp@feddit.nl 15 points 2 weeks ago

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

[–] abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 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.

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Agreed NATO will go on without the US.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Russia doesn't look like the threat they once were. Ukraine has been holding them off all by themselves.

If all the NATO nations (sans USA) got together and raged on Russia, Russia would fall pretty quick.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] lordskramz@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] BoJackHorseman@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago

Might is the only right in the year 2026.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 12 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 weeks 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.

load more comments
view more: next ›