this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2026
29 points (96.8% liked)

Canada

11379 readers
933 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Q: The premier of Greenland said today, 'We prefer to stay with Denmark.'

TRUMP: Who said that?

Q: The premier of Greenland

TRUMP: Well, that's their problem. I disagree with him. I don't know who he is. Don't know anything about him. But that's gonna be a big problem for him.

Will Carney defend Greenland?

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 28 points 3 weeks ago

If we don't stick up for Greenland were the next ones on the list.

Its also obviously the right thing to do, bit you can't rely on politicians to be altruistic or moral.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Greenland is a NATO member via Denmark.

I suspect we'll do our duty as part of a NATO response.

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Article 5, but what does NATO do when the call is coming from inside the house?

[–] tangonov@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Do we really consider people starting infights as NATO members? There may not be anything written on paper but it feels like the answer should be obvious.

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

Because Article 5 requires unanimous agreement from all members to be invoked, a conflict between two members would lead to an impasse, as the alliance cannot vote to go to war against itself.

The only time Article 5 has been invoked was following the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US.

So, obviously members are probably scrambling to work something out, but it might be the end of NATO and the start of something else. NATO without the Yanks, but with blackjack and hookers

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean I know some smart people in the USA, but Trump personifies the arrogant idiocy of America.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, I know a lot of decent and smart Americans. 

what’s happening to the US sucks. 

[–] wieson@feddit.org 1 points 3 weeks ago

Hey Canada, would you like a side of Art. 42 (7) Lisbon to that article 5?