[GoldenMonkey]

A Different take. Greenland is strategic to the security of North America. And had been severely neglected by Denmark. Just like all Nato countries, not contributing financially to security as required.

This saber rattling had the desired effect and result. More military investment in Greenland. But, using other ppl's money... Denmark.

And in Canada's case with becoming a 51'st state... they too are now committed to meeting NATO $ obligations.

[DennisP]

So you're saying we're improving US security, by making our allies think we're actually their enemies so they beef up their militaries to fight us?

[jazzyjackson]

To defend themselves knowing the US won't be there to back them up but yes

[DennisP]

Then I guess when we live in a world where lots of countries have powerful militaries and none of them are our friends, that means we've won.

[keepamovin]

The notion that current allies become enemies simply because they become required to pay a fair share of their defense is a dumb one. But if true, questions how allied such regions really were, if their allegiance can be bought or disbanded by a few dubloons.

[DennisP]

So I guess you haven't noticed Trump's very-thinly-veiled threats of military action against Greenland, Canada, and Panama. People in those countries, and Europe, have definitely noticed.

[keepamovin]

OK, I see it like this: you can set boundaries with your friends. Setting boundaries with friends doesn't make them enemies, that's dumb.

If you're a country, reserving the right to use military force is a way of setting boundaries.

Think of it like this, your friend Darald never pays for anything and expects you to foot the bill for all group activities, and even pay his rent and deal with his crazy ex-wife (paying his alimony, etc). Darald also talks shit about you every chance he gets, in front of your other pals. You eventually get fed up with enabling his destructive / lazy behavior and stand up for yourself. Do you: a) punch him in the nose; b) use court action to seize his assets to recoup some of your losses; c) go to his house and take the money he owes you out of his mattress, and push him off you when he tries to stop you; d) all of the above; e) do nothing, keep letting yourself get abused.

???

[keepamovin]

The notion that current allies become enemies simply because they become required to pay a fair share of their defense is a dumb one. But if true, questions how allied such regions really were!

[MaxHoppersGhost]

Agreed. Europe has been mooching off US military spend for decades. I also wouldn’t expect Denmark has the military capability to hold Greenland in a war.

[matwood]

Dependence on the US has been a great point of leverage, and not what I would call mooching. Also the EU and Canada have stood with the US and committed soldiers regularly to US led conflicts.

Finally, Greenland would fall under NATO protection so who exactly would Denmark need to protect them from?

[FrustratedMonky]

"Europe has been mooching "

All of this complaining about NATO, or WTO, or IMF, etc... Any globalization.

People forget -> The US designed and setup these systems. These were all founded and built by the US, to project US power and interests. How can we complain now for things we designed and wanted.

It sounds like a bunch of whining. "Oh Boohoo, We got what we wanted. I'm the most powerful country on the planet because we forced globalization on everybody and now I don't like it, boo hoo."

[ChocolateGod]

The US has been one of the biggest pushers for European nations to rely on NATO.

[MaxHoppersGhost]

The US isn’t making most NATO members in Europe not hit their defense spending targets.

[irishcule]

Most likely they are actually, every country will have a certain "% of GDP" threshold where once they go above that number, it makes more sense for them to spend the money in their own home grown defense industry vs buying US made weapons.

It has also certainly served US interests to keep certain European countries "down" and have them reliant on the US for their security for other reasons too.

The idea that the US decided to "subsidize" European defense for multiple decades, out of their own generosity is.... nothing short of completely laughable imo.

[actionfromafar]

...biggest pushers for European nations to rely on the US, to be precise. If that's no longer the objective, fine, but there's no need to rewrite history and call it "mooching". It was a strategic choice, to avoid a repeat of WWII.

[jack_h]

Relationships change over the course of a century. The 2% GDP defense spending agreement came about during the Riga summit in 2006. So the objective did change twenty years ago and many member nations never abided by that agreement; much to the frustration of both Bush and Obama. What you're espousing is more of a history rewrite by assuming we have had a static relationship going back to the end of WW2 and that this defense spending agreement is newer than it actually is.

[actionfromafar]

So the correct response to that is brownian motion in foreign affairs?

[Yeul]

The Netherlands during the cold war had an entire tank division stationed in Germany waiting for the USSR to invade.

Where does this idea come from that Europe wasn't spending any money on defense?

[watwut]

USA is the only country that actually used NATO article 5 to drag others into the war. The mooching complaint is ridiculous since it was USA actively getting benefits.

[actionfromafar]

Won't alienating all your allies lead to increased US spending in the end?

[MaxHoppersGhost]

The “allies” aren’t even hitting their NATO spend targets and probably haven’t ever. Beef up their military and the US doesn’t have to stop policing their world so much (currently the US is keeping European shipping open by bombing Houthis nonstop).

[ben_w]

> currently the US is keeping European shipping open by bombing Houthis nonstop).

Keeping it cheaper.

When the Suez was blocked by a sideways ship[0], some of shipping went around Africa[1].

The USA also notably made it clear to the European powers that European powers absolutely didn't have any right to be the powers who controlled the Suez[2].

I also note that the official position of the Houthis is their attacks on shipping are supposed to be about Israel, the problem from the perspective of everyone else in Europe is that they're idiots hitting unrelated ships as well[3].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Suez_Canal_obstruction#Ec...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Route

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_attacks_on_commercial_v...

[actionfromafar]

So let's invade Greenland and Canada. That'll fix it.

[exe34]

Yes, and hopefully investment will be predominantly in European/Canadian companies.