An alliance endures when the members all get something out of it. During the Cold War the US got from NATO an alliance which helped deprive the Soviet Union of the opportunity of conquering Western Europe by conventional means. The other members were able to depend on the US rescuing them in the event that the Soviets made such an attempt.
In the wake of the fall of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, the alliance ceased to have much meaning for the US while the other members were able to reduce their militaries to comic opera status, mostly ceremonial, with the exception of France, and partially for the Brits, free loading off the US defense umbrella.
The Ukraine War underlined the fact that even when confronted with a relatively weak regional bad actor like Putin’s Russia, the members of NATO refused to meaningfully increase their militaries, while demanding that the US shoulder most of the military burden of supporting Ukraine with weaponry and supplies. Whatever the wisdom or lack thereof of Trump’s Greenland policy, he is successfully demonstrating what a bad deal NATO is for the US now.
You may be right, but as I posted elsewhere:
In a way, that’s sad, Donald. But after a half century of being abused by European welfare states, maybe it’s time for the US to leave NATO. The one difficulty, however, is how intertwined British and US nuclear defense is: we share our Trident nuclear missile technology for submarines with the United Kingdom. Without us, the UK has no strategic nuclear deterrence. France is different; it has a completely separate submarine ballistic missile program. And if NATO flounders, so will AUKUS.
I would be pleased if Trump would stop pressing this claim.
==
Europe is suffering from deficient fertility and from political classes which despise their vernacular populations and wish to import foreigners to strip them of influence. The locals have been remarkably passive in the face of this malevolence, as have their counterparts in Canada and the Antipodes.
Poland and the Baltic States have spent more than what Trump requested.
Brian Tyler Cohen is a left wing You Tube hack, like David Pakman. They are in league with Cenk what’s his face, the lunatic on The Young Turks. Echo chambers, one and all.
I would rather have Cuba. Throw the commies out and in 20 years or less Cuba would be unrecognizable and prosperous.
Denmark should sell.
I agree except that we have to throw northern Virginia into the deal.
The Danes have the best sense of humor in Scandinavia (the Swedes reportedly the worst). I remember an events bulletin called “Copenhagen This Week” (published monthly). I doubt they take Trump’s rumblings seriously.
Trump should always be taken seriously, but never literally. He means to have a larger US role in Greenland, but there are many ways to make that happen beneficial to the US, Greenland and Denmark.
I agree except that we have to throw northern Virginia into the deal.
Agreed. The Danes could have Chicago too while we are at it!
Don-
Don’t forget what happened to the English when they gave a foothold of territory to the Danes.
I want no Danelaw in the USA.
Seriously. They hardly want to get rid of a stationary iceberg like Greenland. Imagine if it were arable land!
The Greenlanders are in the position of the one-legged man who hates crutches. They can have their independence anytime they want it, but can’t afford it, and even with a self-sufficient economy, 56,000 can’t defend an island that size without allies. Denmark is a more acceptable overlord because it’s a small, distant country and the US already covers them as part of NATO. We’d bury them in our business and popular culture if we took over.
While I do not care for the President threatening higher tariffs on NATO countries that sent military to Greenland, the US needs Greenland for the future Dome, minerals, and the very important GIUK Gap. A top pf the world map that has the North Pole in the center of the Arctic Circle with surrounding countries shows just how strategic Greenland is.