O
@Ilka4You
up until then, protection of the status quo, including NATO, was the aim. He had been treated as being an "ally".
That situation seems to have ended. The EU has threatened the trade bazooka, we shall see. While the EU doesn't have intelligence gathering in the same vein as "Five Eyes", perhaps INTCEN has something it could pass comment on re. the Epstein Files in addition.
@SueDiOh
It's an irrelevance.
That is like saying that there is no State Dept., nor advisers, nor anyone working comms, nor...you get the picture.
For nations with a functioning Civil Service, the U.S. looks like a banana republic. For a Supra-National bloc, like the EU, the situation is both laughable and grievous.
And that is why the EU is talking about deploying Regulation (EU) 2023/2675 - Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI).
It looks dull on paper, but basically the EU is threatening to tariff the US, block access, and tear up agreements on intellectual property.
By tearing up IP protection, should it get that far, the EU would move to a position of ignoring every patent currently protected.
That would put them in a position to "clone everything" and backdoor it to China.
There is no need for a vote. It just gets unleashed.
And all because the US President is a thin-skinned, entitled shit-bubble, and the US has no process to reign him in; or because that is actually preferred US foreign policy.
Every Trump error.
"Dear Jonas"
The Inaccuracy: This is a diplomatic category error. "Jonas" refers to Jonas Gahr Støre, the Prime Minister of Norway. However, the rest of the letter demands Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark (whose Prime Minister is Mette Frederiksen).
The Reality: The author is writing to the leader of Norway to demand territory owned by Denmark.
"Considering your country decided not to give me a Nobel Peace Prize..."
The Inaccuracy: While the recipient (Jonas/Norway) is technically correct regarding the Prize (the Peace Prize is indeed awarded by a Norwegian committee in Oslo), the premise is flawed because governments do not decide the winner.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee is independent of the Norwegian government. Furthermore, complaining to Norway about the Prize while simultaneously demanding Greenland from Denmark (in the paragraphs below) reinforces the confusion between the two sovereign nations.
"...for having stopped 8 wars PLUS..."
The Inaccuracy: This figure is a fabrication. While the Trump administration often claimed credit for not starting new wars, there is no historical metric by which it "stopped 8 wars."
The administration oversaw the continuation of existing conflicts (Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Yemen support). The Abraham Accords were normalization agreements, not the cessation of active "wars" between the signatories (e.g., UAE and Israel were not at war).
"Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China..."
The Inaccuracy: This ignores the existing security architecture. Denmark does not defend Greenland alone; it does so via NATO.
The United States already protects Greenland. Under the 1951 Defence of Greenland Agreement, the US maintains exclusive rights to the Thule Air Base (Pituffik Space Base) in northern Greenland. The US is already the guarantor of Greenland's physical security without needing "ownership."
"...and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway?. There are no written documents..."
The Inaccuracy: This is legally false. There are specific, internationally recognized written documents establishing Danish sovereignty.
The Treaty of Kiel (1814): When Denmark-Norway was dissolved, the treaty explicitly granted Greenland to Denmark.
The 1933 Hague Ruling: Norway once challenged Denmark’s sovereignty over East Greenland. The Permanent Court of International Justice ruled in 1933 (in a written judgment) that Denmark held valid sovereignty over the entirety of Greenland.
"...it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there also."
The Inaccuracy: This conflates exploration with administration and ignores the US's own legal history.
Renunciation of Claims (1917): The US explicitly renounced any claim to Greenland in 1917. When the US purchased the Danish West Indies (now the US Virgin Islands), part of the payment was a formal US declaration recognizing Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland.
Administration: Danish sovereignty is based on 300 years of continuous administration, colonization, and incorporation, not just "a boat landing."
"I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding..."
The Inaccuracy: A subjective hyperbole that ignores the founders and sustainers of the alliance.
Figures like Harry S. Truman (who signed the treaty), Dwight D. Eisenhower (first SACEUR), or Lord Ismay did "more" by creating and structuring the alliance. While the Trump administration pushed for higher spending, claiming to have done "more than any other person" is historically baseless.
"...and now, NATO should do something for the USA."
The Inaccuracy: This implies NATO has never acted for the US.
The only time in history that NATO invoked Article 5 (the collective defence clause) was on September 12, 2001, in defence of the United States. NATO AWACS patrolled US skies, and European soldiers fought and died in Afghanistan for two decades in support of the US. NATO has already "done something" significant for the USA.
"The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland."
The Inaccuracy: This is a strategic non-sequitur.
As noted above, the US already has "control" of the strategic assets it needs in Greenland (Thule/Pituffik) via treaty. Changing the flag from Danish to American would add immense administrative cost (subsidizing the Greenlandic economy) with zero added military benefit that isn't already secured by the 1951 agreement.
Get your brain-dead fuckwit in order, USA. Get your brain-dead fuckwit in order.