Can't wait for the CNN headlines: "DANES CHEER AS TYRAN PRIME MINISTER CAPTURED", "DANES WELCOME FOREIGN LIBERATORS", "DANISH ECONOMY TO BOOM WITH FREE MARKETS REFORMS"
This doesn't really align with CNN's view, but may apply to another even more popular US news channel that seems to be much more aligned with the current administration...
Greenland and Denmark are not the same. Greenland is a self-governed territory under the Kingdom of Denmark. The US administration wishes to take over Greenland from Denmark completely. So you should replace your headlines with "Greenland" and "Greenlanders".
Note: There have already been discussions about making Greenland independent from Denmark, but there is uncertainty over how to handle economic and defense situations. Greenland currently receives significant support (about $10000-15000 per capita yearly) from Denmark. So it is not clear how the country would run without that.
>Greenland currently receives significant support (about $10000-15000 per capita yearly) from Denmark. So it is not clear how the country would run without that.
Greenland absolutely positively cannot run without outside subsidy. Pacific islands (barely) function as independent countries because their tiny populations are commensurate with their small areas. Greenland's 50,000 people live on an island three times the size of Texas.
Currently that subsidy comes in the form of €600 million in annual funds from Copenhagen. Now Washington has emerged as a potential outbidder.
At the level it existed before the 2nd Trump admin, it had supply chains of intelligence, capability, and the ability to project actual force and support.
See thats why one needs a sovereign financial and banking system. But tbh, Europeans deserve it, for they use and abuse of sanctions themselves, as some of Swiss citizens can attest.
> Since when is it OK for governments to sanction people when they are lawfully expressing disagreement with Govt policies or views?
When it stops being a disagreement over policy and becomes a paid job for a foreign government to spread as much malicious FUD as possible.
The former commander of Russian ground forces recently gave a long interview in which he said that the Russian army was on the verge of total collapse in the fall of 2022, when Ukrainian forces were pushing them back during the highly successful Kharkiv counteroffensive. Mearsheimer, Sachs, et al played a vital role in spreading FUD and unfounded fears that led to less military support for Ukraine than was needed. As a result, hundreds of thousands more people are dead than might have been had Ukraine been supported properly.
Mearsheimer alone has done more to deny modern weapons to Ukraine than the entire Russian air force could. In terms of ROI, he has been a spectacularly cost-effective propaganda asset. He has the blood of countless people on his hands and deserves to be hanged. But instead, he will kick the bucket due to natural causes in old age, a luxury not afforded to the children who died in their bedrooms under Russian missile attacks that Mearsheimer twisted himself into a pretzel to enable and justify.
This just sounds like scapegoating to disguise lack of political will in the west. Did Mearsheimer have that kind of influence among Western governments?
I guess we're going to see more of such scapegoating as western politicians fail to deliver on their promises on Ukraine. Where's the multinational force that was going to defend Ukraine?
If I recall correctly, Vladimir Chirkin (commander-in-chief of Russian ground forces 2012-2013) said that in the 27 November 2025 interview with Yuri Tamantsev on RBC. I went back to verify it, but the entire interview is now missing from both RBC's website and Tamantsev's YouTube channel as well. Only a reupload of the first segment can be found on another YouTube channel.
> When it stops being a disagreement over policy and becomes a paid job for a foreign government to spread as much malicious FUD as possible.
Where is the evidence for your claim that Mearsheimer and Sachs are being paid to spread malicious FUD?
Are you implying that the officials in charge of providing support for the Ukrainian war effort believed that Mearsheimer and Sachs had access to superior intelligence on Russian's war disposition?
Blaming a YouTube analyst for the slow pace of weapons transfers and not the EU and NATO officials who were actually responsible for said transfers is a spectacular cope. If NATO is getting marching orders from random 3rd parties on YouTube and TV networks then there are a million problems more urgent to address than Mearscheimer's analysis here.
No, the reason for the slow trickle of weapons was because the West got high on their own supply after the successful 2022 offensives and actually thought they could break the Russian line without advanced weaponry. In that way Mearscheimer's message of caution was bang on - Ukraine should have negotiated peace when they had the upper hand, hundreds of thousands of good Ukranian and Russian men would be alive today.
What kind of "peace" would that be? Russia is not interested in peace, or do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?
The peace of Ukraine being neutral? Ukraine was officially neutral in 2014 (law from 2010, pushed by Russia), and see how that went.
So again, what kind of peace are you talking about?
Edit: Let me make the problem very clear:
- Ukraine wants a peace deal where Russia can't invaded again. After their experience with the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, the want hard security guarantees, not just Russian words on a piece of paper.
- Russia wants a peace deal where Ukraine's army is limited, and that doesn't allow foreign troops in Ukraine. Something else is unacceptable for them. In other words, a peace deal that is the perfect setup to invade again.
So again, what kind of peace deal are you talking about?
I’ve seen his interviews on YouTube and I’m not sure if he is a Russian asset or just says things contrary to the western narrative. There is a propaganda war.
So what hard evidence that he is working for the Russians?
If the people who attacked Ukraine without provocation - just as they attacked other neighbours in other regions - are attempting to bring down a democratically elected regimes across the region, so they can replace them with weak compliant puppets, the "thought crime" becomes straightforward self defence.
It was though. If Russia wanted to annex Ukrainian separatist states, it could have done so before they invaded.
Since it didn't, Ukraine never attacked Russian territory.
Then Ukraine the elected a Jewish person whose mother tongue is Russian and speaks Ukrainian with a slight russian accent. Which threw their 'Nazis who want to kill Russian-speaking Ukrainians' narrative in the trash, and maybe it was lived as a provocation since it made Russian propagandists looks like fools.
(1) It seems unlikely that the Russians would care about Ukraine having a Jewish president. Wikipedia suggests the Nazis killed around 3 Russians for every 2 Jews who died in the Holocaust and the Nazis never got to fully implement the plan [0] where they seriously tried to wipe out Slavic populations. "Nazi" to the Russians presumably means something different than Jew-hater. They don't need ideological tropes like the Americans do to justify why the Nazis were a unique evil - they were in the direct ad explicit Nazi firing line.
> If Russia wanted to annex Ukrainian separatist states, it could have done so before they invaded.
(2) You're not being very clear about your meaning when you say this. The obvious reading to me is that Russia had alternative routes to gain control of Ukrainian separatist states, which seems too weird to be what you mean - if that is the case then that would suggest they are invading because something political provoked them.
? Néo-nazis still hate on all Jews, this didn't change with the Gaza war.
I still think it is hard to call an entire nation neo-nazi, and then have that nation vote for a Jew (especially when that nation have a huge Christian majority.).
Like I said, it made propagandists look like fools.
When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, they were officially neutral (law from 2010, pushed by Russia). At the time of the invasion, there was neither political nor public will to join NATO.
Another fact: Maidan was not about joining NATO, but having equal economic ties to both Russia and EU.
So can you acknowledge that Russia didn't invade Ukraine because of NATO expansion?
Does it sound weird to you that after Russia's invasion in 2014, Ukraine cancelled their neutral status and wanted to join NATO?
Jaques Baud is not a "mouthpiece". He has never appeared on Russian state TV and has taken great pains to avoid citing Russian sources in his analysis. The problem is that what he has been saying about the Ukraine war (that the war is not winnable and peace should be negotiated as soon as possible) is dangerous as to European leadership.
It's not remotely dangerous to the European leadership.
It is dangerous to EU citizens who are on the receiving end of a campaign to radicalise national governments with far-right Russian-funded puppet regimes which will - clearly, as we can see in the US - be absolutely hostile to existing freedoms.
Honestly I feel like people won't care and the sanctioning helps less and less if it doesn't do the opposite.
They feel like repeatedly the baby was thrown out with the bathwater wrt migration and the like despite popular opinion being very much against those.
Often getting no genuine choice of opposition that wasn't fringe right.
Now I know so many people who will in turn throw out the bathwater containing their national or supranational interests, rule of law (that limited their options), etc.
People who one will struggle to reach across the isle... and it was utterly predictable.
If they don't want far-right Russian puppets to win then they should actually respond to the wants and needs of their voters instead of scolding anyone who goes against their neoliberal warmonger groupthink as "pro-Russian", whatever that means. They're only digging their own graves if they think denying reality will save them.
Or maybe we should stop the propaganda arm of the US fascists distorting the reality around here and inventing needs that our population doesn't actually need so that they are pushed towards far right parties?
Or how about making sure the corrupted US society do something about them messing up the world economy because rich people want to be richer and so they bought their governments through once again their propaganda arms of all the social media and news corporations they bought?
What about the parts where the US would bomb constantly the ME thus making the people living there want to move out. But of course they won't go to the place that bombed them, especially since there's a whole ocean between them so instead they come to us in the Europe. Oh and if it's not bombs, it's global warming anyway, another thing the current US government pushes hard for.
If you insinuate the current Russian govt is related in spirit with the hitlerian regime, please read a history book that wasn't written by cold war obsessed westerners.
> See thats why one needs a sovereign financial and banking system.
You mean a sovereign financial and banking system like the one currently freezing some $200B of Russian assets? Yeah I think the EU already has one of those.
Doesn’t really matter does it? Belgium was a founding member of the EU, and still strongly supports it. There’s a reason why Belgium has been at the centre of the debate around frozen Russian assets, if they really didn’t care, they would just release the funds and wash their hands of the whole affair.
That is not how SWIFT works at all. SWIFT is basically a peer to peer financial network between banks. Any bank can send any amount of money to any other bank, without any kind of approval from the US, provided they have an appropriate common facility. Which could be anything from both banks having accounts at a different common bank, or both banks holding accounts at a common national bank, which allows them to transact directly.
Pretty sure I saw an article describing some approval process. While trying to find it I found references to FATCA, TFTP, and some reporting by the NYT
The US can and does sanction entities that facilitate transactions it doesn't like, by cutting them off from the dollar system. That may be the source of your confusion.
No, it was an article by a European economist who was complaining about every transaction above a certain amount getting quietly reviewed in the US, before being released to the onward bank.
This is the banking Secrecy Act which handles money laundering stuff. AFAIK, it should be the local regulator that sees any transaction reports, but maybe I'm missing something.
That’s probably related to transactions large enough to warrant immediate settlement via a US federal reserve bank. Given US federal reserve banks sit at the heart of US dollar transactions (pretty much by definition, they’re the only entities actually capable of creating US dollars), very large transactions that create significant flow imbalances between two banks trading US dollars anywhere in the world, will result in a settlement at a federal reserve.
But that only applies to transactions happening in US dollars, and SWIFT deals in far more than US dollars. For US dollar transactions it’s easy to imagine federal reserve banks slowing the settlement process and demanding extra data. Something that would be very annoying for foreign banks to deal with, but hardly unexpected. The US does ultimately control the US dollar after all, and at least for now the US dollar remains the world’s reserve currency, which naturally gives the US an outsized influence in world financial markets. But Trump also seems hell bent on testing that privilege to breaking point.
You can't just hold a referendum to decide the relations between Switzerland and the EU -- the EU also gets to have a say. We have been incredibly patient with Switzerland in this regard but it can't continue. You must respect the agreements we already have with you and you cannot dictate the terms of new agreements with us.
(Background: some of the agreements with Switzerland have run out and we need new ones to replace them. Both sides continue as if the old agreements are still valid, Switzerland because it would hurt the country enormously if we didn't, the EU because it avoids antagonizing Switzerland and because it would slightly annoying if we didn't. We can literally take our marbles and go home without breaking any treaties with Switzerland. Many Swiss don't seem to understand that.)
Gun ownership is legal in France, why would EU care about it in Switzerland? Are you sure this information is from a trustworthy source? The rest I see where you're coming from, but this particular bit sounds like propaganda to me.
>If we don't comply, they will impose sanctions. They are even trying to make gun ownership illegal in Switzerland...
UK is the proof that nobody is forced to be part of EU or have good relations with EU. EU also forces food not contain excrements, where is your freedom to buy food with exfements?
As you can see I can also say ridiculous things.
Which "leftists" have monopolized the EU? What positions do they have to exert that kind of power, and what parties are they affiliated with?
Or is the EPP with the likes of Weber and von der Leyen "leftist" now? You have move quite far towards the extreme right for traditional conservative politicians to appear "leftist" to you.
Nationalism is on the rise in most EU countries and they get away with saying all kinds of things you apparently dream about, but feel censored to say. The tale of lacking free speech is a lie.
Free speech in the EU is different from the US. Insulting people is not considered free speech in the EU. Calling "fire" in a packed cinema wrongly is not covered by free speech in the EU.
You can say a lot of things, but you might feel social pressure, which is a feature, not a bug.
European States are vassals of America. They probably just reminded us poor helvetes that our neutrality and sovereignty was on paper only, and that if we opposed them, we would end up like Venezuela or Lybia.
Westerners never had free speech in the first place. We are free to fight amongst one another, but if we ever act in a manner that endangers the Power that be, you don't live very long.
Thanks for saying the truth. Free speech is a concept that has been prostituted for political gain, but only for the already powerful. It has never been the case that you could publish the crimes of powerful people and get away with it. And especially now that US has embraced the path of authoritarianism and the government is actively harassing and ridiculing journalists, as well as pulling funding for libraries and schools, a cornerstone of democracy, freedom, and justice. Values the US has abandoned in exchange for oligarchy.
reply