I am surprised the percentage is so low.
this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2025
587 points (99.5% liked)
Europe
4176 readers
2278 users here now
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
(This list may get expanded when necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
What's with this thumbnail? π
Denmark and Greenland kissing to make Trump jealous.
Someone i know is adamant that only an official referendum can show that greenland doesn't want to join the us because all media is fake news.
I am sure this person then also takes the reasonable position of beliving that only an official referendum can show that Greenland does want to join the us because all media is fake news, ...right?
I guess we'll see lol
did they need to have a poll for this? it seems crazy to me. can we just have a poll and then dissolve into another country?
That's basically what the UK did lmao π₯²
yeah that one was crazy too. why did they do that
That was a nonbinding referendum! That somehow bound the UK to the outcome. Totally different.
Sure it was only the voting public's marginal preference at one point in time and it matches exactly with Russian geopolitical aims and it's a non-binding referendum pushed by moneyed interests and it was never going to be a good idea but that's what it looks like to have a mandate for abandoning free trade, international standards, freedom of movement, and a privileged status in the federation.
Exactly!
If a country is sovereign and independent, its government can do whatever the fuck it wants, as long as the people don't start building guillotines.
could they hypotethically defend themselves?
Only with guerrilla tactics against the US army, like Vietnam or the Taliban. They would still be occupied. No army in the world can stop a US offensive. They invested a lot in order to make it so. Fighting the US on a conventional war style is suicide.
The real pain to the US would come in the form of trade sanctions and loss of military allies in the EU and elsewhere in the democratic world. It would take a few years, because the EU and the US are pretty interconnected. Nato would probably be dead in the water.
After that it's speculation that US enemies would seize the opportunity of their isolation. The lack of trade would severely impact revenues and Americans would be in for the wildest depression of US history, with a likely forecast of IRA style civil war between Democrats and Republicans. If Greenlanders kept at it, they would eventually take the region back.
The US isn't a dictatorship, it's a democracy. Democracies don't usually fare well on offensive land grab wars for very long. So the US would either let go of Greenland with a new, sane president or become a dictatorship eventually. Lots of ifs in this scenario but taking Greenland would cause a lot of hurt for the US undoubtedly.
The US isnβt a dictatorship
i mean, eeeeeeeeeeh... its technically an oligarchy. which i wouldnt call a democracy at all.
They are part of Denmark and they could think about joining the EU.
I'm not quite sure if they are as a part of Denmark protected by the EU defense clause, but NATO article 5 should work for them.
isnt the US also a part of NATO? and a big contributor at that?
Yes and per article 5 the US would have to act as if they attacked themselves. Since this is quite silly, an attack of the US against Greenland would most probably either lead to the US having to leave NATO (I don't know, if there is a way to expel a country from NATO) or NATO dissolving completely.
I don't think they plan on following the rules for this one though. Dissolving NATO aligns with Trumps interests so I can see that happening.
Although they would probably find a diplomatic way of taking control of their minerals, similar to what they just did in Panama.
What happens according to article 5 if a NATO member attacks another NATO member?
Article 5
βThe Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.β
https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_110496.htm
Guess the US had to provide help against themselves in that case. Probably either the alliance as a whole would dissolve or the US would have to leave it.
Whatβs wrong with 15% of Greenlanders?
15% thinks it's not possible and thought it was a joke.
That's how we got in this position in the first place
Same as around that percentage of Canadians.
There seems to be about 15 to 20% of humans in every country that are irredeemable.
Maybe part of them didn't want to answer the question.
Why not ask them if they want to rejoin the EU?
Huh, I didn't know they weren't. I assumed that they counted as part of Denmark, but apparently the type of not-state they are is separate.
After becoming autonomous in 1979, Greenlanders chose to leave the EEC, the precessor of the EU, by a referendum in 1982.
TIL! Thank you.
15% are dumb or misunderstood the question at this point.
So like 146 people.
Closer to 9000. You number math's out to there being more people in my graduating class than currently living in Greenland. I didn't grow up in that big a town.
The Danish minister of foreign affairs thought it was really important that Trump said in his idiotic speech that he recognised the self-determination of the Greenlanders: β(Trump) said (they) respect the right to Greenlandic self-determination, and that I think was the most important part of that speech, ...β
Like anything that Trump says matters (besides, if it did matter, being the bare minimum anyway).
The butt-licking is quite offensive.
I'm not sure, that this is buttlucking, but much more of showing publicly what the people actually want, because Trump would describe his possible invasion as liberation of those poor people - put maybe he still will do that, as there are seemingly 6% idiots
6% is minority. Which means they are oppressed. Quick! They need help!
And the other 15%β¦?
Not Greenland, but the CBC did find a guy that wanted Canada to be part of the US. That dude's entire motivation in life was money and didn't seem to have any thoughts on any other subject.
According to Google translate
...
Six percent of Greenlanders want Greenland to become part of the United States, while nine percent are undecided on the question.
That's wild π€¦ββοΈ
It's pretty much in line with the "Lizardman Constant," named after a poll that 4% of Americans think the world is run by lizard people. You can ask anything in a poll and you'll pretty much always get around 4% trolling or whatever.
I think more than 4% of Americans think reptilians run the world these days
They are reading Fox-News.
Greenlanders are at least 30% smarter than my fellow Americans. Congratulations and I hope to see you all in August (for a previously planned vacation, not a hostile takeover lol)
βSounds like fake news to meβ - some maga cuck