As US dominance over its sphere of influence intensifies, Canada and Europe, stuck with their geopolitical eggs all in the US basket, are vulnerable to becoming messy omelettes in America’s new gambit
The rest of your analysis is spot on, though. Ironically, persuading local elites, through ideological and economic capture. to go all quisling on their countrymen is exactly how we in Europe once ruled our own empires. Now Washington is using the same playbook against us, with great success. Turns out we were not special. Our former colonies must be watching with glee. If they still pay attention to us, that is.
The question is: will we have our own Mugabe and Ho Chi Minh?
Thank you! Greenland's problem is that it has Scandinavian-level social welfare but it is mostly subsidized by Denmark. If they choose independence then they lose all those services. It would be interesting to see if the US would match them. But then you might start getting struggling Americans moving to Greenland just for the excellent services. It's a pretty harsh place to live so I'm not sure how many would go.
Yes, the tables are turning on Europe. The French have a concept of a roi nègre that doesn't translate very elegantly into English but basically describes their leader's status nowadays. Your question about whether we have a Mugabe or Ho Chi Minh makes me laugh because I was considering making a joke about how Fidel Castro must be turning over in his grave because of how his biological son Justin refuses to stand up to the Americans! I have no idea if any of that is true, but personally I think it would be pretty cool to have Castro as my father.
I Greenland, which is resource-rich and largely untapped, goes all "drill, baby drill" after independence (something the danish government has historically resisted) they can emulate Alaska with its low taxes, miniature sovereign fund and dividends to residents. Maybe then they won't need subsidies to maintain a high standard of living.
In fact the high danish subsides to Greenland are framed partly as a compensation for the moratorium on mining and drilling on the island.
There is a strong circumstantial case against the US for blowing up Nord Stream. Some potential collateral damage from the US campaign against Greenland is that Denmark may release more evidence of the US role in the pipeline explosion. Already in October Denmark indicated that the US Navy was at the scene of the blasts.
Moreover, the US had:
• Motive: they’ve often broadcast their opposition to the pipeline. The attack happened at a time some Germans were proposing to open the pipeline, which would have split the Western alliance against Russia.
• Capacity: US has the technology and capacity to carry out such an attack. Only Russia has a similar capacity and they have been ruled out.
• Opportunity: The US has access to the Baltic Sea, as demonstrated by the Danish media report.
• Threats by High Officials: Both Biden and Victoria Nuland publicly threatened to destroy the pipeline. Biden’s "we will bring an end to it." strongly suggests premeditation.
• Benefits: With the pipeline off line, Europe was forced to purchase US LNG, which strongly benefitted US energy producers.
• Untenable Defense Theory: The US claim that drunk Ukrainians carried out the attacks from a rented yacht are ridiculous as the required decompression chambers or explosive charges could not have been accommodated on such a yacht.
Over the next year, if tensions continue to rise between the US and Europe, I expect more evidence to be released.
This is gossip and not documentation or a proof. None of your arguments is a proof. I could as well argue that it was Norway, because Norway wanted to sell more liquid gas to Germany, so it must be Norway. Or what about Sweden? I could find a swedish fisherman who claimed that the pipeline destroyed his fishing, so Sweden had a motive too. This is the way hobby detectives solve all criminal cases. Only they know who murdered Kennedy or Oluf Palme, because they know who had a motive.
It seems you are attacking the entire concept of circumstantial evidence (indicier betyder). Why? If you agree that the pipeline exploded as a result of an attack, then there must be a guilty party. If not the US then who? If you have an alternative theory I am happy to read it. If not, I wonder about your motives in denying the value of building circumstantial cases?
Whats the use of it? As I showed you, I can find a motive for every country in Europe to attack the pipeline. If you want more motives I can go on : It could be Holland, as a revenge for Russians shooting down MH17 over Donbas.
How would you like if it your neighbour was murdered, and somebody told the police that you where the killer, because they had heard you shouting at your neighbour. Following your logic a court should sentence you to prison. Luckily what counts in the real world is only facts, documentation and proof. Everything else is just meaningless gossip and stupid speculations and fantasies.
Your argument is that the very strong circumstantial case I presented can be negated by the exceedingly weak ones you are mentioning. If this were true then no one would ever be convicted of a crime in any circumstantial case since there are an infinite number of weak-to-non-existent cases the defense can present. Please present a something that is at least almost as convincing as my six points and we can have a reasonable discussion about whether your case is in fact stronger. Someone did it.
You’re fixating on the ‘motive’ point when other points (e.g. capacity) are even more important & distinguishing. Not a single country in Europe aside from Russia had the capacity to carry out the attack - let alone the motive, literal explicit expressions of intent, etc.
Fact is : You do not know anything more then the rest of us. All the information you give is written in all newspapers of the world. You do not have any information at all that all the rest of us did not have. You have read that Biden said; "we will bring an aénd to it " , well this was written in all newspapers around the world. What then happens that in your fantasy this means that this proves that the US has blown up the pipeline. In your fantasy the sentence by Biden is enough as a proof. You do not give any documentation or any other proof than this public sentence by Biden. Not very clever thinking. All the rest is just your own thinking. That the US wants to sell more gas to Europe, and therefore blew up the pipeline. Well, this is your assertion, but where is the proof for that? Where is the documentation? We only have your word for it, and you dont have any inside information or leaked documents or anything that can prove your ideas.
Greenland is not an integral part or a proper colony of Denmark but a self-governing territory with the right to declare independence at any time (i.e., nothing like the hurdles faced by Québec, Catalonia or Scotland). Thus the fate of Greenland will not be decided in Copenhagen or Brussels but in Nuuk. Denmark can easily opt out of this fight and save face if it wishes to.
The rest of your analysis is spot on, though. Ironically, persuading local elites, through ideological and economic capture. to go all quisling on their countrymen is exactly how we in Europe once ruled our own empires. Now Washington is using the same playbook against us, with great success. Turns out we were not special. Our former colonies must be watching with glee. If they still pay attention to us, that is.
The question is: will we have our own Mugabe and Ho Chi Minh?
Thank you! Greenland's problem is that it has Scandinavian-level social welfare but it is mostly subsidized by Denmark. If they choose independence then they lose all those services. It would be interesting to see if the US would match them. But then you might start getting struggling Americans moving to Greenland just for the excellent services. It's a pretty harsh place to live so I'm not sure how many would go.
Yes, the tables are turning on Europe. The French have a concept of a roi nègre that doesn't translate very elegantly into English but basically describes their leader's status nowadays. Your question about whether we have a Mugabe or Ho Chi Minh makes me laugh because I was considering making a joke about how Fidel Castro must be turning over in his grave because of how his biological son Justin refuses to stand up to the Americans! I have no idea if any of that is true, but personally I think it would be pretty cool to have Castro as my father.
I Greenland, which is resource-rich and largely untapped, goes all "drill, baby drill" after independence (something the danish government has historically resisted) they can emulate Alaska with its low taxes, miniature sovereign fund and dividends to residents. Maybe then they won't need subsidies to maintain a high standard of living.
In fact the high danish subsides to Greenland are framed partly as a compensation for the moratorium on mining and drilling on the island.
.... the first decisive strike of this rising new order was the Biden Administration’s destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline.
Documentation??
There is a strong circumstantial case against the US for blowing up Nord Stream. Some potential collateral damage from the US campaign against Greenland is that Denmark may release more evidence of the US role in the pipeline explosion. Already in October Denmark indicated that the US Navy was at the scene of the blasts.
Moreover, the US had:
• Motive: they’ve often broadcast their opposition to the pipeline. The attack happened at a time some Germans were proposing to open the pipeline, which would have split the Western alliance against Russia.
• Capacity: US has the technology and capacity to carry out such an attack. Only Russia has a similar capacity and they have been ruled out.
• Opportunity: The US has access to the Baltic Sea, as demonstrated by the Danish media report.
• Threats by High Officials: Both Biden and Victoria Nuland publicly threatened to destroy the pipeline. Biden’s "we will bring an end to it." strongly suggests premeditation.
• Benefits: With the pipeline off line, Europe was forced to purchase US LNG, which strongly benefitted US energy producers.
• Untenable Defense Theory: The US claim that drunk Ukrainians carried out the attacks from a rented yacht are ridiculous as the required decompression chambers or explosive charges could not have been accommodated on such a yacht.
Over the next year, if tensions continue to rise between the US and Europe, I expect more evidence to be released.
This is gossip and not documentation or a proof. None of your arguments is a proof. I could as well argue that it was Norway, because Norway wanted to sell more liquid gas to Germany, so it must be Norway. Or what about Sweden? I could find a swedish fisherman who claimed that the pipeline destroyed his fishing, so Sweden had a motive too. This is the way hobby detectives solve all criminal cases. Only they know who murdered Kennedy or Oluf Palme, because they know who had a motive.
It seems you are attacking the entire concept of circumstantial evidence (indicier betyder). Why? If you agree that the pipeline exploded as a result of an attack, then there must be a guilty party. If not the US then who? If you have an alternative theory I am happy to read it. If not, I wonder about your motives in denying the value of building circumstantial cases?
Whats the use of it? As I showed you, I can find a motive for every country in Europe to attack the pipeline. If you want more motives I can go on : It could be Holland, as a revenge for Russians shooting down MH17 over Donbas.
How would you like if it your neighbour was murdered, and somebody told the police that you where the killer, because they had heard you shouting at your neighbour. Following your logic a court should sentence you to prison. Luckily what counts in the real world is only facts, documentation and proof. Everything else is just meaningless gossip and stupid speculations and fantasies.
Your argument is that the very strong circumstantial case I presented can be negated by the exceedingly weak ones you are mentioning. If this were true then no one would ever be convicted of a crime in any circumstantial case since there are an infinite number of weak-to-non-existent cases the defense can present. Please present a something that is at least almost as convincing as my six points and we can have a reasonable discussion about whether your case is in fact stronger. Someone did it.
You’re fixating on the ‘motive’ point when other points (e.g. capacity) are even more important & distinguishing. Not a single country in Europe aside from Russia had the capacity to carry out the attack - let alone the motive, literal explicit expressions of intent, etc.
Fact is : You do not know anything more then the rest of us. All the information you give is written in all newspapers of the world. You do not have any information at all that all the rest of us did not have. You have read that Biden said; "we will bring an aénd to it " , well this was written in all newspapers around the world. What then happens that in your fantasy this means that this proves that the US has blown up the pipeline. In your fantasy the sentence by Biden is enough as a proof. You do not give any documentation or any other proof than this public sentence by Biden. Not very clever thinking. All the rest is just your own thinking. That the US wants to sell more gas to Europe, and therefore blew up the pipeline. Well, this is your assertion, but where is the proof for that? Where is the documentation? We only have your word for it, and you dont have any inside information or leaked documents or anything that can prove your ideas.
Greenland is not an integral part or a proper colony of Denmark but a self-governing territory with the right to declare independence at any time (i.e., nothing like the hurdles faced by Québec, Catalonia or Scotland). Thus the fate of Greenland will not be decided in Copenhagen or Brussels but in Nuuk. Denmark can easily opt out of this fight and save face if it wishes to.
Denmark has a de facto veto right over Greenlandic independence, as any such move requires approval of Folketinget.
Greenland is also a de facto colony of Denmark, with Greenlandic people being a fourth/fifth-class citizens in the kingdom.