Max

Ok absolutely. I got caught up on a random detail and missed the forest for the trees a bit when reading what you were saying.

That’s exactly why capturing it physically makes no sense. It’s already controlled territory for all intents and purposes. Begging the people of Greenland to form an insurgency by invading the country, all so the US can own the territory on paper (more so than being part of NATO already makes it) has no benefit whatsoever.

Making deals to build more bases is exactly what Harris would do to accomplish the goal Trump is interested in. But that’s exactly business as usual, the polar opposite of threatening to invade.

Maybe I’m not understanding your point. You saying Harris would make deals to get more bases undermines the idea that Harris would be threatening Canada and Greenland with capture—which is what Trump is now doing. I thought you were saying that Harris would also be threatening to invade Greenland. That’s a ridiculous notion. Harris building bases in Greenland and deploying more troops to the arctic certainly isn’t, but a Harris govt (and any other presidential admin in memory, even Trump 1, when he was surrounded by old guard Bush republicans) would get the blessing of Denmark and Greenland to do it.

Do you not see a difference between making a deal with Denmark and Greenland to build bases vs the US threatening to take the land and personally physically administer all of Greenland? If you’re of the mind that it ultimately doesn’t matter how US troops end up in Greenland, whether as welcomed troops of an allied power, or an invading force, that may be our point of contention. I think that difference between new US troops in Greenland being perceived as ally or invader has huge implications for how the Euros and Canadians understand their relationship with the US from here forward.

Harris would be Biden 2. Biden made none of those moves or anything resembling them. The idea that a Harris govt would be making overtures to physically capturing NATO territory is so ridiculous that I’m not sure how you could possibly form such an opinion genuinely.

To your point, I think people substantially overstate how different it would be, but Trump’s threats to capture Canada and Greenland, the arbitrarily imposed and lifted tariffs, and humiliating Euro allies in a way that causes even the sycophants over there to try and do something about it, wouldn’t have happened under Harris. I think the Trump admin is accelerating the decline of the US to the point that I’m no longer concerned the US empire will manage to limp along until climate change makes the planet uninhabitable. A long line of uninterrupted Obama-style admins could have kept the empire rolling for decades longer than could possibly be managed after this Trump admin.

Prior to the second Trump admin, I think what you’re saying is undeniable. Trump 2 is a bit of a new animal though. His intense breaks from previous foreign affairs and financial moves in opposition to the steadiness and easy predictability loved by big capital is a paradigm shift away from business as usual. We’re in uncharted waters right now I think. That’s not to say the dems will in anyway rise to protecting the previous govt paradigm, as you put it well, they aren’t there to be opposition.

She’s not wrong and usually I find her writing insightful, I just think “actually you and the group you view as your mortal enemies are the same” is a less than optimal rhetorical strategy for convincing anyone who isn’t already in the know and just comes across as incredibly smug and annoying to ‘normal’ folks. I was being overly flippant though I’m sure.

I generally agree. My possibly naive hope is that Trump is significantly weakening the US’s position as global hegemon, which will eventually benefit humanity. But his admin’s actions are chaos at best and monstrous at worse.

Edit: I don’t know why I was so cranky earlier. Just ignore my complaining that someone was supposedly complaining.

Depends on what harm you care about. Trump is very clearly much more damaging for Americans than Harris could ever hope to be, probably to the (eventual) benefit of the global population, however.

Anyway, Johnstone’s insistence on whining about a single lib imagining she has any influence to get anyone to do anything is tiring but maybe an ego-boost on some level—I couldn’t imagine why else she thinks it deserves mention at all.