bassomitron@lemmy.world
on 02 Mar 12:18
nextcollapse
Genuine question, do they really want to be independent right now? I feel like Denmark is a primary obstacle to the US coming in and doing even more dumb shit.
Zachariah@lemmy.world
on 02 Mar 12:28
nextcollapse
Perhaps the test of sentiment on independence and Denmark ties has been astroturfed by the US.
Mr_WorldlyWiseman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 02 Mar 14:55
collapse
That is not true. Greenland has a long history as a colony and they want to have independence. There might be a handful of MAGAts acting in bad faith, but a majority of Greenlanders want some sort of increased autonomy, though it’s not clear on what that would look like.
Trump’s attacks on Greenlandic and Danish sovereignty have complicated things, and are actually pushing Greenlanders closer to Denmark, at least temporarily.
comrade_twisty@feddit.org
on 02 Mar 12:43
collapse
They could become independent and join the EU at the same time if they want independence and protection from the US.
No they couldn’t. There are lots of rules to joining the EU that Greenland, as an independent country may not meet. The EU is also not a military force in its own right, they would have to join NATO for that to occur - which they probably could but again, rules for joining that they may not be able to meet.
Though I could imagine that Greenlanders feel they should be independent, and likely the Danish would think so too, but currently they’re under Denmark’s ties to EU and NATO so, until the US threat has passed (over, into hell as he richly deserves), it may be best to stay linked. But I’d be asking for another vote in 5-10 years to reassess and to get ducks in a row to quickly sign onto both NATO and EU.
NotAnonymousAtAll@feddit.org
on 02 Mar 13:49
collapse
The EU is also not a military force in its own right
The European Treaties contain a common defence clause. Some even argue the wording is stronger than NATO article 5.
Of course that does not magically turn the EU into a single, efficient military organization; but it is certainly worth considering in the grand scheme of things.
The clause might be stronger, but there’s no EU forces, no EU equipment, no EU AWACS, and no EU command structure, to back up that clause. There’s many individual national militaries, but no dedicated EU military. NATO on the other hand has dedicated forces, equipment, command structure and so on. Logistics wins or loses wars. So even if the clause is stronger, is carries much less weight than NATO.
Being in the EU is however a decent deterrent for most purposes, but maybe not sufficient to deter Russia, China or USA.
threaded - newest
Genuine question, do they really want to be independent right now? I feel like Denmark is a primary obstacle to the US coming in and doing even more dumb shit.
Perhaps the test of sentiment on independence and Denmark ties has been astroturfed by the US.
That is not true. Greenland has a long history as a colony and they want to have independence. There might be a handful of MAGAts acting in bad faith, but a majority of Greenlanders want some sort of increased autonomy, though it’s not clear on what that would look like.
Trump’s attacks on Greenlandic and Danish sovereignty have complicated things, and are actually pushing Greenlanders closer to Denmark, at least temporarily.
They could become independent and join the EU at the same time if they want independence and protection from the US.
No they couldn’t. There are lots of rules to joining the EU that Greenland, as an independent country may not meet. The EU is also not a military force in its own right, they would have to join NATO for that to occur - which they probably could but again, rules for joining that they may not be able to meet.
Though I could imagine that Greenlanders feel they should be independent, and likely the Danish would think so too, but currently they’re under Denmark’s ties to EU and NATO so, until the US threat has passed (over, into hell as he richly deserves), it may be best to stay linked. But I’d be asking for another vote in 5-10 years to reassess and to get ducks in a row to quickly sign onto both NATO and EU.
The European Treaties contain a common defence clause. Some even argue the wording is stronger than NATO article 5.
eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/…/collective-defence.html
www.europarl.europa.eu/…/EPRS_ATA(2022)739250
Of course that does not magically turn the EU into a single, efficient military organization; but it is certainly worth considering in the grand scheme of things.
The clause might be stronger, but there’s no EU forces, no EU equipment, no EU AWACS, and no EU command structure, to back up that clause. There’s many individual national militaries, but no dedicated EU military. NATO on the other hand has dedicated forces, equipment, command structure and so on. Logistics wins or loses wars. So even if the clause is stronger, is carries much less weight than NATO.
Being in the EU is however a decent deterrent for most purposes, but maybe not sufficient to deter Russia, China or USA.
Greenland has a population of under 60,000.
Your point?