Thank you for your reporting; I especially appreciate the links to your sources.
Discussing Greenland, as important as it is, as a discrete issue risks missing the bigger picture here: taken together with threats against Mexico, Canada, Iran, the actions against Venezuela, and the assertions of intention to control the "western hemisphere", it's apparent that American imperialism is being revived. He even has a name for it: the Don-roe Doctrine. I can't think of any time in our past when we've gone galumphing around other countries getting our sticky fingers in resources that do not belong to us, that it has gone well for us.
So yes, absolutely we need to consider Greenland as its own issue, but we also need the broader context.
It also surprises me that he apparently is happy to narrow America's influence from the world to a hemisphere.
Even though I might not agree on every single point in your analysis, I really appreciate your effort to encourage everyone to slow down and think about what each side is saying and perhaps to come to a rational decision on the situation. And I totally agree with Diane's comments in St. Petersburg. The current focus on Greenland should also include a serious consideration of what climate change is having on the far north and what that might portend for the future of power relationships between the major powers. This should draw attention to the stupidity of the current American actions regarding climate change and encourage serious thought about the ramifications of climate change denial. Nevertheless, no one has the right to attempt to steal what belongs to someone else!
And however many ways I look at this it’s still wrong to threaten a hostile takeover of Greenland whether by military force or economic coercion.
It not only violates Greenland’s sovereignty, it upends NATO, giving Putin what he has tried and failed to achieve by force.
Thank you for your reporting; I especially appreciate the links to your sources.
Discussing Greenland, as important as it is, as a discrete issue risks missing the bigger picture here: taken together with threats against Mexico, Canada, Iran, the actions against Venezuela, and the assertions of intention to control the "western hemisphere", it's apparent that American imperialism is being revived. He even has a name for it: the Don-roe Doctrine. I can't think of any time in our past when we've gone galumphing around other countries getting our sticky fingers in resources that do not belong to us, that it has gone well for us.
So yes, absolutely we need to consider Greenland as its own issue, but we also need the broader context.
It also surprises me that he apparently is happy to narrow America's influence from the world to a hemisphere.
Even though I might not agree on every single point in your analysis, I really appreciate your effort to encourage everyone to slow down and think about what each side is saying and perhaps to come to a rational decision on the situation. And I totally agree with Diane's comments in St. Petersburg. The current focus on Greenland should also include a serious consideration of what climate change is having on the far north and what that might portend for the future of power relationships between the major powers. This should draw attention to the stupidity of the current American actions regarding climate change and encourage serious thought about the ramifications of climate change denial. Nevertheless, no one has the right to attempt to steal what belongs to someone else!