Bulgaria and Romania have been fully integrated into the Schengen Area, as of 1 Jan 2025.

The free-travel area now includes all EU states except Cyprus, which is in the process of joining, and Ireland, whose membership is complicated by its Common Trade Area with former EU-member the United Kingdom. Also members are four non-EU states: Iceland, Switzerland, Norway and Liechtenstein.

There are also four small countries that are not officially in Schengen but effectively have open borders with a Schengen state or two: San Marino, Andorra, Monaco, and the Vatican.

Why is Australia Preparing For War with China?

Is an invasion of Australia by China possible? Rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific, military buildups, and fears over Taiwan have Australians on edge. Experts warn Australia could be dragged into a U.S.-China conflict—or face direct threats from Beijing. This video dives into the risks, military comparisons, and the strategic stakes for both nations. Is Australia ready for such a challenge?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THcjBOV-7yg

Spiny Norman said:

Why is Australia Preparing For War with China?

Is an invasion of Australia by China possible? Rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific, military buildups, and fears over Taiwan have Australians on edge. Experts warn Australia could be dragged into a U.S.-China conflict—or face direct threats from Beijing. This video dives into the risks, military comparisons, and the strategic stakes for both nations. Is Australia ready for such a challenge?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THcjBOV-7yg

Any move by China to take Taiwan is not a US-China war. It is a regional war. If China succeed in taking Taiwan then they control the whole region, and can choke off any other regional trade they chose. Including ours. Being part of the pro-Taiwan group is not being dragged into somebody else’s war.

Spiny Norman said:

Why is Australia Preparing For War with China?

Is an invasion of Australia by China possible? Rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific, military buildups, and fears over Taiwan have Australians on edge. Experts warn Australia could be dragged into a U.S.-China conflict—or face direct threats from Beijing. This video dives into the risks, military comparisons, and the strategic stakes for both nations. Is Australia ready for such a challenge?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THcjBOV-7yg

When was Australia ever ‘ready for such a challenge’?

To my mind, the nearest we’ve ever been to being ‘ready for such a challenge’ was the lateer 1960s / first half of the 1970s.

We had an army that was (more or less) geared for combat in Asia, especially south-east Asia, a reasonably-well-balanced air force (the arrival of F-4 Phantoms and then F-111s did much to bolster that), and a quite capable navy, with its own aviation component, and a strong emphasis on anti-submarine warfare, enhanced by the early ’70s expansion of amphibious landing abilities.

Since then, it’s been a process of fragmenting of the cohesiveness of the force structure (despite various efforts to coalesce it again), with much due to the RAAF’s paranoia, self-adoration, and sulking about various perceived slights, and the politicking and lobbying that came from that.

sorry we haven’t factchecked

SCIENCE said:

sorry we haven’t factchecked

I hope they give him a note

look we don’t know much about burning down wildlife in major urban centres but as to the last part we suppose people could just not engage in gunfire and war in the first place

oh what was that did someone just say that fireworks led to guns

ah fuck

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

sorry we haven’t factchecked

I hope they give him a note

I don’t think they give notes to allow people to remove heads or commit war crimes

There’s still plenty of footage of people’s heads being sawn off by the new government. New boss like the old boss.

Canadialand.

https://globalnews.ca/news/10945543/cochrane-daughter-death-urgent-care/

annexation by a cuntry with an awesome healthcare system would have prevented slash fixed this

The Danish Coat of Arms has been updated.

OLD

NEW

The Ram representing the Faroes and the Polar Bear representing Greenland have been given greater prominence. Schleswig is represented by the two lions passant. Whereas before there were two representations of the three lions of Denmark, now there is only one.

The three crowns representing the Kalmar Union between Denmark, Norway and Sweden have been removed completely. This symbol has been part of the Danish CoA for 500 years but in fairness I suppose it is not so relevant now.

There’s been some speculation that the greater prominence of Greenland is a rebuke to the once and future President.

dv said:

The Danish Coat of Arms has been updated.

OLD

NEW

The Ram representing the Faroes and the Polar Bear representing Greenland have been given greater prominence. Schleswig is represented by the two lions passant. Whereas before there were two representations of the three lions of Denmark, now there is only one.

The three crowns representing the Kalmar Union between Denmark, Norway and Sweden have been removed completely. This symbol has been part of the Danish CoA for 500 years but in fairness I suppose it is not so relevant now.

There’s been some speculation that the greater prominence of Greenland is a rebuke to the once and future President.

going to be in sore need of revision again when the Second Fascist Occupation occurs

Wait so they admit it then¿ In the anti doping world, you pay for results¿

Dissatisfied over the handling of the Russian doping scandal, the first Trump White House started asking for reforms with the potential of tying them to its annual payment.

More recently, WADA’s handling of cases involving 23 Chinese swimmers has been a focal point of criticism.

A government study that came out in 2020 concluded Americans didn’t get their money’s worth from the contribution. Shortly after, Congress gave the ONDCP discretion to withhold future funding.

makes sense

notgreen land

While Kristrún, who at 36 years old is not only Iceland’s youngest ever leader but also understood to be the world’s youngest serving state leader, says she had no intention of forming a female-dominated government, she has ended up with a coalition run entirely by women.

as some of yous have suggested it would be wise for governments that run their own currencies and websites and identity services to also provide a sovereign online town square, we are on board with this idea

SCIENCE said:

as some of yous have suggested it would be wise for governments that run their own currencies and websites and identity services to also provide a sovereign online town square, we are on board with this idea

sorry forgot to include the context here have some

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/12/elon-musk-and-the-new-world-order-the-hijacking-of-the-global-conversation

SCIENCE said:

notgreen land

While Kristrún, who at 36 years old is not only Iceland’s youngest ever leader but also understood to be the world’s youngest serving state leader, says she had no intention of forming a female-dominated government, she has ended up with a coalition run entirely by women.

Interesting.

SCIENCE said:

as some of yous have suggested it would be wise for governments that run their own currencies and websites and identity services to also provide a sovereign online town square, we are on board with this idea

Works for China…

Michael V said:

SCIENCE said:

as some of yous have suggested it would be wise for governments that run their own currencies and websites and identity services to also provide a sovereign online town square, we are on board with this idea

Works for China…

Limiting speech as a modus operandi is not what MZL is suggesting.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Michael V said:

SCIENCE said:

as some of yous have suggested it would be wise for governments that run their own currencies and websites and identity services to also provide a sovereign online town square, we are on board with this idea

Works for China…

Limiting speech as a modus operandi is not what MZL is suggesting.

yeah well it was also mentioned that ABC had something like that 25 years ago but it got too much so FTL but as private enterprises have shown, it’s not infeasible for a sovereign state to provide such access to a curated public space

we’re suggesting that governments provide that space as an option, not that governments restrict users to that space

(but yes it does seem to work for CHINA so make of that what yous will)

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

The DOJ’s “view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind”

Honestly that’s completely fucked up. Boris Johnson was successfully prosecuted in office. Park Geun-hye was convicted of bribery. Jacques Chirac went down for embezzlement. It’s just a gig. It’s an administrative position. It’s not supposed to be a get out of jail free card.

so uh how’s the law enforcement with that Korean ex president fella going then

She was imprisoned for five years and then received a pardon on compassionate grounds. She paid a fine of around 10 million dollars.

the fella not the shella… but we suppose it ain’t over yet, they’re still out with a warrant

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-15/police-enter-yoon-suk-yeol-presidential-compound-south-korea/104818212

South Korean authorities are at impeached president Yoon Suk Yeol’s residence to execute an arrest warrant tied to his controversial martial law declaration in December.

Yonhap News Agency is reporting that some ruling party MPs have formed a human chain outside the residence to block the arrest.

About 6,500 supporters have also gathered in front of Mr Yoon’s residence, according to police data.

South Korean police are attempting to enter Mr Yoon’s residence from back of compound.

Video footage showed investigating officers trying to push through a crowd of Mr Yoon’s supporters gathered outside his hillside villa, where he has been holed up for weeks behind barbed wire and a small army of personal security.

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

She was imprisoned for five years and then received a pardon on compassionate grounds. She paid a fine of around 10 million dollars.

the fella not the shella… but we suppose it ain’t over yet, they’re still out with a warrant

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-15/police-enter-yoon-suk-yeol-presidential-compound-south-korea/104818212

South Korean authorities are at impeached president Yoon Suk Yeol’s residence to execute an arrest warrant tied to his controversial martial law declaration in December.

Yonhap News Agency is reporting that some ruling party MPs have formed a human chain outside the residence to block the arrest.

About 6,500 supporters have also gathered in front of Mr Yoon’s residence, according to police data.

South Korean police are attempting to enter Mr Yoon’s residence from back of compound.

Video footage showed investigating officers trying to push through a crowd of Mr Yoon’s supporters gathered outside his hillside villa, where he has been holed up for weeks behind barbed wire and a small army of personal security.

oh

South Korea’s anti-corruption agency says impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol has been detained, several hours after hundreds of the agency’s investigators and police officers arrived at his presidential compound to apprehend him.

China’s Invasion Barges, Leading Indicator Of Plans For Taiwan

China is building a new and innovative type of landing barge which can only be explained by a planned amphibious assault. Unscripted & unedited, just a defence analyst sharing knowledge.

https://www.youtube.com/live/Klkpk_hO4FQ

Spiny Norman said:

China’s Invasion Barges, Leading Indicator Of Plans For Taiwan

China is building a new and innovative type of landing barge which can only be explained by a planned amphibious assault. Unscripted & unedited, just a defence analyst sharing knowledge.

https://www.youtube.com/live/Klkpk_hO4FQ

But could it still be all bluff and bluster?

roughbarked said:

Spiny Norman said:

Kingy said:

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/01/china-suddenly-building-fleet-of-special-barges-suitable-for-taiwan-landings/

Anyone wondering what an invasion of Taiwan might look like now has a fresh visual clue. Defence analysts watching Chinese shipyards have noticed an increase in a particular type of vessel. A number of special and unusual barges, at least 3 but likely 5 or more, have been observed in Guangzhou Shipyard in southern China. These have unusually long road bridges extending from their bows. This configuration makes them particularly relevant to any future landing of PRC (People’s Republic of China) forces on Taiwanese islands. Naval News has seen multiple sources confirming their construction, and has shared information with naval experts to validate our preliminary analysis. The consensus is that these are most likely for amphibious landings.

LOL

why do you believe it is a laughing matter?

And in tomorrows news, Taiwan begins building a fleet of autonomous sea drones.

China’s Invasion Barges, Leading Indicator Of Plans For Taiwan

China is building a new and innovative type of landing barge which can only be explained by a planned amphibious assault. Unscripted & unedited, just a defence analyst sharing knowledge.

https://www.youtube.com/live/Klkpk_hO4FQ

But could it still be all bluff and bluster?

still

Cymek said:

The U.S. Treasury Department sanctions the head of the Sudanese Armed Forces Abdel Fattah al-Burhan for “destabilizing Sudan and undermining the goal of a democratic transition” to a civilian-led government.

The lack of irony is strong in this one

why, don’t they have the correct type of ore for CHINA to steel

dv said:

I had an ambulance transfer from St John of god Murdoch to Fiona Stanley For those unfamiliar, these two hospitals are next to each other. The bill was $1200.

dv said:

how is that worse than VIC though

Arts said:

dv said:

I had an ambulance transfer from St John of god Murdoch to Fiona Stanley For those unfamiliar, these two hospitals are next to each other. The bill was $1200.

did you agree to it before taking the ride

SCIENCE said:

Arts said:

dv said:

I had an ambulance transfer from St John of god Murdoch to Fiona Stanley For those unfamiliar, these two hospitals are next to each other. The bill was $1200.

did you agree to it before taking the ride

I didn’t have a choice

Arts said:

SCIENCE said:

Arts said:

I had an ambulance transfer from St John of god Murdoch to Fiona Stanley For those unfamiliar, these two hospitals are next to each other. The bill was $1200.

did you agree to it before taking the ride

I didn’t have a choice

I should start an ambo business. I reckon i could get that done for $1160 tops.

Arts said:

dv said:

I had an ambulance transfer from St John of god Murdoch to Fiona Stanley For those unfamiliar, these two hospitals are next to each other. The bill was $1200.

Tell em they’re dreaming.

dv said:

Arts said:

SCIENCE said:

did you agree to it before taking the ride

I didn’t have a choice

I should start an ambo business. I reckon i could get that done for $1160 tops.

yeah so much for informed consent

dv said:

Arts said:

SCIENCE said:

did you agree to it before taking the ride

I didn’t have a choice

I should start an ambo business. I reckon i could get that done for $1160 tops.

Ambulance is free in Qld, paid for by a levy on your electricity bill I think.
Hospitals used to be free also in Qld paid for by the Golden Casket.
They were the days.

Arts said:

dv said:

I had an ambulance transfer from St John of god Murdoch to Fiona Stanley For those unfamiliar, these two hospitals are next to each other. The bill was $1200.

Ouch.

I used to park at SJoG for my appointments at FSH, since parking there was around half the price. Mind you, that has probably been noticed and rectified now.

Arts said:

SCIENCE said:

Arts said:

I had an ambulance transfer from St John of god Murdoch to Fiona Stanley For those unfamiliar, these two hospitals are next to each other. The bill was $1200.

did you agree to it before taking the ride

I didn’t have a choice

Madness. Ambliances are free on this triangle island.

Bubblecar said:

Arts said:

SCIENCE said:

did you agree to it before taking the ride

I didn’t have a choice

Madness. Ambliances are free on this triangle island.

What is odd is that an inter-hospital transfer requires a payment.

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

Arts said:

I didn’t have a choice

I should start an ambo business. I reckon i could get that done for $1160 tops.

yeah so much for informed consent

Implied consent rocks.

Peak Warming Man said:

Hospitals used to be free also in Qld paid for by the Golden Casket.
They were the days.

What’s the situation now?

I’m not going to defend the PRC but this is a pretty hot take given that the USA banned the whole Tiktok app…

dv said:

I’m not going to defend the PRC but this is a pretty hot take given that the USA banned the whole Tiktok app…

what do you mean defend we thought the fascists were gushing about how this is a good thing

I think it is time for the EU to just simply ban the sale of any new Tesla cars, or the installation of any Tesla branded charging infrastructure. An overt ban in response to direct foreign interference in EU politics.

If that tanks the share price, so be it.

Also sends a message to China that the EU might do the same thing to them if they overstep the line on political interference.

it might also accidentally give a boost to European car makers and their EV models within the EU market.

Meanwhile In Dirty ASIA

Do they do the same when it’s foggy?

Arts said:

Do they do the same when it’s foggy?

Play firecrackers until the skies become clouded¿ Almost certainly, they would play 0 firecrackers until the foggy skies become clouded, so yes¿

GLOBAL
EUROPE’S ELON MUSK PROBLEM
He and other tech oligarchs are making it impossible to conduct free and fair elections anywhere.

By Anne Applebaum

During an american election, a rich man can hand out $1 million checks to prospective voters. Companies and people can use secretly funded “dark money” nonprofits to donate unlimited money, anonymously, to super PACs, which can then spend it on advertising campaigns. Pod­casters, partisans, or anyone, really, can tell outrageous, incendiary lies about a candidate. They can boost those falsehoods through targeted online advertising. No special courts or election rules can stop the disinformation from spreading before voters see it. The court of public opinion, which over the past decade has seen and heard everything, no longer cares. U.S. elections are now a political Las Vegas: Anything goes.

But that’s not the way elections are run in other countries. In Britain, political parties are, at least during the run-up to an election, limited to spending no more than £54,010 per candidate. In Germany, as in many other European countries, the state funds political parties, proportionate to their number of elected parliamentarians, so that politicians do not have to depend on, and become corrupted by, wealthy donors. In Poland, courts fast-track election-related libel cases in the weeks before a vote in order to discourage people from lying.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/03/musk-tech-oligarch-european-election-influence/681453/

Nor is this unique to Europe. Many democracies have state or public media that are obligated, at least in principle, to give equal time to all sides. Many require political donations to be transparent, with the names of donors listed in an online registry. Many have limits on political advertising. Some countries also have rules about hate speech and indict people who break them.

Countries apply these laws to create conditions for fair debate, to build trust in the system, and to inspire confidence in the winning candidates. Some democracies believe that transparency matters—­that voters should know who is funding their candidates, as well as who is paying for political messages on social media or anywhere else. In some places, these rules have a loftier goal: to prevent the rise of anti­democratic extremism of the kind that has engulfed democracies—­and especially European democracies—­­in the past.

But for how much longer can democracies pursue these goals? We live in a world in which algorithms controlled by American and Chinese oligarchs choose the messages and images seen by millions of people; in which money can move through secret bank accounts with the help of crypto schemes; and in which this dark money can then boost anonymous social-media accounts with the aim of shaping public opinion. In such a world, how can any election rules be enforced? If you are Albania, or even the United Kingdom, do you still get to set the parameters of your public debate? Or are you now forced to be Las Vegas too?

Although it’s easy to get distracted by the schoolyard nicknames and irresponsible pedophilia accusations that Elon Musk flings around, these are the real questions posed by his open, aggressive use of X to spread false information and promote extremist and anti-European politicians in the U.K., Germany, and elsewhere. The integrity of elections—and the possibility of debate untainted by misinformation injected from abroad—is equally challenged by TikTok, the Chinese platform, and by Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, whose subsidiaries include Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Threads. TikTok says the company does not accept any paid political advertising. Meta, which announced in January that it is abandoning fact-checking on its sites in the U.S., also says it will continue to comply with European laws. But even before Zucker­berg’s radical policy change, these promises were empty. Meta’s vaunted content curation and moderation have never been transparent. Nobody knew, and nobody knows, what exactly Facebook’s algorithm was promoting and why. Even an occasional user of these platforms encounters spammers, scammers, and opaque accounts running foreign influence operations. No guide to the algorithm, and no real choices about it, are available on Meta products, X, or TikTok.

Musk’s personal X account has more than 212 million followers, giving him enormous power to set the news agenda around the world.

In truth, no one knows if any platforms really comply with political-funding rules either, because nobody outside the companies can fully monitor what happens online during an intense election campaign—and after the voting has ended, it’s too late. According to declassified Romanian-intelligence documents, someone allegedly spent more than $1 million on TikTok content in the 18 months before an election in support of a Romanian presidential candidate who declared that he himself had spent nothing at all. In a belated attempt to address this and other alleged discrepancies, a Romanian court canceled the first round of that election, a decision that itself damaged Romanian democracy.

Not all of this is new. Surreptitious political-party funding was a feature of the Cold War, and the Russian government has continued this practice, sometimes by offering deals to foreign business­people close to pro-Russian politicians. Press moguls with international political ambitions are hardly a novelty. Rupert Murdoch, an Australian who has U.S. citizenship, has long played an outsize role in U.K. politics through his media companies. John Major, the former British prime minister and Conservative Party leader, has said that in 1997, Murdoch threatened to pull his newspapers’ support unless the prime minister pursued a more anti-European policy. Major refused. Murdoch has said, “I have never asked a prime minister for anything,” but one of his Conservative-­leaning tabloids, The Sun, did endorse the Labour Party in the next election. Major lost.

That incident now seems almost quaint. Even at the height of its influence, the print edition of The Sun sold 4 million copies a day. More to the point, it operated, and still does, within the constraints of U.K. rules and regulations, as do all broadcast and print media. Murdoch’s newspapers take British libel and hate-speech laws into consideration when they run stories. His business strategy is necessarily shaped by rules limiting what a single company can own. After his journalists were accused of hacking phones and bribing police in the early 2000s, Murdoch himself had to testify before an investigative commission, and he closed down one of his tabloids for good.

Social media not only has far greater reach—Musk’s personal X account has more than 212 million followers, giving him enormous power to set the news agenda around the world—it also exists outside the legal system. Under the American law known as Section 230, passed nearly three decades ago, internet platforms are not treated as publishers in the U.S. In practice, neither Facebook nor X has the same legal responsibility for what appears on their platforms as do, say, TheWall Street Journal and CNN. And this, too, has consequences: Americans have created the information climate that other countries must accept, and this allows deceptive election practices to thrive. If countries don’t have their own laws, and until recently most did not, Section 230 effectively requires them to treat social-media companies as if they exist outside their legal systems too.

Brazil broke with this pattern last year, when a judge demanded that Musk comply with Brazilian laws against spreading misinformation and political extremism, and forced X offline until he did. Several European countries, including the U.K., Germany, and France, have also passed laws designed to bring the platforms into compliance with their own legal systems, mandating fines for companies that violate hate-speech laws or host other illegal content. But these laws are controversial and hard to enforce. Besides, “illegal speech” is not necessarily the central problem. No laws prevented Musk from interviewing Alice Weidel, a leader of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, on X, thereby providing her with a huge platform, available to no other political candidate, in the month before a national election. The interview, which included several glaringly false statements (among others, that Weidel was the “leading” candidate), was viewed 45 million times in 24 hours, a number far beyond the reach of any German public or private media.

Only one institution on the planet is large enough and powerful enough to write and enforce laws that could make the tech companies change their policies. Partly for that reason, the European Union may soon become one of the Trump administration’s most prominent targets. In theory, the EU’s Digital Services Act, which took full effect last year, can be used to regulate, fine, and, in extreme circumstances, ban internet companies whose practices clash with European laws. Yet a primary intent of the act is not punitive, but rather to open up the platforms: to allow vetted researchers access to platform data, and to give citizens more transparency about what they hear and see. Freedom of speech also means the right to receive information, and at the moment social-media companies operate behind a curtain. We don’t know if they are promoting or suppressing certain points of view, curbing or encouraging orchestrated political campaigns, discouraging or provoking violent riots. Above all, we don’t know who is paying for misinformation to be spread online.

In the past, the EU has not hesitated to try to apply European law to tech companies. Over the past decade, for example, Google has faced three fines totaling more than $8 billion for breaking antitrust law (though one of these fines was overturned by the EU’s General Court in 2024).

A group of American oligarchs want to undermine European institutions because they don’t want to be regulated.

In November, the European Commission fined Meta more than $800 million for unfair trade practices. But for how much longer will the EU have this authority? In the fall, J. D. Vance issued an extraordinarily unsubtle threat, one that is frequently repeated in Europe. “If NATO wants us to continue supporting them and NATO wants us to continue to be a good participant in this military alliance,” Vance told an interviewer, “why don’t you respect American values and respect free speech?” Mark Zuckerberg, echoing Vance’s misuse of the expression free speech to mean “freedom to conceal company practices from the public,” put it even more crudely. In a conversation with Joe Rogan in January, Zuckerberg said he feels “optimistic” that President Donald Trump will intervene to stop the EU from enforcing its own antitrust laws: “I think he just wants America to win.”

Does America “winning” mean that European democracies, and maybe other democracies, lose? Some European politicians think it might. Robert Habeck, the German vice chancellor and a leader of that country’s Green Party, believes that Musk’s frenzies of political activity on X aren’t the random blurts of an addled mind, but rather are “logical and systematic.” In his New Year’s address, Habeck said that Musk is deliberately “strengthening those who are weakening Europe,” including the explicitly anti-European AfD. This, he believes, is because “a weak Europe is in the interest of those for whom regulation is an inappropriate limitation of their power.”

Until recently, Russia was the most important state seeking to undermine European institutions. Vladimir Putin has long disliked the EU because it restricts Russian companies’ ability to intimidate and bribe European political leaders and companies, and because the EU is larger and more powerful than Russia, whereas European countries on their own are not. Now a group of American oligarchs also want to undermine European institutions, because they don’t want to be regulated—and they may have the American president on their side. Quite soon, the European Union, along with Great Britain and other democracies around the world, might find that they have to choose between their alliance with the United States and their ability to run their own elections and select their own leaders without the pressure of aggressive outside manipulation. Ironically, countries, such as Brazil, that don’t have the same deep military, economic, and cultural ties to the U.S. may find it easier to maintain the sovereignty of their political systems and the transparency of their information ecosystems than Europeans.

A crunch point is imminent, when the European Commission finally concludes a year-long investigation into X. Tellingly, two people who have advised the commission on this investigation would talk with me only off the record, because the potential for reprisals against them and their organizations—­whether it be online trolling and harassment or lawsuits—­is too great. Still, both advisers said that the commission has the power to protect Europe’s sovereignty, and to force the platforms to be more transparent. “The commission should look at the raft of laws and rules it has available and see how they can be applied,” one of them told me, “always remembering that this is not about taking action against a person’s voice. This is the commission saying that everyone’s voice should be equal.”

At least in theory, no country is obligated to become an electoral Las Vegas, as America has. Global democracies could demand greater transparency around the use of algorithms, both on social media and in the online-advertising market more broadly. They could offer consumers more control over what they see, and more information about what they don’t see. They could enforce their own campaign-funding laws. These changes could make the internet more open and fair, and therefore a better, safer place for the exercise of free speech. If the chances of success seem narrow, it’s not because of the lack of a viable legal framework—­rather it’s because, at the moment, cowardice is as viral as one of Musk’s tweets.

—

dv said:

GLOBAL
EUROPE’S ELON MUSK PROBLEM
He and other tech oligarchs are making it impossible to conduct free and fair elections anywhere.

By Anne Applebaum

During an american election, a rich man can hand out $1 million checks to prospective voters. Companies and people can use secretly funded “dark money” nonprofits to donate unlimited money, anonymously, to super PACs, which can then spend it on advertising campaigns. Pod­casters, partisans, or anyone, really, can tell outrageous, incendiary lies about a candidate. They can boost those falsehoods through targeted online advertising. No special courts or election rules can stop the disinformation from spreading before voters see it. The court of public opinion, which over the past decade has seen and heard everything, no longer cares. U.S. elections are now a political Las Vegas: Anything goes.

But that’s not the way elections are run in other countries. In Britain, political parties are, at least during the run-up to an election, limited to spending no more than £54,010 per candidate. In Germany, as in many other European countries, the state funds political parties, proportionate to their number of elected parliamentarians, so that politicians do not have to depend on, and become corrupted by, wealthy donors. In Poland, courts fast-track election-related libel cases in the weeks before a vote in order to discourage people from lying.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/03/musk-tech-oligarch-european-election-influence/681453/

Nor is this unique to Europe. Many democracies have state or public media that are obligated, at least in principle, to give equal time to all sides. Many require political donations to be transparent, with the names of donors listed in an online registry. Many have limits on political advertising. Some countries also have rules about hate speech and indict people who break them.

Countries apply these laws to create conditions for fair debate, to build trust in the system, and to inspire confidence in the winning candidates. Some democracies believe that transparency matters—­that voters should know who is funding their candidates, as well as who is paying for political messages on social media or anywhere else. In some places, these rules have a loftier goal: to prevent the rise of anti­democratic extremism of the kind that has engulfed democracies—­and especially European democracies—­­in the past.

But for how much longer can democracies pursue these goals? We live in a world in which algorithms controlled by American and Chinese oligarchs choose the messages and images seen by millions of people; in which money can move through secret bank accounts with the help of crypto schemes; and in which this dark money can then boost anonymous social-media accounts with the aim of shaping public opinion. In such a world, how can any election rules be enforced? If you are Albania, or even the United Kingdom, do you still get to set the parameters of your public debate? Or are you now forced to be Las Vegas too?

Although it’s easy to get distracted by the schoolyard nicknames and irresponsible pedophilia accusations that Elon Musk flings around, these are the real questions posed by his open, aggressive use of X to spread false information and promote extremist and anti-European politicians in the U.K., Germany, and elsewhere. The integrity of elections—and the possibility of debate untainted by misinformation injected from abroad—is equally challenged by TikTok, the Chinese platform, and by Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, whose subsidiaries include Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Threads. TikTok says the company does not accept any paid political advertising. Meta, which announced in January that it is abandoning fact-checking on its sites in the U.S., also says it will continue to comply with European laws. But even before Zucker­berg’s radical policy change, these promises were empty. Meta’s vaunted content curation and moderation have never been transparent. Nobody knew, and nobody knows, what exactly Facebook’s algorithm was promoting and why. Even an occasional user of these platforms encounters spammers, scammers, and opaque accounts running foreign influence operations. No guide to the algorithm, and no real choices about it, are available on Meta products, X, or TikTok.

Musk’s personal X account has more than 212 million followers, giving him enormous power to set the news agenda around the world.

In truth, no one knows if any platforms really comply with political-funding rules either, because nobody outside the companies can fully monitor what happens online during an intense election campaign—and after the voting has ended, it’s too late. According to declassified Romanian-intelligence documents, someone allegedly spent more than $1 million on TikTok content in the 18 months before an election in support of a Romanian presidential candidate who declared that he himself had spent nothing at all. In a belated attempt to address this and other alleged discrepancies, a Romanian court canceled the first round of that election, a decision that itself damaged Romanian democracy.

Not all of this is new. Surreptitious political-party funding was a feature of the Cold War, and the Russian government has continued this practice, sometimes by offering deals to foreign business­people close to pro-Russian politicians. Press moguls with international political ambitions are hardly a novelty. Rupert Murdoch, an Australian who has U.S. citizenship, has long played an outsize role in U.K. politics through his media companies. John Major, the former British prime minister and Conservative Party leader, has said that in 1997, Murdoch threatened to pull his newspapers’ support unless the prime minister pursued a more anti-European policy. Major refused. Murdoch has said, “I have never asked a prime minister for anything,” but one of his Conservative-­leaning tabloids, The Sun, did endorse the Labour Party in the next election. Major lost.

That incident now seems almost quaint. Even at the height of its influence, the print edition of The Sun sold 4 million copies a day. More to the point, it operated, and still does, within the constraints of U.K. rules and regulations, as do all broadcast and print media. Murdoch’s newspapers take British libel and hate-speech laws into consideration when they run stories. His business strategy is necessarily shaped by rules limiting what a single company can own. After his journalists were accused of hacking phones and bribing police in the early 2000s, Murdoch himself had to testify before an investigative commission, and he closed down one of his tabloids for good.

Social media not only has far greater reach—Musk’s personal X account has more than 212 million followers, giving him enormous power to set the news agenda around the world—it also exists outside the legal system. Under the American law known as Section 230, passed nearly three decades ago, internet platforms are not treated as publishers in the U.S. In practice, neither Facebook nor X has the same legal responsibility for what appears on their platforms as do, say, TheWall Street Journal and CNN. And this, too, has consequences: Americans have created the information climate that other countries must accept, and this allows deceptive election practices to thrive. If countries don’t have their own laws, and until recently most did not, Section 230 effectively requires them to treat social-media companies as if they exist outside their legal systems too.

Brazil broke with this pattern last year, when a judge demanded that Musk comply with Brazilian laws against spreading misinformation and political extremism, and forced X offline until he did. Several European countries, including the U.K., Germany, and France, have also passed laws designed to bring the platforms into compliance with their own legal systems, mandating fines for companies that violate hate-speech laws or host other illegal content. But these laws are controversial and hard to enforce. Besides, “illegal speech” is not necessarily the central problem. No laws prevented Musk from interviewing Alice Weidel, a leader of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, on X, thereby providing her with a huge platform, available to no other political candidate, in the month before a national election. The interview, which included several glaringly false statements (among others, that Weidel was the “leading” candidate), was viewed 45 million times in 24 hours, a number far beyond the reach of any German public or private media.

Only one institution on the planet is large enough and powerful enough to write and enforce laws that could make the tech companies change their policies. Partly for that reason, the European Union may soon become one of the Trump administration’s most prominent targets. In theory, the EU’s Digital Services Act, which took full effect last year, can be used to regulate, fine, and, in extreme circumstances, ban internet companies whose practices clash with European laws. Yet a primary intent of the act is not punitive, but rather to open up the platforms: to allow vetted researchers access to platform data, and to give citizens more transparency about what they hear and see. Freedom of speech also means the right to receive information, and at the moment social-media companies operate behind a curtain. We don’t know if they are promoting or suppressing certain points of view, curbing or encouraging orchestrated political campaigns, discouraging or provoking violent riots. Above all, we don’t know who is paying for misinformation to be spread online.

In the past, the EU has not hesitated to try to apply European law to tech companies. Over the past decade, for example, Google has faced three fines totaling more than $8 billion for breaking antitrust law (though one of these fines was overturned by the EU’s General Court in 2024).

A group of American oligarchs want to undermine European institutions because they don’t want to be regulated.

In November, the European Commission fined Meta more than $800 million for unfair trade practices. But for how much longer will the EU have this authority? In the fall, J. D. Vance issued an extraordinarily unsubtle threat, one that is frequently repeated in Europe. “If NATO wants us to continue supporting them and NATO wants us to continue to be a good participant in this military alliance,” Vance told an interviewer, “why don’t you respect American values and respect free speech?” Mark Zuckerberg, echoing Vance’s misuse of the expression free speech to mean “freedom to conceal company practices from the public,” put it even more crudely. In a conversation with Joe Rogan in January, Zuckerberg said he feels “optimistic” that President Donald Trump will intervene to stop the EU from enforcing its own antitrust laws: “I think he just wants America to win.”

Does America “winning” mean that European democracies, and maybe other democracies, lose? Some European politicians think it might. Robert Habeck, the German vice chancellor and a leader of that country’s Green Party, believes that Musk’s frenzies of political activity on X aren’t the random blurts of an addled mind, but rather are “logical and systematic.” In his New Year’s address, Habeck said that Musk is deliberately “strengthening those who are weakening Europe,” including the explicitly anti-European AfD. This, he believes, is because “a weak Europe is in the interest of those for whom regulation is an inappropriate limitation of their power.”

Until recently, Russia was the most important state seeking to undermine European institutions. Vladimir Putin has long disliked the EU because it restricts Russian companies’ ability to intimidate and bribe European political leaders and companies, and because the EU is larger and more powerful than Russia, whereas European countries on their own are not. Now a group of American oligarchs also want to undermine European institutions, because they don’t want to be regulated—and they may have the American president on their side. Quite soon, the European Union, along with Great Britain and other democracies around the world, might find that they have to choose between their alliance with the United States and their ability to run their own elections and select their own leaders without the pressure of aggressive outside manipulation. Ironically, countries, such as Brazil, that don’t have the same deep military, economic, and cultural ties to the U.S. may find it easier to maintain the sovereignty of their political systems and the transparency of their information ecosystems than Europeans.

A crunch point is imminent, when the European Commission finally concludes a year-long investigation into X. Tellingly, two people who have advised the commission on this investigation would talk with me only off the record, because the potential for reprisals against them and their organizations—­whether it be online trolling and harassment or lawsuits—­is too great. Still, both advisers said that the commission has the power to protect Europe’s sovereignty, and to force the platforms to be more transparent. “The commission should look at the raft of laws and rules it has available and see how they can be applied,” one of them told me, “always remembering that this is not about taking action against a person’s voice. This is the commission saying that everyone’s voice should be equal.”

At least in theory, no country is obligated to become an electoral Las Vegas, as America has. Global democracies could demand greater transparency around the use of algorithms, both on social media and in the online-advertising market more broadly. They could offer consumers more control over what they see, and more information about what they don’t see. They could enforce their own campaign-funding laws. These changes could make the internet more open and fair, and therefore a better, safer place for the exercise of free speech. If the chances of success seem narrow, it’s not because of the lack of a viable legal framework—­rather it’s because, at the moment, cowardice is as viral as one of Musk’s tweets.

—

It is quite simple really. You licence these platforms and their advertising. In order to carry paid advertising, platforms must have a suitable policy and procedures in place to deal with misinformation and foreign interference. If they don’t, then it is illegal for any company or individual to advertise on their platform. Platforms rely upon advertising. Advertisers can only advetrise on platforms which have an advertising licence.

Extend this to print media and TV too, if you like. I’m looking at you FOX NEWS.

dv said:

GLOBAL
EUROPE’S ELON MUSK PROBLEM
He and other tech oligarchs are making it impossible to conduct free and fair elections anywhere.

By Anne Applebaum

During an american election, a rich man can hand out $1 million checks to prospective voters. Companies and people can use secretly funded “dark money” nonprofits to donate unlimited money, anonymously, to super PACs, which can then spend it on advertising campaigns. Pod­casters, partisans, or anyone, really, can tell outrageous, incendiary lies about a candidate. They can boost those falsehoods through targeted online advertising. No special courts or election rules can stop the disinformation from spreading before voters see it. The court of public opinion, which over the past decade has seen and heard everything, no longer cares. U.S. elections are now a political Las Vegas: Anything goes.

But that’s not the way elections are run in other countries. In Britain, political parties are, at least during the run-up to an election, limited to spending no more than £54,010 per candidate. In Germany, as in many other European countries, the state funds political parties, proportionate to their number of elected parliamentarians, so that politicians do not have to depend on, and become corrupted by, wealthy donors. In Poland, courts fast-track election-related libel cases in the weeks before a vote in order to discourage people from lying.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/03/musk-tech-oligarch-european-election-influence/681453/

Nor is this unique to Europe. Many democracies have state or public media that are obligated, at least in principle, to give equal time to all sides. Many require political donations to be transparent, with the names of donors listed in an online registry. Many have limits on political advertising. Some countries also have rules about hate speech and indict people who break them.

Countries apply these laws to create conditions for fair debate, to build trust in the system, and to inspire confidence in the winning candidates. Some democracies believe that transparency matters—­that voters should know who is funding their candidates, as well as who is paying for political messages on social media or anywhere else. In some places, these rules have a loftier goal: to prevent the rise of anti­democratic extremism of the kind that has engulfed democracies—­and especially European democracies—­­in the past.

But for how much longer can democracies pursue these goals? We live in a world in which algorithms controlled by American and Chinese oligarchs choose the messages and images seen by millions of people; in which money can move through secret bank accounts with the help of crypto schemes; and in which this dark money can then boost anonymous social-media accounts with the aim of shaping public opinion. In such a world, how can any election rules be enforced? If you are Albania, or even the United Kingdom, do you still get to set the parameters of your public debate? Or are you now forced to be Las Vegas too?

Although it’s easy to get distracted by the schoolyard nicknames and irresponsible pedophilia accusations that Elon Musk flings around, these are the real questions posed by his open, aggressive use of X to spread false information and promote extremist and anti-European politicians in the U.K., Germany, and elsewhere. The integrity of elections—and the possibility of debate untainted by misinformation injected from abroad—is equally challenged by TikTok, the Chinese platform, and by Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, whose subsidiaries include Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Threads. TikTok says the company does not accept any paid political advertising. Meta, which announced in January that it is abandoning fact-checking on its sites in the U.S., also says it will continue to comply with European laws. But even before Zucker­berg’s radical policy change, these promises were empty. Meta’s vaunted content curation and moderation have never been transparent. Nobody knew, and nobody knows, what exactly Facebook’s algorithm was promoting and why. Even an occasional user of these platforms encounters spammers, scammers, and opaque accounts running foreign influence operations. No guide to the algorithm, and no real choices about it, are available on Meta products, X, or TikTok.

Musk’s personal X account has more than 212 million followers, giving him enormous power to set the news agenda around the world.

In truth, no one knows if any platforms really comply with political-funding rules either, because nobody outside the companies can fully monitor what happens online during an intense election campaign—and after the voting has ended, it’s too late. According to declassified Romanian-intelligence documents, someone allegedly spent more than $1 million on TikTok content in the 18 months before an election in support of a Romanian presidential candidate who declared that he himself had spent nothing at all. In a belated attempt to address this and other alleged discrepancies, a Romanian court canceled the first round of that election, a decision that itself damaged Romanian democracy.

Not all of this is new. Surreptitious political-party funding was a feature of the Cold War, and the Russian government has continued this practice, sometimes by offering deals to foreign business­people close to pro-Russian politicians. Press moguls with international political ambitions are hardly a novelty. Rupert Murdoch, an Australian who has U.S. citizenship, has long played an outsize role in U.K. politics through his media companies. John Major, the former British prime minister and Conservative Party leader, has said that in 1997, Murdoch threatened to pull his newspapers’ support unless the prime minister pursued a more anti-European policy. Major refused. Murdoch has said, “I have never asked a prime minister for anything,” but one of his Conservative-­leaning tabloids, The Sun, did endorse the Labour Party in the next election. Major lost.

That incident now seems almost quaint. Even at the height of its influence, the print edition of The Sun sold 4 million copies a day. More to the point, it operated, and still does, within the constraints of U.K. rules and regulations, as do all broadcast and print media. Murdoch’s newspapers take British libel and hate-speech laws into consideration when they run stories. His business strategy is necessarily shaped by rules limiting what a single company can own. After his journalists were accused of hacking phones and bribing police in the early 2000s, Murdoch himself had to testify before an investigative commission, and he closed down one of his tabloids for good.

Social media not only has far greater reach—Musk’s personal X account has more than 212 million followers, giving him enormous power to set the news agenda around the world—it also exists outside the legal system. Under the American law known as Section 230, passed nearly three decades ago, internet platforms are not treated as publishers in the U.S. In practice, neither Facebook nor X has the same legal responsibility for what appears on their platforms as do, say, TheWall Street Journal and CNN. And this, too, has consequences: Americans have created the information climate that other countries must accept, and this allows deceptive election practices to thrive. If countries don’t have their own laws, and until recently most did not, Section 230 effectively requires them to treat social-media companies as if they exist outside their legal systems too.

Brazil broke with this pattern last year, when a judge demanded that Musk comply with Brazilian laws against spreading misinformation and political extremism, and forced X offline until he did. Several European countries, including the U.K., Germany, and France, have also passed laws designed to bring the platforms into compliance with their own legal systems, mandating fines for companies that violate hate-speech laws or host other illegal content. But these laws are controversial and hard to enforce. Besides, “illegal speech” is not necessarily the central problem. No laws prevented Musk from interviewing Alice Weidel, a leader of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, on X, thereby providing her with a huge platform, available to no other political candidate, in the month before a national election. The interview, which included several glaringly false statements (among others, that Weidel was the “leading” candidate), was viewed 45 million times in 24 hours, a number far beyond the reach of any German public or private media.

Only one institution on the planet is large enough and powerful enough to write and enforce laws that could make the tech companies change their policies. Partly for that reason, the European Union may soon become one of the Trump administration’s most prominent targets. In theory, the EU’s Digital Services Act, which took full effect last year, can be used to regulate, fine, and, in extreme circumstances, ban internet companies whose practices clash with European laws. Yet a primary intent of the act is not punitive, but rather to open up the platforms: to allow vetted researchers access to platform data, and to give citizens more transparency about what they hear and see. Freedom of speech also means the right to receive information, and at the moment social-media companies operate behind a curtain. We don’t know if they are promoting or suppressing certain points of view, curbing or encouraging orchestrated political campaigns, discouraging or provoking violent riots. Above all, we don’t know who is paying for misinformation to be spread online.

In the past, the EU has not hesitated to try to apply European law to tech companies. Over the past decade, for example, Google has faced three fines totaling more than $8 billion for breaking antitrust law (though one of these fines was overturned by the EU’s General Court in 2024).

A group of American oligarchs want to undermine European institutions because they don’t want to be regulated.

In November, the European Commission fined Meta more than $800 million for unfair trade practices. But for how much longer will the EU have this authority? In the fall, J. D. Vance issued an extraordinarily unsubtle threat, one that is frequently repeated in Europe. “If NATO wants us to continue supporting them and NATO wants us to continue to be a good participant in this military alliance,” Vance told an interviewer, “why don’t you respect American values and respect free speech?” Mark Zuckerberg, echoing Vance’s misuse of the expression free speech to mean “freedom to conceal company practices from the public,” put it even more crudely. In a conversation with Joe Rogan in January, Zuckerberg said he feels “optimistic” that President Donald Trump will intervene to stop the EU from enforcing its own antitrust laws: “I think he just wants America to win.”

Does America “winning” mean that European democracies, and maybe other democracies, lose? Some European politicians think it might. Robert Habeck, the German vice chancellor and a leader of that country’s Green Party, believes that Musk’s frenzies of political activity on X aren’t the random blurts of an addled mind, but rather are “logical and systematic.” In his New Year’s address, Habeck said that Musk is deliberately “strengthening those who are weakening Europe,” including the explicitly anti-European AfD. This, he believes, is because “a weak Europe is in the interest of those for whom regulation is an inappropriate limitation of their power.”

Until recently, Russia was the most important state seeking to undermine European institutions. Vladimir Putin has long disliked the EU because it restricts Russian companies’ ability to intimidate and bribe European political leaders and companies, and because the EU is larger and more powerful than Russia, whereas European countries on their own are not. Now a group of American oligarchs also want to undermine European institutions, because they don’t want to be regulated—and they may have the American president on their side. Quite soon, the European Union, along with Great Britain and other democracies around the world, might find that they have to choose between their alliance with the United States and their ability to run their own elections and select their own leaders without the pressure of aggressive outside manipulation. Ironically, countries, such as Brazil, that don’t have the same deep military, economic, and cultural ties to the U.S. may find it easier to maintain the sovereignty of their political systems and the transparency of their information ecosystems than Europeans.

A crunch point is imminent, when the European Commission finally concludes a year-long investigation into X. Tellingly, two people who have advised the commission on this investigation would talk with me only off the record, because the potential for reprisals against them and their organizations—­whether it be online trolling and harassment or lawsuits—­is too great. Still, both advisers said that the commission has the power to protect Europe’s sovereignty, and to force the platforms to be more transparent. “The commission should look at the raft of laws and rules it has available and see how they can be applied,” one of them told me, “always remembering that this is not about taking action against a person’s voice. This is the commission saying that everyone’s voice should be equal.”

At least in theory, no country is obligated to become an electoral Las Vegas, as America has. Global democracies could demand greater transparency around the use of algorithms, both on social media and in the online-advertising market more broadly. They could offer consumers more control over what they see, and more information about what they don’t see. They could enforce their own campaign-funding laws. These changes could make the internet more open and fair, and therefore a better, safer place for the exercise of free speech. If the chances of success seem narrow, it’s not because of the lack of a viable legal framework—­rather it’s because, at the moment, cowardice is as viral as one of Musk’s tweets.

—

Yuck.

party_pants said:

dv said:

GLOBAL
EUROPE’S ELON MUSK PROBLEM
He and other tech oligarchs are making it impossible to conduct free and fair elections anywhere.

By Anne Applebaum

_____________CUT_____________

—

It is quite simple really. You licence these platforms and their advertising. In order to carry paid advertising, platforms must have a suitable policy and procedures in place to deal with misinformation and foreign interference. If they don’t, then it is illegal for any company or individual to advertise on their platform. Platforms rely upon advertising. Advertisers can only advertise on platforms which have an advertising licence.

Extend this to print media and TV too, if you like. I’m looking at you FOX NEWS.

You’ve mentioned this notion before. It seems reasonable. Now. How do we get it implemented?

Michael V said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

GLOBAL
EUROPE’S ELON MUSK PROBLEM
He and other tech oligarchs are making it impossible to conduct free and fair elections anywhere.

By Anne Applebaum

_____________CUT_____________

—

It is quite simple really. You licence these platforms and their advertising. In order to carry paid advertising, platforms must have a suitable policy and procedures in place to deal with misinformation and foreign interference. If they don’t, then it is illegal for any company or individual to advertise on their platform. Platforms rely upon advertising. Advertisers can only advertise on platforms which have an advertising licence.

Extend this to print media and TV too, if you like. I’m looking at you FOX NEWS.

You’ve mentioned this notion before. It seems reasonable. Now. How do we get it implemented?

Find some politicians who are not afraid of Musk. (or Trump)

party_pants said:

Michael V said:

party_pants said:

It is quite simple really. You licence these platforms and their advertising. In order to carry paid advertising, platforms must have a suitable policy and procedures in place to deal with misinformation and foreign interference. If they don’t, then it is illegal for any company or individual to advertise on their platform. Platforms rely upon advertising. Advertisers can only advertise on platforms which have an advertising licence.

Extend this to print media and TV too, if you like. I’m looking at you FOX NEWS.

You’ve mentioned this notion before. It seems reasonable. Now. How do we get it implemented?

Find some politicians who are not afraid of Musk. (or Trump)

oh look it’s Zeno’s Doomsday Clock redux

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-29/doomsday-clock-89-seconds/104864754

well all right it’s not quite exponential decay

Markets summmary
Time for a quick recap.

Stock markets across Europe have fallen, following losses in Asia-Pacific markets, after Donald Trump decided to impose new tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China last weekend.

News of the new trade levies, which kick in tomorrow, has sent shares sliding in London. The FTSE 100 share index is now down 1.3%, a drop of 115 points, which would be its biggest one-day drop since last October.

European markets are also deep in the red, with Germany’s DAX down 1.9%, France’s CAC off 1.8% and Spain’s IBEX down 1.5% in a “Trump tariff tantrum”.

Earlier, Japan’s Nikkei index fell by 2.6%.

Wall Street is expected to tumble when trading begins at 9.30am local time, or 2.30pm GMT.

The US dollar has surged since Trump announced 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports (with a 10% rate for Canadian oil), and a 10% rate for China.

This is pushing the euro closer to parity against the US dollar, and weakened the Canadian dollar to a 20-year low.

The oil price, though, has risen, on predictions of supply disruption.

Economists fear that the tariffs could push Canada and Mexico into recession later this year.

JP Morgan analysts have warned there is a risk that Trump’s policy mix is tilting into a business-unfriendly stance.

Deutsche Bank have calculated that US trade levies are heading to their highest levels since the 1940s.

BNP Paribas have warned that the new tariffs will be “an inflationary shock for the US”.

sarahs mum said:

Markets summmary
Time for a quick recap.

Stock markets across Europe have fallen, following losses in Asia-Pacific markets, after Donald Trump decided to impose new tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China last weekend.

News of the new trade levies, which kick in tomorrow, has sent shares sliding in London. The FTSE 100 share index is now down 1.3%, a drop of 115 points, which would be its biggest one-day drop since last October.

European markets are also deep in the red, with Germany’s DAX down 1.9%, France’s CAC off 1.8% and Spain’s IBEX down 1.5% in a “Trump tariff tantrum”.

Earlier, Japan’s Nikkei index fell by 2.6%.

Wall Street is expected to tumble when trading begins at 9.30am local time, or 2.30pm GMT.

The US dollar has surged since Trump announced 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports (with a 10% rate for Canadian oil), and a 10% rate for China.

This is pushing the euro closer to parity against the US dollar, and weakened the Canadian dollar to a 20-year low.

The oil price, though, has risen, on predictions of supply disruption.

Economists fear that the tariffs could push Canada and Mexico into recession later this year.

JP Morgan analysts have warned there is a risk that Trump’s policy mix is tilting into a business-unfriendly stance.

Deutsche Bank have calculated that US trade levies are heading to their highest levels since the 1940s.

BNP Paribas have warned that the new tariffs will be “an inflationary shock for the US”.

where’s that image of text about the breathtaking selfishness of certain groups of people again, happily harm themselves as long as it means more harm befalls others

well well well

He said Mr Yoon had ordered him to “catch them all and clean up everything”, without specifying who to catch. “I still don’t understand why (they) tried to arrest and investigate these people,” he said.

next thing they’ll get off Morrison free by saying the fella was mentally ill and just paranoid

ASIANS getting in ahead of the curve

The government took the unusual step last week of publishing an AI-generated video of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra insisting – in Mandarin, a language she does not speak – the kingdom was safe for Chinese tourists.

Not endorsing this necessarily

dv said:

Not endorsing this necessarily

Left out Switzerland.

‘Rich from doing all the bookkeeping for the oppressors’.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/11/far-right-mps-fake-news-misinformation-left-study

Link

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-13/car-driven-into-crowd-of-people-in-munich/104934800

A car was driven into a crowd in Munich on Thursday morning local time, sparking a large police operation in the German city. Police say at least 28 people were injured in the incident, while police said the driver of the car had been detained. Munich is preparing for a top-level security conference attended by US Vice-President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

2024 was the deadliest year for journalists in over three decades.

https://edition.cnn.com/world/2024-deadliest-year-journalists-israel-cpj-intl/index.html

Saw this in recirculation on FB…

And the comments have jabronis like this trying to be exhibit A.

I don’t think anything will ever shake these people from the idea that ze Jews are to blame for everything.

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

Cymek said:

SCIENCE said:

Cymek said:

transition said:

captain_spalding said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Do you use your Baofang and Quansheng radios to spy on the friendly Taiwanese family next door?

There’s the mainland Chinese family across the street. But, no, i just like to listen to Qld Rail and the taxi service and similar now and then.

Do have to give China kudos for attempting to spy on everyone through product and software distribution.

so given it’s so widespread and so egregious and western intelligence are so good at stopping those communist bastards we have one question

why haven’t they found those widespread egregious instances of it and publicised it

Mostly made up so we have something to fear and it justifies actions of control

like we’re pretty sure everyone loves to do teardowns of dirty CHINA products so we’re still waiting

in the other hand we suppose National Socialist Israel did fill thousands of pagers with high explosive and everyone went along with it so shrug these nasty new cuntries persecuting their west side religious folk are all the same

oh wait that’s right Israel good CHINA bad sorry we take it all back

I was hoping for some acknowledgement of my car design, which may not have improved much since I did my first car picture in grade 1 at school, but jeeez I been waiting a long time for some credit now, 53 years or something, math hasn’t improved much either, still please before i’m dead, there must be a generous kindergarten teacher or something out there, special ed teacher, whatever, i’m waiting

coffee in a moment

well too bad those rich our souls over there don’t think that education let alone special education is of any positive value at all so forget it

nah it’s fine nice job a tidy and slick picture we appreciate it

so does that mean shaking the place down is

Congo is also the top supplier of copper to China.

good¿ Bad¿ Is it CHINA’s fault¿ Maybe planned¿ Should they step in and fix this up

LOL just embrace the cheap goods and manufacture more aeroplanes sheesh complain about overcapacity but what the fuck is economic growth seriously¿

SCIENCE said:

LOL just embrace the cheap goods and manufacture more aeroplanes sheesh complain about overcapacity but what the fuck is economic growth seriously¿

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-19/aluminium-manufacturers-brace-for-impact-of-trumps-tariffs/104955344

sorry link deunincluded

The G20 Foreign Ministers conference is happening in Johannesburg right now.
The USA’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is boycotting the talks, saying the South Africa was “using G20 to promote solidarity, equality, & sustainability. In other words: DEI and climate change.”

dv said:

The G20 Foreign Ministers conference is happening in Johannesburg right now.
The USA’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is boycotting the talks, saying the South Africa was “using G20 to promote solidarity, equality, & sustainability. In other words: DEI and climate change.”

👀
How dare they!

Dubai-based crypto platform was making a routine transfer of Ethereum from an offline “cold” wallet to a “warm” wallet. A hacker exploited security controls and was able to transfer the assets to an unknown address. The transaction was manipulated by a sophisticated attack that altered the smart contract logic and masked the signing interface, enabling the attacker to gain control of the ETH Cold Wallet. Bybit or other authorities are yet to say, but security researchers Elliptic and Arkham Intelligence have reportedly linked the attack to North Korean hackers from the Lazarus Group. Security sleuth ZachBXT also identified Lazarus as the group behind the heist.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-24/russian-consulate-explosion-marseille/104976802

nice this should give a convenient excuse to push further up against NATO borders

We know, and all our partners know President is not a dictator and that’s a fact because was democratically elected.

LOL

good news, we can microsubdivide that wealth over more humans

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-27/south-korea-birthrate-rises-first-time-nine-years/104988062

anyway yous’ll be happy to know that machinations like the machines of the 1930s are doing work

Austria’s three top centrist parties in parliament have reached a deal to form a coalition government without the far-right Freedom Party (FPO), five months after the FPO won a parliamentary election that failed to produce a workable administration.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-27/austrian-centrist-parties-reach-deal-to-form-government/104992344

SCIENCE said:

anyway yous’ll be happy to know that machinations like the machines of the 1930s are doing work

Austria’s three top centrist parties in parliament have reached a deal to form a coalition government without the far-right Freedom Party (FPO), five months after the FPO won a parliamentary election that failed to produce a workable administration.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-27/austrian-centrist-parties-reach-deal-to-form-government/104992344

read between the trench fronts though

“The first message this government has is ‘We are not Herbert Kickl, we prevented Herbert Kickl (from becoming chancellor)’,” political analyst Thomas Hofer said. “That’s something, but it isn’t a forward-looking narrative,” he said, adding they would likely need to produce more than the programme to survive the five-year parliament. Mr Kickl has dismissed the tie-up as a “coalition of losers” and called for a snap election that opinion polls suggest would further increase his party’s share of the vote.

Some diplomats and security analysts believe Thailand’s deportation of 100 Uyghurs to China in July 2015 led to the bombing of a busy Bangkok shrine that killed 20 people in the worst attack of its kind on Thai soil.

Regime Change In The DPRNA, Our Soul KKK Saves The World Again

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-01/pkk-declare-ceasefire-in-turkiye/104999058

SCIENCE said:

Regime Change In The DPRNA, Our Soul KKK Saves The World Again

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-01/pkk-declare-ceasefire-in-turkiye/104999058

We do have a Turkey thread in the List, but perhaps you are boycotting it until the name is updated.

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

Regime Change In The DPRNA, Our Soul KKK Saves The World Again

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-01/pkk-declare-ceasefire-in-turkiye/104999058

We do have a Turkey thread in the List, but perhaps you are boycotting it until the name is updated.

sorry we just got lazy and we can’t promise we won’t be just as lazy next time

Comments by former UK Prime Minister John Major, made on Radio 4, a couple of weeks ago.

https://unacov.uk/john-majors-thoughts-on-donald-trump-and-the-world/

There’s no doubt in my mind that the world is changing and that it’s reshaping, that it may not be reshaping in a way that’s congenial to the west and that it’s a very unsettled time indeed. Many of the gains we thought we’d made over recent years, for example, as you said, when the Soviet Union collapsed, are now being reversed and you see a very aggressive Russia again in Ukraine. If they were to succeed with their adventure in Ukraine, no doubt they would be elsewhere before too long. We see globalisation retreating and there’s no doubt in my mind that democracy is threatened. It’s been in modest decline for the last 18 years, there’s an ugly nationalism growing, mostly from the intolerant right. So it is, as I say, a very unsettled time. At this particular time, the big nations, America, China, Russia, are beginning to act unilaterally, where once they would have consulted. That is a concern, because it does presage the prospect of very great and rather unpleasant changes.

(Trump’s) is a form of presidency I haven’t previously seen. The President’s phone call to Putin, in which we learned that negotiations to end the war would start immediately. There had been no consultation with Ukraine or anyone else. He then made concessions to Russia, which I think is fairly unprecedented, having made perfectly clear that the US troops would not defend Ukraine, that Russia might be able to keep land that Putin had taken by force and that Ukraine would not be able to join NATO. These were all unilateral remarks from the present administration in the United States to the world. Yet consider what happens if Russia can claim a win. China is going to notice that, and so will the world, and so will every tin pot dictator around the world. If America is not to stand behind its allies in the way the world has previously seen, then we are moving into a wholly different and in my view, rather more dangerous world.

The (US) Vice President’s speech at the Munich conference, a rather unlikely venue for the speech he actually made, the political signal was obvious and misguided, I think, in the middle of an election in Germany. This is just an illustration of what is happening. But if you recall, hundreds of thousands of American servicemen died relieving Europe from the tyranny of fascism, and the Vice President goes to Munich, ignores his host Chancellor Schulz, and arranges meetings with the leader of the most far right party.

That is not what we expect from the foremost nation in the free world. It’s certainly not statesmanship, and it potentially gives off very dangerous signals.

It’s extremely odd to lecture Europe on the subject of free speech and democracy at the same time as they’re cuddling Mr. Putin. In Mr. Putin’s Russia, people who disagree with him disappear, or die, or flee the country, or, on a statistically unlikely level, fall out of high windows somewhere in Moscow. To lecture the West about democracy seems to be rather odd. He really should be doing that in Moscow, or perhaps even in Beijing.

I don’t recall in (Donald Trump’s) mandate a suggestion that he might take over Canada or Greenland or the Panama Canal, or any of the other things that are being suggested. I mean, let me say what I think Western governments will be unwilling to say publicly, but which I am sure they all feel.

If America behaves in this fashion and retreats towards isolation, she leaves the door open to China and Russia to supplement her place in the world. The free world, I believe, now fears that America, with all her great power and prestige and all that she has done to keep the world safe in recent years, may now be turning her back on the international responsibilities she has previously taken. If she does so, there’s no other nation state that can replace them, other than China, and that is not something I think the West would certainly wish to see. If that happens, the world, including America, may regret what subsequently follows.

dv said:

Comments by former UK Prime Minister John Major, made on Radio 4, a couple of weeks ago.

https://unacov.uk/john-majors-thoughts-on-donald-trump-and-the-world/

There’s no doubt in my mind that the world is changing and that it’s reshaping, that it may not be reshaping in a way that’s congenial to the west and that it’s a very unsettled time indeed. Many of the gains we thought we’d made over recent years, for example, as you said, when the Soviet Union collapsed, are now being reversed and you see a very aggressive Russia again in Ukraine. If they were to succeed with their adventure in Ukraine, no doubt they would be elsewhere before too long. We see globalisation retreating and there’s no doubt in my mind that democracy is threatened. It’s been in modest decline for the last 18 years, there’s an ugly nationalism growing, mostly from the intolerant right. So it is, as I say, a very unsettled time. At this particular time, the big nations, America, China, Russia, are beginning to act unilaterally, where once they would have consulted. That is a concern, because it does presage the prospect of very great and rather unpleasant changes.

(Trump’s) is a form of presidency I haven’t previously seen. The President’s phone call to Putin, in which we learned that negotiations to end the war would start immediately. There had been no consultation with Ukraine or anyone else. He then made concessions to Russia, which I think is fairly unprecedented, having made perfectly clear that the US troops would not defend Ukraine, that Russia might be able to keep land that Putin had taken by force and that Ukraine would not be able to join NATO. These were all unilateral remarks from the present administration in the United States to the world. Yet consider what happens if Russia can claim a win. China is going to notice that, and so will the world, and so will every tin pot dictator around the world. If America is not to stand behind its allies in the way the world has previously seen, then we are moving into a wholly different and in my view, rather more dangerous world.

The (US) Vice President’s speech at the Munich conference, a rather unlikely venue for the speech he actually made, the political signal was obvious and misguided, I think, in the middle of an election in Germany. This is just an illustration of what is happening. But if you recall, hundreds of thousands of American servicemen died relieving Europe from the tyranny of fascism, and the Vice President goes to Munich, ignores his host Chancellor Schulz, and arranges meetings with the leader of the most far right party.

That is not what we expect from the foremost nation in the free world. It’s certainly not statesmanship, and it potentially gives off very dangerous signals.

It’s extremely odd to lecture Europe on the subject of free speech and democracy at the same time as they’re cuddling Mr. Putin. In Mr. Putin’s Russia, people who disagree with him disappear, or die, or flee the country, or, on a statistically unlikely level, fall out of high windows somewhere in Moscow. To lecture the West about democracy seems to be rather odd. He really should be doing that in Moscow, or perhaps even in Beijing.

I don’t recall in (Donald Trump’s) mandate a suggestion that he might take over Canada or Greenland or the Panama Canal, or any of the other things that are being suggested. I mean, let me say what I think Western governments will be unwilling to say publicly, but which I am sure they all feel.

If America behaves in this fashion and retreats towards isolation, she leaves the door open to China and Russia to supplement her place in the world. The free world, I believe, now fears that America, with all her great power and prestige and all that she has done to keep the world safe in recent years, may now be turning her back on the international responsibilities she has previously taken. If she does so, there’s no other nation state that can replace them, other than China, and that is not something I think the West would certainly wish to see. If that happens, the world, including America, may regret what subsequently follows.

He’s a conservative, but he’s not a fascist.

Michael V said:

dv said:

fears that America, with all her great power and prestige and all that she has done to keep the world safe in recent years, may now be turning her back on the international responsibilities she has previously taken. If she does so, there’s no other nation state that can replace them, other than China, and that is not something I think the West would certainly wish to see. If that happens, the world, including America, may regret

He’s a conservative, but he’s not a fascist.

keep the world safe

¿

fine whatever but we know where has the higher rates of school massacres

or just the higher number

what is safe

LOL

Ironically, in the past few years, the machines have decided to steer your cash towards creating even more sophisticated machines to generate AI.

LOL

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-04/trump-trade-war-us-china-global-financial-market-meltdown/105002950

good news though the world are rearranging themselves around the new broker of peace and stability

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-04/myanmar-junta-chief-travels-to-ally-russia-for-talks-with-putin/105006744

Europe needs an independent foreign policy: Professor Jeffrey Sachs at European Parliament

It is more than an hour and a half.

In a 26 February speech in the European Parliament, renowned professor Jeffrey Sachs said, ‘When the Soviet Union ended in 1991, the view became even more exaggerated. The view was that we run the show. We will clean up from the former Soviet Union. We will take out any remaining Soviet-era allies. Countries like Iraq, Syria, and so forth will go. And we’ve been experiencing this foreign policy for essentially 33 years. Europe has paid a heavy price for this because Europe has not had any foreign policy during this period. No voice, no unity, no clarity, no European interests, only American loyalty.’

He added that the European Union should be the main trading partner of Russia. ‘Europe and Russia have complementary economies. The fit for mutually beneficial trade is very strong. The Trump administration is imperialist at heart. Trump obviously believes that the great powers dominate the world. The US will be ruthless and cynical, and yes, also vis-à-vis Europe. Don’t go begging to Washington. That won’t help. Instead, have a true and independent European foreign policy.’
——————————————————————————————————————————————-

roughbarked said:

Europe needs an independent foreign policy: Professor Jeffrey Sachs at European Parliament

It is more than an hour and a half.

In a 26 February speech in the European Parliament, renowned professor Jeffrey Sachs said, ‘When the Soviet Union ended in 1991, the view became even more exaggerated. The view was that we run the show. We will clean up from the former Soviet Union. We will take out any remaining Soviet-era allies. Countries like Iraq, Syria, and so forth will go. And we’ve been experiencing this foreign policy for essentially 33 years. Europe has paid a heavy price for this because Europe has not had any foreign policy during this period. No voice, no unity, no clarity, no European interests, only American loyalty.’

He added that the European Union should be the main trading partner of Russia. ‘Europe and Russia have complementary economies. The fit for mutually beneficial trade is very strong. The Trump administration is imperialist at heart. Trump obviously believes that the great powers dominate the world. The US will be ruthless and cynical, and yes, also vis-à-vis Europe. Don’t go begging to Washington. That won’t help. Instead, have a true and independent European foreign policy.’
——————————————————————————————————————————————-

thanks

Speaking of climate change, here’s the latest from pseudo-sceptic Spencer:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Speaking of climate change, here’s the latest from pseudo-sceptic Spencer:

And what’s Spencer’s point?

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Speaking of climate change, here’s the latest from pseudo-sceptic Spencer:

And what’s Spencer’s point?

Well he publishes the latest temperature records every month, but they don’t really support his point which is that climate change isn’t a real problem at all at all.

I just use his graphs because if they show steadily rising temperatures you can be pretty sure the temperature is steadily rising.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Speaking of climate change, here’s the latest from pseudo-sceptic Spencer:

And what’s Spencer’s point?

Well he publishes the latest temperature records every month, but they don’t really support his point which is that climate change isn’t a real problem at all at all.

I just use his graphs because if they show steadily rising temperatures you can be pretty sure the temperature is steadily rising.

LOL

Fair enough. They sure do show that.

:)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Speaking of climate change, here’s the latest from pseudo-sceptic Spencer:

And what’s Spencer’s point?

he publishes the latest temperature records every month, but they don’t really support his point which is that climate change isn’t a real problem

so typically in such a position the grifters get quiet pretty quickly but you’re saying this genius doesn’t so what’s the secret

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

And what’s Spencer’s point?

Well he publishes the latest temperature records every month, but they don’t really support his point which is that climate change isn’t a real problem at all at all.

I just use his graphs because if they show steadily rising temperatures you can be pretty sure the temperature is steadily rising.

LOL

Fair enough. They sure do show that.

:)

wait we thought they show temperatures wiggling around with a broad upward trend

SCIENCE said:

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well he publishes the latest temperature records every month, but they don’t really support his point which is that climate change isn’t a real problem at all at all.

I just use his graphs because if they show steadily rising temperatures you can be pretty sure the temperature is steadily rising.

LOL

Fair enough. They sure do show that.

:)

wait we thought they show temperatures wiggling around with a broad upward trend

Semantics.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

And what’s Spencer’s point?

he publishes the latest temperature records every month, but they don’t really support his point which is that climate change isn’t a real problem

so typically in such a position the grifters get quiet pretty quickly but you’re saying this genius doesn’t so what’s the secret

Well he’s a genuine academic in a genuine university, so I guess he feels obliged to keep going now he’s started, but it will be interesting to see if he ever changes his tune.

Good, a plausible deterrent is necessary for geopolitical stability.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-05/number-of-available-to-use-nuclear-weapons-grow-globally/105010414

A report released to coincide with non-proliferation talks at the UN this week has found there are now over 9,605 nuclear weapons “available for use” globally, up from 9,585 last year. According to the latest Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor, 40 per cent of the radioactive weapons are deployed and “ready for immediate use on submarines and land-based missiles, as well as at bomber bases”. The report notes that the total number of nuclear warheads globally has slowly decreased because ageing payloads are being retired by countries such as Russia and the United States, but weapons “available for use” have steadily increased.

mad

apparently RoKorea have bombed their own city halfway between Seoul and the DPRK much excitement

Europe is at a critical turning point in its history. The American shield is slipping away. Ukraine risks being abandoned, and Russia is being strengthened.
Washington has become the court of Nero: an incendiary emporer, submissive courtiers, and a buffoon on ketamine tasked with purging the civil service.
This is a tragedy for the free world, but above all it is a tragedy for the United States.
Trump’s message is that being his ally serves no purpose, as he will not defend you, he will impose higher tariffs on you than on his enemies, and he will threaten to steal your territories while supporting the dictators who invade you.
The so-called King of the Deal is demonstrating what the submissive art of the deal is.
He believes he will intimidate China by capitulate to Putin, but Xi Jinping witnessing this collapse is undoubtedly accelerating preparations for the invasion of Taiwan.
Never in history has a President of the United States surrendered to an enemy. Never before has one supported an agressor against an ally. Never before has one trampled on the American Constitution, issued so many illegal decrees, dismissed judges who would oppose him, sacked the entire military leadership in one go, weakened all counterpowers, and taken control of social media. This is not a mere illiberal drift. It is the beginning of a seizure of democracy. Let us remember that it only took just one month, three weeks and two days to bring down the Weimar Republic and its constitution. I have faith in the resilience of the American democracy, and the country is already protesting. But in just one month Trump has done more damage to America than in the four years of his previous administration. We were at war with a dictator: we are now fighting against a dictator supported by a traitor.

—-

Claude Malhuret is a French senator for the centre-right LIRT party.

https://www.threads.net/@margi17/post/DG2ql3mx4NA?xmt=AQGz_OfyzEujV7tHnBtqMu1oiVWKWCOdvJVNtpOHLHmHqg

dv said:

(1) He believes he will intimidate China by capitulate to Putin

(2) It is the beginning of a seizure of democracy. Let us remember that it only took just one month, three weeks and two days to bring down the Weimar Republic and its constitution.

—-

Claude Malhuret is a French senator for the centre-right LIRT party.

https://www.threads.net/@margi17/post/DG2ql3mx4NA?xmt=AQGz_OfyzEujV7tHnBtqMu1oiVWKWCOdvJVNtpOHLHmHqg

(1) how does that even wtfork

(2) really beginning really wtf

dv said:

Europe is at a critical turning point in its history. The American shield is slipping away. Ukraine risks being abandoned, and Russia is being strengthened.
Washington has become the court of Nero: an incendiary emporer, submissive courtiers, and a buffoon on ketamine tasked with purging the civil service.
This is a tragedy for the free world, but above all it is a tragedy for the United States.
Trump’s message is that being his ally serves no purpose, as he will not defend you, he will impose higher tariffs on you than on his enemies, and he will threaten to steal your territories while supporting the dictators who invade you.
The so-called King of the Deal is demonstrating what the submissive art of the deal is.
He believes he will intimidate China by capitulate to Putin, but Xi Jinping witnessing this collapse is undoubtedly accelerating preparations for the invasion of Taiwan.
Never in history has a President of the United States surrendered to an enemy. Never before has one supported an agressor against an ally. Never before has one trampled on the American Constitution, issued so many illegal decrees, dismissed judges who would oppose him, sacked the entire military leadership in one go, weakened all counterpowers, and taken control of social media. This is not a mere illiberal drift. It is the beginning of a seizure of democracy. Let us remember that it only took just one month, three weeks and two days to bring down the Weimar Republic and its constitution. I have faith in the resilience of the American democracy, and the country is already protesting. But in just one month Trump has done more damage to America than in the four years of his previous administration. We were at war with a dictator: we are now fighting against a dictator supported by a traitor.

—-

Claude Malhuret is a French senator for the centre-right LIRT party.

https://www.threads.net/@margi17/post/DG2ql3mx4NA?xmt=AQGz_OfyzEujV7tHnBtqMu1oiVWKWCOdvJVNtpOHLHmHqg

I wonder what he really thinks.

Mr Zelenskyy wrote on X that he hoped the talks would be “meaningful”.
Link
“Ukraine has been seeking peace since the very first moment of the war, and we have always stated that the war continues solely because of Russia.”

Well now the Danes are upset by Trump’s run-away mouth.
They lost 52 soldiers fighting alongside the US. Now they feel threatened by Trump
All his adult life, Colonel Soren Knudsen stepped forward when his country called. And when its allies did.
He fought alongside US troops, notably in Afghanistan, and for a time was Denmark’s most senior officer there. He counted 58 rocket attacks during his duty.
“I was awarded a Bronze Star Medal by the United States and they gave me the Stars and Stripes. They have been hanging on my wall in our house ever since and I have proudly shown them to everybody.”
Then something changed.
“After JD Vance’s statement on Greenland, the president’s disrespect for internationally acknowledged borders, I took those that Stars and Stripes down and the medal has been put away,” Soren says, his voice breaking a little.
This week before Congress, the US president doubled down on his desire to seize the world’s biggest island: Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.
“My first feeling was that it hurts, and the second is that I’m offended,” Col Knudsen laments.
I meet him in the first weeks of his retirement outside Denmark’s 18th Century royal residence, Amalienborg Palace in the heart of Copenhagen.
Abruptly, pipers strike up and soldiers stream by.
Today’s Changing of the Guard comes at a time when the Trump administration has not just tweaked but defenestrated most assumptions around US-European security that have held fast for 80 years.
“It’s about values and when those values are axed by what we thought was an ally, it gets very tough to watch.” Soren says with his American wife Gina at his side.
“Denmark freely and without question joined those efforts where my husband served,” she says.
“So it comes as a shock to hear threats from a country that I also love and to feel that alliance is being trampled on. This feels personal, not like some abstract foreign policy tactic.”
Soren has not given up all hope though.
“It’s my hope and my prayer that I will one day be able to put back on the wall,” he confides.
Denmark lost 44 soldiers in Afghanistan – more than any other nation than the US, as a proportion of its population
There’s no sign his prayers will be answered soon.
Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, goes to the polls next week with all the main parties backing independence at some point in the future.
A takeover by Donald Trump – potentially by force – is not on the ballot paper.
Not far from the royal palace stands Denmark’s memorial to its soldiers lost in recent battle.
Carved on the stone-covered walls are the names of those killed alongside their Western allies.
The section honouring the fallen in the US-led invasion of Afghanistan is particularly sizeable.
Denmark lost 44 soldiers in Afghanistan, which as a proportion of its less than six million population, was more than any other ally apart from the US. In Iraq, eight Danish soldiers died.
This is why the president’s words sting so much.
Former Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen doubts the US will try to take Greenland by force
One man very well placed to consider what Trump’s ambitions for Greenland actually amount to is Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
“President Trump’s declaration of intention to maybe take Greenland by force is very similar to President Putin’s rhetoric when it comes to Ukraine,” he tells the BBC.
The former prime minister of Denmark and ex-secretary general of the Nato alliance argues this is the moment Denmark and the rest of Europe must step up to better protect itself if the US is not willing to.
“Since my childhood, I have admired the United States and their role as the world’s policeman. And I think we need a policeman to ensure international law and order but if the United States does not want to execute that role, then Europe must be able to defend itself, to stand on its own feet.”
Fogh Rasmussen doesn’t though believe the policeman is about to turn felon.
“I would like to stress I don’t think at the end of the day that the Americans will take Greenland by force.”
President Trump first talked about a Greenland takeover in his first term of office before returning to the theme at the start of this year.
But now, after blindsiding supposed allies with his latest moves on Ukraine, tariffs, as well as the Middle East, Denmark is urgently trying the assess the true threat.
For many younger Danes, control of Greenland is plain wrong – an unfathomable colonial hangover.
It doesn’t mean they want it handed straight over the US instead.
“We do have connections to Greenland,” says music student Molly. “Denmark and Greenland are quite separated I would say but I still have friends from there so this does affect me quite personally.”
“I find it really scary,” says 18-year-old music student Luukas.
“Everything he sees, he goes after. And the thing with the oil and money, he doesn’t care about the climate, he doesn’t care about anyone or anything.”
His friend Clara chips in that Trump is now so powerful he can “affect their day-to-day life” from thousands of miles away, in what is an era of unprecedented jeopardy.
In light of President Trump’s suspension of military aid for Ukraine and his deep reluctance to fund Europe’s security, Denmark has been at the heart of the drive to boost defence spending across the continent.
The country has just announced it will allocate more than 3% of its GDP to defence spending in 2025 and 2026 to protect against future aggression from Russia or elsewhere.
Meanwhile, security analyst Hans Tino Hansen stands in front of a huge screen in what he calls his “ops room”, at his Copenhagen headquarters.
“This map is where we update on a daily basis our threat picture based on alerts and incidents all over the world,” says Hans, who has been running Risk Intelligence for the past 25 years.
As part of Denmark’s increased defence spending, it’s bolstering its strength in the “High North” with an extra two billion euros announced in January and three new Arctic naval vessels and investment in long-range drones.
Hans believes Arctic security can be tightened further, not by an American takeover – but with new deals that restore US influence.
“If you make more agreements, both on defence and security, but also economic ones and on raw materials, then we are more or less going back to where we were in the 50s and 60s.”

The rest is here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmjewpkje9o

roughbarked said:

Well now the Danes are upset by Trump’s run-away mouth.
They lost 52 soldiers fighting alongside the US. Now they feel threatened by Trump
All his adult life, Colonel Soren Knudsen stepped forward when his country called. And when its allies did.
He fought alongside US troops, notably in Afghanistan, and for a time was Denmark’s most senior officer there. He counted 58 rocket attacks during his duty.
“I was awarded a Bronze Star Medal by the United States and they gave me the Stars and Stripes. They have been hanging on my wall in our house ever since and I have proudly shown them to everybody.”
Then something changed.
“After JD Vance’s statement on Greenland, the president’s disrespect for internationally acknowledged borders, I took those that Stars and Stripes down and the medal has been put away,” Soren says, his voice breaking a little.
This week before Congress, the US president doubled down on his desire to seize the world’s biggest island: Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.
“My first feeling was that it hurts, and the second is that I’m offended,” Col Knudsen laments.
I meet him in the first weeks of his retirement outside Denmark’s 18th Century royal residence, Amalienborg Palace in the heart of Copenhagen.
Abruptly, pipers strike up and soldiers stream by.
Today’s Changing of the Guard comes at a time when the Trump administration has not just tweaked but defenestrated most assumptions around US-European security that have held fast for 80 years.
“It’s about values and when those values are axed by what we thought was an ally, it gets very tough to watch.” Soren says with his American wife Gina at his side.
“Denmark freely and without question joined those efforts where my husband served,” she says.
“So it comes as a shock to hear threats from a country that I also love and to feel that alliance is being trampled on. This feels personal, not like some abstract foreign policy tactic.”
Soren has not given up all hope though.
“It’s my hope and my prayer that I will one day be able to put back on the wall,” he confides.
Denmark lost 44 soldiers in Afghanistan – more than any other nation than the US, as a proportion of its population
There’s no sign his prayers will be answered soon.
Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, goes to the polls next week with all the main parties backing independence at some point in the future.
A takeover by Donald Trump – potentially by force – is not on the ballot paper.
Not far from the royal palace stands Denmark’s memorial to its soldiers lost in recent battle.
Carved on the stone-covered walls are the names of those killed alongside their Western allies.
The section honouring the fallen in the US-led invasion of Afghanistan is particularly sizeable.
Denmark lost 44 soldiers in Afghanistan, which as a proportion of its less than six million population, was more than any other ally apart from the US. In Iraq, eight Danish soldiers died.
This is why the president’s words sting so much.
Former Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen doubts the US will try to take Greenland by force
One man very well placed to consider what Trump’s ambitions for Greenland actually amount to is Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
“President Trump’s declaration of intention to maybe take Greenland by force is very similar to President Putin’s rhetoric when it comes to Ukraine,” he tells the BBC.
The former prime minister of Denmark and ex-secretary general of the Nato alliance argues this is the moment Denmark and the rest of Europe must step up to better protect itself if the US is not willing to.
“Since my childhood, I have admired the United States and their role as the world’s policeman. And I think we need a policeman to ensure international law and order but if the United States does not want to execute that role, then Europe must be able to defend itself, to stand on its own feet.”
Fogh Rasmussen doesn’t though believe the policeman is about to turn felon.
“I would like to stress I don’t think at the end of the day that the Americans will take Greenland by force.”
President Trump first talked about a Greenland takeover in his first term of office before returning to the theme at the start of this year.
But now, after blindsiding supposed allies with his latest moves on Ukraine, tariffs, as well as the Middle East, Denmark is urgently trying the assess the true threat.
For many younger Danes, control of Greenland is plain wrong – an unfathomable colonial hangover.
It doesn’t mean they want it handed straight over the US instead.
“We do have connections to Greenland,” says music student Molly. “Denmark and Greenland are quite separated I would say but I still have friends from there so this does affect me quite personally.”
“I find it really scary,” says 18-year-old music student Luukas.
“Everything he sees, he goes after. And the thing with the oil and money, he doesn’t care about the climate, he doesn’t care about anyone or anything.”
His friend Clara chips in that Trump is now so powerful he can “affect their day-to-day life” from thousands of miles away, in what is an era of unprecedented jeopardy.
In light of President Trump’s suspension of military aid for Ukraine and his deep reluctance to fund Europe’s security, Denmark has been at the heart of the drive to boost defence spending across the continent.
The country has just announced it will allocate more than 3% of its GDP to defence spending in 2025 and 2026 to protect against future aggression from Russia or elsewhere.
Meanwhile, security analyst Hans Tino Hansen stands in front of a huge screen in what he calls his “ops room”, at his Copenhagen headquarters.
“This map is where we update on a daily basis our threat picture based on alerts and incidents all over the world,” says Hans, who has been running Risk Intelligence for the past 25 years.
As part of Denmark’s increased defence spending, it’s bolstering its strength in the “High North” with an extra two billion euros announced in January and three new Arctic naval vessels and investment in long-range drones.
Hans believes Arctic security can be tightened further, not by an American takeover – but with new deals that restore US influence.
“If you make more agreements, both on defence and security, but also economic ones and on raw materials, then we are more or less going back to where we were in the 50s and 60s.”

The rest is here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmjewpkje9o

Thanks

AussieDJ said:

roughbarked said:

Well now the Danes are upset by Trump’s run-away mouth.
They lost 52 soldiers fighting alongside the US. Now they feel threatened by Trump
All his adult life, Colonel Soren Knudsen stepped forward when his country called. And when its allies did.
He fought alongside US troops, notably in Afghanistan, and for a time was Denmark’s most senior officer there. He counted 58 rocket attacks during his duty.
“I was awarded a Bronze Star Medal by the United States and they gave me the Stars and Stripes. They have been hanging on my wall in our house ever since and I have proudly shown them to everybody.”
Then something changed.
“After JD Vance’s statement on Greenland, the president’s disrespect for internationally acknowledged borders, I took those that Stars and Stripes down and the medal has been put away,” Soren says, his voice breaking a little.
This week before Congress, the US president doubled down on his desire to seize the world’s biggest island: Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.
“My first feeling was that it hurts, and the second is that I’m offended,” Col Knudsen laments.
I meet him in the first weeks of his retirement outside Denmark’s 18th Century royal residence, Amalienborg Palace in the heart of Copenhagen.
Abruptly, pipers strike up and soldiers stream by.
Today’s Changing of the Guard comes at a time when the Trump administration has not just tweaked but defenestrated most assumptions around US-European security that have held fast for 80 years.
“It’s about values and when those values are axed by what we thought was an ally, it gets very tough to watch.” Soren says with his American wife Gina at his side.
“Denmark freely and without question joined those efforts where my husband served,” she says.
“So it comes as a shock to hear threats from a country that I also love and to feel that alliance is being trampled on. This feels personal, not like some abstract foreign policy tactic.”
Soren has not given up all hope though.
“It’s my hope and my prayer that I will one day be able to put back on the wall,” he confides.
Denmark lost 44 soldiers in Afghanistan – more than any other nation than the US, as a proportion of its population
There’s no sign his prayers will be answered soon.
Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, goes to the polls next week with all the main parties backing independence at some point in the future.
A takeover by Donald Trump – potentially by force – is not on the ballot paper.
Not far from the royal palace stands Denmark’s memorial to its soldiers lost in recent battle.
Carved on the stone-covered walls are the names of those killed alongside their Western allies.
The section honouring the fallen in the US-led invasion of Afghanistan is particularly sizeable.
Denmark lost 44 soldiers in Afghanistan, which as a proportion of its less than six million population, was more than any other ally apart from the US. In Iraq, eight Danish soldiers died.
This is why the president’s words sting so much.
Former Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen doubts the US will try to take Greenland by force
One man very well placed to consider what Trump’s ambitions for Greenland actually amount to is Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
“President Trump’s declaration of intention to maybe take Greenland by force is very similar to President Putin’s rhetoric when it comes to Ukraine,” he tells the BBC.
The former prime minister of Denmark and ex-secretary general of the Nato alliance argues this is the moment Denmark and the rest of Europe must step up to better protect itself if the US is not willing to.
“Since my childhood, I have admired the United States and their role as the world’s policeman. And I think we need a policeman to ensure international law and order but if the United States does not want to execute that role, then Europe must be able to defend itself, to stand on its own feet.”
Fogh Rasmussen doesn’t though believe the policeman is about to turn felon.
“I would like to stress I don’t think at the end of the day that the Americans will take Greenland by force.”
President Trump first talked about a Greenland takeover in his first term of office before returning to the theme at the start of this year.
But now, after blindsiding supposed allies with his latest moves on Ukraine, tariffs, as well as the Middle East, Denmark is urgently trying the assess the true threat.
For many younger Danes, control of Greenland is plain wrong – an unfathomable colonial hangover.
It doesn’t mean they want it handed straight over the US instead.
“We do have connections to Greenland,” says music student Molly. “Denmark and Greenland are quite separated I would say but I still have friends from there so this does affect me quite personally.”
“I find it really scary,” says 18-year-old music student Luukas.
“Everything he sees, he goes after. And the thing with the oil and money, he doesn’t care about the climate, he doesn’t care about anyone or anything.”
His friend Clara chips in that Trump is now so powerful he can “affect their day-to-day life” from thousands of miles away, in what is an era of unprecedented jeopardy.
In light of President Trump’s suspension of military aid for Ukraine and his deep reluctance to fund Europe’s security, Denmark has been at the heart of the drive to boost defence spending across the continent.
The country has just announced it will allocate more than 3% of its GDP to defence spending in 2025 and 2026 to protect against future aggression from Russia or elsewhere.
Meanwhile, security analyst Hans Tino Hansen stands in front of a huge screen in what he calls his “ops room”, at his Copenhagen headquarters.
“This map is where we update on a daily basis our threat picture based on alerts and incidents all over the world,” says Hans, who has been running Risk Intelligence for the past 25 years.
As part of Denmark’s increased defence spending, it’s bolstering its strength in the “High North” with an extra two billion euros announced in January and three new Arctic naval vessels and investment in long-range drones.
Hans believes Arctic security can be tightened further, not by an American takeover – but with new deals that restore US influence.
“If you make more agreements, both on defence and security, but also economic ones and on raw materials, then we are more or less going back to where we were in the 50s and 60s.”

The rest is here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmjewpkje9o

Thanks

mumps, saving the world again inspiring the defence spending needed to protect freedom

https://youtu.be/evjc3LLHeS0?si=DRpWc9TrbPjp683u

Turnbull: Trump’s Chaos is a gift to China

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-tusk-plan-train-poland-men-military-service-russia/

Poland seeks access to nuclear arms and looks to build half-million-man army
Already a major spender within NATO, Warsaw has massive military plans as fears grow about the reliability of the U.S. as an ally against Russia.

Poland will look at gaining access to nuclear weapons and also ensure that every man undergoes military training as part of an effort to build a 500,000-strong army to face off the threat from Russia, Prime Minister Donald Tusk told the parliament on Friday.

Poland’s dramatic military expansion comes as fears grow across Europe that U.S. President Donald Trump is aligning with the Kremlin and turning his back on America’s traditional western alliances — a geopolitical shift that Warsaw regards as a potentially existential threat.

Tusk said that Poland “is talking seriously” with France about being protected by the French nuclear umbrella. President Emmanuel Macron has opened the possibility of other countries discussing how France’s nuclear deterrent can protect Europe.

—-

“Our deficit has been the lack of the will to act, having no confidence, and sometimes even cowardice. But Russia will be helpless against united Europe,” Tusk said, adding: “It’s striking but it’s true. Right now, 500 million Europeans are begging 300 million Americans for protection from 140 million Russians who have been unable to overcome 50 million Ukrainians for three years.”

He also said Poland would take steps to withdraw from international treaties banning the use of anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions.

Despite the planned military buildup, Tusk insisted that Polish troops would not be sent to Ukraine to police any peace agreement — something France and the U.K. are considering.

“Poland’s job is to guard its eastern border, which is also the border of NATO and the European Union,” he said.

—

More in article

dv said:

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-tusk-plan-train-poland-men-military-service-russia/

Poland seeks access to nuclear arms and looks to build half-million-man army
Already a major spender within NATO, Warsaw has massive military plans as fears grow about the reliability of the U.S. as an ally against Russia.

Poland will look at gaining access to nuclear weapons and also ensure that every man undergoes military training as part of an effort to build a 500,000-strong army to face off the threat from Russia, Prime Minister Donald Tusk told the parliament on Friday.

Poland’s dramatic military expansion comes as fears grow across Europe that U.S. President Donald Trump is aligning with the Kremlin and turning his back on America’s traditional western alliances — a geopolitical shift that Warsaw regards as a potentially existential threat.

Tusk said that Poland “is talking seriously” with France about being protected by the French nuclear umbrella. President Emmanuel Macron has opened the possibility of other countries discussing how France’s nuclear deterrent can protect Europe.

—-

“Our deficit has been the lack of the will to act, having no confidence, and sometimes even cowardice. But Russia will be helpless against united Europe,” Tusk said, adding: “It’s striking but it’s true. Right now, 500 million Europeans are begging 300 million Americans for protection from 140 million Russians who have been unable to overcome 50 million Ukrainians for three years.”

He also said Poland would take steps to withdraw from international treaties banning the use of anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions.

Despite the planned military buildup, Tusk insisted that Polish troops would not be sent to Ukraine to police any peace agreement — something France and the U.K. are considering.

“Poland’s job is to guard its eastern border, which is also the border of NATO and the European Union,” he said.

—

More in article

That more or less aligns with my views on the topic. Except I see a future nuclear armed Poland and Germany.

Poland’s main task against any Russia vs Europe conflict should be (IMAO) to be a staging point for the rapid invasion and conquest of the Kaliningrad Oblast, and depending on whose side they fall, Belarus. Bugger trying to defend the Suwalki Gap, eliminate the two territories it connects. Half a million strong army might be needed to achieve this.

dv said:

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-tusk-plan-train-poland-men-military-service-russia/

Poland seeks access to nuclear arms and looks to build half-million-man army
Already a major spender within NATO, Warsaw has massive military plans as fears grow about the reliability of the U.S. as an ally against Russia.

Poland will look at gaining access to nuclear weapons and also ensure that every man undergoes military training as part of an effort to build a 500,000-strong army to face off the threat from Russia, Prime Minister Donald Tusk told the parliament on Friday.

Poland’s dramatic military expansion comes as fears grow across Europe that U.S. President Donald Trump is aligning with the Kremlin and turning his back on America’s traditional western alliances — a geopolitical shift that Warsaw regards as a potentially existential threat.

Tusk said that Poland “is talking seriously” with France about being protected by the French nuclear umbrella. President Emmanuel Macron has opened the possibility of other countries discussing how France’s nuclear deterrent can protect Europe.

—-

“Our deficit has been the lack of the will to act, having no confidence, and sometimes even cowardice. But Russia will be helpless against united Europe,” Tusk said, adding: “It’s striking but it’s true. Right now, 500 million Europeans are begging 300 million Americans for protection from 140 million Russians who have been unable to overcome 50 million Ukrainians for three years.”

He also said Poland would take steps to withdraw from international treaties banning the use of anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions.

Despite the planned military buildup, Tusk insisted that Polish troops would not be sent to Ukraine to police any peace agreement — something France and the U.K. are considering.

“Poland’s job is to guard its eastern border, which is also the border of NATO and the European Union,” he said.

—

More in article

shit.

i remember back in the days when we played poleconomy. whoever played poland would lose. i suppose poland doesn’t want to lose this time.

sarahs mum said:

i remember back in the days when we played poleconomy. whoever played poland would lose. i suppose poland doesn’t want to lose this time.

That’s why they need nukes.

Mind you, history has been cruel to all land powers on the Great Northern European Plain. No country has ever been able to conquer and hold all of it.

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

i remember back in the days when we played poleconomy. whoever played poland would lose. i suppose poland doesn’t want to lose this time.

That’s why they need nukes.

Mind you, history has been cruel to all land powers on the Great Northern European Plain. No country has ever been able to conquer and hold all of it.

America’s nukes plus Russia’s nukes equals a lot of nukes.

sarahs mum said:

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

i remember back in the days when we played poleconomy. whoever played poland would lose. i suppose poland doesn’t want to lose this time.

That’s why they need nukes.

Mind you, history has been cruel to all land powers on the Great Northern European Plain. No country has ever been able to conquer and hold all of it.

America’s nukes plus Russia’s nukes equals a lot of nukes.

Yes.

Plus Germany, plus Japan, plus Australia (and some others) all making their own nukes too, because they can’t trust the USA to vote the right way in future. The world will not be a safer place, but each newly nuclear armed nation will feel safer.

i don’t want to be allied with the states if the states are allied with russia.

Also chuck is my head of govt. and that makes it confusing.

Listening to Jaques Attali on French News.

The centre-right Demokraatit Party has won the most votes in Greenland’s parliamentary elections, a surprise result as the territory went to the polls in the shadow of US President Donald Trump’s stated goal of taking control of the island one way or another.

What’s behind Trump’s Greenland bid?
Photo shows Donald Trump looks over his shoulder while wearing a suit with a red tie.Donald Trump looks over his shoulder while wearing a suit with a red tie.
The tug of war between Denmark and America over Greenland is about more than Donald Trump’s trademark bluster.

Crowds streamed into the polling station in the capital Nuuk on Tuesday, with officials closing the polls well after the planned 8pm, local time.

Egede’s Inuit Ataqatigiit (United Inuit) had been widely expected to win the contest, followed by Siumut — two parties that have dominated Greenland’s politics in recent years.

But the parties that garnered the most votes were the Demokraatit (the Democrats) followed by the Naleraq (Point of Orientation).

In February, Prime Minister Mute Bourup Egede called elections early, saying the country needed to be united during a “serious time” unlike anything Greenland had ever experienced.

Mr Trump has been outspoken about his desire to control Greenland, telling a joint session of Congress last week that he thought the US was going to get it “one way or the other”.

Greenland, a self-governing region of Denmark, straddles strategic air and sea routes in the North Atlantic and has rich deposits of the rare earth minerals needed to make everything from mobile phones to renewable energy technology.

more…

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-12/centre-right-party-wins-most-votes-in-greenland/105044184

sarahs mum said:

The centre-right Demokraatit Party has won the most votes in Greenland’s parliamentary elections, a surprise result as the territory went to the polls in the shadow of US President Donald Trump’s stated goal of taking control of the island one way or another.

What’s behind Trump’s Greenland bid?
Photo shows Donald Trump looks over his shoulder while wearing a suit with a red tie.Donald Trump looks over his shoulder while wearing a suit with a red tie.
The tug of war between Denmark and America over Greenland is about more than Donald Trump’s trademark bluster.

Crowds streamed into the polling station in the capital Nuuk on Tuesday, with officials closing the polls well after the planned 8pm, local time.

Egede’s Inuit Ataqatigiit (United Inuit) had been widely expected to win the contest, followed by Siumut — two parties that have dominated Greenland’s politics in recent years.

But the parties that garnered the most votes were the Demokraatit (the Democrats) followed by the Naleraq (Point of Orientation).

In February, Prime Minister Mute Bourup Egede called elections early, saying the country needed to be united during a “serious time” unlike anything Greenland had ever experienced.

Mr Trump has been outspoken about his desire to control Greenland, telling a joint session of Congress last week that he thought the US was going to get it “one way or the other”.

Greenland, a self-governing region of Denmark, straddles strategic air and sea routes in the North Atlantic and has rich deposits of the rare earth minerals needed to make everything from mobile phones to renewable energy technology.

more…

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-12/centre-right-party-wins-most-votes-in-greenland/105044184

good or bad

SCIENCE said:

sarahs mum said:

The centre-right Demokraatit Party has won the most votes in Greenland’s parliamentary elections, a surprise result as the territory went to the polls in the shadow of US President Donald Trump’s stated goal of taking control of the island one way or another.

What’s behind Trump’s Greenland bid?
Photo shows Donald Trump looks over his shoulder while wearing a suit with a red tie.Donald Trump looks over his shoulder while wearing a suit with a red tie.
The tug of war between Denmark and America over Greenland is about more than Donald Trump’s trademark bluster.

Crowds streamed into the polling station in the capital Nuuk on Tuesday, with officials closing the polls well after the planned 8pm, local time.

Egede’s Inuit Ataqatigiit (United Inuit) had been widely expected to win the contest, followed by Siumut — two parties that have dominated Greenland’s politics in recent years.

But the parties that garnered the most votes were the Demokraatit (the Democrats) followed by the Naleraq (Point of Orientation).

In February, Prime Minister Mute Bourup Egede called elections early, saying the country needed to be united during a “serious time” unlike anything Greenland had ever experienced.

Mr Trump has been outspoken about his desire to control Greenland, telling a joint session of Congress last week that he thought the US was going to get it “one way or the other”.

Greenland, a self-governing region of Denmark, straddles strategic air and sea routes in the North Atlantic and has rich deposits of the rare earth minerals needed to make everything from mobile phones to renewable energy technology.

more…

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-12/centre-right-party-wins-most-votes-in-greenland/105044184

good or bad

i don’t know but I don’t think it is a good time to become independent.

so

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-13/rodrigo-duterte-icc-custody-on-crimes-against-humanity-charges/105044826

international law doesn’t apply in HK is that the trick

I’m sure the Forum is all over this.
Greenland Votes
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-12/centre-right-party-wins-most-votes-in-greenland/105044184

Peak Warming Man said:

I’m sure the Forum is all over this.
Greenland Votes
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-12/centre-right-party-wins-most-votes-in-greenland/105044184

Once again…

Yes. This has been discussed.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I’m sure the Forum is all over this.
Greenland Votes
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-12/centre-right-party-wins-most-votes-in-greenland/105044184

Once again…

Yes. This has been discussed.

Goodo

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I’m sure the Forum is all over this.
Greenland Votes
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-12/centre-right-party-wins-most-votes-in-greenland/105044184

Once again…

Yes. This has been discussed.

Goodo

ssshhh. the dogs might hear you.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I’m sure the Forum is all over this.
Greenland Votes
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-12/centre-right-party-wins-most-votes-in-greenland/105044184

Once again…

Yes. This has been discussed.

But to recap: the man who will be the new PM, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, has been an outspoken Trump critic, calling Trump “a threat to our political independence.” His party favours a long term approach to independence, commencing with building up local production to lower reliance on imports and subsidies from Copenhagen.

There’s no real way that Greenland could afford to be independent right now due to its high level of dependence on Denmark. Additionally, it is going to need some new longterm security arrangement with someone.

Does the USA possess a kill switch for the F-35?

https://youtu.be/TQAfwk3Otno?si=L7rSNQ0_nqDpySz8

dv said:

Does the USA possess a kill switch for the F-35?

https://youtu.be/TQAfwk3Otno?si=L7rSNQ0_nqDpySz8

I was reading about that.

I’d reckon a high probability its true.

Cymek said:

dv said:

Does the USA possess a kill switch for the F-35?

https://youtu.be/TQAfwk3Otno?si=L7rSNQ0_nqDpySz8

I was reading about that.

I’d reckon a high probability its true.

France is looking like the smart one now, with their own independent manufacturer of fighters, rockets, nukes…

dv said:

Cymek said:

dv said:

Does the USA possess a kill switch for the F-35?

https://youtu.be/TQAfwk3Otno?si=L7rSNQ0_nqDpySz8

I was reading about that.

I’d reckon a high probability its true.

France is looking like the smart one now, with their own independent manufacturer of fighters, rockets, nukes…

We should have bought SAAB Gripens.

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

Cymek said:

dv said:

Does the USA possess a kill switch for the F-35?

https://youtu.be/TQAfwk3Otno?si=L7rSNQ0_nqDpySz8

I was reading about that.

I’d reckon a high probability its true.

France is looking like the smart one now, with their own independent manufacturer of fighters, rockets, nukes…

We should have bought SAAB Gripens.

this is bullshit, only dirty countries like CHINA sneak remote control back doors into their cheap and nasty products that they’re too shit to make of high quality so they couldn’t possibly be skilled enough to hide anything in the product wait oh yeah did we mention other states established in the late 1940s who persécuté and genocide Muslims in their west and secret explosives in telecommunications systems oh shit

Portugal is getting cold feet about replacing its U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets with more modern F-35s because of Donald Trump — in one of the first examples of the U.S. president undermining a potential lucrative arms deal.

https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal-rules-out-buying-f-35s-because-of-trump/

dv said:

Portugal is getting cold feet about replacing its U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets with more modern F-35s because of Donald Trump — in one of the first examples of the U.S. president undermining a potential lucrative arms deal.

https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal-rules-out-buying-f-35s-because-of-trump/

Look at me, Portugal, look at me:

Two words for you, Portugal: SAAB Gripens.

dv said:

Portugal is getting cold feet about replacing its U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets with more modern F-35s because of Donald Trump — in one of the first examples of the U.S. president undermining a potential lucrative arms deal.

https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal-rules-out-buying-f-35s-because-of-trump/

Trump may have finally gone too far.

Causing sales of Jack Daniels to fall is one thing.

But, when you get Lockheed Martin, or General Dynamics, etc. mad at you…

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

Portugal is getting cold feet about replacing its U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets with more modern F-35s because of Donald Trump — in one of the first examples of the U.S. president undermining a potential lucrative arms deal.

https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal-rules-out-buying-f-35s-because-of-trump/

Trump may have finally gone too far.

Causing sales of Jack Daniels to fall is one thing.

But, when you get Lockheed Martin, or General Dynamics, etc. mad at you…

Just start a war and they’ll be reconsidering quick smart¡

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

Portugal is getting cold feet about replacing its U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets with more modern F-35s because of Donald Trump — in one of the first examples of the U.S. president undermining a potential lucrative arms deal.

https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal-rules-out-buying-f-35s-because-of-trump/

Trump may have finally gone too far.

Causing sales of Jack Daniels to fall is one thing.

But, when you get Lockheed Martin, or General Dynamics, etc. mad at you…

Good.

dv said:

is that like their government funded international interference independent media

Hey why not include

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-17/france-united-kingdom-nuclear-weapons-european-protection/105055186

India or Pakistan or West Taiwan in the chart then eh¿

Oh that’s right you wouldn’t want to share an umbrella with those dirty ASIANS now oh no.

Better stick with DPRK and Greater Palestine then, they’re clean.

A group of South African scientists has pleaded for help, saying they are trapped in an isolated base on a cliff edge in Antarctica with a team member who has become violent.

SCIENCE said:

A group of South African scientists has pleaded for help, saying they are trapped in an isolated base on a cliff edge in Antarctica with a team member who has become violent.

I feel like that sometimes, trapped in a forum.

SCIENCE said:

A group of South African scientists has pleaded for help, saying they are trapped in an isolated base on a cliff edge in Antarctica with a team member who has become violent.

Is his name Jeronimus Cornelisz?

Peak Warming Man said:

SCIENCE said:

A group of South African scientists has pleaded for help, saying they are trapped in an isolated base on a cliff edge in Antarctica with a team member who has become violent.

I feel like that sometimes, trapped in a forum.

no escape from reality.

JudgeMental said:

Peak Warming Man said:

SCIENCE said:

A group of South African scientists has pleaded for help, saying they are trapped in an isolated base on a cliff edge in Antarctica with a team member who has become violent.

I feel like that sometimes, trapped in a forum.

no escape from reality.

I escaped from reality but now they won’t give me any more Endones.

SCIENCE said:

A group of South African scientists has pleaded for help, saying they are trapped in an isolated base on a cliff edge in Antarctica with a team member who has become violent.

Check his teeth, no fillings, use a flame thrower.

Cymek said:

SCIENCE said:

A group of South African scientists has pleaded for help, saying they are trapped in an isolated base on a cliff edge in Antarctica with a team member who has become violent.

Check his teeth, no fillings, use a flame thrower.

that’s the thing.

JudgeMental said:

Cymek said:

SCIENCE said:

A group of South African scientists has pleaded for help, saying they are trapped in an isolated base on a cliff edge in Antarctica with a team member who has become violent.

Check his teeth, no fillings, use a flame thrower.

that’s the thing.

Beat me to it

dudé starts calling things a bit more like they are

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-24/democracy-climate-change-ai-robotics-war/105085846

sarahs mum said:

Who is owed the debt ?, banks and stuff ?

Our lizard overlords ?

Cymek said:

sarahs mum said:

Who is owed the debt ?, banks and stuff ?

Our lizard overlords ?

governments sell treasury bonds to fund debt, these bonds are bought by the central banks of other countries, both foreign and domestic sophisticated private investors (like commercial banks, private equity, retirement funds, etc..) and some government bonds are also held by individual investors.

in general government bonds are a low risk, low yielding asset class.

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

sarahs mum said:

Who is owed the debt ?, banks and stuff ?

Our lizard overlords ?

governments sell treasury bonds to fund debt, these bonds are bought by the central banks of other countries, both foreign and domestic sophisticated private investors (like commercial banks, private equity, retirement funds, etc..) and some government bonds are also held by individual investors.

in general government bonds are a low risk, low yielding asset class.

Danke

sarahs mum said:

Australia is doing … not too bad in terms of debt to GDP.

Japan is selling lots of us bonds and buying european.

sarahs mum said:

Japan is selling lots of us bonds and buying european.

I don’t really know much about trends in the international bond market, but it doesn’t really matter too much about what is happening right now as the terms of the bond are set when the bond is first sold – that is, the yield doesn’t change over time as a function of geo-politics.

diddly-squat said:

sarahs mum said:

Japan is selling lots of us bonds and buying european.

I don’t really know much about trends in the international bond market, but it doesn’t really matter too much about what is happening right now as the terms of the bond are set when the bond is first sold – that is, the yield doesn’t change over time as a function of geo-politics.

I suppose that depends on whether you think there is a nonzero chance that the US will default on its bonds.

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

sarahs mum said:

Japan is selling lots of us bonds and buying european.

I don’t really know much about trends in the international bond market, but it doesn’t really matter too much about what is happening right now as the terms of the bond are set when the bond is first sold – that is, the yield doesn’t change over time as a function of geo-politics.

I suppose that depends on whether you think there is a nonzero chance that the US will default on its bonds.

Three European nations are seeking a refund from the Trump administration for funds they contributed to USAID projects that have remained unspent.

Government officials from Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands said a combined $US15 million ($24 million) they contributed for joint development work overseas had been parked at the US Agency for International Development for months.

The three countries, allies of the United States, provided the funds for USAID to spend on low-income countries in a project called Water and Energy for Food, or WE4F.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-24/americas-european-allies-want-unspent-usaid-money-back/105088146

roughbarked said:

The three countries, allies of the United States,

aw bless

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

Australia is doing … not too bad in terms of debt to GDP.

who do all these countries owe it to anyway

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

sarahs mum said:

Who is owed the debt ?, banks and stuff ?

Our lizard overlords ?

governments sell treasury bonds to fund debt, these bonds are bought by the central banks of other countries, both foreign and domestic sophisticated private investors (like commercial banks, private equity, retirement funds, etc..) and some government bonds are also held by individual investors.

in general government bonds are a low risk, low yielding asset class.

Danke

Australia is doing … not too bad in terms of debt to GDP.

who do all these countries owe it to anyway

sorry try again since Cymek already got the broad question answered

which central banks of other countries, which commercial banks, which private equity, which retirement funds, which individual investors have the big chunks of this debt that they could blackmail governments with

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

Australia is doing … not too bad in terms of debt to GDP.

who do all these countries owe it to anyway

Hedge funds.

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

sarahs mum said:

Japan is selling lots of us bonds and buying european.

I don’t really know much about trends in the international bond market, but it doesn’t really matter too much about what is happening right now as the terms of the bond are set when the bond is first sold – that is, the yield doesn’t change over time as a function of geo-politics.

I suppose that depends on whether you think there is a nonzero chance that the US will default on its bonds.

What could be done if they did ?

Couldn’t Trump order drone strikes on the banks

Cymek said:

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

I don’t really know much about trends in the international bond market, but it doesn’t really matter too much about what is happening right now as the terms of the bond are set when the bond is first sold – that is, the yield doesn’t change over time as a function of geo-politics.

I suppose that depends on whether you think there is a nonzero chance that the US will default on its bonds.

What could be done if they did ?

Couldn’t Trump order drone strikes on the banks

Only after blaming it on Joe Biden.

sarahs mum said:

0.8%?

We need to work harder at lifting our debt levels.

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

sarahs mum said:

Japan is selling lots of us bonds and buying european.

I don’t really know much about trends in the international bond market, but it doesn’t really matter too much about what is happening right now as the terms of the bond are set when the bond is first sold – that is, the yield doesn’t change over time as a function of geo-politics.

I suppose that depends on whether you think there is a nonzero chance that the US will default on its bonds.

the value of government bonds is backed by what is called “full faith and credit”; so in essence to only way the a bond loses values is if the country goes completely bankrupt.

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

I don’t really know much about trends in the international bond market, but it doesn’t really matter too much about what is happening right now as the terms of the bond are set when the bond is first sold – that is, the yield doesn’t change over time as a function of geo-politics.

I suppose that depends on whether you think there is a nonzero chance that the US will default on its bonds.

the value of government bonds is backed by what is called “full faith and credit”; so in essence to only way the a bond loses values is if the country goes completely bankrupt.

So trillions of dollars of debt isn’t included ?

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

I suppose that depends on whether you think there is a nonzero chance that the US will default on its bonds.

the value of government bonds is backed by what is called “full faith and credit”; so in essence to only way the a bond loses values is if the country goes completely bankrupt.

So trillions of dollars of debt isn’t included ?

included in what?

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

I suppose that depends on whether you think there is a nonzero chance that the US will default on its bonds.

the value of government bonds is backed by what is called “full faith and credit”; so in essence to only way the a bond loses values is if the country goes completely bankrupt.

So trillions of dollars of debt isn’t included ?

probably like some cryptocurrency NFT bullshit pyramid scheme, country could be completely worthless but if you can convince a bigger idiot to buy in then you’re good

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

the value of government bonds is backed by what is called “full faith and credit”; so in essence to only way the a bond loses values is if the country goes completely bankrupt.

So trillions of dollars of debt isn’t included ?

included in what?

Being bankrupt

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

So trillions of dollars of debt isn’t included ?

included in what?

Being bankrupt

no, being bankrupt just means you have no possible way to service your expenses (which includes servicing your debt).

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

I don’t really know much about trends in the international bond market, but it doesn’t really matter too much about what is happening right now as the terms of the bond are set when the bond is first sold – that is, the yield doesn’t change over time as a function of geo-politics.

I suppose that depends on whether you think there is a nonzero chance that the US will default on its bonds.

the value of government bonds is backed by what is called “full faith and credit”; so in essence to only way the a bond loses values is if the country goes completely bankrupt.

It would certainly be unexpected if the US defaults on its treasury instruments but these are weird times.

The other reason to offload them is that they are going to be worth less in the future because the my are USD denominated…

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

I suppose that depends on whether you think there is a nonzero chance that the US will default on its bonds.

the value of government bonds is backed by what is called “full faith and credit”; so in essence to only way the a bond loses values is if the country goes completely bankrupt.

It would certainly be unexpected if the US defaults on its treasury instruments but these are weird times.

The other reason to offload them is that they are going to be worth less in the future because the my are USD denominated…

currency traders are undoubtedly taking shorts on the USD dropping but I don’t see the US defaulting on it’s debt.. the consequences would be actually catastrophic…

coincidence yous think

Han Jong-hee, the co-chief executive of South Korean tech giant Samsung Electronics has died at age 63 of cardiac arrest.

Newly-appointed boss Jun Young-hyun will be solely in charge of the South Korean tech giant as it revamps its underperforming chip business and navigates trade uncertainties.

Jun was only appointed as Samsung’s co-CEO last week at its annual shareholders meeting.

https://youtu.be/eTS16oLluyo?si=CoRFnFxOqPLqeuJ9
Money and Macro
M.E.G.A.: Why Europe will be stronger without America.

Greenland has existed under NATO’s umbrella for 70 plus years, with its nuclear defence provided by the USA and conventional naval defence provided by Denmark. The US opened Thule Airbase in the far north in 1951, and this was redesignated as a Space Force base in 2020. It is now known as Pituffik Space Base. On paper, the US armed forces have considerable freedom of movement within Greenland.

Greenland’s main export is still fish so naturally the integrity of their territorial waters is very important. The amount of economic support provided by Denmark is about 20% of GDP.

Not long after Greenland got Home Rule in the 1980s, they opted out of the European Economic Community, the precursor to the EU.
A poll conducted a couple of months ago indicated that 60% of Greenlanders would like to join the EU.

The population is around 60000. The land area is comparable to that of Western Australia. Through the 20th century, Greenland was mainly protected by its undesirability. Its arable land area is about the same as Tasmania’s, and its mineral deposits were considered inaccessible. Climate change has changed that equation as agricultural output has increased and the prospects for feasible mining have improved. Maritime navigability has also improved due to reduced sea ice. Some of Greenland’s resources include lithium, gold, rare earth elements, uranium, copper, nickel and iron. Although currently Greenland depends on support from Denmark, and to a lesser extent from the EU (even though they are not members), they could probably make plans to be economically independent within a couple of decades.

So this is the situation. There is a desire for political independence within the major parties in Greenland, but there is no way in the world they could provide for their own military defence. They would need to be under someone’s wing. If, as seems likely, NATO does completely disaggregate, Greenland would need to choose between the USA and the new Euro-Canadian Defence Union. Either way, they would need to end up paying their way with mineral exports and military bases: the de facto extent of their independence would be limited but such is the fate of all small countries. If the US insists that they also give up their de jure independence, then it only makes the other option more appealing.

dv said:

So this is the situation. There is a desire for political independence within the major parties in Greenland, but there is no way in the world they could provide for their own military defence. They would need to be under someone’s wing. If, as seems likely, NATO does completely disaggregate, Greenland would need to choose between the USA and the new Euro-Canadian Defence Union. Either way, they would need to end up paying their way with mineral exports and military bases: the de facto extent of their independence would be limited but such is the fate of all small countries. If the US insists that they also give up their de jure independence, then it only makes the other option more appealing.

NATO might ‘disaggregate’, as you say, but, as you also say, would Phoenix itself as a EUCAN defence pact, without the USA.

Greenlanders might well prefer to continue be a ‘province’ of a European nation, rather than be swallowed whole by the US, and have their own culture and future overwhelmed by Americanisation.

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

So this is the situation. There is a desire for political independence within the major parties in Greenland, but there is no way in the world they could provide for their own military defence. They would need to be under someone’s wing. If, as seems likely, NATO does completely disaggregate, Greenland would need to choose between the USA and the new Euro-Canadian Defence Union. Either way, they would need to end up paying their way with mineral exports and military bases: the de facto extent of their independence would be limited but such is the fate of all small countries. If the US insists that they also give up their de jure independence, then it only makes the other option more appealing.

NATO might ‘disaggregate’, as you say, but, as you also say, would Phoenix itself as a EUCAN defence pact, without the USA.

Greenlanders might well prefer to continue be a ‘province’ of a European nation, rather than be swallowed whole by the US, and have their own culture and future overwhelmed by Americanisation.

I would also mention that it is kind of weird that the thing that makes Greenland more appealing to the US is the thing that the current administration denies the existence of: climate change. I do wonder why some of these people don’t just conk out from the cognitive dissonance.

dv said:

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

So this is the situation. There is a desire for political independence within the major parties in Greenland, but there is no way in the world they could provide for their own military defence. They would need to be under someone’s wing. If, as seems likely, NATO does completely disaggregate, Greenland would need to choose between the USA and the new Euro-Canadian Defence Union. Either way, they would need to end up paying their way with mineral exports and military bases: the de facto extent of their independence would be limited but such is the fate of all small countries. If the US insists that they also give up their de jure independence, then it only makes the other option more appealing.

NATO might ‘disaggregate’, as you say, but, as you also say, would Phoenix itself as a EUCAN defence pact, without the USA.

Greenlanders might well prefer to continue be a ‘province’ of a European nation, rather than be swallowed whole by the US, and have their own culture and future overwhelmed by Americanisation.

I would also mention that it is kind of weird that the thing that makes Greenland more appealing to the US is the thing that the current administration denies the existence of: climate change. I do wonder why some of these people don’t just conk out from the cognitive dissonance.

yep.

dv said:

I would also mention that it is kind of weird that the thing that makes Greenland more appealing to the US is the thing that the current administration denies the existence of: climate change. I do wonder why some of these people don’t just conk out from the cognitive dissonance.

Maybe it’s more politically acceptable to deny climate change than to admit that they want the climate to change.

dv said:

Greenland has existed under NATO’s umbrella for 70 plus years, with its nuclear defence provided by the USA and conventional naval defence provided by Denmark. The US opened Thule Airbase in the far north in 1951, and this was redesignated as a Space Force base in 2020. It is now known as Pituffik Space Base. On paper, the US armed forces have considerable freedom of movement within Greenland.

Greenland’s main export is still fish so naturally the integrity of their territorial waters is very important. The amount of economic support provided by Denmark is about 20% of GDP.

Not long after Greenland got Home Rule in the 1980s, they opted out of the European Economic Community, the precursor to the EU.
A poll conducted a couple of months ago indicated that 60% of Greenlanders would like to join the EU.

The population is around 60000. The land area is comparable to that of Western Australia. Through the 20th century, Greenland was mainly protected by its undesirability. Its arable land area is about the same as Tasmania’s, and its mineral deposits were considered inaccessible. Climate change has changed that equation as agricultural output has increased and the prospects for feasible mining have improved. Maritime navigability has also improved due to reduced sea ice. Some of Greenland’s resources include lithium, gold, rare earth elements, uranium, copper, nickel and iron. Although currently Greenland depends on support from Denmark, and to a lesser extent from the EU (even though they are not members), they could probably make plans to be economically independent within a couple of decades.

So this is the situation. There is a desire for political independence within the major parties in Greenland, but there is no way in the world they could provide for their own military defence. They would need to be under someone’s wing. If, as seems likely, NATO does completely disaggregate, Greenland would need to choose between the USA and the new Euro-Canadian Defence Union. Either way, they would need to end up paying their way with mineral exports and military bases: the de facto extent of their independence would be limited but such is the fate of all small countries. If the US insists that they also give up their de jure independence, then it only makes the other option more appealing.

I think this is all completely arse-about. Greenland is not under threat and does not need protection under anybody’s nuclear umbrella.

The USA’s biggest threat from Russia and China is the threat of nukes being lobbed at them over the Arctic. Thus, the USA need the co-operation of Canada and Greenland to stage their forward bases and detection systems. Nobody is going to attack Greenland.

The USA can have all the co-operation and forward bases and detection systems etc that they need: through NATO. If they pull out of NATO and lose all of this access, they have only themselves to blame. To say that Greenalnd is somehow free-loading off the USA for protection from Russia or China is laughable.

And Russia is now an ally of the USA anyway. And China is their ally. So what’s the threat to the USA in the first place??

dv said:

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

So this is the situation. There is a desire for political independence within the major parties in Greenland, but there is no way in the world they could provide for their own military defence. They would need to be under someone’s wing. If, as seems likely, NATO does completely disaggregate, Greenland would need to choose between the USA and the new Euro-Canadian Defence Union. Either way, they would need to end up paying their way with mineral exports and military bases: the de facto extent of their independence would be limited but such is the fate of all small countries. If the US insists that they also give up their de jure independence, then it only makes the other option more appealing.

NATO might ‘disaggregate’, as you say, but, as you also say, would Phoenix itself as a EUCAN defence pact, without the USA.

Greenlanders might well prefer to continue be a ‘province’ of a European nation, rather than be swallowed whole by the US, and have their own culture and future overwhelmed by Americanisation.

I would also mention that it is kind of weird that the thing that makes Greenland more appealing to the US is the thing that the current administration denies the existence of: climate change. I do wonder why some of these people don’t just conk out from the cognitive dissonance.

It constantly astonishes me, not only that such people seem to survive the common hazards of everyday life while operating under the weight of ignorance of staggering proportions, but also that some of them manage to rise to positions of influence.

climate change

northwest passage.

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

captain_spalding said:

NATO might ‘disaggregate’, as you say, but, as you also say, would Phoenix itself as a EUCAN defence pact, without the USA.

Greenlanders might well prefer to continue be a ‘province’ of a European nation, rather than be swallowed whole by the US, and have their own culture and future overwhelmed by Americanisation.

I would also mention that it is kind of weird that the thing that makes Greenland more appealing to the US is the thing that the current administration denies the existence of: climate change. I do wonder why some of these people don’t just conk out from the cognitive dissonance.

It constantly astonishes me, not only that such people seem to survive the common hazards of everyday life while operating under the weight of ignorance of staggering proportions, but also that some of them manage to rise to positions of influence.

reassuring lies are so good

party_pants said:

I think this is all completely arse-about. Greenland is not under threat and does not need protection under anybody’s nuclear umbrella.

I haven’t implied they need to be. They are vulnerable to invasion by perfectly conventional forces for the old fashioned reason of resource acquisition. They have basically no independent defence capability: they will need to be part of some military alliance or another.

party_pants said:

dv said:

Greenland has existed under NATO’s umbrella for 70 plus years, with its nuclear defence provided by the USA and conventional naval defence provided by Denmark. The US opened Thule Airbase in the far north in 1951, and this was redesignated as a Space Force base in 2020. It is now known as Pituffik Space Base. On paper, the US armed forces have considerable freedom of movement within Greenland.

Greenland’s main export is still fish so naturally the integrity of their territorial waters is very important. The amount of economic support provided by Denmark is about 20% of GDP.

Not long after Greenland got Home Rule in the 1980s, they opted out of the European Economic Community, the precursor to the EU.
A poll conducted a couple of months ago indicated that 60% of Greenlanders would like to join the EU.

The population is around 60000. The land area is comparable to that of Western Australia. Through the 20th century, Greenland was mainly protected by its undesirability. Its arable land area is about the same as Tasmania’s, and its mineral deposits were considered inaccessible. Climate change has changed that equation as agricultural output has increased and the prospects for feasible mining have improved. Maritime navigability has also improved due to reduced sea ice. Some of Greenland’s resources include lithium, gold, rare earth elements, uranium, copper, nickel and iron. Although currently Greenland depends on support from Denmark, and to a lesser extent from the EU (even though they are not members), they could probably make plans to be economically independent within a couple of decades.

So this is the situation. There is a desire for political independence within the major parties in Greenland, but there is no way in the world they could provide for their own military defence. They would need to be under someone’s wing. If, as seems likely, NATO does completely disaggregate, Greenland would need to choose between the USA and the new Euro-Canadian Defence Union. Either way, they would need to end up paying their way with mineral exports and military bases: the de facto extent of their independence would be limited but such is the fate of all small countries. If the US insists that they also give up their de jure independence, then it only makes the other option more appealing.

I think this is all completely arse-about. Greenland is not under threat and does not need protection under anybody’s nuclear umbrella.

The USA’s biggest threat from Russia and China is the threat of nukes being lobbed at them over the Arctic. Thus, the USA need the co-operation of Canada and Greenland to stage their forward bases and detection systems. Nobody is going to attack Greenland.

The USA can have all the co-operation and forward bases and detection systems etc that they need: through NATO. If they pull out of NATO and lose all of this access, they have only themselves to blame. To say that Greenalnd is somehow free-loading off the USA for protection from Russia or China is laughable.

And Russia is now an ally of the USA anyway. And China is their ally. So what’s the threat to the USA in the first place??

:)

dv said:

party_pants said:

I think this is all completely arse-about. Greenland is not under threat and does not need protection under anybody’s nuclear umbrella.

I haven’t implied they need to be. They are vulnerable to invasion by perfectly conventional forces for the old fashioned reason of resource acquisition. They have basically no independent defence capability: they will need to be part of some military alliance or another.

Greenland and Denmark are still part of NATO.

party_pants said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

I think this is all completely arse-about. Greenland is not under threat and does not need protection under anybody’s nuclear umbrella.

I haven’t implied they need to be. They are vulnerable to invasion by perfectly conventional forces for the old fashioned reason of resource acquisition. They have basically no independent defence capability: they will need to be part of some military alliance or another.

Greenland and Denmark are still part of NATO.

NATO is going away.

dv said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

I haven’t implied they need to be. They are vulnerable to invasion by perfectly conventional forces for the old fashioned reason of resource acquisition. They have basically no independent defence capability: they will need to be part of some military alliance or another.

Greenland and Denmark are still part of NATO.

NATO is going away.

I don’t think so. The USA is just considering withdrawing from NATO. The Europeans will continue NATO in some form or other amongst themselves without them.

With Germany and Poland; and possibly Sweden, Finland and Italy becoming nuclear powers in their own right. The European branch of NATO is not going away.

If any treaty is going away, it the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

party_pants said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

Greenland and Denmark are still part of NATO.

NATO is going away.

I don’t think so. The USA is just considering withdrawing from NATO. The Europeans will continue NATO in some form or other amongst themselves without them.

NATO doesn’t exist without the US. There will hopefully be some new alliance, and well that’s… my point. Greenland will have to pick a side, particularly if they continue to pursue a path to national sovereignty.

If any treaty is going away, it the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Yeah probably.

dv said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

I don’t think so. The USA is just considering withdrawing from NATO. The Europeans will continue NATO in some form or other amongst themselves without them.

NATO doesn’t exist without the US. There will hopefully be some new alliance, and well that’s… my point. Greenland will have to pick a side, particularly if they continue to pursue a path to national sovereignty.

If any treaty is going away, it the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Yeah probably.

Canadia is North American, does that count as the NA part of TO?

dv said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

I don’t think so. The USA is just considering withdrawing from NATO. The Europeans will continue NATO in some form or other amongst themselves without them.

NATO doesn’t exist without the US. There will hopefully be some new alliance, and well that’s… my point. Greenland will have to pick a side, particularly if they continue to pursue a path to national sovereignty.

If any treaty is going away, it the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Yeah probably.

Greenland will join whatever new side the Europeans will form. As will Canada.

dv said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

I don’t think so. The USA is just considering withdrawing from NATO. The Europeans will continue NATO in some form or other amongst themselves without them.

NATO doesn’t exist without the US. There will hopefully be some new alliance, and well that’s… my point. Greenland will have to pick a side, particularly if they continue to pursue a path to national sovereignty.

If any treaty is going away, it the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Yeah probably.

……….NATO doesn’t exist without the US……………..

Why? Can’t the US just withdraw if it doesn’t want to be in the organisation?

Michael V said:

Why? Can’t the US just withdraw if it doesn’t want to be in the organisation?

Articles 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the North Atlantic Treaty effectively establish the United States as the administrator of the organisation, to handle admission, renunciation, ratification and documentation of membership.

dv said:

Michael V said:

Why? Can’t the US just withdraw if it doesn’t want to be in the organisation?

Articles 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the North Atlantic Treaty effectively establish the United States as the administrator of the organisation, to handle admission, renunciation, ratification and documentation of membership.

Thanks.

That’s not good, with Trump the Wrecker about.

Michael V said:

dv said:

Michael V said:

Why? Can’t the US just withdraw if it doesn’t want to be in the organisation?

Articles 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the North Atlantic Treaty effectively establish the United States as the administrator of the organisation, to handle admission, renunciation, ratification and documentation of membership.

Thanks.

That’s not good, with Trump the Wrecker about.

That is the problem. If he realises the power he has, he’ll use it to wreck everything.

Morning pilgrims.
The day is set fair, might even fit in a spot of mowing.
Over.

Peak Warming Man said:

Morning pilgrims.
The day is set fair, might even fit in a spot of mowing.
Over.

geez, maybe if you concentrated on posting to the right thread instead of denigrating my superlative expertise in solving phrazles the world would be a better place. just a thought. and a well reasoned one to boot. if i do say so myself.

ChrispenEvan said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Morning pilgrims.
The day is set fair, might even fit in a spot of mowing.
Over.

geez, maybe if you concentrated on posting to the right thread instead of denigrating my superlative expertise in solving phrazles the world would be a better place. just a thought. and a well reasoned one to boot. if i do say so myself.

yous all sux anyway

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Morning pilgrims.
The day is set fair, might even fit in a spot of mowing.
Over.

geez, maybe if you concentrated on posting to the right thread instead of denigrating my superlative expertise in solving phrazles the world would be a better place. just a thought. and a well reasoned one to boot. if i do say so myself.

yous all sux anyway

no such thing as sux. it’s all blow.

LOL

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-01/botswana-elephant-conservation-trophy-hunting/105077698

wait until they hear that we eat kangaroo oh deity

Here, I show you a clever piece of code running an entire bot farm. Thousands of fake accounts run by code, not people, stirring up chaos. Chances are, this is what you’re engaging with in triggering or disinformation-laden comments.

https://x.com/i/status/1906390458701336930

LOL

HELSINKI, April 1 (Reuters) – NATO member Finland plans to quit a global convention banning anti-personnel landmines and boost defence spending to at least 3% of GDP by 2029 in response to the evolving military threat from Russia, the government said on Tuesday.

Poland and the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania said last month they would withdraw from the 1997 Ottawa convention due to threats posed by neighbouring Russia. By leaving the treaty, Finland, which guards NATO’s longest border with Russia, could start stockpiling landmines again to have them at hand should a need arise.