this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2026
488 points (97.8% liked)

World News

51843 readers
2124 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

US President Donald Trump’s abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 3 has emboldened him to proceed with the annexation of Greenland, a Danish-owned, self-governed territory, spelling the effective end of NATO and furthering Russia’s war aims in Ukraine, experts tell Al Jazeera.

“The move on Venezuela illustrates the Trump administration’s determination to dominate the Western Hemisphere – of which Greenland geographically is a part,” said Anna Wieslander, Northern Europe director for the Atlantic Council, a think tank.

“If the United States decides to attack another NATO country, then everything would stop – that includes NATO and therefore post-World War II security,” Frederiksen said.

“The pandering to Trump has been an element of our strategy over the last year, leaving observers hoping, but not entirely trusting, that another element of the strategy is preparing urgently for the final rupture with the United States,” Giles said.

Giles told Al Jazeera that Europe’s best option was to place a military deterrent on Greenland now, believing that putting allied troops in the Baltic States and Poland after 2017 deterred a Russian attack there.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

That would be the ultimate win for Putin: Destruction of the NATO.

[–] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Canada has the world's longest undefended border with the US. There's no hope if the US invades. It would be like Russia invading Ukraine with no mountains in the way

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

This would be impossible to hold we would lose it the second we stopped dumping hundreds of billions per year and would never own anywhere but islands of fascism where our troops were concentrated.

We would suffer continuous losses and the whole world except Russia and China would turn against us.

We would probably suffer economic collapse as other countries dropped dollars and exchange rates shifted against us while war creates a need for tax money which can only be raised by taxes which are unpopular or tariffs which further destroy trade.

If Congress doesn't get behind attacking Canada Trump could only fund it by misappropriating money or raising tariffs.

Ultimately we lose Canada and end up in the next great depression

[–] Bullerfar@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

We are seriously in a good position right now in EU believe it or not. Trump has been a wakeup call, and we are already mobilizing faster than - ever? - however, imagine being Canada, australia, Japan, etc. Countries far far away from Europe. If nato dies, Europe makes a new defense alliance, focussing on having troops on the, continent. Canada and australia needs to come closer to Europe. Trade wise, militiary wise, political, if they don't wanna get sucked up in the strongest superpower nearby, even if they have anything in common or not.

[–] myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

If Trump invades, does article 5 trigger against a nato member?

[–] Bullerfar@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

There is no nato if this happens.

[–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 7 points 15 hours ago

I knew this would happen eventually, I just thought it would happen after my lifetime

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca 10 points 21 hours ago

Some countries in Europe are starting to, and given what Europe is, that's probably the best they can start doing.

At least because they made sure to show us their hand at their latest sonic weapons and information warfare used to shut down weapons that was used in the Venezuela attack. They would probably go the same route with Europe, trying to behead whatever strategic target is going to get them what they want, because they can't go for a prolonged conflict either.

[–] DeICEAmerica@lemmy.world 6 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Experts.... who the fuck are these experts.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 19 hours ago

They're not experts they're just some random ~~think tank~~ milane actors with a political goal which means they're just arrogant people who like telling everybody else what to do largely with zero qualifications.

[–] Cloudstash@lemmy.world 9 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Prepare yourself. Go buy a good quality action camera.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

with lots of film. get the high speed stuff, to shoot all the "action".

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 9 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

If it really happens, shut down all the US military installations in Europe and European territories. The Red Coats should tell the US to leave Diego Garcia too.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 16 points 22 hours ago

They can't even shut down the base in Greenland. There's a reason DeGaulle kicked the US out in 1966. And why Okinawa residents have been lobbying to shut down the local base for decades.

Europeans have been under military occupation since the end of WW2, telling themselves the gun pointed at the back of their heads was aimed at the USSR, even after it dissolved.

Now they're going to have to deal with a foreign hostile occupation whose roots have grown deep

[–] fort_burp@feddit.nl 14 points 1 day ago

The pandering to Trump has been an element of our strategy over the last year

[–] richardwallass@sh.itjust.works 6 points 23 hours ago (1 children)
[–] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 4 points 20 hours ago

Nobel war prize

[–] ProfThadBach@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Why can't NATO still exist without the US? The alliance could still stick together even if the US shits the bed. God damn why am I typing this? WW3 is about to start and I have no idea what the fuck is going on in my country anymore.

[–] jed@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 5 hours ago

Canada needs nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the American threat. Inshallah.

[–] wulrus@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago

Challenging, but not impossible. I think the military budget of all other NATO members combined would just be about the same as the US. However, it's not like every country has its own independent "mix of everything"; they are supposed to work supplemental. What makes things worse is proprietary hardware and software in modern equipment such as planes. I'm not sure to which degree it would even be technically possible to use it to defend against the USA.

Then there is the nuclear weapon problem. France and UK would have to really stand their ground and follow through with nuclear retaliation. That means that even when the USA or Russia just use a small tactical nuke in Poland, Greenland or wherever, they'd have to use one of their few strategic nukes to destroy something big, possibly dooming Paris. The downside of the idea of mutually assured destruction always was that it only works with somewhat reasonable people who REALLY are not willing to take their entire civilisation with them. But since Stalin, there have never been nutjobs like Trump or Putin in charge, neither in the USSR, nor US, nor Russia.

A victorious Ukraine would certainly be an incredible asset to have in NATO, with all those battle-hardened, highly educated people.

But all things considered, might as well give it a try.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] roserose56@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 day ago (11 children)

Meaning while, USA citizens are waiting for mid term elections! Trump most likely will leave or court will do something. Sit and watch, do nothing.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 19 hours ago

Why would Trump leave that's antithesis to his entire personality. Sticking around long after it's clear that everyone hates him, claiming some sort of conspiracy, that's more his style.

[–] GardenGeek@europe.pub 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The feudalists behind Trump made the mistake to give the population a chance to bring him down once... they won't repeat it. Also, if I remember correctly the SCOTUS granted the POTUS immunity for any action commited during his presidency. So whether Trump an others will be helf accountable his highly questionable to me... even if he loses the election in 3 years.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 8 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Trump will be free but every fucking one of his minions will not ... because they don't have the same immunity.

If there's a power shift after midterms and the Dems make inroads, be prepared to watch Trump scream bloody murder 'cause he can't always have his own way.

[–] GardenGeek@europe.pub 3 points 12 hours ago

Unfortunately I (non-american) hear close to nothing from the Dems since ~ 12 months. Given their inactivity and assumed unwillignes to figth against the rise of Trumps dictatorship I have little hopes that the midterms change anything... also given that Trump seems to ignore the parliaments whenevwr he likes.

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 8 points 20 hours ago

dems aren't going to do shit lol

[–] js346235476@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago

The same rulings mean that a future president can just lock him up without trial.... Which probably means there won't be any future (non-Trumpian) president, unfortunately.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›