Trump caves

FireDragon76 · Feb 5, 2026

Lukaris said:
For a year it seems like Trump has been acting like a madman over Greenland. Denmark indicated there was little or no Chinese involvement or investment in Greenland.

Denmark rebuts Trump's Greenland security claims - People's Daily Online

There are no Chinese warships operating around Greenland and no significant Chinese investments in t

en.people.cn

Yet, now we find that Trump’s current power play may actually deprive China of mineral rights and that there is Chinese mining interests in Greenland.

Trump's push for Greenland mineral rights could block China's access to rare earths

Greenland has the eighth largest rare earth reserves in the world at 1.5 million tons, according to 2024 data from the U.S. Geological Survey.

www.cnbc.com

Personally, I thought Trump was acting crazy for a year on this. Now it seems maybe he isn’t as wrong or insane as I previously thought. Guess showing up at the latest elbows up rally or anti ICE demo in Minn in a Chinese made EV is ok for some.

Certain military-industrial wonks probably have the ear of Trump.

Paulos23 · Feb 5, 2026

FireDragon76 said:
Certain military-industrial wonks probably have the ear of Trump.

That would explain the Trump battleship.

FireDragon76 · Feb 5, 2026

Paulos23 said:
That would explain the Trump battleship.

I had to look it up as I've mostly not been following the crazy antics ever since the "Space Force" became a thing. I figured it was all about spiffy new uniforms and name changes, and this doesn't really change that. This seems like nothing but more cosmetic aesthetics and ego-stroking. Battleships have been a dead letter since the Yamato and Bismark's inglorious and brief careers ended the idea that naval battles were won by dreadnaughts with big guns and lots of armor. What is being proposed is is basically an expensive cruise-missile battlecruiser with a tacky name.

7thKeeper · Feb 5, 2026

FireDragon76 said:
I had to look it up as I've mostly not been following the crazy antics ever since the "Space Force" became a thing. I figured it was all about spiffy new uniforms and name changes, and this doesn't really change that. This seems like nothing but more cosmetic aesthetics and ego-stroking. Battleships have been a dead letter since the Yamato and Bismark's inglorious and brief careers ended the idea that naval battles were won by dreadnaughts with big guns and lots of armor. What is being proposed is is basically an expensive cruise-missile battlecruiser with a tacky name.

And a railgun.

Bradskii · Feb 5, 2026

Laodicean60 said:
I did no such thing. How did my words so wildly change in your brain? It's common sense that only the strong countries have the ability

Russia had the ability when they attacked Ukraine. To 'protect their security'. Germany did when they attacked Poland for the same reason (lebensraum). China is a 'strong country' so I guess it's common sense that they'll attack Taiwan.

This isn'teven an argument. It's an excuse for American Imperialism.

Lukaris · Feb 5, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
I don't know how many times this needs to be said -- "We" (the west/US/NATO, whatever) don't decide how this ends. Putin can call off his invasion and terror campaign at anytime he wants. He does not.

Doubt that will happen; he needs to be incapacitated which actually be happening.

Vladimir Putin’s war machine may finally be running out of fuel

Ukraine’s deep strikes on Russia's energy industry have exposed Putin’s Achilles heel and helped demonstrate that the Russian economy is far more fragile than many in Moscow would like us to believe, writes Vladyslav Davydov .

www.atlanticcouncil.org

India is decreasing it’s imports of Russian oil also.

If India stops buying Russian oil, what it could mean for Moscow’s revenues — explained - The Times of India

The Times of India brings the Latest & Top Breaking News on Politics and Current Affairs in India & around the World, Cricket, Sports, Business, Bollywood News and Entertainment, Science, Technology, Health & Fitness news & opinions from leading columnists.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

From the above article:

According to Reuters calculations, India’s imports of Russian oil fell 22% to 1.38 million barrels per day in December from November — the lowest level since January 2023. Russia’s share in India’s oil imports dropped to 27.4%, while OPEC’s share rose to 53.2%. This follows a peak of nearly 2 million barrels per day in June 2025.

Stopped_lurking · Feb 5, 2026

Laodicean60 said:
I did no such thing. How did my words so wildly change in your brain? It's common sense that only the strong countries have the ability

Oh crap, I forgot I was talking to Mr. Morality himself.

Below: My statement below is a fact, no need for me to go into delusions. Or are you mad because I didn't include Australia as one?

Wrong! Not anyone, only the one having the strength to do it. USA, or Russia/ China, which would you prefer (I know you'd flip to China because Trump is in office)?

out

So let me ask you the question directly. Do you believe that the nations that are strong enough are justified in using that strength to impose their policy or perform landgrabs on weaker nations?

Laodicean60 · Feb 6, 2026

Bradskii said:
It's an excuse for American Imperialism.

Thx for participating

Laodicean60 · Feb 6, 2026

Stopped_lurking said:
Do you believe that the nations that are strong enough are justified in using that strength to impose their policy

No, this is one reason I'm glad Trump is backing away from all the international policy, especially security council.

Stopped_lurking said:
perform landgrabs on weaker nations?

For security reasons, I understand why, and my security is for sure. Russia= Ukraine, China= Taiwan, and USA= Greenland. Greenland would not be an issue if the Europeans had our backs and acted.

Larniavc · Feb 6, 2026

rjs330 said:
I think it's cute that the liberals still don't understand Trump. I think it's even cuter that any of them actually thought he was going to use force to take over Greenland.

The mental gymnastics needed to turn another TACO moment into another’s misunderstanding is also cute.

Stopped_lurking · Feb 6, 2026

Laodicean60 said:
No, this is one reason I'm glad Trump is backing away from all the international policy, especially security council.

That's good.

Laodicean60 said:
For security reasons, I understand why, and my security is for sure. Russia= Ukraine, China= Taiwan, and USA= Greenland. Greenland would not be an issue if the Europeans had our backs and acted.

But this is just imperialism. The US already have the early missile warning system on Greenland. What US security concern is alleviated by the US doing a hostile takeover of Greenland?

When did Europe not have the US back? What military threat against the US did Europe ignore?

Laodicean60 · Feb 6, 2026

Stopped_lurking said:
But this is just imperialism.

Since the dawn of man.

Stopped_lurking said:
The US already have the early missile warning system on Greenland.

But we need interceptors and a few more for your country since you became a NATO member. I think your neutrality would have been better if Russia came down from the north, along with maybe a few Chinese. Joining NATO, your country became a target.

Stopped_lurking said:
What US security concern is alleviated by the US doing a hostile takeover of Greenland?

Been trying to tell you, but apparently, you don't see it, for some reason.

Stopped_lurking said:
When did Europe not have the US back?

Trump, in his first term, understood the need to beef up missile defence/ offence in Greenland, because of Crimea? Also, Trump asked for more spending on the military (2017 right after Crimea!), and that didn't happen till Ukraine.

Blame yourselves for not having Trump's vision. If y'all had taken security seriously 8 years ago, you'd definitely have had more armaments for Ukraine early in the war and a possible expulsion of the Russians.

I know it's hard to place yourself in someone else's shoes, but this American sees the rest of NATO as a letdown. Teammates who don't like to practice.

Stopped_lurking · Feb 6, 2026

Laodicean60 said:
Since the dawn of man.

But we need interceptors and a few more for your country since you became a NATO member.

How did Sweden becoming a member of NATO increase the needs for interceptors (are we talking about anti-ballistic missiles or are you thinking about planes?) on Greenland. No missiles targeting Sweden would pass over Greenland. Russia would use medium-range missiles against Sweden.

Did Denmark not give you permission to put interceptors on Greenland? As far as I know there's been no pushback against the US increasing personnel on your Greenland base (you even took down some existing bases yourself).

Laodicean60 said:
I think your neutrality would have been better if Russia came down from the north, along with maybe a few Chinese. Joining NATO, your country became a target.

You think Russia didn't see us as a target before?

Laodicean60 said:
Been trying to tell you, but apparently, you don't see it, for some reason.

Please tell me again. You haven't shown that the US would be safer if you own Greenland. There was no opposition to the US increasing their radar base on Greenland.

Laodicean60 said:
Trump, in his first term, understood the need to beef up missile defence/ offence in Greenland, because of Crimea? Also, Trump asked for more spending on the military (2017 right after Crimea!), and that didn't happen till Ukraine.

We started in 2015, because of Crimea (which was in 2014). Before Trump was president.

Laodicean60 said:
Blame yourselves for not having Trump's vision. If y'all had taken security seriously 8 years ago, you'd definitely have had more armaments for Ukraine early in the war and a possible expulsion of the Russians.

Ukraina hadn't asked for any weapons back then.

Laodicean60 said:
I know it's hard to place yourself in someone else's shoes, but this American sees the rest of NATO as a letdown. Teammates who don't like to practice.

The only time article 5 have been invoked it was for the benefit of the US.

We weren't even part of NATO back then but still Sweden sent military units to Afghanistan.

Laodicean60 · Feb 6, 2026

Stopped_lurking said:
How did Sweden becoming a member of NATO increase the needs for interceptors (are we talking about anti-ballistic missiles or are you thinking about planes?) on Greenland. No missiles targeting Sweden would pass over Greenland. Russia would use medium-range missiles against Sweden.

Maybe not, but the USA's response time would definitely be improved.

Stopped_lurking said:
You think Russia didn't see us as a target before?

How many hostilities have you or Finland been in with Russia after WW2 (81 years)? Russia was more concerned with expansionism for the last 35 years.

Stopped_lurking said:
You haven't shown that the US would be safer if you own Greenland.

Have you ever been in the service or played war strategy games? It's safer because it would be ours, and once it becomes ours, because leases can be canceled.

Stopped_lurking said:
We

We, as in who?

Stopped_lurking said:
Ukraina hadn't asked for any weapons back then.

Stock pile.

Stopped_lurking said:
The only time article 5 have been invoked it was for the benefit of the US.

We are not talking about Article 5.

Stopped_lurking said:
We weren't even part of NATO back then but still Sweden sent military units to Afghanistan.

I will end because we are going down a rabbit hole. This isn't about Sweden, even though I mention that we would be able to defend Sweden more efficiently if BRICS did attack. I mainly have a negative view of the long-term NATO freeloading.

Stopped_lurking · Feb 6, 2026

Laodicean60 said:
Maybe not, but the USA's response time would definitely be improved.

How many hostilities have you or Finland been in with Russia after WW2 (81 years)? Russia was more concerned with expansionism for the last 35 years.

As many as The US. They ran a submarine aground in one of our archipelagos. They threatened war over it. They have continuously violated Swedish airspace.

Laodicean60 said:
Have you ever been in the service or played war strategy games?

Yes.

Laodicean60 said:
It's safer because it would be ours, and once it becomes ours, because leases can be canceled.

No they can't (realistically) if the US have boots on the ground.

Laodicean60 said:
We, as in who?

Europe as a whole, I showed you in this post.

Trump caves

CLimate change is suddenly not an hoax anymore? Asking for an American President. There does seem to be confusion here on this point.

www.christianforums.com

But it is also true for Sweden specifically.

Laodicean60 said:
Stock pile.

Until Ukraina asked for it we stockpiled what we saw as necessary for ourselves. Sweden didn't stockpile alot of artillery shells, but Finland did (they are much more likely to have to use that particular weapon). Anti-ship missiles are more Swedens thing to stockpile.

Laodicean60 said:
We are not talking about Article 5.

So those who went to stand beside you doesn't count? If that isn't the best measure of who was prepared to back you up what is?

Laodicean60 said:
I will end because we are going down a rabbit hole. This isn't about Sweden, even though I mention that we would be able to defend Sweden more efficiently if BRICS did attack. I mainly have a negative view of the long-term NATO freeloading.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Trump caves

Well-Known Member

Never tell me the odds!

Well-Known Member

Venture life, Burn your Dread

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Orthodox Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads