They don't, but there are those who think those arrangements should be changed anyway.
I'm not one of them, but international law recognises a difference between colonies like the Falklands or Gibraltar and distinct nations. I tend to see that distinction as more political than anything else but it does exist.
I'm pretty sure Greenland comes down on the "colonies" side of that particular coin...
There is a difference between desire and reality. Greenland doesn't pay for itself, it depends on Denmark financially, a financial state that shows no prospect of changing and is shared with Canada's three northern territories; all four are comparably dependent on transfers from the central government. The only outlier is Alaska because of the oil there.
They don't, but there are those who think those arrangements should be changed anyway.
I'm not one of them, but international law recognises a difference between colonies like the Falklands or Gibraltar and distinct nations. I tend to see that distinction as more political than anything else but it does exist.
I'm pretty sure Greenland comes down on the "colonies" side of that particular coin...
In terms of Danish sovereignty, yes, but Greenlandic people are culturally and linguistically a distinct group from the people of Denmark and are a recognised self-determination "unit" in a way that the English speaking and culturally British populations of Gibraltar and the Falklands are not.
The only deadline or “due date” for SCOTUS decisions is by the end of the term—late June or early July. The only thing that can be said at this point is that the tariff decision will come down by the end of the term.
And the justices vote at the end of each week of oral arguments on the cases they heard that week. That doesn’t mean they can’t or don’t adjust their thinking or change their minds based on how an opinion is drafted. But it does mean they voted months ago.
But Justices can also change their votes before an opinion is released. For example, the joint, unsigned dissent in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (the case which upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act) was clearly written originally as a ruling of the court and only served as a dissent because John Roberts flipped his vote after it was drafted but before the decision was announced.
Are you saying Vance will run for President in 2028 and win, or are you saying Trump will die or be incapacitated before then? Maybe this is a question for another thread.
I know Americans who believe that Vance will find some way to oust Trump mid-term and take the helm himself.
At any rate, nobody has yet come up with any practical suggestions as to what the European powers can do in the face of threatened blackmail tariffs nor putative Trumpian military action.
He'll wait and see whether the tariffs work first.
I agree this all warrants a robust response. But what form should it take- or can it take?
Starmer is talking about reasoned discussion but how do you reason with an autocrat like Trump - or his heirs and successors who, as @chrisstiles presciently observes, are highly unlikely to change direction on US ambitions to dominate the Western Hemisphere and crap on anyone - allies or otherwise- who might object or stand in their way.
None of us like it. But what can we do about it?
What can Starmer do apart from talking and hope for the best?
If the US doesn't give a flying fart as to what the rest of the world thinks what can we do about it?
I wish people would stop lumping everyone who lives in our country under the epitaph of "the US". Point is 75% of all Americans do not want to take Greenland, and many of us do care about what the world thinks. 70% of Americans want to continue to work toward global climate polices. Source. A majority of Americans still favor the UN Here I have to admit the UN support can fluctuate some. And very few of us support the tariff regime that Trump has imposed, trust me on that one.
What you are talking about is the current administration. Future administrations will very likely be much different.
I get that @Gramps49 and do not include present company in what appeared like a blanket condemnation.
But I am not convinced that a future Democrat administration would take a substantially different tack. They'd simply be more subtle and diplomatic than the current incumbent of the Oval Office.
We don't know, though, what lies ahead. What we do know is that Trump is blackmailing European allies and despite the unpopularity of his machinations in the polls doesn't seem to be heading for a U-turn.
You yourself have suggested that the UK sends a substantial force to Greenland to deter potential Trumpian aggression. Like as if that would work.
I'm still waiting for someone to post some practical suggestions.
Stand up to bullies and autocrats.
Yes. But how?
Obama would have flooded the EU with shoddy goods and substandard services if he'd have had his way. Why should we trust Trump, Vance or any future Democrat administration?
What can Starmer do apart from talking and hope for the best?
Start to prepare the UK for a gradual de-coupling from America. Things that need to be looked at immediately; current military and central government procurement. Look seriously at use of technologies such as OpenAI, AWS, Palantir by government. Cut the use of platforms which are obviously hostile to democracy in the UK (X/Twitter being the most obvious example, but there are numerous think tanks with dark money funding that play in the lobbying space). On a day to day basis, taper off British cover for US foreign policy.
The reality is that this is actually the easier of Starmer's problems; because the harder one is going to be giving up the ambition of some plum job post politics (Secretary General of NATO say), ditto some of his cabinet colleagues who want to follow to path that Nick Clegg did, or have their own institute like Tony Blair (and someone needs to put pressure on Blair to nope out of Trump's 'Peace Board').
(and the hardest one of all -- the ideological committent to do any of the above).
Obama would have flooded the EU with shoddy goods and substandard services if he'd have had his way.
This is going to be a bit of a tangent, but where did you get that idea?
U.S.–EU trade during Obama’s presidency was dominated by:
Aerospace (Boeing–Airbus competition)
Pharmaceuticals
Machinery
High‑end services
Technology
These are sectors where the U.S. exports high‑value goods, not cheap or low‑quality ones.
The only major trade initiative with Europe during Obama’s tenure was the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which aimed to harmonize regulations and raise standards — again, the opposite of “flooding” Europe with inferior products.
There is no historical evidence that Obama sought to export low quality goods to Europe.
I know Americans who believe that Vance will find some way to oust Trump mid-term and take the helm himself.
There is a defined way to do this, but I don't for a moment think Vance and other people around Trump will do anything but Weekend at Bernie's him through till January 2029.
Of course Vance will succeed Trump, and presumably continue doing all the same things.
Not necessarily. Vance has a leg up to succeed Trump by virtue of being VP, but he is not popular, and being so closely attached to Trump could be more harmful than helpful given how unpopular Trump is already. The other thing is that things are in such flux in the US right now that predictions are extremely difficult to make.
What can Starmer do apart from talking and hope for the best?
Start to prepare the UK for a gradual de-coupling from America. ...
I have no idea what's politically possible in the UK, but if it were up to me, I'd de-couple from the US as soon as possible. Things here are going downhill fast.
I'd also be on the phone to Republicans in the US Senate, some of whom have already said they don't want military action in Greenland (USA Today piece).
I get that @Gramps49 and do not include present company in what appeared like a blanket condemnation.
But I am not convinced that a future Democrat administration would take a substantially different tack. They'd simply be more subtle and diplomatic than the current incumbent of the Oval Office.
This seems highly unlikely. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the U.S. already has a pretty free hand to build military bases or extract minerals or whatever from Greenland under current treaty arrangements. The desire to own Greenland outright comes strictly from Donald Trump's unique psychological needs. I doubt even another Republican president would pursue this.
We don't know, though, what lies ahead. What we do know is that Trump is blackmailing European allies and despite the unpopularity of his machinations in the polls doesn't seem to be heading for a U-turn.
You yourself have suggested that the UK sends a substantial force to Greenland to deter potential Trumpian aggression. Like as if that would work.
It probably would. Donald Trump likes things that are easy and avoids things that are difficult. Getting into a shooting war with the rest of NATO is very much at the "difficult" end of that spectrum. The only thing that's even close to difficult in the field of foreign relations that Trump has tried in either of his terms was the abduction of Maduro, but you'll note that it was a quick operation that doesn't require any extensive long-term commitment of U.S. forces. We saw a similar dynamic with Trump's recent actions relating to Iran. First he suggested that the U.S. was on the brink of getting involved with the current uprising, that "HELP IS ON ITS WAY", and encouraging protesters to take over various institutions. Then he backed down, claiming that Iran not executing protesters was sufficient to satisfy him.
As I noted in my previous post, Trump is already starting to back down from military threats to tariff threats. Capitulation in the face of tariff threats wins you exactly nothing from Trump, other than him concluding that he can use threatened tariffs to extort whatever he wants in perpetuity. Canada seems to have come to this conclusion, recently coming to an arrangement with China on EVs and canola oil. If Trump is going to impose tariffs no matter what you do, why not act in your own interest?
I have no idea what's politically possible in the UK, but if it were up to me, I'd de-couple from the US as soon as possible. Things here are going downhill fast.
I'd also be on the phone to Republicans in the US Senate, some of whom have already said they don't want military action in Greenland .
I agree with this. I think Europe is acting as though there are a couple of decades to adjust course. That might not be the case at all.
I think what is going on is that the hardcore US nationalist right, the likes of Bannon and Miller, have used Trump as a spearhead to get hold of the levers of power. I think they will not give up those levers readily. Meanwhile the less extreme of all flavours are assuming that democratic processes will perform their normal job over the next few years, that US constitutional traditions will prevail. This would not seem a safe assumption. Surely there is a signficant chance of a more concerted Jan6-style putsch in the next couple of years.
The only deadline or “due date” for SCOTUS decisions is by the end of the term—late June or early July. The only thing that can be said at this point is that the tariff decision will come down by the end of the term.
And the justices vote at the end of each week of oral arguments on the cases they heard that week. That doesn’t mean they can’t or don’t adjust their thinking or change their minds based on how an opinion is drafted. But it does mean they voted months ago.
But Justices can also change their votes before an opinion is released.
Yes, which is why I specifically said in what you quoted: “And the justices vote at the end of each week of oral arguments on the cases they heard that week. That doesn’t mean they can’t or don’t adjust their thinking or change their minds based on how an opinion is drafted.” (Emphasis added.)
I seem to remember discussion about TTIP on these boards at the time @Gramps49 and also reading articles that pointed out that some of the services that the US hoped to provide weren't up to scratch from the point of view of European standards.
Which isn't to say that European goods and services are necessarily any better.
Whatever the case, I do think this is one I may have overstated insofar as I think the Democrats still believe in international law and that they wouldn't press Denmark and the US's NATO allies in quite the same way as Trump.
Meanwhile, I was interested in @chrisstiles's list of possible actions but none of them seem feasible overnight.
I think Europe would be well advised to uncouple itself from US hegemony whilst remaining on friendly terms with the US but I don’t think that would be a quick or easy process.
And as @Ruth says, things are highly unpredictable.
'Anything can happen in the next half hour ...'
Stingray... Stingray (as those of a certain age might recall).
Refusing to by any military hardware from the United States would definitely hit our military industrial complex very hard. I would actually be for that.
How about boycotting the World Cup games in the US?
Editing to add that I know exactly nothing about the World Cup other than it will be played in North America this year. So it's a question, not a suggestion.
How about boycotting the World Cup games in the US?
Editing to add that I know exactly nothing about the World Cup other than it will be played in North America this year. So it's a question, not a suggestion.
Good idea. Trump has already banned a number of countries from sending spectators. And FIFA did give him a peace prize.
But, then again, it could serve to get him angrier.
Here is a way women can put pressure on Trump. Refuse to by Estee Lauder products. Ronald Lauder, whom Trump has known for 60 years convinced Trump he should buy Greenland. Hit Ronald in his pocketbook, he might convince Trump he made a mistake. Story here.
The UK sending a 'substantial force' to Greenland might indeed work, @Crœsos, if we had one to send. In the current woeful state of our armed forces, it's no longer possible to rustle up a couple of armoured regiments at the drop of a Prime Ministerial hat. Though I seem to recall we have an aircraft carrier somewhere...
There have been mutterings about a World Cup boycott (at least, those matches in the US - no reason to boycott the matches in Mexico and Canada) for a couple of weeks - a combination of several nations participating being on the list of nations where visa applications have been suspended (it's not a ban on sending spectators, as the suspension doesn't include tourist visa applications, but needless to say the governments of the nations concerned are not happy) and concerns that visitors may be impacted by ICE activities (if US citizens can be rounded up, then are visitors safe?) especially after the murder of Renee Good.
I wish people would stop lumping everyone who lives in our country under the epitaph of "the US". Point is 75% of all Americans do not want to take Greenland, and many of us do care about what the world thinks. 70% of Americans want to continue to work toward global climate polices.
What you are talking about is the current administration. Future administrations will very likely be much different.
All countries are understood to have domestic opposition to whoever the government of the day is.
70% of the US might want to continue to work towards global climate policies, but a lot of those people went ahead and voted for Trump anyway. Perhaps "very few" Americans support the Trump tarrifs, but half of you voted for him anyway.
Trump is not an invader who conquered America with military force. He won the election in 2024. He routinely overstates the margin that he won by, but the fact remains that "America" was given a choice between Trump and Harris, and by a small but statistically unassailable majority, looked at Donald Trump and said "we want him".
I wish people would stop lumping everyone who lives in our country under the epitaph of "the US". Point is 75% of all Americans do not want to take Greenland, and many of us do care about what the world thinks. 70% of Americans want to continue to work toward global climate polices.
What you are talking about is the current administration. Future administrations will very likely be much different.
All countries are understood to have domestic opposition to whoever the government of the day is.
70% of the US might want to continue to work towards global climate policies, but a lot of those people went ahead and voted for Trump anyway. Perhaps "very few" Americans support the Trump tarrifs, but half of you voted for him anyway.
Trump is not an invader who conquered America with military force. He won the election in 2024. He routinely overstates the margin that he won by, but the fact remains that "America" was given a choice between Trump and Harris, and by a small but statistically unassailable majority, looked at Donald Trump and said "we want him".
In fact, one third of the American electorate did not vote in 2024. Of those that did vote 48.8 voted for Trump and 48.3 voted for Harris.
Climate cooperation support is bipartisan, it is heavily skewed to the Democrats. As much as 95% of Democrats support climate cooperation, but as little as 25% of Republicans support it.
Since just over 1/3 of eligible voter voted for Trump and 30% of Americans do not support Global Climate polices, it stands to reason both groups are parallel.
I would argue quite the opposite of your assertion. Trump has long been opposed to climate control. He did not get the votes of people who want climate regulations. The 70% in favor of Global Climate cooperation is driven mostly by Democrats and left leaning independents.
What can Starmer do apart from talking and hope for the best?
Start to prepare the UK for a gradual de-coupling from America. Things that need to be looked at immediately; current military and central government procurement. Look seriously at use of technologies such as OpenAI, AWS, Palantir by government. Cut the use of platforms which are obviously hostile to democracy in the UK (X/Twitter being the most obvious example, but there are numerous think tanks with dark money funding that play in the lobbying space). On a day to day basis, taper off British cover for US foreign policy.
The reality is that this is actually the easier of Starmer's problems; because the harder one is going to be giving up the ambition of some plum job post politics (Secretary General of NATO say), ditto some of his cabinet colleagues who want to follow to path that Nick Clegg did, or have their own institute like Tony Blair (and someone needs to put pressure on Blair to nope out of Trump's 'Peace Board').
(and the hardest one of all -- the ideological committent to do any of the above).
If the UK and the rest of Europe is serious about that, then it means upending the military economic relationship that has existed since steadily since 1941 and intermittently since 1915: that of the USA as arms supplier to the world. Every NATO military is deeply dependent on US arms, particularly missiles, electronics and other high-end gear. I'm looking at you in particular, UK.
A modern NATO military can't function without US supplies.
A modern NATO military can't function without US supplies.
More accurately, "A modern NATO military can't currently function without US supplies.". There's probably nothing that the US currently supplies that can't be replaced by equivalent items produced by European nations. But, to completely replace dependence on US produced items will need time - time for European producers to develop those items, and time for the current systems that use US produced supplies to reach end of life and be up for replacement. That's probably something like 20 years, minimum.
And, it's not just military equipment. How many businesses are dependent upon AWS and other US tech to run their online sales and customer support? What's the alternative to Visa and Mastercard for credit cards?
About the only thing Europe is not producing is a heavy lift air transport like the C-17 or the C-5 Galaxy. But it has the A400M Airbus which is quite capable for most of its missions.
I don't know if there's much mileage in the thought of getting rid of US bases here in the UK, but it's certainly appealing...at least, to those of us who now see that the 'special relationship' is proving rather uncertain.
I hear that 'Make America Go Away' hats are selling like the proverbial hot cakes.
My understanding is that special relationship doesn’t really refer to emotional warmth - it is specifically a special arrangement to share intelligence.
I see Gavin Newsom has complained that Europe is rolling over for Trump too easily. I think there is something to that. Maybe we are thinking too much about how to weather the storm ourselves, and not enough about what might encourage internal opposition in the US.
"It's a shift towards a world without rules, where international law is trampled underfoot, and where the only law that seems to matter is that of the strongest, and imperial ambitions are resurfacing
Carney
“This is not a transition but a rupture. The old order is not coming back”.
Actions will follow. All that can stop them now is a concerted move in Congress to impeach Trump. And I’m not sure if there is a strong enough political will to stop the shift towards a world without rules, to stop the destruction of the old order.
I suppose Trump could back down. But if he doesn’t, either he goes or the old order goes.
My understanding is that special relationship doesn’t really refer to emotional warmth - it is specifically a special arrangement to share intelligence.
In common parlance, I usually hear it used to mean the overall character of the relationship, not just intelligence-sharing.
And more often than not, it's used to bemoan the LACK of a special-relationship in practice, eg. "Bunch of our soldiers got killed in Afghanistan because Biden pulled out without notifying us first. So much for the 'special relationship'."
These are actually very different statements. Macron implies that we need to restore the old order. Carney says that the old order is gone, never to return.
And they imply very different responses. If Macron is right then the aspiration has to be a rapprochement with the US, a restoration of international conventions and rules. If Carney is right then what the rest of the West - and particularly Canada - might need is a massive increase in the size and power of our armed fores.
I think the 'special relationship' was summed up very neatly in Chicken Run when Rocky the American rooster said 'we have to work as a team. That means you do everything I say.'
To be fair to the Americans, this also sums up certain British politicians' attitude to the EU. As our experience of Brexit has proved, it is much easier to break an alliance than to (re)build it.
True. Carney has just closed a deal with China. He doesn’t see the USA changing any time soon, if at all. Macron and the EU are not there yet. But it’s where they are heading.
Unless there is a radical change in US policy and/or leadership.
Trump looks to be busting up the old order and the NATO alliance in favour of different power blocks. Carney sees it as a forgone conclusion. Macron isn’t quite there yet. But he sees which way the wind is blowing.
Trump looks to be busting up the old order and the NATO alliance in favour of different power blocks. Carney sees it as a forgone conclusion. Macron isn’t quite there yet. But he sees which way the wind is blowing.
Whoever has Trump's ear on this seems to have convinced him to move with as much speed as possible to dismantle NATO, which is what the threats against Greenland amount to in the end. They probably don't trust JD Vance to carry through on this if Trump drops dead, because why would anyone trust JD Vance about anything?
I will point out that NATO-minus-the-US has more active duty military personnel (1,934,735) and reserves (1,438,950) than the US does (1,315,600 and 797,200 respectively). There is some disparity in military hardware and the US has the advantage of a unified command structure, but the disparity isn't quite as large as some would have you believe.
On the other hand @Crœsos would Europe really be prepared to fight the US? Is the will there? And would it be justified given the possible terrible consequences? Also "some disparity in military hardware" is doing a lot of work there. Some of that "disparity" consists of five thousand or so nuclear warheads.
I agree with what you say about Vance. He's the "acceptable" face of something pretty nasty and would be discarded when convenient.
Putin doesn't care who wins, as long as he can hoover up Ukraine and the Baltic States while we're fighting amongst ourselves. Possibly Moldova and Poland as well.
I don’t think the EU would ever take up arms against the US military. But using its economic muscle more independently (like Canada) is perfectly possible.
Behind that, the multinational corporations may be well up to putting a shot against US bows to encourage the growing awareness that Trump economics is very bad for global economics.
On the other hand @Crœsos would Europe really be prepared to fight the US? Is the will there?
I don't know. Is the will there in the U.S. to fight the rest of NATO? (NATO also includes Canada, so it's not a Europe-only organization even without the U.S.) That seems equally dubious. The question comes down to whether NATO is still worthwhile. The whole purpose of NATO is to protect its member states from having their territory forcibly seized. If NATO members acquiesce to having a huge chunk of territory conquered, even by a former ally, that pretty much kills the whole idea of the defensive alliance right there. Everyone will start looking over their metaphorical shoulders, wondering if their neighbors and supposed allies are willing to sell them out to buy a short period of peace for themselves. (This is basic salami-slicing and you'd think diplomats and politicians would recognize it for what it is.)
I'd also note that appeasing land-hungry tyrants with territorial concessions does not have a great track record historically. It just encourages further demands. If you give up the Sudetenland the rest of Czechoslovakia will be next on the menu, and then Poland. If you cede Greenland then Canada will be the next demand. Trump isn't even subtle about this.
I will point out that NATO-minus-the-US has more active duty military personnel (1,934,735) and reserves (1,438,950) than the US does (1,315,600 and 797,200 respectively).
The slight fly in that ointment is a lot of rNATO have 'interesting' views on the country that supplies the second largest army in NATO.
I will point out that NATO-minus-the-US has more active duty military personnel (1,934,735) and reserves (1,438,950) than the US does (1,315,600 and 797,200 respectively).
The slight fly in that ointment is a lot of rNATO have 'interesting' views on the country that supplies the second largest army in NATO.
Russia is also a potential threat to NATO and Turkish control of the gateway to the Black Sea is more important than diplomatic prejudice. An alliance that can't overcome such obstacles was never much of an alliance to begin with, if we take your assertion as true. In most situations like this geography and manpower trump "interesting views".
Oh that is indeed so @Crœsos . But to answer your question number 1 - I suspect that unfortunately, yes there is. I think some in the US imagine that it could swat the rest of NATO like so many rebellious hamsters. I think that is probably misguided. I think Canada in particular would put up a tough fight if actually invaded. But ultimately I think the US is more willing to pull the trigger and that Europe would blink first.
Now as to your second question I think it is clear that NATO in its historical form is dead. Even if Trump were to keel over tomorrow I think the damage has been done. It's clear that there is a large and powerful contigent in the US who are no friends to Europe and JD Vance spelled this out in no uncertain terms at Munich. So Europe can never rely on the US in the same way again. Nor need Russia regard the US as an implacable enemy. The MAGA crew might be happy for Europe to becomes Russia's "sphere of influence".
Now what about "rump NATO" as it were - what is that treaty worth? Of course no country that signed up was planning to fight against America! That was unthinkable even a couple of years ago, but not now. But I think if push came to shove at least some NATO countries would say "But that is not what we were really signing up for - not at all!". It would be an extremely frightening situation and I have grave doubts whether we would be able to commit seriously as societies to such a war let alone win it, especially as there is a sizeable pro-Trump contingent "within the walls" as it were.
Comments
I'm pretty sure Greenland comes down on the "colonies" side of that particular coin...
In terms of Danish sovereignty, yes, but Greenlandic people are culturally and linguistically a distinct group from the people of Denmark and are a recognised self-determination "unit" in a way that the English speaking and culturally British populations of Gibraltar and the Falklands are not.
It should be noted that tariff threats represent Trump backing down from threats of military force.
But Justices can also change their votes before an opinion is released. For example, the joint, unsigned dissent in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (the case which upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act) was clearly written originally as a ruling of the court and only served as a dissent because John Roberts flipped his vote after it was drafted but before the decision was announced.
At any rate, nobody has yet come up with any practical suggestions as to what the European powers can do in the face of threatened blackmail tariffs nor putative Trumpian military action.
He'll wait and see whether the tariffs work first.
I agree this all warrants a robust response. But what form should it take- or can it take?
Starmer is talking about reasoned discussion but how do you reason with an autocrat like Trump - or his heirs and successors who, as @chrisstiles presciently observes, are highly unlikely to change direction on US ambitions to dominate the Western Hemisphere and crap on anyone - allies or otherwise- who might object or stand in their way.
None of us like it. But what can we do about it?
What can Starmer do apart from talking and hope for the best?
If the US doesn't give a flying fart as to what the rest of the world thinks what can we do about it?
I'm still waiting for suggestions.
What you are talking about is the current administration. Future administrations will very likely be much different.
But I am not convinced that a future Democrat administration would take a substantially different tack. They'd simply be more subtle and diplomatic than the current incumbent of the Oval Office.
We don't know, though, what lies ahead. What we do know is that Trump is blackmailing European allies and despite the unpopularity of his machinations in the polls doesn't seem to be heading for a U-turn.
You yourself have suggested that the UK sends a substantial force to Greenland to deter potential Trumpian aggression. Like as if that would work.
I'm still waiting for someone to post some practical suggestions.
Stand up to bullies and autocrats.
Yes. But how?
Obama would have flooded the EU with shoddy goods and substandard services if he'd have had his way. Why should we trust Trump, Vance or any future Democrat administration?
Start to prepare the UK for a gradual de-coupling from America. Things that need to be looked at immediately; current military and central government procurement. Look seriously at use of technologies such as OpenAI, AWS, Palantir by government. Cut the use of platforms which are obviously hostile to democracy in the UK (X/Twitter being the most obvious example, but there are numerous think tanks with dark money funding that play in the lobbying space). On a day to day basis, taper off British cover for US foreign policy.
The reality is that this is actually the easier of Starmer's problems; because the harder one is going to be giving up the ambition of some plum job post politics (Secretary General of NATO say), ditto some of his cabinet colleagues who want to follow to path that Nick Clegg did, or have their own institute like Tony Blair (and someone needs to put pressure on Blair to nope out of Trump's 'Peace Board').
(and the hardest one of all -- the ideological committent to do any of the above).
This is going to be a bit of a tangent, but where did you get that idea?
U.S.–EU trade during Obama’s presidency was dominated by:
Aerospace (Boeing–Airbus competition)
Pharmaceuticals
Machinery
High‑end services
Technology
These are sectors where the U.S. exports high‑value goods, not cheap or low‑quality ones.
The only major trade initiative with Europe during Obama’s tenure was the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which aimed to harmonize regulations and raise standards — again, the opposite of “flooding” Europe with inferior products.
There is no historical evidence that Obama sought to export low quality goods to Europe.
Well the TTIP was never completed, was it?
Yeah, because Trump got in.
Not necessarily. Vance has a leg up to succeed Trump by virtue of being VP, but he is not popular, and being so closely attached to Trump could be more harmful than helpful given how unpopular Trump is already. The other thing is that things are in such flux in the US right now that predictions are extremely difficult to make.
I have no idea what's politically possible in the UK, but if it were up to me, I'd de-couple from the US as soon as possible. Things here are going downhill fast.
I'd also be on the phone to Republicans in the US Senate, some of whom have already said they don't want military action in Greenland (USA Today piece).
Time itself is hard at work on that. Have you seen pictures of Trump lately? Or video? The man does not look well.
This seems highly unlikely. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the U.S. already has a pretty free hand to build military bases or extract minerals or whatever from Greenland under current treaty arrangements. The desire to own Greenland outright comes strictly from Donald Trump's unique psychological needs. I doubt even another Republican president would pursue this.
It probably would. Donald Trump likes things that are easy and avoids things that are difficult. Getting into a shooting war with the rest of NATO is very much at the "difficult" end of that spectrum. The only thing that's even close to difficult in the field of foreign relations that Trump has tried in either of his terms was the abduction of Maduro, but you'll note that it was a quick operation that doesn't require any extensive long-term commitment of U.S. forces. We saw a similar dynamic with Trump's recent actions relating to Iran. First he suggested that the U.S. was on the brink of getting involved with the current uprising, that "HELP IS ON ITS WAY", and encouraging protesters to take over various institutions. Then he backed down, claiming that Iran not executing protesters was sufficient to satisfy him.
As I noted in my previous post, Trump is already starting to back down from military threats to tariff threats. Capitulation in the face of tariff threats wins you exactly nothing from Trump, other than him concluding that he can use threatened tariffs to extort whatever he wants in perpetuity. Canada seems to have come to this conclusion, recently coming to an arrangement with China on EVs and canola oil. If Trump is going to impose tariffs no matter what you do, why not act in your own interest?
I agree with this. I think Europe is acting as though there are a couple of decades to adjust course. That might not be the case at all.
I think what is going on is that the hardcore US nationalist right, the likes of Bannon and Miller, have used Trump as a spearhead to get hold of the levers of power. I think they will not give up those levers readily. Meanwhile the less extreme of all flavours are assuming that democratic processes will perform their normal job over the next few years, that US constitutional traditions will prevail. This would not seem a safe assumption. Surely there is a signficant chance of a more concerted Jan6-style putsch in the next couple of years.
Which isn't to say that European goods and services are necessarily any better.
Whatever the case, I do think this is one I may have overstated insofar as I think the Democrats still believe in international law and that they wouldn't press Denmark and the US's NATO allies in quite the same way as Trump.
Meanwhile, I was interested in @chrisstiles's list of possible actions but none of them seem feasible overnight.
I think Europe would be well advised to uncouple itself from US hegemony whilst remaining on friendly terms with the US but I don’t think that would be a quick or easy process.
And as @Ruth says, things are highly unpredictable.
'Anything can happen in the next half hour ...'
Stingray... Stingray (as those of a certain age might recall).
They're all feasible to start (go with cancelling the F35A order first).
Editing to add that I know exactly nothing about the World Cup other than it will be played in North America this year. So it's a question, not a suggestion.
Good idea. Trump has already banned a number of countries from sending spectators. And FIFA did give him a peace prize.
But, then again, it could serve to get him angrier.
Here is a way women can put pressure on Trump. Refuse to by Estee Lauder products. Ronald Lauder, whom Trump has known for 60 years convinced Trump he should buy Greenland. Hit Ronald in his pocketbook, he might convince Trump he made a mistake. Story here.
Estée Lauder has a whole collection of products for men.
And the guy is already a billionaire, so this horse is already out of the barn and down the road.
All countries are understood to have domestic opposition to whoever the government of the day is.
70% of the US might want to continue to work towards global climate policies, but a lot of those people went ahead and voted for Trump anyway. Perhaps "very few" Americans support the Trump tarrifs, but half of you voted for him anyway.
Trump is not an invader who conquered America with military force. He won the election in 2024. He routinely overstates the margin that he won by, but the fact remains that "America" was given a choice between Trump and Harris, and by a small but statistically unassailable majority, looked at Donald Trump and said "we want him".
The government could also be off X tomorrow, literally something they could do overnight.
In fact, one third of the American electorate did not vote in 2024. Of those that did vote 48.8 voted for Trump and 48.3 voted for Harris.
Climate cooperation support is bipartisan, it is heavily skewed to the Democrats. As much as 95% of Democrats support climate cooperation, but as little as 25% of Republicans support it.
Since just over 1/3 of eligible voter voted for Trump and 30% of Americans do not support Global Climate polices, it stands to reason both groups are parallel.
I would argue quite the opposite of your assertion. Trump has long been opposed to climate control. He did not get the votes of people who want climate regulations. The 70% in favor of Global Climate cooperation is driven mostly by Democrats and left leaning independents.
If the UK and the rest of Europe is serious about that, then it means upending the military economic relationship that has existed since steadily since 1941 and intermittently since 1915: that of the USA as arms supplier to the world. Every NATO military is deeply dependent on US arms, particularly missiles, electronics and other high-end gear. I'm looking at you in particular, UK.
A modern NATO military can't function without US supplies.
And, it's not just military equipment. How many businesses are dependent upon AWS and other US tech to run their online sales and customer support? What's the alternative to Visa and Mastercard for credit cards?
I hear that 'Make America Go Away' hats are selling like the proverbial hot cakes.
Macron
"It's a shift towards a world without rules, where international law is trampled underfoot, and where the only law that seems to matter is that of the strongest, and imperial ambitions are resurfacing
Carney
“This is not a transition but a rupture. The old order is not coming back”.
Actions will follow. All that can stop them now is a concerted move in Congress to impeach Trump. And I’m not sure if there is a strong enough political will to stop the shift towards a world without rules, to stop the destruction of the old order.
I suppose Trump could back down. But if he doesn’t, either he goes or the old order goes.
Russia and China must be licking their lips.
In common parlance, I usually hear it used to mean the overall character of the relationship, not just intelligence-sharing.
And more often than not, it's used to bemoan the LACK of a special-relationship in practice, eg. "Bunch of our soldiers got killed in Afghanistan because Biden pulled out without notifying us first. So much for the 'special relationship'."
And they imply very different responses. If Macron is right then the aspiration has to be a rapprochement with the US, a restoration of international conventions and rules. If Carney is right then what the rest of the West - and particularly Canada - might need is a massive increase in the size and power of our armed fores.
To be fair to the Americans, this also sums up certain British politicians' attitude to the EU. As our experience of Brexit has proved, it is much easier to break an alliance than to (re)build it.
True. Carney has just closed a deal with China. He doesn’t see the USA changing any time soon, if at all. Macron and the EU are not there yet. But it’s where they are heading.
Unless there is a radical change in US policy and/or leadership.
Trump looks to be busting up the old order and the NATO alliance in favour of different power blocks. Carney sees it as a forgone conclusion. Macron isn’t quite there yet. But he sees which way the wind is blowing.
Whoever has Trump's ear on this seems to have convinced him to move with as much speed as possible to dismantle NATO, which is what the threats against Greenland amount to in the end. They probably don't trust JD Vance to carry through on this if Trump drops dead, because why would anyone trust JD Vance about anything?
I will point out that NATO-minus-the-US has more active duty military personnel (1,934,735) and reserves (1,438,950) than the US does (1,315,600 and 797,200 respectively). There is some disparity in military hardware and the US has the advantage of a unified command structure, but the disparity isn't quite as large as some would have you believe.
I agree with what you say about Vance. He's the "acceptable" face of something pretty nasty and would be discarded when convenient.
I don’t think the EU would ever take up arms against the US military. But using its economic muscle more independently (like Canada) is perfectly possible.
Behind that, the multinational corporations may be well up to putting a shot against US bows to encourage the growing awareness that Trump economics is very bad for global economics.
The GOP have let him go too far.
I don't know. Is the will there in the U.S. to fight the rest of NATO? (NATO also includes Canada, so it's not a Europe-only organization even without the U.S.) That seems equally dubious. The question comes down to whether NATO is still worthwhile. The whole purpose of NATO is to protect its member states from having their territory forcibly seized. If NATO members acquiesce to having a huge chunk of territory conquered, even by a former ally, that pretty much kills the whole idea of the defensive alliance right there. Everyone will start looking over their metaphorical shoulders, wondering if their neighbors and supposed allies are willing to sell them out to buy a short period of peace for themselves. (This is basic salami-slicing and you'd think diplomats and politicians would recognize it for what it is.)
I'd also note that appeasing land-hungry tyrants with territorial concessions does not have a great track record historically. It just encourages further demands. If you give up the Sudetenland the rest of Czechoslovakia will be next on the menu, and then Poland. If you cede Greenland then Canada will be the next demand. Trump isn't even subtle about this.
The slight fly in that ointment is a lot of rNATO have 'interesting' views on the country that supplies the second largest army in NATO.
Russia is also a potential threat to NATO and Turkish control of the gateway to the Black Sea is more important than diplomatic prejudice. An alliance that can't overcome such obstacles was never much of an alliance to begin with, if we take your assertion as true. In most situations like this geography and manpower trump "interesting views".
Now as to your second question I think it is clear that NATO in its historical form is dead. Even if Trump were to keel over tomorrow I think the damage has been done. It's clear that there is a large and powerful contigent in the US who are no friends to Europe and JD Vance spelled this out in no uncertain terms at Munich. So Europe can never rely on the US in the same way again. Nor need Russia regard the US as an implacable enemy. The MAGA crew might be happy for Europe to becomes Russia's "sphere of influence".
Now what about "rump NATO" as it were - what is that treaty worth? Of course no country that signed up was planning to fight against America! That was unthinkable even a couple of years ago, but not now. But I think if push came to shove at least some NATO countries would say "But that is not what we were really signing up for - not at all!". It would be an extremely frightening situation and I have grave doubts whether we would be able to commit seriously as societies to such a war let alone win it, especially as there is a sizeable pro-Trump contingent "within the walls" as it were.