this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
57 points (95.2% liked)
GenZedong
4479 readers
60 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I disagree. It would still happen; but at a much slower pace and a much more tactical one. Biden was humiliating Euro allies as well over Ukraine. Panama and Greenland have been the sights of American expansion since time immemorial with Greenland being already a satellite state filled with bases and research centers and Panama having the literal canal built in it.
The only thing I can give you is tariffs. Even then, I prefer this over Harris because the nonsensical trade wars offers more support to our cause than anything a democrat has done in the past 10 years.
Harris would be Biden 2. Biden made none of those moves or anything resembling them. The idea that a Harris govt would be making overtures to physically capturing NATO territory is so ridiculous that I’m not sure how you could possibly form such an opinion genuinely.
Because Greenland already has military bases. It's already in the periphery of the Empire and used heavily for staging and other arctic operations. Panama has been subject to U.S will as another nation in the periphery. Intervention in 89 for example.
Trump is just being more flagrant and loud. Mineral deal with Ukraine was before Trump, lmao. They would've used proxies and mercenaries like they always do, or would've made more extensive deals with Greenland for further military bases and operations. But sure, I'm ridiculous.
That’s exactly why capturing it physically makes no sense. It’s already controlled territory for all intents and purposes. Begging the people of Greenland to form an insurgency by invading the country, all so the US can own the territory on paper (more so than being part of NATO already makes it) has no benefit whatsoever.
Making deals to build more bases is exactly what Harris would do to accomplish the goal Trump is interested in. But that’s exactly business as usual, the polar opposite of threatening to invade.
Maybe I’m not understanding your point. You saying Harris would make deals to get more bases undermines the idea that Harris would be threatening Canada and Greenland with capture—which is what Trump is now doing. I thought you were saying that Harris would also be threatening to invade Greenland. That’s a ridiculous notion. Harris building bases in Greenland and deploying more troops to the arctic certainly isn’t, but a Harris govt (and any other presidential admin in memory, even Trump 1, when he was surrounded by old guard Bush republicans) would get the blessing of Denmark and Greenland to do it.
Do you not see a difference between making a deal with Denmark and Greenland to build bases vs the US threatening to take the land and personally physically administer all of Greenland? If you’re of the mind that it ultimately doesn’t matter how US troops end up in Greenland, whether as welcomed troops of an allied power, or an invading force, that may be our point of contention. I think that difference between new US troops in Greenland being perceived as ally or invader has huge implications for how the Euros and Canadians understand their relationship with the US from here forward.
That's why also capturing it physically wouldn't mean much in the first place. That was my point as well, it's controlled territory and the only difference between the Harris administration and the Trump administration is the showboating. Harris would already know that it is essentially a U.S puppet and would only sign on more military deals and build more bases in the face of opening arctic routes. Trump wants to appeal to the greater north-american nationalist base and attempt to secure things that would have his name remembered for it. However, I wouldn't be surprised if only in 10 years or so after Harris that another democrat would have considered some deal to make Greenland into a peripheral territory precisely because of the immense resources and access to the arctic. It's not like America hasn't done this before. I also feel like that we're moving into an era of reconsolidation and restructure where America isn't going to get the blessing of her allies anymore for the simple acts of being an Empire. Plenty of examples of this.
My point is that it really doesn't matter the difference. End-result would be the exact same. it already is essentially physically captured and the U.S can freely exert any influence there if they weren't worried about bad press, which is becoming increasingly clear even with Biden's administration and Israel and now Trump.
The implications for Euros and Canadians have been clear for a long while. They are just now realizing it or upset that the dogs aren't allowed to sit at the table.
Ok absolutely. I got caught up on a random detail and missed the forest for the trees a bit when reading what you were saying.