@WhimsicalChristian, you are aware that Greenland doesn't actually belong to the USA aren't you?
Hence my question.
There is a treaty in place with Denmark which allows the US to expand its bases there providing it doesn't impinge on Greenland's sovereignty.
So if Trump is worried about Russian and Chinese ships in the Arctic, he already has a mandate to expand US bases there accordingly to guard against any perceived threat.
However, as we've been discussing on the 'Will Greenland be next?' thread, Trump doesn't think the existing treaty is good enough and wants complete 'ownership' of the island.
That would involve him either doing a deal with Denmark to acquire it - and the Danes don't appear to want to play ball - or, as he has threatened, to take it by force.
Even though Denmark is a NATO ally of the US.
It would be rather like the UK or France or another European nation threatening to take Hawaii or part of Alaska.
Imagine the fuss if that were ever the case?
Can you not see how this looks to the rest of us?
My question was around the morality of Trump's actions - or threatened actions.
As a Christian, even a 'whimsical' one you'll be familiar with the 10th commandment about not coveting a neighbour's goods or property.
Isn't that what Trump is doing when eyeing up Greenland or threatening Canada which he did not long after taking office for the second time?
Does it not disturb you that you have a President who makes statements and threats like this even against loyal allies?
I don't know what the trading terms are with South America. But I do know China has secured agreement with a number of the countries to not recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state.
Recognition of China has long been the default position outside the 'West':
My understanding is China has persuaded many Caribbean and South American countries to switch allegiance in the last 20 years using its economic leverage.
Since 2017 alone its been Honduras, Panama, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras.
Personally, my skin in the game, as an Australian, is what this all means for the global order. The Venezuela action seems to be the start of a broader policy outlined in the Nov National Security Strategy.
We are sitting ducks for the massive new military build up in China. The Chinese navy circled Australia twice last year with their navy and we didn't find out until a commercial pilot spotted them.
They have made significant inroads into the South China Sea, using economic leverage to influence a number of countries in the area.
A British patrol Navy vessel docked in Brisbane last week to assist with our patrols. It was a rust bucket.
Russia is doing military exercises with our closest neighbour, Indonesia. Tho to be fair they're doing them with us too. Classic Indonesian to curry favour with both sides and see which way the wind blows when push comes to shove.
I realise the USA doesn't really care about these things. It's too busy having an internal civil war with itself.
They're not too busy to threaten to join in with the Iranian civil war... though it's difficult to see how having the Americans dropping bombs on everyone will help the protesters.
There are suggestions that the US might not drop bombs on Iran as that would only unite the Iranian against a common foe.
I hope they have the sense not to do so or to keep any military operations away from civilian targets.
They've not had good form on that previously though.
It may be that they go for 'softer' interventions, such as cyber-attacks and jamming and so forth. But time will tell.
Apologies @WhimsicalChristian I assumed you were American rather than Australian. My bad, as the Americans say.
I have relatives and friends in Australia and have recently returned from a family wedding and month-long stay over there, my first visit since I was a '£10 Pom' 60 years ago.
I can understand Australian concerns about Chinese operations in the Pacific and closer to its shores. I also think we in the UK have neglected our naval capacity since the 1980s and run down our defence capabilities more generally.
Much as I would prefer money to be spent on other things, I do see the need for us to maintain our forces and not just rely on Trident or the US.
I recognise that cold, calculating Machiavellian-ness comes into geopolitics and heaven knows, it's not as if Britain or France have been squeaky clean in that regard.
There is a difference, though, I think between maintaining one's defence capabilities and wilfully ousting or interfering in other countries' affairs by ousting leaders, destabilising their economies or threatening military action against them - which Trump has even done in relation to his allies.
The US has form on these things and the results haven't exactly been successful. The invasion of Iraq simply destabilised the whole region.
Saddam Hussain was a monster but ousting him with no game-plan for what happened next was bound to end in disaster.
Likewise any US intervention in Iran without popular support on the ground.
I don't carry a candle for either China or Russia - both violate human rights, both are repressive regimes.
But that does not justify the kind of things Trump appears to be planning.
He has this 'quick-fix' solution approach which assumes that all he has to do is kidnap Maduro and Venezuela is 'solved', that if only Gaza could become another Las Vegas the Israel/Palestinian issue would be resolved, that if only the mullahs could be toppled in Iran, all would be well.
[Trump] has this 'quick-fix' solution approach which assumes that all he has to do is kidnap Maduro and Venezuela is 'solved'.
A few pages back I compared the Venezuela operation to the Panama invasion, making the point that however you view the legality of the Panama invasion it was a well planned and executed strategic intervention - to not just arrest Noriega, but rapidly replace his whole government with the opposition and leave a basically stable country behind when they pulled out a few weeks later. Trumps attack on Venezuela was tactically well executed (no one can deny the competence with which US forces got in, got their man, and got out) but doesn't appear to be part of any coherent strategy - it's left basically the same people in charge of the country; it's put anyone seen as sympathetic to the US in considerable danger (and, indeed US citizens in country are being advised to leave because they are now even less safe than they were before the operation); the legitimate government of Venezuela is not in power, many opposition people are still political detainees; it's not even clear if Trump can follow through with his claim to be able to sell Venezuelan oil or if military action has hindered the drugs cartels one iota.
The Trump 'quick fix', especially when compared to other US interventions such as in Panama, is ineffective at making any significant changes in Venezuela. One might even go as far as to say his approach is crude.
I don't know what the trading terms are with South America. But I do know China has secured agreement with a number of the countries to not recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state.
Recognition of China has long been the default position outside the 'West':
My understanding is China has persuaded many Caribbean and South American countries to switch allegiance in the last 20 years using its economic leverage.
Since 2017 alone its been Honduras, Panama, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras.
And the previous position of most of those countries were the product of right wing dictatorships in many cases put in place by US assisted coups.
Since the PRC took over China's seat at the UN the ROC have been fighting a losing battle (and for a good part of that time their position was still that they were the only legitimate government of one China).
But this is geo political war. It has been brewing for decades. And as you know, nothing is fair in love and war.
I don't like it either. But I don't want to become a province of China and the only thing standing between that and our national sovereignty is our allies.
But this is geo political war. It has been brewing for decades. And as you know, nothing is fair in love and war.
I don't like it either. But I don't want to become a province of China and the only thing standing between that and our national sovereignty is our allies.
Have their been any indications that China has any interest in expanding territorially beyond places it has always insisted are part of China (Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan etc)? China has enormous economic power that it can use to project power beyond its borders but that's a long way from military conflict.
But this is geo political war. It has been brewing for decades. And as you know, nothing is fair in love and war.
I don't like it either. But I don't want to become a province of China and the only thing standing between that and our national sovereignty is our allies.
I get that @WhimsicalChristian but I think an important part of the message @Gamma Gamaliel is trying to get across to you is that the USA is no longer a trustworthy ally or an entity to rely on. You may disagree with that view, but I don't, and I don't think many other shipmates outside the USA (or, for that matter inside it) do either.
Yes, and it's questionable whether Trump would respond were Xi to seize Taiwan.
I don't see any evidence that China wants to invade Australia and make it a Chinese province.
My reading of the situation is that it certainly wants dominance of the Pacific and South China Seas and would intimidate or even enter into conflict with Australia or anyone else it felt was getting in its way.
Yes, I know Australia has been concerned about China for some considerable time and it's easy for the rest of us to roll our eyes and think of it as 1950s style Cold War 'Yellow Peril' paranoia.
I know an officer in the Australian military who believes that conflict with China is likely within the next 5 years. Not so much in terms of a Chinese invasion but more a case of confrontations across the Pacific islands.
One would expect the US to be concerned about that too.
The Chinese insists much of the Southeast Pacific belongs to them. They have been occupying otherwise deserted atolls, building artificial islands, placing military installations on them. In addition, they are building offensive line ships such has modern aircraft carriers, nuclear attack submarines and amphibious assault ships. They have stealth fighters, hypersonic weapons, directed energy weapons, AI drones.
The US has equivalent systems and is supposed to provide an umbrella for its allies, but the Philippines, New Zealand and Australia are feeling particularly vulnerable in that America seems focused on other goals, they are not included in the America First ideal, and are so far from the United States. By themselves, or even together, they are no match against the Chinese who is constantly probing their boundaries and encroaching on their territory
Since 1990, China has increased its defence force spending by something like 1000%. My understanding was that it was some kind of sail by manoeuvre in the Taiwan strait from the US and its allies that prompted this spending policy change.
It looks like they really, really want Taiwan so have been working over decades to get people on side if it ever comes to military action.
Up until fairly recently, Taiwan produced something like 90% of the world's semi conductors or some sort of chip we use in all our new technologies. Only in the last few years or so have Europe, the USA and other's realised this was a serious problem for the world if China took Taiwan so they have started producing their own.
The new national security strategy published on the White House website says the US will defend Taiwan and has significant interests in keeping the south china see free of control as a huge amount of trade goes through there that is in the USA's interests to maintain it as free.
This is good news for Australia, NZ and the Phillipines but the report also says Australia has to significantly increase its military spending to play our part. I believe they have already had military incursions into Philippine waters that denies them access.
The defence force in Australia also says we have to spend more on defence.
Our ambassador to the US has recently resigned because the Don said very publicly he didn't like him. The trouble is, Australia is already heavily in bed with China in terms of our exports of iron ore and the like. Our current government is sitting on the fence.
Comments
Hence my question.
There is a treaty in place with Denmark which allows the US to expand its bases there providing it doesn't impinge on Greenland's sovereignty.
So if Trump is worried about Russian and Chinese ships in the Arctic, he already has a mandate to expand US bases there accordingly to guard against any perceived threat.
However, as we've been discussing on the 'Will Greenland be next?' thread, Trump doesn't think the existing treaty is good enough and wants complete 'ownership' of the island.
That would involve him either doing a deal with Denmark to acquire it - and the Danes don't appear to want to play ball - or, as he has threatened, to take it by force.
Even though Denmark is a NATO ally of the US.
It would be rather like the UK or France or another European nation threatening to take Hawaii or part of Alaska.
Imagine the fuss if that were ever the case?
Can you not see how this looks to the rest of us?
My question was around the morality of Trump's actions - or threatened actions.
As a Christian, even a 'whimsical' one you'll be familiar with the 10th commandment about not coveting a neighbour's goods or property.
Isn't that what Trump is doing when eyeing up Greenland or threatening Canada which he did not long after taking office for the second time?
Does it not disturb you that you have a President who makes statements and threats like this even against loyal allies?
My understanding is China has persuaded many Caribbean and South American countries to switch allegiance in the last 20 years using its economic leverage.
Since 2017 alone its been Honduras, Panama, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras.
I believe Paraguay is the only one left now.
We are sitting ducks for the massive new military build up in China. The Chinese navy circled Australia twice last year with their navy and we didn't find out until a commercial pilot spotted them.
They have made significant inroads into the South China Sea, using economic leverage to influence a number of countries in the area.
A British patrol Navy vessel docked in Brisbane last week to assist with our patrols. It was a rust bucket.
Russia is doing military exercises with our closest neighbour, Indonesia. Tho to be fair they're doing them with us too. Classic Indonesian to curry favour with both sides and see which way the wind blows when push comes to shove.
I realise the USA doesn't really care about these things. It's too busy having an internal civil war with itself.
I hope they have the sense not to do so or to keep any military operations away from civilian targets.
They've not had good form on that previously though.
It may be that they go for 'softer' interventions, such as cyber-attacks and jamming and so forth. But time will tell.
Apologies @WhimsicalChristian I assumed you were American rather than Australian. My bad, as the Americans say.
I have relatives and friends in Australia and have recently returned from a family wedding and month-long stay over there, my first visit since I was a '£10 Pom' 60 years ago.
I can understand Australian concerns about Chinese operations in the Pacific and closer to its shores. I also think we in the UK have neglected our naval capacity since the 1980s and run down our defence capabilities more generally.
Much as I would prefer money to be spent on other things, I do see the need for us to maintain our forces and not just rely on Trident or the US.
I recognise that cold, calculating Machiavellian-ness comes into geopolitics and heaven knows, it's not as if Britain or France have been squeaky clean in that regard.
There is a difference, though, I think between maintaining one's defence capabilities and wilfully ousting or interfering in other countries' affairs by ousting leaders, destabilising their economies or threatening military action against them - which Trump has even done in relation to his allies.
The US has form on these things and the results haven't exactly been successful. The invasion of Iraq simply destabilised the whole region.
Saddam Hussain was a monster but ousting him with no game-plan for what happened next was bound to end in disaster.
Likewise any US intervention in Iran without popular support on the ground.
I don't carry a candle for either China or Russia - both violate human rights, both are repressive regimes.
But that does not justify the kind of things Trump appears to be planning.
He has this 'quick-fix' solution approach which assumes that all he has to do is kidnap Maduro and Venezuela is 'solved', that if only Gaza could become another Las Vegas the Israel/Palestinian issue would be resolved, that if only the mullahs could be toppled in Iran, all would be well.
The Trump 'quick fix', especially when compared to other US interventions such as in Panama, is ineffective at making any significant changes in Venezuela. One might even go as far as to say his approach is crude.
And the previous position of most of those countries were the product of right wing dictatorships in many cases put in place by US assisted coups.
Since the PRC took over China's seat at the UN the ROC have been fighting a losing battle (and for a good part of that time their position was still that they were the only legitimate government of one China).
But this is geo political war. It has been brewing for decades. And as you know, nothing is fair in love and war.
I don't like it either. But I don't want to become a province of China and the only thing standing between that and our national sovereignty is our allies.
Have their been any indications that China has any interest in expanding territorially beyond places it has always insisted are part of China (Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan etc)? China has enormous economic power that it can use to project power beyond its borders but that's a long way from military conflict.
I don't see any evidence that China wants to invade Australia and make it a Chinese province.
My reading of the situation is that it certainly wants dominance of the Pacific and South China Seas and would intimidate or even enter into conflict with Australia or anyone else it felt was getting in its way.
Yes, I know Australia has been concerned about China for some considerable time and it's easy for the rest of us to roll our eyes and think of it as 1950s style Cold War 'Yellow Peril' paranoia.
I know an officer in the Australian military who believes that conflict with China is likely within the next 5 years. Not so much in terms of a Chinese invasion but more a case of confrontations across the Pacific islands.
One would expect the US to be concerned about that too.
But with the current administration who knows?
The US has equivalent systems and is supposed to provide an umbrella for its allies, but the Philippines, New Zealand and Australia are feeling particularly vulnerable in that America seems focused on other goals, they are not included in the America First ideal, and are so far from the United States. By themselves, or even together, they are no match against the Chinese who is constantly probing their boundaries and encroaching on their territory
Since 1990, China has increased its defence force spending by something like 1000%. My understanding was that it was some kind of sail by manoeuvre in the Taiwan strait from the US and its allies that prompted this spending policy change.
It looks like they really, really want Taiwan so have been working over decades to get people on side if it ever comes to military action.
Up until fairly recently, Taiwan produced something like 90% of the world's semi conductors or some sort of chip we use in all our new technologies. Only in the last few years or so have Europe, the USA and other's realised this was a serious problem for the world if China took Taiwan so they have started producing their own.
The new national security strategy published on the White House website says the US will defend Taiwan and has significant interests in keeping the south china see free of control as a huge amount of trade goes through there that is in the USA's interests to maintain it as free.
This is good news for Australia, NZ and the Phillipines but the report also says Australia has to significantly increase its military spending to play our part. I believe they have already had military incursions into Philippine waters that denies them access.
The defence force in Australia also says we have to spend more on defence.
Our ambassador to the US has recently resigned because the Don said very publicly he didn't like him. The trouble is, Australia is already heavily in bed with China in terms of our exports of iron ore and the like. Our current government is sitting on the fence.
Not that I hold any brief for St Kevin ( former PM)