SPOILER: It has nothing to do with Greenland. π§΅
There is a US base on Greenland, Denmark is a NATO country, granting Greenland independence has been discussed for decades.
Whatever it is the US want to get in Greenland, they would not need military threats to get it.
It's not about Greenland, but about Denmark and Europe. 2/
Denmark is one of the wealthiest states in Europe. 3/
Denmark has almost completely switched to renewable energies. 4/
Denmark is a social welfare state. 5/
At the same time, its migration policy is relatively tough, though. (spoiler: If you have Germany to the South, you are relatively protected.)
6/
Denmark is absolutely united in its support for Ukraine and its contribution is not only impressive as share of GDP (the second highest worldwide!), but even in absolute numbers where it is among the top 10.
It has been very generous by, e.g., giving up its entire artillery. 7/
Denmark is lead by a left wing middle aged woman.
She might remind MAGA of Kamala Harris.
8/
Denmark almost extinguished hard right parties. There is no AfD or Reform Musk could push. 9/
TO BE SHORT
Denmark represents everything the Mump guys hate about Europe: Moderate politics, Ukraine support, social welfare, women in power.
They don't care about Greenland (and probably didn't know where it is two weeks ago), they want to bring the European model down.
10/
And this @kajakallas and @EU_Commission and @EUparliament is the reason why EUROPE must answer the threats against Denmark: It's not about Greenland, but about Europe.
Each threat against Denmark can be answered by targeted measures against X, Tesla, you name it. 11/
MAGA understands only the language of strength. To say anyone in Europe would be able or willing to defend Greenland militarily would be ridiculous. But economic sanctions are an ideal tool to defend Europe itself against MAGA/Mump. We cannot leave Denmark alone! π§΅
@thevtalks
@vic_010100
@Alex_V006
@trinzu
@ Any European unhappy with what Mump are doing to us. Let's stand together.
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The bad thing about everything the gangsters do is that they always pursue several goals with one measure. Like Putin. π§΅
Putin waged war in Syria not only to keep his ally in place, but also to create a refugee crisis in Europe.
Putin starts a war in Ukraine not only to get Ukraine "back", but to humiliate the rest of Europe.
Etc.
Now π β¬οΈ
2/
π ICEs people not only to terrify them, but also to be able to call the insurrection act and cancel the elections. At the same time his buddies make money with private detention centers.
3/
With Venezuela everybody is distracted, but this book is still very important to understand today's US behavior towards Ukraine.
A book on how the British Empire wanted to sell Poland to the Soviet Union for the sake of "spheres of influence". 1/
The book "the forgotten appeasement of 1920" is only available in Polish and German and only as a pdf. I sent it to a bookbinder to get it this way.
But the parallels between 1920 UK and 2026 US are striking.
2/
The Peace of Versailles of 1919 had just recreated Poland as a sovereign nation- but explicitly without defining the Eastern border! This led immediately to war between the USSR and Poland. 3/
The EU is THE solution to the millennial European problem: How to create stability in such a heterogeneous multilingual and diverse continent without oppression.
π§΅
Before the EU, there were only two solutions which took turns:
Either you grant many states and actors a lot of autonomy or even full sovereignty so that even the smallest community had its own: This solution prevailed in the middle ages.
Provence, e.g., was independent. 2/
Such a system of multiple states and state-like actors leads to instability, constant wars and the desire of greater states to take them over - which, in the case of France, happened from the 14th century to the 17th century, erasing local identities and languages.
3/
Part II of my essay about the the rule of law is out. While Part I treated the concept of the rule of law, Part II treats the rise of the rule of law internationally after 1945: The rules-based order.
WHY DOES IT MATTER? π§΅
While on a state level the idea of a rule of law against the establishment of despotism has arisen 2500 years ago, the bullying of others by "great powers" on the international sphere used to be seen as normal or at least remained unanswered until 1945. 2/
It is totally wrong to equal international rule of law with a "unipolar", "Western-dominated" or "liberal" order. These terms deflect from the fact that international rule of law protects the weak against the strong, right against might. The correct term is "rules-based order".3/
"poor people that are now oppressed with intolerable servitude" (ch. 5)
"The (...) form of their government is plain tyrannical, as applying to the behoof of the prince, and that after a most open and barbarous manner" (ch .7) 1/
"unmeasured liberty to command and exact upon the commons"
"both nobility and commons are but storers for the prince, all running in the end into the emperor's coffers"
"any law (...) is ever determined of before any public assembly or parliament be summoned"
(ch. 7)
"the emperors are content to make much of the corrupt state of the church (...) knowing superstition and false religion best to agree with a tyrannical state and to be a special means to uphold and maintain the same"
(ch 7)
So, I need to talk about this. Why asking a German President for reparations is utter nonsense. And why they are generally utter nonsense and would even damage Poland itself.
(1) A German President is a procedural figure without any entitlement to make any fundamental decisions. Negotiating with a German President is like negotiating with an English King. Absolute misunderstanding of the constitution.
2/x
(2) Reparations in general
I am aware that no reparations sum would be nearly enough to compensate for the suffering Germany has caused to Poland and its people. Despite this, reasonable thinking shows that no reparations should be paid. 3/x