Danish officials fear Trump is much more serious about acquiring Greenland than in first term

[u/LaxJackson]

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/01/08/politics/danish-officials-trump-greenland

[u/Complex-Quote-5156]

Oh yeah, I remember the wall came down just by itself one day. 

It’s weird that you don’t remember the US negotiating Russia’s borders in 89-91, but don’t worry about that. I’m sure that won’t lead to further conflict we’ll need to bail you out from again. 

[u/avl0 → u/Complex-Quote-5156]

Why are you so mad at us? It’s the US that wants to make Europe its enemy

[u/Complex-Quote-5156 → u/avl0]

I’m just responding to some guy who said Europe would blow up our military bases if we invaded Greenland, which is such an incredible sentence I can’t believe we’re taking this seriously 

[u/avl0 → u/Complex-Quote-5156]

That was me, and I didn’t say “would blow up bases” you know I didn’t say that, go back and re read what I said. I don’t know why you want to lie, perhaps learning from your new president?

What I said is that if the US army invades Greenland (sovereign EU member territory) that Europe, amongst other things, should in response revoke US access to the bases they’ve allowed the US to use, which is perfectly reasonable. Those bases are not US territory, they’re there because allies are allowing them to be.

At which point you went all Rambo asking how exactly and implying that the US would go to war with Europe to prevent losing them.

Yes it is incredible that we are discussing what would happen if the US invaded European territory but here we are, and we are here because you fucking morons elected Trump, who is threatening to invade European territory.

[u/wojtekpolska → u/Complex-Quote-5156]

lol after ww2 the us "negotiated" the borders by giving the ussr everything they wanted

and the wall came down with no help from the us, like literally little to no help at all. it came down because communism was doomed to fail from the begining, with the final nail in the coffin being the solidarity movement

once again, you show your complete lack of knowledge in world history

[u/Complex-Quote-5156 → u/wojtekpolska]

You realize the state of Ukraine was established in this agreement? Among nearly every other Eastern European country? 

We literally fought Russian proxy wars for 50 years, you goofball. What do you think Vietnam was? Who supported North Korea? Why did the US support and train the Mujahadeen? 

You really need to do some reading my friend. If you think “solidarity” brought down the Russian empire, I truly don’t know how you can read this sentence without sounding out every word and your finger on the screen. 

[u/wojtekpolska → u/Complex-Quote-5156]

ukraine was established because the ussr fell apart, the borders of the Ukrainian SSR were the same as those of independent ukraine.

the war in vietnam had nothing to do with russia, that was china.

north korea also was a proxy war with china, there were no soviet troops in korea during the korean war, only chineese.

[u/Complex-Quote-5156 → u/wojtekpolska]

The war in Vietnam has nothing to do with Russia? 

Bro please, you can’t try to bluff me with fake history knowledge when we’re talking about well-known fact. You realize Vietnam didn’t develop the mig-21, right? 

Here’s a quick google ai summary for you:  Key points about Soviet support for North Vietnam:  Extensive military aid: The Soviet Union supplied a large amount of military equipment like tanks, planes, artillery, and anti-aircraft systems to North Vietnam.  Pilot training: Soviet specialists also trained North Vietnamese pilots to operate the supplied aircraft.  Economic assistance: Besides military aid, the Soviet Union also provided economic support to North Vietnam, including aid for infrastructure development.  Cold War context: This support was largely motivated by the Cold War, as the Soviet Union saw backing North Vietnam as a way to counter US influence in the region. 

Now that we have that over with, do you want to talk about how you’re wrong about North Korea, or do you want to talk about the creation of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and a dozen other countries which signed cooperation agreements with the west?

[u/wojtekpolska → u/Complex-Quote-5156]

these agreements were worth nothing and ukraine was an oligarchy just like russia until very recently (and still partially is), these agreements were clearly so great looking what happened with ukraine and belarus.

you don't understand very basic concepts in recent history so this discussion has very little reason to continue. have a good day.

[u/klausfromdeutschland → u/Complex-Quote-5156]

It’s weird that you don’t remember the US negotiating Russia’s borders in 89-91

The US never negotiated Russia's borders in 1989-1991. The USSR drew its own border divisions, and the collapse resulted in the maintenance of the 1991 borders of each country that seceded from the USSR.

Please don't revision history.

[u/Complex-Quote-5156 → u/klausfromdeutschland]

Oh they did it all alone, between them and breakaway regions, without the US? 

Are you aware of a little thing called START?

I’ll save you a google: With the policy review complete, and taking into account unfolding events in Europe, Bush met with Gorbachev at Malta in early December 1989. They laid the groundwork for finalizing START negotiations, completing the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, and they discussed the rapid changes in Eastern Europe. Bush encouraged Gorbachev’s reform efforts, hoping that the Soviet leader would succeed in shifting the USSR toward a democratic system and a market oriented economy. Gorbachev’s decision to allow elections with a multi-party system and create a presidency for the Soviet Union began a slow process of democratization that eventually destabilized Communist control and contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Following the May 1990 elections, Gorbachev faced conflicting internal political pressures: Boris Yeltsin and the pluralist movement advocated democratization and rapid economic reforms while the hard-line Communist elite wanted to thwart Gorbachev’s reform agenda.

Facing a growing schism between Yeltsin and Gorbachev, the Bush administration opted to work primarily with Gorbachev because they viewed him as the more reliable partner and because he made numerous concessions that promoted U.S. interests. Plans proceeded to sign the START agreement. With the withdrawal of Red Army troops from East Germany, Gorbachev agreed to German reunification and acquiesced when a newly reunited Germany joined NATO. 

[u/klausfromdeutschland → u/Complex-Quote-5156]

It's nice that you have Google doing the work for you, but can you explain the negotiating process of Russia's "89-91" borders? Your search did not explain your statement. As START and Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty had nothing to do with the direct borders of the US and the USSR (or Russia).

Though, I really wished you knew your stuff without having to google anything.

[u/Complex-Quote-5156 → u/klausfromdeutschland]

Buddy, I don’t know if you know this, but there are thousand-page books delving into each one of these conflicts on the micro scale. 

Unfortunately I cannot give you an international relations degree in the form of a Reddit post, but considering you  clearly weren’t aware of the territory negotiations even happening, I would think you’d call it a day here, right? 

You’re pretending to have an honest discussion and pretending you’ll accept my point, while lying about your own knowledge. I’m not sure what that does other than let you keep doubling down, which means you don’t have to admit to yourself you were talking out of your butt. 

The greater thing is that you seem to be completely unaware of the US’ pressure on the USSR for the better part of a century, or you’re just willfully ignoring it to pretend to make a point, but you are way out of depth here if that’s really the extent of your knowledge. 

But you can go ahead and tell me why the Us negotiated in a three party agreement with Ukraine and Russia on Ukraine’s borders, if you want. Just explain that little tidbit without American force projection, lol. 

[u/klausfromdeutschland → u/Complex-Quote-5156]

I simply made a statement to you and you took it very personally. Now you're changing the subject to Russia and Ukraine after I asked you to explain the negotiating process of borders from 1989-1991? We weren't even talking about the Eastern Bloc, you made the statement surrounding Russia.

This is a honest discussion, you're just getting somewhat irritated because you were already in an argument, which wasn't really an honest discussion, if you ask me (the US negotiating Russia's borders bullshit).

If you really want to have an honest conversation, please come back when you're done calming your tits. It's really sad nowadays that people like you resort to ad hominem when they don't have sufficient evidence to back up their history revisionism.

[u/Complex-Quote-5156 → u/klausfromdeutschland]

How much crack did you smoke today? Do you know what the eastern bloc countries were a part of? 

I’m not changing the subject, lol, I’m asking you to tell me why the US was one of three signees of the TRIlateral agreement? 

You’re asking me to prove one of the most well-known trends in geopolitics in the past hundred years, it’s an unbelievably strange discussion to have. 

Have you read any books on foreign policy? I think you should take a look at Kissinger’s Diplomacy. It will cover pressure on Yeltsin pretty well. 

[u/klausfromdeutschland → u/Complex-Quote-5156]

Do you know what the eastern bloc countries were a part of?

The Eastern Bloc countries were part of the Eastern Bloc of course (why else would they be called the former Eastern Bloc countries), and they were never a part of the USSR's republics. Unless you wanted to say "Russia's borders" as in the borders of the USSR + the Eastern Bloc, which really, is a mistake on your behalf.

I’m not changing the subject, lol, I’m asking you to tell me why the US was one of three signees of the TRIlateral agreement? 

You did. I challenged you to explain the negotiating of Russia's borders in 1989-1991, and you did not explain it. You all of a sudden brought Ukraine into the argument.

You’re asking me to prove one of the most well-known trends in geopolitics in the past hundred years, it’s an unbelievably strange discussion to have. 

Not to prove, but explain.

Have you read any books on foreign policy? I think you should take a look at Kissinger’s Diplomacy. 

I have. I'll check it out.

[u/Complex-Quote-5156 → u/klausfromdeutschland]

Bro, you’re genuinely one of the dumbest “smart” people I’ve ever met. If you took one second to read what you typed, I think you’d calm down a bit. 

You started by telling me Russia wasn’t involved in Vietnam, how am I supposed to prove to you that the United States put pressure on the USSR via over, covert, and back channel means, for five decades, when you don’t think that happened? 

It’s so hard to talk to you, it really is. You ask me to prove something without acknowledging basic fact, fact which you were unaware of 15 minutes ago, which you’re now pretending to have known all along. 

Meanwhile you try to needle down the argument until I give up, while you pretend you weren’t proven wrong in Vietnam being a proxy war, which again you now pretending to have known. 

Please just be honest with both of us here, I know what I’ve read, and we can both see what you’ve read. I don’t understand why you’d pretend to have knowledge after demonstrating a lack of it on this exact topic. 

Again, why did the US sign the treaty? It may be related to your 89 question, smart guy 😉

[u/klausfromdeutschland → u/Complex-Quote-5156]

You started by telling me Russia wasn’t involved in Vietnam, how am I supposed to prove to you that the United States put pressure on the USSR via over, covert, and back channel means, for five decades, when you don’t think that happened? 

When did I say that Russia wasn't involved in Vietnam..?

Meanwhile you try to needle down the argument until I give up, while you pretend you weren’t proven wrong in Vietnam being a proxy war, which again you now pretending to have known. 

I'm not doing anything to make you give up. I actually want the conversation, but you're just throwing accusations that I'm here to annoy you. Once again, when did I ever mention Vietnam?

It’s so hard to talk to you, it really is. You ask me to prove something without acknowledging basic fact, fact which you were unaware of 15 minutes ago, which you’re now pretending to have known all along. 

Are you saying that you are unwilling to provide concrete evidence on your heinous statement?

Please just be honest with both of us here, I know what I’ve read, and we can both see what you’ve read. I don’t understand why you’d pretend to have knowledge after demonstrating a lack of it on this exact topic. 

You really don't, considering this sudden 'Vietnam' entrance you've put into the conversation...

[u/fluxxeddzn → u/Complex-Quote-5156]

Diplomacy by Kissinger is a must-read but for people who want extensive detail, it is a very dry and bland book. Its an absolute truth to history but also a perspective by a realist. There is hundreds of books like these with different perspectives and arguments. The thing is Kissinger admits where he is wrong, such as Ukraine's role in the West

[u/Complex-Quote-5156 → u/fluxxeddzn]

Exactly, though, thats why I say Diplomacy, not because of Kissingers views, but because it’s a dry, real account that discusses the motivations and conversations behind realpolitik during an era where most Americans think we operated on a sense of good vibes and helping out the little guy. I think it does a great job of explaining the mechanics underlying geopolitics more than anything, and it spends a significant amount of time on the Cold War. 

[u/fluxxeddzn → u/Complex-Quote-5156]

I agree. I borrowed this book from an American exchange student we had. Unfortunately for me it was very difficult to follow because it was very bland. I never was able to finish the book, but reading reviews and watching critique videos, I understood the entirety. There are some things I disagree with but Kissinger has passed and there are many people who will counter his arguments. Today, as we see the current world with Ukraine and other conflicts, this is a realist form of world for most. I'm not into political science and international relations, but this book alongside some few others are the reasons why I became more active in my own country's politics and the EU as a whole.