Denmark had previously announced that, starting in 2026, it would expand conscription to include women and increase the standard term of service from four to
The Danish Armed Forces have launched an expanded conscription of young people amid actions by the United States and Russia.
If you had told someone 10 years ago that in 10 years Denmark would expand conscription terms and send soldiers to Greenland to defend against possible US aggression, you would have been called nuts.
10 years from now … North Dakota has separated from the United States and has used its nuclear weapons against the Cameroon city of Yaoundé. Few people could have predicated this.
Ten years is approximately the time I’ve been saying that the USA is the only credible threat that Europe is facing, and naturally, I’ve been shunned to the periphery of this society. Unfortunately these I told you so’s aren’t very satisfying either.
Your problem was probably the “only” part: until recently Russia was a pretty credible threat to many Eastern European countries, especially if the actual commitment of the US to NATO operations in some small EE European country was less than guaranteed (and if one views the US as a threat to Europe it logically follows that the US’ willingness to defend Europe is firm in words only).
Further, the US has already been seeing Europe (especially the EU) as an adversary and attacking Europe for more than a decade - just look at how funded Brexit in the UK (most notably via Cambridge Analitica), how Americans were caugh eavesdropping on Merkel’s phone or just what came out in the Snowden Revelation that related to Europe - it’s just that it was all in the Trade, Political, Espionage and Social domains and without any territorial claims.
It’s the, under Trump, territorial claims and pivoting towards considering Military options as possible, that is novel.
Not to trivialize the threat from Russia, but as we have seen they have a very hard time taking territory from Ukraine. Of course, the US has supplied Ukraine with arms and intelligence which has helped Ukraine in that war, but it’s not the decisive factor here. The truth is that Russia does not have the strength to stand up to the EU, that’s why I used the “credible” signifier.
And I don’t want to make excuses for Putin, but economic cooperation between Russia and the EU might have worked to defuse tensions if the USA wasn’t playing their “grand chessboard” all over the world, including in Europe.
I think that after the takeover of Crimea in 2014 and the direct Russian interference in two Ukranian regions were it pushed for their separation from Ukraine and merging with Russia as well as its long ongowing interference in Ukranian politics, it’s reasonable to think that the Russian actions were mainly driven by its leader’s desire for the resources of Ukraine, namelly the Gas Fields in the Adriatic and its highly productive agricultural lands.
Russia has a long tradition of imperialism, most notably displayed in recent History when it transformed into the Soviet Union and annexed quite a number of independent countries as well as taking control of some more.
I’m not saying that America has not interfered and doesn’t have influence in the region, I’m saying that the tradition of Russian autocratic leaders is to take other people’s shit if they think they can get away with it, and given the size and military capabilities of Russia, that would make Russia under Putin a credible threat for any small nation bordering it.
I mean, just ask the Finnish: a good chunk of their country on the side of the Russian border even has their main roads going parallel to the border and very few roads in the a direction from the border towards the center of Finland, exactly to make it harder for any Russian invasion force.
Ukraine, which is one of the largest nations of Europe by territory and population (about as many people as the UK, but much larger) barelly avoided a loss by decapitation in the first week of the invasion and had Russia invaded a smaller country, they would would probably have succeeded.
I’m not saying that in Europe Russia would be a very credible threat to the likes of Poland, I’m saying it would be a crdible threat to the likes of Estonia and Latvia.
Russia has gas and agriculture. No need for them to reach for Ukraine’s. But the prospect of losing Crimea once the lease was up for their naval base on the other hand, I think Putin saw as existential. And taking it was a slippery slope, because once Ukraine diverted water from Crimea they needed the provinces upstream from Crimea, and here we are.
Again, not making excuses for Putin. As you point out, Russia has not given up on imperialism. All of Russia’s bordering states have to be constantly vigilant of this, and not just in Europe for that matter. Individual countries like Latvia can’t ward off Russia, so a defense alliance is necessary for sure.
But ultimately I think that for Europe, Russia is a nuisance compared to the United States.
Your claims about Russia not needing Ukrainian Territory and thus not having desires for it contradict what Russia ALREADY did back when it created the Soviet Union, which I already pointed out.
Historically Russian behavior has been one of wanting to take over territories bordering it so it makes sense to at the very least suspect they still want to do it, especially given that the actually HAVE BEEN DOING IT repeatedly.
Putin’s claims of “existential” threat “if Russia didn’t take over Crimea” fall into the category of “self-serving red-line defined by myself only”, or in other words, a paper-thin bullshit excuse to do what he wants - anybody can claim to believe whatever. It’s something in the same category as America’s Bush Administration “Weapons of mass destruction” excuse for the invasion of Iraq, but even more fragile as an excuse since it entirely rests on what Putin’s claims of what his own beliefs are.
That said, I totally agree that for Europe, right now, Russia is a nuisance compared to the US, especially considering just how far Europe has made US surveillance-enabled software and hardware part of just about everything. My point is that about how 10 years ago, before having seen how Ukraine managed to stop their military, the belief that Russia was a credible threat to the European nations was entirelly valid since there was a perception of Russia’s military capability both on the European side and on the Russian side (which indirectly meant they were more likely to get into “military adventures” thinking they would win) which was much bigger than the reality shown in Ukraine.
Ultimately we’re both speculating. We can’t know why exactly Russia has been attacking Georgia and Ukraine. I see your point that historically Russia has tried to consolidate both territory and ethnic groups; my assessment is that if they wanted farmland there were much easier targets than Ukraine. But I think we’re in agreement that Russia is not trustworthy, having conducted all kinds of covert operations inside the EU and constantly testing European defenses.
I think that most people 10 years ago thought that Russia would just have steamrolled Ukraine, and that’s the point I tried to make with my first comment. I was the complete opposite, but for the record, I wasn’t right either! I thought that Russia knew that it wasn’t going to be able to take enough territory in Ukraine to end up with a long-term sustainable situation. So I genuinely didn’t take the threat seriously, up until they started building field hospitals at the border, and I barely believed it even then.
So I’m not at all holier than thou here. I’m just frustrated that more isn’t done to preempt the United States while they’re on a trajectory that I think they’ve been telegraphing quite clearly.
Did you ever think that this is just all a set up to get us all to go to war because there’s too many of us?
The rich people that run our countries don’t consider themselves a part of any country. They’re globalists. I’m sure you never thought about why the term globalist has changed from oligarch and the rich to a certain religion in the Middle East but it’s simply to stop us from naming them properly without being a “Nazi”.
Nah that’s going back to 2016 where Trump won the presidential election, so I think the reaction would rather be "So you think Trump will win the election?!
The first part makes sense, I believe, which is sorrowful to say the least… but may I ask what did you try to express in the closing sentence regarding two countries mentioned?
The initial message was changed by the author, and my question is now obsolete.
Thank you for the response, but no. Your initial message was changed at this point, and my question now is obsolete.
And no, my question was not related to the quite disgusting term “nuts” that is supposed to mean “balls”, “tomatoes”, the still appreciated testicles, that gift lives to people as a miracle.
Not to mention that some Go programming appreciated Communities do also have channels at IRC and Discord as #gonuts, and it’s quite challenging to associate a woman’s life with that attitude, sorry…
No. This is how you read it. And I believe that you and me are allowed to not like what we read.
I appreciate your expressing your dislikes towards my opinion on your words.
If you had told someone 10 years ago that in 10 years Denmark would expand conscription terms and send soldiers to Greenland to defend against possible US aggression, you would have been called nuts.
10 years from now … North Dakota has separated from the United States and has used its nuclear weapons against the Cameroon city of Yaoundé. Few people could have predicated this.
Sounds like a Simpsons script.
I feel like we’ve moved way past the Simpsons at this point, we’re in the Squidbillies or something now
make that 15. krasnov was running for election 10 years ago.
Ten years is approximately the time I’ve been saying that the USA is the only credible threat that Europe is facing, and naturally, I’ve been shunned to the periphery of this society. Unfortunately these I told you so’s aren’t very satisfying either.
Your problem was probably the “only” part: until recently Russia was a pretty credible threat to many Eastern European countries, especially if the actual commitment of the US to NATO operations in some small EE European country was less than guaranteed (and if one views the US as a threat to Europe it logically follows that the US’ willingness to defend Europe is firm in words only).
Further, the US has already been seeing Europe (especially the EU) as an adversary and attacking Europe for more than a decade - just look at how funded Brexit in the UK (most notably via Cambridge Analitica), how Americans were caugh eavesdropping on Merkel’s phone or just what came out in the Snowden Revelation that related to Europe - it’s just that it was all in the Trade, Political, Espionage and Social domains and without any territorial claims.
It’s the, under Trump, territorial claims and pivoting towards considering Military options as possible, that is novel.
Not to trivialize the threat from Russia, but as we have seen they have a very hard time taking territory from Ukraine. Of course, the US has supplied Ukraine with arms and intelligence which has helped Ukraine in that war, but it’s not the decisive factor here. The truth is that Russia does not have the strength to stand up to the EU, that’s why I used the “credible” signifier.
And I don’t want to make excuses for Putin, but economic cooperation between Russia and the EU might have worked to defuse tensions if the USA wasn’t playing their “grand chessboard” all over the world, including in Europe.
I think that after the takeover of Crimea in 2014 and the direct Russian interference in two Ukranian regions were it pushed for their separation from Ukraine and merging with Russia as well as its long ongowing interference in Ukranian politics, it’s reasonable to think that the Russian actions were mainly driven by its leader’s desire for the resources of Ukraine, namelly the Gas Fields in the Adriatic and its highly productive agricultural lands.
Russia has a long tradition of imperialism, most notably displayed in recent History when it transformed into the Soviet Union and annexed quite a number of independent countries as well as taking control of some more.
I’m not saying that America has not interfered and doesn’t have influence in the region, I’m saying that the tradition of Russian autocratic leaders is to take other people’s shit if they think they can get away with it, and given the size and military capabilities of Russia, that would make Russia under Putin a credible threat for any small nation bordering it.
I mean, just ask the Finnish: a good chunk of their country on the side of the Russian border even has their main roads going parallel to the border and very few roads in the a direction from the border towards the center of Finland, exactly to make it harder for any Russian invasion force.
Ukraine, which is one of the largest nations of Europe by territory and population (about as many people as the UK, but much larger) barelly avoided a loss by decapitation in the first week of the invasion and had Russia invaded a smaller country, they would would probably have succeeded.
I’m not saying that in Europe Russia would be a very credible threat to the likes of Poland, I’m saying it would be a crdible threat to the likes of Estonia and Latvia.
Russia has gas and agriculture. No need for them to reach for Ukraine’s. But the prospect of losing Crimea once the lease was up for their naval base on the other hand, I think Putin saw as existential. And taking it was a slippery slope, because once Ukraine diverted water from Crimea they needed the provinces upstream from Crimea, and here we are.
Again, not making excuses for Putin. As you point out, Russia has not given up on imperialism. All of Russia’s bordering states have to be constantly vigilant of this, and not just in Europe for that matter. Individual countries like Latvia can’t ward off Russia, so a defense alliance is necessary for sure.
But ultimately I think that for Europe, Russia is a nuisance compared to the United States.
Your claims about Russia not needing Ukrainian Territory and thus not having desires for it contradict what Russia ALREADY did back when it created the Soviet Union, which I already pointed out.
Historically Russian behavior has been one of wanting to take over territories bordering it so it makes sense to at the very least suspect they still want to do it, especially given that the actually HAVE BEEN DOING IT repeatedly.
Putin’s claims of “existential” threat “if Russia didn’t take over Crimea” fall into the category of “self-serving red-line defined by myself only”, or in other words, a paper-thin bullshit excuse to do what he wants - anybody can claim to believe whatever. It’s something in the same category as America’s Bush Administration “Weapons of mass destruction” excuse for the invasion of Iraq, but even more fragile as an excuse since it entirely rests on what Putin’s claims of what his own beliefs are.
That said, I totally agree that for Europe, right now, Russia is a nuisance compared to the US, especially considering just how far Europe has made US surveillance-enabled software and hardware part of just about everything. My point is that about how 10 years ago, before having seen how Ukraine managed to stop their military, the belief that Russia was a credible threat to the European nations was entirelly valid since there was a perception of Russia’s military capability both on the European side and on the Russian side (which indirectly meant they were more likely to get into “military adventures” thinking they would win) which was much bigger than the reality shown in Ukraine.
Ultimately we’re both speculating. We can’t know why exactly Russia has been attacking Georgia and Ukraine. I see your point that historically Russia has tried to consolidate both territory and ethnic groups; my assessment is that if they wanted farmland there were much easier targets than Ukraine. But I think we’re in agreement that Russia is not trustworthy, having conducted all kinds of covert operations inside the EU and constantly testing European defenses.
I think that most people 10 years ago thought that Russia would just have steamrolled Ukraine, and that’s the point I tried to make with my first comment. I was the complete opposite, but for the record, I wasn’t right either! I thought that Russia knew that it wasn’t going to be able to take enough territory in Ukraine to end up with a long-term sustainable situation. So I genuinely didn’t take the threat seriously, up until they started building field hospitals at the border, and I barely believed it even then.
So I’m not at all holier than thou here. I’m just frustrated that more isn’t done to preempt the United States while they’re on a trajectory that I think they’ve been telegraphing quite clearly.
Just a bit before that most of us would have told you you were off your fucking rocker that we would elect a reality TV has been like Trump.
Unfortunately we were all wrong about a lot of things
You guys elect actors all the time.
In all fairness the US has quite a long tradition of electing showbiz performers.
Did you ever think that this is just all a set up to get us all to go to war because there’s too many of us?
The rich people that run our countries don’t consider themselves a part of any country. They’re globalists. I’m sure you never thought about why the term globalist has changed from oligarch and the rich to a certain religion in the Middle East but it’s simply to stop us from naming them properly without being a “Nazi”.
Nah that’s going back to 2016 where Trump won the presidential election, so I think the reaction would rather be "So you think Trump will win the election?!
Our reality has become worse than satire.
Denmark has started lending a base to the US not so long ago. It could as well be just a topic to flood the zone whenever needed.
Yes yes yes yes! You see it.
Still nuts tbh. I do feel sorry for those 1,600 who will soon be discombobulated and turned to mist to die for… oil
We don’t send draftees to war. It’s only basic training.
War is coming.
Peace is coming.
The first part makes sense, I believe, which is sorrowful to say the least… but may I ask what did you try to express in the closing sentence regarding two countries mentioned?The initial message was changed by the author, and my question is now obsolete.
Pretty sure nothing is targetted at the two countries. Just that the situation of the USA threatening Denmark would have been condered absurd.
Thank you for the response, but no. Your initial message was changed at this point, and my question now is obsolete.
And no, my question was not related to the quite disgusting term “nuts” that is supposed to mean “balls”, “tomatoes”, the still appreciated testicles, that gift lives to people as a miracle.
Not to mention that some Go programming appreciated Communities do also have channels at IRC and Discord as
#gonuts, and it’s quite challenging to associate a woman’s life with that attitude, sorry…You’re overthinking this definition of many.
From your reference:
“this person there uses a word in a way i don’t like so no one can use the word at all until i say so”
this is how you come off, by the way
No. This is how you read it. And I believe that you and me are allowed to not like what we read.
I appreciate your expressing your dislikes towards my opinion on your words.
The context of the usage of “nuts” is pretty much obvious to the majority of native English speakers.
Why would you immediately think of “testicles”?
You do you.
The “nuts” part? That’s just another term for “crazy.”