EPTEurope is now sending troops over Greenland, sorry ukraine.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5447
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
ETisME
12758 Posts
Europe is now sending troops over Greenland, sorry ukraine. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24108 Posts
On January 21 2026 04:49 LightSpectra wrote: "Lesser evilism" is specifically an electoral strategy, and it's really just a cynical rephrase of "vote for the best candidate that has a realistic chance of winning". Of course, you already knew that and are making a bad faith argument since you can't help yourself. It must be some kind of psychological compulsion to give your opinion knowing nobody cares about it. and Jankisa supposing there is ONLY "lesser evilism" On January 21 2026 05:27 Jankisa wrote: GH, serious question. Is there a country on this earth that is not evil? Is there a population that has a choice that is not picking the lesser evil? I can see you are in a loop where you manage to boil everything we talk about around here to this concept, so I'm wondering if there is any proof of any other concept being in existence. + Show Spoiler + If there isn't, then why even bring it up? We might as well talk about farting rainbows and shitting cotton candy. I'm less clear on whether people (besides LS and Kwark) believe Jankisa is wrong here. Clearly Jankisa and LightSpectra's positions are mutually exclusive. How do you all suppose we resolve that contradiction? It seems Gorsameth is leaning toward a "lesser evilism" (common in foreign policy) approach. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22447 Posts
On January 21 2026 06:23 ETisME wrote: It was, imo, the big mistake with Ukraine. Europe should have send in soldiers the moment they learned of Russia's plan to invade (and we knew well before it actually happened).I am actually finding this whole thing so funny. Europe is now sending troops over Greenland, sorry ukraine. Having troops there that you would need to fight is a much much bigger deterrent then the threat that you might do something after they have already invaded. (also NATO troops in Ukraine means going into an active war with Russia, troops in Greenland don't mean we are at war with the US) | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11912 Posts
On January 21 2026 06:28 Gorsameth wrote: It was, imo, the big mistake with Ukraine. Europe should have send in soldiers the moment they learned of Russia's plan to invade (and we knew well before it actually happened). Having troops there that you would need to fight is a much much bigger deterrent then the threat that you might do something after they have already invaded. (also NATO troops in Ukraine means going into an active war with Russia, troops in Greenland don't mean we are at war with the US) Exactly. Having European troops there means that Trump can't easily march in and take over, because he would need to kill mainland European soldiers to do so, which makes retaliation by the countries whose soldiers he just killed a lot more probable. It is the same way Nato deterrence works in the Baltics. And yeah, it is absurd that this is apparently necessary now. | ||
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
On January 21 2026 06:24 GreenHorizons wrote: Okay so we have LS (and Kwark in his typical shitposty way) insisting that "lesser evilism" is only an electoral strategy. I believe everyone here knows that's pretty obviously wrong. and Jankisa supposing there is ONLY "lesser evilism" I'm less clear on whether people (besides LS and Kwark) believe Jankisa is wrong here. Clearly Jankisa and LightSpectra's positions are mutually exclusive. How do you all suppose we resolve that contradiction? It seems Gorsameth is leaning toward a "lesser evilism" (common in foreign policy) approach. Lesser evil analysis is useful when there's a structured contest in which there are only two known choices and those choices have established values. It is simply not applicable to countries choosing how to respond to pressure over Greenland for the reasons I made so obvious even an idiot would understand them. It is not a choice between giving Trump what he wants (-8 value) or giving megaTrump what he wants (-10 value). There's a huge range of potential choices with potential outcomes of different values. It is a toolset for a purpose. You cannot take it out of its context and insist that people who think it is an appropriate analytical tool for the purpose must also support it in any absurd scenario you come up with. As always, I am very smart. | ||
|
PoulsenB
Poland7744 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
1963 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24108 Posts
On January 21 2026 06:33 KwarK wrote: Lesser evil analysis is + Show Spoiler + useful when there's a structured contest in which there are only two known choices and those choices have established values. It is simply not applicable to countries choosing how to respond to pressure over Greenland for the reasons I made so obvious even an idiot would understand them. It is not a choice between giving Trump what he wants (-8 value) or giving megaTrump what he wants (-10 value). There's a huge range of potential choices with potential outcomes of different values. It is a toolset for a purpose. You cannot take it out of its context and insist that people who think it is an appropriate analytical tool for the purpose must also support it in any absurd scenario you come up with. As always, I am very smart. I'm pretty sure everyone else here knows people use "lesser evilism" and "harm reduction" to refer to selecting the least harmful option when all choices are undesirable. This is something people apply widely to ethical and political dilemmas. Some people think of it more as "realism/realpolitik". I'm just saying the EU and Canada are going to use that to rationalize what some of you would likely prefer to call "appeasement" because of the social context. | ||
|
ETisME
12758 Posts
On January 21 2026 06:28 Gorsameth wrote: It was, imo, the big mistake with Ukraine. Europe should have send in soldiers the moment they learned of Russia's plan to invade (and we knew well before it actually happened). Having troops there that you would need to fight is a much much bigger deterrent then the threat that you might do something after they have already invaded. (also NATO troops in Ukraine means going into an active war with Russia, troops in Greenland don't mean we are at war with the US) They are sending troops because it's a PR move. Plus it's to show Trump they are "capable" to do something. If you outsourced the majority of defense to the US, really should have taken their advices and requests lots more seriously. I am still very impressed at EU earning more from fining US big tech than total tax from their own tech sector. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22447 Posts
On January 21 2026 06:57 ETisME wrote: "damn the EU for not letting their companies relentlessly exploit everyone to further increase the obscene wealth of the 0.00001%" is not the burn you think it is.They are sending troops because it's a PR move. Plus it's to show Trump they are "capable" to do something. If you outsourced the majority of defense to the US, really should have taken their advices and requests lots more seriously. I am still very impressed at EU earning more from fining US big tech than total tax from their own tech sector. | ||
|
Legan
Finland580 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
On January 21 2026 06:57 ETisME wrote: They are sending troops because it's a PR move. Plus it's to show Trump they are "capable" to do something. If you outsourced the majority of defense to the US, really should have taken their advices and requests lots more seriously. I am still very impressed at EU earning more from fining US big tech than total tax from their own tech sector. They’re tripwire troops. They didn’t need troops before because nobody had any interest in attacking it. They’re sending small numbers of troops from multiple countries because that’s how you build a tripwire force. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46178 Posts
On January 21 2026 06:57 ETisME wrote: They are sending troops because it's a PR move. Plus it's to show Trump they are "capable" to do something. If you outsourced the majority of defense to the US, really should have taken their advices and requests lots more seriously. I am still very impressed at EU earning more from fining US big tech than total tax from their own tech sector. It's not just PR though; there are actual negative repercussions caused by Trump, and we know Trump is willing to invade other countries because he just invaded Venezuela. A lot of his threats need to be taken seriously. The fact that European military resources are being allocated towards Greenland to defend against Trump's threats [1] [2] instead of being allocated towards Ukraine (or even simply waiting on standby in case they need to be allocated towards Ukraine) means that Trump is helping Russia/Putin and hurting Ukraine. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/20/us-europe-send-troops-greenland/88264498007/ [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd0ydjvxpejo | ||
|
Legan
Finland580 Posts
Military models Canadian response to hypothetical American invasion The Globe and Mail "Armed Forces envision insurgency tactics like those used by Afghan mujahedeen, sources say. But officials and experts stress a U.S. operation is unlikely, and the scenarios are conceptual". | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4427 Posts
No surprise Merz came out a few weeks ago saying how huge of a mistake it was to close those nuclear plants. | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany598 Posts
On January 21 2026 07:56 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Is the EU still planning on buying bucketloads of US gas if this keeps escalating? US imports account for 27% current gas usage up 4x from 2021, set to increase to 40% by end of decade.Canning that would be another huge hit to industry there with shortages and price hikes. No surprise Merz came out a few weeks ago saying how huge of a mistake it was to close those nuclear plants. Except the usage of gas for electricity has been constant / went down slightly from before to after shutting off the nuclear plants. Almost like we use that gas mostly for heating, or industrial use. Think about shutting off the power plants what you want, but it has very little relevancy in the gas discussion. That is also why it was so problematic in germany. Its mostly used in areas where there is no alternative atm (not saying you can't heat with electricity etc, but if people got gas heating they got gas heating. simple as. And in the industry its even harder to replace if not impossible) | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4427 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18348 Posts
On January 21 2026 07:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It's not just PR though; there are actual negative repercussions caused by Trump, and we know Trump is willing to invade other countries because he just invaded Venezuela. A lot of his threats need to be taken seriously. The fact that European military resources are being allocated towards Greenland to defend against Trump's threats [1] [2] instead of being allocated towards Ukraine (or even simply waiting on standby in case they need to be allocated towards Ukraine) means that Trump is helping Russia/Putin and hurting Ukraine. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/20/us-europe-send-troops-greenland/88264498007/ [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd0ydjvxpejo Well, sort of. I don't think the 15 soldiers from France were being deployed to Ukraine, nor were the 13 from Germany, 2 from Netherlands, 2 from Norway, etc. But according to the Dutch news at least, they weren't actually intended to do much more than scout out what it would take to put a more permanent defense force there (to repell an invasion from Russia and China, of course, nobody is talking about fighting the US). This does mean that while these troops now probably did nothing to interfere with supplying Ukraine, in the mid term, there are resources being allocated to an utterly and completely pointless mission in Greenland. And that no doubt requires weaponry and ammunition that could otherwise have gone to Ukraine. | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany598 Posts
On January 21 2026 09:01 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The amount of electricity created by the nuclear plants, the equivalent could have been decommissioned from the natgas plants now that you have cut off Russian supply and tensions with USA are rising.Diversification is a good thing.I know it's impossible now they have closed the plants. That sounds like what we call a Milchmädchenrechnung in german. In any case, trying to get rid off russian gas increased the US share of LNG imports from ~fifth to around a fourth, and between 10-15% of our gas is used for electricity. Could if had made a difference if it was actually possible to reduce the usage of gas with those plants? Sure, but would it be relevant? Not really no. And if those powerplants had the capacity to let us decommission the gas plants, why has the usage of gas for electricity remained roughly the same / even went down a bit from before to after shutting off the plants? Not percentage, but the total terawatt hours produced using gas. I am speculating myself here, but my best bet is that the electricity that we do generate with gas is split between processes where the produced electricity is a freebie you get. I know in some chemical manufacturing processes they produce electricity on the side because might as well put that heat to use. And the cases where you can't really substitute it for anything else. What you say might make sense in theory, like if we could just magically turn a switch and change those industrial processes to electric, or wave a magic wand and replace everyone's old gas heating with electric, but in practice if it had any effect regarding electricity we would have seen an increase in the terawatt hours of electricity produced using gas. Another fun fact, while the EU as a whole is currently the largest importer of natural gas. When it comes to US LNG we are in fifth place. Now you might want to argue that if we didn't snatch up as much non US gas, then those other countries could import more non US as well, to which I refer to the problem of trying to substitute the gas with electricity in areas where you can't use it (yet). So apart from the nuclear powerplants probably having no effect here since there was no increase in the use of gas for electricity production after shutting off those powerplants, even if we could have used them to reduce our gas usage for electricity production, it wouldn't have moved the needle much. I haven't checked what the larger EU importers use the gas for, but my best bet is also not electricity, given that the top 3 is netherlands (iirc they heavily use it in some industrial capacity as well as some further refinement or something like that. To be honest with you I can't be bothered to check since your initial response didn't even make sense just based on what I wrote previously), france (big into nuclear power, and afaik also big into gas heating), and spain (also pretty good on the nuclear as far as I am aware, prob heating as well and maybe industry). Now I totally agree with you that the EU reliance on US gas imports is bad, especially now under trump, and its projected to get even worse. I saw figures of 30% all the way to up to 80% reliance on the US gas for the EU within the next 5 years which, would be bonkers even without a buffoon like trump in office. And I agree that diversification is good, but those nuclear powerplants ain't the key to that. The key to that is alternative sources for the gas, for example from african countries. If I remember correctly there is already pretty good gas infrastructure in spain but the connection to the west of europe never got further expanded because france was blocking it, fearing it could lead to a rise in gas usage in electricity production and thus hurt their energy exports. Further along, in many EU countries there are projects aimed at reducing CO² emissions that target heating that uses fossil fuels, either subsidising replacing those heating sources with heat pumps, or straight up banning building new houses with gas/oil heating. Unlike the decommissioned power plants, those did actually have an affect in lowering our total gas consumption. But it is pretty slow unfortunately and at least in germany we probably have already gotten most of the short term achievable with the last substitutions for getting rid of your old oil/gas heating. So in conclusion, US gas imports are not great, we need to reduce them. Shutting off our nuclear power plants doesn't really have an effect here, but feel free to be mad at the CDU about it. Reducing gas usage for heating is definitely doable, has already been done, and did have an effect and could have further effects. I am looking forward to seeing you root for the green hippies that have been the most instrumental in reducing our reliance on gas as without their impeccable foresight we would have been even more dependent on US gas imports. What a pleasant surprise in the end.  | ||
|
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
| ||
| ||
