suds

Here's something interesting....two center right pro-independence parties came 1st and 2nd in Greenland's main election..... Who won Greenland’s 2025 election? In a surprising result, the centre-right Demokraatit Party won the most votes. Both Demokraatit ( the Democrats) and the second-place Naleraq, or Point of Orientation, favour Greenland's independence from Denmark but differ on the pace of change. Naleraq favours a more aggressive approach, but the Demokraatit wants a gradual transition. Jens-Frederik Nielsen’s party tripled its share of the seats to win the election, a major shock since they were not considered a key player. Demokraatit won 10 of the 31 seats, Naleraq secured eight, and Inuit Ataqatigiit, the party of former Prime Minister Múte B Egede, won seven. The result means that no party has overall control and coalition talks are now set to begin. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/what-does-greenland-s-2025-election-result-mean-for-donald-trump-and-denmark-s-future/ar-AA1ALGid

Empires get old, too spread out, and decline. Or they go broke waging war such as after WW2. In other cases it comes at the barrel of a gun.

It's not exactly as if the U.S. hasn't done stuff like this before. They bought Alaska. Then there was the Louisiana Purchase which makes up 1/3 of the continental U.S. today. And if Montcalm had won on the Plains of Abraham, Napolean would likely have thrown in what is known today as Canada as well. Nothing stays the same forever. I wonder what the offer's going to be?

Do the countries such as the U.K. and Israel actually 'own' their F-35's? Because if they owned them, shouldn't they be able to sell one or two of them to the Russians or Chinese which I'm fairly sure they can't do. Or is it closer to leasing them? Having some kind of 'kill switch' sounds like a decent idea especially if an F-35 fell into the wrong hands. In that event my kind of 'kill switch' would blow the aircraft to smithereens.

It seems to be the general consensus in Europe and the U.S. As for Trump, who knows what he's got planned. I believe it's a war that right about now both sides would like to get out of.

I'm wondering though if that would apply to Nato's nuclear policies which fall under political control. All key principles of Nato's nuclear policies are established by all Nato heads of state and government. The 'nuclear planning group' (NPG) is the senior body on nuclear matters and is responsible for the implementation of these principles and policies. The NPG is chaired by Nato's Secretary General and generally meet at the level of defense ministers. This is done so that Nato allies retain political control of all aspects of nuclear decision making. The independent role of the nuclear forces of the U.K., France, and U.S., have deterrent roles of their own. Should an adversary attack they would have to deal with the independent decision making of the U.K., France, U.S., and Nato, which complicates the decision making of those potential adversaries. The U.S. for example, has absolute control over custody of all their nuclear weapons forward deployed in Europe. So, who has the last say on the use of nuclear weapons or the arming of a CF-18 with a nuclear bomb? The 'Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers (Europe), or these other committees which specifically set nuclear policy? https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50068.htm

Ok, I can't disagree with you on that. It was just the mentioning of the CF-18's carrying nuclear weapons in Europe that caught my eye. I just don't see any obligation or commitment on Canada's part to do any such thing. Not that I'd be totally against it if the circumstances were right.

Being part of a 'chain of command' or being part of a decision making process is not quite the same thing as Canadian CF-18's equipped with nuclear weapons for use in Europe.

Under what agreement is Canada prepared to do this? From what I understand Canada ending its 'nuclear sharing' in 1984 as a partner in Norad.

My post was in response to Ironstone's post which was in response to something Myata had posted. It had nothing to do Freeland. But I suppose it could have.

The important thing is not putting any nuclear deterrent into writing. What's important is the the other side knowing you have nuclear capability and might possibly use it. Putting it into writing just escalates the possibilities of nuclear war.

I know. It is sort of crazy to believe that Britain or France would risk nuclear war with the U.S. over something as crazy as Canada becoming the 51st state. But that's what you get a lot of around here. And if there is a ceasefire or peace deal in the making between Russia and Ukraine, I'd say Nato membership is out of the question and Russia would have to hand back any territories gained since the 2022 invasion. That at least would be a good place to start.

And what would Canada's part in this 'nuclear alliance' be?? What about NORAD??

Yep. And great post by the way! If you're going to get involved in trade deals and the like, it's sometimes best to get involved with countries that have similar economies, living standards, and environmental concerns as your own. Then you have a level playing field and less problems.

Because they're going to have to. What else do you want me to say?

In my opinion the deal blew apart when the press started asking questions about security guarantees which really had nothing to do with the minerals deal they were there to sign. If I were the Democrats and wanted to sabotage the deal, I'd approach someone from the press (friendly to the party) to ask questions that would get the two at each others throats. When Lindsay Graham advised Zalenski 'don't take the bait', he was referring to not getting into an argument with Trump. And since Trump was dealing with both Putin and Zelenski it might be a bit useful if he was seen as a somewhat neutral actor.

Well he seems to be doing a fairly good job at honouring his campaign/election promises. And how does he personally profit from a minerals deal between the U.S. and Ukraine? I'm not aware of him or his family being involved in such mining endeavors. But I will admit it would be a feather in his cap if he managed to achieve some semblance of peace in Ukraine.

More news from Sunday's summit.... European Commission President makes clear that EU will not accept any deal that cedes Ukrainian territory to Russia seized since full scale invasion in 2022. Starmer announces a finance deal to help Ukraine purchase 5000 missiles and that the UK is prepared to put boots on the ground and planes in the air, but insists any deal must have strong U.S. backing. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-ukraine-peace-deal-trump-b2707585.html

I doubt anyone knows for sure. But Lindsay Graham claims he told Zalensky before the meeting at the Oval Office.... 'Don't fall for the bait'. Whatever that meant.

Perhaps. But if you can get UK, France, and U.S. to arrive at some understanding it is significant that they are all nuclear powers.

I tried to make myself clear on why Zelenski should apologize. There's also an old saying about not shitting in someone else's house.

UK, France and Ukraine will present peace deal to Trump, Starmer says.... Britain and France will work on a peace deal with Ukraine and present it to Donald Trump, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Sunday, describing it as a step in the right direction following Friday's explosive meeting in the White House. Starmer, due to host Western leaders in London in a bid to revive a peace deal, said he hoped a European "coalition of the willing" would come together to support Kyiv, but that any ceasefire had to be underpinned by the United States to prevent Russian President Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine again. "In other words, we've got to find those countries in Europe that are prepared to be a bit more forward leaning," he told BBC television. "The UK and France are the most advanced on the thinking of this and that is why President Macron and I are working on this plan, which we will then discuss with the US." Starmer spoke to Macron and Trump on Saturday after he hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in Downing Street, a day after Trump and Zelenskiy clashed in an extraordinary meeting at the White House. Starmer repeated his assertion that a peace deal would only work in Ukraine if a possible European peacekeeping force had a security guarantee from the United States. "I've always been clear that that is going to need a US backstop, because I don't think it would be a guarantee without it," he said. https://www.tbsnews.net/world/uk-france-and-ukraine-will-present-peace-deal-trump-starmer-says-1082401

Yep, you saw a 'live feed' with your own eyes and are still blind. Why in hell would anyone want to sabotage a deal that they themselves proposed in the first place?????

The minerals deal is an extremely important aspect of bringing Russia to the negotiations table. For one thing it helps get them off the hook in regards to reparations for damages done to Ukraine.

I agree that when J.D. jumped in everything started going downhill. On the other hand maybe everyone should have just stuck to the script. Or had the deal signing first and then the question and answer period afterwards.