Can Non-U.S. NATO Win Control in Game of Hearts?

[Zeitgeist]

In the game of Hearts, the player with the best cards (the least hearts) wins — unless a player collects ALL the hearts.  Potentially that player is Europe.  If Trump continues to threaten tariffs on European countries that oppose US takeover of Greenland, Europe could band together and threaten %100 tariffs or even a boycott of U.S. goods, a move that would rouse both Congress and the American people. If Trump threatened even higher retaliatory tariffs in his current bellicose context, as the Supreme Court decides the legality of his current tariffs, Europe would likely win. If Europe did it, other NATO partners and many countries in the West and around the world would discover leverage they didn’t have in their one on one bilateral trade agreements with the US.

Edited January 18 by Zeitgeist

[SpankyMcFarland]

The word ‘game’ is ambiguous. Obviously, it occurs in game theory but it can also trivialize the issue. 

[Zeitgeist]

8 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The word ‘game’ is ambiguous. Obviously, it occurs in game theory but it can also trivialize the issue. 

It’s got nothing to do with trivializing. It’s strategy. The ONLY reason Trump has been able to get away with using tariffs to pressure countries into getting whatever he wants is because countries have not come together and said, “We don’t care.  We’ll counter all tariffs you impose and we’ll wait you out even if it goes to 100%, 200%, as high as you want.” China did that to some degree and it worked. Only when US exports and the costs of essential imports are very significantly impacted and Trump understands that countries aren’t going to back down will he stop, because he’ll be run out of town by his own country.  That’s why Trump did bilateral deals, because countries couldn’t present a united front.  That united front absolutely must happen on Greenland.  Germany will have to lead the charge because Starmer is proving to be a wimp. 

Edited January 19 by Zeitgeist

[paxamericana]

Nice fantasy. But your presupposition is that Europe even has leverage to begin with. It certainly doesn’t. The Trump card is energy. With Russia out of the picture and Europe reliant on American energy exports that would be cutting your nose to spite your face. Europe knows that, which is why they can’t push back. Trump can’t invade Greenland without congressional approval either so for all this talk of not excluding the use of force is that, talk. The gullible masses are just that gullible. The American public certainly does not have appetite to fight dead beat allies over Greenland so put down your tofu salad. There’s no real reason to as Greenland remains Danish in name only. America already has and does install military bases on the island for National Security uses. Greenland is just another excuse to generate tariff uncertainty to hasten domestic investment in the US.

Edited January 19 by paxamericana

[Zeitgeist]

15 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Nice fantasy. But your presupposition is that Europe even has leverage to begin with. It certainly doesn’t. The Trump card is energy. With Russia out of the picture and Europe reliant on American energy exports that would be cutting your nose to spite your face. Europe knows that, which is why they can’t push back. Trump can’t invade Greenland without congressional approval either so for all this talk of not excluding the use of force is that, talk. The gullible masses are just that gullible. The American public certainly does not have appetite to fight dead beat allies over Greenland so put down your tofu salad. There’s no real reason to as Greenland remains Danish in name only. America already has and does install military bases on the island for National Security uses. 

No one with a brain thinks that Trump wants Greenland for national security.  You’re right, the Yanks have as much military access as they want to Greenland.  Trump wants their resources and more Stars and Stripes on world maps.

And you’ll need more tofu for that salad because Trump is losing the middle on ICE raids (Ask Rogan), probably tariffs (Ask SCOTUS), and on the economy (Check bipartisan poll results).  At this point the non-American NATO countries just have to say, “Nah, we don’t care about your tariffs.  We’ll see you and raise you.” They can also start hammering the digital taxes.  Europe is there now, finally.

Edited January 19 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

  They can also start hammering the digital taxes.  Europe is there now, finally.

https://aduananews.com/en/la-omc-intensifica-los-debates-sobre-comercio-electronico-rumbo-a-la-cm14/

It's pretty easy to see WTO members imposing Customs duties on American e-commerce.  There is a meeting coming in March. 

 

[John Stone]

........one thing is absolutely certain - China will exploit any global power vacuum with skill, ruthlessness and most important, long term strategies. 

How odd to have an authoritative regime that in terms of providing for it's citizens of 1.5 BILLION, is to be (to some degree) applauded. 

That said, they are the enemy ......... love to see the 16th five-year-plan strategy. 

 

 

[Zeitgeist]

46 minutes ago, John Stone said:

........one thing is absolutely certain - China will exploit any global power vacuum with skill, ruthlessness and most important, long term strategies. 

How odd to have an authoritative regime that in terms of providing for it's citizens of 1.5 BILLION, is to be (to some degree) applauded. 

That said, they are the enemy ......... love to see the 16th five-year-plan strategy. 

 

 

China should take the high road if it wants true credibility and influence: Stay out of Taiwan, become more democratic and free, publicly articulate the importance of respecting trade agreements, sovereignty, and stability. This is an opportunity for China to shed baggage and provide a healthy check on imperial aggression. Nevertheless, there’s no assurance of any of that happening, so Canada should be very wary and transactional.

Edited January 19 by Zeitgeist

[Nationalist]

7 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

No one with a brain thinks that Trump wants Greenland for national security.  You’re right, the Yanks have as much military access as they want to Greenland.  Trump wants their resources and more Stars and Stripes on world maps.

And you’ll need more tofu for that salad because Trump is losing the middle on ICE raids (Ask Rogan), probably tariffs (Ask SCOTUS), and on the economy (Check bipartisan poll results).  At this point the non-American NATO countries just have to say, “Nah, we don’t care about your tariffs.  We’ll see you and raise you.” They can also start hammering the digital taxes.  Europe is there now, finally.

Trump wants control of the northern passage. The USA has huge rare earth deposits and they are among the very few who can actually process them.

Before Trump is done, the USA will control Greenland and I suspect the Caribbean and South America as well. Russia will get it's 20 to 30 percent of Ukraine and China will control Taiwan.

3 superpowers managing the world...for the most part.

[paxamericana]

9 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

rare earth deposits

This is just a talking point. It would cost Trillions of dollars to do a industrial build out on greenland and atleast 10 years before the first ton of rare earth even gets sold. Greenland has terrible geography, it sits a couple of kilometer above sea level and does not have good natural harbors. The Snow packed island also makes construction difficult. Greenland economic benefits requires massive capital investment in a world with labor shortage and capital shortage. It's not economically viable. The other issue with rare earth is that it's not actually rare, it's a by product of metal processing. The bottle neck is processing the ore not the ore themselves. 

[Nationalist]

9 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

This is just a talking point. It would cost Trillions of dollars to do a industrial build out on greenland and atleast 10 years before the first ton of rare earth even gets sold. Greenland has terrible geography, it sits a couple of kilometer above sea level and does not have good natural harbors. The Snow packed island also makes construction difficult. Greenland economic benefits requires massive capital investment in a world with labor shortage and capital shortage. It's not economically viable. The other issue with rare earth is that it's not actually rare, it's a by product of metal processing. The bottle neck is processing the ore not the ore themselves. 

Exactly.

The prize is the northern passage. Not these "rare earths" that are not so rare.

Im not a fan of how Trump is going about this, but hes right. Europe cannot control the northern passage and the USA can.

That's the long and the short of it.

[John Stone]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

China should take the high road if it wants true credibility and influence: Stay out of Taiwan, become more democratic and free, publicly articulate the importance of respecting trade agreements, sovereignty, and stability. This is an opportunity for China to shed baggage and provide a healthy check on imperial aggression. Nevertheless, there’s no assurance of any of that happening, so Canada should be very wary and transactional.

......... the thing is, China is watching how the West performs with those countries managing 1/5 as many people - no thanks.

China will hoist the West on its own petards...Congress, hack politicians, so-called freedoms, Constitution, liberalism, racism, culturalism, ideology ........... endless. 

OMG - ya have to wonder what the ChiComs thought of a Presidential candidate supporting 'defund the police'. 

Defund the POLICE????

Edited January 19 by John Stone

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Trump wants control of the northern passage. The USA has huge rare earth deposits and they are among the very few who can actually process them.

Before Trump is done, the USA will control Greenland and I suspect the Caribbean and South America as well. Russia will get it's 20 to 30 percent of Ukraine and China will control Taiwan.

3 superpowers managing the world...for the most part.

Those aren’t good developments because they involve larger powers trouncing on smaller ones against the will of the people in these less powerful countries.  Trump is undoing a century of progress if the U.S. takes Greenland, and I don’t think any reasonable leader would join a “Peace Board” whose staunchest members are invaders. That’s Orwellian “War is peace” denial of reality. 

Edited January 19 by Zeitgeist

[BeaverFever]

Chec

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Exactly.

The prize is the northern passage. Not these "rare earths" that are not so rare.

Im not a fan of how Trump is going about this, but hes right. Europe cannot control the northern passage and the USA can.

That's the long and the short of it.

As has been stated repeatedly, the US has ZERO reason to “own” Greenland to ensure its security.
 

1) It already has a base there and full authority to build more (it recently closed several) as well as full authority to conduct any missions it wants from those bases. 
 

2) Any Russian Chine or other “attack” on Greenland would already trigger a NATO Article 5 defence in which USA could intervene (although Trump admin is already on record saying that it international law is an illusion and powers can do whatever they want)

3) The suggestion that USA must “own” a territory to defend it is ludicrous on its face. USA didn’t “own”  any of the countries it has aided or defended over the past century +. 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Those aren’t good developments because they involve larger powers trouncing on smaller ones against the will of the people in these less powerful countries.  Trump is undoing a century of progress if the U.S. takes Greenland, and I don’t think any reasonable leader would join a “Peace Board” whose staunchest members are invaders. That’s Orwellian “War is peace” denial of reality. 

Indeed they do. Its not an optimal solution but, it's workable and saves the Greeback...somewhat.

16 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Chec

As has been stated repeatedly, the US has ZERO reason to “own” Greenland to ensure its security.
 

1) It already has a base there and full authority to build more (it recently closed several) as well as full authority to conduct any missions it wants from those bases. 
 

2) Any Russian Chine or other “attack” on Greenland would already trigger a NATO Article 5 defence in which USA could intervene (although Trump admin is already on record saying that it international law is an illusion and powers can do whatever they want)

3) The suggestion that USA must “own” a territory to defend it is ludicrous on its face. USA didn’t “own”  any of the countries it has aided or defended over the past century +. 

Did I say "own"?

Quit being such a lyin' pansie.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Those aren’t good developments because they involve larger powers trouncing on smaller ones against the will of the people in these less powerful countries.  Trump is undoing a century of progress if the U.S. takes Greenland, and I don’t think any reasonable leader would join a “Peace Board” whose staunchest members are invaders. That’s Orwellian “War is peace” denial of reality. 

I don't know that the world will put up with it either.

I tend to think that at some point europe and other countries will in fact turn around and put their foot down and say that's enough.

You're especially has seen what can happen if tyrants get out of control and start getting handsy with other countries. Where to put a stop to it now then it will be later