this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
248 points (98.4% liked)

Global News

3967 readers
245 users here now

What is global news?

Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.


Post guidelines

Title formatPost title should mirror the news source title.
URL formatPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Country prefixCountry prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) where title is not clear enough from which country the news is coming from.


Rules

This community is moderated in accordance with the principles outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasizes the right to freedom of opinion and expression. In addition to this foundational principle, we have some additional rules to ensure a respectful and constructive environment for all users.

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media postsAvoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

President Donald Trump did not rule out military force to acquire Greenland in an interview as the Danish territory continued to rebuff his advances.

Archived version: https://archive.is/newest/https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/29/trump-greenland-military-force-denmark/82722287007/


Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com 112 points 2 months ago (10 children)
[–] funkforager@sh.itjust.works 62 points 2 months ago

Where is his suit? Does he not respect the office? /s

[–] bstix 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

USA does not intend to do a good damn thing for people in Greenland.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 97 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Europe needs to take him serious. He sees that it works out just fine for Netanjahu and Putin, nobody does anything against them. Greenland is a nice and easy first target.

[–] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 47 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Absolutely right. These tiny "buy european"-protest are great, but won't change anything. We're too few. The EU needs to step up against these imperialist yokels. Should he get Greenland by force, nothing would happen. He could just do it and he knows.

[–] letsgo@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

USA population: 346m. EU population: 449m, i.e. about 29% higher.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/

https://www.worldometers.info/population/countries-in-the-eu-by-population/

What percentage over the USA domestic market would we need to be to be not "too few"?

[–] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 months ago

Numbers are great, but you forgot that the vast majority just don't care or even worse.

[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago

I remain convinced this is the beginning of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.

[–] boreengreen@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Frensh nukes in greenland maybe.

[–] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 7 points 2 months ago

French SSBNs off the coast of Mar a lago and DC and a clear statement that Danish and Canadian land is now covered by French Nukes.

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 35 points 2 months ago (3 children)

One of the major things that got him elected in the first place is that he promised to stop the continuous war cycle that the Rs and Ds kept getting us into. Where the hell is this coming from, when did he become yet another warmonger president?

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 44 points 2 months ago

<...> when did he become yet another warmonger president?

He always was. You must be living under the rock to believe that lie.

Syria attacks in 2019, drones strikes in 2020, failure to leave Afghanistan in 2020.

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 39 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Not sure if this is sarcasm but if you're serious, you fell for propaganda because Trump has been a warmongering asshole the entire time.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 months ago

Trump campaign against Warmongering against russia and their allies. Everyone else is fair gain.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago

That last sentence gives me the sad notion you actually thought he might do some good. He was never ever going to do anything good or anything he promised to the public.

[–] lemming@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Does Trump want Greenland so bad because he thinks it's huge due to a map projection?

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 25 points 2 months ago (2 children)

To be fair even without distortion it's still huge.

[–] fluckx@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

For a moment there I read estados stupidos on your map

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 7 points 2 months ago

Si preguntás el mundo hispanohablante, estarán de acuerdo contigo.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] privsecfoss 13 points 2 months ago

An interesting take. Read somewhere that the reason Trump want's Greenland and Canada is so the US is bigger geographical than Russia. Was said as a semi-joke. But at this point I'm not ruling anything out.

This absolutely is a reasonable explanation why Putin had such an easy time convincing him.

[–] Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago

No, it’s more to do with securing the arctic corridor as climate change opens up new areas for exploitation.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 2 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Dude. Every greenlander probably knows how to shoot a rifle and survive in polar bear land. This is like Vietnam but with fucking bears and Vikings.

[–] FatCrab@lemmy.one 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Greenland has an incredibly high proportion of indigenous, so not vikings. It also lacks much foliage at all, much less dense foliage. And it has a relatively tiny population.

That said, a war of raw imperial acquisition would launch the US into a civil war before a soldier set foot on Greenlandic soil i think. And, yes, I recognize that there is a base already there.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] asdfbla@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 2 months ago

Greenland has less than 60.000 inhabitants. That will be difficult

[–] socialmedia@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

Putin is the only person this benefits. Shattering NATO with a bullshit excuse. If America ends up fighting Europe it draws resources away from Ukraine.

[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 15 points 2 months ago

Not that I think military pigs are on Lemmy to read this, but only a fucking POS coward would follow those orders. Anyone invading anything on behalf of Emperor Orange is permanently dead to me.

[–] HorreC@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Wouldnt this take an act from the house, he cant just declare war with out a 3/4th majority. My USA law is rough but I thought presidential powers only allowed for actions in retaliation but starting shit took the whole of the nations law makers.

[–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago (2 children)

While it does take an act of congress to declare a war, the US has deployed troops, at the direction of the president, in all sorts of engagements for decades without declaring war. The last time Congress declared war was WW2. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so much more were directed by the president.

[–] Alue42@fedia.io 4 points 2 months ago

Each of those you mentioned, except Korea, included Congress approval. Vietnam was approved by Congress with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964). Iraq was approved with the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (2002). Afghanistan was approved by the Congress Joint Resolution (2001). I suppose it's the fine line between "military force" and "war".

[–] HorreC@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But I thought if there was no reason (I.E. greenland isnt doing shit) does the pres still get authority to start a territory takeover (also I thought all states or commonwelths had to vote to enter into the USA).

[–] socialmedia@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The US has a track record of manufactured reasons to invade a country. Look for some incident in the near future which the US blames on Greenland.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Photuris@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Yes, the executive branch under MAGA control will abide by rules and norms, obey the law, respect institutions, and heed court rulings. Checks and balances are holding strong!

We are safe from Fascism, so don’t worry!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago

They don’t have to define it as a war. Previous administrations have opened the route of not declaring war but still engaging in boots on the ground assaults. The precedent has been set, long before he entered office, and reinforced by every modern president.

[–] Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

There are no rules anymore.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 4 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I recall Prez can deploy troops for up to 100 days or some bs. I remember my elementary teacher saying its rare congress wouldn't extend operation.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›