“After a brutally cold winter in Ukraine, months of supposed peace talks that have produced little more than political theater, and with Russia showing no sign of stopping its barrage of attacks, the EU had been confident it could finally bring Kyiv some concrete help.
But the carefully choreographed support was spoiled when Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó announced his country would block Europe’s 20th round of Russian sanctions because of an oil dispute Budapest has with Ukraine, ratcheting up the two countries’ long-simmering feud.
…
Hungary’s move marked a “new low” for Orbán, Sweden’s Europe Minister Jessica Rosencrantz told POLITICO. “We’ve seen in previous decisions that Hungary is not acting in a way of sincere cooperation” with other EU states. “That should send an alarm to many of us. We’re seeing what Orbán is doing: he’s using Ukraine as a punching bag.”
…
The crux of Hungary’s row is the Druzhba pipeline, which stretches 4,000 kilometers from eastern Russia to Central Europe, providing vast quantities of oil for Hungary and Slovakia. Both have exemptions from EU sanctions on imports of Russian refined oil.
The pipeline has been offline since Jan. 27, when Ukrainian authorities said a Russian strike damaged it. But Budapest and Bratislava aren’t buying that, accusing Ukraine of intentionally keeping the pipeline inoperative.
…
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys said he was “really upset and frustrated,” adding Hungary’s move not only calls the EU’s support for Ukraine into question but its unity and ability to act decisively when major decisions are constrained by unanimity.
“I hope that Europe can deliver,” he said. And “that tomorrow it won’t be the situation when we will be saying, ‘We are sorry, 20th package is not there. We are sorry, €90 billion maybe next month, maybe somewhere in the future.’””
The Ukraine war doesn’t have a normal frontline. It has two lines separated by a 13 mile gray zone where a small number of soldiers try to infiltrate and drones search and destroy.
What the US needs in Greenland is access. The US already had that and any additional access could have been negotiated for without threatening war.
Countries like Denmark and the US have already agreed to not solve differences between them with force. The US breaking that by threatening war to take territory from Denmark is a huge violation that damages American soft power.
Trump claimed that Denmark has a weak claim to Greenland because all they did is send some boats there and the US did this too. This is false or misleading because the Danes colonized Greenland before the US existed. It also further violates norms and damages relations with many countries because the US is breaking agreements it has made in the past where it acknowledged Danish control over Greenland.
Other countries know that if the US uses force, or the threat of force, to steal territory from Denmark, the US may do it to them.
The US has claimed that because Greenland can’t defend itself, the US has the right to take it. Under that logic, any stronger country can conquer many weaker countries because a lot of weak countries cannot defend themselves against stronger countries, and having that territory would give the stronger country a more forward defense against other strong countries.
For a long time, the US has dealt with this problem by having weaker countries band together in some sort of treaty organization so that they can help each other defend against a strong country and not need to invade each other for the sake of defending themselves against the bigger country.
Russia and China are not a short term threat to Greenland. Getting to Greenland with a large force would be very hard and require supply chains by US, and European territory. The US didn’t seem to see Greenland as a short term concern because the US voluntarily pulled out most of its troops and equipment and kept most of them gone.
The US also already had commercial access to Greenland, and could negotiate for mining without threatening war.
Using hard power is expensive, unreliable, and often only working while you are still willing and able to use it. Soft power can create more long run influence.
The Trump administration and Republican Congressmen have been dismissive of American allies to the point of being offensively insulting and lying about these countries and their people.
Trump is just as aggressive toward good allies as bad allies. Targeting good allies who have been good and loyal, makes those countries less likely to support you in the future.
The European allies are democracies, and the European peoples do not like Trump threatening to use military force to steal territory from a European country. This will not help get pro-American leaders elected in European countries.
“In an interview with Fox Business, he said, “We’re getting everything we wanted — total security, total access to everything.”
Yet all of that was available to Trump from the start, without the drama that sent the NATO alliance barreling toward an internal crisis, a Danish official told NBC News on Thursday.
The only nonnegotiable point for Denmark was that Greenland shouldn’t be absorbed by the U.S., the person added.
“We can discuss increased military presence and more troops. You name it, basically, you can have it” under existing treaties, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
…
his Greenland gambit clawed away some of the trust that underpins a successful alliance, said diplomats, government officials and foreign policy experts.”
The US saves a lot of money on military spending because our greatest rivals would have to go through our allies and partners to seriously get to us. Without those allies and partners, those rivals could more easily reach out and touch the US, which would require greater military spending.
“Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has long sought close ties to the Trump administration in its quest for powerful international allies and an end to its political isolation at home.
But as public sentiment in Germany increasingly turns against U.S. President Donald Trump and his foreign interventionism — in particular his talk of taking control of Greenland and his seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro — AfD leaders are recalibrating, putting distance between their party and a U.S. president they previously embraced.
“He has violated a fundamental election promise, namely not to interfere in other countries, and he has to explain that to his own voters,” Alice Weidel, one of the AfD’s national leaders, said earlier this week.”
“Observing U.S. and European operations in the far north, he finds that Nordic troops are much more agile and well-prepared for high latitudes than their American counterparts.
In fact, Rosen gets to compare these forces side-by-side when he follows a Norwegian ship on the way to a planned rendezvous with the USCGS Healy, the U.S. Coast Guard’s only Arctic-specific icebreaker. When the two ships meet, they are suddenly buzzed by a Russian helicopter. The Americans are “visibly unnerved,” Rosen notes. The Norwegians, on the other hand, dryly comment about how they do the same to Russians all the time.
An important lesson is that experience, rather than flashy equipment, makes or breaks a polar army. The cold quickly kills people and destroys machines. Snow does not behave like sand when building fortifications. Cross-country skis are faster than snowshoes. Sunburn is a surprisingly common problem despite the cold. Hooks and ropes have to be carefully maintained. Wind and weather at sea can change unpredictably. Even routine, peacetime shipboardings can be deadly.
The book argues that Europe’s comparative advantage in the Arctic can make NATO worthwhile for the U.S., by reducing the need for an American military buildup up there.
…
Most people in Greenland are Inuit, members of the same culture that much of northern Canada and coastal Alaska belong to. For centuries, they chafed under Danish colonial rule. Now they enjoy considerable self-rule within Denmark and are deciding whether to pursue independence.
Polls show that most Greenlanders support independence in theory but don’t necessarily want to break away at the moment. The fact that Danish taxpayers pay for half of the Greenlandic government budget is an obvious, widely known barrier to independence. So is the potential loss of the mobility and export markets that European Union membership provides.”