William Spaniel - 2026-01-12
Go to https://ground.news/linesonmaps to stay fully informed on what's happening around the world. Subscribe before month's end and you'll receive 40% off unlimited access! Rumors are swirling about the Trump Administration's interest in Greenland, and Europe is already starting to take action in region. But what is really going on in the Arctic? This video explores some of the more outlandish claims, the quality of their sources, and the actual domestic constraints U.S. domestic laws impose. We also do a deep dive into where Trump's apparent personal animosity for Denmark originates from. 0:00 U.S. Threats to Greenland 1:32 The Value of Greenland 5:26 Trump's Grievance Against Denmark 13:10 Europe's Response 17:23 U.S. Domestic Legal Constraints The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and NATO visual information does not imply or constitute an endorsement. Media licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): By Kremlin.ru: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/49452 http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/58405 http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67483 http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/71496 http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/73995 http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/76485
I must have died and ended up stuck inside somebody's Paradox game play through.
New HOI4 achievement: Trump Card - conquer the USA while playing as Greenland.
LOL, playing HOI4 while watching this!
This is the price for your sins
It really does feel like that. There's even a phase during a world conquest where you want to annex your vassals, and turn your nearby allies into vassals (by force if necessary), and turn on your allies. Trump seems to be trying exactly that (though definitely too early).
"Just ignore direct threats made against you bro." How about no?
It appears at this moment your theory of Trump playing 4d chess is not compatible with reality.
Calling Trump's threats to annex sovereign ally country a "quirk" is insane.
You’re looking at this too much from an American perspective. Denmark raising the hypothetical end of NATO is not a threat directed at the United States, but a warning and rallying call to the rest of Europe. The growing unwillingness of the US to acknowledge Europe’s contribution to the American military industrial complex, as well as its diplomatic support on the global stage, is ultimately how the Americans risk undermining their own long term position.
"Vague comments about invading Greenland"
sure. "vague".
He’s American so its expected that he will sugarcoat it
Everything politicians say is vague.
@JustAnNPC69well it important to be cautious but ready and realistic. This situation is insane and dangerous, for sure Putin will be the true winner beside Epstein files (Israel’s Mossad)
@JustAnNPC69 More charitably, he's an expert in his field. Experts tend to be biased towards nothing significantly happening in their field
@mikea5745 This may be a spherical cow in vacuum situation. I sometimes feel like William Spaniel cannot look behind "rational actors" part of theory and analyse it as such, not giving a thought about all this being anything but bargaining tactic. Talk is cheap and all. But imho talk is cheap is valid only for things that put you in better position, not in worse position. I am wary of things that politicians say to make me like them, but I tend to believe that they are honest when they say things that makes me not like them, just in case.
Plus, another thing is that it seems like Trump can be only nothing but fully independent or fully Putin puppet. Nothing in between, like Trump could be under some influence of Putin, but still have own goals.
What Mercator projection does to a mf
Underrated joke
Europeans need to plant someone at the White House to present a Lambert conformal conic to Trump, then point out how weak Greenland looks. Preferably make it interactive with some markers, I hear he loves that stuff
Another reason on the growing list to hate that damn map. Society has faced irreparable damage because of it
Greenland is still huge though, bigger than Mexico. Absolutely does NOT justify an invasion though, and I'm American
@RogatxaWR to trump it does. everyone thinks its about greenlands resources but its essentially it looks big on the map and trump likes that.
chop chop lines man i need my next fix tomorrow
I need my MAPPIES!!
@MaskedChaoshit me with another line
I should not be surprised that people are mainlining this content.
Damn and I'm almost 3 years clean
circular venn diagram of things i would say to my coke dealer and things i would say to william spaniel
What a strange conclusion to the video. How is it not a Trump-specific problem? No other administration has, or ever will, threaten military action on a NATO member over disputes that could easily be settled diplomatically. Denmark isn't even adverse to increasing military presence in Greenland, whatsoever. And to think, even for a second, that Trump cares what congress thinks about his foreign policy aspirations, is beyond naive, it's counter the reality of how he has conducted himself since he was sworn in.
Spaniel still searching for coherency in US foreign policy.
Poor soul
Exactly, i love this guy and his enjoyable videos but i think he is exactly the type of overanalysing nonsense.
It is coherent, it's just that we've now taken off the mask of being an empire. People put way too much into the origin of most western nations post ww2.
Did all these stupid people not watch the video at all?
Trump doesn't care about foreign policy outside of wanting to look good when it comes up. His handling of Ukraine and Russia is the prime example, he doesn't have any internal framework about it other than meeting leaders and getting photo ops, and then trying to pivot about how it's good for America because he is such a good negotiator. Anything foreign policy that he has been doing are coming from the people around him, so when he does something you have to look at who is around him and you'll find someone who recently had a meeting with him and has said publically that we should do 'insert exact thing Trump announced'. As William stated here, when he says the US will not protect Europe because they don't spend enough the magically start spending more.
'europe needs to pull its weight and should defend greenland, otherwise we will invade it and be 100% responsible for its security' I'm not sure how this is supposed to ease the burden off the US
I really do not understand why Europe is the one benefitting from NATO.
We do buy a lot of US equipment (and pay theirs by buying off US debt).
But besides of that... after the Cold War, there were no threats to Europe, at least not perceived ones. Russia was broke for the best part of the 1990s and the naughties and later wasn't perceived as a threat, but a trade partner.
So... what would be the benefit of having US bases in Europe? Just because they are cool?
What was the benefit of an organization that everybody and the dog thought to be an anachronism until 2022???
China? It's in Asia. Same as North Korea.
But maybe I am wrong and there was some benefit in NATO back then. But as I am a stupid European, I don't really understand which one.
Stop, don't confront them with facts!
Okay. Do you know the profits the companies reap and the tax collected on said profits?
the problem with predicting the Americans is they themself do not know what they are doing
Neither do they know how strong they actually are
That is how we like it, yes.
@Sawfy19 Eh, our strength is logistics mostly. A lot of us have a general idea, but we need to test it occasionally.
@Sawfy19or how much ot actually costs
You cannot predict an enemy that doesn’t even act in their best interest
Last time I was this early the United States was an ally of NATO
Those were the days, seems ages ago.
Monroe doctrine predates NATO.
@Marshall_Law_OG Would the USA like no sway outside of the Americas?
@Marshall_Law_OG and that's relevant how?
The US is NATO
Pretty sure it can't have anything to do with melting ice caps. Trump told us climate change was a Chinese hoax.
To be clear: Human-made* climate change. The US conservative position is that "Earth just goes through changes in climate"
And I disagree with that, but it doesn't help to argue against a strawman or an oversimplification.
@vez3834Wrong.
Nov. 6, 2012: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
@vez3834 it would be an over-simplification to say anything concrete about a position, especially on a political topic, it would likely be better to detail the range of opinions present in the coalition
@vez3834 this is the newest take they have, as climate change evidence is now indisputable. So they have swapped to a "nothing we can do, it is out of our hands" stance.
@mrpancakes1984 - on the contrary there is a willingness by conservatives to take whatever steps necessary to prevent runaway climate change, it's just that imploding the economy is not a necessary step and would in fact be counterproductive to environmental concerns in multiple ways. It is progressives who get apoplectic about the prospect of actually taking any effective action to prevent excessive global warming.
I think you overestimate the solidarity of American institutions. I see no indication that Congress would hold Trump back. The President should not decide on tariffs without Congress, but Trump did it anyway. The President should not be able to conduct acts of war without Congressional approval, but Trump has done so anyway. There has been no consequences to his administrations because of this. Like you said in regards to Russia, a country's laws are only important if that country is a democracy, but America has long been sliding down the democracy scale and I think Trump is taking it further down into demogougery.
Congress decided that war and tariffs were both unpopular, so delegated them to the president. Just look at how much Hillary paid politically for voting in favor of Iraq. Congress doesn’t want that sort of political cost ever again. The issue is, they now have a president actually willing to use all the foreign policy power they gave him.
This is the first comment I've seen thats actually typed like you've watched the video and you make a very good point. However, I think that, with how bombastic Trump has been and with how MSM treats him, just how powerful the executive branch is has been pulled under a spotlight. I've no doubts congress will take power back but its a question of how much.
@AnonUser-b6y of course, the problem with that is that it's Dereliction of Duty. They're elected to make policy, dammit! They shouldn't be able to get away with refusing to do the hard parts of their jobs!
@anomalousraven512 Even if Congress were to pass a law directly forbidding the USA from acquiring or invading or doing anything to Greenland, I doubt that would stop trump. He would just do it anyway and let the matter rot in a court that his maga movement controls anyway.
Same with basically all the other subjects. No matter if such a US congress were to be composed of 100% of republicans or 100% of democrats.
And that's without trump deciding to use more proactive methods to get rid of any opposition, subtly or less so.
@CantusTropus Pax Americana guarantees that white male American remains top socio-cultural dog above all other males. Alpha male must always be an American white male in the global society of Earth, according to Hollywood.
"How is Trump going to do something that Congress won't authorize?"
Let's ask Venezuela, Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc. don't forget Minneapolis, Chicago, Portland, LA, the department of Education, USAID, the CFPB, etc.
Just imagine what Congress would do if Trump did take Greenland. Probably nothing.
Not saying we will, the rest of the video makes pretty good points. But this one is just not serious. We're past the point of Trump caring whether or not Congress authorizes him to do something, especially in the realm of military/foreign policy.
To be fair, many presidents use military action without congressional approval. The president cannot declare war, but those acts do not necessarily require that.
forgot tariffs
@Byromatic no one declares war anymore Russia didn’t declare war on Ukraine we didn’t declare war on Afghanistan. You just invade a country and start the war without official declaration.
@Cashman9111 If I recall, he declared a state of emergency to do that.
Remarkable how this analysis has aged like milk in just 3 days.
"Vague threats" is an attempt to portray them as empty or part of a ploy. This is incorrect.
Look at how Putin established a narrative about why Ukraine should be part of Russia & justified his invasion vs. Trump's comparatively vague threats & tell me with a straight face Trumps aren't vague. I wouldn't say empty, vague threats can be realized, look at Venezuela. Trump issues pretty vague threats there too & still struck.
Exactly. He means this very sincerely, he will absolutely blow up the entire world sphere to get what he wants, and in fact I’d say it’s part of his wider plan to isolate the US from the rest of the world so he can crack down on the population more harshly without anyone to stop him.
@grayishcolors"Putin is worse" is not a valid argument
America saying: ''Greenland is Europe so Europe should be primarily responsible for its defense'' would have gone over a LOT smoother in our media then Trump saying: ''We can do it the easy way or the hard way. It is essential to our strategic interests and we will have it. Them going there by boat 500 years ago does not make it theirs.''
That's not at all rational towards an ally.
Yeah, I don't really agree if the video is meant to imply that this really is the strategy. It's a possible strategy, but clearly an imperfect one. It neglects to mention something that is apparently more important to the Trump administration, which is undermining (perceived) restrictions placed on the US as part of the international rules-based order (or what's left at any rate).
@lilemont9302 it’s the stupid assumption that foreign policy stays the same regardless of administration. Which is wrong. The values that the administration holds determine what its foreign policy is. If America became communist tomorrow, all the tension with China would disappear very quickly. To pretend to otherwise is to say that Nazi Germany had the same foreign policy aims as Weimar Germany.
@thereactor3945 If the US became Marxist tomorrow, it'd still hate China and vice versa. Hell, the Soviets and CCP both hated each other after the honeymoon ended, and they were both Marxist neighbors.
@obligatoryusername7239 OK then another example: I won before and after the revolution. Before the revolution, Iran was a pro western puppet state and monarchy, who supported Israel, and whose main political goals were suppression of Arab nationalism and of communist sentiment in the Middle East. After the Revolution, their main goal became expulsion of American influence in the Middle East
i should note: a bunch of europeans going to america by boat some 300 years ago is exactly why the US, and the Americas as a whole exists as we know them today.
Hmm… I dunno, William. Saying ‘ignore the 500-pound angry gorilla looking like he may pounce on you, he probably can’t reach you’ sounds less like a strategy and more like wishful thinking. And hope isn’t a plan—especially when this gorilla has already torn through the political jungle before. Even if it’s not the most likely outcome (i agree that it isn't), he’s has proven he can reshape the game. The real question is: What’s the move if he actually does go through with it? Because from where I’m sitting, no one on your side of the pond seems to be even gaming that out.
Still not convinced it isn't because Greenland is big on a map and Trump would like his name stamped on it.
TDS tells you that…..
@Grouse2275 The man engaged in a fake elector scheme to undo the results of the 2020 election after he lost, incited a riot on the capitol when that didn't work, tariffed the entire world at the expense of our economy for practically nothing in return because he thinks trade is a zero sum game, slapped his name on the JFK center, invaded Venezuela without even telling congress without a plan for what to do once Maduro was captured, then 'memed' about him being acting president of Venezuela... and you're trying to tell me I have TDS because I think this guy has a big ego?
Trumpland 😊
@darrinscott6612 wrong
@Grouse2275funny acronyms won't fix reality, in fact, you got into this mess because you fall for smoke and mirrors for children like these
I think you misuse the concept of the value of statistical life. First, it is inherently about people’s willingness to pay for small reductions in mortality risk in a given situation, so it really depends on the policy you are analyzing and the context in which those risks arise. I do not know that you could come up with a general value free of a specific country, institutional setting, or policy domain. It is also not even necessary about the cost of saving lives, nor is it about monetarily evaluating a human life’s value, which is something we do not do in economics. I also wanted to add that betting markets seem convinced the U.S. has a very real chance of acquiring the island one way or another, so the idea that it’s just about getting increased defense spending seems somewhat suspect.
I wonder what the Defense Industry has to say about this. Over 25% of their business goes the Europe. If the Europeans decided not to do business with the US, it would be an unmitigated disaster for them. Not only that, but several European nations have top level Defense Industries of their own.They would expand their production out of necessity and by consequence become a competitor to the US in a world of markets who are now profoundly mistrustful of America. Additionally, the ice caps are melting rapidly, but not as rapidly and Trumps going to die. You don't see many people in his poor physical condition living much longer that he is now. Who knows what he and his scoundrel henchmen have in mind. No doubt it's not good, moral or safe for anyone, including themselves. But then again, they're idiots.
They probably expect the increased defence budgets to be spent with them. Let's face it, the US doesn't look at any of its allies as equals, but as vassals. My home, Australia is the same, we are fine as long as we go along with everthing the US does & let their corporations rape out economy, virtually tax-free. Should we stand up for ourselves, the government, or the PM , would be replaced by someone more amenable. Again.
@Dave-the-adequate In regards to Trump's health, there were two videos in the space of 7 days where he could be seen with sweat on his face despite the fact he was indoors and all he was doing was talking. I don't know if this is heart disease (previous releases from the administration had shown elevated levels), or medication or a combination of the two, but that's not normal. Normally, I would say it would be at least a few more years, but if sitting down indoors and talking gives you a sweaty face, that's not a good sign.
Just with respect to one project the f-35 project the impact of European and Canadian participation ending will have gross impact on the United States Air Force itself. The per unit price has been driven down considerably for such a complicated aircraft because of volume manufacturing. Volume goes down former partners pulling away, the United States Air Force will not be able to afford to buy the planes they want for itself. This is the same time when the Navy is running out of ships in the United States is burning its anti-missile arsenal protecting Israel.
But Denmark already said that US Companies were welcome to develop minerals.
Is it even practical to mine setup costs would be stratospheric.
@jamesfletcher-r7j. You are correct and that is why the Danish PM could be so magnanimous-US Companies are the only ones who could probably afford to take advantage. The problem is Trump likes to own things. Hopefully when this nightmare is over a more level headed president would return it. But no one in the US or Congress wants Greenland so there would be lawsuit after lawsuit to stop it. Lawsuits is what the US does better than anyone.
@annehersey9895the majority of US oil companies don't want to invest heavily in Venezuela, still the US kidnapped their leader and so far kept in place their doctatorship in return for giving US companies access to that oil. Can't even make up the stupidity of the current administration.
Sadly i looks like either Congress or the American people are willing to stand up for the US democracy.
Denmark is about to find out why Americans don’t have free healthcare.
@quantumfairing2216. The People are trying by protesting and contacting Congress. Trump loses supporters in his own Party in Congress daily. We, the opposition, hope to take back Congress but sadly elections don’t occur until November and they don’t take office until Jan 1 , 2027. The most dangerous time with Trump will be if Democrats win in Nov , he will have 2 months to ruin the country like Nero fiddling while Rome burned.
The bigger issue is that doing this further convinces European citizens that allying with the US is a bad idea.
And though it will take time and elections, politicians with that same thought process will take office. Sure, Trump may have convinced them to spend more defending themselves... but against who?
And the worst part of that is them decoupling their economy from ours in case of a future govt taking aggressive actions against their territory. Even if the next admin is apologetic and returns relations back to normal, who's to say we don't elect someone more aggressive in the near future?
And that's what makes this so dumb.
EU and NATO nations have an economy similar to ours in size.
If they decided to look elsewhere for a major partner, all while China and Central/South America also consider us untrustworthy and possibly hostile ... we are cooked
And then there is this....
$20 Trillion dollars worth of just 10 US companies rely directly or indirectly on equipment (ASML) and R&D facilities (imec), companies both located in the EU, to build and maintain the current AI...bubble?
The US is sitting on a huge AI bubble.
The EU holds a couple of really sharp needles...
The US can face China by itself, don't worry. And the EU is more than enough against Russia. We have no reason to keep this unhappy marriage.
Hungary? Slovakia?@TheDovakhin01
EEhm allying with the US is a bad idea, every Europeman knows that already. We already stopped buying your weapons, as you don't buy from your enemies.
Venezuela is actually really likely to like us, because they hated Maduro that much
1:40 When you say "near future" you still mean decades.
Saving this video for posterity, because it will age so well
Okay, so how do you square this interpretation with Trump punishing countries that militarily reinforce Greenland with tarriffs?
Thank you, you put that much more succintly than I was about to👍
One counterpoint.
It is in the US interest that Europe is reliant on the US for defence.
Reason 1 is that in an active war scenario it means that the US will be the uncontested leader of the coalition.
Reason 2 is that it benefits the US arms industry. By scaling back on their militaries it becomes more economical to just purchase their equipment from the US than have a domestic arms industry due to the loss of economies of scale.
Reason 3 is that it gives the US a lot of soft power with Europe meaning that they are less willing to oppose certain actions taken by the US giving the US a free hand or diplomatic cover around the world.
In short a Europe that can stand on its own can oppose the US, not just other potential threats.
Also another way to get Europe to spend more on defence is for the US to spend less, a reasonable thing they could do that would force European leaders to actually spend more as US support might not be enough anymore, it wouldn’t make Europeans hate the US for a perceived act of betrayal and the US could strengthen itself domestically by allocating that money to social programs.
How does this thesis interface with the threat of imposing tariffs until Greenland is sold? Just another pressure tactic?
"We did it, JD! We raised Europe's defence spending!"
🔥 [Meanwhile Anti-Americanism is reaching an all time high] 🔥
"We will get it, one way or the other" yeah, sounds like a normal conversation between two partners who met for coffee on a Sunday afternoon.
If he keeps this up, Greenland will be renamed Redland.
There is a math error: 22.5 million / 335 billion = 0.006% not 0.00006%
Doesn't really change the takeaway does it?
.006% =/= to 2%. Try again.
@oscarhalse2026 this is one of the few times I think William has missed the point - NATO allies sending their men to die in Afghanistan was a major propaganda boost for global perception of the legitimacy of US actions. Maybe you can put a price tag on that but he didn't use thee right formula.
@infinite_calamari I think he was framing it from Trump's perspective. Trump doesn't really care about sacrifices and friendships.
@infinite_calamari I think that's right, but it's not correlated with the number of fatalities. It was the support - the mere fact of engaging - that (in your and perhaps William's assumption) boosted the perception of the legitimacy of US actions. An additional Danish loss over 45 wouldn't have increased that presumed perception, nor would fewer losses have decreased that perception.
Bro cannot get over the supercavitating debacle 😂
1:22 lol thought process. Good one.
Something you left out. Other members only "negleted" because USA stopped them from increasing budgets and making military reforms. They want EU To be their vassal state by relying on them and buying weapons from US. They don't want Europe to manufacture their own weapons.
And even now with the vastly expanded defense budgets in Europe, the US is still complaining: The problem was never the amount of spending, but the lack of spending on US military goods. And more and more European nations are seeking to buy elsewhere for, at this point, painfully obvious reasons
Still doesn't explain why many EU militaries are so small by comparison. Large militaries purchase more weapons, so there's no blaming that on the U.S.
@FarModerateExtremistusa is basically made out of 50 different countries. Individually each state actually contributes very little
@FarModerateExtremist it does explain, because the US wanted EU countries to have small militaries and so encouraged that. They wanted European nations to have limited ability to project power overseas so the world would be left open for US hegemony. They wanted the EU to feel vulnerable on their own so they would allow US military bases and weapons systems inside their countries for protection, giving the US leverage over them with the threat of removing that protection. The goal of the US since the fall of the USSR has been to keep Europe weak and reliant on US protection and soo subservient to US interests
Just like the UN, and free trade, and international criminal court, and all the other things maga hate and blame for their perceived weakness, were created and engineered by the US to secure US global power
@Tespri Its more that the USA is able to pull of some remarkable finance bullshit. The US military is incredibly wasteful, with a massive and growing chunk of its budget disappearing into the pockets of private contractors. The EU doesn't have nearly the same capacity to engage in finance bullshit so it has to actually consider how it spends its money.
I really don't see how we can just ignogre Trump's craziness on Greenland.
This isn't 2016-2020, when there was still an occasional adult in the room with him.
He's surrounded with sycophantic, fascist morons and the right-wing echo-chambers are already working on "normalizing" an annexation or invasion of Greenland for "national security reasons".
Exactly!
I think this is one of the least “vague” threats ever leveled at another nation
15:18 By this logic why does the US have any overseas bases at all?
The analysis of this video is just parrotting American talking points.
Because of old commitments that the US is looking at and deciding which ones to ditch.
Because the US values Europe as a trade partner, and will pay to keep Europe and it's economy stable and free of war. It just would rather Europe pay for it instead.
Just because the United States has bases in a country that shouldn't change the countries military capacity like it has for Europe. The United State still values Europe even though Russia isn't it's top priority right now.
@complex3297 When someone offers you a military base in their soil, they lose something. They need to gain something in return.
Also it's funny how Americans in these videos talk like they represent their country diplomatically. Maybe drunkard in chief also uses youtube tho, idk.
This video has some very valid points. It even provides interesting insights on particular grievances with Denmark. However, it fails to take into account two crucial facts.
1. Over the decades, the US administrations have actively "discouraged" (i.e sabotaged) any and every attempt of European countries taking their defense into their own hands. The publicly stated rationale being it would be redundant with what the US were already providing. Behind closed doors, the US did not want European countries being autonomous. Have a look at how joint UK-France initiatives have been undermined. Similarly, many attempts at establishing a significant European armament industry have been pressured to make sure these have a hard time succeeding. The only ones that did were France and partially Sweden. That leads us to the second point.
2. The US demands that European countries spend their fair share. Fine. But when Europeans want to spend it towards their own companies, the US is furious. In fact the Unitedstatesians want NATO countries to buy US gear more than anything. Except in many cases it's overpriced and not as efficient. For 2% of a country's GDP or any given dollar amount, buying European equipment gives more military capabilities than buying the same dollar amount of US equipment. It could even be argued that % of GDP is not that good a measurement of contributions, but that's another topic.
In the end, when seen from the eyes of Europeans, the US is a toxic mafia boss racketting its neigborhood. Europeans will now take their defense into their own hands. Just like the US demands. And crucially, just like we have wanted to do for decades. But we will do it on our terms, buying from our own more efficient companies, creating local jobs. We won't tolerate US kill switches. And we won't put up with "liberty fries" remarks when we don't agree with US policy and we are in fact right about it. Sorry, but the US can't have the best of both worlds. Try selling in Europe your movies touting the US as savior of the world. I'm sure the Danish audiences will love those now.
That is a lot more true than you realize. For the same $ spent on defense as the USA, European countries get at least double, if not triple, the value. All health related spending to armed personnel in Europe is outside the Defense budgets, and It's included in the Ministries of Health budgets. Same for all retirement benefits for armed personnel. And then there is a huge gap in wages between American soldiers and all other NATO soldiers, Turkish, Romanian, Polish and Estonian soldiers don't have even 1/4 of the monthly wage of an American soldier.
Right, but you gotta understand. The US wants its cake & to eat it too. It wants to win on every front. It doesn't feel the need to concede anything because it sees Europe as a junior partner.
And you europoors need to learn your place at the table. You are not great powers anymore. They can either accept the Yoke of the United States or be torn apart by great powers piece by piece. That is the options.
Not just NATO, the U.S is like this with Australia as well. And Australia has been even more cowed than Europe.
@grayishcolors But I thought the American president loved “junior partners”?
Hey William, congratulations 🎉🎉🎉 on 750k+ subscribers! Thanks for the update and posting.
What's that weird point about the quote from the Danish PM though? What he said had nothing to do with the money involved, in fact that basically was his starting line. He was just talking fatalities per capita supposedly being higher than that of the US (not sure if true or not but that was what he was saying anyway). The whole segment feels almost intentionally misleading. Like what's your point? You just converted the cost of those fatalities into percentage of GDP. This number doesn't have much significance in terms of overall defense spending so why bring it up?
I disagree, the point is from a US POV Trump wasn't even talking lives, it was about money, & then they brought up lives as a gotcha. The calculation was that the national security apparatus had little reason to care about such a thing, which is why it was silly to bring it up in such a meeting. Trump probs saw it as weaselly political nonsense I guess. I'm not saying he was right to do so, but from his POV you can see how that might frustrate him.
He was explaining that Trump was probs offended by someone, in his eyes, virtue signaling about honor & sanity in life in a business meeting.
You say Europe should ignore the rhetoric.
Now that Trump is threatening tariffs over Greenland, should Europe keep ignoring?
“Weapons grade stupid” is a phrase deserving of a tattoo 😂
"We're not going to be friends"
Sounds like 5 year old kids falling out with each other, not like a leader of a nation that seeks greatness
Rump is such a simpleton.
I will never be able to understand how people can look at him, listen to him and think: "Yes, that's my choice for a leader."
Tf? 😂
Do you not understand that Trump got NATO allies to actually pay for defense what they agreed to and then more? How about how Trump warned Europe was too reliant in Russian gas and Merkel laughed at him?
@stanleyyelnats69 yeah he has a working strategy to get europe to do what needs to be done
I can not abide this calling the president of my country a 5-year-old,... He's clearly no better than a 2-year-old.
@stanleyyelnats69that is not really Trump, but Putin..
I think it is a mischaracterisation to present Trump's statements as threatening to withdraw, at least when it comes to Greenland. He could have certainly done that, but threatening invasion is kind of the opposite of threatening withdrawal. The two are literally opposite.
Surely the opposite of threatening withdrawal would be saying how much he loves NATO and that he wants to stay in forever?
Withdrawing from NATO and invading one of NATO countries are two links of the same chain, not the opposites.
@Milan_Openfeint America IS NATO! We don't need you at all, but all of you need us! And that, is a fact.
@KevinVenturePhilippines U.S. needs Europe as much as Europe needs the U.S. Alone, both are weaker.
If you don't understand economics, politics or military, I won't explain it to some random Trump lover in YT comments.
@Milan_Openfeint Sure, "Milan". 😆
Dane here. I'm glad that Willian Spaniel can drink a pint of beer till this blows over. If this blows over. However, people in Greenland are SCARED! I've watched in the Danish news that Greenlanders have nightmares or are increasing worried about invading US forces and threats by Trump. The Danish people are also worried and very angry against Trump and his minions.
For example: We have a Atlantic High School class. It spends the first year in Denmark, the second year in The Faroe Islands and last year in Greenland. They are increasing worried that they can't finish their school class because the USA conquers Greenland. That is ONE story!
It's very cynical to have this thought Bill Spaniel has - if you are not involved. Typical american exceptionalisms.
Meanwhile you are destroying your own country by welcoming in hostile invaders and losing Danmark! Jeg Elsker Danmark but without us you would all be speaking Chinese or Russian right now! Your lack of appreciation is impossibly unbelievable! As you can't defend ANYTHING and WE have had bases on Greenland defending it for 84 YEARS!
Try reading the Monroe Doctrine!
@KevinVenturePhilippines I've read the Monroe Doctrine. Have you?
However, what are you talking about? We are NOT destroying our own country. Switch off Fox News and other MAGA news. Their are filling you with lies upon lies. They are effectively Russian propaganda now and has been that for a very long time.
We were glad that you entered WW2 but you can't push THAT on us now. You betray us now and we will NEVER forget that. EVER!
And your history is way, way off course. Go read a book - if you can read further than two lines.
USA have deceased it's military spending on Greenland like all of NATO member states did after the Cold War. You had 17 bases with over 10.000 soldiers, but now you have 100 left.
You invade Greenland and USA will leave NATO. Just what Russia wants. But EU is still there and Canada, Norway, Turkey, Austria and Norway.
You may invade many countries and threaten even more but nearly every country hates americans now. You will have NO allies left, and you will crumble and wither. The american empire will be no more! ...and it's declining as we speak...
Americans will just buy them off and then force a referendum
@Qwerty-jy9mj That will work for a small part but not for the majority. They will NOT be american!
@nanorider426PS, genius, America IS NATO! And we do not need you in ANY way and are sick and tired of paying for all you freaking free loaders! You need us but act like A-holes like you are right now! And my math is not off, you just need to learn what numbers are. 🙄🤣
15:20 - Well, respectfully, if the fine people at the Pentagon think Ukraine and Greenland are primarily a European security issue and we should deal with it, then I think Taiwan and China are primarily an American security issue and they should deal with that on their own. Why would we back up America in confrontation with China at this point? I would rather forge closer ties with China. Not saying we can be allies, but we are not natural enemies either. The U.S. and China are competing over specific territorial and global influence, Europe and China are just economic rivals. We don't have any territory or global dominance that is being contested. If the U.S. is unwilling to help with Russia, then this is not our fight.
@Gametheory101 - 2026-01-12
Go to https://ground.news/linesonmaps to stay fully informed on what's happening around the world. Subscribe before month's end and you'll receive 40% off unlimited access!
Also, correction at 11:45. The fatality value is 0.00006 of GDP, which is 0.006% of GDP. The fun of percentages and not decimals. The overall point remains true, though.
@dirkdeschepper735 - 2026-01-12
This blithely ignores the fact that Trump has been virulently anti-NATO since the Reagan era.
Yes, that's right, he wanted the US to leave NATO during the Cold War.
Also, Trump thinks that Europe should pay the US for its defence, either directly or via buying weapons. That is not what Europe is doing, and it is never going to be the result of the US threatening Europe: it is largely building is own military industry and finding other allies. Trump is not getting what he wants from threats, he's actually getting the opposite: less money for the US military-industrial complex, and a stronger competitor on the international weapons market.
@benjaminlynch9958 - 2026-01-12
@dirkdeschepper735which brings us back to the adage “watch what leaders do, not what they say.” Trump is entering his 6th year as President and yet the United States is still part of NATO. Moreover, there hasn’t been any serious talk of pulling out of NATO either in Congress or among the more serious members of his administration (eg Rubio). As long as the broader NATO alliance moves in the direction he wants the alliance to go (defense spending, Greenland, possibly other issues), he’ll keep talking about leaving NATO and continue not following through on that threat because the threat is getting him exactly what he wanted all along.
@dirkdeschepper735 - 2026-01-12
@benjaminlynch9958 He didn't deploy the US military against US citizens until year 5. He didn't try to take over another country until year 6. The argument that he hasn't gotten around to destroying NATO holds very little value.
It's not getting him what he wants. Trump thinks the US should be paid protection money, or at the very least the Europeans should subsidise the US weapons industry. The opposite is happening.
@animejefftv - 2026-01-12
Isn't it always fun to be dealing with the less educated in the comments because your assessment doesn't 100% align with their beliefs? Now to pick up a sub of ground news. - A Canuck Eh
@jnavarro-1972 - 2026-01-12
@dirkdeschepper735Why is that bad? The US has been subsidizing the European Welfare state for decades.