Miscellaneous News

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
There is nothing the Europeans and Denmark can do if Trump wants to take Greenland. Denmark and the EU will just have to bend over and take it up the ass by daddy Trump without lube. The U.S has always wanted Greenland, and have in the past attempted to buy the island twice in 1867 and after WWII. Both times failed, but with how the geopolitical climate is evolving at an accelerated rate, the U.S may force Denmark and the Europeans to capitulate to a sale price, or the U.S will take it by force. The U.S is trying to build a sustainable independent supply chain, and resources such as Venezuela oil, iron ore, natural gas, and rare earths in Greenland, and the future Artic passage in the Northern sea route as the climate warms will also expose even more oil and gas reserves of which the U. S will need to help supply cheap energy and materials for reindustrialization. Not to mention, new exposed landmass in the Artic will also be an area of contention, which, with the acquisition of Greenland, will give the U.S a legitimate contention to expand physically, militarily, and economically into the Artic as it thaws. This will help the U.S secure resources it needs to fuel both its economy and military and to also keep those resources away from rival powers like China and Russia, and even the EU-- the Artic is part of the new Great Game of the 21st century, similar to what the Great Game of the 19th and 20th century was in Central Asia.
Does the US lack energy? I don't think so. The main reason it's losing to China is because it's being out-innovated, not because there's not enough energy to power its industrialization. The US is simply lashing out in any way it can and Trump wants to make a legacy for himself. He already knows he's not going to be known as the president who defeated the China threat so the president who took Greenland sounds nice.
 

bebops

Junior Member
Registered Member
What strategic value does Greenland has? It is sitting next to Europe and Russia. Easier to deploy missile to aim at Russia?

To be honest, US can get Canada by force too.
 

Machiavelli

New Member
Registered Member
Does the US lack energy? I don't think so. The main reason it's losing to China is because it's being out-innovated, not because there's not enough energy to power its industrialization. The US is simply lashing out in any way it can and Trump wants to make a legacy for himself. He already knows he's not going to be known as the president who defeated the China threat so the president who took Greenland sounds nice.
The U.S wants to re-establish and maintain the petro-dollar, while all being less reliant on the middle east, and to be able to set oil and natural gas prices in the future. Trump has many flaws, but to blame his flaws for every tactical and strategical move is naive.
 

Randomuser

Captain
Registered Member
Pakistan is becoming popular these days. Far from a failed state which proclaimed by India.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
This is a prime example of proving your worth so others feel comfortable investing in you.

I remember even on SDF, a lot of people were saying investing in Pakistan was a waste of time. Its run by corrupt idiots who can't get their act together so Pakistan will go nowhere.

Well thanks to Modi, India gave it a chance at Sindoor where even with more modern weapons given to India and US disabling stuff, Pakistan leadership still manage to figure out a way to solve the problem and blow up 6-8 Indian jets using older equipment. They also played it smart by appealing to Trump to step in so the war wouldn't extend which might not go so well for Pakistan. India can make up all these excuses but we all know what happened.

As a result other countries seeing Pakistan determination and problem solving skills feel like its more worth it to invest in Pakistan. This is helped by the fact that Saudi and Iran are at least on talking terms so there's no conflict there.

People ask why doesn't China invest much in Syria, Venezuela, Iran etc. Well have they done what Pakistan has done? Iran might have fended off Israel last time but it feels like they haven't really learnt much with the time bought so that doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

We don't need Pakistan to be some superpower. We just need them to show they are capable of competently standing on their own feet and will make proper use of the money. It sounds so simple but not many high risk countries meet this requirement.
 
Last edited:

Chevalier

Major
Registered Member
What strategic value does Greenland has? It is sitting next to Europe and Russia. Easier to deploy missile to aim at Russia?

To be honest, US can get Canada by force too.
The Anglo Americans are preparing for a future where the EU becomes more independent and assertive and Greenland would offer the perfect place to station European Bombers and missiles against CONUS.
 

Nevermore

Junior Member
Registered Member
What strategic value does Greenland has? It is sitting next to Europe and Russia. Easier to deploy missile to aim at Russia?

To be honest, US can get Canada by force too.
Greenland is well-suited for deploying strategic bases, proving highly effective for intercepting and launching missiles, as well as enforcing Arctic sea lane blockades.
 

Lethe

Captain
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Late in 2025, a team of Chinese researchers published a paper linking Australia's hot and dry weather in the 2010s to China's aerosol reductions.

They found weather systems were impacted thousands of kilometres across the Pacific, reducing moisture across large parts of Australia and significantly raising the risk of bushfires in all states and territories.

Despite Australia's relatively high rainfall since 2020, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology professor Yang Yang, who was among the study's authors, said changes in China had continued to impact Australian weather [....]

Last year, a team of mostly European climate scientists labelled East Asian aerosol reductions as the biggest reason for the acceleration of global warming since 2010.

Scientists frequently liken the impact of removing pollution to "unmasking" or "revealing" warming that had already been caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Decades before China's emissions peaked, Europe's effort to cut pollution demonstrated this effect.

Climate scientist Karsten Haustein estimated that most central European countries had experienced almost 3 degrees Celsius of warming since pre-industrial times, exacerbated when the cooling effect of that pollution was removed.

"Probably a bit more than a degree of extra warming was essentially just hidden by the aerosols," he said [....]

In 2024, Tim Cowan was among a group of researchers who found Asian aerosol emissions had increased Australia's monsoon rainfall in the decades before China's historic clean-up.

"Observations show a significant increase in Australian summer monsoon rainfall since the mid-twentieth century," the researchers wrote in a paper published in The Journal of Climate.

This aligns with Professor Yang's assertion that China's reduction of its aerosol emissions had the opposite effect on Australian rainfall from 2013 [....]

While scientists unpack the consequences of China's dramatic smog reversal, more of Australia's Asian neighbours are seeking to emulate its success.

In India and Bangladesh, air pollution is a persistent and deadly problem linked to millions of excess deaths each year and, increasingly, acidic rainfall.

Climate experts agree it is imperative to reduce the pollution, but acknowledge it will likely increase heating and extreme weather in the South Asian region.

"From the temperature point of view, there will definitely be a local increase," Dr Haustein said.

"If we remove the [aerosols it] means more flooding in Bangladesh, and in India, maybe issues with the pre-monsoon, which is really important for agriculture."

However, when asked how this might affect the Pacific and Australia, Dr Haustein was hesitant to make such clear predictions.

"Disentangling the remote effects [of aerosols], not only the regional effects … it's crazy difficult," he said.

The article turns out to be fairly measured and interesting, but that first-pass impression (China is responsible for Australian bushfires) is good for a laugh. I'd never really thought about aerosol pollution as dampening temperatures, but of course it's a fairly straightforward extension of the theory behind a nuclear winter and the effects of volcano eruptions.
 

Minm

Junior Member
Registered Member
This is a prime example of proving your worth so others feel comfortable investing in you.

I remember even on SDF, a lot of people were saying investing in Pakistan was a waste of time. Its run by corrupt idiots who can't get their act together so Pakistan will go nowhere.

Well thanks to Modi, India gave it a chance at Sindoor where even with more modern weapons given to India and US disabling stuff, Pakistan leadership still manage to figure out a way to solve the problem and blow up 6-8 Indian jets using older equipment. They also played it smart by appealing to Trump to step in so the war wouldn't extend which might not go so well for Pakistan. India can make up all these excuses but we all know what happened.

As a result other countries seeing Pakistan determination and problem solving skills feel like its more worth it to invest in Pakistan. This is helped by the fact that Saudi and Iran are at least on talking terms so there's no conflict there.

People ask why doesn't China invest much in Syria, Venezuela, Iran etc. Well have they done what Pakistan has done? Iran might have fended off Israel last time but it feels like they haven't really learnt much with the time bought so that doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

We don't need Pakistan to be some superpower. We just need them to show they are capable of competently standing on their own feet and will make proper use of the money. It sounds so simple but not many high risk countries meet this requirement.
This sounds like cope. China didn't show up to Venezuela or Syria, refused to invest in and sanctioned Iran and North Korea and let all the sanctioned economies fend for themselves, because trade with the west is more important. As a result, China friendly governments are replaced with US friendly ones. The example of Pakistan shows what China can do if it does show up. But China appears too timid to go beyond its immediate periphery
 
Top