Po nekaj dnevih kokodakanja evropskih politikov se bo zgodilo tole spodaj

Razlogi za to so preprosti. Prvič, tudi če bi EU hotela vojaško zaustaviti Ameriko pri prevzemu Grenlandije, ne bi imela s čim. Trump je to lepo ponazoril z dodatnimi pasjimi vpregami, ki bi jih EU države lahko poslale v Grenlandijo. In drugič, ne samo vojaško, pač pa tudi na noben drug način EU države ne morejo preprečiti Trumpu, da si vzame Grenlandijo, če se mu bo zahotelo. Ker so na tehnološkem, energetskem, finančnem in vojaškem področju življenjsko odvisne od ZDA. EU Trumpu ne more žugati s sankcijami, ker lahko Trump z enim dekretom ugasne EU (internet, računalnike, bančne transakcije, letala in protizračno obrambo, jedrske konice, energetiko).Z eno potezo Trumpa je EU v popolni temi.

Je pa res, da bodo evropski politiki svoje popuščanje utemeljevali z argumenti, da želijo ohraniti enotnost in pomen Nata kot varnosne zaščite. Pri tem bodo zamolčali dvoje. Prvič, da Nato ni namenjen zaščiti ene članice pred drugo članico Nata. Nekateri sicer živijo v iluziji, da Slovenijo članstvo v Natu ščiti pred denimo ozemeljskimi težnjami Italije. Toda Nato ni bil ustanovljen v ta namen, niti ni tako deloval (glejte spodnji tekst Varoufakisa o grško – turškem sporu), pač pa njegov razvpiti člen 5 govori zgolj o solidarnem postopanju članic v primeru zunanjega napada na eno izmed članic Nata.

No, drugič, tudi to določilo je draga iluzija. Mislite, da bi se ZDA aktivirale, če bi denimo Rusija napadla eno izmed “potrošnih” državic (katero izmed baltskih držav)? Mislite, da bi ZDA tvegale jedrsko vojno z Rusijo zaradi katere izmed “potrošnih” državic?

Dobro jutro, Evropa.

__________

Does Mr Trump have a right to help himself to Greenland? Of course he does not. Yes, he is right to say that Denmark’s only claim to Greenland is that some of its ships disembarked centuries ago there and took that land. But, how exactly did the Europeans take North America, Australia, New Zealand? Legally? It is never advisable for the pot to call the kettle black.

And now onto a delicious twist to the Greenland story:

Europeans claim that it is unprecedented and a violation of NATO’s charter for the leader of a member-state of a defensive alliance to be threatening another NATO member-state. That NATO is about solidarity, about defending its members’ territory. Not so!

Since 1952, when Greece and Turkey entered NATO in tandem, successive Greek governments have been desperately struggling to get NATO to commit to coming to Greece’s defence if Turkey invades.

NATO has STEADFASTLY refused to make such a commitment. Why? The official answer has been that NATO is committed to defending member states from belligerent non-member states – but not from each other, not from other member states, like Turkey or, now, the… United States!

Want to know why Greece is perhaps the only member-state that consistently spent a lot more on weaponry than the bare minimum? That’s why! Because NATO has unwaveringly refused to defend its borders in case of a skirmish or war with Turkey.

So, Denmark welcome to the club – and remember your governments also argued that it is not NATO’s job to defend any member-state from another NATO member-state.