By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The owner of the Swiss bar, the site of a tragic event, discovered a waitress amidst the bodies of the deceased. The waitress was found behind a locked door, adding to the grim scene. This discovery, made by the bar owner himself, highlighted the devastating impact of the incident. The details of the event are still under investigation.
Read the original article here
UK in talks to deploy NATO force to Greenland to deter Trump?
It’s a truly bizarre time we’re living in when the very notion of a NATO force being considered to deter a fellow NATO member, the United States, feels like something out of a bad spy novel. The fact that the UK is reportedly discussing deploying troops to Greenland is a clear signal that the world is reevaluating its understanding of the status quo. The primary goal is simple: to make it unequivocally clear to the Trump administration that Greenland is not up for grabs.
Deploying a NATO force, spearheaded by the UK, is a strong gesture. It’s about more than just military presence; it’s a demonstration of solidarity. This isn’t just a UK problem, or a Danish problem, it’s a statement about where the alliance as a whole stands. Imagine the embarrassment within the US military ranks. For allies like the UK to contemplate such actions to prevent a potential infringement on Denmark’s territory, on its own territory no less, this is unprecedented. It’s hard not to feel that almost a century of military alliances have been jeopardized in an alarmingly short period. Even if annexation remains a theoretical possibility, the mere discussion of it has already damaged the trust between the US and its allies. The Russians and the Chinese are likely enjoying the spectacle immensely.
The current situation is far from ideal, and the question of how to proceed looms large. Some might suggest leveraging financial pressure. The UK, holding a significant amount of US Treasury Securities, could send a clear, concise message by divesting those holdings. Such a move, potentially echoed across Europe, could swiftly get the attention of the Trump administration, forcing a recalibration of their priorities. Putting boots on the ground and ships in the water is the direct approach, but it’s clear the conversation has broadened to include economic levers. The idea of potentially cripping the US economy seems like the most likely way to stop the orange fella. There’s a prevailing feeling that this could be a calculated move – part of a larger, long-term strategy that needs to be countered effectively.
The reality is that America won’t be able to attack without facing severe consequences. A direct confrontation with NATO forces would have potentially disastrous consequences, potentially leading to the destruction of American troops and airbases, not to mention trillions of dollars of American investment in Europe vanishing. Some feel the situation calls for decisive action, potentially even the withdrawal from the World Cup and Olympics to increase the consequences. There is a sense that the US, under its current leadership, is veering dangerously close to the point of no return.
The focus should be shifted to deploying forces as soon as possible, without telegraphing moves to the US. A strong NATO presence in Greenland would be a deterrent, because attacking NATO troops means the extinction of those troops and the airbases nearby, plus the complete annihilation of trillions of dollars of American investment in Europe. There is a strong feeling that the Trump administration will back down if they are faced with firm resistance, a sentiment rooted in historical understanding of how dictators typically behave. It is clear that the situation is becoming increasingly difficult to comprehend.
The underlying premise is that a robust and visible military presence could deter any potential aggressive moves. The “tripwire force” concept – a small but significant contingent of troops acting as a first line of defense – is a viable strategy, echoing NATO’s Baltic deployments. The fact that NATO is even discussing such actions is a stark reflection of the times, a sign of how far the alliance has fallen. It is important to emphasize that Canada would be profoundly affected by any annexation attempt, further underlining the urgency of the situation.
Some suggest that this can also be presented as a move to deter Russia and/or China from moving in on Greenland, which is what the current president claims the US is trying to do anyway. The idea here is to frame the US actions as potentially interfering with NATO partners and using this to justify a counter-offensive. There is also the sentiment that it is an orchestrated plan by Putin to tie up NATO resources. The situation calls for vigilance, and a concerted response is the only way forward.
In the face of the current threat, the deployment of troops and a clear message to the US could be critical. The situation is not simply a matter of political games; it could have far-reaching implications for the international community. No matter how this situation turns out, it’s a reflection of how precarious things have become.