Evening mhaze,

'Did Putin trick Trump with false location for drone strikes?
Or did you fall for yet another fantasy?'

Well, I'm not necessarily the one putting it forward or asking the question, I'm just repeating or sharing the question.

I'm told the Russians absolutely spakked it worse than the Crocus City Hall attack in which 149 people died and 600+ were wounded by burns or gunfire.

(Compare that to Bondi)

I know you don't think much of anyone I listen to, and you or John shy away from working theory, but that doesn't mean even with a working theory that conclusions aren't put together with logical reasoning, occums razor, and all the facts and info available.

Sometimes it's all you can do until more facts become available and then you can reassess.

Now why do you always have to go and be a jerk all the time for?

'Who Will Defend You?': Putin Openly Threatens Europe With Nuke Missiles After Trump Humiliates NATO
http://youtu.be/9LUV9ZmbqHw

Putin states that if Russia gets into a real stouche with Europe, Russia has early warning systems to detect launches, but Europe doesn't, and he says that Trump won't counterstrike against Russia or risk a further nuclear strike on the U.S. if Europe's cities are already destroyed.

I can't help thinking that Putin has done to Europe what the West have been doing to their adversaries.

Sanctions are a form of economic coercion.
The U.S. backed away from Ukraine as it is heavily indebted and wanted to pivot to China.

The West was not able to oust Putin, nor culd Ukraine win on the battlefield, and Europe has paid the heaviest price.

That economic coercion has come back to it's source.
Do they cut social services to continue to fund the Ukraine war, or steal Russians Central Bank funds.

More importantly, are the Europeans, who are out of weapons and couldn't muster up an army if they tried, starting to fight amongst themselves?

Should they quit now, or keep going and everyone including Ukraine lose more.

Will NATO even survive?

Looks like he has taken the gloves off.

So next.. if Trump takes Greenland, which is a part of Denmark, a founding member of NATO since 1949 and contributing towards its self defense, does Denmark convene NATO who then goes to war with America under Article 5?

Article Five of the treaty states that if an armed attack occurs against one of the member states, it should be considered an attack against all members, and other members shall assist the attacked member, with armed forces if necessary.

If Trump takes Greenland, all the other member states are obliged to go to Denmark's defense against the U.S. in Greenland, right?

Apropos Thukydides, I perchance came across this this morning...

"Greenland should be part of of the United States" replied Miller. He then offered him a lesson in realpolitik. "We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power" he said. "These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time."
Has Miller been reading Thucydides?" (see Book 5.89)"

(Trump aide Stephen Miller talking to Jake Tapper.)

Unfortunately too many don't understand the real world and are disinclined to do the reading that would enlighten them.

AC,

"If Trump takes Greenland, all the other member states are obliged to go to Denmark's defense against the U.S. in Greenland, right?"

Wrong. Very wrong.

Article 5 refers to a member state being attacked by a non-member state. Nothing about conflicts between member states.

But all this is mere rhetoric. Denmark isn't going to war with the US and even if it did the rest of NATO aren't going to double down on that lunacy.

That Trump will get Greenland is a given. All the rest is just posturing and Denmark trying to get the best deal for Denmark (not Greenland) from the inevitable.

"I'm not reducing the book to a sentence. I'm making a modest claim about the Melian Dialogue's role within the narrative:"

Oh good. We are now at the point where JD is desperately trying to find a form of words that'll get him out of the corner he's painted himself into.

Not playing. But its fun to watch.

That quote actually illustrates my point rather, mhaze.

Yes, Miller is invoking the logic of the Melian Dialogue. Plenty of modern actors do. That tells us something about how people justify power, not about whether Thucydides endorsed that logic as exhaustive or wise.

The Athenians say something very similar in Book 5. Thucydides records it precisely because it is stark and revealing. What follows in the narrative is not vindication but catastrophe.

That sequence matters.

Quoting a contemporary official who likes the "iron laws" framing doesn't turn Thucydides into a realpolitik cheerleader any more than quoting Hobbes turns modern politics into the state of nature. It shows how seductive the argument is, not that it's complete.

This is the step you keep skipping:
people invoking Thucydides =/= Thucydides endorsing them.

If your claim is simply that powerful actors think this way, there's no disagreement. If your claim is that this way of thinking exhausts the analysis of power, legitimacy, cost, and consequence, then citing those actors repeating the slogan doesn't establish that. It just shows the slogan persists. Recording a worldview is not the same thing as blessing it.

As for your post to AC, it's more complicated than you're making it.

Article 5 doesn't contain an explicit carve-out saying it only applies to attacks by non-member states. It says an armed attack against one or more members shall be considered an attack against them all. In practice, NATO has never faced a member attacking another member, so there's no settled precedent.

What is clear is that NATO isn't an automatic war machine. Even when Article 5 is invoked, each member decides what action it considers necessary. There's no obligation for everyone to pile in militarily in a US-Denmark scenario.

But that cuts both ways.

Saying "NATO won't back Denmark" isn't something you can just assert. A US use of force against Danish territory would trigger a major alliance crisis, not a shrug and "inevitable".

Calling a US takeover of Greenland "a given" isn't realism, it's mere speculation. Powerful states want things all the time. That doesn't make outcomes predetermined.