There won't be any military action in Greenland. Quite apart from the TACO principle, there's no identifiable figurehead (I just had to google who the Primer Minister of Greenland was) or any faux-moral-cause behind a Venezuela-style action. If they were going to do something, then they would be manufacturing some kind of story where they'd be the good guys. Plus they'd be loading soldiers into their already existing bases, which they are legally l fully entitled to do.Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 7:01 pm If nothing else, the rest of NATO (henceforth RNATO) need enough troops in Greenland to prevent a Venezuela type incursion.
There's a huge difference between shooting a few Cubans and South Americans in order to take a political target alive, and shooting some RNATO troops you've trained alongside and called "brothers in arms" in order to take that political target.
Even American troops should be able to tell the difference; and maybe decide that it really is their duty to refuse the order, rather than knowing that, but not really caring.
This is hugely sensible, but has previously been mocked as "Polanski wants to leave NATO" ehen the only party leader in favour has brought it up so far.Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 7:01 pmThe other thing, which I've been saying for a year now, and based on Trumps threats to Canada - is when negotiating contracts for new military equipment, we should absolutely be buying form trustworthy allies; not handing money to the USA as a potential enemy, and who may well be including "kill switch"es into equipment (as far as I know, they're not actually kill switches, so much as required permissions for software updates - that will, at the very minimum, do to your F-35 the same as Microsoft does to my laptop when it decides I have to do the update NOW, and not when it's convenient for me - which is as close to a kill switch as you can get - especially if Trump orders Lockhead to do any more damage through whatever backdoors they've installed)
It's working - Starmer's phoning him up for private negotiations, Macron is messaging him trying to persuade him to take a meeting at the G7, every one of his stupid social media posts is currently headline news with pages of analysis and insight. He is the most talked about person on the planet right now, just the way his childish little brain prefers it.
There’s a difference between leaving NATO which is utterly insane right now and not buying American. Starmer is clearly trying to be diplomatic but equally the reality is that on may programmes they can’t just switch out to a different supplier.Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 10:08 pmThere won't be any military action in Greenland. Quite apart from the TACO principle, there's no identifiable figurehead (I just had to google who the Primer Minister of Greenland was) or any faux-moral-cause behind a Venezuela-style action. If they were going to do something, then they would be manufacturing some kind of story where they'd be the good guys. Plus they'd be loading soldiers into their already existing bases, which they are legally l fully entitled to do.Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 7:01 pm If nothing else, the rest of NATO (henceforth RNATO) need enough troops in Greenland to prevent a Venezuela type incursion.
There's a huge difference between shooting a few Cubans and South Americans in order to take a political target alive, and shooting some RNATO troops you've trained alongside and called "brothers in arms" in order to take that political target.
Even American troops should be able to tell the difference; and maybe decide that it really is their duty to refuse the order, rather than knowing that, but not really caring.
This is theatre, with maybe a 10% hope that Europe will capitulate and Denmark decide to sell it out of fear, but mostly distracting from all his domestic things that're happening, or not happening in the case of the Epstein files.
This is hugely sensible, but has previously been mocked as "Polanski wants to leave NATO" ehen the only party leader in favour has brought it up so far.Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 7:01 pmThe other thing, which I've been saying for a year now, and based on Trumps threats to Canada - is when negotiating contracts for new military equipment, we should absolutely be buying form trustworthy allies; not handing money to the USA as a potential enemy, and who may well be including "kill switch"es into equipment (as far as I know, they're not actually kill switches, so much as required permissions for software updates - that will, at the very minimum, do to your F-35 the same as Microsoft does to my laptop when it decides I have to do the update NOW, and not when it's convenient for me - which is as close to a kill switch as you can get - especially if Trump orders Lockhead to do any more damage through whatever backdoors they've installed)
Puja
I wouldn't dump Firefox even if it is American, since it's an open-source alternative to MS and Google browsers. Similarly I'll support the US-based Wikimedia Foundation all the way, a real force for sanity in this world.Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Jan 20, 2026 6:19 pm For this of us who wish to DO something, there's very little we can do except writing to our MPs, and Boycotting US companies where feasible.
So what feasible alternatives are there? Of course, most wil be a step down from the market leaders, that's why they're not market leaders.
MasterCard/Visa => Buggered if I know, or how to convince my bank even if I did.
YouTube => DailyMotion is probably as good as it gets
Prime & Netflix => iPlayer & NowTV, maybe piracy...
Amazon => Argos? Individual shops? - easily doable, "just" lacking convenience, especially for repeat purchases
Morrisons/Asda => Any other supermarket
Google => Qwant/Ecosia
ChatGPT => Mistral LeChat
Chrome/Firefox/Brave => Vivaldi
Microsoft => Linux
MSOffice=> LibreOffice
Starbucks/Costa => CaféNero/Coffe#1 or, of course, plenty of independants
McDonalds/PizzaHut/KFC => BurgerKing (Canadian), plenty of independants, and the likes of Pret, Greggs, Nandos etc
DuoLingo => Busuu
Any other big ones I'm missing? Any other viable alternatives? Obviously, it's going to be UK-centric, sorry.
Of course, also just trying to find alternatives to specific products
even if I find the idea terrifying. We have had the discussion twice before that the position is not "leaving NATO right now", so I shan't do it again, but on a different question, what is the current actual value of NATO? If Russia invaded Estonia with some specious rationale about "protecting Russian-speakers" or "just the Sudetenland", would the USA actually stand by Article 5? The EU would be forced to engage by mutual defence treaties, but if the Yanks sat on the fence, would the British too?Sandydragon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 20, 2026 6:15 pmThere’s a difference between leaving NATO which is utterly insane right now and not buying American. Starmer is clearly trying to be diplomatic but equally the reality is that on may programmes they can’t just switch out to a different supplier.Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 10:08 pmThere won't be any military action in Greenland. Quite apart from the TACO principle, there's no identifiable figurehead (I just had to google who the Primer Minister of Greenland was) or any faux-moral-cause behind a Venezuela-style action. If they were going to do something, then they would be manufacturing some kind of story where they'd be the good guys. Plus they'd be loading soldiers into their already existing bases, which they are legally l fully entitled to do.Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 7:01 pm If nothing else, the rest of NATO (henceforth RNATO) need enough troops in Greenland to prevent a Venezuela type incursion.
There's a huge difference between shooting a few Cubans and South Americans in order to take a political target alive, and shooting some RNATO troops you've trained alongside and called "brothers in arms" in order to take that political target.
Even American troops should be able to tell the difference; and maybe decide that it really is their duty to refuse the order, rather than knowing that, but not really caring.
This is theatre, with maybe a 10% hope that Europe will capitulate and Denmark decide to sell it out of fear, but mostly distracting from all his domestic things that're happening, or not happening in the case of the Epstein files.
This is hugely sensible, but has previously been mocked as "Polanski wants to leave NATO" ehen the only party leader in favour has brought it up so far.Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 7:01 pmThe other thing, which I've been saying for a year now, and based on Trumps threats to Canada - is when negotiating contracts for new military equipment, we should absolutely be buying form trustworthy allies; not handing money to the USA as a potential enemy, and who may well be including "kill switch"es into equipment (as far as I know, they're not actually kill switches, so much as required permissions for software updates - that will, at the very minimum, do to your F-35 the same as Microsoft does to my laptop when it decides I have to do the update NOW, and not when it's convenient for me - which is as close to a kill switch as you can get - especially if Trump orders Lockhead to do any more damage through whatever backdoors they've installed)
Puja
Regarding Greenland, Trump is clearly insane and normally I’d be wishing for him to be declared insane so the CO could take over. Then I recall the VP is Vance and that doesn’t improve the situation so it looks like we have another three years of this crap to endure. Perhaps more if American voters don’t use their votes to ensure the Republicans don’t win.
By chance I already use Vivaldi on the tablet - because I like it better than Firefox or Opera or anything else I've tried. On PC it's Firefox.Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Jan 20, 2026 8:27 pm Yeah, I'm okay with Firefox, but would definitely change if I used Chrome or Brave.
I'm trying Vivaldi on the tablet, and it's fine so far - though I dread importing the laptop's bookmarks, and no uBlock or element picker
Terrified of the idea of Linux, don't think I could do that. Equally, my MSOffice is... 2007 version, I think, so no ongoing payments required.
Equally, I have used LibreOffice (I think, may have been OpenOffice), and it's fine
ETA:
There is an app called "Made In" that will scan barcodes, and tell you where corporate daddy lives - I've no idea how reliable, safe etc it is.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... or-britain...I’ve faced plenty of attacks from politicians over my stance on Nato. Apparently, pointing out that the Cold War-era alliance in its current form isn’t working makes me naïve. Highlighting the UK’s reliance on the United States for our security makes me stupid. And insisting that we adapt our security system to meet the threats of the 21st century makes me crazy.
Now we are in a position where leaders, journalists and people across the world are asking the question: what happens if one Nato member attacks another? How would the United Kingdom and other Nato members respond if the US were to invade Greenland? Suddenly, the idea that we might need to rethink our security structures doesn’t seem so naïve, while people like Nigel Farage, who have spent years cosying up to Trump, are clearly not the ones we should be listening to at this moment.
In the last 24 hours, Donald Trump has threatened to impose huge tariffs on any country opposing his plan to “buy” Greenland from Denmark. As Greenlanders march under the banner of “Greenland is for Greenlanders,” it has become increasingly clear that this dangerous president will neither respect international agreements nor diplomatic ties, and will not accept that his already extensive access to Greenland under the 1951 Defence of Greenland Agreement is sufficient.
When Trump says, “One way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland,” we should sit up and listen.
It is now frighteningly clear that basing our entire national security on being America’s poodle will soon become entirely untenable. The pressing question is: what do we do about it?
First, we need to disentangle our security apparatus from the United States so that we can be genuinely independent. As an urgent first step, the government should review how we might remove US bases from British soil while maintaining our own security – and retaining the capacity to support our allies in Ukraine. There are currently 13 US military bases in the UK, operated by an estimated 10,000 personnel. If Trump were to take military action against Greenland, we must be able to act swiftly to remove America’s military presence from our country peacefully and efficiently. The government should also cancel its £240m deal with US firm Palantir, signed despite MPs raising serious security concerns about the company.
Second, we need to ditch Trident – and fast. Even supporters of nuclear weapons recognise the risks of maintaining a system that relies on the United States. Billions have already been spent on Trident renewal, but we must not fall prey to the sunk-cost fallacy. The government should immediately pause the renewal and bring a full debate to parliament on whether we wish to spend billions of pounds on a weapons system that cannot operate without US support.
In the longer term, we need a comprehensive security review that fully accounts for the serious threats facing the UK today. In the 140 pages of the government’s most recent Strategic Defence Review, the word ‘climate’ appears only twice, while ‘flooding’ and ‘wildfire’ are absent entirely. Yet senior military figures warn that the dangers posed by the climate crisis far outweigh those from other states. When discussing defence spending, these are precisely the threats we must assess and budget for – rather than simply acquiescing to America’s arbitrary demands for military expenditure, which flow straight into the coffers of US arms manufacturers.
We also need to strengthen our relationships with European allies and with nations across the globe, while working within Nato to ensure the alliance prioritises peacebuilding over militarism. Leaving the EU weakened the UK and left us overly reliant on the toxic so-called “special relationship.” Amidst the threats posed by Russia and the instability of today’s world, alliances with nations that share our values have never been more important. The UK has a vital role to play in fostering new forms of multilateral cooperation – particularly with Europe and the Global South – to reduce our dependence on the US.
The first duty of any government is to keep its people safe. In today’s unpredictable world, that will not be achieved by clinging to outdated notions of security, or by cowering at Trump’s feet in the hope that he will protect us. It requires confronting the threats facing us head-on – from Putin’s imperial ambitions and Trump’s insatiable demands, to cyber warfare and the destabilising effects of climate breakdown. For too long, British leaders have buried their heads in the sand. It is time to wake up.
NATO also being cooperation with other partners not just the US. Yes the US is the major contributor and that is a huge problem if they withdraw, but we need that close cooperation that is already in place and would need to continue to secure us from Russia and which you couldn’t just recreate overnight. Even if rNato was called something else, it would still be NATO.Puja wrote: ↑Tue Jan 20, 2026 10:13 pmWe have had the discussion twice before that the position is not "leaving NATO right now", so I shan't do it again, but on a different question, what is the current actual value of NATO? If Russia invaded Estonia with some specious rationale about "protecting Russian-speakers" or "just the Sudetenland", would the USA actually stand by Article 5? The EU would be forced to engage by mutual defence treaties, but if the Yanks sat on the fence, would the British too?Sandydragon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 20, 2026 6:15 pmThere’s a difference between leaving NATO which is utterly insane right now and not buying American. Starmer is clearly trying to be diplomatic but equally the reality is that on may programmes they can’t just switch out to a different supplier.Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 10:08 pm
There won't be any military action in Greenland. Quite apart from the TACO principle, there's no identifiable figurehead (I just had to google who the Primer Minister of Greenland was) or any faux-moral-cause behind a Venezuela-style action. If they were going to do something, then they would be manufacturing some kind of story where they'd be the good guys. Plus they'd be loading soldiers into their already existing bases, which they are legally l fully entitled to do.
This is theatre, with maybe a 10% hope that Europe will capitulate and Denmark decide to sell it out of fear, but mostly distracting from all his domestic things that're happening, or not happening in the case of the Epstein files.
This is hugely sensible, but has previously been mocked as "Polanski wants to leave NATO" ehen the only party leader in favour has brought it up so far.
Puja
Regarding Greenland, Trump is clearly insane and normally I’d be wishing for him to be declared insane so the CO could take over. Then I recall the VP is Vance and that doesn’t improve the situation so it looks like we have another three years of this crap to endure. Perhaps more if American voters don’t use their votes to ensure the Republicans don’t win.
Puja
Yet he has said more times we should leave than he has made the more nuanced stance you copy above. This guardian interview is 12 hours of and it’s clear that Polanski wants us out.Puja wrote: ↑Tue Jan 20, 2026 11:15 pmhttps://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... or-britain...I’ve faced plenty of attacks from politicians over my stance on Nato. Apparently, pointing out that the Cold War-era alliance in its current form isn’t working makes me naïve. Highlighting the UK’s reliance on the United States for our security makes me stupid. And insisting that we adapt our security system to meet the threats of the 21st century makes me crazy.
Now we are in a position where leaders, journalists and people across the world are asking the question: what happens if one Nato member attacks another? How would the United Kingdom and other Nato members respond if the US were to invade Greenland? Suddenly, the idea that we might need to rethink our security structures doesn’t seem so naïve, while people like Nigel Farage, who have spent years cosying up to Trump, are clearly not the ones we should be listening to at this moment.
In the last 24 hours, Donald Trump has threatened to impose huge tariffs on any country opposing his plan to “buy” Greenland from Denmark. As Greenlanders march under the banner of “Greenland is for Greenlanders,” it has become increasingly clear that this dangerous president will neither respect international agreements nor diplomatic ties, and will not accept that his already extensive access to Greenland under the 1951 Defence of Greenland Agreement is sufficient.
When Trump says, “One way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland,” we should sit up and listen.
It is now frighteningly clear that basing our entire national security on being America’s poodle will soon become entirely untenable. The pressing question is: what do we do about it?
First, we need to disentangle our security apparatus from the United States so that we can be genuinely independent. As an urgent first step, the government should review how we might remove US bases from British soil while maintaining our own security – and retaining the capacity to support our allies in Ukraine. There are currently 13 US military bases in the UK, operated by an estimated 10,000 personnel. If Trump were to take military action against Greenland, we must be able to act swiftly to remove America’s military presence from our country peacefully and efficiently. The government should also cancel its £240m deal with US firm Palantir, signed despite MPs raising serious security concerns about the company.
Second, we need to ditch Trident – and fast. Even supporters of nuclear weapons recognise the risks of maintaining a system that relies on the United States. Billions have already been spent on Trident renewal, but we must not fall prey to the sunk-cost fallacy. The government should immediately pause the renewal and bring a full debate to parliament on whether we wish to spend billions of pounds on a weapons system that cannot operate without US support.
In the longer term, we need a comprehensive security review that fully accounts for the serious threats facing the UK today. In the 140 pages of the government’s most recent Strategic Defence Review, the word ‘climate’ appears only twice, while ‘flooding’ and ‘wildfire’ are absent entirely. Yet senior military figures warn that the dangers posed by the climate crisis far outweigh those from other states. When discussing defence spending, these are precisely the threats we must assess and budget for – rather than simply acquiescing to America’s arbitrary demands for military expenditure, which flow straight into the coffers of US arms manufacturers.
We also need to strengthen our relationships with European allies and with nations across the globe, while working within Nato to ensure the alliance prioritises peacebuilding over militarism. Leaving the EU weakened the UK and left us overly reliant on the toxic so-called “special relationship.” Amidst the threats posed by Russia and the instability of today’s world, alliances with nations that share our values have never been more important. The UK has a vital role to play in fostering new forms of multilateral cooperation – particularly with Europe and the Global South – to reduce our dependence on the US.
The first duty of any government is to keep its people safe. In today’s unpredictable world, that will not be achieved by clinging to outdated notions of security, or by cowering at Trump’s feet in the hope that he will protect us. It requires confronting the threats facing us head-on – from Putin’s imperial ambitions and Trump’s insatiable demands, to cyber warfare and the destabilising effects of climate breakdown. For too long, British leaders have buried their heads in the sand. It is time to wake up.
Puja
chance Trump's generals wouldn't be willing to start). A] - yep, that's been bugging me since it all kicked off. RNATO isn't no NATOSon of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 10:02 am A] Slightly tangential . . . it annoys me when reporters keep saying if the US attacks Greenland it's the end of NATO. No, it's the US leaving NATO.
Yes, it would be an enormous change but even then it would be better to reform NATO than to throw our hands up.
B] We really need to get more troops to Greenland (if the Greenlanders agree). Each of the willing nations needs 100 and Denmark at least 1000 IMO, to make it impossible to take without a fight (a fight which there is a reasonable
) think that an actual hot war is incredibly unlikely - it's coercive use of the threat of force, with no intention to actually deploy. Yeah, more is better. With small numbers I'm afraid it would be like UN peacekeepers in Bosnia, just waving the white flag. It has to be enough to actually defend the place. Denmark's army is 25,000 strong, surely they can get more than a negligible number of them there? What do they have to do that's more important than Greenland right now?Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 10:55 amA] - yep, that's been bugging me since it all kicked off. RNATO isn't no NATOSon of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 10:02 am A] Slightly tangential . . . it annoys me when reporters keep saying if the US attacks Greenland it's the end of NATO. No, it's the US leaving NATO.
Yes, it would be an enormous change but even then it would be better to reform NATO than to throw our hands up.
B] We really need to get more troops to Greenland (if the Greenlanders agree). Each of the willing nations needs 100 and Denmark at least 1000 IMO, to make it impossible to take without a fight (a fight which there is a reasonable
B] - I'm not sure it needs that many; even just a couple of dozen, as a military "human shield" means that it won't be peaceful, and requires that mindset change between just landing and assuming control, versus actually opening fire on allies you've spent your career training alongside.
Obviously, more is better, and better able to actually defend the place if it comes to a hot war, but I still (yeah, I know
His original stance was always to build other alliances and leave so that we aren't dependant staying lockstep with America for our defence, but even if you were correct, what would be so bad about a relatively new politician altering their position based on poor feedback? I'd prefer that to someone remaining dogmatic to a dumb idea.Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 8:23 amYet he has said more times we should leave than he has made the more nuanced stance you copy above. This guardian interview is 12 hours of and it’s clear that Polanski wants us out.Puja wrote: ↑Tue Jan 20, 2026 11:15 pmhttps://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... or-britain...I’ve faced plenty of attacks from politicians over my stance on Nato. Apparently, pointing out that the Cold War-era alliance in its current form isn’t working makes me naïve. Highlighting the UK’s reliance on the United States for our security makes me stupid. And insisting that we adapt our security system to meet the threats of the 21st century makes me crazy.
Now we are in a position where leaders, journalists and people across the world are asking the question: what happens if one Nato member attacks another? How would the United Kingdom and other Nato members respond if the US were to invade Greenland? Suddenly, the idea that we might need to rethink our security structures doesn’t seem so naïve, while people like Nigel Farage, who have spent years cosying up to Trump, are clearly not the ones we should be listening to at this moment.
In the last 24 hours, Donald Trump has threatened to impose huge tariffs on any country opposing his plan to “buy” Greenland from Denmark. As Greenlanders march under the banner of “Greenland is for Greenlanders,” it has become increasingly clear that this dangerous president will neither respect international agreements nor diplomatic ties, and will not accept that his already extensive access to Greenland under the 1951 Defence of Greenland Agreement is sufficient.
When Trump says, “One way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland,” we should sit up and listen.
It is now frighteningly clear that basing our entire national security on being America’s poodle will soon become entirely untenable. The pressing question is: what do we do about it?
First, we need to disentangle our security apparatus from the United States so that we can be genuinely independent. As an urgent first step, the government should review how we might remove US bases from British soil while maintaining our own security – and retaining the capacity to support our allies in Ukraine. There are currently 13 US military bases in the UK, operated by an estimated 10,000 personnel. If Trump were to take military action against Greenland, we must be able to act swiftly to remove America’s military presence from our country peacefully and efficiently. The government should also cancel its £240m deal with US firm Palantir, signed despite MPs raising serious security concerns about the company.
Second, we need to ditch Trident – and fast. Even supporters of nuclear weapons recognise the risks of maintaining a system that relies on the United States. Billions have already been spent on Trident renewal, but we must not fall prey to the sunk-cost fallacy. The government should immediately pause the renewal and bring a full debate to parliament on whether we wish to spend billions of pounds on a weapons system that cannot operate without US support.
In the longer term, we need a comprehensive security review that fully accounts for the serious threats facing the UK today. In the 140 pages of the government’s most recent Strategic Defence Review, the word ‘climate’ appears only twice, while ‘flooding’ and ‘wildfire’ are absent entirely. Yet senior military figures warn that the dangers posed by the climate crisis far outweigh those from other states. When discussing defence spending, these are precisely the threats we must assess and budget for – rather than simply acquiescing to America’s arbitrary demands for military expenditure, which flow straight into the coffers of US arms manufacturers.
We also need to strengthen our relationships with European allies and with nations across the globe, while working within Nato to ensure the alliance prioritises peacebuilding over militarism. Leaving the EU weakened the UK and left us overly reliant on the toxic so-called “special relationship.” Amidst the threats posed by Russia and the instability of today’s world, alliances with nations that share our values have never been more important. The UK has a vital role to play in fostering new forms of multilateral cooperation – particularly with Europe and the Global South – to reduce our dependence on the US.
The first duty of any government is to keep its people safe. In today’s unpredictable world, that will not be achieved by clinging to outdated notions of security, or by cowering at Trump’s feet in the hope that he will protect us. It requires confronting the threats facing us head-on – from Putin’s imperial ambitions and Trump’s insatiable demands, to cyber warfare and the destabilising effects of climate breakdown. For too long, British leaders have buried their heads in the sand. It is time to wake up.
Puja
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... k-polanski
His original stance was to leave and I suspect he is trying to soften his message given poor feedback. He’s also suggesting we give up nuclear weapons, which suggests he isn’t reading the international situation well.
Stepping back and thinking happy thoughts isn’t a foreign or defence policy.
Agreed - it would have to be enough that it could mount a mildly credible defence and that an attacking army has to actively engage them. A few dozen can either be manouevred around or overwhelmed with numbers and forced to surrender without bloodshed - it would be trivial for the USA to put 3,000 soldiers into Greenland and if it's <100 vs 3,000, then I don't see any of the <100 deciding to open fire, regardless of engagement protocols.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 11:18 amYeah, more is better. With small numbers I'm afraid it would be like UN peacekeepers in Bosnia, just waving the white flag. It has to be enough to actually defend the place. Denmark's army is 25,000 strong, surely they can get more than a negligible number of them there? What do they have to do that's more important than Greenland right now?Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 10:55 amA] - yep, that's been bugging me since it all kicked off. RNATO isn't no NATOSon of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 10:02 am A] Slightly tangential . . . it annoys me when reporters keep saying if the US attacks Greenland it's the end of NATO. No, it's the US leaving NATO.
Yes, it would be an enormous change but even then it would be better to reform NATO than to throw our hands up.
B] We really need to get more troops to Greenland (if the Greenlanders agree). Each of the willing nations needs 100 and Denmark at least 1000 IMO, to make it impossible to take without a fight (a fight which there is a reasonable
B] - I'm not sure it needs that many; even just a couple of dozen, as a military "human shield" means that it won't be peaceful, and requires that mindset change between just landing and assuming control, versus actually opening fire on allies you've spent your career training alongside.
Obviously, more is better, and better able to actually defend the place if it comes to a hot war, but I still (yeah, I know
Or is everyone too scared because Trump got angry? That's the point - he made a fuss because it really matters that we have troops on the ground. If they can just land a helicopter and raise the stars and stripes then they can say (ie lie) it wasn't taken by force.
It reminds me a little of the left wing supporters of Brexit suggesting that we should leave the EU because it isn't functioning...pause...and build a new union.Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 11:19 amHis original stance was always to build other alliances and leave so that we aren't dependant staying lockstep with America for our defence, but even if you were correct, what would be so bad about a relatively new politician altering their position based on poor feedback? I'd prefer that to someone remaining dogmatic to a dumb idea.Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 8:23 amYet he has said more times we should leave than he has made the more nuanced stance you copy above. This guardian interview is 12 hours of and it’s clear that Polanski wants us out.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... k-polanski
His original stance was to leave and I suspect he is trying to soften his message given poor feedback. He’s also suggesting we give up nuclear weapons, which suggests he isn’t reading the international situation well.
Stepping back and thinking happy thoughts isn’t a foreign or defence policy.
Puja
These are the ones I've found so far; that are more anti-US than pro-CanadaWhich Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Jan 20, 2026 8:27 pm ETA:
There is an app called "Made In" that will scan barcodes, and tell you where corporate daddy lives - I've no idea how reliable, safe etc it is.
In fairness, if you listen to any interview where he talks about this, that usually is the first part of the sentence, but it's not generally the part that's interesting for reporters to package up as ragebait.Stom wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 12:26 pmIt reminds me a little of the left wing supporters of Brexit suggesting that we should leave the EU because it isn't functioning...pause...and build a new union.Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 11:19 amHis original stance was always to build other alliances and leave so that we aren't dependant staying lockstep with America for our defence, but even if you were correct, what would be so bad about a relatively new politician altering their position based on poor feedback? I'd prefer that to someone remaining dogmatic to a dumb idea.Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 8:23 am
Yet he has said more times we should leave than he has made the more nuanced stance you copy above. This guardian interview is 12 hours of and it’s clear that Polanski wants us out.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... k-polanski
His original stance was to leave and I suspect he is trying to soften his message given poor feedback. He’s also suggesting we give up nuclear weapons, which suggests he isn’t reading the international situation well.
Stepping back and thinking happy thoughts isn’t a foreign or defence policy.
Puja
That pause and saying the bold bit quietly are part of the contribution to the problem. The "a new organization" should be the first part of the sentence.
Excellent work - thanks for this.Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 12:31 pm Migrating Away from US Apps and Services
Introduction
The list below contains alternative non-US based apps and services. I have curated this list based on what I have tried and preferred. Where possible, I have tried to find services that are equal to, or better than their US counterparts (your miles may vary). It is recommended that you explore other alternatives yourself. Services below were found through my own research, helpful replies on Mastodon, Bluesky, and Threads, and the European Alternatives website.
Whilst the list below contains non-US-based alternatives, please note that some apps and services may still use US-based servers.
This is a working document, and will be subject to updates, corrections, and changes.
https://mattkeil.craft.me/non-us-apps-and-services