Former U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Rufus Gifford blasted President Donald Trump’s escalating threats to seize Greenland — even by military force — warning on MS NOW that such a move would run directly counter to NATO’s mission and could force the alliance to defend Denmark against the United States.The threats, which have even a number of Republicans in Congress up in arms, come despite years and years of Danish officials making clear they have no interest in selling or giving Greenland to the United States, which has some military presence on the island for global security purposes.”Do you think anyone in this administration understands that if a shot is fired towards Greenland by the United States of America, that our NATO allies are no longer in that moment, our allies, Article 5 would be invoked by the other members to protect that one neighbor,” said “The Weeknight” host and former Republican Party chair Michael Steele. “Please help us understand and contextualize the severe dynamics involved here about any military action against a fellow NATO alliance member.””Yeah, it is. It’s extraordinary, Michael,” said Gifford. “I mean, I would make the argument that this foreign policy, if you want to even call it a foreign policy, is not only reckless, which it is, but it’s also clueless.””I hear what Stephen Miller said the other day. I see even what Secretary Rubio said today … It’s as if they don’t understand how NATO works,” continued Gifford. “They don’t understand how alliances work. In essence, this entire region, NATO, was set up originally to prevent something like this from happening. You actually don’t need to invade another country in order to protect your national security, because NATO is all for one, one for all. Meaning if one ally is attacked, the entire alliance is compelled to respond.””So their national security argument, Michael, holds zero water here because honestly, if Greenland were attacked, whether they were independent Danish or anywhere else that was NATO ally, all of us, as the alliance, would be compelled to respond,” he added. “And so the national security argument is just completely bogus here.” – YouTube youtu.be
The Fine Art of New York Times Censorship
...
Read moreDetails
