That's not how I interpret it. I interpret it as not assigning blame either way, which is typical for a news organization.
Then what’s wrong with saying “fatally shot”?
I'm no expert either, so definitely take everything I say with a grain of salt. I think those conflicts were around territorial disputes between Turkey and Greece, probably exacerbated on by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which really fucked Turkey and helped Greece.
Anyway, an invasion of Greenland seems like a clear cut case to invoke article 5 of the treaty. Obviously the command infrastructure in US hands, not to mention US bases on NATO soil (including Greenland), would create a lot of problems that would need to be sorted out first.
Denmark/Greenland is already in NATO, which is a military alliance with a defenc pact of 31 countries (excluding the invading United States, of course). Leaving Denmark would likely mean leaving NATO, which does not seem like a good move.
When this is all done they'll have him on a misdemeanour and he'll do 6 weeks of community service.
France, Denmark, Latvia and Estonia's non-aggression pacts did not include secret protocols to partition Poland.
Objection! Asked and answered.
That's what it says. At least, it does not make an exception for that scenario.
Please don't forget about us in Canada.
If nobody fights back, it means everyone has withdrawn from NATO.
Ya, her response has been pretty lukewarm already.
Following very closely the situation in Venezuela. We stand by the people of Venezuela and support a peaceful and democratic transition. Any solution must respect international law and the UN Charter.
The BBC are genocide apologists, so little things like this don’t surprise me.
I hope this wasn’t our only plan.
Time to find out if the North Atlantic Treaty is worth the paper it is printed on.
Soon: EU says ‘too early’ to assess legality of US attack on Greenland
They think everyone has the same urges they do.