as it became more and more obvious that he’s senile. — Punshhh

Is this genuinely something you want to stand behind? Be very careful.

Rutte definitely is always saying that thanks to Trump, NATO countries are increasing their defense expenditure, — ssu

He was against the reckless expenditure when he was the prime minister of NL; now he is pushing for more expenditure just to woo Trump. Are they clowns, or am I the blind dude who is not seeing what is going on?

And lastly, NATO is actually an US created organization for US objectives, which the orange idiot never has understood — ssu

That's what I was about to say. It is hard to be a "neutral" NATO secretary general when the institution is oriented to protect and spread American interests, presence, and culture. I don't really want to see this conflict escalating, and I wish Greenland the best in their future, but if this [the issue] ends up screwed, at least we will have a reason to finally dissolve NATO and focus on something European—whatever it would be called or managed.

(which he does all the time and costs him nothing) — Tzeentch

Do you not realize that the entire free world has absolutely no respect for him?

you don't understand the game that is being played. — Tzeentch

Peace and security is not a game

Are they clowns, or am I the blind dude who is not seeing what is going on? — javi2541997

I think this, but I also think you're not a clown. Its entirely plausible (and indeed, seems maybe at the 51% probability mark) that it's just the shit show it looks like, and he's a total moron who has lost it.

But it also seems to me entirely plausible that, while "4d Chess" is some kind of invention of a cultish aspect of his base, there's intentionality to these things and he's perhaps willing to be seen the way you say above, while having achieved his initial goal and moving on with his... plan (that was hard to say lmao)

I don't know. But it seems plausible to me, and he seems happy enough to say it may be true.

when the institution is oriented to protect and spread American interests, presence, and culture. — javi2541997

That doesn't seem wholly accurate. It was set up (by Europe - not imposed by American) to prevent Soviet encroachment, and to ensure Europe retained American defense interest, rather than American withdrawing like after WWII. But you're right in terms of the conflict of interest.

That is not really true though, is it?

Seems more like wishful thinking for those who do genuinely have no respect for him which is fine. But Machado, Meloni, Orban, Milei, apparently, Rutte. They are just leaders you do not like. which is fine. But its best not to make statements that are untrue about a President. Like Cameron Kasky is finding out.

It was set up (by Europe - not imposed by American) to prevent Soviet encroachment, — AmadeusD

The irony is palpable when we have to set something up to prevent Soviet encroachment, but we look the other way when this attitude comes from Washington. What a terrible circus the politics are, mate. I don't like it.

I agree with the rest of your post.

He said a couple things (which he does all the time and costs him nothing) and managed to create panic in Europe, leading to them making concessions. — Tzeentch

I'm still confused as to what those concessions are exactly. From what I've heard about the framework deal it was essentially just the same arrangement that previously existed which already gave the US full control over Greenland's defense. At the very least when they did their thing in Venezuela they got Maduro. If he's gonna be risking a decades long alliance and causing Europe to seriously reconsider it's ties to the US then I was expecting something more tangible to be honest.

He was against the reckless expenditure when he was the prime minister of NL; now he is pushing for more expenditure just to woo Trump. Are they clowns, or am I the blind dude who is not seeing what is going on? — javi2541997

I don't think you are blind.

That talk "reckless expenditure" I assume is before his last years of being a prime minister (2010-2024). The Russian invasion of Ukraine change a lot. Prior I lived in a nonaligned country where nobody was seriously demanding the country to join NATO. It was an possible option in a theoretical future. So a lot has changed.

A country that allows a five-year-old to be detained, who uses him as bait, is broken

Is this genuinely something you want to stand behind? Be very careful.

It’s just my opinion after watching the speech. Can you say you watched it and found it coherent?