Mikael Damsten

Business lawyer, Tax-issues, Transactions related questions.

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

@mikebty @c_w_d101 @ZelenskyyUa You better stay at your tourist business some where else. Perhaps you know tourist business better, than the illness of the Russian mind and mindset!

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

@ivanpuopolo Niinpä, yksi suomalainen sotilas vastaa kuinkakohan montaa vihollissotilas ?

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

Why argue when it would be far more rational to make a DEAL? No one stands to gain from Europe and the United States drifting into confrontation in the current global geopolitical environment. Such a development would benefit only China—perhaps Russia—and, in doing so, would ultimately undermine U.S. interests as well. Although the situation is deeply troubling and legally untenable from the standpoint of international law, the strategic reality is that Greenland is better off under U.S. control than exposed to Russian or Chinese ockupation. Europe has, through prolonged and systemic neglect—most notably its failure to maintain credible defence capabilities—placed itself in a position where it can no longer defend Greenland while simultaneously defending itself against an aggressive Russia. Under these circumstances, it would be both rational and necessary to consider a binding agreement whereby Greenland would be designated a joint strategic area of the United States and Europe. The defence and governance of Greenland would be structured along the lines of the Svalbard Treaty, adapted to contemporary security realities and explicitly excluding Russia and China. As an essential and reciprocal element of such an arrangement, the United States would be required to assume a legally binding commitment to the collective defence of Europe against Russian aggression. This commitment should be anchored in U.S. domestic law—through approval by the U.S. Congress—as an explicit condition for the establishment of Greenland as a joint strategic area. Strategic alignment must be underpinned not only by political declarations, but by enforceable obligations.

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

Why argue when it would be far more rational to make a DEAL? No one stands to gain from Europe and the United States drifting into confrontation in the current global geopolitical environment. Such a development would benefit only China—perhaps Russia—and, in doing so, would ultimately undermine U.S. interests as well.
Although the situation is deeply troubling and legally untenable from the standpoint of international law, the strategic reality is that Greenland is better off under U.S. control than exposed to Russian or Chinese ockupation.

Europe has, through prolonged and systemic neglect—most notably its failure to maintain credible defence capabilities—placed itself in a position where it can no longer defend Greenland while simultaneously defending itself against an aggressive Russia.
Under these circumstances, it would be both rational and necessary to consider a binding agreement whereby Greenland would be designated a joint strategic area of the United States and Europe. The defence and governance of Greenland would be structured along the lines of the Svalbard Treaty, adapted to contemporary security realities and explicitly excluding Russia and China.

As an essential and reciprocal element of such an arrangement, the United States would be required to assume a legally binding commitment to the collective defence of Europe against Russian aggression. This commitment should be anchored in U.S. domestic law—through approval by the U.S. Congress—as an explicit condition for the establishment of Greenland as a joint strategic area. Strategic alignment must be underpinned not only by political declarations, but by enforceable obligations.

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

Why argue when it would be far more rational to make a DEAL? No one stands to gain from Europe and the United States drifting into confrontation in the current global geopolitical environment. Such a development would benefit only China—perhaps Russia—and, in doing so, would ultimately undermine U.S. interests as well.
Although the situation is deeply troubling and legally untenable from the standpoint of international law, the strategic reality is that Greenland is better off under U.S. control than exposed to Russian or Chinese ockupation.

Europe has, through prolonged and systemic neglect—most notably its failure to maintain credible defence capabilities—placed itself in a position where it can no longer defend Greenland while simultaneously defending itself against an aggressive Russia.
Under these circumstances, it would be both rational and necessary to consider a binding agreement whereby Greenland would be designated a joint strategic area of the United States and Europe. The defence and governance of Greenland would be structured along the lines of the Svalbard Treaty, adapted to contemporary security realities and explicitly excluding Russia and China.

As an essential and reciprocal element of such an arrangement, the United States would be required to assume a legally binding commitment to the collective defence of Europe against Russian aggression. This commitment should be anchored in U.S. domestic law—through approval by the U.S. Congress—as an explicit condition for the establishment of Greenland as a joint strategic area. Strategic alignment must be underpinned not only by political declarations, but by enforceable obligations.

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

Although the situation is deeply troubling and legally untenable from the standpoint of international law, the strategic reality is that Greenland is better off under U.S. control than exposed to Russian or Chinese influence. Europe has, through prolonged and systemic neglect—most notably its failure to maintain credible defence capabilities—placed itself in a position where it can no longer defend Greenland while simultaneously defending itself against an aggressive Russia.
Under these circumstances, it would be both rational and necessary to consider a binding agreement whereby Greenland would be designated a joint strategic area of the United States and Europe. The defence and governance of Greenland would be structured along the lines of the Svalbard Treaty, adapted to contemporary security realities and explicitly excluding Russia and China. In return, and as a non-negotiable counter-obligation, the United States would be required to commit fully and formally to the collective defence of Europe against Russian aggression, alongside Europe.

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

Vaikka tilanne on masentava ja järjetön kansainvälisen oikeuden kannalta, totean, että on parempi, että Grönlanti on USA:n käsissä kuin Venäjän tai Kiinan käsissä. Eurooppa on laiminlyönyt velvoitteitaan, erityisesti puolustuksensa ylläpidon, niin pitkään, ettei se kykene puolustamaan Grönlantia ja itseään samanaikaisesti hyökkäävää Venäjää vastaan. Tästä syystä olisi perusteltua harkita sopimusta, jossa Grönlanti määriteltäisiin Yhdysvaltojen ja Euroopan yhteiseksi strategiseksi alueeksi, jota puolustettaisiin yhteisesti samaan tapaan kuin koko Eurooppaa, ja jossa Yhdysvaltojen ja Euroopan välinen järjestely perustuisi Huippuvuoria koskevan sopimuksen kaltaiseen malliin, kuitenkin siten, että Venäjä ja Kiina jäisivät sen ulkopuolelle.

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

@QuanGottii In finland Yes, and most likely after a court procedure.

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

@jgindel Yes!

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

@PeriklesGREAT 3/4

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

@WW3finalboss1 Hi-o vieköön !!

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

@irdh34 Finland

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

@ElonMuskZAB 3

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

@IQTestBrain 64

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

@jitendra789789 2

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

@Wisdom_HQ 35 persons

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

@RedLineReportt Of course! Just give me a ballot and we'll see if it's approved in the USA 😆

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

@OlenaRohoza Yes!

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

@lady_valor_07 48

[Mikael Damsten @MikaelDamsten]

@TeemuTLehtinen Kestämätöntä ja myös iljettävää!! Näin käy kun mata on johdettu pääosin politikoilla joilla on politiikka ammattinaan, "Homo Politicus" viimeiset vuosikymmenet. Viherpiipertäjien ja vasurien järjettömät aatteet on päässyt vaikuttamaan kohtalokkain seuraamuksin!!