It differs per community. Some of the more hype-y conferences I’ve submitted to require at least one co-author to review other papers as a condition to submission. I’ve not seen this at less hyped conferences or journals yet, though. But different communities tend to do things very differently, so many people will have different experiences.

Probably many greedy reasons, but my personal favourite speculation: annexing Greenland surrounds Canada and stops any potential aid by its NATO allies in case of an invasion, since annexing Canada is one of the stated objectives of the US now.

In terms of strategy for actual national security, they already got all the access they wanted, if they wanted more all they had to do was ask. If they’re the ones doing the attacking of a common ally, though, they wouldn’t get that access. So it’s only of added strategic value to annex instead of maintaining the alliance if the goal is to attack members of the alliance.

Korean democracy is not dead yet!

Me, checking what the damage is: oh good, my European defence stocks went up 2 to 4 percent today while the American stocks are tanking, happy days!

Me, after thinking on it a bit longer: oh God, my European defence stocks went up while the world economy is taking a hit, better get ready for whatever’s coming

I sometimes wonder now if the plan is to stop having allies, and instead just make an American version of Wagner. Privatised American military fights for the highest bidder, buys lots of material from the American MIC, makes the world a worse place but makes a lot of money of it. I doubt it would be more profitable than a permanent inflow of 2% of the yearly GDP from several of the richest countries in the world, but I wouldn’t put it past them to think that it would be.