What a waste of resources to have to defend against one of your closest allies. This is a country that went to war on behalf of the US in Afghanistan (and lost 44 souls doing so). Disrespectful and shameful.
I feel like this is all going to end up with Denmark agreeing to long-term resource share with USA where USA gets something like 85% in exchange for Denmark getting to keep the title.
Nobody is going to war over this and Denmark/EU wants to save face.
> Nobody is going to war over this and Denmark/EU wants to save face.
I'm not so sure. Between all of Trump antics, and Russia's invasions, I think they're starting to realize that if you let the bully take the small things you don't especially care about, they're just going to demand bigger things.
Americans were very efficiently suppressing such ideas. They were never interested in Europe having effective army. They only wanted to sell equipment and partially support their bases with European money. When the school bully is your "friend" you don't exactly have the freedom to do what's best for you.
Obviously sycophants of the dictator taken over all civil institutions as evidenced by the quality of this term when compared to previous one.
But are there any signs that they have taken over the military? Iran and Venezuela was something they had in mind for decades. But are there any generals itching to test themselves invading Greenland against European military? They don't have to obey the civilians. Rule of law is a thin veneer that this president stripped clean. Now personal interests of the people in power is what matters. Are there any generals with personal interest to invade Greenland and fight Europe? They obviously can develop some but it should take few years at least, right?
They do not really care until the United States takes Greenland. Or NATO outright attacks Russia. Then they do care.
Because controlling Greenland means whoever has it gets excessive control over the Arctic Sea. And both parties, but especially Russia, do not want a party like the United States to have this amount of control given the Arctic is in their backyard.
We already have military bases there and I'm sure Greenland wouldn't have cared if we asked for a few more. This is all to stroke someone's ego and get their name in a history book.
Currently USA only has one base left: Pituffik Space Base (previously called Thule Air Base). They used to have about 17 bases and several thousand military personnel, but now it's down to about 200.
If USA wanted it, they could establish all the bases they wanted and send more people, but they chose to cut down on military presence over the past years.
Source: Have worked on that last base several years ago.
Also check wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik_Space_Base
About 0%. China really has no serious interest in Greenland, and Russia isn't going to trigger direct confrontation with NATO. At least, unless NATO splinters, which is looking somewhat likely now with this foolish US administration.
Russia and China are just made-up excuses for Trump to do what he wants to do: steal territory, at gunpoint if needed.
Lets just say that Russia or China does some surprise attack and lands a bunch of troops in Greenland.
OK, great, they've got troops in Greenland. Now they have to keep them supplied. How are they going to do that? Well, either through the air or by sea.
Does either have a navy that can do that? No. Does either have an air force that can do that against US opposition? No.
So it's really unlikely. Even if China or Russia were stupid enough to do that, they could never hold it.
Now, perhaps the more interesting question: How likely does Trump think it is? Does he think it's real, despite the absurd impossibility of it? Or is he just saying fact-free stuff that he hopes some people will believe?
And if you think it's ridiculous to focus on a random twitter troll to explain this admin, then you don't understand this admin, because impressing these guys (and this guy in particular) is largely all they do.
Honestly I think he's right. This is all for one man's vanity and the Republicans are fine with letting him do whatever he wants as long it means they get their policy wins and, more importantly, he doesn't post something nasty about them on Truth Social.
higher social benefits, they think they will be receiving them forever.
However Greenlanders live in one part of Greenland and USA wants the other part so there is a simple solution.
Countries without a strong nuclear deterrence don't have a seat at the table in this new geopolitical era. Looking at you, Ukraine, Taiwan and (can't believe I'm saying this) Denmark.
France has a first-strike doctrine. It's unique in the world, and it scares the shit out of everybody. An EU arsenal would be a typical retaliatory-strike doctrine.
A nuclear deterrent is still a deterrent, no matter how small. No country (hopefully) wants to risk any kind of nuclear war. Ukraine would never have been invaded if it still had its nukes.
This is super interesting to watch. NATO will collapse as it is and hopefully Europe will crawl from under the skirt of Americans. I mean being there for 80 years after end of WW2 was a long time to develop some feeling of independence. Greenland is still a price to pay. Carelessness and ignorance aren’t cheap. Or Europe will be only very worried and sad again. I hope not. President Trump is a great wake up call for Europeans. Much better than million russian soldiers.
This is the top post this morning? The issue won't come to military action. But if it did, Denmark could exercise all they want, and it would still last about ten minutes. Not sure how this is relevant to anything.
You are not sure how it's relevant the main pillar of NATO is openly talking about military action against one of the founding members of NATO?
It's relevant since everything in your life right now if you live in any Western country is reliant on this partnership since the end of WW2. If it changes you'll live in a different world, not sure how this is not relevant to you.
Taking Greenland by force against a NATO (supposed?) ally would be the end of "the West" as a largely aligned block since WWII. The effects would be felt by everybody, including technologists.
Sure the US could para a few soldiers in and raise the flag, but then what? US equipment and training isn’t designed for a country where the average temperature is above freezing for only 3 months of the year. When it’s minus 30 Celsius, lubricants gum up, batteries die and you need ice-breaker ships to resupply forces (which the US doesn’t have many of). Denmark and the other Nordic countries do have equipment and training designed for those conditions, and they know the (vast) landscape well, since they train there.
Imagine Afghanistan but against a modern, professional army and with the weather trying to kill you.
Which isn’t to say that it would be impossible, but certainly it would cost more in terms of casualties and money than most Americans realise.
The military base there is small, and the number of troops trained in Alaska is also comparatively small. It also has little dedicated cold-weather gear, and logistical pipelines (especially if Canada refuses to let them in their airspace/waters) with be very hard to set up.
The US may have some understanding of the cold, but the nordic countries have far more, and are far better prepared.
How can you be so certain with that diaper-filler in chief?
Deploying troops looks like an attempt to dissuade invasion by highlighting that the optics of US troops capturing (hopefully not shooting at) NATO troops would be real bad...
> it would still last about ten minutes. Not sure how this is relevant to anything.
I don't think there's much doubt about a US success if it came to that. The relevance—and yes, this is highly relevant—is to determine what would be left of the current world order after those "ten minutes".
Nobody is going to war over this and Denmark/EU wants to save face.
I'm not so sure. Between all of Trump antics, and Russia's invasions, I think they're starting to realize that if you let the bully take the small things you don't especially care about, they're just going to demand bigger things.
list of countries offering some form of allied support, so far: CA DE ES FI FR* IS IT NL NO PO SE UK* (*P5 seat)
But are there any signs that they have taken over the military? Iran and Venezuela was something they had in mind for decades. But are there any generals itching to test themselves invading Greenland against European military? They don't have to obey the civilians. Rule of law is a thin veneer that this president stripped clean. Now personal interests of the people in power is what matters. Are there any generals with personal interest to invade Greenland and fight Europe? They obviously can develop some but it should take few years at least, right?
If serious: agree, Russia or China won't take Greenland.
Because controlling Greenland means whoever has it gets excessive control over the Arctic Sea. And both parties, but especially Russia, do not want a party like the United States to have this amount of control given the Arctic is in their backyard.
The US had military bases in Greenland when Soviet nukes had to be delivered with bombers flying over Greenland.
When ICBMs became a thing, those bases weren't as important anymore.
2. Russia can't even expand their presence to Ukraine (not a NATO memeber).
3. China has no access.
So, 0%.
Russia and China are just made-up excuses for Trump to do what he wants to do: steal territory, at gunpoint if needed.
OK, great, they've got troops in Greenland. Now they have to keep them supplied. How are they going to do that? Well, either through the air or by sea.
Does either have a navy that can do that? No. Does either have an air force that can do that against US opposition? No.
So it's really unlikely. Even if China or Russia were stupid enough to do that, they could never hold it.
Now, perhaps the more interesting question: How likely does Trump think it is? Does he think it's real, despite the absurd impossibility of it? Or is he just saying fact-free stuff that he hopes some people will believe?
And if you think it's ridiculous to focus on a random twitter troll to explain this admin, then you don't understand this admin, because impressing these guys (and this guy in particular) is largely all they do.
Dumbest fucking timeline ever.
Let's hope it's respected
Denmark apologised to the indigenous people of the country.
Frankly if you voted for Donald Trump, you're a traitor to America.
France has a first-strike doctrine. It's unique in the world, and it scares the shit out of everybody. An EU arsenal would be a typical retaliatory-strike doctrine.
https://bilder.deutschlandfunk.de/72/d7/aa/c5/72d7aac5-be14-...
https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/17070508372...
This is not a wake up call. This is more like being stabbed while sleeping over at your best friend's house.
You are not sure how it's relevant the main pillar of NATO is openly talking about military action against one of the founding members of NATO?
It's relevant since everything in your life right now if you live in any Western country is reliant on this partnership since the end of WW2. If it changes you'll live in a different world, not sure how this is not relevant to you.
Imagine Afghanistan but against a modern, professional army and with the weather trying to kill you.
Which isn’t to say that it would be impossible, but certainly it would cost more in terms of casualties and money than most Americans realise.
The US understands cold.
The US may have some understanding of the cold, but the nordic countries have far more, and are far better prepared.
How can you be so certain with that diaper-filler in chief?
Deploying troops looks like an attempt to dissuade invasion by highlighting that the optics of US troops capturing (hopefully not shooting at) NATO troops would be real bad...
I don't think there's much doubt about a US success if it came to that. The relevance—and yes, this is highly relevant—is to determine what would be left of the current world order after those "ten minutes".