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.
I disagree. I think that the US could very easily trigger a war here (I suspect that's the intention), and not a war that would be contained to Greenland. It's not just about Greenland or Denmark, after all.
> 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".
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.
[flagged]
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
I disagree. I think that the US could very easily trigger a war here (I suspect that's the intention), and not a war that would be contained to Greenland. It's not just about Greenland or Denmark, after all.
Greenland and Denmark have always been encouraging minerals deals etc, they just haven't materialized.
Agree, under threat of coercion.
> 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.
thoughts on a potential legal framework re: Operation Arctic Endurance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46630190
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)
Europe, reactive not proactive.
As a European (but not Danish), I feel like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Denmark is quite proactive.
Out of curiosity, what do you think they should have done?
I suppose the answer would be "build a better army, 20 years ago".
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?
I wonder how likely Trumps assumption, that Russia or China will take it if he doesn't, is..
Take it? You mean go to war with NATO over Greenland?
impossible, like war for Cyprus
I wonder if that was a joke or not. :)
If serious: agree, Russia or China won't take Greenland.
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.
That sounds reasonable but it's not IMHO. What kind of control is that?
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.
Zero. Denmark belongs to the EU and NATO, and Greenland has always had a significant NATO military presence to deter any possible threat.
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.
1. The U.S. has multiple bases in Greenland. Denmark, and NATO are also present.
2. Russia can't even expand their presence to Ukraine (not a NATO memeber).
3. China has no access.
So, 0%.
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
The real problem is so many in the Trump base thinks "America Bigger? Trump good."
Today, the US can defend Greenland as part of NATO, and would have the support of the other NATO nations.
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.
In modern world if you want to estimate validity of the message it's a better heuristic to consider the source than the message itself.
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?
If anyone is wondering why MAGA is obsessed with Greenland: https://www.deadcarl.com/p/the-perverse-interest-in-greenlan...
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.
Dumbest fucking timeline ever.
[flagged]
Greenland made their choice: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3kw5ezepo
Let's hope it's respected
I'm grateful that they have a choice.
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.
How about we not look for ways to rationalize our current evil behavior.
Is it wrong to give people a choice? Please refrain from making political statements.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3kw5ezepo
What has this got to do with anything. The History is now and the now is that Greenlanders own Greenland, they are independent from Denmark.
Denmark apologised to the indigenous people of the country.
Frankly if you voted for Donald Trump, you're a traitor to America.
No.. I'm just saying that Greenland should have a choice.. It's not a political statement.
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.
Yeah, maybe this will make the case for converting France's arsenal to an EU arsenal.
This would be bad for the EU.
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.
The conversion could include a doctrine change.
There is a French tripwire force on the ground now as well. Denmark has allies.
pics (for anyone who prefers a bit more subtlety in their international relations):
https://bilder.deutschlandfunk.de/72/d7/aa/c5/72d7aac5-be14-...
https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/17070508372...
How would nuclear deterrence work for small entities like Denmark or Taiwan against huge entities like US or China? it only works at similar sizes
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.
It made North Korea essentially invulnerable.
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.
> President Trump is a great wake up call for Europeans.
This is not a wake up call. This is more like being stabbed while sleeping over at your best friend's house.
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.
> 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.
Because the hacker community is worried about it, and because it is such a nonce thing to do yet it is still being threatened.
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 US has a military base on Greenland now, and has had more in the past. We also have experience in Alaska and the South Pole.
The US understands cold.
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.
> The issue won't come to military action.
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...
Seema like you don’t want to be bothered about the ugly side of what you voted for.
It's about what happens globally after an occupation
> 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".
for a "rule of law" analysis, see also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46633038