US-EU split? Troops and vessels from European Nato allies arrive in Greenland

Crazier and crazier.

Well it is interesting and perhaps even hopeful that you can see a non-zero chance of nuclear annihilation over Greenland. Maybe you might begin to see the similar issue with NATO expansion with nuclear weapons to the Russian border.

We can agree on Greenland and our hope for Trump's healtrh.

 

It comes from trump's greed and his incessant need to prop up his weak ego.

 

Greenland is effectively a very valuable geopolitical chess piece that, since it is held by a nation that cannot secure it militarily, will eventually be annexed by a western-hostile military power.

That's the theory, at least.

We could wait until the day one of those antagonists moves on such an impulse, but then we have a hot war.

I guess the idea is if we take Greenland peacefully now we can avoid such a conflict, and strengthen the USA in the process.

I'm kind of a doomer so I agree that this would eventually happen. But I also understand it is basically flushing our moral high ground down the toilet to do this even if it is in theory "for peace".

 

https://www.ft.com/content/b2872a49-3d43-4a55-a483-de7b19e8e436

"EU readies €93bn tariffs in retaliation for Trump’s Greenland threat"

 

Anything is possible, but if Greenland were ever attacked by a major power, the U.S. would be involved regardless. The real question is whether that happens with NATO or without it.

Greenland already sits under NATO’s security umbrella through Denmark, and the U.S. has a permanent military presence there, including Pituffik Space Base, which plays a critical role in missile warning and space surveillance. That means Greenland isn’t something a rival power can just take without triggering Article 5. Denmark alone cannot defend Greenland, but Denmark plus NATO absolutely can.

In that sense, the risk of a move against Greenland is closely tied to the risk of a direct challenge to the U.S. itself. It’s extremely difficult for any rival to act without triggering the collective defense that currently protects it.

Forcibly taking Greenland wouldn’t reduce that risk. It would weaken deterrence by damaging NATO and undermining the alliance structure that actually protects U.S. security. If the U.S. were attacked, NATO would come to its aid. Trading that away in the name of preemptive security would leave the U.S. less secure, not more. You’d be solving a hypothetical future problem by creating a very real present one.

p.s. Suggest reading this: Trump Is Risking a Global Catastrophe - The Atlantic

 

Currently, only about 9% of Republicans support using the U.S. military to take Greenland. That number matters, because it shows most Republicans already understand this would be wrong or dangerous before any action is taken.

If the U.S. were to actually do this, do you really think support would remain at 9%? History suggests the opposite. We’ve seen repeated cases where ideas with little initial support become widely accepted once Trump acts.

That pattern tells us something important: this isn’t primarily ignorance. These are not people who lacked the capacity to judge the issue beforehand. They judged it correctly, which is why they opposed it. The shift happens after the action, not before.

What changes isn’t understanding, but allegiance. Principle, ethics, and prior judgment get subordinated to loyalty. Once the action is taken, the need to justify continued support becomes stronger than the commitment to the original values.

The distorted information ecosystem then plays a secondary but crucial role. It doesn’t create the loyalty; it supplies the rationalizations. People aren’t misled first and convinced later. They commit first, then reshape their understanding of reality to make that commitment feel morally defensible.

If that’s called ignorance, it’s not ignorance in the usual sense. It’s chosen ignorance, or an active willingness to abandon one’s own prior judgment in order to remain aligned. And then, I think at some point, this chosen ignorance set in and becomes reality... which is so extremely tough to get through. I've seen it first hand .

 

Just reminding everyone that Ozempic is a product of Novo Nordisk, a drug company headquartered in Denmark.

Fatties should not want a conflict with Denmark. As for me, I've only put on 40 lbs of good weight since my 30s, so I'm not desperate, but I would like the option.

 

As a non american looking at this, taking greenland is the PERFECT move. morally, no, but militarily and financially, its perfect.

NATO has served its purpose as an alliance vs soviet union, now with a weakened russia, american grip on european energy supply and the moving of financial assets from europe to america, really, the existence of nato no longer benefit america.

With a control over venesuala, effectively controlling the panama canel + a control over the artic trade routes through greenland, america can achieve everything nato provides, without the costs and risks.

moving away from fantasy/dreams, in reality all alliances serve a specific purpose. once that purpose has been fulfilled, the alliance no longer needs to exist. No alliance is forever, heck Bin Laden/China/Russia and America were once allies.

IF america takes greenland, whether we like it or not, 50 years down the track, Trump is going to be remembered as one of the greatest heros in american history.

America no longer can use sanctions to control china, really america have limited leverage over china. Getting Greenland and Venesuala will secure american dominance for another 50 years

 

With all due respect, you're absolutely nuts.

 

Please elaborate mate, really interested to know how americans see this.

Another question for you is do americans really believe america is the defender of freedom/democracy, your wars are to help the locals?

 

Quick question first: you mentioned you’re a non-American. Which country are you from? That context matters for understanding your perspective on NATO.

Let’s keep this simple and take one point at a time.

You say NATO no longer benefits the U.S., but U.S. forces and weapons in NATO countries exist primarily to protect the homeland through forward defense and deterrence. Early warning systems, missile defense sites, air bases, and naval facilities in Europe aren’t charity. They project power, keep threats far from U.S. soil, and provide intelligence that also matters for monitoring China.

If NATO dissolved and those forces were withdrawn, what replaces that strategic depth? Do Greenland and Venezuela give radar coverage of Moscow or track Chinese missiles and naval activity? Naval bases in the Mediterranean? Air superiority over the Baltic? Of course not.

What is the actual replacement mechanism?

 

We have a madman ensconced in the White House, at least the part of it not reduced to rubble, with a majority of Americans not at all happy with what the fool is doing. If you seriously believe what you posted, trying to explain why you are so incredibly wrong would be a waste of my time. I'll pass.

 

Like Stalin is a great Russian hero?

 

“I once asked Barbara Stanwyck the secret of acting. She said, “Just be truthful – and if you can fake that you’ve got it made.” Fred MacMurray

 

The strategic idea about Greenland is that it can be part of Golden Dome. But the other points needed are at least partially, in places that are NATO allies like Germany. Having our presence removed and the alliances severed but invading Greenland isn't a strategic win for the United States.

 

Yall dont realize how utterly insane it is for Americans to be booed in london of all places

 

Kiwi, chch in nz mate

I agree with you on everything you said, it’s pretty much Americas strategy for the last 30-40 years.

but as mentioned in the NSS last year, “containing” China is no longer feasible. Ur point about military deterrence though nato is not going to work against China, the new adversary for America. NATO was meant for the soviets, now with a weakened Russia, European defense gives way to trade route control.

Similar to the first island chain, containing China within it is almost impossible. Chinas continues naval growth has negated its capabilities to limit China with coastal waters.

so strategically positioning in the “American hemisphere” and accepting a duopoly in the world is a more realistic option, again NSS stated this, not me. Leading to future control of Panama canel + artic routes critical to America, similar to Europe and SE Asia of today.

hey man, we can agree to disagree, just my two cents. I’m assuming we watch different news, different narratives, so having different opinions is kind of expected.

 

American Exceptionalism

 

Wait...they've got Neanderthals?