US - Greenland Crisis Thread

[Jacob]

I tend to agree with the Danish prime minister that if the US invades Greenland, that's the end of NATO.

What's the likelihood this will happen?

Recently, the Trumpists have shown that they're in fact going to follow through on what many previously thought (hoped) was empty bluster. Personally, I think it's more likely than not that Trump will make the move before his term is up; unless his popularity and legitimacy is such that he thinks it'll make things worse. On the other hand, I think backstabbing an ally and destroying NATO is the kind of thing Trump will happily use to distract from domestic problems like the economy or Eppstein.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

He'll do it because it's what his idol and handler desires.

One can only hope it makes the euros act, but I'm pretty sure this generation is only capable of wailing, whining and imposing nonsense ideology on the citizens while destroying our manufacturing base and societies.

Like the Americans basically, but impotent

[OttoVonBismarck]

I remain confused what an invasion of Greenland would look like.

The largest military force on Greenland is--the United States. The largest military base on Greenland, is American.

Would he send a few guys to the one or two occupied settlements in Greenland and "occupy them", to what end?

My suspicion is the Greenland issue literally happened like this:

1. Someone in Trump's circle, back during his first administration, made him aware Greenland exists, that almost no one lives on it, and that is has lots of valuable minerals.

2. He decided to say America should have that.

3. He got upset at being ridiculed for it.

4. When he became President again he wanted to prioritize this topic because of his innate and immense attraction to petty grievance.

For #1, the big thing no one probably told him is while Greenland is mineral rich, there's a big reason it doesn't produce many minerals--because it takes more than just having shit in the ground for that shit to be economically viable.

The U.S. has enough of the same critical minerals Greenland has to be self sufficient, the problem isn't a lack of deposits, it's a lack of infrastructure and capability to refine them in amounts that can compete with China. The U.S. could just subsidize all production of these minerals in the U.S. and break free of dependence on China, but that would take focused effort--a hallmark thing Trump is universally terrible at. Instead, we have one company Trump has funneled some money to to subsidize their production, if he just did more of that in the U.S. this wouldn't be an issue.

But again, requires focused effort.

Any Greenlandic production would require massive government subsidization, and the extreme lack of any infrastructure of any kind in most of Greenland means that the end result would likely be more expensive per unit critical minerals than could be produced in the United States.

If you're interested in big subsidies to make unprofitable critical mineral extraction a thing, you could also just cut a deal with Canada, which has deposits as well and even some companies extracting, if the U.S. offered them a deal to subsidize a lot of production such that it would be profitable, those companies would likely happily agree--and I suspect at significantly less cost than Greenlandic production.

But again--if you're willing to throw a bunch of money away to produce critical minerals, you could just do it in the U.S. The U.S. doesn't have a lack of minerals, it has a lack of production.

[DGuller]

Invasion of Greenland will probably happen much like invasion of Crimea.  It will be a "peaceful" takeover from within because the weaker side will not date start shooting at the stronger side. 

[Syt]

I imagine climate change is playing a role in this to some extent at least (not in Trump's brain, but in some of those around him) - the Greenland ice keeps shrinking, and Canada has plenty unsettled space that might become more livable once the Southern US become too hot/dry or sink into the sea (Florida).

[Syt]

Invasion of Greenland will probably happen much like invasion of Crimea.  It will be a "peaceful" takeover from within because the weaker side will not date start shooting at the stronger side. 

I'm genuinely worried what Russia will do if NATO becomes de facto non-functional in such a situation.

[Jacob]

This is definitely going to occupy my attention for a while, and apparently the US administration is going to revisit the topic in about 20 days.

[Jacob]

I started a Greenland specific thread: https://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,16984.0.html

[Jacob]

I remain confused what an invasion of Greenland would look like.

The largest military force on Greenland is--the United States. The largest military base on Greenland, is American.

Would he send a few guys to the one or two occupied settlements in Greenland and "occupy them", to what end?

My suspicion is the Greenland issue literally happened like this:

1. Someone in Trump's circle, back during his first administration, made him aware Greenland exists, that almost no one lives on it, and that is has lots of valuable minerals.

2. He decided to say America should have that.

3. He got upset at being ridiculed for it.

4. When he became President again he wanted to prioritize this topic because of his innate and immense attraction to petty grievance.

For #1, the big thing no one probably told him is while Greenland is mineral rich, there's a big reason it doesn't produce many minerals--because it takes more than just having shit in the ground for that shit to be economically viable.

The U.S. has enough of the same critical minerals Greenland has to be self sufficient, the problem isn't a lack of deposits, it's a lack of infrastructure and capability to refine them in amounts that can compete with China. The U.S. could just subsidize all production of these minerals in the U.S. and break free of dependence on China, but that would take focused effort--a hallmark thing Trump is universally terrible at. Instead, we have one company Trump has funneled some money to to subsidize their production, if he just did more of that in the U.S. this wouldn't be an issue.

But again, requires focused effort.

Any Greenlandic production would require massive government subsidization, and the extreme lack of any infrastructure of any kind in most of Greenland means that the end result would likely be more expensive per unit critical minerals than could be produced in the United States.

If you're interested in big subsidies to make unprofitable critical mineral extraction a thing, you could also just cut a deal with Canada, which has deposits as well and even some companies extracting, if the U.S. offered them a deal to subsidize a lot of production such that it would be profitable, those companies would likely happily agree--and I suspect at significantly less cost than Greenlandic production.

But again--if you're willing to throw a bunch of money away to produce critical minerals, you could just do it in the U.S. The U.S. doesn't have a lack of minerals, it has a lack of production.

I think you're largely right, except that I also think that there's a contingent of his advisers - like Miller but also others - whose approach to foreign policy is grounded in playing games like EU and Hearts of Iron... that is, they want to paint the map, focus primarily on hard power and simple economic indicators, and dismiss soft power altogether.

I also think there's another contingent - among the sci-fi/ post-apocalyptic tech bros - who think they're being long term strategic in securing the mineral rich Greenland for when global warming really fucks everything up.

But fundamentally I agree that it's pretty foolish because - as I understand it - the main reason the US is not exploiting Greenland mineral resources is that no-one, including American companies, have found it economically viable to do so.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Invasion of Greenland will probably happen much like invasion of Crimea.  It will be a "peaceful" takeover from within because the weaker side will not date start shooting at the stronger side. 

I'm genuinely worried what Russia will do if NATO becomes de facto non-functional in such a situation.

Start marching towards Berlin of course. They've made it clear. Whether or not Berlin is a radioactive ruin matters not to Moscow

[Jacob]

Invasion of Greenland will probably happen much like invasion of Crimea.  It will be a "peaceful" takeover from within because the weaker side will not date start shooting at the stronger side. 

It's actually an interesting question in itself... what are they going to do?

Arrest the local police forces and Danish soldiers, killing them if they resist?

Bomb something?

Start funding the local social services?

Fly in a local viceroy and start issuing orders to the local civil servants? Replace all the civil servants?

Maybe there are some shovel ready mineral extraction projects that they feel have been shut down that they'll then start in spite of local objections?

Maybe they'll claim the territorial waters and start aggressively confronting Chinese and Russian assets (if there are any) or something?

I guess they'd take over the airports and control people coming and going using civilian airlines? Maybe?

[Jacob]

I wouldn't rule out the Danes shooting back in spots. Obviously it won't lead to a military victory, but killed nationals - on either side - will inflame the situation further.

[crazy canuck]

As Otto pointed out, the only real military presence in Greenland is the American military base.  Trump could simply declare Greenland to be part of the US.  No "attack" needed.  The US military would simply exert control over the territory.

[Tamas]

So, that happens, Denmark invokes Article 5, USA officially leaves Nato.

What is going to stop Putin to give nuclear ultimatums and start gobbling up the Baltics and Ukraine? I mean sure, UK and France can cause millions of death in a punitive second stroke but Russia can eradicate them from tbe map completely. Without the American nuclear umbrella the only thing holding back Putin is his reluctance to cause suffering and death, and that's , well, you know.

[Duque de Bragança]

I wouldn't rule out the Danes shooting back in spots. Obviously it won't lead to a military victory, but killed nationals - on either side - will inflame the situation further.

Assuming it's not after a now unlikely Greenland independence from Denmark following a referendum or some legitimate agreement, which would really make it easy for Trumpistani forces to claim that they occupied Greenland in self-defense following a claimed encroachment from Russia or even China (why not).

As said by others, « little green men » seem the most likely scenario, a well-planned and executed coup de main, capturing all the ports, admittedly small cities and towns of relevance.

However, if the Danes and the Greenlanders could stall the coup de main by resisting through force, even lightly-armed gendarmerie-like units, while documenting their resistance, and US not-so covert involvement that could cause the failure of such a coup de main.

Of course, if Agent Orange and the resident KGB sociopath were to have already some kind of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact over the Arctic, Greenland or even the EU and its dependant territories, it would not matter so much.

With such a pact, an "independence" scenario from Denmark could be forced upon the Danes, leaving Greenland ripe for the taking, at leisure.

For what, given the extreme constraints of the Arctic environments, remains to be seen.