US - Greenland Crisis Thread

[Zanza]

Donald Trump has said "it may be a choice" for the U.S. between pursuing his ambition to take control of Greenland and keeping NATO intact.

The U.S. president was asked in a two-hour interview with the New York Times on Jan. 7 whether acquiring Greenland mattered more to him than preserving the 76-year-old military alliance — a question that has taken on new urgency for America's European allies in recent days as Trump and his colleagues have escalated their rhetoric about obtaining the self-ruling Danish territory.

Trump did not answer the question directly but acknowledged that his administration may have to choose between the two, according to the newspaper's account of the conversation published on Thursday.

Trump, when asked why he wanted the U.S. to control Greenland, said: "Because that's what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can't do with, you're talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can't get from just signing a document."
The U.S. president also told the Times he did not feel answerable to international law and was constrained only by his own conscience. "My own morality. My own mind. It's the only thing that can stop me," he said.
"I don't need international law," he added.

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-interview-us-greenland-grab-nato-preservation-choice/

Same question that was asked before: What would he do different if he was a Russian asset. I can't think of a quicker and easier way to destroy NATO.

I guess even the Republicans in the senate would not follow him if they would have to actively decide to destroy NATO. But a quick fait accompli by Trump could destroy it. Which would obviously be a strategic victory for Russia.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I actually think at this point NATO going away would potentially be the best thing to ever happen to Europe--Europe needs something to wake them out of their comfort and obsession with the idea the continent can simply be a giant resort where no country has to deal with anything serious. The obsessive idea that because Europe started two world wars, it is now retired from serious geopolitics.

The first order of business if NATO died would need to be--if Europe was serious about not falling into complete domination by Russia, immediate movement of significant European armies to the Baltics, France, Britain, Germany, Poland would need to agree to this very quickly or Europe will be picked apart at least on its peripheries.

But down the road, this could be the impetus for a real renaissance of European power.

I feel like people sometimes forget most of the Euro militaries were actually formidable during the Cold War, if rather untested. People act like some of these countries haven't had a real military since WW2, it's really only been since the early 1990s things got this dreadful with European defense.

[Jacob]

I actually think at this point NATO going away would potentially be the best thing to ever happen to Europe--Europe needs something to wake them out of their comfort and obsession with the idea the continent can simply be a giant resort where no country has to deal with anything serious. The obsessive idea that because Europe started two world wars, it is now retired from serious geopolitics.

Yeah, I tend to agree. The old order is dead and decaying, basically.

The question of whether it's "the best thing to happen for Europe" comes down to whether Europe responds to this with a sort of renaissance or whether it becomes a spoil to be divided among the other major geopolitical actors.

The first order of business if NATO died would need to be--if Europe was serious about not falling into complete domination by Russia, immediate movement of significant European armies to the Baltics, France, Britain, Germany, Poland would need to agree to this very quickly or Europe will be picked apart at least on its peripheries.

As per Sheilbh, maybe Europe doesn't have these very significant armies? I guess the question then is whether Europe can establish sufficient air superiority to make up the difference until it can raise such armies (if that's even how it works).

But down the road, this could be the impetus for a real renaissance of European power.

I feel like people sometimes forget most of the Euro militaries were actually formidable during the Cold War, if rather untested. People act like some of these countries haven't had a real military since WW2, it's really only been since the early 1990s things got this dreadful with European defense.

I think the thing is that Europeans have also largely forgotten this (not all, of course, especially among the strategy player segment of the population).

The question, I guess, is to what degree Europe can get its shit together before being critically wounded by adversarial forces (some of which have significant support inside the EU).

Another open question for me is to what degree Europe can get its shit together geopolitically if the Nationalist-Populist faction wins in major European countries. There are power groups within the US who are explicitly in favour of destroying the EU. If Farage / Le Pen / Weidel take power in their respective countries, to what degree will they pivot to support collective European power to enhance their own standing if that collective power is shaped more in their image, and to what degree will they serve the goals of Trump and Putin and the Silicon Valley oligarchs to destroy coherent European power?

[Jacob]

As for Greenland - it seems the current US play is to spend money to seduce the Greenland population (and especially amenable Greenland politicians) into separating from Denmark and submitting to American overlordship.

That's still not the action of an ally or a friend (obviously), but it is also less cataclysmic than forceful annexation.

Personally I believe the threat of force should still be taken seriously - but that that is also Trump's intention, because the threat of force is also an effective negotiation tactic. If Denmark / Greenland / Europe find themselves getting browbeat / persuaded into a peaceful semi-legal transfer of Greenland to US control, part of the items in the "plus" column for that outcome is averting the potential open fighting between the US and European militaries.

[HVC]

Have most European countries given up the draft? If so what are the odds of reinstating them? Thinking along the line of South Korean "real" training.

[Jacob]

Have most European countries given up the draft? If so what are the odds of reinstating them? Thinking along the line of South Korean "real" training.

I believe the draft is coming back in a number of places.

[OttoVonBismarck]

As per Sheilbh, maybe Europe doesn't have these very significant armies? I guess the question then is whether Europe can establish sufficient air superiority to make up the difference until it can raise such armies (if that's even how it works).

The issue is Euro armies have probably gone too far into the slider of quality vs quantity, basically. For things like securing the Baltics there's a kinetic power to having a lot of boots on the ground that isn't easily replicated with advanced weapon systems, highly advanced fighter/bombers, missile systems etc.

The U.S. also has moved that way versus where we were in the Cold War, obviously, but we still have 1.3m active duty, and 800k ready reserve. Some of the European armies are shockingly small in terms of manpower versus where they were in the late 1980s.

It's not that they need to go back to the Cold War level of manpower, mass conscription, etc, but they definitely need more guys under arms, no other way about it. They aren't going to weapon system spend their way into reliable self defense.

They should also learn that a lot of concrete and construction can slow a front down. Poland is building out huge walls of anti-tank barriers that have proven effective at preventing large scale offensives in the Ukraine war, I don't really know enough about what the border regions of the Baltics are like, but if they aren't doing what Poland is they need to be, and yesterday.

Edit to add: If Wikipedia is correct, the UK--one of the generally worse ran post-Cold War European countries, has 135,000 active duty and essentially a non-functional reserve system. That means the Brits have fewer guys ready to fight than Israel did before the Gaza War broke out.

Obviously Israel has more serious security concerns, but it's a tiny country in terms of both population and GDP, it's really not tremendously defensible how far back countries like Britain have neutered their defense capabilities.

[Jacob]

They should also learn that a lot of concrete and construction can slow a front down. Poland is building out huge walls of anti-tank barriers that have proven effective at preventing large scale offensives in the Ukraine war, I don't really know enough about what the border regions of the Baltics are like, but if they aren't doing what Poland is they need to be, and yesterday.

It looks like they got the memo: Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia

[Jacob]

Also, while this could be in the EU or Ukraine thread, it fits the conversation here:

(this is a paywalled article, but the intro paragraph communicates the key point IMO)

Russia's Military Procurement Is a Warning for Europe
Putin's order books reveal plans for conflict well beyond Ukraine

Even as their invasion of Ukraine continues, Russian forces are increasingly testing European defenses with drones, manned aircraft, and warships. These are not merely mistakes or simple reconnaissance operations—they're an attempt to normalize intrusion. And behind each probe sits a retooled and increasingly efficient military-industrial machine: shipyards churning out ice-capable submarines, missile factories running three shifts to stockpile long-range strike weapons, and explosives plants expanding to strategic scale.

A closer look at Moscow's military procurement decisions highlights why Europe must prepare for a campaign of sustained Russian pressure well beyond Ukraine. Within Russia's naval and missile sectors, which matter most for the European theater, three alarming trends are visible: rapid growth in production facilities, clear prioritization of strategic platforms, and investments aimed at long-term operational endurance rather than a short wartime surge.

Link: https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/01/07/russia-ukraine-putin-europe-drones-missiles/

[Jacob]

As for Greenland - it seems the current US play is to spend money to seduce the Greenland population (and especially amenable Greenland politicians) into separating from Denmark and submitting to American overlordship.

What I meant here is that Ronald Lauder (Estee Lauder billionaire, closely aligned with Trump) has spent lots of money investing in small Greenland companies, coincidentally owned by either Greenland politicians or their spouses.

[Josquius]

As for Greenland - it seems the current US play is to spend money to seduce the Greenland population (and especially amenable Greenland politicians) into separating from Denmark and submitting to American overlordship.

That's still not the action of an ally or a friend (obviously), but it is also less cataclysmic than forceful annexation.

Personally I believe the threat of force should still be taken seriously - but that that is also Trump's intention, because the threat of force is also an effective negotiation tactic. If Denmark / Greenland / Europe find themselves getting browbeat / persuaded into a peaceful semi-legal transfer of Greenland to US control, part of the items in the "plus" column for that outcome is averting the potential open fighting between the US and European militaries.

Curious they're trying it. This always struck me as a workable idea in such things. With Diego Garcia it seemed an obvious course too yet wasn't taken.

I mean, America has the money to make every Greenlander a multi millionaire.
I expect there'd be many of them quite happy to sell their country in exchange for $10 million each.

[HVC]

Have most European countries given up the draft? If so what are the odds of reinstating them? Thinking along the line of South Korean "real" training.

I believe the draft is coming back in a number of places.

That's good. Well, not good exactly, prudent? Hopefully it's they're effective training and not just filling barracks and numbers.

[Jacob]

Another area to watch: ratification of the most recent EU-US trade deal

EU Parliament eyes freezing US trade deal over Trump's Greenland threats
Unpopular trade agreement could be blocked because of U.S. president's rhetoric on seizing Greenland.

BRUSSELS — Senior EU lawmakers want the European Parliament to freeze the EU-U.S. trade deal in response to Donald Trump's threats to take over Greenland.

The deal was deeply unpopular across party lines as it was seen as overwhelmingly favoring Washington, but European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sold it as the price of keeping Trump onside. However, Trump ratcheted up his rhetoric this week, saying "we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security," and has repeatedly refused to rule out military intervention.

As a result, MEPs from the center-left, liberal, green, and left-wing groups say the deal should be blocked.

"I cannot imagine that in the current situation MEPs would vote for any trade measures benefiting the U.S.," the Greens' top trade lawmaker and chair of the Internal Market Committee Anna Cavazzini told POLITICO.

"We should have such a discussion, it's inevitable," added Brando Benifei, the Socialist lawmaker who chairs Parliament's delegation for relations with the U.S.

Under the deal, most EU exports are subject to a 15 percent U.S. tariff. To complete its side of the bargain, the EU also needs to pass legislation to abolish all tariffs on U.S. industrial goods, including the 10 percent it currently slaps on U.S. cars, and ease market access for some farm produce and seafood.

"If we are to give it the green light, we need guarantees that the U.S. will stop its tariffs and its security-related threats," said Renew's trade heavyweight Karin Karlsbro. "The United States cannot take the EU's support for the trade agreement for granted."

Danish MEP Per Clausen, of The Left group, has circulated a letter among all MEPs asking them to support his call for Parliament President Roberta Metsola to freeze parliamentary work on the deal. The deadline for adding signatures is Tuesday.

"If we accept this agreement while Trump is threatening the international order and making direct territorial claims against Denmark, it will be seen as rewarding his actions — and will only add fuel to the fire," Clausen said.

The biggest political group in the Parliament, the European People's Party (EPP), remains noncommittal.

"These are separate matters," said Željana Zovko, the group's negotiator on the U.S. file, when asked whether the Parliament should freeze the trade deal over Greenland.

The EPP's top trade MEP, Jörgen Warborn, left the door to blocking the trade deal ajar. While the EU "must preserve" the deal as a basis for stable transatlantic trade, he said, "we are ready to act if necessary."

But the EPP lacks the numbers to pass the deal with right-wing and far-right allies alone. A united front by the Socialists, Renew and the Greens would be enough to put the agreement on ice.

The Parliament's U.S. deal negotiators will meet on Wednesday to discuss next steps.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-parliament-eyes-freezing-us-trade-deal-over-donald-trump-greenland-threats/

[Zoupa]

Have most European countries given up the draft? If so what are the odds of reinstating them? Thinking along the line of South Korean "real" training.

I believe the draft is coming back in a number of places.

That's good. Well, not good exactly, prudent? Hopefully it's they're effective training and not just filling barracks and numbers.

It was always filling barracks and numbers.

[HVC]

Have most European countries given up the draft? If so what are the odds of reinstating them? Thinking along the line of South Korean "real" training.

I believe the draft is coming back in a number of places.

That's good. Well, not good exactly, prudent? Hopefully it's they're effective training and not just filling barracks and numbers.

It was always filling barracks and numbers.

I'm hoping v2.0 is better. In a world where Europe doesn't have a reliable partner in America one would hope they would take the draft seriously. I mentioned Korea as an example. But perhaps that hope is misguided and naive.