US - Greenland Crisis Thread

[Syt]

This is similar to the seizure of Maduro (and the bombing of Venezuelan ships as well) as the administration has only provided the barest of reasons why this had to be done (and, at least in part consequently, support for Maduro's seizure is only about 40%, about half of what it was for Noriega's seizure.)  In this case the US is supposed to need Greenland for security reasons, but what those reasons are has not (as far as I know) been laid out (and certainly not to the point that it would justify military action).  Trump seems to think that he doesn't need to build public support either because he thinks the public always supports him or because he simply doesn't care.

To quote the senator of Ghorman: "They have no shame, do they? They don't even bother to lie badly anymore. I suppose that's the final humiliation."

[HisMajestyBOB]

What proportion of the GOP would turn against trump, you think? Would any MAGA types do it? After all commie Europeans are killing brave US soldier trying to liberate the poor Greenlanders.

The government is not even bothering to build that narrative.

This is similar to the seizure of Maduro (and the bombing of Venezuelan ships as well) as the administration has only provided the barest of reasons why this had to be done (and, at least in part consequently, support for Maduro's seizure is only about 40%, about half of what it was for Noriega's seizure.)  In this case the US is supposed to need Greenland for security reasons, but what those reasons are has not (as far as I know) been laid out (and certainly not to the point that it would justify military action).  Trump seems to think that he doesn't need to build public support either because he thinks the public always supports him or because he simply doesn't care.

I mean, he's also pretty much been right to think that too. His party will fall in line and his abysmal approval ratings with everyone else won't matter.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

In what way though?

In the same way he is "running Venezuela".  By getting on TV and saying it.

[Jacob]

Sheilbh has a theory that they have local collaborators in Venezuela already, they're just rolling it out slowly.

It would be competent.

[Sheilbh]

A couple of thoughts.

What could Denmark and/ or the EU do in response? What can they do in anticipation? I'm interested both in what actions they could theoretically do (even if unlikely) and the likely consequences, as well as the ones they're more likely to do (and we all know the cynical "strongly worded letter" take).

Bluntly. I'm not sure there's much of anything they can do if the US determines to do it.

Denmark - with any European allies - could deploy a number of troops to Greenland, with instructions to resist any American hostile actions (and perhaps instructions to seize American installations if possible).

How? I'll come back to this but there isn't a single European military deployment that is not underpinned by American force. They provide the logistics of everything. This was even true of France's war on terror in the Sahel.

If the US navy and airforce are involved I'm not really sure how anyone in Europe would deploy or sustain troops in Greenland - frankly not sure it'd be possible without US support.

The End of NATO

In practical terms, I agree with Mette Frederiksen that US military action against Greenland would be the end of NATO, but what would it mean concretely?

Would countries like Denmark - and whatever aligned European allies - formally leave NATO? Or alternately, would NATO remain as an empty shell, with everyone knowing the alliance is functionally dead?

I think probably the latter.

How robust is the European military structure if it has to replace NATO as the primary C&C structure in place of NATO?

Would NATO offices and facilities be closed in Bruxelles and elsewhere?

As mentioned which I think is key, I think every single European deployment including NATO deployments within Europe rely on American logistics. I don't think that's easy to replace, particularly the strategic air stuff. Building that is, I think, essential. And I would flag this ties into the general degradation of physical infrastructure in Europe.

In part that's deliberate - it's the way NATO was supposed to work with us all being little cogs in a bigger machine. But it does mean a big problem with the central cog is a huge issue.

I'd add as this sound frivolous but I'm not sure it would be. An advantage of the US in NATO is that is that it's able to lead it - meaning a bunch of similar sized countries don't fight it out for the top jobs and everyone (except, on occasion, the French) fits within a fixed command structure. I think there'd be a real risk of quite big fights over the top jobs and how any sort of shared command structure would be managed.

I would also just add, apropos of nothing, that the UK-EU defence agreement has been held up for about a year over fisheries (in particular requests around fishing rights from France and Denmark).

Expelling Diplomats

I suppose that expelling a number of diplomats, spies, military attaches, and so on from various European countries. That would potentially put a bit of a dent in Trump's project to subvert European democracy and lobby for his various oligarch allies when it comes to the EU regulatory environment

I hate this I would get it for Denmark but I think even with Russia, European states have been far too keen on reducing diplomatic contacts. We are behaving as if diplomacy with us is a privilege rather than a tool for the benefit of both sides.

I think we need to get back to a bit of Cold War realism on this sort of thing. Even at the worst points embassies were open, meetings were held - precisely because they were the worst, highest risk, most dangerous times. That's not when you cut out your eyes. And yes the Soviets poured vast resources into disrupting our societies and spying on us but we did likewise. But I think we should already recognise the Taliban and new state in Syria and have embassies up and running in Kabul ad Damascus, for example.

The EU holds a large number of US Treasuries. Selling them off en masse could seriously damage the US economy, but obviously it would also have a significant impact on European economies (and elsewhere around the world).

Yeah Europe can absolutely do economic pressure depending on how much pain it's willing to endure because Europe exports a lot to the US and I'm not sure there's an alternative buyer out there. Europe's already facing increasing pressure from cheaper Chinese production plus a more protectionist US which leaves very little room for manouevre. And both the US and China known this.

On Treasuries I'm not sure. I'm unclear how much of that is actually held by governments or in a way that governments can determine policies like a sell-off and how much are just in the envelope of a corporate/investment structure in, say, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands or Luxembourg.

What are other potential tools in the Danish and European tool boxes? How likely are they to be used? And what are likely US responses to those tools being used?

I think at this point persuasion is basically about it. Try to persuade, try to delay, play for time and build up those other resources that currently don't exist outside the think tank paper.

Will the UK go all in on the US? Will it try to straddle the gap with its "special relationship" (that's kind of what I expect, and I will consider it insufficient)?

No idea. Starmer's part of the joint statement of European leaders (that included Macron, Merz, Tusk, Sanchez, Frederiksen and, I think most strikingly, Meloni). I think we'd be unlikely to back it - on the other hand it's the core of the British state's policy since Suez to not allow a crack of daylight between us and the US, because it ends badly.

But my basic view was set out by Sir Alex Younger who's former head of MI6 (he was talking about Venezuela) "we need to focus on the main game [...] rebuilding our relations with hard power." I'm sort of the view that by all means make a statement about it now backing Denmark but any time or energy or thought that isn't spent on fundamentally re-arming and building state capacity is a distraction.

[mongers]

I'll go with what I said earlier in the trump thread:

The acid test will be in a few months, maybe even weeks when trump attacks a democratic country and Western leaders have to choose on which 'side' of the current fence they come down on.


Though saying that, it's not improbable that action against Greenland is imminent, perhaps even within 48 hours. 

What the Danish PM said implies very serious concern, though the way that was couched 'in terms of NATO ending' might egg trump on, oh and also because it was said by a woman will nark him.

[Grey Fox]

FWIW former Swedish PM and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has said that it's likely that the US "will use brute force against Denmark within the coming six months".

Please someone wake me up from this nightmare

I'm sorry too. They'll be sorry too when sabotage starts affecting their state buildings in the most northern states.

[grumbler]

Sheilbh has a theory that they have local collaborators in Venezuela already, they're just rolling it out slowly.

It would be competent.

I was listening to a former US ambassador (the real State Department kind of ambassador) to Venezuela who is pretty convinced the Venezuela is about to go warlord, with different strongmen effectively taking over the various provinces and perhaps starting to fight over the spoils. That would make US success there costly and uncertain, which is exactly the situation oil companies (or any other kind) eschew.

[Valmy]

Sheilbh has a theory that they have local collaborators in Venezuela already, they're just rolling it out slowly.

It would be competent.

Does he? Sorry Sheilbh, you have to be the biggest sucker around to think these guys secretly have a plan. George W Bush didn't.

[Zoupa]

A couple of thoughts....

You keep harping about logistics being dependent on the US but I really don't know where you get that idea from. France alone has 67 heavy airlift planes and 14 tanker/refueling planes. Brits have 30 heavy airlift and 14 tankers.

The reason the US was involved in the Sahel operations is because they wanted to be.

[The Minsky Moment]

Sheilbh has a theory that they have local collaborators in Venezuela already, they're just rolling it out slowly.

It would be competent.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to do it that way.

It does appear that CIA was trying to work some key players in the government to try to engineer something like this, but then Trump prematurely took action to grab Maduro before a real plan was in place. It makes no sense to do this before you have the post-Maduro plan reasonably in place.

I might be willing to entertain the contrary if I had any level of confidence in the coherence of the administration decision making process.  But there is no process at all. It's a scrum of courtiers and caporegimes scheming to shove half-baked ideas in front of the President's eyes (and pen) before his day old puppy attention span shifts. 

It also doesn't help that Trump's understanding of the Venezuelan oil industry and reserves and what would be involved to monetize them is so comically naive.

Occam's razor - if it looks half-baked and comes out of a process we know is badly flawed, it probably is what it looks like.

[The Minsky Moment]

You keep harping about logistics being dependent on the US but I really don't know where you get that idea from. France alone has 67 heavy airlift planes and 14 tanker/refueling planes. Brits have 30 heavy airlift and 14 tankers.

Yeah my thoughts on this are similar to when the question came up in the other thread whether Germany could move troops across the country.  Of course they could.  And of course Europe could move troops to Greenland. They have boats and planes, they have people that can use them.  You can debate how many and how fast, and whether the transport operation would meet the highest of operational standards.  But it could be done.

[Josquius]

So....whats the best Greenlandic approach in all this?
I guess some sort of charm offensive on the American public? Try and get some amusing viral videos going?
Underline the fact that they're a Native American nation that wants to be left alone?- likely to enrage MAGA but could help poke others to support them more....bringing on the liklihood of shit but boosting the slim chances of unrest in America from it.

It would be quite the one sided war of course... but I do think not as much as many are presenting. I hear the US is pretty bad at arctic warfare- that side of NATO defence was left to the UK and Scandinavians.  A bit much to imagine a full winter war situation what with the Americans already having all the forces there... but certainly a lot of potential for frozen yanks.

[Tonitrus]

The American "forces" there are probably just an undermanned (we usually always are, in balance of the missions required) US Air/Space Force unit supporting a Cold War-era early warning station.  None of the personnel there would be at all effective in taking over Greenland. 

[celedhring]

The American "forces" there are probably just an undermanned (we usually always are, in balance of the missions required) US Air/Space Force unit supporting a Cold War-era early warning station.  None of the personnel there would be at all effective in taking over Greenland. 

Well, if they ever get serious about this, the first move will be to beef up that base.