Languish.org

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.

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

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.

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 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).

Quote from: DGuller on January 06, 2026, 12:42:19 PMInvasion 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.

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.

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

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 06, 2026, 12:38:54 PMI 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.

Quote from: Syt on January 06, 2026, 12:45:09 PM

Quote from: DGuller on January 06, 2026, 12:42:19 PMInvasion 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

Quote from: DGuller on January 06, 2026, 12:42:19 PMInvasion 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?

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 01:10:35 PMI 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.  :hmm:

Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 01:55:26 PMSo, 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.

Yeah, Russia gets its wish and NATO dissolves.  If Trump is not a Russian asset, he is the best non asset they ever had.

France and the UK then become the main nuclear deterrents?

Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 01:55:26 PMSo, 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.

QuoteUne directive présidentielle du 16 décembre 1961 demandait que les forces nucléaires fussent capables « d'infliger à l'Union soviétique une réduction notable, c'est-à-dire environ 50 %, de sa fonction économique ». Dans cette directive, Charles de Gaulle explique cet objectif : « Dans dix ans, nous aurons de quoi tuer 80 millions de Russes. Eh bien je crois qu'on n'attaque pas volontiers des gens qui ont de quoi tuer 80 millions de Russes, même si on a soi-même de quoi tuer 800 millions de Français, à supposer qu'il y eût 800 millions de Français[12]. »

Dans ses mémoires, l'ancien président de la République Valéry Giscard d'Estaing mentionne un ordre de grandeur analogue, en précisant qu'il avait retenu « comme objectif pour notre frappe stratégique la destruction de 40 % des capacités économiques de l'Union soviétique situées en deçà de l'Oural et la désorganisation de l'appareil de direction du pays[13] ».

Au début des années 1980, la capacité effective de destruction minimale était de l'ordre de 35 % de la population et de 45 % de la capacité de production industrielle de l'URSS[14].

During the Cold War, the objective of the nuclear strike the was between 35 to 50 % of the Soviet population and industry. Of course, less nukes now but it did not account for the UK obviously, and it's Russia only, not the USSR. De Gaulle viewed the USSR as Russia, quite a common view back then, but it's different today.

P-S: regarding UK nukes, can Agent Orange mess with them, if he cosies up to the Kremlin?

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 02:07:10 PM

Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 01:55:26 PMSo, 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.

QuoteUne directive présidentielle du 16 décembre 1961 demandait que les forces nucléaires fussent capables « d'infliger à l'Union soviétique une réduction notable, c'est-à-dire environ 50 %, de sa fonction économique ». Dans cette directive, Charles de Gaulle explique cet objectif : « Dans dix ans, nous aurons de quoi tuer 80 millions de Russes. Eh bien je crois qu'on n'attaque pas volontiers des gens qui ont de quoi tuer 80 millions de Russes, même si on a soi-même de quoi tuer 800 millions de Français, à supposer qu'il y eût 800 millions de Français[12]. »

Dans ses mémoires, l'ancien président de la République Valéry Giscard d'Estaing mentionne un ordre de grandeur analogue, en précisant qu'il avait retenu « comme objectif pour notre frappe stratégique la destruction de 40 % des capacités économiques de l'Union soviétique situées en deçà de l'Oural et la désorganisation de l'appareil de direction du pays[13] ».

Au début des années 1980, la capacité effective de destruction minimale était de l'ordre de 35 % de la population et de 45 % de la capacité de production industrielle de l'URSS[14].

During the Cold War, the objective of the nuclear strike the was between 35 to 50 % of the Soviet population and industry. Of course, less nukes now but it did not account for the UK obviously, and it's Russia only, not the USSR. De Gaulle viewed the USSR as Russia, quite a common view back then, but it's different today.

P-S: regarding UK nukes, can Agent Orange mess with them, if he cosies up to the Kremlin?

Well that's good. Is it known if thst capability has been reached and maintained?

Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 02:13:28 PMWell that's good. Is it known if thst capability has been reached and maintained?

Less nukes as I said, but maintained and modernised, unlike the conventional armed forces which are but a fraction of what they were.

Russia has way more nukes of course, but their maintenance and modernisation is a big question mark.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 12:57:22 PMBut 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.

I read some time ago that part of the issue is that the local government has banned or severely restricted potential extraction operations (I think uranium extraction in particular was banned by local law).  I agree with you, though, that even without that the economics don't work for most potential operations right now.

Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 01:55:26 PMI mean sure, UK and France can cause millions of death in a punitive second stroke but Russia can eradicate them from tbe map completely

They can't totally obliterate Russia, but France alone has enough spicy baguettes to effectively destroy the Russian state and render the result a Pyrrhic victory at best for Russia, with Putin almost certainly not leading whatever comes through the fallout.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 02:07:10 PMP-S: regarding UK nukes, can Agent Orange mess with them, if he cosies up to the Kremlin?

Sorta.  The US and UK have a pooling arrangement for Trident II missiles.  The UK owns 58 missiles, but they don't service them.  When the missiles need to be rotated, UK boats come to King's Bay (the US Atlantic boomer base) and have their missile bodies swapped for missiles from the US reserve.  The UK missiles then get refurbished and put into the US reserve.  Fanta Fuhrer could mess with this arrangement.  It would be a violation of our agreement with the UK, but what does he care?

As has been mentioned UK nuclear warheads sit in American missiles. France is the only independent nuclear capability in Western Europe. Seems reasonably likely to me that rump NATO will write off Greenland and Canada and focus on defense against Russia.

So let's say the US take clear and concrete action to take control of Greenland (maybe doing something from the list upthread)...

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).

Here are some things Denmark - and any European allies - could do in response, with a bunch of thoughts and questions. I'm curious about your perspectives on these (individually or in aggregate):

Resist Militarily

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).

I don't think anyone expects that Denmark (+ any European allies) will resist a determined US effort to take over Greenland for any length of time (though I lack any real understanding of the specifics of arctic warfare in the Greenland context to have any real idea of how it would play out).

That said, actually shooting and killing ostensible allies (and potentially taking casualties) might carry a price for Trump's regime - domestically and internationally - that it could be worth inflicting on the US; and that price might increase with the scale of any killing.

I don't know what the practicalities of increasing Danish and/or European troop numbers in Greenland is prior to any actual US aggression. There's obviously an element of "don't do anything provocative too soon" at play as well. But if there are, say, some French soldiers there willing to shoot back that's a different kettle of fish than dealing with some Danish police officers with small arms or minor naval vessels.

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?

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?

Closing NATO bases in Europe

I've seen some clips with various European generals talking about closing American bases in Europe and expelling their troops. That would a significant impact (and a massive win for Russia) both in terms of European security architecture, but I think also in the US's ability to project force across the world.

If it came to closing bases, I wonder what sort of timelines it would. Is this a "so we're not renewing the lease in 15 years" type thing, or is this a "get out now" scenario? How viable would the bases be if the hosting European country completely refused to cooperate or support it (i.e. could the US potentially say "fuck you, we're staying" and pull that off)?

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

Military and Tech Disentanglement

This is already under way to some extent. To what degree can this process be accelerated? Can ongoing contracts be cancelled (like the UK agreement with Palantir - assuming, of course, the UK decides to side with Denmark)?

I recently saw a piece on a European alternative to Visa/Mastercard financial networks which - if all goes well - could be rolled out in 2027.

Dumping US Treasuries

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).

...

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?

And, of course, there's the question of how coherent Europe will be. How much will other European nations back up behind Denmark, and how robust are they willing to be? France seems pretty committed, but what about other individual European countries?

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)?

Like I said, I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 01:48:07 PMAs 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?

Like would they start paying the salaries of the civil servants? Would they replace the customs and immigrations folks?

Military force is not that central to administrating a territory except as a backstop. One of the many things I'm curious about is how they'd actually administer Greenland - or as you say "exert control". It's clear the thinking is that if Danes resist that administration the might of a fully operational US military will smash that resistance... but what is it the US will actually do beyond putting up some flags?

That's one of the things I'm trying to wrap my head around.

Rotating some mountain troops from France, say chasseurs alpins, or from other countries, Alpini (unlikely) Gebirsjäger (somewhat less unlikely) etc., in Greenland as a symbolic measure is not that difficult if expensive, but meaningless without defining rules of engagement against former allies, and enforcing them, which is the crux of the matter.

Other Nordic troops may not be that easy, with Russia close, if not bordering. Applies even more so to Poland, Balts and Romania.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 06, 2026, 02:21:01 PMI read some time ago that part of the issue is that the local government has banned or severely restricted potential extraction operations (I think uranium extraction in particular was banned by local law).  I agree with you, though, that even without that the economics don't work for most potential operations right now.

Yeah, the local Greenland government approved a Uranium project. Then there was an election, and the new government rescinded the approval (in accordance with their campaigned promises).

Ironically (as I understand it) the new - anti-uranium extraction - government is also more strident on self-governance and potential independence. Basically the Greenlanders who are the most against resource extraction also tend to be the ones more interested in flirting with Trumpism and embracing independence.

It'll be interesting to see how those Greenlanders square that circle (we know how the Trumpists will square it, by ignoring it).

I don't know what the numbers of American military personnel in various European countries are. For countries where the ratio home team/away team is very advantageous having enemy personnel that can be despatched easily may be an advantage (and if we're REALLY lucky not all of them will want to fight their hosts for Trump and will surrender), but in general they are a dagger pointed at the heart of Europe. If we, before the war starts, can get them to go home without shots fired then that's a huge win I think.

If rump NATO doesn't defend Greenland then Russia might start rolling into the Baltics. That alone might make it worth it to fight the US and pray for the US home front to break.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 02:49:17 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 01:48:07 PMAs 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?

Like would they start paying the salaries of the civil servants? Would they replace the customs and immigrations folks?

Military force is not that central to administrating a territory except as a backstop. One of the many things I'm curious about is how they'd actually administer Greenland - or as you say "exert control". It's clear the thinking is that if Danes resist that administration the might of a fully operational US military will smash that resistance... but what is it the US will actually do beyond putting up some flags?

That's one of the things I'm trying to wrap my head around.

I doubt very much the Trump regime would care on bit about the population in Greenland. If this happens, it would likely be more of a colonial model where American companies come in to extract what they want, and the locals are left to fend for themselves as best they can.

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 02:57:38 PMI don't know what the numbers of American military personnel in various European countries are. For countries where the ratio home team/away team is very advantageous having enemy personnel that can be despatched easily may be an advantage (and if we're REALLY lucky not all of them will want to fight their hosts for Trump and will surrender), but in general they are a dagger pointed at the heart of Europe. If we, before the war starts, can get them to go home without shots fired then that's a huge win I think.

If rump NATO doesn't defend Greenland then Russia might start rolling into the Baltics. That alone might make it worth it to fight the US and pray for the US home front to break.

And then face a united Russian American military alliance?  From the European perspective, probably better to save all their resources to fight the Russians.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:00:42 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 02:57:38 PMI don't know what the numbers of American military personnel in various European countries are. For countries where the ratio home team/away team is very advantageous having enemy personnel that can be despatched easily may be an advantage (and if we're REALLY lucky not all of them will want to fight their hosts for Trump and will surrender), but in general they are a dagger pointed at the heart of Europe. If we, before the war starts, can get them to go home without shots fired then that's a huge win I think.

If rump NATO doesn't defend Greenland then Russia might start rolling into the Baltics. That alone might make it worth it to fight the US and pray for the US home front to break.

And then face a united Russian American military alliance?  From the European perspective, probably better to save all their resources to fight the Russians.

Hence my comment above about a likely strategy.

With nothing but respect for our American posters, based on how they rally around the flag when any one of us non-Americans dare critising it, I think if European troops kill attacking American ones, US public opinion will rally against Europeans and NATO, NOT against Trump.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 02:55:30 PM

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 06, 2026, 02:21:01 PMI read some time ago that part of the issue is that the local government has banned or severely restricted potential extraction operations (I think uranium extraction in particular was banned by local law).  I agree with you, though, that even without that the economics don't work for most potential operations right now.

Yeah, the local Greenland government approved a Uranium project. Then there was an election, and the new government rescinded the approval (in accordance with their campaigned promises).

Ironically (as I understand it) the new - anti-uranium extraction - government is also more strident on self-governance and potential independence. Basically the Greenlanders who are the most against resource extraction also tend to be the ones more interested in flirting with Trumpism and embracing independence.

It'll be interesting to see how those Greenlanders square that circle (we know how the Trumpists will square it, by ignoring it).

As I said earlier, if Greenland becomes independent, nobody in Europe will lift a finger in case of a US hostile takeover.

Question is, what can Europe (meaning EU plus Norway and the UK) do, while Greenland is still associated to the kingdom of Denmark. If given a choice between Poland, Baltic lands and Romania on one hand, and Greenland on the other hand, the answer has already been given in previous posts.

Also, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...
Back in João Fernandes Labrador and Corte Real days, Canada, well Labrador, Newfoundland and Greenland were linked. :P

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:01:37 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:00:42 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 02:57:38 PMI don't know what the numbers of American military personnel in various European countries are. For countries where the ratio home team/away team is very advantageous having enemy personnel that can be despatched easily may be an advantage (and if we're REALLY lucky not all of them will want to fight their hosts for Trump and will surrender), but in general they are a dagger pointed at the heart of Europe. If we, before the war starts, can get them to go home without shots fired then that's a huge win I think.

If rump NATO doesn't defend Greenland then Russia might start rolling into the Baltics. That alone might make it worth it to fight the US and pray for the US home front to break.

And then face a united Russian American military alliance?  From the European perspective, probably better to save all their resources to fight the Russians.

Hence my comment above about a likely strategy.

Gotcha

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 03:08:09 PMAlso, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...

Yeah. How likely is it that Canada will resist a US invasion?

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 03:08:09 PMAlso, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...

What can Canada do to stop the occupation of our major population centres near the border - not much. But the logistics of occupying the rest of the country would be a nightmare.  Remember, just BC is larger than France and Germany.

The main issue is how would Europe, if so inclined, support the resistance.  This is the scenario where Canada would need to hope for the US home front to rebel.

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:11:04 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 03:08:09 PMAlso, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...

Yeah. How likely is it that Canada will resist a US invasion?

That is a certainty.  What form the resistance takes is the question.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:14:47 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:11:04 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 03:08:09 PMAlso, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...

Yeah. How likely is it that Canada will resist a US invasion?

That is a certainty.  What form the resistance takes is the question.

Are we talking about resisting as in troops fighting the invading forces, or resisting like Denmark in WW2?

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:11:04 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 03:08:09 PMAlso, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...

Yeah. How likely is it that Canada will resist a US invasion?

According to Agent Orange, they are supposed to request annexation as the 51st state to become biggly rich, so invasion is not – yet – on the cards.
Mexico would get some anti-narcoterrorist raids first.

I don't get these concerns about Russia invading the baltics.
That's the last thing Russia wants to do right now, they're barely keeping their forces in Ukraine supplied at 19th century levels.
Even if America completely disappeared tomorrow they're in no state for taking on NATO - yes. NATO as a whole isn't very well prepared right now. But given Russias struggles against Ukraine would they really want to take on even just Poland or Sweden or Finland?

The US and Greenland... I agree with Jacob that there are strategy gamer, paint the map vibes. Which is disturbing.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:14:27 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 03:08:09 PMAlso, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...

What can Canada do to stop the occupation of our major population centres near the border - not much. But the logistics of occupying the rest of the country would be a nightmare.  Remember, just BC is larger than France and Germany.

The main issue is how would Europe, if so inclined, support the resistance.  This is the scenario where Canada would need to hope for the US home front to rebel.

Saint Pierre et Miquelon would get invaded as well (5,000 islanders), just to be on the safe side. France would be forced to react somewhat.
Otherwise, what? Govt-in-Exile, of Québec at least, there ?
What could be done? Would the US still have bases in the Atlantic such as in the Azores or Iceland?
A UQ coup de main against Canada is not possible, unlike Russia against Crimea or even hypothetically Greenland by the Trumpistan.

Really too speculative.

Quote from: Josquius on January 06, 2026, 03:19:45 PMI don't get these concerns about Russia invading the baltics.
That's the last thing Russia wants to do right now, they're barely keeping their forces in Ukraine supplied at 19th century levels.
Even if America completely disappeared tomorrow they're in no state for taking on NATO - yes. NATO as a whole isn't very well prepared right now. But given Russias struggles against Ukraine would they really want to take on even just Poland or Sweden or Finland?

The Russian gamble would be that, in a scenario where NATO members have said that NATO will be dead, they wouldn't be fighting Poland, Sweden or Finland. Countries start wars that don't make sense all the time.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 03:08:09 PMAs I said earlier, if Greenland becomes independent, nobody in Europe will lift a finger in case of a US hostile takeover.

Yeah for sure, and I think that includes Denmark.

So maybe the coming US push is an attempt to manufacture Greenland independence, or at least enough of an illusion of one that Greenland is abandoned by Europe.

QuoteQuestion is, what can Europe (meaning EU plus Norway and the UK) do, while Greenland is still associated to the kingdom of Denmark. If given a choice between Poland, Baltic lands and Romania on one hand, and Greenland on the other hand, the answer has already been given in previous posts.

Yeah for sure. A very big question from my point of view is to what degree different European countries will rally to support Denmark once it goes beyond signing letters. You mention the UK, but I don't know how much appetite they have for taking practical action against the US, no matter how miniscule.

The thing from my perspective is that rolling over meekly on Greenland makes it very clear to everyone that Europe is powerless and ripe for division into "spheres" as per Putin-Trumpist perspectives. The real trick IMO - even if accepting the loss of Greenland as inevitable if Trump really pushes for it - is to impose a high enough price and accelerate the growth of European strength to the degree it makes repeats less likely. Otherwise we are, IMO, looking at the kick-off of a European "century of humiliation".

QuoteAlso, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...

I'm relatively confident Canada will do nothing beyond making strong statements and memes (edit to add: I understood that to mean in response to the US annexing Greenland. I'll respond to the "if the US attacks Canada" scenario in a separate post).

then the lng from the US stops flowing... and it's not coming from Russia either.
At least the Europeans will reach their net-zero then.

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:16:30 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:14:47 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:11:04 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 03:08:09 PMAlso, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...

Yeah. How likely is it that Canada will resist a US invasion?

That is a certainty.  What form the resistance takes is the question.

Are we talking about resisting as in troops fighting the invading forces, or resisting like Denmark in WW2?

Our military would be quickly overrun, so that phase lasts no more than a couple of days. The more likely resistance is units retreating into the vastness of the Canadian interior and waging guerrilla warfare. 

 

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:39:17 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:16:30 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:14:47 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:11:04 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 03:08:09 PMAlso, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...

Yeah. How likely is it that Canada will resist a US invasion?

That is a certainty.  What form the resistance takes is the question.

Are we talking about resisting as in troops fighting the invading forces, or resisting like Denmark in WW2?

Our military would be quickly overrun, so that phase lasts no more than a couple of days. The more likely resistance is units retreating into the vastness of the Canadian interior and waging guerrilla warfare. 

Gotcha.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 03:25:58 PMYeah for sure. A very big question from my point of view is to what degree different European countries will rally to support Denmark once it goes beyond signing letters. You mention the UK, but I don't know how much appetite they have for taking practical action against the US, no matter how miniscule.

The thing from my perspective is that rolling over meekly on Greenland makes it very clear to everyone that Europe is powerless and ripe for division into "spheres" as per Putin-Trumpist perspectives. The real trick IMO - even if accepting the loss of Greenland as inevitable if Trump really pushes for it - is to impose a high enough price and accelerate the growth of European strength to the degree it makes repeats less likely. Otherwise we are, IMO, looking at the kick-off of a European "century of humiliation".

I agree with all you said. Helping Ukraine is key to both aspects, impose a high price and accelerate or rather resurrect European strength, in some cases. Ukraine surviving the Putin onslaught gives Europe more – critical – time, be it versus Putin and/or an Agent Orange with delusions of grandeur.

Still, Venezuela should keep him busy for a while. I doubt the situation there will be stabilised as in puppet régime in 20 days.

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:11:04 PMYeah. How likely is it that Canada will resist a US invasion?

There would absolutely be resistance.

How effective and long-lasting would depend very much on the specifics of the invasion scenario (is the US invited in by a Conservative government or an Albertan "independence" movement for example)  and how it was carried out (how much killing and destruction happens), I think.

Certainly, there's a very fundamental part of Canadian character that defines itself as being "not American"; and there's been enough of a national discourse on the topic with folks fantasizing about guerilla warfare - both urban in the bush, combined with actions inside the US - that I think many Canadians like to imagine we'd make the US regret invading. I know people who've joined the reserves specifically because they want to be more ready in case the US invades.

Now, how likely is that to translate in to actual resistance if push came to shove? And how likely is the Canadian military to continue fighting like Ukrainians when Russia first rolled in, vs surrendering to save lives? I know what I and many other Canadians would like to think, but I don't think Canada's character has been tested in this way recently enough to be any actual guide. So, we'll see (or rather, we'll hopefully never find out).

And certainly, Canada would have its fair share of Quislings also, no doubt about it.

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".

Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 03:02:11 PMWith nothing but respect for our American posters, based on how they rally around the flag when any one of us non-Americans dare critising it, I think if European troops kill attacking American ones, US public opinion will rally against Europeans and NATO, NOT against Trump.

I think you are wrong.

After Venezuela, there is still Cuba to deal with before claiming total control of the US American hemisphere.
Marco Rubio has a vested interest in it.  :P

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:44:44 PMFWIW 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

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:39:17 PMOur military would be quickly overrun, so that phase lasts no more than a couple of days. The more likely resistance is units retreating into the vastness of the Canadian interior and waging guerrilla warfare. 

Yeah. I think the key part of any potential Canadian military defence is the degree to which they manage create heroic narratives like the Ukrainian defenders of Zmiinyi Island to inspire resistance; and the degree of excess force the US might use to turn the mood more decisively against the occupation.

But yeah, it's incredibly unlikely that Canada could hold off a US invasion unless there was serious internal disarray inside the US military for whatever reason. The name of the game for any Canadian resistance to the US is assymmetrical warfare.

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 06, 2026, 03:46:07 PM

Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 03:02:11 PMWith nothing but respect for our American posters, based on how they rally around the flag when any one of us non-Americans dare critising it, I think if European troops kill attacking American ones, US public opinion will rally against Europeans and NATO, NOT against Trump.

I think you are wrong.

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.

Although, for my part, I still don't think he'd go after Greenland. But you know, worse timeline and all that. I actually think he's more likely to raid Mexico. He has a much easier excuse with the whole war on drugs thing.

Quote from: HVC on January 06, 2026, 03:50:24 PMWhat 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.

Quote from: HVC on January 06, 2026, 03:50:24 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 06, 2026, 03:46:07 PM

Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 03:02:11 PMWith nothing but respect for our American posters, based on how they rally around the flag when any one of us non-Americans dare critising it, I think if European troops kill attacking American ones, US public opinion will rally against Europeans and NATO, NOT against Trump.

I think you are wrong.

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.

Although, for my part, I still don't think he'd go after Greenland. But you know, worse timeline and all that. I actually think he's more likely to raid Mexico. He has a much easier excuse with the whole war on drugs thing.

To clarify, I think the bolded is wrong.

I won't speak for US public opinion...but for MAGA-types, I don't think much of them.

What logistics do we have in the wilderness to supply a Canadian official resistance ? It's not like Ukraine where we'd have a relatively safe population zone. All ours are at the border. I can see a WW2 like popular resistance movement. But with modern tracking and technology I don't know how long they'd last as a  effective covert resistance

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 06, 2026, 03:46:07 PMI think you are wrong.

I hope you are right, and that we never find out.

However, Carl Bildt (former PM of Sweden) does not make me optimistic on this count.

Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2026, 03:53:52 PM

Quote from: HVC on January 06, 2026, 03:50:24 PMWhat 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.

I think they could easily if any sentiment shifts in the US to an invasion.

Quote from: HVC on January 06, 2026, 03:54:54 PMWhat logistics do we have in the wilderness to supply a Canadian official resistance ? It's not like Ukraine where we'd have a relatively safe population zone. All ours are at the border. I can see a WW2 like popular resistance movement. But with modern tracking and technology I don't know how long they'd last as a  effective covert resistance

It can't be that hard to smuggle in a bunch of Chinese drones and European mortar rounds.

But yeah, I think the resistance would have to be decentralized and dissipated. Regular folks living their regular lives, occasionally carrying out attacks against US personnel and infrastructure (and traitors).

More IRA than Viet Cong.

The  amount of National Guard that would need to be called up to occupy Canada would be nuts. I don't think we could even do it.  The best defense would be massive/passive resistance...we could never sustain overcoming it.

(even speculating on this is revolting enough)

As for what US-occupation/control of Greenland would be like...I imagine it would be like rural Alaska.  Mostly shitty and ineffectual.

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 06, 2026, 03:54:11 PMTo clarify, I think the bolded is wrong.

I won't speak for US public opinion...but for MAGA-types, I don't think much of them.

I see, forum specific. I don't know, Raz has already written off Canada as long as zoupa bares the brunt of the conflict :D

Quote from: HVC on January 06, 2026, 04:03:04 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 06, 2026, 03:54:11 PMTo clarify, I think the bolded is wrong.

I won't speak for US public opinion...but for MAGA-types, I don't think much of them.

I see, forum specific. I don't know, Raz has already written off Canada as long as zoupa bares the brunt of the conflict :D

Tamas' charge was forum-specific.  :huh:

So it is a totally separate discussion but Canada is vast, Trump would quickly not have any easy means of resourcing an occupation of Canada. He can do stuff like kidnap Maduro or declare Greenland part of America without Congress, he would need funding that would be beyond what he could simply steal from other parts of the budget to occupy Canada. He wouldn't get the appropriations.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 03:55:16 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:44:44 PMI think you are wrong.

I hope you are right, and that we never find out.

However, Carl Bildt (former PM of Sweden) does not make me optimistic on this count.

Quote attribution is weird.

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 04:11:12 PMQuote attribution is weird.

Oops!  :blush:

I fixed the original attribution.

Also if Trump simply declared Greenland part of America, what would that even entail?

For any sort of commercial activity, he would need U.S. companies and some legal structure for them to operate. He can't run that from Truth Social or from the White House by himself, the bones of that process would be subject to judicial review through numerous lawsuits. I can't imagine any private company, other than one simply stood up by a Trump toady, would sign on to such legal ambiguity. Any private company that participated in the Greenland stuff would very likely lose every contract, every business arrangement etc they have with any country in Europe and probably many elsewhere in the world as well, so I very seriously doubt any of the mining majors get involved.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:48:15 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:44:44 PMFWIW 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

better learn to fly drones I guess

Not that it matters, but:

QuoteIn proceeding this day to the signature of the Convention respecting the cession of the Danish West-Indian Islands to the United States of America, the undersigned Secretary of State of the United States of America, duly authorized by his Government, has the honor to declare that the Government of the United States of America will not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland.

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1917/d881

It absolutely matters.

Not to the Trump administration, of course, but it matters.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 01:08:38 PMI guess they'd take over the airports and control people coming and going using civilian airlines? Maybe?

That worked in the American Revolution (sez Donny).

Should be able to win in court:

QuoteThis Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

We have a poor record with treaties though...just ask the Sioux.

And that part always struck me as odd...could we just engage in a treaty that contradicts/abrogates the Constitution with just a simple Senate ratification? :hmm:

Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 03:02:11 PMWith nothing but respect for our American posters, based on how they rally around the flag when any one of us non-Americans dare critising say stupid shit about it, I think if European troops kill attacking American ones, US public opinion will rally against Europeans and NATO, NOT against Trump.

FTFY.  US posters here have consistently criticized US action where warranted, but also pushed back when non-Americans (and Americans) say dumb things (like your post).

Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2026, 03:53:52 PM

Quote from: HVC on January 06, 2026, 03:50:24 PMWhat 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.

With Maduro they basically avoided what could have been good explanations and instead went all in for nonsense.
It's straight from the Putin playbook. Say something so obviously nonsense it serves as a show of strength and a challenge to see if anyone dares point out you're talking shit.

Quote from: Savonarola on January 06, 2026, 05:00:08 PMThis 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."

Quote from: Savonarola on January 06, 2026, 05:00:08 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2026, 03:53:52 PM

Quote from: HVC on January 06, 2026, 03:50:24 PMWhat 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.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 02:49:17 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 01:48:07 PMAs 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.

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

It would be competent.

A couple of thoughts.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 02:44:32 PMWhat 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.

QuoteDenmark - 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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteHow 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).

QuoteExpelling 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 :lol: 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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteWhat 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.

QuoteWill 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.

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

Quote from: mongers on January 05, 2026, 10:12:58 PMThe 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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:48:15 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:44:44 PMFWIW 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.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 06:00:45 PMSheilbh 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.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 06:00:45 PMSheilbh 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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2026, 06:36:12 PMA 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.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 06:00:45 PMSheilbh 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.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 06, 2026, 07:42:47 PMYou 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.

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.

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. 

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 07, 2026, 04:21:29 AMThe 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.

Quote from: celedhring on January 07, 2026, 04:56:06 AM

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 07, 2026, 04:21:29 AMThe 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.

Doubtful...it is pretty remote, even for Greenland.  I expect any invasion would just be some Marines taking over Nuuk and Trump declaring victory.

It doesn't even make any damn sense from a security standpoint. Like Denmark or an independent Greenland wouldn't be willing to do almost anything we asked them from a security standpoint.

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2026, 10:38:39 AMIt doesn't even make any damn sense from a security standpoint. Like Denmark or an independent Greenland wouldn't be willing to do almost anything we asked them from a security standpoint.

Well they would have . . .

But that is really what it so insane about this.  Denmark was historically one of the most reliable pro-US allies in NATO.  If we wanted to expand security presence in Greenland, or develop strategic resources, or anything else within reason, all we had to do was ask.

The only way this makes sense to me is that it's not Greenland/NATO, or about rare earth minerals & security against Russia, but something to justify Trump getting war powers and declaring stuff like martial law in the US and a way to distract from stuff like the Epstein files.

I think people underestimate the sheer power of attraction that displays of force have for these people, and for many others as well. Especially these days.

How quickly could Denmark push through independence for Greenland?

What's your reasoning here? I'm not sure I follow.

Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2026, 11:59:02 AMWhat's your reasoning here? I'm not sure I follow.

Presumably so Denmark doesn't have to defend it.

The only way for the Europeans, or Denmark itself perhaps, to stop a military takeover of Greenland is to position a defensive force there, say a company of infantry and a frigate. The hope being that the Americans will see reason and not attack.

If the US invades they'll trivially defeat the contingent, but it is going to cost NATO blood to do it. 200 drowned Danish sailors and a dozen dead soldiers is going to kill NATO dead immediately. Even more if it's German and French troops dying. 

But of course, military positioning inside of NATO will also kill NATO, just slower.

It's something like a chicken race. I for one hope that the Europeans stand firm and together and sends a European task force over there. The sooner we rid ourselves of the Americans the better, they are a dead weight on our free society.

Maybe offer the Americans stationed in Europe asylum?

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 07, 2026, 01:10:02 PMMaybe offer the Americans stationed in Europe asylum?

 :lol:

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2026, 12:32:36 PMPresumably so Denmark doesn't have to defend it.

I get the logic, but to me it really comes across as a complete surrender. I mean, it may be that a Sudetenland surrender for "peace in our time" is the right move in a grand strategic sense, but it might also signal weakness and readiness to be exploited further in a way that could backfire.

I see some kind of summit meeting is agreed.

While I find headlines more like poorly written jokes or the beginning of a deeply dystopian series nowadays, I still refuse to countenance that even Donald Trump's band of bandits would throw away everything in this strange gamble.

Quote from: Norgy on January 07, 2026, 01:40:55 PMI still refuse to countenance that even Donald Trump's band of bandits would throw away everything in this strange gamble.

Me to. I have a hard time believing it.

But he has managed to cross those lines of unbelievability several times. I thought this guy was total scum, the human embodyment of everything I hated about the United States, prior to him ever running for President or leading some weird Obama birther movement. But somehow he still manages to shock and amaze me at what a piece of shit he is.

So it might happen.

Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2026, 01:26:21 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2026, 12:32:36 PMPresumably so Denmark doesn't have to defend it.

I get the logic, but to me it really comes across as a complete surrender. I mean, it may be that a Sudetenland surrender for "peace in our time" is the right move in a grand strategic sense, but it might also signal weakness and readiness to be exploited further in a way that could backfire.

Surrender is such an ugly word. Deft maneuvering sounds better.

Denmark could announce Chinese and Russian troops now have a base there.

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2026, 01:48:10 PM

Quote from: Norgy on January 07, 2026, 01:40:55 PMI still refuse to countenance that even Donald Trump's band of bandits would throw away everything in this strange gamble.

Me to. I have a hard time believing it.

But he has managed to cross those lines of unbelievability several times. I thought this guy was total scum, the human embodyment of everything I hated about the United States, prior to him ever running for President or leading some weird Obama birther movement. But somehow he still manages to shock and amaze me at what a piece of shit he is.

So it might happen.

All he has to do is  blame it on Hunter Biden and Obama and his base will rally around it.  The drooling morons will eat that up.  The careerist hypocrits are too scared shitless to say a word against it and may come out claiming that Putin is legit a US ally instead.  The business interests are almost completely focused on short term profits.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 06, 2026, 10:34:33 PMYeah 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.

In the context of American opposition and America trying to seize Greenland?

I'd add on the Germany thing - which is why I think Merz's focus on infrastructure spending as well as the military is so important - the common much you could deploy came from a redacted US military report. The US had to move to barges and river transport for transporting material to Ukraine because of the state of the rail and road system. I don't think that's minor.

I harp on about it because from what I've read from European defence commentators and analysts these are big issues. Maybe they aren't - I could be totally wrong. For example Dr Alexandra Hoop de Scheffer of the German Marshall Fund that Europe is "hyper-dependent" on the US, with particular gaps in "intel, satellites, transportation of troops and air-to-air refuelling". Her assessment is that some of those capability gaps could be filled - with focus and spending - in three years, some probably within five years. I still don't see that focus or spending. But I would say here everyone seems fairly sanguine about Europe's current, immediate capacities right now. I hope you're right but other stuff I read seems quite worrying on that front - and I feel like the last few years have broadly lead me to not taking a sanguine view of things :ph34r:

And I think that's reflected in the way European leaders behave which is incredibly weak towards the US because of our weakness. Combined with, I think, fairly minimal progress on building up independent European defence because those leaders are can't imagine how to convince the public or aren't capable of imagining it themselves (there are exceptions: Denmark has linked higher defence spending to raising the retirement age to 70). I think all of that is captured in the fact that as European spending on defence has increased, for most coutries so has the share of that spending going to American defence companies. (Including Poland who I'm generally very admiring of - but that's in the context of building a diverse base so US spending has increased, but so's spending with French and Korean companies.)

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 07, 2026, 02:24:57 PMAll he has to do is  blame it on Hunter Biden and Obama and his base will rally around it.  The drooling morons will eat that up.  The careerist hypocrits are too scared shitless to say a word against it and may come out claiming that Putin is legit a US ally instead.  The business interests are almost completely focused on short term profits.

There are no short-term profits to be made in Greenland (or Venezuela, for that matter).

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 07, 2026, 11:09:04 AMI think people underestimate the sheer power of attraction that displays of force have for these people, and for many others as well. Especially these days.

Sadly, too true in the current of climate of peak bullshit.

Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2026, 03:06:15 PM

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 07, 2026, 02:24:57 PMAll he has to do is  blame it on Hunter Biden and Obama and his base will rally around it.  The drooling morons will eat that up.  The careerist hypocrits are too scared shitless to say a word against it and may come out claiming that Putin is legit a US ally instead.  The business interests are almost completely focused on short term profits.

There are no short-term profits to be made in Greenland (or Venezuela, for that matter).

Look for the memorial coin and the NFT.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2026, 03:04:34 PMIn the context of American opposition and America trying to seize Greenland?

I suspect there may be two different conversations going on based on two different ideas of what the point of stationing troops in Greenland is.

You seem to be framing it in terms of being able to militarily repulse an American assault on Greenland and conclude (rightly IMO) that that is going to fail; and therefore, it seems you conclude (wrongly IMO), that there is no point in stationing troops and that Denmark + any European allies are powerless.

Another framing - and one which I think merits serious consideration - is that there are essentially two scenarios of a hypothetical American annexation of Greenland by force.

One is where the US rolls in unopposed, put up their flag, and proceed to run the place. The other is one where there are Danish (and potentially other European) troops there that resist, resulting in casualties - on the Danish/ European side for sure, but potentially on the American side also.

There are a number of different consequences between those two scenarios - geopolitically, in terms of domestic politics (in the US, Denmark, individual European states, and within Europe), economically, and so on. Denmark - and Europe - are not powerless in that they have the choice of which path to offer Trump; and Trump and his handlers will have to choose their path forward based on that.

Perhaps a "deft manoeuvre" - to use the Brain's term - is best for Denmark and Europe when taking a wider strategic view. But perhaps increasing the price - for Denmark & Europe, for the decrepit Western Alliance, and for the US - is a better move because it ends up being enough of a deterrent; or perhaps because it will become a clarifying and galvanizing moment for Europe. An alternate reason for increasing the price of a hostile annexation is that to accede would cement Europe's sense of powerlessness and result an more and greater bad consequences down the road.

There are analysts - in Denmark, the US, and elsewhere (and it seems you are among them?) - whose analysis boils down to "there's nothing Denmark and Europe can do to stop the US militarily if they put their mind to it" (which is true I think), "... so therefore Denmark and Europe are powerless and might as well accept the US' diktat" (which is not true IMO).

Trump very much operates on the Bully principle.  If he can get away with it he will.  If Greenland is left undefended he'll take it, if there's any kind of resistance (particular one that might escalate) he won't.  I think it matters less how effective the resistance is, just that it's there.

They won't do it because of the innate spinelessness of Europe, but the best defense would be the larger European economies making a public pact to sell off all U.S. treasuries the instant the U.S. violates Greenland's territorial integrity by making any proclamation or assertion that the U.S. now controls Greenland.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2026, 03:04:34 PMIn the context of American opposition and America trying to seize Greenland?

Yes of course.  Could they survive a determined US attack?  Probably not.  But slaughtering a bunch of NATO troops defending a member state's territory is very different than knocking off a handful of hapless Venezuelan drug mules in the ocean. I don't think Trump is prepared to go that far. 

QuoteFor example Dr Alexandra Hoop de Scheffer of the German Marshall Fund that Europe is "hyper-dependent" on the US, with particular gaps in "intel, satellites, transportation of troops and air-to-air refuelling". Her assessment is that some of those capability gaps could be filled - with focus and spending - in three years, some probably within five years. I still don't see that focus or spending. But I would say here everyone seems fairly sanguine about Europe's current, immediate capacities right now.

We are talking about different things. One is the ability to deploy and use modern military forces at peak efficiency.  The other is whether it is physically possible to move military assets that have some non-trivial level of combat power.  Even if the European members of NATO committed massive investments for years and integrated far more tightly, they would probably still be hard pressed to hold off a determined US invasion of Greenland.  But I doubt that is what is required.

A joint Danish force supported by other NATO members of roughly batallion size could be sent now and deliver the message that the EU takes territorial integrity seriously.  That show of strength is the only language Trump respects.

Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2026, 04:09:19 PMI suspect there may be two different conversations going on based on two different ideas of what the point of stationing troops in Greenland is.

You seem to be framing it in terms of being able to militarily repulse an American assault on Greenland and conclude (rightly IMO) that that is going to fail; and therefore, it seems you conclude (wrongly IMO), that there is no point in stationing troops and that Denmark + any European allies are powerless.

Another framing - and one which I think merits serious consideration - is that there are essentially two scenarios of a hypothetical American annexation of Greenland by force.

One is where the US rolls in unopposed, put up their flag, and proceed to run the place. The other is one where there are Danish (and potentially other European) troops there that resist, resulting in casualties - on the Danish/ European side for sure, but potentially on the American side also.

There are a number of different consequences between those two scenarios - geopolitically, in terms of domestic politics (in the US, Denmark, individual European states, and within Europe), economically, and so on. Denmark - and Europe - are not powerless in that they have the choice of which path to offer Trump; and Trump and his handlers will have to choose their path forward based on that.

Perhaps a "deft manoeuvre" - to use the Brain's term - is best for Denmark and Europe when taking a wider strategic view. But perhaps increasing the price - for Denmark & Europe, for the decrepit Western Alliance, and for the US - is a better move because it ends up being enough of a deterrent; or perhaps because it will become a clarifying and galvanizing moment for Europe. An alternate reason for increasing the price of a hostile annexation is that to accede would cement Europe's sense of powerlessness and result an more and greater bad consequences down the road.

There are analysts - in Denmark, the US, and elsewhere (and it seems you are among them?) - whose analysis boils down to "there's nothing Denmark and Europe can do to stop the US militarily if they put their mind to it" (which is true I think), "... so therefore Denmark and Europe are powerless and might as well accept the US' diktat" (which is not true IMO).

Okay. I don't think some European troops would help deter Trump. I don't really buy the bully argument about Trump - to me that doesn't fit the assassination of Soleimani, the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites or what's just happened in Venezuela. I think Trump is very reluctant to put boots on the ground in a serious way but pretty reckless on things that are overwhelmingly tilted in the favour of the US/remote.

The only way I think that works is if you buy the (in my view, nonsense) argument that Europe taking Arctic security seriously would address US concerns. I don't think there are US concerns. I think there's whim and Trump wants it - nothing more complex.

I'm not sure that serious talk - though true - about NATO or international law will help either because I don't think Trump cares about either. Though, perhaps, others in the administration do and you can help try to manage and massage them to the extent they matter (particularly as - and I'm not a conspiracy theorist on this - I do think Trump looks less well than he has).

I don't think it would be galvanising but fracturing for Europe. Especially because we're not just facing Trump. Literally today we've got the UK and France and that "coalition of the willing" apparently getting US agreement to back a "reassurance force" in Ukraine (I'll believe it when I see it). We can assume that's gone. I'd assume any American involvement in European security is - so I think there's a question of how Russia would respond as well.

I don't think there are any good options and I don't think Europe has any credible deterents. I think Europe's strategic dilemma is that we are vulnerable economically, on security and on energy - with China, America and Russia able to take advantage and pick at us on all of those. None of them are a solid base. In terms of what I think Europe should do I think it's probably what European leaders are doing. It is the policy of Starmer, Macron, Merz, Tusk - as insipid and emotionally unsatisfying as it is. Try to use diplomacy, try to persuade, try to keep the US engaged in order to help fend off Russia and China - while increasing our own capacities (3-5 years - which is roughly in line with Danish and Norwegian public assessments of when Russia might come again after a deal on Ukraine). I'd probably broadly push for the same policy towards China to be honest.

The only thing I'd add at this point is that I think Europe should be very clear and condemn what's happened in Venezuela. We cannot be simultaneously panicked about the sovereignty of a colony of the Kingdom of Denmark when we're not willing to care at all about the kidnapping of a head of state of a sovereign Latin American country. As with Ukraine and Gaza I just think how this looks from literally anywhere but Europe and it's hypocritical Eurocentrism - and why should anyone anywhere care. We need to start laying the groundwork I think for reaching out to the global south and I think particularly Latin America (also a shot across the bow of what happens when international norms, like the Monroe Doctrine, wither) and particularly Brazil. One challenge there is that after 30 years of negotiating a trade deal with Mercosur (which Lula has already said is the last chance for such a deal), France and Italy under pressure from their farming lobbies are trying to block it. But condemning Venezuela is laying the groundwork to go all in on trying to build new relationships with the rest of the world - which will also involve listening (I think Kaja Kallas probably has to go).

But while I don't think we've got much in way of a deterrent, I think we probably need to think the unthinkable because that might well happen so what the response would be. I think there's something to how do we respond if America uses their force to threaten us and we target America's force. So (very much from Chatham House stuff on this) I'd think about closing American bases or increasing their cost, not refueling American ships, refusing to take American personnel into European military hospitals - we're a base for America. If they're focused on the Western hemisphere, then do what we can to limit them to it.

There'll be trade-offs for that. We'll need to really have focus and spending to pick up the slack on defence (3-5 years). That probably means hard trade-offs and choices on domestic politics and confronting voters with it. And I think it probably means shafting Ukraine to try and, for a while, relieve the pressure from Russia and China.

Fundamentally I think it is probably a choice of trying to keep the Americans engaged while we push Russia (and China) or try to reach a new modus vivendi with Russia and China in order to push back on America - I don't think we can do all three. And that's why my fear is the forces in the world are more likely to split than galvanises Europe - because to go back to the point of different European countries having different risk perceptions which mitigates against common security and defence policies, I think European countries make differet choices over who to confront.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2026, 05:04:34 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2026, 03:04:34 PMIn the context of American opposition and America trying to seize Greenland?

Yes of course.  Could they survive a determined US attack?  Probably not.  But slaughtering a bunch of NATO troops defending a member state's territory is very different than knocking off a handful of hapless Venezuelan drug mules in the ocean. I don't think Trump is prepared to go that far. 

Sadly agree.  Trump may never actually shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue...but the US killing a bunch of Danish soldiers (and then posting the faces of those dead...both men and women...in the media) would be as close as one can get.  It would be...should be...as dreadful and shameful image on us and our foreign policy as the My Lai massacre.  Moreso even. 

Attacks on Iran can always be justified to a US population that fears and despises that regime and views them as terrorist mastermind.  But even there it's interesting that in both the Soleimani case and the strike last year, Trump was very insistent on saying that the strikes were purely one-off matters and that he sought immediate de-escalation.  Wiping out a battalion of NATO troops is very different matter.  His hedge fund friends, oil execs and real estate pals aren't going to want the fallout of a hot conflict with the entire Eurozone.

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 07, 2026, 05:38:44 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2026, 05:04:34 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2026, 03:04:34 PMIn the context of American opposition and America trying to seize Greenland?

Yes of course.  Could they survive a determined US attack?  Probably not.  But slaughtering a bunch of NATO troops defending a member state's territory is very different than knocking off a handful of hapless Venezuelan drug mules in the ocean. I don't think Trump is prepared to go that far. 

Sadly agree.  Trump may never actually shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue...but the US killing a bunch of Danish soldiers (and then posting the faces of those dead...both men and women...in the media) would be as close as one can get.  It would be...should be...as dreadful and shameful image on us and our foreign policy as the My Lai massacre.  Moreso even. 

I was thinking earlier I've not heard this level of BS from the WH and attempts to paint a fake reality since the last years of the Vietnam war.

But at that time Nixon was also doing other, real world politically consequential stuff; this WH it's just a stream of shit, endless polluting the public spaces, driving out important politics. 

The big difference with My Lai, of course, it that the US government didn't do it intentionally, though it was an unintended consequence of our policy.  In this hypothetical, it would be a direct, fully attributable consequence of a policy of the Commander in Chief.

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 07, 2026, 06:22:42 PMThe big difference with My Lai, of course, it that the US government didn't do it intentionally, though it was an unintended consequence of our policy.  In this hypothetical, it would be a direct, fully attributable consequence of a policy of the Commander in Chief.

I meant the Vietnam war as a whole, the 'we're saving the democratic Vietnamese republic from international communism' justification vs the current BS of 'defending Americans from being killed by evil foreign drugs/cartels/immigrants'.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2026, 05:16:58 PMOkay. I don't think some European troops would help deter Trump. I don't really buy the bully argument about Trump - to me that doesn't fit the assassination of Soleimani, the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites or what's just happened in Venezuela. I think Trump is very reluctant to put boots on the ground in a serious way but pretty reckless on things that are overwhelmingly tilted in the favour of the US/remote.

There is obviously some disagreement on the degree of deterrence from NATO troops and the risk of bloodshed.

I would say that Trump's inclination to action is towards ones where he can bullshit his way out of any consequences, and less likely

And, to be blunt, shedding white people blood (Trump recently asked for more immigrants from Denmark) may play differently for a white supremacist government than shedding brown people blood, even if the US wants to undermine Europe by "saving" it.

QuoteThe only way I think that works is if you buy the (in my view, nonsense) argument that Europe taking Arctic security seriously would address US concerns. I don't think there are US concerns. I think there's whim and Trump wants it - nothing more complex.

I agree it's a whim thing, but I think that's an argument for deterrence rather than against it.

QuoteI'm not sure that serious talk - though true - about NATO or international law will help either because I don't think Trump cares about either. Though, perhaps, others in the administration do and you can help try to manage and massage them to the extent they matter (particularly as - and I'm not a conspiracy theorist on this - I do think Trump looks less well than he has).

Agreed that talk about international law - or even NATO - doesn't really matter. Action and consequence does. Taking action to ensure that the consequences will be greater in practical economical terms (and I think Trump will come around to the idea that killing European soldiers is likely to result in greater practical consequences) increases the chances of Trump backing down. Maybe not sufficiently, of course.

QuoteI don't think it would be galvanising but fracturing for Europe. Especially because we're not just facing Trump. Literally today we've got the UK and France and that "coalition of the willing" apparently getting US agreement to back a "reassurance force" in Ukraine (I'll believe it when I see it). We can assume that's gone. I'd assume any American involvement in European security is - so I think there's a question of how Russia would respond as well.

I thought you subscribed to the view that the greatest leaps in European unity and cohesion is in response to crises?

QuoteI don't think there are any good options and I don't think Europe has any credible deterents. I think Europe's strategic dilemma is that we are vulnerable economically, on security and on energy - with China, America and Russia able to take advantage and pick at us on all of those. None of them are a solid base. In terms of what I think Europe should do I think it's probably what European leaders are doing. It is the policy of Starmer, Macron, Merz, Tusk - as insipid and emotionally unsatisfying as it is. Try to use diplomacy, try to persuade, try to keep the US engaged in order to help fend off Russia and China - while increasing our own capacities (3-5 years - which is roughly in line with Danish and Norwegian public assessments of when Russia might come again after a deal on Ukraine). I'd probably broadly push for the same policy towards China to be honest.

For someone who decries British and European inability to act, you certainly seem to embrace assumed helplessness  :lol:

I mean, I don't disagree that maintaining ambiguity and relying on diplomacy as long as possible while building up strength and capacity may be the best path forward. I simply disagree that it's the only path forward, or obviously and inherently the superior one.

QuoteThe only thing I'd add at this point is that I think Europe should be very clear and condemn what's happened in Venezuela. We cannot be simultaneously panicked about the sovereignty of a colony of the Kingdom of Denmark when we're not willing to care at all about the kidnapping of a head of state of a sovereign Latin American country. As with Ukraine and Gaza I just think how this looks from literally anywhere but Europe and it's hypocritical Eurocentrism - and why should anyone anywhere care. We need to start laying the groundwork I think for reaching out to the global south and I think particularly Latin America (also a shot across the bow of what happens when international norms, like the Monroe Doctrine, wither) and particularly Brazil. One challenge there is that after 30 years of negotiating a trade deal with Mercosur (which Lula has already said is the last chance for such a deal), France and Italy under pressure from their farming lobbies are trying to block it. But condemning Venezuela is laying the groundwork to go all in on trying to build new relationships with the rest of the world - which will also involve listening (I think Kaja Kallas probably has to go).

I think Europe is largely irrelevant enough already that making righteous statements about Venezuela or not already doesn't matter. If Europe takes actual concrete action to embrace Venezuela (or otherwise work against American global policy priorities) in a practical sense (economic ties, repealing sanctions, whatever) that matters. Writing a letter of condemnation or support (or equivocating down the middle) matters only a tiny little bit.

Europe absolutely can be way more worried about Greenland or Ukraine than it is about Gaza or Venezuela, and Europe absolutely can be Eurocentric in their perspective. What Europe can't do is pretend that that difference of worry level represents some absolute objective high moral ground that other countries secretly think as morally persuasive. Actions, not words, is what matters.

QuoteBut while I don't think we've got much in way of a deterrent, I think we probably need to think the unthinkable because that might well happen so what the response would be. I think there's something to how do we respond if America uses their force to threaten us and we target America's force. So (very much from Chatham House stuff on this) I'd think about closing American bases or increasing their cost, not refueling American ships, refusing to take American personnel into European military hospitals - we're a base for America. If they're focused on the Western hemisphere, then do what we can to limit them to it.

Agreed on those being practical levers that Europe can use. To take it back to the earlier part of the conversation, I also think it's more likely that those levers will be pulled if the US kills a bunch of Danish and French soldiers in Greenland, which thereby increases the deterrence value of those troops.

QuoteThere'll be trade-offs for that. We'll need to really have focus and spending to pick up the slack on defence (3-5 years). That probably means hard trade-offs and choices on domestic politics and confronting voters with it. And I think it probably means shafting Ukraine to try and, for a while, relieve the pressure from Russia and China.

Fundamentally I think it is probably a choice of trying to keep the Americans engaged while we push Russia (and China) or try to reach a new modus vivendi with Russia and China in order to push back on America - I don't think we can do all three. And that's why my fear is the forces in the world are more likely to split than galvanises Europe - because to go back to the point of different European countries having different risk perceptions which mitigates against common security and defence policies, I think European countries make different choices over who to confront.

Agreed that European countries make different choices based on individual priorities, and that that presents an additional challenge for Europe (not to mention the risk of Trump or Putin sympathizers taking over national governments in different European countries).

On Ukraine I think Europe needs to figure out how to go it on Ukraine alone.

On the whole "Europe vs Russia, China, and the US at the same time" thing - I'm much less certain that China will continue to support Russia to the degree it does now if Europe is less supportive of the US. While these things are complex and multifaceted, IMO one of the significant drivers for China's support of Russia is to undermine the alliance that it faces in the Pacific.

While acknowledging that China doesn't desire good things for Europe, the threat of driving Europe into closer collaboration with China at the cost of the US could also serve as a deterrent for US perfidy.

Basically I agree with you that Europe can't hold back China, Russia, and the US all at once... but I don't think it's a given that compromising with the US to fight China is the best course for Europe (I think we agree that holding back Russia is). China is further away and does not have an explicitly stated goal of reshaping Europe to it's liking. Maybe there's more room to work with China to lessen the threat from Russia and the US.

Quote from: The Brain on January 07, 2026, 01:58:34 PMSurrender is such an ugly word. Deft maneuvering sounds better.

Delft maneuvering is always required when something is fragile and brittle.

Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2026, 06:46:53 PMI thought you subscribed to the view that the greatest leaps in European unity and cohesion is in response to crises?

Yes I've been misattributing it. Not Jacques Delors, but Jean Monnet: "Europe will be forged in crises, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises".

But as the Bruegel think tank paper on European defence noted in their view Ukraine is the first crisis that has not resulted in further integration. I would only disagree to say that I think their assessment the Eurozone crisis and covid were leaps forward - I think both were stalls at best. So I think that process has broken down since the crash (like a lot in Europe).

QuoteFor someone who decries British and European inability to act, you certainly seem to embrace assumed helplessness  :lol:

I mean, I don't disagree that maintaining ambiguity and relying on diplomacy as long as possible while building up strength and capacity may be the best path forward. I simply disagree that it's the only path forward, or obviously and inherently the superior one.

:lol: Fair. And I could very well be wrong - in many ways I hope I am. (And I am fully aware I may just be a little scarred from recent years when few shocks have gone a positive way from my pov.)

QuoteI think Europe is largely irrelevant enough already that making righteous statements about Venezuela or not already doesn't matter. If Europe takes actual concrete action to embrace Venezuela (or otherwise work against American global policy priorities) in a practical sense (economic ties, repealing sanctions, whatever) that matters. Writing a letter of condemnation or support (or equivocating down the middle) matters only a tiny little bit.

Europe absolutely can be way more worried about Greenland or Ukraine than it is about Gaza or Venezuela, and Europe absolutely can be Eurocentric in their perspective. What Europe can't do is pretend that that difference of worry level represents some absolute objective high moral ground that other countries secretly think as morally persuasive. Actions, not words, is what matters.

I get what your saying - my point is as America's no longer a friend we need some. Russia ain't it. I'm not sure on China either (I think their relationship is close if not quite the "friendship without limits" the've declared). I think we need to look to the rest of the world and I think that means taking on board some of their perspective or imagining how this looks from their position.

As I say - look at Brazil. Lula is pointing out this is the last chance to do a deal with Mercosur and (after 30 years of negotiations) it might get blocked by Europe. Lots of Europeans ahve complained about him not standing up on Ukraine while we've done exactly the same on Gaza and Venezuela. I think we need to engage literally the rest of the world if we're now facing off with the US and Russia and (maybe) China - and that's going to mean putting ourselves in their shoes, caring about their issues.

QuoteOn the whole "Europe vs Russia, China, and the US at the same time" thing - I'm much less certain that China will continue to support Russia to the degree it does now if Europe is less supportive of the US. While these things are complex and multifaceted, IMO one of the significant drivers for China's support of Russia is to undermine the alliance that it faces in the Pacific.

While acknowledging that China doesn't desire good things for Europe, the threat of driving Europe into closer collaboration with China at the cost of the US could also serve as a deterrent for US perfidy.

Basically I agree with you that Europe can't hold back China, Russia, and the US all at once... but I don't think it's a given that compromising with the US to fight China is the best course for Europe (I think we agree that holding back Russia is). China is further away and has not have an explicitly stated goal of reshaping Europe to it's liking. Maybe there's more room to work with China to lessen the threat from Russia and the US.

As I say I don't think I agree on China and Russia. I think that relationship is key for both parties - and there are multiple gas pipelines coming online in the next few years which will further cement. What Europe has to offer is a market which is valuable and an industry which can't compete.

Fundamentally I don't think Trump, or Russia, or China see Europe as a player - I think they see it as prey. And I'm not sure they're wrong. A bit like China in the 19th century - I think it's rich, weak and ill-equipped for the century its in. Honestly I'm not entirely sure that Trump, Russia and China wouldn't work together to press their advantage (this is again why I think we do need to engage the rest of the world with appropriate humility given all our history and recent indifference).

Edit: Just on the European side - the UK and France have been working on a "coalition of the willing" to support Ukraine after any peace deal. It's never been fully clear what it's role would be but I think primarily as a reassurance force in the rear in Ukraine. The key sticking point was trying to get US buy in for air support (which apparently they now have - I am very doubtful that will materialise).

When it was initially floated, the plan was for about 60,000 troops with hopes that multiple European countries would participate with the UK and France sending about 10k each. Ata meeting of European Defence Ministers the Lithuanian Defence Minister was reported to have told her counterparts "Russia has 800,000 troops. If we can't even raise 64,000 that doesn't look weak - it is weak." Other participants described her comments as "strident and inspiring". A report I read from some think tank said that would be difficult to sustain for the UK and France for long. They also estimated the minimum for it to be effective would be 30,000 (again they sketched out what that force would look like).

The news today is that the UK and France are the only countries willing to participate and it's now down to 15,000 (basically 7,500 each). For the UK at least apparently that is going to be a stretch to maintain for any period of time and the briefing is that 15,000 might be optimistic. Rreportedly this would have an impact on the British Army mission in Ukraine helping train and support Ukrainian troops as "we can't be in two places at once". I'm really sorry to say but this is the two most militarily capable European states trying to propose a European solution to something that almost all European countries agree is a strategic priority. The UK and France aren't able to cobble together and sustain much but have something and are willing to try (although as I say I'm very dubious on the actual plan) - but no-one else is even wiling to contribute (I have some sympathy with the Eastern Flank countries who don't want to dilute their border defences). But I think this is the context for conversations about what Europe can do.

Well, it's nice to see some Republicans pushing back against Trump and Miller's Greenland gambit: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/07/gop-lawmakers-denounce-trump-seize-greenland-00714611

Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2026, 09:52:37 PMWell, it's nice to see some Republicans pushing back against Trump and Miller's Greenland gambit: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/07/gop-lawmakers-denounce-trump-seize-greenland-00714611

One was saying that the Danes needed to surrender it since Americans died defending it.

Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2026, 09:52:37 PMWell, it's nice to see some Republicans pushing back against Trump and Miller's Greenland gambit: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/07/gop-lawmakers-denounce-trump-seize-greenland-00714611

Yeah but who cares? Congress has given up all its power to the President to declare war. And it isn't like they are going to pass some kind of bill saying he can't invade Greenland. That would require them to stand up to Trump.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2026, 07:42:57 PMLots of Europeans ahve complained about him not standing up on Ukraine while we've done exactly the same on Gaza and Venezuela.

Gaza operations were justified following Oct 7th. We can argue about methods. Venezuela was illegal in every sense, a violation of sovereignty, but the dude did rig elections, kill his people and smuggle drugs. Ukraine, on the other hand, was just minding their own business and has the misfortune of being neighbours with a nation full of psychopaths. Lula's position on Ukraine is despicable. Sorry.

QuoteThe news today is that the UK and France are the only countries willing to participate and it's now down to 15,000 (basically 7,500 each). For the UK at least apparently that is going to be a stretch to maintain for any period of time and the briefing is that 15,000 might be optimistic. Rreportedly this would have an impact on the British Army mission in Ukraine helping train and support Ukrainian troops as "we can't be in two places at once". I'm really sorry to say but this is the two most militarily capable European states trying to propose a European solution to something that almost all European countries agree is a strategic priority. The UK and France aren't able to cobble together and sustain much but have something and are willing to try (although as I say I'm very dubious on the actual plan) - but no-one else is even wiling to contribute (I have some sympathy with the Eastern Flank countries who don't want to dilute their border defences). But I think this is the context for conversations about what Europe can do.

(https://media1.tenor.com/m/ZFc20z8DItkAAAAd/facepalm-really.gif)

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2026, 11:26:41 PMYeah but who cares? Congress has given up all its power to the President to declare war. And it isn't like they are going to pass some kind of bill saying he can't invade Greenland. That would require them to stand up to Trump.

They just stood up to Trump.  :huh:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on Today at 03:18:02 AM

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2026, 11:26:41 PMYeah but who cares? Congress has given up all its power to the President to declare war. And it isn't like they are going to pass some kind of bill saying he can't invade Greenland. That would require them to stand up to Trump.

They just stood up to Trump.  :huh:

They passed a no Greenland bill?

Quote from: Josquius on Today at 03:36:20 AMThey passed a no Greenland bill?

Not AFAIK.  Are you proposing a debate on the meaning of stand up to?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on Today at 03:18:02 AM

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2026, 11:26:41 PMYeah but who cares? Congress has given up all its power to the President to declare war. And it isn't like they are going to pass some kind of bill saying he can't invade Greenland. That would require them to stand up to Trump.

They just stood up to Trump.  :huh:

Who did, and how exactly?

Well, it's nice to see some Republicans pushing back against Trump and Miller's Greenland gambit: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/07/gop-lawmakers-denounce-trump-seize-greenland-00714611

If it came to a vote on authorizing force against Denmark/Greenland, do you think it would pass?

Quote from: bogh on Today at 05:36:41 AMIf it came to a vote on authorizing force against Denmark/Greenland, do you think it would pass?

Yes, the Republicans would roll over in a minute if told.  The Democrats are and have been completely ineffectual for years.  

Quote from: bogh on Today at 05:36:41 AMIf it came to a vote on authorizing force against Denmark/Greenland, do you think it would pass?

I wouldn't think so.  There's very little public support for acquiring Greenland.  Trump hasn't made any effort to explain why we need it, much less why we need to seize it by force.  The Republican majority in the house is narrow, and a number of Republican congressmen are leaving at the end of this term (and so have nothing to lose by defying Trump.)

On a much less optimistic note, though, I expect Trump plans to bypass Congress in his attempt to acquire Greenland.

How many divisions does Clowngress have?

How do you bypass a void?

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on Today at 07:51:35 AM

Quote from: bogh on Today at 05:36:41 AMIf it came to a vote on authorizing force against Denmark/Greenland, do you think it would pass?

Yes, the Republicans would roll over in a minute if told.  The Democrats are and have been completely ineffectual for years. 

That's not true. They're very effective at sending out fundraising emails.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on Today at 09:27:29 AMHow do you bypass a void?

This

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2026, 07:42:57 PMYes I've been misattributing it. Not Jacques Delors, but Jean Monnet: "Europe will be forged in crises, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises".

But as the Bruegel think tank paper on European defence noted in their view Ukraine is the first crisis that has not resulted in further integration. I would only disagree to say that I think their assessment the Eurozone crisis and covid were leaps forward - I think both were stalls at best. So I think that process has broken down since the crash (like a lot in Europe).

Has it not resulted in further military integration?

It is my impression that the war in Ukraine has pushed Europe closer in that area, but maybe that's mainly rhetoric and not actually practical?

QuoteI get what your saying - my point is as America's no longer a friend we need some. Russia ain't it. I'm not sure on China either (I think their relationship is close if not quite the "friendship without limits" the've declared). I think we need to look to the rest of the world and I think that means taking on board some of their perspective or imagining how this looks from their position.

As I say - look at Brazil. Lula is pointing out this is the last chance to do a deal with Mercosur and (after 30 years of negotiations) it might get blocked by Europe. Lots of Europeans ahve complained about him not standing up on Ukraine while we've done exactly the same on Gaza and Venezuela. I think we need to engage literally the rest of the world if we're now facing off with the US and Russia and (maybe) China - and that's going to mean putting ourselves in their shoes, caring about their issues.

Agreed. I just think Mercosur and Venezuela matters much more to Brazil than Gaza - so that's where the effort should be focused when engaging with them.

QuoteAs I say I don't think I agree on China and Russia. I think that relationship is key for both parties - and there are multiple gas pipelines coming online in the next few years which will further cement. What Europe has to offer is a market which is valuable and an industry which can't compete.

Time will tell. There's some momentum to the China-Russia alliance, but I don't think it's permanent.

QuoteFundamentally I don't think Trump, or Russia, or China see Europe as a player - I think they see it as prey. And I'm not sure they're wrong. A bit like China in the 19th century - I think it's rich, weak and ill-equipped for the century its in. Honestly I'm not entirely sure that Trump, Russia and China wouldn't work together to press their advantage (this is again why I think we do need to engage the rest of the world with appropriate humility given all our history and recent indifference).

I agree that Europe is potentially poised to start a Chinese style century of humiliation. However, I think it would be the wrong approach to accept it as inevitable and act as if it is an established fact.

QuoteEdit: Just on the European side - the UK and France have been working on a "coalition of the willing" to support Ukraine after any peace deal. It's never been fully clear what it's role would be but I think primarily as a reassurance force in the rear in Ukraine. The key sticking point was trying to get US buy in for air support (which apparently they now have - I am very doubtful that will materialise).

When it was initially floated, the plan was for about 60,000 troops with hopes that multiple European countries would participate with the UK and France sending about 10k each. Ata meeting of European Defence Ministers the Lithuanian Defence Minister was reported to have told her counterparts "Russia has 800,000 troops. If we can't even raise 64,000 that doesn't look weak - it is weak." Other participants described her comments as "strident and inspiring". A report I read from some think tank said that would be difficult to sustain for the UK and France for long. They also estimated the minimum for it to be effective would be 30,000 (again they sketched out what that force would look like).

The news today is that the UK and France are the only countries willing to participate and it's now down to 15,000 (basically 7,500 each). For the UK at least apparently that is going to be a stretch to maintain for any period of time and the briefing is that 15,000 might be optimistic. Rreportedly this would have an impact on the British Army mission in Ukraine helping train and support Ukrainian troops as "we can't be in two places at once". I'm really sorry to say but this is the two most militarily capable European states trying to propose a European solution to something that almost all European countries agree is a strategic priority. The UK and France aren't able to cobble together and sustain much but have something and are willing to try (although as I say I'm very dubious on the actual plan) - but no-one else is even wiling to contribute (I have some sympathy with the Eastern Flank countries who don't want to dilute their border defences). But I think this is the context for conversations about what Europe can do.

That's pretty grim. One hopes Europe is taking appropriate action to remedy this.

I don't think the problem with Europe is lack of potential capability, but political will.

We obviously have the capability to hurt China, Russia or even the United States. Maybe not to the same level as at least China and the United States could hurt us, but still significantly enough to cause pain and deter.

But there is very little political will to pay the necessary price - mainly due to domestic pressures to continue with the peace dividend. Our populace has grown too complacent - not just in geopolitics, but also in private economic competition. And politicians fear that and are not willing to go against their voters' complacency.

There are some mini steps to actually pay the price (e.g. reintroduction of conscription, some industrial policy to safeguard supply chains etc.). But not nearly enough. I guess it needs to become worse and more tangible for the populace before a need for action is accepted. 

The only thing that could make it even worse is if the sellouts like Bardella, Farage or Weidel take power.

... so the path to taking it seriously is for traitors to get into positions of influence, fuck over Europe (but not enough to permanently cripple Europe), and thus cause the population to take things seriously enough to create the conditions for necessary reform?

That's essentially Putin and Trump's assessment of Europe, the only difference is that they seek to actively exploit and increase that weakness rather than remedy it.

Quote from: Jacob on Today at 01:34:26 PM... so the path to taking it seriously is for traitors to get into positions of influence, fuck over Europe (but not enough to permanently cripple Europe), and thus cause the population to take things seriously enough to create the conditions for necessary reform?

Huh? Not sure how that follows from my post.

Quote from: Zanza on Today at 01:40:24 PMHuh? Not sure how that follows from my post.

:lol:

Let me outline the reasoning (and you can point out what I misunderstood and/or where you disagree with my reasoning):

• Zanza: There's a lack of political will to pay the necessary price.
• Zanza: I guess there's a need for something worse to happen for that political will to exist.
• Zanza: Things will get worse if the political sell-outs and traitors like Bardella, Farage, and Weidel get power.
• Jacob: If things get worse (satisfying point 2) in the case of Bardella, Farage, and/ or Weidel taking power (as per point 3) that may generate the political will required to pay the necessary price (step 1).
• Jacob: ... though I suppose that if Bardella/ Farage/ Weidel gain power they might fuck things up enough that Europe becomes less able to take the necessary steps, even if it generates the political will to take them.
• Jacob: Therefore, the path to generating the required political will and for it to lead to the necessary action is for the traitors to gain enough power to make sufficient trouble to make the need obvious to a large step of the population, but not so much that they damage Europe's ability to actually take the step (assuming such a condition is possible).

The line of reasoning may contain somewhere between 10 to 70% bleak humour rather than being a serious suggestion for the path forward.

I view Europe as the political equivalent of a concept in the business world, that of the "lifestyle company."

QuoteA lifestyle company is a business created primarily to support the owner's desired lifestyle, allowing them to maintain a work-life balance while generating income. These businesses often focus on personal fulfillment and flexibility rather than aggressive growth or high profits.

The term is most frequently used as a pejorative by people who consider the firm to be a "laggard" that doesn't pursue growth opportunities because it would upset the comfort of the leisure focused owners.

Quote from: bogh on Today at 05:36:41 AMIf it came to a vote on authorizing force against Denmark/Greenland, do you think it would pass?

No.  But the bigger question is if the vote comes before it happens, or after it has already happened.

Quote from: Jacob on Today at 01:54:58 PM

Quote from: Zanza on Today at 01:40:24 PMHuh? Not sure how that follows from my post.

:lol:

Let me outline the reasoning (and you can point out what I misunderstood and/or where you disagree with my reasoning):

• Zanza: There's a lack of political will to pay the necessary price.
• Zanza: I guess there's a need for something worse to happen for that political will to exist.
• Zanza: Things will get worse if the political sell-outs and traitors like Bardella, Farage, and Weidel get power.
• Jacob: If things get worse (satisfying point 2) in the case of Bardella, Farage, and/ or Weidel taking power (as per point 3) that may generate the political will required to pay the necessary price (step 1).
• Jacob: ... though I suppose that if Bardella/ Farage/ Weidel gain power they might fuck things up enough that Europe becomes less able to take the necessary steps, even if it generates the political will to take them.
• Jacob: Therefore, the path to generating the required political will and for it to lead to the necessary action is for the traitors to gain enough power to make sufficient trouble to make the need obvious to a large step of the population, but not so much that they damage Europe's ability to actually take the step (assuming such a condition is possible).

The line of reasoning may contain somewhere between 10 to 70% bleak humour rather than being a serious suggestion for the path forward.

Rereading my post let me understand what you mean.

The two uses of worse in sequence are not a proper structure.

The first was meant to refer to how Europeans will only accept action if the geopolitical situation deteriorates further, i.e. gets worse.

The second was in my mind not referring to the first, but rather to the existing feeble attempts of our politicians to act. In comparison to their insufficient attempts, the right populists I named would not even try to further European interests, but rather just sell us out to the highest bidder, be it US, Chinese or Russian interests. Which would be worse.

Yeah fair enough Zanza. It was a bit of a tongue in cheek comment on my part :)